This writing has its occasion in Luther's thirteenth thesis for the Leipzig disputation (see St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 721). The heresiarch Jakob Hoogstraten, prior of the Dominicans, professor in Cologne, had described it in a dedicatory letter to his Destructio Cabalae seu Cabalisticae perfidiae etc. to Pope Leo X, dated April 7, 1519, as pernicious to the church; if it were true, no one could clear the popes of the accusation that they were heretics, and for this reason he called on the pope to execute a bloody judgment against Luther. Luther responds to this in a short, sharp manner with this document, which Luther probably made known (in poster form) before the conclusion of the Leipzig disputation. - Already Walch, both in his introduction to the eighteenth volume, p. 59 a, and in the preface to the twenty-first, § XVII, II §. E., pointed out that this document belonged to the year 1519, but has nevertheless (as well as all other editions) placed it here in the year 1518. Among the newer ones, first Köstlin, M. Luther, Vol. I, p. 151, has declared with all certainty that the writing, despite the wrong year in all editions up to his time, belongs to the year 1519. The first and only edition of Luther's works with a correct date is the Weimar edition (Vol. II, p. 384).
A single print of this note is not known. The first impression we have is in the Wittenberg edition (1545), tom. I, fol. CXCVb, also in the 1550 edition, with the caption: Martinus Lutherus pio lectori; in the Jena (1579), tom, I, koi. 116; in the Erlangen, opp. var. arg., tom. II, p. 294 sqq; in the
Weimarschen, vol. II, p. 384 and in Löscher, Ref.-Acta, vol. II, p. 323. Translated into German in the German Wittenberger (1569), vol. IX, p. 25; in the Jenaer (1564), vol. I, p. 61; in the Altenburger, vol. I, p. 70; in the Leipziger, vol. XVII, p. 140 and in Walch, vol. XXI, 118''. - The old translation is good.
God has awakened for me another, and from an old vain new enemy, namely the dear, and with leave to speak, venerable father, M. Jakob Hochstrecken, whom everyone commonly, and rightly, calls heretic. The same, since he punishes my thirteenth proposition in the preface of his useless drivel, which he calls a protective speech, he speaks thus: If this proposition is true, then the Roman bishops must be heretics.
After that he admonishes (as one who thirsts for the destruction and blood of the brethren) with a bloodthirsty tongue the pious, kind Pope Leonem X, that he should not rise against the heretics with a gentle and Christian, but with a lionish and tenfold mind. Such filth is worthy of all.
that he will denounce the heretics (pious Christians), admonish pope and bishops to shed innocent blood, that he will turn bishops, who are human, into unreasonable, even cruel beasts, and Christians into heretics. This is the way of this new heretic master to plague the Christians.
But pay attention to him, as to the one who spent and lost all his days in dialectics, how many fine apostolic arguments he teaches us in the same book, called "Schutzrede" 1), from which you can understand how excellently he is practiced and experienced in dialectics. This is one of its consequences: This is against Scripture, therefore it is heretical.
(4) Thanks be to you, dear High Priest, we will conclude according to your wisdom: David's adultery is against the Scriptures, even against the Ten Commandments, therefore his adultery is heretical. In short, every sin, however small, is against the Scriptures. Therefore, according to Hochstraten's church, the whole world is heretical; even the church itself, because it is not without sin, is a heretic. And because we are all wicked and sinners, which is contrary to Scripture, it follows that we are all heretics, except for Hochstraten, who is not like other people, that he may make all heretics, so that the service of his heresiarchy, that is, his honor and profit, may only extend far.
Who is a heretic, if you, Hochstraten, are not a heretic, who, after your wonderful, outrageous Dialectica, set a good beginning 2) and yet conclude from it a heretical conclusion, namely, that the church is heretical. [I] therefore say that the sun has never seen a poisonous nor impudent heretic, except Jakob Hochstraten. Therefore, rise up, O Leo X, most gracious shepherd and father, and seek after this heretical master by other heretical masters. Now you see with what opinion they are pursuing the heretics, namely, that they also want to make you, together with the whole church, a heretic.
1) Thus (Apologia) Luther calls the above-mentioned book, because he presumably only received a detailed note about it during the Leipzig disputation (Weim. edition). This designation caused the editors to place our writing in the year 1518, because this was considered to be Hoogstraten's Apology against Reuchlin.
2) praemissas == antecedent clauses.
(6) Hear, then, thou wretched high priest, who knowest not, nor understandest, what is neither for nor against the Scriptures, and therefore art a heresiarch with the highest shame and dishonor of the church; hear, I say, I will teach thee 3) a rule of St. Thomas, of whom thou hast thought much and great, which is thus: If a word, when it has more than one interpretation, be not distinguished, mixture and confusion follow therefrom.
(7) It is true in the first place that heresy is contrary to the Scriptures, and that every error and sin, even daily, and even a useless word, is contrary to the Scriptures; and more, that sin also (which no man, however holy, can avoid or avoid) is contrary to the Scriptures, concerning which St. Paul himself complains in Romans 7:23. Paul himself laments Rom. 7, 23, when he says: "I see another law in my members, which is contrary to the law in my mind, and takes me captive to the law of sin" etc.
8 Therefore, if the notaries of the popes, or they themselves, set anything, or from human infirmities interpret the Scriptures wrongly, they act contrary to the Scriptures, but are not heretics for that reason, because only after the manner in which you would like all men to be heretics, and you are sorry that you are not allowed to satisfy yourself with the murder and blood of Christians.
(9) But I must confess that an error, however great it may be, cannot be called or be heretical unless it is stubbornly held to be right and defended. Both of which the Roman bishop has expressed so far, so that he is found neither defiled nor contaminated with great nor small error, which he defends stubbornly.
Therefore go, thou foolish, bloodthirsty murderer, who cannot be satisfied with the blood of the Christian brethren, investigate and search for horseflies (not pious Christians) in their dung, until you learn what sin, error, heresy (and what more belongs to the art of a heresiarch) is. For I have seen no grosser ass than you, regardless of the fact that you have spent as many years as you boast in
3) In Latin it is added: "which is an antepraedicamentum, namely, the explanation of ambiguous things, and"
of the Dialectica. What wonder then that you condemn the most Christian articles of pious, godly men as unjust and heresy, because you do not know what is contrary to Scripture, and consequently, understand much less what is heretical and to be condemned.
(11) And I am very glad and pleased that I am condemned as a heretic by you, such a blind and obstinate head. It is also my earnest desire that you would not proclaim me a Christian or a believer, lest others think that you have lied or spoken such things out of blindness; but that you would proclaim me a heretic for and on my behalf; for there will be some who will defend me, and say, "Highly condemned, like a blind man of color.
12. let this be said to you, bloodhound and enemy of the truth; and if your raging fury should persist in you, that you would do something against me, see that you act thoughtfully and take your time (I will have reminded you of this). God knows what I intend to do if I live; my hope and confidence shall not fail me, if God wills it. I wanted to prove publicly before all the world and make it true that in four hundred years there has not been a more harmful, more poisonous heretic than Jakob Hochstraten. Farewell, dear Christian reader. On the thirteenth of July, Anno 1518 (1519). 1)
III Duke Carl of Münsterberg's letter to Luther concerning the reception of Holy Communion in both forms. June 29, Anno 1522.
This document has already been published in this volume Col. 431
communicated.
IV. Prince Frederick of Saxony's reply to King Louis of Hungary and Bohemia concerning Luther. Anno 1523.
Printed in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p.174d; in the Jena edition (1585), vol. II, p. 245b; in the Altenburg edition, vol. II, p. 342; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XVIII, p. 479 and in Walch, vol. XXI, 126*.
1) Probably the original print had: M.D.XVIIII (Weim. Ausg.).
Sublime King!
Our kind, willing services, and what we are able to love and do good, before.
1st Special dear Lord and uncle! Some weeks ago, we received a letter from E. K. Dignity, in which they indicate to us that it is not known to us what cruel error and heresy M. Luther has introduced, contrary to the holy Christian faith and the praiseworthy order of Christian churches. That your Luther also promises all Christian kings and princes shamefully and frivolously, and raises the Turk; with an attached request that we no longer tolerate such error, sedition and dishonor against God, the holy Christian faith and all of Christendom, because the monk relies on us, but take him into punishment, and regard all of Christendom more than such a monk,
2. we have heard all the contents; and, as E. L. indicate, as if the monk should rely on us, we do not want E. L. to conceal that such was imposed on us by our favored ones, and E. K. would undoubtedly move the same against us. K. would undoubtedly therefore indicate to move the same against us. Therefore, we kindly ask that E. K. would not believe such things of us, but would report to us those who are relying on us against E. L. with such an unfathomable imposition, as if M. Luther, in that he is introducing cruel errors and heresy, against the holy Christian faith and the praiseworthy order of Christian churches, also now promises all Christian kings and princes shamefully and recklessly, and raises the Turk.
3. with God's help, we want to be heard against His dignity and men, that in this our innocence, and that this alone is to be attributed to us by our detractors and repugnants, is to be noted. For if God wills, E. L. and men shall not find or learn anything else than that our will, mind and opinion have always been thus, and by the bestowal of divine help shall not be otherwise than to keep us obedient as a Christian man to the holy Christian church, and that, if God wills, it shall not be imposed upon us with constancy that Luther, in that which is contrary to God, the holy Christian faith, and in the pieces as indicated in E. K.'s Dignity Scripture, shall not be imposed upon us. K. Dignity Scripture, should rely on us.
4. for the special glory of writing what may serve to strengthen God's honor, service and word, also the holy Christian faith promotion and the love of the neighbor, shall be written out of
Erl. 29, 75-77.
Nachlese, No. IV. V.
W. XXI, 127*-130*.
We are faithful to the bestowal of divine graces, as much as is in us, therefore we also ask God Almighty.
5 We did not want to restrain E. L. from all this in his friendly opinion, and we are also willing to kindly earn it for the sake of E. K.'s dignity as our lord and uncle. Anno Domini MDXXIII.
V. D. M. Luther's writing against the blind and foolish condemnation of the seventeen articles, emanating from the wretched and shameful university at Ingolstadt. Anno 1524.
M. Arsacius Seehofer had presented the Lutheran doctrine in writings. The professors of Ingolstadt extracted 17 articles from them, condemned them, forced him to recant and imprisoned him in a monastery, from which he escaped to Wittenberg. In this writing, Luther now illuminates and justifies these articles.
In 1524, several individual editions of this work appeared in Wittenberg under the above title. In the collections: in the Wittenberg (1554), vol. VII, p. 413; in the Jena (1585), vol. II, p. 421; in the Altenburg, vol. II, p. 771; in the Leipzig, vol. XVIII, p. 528; in Walch, vol. XXI, 128* and in the Erlangen, vol. 29, p. 75.
Martin Luther, to all dear Christians grace and peace in Christ.
1. under the name of the wretched university of Ingolstadt in Bavaria a note with 17 Christian articles has gone out, condemned by them, and by their murderous outrage and coercion revoked by M. Arsacin's Seehofer. Now, their reason and proof is so exceedingly foolish and clumsy that I, along with some other reasonable people, did not think otherwise that such a note would have been invented by their enemy to mock and disgrace them. But since they have been silent about it for so long, and I am also certain from elsewhere that they have condemned such articles and forced them to recant, I must believe and confess that where there is such palpable blindness that they condemn these main articles of the Christian faith, there must certainly also be such art and understanding that cannot show much more lamentable and skillful reason and proof.
For this reason, I want to let the same notes go out again, and spread such Ingolstadt art and virtue,
in honor of the holy Word of God, so that the weak may be comforted and strengthened, when they see here so apparently God's miraculous work, who, in turn, to exalt and praise His holy Word, punishes and plagues His blasphemers and enemies with such great blindness. And please, let every Christian be commanded to read these Ingolstadt Notes, as one of the best little books, which serves well for the advancement of God's honor, and is worth keeping for our descendants, so that they may know what desperate boys' schools have been in our times, and how wantonly the wretched devil has ruled in Christendom through such wretched heads in the high schools.
(3) But with this I will not give cause to the reckless people who boast of being evangelical and yet are not, nor will I strengthen their blasphemous presumption and insolence. For although it is true that God allows such punishment and miserable blindness to pass over His enemies, to comfort the weak and to frighten the enemies of the gospel, yet His marvelous judgment and work is to be feared, lest perhaps it also apply to us, who pride ourselves on the gospel, as if we were it ourselves, without all fear and humility, and in fact remain far behind. He also afflicted the Philistines in time past, that they should bring home his ark with all shame; nevertheless he smote fifty and seventy men at Bethshemesh, that they might see the ark; perhaps that they might think themselves worthy, and be proud of the Philistines' shame [1 Sam. 6:3 ff].
4 I am struck by such a work of God, as if he wanted to remind us of our laziness and slothfulness, and admonish us to pray more diligently and to do so more earnestly. For it is certain that the devil, as a highly understanding spirit, could have better prepared such notes and painted them a different color. Therefore, he must either have been specially prevented by God, or, I am afraid, out of superfluous leisure and wanton malice, he mocked our laziness, and thought: What may I use great art and wit against the lazy, indolent Christians? They do not hurt me with prayers; so they attack it even with words. I
Erl. 29, 77-80,
gleanings, No.V.
W. XXI, 130*-133*.
Meanwhile, I want to slur through these sows with good calm and mock them; I must not be serious about it; I can still make and revoke what I want, even if I am only joking and insulting. Such I have great concern, he carries in his mind, and is almost the same thing similar.
5 Therefore let us accept the warning and admonition of God. For we see daily much of the recantation, and few there be that stand. Thus we have ever such a shameful and disgraceful name before the world, as certainly no one has had in a thousand years. Which one can be called Lutheran or evangelical, they think they have called him more than ten times devilish; he must be worth more than one hell. Now it is a great shame and torment, about which all the prophets, and especially David in the Psalter, so often complain and cry out, that we have only great cause enough to pray diligently and to resist the devil with earnestness, whom we see in this, how he drives his monkey game out of men, among whom there are still some who are to come here through our prayers and teachings, and become our brothers; Therefore we owe it to ourselves to take care of them, and to pray and fight for them against the devil, their mocker, with all our strength. May Christ help us, amen.
The 17 articles have been drawn by the venerable and highly respected gentlemen, Nicolaus Appellas, Leonhardus Marstaller, of the Holy Scriptures, Franciscus Burckhard von Burckhardis, Georgius Hauer, of the Right, Wolfgangus Peysser, Peter Burckhardt, Panthaleon Brunner, of Medicine, Antoni Braun and Johannes Schrötinger, teachers of the liberal arts, Rector, Council and Ordinaries of the Christian University of Ingolstadt, with fervent, earnest diligence, drew from books of a young Master, Arsacii Seehofer of Munich, and condemned them for heresy, for the following reasons, forced the named Master Arsacii into prison, and finally induced him to renounce and recant them; which he did publicly on the evening of the Nativity of Our Lady (in front of all the accused members of the university), and afterward entered a monastery for penance in the 1523rd year. year.
Arsacius.
1. mere faith alone is sufficient for a man to be justified.
Ingolstadt.
This article, as it reads in words, is true, and St. Paul says it Rom. 3, 28. and 5, 1. and is thus proven: The man who is to be justified is now and unjust; for if he were just, he would not need to be. If he is unrighteous and in sins, he lacks the grace of God. If he does not have grace, his works are not pleasing to God or deserving of eternal salvation. For God is not pleased with man's works, but man pleases Him first. As we have Genesis 4:5: that God considered Abel and his gifts; first Abel, then his gifts. Now if the human effect is to please God, man must first please Him; for works do not make a man good, but a good man makes and does good works. Further, if man is to please and be accepted by God, who is righteous, it must be out of God's goodness and mercy. This is called grace, after which come good works.
Although the reported article is true, it is not only to be held against the simple-minded, but also against the reckless, the indolent and the ungodly (of whom there are many, unfortunately), because he does not think about it in a narrative way, but as soon as he hears it, he says: "Yes, I have a good faith, and I trust God well. If then I would be justified by faith alone, and the just lives by faith, as Paul Rom. 1,17. and Habakuk Cap. 2, 4. say, then I attain eternal life by faith alone; ei, what need do I have to keep God's commandments? For what shall I fast, pray, do alms and other good works; I will keep the faith, and forsake all laborious works, and trust God well; he hath not made heaven for geese 1). And so all the sound doctrine of Christ and the apostles, which teach us to do good, and to flee from evil, are destroyed and mocked. Therefore it is revoked.
Luther.
They themselves confess this article to be true, and prove it from St. Paul and Habakkuk, and yet they want it to be kept silent for the sake of annoying the wicked. Is this not a pitiful blindness, to confess that it is true, and yet to condemn it for heresy? and this for no reason, except that the wicked are offended by it. Thou tender, precious truth, must thou now be called a lie for the sake of wicked men.
1) Marginal gloss: hell not even to the Knckuk.
That means to cut off John's head because of the whore Herodias [Matth. 14, 8]. For so Herod might also say, though John be holy, yet shall he die justly, because the whore Herodias is wroth with him. If, for the sake of the wicked, the truth is called heresy, it must also be said to be heresy that Christ is God and man; for Jews and Gentiles are offended at it. If they had so much brains as to say that the pious were vexed, it would be a better semblance. But they knew well that the pagans did not take offense at it. Therefore, let all the world hear the art of these high schools: divine truth is heresy, if the wicked take offense at it. Fie on the high school!
Yes, they say, it should not be said in such a bare way. Dear, is it true, why did Christ and Paul say it so plainly? Or do you poor people think that it is possible that faith alone makes right, and faith does good works? One must be said before, the other after. Shall the former be called heresy, merely because it is spoken at another time than the latter? Well then, in this article Paul and Christ and Moses are confessed and denied at the same time by the Ingolstadters, at the same time truthfully and heretically scolded, at the same time condemned and praised. Thus the enemies of God and blasphemers shall fall. Nor do they keep their own speech. They say in the preface: these articles are all heretical; and yet they prove no more than that this is annoying to the wicked.
Arsacius.
2. the righteousness of God is that which God respects, esteems, or takes in us, without any consideration of our works.
Ingolstadt.
We understand this article to mean that God's justice is such that it remains undiminished, whether he does to man what he thinks he deserves. And that God also acts badly according to his will and pleasure (that is what he calls his justice) with man, so that man does whatever he wants, good or bad, wrong or right. The first mind would be good; but the other is against the gospel, because the Lord will put the unmerciful on the left hand, among the goats, and say, "Go, you cursed, into the eternal fire" [Matt. 25:41].
Luther.
Behold, the scholars should be taken to school cheaply and taught grammatica. Do they not understand the words in the article? For the righteousness of God, as this article speaks of, is that in order that God may endow us and make us righteous, as St. Paul says Rom. 1:17: "The righteousness of God is revealed in the Gospel, that it comes from faith; as it is written, the righteous lives by faith." Thus they interpret it to righteousness, since God is called by righteous, and punishes sinners. That should be theologians to me! For this purpose they give him two minds and condemn him, even though one of them pleases them.
From this one may notice that they never interrogated M. Arsacium, but by force deceitfully and treacherously condemned him. Otherwise he would have told them this opinion without any doubt. But why do they not also accept this article, for the sake of good sense? since in their scholasticism and Aristotelianism no thing is so evil that they do not praise it, where they may only give it good sense, whether they would have to fetch it to Calekut. Jacks are it in the skin inside.
Arsacius.
By no good or meritorious works may man attain leash justification.
Ingolstadt.
This article is contrary to the Scriptures, because in the book of the effect of the twelve messengers at the 10th Capit. [Apost. 10, 2. 31.] it says: how the pagan Cornelius, through alms and prayer, which he did in his pagan state, obtained that the true faith was revealed and proclaimed to him by St. Peter. And although it is true that the virtuous works of a mortal sinner are not meritorious in themselves, or that the sinner may attain righteousness, yet the goodness and mercy of God accepts them as better and more worthy than they are themselves, and for their sake does to man what he would not otherwise have done to him if he had not performed them.
Luther.
This is not true that Cornelius did good works in the pagan staude; but he was a proselyte, and had the right Jews faith from future Christ [Apost. 10, 2. 22.],
Erl. 29, 82-84.
gleanings, No.V.
W. XXI, 136*-138*.
which faith then did good, and so came to the revelation of the Lord Christ, as now appeared, and to freedom from the law of Moses. "For without faith it is impossible to please God" [Hebr. 11, 6]. Neither is it true that God accepts the good works of a mortal sinner as better, for they are of grace. And here they speak against themselves. For in the first article they confess: The works may not please God, but man pleases Him before. "Whatever happens apart from faith is sin," Rom. 14:23.
Arsacius.
God alone makes us righteous by pouring out His Holy Spirit on us, without any works on our part.
Ingolstadt.
This article is clear enough from the explanation of the first article, although it also needs a good large interpretation. For St. Augustine says: "He who created you without your doing will not justify you or make you happy without your doing.
Luther.
Yes, of course, I must be there if I am to be blessed. God did not let me be born without me. But what did I do for it? And if St. Augustine wanted the Ingolstadt donkey opinion hut, should he therefore be placed above St. Paul? of which this article is, Rom. 3:28. "We hold that a man is justified by faith without works."
Arsacius.
5. we should not have any hope or confidence at all.
We must set our sights on our good works.
Ingolstadt.
This article seems to have a basis in the words of Christ [Luc. 17:10], when he says, "If ye do all things that are commanded you, yet say, We are unprofitable servants." However, he frightens the fainthearted; therefore they should be taught more according to the counsel of the wise man, who says, "All that your hand is able to do that is good, do it without ceasing" [Sir. 35:12]. 1) Item, John in the book of the secret revelation [Cap. 14, 13.]: "Their works will be done to them after
1) Here the Erlangen edition has reprinted from Walch: "Pred. c. 14", although the preacher Sal. has only 12 chapters.
follow." Item, the Lord in the Gospel [Matth. 20, 8.]: "Call the workers and give them their daily wages." For even though we should not be discouraged, presumptuous, or exalted in our works, for they are in themselves indifferent and frail, they are nevertheless rewarded out of divine mercy, as stated above.
Luther.
Behold, they do not understand the article either; but that you see how they have dealt with poor Arsacio so treacherously and maliciously that they either have not interrogated him or have not let him speak, as they almost confess themselves in the preface. Do you hear it, you coarse asses at Ingolstadt? Put the glasses on your noses, or digest before the good Draminder. 2) Doing works and trusting in works are two different things. The article says "trusting in works"; thus you prove that good works are to be done. When did Mr. Arsacius deny this? Or who does not say that? You are to prove that good works are not to be trusted in; so you speak otherwise, as the drunken answer in their sleep.
It is impossible for faith to be without good fruits or works.
Ingolstadt.
This article is against the gospel and St. Paul. For the Lord saith [Luc. 12:47], "The servant that knoweth his master's will, and doeth it not, shall be smitten sore." To know the Lord and his will is to believe; but not to do it is to lack works; therefore faith without works is found. Item [Matth. 7, 22.]: "Many shall say at the last day, Lord, Lord, we have done great wondrous works in thy name." They have had faith in Christ, but they lack good works; therefore he will say to them, "Depart from me, ye workers of wickedness; I know not your doings" [Matth. 7, 23.] Paul, in many places of his epistles, separates works and faith from each other.
Luther.
Yes, the faith of the servant who does not do the will of the Lord is a faith like the faith of the servant who does not do the will of the Lord.
2) "Draminder" seems to be one of its wine varieties.
Ingolstadt Theology 1) Theology is. The article talks about the uncolored right faith, as Paul calls it; knows well that also an invented faith is. And that is a knavery and mischief, that these sophists interpret the article where they want to, and have not let Arsacium hear or speak about it. If this is supposed to be valid, to pervert and interpret the words, then such highly learned people would also like to say that God is called a devil, since it is written: "God created the heavens and the earth" [Gen. 1,1].
Arsacius.
(7) If the Scripture says that good works are rewarded, or that wages are given for good works, it is to be understood that we are saved by faith.
Ingolstadt.
This article is freely and wantonly spoken without any reason of the Scriptures, therefore it is to be rejected, as the master himself renounces 2) in the following 9th article. About this he is also against the Gospel and other Scriptures, as reported in the 5th article, which clearly indicate that God gives reward according to works and not faith; otherwise he would also have to reward the devil, because they also believe, 3) as St. Jacob says in his epistle [Cap. 2, 19]. But because they work no good, they must also receive a good reward.
Luther.
But there they interpret the right faith on the wrong faith, the pious Biederleute! But how God rewards the works, is too long to tell here, you may read the sermon of your Mammon. Sophists know a lot about faith, work and reward. And what should be understanding with such blindness? as you have heard above.
Arsacius.
(8) Those who refrain from making themselves righteous and good by their good works do not build on the rock but on the sand.
1) In the Wittenberg: "Theologey Theologey ist". Here Walch has "Theologia" only once, which the Erlangen edition has reprinted, although it asserts that it has taken its text from the Wittenberg.
2) "vergicht" == confess (cf. begichten == confess).
3) Marginal gloss: Yes, they also believe, as the donkeys to Ingolstadt are theologians.
Ingolstadt.
This article has sense enough, from what is said at the fifth article.
Luther.
This article, like the fifth, also speaks of trusting in works, and not of doing works, since Arsacius confesses in the next 7th article that works are not absent where there is faith. So these blind men interpret it as doing works. To the school and to the vocabulario ex quo 4) with the coarse Bachants. But so it goes with the good Arsacio. If he says that good works are to be done, it is heresy; if he says that they are not to be trusted in, it is heresy. Of course, he would not be able to say any Christian article ever again, because he would not say anything else than, Eximii Magistri nostri, vestrae excellentiae bene dicunt. Vos estis
lux mundi [Respectable Magistri nostri, Ew. dignities speak well. You are the light of the world], you are the dirt in the lanterns.
Arsacius.
(9) No one in the church is to be believed except what he presents from the Word of God with certainty and clarity.
Ingolstadt.
This is also a sacrilegious, wanton gossip. For it follows that we should not believe that the highly praised Mother of God remained a virgin. Item, that we should not believe the evangelists. For in no place in Scripture is it found that we should believe them. If you say that the Lord said [Luc. 10:16], "He who hears you hears me, and he who despises you despises me," someone might reply that such words were written by the evangelists themselves, therefore they are not binding; for no one can bear witness to them himself. Item, we should not believe the epistles of Paul, Peter, John, Jacob, etc. For where does the Scripture or God's Word give us this? See what this article can do!
Luther.
I also want to use your pointed art, and so I say: Whom shall I believe, if I do not believe God's word alone? Do you say: the church? I answer: The
4) This is what the first Latin textbook was called; as if one would now say: To the primer with the ignorant people!
Erl. 29, 86-88.
gleanings, No.V.
W. XXI, 141*-143*.
The church says this itself, therefore it is not binding, because no one can bear witness to it himself, as the wise people say here. Who then shall we believe? Neither God nor men? I advise you to believe only the long gloves and bullets 1) of the rector at Ingolstadt. Item: On what grounds do we want to prove that there is a church on earth? I will remain silent about the faith of the church. Is it not necessary to prove it by the Word of God? But the fact that they say that it is nowhere written that one should believe St. Peter's, Paul's, and John's epistles, and that Mary remains a virgin, is not worthy to be accounted for; just as if one should lead other witnesses to prove the holy scripture.
But let it be so, that one should believe the church, which has accepted such a scripture; tell me, where is it written, that one should believe the church therein? If it is written in the same books that she accepts, then the church is testified to, accepted and proven by the books, and not the books by the church. Well now, you theologians of Ingolstadt! See what this article can do!
Arsacius.
(10) No man shall do or teach anything in the Christian church without what God the Lord has certainly issued, taught, or commanded.
Ingolstadt.
This article is equally evil to the next one. For it follows that no one shall keep virginity, no one shall give temporal goods, no one shall fast. For God has not commanded these things anywhere 2) that no one should engage in marital works with his spouse for any length of time. For although St. Paul has advised the same, he has not commanded it, and (as Luther says) this is a commandment of God, since he says to Adam: "Grow, and be multiplied" [Gen. 1:18.], there would ever be a strange life, and much useless work.
Luther.
You, there, so Christo and Paulo are to be taken in the mouth. How often does Paul fast?
1) "Kugeln" == Gugel, Kogel, that is: hood, cap; like Liripipium "Kogelzipfel". "Gugelfritz" is a monk.
2) Marginal gloss: Especially in quinto Physicorum he did not say anything about it.
2 Cor. 6, 5., 3) and 1 Cor. 7, 3. he commands to perform conjugal duty; yes, he commands to become conjugal for the sake of unchastity. Also, this article speaks not only of God's commandments, but of everything that God states and teaches. That it would nevertheless be true, even if fasting, celibacy, and chastity were not commanded; since God has shown so many examples in Scripture, that I do not know whether these sophists are foolish or foolish, that they interpret these articles against their dry, bright words, wherever they want. I mean, they have thought that there is neither GOtt nor man more than they alone.
Arsacius.
(11) It behooves a bishop to teach nothing but the Word of God.
Ingolstadt.
This article is too severe and too biting; for we read of St. Paul that he worked; for he could make tents. Apost. 18, 3. Thus, in the beginning, many bishops had wives and children, and no doubt also worked in the flesh.
Luther.
Rhyme yourself, Bundschuh. The article says of teaching; so they interpret it of doing. A bishop shall teach nothing but the Word of God. They understand that he should do nothing but teach. And even if he spoke of doing, he is still true. For even Hans Fool knows well that working and keeping house is a farmer's work and office, but teaching God's word is only an episcopal work and office. Fie on you asses! Such pieces all prove that Arsacius was not present, nor was he interrogated, since such a highly praised and well-fouled university condemned him. Oh how right it is for the dukes of Bavaria, who also condemn and persecute God's word unheard, unrecognized, unconquered, that they must have such swine and asses as masters and spiritual leaders; I should not have wished such punishment for them.
Arsacius.
12) Being a bishop is nothing other than being a bishop.
pledge the word of God.
3) Walch: 2 Cor. 6,6. which the Erlangen edition reprinted.
Ingolstadt.
This article is equally strict to the previous one. For St. Paul and other bishops also punished the wicked and disobedient, condemned them and gave them into the power of the evil enemy until they reformed [1 Cor. 5:4], therefore they not only preached but also had power.
Luther.
The fact that the donkeys do not properly translate Latin must be credited to them, for they know neither German nor Latin. The article wants: To be a bishop is as much as profiteri verbum Dei [to publicly proclaim the word of God], whose office is to preach the word of God, as the previous article states; in addition, these well-meaning heads understand the matter in such a way that to banish, punish and chastise the disobedient does not belong to the word of God. Of course, this must be due to the fact that the present bishops only banish and do not preach. Thanks be to the famous university.
Arsacius.
If a man leaves his wife or is legally divorced from her, he has the right to take another, and the woman may marry another man, unless it is the fault of the one who has abused her and given rise to the divorce.
Ingolstadt.
This article, although some think that it was practiced by many holy bishops in the beginning of the Christian faith, is clearly contrary to Christ and Paul, who says 1 Cor. 7:10, 11: "To those who are united and joined in marriage, I do not command of my own discretion, but the Lord, that the wife should not depart or divorce her husband; but if she departs from him, she should remain without a husband, or be reconciled to her husband. In like manner neither shall the husband forsake his wife"; this is what Paul says. Thus the Lord excludes no other cause than adultery [Matth. 19, 9.], and Christian church determines that in the same matter the words of St. Paul also have force. From this it follows that this article is against Christ and Paul; or else he who wants to keep it despises the order and declaration of the holy Christian church.
1) In the outputs: "on".
Luther.
This article, they say first, is against Christ and Paul; then, if that would not hold the sting, they say it is against the order of the church. Yes, it is called church, or the devil's kitchen. Paul 1 Cor. 7,15. says openly: "If an unbelieving husband depart from another believing husband, let him depart; for the brother or sister is not thereby caught." There ever Paul gives liberty to change. What else would it be said that one is not captive? So unbelieving is not only he who is unbelieving, as the devil's kitchen tells, but every false Christian; therefore this article is right and true.
Arsacius.
14 It behooves no one to take an oath, for it touches only the honor of God or the need of his neighbor; but for the sake of temporal goods, it behooves no one to swear or take an oath.
Ingolstadt.
This article, as it reads, disgraces anyone who swears in matters other than those mentioned. 2) Obliging to sin, it is strict enough. Although it would be good and useful if it were practiced.
Luther.
This is a fine little piece, with which one should worship the princes of Bavaria, as with a tender fruit of their well-famed university. They say: it would be good and not to be kept; but because people do not do so, it is heretical. God forbids adultery; it would be good to keep it; but because people do not keep it, God is a heretic. Is true, as true the well-famed University of Ingolstadt is taught!
Arsacius.
(15) Because of necessity, then, whoever demands an oath from another is of a suspicious mind, unfaithful, malicious and reckless, and has no respect for divine truth.
Ingolstadt.
This article has the same value as the next one above.
2) Randglosse: That is called reason from the Scripture show! Yes, to Ingolstadt!
Luther.
They regard him as worthy of the next, if he is a thousand miles away. For the next is of all things a paragon of Christian doctrine; but this one is a little too hui, but not altogether wrong. So well do these people understand what is equal and what is unequal.
Arsacius.
The law, given through Moses, requires of men that they may not do.
Ingolstadt.
This article, although it is harsh, as if God had commanded something impossible, is clearly written in the Book of the Works of the Twelve Messengers, where St. Peter speaks in the first Apostolic Conciliar [Apost. 15,10.] 1): "Brethren, why do you presume to lay upon the heads of the faithful a heavy yoke, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear?" But even though it was heavy, they were able to bear it with the help of divine grace. But this grace they had not by works of the law; but it was imparted unto us by our Lord Jesus Christ, John the First [v. 17].
Luther.
They themselves prove this article to be true, and again smite themselves in the cheeks, that they condemn what they confess. For the article speaks of God's commandment apart from grace, where it is impossible for us. But that it is possible in grace, Arsacius should have known better than to say, for they do what they would have done honestly and honestly with him, as pious doctors should do. But, as I said, God's wrath punishes his enemies like this.
Arsacius.
17. the gospel of Christ is not the spirit but the letter.
Ingolstadt.
This article is contrary to the teaching of St. Paul, who speaks in the other epistle to Corinthians 3 Cap. [V. 6.], "The letter," that is, the written and literal sense of the law and commandments, which "killeth" the same. "But the spirit," that is, the inward mind and attitude of the commandments and
1) Here the Erlanger has again reprinted from Walch: "Apostelg. 15, 9."
Law in the Spirit of God, that is, in grace and willingness, "the same gives life to men." And St. Paul understands in this saying by the spirit the evangelical law, and by the letter the law of Moses. Item, he is against the words of our Lord, who says John 6 [v. 63], "The words that I speak are the Spirit and the life." Amen.
Luther.
I will hold this article up to them. For how should the Säu know what spirit and letter are, if Origen, Jerome and almost all ancient teachers, except Augustine, did not know the same? It is enough, if the famous university only knew from the Vocabulario ex quo, what Litera [letters] and Spiritus [spirit] means in German.
Ingolstadt.
For the reasons stated in the Holy Scriptures, each one may consider and recognize for himself that these articles are heretical, repugnant to the Roman Church and sacrilegious; Therefore, the reported Magister Arsacius has been forced by us to recant, and for his committed sacrilege, wanton teaching, after expulsion of the spiritual rights in a hard monastery shall be further decided, so that others also take example and fright, not to give themselves so easily with sacrilege and insanity, but to remain in peace with the Roman Church.
Luther.
I thought that Paris, Louvain and Cologne had rough asses and that this well-famed university should have bumped into the same. But I see that one is like the other; for just as finely the University of Vienna has demonstrated its art to Doctor Paulo Sperato, that none of them leave their foolishness behind; that I think the world wants to become new. So far, the Bavarians have been mocked with the sows; now, I hope, it will become better with them. For, these notes deceive me, methinks, all sows in Bavaria have run to the famous high school in Ingolstadt, and have become doctores, magistri, and vain famous university, that henceforth no better mind can be hoped for in Bavaria. God save and protect Bavaria from these miserable, blind sophists, amen.
Nachlese, No. VI. VII.
W. XXI, 149*-151*.
VI Prince Frederick of Saxony's letter to his brother, Duke John, shortly before his blessed end. April 30, 1525.
Printed in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 216b; in the Jena edition (1585), vol. II, p. 510b; in the Altenburg edition, vol. II, p. 876; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XIX, p. 241 and in Walch, vol. XXI, 149*. Two other letters of this prince, belonging to the same period, are found in the St. Louis edition, vol. XVI, 110 ff.
1st Highborn Prince, kind dear brother and godfather! I have read E. L.'s letter and understood his kind opinion, and I have no doubt that E. L. is sorry for my weakness. However, I do not know how to explain to E. L. that the longer I stay the weaker I become. I have had few hours of rest in eight days, neither day nor night. I cannot leave the water (to write with breeding) well, I do not like to eat, so I sleep badly. May God be my physician in body and soul.
2 The rising of the poor people is frightening to hear; God, turn it away, to all our mercies. I would have liked to send E. L. this messenger again, I could not write, God knows that; it has become sour for me to write this. Almost in a hurry. My hand. On Sunday Misericordia Domini [April 30] at the Lochau, Anno 1525.
Income (or delivered) on Tuesday after Misericordia Domini [2 May[ at Weimar 1525.
VII Thomas Münzer's letter to Christoph N., citizen of Eisleben, about his cause and teachings. Anno 1525.
Printed in the Wittenberg edition (1569), vol. IX, p. 222; in the Jena edition (1556), vol. III, p. 114 b; in the Altenburg edition, vol. III, p. 111; in the Leipzig edition, vol. XIX, p. 245 and in Walch, vol. XXI, 150*. This letter belongs to the documents in the 16th volume, Cap. 10, section 3.
1. peace in Umfriede before. Dear Brother Christoph ! Our undertaken thing has become like the beautiful red grain of wheat, which the sensible people love when it is in their power; but when it is thrown into the ground, it seems to them no different, as it would never come up, Joh. 12, 24.
2. you are informed before, by admonition of God, how Doctor Jodocus Jonas of Wittenberg quite exceedingly exquisitely against me the
It is no different than Luther's letter, 1) caused by him; it is not almost a miracle to me that I stink so much before the world, to the disgust of the God-fearing, and to the irrevocable shame and disgrace of the gentle brothers and quiet ones. I know that in the shoot my name tastes before it gains ears. But there are barley thorns in it; the barley bread must be broken, the law will overthrow the wicked; their cries will not help them at all. If I once scolded them with cannons, now I will thunder with God against them in heaven; they have done their evil long enough, God knows clearly that they will not apologize.
I have obviously preached to many hundreds of people, and they say that I crawl to the corner etc. I had my teaching printed at Nuremberg, and they want to earn thanks from the Roman Empire for suppressing it. I am excused.
4. one must not say: Yes, he has good writing or preaching, had he stayed with us, his teaching should be well laid to him etc. I thank God that I have much greater cause against them than Samson against the Philistines etc. Judges. 14, 4. 15, 3. My heart is undaunted in God my Savior, who will keep you forever, amen.
5 If you are able, help me with a ransom, no matter what it may be. But if you should take offense at this, I will not have a penny. Greet Hans N., he may be hostile or kind to me, yet he will have to put the matter behind him, the anger of the wicked is too great for him; if his damage is great, if he is to be enlightened, then no word must fall short of what is announced to him. Oh, how you do, if the larva of the deceitful world is to go down, but it must be. Even if they could eat iron, I want to unbrake them in the least unspeakable way.
Notes.
I would have played a fine game with those of N. if I had wanted to make a fuss, as the lying world blames me; but I want to make all my adversaries so cowardly with words that they will not deny it. Many of the N. people advised me to preach; then I answered: I would not have gone for that reason, but would have answered by the pressure. When the lords heard this, their ears were ringing. For good days do them good; the sweat of the workmen tastes sweet to them, but grows into bitter gall. There will be no misgivings or
1) In the editions: "Luther.
Erl. 65, 225 f.
Nachlese, No.VII to XI.
Mirror fencing helps, the truth must come, it does not help the poetic acceptance of the gospel; the people are hungry, they must and want to eat, as Amos says, also Matthew 5.
Thomas Muntzer suo charissimo fratri Chri- stophoro N. in Eisleben habitanti [Thomas Münzer to his exceedingly dear brother Christoph N., who lives in Eisleben].
M. Concerns how the peasant revolt in its source could be lifted by abolishing the mass and employing good parish priests. 1526.
This document has already been reported in this volume, Col. 904 ff, No. 1046.