107 Luther's writing against the armed man Cochläus.**)
Mid-February 1523.
Translated from Latin.
Against the armed man Cochlaeus (Coeleum) Martin Luther.
A skirt suits a woman.
Martinus Luther offers his Wilhelm Nesen (Niseno) grace and peace in Christ.
I will sing the weapons, the man too, who (a fool!)
Recently from the banks of the Main 1) towards Weissstadt (Leuecoream == Wittenberg) and Saxony.
1) Because of the verse measure Mokant instead of Noeni. At that time, Cochläus was in Frankfurt am Main.
Furies plagued him very much and madness because of many offenses,
Because of the endless anger of the shorn over the defeat.
Satanas also tormented him: he was to destroy the little town.
Damage to the studies. Thus arose the gender ban,
Fathers of error risen, the glory of the exalted pope. 2)
2) These verses are a travesty of the first seven verses of Virgil's Aeneid.
*) Walch is mistaken that this letter was written by Luther to his brother-in-law Hans von Bora. Cf. Seidemann, "Erläuterungen," p. 151.
**In 1523 alone, six individual editions of this work by Luther were published in Wittenberg, three in Latin and three in German. The title of the Latin edition is: ^äversus armaturu virum Öokleuva LH,rtinu8 I>utUeru8;
580 n. v. a. vii, 47 f. 107. Luthers Schrift wider d. gewappneten Cochläus. W. xix, 68s-"9i. 581
1. If it seems to you, my dear Wilhelm, as if I am making strange antics at the present Shrovetide, then you must mean that you yourself have caused me to make such antics quite imperiously by compelling me to answer such a person, of whom not only you, with your Frankfurters, have very well recognized that he has long since gone mad from insanity, but it also seems that he himself has let this booklet go out against me for no other reason than to make his madness quite obvious to all the world. For that he now praises the weapons of men, what is that but madness? Namely, after the Lord through me has beaten the pope, the bishops, the monasteries and the high schools, yes, the whole body of the Behemoth and has now also made a mockery of it almost in the whole world, so now finally my cute quick snail 1) comes and demands weapons. The pope feels the wound, the papists lament their fall, and from all sides they have very many images of death, and yet he says: I have no weapons! And that I answer the fool according to his foolishness: Have I had no weapons, why does he howl, why does he sigh, why does the snail lament that I have done such great things? why does he howl so miserably and complain: I have spoiled his Philip, whom he respects so highly? Now, if I have done all this with straws and downy feathers, or, as he fools, with mere blasphemous words, why does he rush upon me with such a great clamor of arms? why does not the great Hector despise Luther, who is so childish and effeminate? Furthermore, if the fool had only a little sense left, he would no doubt have considered with himself how it had fared with those who had hitherto argued against Luther, whom the poor
1) In this whole writing tostucko, Schalthier, must be rendered not by "turtle" but by "snail", which results from the fact that at repeated times the "horns" of the snail (tostudinis) are spoken of.
Kochlöffel (as they say) could not even grab the spurs. At least Eck, who is incomparably greater in the scholastic errors than Mr. Cooking Spoon, and in addition also went after me with papal bulls, yes, with all the power and unanimity of the whole Behemoth, has brought nothing but disgrace. Now the wooden spoon may boast that this happened without weapons. The high school in Paris has made such a mockery of itself in this matter, that it has attached to itself an eternal disgrace by its gauz godless ignorance. Of course, my dear Mr. Kochlöffel, if he had been clever, would have thought what a snail with its retracted horns could do against him whom the Parisians, the Cologneers, the Louvainers, the Romanists and the Pope with all his might could not overcome. But that was his only consoling hope, that he would boast: I have written a book against Luther. For also soust many other books are written against me, which have no other honor and glory than the title: Against Luther. I have come out into the public eye through Christ without and against my will, and must now lift the dirt up with me, as one generally says of excrement that hangs on the wheel, that the useless envy wants to go up all the way.
2 Now behold, what a proof of foolishness this is that he boasts that he spoke to me at Worms in such a way that he moved me to tears. However, I do not want to attribute this to his malice, but, as I said, to his foolishness; for I would rather have him thought to be a fool worthy of pity than a knave worthy of hatred. Otherwise, if he had his wits about him and was so impudent, who would not say that the wooden spoon was an arch-jack? Namely, this Pericles should have moved Luther to tears, who spoke and did everything so childishly at Worms that he even against my will and since I resisted it, from
The German "Wider den gewaffnete" Mann Cocleum D. Martini Luther schöner Bescheid vom Glauben und Werken. In the "Gesammtausgabe": Latin in the Wittenberg loru. II. toi. 438; in the Jena one (1566), lona. II, toi. 567 and in the Erlanger, opp. var. urZ., vol. VII, p. 46; German in the Altenburger, vol. II, p. 905; in dem Hallischen Theile, p. 160; in the Leipziger, vol. XVIII, p. 460. We have retranslated according to the Erlanger edition, which printed the text of the first original edition.
was ridiculed as a fool by all who were present. I call his own conscience as a witness, if he remembers in a bright moment (sanus) what kind of scorn and noses he got from D. Hieronymus Schürf alone, especially when he wanted to be seen as extremely wise and as the fully armed man Cochläus; because he noticed that and it also annoyed him fiercely.
3 So I will also attribute this lie to his illness, not to his malice, that he boasts of the victory, namely that I refused the proposed duel. As also Cochläus himself must confess, this matter behaves in this way: Cochläus, either out of his own foolishness or through the persuasion of others, asked me to give up the free public escort of the emperor, then he would dispute with me in public. Before I could answer, laughter arose from all sides at this crazy request of man. Some thought him a fool for not wanting to dispute unless I gave up the escort, as if one could not dispute in public. Others, however, accused him of being a malicious traitor who did not wish to dispute, but wanted to hand me over to the papists as soon as I was deprived of my escort. By this word, the wooden spoon has brought upon himself an exceedingly evil name and the hatred of all, which he will not rid himself of for eternity. And yet the beautiful snail now boasts that he offered me a duel, but I would not have accepted it: and sings songs of victory, although I did not refuse him the disputation, nor did I refuse to give a free escort. So you see how credible Cochläus must be considered in his little book, which he begins with such impudent lies, who is also not yet ashamed that he was laughed at so finely at Worms, and still boasts of his own disgrace.
Of course, he wants to decorate his foolishness with this booklet, so that he alone now offers me the fight, and tries with boasting words and threats to make the readers believe that he speaks this from his heart. Dear, why did he do that
not at Worms, where he was fenced in with the emperor's and the pope's protection and covering? but it befits a snail to boast so finely slowly and afterwards, when the victory is already lost. Why doesn't he still come to me here to Wittenberg? or call me to a safe place? why does this snail chatter so much with vain words? Of course, because he knows that it will never happen that he can dispute with me; here the weapons of the man without an opponent surely triumph. You poor snail, what should you dispute? You are a vain snail, and nothing more, and you have snail horns that are distinguished only by beauty and by swift flight; if nothing is in their way, they rise defiantly enough into the empty space; but as soon as they bump even a thread of a spider's web, they flee back.
(5) However, I fully believe that it is God's counsel that the pope and the papists should have almost no other protectors than those who, either through outstanding ignorance or through impudent lies, always make their reputation an oil slick, so that no one will be seduced by the Roman abomination. No one has ever written against me who has not lied in an abominable, public and manifold way. It is truly pitiful for the pope, because his people do not want to step onto the battlefield any sooner; they have well armed themselves with lies, and they do not stop lying, although they see many who have been publicly convicted of this by me; they all continue to lie in the same rage. There you have now, dear Nesen, a part of the weapons that are appropriate for such a man. And to whom should such weapons be better suited than to such a man?
Now let's get down to business and look at the remaining weapons of the armed slug. But I want to imitate Mr. Kochlöffel in order to refute one or two articles that are most important. For he has not attacked the whole of Luther, but only the first three articles, which I have defended against the Eckisch-Leonian 1)
1) Ecclelsoninara. In this expression lies one of his wit, which cannot be rendered in German. There can hardly be any doubt that Luther was
584 L V. L. VII, so f. 107. Luther's writing Wider d. gewappneten Cochläus. W. XIX, 694-696. 585
Bull. Now Cochlaeus insists the most in the whole booklet that he proves it is wrong and heretical that I have asserted here and there that we are justified by faith alone.
(7) And so that you hear something funny here, which rhymes with the present time [Shrovetide], see, I beg you, dear Nesen, these most insurmountable (vulcanissima) weapons of the bravest man. After he had taught with many sayings of the fathers that we are cleansed from sins by baptism, that Christ takes away our sins, and that love covers the multitude of sins, and the like, the great speaker finally sums it all up in this very lovely conclusion, that he says: Therefore faith alone does not make righteous, for the Holy Spirit makes righteous, grace also makes righteous, baptism also makes righteous, Christ also makes righteous, love also makes righteous 2c. Now go, Luther, and still deny that Cochläus is not a man of arms.
Dear Nesen, perhaps you would like to burst with anger, or burst with laughter. Nevertheless, because you ordered it, I lose the noble time with this silly and stupid snail, which, while writing against me, did not even use so much consideration that it would have paid attention to the evidential value of the reasons (presented) or, to speak with the snail Aristotelian, to the materia subjecta [the thing one has to deal with], so that he would have known what and against what he should write.
9 And I am very surprised that such an industrious compiler did not expand this final speech, since Paul writes Rom. 11, 14 that he strives to make some of the Jews blessed. So also an apostle and a preacher make blessed, and not faith alone. Therefore Luther is a heretic. And I wanted to remind you of the fable of the donkey in the lion's skin. The bull referred to here is the one that Leo X issued at Eck's behest on June 15, 1520, and which Eck brought to Germany the following September. The articles which were condemned in it, Luther maintained as right Christian articles in his writing: Grund und Ursach aller Artikel, so durch die römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind". This was published in Latin in January 1521 and in German (by Luther himself) on March 1, 1521. It is found in Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 1752.
why should we not help the wooden spoon, which works itself off in its armor in such a way? Well then, let us, after the manner of magistraliter, put in good order the ways of making blessed, as follows: The Father makes blessed, the Son makes blessed, the Holy Spirit makes blessed, Christ makes blessed, grace makes blessed, faith makes blessed, love makes blessed, the sacrament makes blessed, the preacher makes blessed, works make blessed. Now here are ten beatifics, so faith alone does not make blessed, not to mention that very well-known beatific, namely the word of God, which is called the word of blessedness, because it can make our souls blessed, as Jacob testifies.
(10) And now, let us look to our wisdom; let us finely distinguish these ways of salvation, with their characteristics and peculiarities, in the most magisterial way. The Father saves by authorship (authoritative), the Son saves as a mediator (mediative), the Holy Spirit by application (applicative), Christ by merit (meritive), grace by reputation (reputative), faith by acquisition (subjective), love by activity (active), the sacrament by significance (significative), the preacher in a ministerial way (ministrative), the word in a doctive way (doctive), the works in a probative way (probative), everything in an armed way and according to the snail's way and Cochlian way, thus not only faith makes righteous, thus Luther is a heretic, thus Cochlian is an armed man.
11 Thus you see that no book is so bad that it is not also good in some part, as Pliny thought. For if Cochleaeus had not taught us here that blessedness also comes through God, through the Spirit, through the sacraments, how should the church exist? like faith? like Christ himself? Thanks be to the new Atlas, who keeps the heaven that now wants to invade from falling with these strong and well-armed shoulders of his.
But that may be enough of a joke against this foolish head, with which I have favored you, dear friend. Now we also want to talk a little seriously about these things.
not for the sake of Cochleus, who, as a sow, is not worthy to be reproached with these pearls, but for the sake of those who are greatly offended that I have said that we are justified by faith alone, since the word "alone" is not found in the apostle, and they pretend that I have added it sacrilegiously and impiously in order to assert my error. Therefore, I must now show the cause of this presumption of mine, and I must purify myself in a humble manner, so that they may see how I can also humbly and modestly answer for myself, where there are people who are worthy to hear the word of God.
In the first place, I have tried to give as clearly as possible the opinion of St. Paul, which the Sophists had completely obscured by long and blasphemous misuse of the words. For since in the letter to the Romans he disputes faith and good works, against the righteousness of works, he certainly insists most strongly that he take righteousness away from works altogether and attach it to faith alone. For so his words [Rom. 3, 20] read: "By the works of the law no flesh is justified", and again [v. 28]: "So then we hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, but by faith alone", and again [v. 23]: "They are all sinners, and lack the glory which they ought to have in God: and are justified without merit by faith". 2c. And Rom. 14:23: "Whatsoever cometh not by faith is sin."
14 Finally, he confirms this with the example of Abraham, who was not justified by circumcision, which was the best and most excellent work, commanded by God, and accomplished in all obedience, but in faith before circumcision. And yet he says that he has no glory before God if he was justified by any works; but the Scripture says that he is justified by faith 2c. [Rom. 4:2, 3]. These are truly flashes of the divine word.
15 Therefore see if Paul does not assert much more strongly that we are justified by faith alone than I have done, although he does not use the word "alone.
that I have used. For he who says that works do not justify, but faith justifies, certainly affirms much more powerfully that faith alone justifies, than if one says that faith alone justifies, only that the former is clearer than the latter, while through the Sophists both Paul's way of speaking and his opinion have fallen into disuse and have completely disappeared. But that Paul speaks in this passage of spiritual justification, or, as the Sophists speak, of justification according to the thing and the person (de justificatione formali et subjectiva), is unknown to anyone but Cochlæus alone. For Paul is arguing against works and righteousness from the law, and is dealing with the matter concerning consciences, where faith alone is everything, but works are nothing; indeed, works are fruits of the tree, which has already become pious and righteous through faith, so that it is impossible, even according to the common sense of man, to become righteous by works.
(16) Therefore it is quite ridiculous that he makes such sophisms: faith alone makes righteous; therefore the Holy Spirit does not make righteous. Or: the Holy Spirit makes righteous, therefore faith alone does not make righteous, because this disputation does not take place, but it is only a question of faith and good works: whether anything can be ascribed to good works in justification, because since the apostle does not ascribe anything to works, he undoubtedly gives everything to faith alone. Nor do I think that anyone is so nonsensical as to believe that I would have wanted to say that one is not justified by Christ, not by the Holy Spirit, not by the Word, as Cochleaeus, who has sufficiently explained in this booklet how he does not understand at all what faith, grace, Christ, love, sacrament are, and I think that no one understands his book less than he himself.
(17) When I ascribed righteousness to faith alone in my writing Reason and Cause, I at least had in mind that I was refuting the ungodly teaching of the sophists and monks, who seduce the whole world by trusting in works.
588 D v. a. vn, ss-ss. Luther's writing Wider d. gewappneten Cochläus. - W. xix. ess-roi. 589
have. I knew that they certainly do not deny in words that righteousness comes through Christ, through baptism, and through the Holy Spirit; but I saw that they deny that faith alone makes righteous, but attribute almost all the glory of justification to works. If they had not done this, there would not now be so many monasteries, foundations, schools, and other innumerable efforts of those who want to be justified by works. For all this is based on works and not on faith alone, and they invent that faith is, I know not what, a hidden essence (formae) in the soul, which is, as it were, a part, but not the epitome of all virtues. Therefore, it does not take place that you take my word out of the subject matter or out of the matter at hand, and that, when I discuss faith and works in order to give a correct account of conscience, you think of what God is able to do who works faith.
18 Further, if some understand Paul by works of the law not all works, but only the outward (ceremonialia) works, I think that these are not to be disputed, at least not now, because it seems as if they do not want to understand Paul with diligence. Certainly the circumcision of Abraham was a very good work, adorned with all obedience (as I have said), and so completely a work of the already justified Abraham that it must have pleased God to the highest degree, more than any work which they would dare to declare good, and yet Paul denies justification to circumcision.
19 But that Peter says [1 Pet 3:21], We are saved through baptism, who does not see that this proves nothing against me? for it does not follow that it is false that faith alone makes one righteous. To be sure, baptism does not make righteous without faith; but faith without baptism makes righteous, therefore no part of justification can be ascribed to baptism. Otherwise, if baptism in one part justified, it could not be denied that baptism without faith justified. But now, since this is denied to baptism, this is done with
Right left to faith alone. Therefore Peter expresses this as his opinion, that through baptism, as an outward sign, faith is evoked and practiced, so that this makes one blessed. For even God's word itself, which far surpasses visible signs, does not of itself make anyone righteous unless a person believes. Thus says the Epistle to the Hebrews [Cap. 4, 2]: "The word of preaching did not help them, because those who heard it did not believe.
(20) Although some of the fathers would have held that the sacrament makes righteous by its own power, and even if it were Augustine, as Cochleaeus claims, I do not respect this; they are only sayings of men who often argue against themselves, and teach most things from human opinion without Scripture. We follow the quite certain Scripture, which says that neither word nor sign is of any use without faith. For that which Cochleaeus praises most highly, that the young children, because they have no faith, become righteous through baptism, we most definitely deny, but say with Augustine: Not the sacrament, but faith in the sacrament makes righteous. And again: It makes just, not because it happens, but because one believes it. Although Augustine said the opposite elsewhere, we follow him only where he holds with Scripture, but let him go where he speaks apart from and against Scripture. Therefore, in vain he gathers up so many sayings of the Fathers, as if he wanted to force us under man's word, since we have so often testified that in matters of conscience we hold to no man's word, but only to God's word, because governing consciences is no man's, but only God's work and office.
(21) But we do not say that infants should not be baptized, nor do we say that they receive baptism without faith, but we say that they believe at baptism by the power of the Word, by which the devil is cast out of them (exorcisantur), and by the faith of the church, which brings them to baptism and obtains faith for them by their prayer. Otherwise, it would be a great and quite unbearable lie, if the baptizer were to baptize the child
asks if he believes and would not baptize him if he did not answer in the child's place: I believe. For if it is certain that they [the infants] do not believe, as Cochlaeus thinks, why then does the Baptist ask whether he believes? Well, if Augustine sometimes says so, Cochlaeus should be satisfied that it was spoken by a man, but we want this statement to be proved by divine testimony. Yes, we maintain that if it were true that infants did not believe in baptism, they should not be baptized at all, lest the sacrament and the word of the divine majesty be mocked. But even this error, that infants should not be able to believe, we have to thank our sophists, who eat up the sayings of men like unclean animals without any judgment, and at the same time teach contradictory things, since they say that the infant has no faith; and yet nevertheless demand faith from him, so that he may be baptized.
But that grace also justifies, Cochleaeus should have understood this in such a way that he knew that faith is the same grace, and not, as he does, invent a special being (formam) apart from faith and love, or claim it from his inventive and inventive masters, the sophists, so he would not have needed to conclude so foolishly that grace justifies, so faith does not justify alone, at least as they speak of grace. But grace in Scripture means God's grace, according to which he grants us all good things and justifies us here, that is, he gives us faith without merit, through which alone we are justified. Now, in the whole Bible one does not find that justification is attributed to love, since it is rather a fruit of justifying faith, Gal. 5:22: "The fruit of the Spirit is love" 2c. But this extremely widespread error comes from the fact that they do not rightly understand the word of Peter, which is drawn from the Proverbs of Solomon. For when Peter says, "Love covers the multitude of sins," he is not speaking of his own sins, but of the sins of others, so that the meaning is, "Love covers the multitude of sins.
It does not allow itself to be embittered, it bears everything, it thinks no evil, it tolerates everything, so that so much can not be sinned against love that it does not bear everything, cover it, forgive it and let it go. But by these works no man is justified, but if he be not first justified, he bringeth not forth these fruits of love. And that this is the opinion can be seen from the 10th chapter of the Proverbs of Solomon by the contrast [v. 12]: Hatred arouses strife, but love covers all transgressions, that is, he who hates his neighbor also seeks something in his good works that he may blaspheme; but he who loves his neighbor does the opposite, that he also covers and tolerates all the sins of his neighbor.
(23) By this, I think, enough has been answered in defense of my three articles which Cochlæus condemned, and this doctrine of mine still stands firm and mighty: faith alone justifies. And it will therefore not have to be denied that also the Word, the Sacrament, Christ, the preacher, the Spirit and God the Father make righteous. For God does everything that we may be justified, Christ deserves that we may be justified, the Holy Spirit brings the merit of Christ to bear that we may be justified. The Word of God is the instrument through which the Spirit brings the merit of Christ into pregnancy, likewise also the Sacrament and the preacher. But the essential (formalis) justification is left to faith alone, because without faith neither God nor Christ "nor anything else helps to righteousness. But in what way one can say of works that they make one righteous, of this I have said in the Sermon on Unjust Mammon 1).
(24) Enough of this has now been said in earnest; now let us return to my dear snail, and see at the end of the booklet how she teaches Luther dialectics.
(25) Since I said in my writing "Reason and Cause" that Paul claims that we are justified by faith, I added: Paul does not say that we are justified by the sacrament. Here shows
1) Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XI, 1446 ff.
592 L. v.". vn. 56-58. 107. Luther's writing Wider d. gewappneten Cochläus. W. xix. 704-707. 593
my dear snail makes its horns beautiful, as if it understood something in dialectics, but nevertheless does not make a horned closing speech 1) and says: Where did you learn this dialectics, that you draw a conclusion from a saying in a negative way? He [Paul] does not say: Luther is not a man, therefore he is an ass. Dear, who should not be surprised at the so appropriate and astute rebuke of the snail, that he would lose his hearing and sight? Namely, this so clever dialectic consists in that it can say: So you are an ass. Well, who else could make such a ridiculous donkey out of Luther than this most beautiful snail?
26. But I answer: You beautiful snail, where did you learn to measure theology and Christian doctrine according to your stinking and dirty rules about inferences? Do you consider the holy scriptures to be sophistical antics? Here you, God-changing wooden spoon, clearly show what you think in your heart about spiritual things, because you make no difference at all between these and our things. Dear, how often have I taught and written that one should not assert anything in Christian doctrine that the holy Scriptures do not have! The Scripture also commands this very often. Hilarius also taught this, as did Jerome and Augustine. The latter writes: Only to the books which are called canonical do I attach this honor. Jerome, however, says: What has no proof from Scripture is as easily despised as accepted. Do you see, you slug-philosopher Chrysippus, 2) what [excellent] men your ass-making and ass-like dialectic attacks with its blasphemies? Therefore, in spiritual matters, it has taken place quite strongly and violently that one makes conclusions from a saying of Scripture in a negative way.
(27) But what an appropriate example the so great dialectician brings forward for this kind of proof (topicae) by saying: He (Paul) does not say: Luther is not a man,
1) eornutuiu kMoZismum - a strong, irrefutable inference.
2) Chrysippus, a famous Stoic philosopher, disciple of Zeno and Cleanthes, from Soli in Cilicia, an excellent dialectician.
therefore he is an ass. Namely, instead of a negative statement he introduces an affirmative one, whereas he should have said as follows: He [Paul] does not say: Luther is not a man, therefore he is not a man. For this inference holds nothing in this mode of proof. Man is quite nonsensical and mad, as the sophists are wont to be, so that they do not understand their own thing, or if they understand it, yet they are not able to use it rightly. Now go, you dirty spoon, who belong in the kitchen, with your silly and tasteless dialectic, and at least learn to use it correctly in your pots and various things, so that we can credit you when you use it wrongly in holy things. I will teach you this kind of proof by a more appropriate example, namely: The Frankfurters say: their snail has no heart and brain, therefore their snail has no heart and brain. You may see whether this conclusion is valid.
28 But what am I doing here but becoming foolish and nonsensical myself by wasting words and time with such a stupid and foolish head? For what could be done with him who comes forth with such a new abomination and publicly prefers the reputation of the church to the words of Paul, or, as he wants to be regarded as having spoken wisely and cunningly, "your wording of Paul" (sono Pauli)? For he speaks thus: Assuming that St. Paul said thus (which he does not), one should not commit such an outrage against the whole church with Paul's words. The opinion of the church is greater than the words of Scripture. One does not have to follow the word (sono) of Scripture everywhere.
(29) Who should understand zero so little of Christian things that he does not realize what kind of spirit exhales this poisonous breath through this armed snail? namely, they want to make the Scripture suspicious to us, but themselves and their fathers to the church. Such things the worthless angel of Satan slurs, so that they remain safe from the sword of the spirit, and it is up to them what it should mean and say. But thanks be to Christ, who has enlightened the nations and has already taught zero to the whole world,
to hold fast (sic sapere) to these god-robbing abominations, which publicly blaspheme the word of God: that they do not believe even an angel from heaven, if he should teach differently than the Scripture reads, so that that snail church with its opinion and sound (sonamento) goes to ruin.
(30) If the words of Paul are suspect and not to be followed, why should the words of the church be followed? Does the church sometimes give its opinion to the snail without a sound? Well, let Paul give a sound, let the snail give a sound; let Paul have an opinion, let the snail have an opinion with her church. Now you teach me, which sound and which opinion should we follow? Must now again a new way be invented, so that we also do not follow the sound of the church, but the opinion of a second church? But this opinion of the church will again come to light by a sound. Now a fourth sound will be necessary to make the third opinion certain. Then after the fourth sound a fifth sound will be heard for the fourth opinion. I ask you, when will it then come to an end with the sounds and opinions?
(31) The wicked and godless sophists, having considered the holy Scriptures to be filth, have invented this way of interpreting the Scriptures not by Scripture but by their blasphemous opinions, and then boasting that this was done by the prestige of the church. If they had given themselves entirely to the contemplation of the law of the Lord, as they boast in the title, there would have been no place for this foolish and ungodly distinction between the sound and the opinion of Scripture. There has never been spoken anything more simple, purer, brighter, lighter, than God's word, but how should the snails, slimy animals (limaces), moles, lizards, caterpillars, grasshoppers, bruci (flying locusts), wasps, even vipers and newts, who crawl around in their earthly dung puddles all their lives and perish in their sophistical filth, know that? What's a wonder that you don't know the [word]sound of the Greek language?
since you have not learned Greek? For God's word is the light of all men, and therefore it has also come into this world, but men are not the light of the divine word, as the blasphemous Cochläus fools here with his own.
Now let us say as an example: God created the heavens and the earth. Now let the snail come and make a distinction between the sound and the opinion and prove that Moses sounds something else, means something else. But he must prove this. For if it is true that in one place Scripture sounds something different from what it means, then it must be said of it everywhere that it sounds something different from what it means, since there is no reason why this should be the case only occasionally and not everywhere, unless the new dialectic of the snail church argues in an affirmative way from its reputation: We snails, by the grace and opinion of Aristotle, our God, reserve to ourselves, according to the fullness of our power, the right to decide where Scripture reads differently from what it means; thus Scripture reads differently from what it means, where the snails will. But how if we also said: Why then should it not be said that even thy fathers read differently than they mean, because nothing more contradictory has been spoken than the sayings of the fathers, since no one agrees with another and no one with himself? For you will not find in the Scriptures even once that they sound differently than they say, while in the Fathers (who have the opinion of Cochlæus, not the [word]sound of Paul) it is said a hundred times differently than they mean it.
But, as I have said, this unclean worm tries everything and tries hard to take the judgment of the Scriptures and to appropriate it to itself; therefore, they attribute to themselves and to their own what should be attributed to the Scriptures, and again, what they should attribute to themselves and to their own, they attribute to the Scriptures. They should judge according to the Scriptures, and behold, they judge the Scriptures! What else can be rightly said to them than the word of Christ: "Wisdom must be justified by her children"? [Matt. 11:19.]
(34) If only they asserted this: The scripture sometimes speaks figuratively; then they could rightly say that the scripture has another sound (but only with the sophists, who admittedly do not know the grammar) and another sense. For when Christ speaks [John 8:12] "I am the light of the world", it is of course for the Sophists differently than he means it. For it is not for the sophists to know that here is a metaphor, but [they assume] that here is an actual meaning (proprietatem) according to the little logic, which is called [lisnatio, or Remotio termini; but for the grammarians the Scripture nowhere and never reads differently than it means, since it speaks in the most simple way.
But now my wicked snails accuse the Scripture of hypocrisy, yes, even of lying, even in the passages where it speaks completely without any figure and even without "actual meanings of the little logic", as in the present passage: "We will be taught the truth.
right by faith"; here my wooden spoon wants it to sound different than it is meant.
That is enough of the joke with the larvae; for just as it is rightly said: God alone created heaven and earth, although the Scripture only says: "God created heaven and earth," because there is no other Creator: so our [German] way of speaking demands that I must say: Faith alone makes righteous, although Scripture only says: "Faith makes righteous," for it itself proves most clearly that nothing else makes righteous but faith.
(37) Be well, dear Nesen, and tell your snail to stop stealing the time of intelligent people with its opinions and sounds (sonamentis), which are both foolish and utterly ungodly.
Women belong to the skirt, and a skirt suits the women.