He"- Helps-
In response to M. Eisleben's complaint, I hereby submit his proposition and a piece of his postill (which I have beaten down for him), 2) in addition to the
2) This breaks down to the confiscation and destruction of Agricola's book: "Das ander teil der Summarien, von dem ersten-Sontag nach Trinitatis anzufahen, bis auff den ersten Sontag des Aduents. Ivan. Agricola Eisleben. Wittemberg 1537." sBei Hans Luft.] This writing is found in Förstemann's Neuem Urkundenbnche, Vol. I, pp. 296-311, from the only remaining copy in the archives at Weimar.
June 1540.
pious gentlemen, D. Caspar's [Güttel] and Wendelin's 3) testimony, from which E. A. to hear what M. Eisleben has worked against us and our doctrine at Eisleben so many years ago. And such everything backwards and maliciously, uuvermahliet and uriüber-.
3) Wendelin Faber, preacher at Seeburg. - This refers to the testimony that Faber sent to Caspar Güttel on 2V. April 1540 to Caspar Güttel. (Förstemann's "Neues Urkundenbuch", p. 332 ff., No. 20.).
*) This writing appeared in 1549 in a single edition, without indication of printer and place, under the title: "Ein Schrifft des Achtbarn und Ehrwirdigen Herren seliger gedechtnis, Doctoris Martini Lutheri, Wider den Eisleben, kurtz vor seinem end geschrieben, vormals aber nie im Druck außgangen"; then it is found in the Wittenberg edition, vol. XII, p. 236p; in the Jenaer (1568), vol. VII, p. 299p; in the Altenburger, vol. VII, p. 324; in the Leipziger, vol. XXI, p. 360, and in the Erlanger, vol. 32, p. 64. (The proofs which the Erlanger edition provides for the Wittenberg and Jenaer editions are incorrect. Seidemann-De Wette, vol. VI, 246, has reprinted them from the Erlangen edition.) Further, from Luther's own handwriting, in Förstemann's Neuem Urkundenbuche, vol. I, p, 321, and from it in De Wette, vol. VI, p. 246. We give the text according to Förstemann. In all complete editions of Luther's works, this writing is given the year 1539; however, it belongs to the year
In this he did not act as a pious man, let alone as a pious Christian or theologian. For before we knew it, he founded a sect against us and our doctrine, which is called Minor 1), and condemned and disgraced our doctrine, which is false and impure and not to be taught, together with us and our school in Wittenberg. Which also the count 2) complained against me, but at that time I could not believe that M. Eisleben, such a false man and lying mouth, should so despise his faithful friends and dear preceptors and blaspheme and disparage them until, alas! the faith came into my hands.
Now E. A. can easily notice what our most gracious Lord and our whole congregation would like to see, that our doctrine should be accused of being false, impure and not at all acceptable to teach (because with that we would be accused of being impure, false disciples), especially if M. Eisleben has done such a thing to us in the back and does not prove it under his own eyes, as he also cannot do. And what a disgrace that would be, if we should have presented and confessed a false, impure, unpleasant doctrine before the emperor and the whole empire, when our dear princes and lords have placed and dared to place their country and people, body and goods, as well as their souls, together with us, on this doctrine, so sure that we have so far praised it as the pure right divine doctrine, and also (as it is true) so in grace. And the impotent, wretched tit-head 3) alone blasphemes against it and makes it unclean.
1) Perhaps: Minorists. In the original "Minorist".
2) Albrecht von Mansfeld.
3) In the original: "Meyssenkopf"; in the Wittenberg and Jena editions: "Meiskopff". In the Erlangen edition, which supposedly gives the text "according to the Wittenberg edition": "Mäiskopf", reprinted from the old Walch scheu edition. This passage seems to us to prove what we have already expressed several times as a conjecture, that the Erlangen edition often uses the
He desecrates us in a treacherous and deceitful way before he warns us or admonishes us about it. In addition, he lets himself be dragged along to the imperial diets and to Vienna, 4) pretends to be on our side, preaches and teaches like us; nevertheless, in his heart and behind our backs he drives such enmity, reviles and disparages the theologians of Wittenberg as he is able to do to the highest degree, in writing and orally, as his letter (here) well testifies, and here in the city of his spitting has done much against us.
And summa, Eisleben is our enemy, and has reviled our doctrine, desecrated our theologians: this proves his sect, which he founded at Eisleben, and cannot deny it. For if he were with us and not against us, or if he did not condemn our doctrine, he would not have broken up our assembly nor created a sect against us, just as Amsdorf of Magdeburg and others did not create sects against us, nor condemn our doctrine or denigrate theologians, as Eisleben did.
About this, since he founded and poisoned his sect in Eisleben, he comes back to Wittenberg, and again behind me in a murderous way, intends to poison and turn away this school and church as well. Gives his postilion into print, behind the knowledge and will of the rector, against my most gracious lord's commandment that one should not print anything, the rector should see it beforehand,
Walch's text. - Förstemann remarks on the word: "probably more correctly: Mausekopf". Seckendorf, List. ImtL., Lid. Ill, p. 308 (9) offers: "mauskopff", "tsnedrio", i.e. a person who makes attacks in the dark. Seidemann, on the other hand, says: "I do think of carus and compare, e.g., nasmoria äs ßallo ü M-illo, nasrnoirs <ls Növrs."
4) Agricola was with Prince John at the imperial congresses at Sveher in 1526 and 1529, at Augsburg in 1530. Agricola made the trip to Wlen in November 1535 as a preacher to Prince John Frederick.
5) Förstemann: "It is probably the diminutive of Lorg." Seideinann: "Is Lecker and Schlecker."
1540. It is a letter from Luther to Chancellor Brück, prompted by Agricola's complaint against Luther to the Elector on March 31, 1540. The title is taken from the old editions. In determining the time, it has been completely overlooked until now that Luther refers in the last part of this writing to the declaration that Agricola gave to his complaint to the Elector, to the Commissars. This declaration is to be placed before June 8. On this day, the theologians consulted by the Commissars say (Förstemann, l. c. p. 3361, at the end): "But as far as his present declaration is concerned". In contrast, "Luther's Report" is already in the hands of the Elector on June 15, 1540 (Förstemann, 1, o. p. 339a, No. 231. Förstemann and Seidemann erroneously place our writing in April 1540; in Kawerau, 'Agricola, p. 204 f., and Köstlin, Martin Luther, Vol. I I, 471 f., a certain time determination cannot be clearly recognized, but it seems that they also place our writing in April 1540.
lind leuget dem godmen Hansen Lufft seine Postill in den Druck unter meinem Namen, als habe ich's überlesen und gefallen mir. And if I had not found out out of God's fate, Hans Lufft (who also still embroiders 1) such print half in the damage) should have come together with me against my most gracious Lord in all Nurgnade. For with such a postilion Eisleben wanted to lay the first stone against our doctrine and us, that our doctrine must be unjust and impure, so that he alone might be praised as the master of pure doctrine. And finally, the foolish man has been too concerned about his honor, that the Wittenbergers would be nothing and Eisleben everything; just as his best friends confess that he has always had it in his mouth to say to Eisleben: It is humanus this; and has always hurt him, what one has said good things in Wittenberg, also let himself be heard here: Ego perrumpem.
In short, nothing distorts me so much as that he has let us be friends, 2) laughed with us, eaten with us, and so dishonestly, treacherously concealed his enmity against us: for if there were a good drop 3) in him, he should have come to light and confronted us, as we did to the pope and emperor at Augsburg, he would probably have received an answer. But he wanted honor, and wanted to find it deceitfully and treacherously; therefore, he is now doing what he deserves.
About this I wanted to serve him by settling this matter theologically, or (as it is called) doctrinaliter, so that it would not have to be judicialiter 4) judged, and against this publicly disputirt and written. For he does not think what an unpleasant thing this would be to my most gracious lord, if it were to be judicially conducted, that M. Eisleben should be 5) my most gracious lord's theologian.
1) In the original: according to.
2) For this, compare Luther's Tischreden, Cap. 37, § 33, paragraph 2. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 1028.
3) In the original: "drip". ,
4) In Förstemann: "judicaliter".
5) "Should" is missing in Walch's old edition. This variant is not given in Förstemann. The listing of Walch's variants in Förstemann is generally very cursory and inaccurate. Without having looked for them particularly carefully, we have in this writing twenty-three such omissions of Va
The author of this book, who is a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, is a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor, and a member of the Church of the Holy Roman Emperor.
This is the thorough report of the matter, and the right principal article, from which my most gracious lord will well know to deal with M. Eisleben, that he either proves or makes true again with good reason his blasphemy against both our doctrine and theologians; if not, that he then publicly punishes his blasphemous tongue and writing, or his lying mouth, and restores to both our doctrine and theologians their honor, which he has maliciously and shamefully stolen and taken; 6) to atone for the trouble and damage he has caused in Jsleben and everywhere else, so that his blasphemy and division of our congregation may be restored, and so that hearts may again be brought into one mind and harmony, which he has turned away from us and against us with his venom and incited.
Now to his complaint.
He complains that I have interpreted to him that 7) he does not want to suffer the law and give leave to sin freely, to abolish Christ and the Holy Spirit, and to do no repentance, 2c.
So that's what I'm responding to:
Since M. Eisleben wanted to sue me, he should cheap with good evidence or probation
rianten, which are mostly also variants of the old editions. On the other hand, Förstemann has a whole number of useless notes by noting each time Walch has added the verse number to a chapter given in the text, while every theologian knows or should know that in Luther's time the verse divisions were not found in the Bibles, at least not in the New Testament.
6) Förstemann: "Hussen".
7) This refers to Agricola's letter, which he sent on March 31, 1540 to the Elector, who was then in Schmalkalden. It is found in Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbnch, p. 317 ff. The date there "March 1" is a printing error instead of: March 31.
I have written before, and do not count so badly what I have written or done against him. For I still confess now and forever that I have written so and so against him, and I am sorry that I have done it so kindly and cleanly. I will also, if God wills, do it differently after this interrogation, and do him his right. That he wrote a Kakismum or Geckismum 1) and many other things, and also preached them, I knew well (I wish he would have left it alone and preached Marcolfum or Ulenspiegel instead), but that it should be proven that I did him wrong, that I would like to see proven; for he is a sharp dialectician, he will perhaps know how to teach me such a consequence. I cannot understand them. This is how his scroll students wrote: I mean, the Wittenbergers have got a man at 21 Eisleben who will teach them the Theologia and Dialectica properly. Therefore, I would like to hear such new Dialectica. He whistles, and prove them well.
My Dialectica teaches thus: If one is accused of a thing and is convinced (as Eisleben is convinced in 21, that he forbids the law, that our teaching is impure and false, that we theologians are also false, impure teachers, even though they have been accused of it), and against this, he imposes the contradiction, he does not thereby prove that he has been wronged. Rather, where he proves something, he proves so much that he is either a mad fool who hits himself in the cheeks, or a two-faced traitor and Judas; just as the devil and all red spirits are also almost all liars, that 21 Eisleben, where he looked so deeply into the books, as perhaps into the beer cans, would probably have read or seen such things. Is the excellent man, who is to teach the Wittenbergers dialecticam and theoIogiam, so unlearned and coarse that he does not know how sheep's clothing can never turn the ravening wolves into sheep, and Judas' kiss cannot turn his treacherousness into a good work of love, whether he might have given the Lord the
1) These expressions are mockingly used by Luther from Agricola's "Catechism". Kakismus (<cax6k) - bad machwerk; Geckismus (Geck) - silly stuff. Cf. De Wette, vol. I, p. 342: Okooius IIoNurEk katuuna kiMiüeut.
Licks mouth, kisses, hugs and speaks dear rabbi (Matth. 26, 49.). M. Eisleben looks at himself, how he has acted against me, lets me trust an old, faithful friend and believe that he is of our part, works with us in the Gospel and gathers with us, kisses and caresses me in the most exquisite way in front, behind he is our enemy, breaks our work, scatters our gathering, and now boasts about the contradiction in his complaint, as if he had done right and I had done wrong, since I had touched his two-tongued malice.
Is it therefore still my request that he prove or make true his complaint against me, or do what he owes 2c.
Secondly, I answer that the pieces he complains about me are not laid on him by me. He himself is guilty of them, and they come from his own neck. For he has set the antecedent (which he still confesses in the complaint and bases on it): Lex non est docenda; or, as he now wants to clean it up: Law is a dangerous sermon ut ministratio mortis. From this antecedente follows that I have written: He who forbids to teach the law cannot teach of sin, and people must live freely, safely, without knowledge of sins. And this consequence is not mine, but St. Paul's to Romans [4, 15.]: Ubi non est lex, nec praevaricatio; Sine lege peccatum mortuum est; Ubi venit lex, revixit peccatum. Item 1 Cor. 15, 56: Virtus peccati lex etc.. For lex et peccatum are corre- lativa, ponunt et tollunt se mutuo etc.. Therefore M. Grickel should not sue and punish me Luther, but St. Paulum (as he does herewith in effectu and re ipsa). He may take issue with the latter, who will show him whether he may overturn or resist such a consequence with his gekismo 2) or Judas kiss.
Further follows from the same antecedent M. Grickels: Where sin is not taught nor preached, people cannot know what sin is. Therefore they cannot desire forgiveness and grace.
2) This word is written here differently from the previous "geckismum", in the original: "gekhsmo", probably intentionally, to allude to the cry of the jackdaws, "geken" or "gäken".
and then grace is of no use. For grace must win and prevail in us against the law and sin, so that we do not despair. Such a consequence is also not mine, but St. Paul's, 1 Cor. 15, 57: DEO gratia, who gives us the victory per JEsum Christum, scilicet contra legem et peccatum et mortem, as the text stands there mightily v. 56: Stimulus mortis peccatum, virtus peccati lex etc.. And Christ [Matth. 9, 13.]: "I am not come to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners." Luc. 4,18. Matth. 11, 5.: Pauperibus misit me evangelisari.
Further, where grace is nothing nor does Christ nothing; item, no God, no repentance, no prayer, no good work 2c., and as my booklet and I still say: The most harmful teaching on earth is such M. Grickel's Antinomia. All such consequences are not mine, but of the Holy Spirit himself, and M. Isleben will not be able to deny them, because he himself sets the antecedent that one should not teach sin or law: And does not help him his jugglery de lege post vel cum evan- gelio, as hereafter. For, as I said, Judas' kiss does not make his traitorousness pious.
In fact, it can be seen in M. Jsleben's life that he teaches such antinomia, and the tree can be known by its fruits. He lives freely and securely as if he had neither law nor sin. First, he blasphemes and condemns our doctrine as impure and false (that is, the Holy Spirit himself in his holy law), reviles and disparages us Wittenbergers wherever he can in the most shameful way, and does all this deceitfully and maliciously, when we have done him no harm but all good, as he cannot say or prove otherwise. He is a good friend to me, his best friend and father, and makes me think he is our good friend. He does not warn me, but works behind us to turn people away from our doctrine and to hang them on himself, as a desperate, murderous knave; practices such ingratitude, pride and haughtiness against us, as I do not encounter much. In such abominable sins, therefore, he walks securely and defiantly, accuses us even without warning, does what he wills against us, as if he could not sin, or were not a law, of which he is a
conscience. Magister Jsleben would make such Christians for us, as his mob is also like-minded and lives against us and our teachings.
But that I come to the end, so I assume that it 1) is called: the principal article.
He still speaks unashamedly in the lament: The law without the gospel is preached yearly; for it is a ministerium mortis. Haec ille. See what the great fool does. God gave his law for this very reason, that it should bite, cut, slash, slaughter and sacrifice the old man. For it should frighten and punish the trusting, unwise, secure old Adam and show him his sin and death, so that he, humiliated, despairs of himself and thus becomes eager for grace, as St. Paul says: Virtus peccati lex, stimulus mortis peccatum est [1 Cor. 15, 56]. Therefore he calls it bonam, justam, sanctam. Item Jeremiah [23, 29.], "My word is like a hammer that shatters the rocks." Item: Ego ignis consumens etc.. Ps. 9, 21.: Constitue legislatorem super eos, ut sciant gentes, se esse homines, non deos, nec Deo similes. So does St. Paul, Rom. 1. et 2. et 3. makes all the world sinners through the law, casts them under God's wrath, and even strikes them dead before God. So here our dear M. Grickel goes on, and invents a new theology of his own from his mad, foolish head, and teaches that one should not kill, punish or slaughter people, that is, one should not preach the 2) law. Here he publicly confesses himself
1) In the original "it", and Förstemann remarks: ",it* is clearly written"; in the original print and in all editions: "das er heißt den" etc. etc.. The latter seems to us to be the correct reading; we consider "it" to be a spelling mistake. What is meant is the declaration of läkelnratiol, which Agricola had handed over to the commissars appointed by the Elector on his complaint written on March 31. It is inscribed: "Principal article of trade, Eisleben's doctrine belsangend^." The words cited here by Luther are right in the beginning of this writing. "Luther's Report", that is, our present writing, is of course later. This statement is to be placed shortly before June 8, 1540. It is found in Förstemann's "Neuem Urkundenbuche", p. 337 with the time determination: "about June 8, 1540" and with the erroneous heading: "Des M. Johann Agricola Vertheidigung seiner Lehre vom Gesetz gegen D. Luther." Compare the introduction.
2) In the original: des.
in the complaint that he had condemned and forbidden the preaching of the law. This is the reason why I wrote against him. For here he straightforwardly confesses the antecedents of what was said above, and yet he wants to complain and murmur against the consequence in my booklet. So his complaint is my excuse, my booklet's confirmation, and his own condemnation. For even we, who have now been made holy by grace, still live in a sinful body, and must allow ourselves to be punished, terrified, killed and sacrificed by the law for the sake of such remaining sin, even into the pit. That therefore the law in this life, before and after and forever, must be lex occidens, damnans, accusans, as St. Paul and our books teach so abundantly, if the proud fool could have humbled himself and read the same. For lex non occidens non est lex nisi velata, as Moses dicke 1) testifies. This is the hypocrite's false mind in the law.
Because the angry little devil, so Master Grickel rides, does not want to suffer legem, that is, mortificationem irascentem, accusantem, terrentem, occidentem legem, so it is easy to notice what he has in mind to cause by M. Grickels foolishness, since he nevertheless wants to be praised that he teaches post vel sub evangelio legem, as, thou shalt not kill, steal 2c., 2) as the Turk, Jews, philosophers, and papists teach, and regard nature as healthy, and M. Grickel does not see this, that his little spirit wants to go out there, with boasting and thumping, that he also preaches the law. Yes, if we were Adam in paradise before the fall, then the law would probably be
1) d. i. often.
2) Luther wrote the sentence: 8ie ejus Iota Postilla aZit and immediately following the word plülosoxlü in the margin.
be taught rightly. But because Eisleben does not want the law to be taught ad occidendum, damnandum, accusandum, his little spirit seeks that the former and original sin should be left unpunished. Thus Christ and God are all in vain and lost.
And is this not blindness upon blindness, that he will not preach the law without and before the gospel? These are impossibilia. How is it possible to preach forgiveness of sins, if there are no sins first? How is it possible to preach life, if there is not death first? Or shall we preach to the angels of the forgiveness of sins, and salvation from death, which have neither sin nor death before? But how can we preach of sins, or know that sin is before, where it does not manifest the law? For the gospel, according to its proper function, does not say who and what sin is, but indicates that there must be great harm, that such a great remedy belongs to it, but does not say what sin is called, or what it is. The law must do this. Thus M. Eisleben re ipsa must leave the law before the Gospel to do its office, as occidere etc., as he almost denies it with words, only to the annoyance of the Wittenbergers, so that he, novus autor, also makes one of his own, and misleads the people, and separates the churches.
But there he seals his art finely, that he says: Gospel reveals wrath; how is the foolish so completely gone astray, does not understand what lex or evangelion, neque usum neque vim eorum; and sets up such clutter and secten on his foolishness and jugglery: The law shall not wrath nor kill: but the gospel shall wrath and kill; all for this reason, that he may not teach alike with the Wittenbergers: evangelium reveals grace, and lex wrath; that must M. Grickel must reverse this. So M. Grickel's complaint against me stands as he deserves.
3) In the original: "one".