Newly translated from the Latin.
D. Martin Luther's letter to the first edition of the shorter version of the Epistle to the Galatians, published in 1519.
To the excellent men, teachers of pure and true theology, Messrs. Petrus Lupinus von Radheim (Radhemio), Custos, and Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, Archidiaconus, ordinary canons of All Saints in Wittenberg 2c., his teachers to be highly honored in Christ, D. Martin Luther, Augustinian, wishes Heil!
Dear Sirs! Some time ago I blurted out some trifles about indulgences, as it seemed to me, quite insignificant things about insignificant things, but, as I have now learned, the very greatest things in the very most important matters. For I, in wonderful foolishness and exceedingly grave error, have judged the sins and errors according to the measure of the divine commandments and the holy Gospel of Christ, but those, my friends, as they are excellently wise people, have for all
The Pope's authority and the prerogatives of the Roman Church are the only yardsticks by which to measure the quality of the works. This is the reason why we are of such different opinion and I have incurred such violent attacks (turbas) on the part of the most Christian and most spiritual (religiosissimos) teachers of sacred theology, and what I have always feared has happened to me, that one has judged me one way and another another way. Some have regarded me as a godless, others as a biting, others as a vain man, others still differently, which is the common lot of all who build on the road (as they say in Proverbs), and let the public writings go out. I find almost as many masters as I have readers, and for free, under whose wholesome (felici) instruction and guidance I had to learn, - so that I would not be obstinate after all and become a heretic, - that no one could have a harder
*) As we learn from a letter of Luther to Johann Lang of October 26, 1516 (Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 561, ? 4), Luther began on October 27, 1516, to interpret the Epistle to the Galatians, and continued with it during a series of semesters (Köstlin, Martin Luther, vol. I, p. 291). On March 13, 1519, he wrote to Spalatin (Walch, old edition, vol. XXI, 625, § 4) that he had the Epistle to the Galatians in his hands (parturio), that is, that he was preparing his lectures on it for printing. On September 3 of the same year, the printing was completed in the office of Melchior Loithers in Leipzig (Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 44, ? 12) (ibicl. no. 35, i; 3), and on October 3, he sent two copies to Staupitz (ibiü. no. 36, ? 1). The title of this first edition is: In epistolam Pauli ad Galatas, F. Martini Lutheri Augustiniani, commentarius. On the title page follows a poem of eight lines (ogdoastichon) with the superscription: Inbor uä lövtoroni. The interpretation is preceded by a note from Otöo dorinanus in Wittenberg "to the reader". Some scholars, e.g. Seckendorf, think that Melanchthon is the author of this letter, but Walch (also the Weimar edition) is against this view, both because of the spelling and because of the content, namely because of the verdict given on Aristotelian philosophy. This is followed by a dedication of Luther to his former teachers Petrus Lupinus and Carlstadt. Before the interpretation, there is an ogdoastichon by Johannes Pucher and a hexastichon by Hartwig Stoterroggius, addresses of the book to the reader. After the interpretation of the letter to the Galatians follows a final speech of Luther and a postscript of Saul OouriiroUus Lrs-.
They are not interested in this, even if in the meantime he has denied Christ and faith in Christ, that is, if he has played a child's game.
In this matter I had, when I was at Augsburg, a very fatherly and kind teacher, as you know, and through the most illustrious government of these most illustrious men it has come about that this new and wonderful freedom of the Christians is going on, according to which everything else remains unpunished, and only One Law is left, against which one sins today.
This is the power of the Pope and the prerogatives of the Roman Church. Therefore, if one closes one's eyes and gives one's consent to the whole puddle of shameful deeds and corruption, which, under the innocent and holy name of the pope and the Roman church, flood all countries from the city of Rome, it is something holy, 1) if one praises it and worships it as the highest virtue, it is piety, but if one rebels against it, it is theft from God. So great is the wrath of the Almighty Lord's anger, so great a punishment has our ungodly ingratitude deserved, that we have so long
1) The comma shall be placed before laudasse and erased after this word in the editions.
tarmns, by which, just as in the first letter, Melanchthon is to be understood. In another print from 1519 (without indication of place and printer!), the poems just mentioned are missing, and instead of them, an epigram by Stoterroggius and a hexastichon by Pucher are inserted, in which Luther addresses the Christian. Another print from the year 1520 contains all the poems just mentioned. Without them, but otherwise complete, the first edition of 1519 is printed in the Basel collection of Adam Petri: Doetoris Llurt. DutUsri Incmdrutionnm purs nrm. Xnns Domini NDXX, iVIsnss äulio, p. 389. Similarly in the Latin Jena (1579), Dorn. I, lol. 368, but the preface of Otiro derinanns and the epilogue of ?unln8 Oommoüus are not included. Both pieces are found in Latin in Seckendorf, IDst. Dntk., lid. I, p. 137, ? 85, additiv, and in Walch, old edition, vol. IX, preface, p. 2 f., note d and i. Luther's dedication to Lupinus and Carlstadt is printed in Aurifaber's collection of letters, Dorn. I, col. 132; in Löscher's Reformation Acts, vol. Ill, p. 928 and in De Wette, vol. I, p. 329. - In 1523 (not 1524, where the Jena edition places it) Luther revised the first edition and made several changes with it. Prefaces and postscripts, including the dedicatory writing, were omitted. The latter probably happened mainly because Carlstadt had fallen away, and because Luther had gotten to know Erasmus better in the meantime. The changes in the text are mostly omissions, especially of those passages in which he had referred to Jerome, Origen, Augustine and other church fathers, also where he had referred to the translation and the notes of Erasmus to the New Testament. This revised edition appeared in Wittenberg in August 1523 (without indication of the printer) with a short preface by Melanchthon, in which he reports that Luther had overlooked the old edition and made changes where he thought it necessary. The title reads: In spistoluin Dardi sä (lulatus iVIart. Dutksri ooiuinonturius. Drasovdit Dkil. Älvluvodtovis Draskatio. IVittsmdvrMS Nsn8s iluAtmto -tnno MDXXIII. Already in November 1523 a reprint appeared at Strasbourg by Johann Herwagen, another in January 1524 without place and printer, another in November 1525 by Andreas Cratander at Basel. This altered edition is found in the Latin collections: in the Wittenberg (1554), Dorn. V, toi. 213d, with Melanchthon's preface; in the Jena one (1603), Dorn. Ill, lol. I, without this preface; and in the Erlanger: Oommsutsrins in opistolain 8. kauli ad 6ulutn8, Dom. Ill, x>. 121, the text of both redactions, with sämmtlichen Vorreden, Nachreden und Gedichten, auch denen, die nicht von Luther sind. In the Weimar edition, Vol. II, 436, the same is found as in the Erlangen edition. But the arrangement is such that the first redaction forms the text, and the deviations of the second editing are recorded in the margin, - The interpretation of the letter to the Galatians had been translated into foreign languages much earlier than into German, namely reported Seckendorf, Di8t. Dntd, lid. I, x>. 134, §83: "Pallavicinus relates, lid. I, oap. 24, n. 7, that already in this year 1520 Luther's books, among which was this first Commentary, had been translated into Spanish and printed at Antwerp." It was not until 1525, with Luther's permission, that a translation was published by "Vincentins Heidnecker, the Bavarian" after the altered old edition, with a short preface by Bugenhagen of January 21, 1525, in which it is indicated that this translation came out with Luther's will. This German translation is in the collections: in the Wittenberg (1559), vol. XII, p. 1, with Bugenhagen's preface; in the Altenburg, vol. I, p. 151, likewise; in the Leipzig, vol. X, p. 451, and in Walch, vol. IX, 1, also with Luther's dedication and final speech. - The arrangement of the text in Walch and in the Erlangen edition is such that the second modified edition of 1523 is taken as a basis, but that which was omitted from the first edition of 1519 is inserted again and made recognizable by square brackets. We will also proceed in the same way. However, instead of Heidnecker's outdated and very faulty translation, we offer a new one, which is based on the Weimar edition; however, we have followed the readings of the improved redaction much more than the Weimar edition, which was based on the first printing. We have omitted all extraneous appendices, including Bugenhagen's preface, which is found in Walch and in the Weimar edition, and have retained only that which comes from Luther himself. On the other hand, many and indeed large pieces of the first redaction, which are missing in Walch (probably about a hundred columns), we have added according to the Latin.
have to endure the tyranny of hell, by which, as we see, sighing in vain with many groans, the holy and terrible name of Christ, in which we are justified, sanctified and made glorious, is used for such abominable, such foul, such frightful abominations as avarice, tyranny, unchastity, godlessness; we see that it is forced into the service of vice, and, what is the uttermost evil, that the name of Christ is blotted out by the name of Christ, the church is laid waste by the name of the church, and we are only mocked, deceived, and brought to ruin by the things by which we should be saved in the first place. Therefore, I have decided, while those are engaged in the very greatest things, while they are biting, while they are carving themselves with awls for their Baal, while they are sacrificing to the Lindish of God, while they are praising the extravagants 2) and their declarations, those most faithful witnesses of Roman scholarship, boast highly of laying me on the least things, that is, on the sacred Scriptures, and that is, on those pieces of them which come from the least author (as even his name testifies), from the apostle Paul, 3) who was so not at all the highest among the apostles, or a pope, that he has been called [1 Cor. 15, 9.] even the least among the apostles, who was not worthy to be called an apostle; so much is lacking that he should boast of being the most holy one [Eph. 3, 8.]. Moreover, he was descended from the tribe of Benjamin, which is called by Joseph the least of the brethren. And so that there was nothing in him that was not very small, he did not consider himself to know anything except Jesus Christ, but not even Him other than the Crucified One [1 Cor. 2:2], that is, the least and the last of all, knowing very well that he was certainly of those greatest of all things, which are the first and the last of all.
1) Lindio Deo -to Hercules; cf. Walch, St. Louis Edition, vol. XVIII, 575, note 2. "To sacrifice to the Lindian God" - to deal with curses and berwünschungen.
2s Extravagantes are the papal constitutions, which were added to the Roman canon law soorpus suris ounoniois, after it had received its conclusion under Pope Clement V by the so-called Clementines at the beginning of the 14th century.
3) Paul (Latin) ---- the Small.
The first is that the apostles are not allowed to act as a completely unskilled and unlearned apostle, namely, about the power of the Roman Church and its decrees, but that this is only the right of the exceedingly great theologians.
But I hope that this work of mine will be the more successful, because it is about things that are nothing, namely about the power of Christ, by which he is mighty in us even against the gates of hell, about the privileges of the heavenly church, which does not know the very great city of Rome, nor the most holy Jerusalem, nor any place, nor does it seek Christ here or there, but in spirit and in truth worships the Father. For how should such great men care for these trifles, or be irritated by them, because they are outside their sphere (facultatem)? Now I appear in public all the more safely, since I abstain from the things by which those people are irritated, and deal with very small things that suit my smallness. By the way, if there is still something left of that old tragedy that arose because of the big things, I leave it to them; partly because I stand alone (Unus), am small and weak, but partly and mainly because they stand idle all day, but I am overloaded with business, because it is superfluous that both parties toil away at the matter. It is unfortunate enough that one party has sorrow and sadness.
Furthermore, my dear sirs, to speak to you seriously: I hold the Roman Pontiff and his decrees in as high esteem as anyone, and exclude no one but the prince of this governor, Jesus Christ, who is our Lord and the Lord of all. I prefer his word to the words of the governor in such a way that I have no hesitation in judging all the sayings and deeds of the governor according to it. For I want him to be subject to this unbreakable rule of the apostle [1 Thess. 5, 21.]: "Test everything, and keep what is good." I will not suffer, I say, that any one should pull his neck out of this yoke, whether he have the name of a mother or of a teacher of the churches, and so much the more, because we have come to this our
We have seen that some conciliarities are rejected, others are confirmed, that theology is treated according to opinions, that the understanding of rights depends on the arbitrariness of a man, and everything is so confused that almost nothing certain is left to us. But it is clearer than the sun that even many decrees are not in accordance with the evangelical understanding, so that the really existing need forces us to take refuge in the rock of divine Scripture, which is firmly founded, and not to believe in a sacrilegious way that anyone can be whoever he wants to be, who speaks, sets or does such things that have no foundation in the holy Scriptures. And I think that one should not be afraid of what Cardinal Cajetan and Silvester Prierias flatteringly say against it, who pretend that even in matters of faith the mere word of a man is sufficient.
St. Augustine teaches that no one should be believed, no matter how great holiness and learning he may possess before others (I believe even the very holiest), unless he can prove his doctrine from sacred Scripture or by some acceptable rational cause, lest we be deceived into playing another game. But these good fathers (auctores) in Christo want to force us into this deception by force. St. Peter fell so many times, and once he erred to very grave danger for souls, after he had received the Holy Spirit, and we exalt men who crawl far below apostolic sublimity above the perfection of the apostles! As if Christ had lied when he promised that he would be with us until the end of the world, so we look for other Christs on whose beck and call the Church should be based. It is enough that the Roman bishop is the highest bishop. It should be considered extremely ungodly to attribute to him a power and wisdom equal to that of Christ, as some are subordinate to him. But, to confess it openly, I myself almost do not know which and where the Roman church is, since these abominable chatterers play with the names of the Roman church in such a way, play their jokes and mix them up.
fen. Silvester divides it into three churches: the pope, the cardinals and the people. Since this distinction is magisterial and sufficient, and the members do not agree with each other, he concludes that the pope and the cardinals are outside the church and are to be considered pagans, since they are not in the essential church, or he will have to place three Christs before these three churches. Yes, also Christ will not belong to the Church according to this so great Gewährsmanne, since he is neither the Church according to its power (virtualis), nor according to its representation (reprae- sentativa), nor the essential (essentialis) Church. 1) The Cardinal Cajetan pretends to be the Roman Church everywhere in Germany, being learned enough to invent apostolic breviaries (brevia) under its name. It is the Roman Church that good scribe (copiista) who, when he wanted to issue that very beautiful declaration (declaratoriam) 2) of which Cajetan, as befits him, boasts, and found in his form neither Scripture nor any rational grounds, but that such had been custom and usage since time immemorial, scribbled just this with all fidelity on the parchment. They pretend everywhere to be the Roman church, as anyone pleases, while these godless boys only ape and suck all of Germany with the lead and wax of the Roman court.
What else do they do with these juggleries, with the holy names of the Pope and the Roman Church, than that they consider us Germans to be nothing but fools, 3) simpletons, dolts and (as they say) barbarians and beasts, also laughing at our incredible patience with which we allow ourselves to be mocked and plundered. Therefore, with the great confusion that reigns in things and in words, I return from the so great forest of the Silvester 4) to the
1) On this distinction of the Church, compare the dialogue of Silvester Prierias, Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. XVIII, 314, and Luther's response to it, ibid. col. 360.
2) This may refer to the decree found in Walch, old edition, Vol. XV, 756 sf.
3) Here, with the Weimar edition, Ulsnnos is to be read instead of: PIsnnonss in the other editions.
4) s tanta Liivsstroruru siiva is a game with New Year's Eve's name.
I will return to the city of Augsburg, and in the meantime I will follow the judgment by which the princes of Germany at the last imperial diet made a distinction between the Roman church and the Roman court in a right, holy and sublime manner. For how could they have refused the tenths, twentieths and fiftieths (that is, the marrow of the whole of Germany, by which it would suddenly have become a desert), which they knew had been decreed by the most sacred (sacratissimo) (that I say so) Roman Council, and which were demanded by such high legates of the apostolic see, if they had not at last, though late, become wise, seen that it was not a decree of the Roman church, but a little fief of the Roman court? For they saw (it is wonderful to say, and not possible that a Silvester or a Cajetan could believe it) that the Council and the Pope were mistaken and could be mistaken, that the name of the Roman Church is something different from what is done under the name of the Roman Church; that it is something different to be an envoy of the Roman court than to be an envoy of the Roman Church; the one brings the Gospel, the other seeks money. Where did these barbarians and beasts get so much power of judgment? Therefore, God, finally tired of the blasphemies against him and the mockery and abuse of his name and the name of the holy Roman church, wanted to warn the Roman great ones that they should put aside joking and playing and finally take care of the affairs of the church with seriousness before they force blood out of them by snubbing Germany too hard [Proverbs 30:33].
Therefore, I also follow this extremely beautiful example of these lay theologians and distinguish in the longest, broadest and deepest way between the Roman church and the Roman court. Of the latter I know that she is the very pure bridal bed of Christ, the mother of the churches, the mistress of the world, but in spirit, that is, she rules over sins, not over the goods of the world. She is the bride of Christ, the daughter of God, the terror of hell, the victory over the flesh, and, what shall I say, "it is all hers", as Paul 1 Cor. 3, 21. 23.
says: "But she is Christ's, but Christ is God's." But this (the Roman court) is known by its fruits. Not as if it is to be considered great that our goods and rights are snatched from us, since it is decided in heaven that the Christians shall be oppressed in this life and suffer violence from nimrods 1) and mighty hunters. And the church will not be delivered from this situation in any other way than through death. It is a palm tree; the more it is depressed, the higher it rises in Kades. But this is a lamentation that all tears cannot sufficiently mourn, that this is done by brothers and fathers to brothers and children (as the Lord says in the prophet Jeremiah [Cap. 19, 9.] that children are eaten by parents), which the Turk would hardly do, or if it happened, the holy name of Christ would not be used as a cover for such heinous abominations, which is the most intolerable insult to Christ and the church. Property and life may perish, but the name of the Lord is eternal; why should we suffer it to be so shamefully defiled? So one must not resist the Roman church in any way, but that kings, princes, and whoever else could resist the Roman court, would be far more godly than if he himself resisted the Turk.
But perhaps I am speaking too much and too freely about this. However, for the sake of those who, with those scoffers, mock Christ without end, I am compelled to explain myself, so that they may know that they are in error when they cry out that I am hostile to the Roman church, since I embrace not only the Roman church but also the whole church of Christ with the purest love; secondly, that I am certain that I must die one day and give an account at the future of our Lord Jesus Christ of the truth, whether I have concealed it or spoken it, and in general of the pound which I have been entrusted with.
1) The Erlangen edition reprinted from the Jena one: "nimbrotos". The same spelling is also in the Basel collection and in the Weimar edition, but with a capital initial letter.
has been trusted, so that I will not be judged as one who has buried it. Whoever wants to be angry may be angry, if only I am not found guilty of having kept silent in an ungodly way, since I am aware that I am a debtor of the word, as unworthy as I am. The word of God has never been acted upon without blood or danger. But, as it 1) died for us, so it again demands of us that we also die for it in its confession, and "the servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my word, they will also keep yours.
But I come back to myself and hand over to you, my dear sirs, or (to use Paul's word [Gal. 2:2]) discuss with you this work of mine on Paul's letter, which is admittedly small, and not both an interpretation and a testimony of my faith in Christ, so that I have not run in vain and not grasped Paul's meaning sufficiently. For here, because it is God's
1) "it" - "the word", namely Christ, Joh. 1, 1. Also still in the Syngramma Suevicum, St. Louis edition, vol. XX, 533,? 10, the preached word and "the word", Christ, are mixed into each other in such a way.
If this is the greatest thing and certainly (serio) the greatest thing, then I wish to be instructed by every child. Admittedly, I too would have preferred to wait for the interpretations of Erasmus, which he promised long ago, since he is a man who stands very high in theology and whom even envy cannot harm. But since he postpones it (God grant, not for much longer), this circumstance, as you see, forces me to go public with it. I know that I am a child and unlearned, but nevertheless (I may boldly say this) I make use of Christian godliness and scholarship, and in this very aspect I am more learned than those who have turned the divine commandments into nothing but a laughing stock and a mockery through their ungodly prancing with human laws. I have had only one thing in mind, whether I would like to achieve that through my work those who have heard my lectures on the apostolic letters would understand Paul better, and that they would be fortunate enough to precede me in this. But if I have not done this, then I will gladly have done this work in vain; then it remains an attempt by which I wanted to encourage others to the theology of Paul, which no good man can interpret badly to me. Farewell.