shall not be silent and I shall not allow you to soil Holy Scripture with your goatish snout, as you have begun to do. Perhaps we shall soon settle the accounts you have owed for so long.
I ask only one thing: Quit your lying and write the truth. I am not surprised that you know nothing about Scripture. But your love of lying is not fitting for a priest of God and makes answering you an unpleasant task. To be sure, I shall let you slander and curse, for I know very well that your nature and your hatred do not let it stop.
My goat, you should not interpret this first sexto10 to mean I could not wait for the end of your first little book. Rather, because you write that I have fled before you, and because you are so very certain that I will do nothing but let you triumph, you should know that it will turn out quite differently, God willing.
For if you had anticipated my answer you undoubtedly would not have presented such a shoddy piece of work. Therefore, since your assurance has made you so negligent and careless that you yourself no longer notice what you are prattling and spewing out, and since I intend to answer not just you (you are not worth it) but also to take the occasion to present some Christian instruction regarding the Spirit and the letter (of which you do not understand one iota), I want to rouse and admonish you finally to wake up and take the sword—not by the blade as you are doing now with such great assurance, but by the hilt, with both hands.
[I also admonish you] to confer with your fellow-spirits and write something serious and worthy of an answer at the end of the booklet. Let your best come forth so that it is not necessary to write many useless books and thus waste people's time. Dear goat, you are not far from where you want to go!
If you should tell me that the teaching of Scripture hangs by goose feathers, whereas the ideas which you have spun out of the [scholastic] teachers, who have erred many times, and out of your own head, hang by chains, I shall tackle this too, God willing, and answer your slanderous mouth which so frivolously defames and defiles the word of God. So be alert, and take up both small and large swords. For you have to defend three books, several letters, and especially some un-Christian lies. This [task] should exhaust your butting or else make you lie some more. I too shall take a vacation for a change and let my mind run freely against you. Therefore, dear goat, do not think you are alone on the field.
I certainly know that it is not easy to deal with a shameless slanderer and liar, for according to the proverb, "This I know for sure: if I fight against filth, I shall not remain pure, whether I win or lose."11
But, for the sake of truth, I must endure your excessive and endless slander and blasphemies. If you knew something different perhaps you would write it. Therefore, I have to be patient and let you carry on12 as your unrelenting hatred directs you. I, too, have sounded off13 many times, but for the most part I have written good things without doing so. You, however, can do nothing but curse and slander. Never mind, dear goat. It does not help to look for anything good in you.
Let the will of the Lord be done. Amen.14
CONCERNING THE ANSWER OF THE GOAT IN LEIPZIG Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch Emser immediately countered Luther's To the Goat in Leipzig with a very brief and angry pamphlet entitled To the Bull in Wittenberg.1 "You should have listened to my words," he chided Luther for his heated reply, "before you judged them. But your haughty spirit, which collects my quartos before the ink is dry on them, cannot endure anyone's speaking or writing against it."2
When Luther received the pamphlet, probably in the last days of January, 1521, from his friend Haugold von Einsiedel, who resided in the territory of Duke George of Saxony, he was particularly angered by Emser's reference to a statement he had made at the Leipzig Debate. "Three times I have warned you like a brother," Emser wrote, "and have asked you, for God's sake, to spare the poor people whom you have so clearly offended by this affair. But you have given me your final answer in these words: 'The devil may care! This affair did not begin in God's name, and it will not end in God's name.'
Luther wrote his brief reply, entitled Concerning the Answer of the Goat in Leipzig, at the end of January or the beginning of February, 1521, and dedicated it to H. E., who is probably Haugold von
- 50 Einsiedel.4 It anticipates Emser's announced attack on Luther's address To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation and explains his statement regarding the Leipzig "affair."
It should be mentioned that Emser wrote a brief and satirical Reply to the Answer of the Raging Bull in Wittenburg.5 Calling Luther a notorious heretic and mocking him in a Latin poem, it only discloses
Emser's desire to leave nothing unanswered.
The following translation is based on the first German edition of Luther's pamphlet, entitled Auff des bocks zu Leypczick Antwort, printed by John Grünenberg in Wittenberg. The text is found in WA 7, 271–
CONCERNING THE ANSWER OF THE GOAT IN LEIPZIG Dr. Martin to the Worthy and Honorable H. E.,1 My Very Kind Lord and Friend, with My Good Wishes.
Honorable and worthy lord and friend: I have received, together with your own writing, Emser's quarto To the Bull in Wittenberg2 and, although many people are dissuading me from replying to him3 because he is such a well-known liar and blasphemer, I wanted to show him his lies so that he would not get too puffed up.4 For even though he is such a crude head that he believes he is right and has won (even though he only comes up with sheer lies and not one good thing), I did not think it right to remain silent when he uses all his lies to put my own teaching to shame. I did not want to keep all of this from your kind concern. And so First, he intends to show what kind of bird I am.5 He really needs to do this, for even though I am not pious, God has so far protected my life so that no one has been able to reproach me honestly, and in the last two years I have put so many lies and liars to shame that Emser's demonstration will cost him much skill and effort. I have one advantage over him: no one has to show what kind of bird he is. He can be recognized by his song and by his feathers. His little books read just the way his reputation smells. It is indeed a blessing when liars and knaves curse me.
Twice he had it printed, in Latin and in German,6 and in addition blabbed around that I supposedly said, "I did not begin this game7 in the name of God, and it will not end in the name of God either." What would he do if he really knew something about me? How fervent a Christian love (of which he boasts) would he have toward me, since he is so busy [spreading] this poisonous, invented, and impertinent lie, whereby he imagines and hopes that he is dealing me a deathblow and in a single moment dishonoring all my books and teachings and consigning them to the devil. But you missed, and the blade has cut your own fingers! You miserable man, how dare you testify and swear by God's holy name that you do not oppose me out of hatred, envy, and lies, when your heart and conscience certainly know otherwise? Hold still; I shall spread your feathers a little so that you can see yourself. Other people already know what kind of bird you are.
It was in Leipzig, in the chancellery of the castle (I have a lively and good memory of the occasion), that, in accordance with Eck's8 practice, the debate was arranged to his advantage and to my disadvantage.
We saw that the opposition sought honor rather than truth. I had hoped until then that they had begun in God's name just as I had. Then I said plaintively and with a sad heart the words, "This matter did not begin in God's name, and it will not end in God's name either"—which the results have proved. Everyone can see how my prophecy has now been fulfilled. For it is as plain as day what kind of fruit the debate has yielded.
I can verify these words of mine not only through the people on our side who were there, but through Emser's own conscience as well, since he stood there too, his face burning with envy and glittering with great malice.
That is why I disregarded this notorious lie and intended never to reply, thinking this holy priest of God and Christian lover might one day be ashamed of such a notorious and shameful lie and be afraid that, although I and those on my side are silent, the table, stove, and ceiling of the chancellery might yell at him, "Emser, don't lie yourself to death! That lie is too much even for a rhymester and poetaster." For I do not like to write against those whom I know to be convicted through their own conscience and who knowingly put forth stinking lies.9
Furthermore, this holy priest of God and everyone else know very well that it was Eck and not I who started the debate. How then could the remark about the beginning be applied to me? For I can boast—and even prove—that in all these matters I have never started anything with anyone. Instead, I was always reluctantly torn and driven away from useful and wholesome affairs, so that many godly people pitied me
- 51 and I had to defend and protect myself at the cost of much precious time against my lying and malicious assailants, who wantonly challenged me so as to win their honors at my expense; and when they failed, they wanted to drive out the guest with filth. But, God willing, they shall have me as a guest against their will, for they invited me. Or else they shall have to let me go honorably and suffer and pay for the malice they exhibited toward me at the instigation of the devil. Thus I hope to God that the game shall not be spoiled for me and, before the next decade, Emser, Eck, and the pope, with all his liars and seducers, will find out whether they or I have started in the name of God, even if they burn my books and me in the bargain.10
My words, therefore, did not refer to me but to Eck, Emser, and the Leipzig theologians. This holy priest of God perverts them in the same manner as the Jews interpreted Christ's word about the tribute to Caesar [Luke 23:2] and about the construction of the temple [Matt. 26:61]. He wants to prove his
Christian love by writing that I had said I did not begin the matter in the name of God. Moreover, he testifies and swears that he did not do so out of envy and hatred, and thus the holy name of God must serve his poisonous lies and must be put to shame. Do you not know your feathers at all, you noble bird?
Who will believe that you write a single word of truth when you not only lie so impertinently and maliciously—despite my extreme efforts in asking you not to do so—but also fearlessly undertake to drive such poison into innocent hearts with your un-Christian testifying and swearing and bring so much death to so many Christians with your lies, under the living name of God? How you would rage and stink if you had so bravely caught me with a single letter as I have caught you in this lie!
It is a piece of this same truth of yours when you write that I said, "The devil may care if the poor and simple folk are offended by my teaching!"11 My Emser, who wants to make me out to be a coward, should not attack me with lies. Many lies have been invented about me in the last three years, as you well know, and they were all put to shame. Since you, too, deal with lies, I have no fear of your coming away with honor, even though your lies might persist for a while.
May God be praised and blessed that you, Eck, the pope, and the whole Behemoth12 are offended by my teaching. But I have heard, through the writing and testimony of many pious people, only that my teaching is consoling, useful, and wholesome to simple, sad, and captive consciences; and they have expressed heartfelt gratitude to me, unworthy as I am, and have praised God that they have lived long enough to hear such words. Christ says, "A disciple should not be better than the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, they will also call the household the same thing" [Matt. 10:24–
25]. "If they hear my word, they will hear yours also" [John 15:20]. His Ecks, "points,"13 Emsers, goats, wolves, serpents, and other raging stupid animals were also offended by him; but the sheep heard his voice. My Annases, Caiaphases, Herods, Judases, Pharisees, scribes, and pious, noble, and delicate folk must also be offended by me—that is the way it goes! Christ says, "Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind" [Matt. 15:14]. It would not have been a mortal sin if someone had said what you lie about me, you assassin, [namely,] that the devil may care if you and villains like you are offended—although I do not say it.
Therefore, dear liar, I did not say, as you attribute to me, that I so disregard the offense taken by simple folk that for my part they can go to the devil. You invent this so as to brand me a proud and arrogant man, as you put it. My joyous and great spirit hurts you in your heart. But I am and, God willing,
I shall remain a stable, proud, and fearless spirit in my defiance of you, Eck, the pope, and your mob, even the devil. With God's help I shall defy and despise you as senseless and blind minds and poisonous liars. I wish that your hateful eyes would be forced to see my joyous spirit every day, although even hearing about it almost grieves you enough. All your envy, pain, rage, and whatever evil you might intend shall not help you at all. As long as I do not humble myself before you raging and bloodthirsty tyrants and do not accept your lies and poison, I must remain proud. So, too, Christ and John must have possessed the devil in the opinion of the Jews [John 8:48; Matt. 11:18].
But if I knew that my teaching were injurious to any simple man (which cannot be, since it is the gospel itself), I would rather suffer ten deaths than allow such teaching to go forth or let it go unrecanted.
It would have to be a villain even worse than Emser himself who would not truly be sorry about offending the poor, common people. It would also have to be a non-Christian who would sympathize with the offense of tyrants and Pharisees. But I refuse to debate very much about whether I am a proud man, since this concerns not my teaching but my own person. I have said more than once that anyone may attack my
- 52 person in any way he pleases. I do not pretend to be an angel. But I let no one attack my teaching without a counterattack, since I know that it is not mine but God's. For in it lies my neighbor's and my own salvation in the praise and honor of God. But I think one should believe my Wittenbergers, who see my daily life and associate with me, rather than the absent and lying Emsers. Indeed, I know very well that I am warned every day, not only by my neighbors but also in writing from many other countries, not to be so free to everyone. They scold my spirit which is all too common and offers itself to anyone, even at the peril of my life. No one has attributed to me an arrogant spirit except Emser alone, whom I should really believe as an enemy telling me the truth as they say—if only he had not made himself such a palpable liar.
Moreover, I think that the matter with which I alone am burdened should certainly humble an arrogant spirit, even if there were no more to me than nature alone. Many people consider it impossible for me to live under such circumstances. Indeed, I have so much work to do that three of me would not be enough to do it in six years. Thus I am now, by God's grace, vigorous, healthy, joyous, and courageous, and I even have a little leisure—which, no doubt, my Lord Christ provides in answer to the prayers of godly people and without any merit of my own—thereby defying and offending all the enemies of the divine word so that they, in their annoyance, God willing, become like their Jewish fathers of whom it is written, "They have provoked me with a strange God, so I will provoke them with a strange people," Deuteronomy
Again, you also write that I have forbidden obedience to the pope and the authorities, and, according to your kind of hardened lying, you do not even blush at the many books in which I clearly teach differently, particularly in the book The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,14 which is supposed to be the worst. You also lie about my presence, my absence, my books; you are a liar from every angle. I have burned the books of the pope15 for the sake of this same article, namely, that he deprives the authorities of their [rightful] obedience—and you say I prohibit it. I said that pope and bishops do not have the power to burden Christians with their laws, but that those who are under them should endure and bear as much of their illegal tyranny as can be done without sin or danger to themselves. I have written this not once but many times.
Further, dear liar, you cannot deny the book of Thomas Rhadinus.16 Your drivel and snivel cannot be hidden in this way. The skill therein, which you readily boast to be your own, looks like you, copied from your mind, which is crude and makes no sense in philosophy and theology, as you shall soon know. If there were skill in it, I would not attribute it to you. Who will believe you that you seriously intend to attack the abuses of the spiritual estate? Why have you been silent, and are still silent to this very day, about the abominable abuse of indulgences and Roman knavery? Besides, you do not attack any of my books except those in which I only attacked vices, not any estate. How can you revel in such lies of yours?
You admit the vices and evil habits of the estates, and yet you mumble something to the effect17 that you want to be acclaimed a pious man and an enemy of vice.
I can see it very well: while the water rises above the ribs18 and evil habits are drowning together with incapable men, you pretend to save the estate. But you really strengthen vice and evil habits, as happened at the Council of Constance.19 We shall no doubt be instructed about this in your precious and skilful booklet,20 which started with lies and will probably end with lies as well. I could point out many more such lies that I have ignored up to now. Do not swing your ax too high, otherwise the chips might fall into your eyes in great heaps.21 I therefore ask you once again, my Emser, for God's sake restrain yourself in lying and recant the lies you have already told so that you do not tempt God too much. I know well that you cannot hurt me, and I would rather see you getting well than being ruined. I do not want to leave anything undone that a Christian is obligated to do for his enemy. Since I see that you intend to put your soul on the line and give up life just like an angry bee, I want to give you the freedom and the choice in these writings (as I previously did to one of my enemies) to be angry or to laugh. Moreover, I want to admonish you and encourage you, just in case your last hour arrives (for none of us is sure of any given moment), not to be frightened or to despair of my image and memory. Whatever you have done to me shall not hurt you. You can certainly count on that! I shall have done my part for the salvation of your soul. And even if you, incited by the evil enemy, despise such an offer, if you laugh at it and even make the sign of the cross against it, as I fear you might, just remember it when the time comes and the need arises, and do not despair. I also want all my other enemies to know this, if they do not yet know or have not yet experienced the lessons of ultimate despair and anxiety. I know what I am talking about now. The - 53 time will come when they too will know, may God grant it, without being destroyed by it. Moreover, do not ever think that I will recant a single iota of my teaching, even if it were God's will that you become my cousin,22 sister, or brother-in-law, or whether you become a sheep or remain a goat. It is not a question of recanting, but of staking life and limb on it, my Emser—either that, or nothing. For that may God grant me his grace. Amen.
So that you yourself may grasp how you lie and how you write against me, not prompted by love for truth but by sheer raging hatred, I shall say further: If I really were so possessed, God forbid, as to say that I did not begin this matter in God' name, why do you attack that? Especially since you scream that you wanted to attack only my teaching, without any hatred? How many are there who still teach the truth for the sake of money, property, and honor? Did you not read, Matthew 7[:22–23], that some will say to Christ on the Last Day, "Lord, did we not preach in your name, and do many mighty works"; and then he will say to them, "Depart from me, you evildoers"? Thus he proves to them that they did not act in his name, as they boasted. Look out that you, too, are not one of them, you who boast and swear so mightily that you have begun it [this matter] in God's name.
Again, Balaam, Numbers 24, uttered the noblest prophecies, not in the name of God, but for the sake of the good. Christ said, Matthew 23[:1–3], that one should listen to the scribes who sit on Moses' seat, even if they are malicious, and you must undoubtedly admit that they did not teach in the name of God but for [their own] advantage and honor. Is it not true that you and all the other papal hypocrites and liars rely on this foundation, all of you saying that one should not despise avaricious, unchaste, and ambitious prelates and teachers? In short, one should not look at the life but at the teaching. Now it is impossible for these same people to be able to rule and to teach in God's name; rather, as St. Paul says about them, "They all look after their own interests" [Phil. 2:21]. If you want to wipe out all those who do not teach and rule in God's name, how many of the spiritual estate can you preserve? And where will you be? I hope that you do not want your teaching to be read or obeyed according to your holiness either. For what else would it be but sheer knavery?
St. Paul boasts and rejoices in Ephesians I [Phil. 1:15] that the gospel was preached by some out of envy and rivalry, and even by enemies of the gospel for the sole purpose of destroying it. But you, who are so much holier and more precious than St. Paul, think you can suppress my teaching whenever you can bring up a single evil word about me. Thus you want it to be known that in your delusion you no longer recognize your own hatred and malice. Meanwhile you despair of the cause, are unable to cut off my teaching, and turn your snout and jaw toward my personal life to disgrace it with such scrutiny that you are watching every word of mine since you cannot criticize any action. Thus you intend to write against my teaching and actually write against my life. I think you got into the carnival23 and have become the poet of whom Horace writes that he intended to make a wine cask but the result was a jug,24 just like the preacher who intended to preach on love and then preached about a goose.25 To be sure, you do not have the ears of an ass, as you yourself say,26 but take care you do not have an ass's brain and heart when you act in such an imprudent and senseless manner.
If I had wanted to attack your life, do you not think I, too, could have found something to write about?
I could prove, from your second book Assertion,27 that you admit to having hated me and to having written your first book of praise to the Bohemians28 with hatred for me; that in this same book you very frequently lie; that again and again you talk of nothing but your own opinions, and that you write nothing without lies. But I wanted to have nothing to do with your own or with anyone else's life, and I do not want to have anything to do with it now. I do not deal with [someone's] life, I deal with his teaching. An evil life is most harmful to itself. But evil teaching is the greatest evil on earth, and it leads souls to hell in large numbers. I do not care whether you are godly or evil. I shall attack your poisonous and deceitful teaching, which opposes God's word, and, with God's help, I shall counter it well.
And so that your profound skill and great holiness may be shocked and cross itself at the sight of such a poor sinner and great fool as I am, I say further and confess that I do not boast of having begun something in God's name, as you boast with such solemnity. How do you feel now, Eraser? Now let your pen splutter, ring all the bells, and cry aloud that everything in me is the devil's work, as you would so dearly have liked to do in your murderous stab. Dear Emser, my heart is so affected that I hope I have begun it in God's name. But I am not so bold as to pass judgment on it and loudly proclaim that it surely must be so. I do not want to suffer God's judgment for it. Instead, I crawl to his grace and hope that he has
- 54 let it be started in his name. And, since I am a sinful man of flesh and blood, if something unclean has mingled with it, I hope he may graciously forgive me and not deal severely with me in his judgment.
It is St. Paul who makes me such a coward when he says in I Corinthians 4[:4], "I am not aware of anything concerning myself, but this does not justify me. Nor do I judge myself; it is the Lord who judges me"; and David, "Lord, enter not into judgment with me; for no living man is righteous before you" [Ps.
143:2]. But you, you insolent and intrepid hero, far above St. Paul and all the saints, with neither flesh nor blood, being only Spirit and God—you calmly appeal to God's last judgment, do everything without hate and in the name of God, and quickly defy God's terrible judgment. You should rather snap your fingers at him and pull his beard as well. It might perhaps be correct, whenever you go out into the streets of Leipzig, to have all the bells rung and roses strewn in the path of the new saint. If you have defeated me, in your writings, I ask that you [now] attack the terrible and divine last judgment as something that does you an injustice since it does not allow your cause to be undertaken in the name of God. Moreover, command God, as you do, not to enter into judgment upon you. For you alone, among all men, have already judged yourself and have awarded yourself the crown, and you alone will be found righteous.
What are you trying to do, Emser? Do you not see how your hatred is blinding you so much that you no longer understand your own words and actions? I have never read more horrible and abominable words
—my ears ring when you thus take God's last judgment on yourself.29 And if I had no other reason to believe that you lie and play the hypocrite in everything you say, this abominable appeal of yours to the last judgment would be more than enough [reason] for me. For that cannot come from a really truthful heart, or all of Scripture would have to be false. High oaths are signs of deep lies. You thought that you could win trust by lying. But you only managed to put that trust to the utmost shame. Who will ever believe anything from you after you have appealed with a false heart and lying words to divine judgment?
If you are not lying, then it is your blindness that eliminates trust in you. For what good could you accomplish in divine Scripture when you are so stupid and blind that you no longer understand your own words or your own heart, not to mention God's judgment, and when you babble away like a madman and a drunkard?
Therefore, my advice to you is that you remain a rhymester and write your shabby doggerel.30 It would do no harm if you lie or err in them. The word of God and Scripture are too much for you. You do them too much violence. I shall add still another example to toast your booklet: You begin with the complaint that my teaching has spread so far that there is no home in which there is not unrest and division because of me.31 My Emser, who asked you to give such noble testimony against yourself and in favor of my teaching? How could my teaching be strengthened more than through this testimony of its worst enemy?
God drives you like Caiaphas [John 11:49–50], so that even your hatred produces the best testimony for me just at the moment you think to produce the worst. My hope, that I began in God's name and teach the true word of God, has no stronger support or more miraculous sign than the fact that my teaching has spread so fast into all the world and has created such disunity without my effort and intention and in spite of great opposition and persecution by all the powerful and learned. If it had not done so, I would have despaired and grown tired a long time ago.
The real nature of the divine word is to produce such deeds and disturbance, which is proven by Psalm 147[:15], "God's word runs swiftly," and by Christ, "I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict" [Luke 21:15], and Matthew [10:34–36], "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but the sword and dissension. For I have come to set a son against his father and a daughter against her mother. And a man's foes will be of his own household."
If then my teaching has such an effect in the world, as the enemy himself confesses, what could be better for me than hearing this? Is it not a wonderful God who turns Balaam's malediction into a benediction [Numbers 24], the threats of my enemies into my consolation, and their defiance into my strength? Do you see how well you have hit upon the nature and work of the divine word, you precious dealer in Holy Scripture? You want it to be peaceful, to cause no dispute, and to offend no one. But Christ says, "No"; it cannot and it will not be so. If your first sexto begins with such crude foolishness, what will the next twenty do?32 I think whatever you write will be nothing but sheer tomfoolery and blasphemy. You want to write books and do not know where to start. You undertake to deal with God's word and you do
- 55 not even know its nature, its direction, or its intention. Where do you think you butted me so well, dear goat? I hope you will butt me like this in everything!
The reason why I firmly believe that the books of the pope and of all the sophist theologians are, for the most part, the devil's teaching is this: They entered the world in peace and honor, without opposition, and they have been feared more and considered higher than the holy gospel. If they had come from God they would have pleased fewer people, have caused disunity in families, and created martyrs. But you holy priest of God and lover of Christianity claim to write peaceful teaching which should not offend, and you appeal to the last judgment—and do so without hatred and in the name of God! You should rather call St.
Simeon a liar when he says, Luke 2[:34], that Christ "is set for the fall and rising of many, and for a sign that is spoken against." All the quarrels and wars of the Old Testament have prefigured the preaching of the gospel, which must and should cause quarreling, disunity, dissension, and disturbance. Such was the condition of Christianity at the time of the apostles and martyrs, and that was its best time.
The discord, dissension, and disturbance produced by God's word are blessed events. With them a true faith begins and struggles against false faith. Suffering and persecution also begin again, as does the true nature of the Christian people. To avoid such an occurence, so Emser argues, one should preach something else, something peaceful. The Antichrist in Rome has long desired the same thing and unfortunately has achieved it, something which St. Paul calls "working of error,"33 [that is,] strong preaching and belief in error. John Huss and Jerome of Prague were burned at Constance for the sake of such preaching.34 For their teaching also butted the heads of goats and wolves and created a rebellion.
When Emser's idols, pope and cardinal, consulted with each other as to how they should oppose their teaching, especially concerning both kinds in the sacrament, the Florentine cardinal35 burst out, "Oh, well!
Let these beasts eat and drink whatever they please. But if they want to reform us and teach us what to do, then let us fight them." And the game was indeed played according to this counsel.
My cardinal of St. Sixtus36 did the same thing at Augsburg, pretending that if I but recanted regarding indulgences, the rest would cause no trouble. They probably wanted to find some nice "distinction" and a way out. This is the way they seek God's honor and the truth. Therefore, if Emser produces Aristotle and crowds me with the names of Huss and Jerome, I would rather share Huss's disgrace than Aristotle's honor. I would rather let him have the knave and liar Aristotle, whether he finds him in the pigsty or the asses' stable,37 so that I may have Huss, who, by the grace of God, is again coming to life and tormenting his murderers, the pope and the popish set, more strongly now than when he was alive. If the pope and all papal liars should burst with malice they still have to hear John Huss say to their faces, "Although you
Christian murderers might shed innocent blood, you will never be able to hide it." Abel, who was too weak for his brother when he was alive, really tormented him when he was dead [Gen. 4:10–14]. I hope that it also happens to me that I, like Samson, bring them more misfortune with my death than with my life [Judg. 16:30]. For Christs death, too, did more than his life, as he says in John 12[:24], "Unless a grain of corn falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit."
It does not vex me when he says that there is a prophecy about a monk who will pervert the world.38
St. Paul and St. Peter are strong enough on my side, against all false prophets. They both proclaimed the perversion coming through the pope and his followers. Moreover, when I have clear Scripture on my side
I do not care about any prophet, even if he comes from heaven, because St. Paul said, Galatians 1[:8], that we should not even believe an angel from heaven if he teaches differently than the gospel. But it is clear that the pope and those who rule as tyrants with him have taught differently. Huss proved it; so did I and many others; and I shall prove it even better, so help me God.
You, Emser, have frivolously taken this matter upon yourself, although it is no concern of yours, and have meddled in it unnecessarily. I shall see how you get out of it, for you have ruffled my feathers again; you shall indeed stay through the end of the game, and your name shall be mentioned in many more books, no matter how you complain. But if you want to recant your error and quit your hypocrisy, you shall very soon render me peaceful and silent. If not, then do what you can. May God help his truth.
Neither to me nor to you, but to God alone, be honor and praise. Amen.
ANSWER TO THE HYPERCHRISTIAN, HYPERSPIRITUAL, AND HYPERLEARNED BOOK BY - 56 GOAT EMSER IN LEIPZIG—INCLUDING SOME THOUGHTS REGARDING HIS COMPANION, THE FOOL
Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch The controversy between Luther and Emser reached its climax with the publication of Emser's lengthy treatise, Against the Un-Christian Book of the Augustinian Martin Luther, Addressed to the German
Nobility.1 Emser's "Preface to the Common German Nation"—Luther entitled his treatise To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation2—announced his strategy for the bout with the "fencing master" from Wittenberg, as he put it:3 he would use as his weapons the "sword," Holy Scripture, the word of God; the "long spear," ancient, authentic Christian tradition and ecclesiastical usage; and the "short dagger," the scriptural interpretation of the church fathers who assisted the church in its understanding of the word of God. The bout itself would consist of three rounds, corresponding to the three parts of Luther's treatise.
The first round would deal with the divine right (Recht) of the pope and the clergy, which Luther attacked as the "three walls of the Romanists"; the second round would tackle the matter (Handel) of ecclesiastical abuse and corruption, which Luther listed as matters to be dealt with in a general council; and the third round would take up the question of change (Wandel), which Luther suggested in his proposals for a reform of the church. Using the form of a dialogue between himself and Luther, Emser quoted sentence after sentence from Luther's treatise and closed his refutation with the prayer that the triune God himself, with the Virgin Mary and the heavenly host, should lead the church from sinful schism to blessed unity.4
Luther was not too eager to reply. "Emser is vomiting his poison at length to please Duke George," he wrote to George Spalatin on February 17, 1521, after receiving Emser's complete treatise. "I am obliged to answer the man only on account of his most impure lies."5 He was pleased to hear that friends of his cause had tied a copy of Emser's treatise to Magdeburg's public pillory, flanking it with two whips and adorning it with the inscription, "This is the place where the book belongs."
When friends urged him to reply to Emser, Luther went to work. On March 29, 1521, he sent the literary product to his friend John Lang in Erfurt, under the title Answer to the Hyperchristian,
Hyperspiritual, and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Eraser in Leipzig—Including Some Thoughts Regarding His Companion, the Fool Murner.
Although Luther clearly exhibits his contempt for Emser in the treatise, he also deals with the fundamental issues raised in the controversy: the primacy of the pope, the priestly estate, and the relationship between Scripture and tradition. With theological sagacity Luther gets to the heart of the fundamental difference between his definition of authority and that of Emser, who represents the traditional view. While Emser subjects the word of God to ecclesiastical authority, Luther regards the word of God as the judge of ecclesiastical tradition—a principle he elaborates in the section entitled
"Concerning the Letter and the Spirit." By applying this principle to such questions as the primacy of the pope and the priestly estate, Luther arrives at new definitions of church and ministry.
In his appendix to the treatise, Luther quickly responded to the attacks of Thomas Murner, a Franciscan friar from Strassburg.6 Murner had written three treatises against Luther during November and December, 1520:7 the first attacked Luther's Treatise on the New Testament, That Is, the Holy Mass; 8 the second defended Alveld against Luther's On the Papacy in Rome;9 the third joined Emser's attack on Luther's address To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.10 Luther, who had been informed of Murner's intentions by his friend Wolfgang Capito, a humanist in Mainz,11 did not bother with an extensive reply. He was extremely busy with lectures, preaching, and the preparations for his trip to the Diet of Worms.12 Besides, friends had begun to defend Luther against Murner, whose satirical language gave rise to mocking poems such as the one sent to Luther from the Rhineland.13 Thus Luther limited his reply to the two principal points Murner attacked: that the church is a spiritual, "Platonic" community and that the primacy of the pope cannot be derived from Matt. 16:18.