This letter does not contain anything personal, but advice and regulations for someone who has been called to an embassy (legationem); and deals with the way how the Old Testament, especially the passage Habakuk 2, 4. is to be interpreted.
From an old manuscript in Schelhorns Ergötzlichk., vol. I, p. 297; from the Schelhorn collection in Memmingen in Schütze, vol. III, p. 236 and (comparing Cod. Goth. 402. f.) in De Wette, vol. V, p. 89 f.
Grace, mercy and peace in the Lord! First, what I believe must be done, indeed, what I declare to be quite certain according to the testimony of God, that he should not doubt that he is called by God to this message (legationem) or work, which is exceedingly pleasing to God and necessary for the churches and salutary for many consciences, which he who has begun and will accomplish what he is doing will also bless and confirm. Second, that he may rejoice in the Lord with all his heart, and not doubt that he is surrounded by legions of angels, so much so that even if he were alone, he should know that he is not alone. Thirdly, when he has realized that it was Satan, still is, and that it will be Satan, he should not be surprised, but know that Satan is Satan, because the one who is in us is greater than the one who is in the world. For in such a great work of God, Satan cannot be absent, who has always been a rebel and a prankster even in heaven, in paradise, in the church. He has other things without me from God the Father through Jesus Christ.
But from me [he may accept], if it pleases him: First, that he should not reconcile the pope and Luther. Second, that he should not let himself be persuaded that the Concilium at Mantua is a serious one. Thirdly, that he should not believe that the executioner at Halle is a good man, nor teach this. For the rest, I promise my work, my prayers, my diligence and whatever I am able to do, so that we may carry the work with one another and do and promote this work of the Lord together.
Letters from the year 1537. No. 2406.
Lautes and Münster and other Hebrew grammarians have worked faithfully and are worthy of all thanks, but in opinion they follow the rabbis too closely. For grammar is not enough to understand the Scriptures. Grammar is something different from the Hebrew language, just as Greek and Latin grammar do not make Greeks and Latins. But the Hebrew language, then also the sure (positiva) grammar, has largely perished among the Jews; it has fallen away along with the matter and its understanding, as Isaiah says, Cap. 29, 10. ff. Therefore, nothing is to be conceded to the rabbis in the interpretation of the sacred Scriptures (in re sacra), since they twist and force the word derivations and word insertions, because they want to force the matter out of the words, and subject the matter to the words, although the matters must not be subservient to the words, but the words to the matters. But after the matter is lost, the words are twisted in vain, which is the only work of the rabbis, but one that goes to the extreme. Indeed, they are wont to falsify a clear passage, where even the grammar agrees with us, only out of hatred against Christ, and to refer it to remote things, which is easily proved from the fact that the newer Jews treat in a fabulous manner many passages which their old masters treat correctly and according to the truth, and do so at length and with great erudition. Burgensis testifies to this everywhere in the postilion on Lyra and in his Scrutinium. The same testifies Lyra himself. And in all things their endeavor is like that which was in our lines, that after the understanding of Scripture was lost, they imputed their imaginations and preconceived opinions to the words of Scripture, twisting with great violence even the clear passages to the opposite opinion, as even now both they themselves and all heretics do. Therefore, if one has to accept grammatical things from them, one may accept them, but all their word derivations or opinions must not be followed in any way, since we know that they are very eager to twist the words by grammatical rules and to falsify the right opinions. You
1) Cf. St. Louis edition, vol. XIV, 1465 f., § 23.
2) Instead of archa, arcu is to be read.
Letters from the year 1537. No. 2406.
which is translated: si non creditis, non permanebitis, "do not believe, do not remain". But it is the same verbum all changed by the derivation (etymologia). According to the grammar, mau might translate thus: if you will not stand, be certain, firm, true, you will not be standing, certain, firm, true people; or thus: if you do not believe, one. will not believe you. The one therefore refers to spiritual things, the other to bodily, in this way: If you do not stand firm in your heart, you will not be firm and certain in your mind; if you doubt in your mind, if you are not true in your mind, if you do not have the right will, you will not be able to stand and remain, be anything true, firm or constant, but just as you waver in your mind and are nothing certain in your heart, so you will also waver and be nothing certain in your kingdom. Now if you understand here what we have called firmness, certainty of heart, truth, constancy of mind, in relation to spiritual things, namely, of the word of God, namely, that I should have a firm, certain, constant applause to the word of God: Dear, by what name wilt thou teach me to express it in Latin? Will you not say: It is quite the same thing that in Latin is called fidere, to believe, to have confidence, not to doubt? What, therefore, is one to do? You deny that in Habakkuk "faith" must be read, only because you deny that in him "truth" is read, since in Hebrew faith and truth are the same. And also in Latin truth is not much different from faith, may one speak of the mind or of the body. The word researchers (etymoIogi) say that it is called fides because it happens (fiat) or fei, that is, it is the truth for things outwardly, which is made known inwardly by the word of the heart, outwardly by the word of the mouth. Furthermore, since Hebr. 11, 1. explains the Hebrew word as it were by a definition in an exceedingly learned manner, he ninth the faith the foundation (hypostasin) or the essence (substantium) 1) of the things to come.
1) In the Greek text it says xxxxxxxxx, in the Vulgate:
substantia.
Things, because faith produces a firm, certain, true, stable and well-founded opinion of the heart, which does not waver, does not doubt, is not vain, is not false and is nothing in the heart or a deceptive image or mockery without reality or truth, as there are the opinions of men of God, none of which has a reason or is a true, certain, firm thing; but it is a wavering, unstable, indefinite image in the heart. Otherwise the same [faith] is also called truth, in Hebrew Necona, Ps. 5,10.: "For in their mouth is not that which is called, nothing certain, firm, lasting, well-founded, being (hypostaticum), but everything is deceitful, vain, doubtful, which in truth is the same as being nothing, not existing, not being a being (hypostasin). Hence in the 51st Psalm [v. 12. Vulg.] it is said, "a right (rectum) spirit," that is, a true, certain, undoubted, firm, well-grounded, substantial (existent), not deceitful, fictitious, doubtful, indefinite; "a spirit which is a right spirit, not a painted, poetical spirit, for it is false and not a true spirit," but a kind of thought and fancy of the flesh. Therefore, when mau says, "The righteous lives by the truth," it is the same as: he lives by what is certain, not by what is doubtful, or void, invented, false, but by the firm, true, constant heart with which he clings to the word of God, which Paul translated: through faith", admittedly with knowledge and will, because faith is the foundation (hypostasis), the steadfastness, the truth of the heart, which adheres in truth, steadfastly and well-foundedly to the word of God, not deceitfully or voidly, which is usually called the joy of faith (plerophoriam). But philosophy has deceived us with this word hypostasis, which uses it for essence (substantia), referring to the false, the vain, the void, the uncertain. So also of the divine persons hypostases are said, that is, not such as are either void or false, but true, stable, well-founded, and
2) Set by us instead of etc.
Letters from the year 1538. no. 2406. 2407. 2408.
dete things. Now the word is easily understood [Hebr. 11, 1.]: hypostasis rerum spe.
randarum its solid foundation of things to be hoped for, if one first rejects the opinion of philosophy and takes it according to the word of God, in which things to be hoped for (since they are nothing) cannot be received unless they are presented by the word, whether by the true one, as there is God's word, or by a false one, as there is the word of men. Then, that the solid foundation (hypostasin) of things is not understood in a philosophical way or formaliter, as if the future things had their substantiality (substantiam) from faith, and faith is the formal, the essential part of the things to be hoped for. Thus, life is the solid foundation (hypostasis) of the living body, but according to the way of the Hebrew and the Scriptures, that there is a certain confidence (hypostasis) of the things or
of the things, which sees and grasps the things 1) itself in undoubted and certain opinion. This is "the faith" in the word of God, which does not lie, and the faith in the same does not deceive.
No. 2407.