Luther expresses his disapproval of the Regensburg Interim used as a basis for the negotiations.
Manuscript in Aurifaber, vol. III, p. 333 and in Cod. Goth. chart. 451, fol. 185. 4. Printed by Schütze, vol. I, p. 134 and by De Wette, vol. V, p. 332 f.-.
1) Instead of Troschelio, read Fröschelio. M. Sebastian Fröschel was Caplan in Wittenberg from 1525 to 1570.
2) Johann Mantel; immediately following "Peter" is Peter Hesse.
3) M. Georg Schnell from Rothenburg an der Tauber was Luther's tutor. About him compare No. 1956, 2654, 2696, 2759.
4) Here, we have the text published by Lindner in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken 1835, p. 83, from the copy in Cod. Dessav. A. we have adopted the reading given by Lindner in Cod: Satis malorum vidi, passus sum pessima. De Wette offers: Satis malorum feci, vidi pessima.
5) In this determination of the time we followed Köstlin, M. Luther (3.), Vol. II, p. 681 ad p. 547, who rightly argues against the date given by De Wette: "March 16", that our letter should be set after April 27, since he reports that the Regensburg Interim had already been handed over by the Emperor to the collocutors, which had happened on the aforementioned day.
Grace and peace! From your letters, my dear Philip, I see how much you hate these false corners, but God will also put an end to this challenge and put the liars to shame. I also hear that the Emperor has given you that book which the Marquis sent to me under the seal of secrecy, 6) in which everything that the papists have taught before is stripped of the false sense and adorned with a sorry sense. When this is done, then it is evident that their whole plot is set up to make up and keep all their idols. In this they are to be praised first in that they condemn themselves with their own mouths, confessing that these things were said in a harmful mind, which no doubt can later be brought back to the same mind with easy effort, if it ever happens otherwise, that they can be cleansed from the former, actual ungodly mind in the whole world. Then [they are to be praised in that] they confess that these things may be understood in a godly sense, that is, while they are very good, they are ambiguous and doubtful; since they are defended under these! names, they cannot be condemned more harshly. Why are doctrines upheld in the Church which, first of all, are neither commanded by God nor necessary, and secondly, where they are best, are by their nature ambiguous and dangerous, very bad and exceedingly damnable? The holy Scriptures, which are also commanded by God, are not ambiguous by their nature, but by the unworthiness of doubting, that is, of unstable and unbelieving people. But the Lord will be with you far from trampling under the feet of the raging devil. Since it is certain that their doctrines have been and still are abused and ungodly, to the infinite evil of souls, it is not to be suffered that they should now be adorned with a good understanding and a convenient interpretation, but rather, for the punishment of the authors of the offences and the lords of the inflicted evils, they should be abolished from the bottom up.
6) Compare No. 2749.
Letters from the year 1541. no. 2784. 2785.
No. 2785.