September 8, 1530.
Wenceslaus Link of God's grace and mercy to all believers in Christ.
Wise Solomon says Proverbs 11:26: "He who holds grain is cursed by the people, but blessing comes to him who sells it. This saying is actually to be understood of everything that can serve for the common benefit or comfort of Christianity. This is why the Lord in the Gospel calls the unfaithful servant an idle scoundrel, because he buried his money in the ground and hid it.
To avoid such a curse from the Lord and the whole church, I have not kept this epistle, which came to me through a good friend, secret, but have put it into print publicly. For because of the interpretation of half of the Old and New Testaments, there is much talk,
For the enemies of the truth pretend that the text has been changed in many places, or even falsified, so that many simple-minded Christians, even among the scholars who do not know the Hebrew and Greek languages, are disconcerted or frightened: it is to be hoped amicably that at least in part this will prevent the ungodly from blaspheming and take away the scruples of the pious; perhaps it will also cause something more to be written on such questions or matter.
Therefore, I ask every lover of the truth to let such a work be recommended to him in the best way, and to faithfully ask God for the right understanding of the divine Scriptures, for the improvement and increase of common Christianity, amen. At Nuremberg, September 15, A. 1530.
To the honorable and prudent N., my favorable master and friend.
Grace and peace in Christ. Honorable, prudent, dear Lord and friend! I have received your writing with the two queries or questions in which you desire my report: First, why I have thus translated into Romans, in the third chapter, the words of St. Paul: Arbitramur, hominem justificari ex fide absque operidus legis: We hold that man is justified without the work of the law, through faith alone. And shows besides how the papists make themselves useless beyond measure, because in Paul's text the word sola, alone, is not written, and such addition is not to be suffered by me in God's words etc. Secondly, whether the dead saints also pray for us, because we read that the angels pray for us etc. To the
First of all, if I, D. Luther, had been able to see to it that the papists were all together so skilled that they could properly and well translate a chapter in the Scriptures, then I would have truly let myself be found humble, and asked them for help and assistance in translating the New Testament. But because I knew, and still see before my eyes, that no one really knows how to interpret or speak German, I put her and myself to such trouble. But it is obvious that they speak and write German from my interpreting and learning German, and thus steal my language, of which they knew little before; but they do not thank me for it, but rather use it against me. But I begrudge them
*) This writing appeared in 1530 in four individual editions, two of which were published by Georg Rhaw in Wittenberg, the other two without indication of the place and the printer. It was also translated into Latin and is found in Coelestini histor. comitior. August. Vindelic. celekrut, part. Ill, p. 69. In the collections: in the Wittenberg (1553), vol. IV, p. 474; in the Jena (1566), vol. V, p. 139d; in the Altenburg, vol. V, p. 268; in the Leipzig, vol. XII, p. 90 and in the Erlangen, vol. 65, p. 102. We reproduce the text according to the Jena edition, comparing the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions. The so-called Urdruck, which the latter gives, will probably be only a reprint, for the readings of the Erlangen edition are almost throughout worse than those of the two old editions mentioned, as everyone can see for himself from the variants we have given. (Cf. the introduction.)
I am glad that I have taught even my ungrateful disciples, and my enemies, to speak.
Secondly, you may say that I have translated the New Testament to the best of my ability and to my conscience; I have not forced anyone to read it, but have left it free and only made it available to those who cannot do better. No one is forbidden to make a better one. Whoever does not want to read it, let it lie. I ask and celebrate no one for it. It is my will and my interpretation, and shall remain and be mine. If I have missed anything in it (which I am not aware of, and of course I do not want to interpret a letter wrongly), I do not want the papists to be the judges of that. For they still have too long ears for it, and their Ika Ika is too weak to judge my interpretation.
I know well, and they know it less than the miller's beast, what art, diligence, reason and understanding are required for a good interpreter; for they have not tried. It is said: He who builds by the wayside has many masters. So it is with me. Those who have never been able to speak properly, let alone interpret, are all my masters, and I must be their disciple. And if I had asked them how to translate the first two words, Matth. 1, Liber generationis, no one would have known how to say gack to them, and now the whole work, the fine fellows, is judging me. It was the same with St. Jerome when he interpreted the Biblia; all the world was his master, it was he alone who could do nothing, and those who had not been enough for him that they should have wiped his shoes judged the good man's work. Therefore, it takes great patience if someone wants to do something good in public. For the world wants to remain master Klügling, and must always bridle the horse under the tail, master everything and know nothing itself. That is their way, and they cannot let go of it.
I would still like to look at the papist who would distinguish himself and, for example, translate an epistle of St. Paul or a prophet into German, so far that he would not be able to follow Luther's German and Dolphin.
I do not use interpreting for this purpose: there one should see a fine, beautiful, praiseworthy German or interpreting. For we have seen the Sudler at Dresden, 1) who has mastered my New Testament (I do not want to mention his name in my books anymore; so he now also has his judge, and is otherwise well known), who confesses that my German is sweet and good, and saw well that he could not make it better, and yet wanted to disgrace it, went to, and took before him my New Testament, almost from word to word, as I have made it, and did my preface, gloss and name of it, wrote his name, preface and gloss to it, thus sold my New Testament under his name. Well, dear children, how I was so unhappy, since his sovereign condemned and forbade with an atrocious preface to read Luther's New Testament, but at the same time commanded to read Sudeler's New Testament, which is exactly the same one that Luther made.
And lest anyone here think that I am lying, take both wills before you, Luther's and Sudeler's, hold them against each other, and you will see who is the interpreter in both. For what he has patched up and changed in a few places (although I don't like it all), I can still tolerate it, and it does me no harm in particular, as far as the text is concerned; that is why I have never wanted to write against it, but have had to laugh at the great wisdom that my New Testament has been so horribly blasphemed, condemned, forbidden, because it went out under my name, but still have to read it, because it went out under someone else's name. What kind of virtue is this, to blaspheme and desecrate another's book, then steal it, and yet let it go out under one's own name, and thus seek one's own praise and name through another's blasphemed work? However, it is enough for me and I am glad that my work (as St. Paul also boasts) must also be promoted by my enemies, and that Luther's book must be read without Luther's name, under his enemies' names, how could I be more wickedly avenged?
1) Emser.
And that I come to the point again, if your pope wants to make himself much useless with the word sola, "alone", then tell him quickly so: Doctor Martinus Luther wants it so and says: pope and donkey be one thing, sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do not want to be the disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges; we also want to boast and throb with the heads of our donkeys; and as Paul boasts against his great saints, so I will also boast against these donkeys of mine. Are you a doctor? So am I. You are learned? So am I. You are preachers? So am I. You are a theologian? So am I. You are disputatores? So am I. You are a philosopher? So am I. You are dialectici? So am I. You are Legenten? So am I. You write books? Me too.
And will boast further: I can interpret Psalms and Prophets; they cannot. I can interpret; they cannot. I can read the Scriptures; they cannot. I can pray; they cannot. And that I come down, I know their own dialectica and philosophy better than they themselves all together. And I know for certain that none of them understands their Aristotle. And if there is one among them all who understands a prooemium or chapter in Aristotle correctly, then I will let myself be bruised. I do not talk too much now; for I am all educated by their art and experienced from youth, know almost well how deep and wide it is. So they also know well that I know and can do everything they can do; nor do the hopeless people act against me as if I were a guest in their art, who had only just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach or can do. So gloriously they come in with their art, and teach me what I tore on my shoes twenty years ago, that I also have to sing with that mace to all their bawling and screaming: I knew seven years ago that hoof nails are iron.
This is the answer to your first question, and I beg you, do not answer such asses any more about their useless blabbering about the word sola, because Luther wants it that way, and says that he is a doctor above all doctors in the whole papacy. Since
I will henceforth despise them badly and have contempt for them as long as they are such people (I wanted to say donkeys). For there are such impudent dregs among them, who have never learned their own, the sophist's, art, like Doctor Schmidt and Doctor Rotzlöffel and their like; and yet they lay themselves against me in this matter, which is not only above sophistry, but also (as St. Paul says) above all the world's wisdom and reason. It is true that an ass should not sing much, otherwise he is known by his ears.
But I want to show you and the others why I have used the word sola, although Rom. 3 (v. 28) is not sola, but solum or tantum used by me. So the donkeys see my text as fine; but still I have used it elsewhere, sola fide, and also want to have both, solum and sola. I have been careful in interpreting that I want to give pure and clear German. And we have often encountered that we have searched and asked for a single word for fourteen days, three, four weeks, and still have not found it at times.
In Job we worked so, M. Philipps, Aurogallus and I, that in four days we could sometimes hardly finish three lines. Rather, now that it is translated and ready, everyone can read and master it, if someone now runs with his eyes through three or four leaves, and does not even bump into them, but does not become aware of the jags and blocks that are lying there, since he now walks over them as if over a planed board, since we had to sweat and worry before we cleared such jags and blocks out of the way, so that one could walk along so finely. It is good to plow when the field is cleared, but to uproot the forest and the sticks, and to prepare the field, no one wants to do. There is no gratitude to be earned from the world. God cannot earn thanks even with the sun, with heaven and earth, nor with his own Son's death; let it be and remain the world in the devil's name, because it does not want anything else.
1) Thus the Jena. Erlangen and Wittenberg: his.
2) "or" is missing in the Erlanger.
3) Erlanger: remains world of.
So I almost knew that the word solum is not in the Latin and Greek text of Romans 3, and the papists should not have taught me this. It is true that these four letters sola are not in it, which letters look at the asses' heads like the cow looks at a new gate. But do not see that [it] nevertheless has the opinion of the text in it, and where one wants to translate it clearly and violently, it belongs in it. For I wanted to speak German, not Latin nor Greek, since I had intended to speak German in the interpretation. But this is the nature of our German language, when 1) a speech occurs about two things, one of which is confessed and the other denied, then one needs the word solum, "alone", next to the word "not" or "no". As when one says: The farmer brings grain alone, and no money. Item 2): I truly have not money now, but grain alone. I have eaten alone, and not yet drunk. Have you written alone, and not read over? And the like innumerable ways in the daily custom.
In all these speeches, although the Latin or Greek language does not do this, the German language does, and it is its way of adding the word "alone" so that the word "not" or "no" is all the more complete and clear. For even though I say: The farmer brings grain and no money, the word "no money" is not as complete and clear as when I say: The farmer brings grain alone and no money, and here the word "alone" helps the word "no" so much that it becomes a complete, German, clear speech. For one does not have to ask the letters in the Latin language how one should speak German, as these donkeys do, but one must ask the mother in the house, the children in the street, the common man in the market, and look them in the mouth as they speak, and then interpret, so that they understand it and realize that one is speaking German to them.
As when Christ says: Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. If I am to follow the donkeys, they will read the letters for me.
1) Erlanger: they.
2) Erlanger: No.
and thus interpret: Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. Tell me: Is this German spoken? Which German understands such a thing? What kind of thing is abundance of the heart? No German can say that, unless he wants to say that it is because someone has too big a heart, or has too much heart. Although that is not yet right either. For abundance of heart is not German, just as little as abundance of house, abundance of tiled stove, abundance of bank is not German; but so says the mother of the house and the common man: "When the heart is full, the mouth overflows. That is well spoken in German, which I have been tempted to do, but unfortunately I have not achieved it in every way, nor have I hit the mark. For the Latin letters are a great hindrance to speaking good German.
So, when the betrayer Judas says Matth. 26, 8: Ut quid peräditio haec? and Marc. 14, 4: Ut quia perditio ista unguenti facta. est? If I follow the donkeys and the literalists, then I have to translate it: Why did this loss of the ointment happen? But what kind of German is that? Which German thus speaks: Loss of the ointment has happened? And if he understands it well, he thinks that the ointment is lost and that he has to look for it again; although this is still obscure and uncertain. If this is good German, why don't they come forward and make us such a fine, pretty New German Testament, and leave Luther's Testament? I mean yes, they should bring their art to the day. But the German man speaks thus: Ut quid etc.. What is the point of such nonsense? or: What is the point of such harm? Item 3): It is a pity for the ointment. This is good German, from which one understands that Magdalene had handled the spilled ointment unseemly and had done harm; this was Judah's opinion, because he intended to create better counsel with it.
Item, when the angel greets Mary and says: Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord with you. Well, so far it is badly Germanized, according to the Latin letters. But tell me, is this also good German? Where does the German man speak
3) Erlanger: No.
so: You are full of grace? And which German understands what is said, full of grace? He must think of a barrel full of beer or a bag full of money. That is why I have translated it into German: Du Holdselige; so that a German can think all the more what the angel means with his greeting. But here the papists want to get mad at me that I have corrupted the angelic greeting; even though I have not hit the best German with it. And I should have taken the best German here and thus translated the greeting: God greet you, dear Mary (for this is what the angel wants to say, and this is what he would have said if he had wanted to greet her in German); I think that they should have been inspired by great devotion to dear Mary that I had ruined the greeting in this way.
But what do I ask of them, whether they rave or race? I will not prevent them from translating what they want; but I will also translate, not as they want, but as I want. Whoever does not want to have it, let him leave it to me, and keep his mastery with him, for I do not want to see or hear you. You must not answer for my interpreting, nor give an account. You hear that well, I want to say: Thou most gracious Mary, thou dearest Mary, and let her say: Thou most gracious Mary. Whoever knows German, knows well what a heartfelt word that is, dear Mary, dear God, dear emperor, dear prince, dear man, dear child. And I do not know whether the word "dear" can also be spoken so warmly and sufficiently in Latin or other languages that it penetrates and sounds in the heart, through all the senses, as it does in our language.
For I hold. St. Lucas, as a master of the Hebrew and Greek languages, wanted the Hebrew word used by the angel to coincide with the Greek word and to be a part of the Hebrew word used by the angel.
give clearly. And think to me that the angel Gabriel spoke to Mary as he speaks to Daniel [Dan. 10, 11. 19.], and calls him xxxxxx and xxxxxxx vir desideriorum, that is, thou dear Daniel. For this is Gabriel's way of speaking, as we see in Daniel. Now if I were to translate the angel's word according to the letter, from the donkey's art, I would have to say: Daniel, you man of desires,
or: Däniel, you man of the air. O, that would be beautifully German! A German man hears well that man, 1) lusts or desires are German words. Although they are not pure German words, but lust and desire would be better. But if they are summarized in such a way: Du Mann der Begierungen, then no German knows what is said; thinks that Daniel is perhaps full of evil lust. That would be finely interpreted.
Therefore I must leave the letters here and search, how the German man speaks such, which the Hebrew man xxxxxxxxx speaks, so I find that the German man speaks thus: You dear Daniel, you dear Maria, or, you lovely maid, cute virgin, you tender woman, and such like. For he who wants to interpret must have a large stock of words, so that he can choose where one does not want to sound in all places.
And what should I say much and long about interpreting? If I were to describe the causes and thoughts of all my words, I would probably have to write about it for a year. What art, effort and work interpreting is, that I have well experienced, therefore I do not want to suffer any Pabstesel or Maulesel, who have not tried anything, to judge or blame me in this. Whoever does not want my interpretation, let it stand; the devil thank him, whoever does not like it, or masters it without my will and knowledge. If it is to be done, then I will do it myself; if I do not do it myself, then let me have my interpreting in peace, and let each do what he wants for himself, and have him a good year.
I can testify with a clear conscience that I have shown my utmost faithfulness and diligence in it and have never had any wrong thoughts: For I have not taken a penny for it, nor sought it, nor gained it; so I have not meant my honor in it, that God, my Lord, knows, but have done it for the service of the dear Christians, and in honor of One who sits above, who does me so much good every hour, that if I had interpreted a thousand times as much and as diligently, still I would not have deserved to live one hour, or one hour of my life.
1) "Man" is missing in the Erlanger.
2) Erlanger: du mädliche.
3) "Effort" is missing in the Erlanger.
to have a healthy eye. It is all of his grace and mercy that I am and have; yes, it is his precious blood and sour sweat, therefore it shall also (if God wills) all serve him in honor, with joy and from the heart. If the Sudeler and Pabstesel blaspheme me, then the pious Christians praise me, together with their Lord Christ, and I am all too richly rewarded, if only a few Christians recognize me as a faithful worker. I do not ask anything of them; they are not worthy to recognize my work, and I am sorry in my heart that they praise me. Their blasphemy is my highest glory and honor. I want to be a doctor, yes, even a brilliant doctor, and they shall not take the name from me until the last day, I know that for sure.
But again I did not let the letters go too freely, but with great care together with my assistants I saw to it that, where a word 1) was needed, I kept it according to the letters, and did not go away so freely. When John 6:27, where Christ says: "God the Father has sealed this one," it would have been better to use German: This one has been marked by God the Father, or: This one means God the Father. But I wanted to break off before the German language, because from the word give way. Ah, interpreting is not an art for everyone, as the mad saints think; it requires a quite pious, faithful, diligent, fearful, Christian, learned, experienced, practiced heart. That is why I think that no false Christian, nor a spirit of the mob, can interpret faithfully; as it seems to be the case in the prophets, translated into German at Worms, in which great diligence has indeed been done, and which has almost followed my German; but there have been Jews among them, who have not shown great favor to Christ, otherwise there would be enough art and diligence.
Let this be said of the interpretation and the nature of the languages. But now I have not trusted and followed the languages alone, that I have added Rom. 3, 28. solum "alone"; but the text and the opinion of St. Paul demand and force it by force. For
1) Erlanger: Place.
There he deals with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ, without all works of the law, and cuts off all works so purely that he also says that the works of the law (which is God's law and word) do not help us to righteousness.
And take Abraham as an example, that he was justified without any works, that even the highest work, which was then newly commanded by God, before and above all other laws and works, namely circumcision, did not help him to righteousness, but without circumcision and without all works he was justified by faith, as he says Cap. 4, 2. "If Abraham was justified by 2) works, he may boast, but not before God." But where all works are so purely cut off, there 3) must be the opinion that faith alone makes righteous. And whoever wants to speak clearly and plainly of such cutting off of works must say: Faith alone, and not works, makes us righteous. This forces the matter itself next to the language kind.
Yes, they say, it is annoying, and people learn from it that they must not do good works. Dear, what shall we say? Is it not much more annoying that St. Paul himself does not say: Faith alone, but rather pours it out more roughly and knocks the bottom out of the barrel, and says: Without works of the law? And Gal. 2, 16. 4: "Not by the works of the law", and much more in other places. For the word "faith alone" would still find a gloss, but the word "without works of the law" is so gross, annoying, shameful, that no gloss can help. How much more would people like to learn from this, not to do good works, since they hear preaching about the works themselves with such dry strong words "no work, without work, not by work"! Now is this not annoying, that one preaches "without works, no works, not by works", what should it be annoying, if one preaches this "faith alone"?
2) "the" is missing in the Erlanger.
3) Erlanger: and there.
4) Erlanger: Gal. 1.
And that is even more annoying 1). St. Paul does not condemn "bad" evil works, but the law itself. From this someone might get even more angry and say that the law is condemned and cursed before God, and that one should do evil, as they did in Rom. 3:8: "Let us do evil, that it may be done well"; as also a spirit of the mob began in our time. Should one deny St. Paul's word for the sake of such trouble, or not speak freshly and freely of the faith?
Dearly beloved, even St. Paul and we want to have such trouble, and for no other reason teach so strongly against works, and urge faith alone, for 2) that men may be vexed, pushed, and fall, that they may learn and know that they do not become godly by their good works, but only by Christ's death and resurrection. If then they cannot become godly by good works of the law, how much less will they become godly by evil works, and without law? Therefore it does not follow: good works do not help; therefore evil works help. It follows that the sun cannot help the blind to see; therefore the night and darkness must help him to see.
But I am surprised that people are so reluctant in this public matter. Tell me whether Christ's death and resurrection is our work, which we do, or not? It is not our work, nor is it the work of some law. Christ's death and resurrection alone makes us sinless and righteous, as Paul says in Romans 4:25: "He died for our sins and rose again for our righteousness. Further, tell me, what is the work, that we may apprehend and hold Christ's death and resurrection? There must be no outward work, but only one 3) faith in the heart; this alone, yes, even alone, without 4) all works, grasps such death and resurrection, where it is preached through the gospel.
What is it, then, that people rage and rage, heresy and fire, so that the thing in the
1) Erlanger: annoying.
2) "denn" is missing in the Erlanger.
3) Erlanger: eternal.
4) Erlanger: and ohn.
The reason itself clearly lies there and proves that faith alone grasps Christ's death and resurrection without all works, and the same death and resurrection is our life and righteousness. If it is publicly stated that faith alone brings, grasps and gives us such life and righteousness, why should we not also speak in this way? It is not heresy that faith alone takes hold of Christ and gives life; but it must be heresy whoever says or speaks such things. Are they not mad, foolish and senseless? They confess the thing as right, and yet punish the speech of the same thing as wrong. One and the same 5) must be both right and wrong at the same time.
Nor am I alone, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes righteous; Ambrose, Augustine, and many others have said it before me. And whoever is to read and understand St. Paul must say so, and cannot do otherwise; his words are too strong, and suffer no, yes, no work at all. If it is no work, then faith alone must be. Oh, what a fine, better, unpleasant doctrine it would be if people learned that they could become godly by works as well as by faith! That would be saying that not only Christ's death would take away our sin, but our works would also do something to it. This would mean that Christ's death would be finely honored, so that our works would help him and could also do what he does, so that we would be as good and strong as he is. It is the devil who cannot leave the blood of Christ undefiled.
Since the matter itself demands that one say: faith alone makes one righteous, and since our German language, which also teaches such things, 6) is to be expressed in this way, the example of the holy fathers has been set for this, and it also compels the people's ways, so that they do not remain attached to works, and lack faith, and lose Christ, especially at this time, when they have been accustomed to works for so long, and are to be torn away from them with power: It is not only right, but also highly necessary, that one should say most clearly and completely: Only faith without works makes one godly. And I repent that I have not also
5) Erlanger: None.
6) Wittenberger and Erlanger: learns.
I have added to it all and all, that is, without all the works of all the laws, so that it may be fully spoken. Therefore, it shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the priests become mad and foolish, they shall not bring it out to me. That is enough of it now, I will speak further about it (if God gives grace) in the booklet De justificatione.
To the other 1) question: whether the departed saints pray for us?
I will now answer this recently, because I intend to write a sermon about the dear angels, in which I will go on with this piece (God willing). First of all, you know that in the papacy it is not only taught that the saints in heaven pray for us, which we cannot know because the Scriptures do not tell us this, but also that the saints have been made gods, that they must be our patrons whom we should call upon, some also who have never been, and have given special power and authority to each saint, one over fire, this 2) over water, this 2) over pestilence, fever and all kinds of plagues, so that God Himself has had to be quite idle and let the saints work and create in His stead. The papists now feel this abomination and secretly pull in their pipes, clean themselves and adorn themselves with the intercession of the saints. I want to postpone this now; but what does it matter if I forget it and let such cleaning and decorating go unpunished!
Secondly, you know that God has not commanded in a single word that neither angels nor saints should intercede, nor do you have an example of this in Scripture. For it is found that the dear angels spoke to the fathers and prophets, but none of them was ever asked for intercession; that even the arch-father Jacob did not ask his angel of battle for intercession, but only took the blessing from him. But one finds the contradiction in the revelation that the angel did not want to be worshipped by Johanne. And thus it is found that the service of the saints is a purely human service.
1) Erlanger: andern.
2) Erlanger: this.
tand and its own little foundation apart from God's Word and the Scriptures.
But since nothing is due to us in worship without God's command, and whoever does it is a temptation of God, it is neither to be advised nor suffered that one should call upon the departed saints for intercession, or teach them to do so, but rather should condemn it and teach them to avoid it. For this reason, I do not want to advise them, and I do not want to weigh down my conscience with other people's misdeeds. I myself have become exceedingly grieved that I have torn myself away from the saints, for I have been deeply immersed and drowned beyond all measure. But the light of the gospel is now so bright in the day that no one is excused from remaining in darkness. We almost all know what we should do.
In addition to this, it is a dangerous and annoying service to him that people are accustomed to turn away from Christ so easily and soon learn to place more trust in the saints than in Christ himself. For without this, nature is all too inclined to flee from God and Christ and to trust in men. Indeed, it is difficult to learn to trust in God and in Christ, as we have pledged and owe. Therefore, such trouble is not to be tolerated, so that the weak and carnal people may make an idolatry against the first commandment and against our baptism. One should only confidently drive confidence and trust from the saints to Christ, both with doctrines and by-laws; nevertheless, it is trouble and hindrance enough for one to come to him and take hold of him rightly. One must not paint the devil over the door, he will find himself.
Last of all, we are sure that God is not angry about it, and we are sure that we do not call upon the saints for intercession, because he has not commanded it anywhere, for he says that he is a zealot who commits iniquity against those who do not keep his commandment. But here is no commandment; therefore no wrath to fear. Since there is safety here on this side, and great danger and offense against God's word there, why should we go from safety into danger, since we have no word of God to guide us in our way?
Can hold, comfort, or save in trouble? For it is written [Sir. 3, 27.], "He who willingly gives himself into the ferry will perish within it." Also, God's commandment [Deut. 6:16] says, "You shall not tempt God your Lord."
Yes, they say, with this you condemn the whole of Christendom, which has hitherto held such things everywhere. Answer: I know very well that the priests and monks seek such a cover for their abominations, and want to blame on Christianity what they have neglected, so that when we say that Christianity does not err, we should also say that they do not err, and thus no lie or error may be punished against them, because Christianity holds it so. So then no pilgrimage (as obviously the devil is there), no indulgence (as grossly the lie is) is wrong. In short, all holiness is there. Therefore you shall say thus: We do not act now who is condemned or not condemned. They mix this foreign thing so that they lead us away from our thing. We are now dealing with God's word. What Christianity is or does belongs to another place. Here we ask what the Word of God is or is not. What is not the Word of God does not make Christianity.
We read in the time of Elijah the prophet that publicly there was no word of God nor worship in all the people of Israel, as he says
Kings 19:10, 14] "O Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged up thine altars; and am I alone." Here the king Ahab and others will also have said: Elijah, with such speech you condemn the whole people of God. But God had nevertheless kept seven thousand. How? Do you not think that God under the papacy has now also been able to preserve His own, although the clergy and monks in Christendom have been vain teachers of the devil and have gone to hell? Many children and young people have died in Christ. For Christ has forcibly preserved baptism, the mere text of the Gospel in the pulpit, the Lord's Prayer, and the faith under his Antichrist, so that he might preserve many of his Christians, and thus his Christianity, and not tell the devil's teachers about it.
And although the Christians have done some of the papal abominations, the Popes have not yet proven that the dear Christians have done this gladly; much less is it proven that the Christians have done right. Christians may well err, and sin all together; but God has taught them all to pray for forgiveness of sins in the Lord's Prayer, and has forgiven them 1) such sin, which they must do unwillingly, ignorantly, and forced by the Antichrist, and yet say nothing about it to priests and monks. But this can well be proved, that in all the world there has always been a great secret murmuring and complaining against the clergy, as if they did not treat Christianity right. And the Pabstles have also resisted such murmuring with fire and sword splendidly up to this time. Such mumbling proves how gladly the Christians saw such abominations and how rightly they were done. Yes, dear Pabst, come now and say that it is the doctrine of Christianity what you have forged, lied about, and as the evil-doers and traitors have imposed on dear Christianity by force, and as the arch-murderers have murdered many Christians over it. Yet all the letters in all Pabst's laws "testify" that nothing of will and counsel of Christendom has ever been taught, but vain districte praecipiendo mandamus is there; that has been their Holy Spirit. Christianity has had to suffer such tyranny, so that the sacrament has been stolen from it and kept in prison through no fault of its own; and the asses wanted to sell such unpleasant tyranny of their outrage to us now for a willing deed and example of Christianity, and to preen themselves so finely! But it will be too long now. That is enough for now. Another time more. And give me credit for my long writing. Christ our Lord be with us all, Amen. Ex eremo, octava Septembris. Anno 1530.
Martinus Luther,
your good friend.
1) Thus the Wittenberg edition; Jenaer: ihre solch Sünde; Erlanger: ihr solch Sünde.
This section includes the following writings:
D. M. Luther's Sermon on St. Anthony the Hermit, in which all the examples of the saints are found, provided they are good and edifying. Delivered in the year 1522.
This sermon is found in Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XII, 1944.
D. Mart. Luther's writing against the new idol and old devil, who is to be exalted in Meissen. Anno 1524.
Walch, old edition, vol. XV, 2772.