Answer to the Hyperchristian Book by Goat Emser

The following translation is based on the first German edition of Luther's treatise, entitled Auff das ubirchristlich, ubirgeystlich und ubirkunstlich buch Bocks Emszers zu Leypczick Antwortt D.M.L. Darynn auch Murnarrs seynsz geselln gedacht wirt, printed by John Grünenberg in Wittenberg and found in WA

7, 621–688. Occasionally significant passages from Emser's treatise are cited to provide the reader with some insights into the temper and significance of the controversy.

ANSWER TO THE HYPERCHRISTIAN, HYPERSPIRITUAL, AND HYPERLEARNED BOOK BY GOAT EMSER IN LEIPZIG—INCLUDING SOME THOUGHTS REGARDING HIS COMPANION, THE FOOL MURNER1

Dear Goat, Do Not Butt Me!2

Look here, goat Emser: Are you the man with the long spear and the short dagger? May God guard us against pitchfork stabs which make three holes! Goat Emser, you seem to me to be a strange warrior. St.

Paul described four divine weapons in Ephesians 6[:11–17]: a sword, a helmet, a breastplate, and a shield.

But you need only one of them, the sword. And since St. Paul did not teach enough, you improve the armor with a long spear and a short dagger, and then you rush at me with uncovered head, uncovered chest, and uncovered stomach, as though I would do no more than kneel before you, let the naked knight stab me, and say, "Have mercy, Sir Goat, and let me live!" Moreover, you swear by your priesthood, as Hannibal did by his god,3 that you will not cease to write against me. Goat Emser, if you had improved your oath as you did the armor, swearing by your horns and beard, as Socrates did by his dog,4 it would have been a true philosophical oath almost frightening to me, since you recently found Aristotle in the asses' stable with Christ,5 as you boast. I can see very well that the situation will get serious because the long spears and short daggers are coming, against which I have not guarded myself up to now because St.

Paul did not mention them.

In such a serious situation I have to stick to the breastplate, helmet, and shield which Emser leaves behind—not because he despises them, as everyone knows, but because he does not need them, since he has above all a thick hide, a hard head, and an obstinate chest with which he can oppose not only me but also the Holy Spirit. But St. Paul defines the weapons in such a way that he calls the helmet "a helmet of salvation," the breastplate or cuirass "a breastplate of righteousness," and the shield "a shield of faith."

Emser does not need any of them; he is content with the most holy father, the pope, just as a creature should really be content with its creator. That is why he also introduces the holy fleshly law more than the divine law, takes up the sword with the long spear and the short dagger and thus naked attacks an armed cuirassier, that is, the heretic Martin Luther. What do you think? I really think the goat is a man and a big hero. He may truly dare to do it.

Well, I put on my armor in the name of God. Paul calls the breastplate or cuirass of righteousness the righteous, guiltless life which does no one an injustice, or, as one says in German, "a good cause and a good conscience."6 For St. Peter teaches [I Pet. 4:15–16] that a Christian should live so that he cannot be persecuted justly, suffering persecution only because of his innocence. Just as the cuirass or breastplate protects the chest and gives one courage against stabs, so someone who has a good cause, a good conscience, and is righteous, is fearless, relies on his armor, and is courageous when facing his enemies.

St. Paul in II Corinthians 1[:12] says, "Our reliance or boast is our good conscience, that we have behaved in the world with sincerity," etc. The goat does not find this armor necessary, for it is too heavy for him, and he likes to go without a breastplate, a good cause, or a good conscience. He is content with the long spears and short daggers of blasphemous words and lies.

But now the evil spirit is furious with godly, innocent people and is out to pierce their good causes with long spears and short daggers, that is, to rebuke them with great, poisonous, and cunning lies and false interpretations and to disgrace them in public, as goat Emser is doing to me. Nor is any cause so good that one could boast about it before God, before whom no one is guiltless (Exodus 34[:7]). Thus one needs the shield of faith to retain one's trust in God. And even though everyone has been repulsed because of the poisonous tongues, if he keeps from becoming fainthearted and weary, and puts his trust not in human assistance or in his own right but in God alone, he will bring everything to a good end. That is why

Paul says, "Above all taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one" [Eph. 6:16] (he could almost have referred to Emser's short dagger). He does not say "flaming darts

- 58 of the evil one" and "quench" in vain, for the lies and false declarations of the evil ones are so maliciously hot and poisonous that, if they could, they would set the whole world on fire. And their hearts nearly burn up because of their great hatred, so that one says of them in German, "Oh, how bitterly evil his intention is!"7 That is why the righteous one must put his cause in God's hands and trust him, and in this way quench the fiery darts with the shield of faith. Paul often tried this, and he experienced it from the Jews. I have experienced it from none of my enemies except Eck and Emser, who are both well armed—not with bad darts, but rather with poisonous, fiery ones. But so far they have not been able to do me any harm. If there were no faith these fiery darts would truly burn up one's heart, which has happened to many people.

Nor does Eraser need such a shield, for he knows that I have never attacked anyone with lies. But I need it, for in all my life I have neither read nor heard more fiery and malicious lies than those of goat Eraser, as we shall see.

Furthermore, one needs the helmet of the Savior—the Savior or salvation is Jesus Christ. He becomes a helmet if we console ourselves with and act according to his example and keep him before our eyes. St.

Paul says, Hebrews 12[:3], "Consider him who endured from sinners such hostility against himself, so that you may not grow weary in your faith." He made himself into a helmet when he said, "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant shall not be greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" [John 15:20]. Just as the helmet gives the heart security and peace, so does a Christian feel secure and peaceful when he thinks of his Lord Christ and of how the same things happened to him. He lets things take their course and joyfully says, "Well, whoever wants to have a better life than his dear

Father and Lord must be a rogue." Goat Emser does not need this helmet either, but he draws a picture of it at the end of his book, placing it at his feet and diligently begging people who do not know him to take him seriously. But his head remains uncovered so that the princes of the air [Eph. 2:2] might have free access to it.

He takes the sword, the word of God, and claims to strike not with the sheath, that is, with the letter, but with the blade,8 that is, with spiritual understanding. Since he is a regular young Aristotle, he can probably do better "spiritually" than he can in German and Latin! But I certainly would take this same sword from him with my armor if I knew where he left it. I see nothing in his whole book but the long spears and short daggers of a bareheaded, naked, and open liar and blasphemer. It must have been a clever witch who told him this dream that the sheath is called "letter" and the blade "Spirit." But I think that his holy priesthood found this and everything else in the asses' stable with Aristotle.

Well then, since this ass's skin is itching and he feels too well,9 let us go to the heart of the matter. He has shown three great bits of wisdom in his delicate, noble little book.

First, that be does not attack any of my books in which I deal with Scripture and teaching, but rather the one in which I offer, with very little Scripture, merely my loyal advice to the German nobility. As they are intelligent enough, they did not need my teaching but only my good opinion and admonition,10 "Here I want" (said the goat) "to grab the monk in his bath and win some honor, for I am afraid to attack any of his other books."11

The second is that since he did not yet trust his advantage, he thought he would write a thick book including many quotations which would be difficult to answer. He thought, "If I write a small one, then

Emser might be found out quickly, just as has happened to me before," for it is difficult to hide a great deal of foolishness under a little paper. "But if I write much and quote much, everyone will have to say,

'Oh, how learned is the goat in Leipzig! I think he really gave it to the monk and fought a little bout with this famous fencer.' " Once upon a time there was an ape who saw a shoemaker cut leather. When the shoemaker left the workshop, the ape ran in and, as is his manner, cut some leather too, and ruined all of it. Likewise, when my goat saw that I quote Scripture and teachers in some books, he thought, "I can do that too," thinking it would be enough to pile up whatever he found, just as people of his kind have hacked and martyred many writings.

The third is that since this was not sure enough either, he first of all diligently uses the spiritual understanding of the true Emser and cuts out my words whenever he pleases, smears them with his own poison, and leaves whatever precedes and follows, so that my meaning and his poison should not be noticed. He does all this out of hyperchristian love and an elevated spirit. In addition, he calls upon the precious blood of Christ, praying for me and saying that he wishes to save me from the error Emser imposes upon me and which I absurdly teach. He wants everyone to say, "O God forbid! Does Luther

- 59 teach such poison? O blessed be the goat in Leipzig who shows us what kind of bird he is!" These are the fiery darts and daggers of the evil one, as St. Paul calls them, with which he would like to inflame the world against me. But this will not help him, for God has built up too great a courage in me against it and has given me a fine shield, which I shall now try out in the following way.

Where I said12 that much misery resulted from forbidding priests to marry, he interprets my words as though I had taught that God punishes the world for the sake of chastity. Here he proves his hyperchristian wisdom, quoting much Scripture to show that God punishes unchastity, as though no one had read this.

Thus he wants to claim that I teach unchastity and curse chastity. His raging hatred is so blind that he cannot imagine that no one will believe him. Nor does he see or hear that my books are publicly available, from which even a child could make him out a liar and a scoundrel.

Again, he interprets the fact that I recommend founding fewer rather than more religious foundations13 as though Luther had taught that one should not keep monastic vows, that one should throw off cowls and run away from the monasteries. If these are not fiery and malicious darts, then I do not know what fire, malice, and darts are! Again, where I have taught Christian freedom14 and advised how to be courageous, he interprets it to mean that I have taught haughtiness and pride. He manifests his skill by showing that Holy Scripture teaches only humility so that, if Emser had not appeared, no one would have known that Scripture teaches humility. Thus, according to the hyperchristian and hyperspiritual interpretation of goat

Emser. Luther teaches sheer unchastity, haughtiness, disobedience, and similar vices. This is also the place to mention that he charges me with saying that I did not begin the matter in God's name, and the devil may care if the common people are annoyed by my teaching.15

The whole book is full of such items and spiritual interpretations; therefore, I cannot help thinking that what I have feared so long has actually happened to him: his unbearable hatred has made him so raving and mad that he has neither wit nor sense left. He cannot believe that there are still people on earth. It has certainly happened before that a frantic hatred has made a man wild and raving, as the poets have sung about Hecuba.16 But if he is not insane, then I should not call him a lying knave who lies intentionally and out of sheer malice, which he knows has been recognized by everyone else. Thus he scolds himself in public before everyone in this book. All of my own books are available, and I appeal to them.

This is the same way that John Huss and Jerome of Prague were burned at Constance.17 No one there could honestly contradict them, so false opinions were ascribed to them, as can be seen clearly from the writings and books of both of them. Likewise Christ, when he says, "Render to Caesar the things that are

Caesar's" [Matt. 22:21], should really have said that one should not pay Caesar any interest. And St.

Stephen, Acts 8 [7:48; Isa. 66:2], when he preaches that the temple of Jerusalem is not the true house of God but that Christ makes a true house of God through faith, says, "God does not live in houses made by men, as he says through the prophet Isaiah, 'Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool; what is the house which you would build for me? My spirit will rest on a quiet, humble heart.' " Since they could not in any way contradict this clear passage, they hired false witnesses who said he had blasphemed against God and the holy temple and that he should therefore die [Acts 6:13].

My goat does the same thing, filled with the same Jewish spirit, because he could not deny that much misery has come out of forbidding marriage in the spiritual estate, as I have said,18 so that even children in the street sing and speak of it. I included the clear statement of St. Paul, I Timothy 4[:1–3], with which I proved that with such a law the pope has been the apostle of the devil. This must silence everyone, not just

Emser; they are completely unable to respond to it—yet he steps out of line, strikes me with the blade of his spiritual understanding, charges me with teaching that God punishes the world for the sake of chastity, and commands me and my Greeks,19 who have refused to accept the pope's devilish commandments, to stay at home. This is supposed to serve as an answer to me. Is not the world strange? If I were ever discovered to be such a liar, cheater, and crude fool, all my teaching and honor, my faith and trust, would be finished; everyone would consider me a knave and a dishonorable villain (and rightly so). Even though my enemies uninterruptedly and ceaselessly lie about me in a crude and cruel way and publicly disgrace themselves, they have the luck that no one turns away from them, and everyone is still waiting to see whether they catch me sometime. One can certainly tell by their wilful lying that their attack on me is not of God. Thus, even if I were filled with devils, their cause would not be valid because they intend to exorcise the devil not with the finger of God but with the devil [Luke 11:18–20]. Everything is forgiven them, no matter how much they lie and fool; but if I should waver by a hairsbreadth, everything I ever said

- 60 must be heresy. And when they cannot do this, they nevertheless cling to me and urge themselves on with my sharp and biting writings; they cannot forget the speck in my eye, but no one wants to perceive the log in his own eye.

Therefore I truly need God's help. I, a single man (who certainly cannot live without weakness) should close a round circle without a single crack and should not stumble at all, although I have been driven into the game against my will. But they, the big mob who push themselves into it, have a better chance of prevailing, even though their case is full of flaws and holes and consists of loose pieces. Nevertheless, it has to be as the Song of Solomon 2[:2] says, "As a rose among thorns so is my love among maidens"; and Psalm 110[:2], "You are to rule in the midst of your foes." I stand alone in the midst of them; they are a ring around me, many against one, so that it may be seen how easily the strong and invincible truth increases its honor from the lie, and how much effort and labor it takes for the weak lies to acquire their disgrace from the truth. Thus my goat would certainly have acquired enough disgrace with joy and pleasure from other things, but he had to get it with great raging and raving from the truth.

This should be answer enough to the goat, since it is clear from his un-Christian lying and perjury with what kind of attitude and spirit he has written—for one should not fight the recognized devil; rather, one should cross oneself and flee. However, there comes a time to expose and bring to light the evil spirit who does not stop lying and blaspheming God's truth through goat Emser's snout, so that his dishonor is brought home to him. And Emser and his kind should be informed about the meaning of Isaiah's saying,

"You are pregnant with a fire and bring forth nothing but stubble" [Isa. 33:11]. The poets write that the big mountains, too, were once supposed to give birth to a child; everyone expected a child as large as a mountain, and when it turned out to be a mouse, everyone laughed. That is the origin of the proverb, "The mountains are pregnant, but will produce a mouse."20

My goat Emser, too, has made horrible threats to butt and has sharpened long spears, short daggers, and swords. The great bloody war was waged on the poor paper, which thus increased the supply for the privy and the dispensary. Even such an honor is too great for the un-Christian lies, blasphemies, and perjuries which were made against God's holy word.

Since I had proven so clearly, with strong and well-founded Scripture, that all Christians are spiritual and are priests,21 so that not even Emser dared to invent a lie (which really surprises me) to slander it and was unwillingly forced to let it stand, nevertheless he demonstrated his mastery by dividing the interpretation of Scripture into two parts, saying that I strike with the sheath but he would strike with the blade. Well, let us watch, for he will display an unusual masterpiece. He claims for himself St. Paul's saying in II Corinthians 3[:6], "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." He then teaches us that he who understands Scripture according to the letter and not according to the Spirit should rather read Virgil22 or some other heathen fable, for he reads his death. This is what Luther does, who obeys the letter, strikes about with the sheath, and does not teach the Spirit.

Let us rather note carefully that this is the chief article of the Emserian theologians, and on this field it will be "win or lose." It follows from this, and God's holy priest must conclude from it, first of all, that St.

Peter taught the letter and death, since he says, I Peter 2[:9], "You are a royal priesthood and a priestly kingdom." With this saying I proved that all Christians are priests, for Peter said it to all Christians, as the words clearly state and mention the people by name. So if I teach the letter and death and fight with the sheath by quoting these words of St. Peter, this insult does not apply to me but to St. Peter. Therefore, I desire from this highly spiritual priest of God that he kindly point out to me, in these words of St. Peter, which is the letter and which is the Spirit—unless he wanted to say that they contain neither letter nor Spirit, which he certainly does not do.

He says, "He who interprets the words of St. Peter to mean that all Christians should be priests to the extent that they are consecrated by bishops strikes with the sheath, takes the letter, and follows a deadly reasoning. For St. Peter speaks of the inward spiritual priesthood which all Christians possess, and not of the consecrated priesthood." Here I answer: It is true that St. Peter speaks of the spiritual priesthood.

Indeed, I go further and say that he does not utter even a syllable about the consecrated priesthood. That is why his words cannot be either a sheath or a deadly letter, as Emser imagines. Instead, whoever applies St.

Peter's words to consecrated priests retains neither sheath nor letter. He is wrong and everything he does is worthless. St. Peter's words have only one simple meaning which encompasses both letter and Spirit.

But Emser does not know what "letter" means. That is why he makes "sheath" and whatever he pleases - 61 out of God's word. In addition, he allows himself to imagine that there are two kinds of priesthood, a spiritual one and a churchly23 one which he calls "ecclesiastical" (ecclesiasticum). Thus he thinks that the words of Peter could fit both and that all that matters is to give them their proper sense—and he accuses me of not giving them their proper sense.

All this is sheer error and blindness, and Emser should have stayed home with such hopeless attempts.24 For I have never said that St. Peter's words refer to his invented priesthood, which he calls ecclesiasticum and which I shall call "churchly" from now on. Furthermore, I did not say that all

Christians are churchly priests. Therefore, if this holy priest of God had put his glasses on his nose and taken a better look at my booklet, he would not have needed to ascribe such lies to me. Even if the silly dream remained, according to which St. Peter's word meant two kinds of priesthood, one with the letter and sheath and the other with the Spirit and blade, the whole churchly priesthood would still be a deadly and harmful thing. For, as Emser himself says, it implies on the basis of the dead letter that St. Peter is only talking about the spiritual, living priesthood. For whatever is not Spirit does not live and is dead.

Again, since he gives me the dead letter and yet calls my priests the living ones of whom Peter speaks, he calls the living ones dead and his dead ones living. Thus he fools himself, does not know what he babbles, declares his own priesthood dead, and disgraces it more than anyone ever did. This is what happens to those blind leaders of the blind who want to deal with divine Scripture and to wield the sword of the Spirit, which is too heavy for them. Clearly, as they say, the sword is bigger than he is.25

Therefore, to avoid the foolish dream of Emser, one should know that Holy Scripture, especially the New Testament, which no longer contains figures,26 writes of no more than one spiritual priesthood, just as I wrote when discussing the papacy that it [the New Testament] writes of no more than one spiritual church.27 The priesthood of which Emser dreams and the church of which the papists write agree with Scripture as life agrees with death. And here I offer this challenge: If Emser brings me one letter from Scripture which calls his churchly priesthood priesthood, he will have won. But [if not] he must grant me victory!

Scripture makes all of us equal priests, as has been said, but the churchly priesthood which we now separate from laymen in the whole world, and which alone we call priesthood, is called "ministry"

[ministerium], "servitude" [servitus], "dispensation" [dispensatio], "episcopate" [episcopatus], and "presbytery" [presbyterium] in Scripture. Nowhere is it called "priesthood" [sacerdocium] or "spiritual"

[spiritualis]. I have to say this in German: Scripture, I say, calls the spiritual and priestly estate a service, caretaking, an office, an elder, an attendant, a guardian, a preaching office, and a shepherd. We intend to prove this thoroughly. St. Paul says to St. Timothy, "A servant of God must not be quarrelsome" [II Tim.

2:24]. Here he calls Timothy a servant of God in the special sense of preaching and spiritually leading the people. Again, in II Corinthians 12 [11:23], "If they are servants of Christ so am I." And in I Corinthians

4[:1], "Dear brethren, we do not want people to regard us as more than servants of Christ and stewards of his spiritual goods." And Christ, in Matthew 24[:45–51], talks much about the same stewards.

Now, the little word "priest" stems from the Greek language in which presbyteros means senior in Latin and "the elder" [eldist] in German. That is why in former times the spiritual rule was always held by the elders, just as the councilors of a city, senatus in Latin, derive their name from their age. Young people have never been very good rulers. Thus priest indicates age, not status; nor does it make one a cleric or a spiritual man. St. Peter says, in I Peter 5[:1–2], "I, the elder, exhort you, my fellow elders, to tend the flock of Christ that is in your charge." Again, "You young people are to be subject to the elders" [I Pet.

5:5]. Here one has to say in German "priests or ministers" [priester odder geystlichen] because of the wrong use of the words.

"Bishop" too stems from the Greek language. For he whom they call episcopus is called speculator in Latin and "a guardian or watchman on the tower" [warttman odder wechter auff der Wart] in German.

This is exactly what one calls someone who lives in a tower to watch and to look out over the town so that fire or foe do not harm it. Therefore, every minister or spiritual regent should be a bishop, that is, an overseer or watchman, so that in his town and among his people the gospel and faith in Christ are built up and win out over foe, devil, and heresy. Thus St. Luke, in Acts 20[:17–18, 28] says, "Paul called to him the priests of the church," that is, the elders of the Christians in Ephesus, "and said to them, 'See to yourselves and to all the flock of Christ, over which the Holy Spirit has set you as bishops, to feed the - 62 church of God, which he has acquired with his own blood.' " Here it is clear that the elders are called bishops, that is, overseers of God's church—of the Christians who are God's people.

Thus Emser too certainly knows from St. Jerome28 that priest and bishop are one and the same thing in Scripture. For St. Paul says in Titus 1[:5], "You should appoint a priest in every town" (that is, an elder over them); and soon afterward he says about the same priest, "But this same bishop must be a blameless man" [Titus 1:7]. He clearly calls the same man priest, bishop, elder, and watchman. But no one should be surprised that bishop, pastor, priest, chaplain, cathedral dean, monk, and many similar names have different meanings now, since no word of Scripture has retained its true meaning. That is why God and his

Scripture do not know the present bishops. The spiritual estate has been established and ordered by men's laws and regulations in such a way, and has become so deeply entrenched in the course of time, that one thinks it is founded on Scripture, even though it is more than twice as worldly as the world itself while calling itself and pretending to be spiritual. Yet there is nothing behind it.

That is why I have called this same priesthood churchly, since it stems from the order of the church and is not founded on Scripture. For in previous times this matter was handled as follows, and this is the way it should still be done: since in every Christian town they were all equally spiritual priests, one of them—the oldest or rather the most learned and most godly—was elected to be their servant, official, caretaker, and guardian in regard to the gospel and the sacraments, just as a mayor in a city is elected from among the common mass of all citizens. If tonsure, consecrations, anointments, and vestments make priests and bishops, then Christ and the apostles would never have been either priests or bishops.

Now come on, Emser. If you prove with a single passage or even one letter that our priests are called sacerdotes, ecclesiastici, or religiosi spirituales, I shall gladly approve of and praise your jugglery with the sheath and blade of two kinds of priesthood. Indeed, you are obliged, before you become a defender, to show what you want to defend and where it originates—although this time your great spiritual brain has become shamefully forgetful, and you are defending something not knowing what, how, or where. You are a "licentiate of canon law" and a "prohibiter of Holy Scripture";29 you have a "license" to babble whatever you please but you have a "prohibition" against proving anything.

But you know very well that when you drag in by the hair some passages of the fathers to apply to your dreams, it does not move me at all. Even if they agreed with you, it is not enough. I want to have

Holy Scripture because I fight against you with Scripture. Moreover, the fathers do not count with me at all unless you have first proven that they have never erred. That you will do when the ass gets horns and the goat turns into a sheep! And when you have done that, I shall still say that no holy father has the power to command and to make an article of faith or a sacrament that Scripture did not command or make. I shall disregard your long straw spear of usage and your short wax dagger. Christ did not say, "I am Emser's long spear and short dagger." Nor did he say, "I am usage and custom," nor "I am Ambrose, Aristotle, this or that teacher." Instead, he said, "I am the truth" [John 14:6]. Since Emser dares to wage the whole quarrel with three main items, spear, dagger, and sword, I shall attend to these three, and first of all to the spear.

Concerning Emser's Long Spear Your long spear is Goliath's spear [I Sam. 17:45], and your short dagger is Joab's dagger [II Sam.

20:8]. If usage were sufficient, the heathen would have the very best excuse, since for more than four thousand years they have been used to worshiping idols. You should first prove that usage is right and comes from God; you think it is enough to appeal to usage. So that I may lay before you something from philosophy, O new philosopher, [let me suggest] that you should not prove the antecedent (prius) through the consequent (posterius) and beg the question (principium petere).30 I attacked the priestly estate which was a cause and instigator of this usage, not vice versa. And you answer me with usage. This is just as though I said, "The coat should make the tailor and the shoe should make the shoemaker." You see, you have such a fine clever philosophy that Sir Thomas Rhadinus,31 Emser's sister's only brother, could have said it, for he, too, philosophizes in this manner.

Who doubts that from the beginning until now the churchly priesthood has had different vestments, manners, and works than other common Christians, and that thereby a public usage has come down to us and is maintained? Should this same constant usage therefore be sufficient to create two kinds of priesthood in Christendom? Why does not the variety of priesthood create a variety of practices and usages in cathedrals and monasteries, since none is in concord with the other, and yet constant usage is

- 63 maintained in all of them? Therefore learn, dear goat, that no usage can change or reinterpret anything in Scripture or in articles of faith. Instead, usage applies only to external, changeable works and manners, in which neither the Christian nor the priestly estate, but only offices, services, and similar works are indicated and realized. Thus consecration does not make a cleric, but it does make servants out of clerics; tonsure, chasuble, mass, and sermon are not the signs of a priest but rather of a servant and official of the common priesthood.

All of us in the whole mass of people are priests without the consecration of the bishop. But through consecration we become the stewards, sevants, and administrators of the other priests who may be deposed and changed, just as a priest in cathedral churches is provost, dean, cantor, custodian, and holder of similar offices for the others. Canon law almost does no more than to make such officials priests and spiritual (for which it is called "spiritual law"); this elevates and emphasizes such a matter too much and masks the words of Holy Scripture. The fact that no one is any longer called a priest and spiritual except such servants of priests does not argue against me. Indeed, this is precisely why it [cannon law] should be burned and destroyed.32 Human traditions [traditiones hominum] and human laws have at all times damaged and obscured divine laws, as Christ teaches in Matthew 15[:3–9] and as Paul teaches everywhere. That is why you, goat, should have saved your lead dagger until you could cut butter or soft cheese.

It is true that the holy fathers called the churchly priestly estate priesthood. What else should they have called it? It was already the custom to separate the laymen and rulers of the masses, so that each had to be called by his own name. Thus, if I were to preach today about the rulers of the church, who would understand me if I did not call them, in the usual way, priests, clerics, spiritual? The practice of calling our rulers sacerdotes started very early, on the basis of Hebrews 5, for it is written there, "Every high priest

[sacerdos] chosen from among men," etc. This refers to the Old Testament, but is also applied to the New Testament because of the same expression. But if the dear fathers would have had to write about this they certainly would have done it differently and according to Scripture; they would not have defended it with desecrations.

But, just so that you can try your own spear and dagger to see whether they stab you or me harder, give me an answer to this: You all say with one voice that the priest celebrates mass and blesses the bread, not in his own person but in that of the whole church. This is where truth, your conscience, necessity, and the common statement and faith of the whole world drive you, so that Christendom might maintain itself and be worthy even if the priest is not pious, faithful, and worthy (since no saint is worthy enough). But then who is the true priest? He who does it as a servant, or the one in whose name he does it? Who is the cleric? He who does the work and sends it, or the servant who carries it and brings it? The priest is a messenger and servant in this work, so someone else must be the true priest. I really think it has been proven clearly enough that we are all priests. And these priests are not a different kind of priest; they are servants and officials (as was said above)33 of the common priesthood. So there are not two kinds of priesthood in Christendom, as you have dreamed. See, this is what happens to drunken fighters who hold the sword by the blade and the spear by the point and let out ridiculous grunts.

As I have written several times by now,34 it was through the pope's damned law and rule that the precious, customary terms "church," "priest," "spiritual," and the like were taken away from the community and applied only to the smallest group, which we now call the spiritual and priestly estate and whose affairs we call the affairs of the church. Yet all of us are in a common church; we are all spiritual and priests, to the extent that we believe in Christ. They are only stewards, servants, officials, caretakers, shepherds, guardians, and watchmen. Therefore, I think that goat Emser's dream of two kinds of priesthood lies in sand and mire.

I am surprised that you, wise man and victorious knight, are not ashamed to fight against me with the argument of usage in matters concerning Christian faith and the word of God. You juggle with long spears and daggers even though usage is, also in worldly dealings, the weakest and usually the most ridiculed argument. Everyone expects you to attack me with Scripture, so you let Scripture go and fall upon usage.

But I certainly sense that the cider of the holy burned law, of which you are an unworthy licentiate and in which much is decreed regarding usage, was unable to stop fermenting and kicked the bottom out of the barrel,35 so that you, together with Elihu [Job 32:2–22], who also mocked the saintly Job, suffocate from your great [rhetorical] skill. What can you teach us—that this priesthood has maintained itself until now

- 64 through usage? What peasant or child does not see and grasp this? Take a spoon and taste what you are saying! If the priesthood developed and has remained through usage, then one can, through human power and will, replace it with another custom and abolish it. This can happen to all customs. Thus it surely follows that it is not of divine order, for divine order does not depend upon any wavering custom and cannot be changed by men. It is also true, and I have said it before and still say it, that such an external priesthood has no foundation in Scripture, but rather has been called this and has been maintained through long usage. See how nicely your spear stabs me! You intend to write against me and end up writing for me and against yourself. This is what your haughty art of warfare does: you carry the spear by the point [and hold it] against yourself, attack with the shaft toward me, and run yourself through.

But tell me, Emser, do you yourself consider it a Christian custom to call yourselves something different from what Scripture calls you? Are you ashamed of your names? Or is the Holy Spirit not good enough to name you? Are you not satisfied with his naming you? You despise his names and invent your own names so that whoever reads Scripture cannot recognize you and has to ask, "Where do these strange people come from?" St. Paul calls the minister of each town a bishop [Titus 1:5, 7], that is, a guard, priest, elder, servant, steward, and not a sacerdos. But you call bishops, who are now no more than worldly princes, sacerdotes, who celebrate mass and pray the hourly prayers. You twist and turn God's word as you please. And just as you have discarded the works, so are you also ashamed of the names; and to cover it up you attach to yourselves the glorious and worthy titles sacerdos and ecclesiasticus and the like.

Not satisfied that God and we permit such evil and perverted usage and wink at your faults,36 you claim to force us to consent to it and sanction it as though it were right and the work of the Holy Spirit himself. In fact, it is your own arbitrariness and your despising of the Holy Spirit. You want to make a long spear and a short dagger out of it. This is supposed to be right for no other reason than that you have invented it, and the Holy Spirit must be wrong, must give in to you, and must have been your fool. At the top of your voice you scream and lie that I blasphemously attack and disgrace the head of the church the pope and the priesthood, which I certainly have never done. For I have taught that we should suffer and honor even the power of the Turks (whom you want to devour) and all other unjust powers. But I am to call you gracious squires, admire you, and submissively thank you when you and your pope blaspheme

Christ, God, and his Holy Spirit, pervert all their words and works, and play around with them just like jugglers with their heaven.37 I must be acting out of hate because I refuse to preach your new and invented way as being based on Scripture, and it is not enough for me to leave it alone and to let it have its own dignity outside Scripture. But you act out of love when you usurp God's Scripture as your own property and add or subtract from it whatever you please. God must obey you and must let himself be mockingly made into an idol38—and I thought you should obey God and should let yourselves be made his children!

Not only are we supposed to allow you to degrade our Lord, but we, together with you and the Jews, should say to him, "Hail, rabbi of the Jews" [Matt. 27:29] and hold this terrible mockery to be the highest honor to God. Woe to you, Antichrist, and to all your apostles and clerics!

Thus you yourself must confess with me that this priesthood did not come out of Scripture. For whatever exists on the basis of usage is already known without Scripture and is without God's order.

Likewise, if it is confirmed by the teachings of the fathers and men, it is known to be not from Scripture because usage and human teaching are something different from Scripture. This is the answer to the long spear and to the argument of usage which, if it were Christian usage, should really have some basis in Scripture and should have just a tinge of the Spirit's sword. But since it is pure usage, what else is it but a carnival play? However, I do not want to ridicule you yet, as I am tempted to, because perhaps you could not find the sword for Shrove Tuesday, and so I shall excuse you until we get to it in the third part.39

Meanwhile I am giving you as much time and space as you wish, and not only to you alone but to your whole papal sect, you who call yourselves the only church of God. You had better use diligence and—may

St. Aristotle and the holy cremated law assist you—search for the sword, then take it up and vigorously swing it at the heretic Luther and really strike him with the blade. But be careful not to strike your own cheek! I am afraid you will not find it and will meanwhile swing with sacks of straw. It will probably have to do for this Shrove Tuesday. I ask everyone for God's sake to excuse my abuse. Who can handle with constant, courageous seriousness these childish, foolish, and blind heads who dare everything and accomplish nothing? They are those of whom Christ says in Matthew 11[:17], "If we sing to them, they do not dance; if we wail to them, they do not cry." No matter how one treats them, neither seriousness nor - 65 abuse will help. This crude goat's head pretends to fight with the sword and the moment he has mentioned it he says, "Now we shall put down the sword and take up the spear." He has never picked it up in the past, nor will he pick it up again in the future. Who can tolerate such crude tomfoolery in such serious matters, since they really intend to lead people around by the nose40 and deceive them?41 I mock with justification (I hope) those who mock my God and his word and work, just as Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal [I Kings 18:27].

To come to an end: No one doubts that the sword of the Spirit, God's word, is valid in every quarrel.

But Emser should first prove that usage—even if it is good usage—and human teaching are valid. But he lets the sword lie, which is valid there, and introduces usage and human teaching, which are not valid.

Where then is this high and mighty philosopher, Sir Thomas Rhadinus, who found Aristotle in the asses' stable? Did not Aristotle teach that it is not right "to prove the proposition which is to be proven by the same proposition and to beg the question" (probanda per probanda probate unnd petere principia)? These are the wizards who lure our dear young people into philosophy and themselves know as much about it as they do about theology. They take money from them only to let them go away knowing less than when they came. It would certainly be a virtue for you crude asses to know your own philosophy, which you praise so highly. To me this is a ridiculous guild, where no one really knows his own craft. Thus the dagger too cuts into your fingers.

Concerning the Lead Dagger of Goat Emser In order not only to blunt and refute his spear and dagger, but also to destroy them completely, I shall show that he was like a dreaming man who in his sleep finds a spear and dagger and fights vehemently.

When he wakes up, it was a dream. I have found out that all who write and intrigue against me have in them a stupid heart and a cowardly conscience. They fear Scripture since they well know that it is unknown to them. That is why they make such a great effort, why they writhe and twist, to avoid the necessity of attacking me with Scripture and of themselves getting beaten with Scripture. So they invent a new lie, discover daggers, spears, and similar tomfoolery, and say that Scripture is so obscure that we cannot understand it without the interpretation of the holy fathers and that therefore we have to follow not the text but the glosses of the fathers. This is what Emser calls striking not with the sheath but with the blade. When they finally do bring up a passage of the fathers against me, they ring all the bells, beat all the drums, and vehemently scream that they have won; they stuff their ears and cover their eyes and thus believe they have clogged and muffled all of Scripture for me.

When I detect such cowardice and flight from light, how can I be afraid of such blind moles who fear the light? By their cowardice they force me to think that they know nothing in Scripture. That is why they are like the old frog to whom the young frog lamented how a big animal, an ox, had come and trampled all the other little frogs to death. The old frog was furious, blew itself up, and said, "Well then! Am I not as big?" "No, dear mother," said the little frog, "not even if you burst."42 This is how my goats, too, blow themselves up with their own breath, wind, and spirit, and if I come with the foot of the ox, of which Scripture speaks, I shall step on them so that they squeak.

So that such deceptive chatter may be recognized, I ask them again: Who told them that the fathers are clearer than Scripture and not more obscure? How would it be if I were to say that they understand the fathers as little as I understand Scripture? I could stuff my ears against the sayings of the fathers as well as they can against Scripture. But this is not how we shall reach the truth. If the Spirit spoke in the fathers, he spoke even more in his own Scripture. And whoever does not understand the Spirit in his own Scripture— who will believe that he understands him in the writings of someone else? This means precisely to use the sword in its sheath. If one does not grasp it as it is by itself, but rather through human words and glosses, it will soon be blunt and more obscure than before. Yet Emser insists on calling this striking with the blade.

The naked sword gives him the shivers. But there is no help for it, he has to like it.

Therefore, one must know that Scripture without any glosses is the sun and the whole light from which all teachers receive their light, and not vice versa. This can be seen from the following: when the fathers teach something, they do not trust their own teaching. They are afraid it is too obscure and too uncertain; they run to Scripture and take a clear passage from it to illumine their own point, just as one puts a light into a lantern, as Psalm 18[:28] says, "Lord, you light my lantern." In the same way, when they interpret a passage in Scripture they do not do so with their own sense or words (for whenever they do that, as often happens, they generally err). Instead, they add another passage which is clearer and thus illumine and - 66 interpret Scripture with Scripture, as my goats would certainly discover if they would read the fathers correctly. But since they run around everywhere and look at neither Scripture nor the fathers correctly, it is no wonder that they do not know what Scripture or the fathers teach.

I cannot tolerate their slandering and blaspheming Scripture and the holy fathers. They accuse Scripture of being obscure, although all the fathers attribute the brightest light to it and draw from it, as David says in Psalm 119[:105], "Your word is my light." Again, they attribute to the fathers the light with which to illumine Scripture, even though all the fathers confess their own obscurity and only illumine

Scripture with Scripture. That is the real art, to gather Scripture correctly. The father who can do this best is the best father. One should read the books of all the fathers with caution, not believing them but rather watching out whether they also cite clear passages and illumine Scripture with clear Scripture. How could they have overcome the heretics if they had fought with their own glosses? They would have been regarded as fools and senseless people. But since they cited such clear passages, which did not need glosses, that all reason was captivated by them, the evil spirit himself, along with all the heresies, had to retreat before them.

It is a different study of Scripture to interpret obscure Scripture and figures; it is called hunting, because one seeks and hunts some interesting reasonings as one would hunt game. But the kind of study useful to battle is that one is learned in Scripture, as Paul says [Titus 1:9]. It means to fight powerfully and with many clear passages, as with a drawn and naked sword, without any glosses and interpretations. This was the significance of the golden spears in Solomon's temple. Thus the opponent, overcome by the bright light, must see and confess that God's sayings stand alone and need no human interpretation. The foe who does not believe clear Scripture will certainly not believe the glosses of any of the fathers either.

It follows from this that one should not believe any teacher and that Emser's dagger is only a foolish invention. Instead, one should see whether they cite clear Scripture and obey it so that nothing more than the naked sword, the word of God, rules everyone. St. Paul taught us this when he wrote, "Test every doctrine; hold fast to what is good" [I Thess. 5:21]. He did not say that one should hold fast to everyone's teaching, but that one should test them all and hold fast to what is good. But Emser, together with his sophists, thinks, just as Eck also foolishly pretended in Leipzig,43 that one should not test or try the fathers' teaching but rather accept it in every detail, even though everyone knows that they all erred many times. If, however, we should test them, as St. Paul says here, what kind of touchstone should we use other than Scripture? It must really be clearer and more certain than the fathers' teaching, for how else could we use it as a test to judge what is right or wrong? This is what the goat, so much more learned than St. Paul, intends to reverse, claiming that we should not obey the mere text but rather the interpretation of the fathers. He thus makes the fathers the judges and testers of God and God's word to prove how true it is that no foolishness stands alone. Such juggling has never been heard of among the ancient fathers; it is a new invention of the pope and his sects, the mighty schools, to try to grasp Scripture not alone but through the interpretation of the fathers, so that they may escape the sword.

Since the goat has become a new philosopher, I must present him his Aristotle and prove to him how learned his Rhadinus is therein. Aristotle had written—and nature, without Aristotle, also teaches it to the peasants—that one cannot prove something obscure and uncertain with something obscure and uncertain, even less, light with darkness. Instead, whatever is obscure and uncertain must be illumined with something clear and certain. Since, then, all the fathers prove their point with Scripture, it is incredible that they could have been so mad and nonsensical (as follows from Emser's philosophy and short dagger) as to consider Scripture an obscure fog (as Emser scolds and blasphemes) with which they clarified and illumined their teaching. Rather, they most certainly considered Scripture the principal light and the greatest clarity and certainty, to which they appealed and upon which they relied as upon the most obvious and the clearest teaching to judge and to test all teaching.

St. Augustine did the same thing, and writes that he would believe no teacher, no matter how godly and learned he might be, unless he proved his teaching with Scripture or clear reason.44 From this we learn how the fathers should be read, namely, that we should not consider what they say but whether they use clear Scripture or reason. But Emser and the pope's sects should not be blamed for fearing to do and to suffer such things and for inventing other ruses. For if they really would allow themselves to be pressured into proving their point with clear Scripture—God help them—then the abomination would be discovered and they could no longer deny that their sect is the rule of the Antichrist seducing the whole world in the - 67 name of "church" and "priesthood," as I shall bring to light someday,45 if God grants it. That is why they are almost forced to blaspheme and to disgrace Scripture, to sweep it under the rug,46 and to pretend that it is an obscure fog and that one should follow the interpretation of the fathers and seek the light in the darkness. One should not use the fathers' teachings for anything more than to get into Scripture as they did, and then one should remain with Scripture alone. But Emser thinks that they should have a special function alongside the Scriptures, as if Scripture were not enough for teaching us.

But to get a better look at the hypermiraculous art of the dear goat: even if Scripture is an obscure fog, how dare you fight me with it and pretend to strike me with the blade? Can you blow both hot and cold out of one mouth?47 Is Scripture both an obscure fog and the brightest light in your head at the same time?

For since you use three different weapons, the sword, the spear, and the dagger, then the sword cannot be either spear or dagger. Therefore, when you use the sword, namely, God's word, you must not use the dagger, namely, the fathers' interpretation. How quickly you changed your mind, you who say that the word of God is an obscure fog and that we should not work with our reason! But you work with it when you wield the sword! Indeed, I see clearly that in this matter you have taken leave of your senses. That no one is able to do what you do is because you no longer possess any reason which would make you resemble a rational being. I am sure you know what I mean, you noble goat. How cautious you are in your writing!

It also follows from these three weapons that you intend to make us spiritual with human words and teachings. For since spear and dagger are something different from the sword, and the sword is God's word which alone is the truth, spear and dagger must be human words and lies. For whatever is not God's word, is a lie, as Psalm 116[:11] says, "All men are liars." That is why I said that your spear is Goliath's spear and your dagger is Joab's dagger. But if the dagger should also be God's word interpreted by the fathers, and the spear the interpretation of God's word, then they are not three different weapons but only one, namely, the sword which is contained in all three. For all kinds of things could happen with you, not to mention a sword socking in a dagger. I think you went to a school of dolts and the ass read better than you. I wish you would stay home with your dreams and ruses and practice such reckless juggling in your own verses, leaving alone God's word, which cannot tolerate such frivolous poems. To fight against the enemy we have no more than one word, which is spear, sword, dagger, and every other weapon: that is the holy word of God. Thus I hope you see your sheer monkeybusiness about these three weapons. Next time take on things you can prove with Scripture or reason. Then there will be less ridicule for you at your carnival. No one except your own dream has anything to say about the spear and the dagger. This then is my answer to you and all the teachers you may want to quote, whether it be the first one you mentioned,

Aristotle, or Gerson and Scotus48 in addition. If they do not suffice, take a calendar49 and increase the number, so that meanwhile no one notices how you fear Scripture and flee from it as the devil flees the cross.

To fortify this spear and dagger, they even invented a foundation for themselves so that they would not have to stay with Scripture and be revealed as more unlearned than laymen. They know no shame when one wants to deal with Scripture. Although they know very well that with their usage and human teachings they survive like butter in the sun, they keep saying, "Not everything one must do in the church is written in Scripture. Rather, Christ commanded the apostles and their successors to teach and to arrange these things, as is written in the last chapter of St. John [John 21:25], 'But Jesus performed many more signs which are not written in this book; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.' " Just look at these fine interpreters of the saints—how prettily they could weave a tassel and excuse for their dishonor from the leaves of this holy fig tree and gospel [Gen. 3:7]! They come along just as though they had done everything written in Scripture, and as though too little were written, even though no one (except Christ) has ever fulfilled completely one iota of Scripture. John says that not all the miraculous things Christ did are written down; he does not say that not all the things we should do are written down. Indeed, he clearly states soon afterward50 what we should do, saying, "But these signs are written that you may believe," [John 20:31]. This faith is also the work we

Christians should do, as he himself says in John 6[:29]. Now these interpreters come along and say, "Not everything we should do is written down." John speaks of the things Christ did, but they apply it to human laws and works. Christ's miraculous signs and our work are supposed to be one and the same thing. Thank you, you fine fellows! You really know how to interpret Scripture, especially Emser, who never hits the - 68 mark of the letter here, and cuts me with the blade of the Spirit, just as he proves the elevation of the saints through the words of the psalm, "Praise the Lord in his saints."51 If only God would command you someday to blaspheme Scripture! How miserably you ape us!

Even if it [John 21:25] were said about human laws and works, which cannot be, should one therefore seek to write so many books that the world could no longer contain them, and therefore do precisely what the apostle wants to leave undone? Truly, there is more than enough written in Scripture so that there is no need for more commandments and laws. Indeed, there is no longer any power on earth to make Christian laws, as I have proven many times.52 And if those who pretend to do so had the Spirit in them, they would certainly not pervert this saying of St. John so blasphemously for their own false argumentation. This perversion presents clear evidence of the kind of spirit out of which they intend to be lawmakers.

They have still another passage, John 14[:26], where Christ said during supper, "The Holy Spirit, whom the father will send in my name, will teach you all things and remind you of what I have said to you." Here they pretend that Christ did not let everything be written down in the gospel. They do not look at the clear words of Christ. For he says, "The Holy Spirit will remind you" not of "what you should institute and command" but of "what I have commanded and said to you." So once again Christ's commandment is made the same as a human commandment. The disciples could not grasp and bear everything he said to them at the time. That is why he said that the Spirit should tell them again the parts they might have forgotten or not understood, which then actually happened. Christ was so diligent in taking precautions against the erection of any man's law in his church that he wanted to say everything beforehand, even though it was neither remembered nor understood. Now the sects of the pope turn it around and want to attribute to human law what Christ preached against human law. And yet they do not want to be heretics but the masters of all Christians!

In this matter the sects of the pope are up to their necks in the Manichaean heresy.53 They [the Manichaeans], too, claimed that the Holy Spirit, who was to teach more than is written in Scripture, was promised; St. Augustine overcomes this masterfully and proves in Against Felix54 that everything the promised Holy Spirit should teach was fulfilled and written down by the apostles.

Again, when Christ says to the disciples, "He who hears you hears me" [Luke 10:16], they interpret it to mean that they can make laws as they please. They drive us into their own law, indeed, into their own net of money, with this same word, even though Christ speaks only of the gospel which he commands the apostles to preach and us to hear. When he says to Peter, "Whatever you bind shall be bound" [Matt.

16:19], they again come along saying that the pope may make laws as he pleases, even though Christ only says the word about binding and loosing of sins. Thus they base all their points not only on their own invented lies, but also (which is unbearable) on the perversion, poisoning, and shameful use of the holy divine word. And yet they still want to be the masters of all Christians and declare everyone a heretic who does not worship their abomination and blasphemy.

That is why it is really an abominable and un-Christian blasphemy of Emser that he wants Roman usage and law kept just as though they were written in Scripture, although universal Christendom neither affirms nor keeps them since the Greeks and Orientals, who are also Christians (even though it annoys

Emser and the pope's sects), have not accepted them. And even if they were to belong to universal Christendom, it would still not be an error of faith not to keep them. To obey human laws does not make a Christian; not to obey them does not make a non-Christian. Even though it is not right to despise wilfully and without reason what the masses believe and do, it is tyrannical and inhuman, indeed, devilish, on the other hand, to burden, drive, and impose human laws without cause upon a single Christian, to say nothing

[of coercing] a whole or large mass of them.

That is why I would let everyone who wants to do so, keep the papal and human laws, wherever it is possible for faith and God's word not to be crowded out by them. But I will not keep silent when fear and despair are created with them and all those who do not obey them are accused of being damned heretics even if they keep all the other articles of faith. That is what Emser does here; he admits that I do not violate a single article of faith but nevertheless refuses to let me be a Christian. In baptism we have sworn allegiance and paid homage not to the pope but to Christ. If he leads us to imperial human law, violence, tyranny, prison, death, and every kind of suffering, we are obliged to follow. The pope has also sworn to him to teach us not his own but Christ's word, and to be our example. If he does not do so he is a murderer and a thief, as Christ himself calls such wolves in John 10[:1, 8] Now let us hear some of his lies.

- 69 His first lie is that I intend to cut off the head of the church and then heal the body.55 In this case his own idea pleased him as much as did the spear and dagger. For in that particular book56 I did not write anything about the papacy [as such], only about its improvement and offense. It is true that in other books,57 impelled by their driving and hunting, I have been forced to write that the pope does not derive from God's order. I trust that I have proven [my point]—without any assistance from Emser. But in so doing I have not rejected him, as the liar Emser lies. My books clearly prove this. If that had been my intention at the time, why should I have suggested that the papacy be reformed? This suggestion proved that I wanted to retain and hold on to it; otherwise, I would have had to say that one should destroy it instead of reforming it.

Even if the pope should become equal to other bishops, which will not happen until the Last Day (for Christ himself has to remove this enemy of his whom we could not reform), it would not remove the church's head, as Emser lies. He thinks he has won the point that the pope is the head of the church; he has a long way to go. Christ is the head of the church. The pope is often a heretic and knave, and it is absolutely disgraceful to hear from Emser that he gives the church a heretic and knave as its head. It is much worse than having him cut off its head. Even the pope dies, like everyone else. Yet the church does not live without a head, for just as it lives forever so must its head also live forever.

Emser's second lie is that I wanted the hands of the laymen washed in the blood of the priests.58 His holy priesthood and Christian love seek nothing but fire.59 If I were dead he could spread such lies as truth, just as happened to Huss. This is the way I have written against Sylvester, "in contrast,"60 as this noble poet and rhetorician well knows: if heretics are burned, why should we not much rather attack the pope and his sects with the sword and wash our hands in their blood, if he teaches what Sylvester writes, namely, that Holy Scripture has its power from the pope. But since I dislike burning heretics,61 or killing even a single Christian, and since I know full well it is against the gospel, I merely indicated what they deserve if heretics deserve the fire. Nor is it necessary to attack you with the sword. The nobility and worldly powers, if they just despise your tyrannical shamming and false ban, can certainly advise you womanish and childish people with a single letter and command. They can say to you, "This is the way it must be," and you have no choice but to obey. The way you react to it, with burning, banning, raging, and raving against the clear truth, it seems you would really like to have a Bohemian example made of yourselves and fulfil the prophecy which says that the priests should be slain. If this should happen to you, you cannot blame me. Just continue as you are, you are on the right track! Where advice is not possible, help is not possible.62 You will very soon find out if you can end the game in that way, even if it rains and snows nothing but bishops, Emsers, Ecks, and popes. I trust you have foreseen that no one will destroy the pope but you yourselves, his own creatures, as the prophet says.

But tell me, dear Emser, if you may write that it is necessary and right to burn heretics and think you do not thereby soil your hands with Christian blood, why should it not also be right to strangle you,

Sylvester, the pope, and all your sects in the most scandalous way? For not only do you write in the manner of a heretic and of the Antichrist, but you also say what all the devils are not allowed to say, namely, that the gospel is confirmed by the pope, its power is dependent on the pope's power, and the church has done what the pope does? What heretic has ever so completely condemned and destroyed

God's word in one stroke? That is why I still say, "If heretics have deserved the fire, you and the pope should be killed a thousand times." Still I do not want it to happen. Your judge is not far off. He will find you in good health and nimble. Do not get bored in the meantime. Yet I would prefer you to come before him with remorse and penance. God help you to do this, Amen. Nevertheless, I would like the Roman courtiers to be repelled with force just like other thieves and robbers, if they cannot be stopped in any other way.

So that I may not be ridiculed along with you I shall ignore your babbling that I put the priesthood to shame and your claim that St. Paul was consecrated by the apostles and St. Peter had a tonsure; I shall also ignore all the useless talk you spew forth about consecration and priestly estate and the threefold meaning of "spiritual"—spirituale, ecclesiasticum, religiosum—and that not all Christians are spiritual, spirituales.

You probably also would like to say that the laying on of hands on the head meant more than consecration. Who can stop you if you intend to do nothing but lie and preach, as some do, that St.

Bartholomew prayed the rosary and the psalter of our dear lady? I do not need any logic here: I call spiritual spirituales, devout Christians ecclesiasticum, and do not know religiosum in this context. I - 70 thought that for once the naked sword would strike me with the blade, but neither sheath nor sword nor man is at hand. You also lie that I have made all laymen bishops, priests, and spiritual in such a way that they may exercise the office without a call. But, as godly as you are, you conceal the fact that I added that no one should undertake this office without a call unless it be an extreme emergency. And what shall I say, since there is almost one lie after another in your book? I am afraid you will lie, blaspheme, hate, and rave yourself to death. In previous times it was easy to write against heretics. For even though they erred, as honest people they did not need to lie and stuck to the heart of the matter. My persecutors let the matter drop and, like knaves, rely solely upon lies. But to keep you from being displeased at hearing nothing but your lies, let us deal again with something good—the Spirit and the letter, which is the main theme of your book.

Concerning the Letter and the Spirit St. Paul says, in II Corinthians 4 [3:6], "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." My Emser uses and interprets this to mean that Scripture has a twofold meaning, an external one and a hidden one, and he calls these two meanings "literal" and "spiritual." The literal meaning is supposed to kill, the spiritual one is supposed to give life. He builds here upon Origen,63 Dionysius,64 and a few others who taught the same thing. He thinks he has hit the mark and need not look at clear Scripture because he has human teaching.

He would also like me to follow him, to let Scripture go and take up human teaching. This I refuse to do, even though I too have made the same error. I intend, in precisely this example, to give reasons and to show clearly that Origen, Jerome, Dionysius, and some others have erred and failed in this matter, that Emser builds upon sand, and that it is necessary to compare the fathers' books with Scripture and to judge them according to its light.

First, if their opinion were correct that the spiritual meaning gives life and the literal one kills, we would have to confess that all sinners are holy and all saints are sinners. Indeed, Christ himself, together with all the angels, would have to be simultaneously alive and dead. We intend to make this so clear that even Emser with all his lying powers cannot fight against it. We shall consider the passage from Paul in Galatians 4[:22], "Abraham had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael, by two women, Sarah and Hagar." This is said according to the literal meaning and the letter. Now this is the meaning Christ has. God the Holy

Spirit and all angels and saints hold fast to it and insist that it is as the literal meaning and the letter say, and this is truly the way it is. What now, Emser? Where is your Origen? If you are really the man who does not strike with the sheath and wounds only with the blade, you had better say now that the letter and literal meaning kill Christ and the Holy Spirit together with all the angels and saints. What can anyone say more blasphemously than that the truth in all of Scripture is deadly and harmful, as Emser rages here?

Again, (as you say) the spiritual meaning is that Abraham is Christ, the two women are the two testaments [Gal. 4:24], the two sons are the people of the two testaments, as St. Paul interprets. Now not only the saints but also the worst sinners, indeed, even the devils in hell, hold to this same meaning. So step onto the battlefield, my Emser, strike out merrily with the blade, and say that all the devils and knaves are alive and holy since the Holy Spirit gives life. Now admit it: is it not true that if you take this piece of Origen, Dionysius, Jerome, and many others, you have taken almost all their skill? Is not Scripture here clearer than all of them put together? With what do I test, judge, condemn, and defeat them all so that no one can deny it, other than with the same passage of St. Paul which they take as their basis, namely, "The letter kills, the Spirit gives life" [II Cor. 3:6]? What kind of glosses do I add? Is not the text itself so clearly against them that everyone is forced to say Yes?

This is the way one should deal with the whole Scripture, even with the ancient figures like the one prohibiting Jews from eating either pork or rabbit since pigs and rabbits do not ruminate [Lev. 11:6–7].

This was the literal meaning and letter. This is the way David, all the holy prophets, and Christ himself with his disciples have understood it and obeyed it. If they had not understood and obeyed it in this way they would have been in opposition to God. Then why did the letter not kill them? On the other hand, great deadly sinners and, above all, devils may understand that the pig means carnal teaching, or whatever one wants to interpret here spiritually; so why does the Spirit not give them life? Where are you now, man from Leipzig with the cutting sword? Better go and write even more about me, that I have praised ceremonies as being "holy, just, and good, given by a good God." You yourself must now see and confess that the result is as I said it would be. Did I not tell you that you do not know even one jot about what

- 71 Spirit and letter are in Scripture? You should mind your own business and leave Scripture in peace. Do you see now what good it does to refer to many teachers and to rely on their writings?

St. Paul says further in Romans 7[:14], "Divine law is spiritual but I am carnal," and he cites one of the Ten Commandments, "Non concupisces, you shall not covet" [Rom. 7:7]. He argues here with rich words and wisdom that this same spiritual law kills. What do you intend to do here, Emser? Where are you, man with the spear, dagger, and cutting sword? St. Paul says here, "The spiritual law kills"; you say,

"The spiritual meaning gives life." Start whistling; let us hear your skill: which is the literal and which is the spiritual meaning in this commandment, "You shall not covet"? You certainly cannot deny that no other meaning can be understood here but the one given by the letters themselves; and he speaks here of the evil lusts of the flesh. Yet St. Paul still calls the law spiritual and says it kills. And you say that it would be better to read a poetic fable than such a meaning of Scripture. St. Paul thinks that anyone who understands a meaning different from this literal meaning in regard to the evil lusts does not understand anything at all in this commandment. How nicely Emser harmonizes with St. Paul, just like the ass with the nightingale. This is the way one must deal with all of God's commandments, be they ceremonial or other commandments, small or great. Thus it is quite obvious that Emser fails miserably here and knows less about Scripture than a child.

Moreover, his erroneous and false understanding leads to the humiliation of all of Scripture as well as to his own great disgrace. For the diligence and efforts of all teachers are directed solely to discovering the literal meaning which alone is valid for them too. Thus Augustine also writes that "figures prove nothing."65 This means that Emser's spiritual understanding counts for nothing; but the other one [the literal one] is the highest, best, strongest, in short, the whole substance, nature, and foundation of Holy

Scripture. If one abandoned it, the whole Scripture would be nothing. But the spiritual one, which Emser inflates, counts in no dispute and does not stand the test; it would not matter at all even if no one knew it, as I have proven in my book on the papacy.66 For it would not matter if no one knew that Aaron is spiritually Christ, nor can it be proven. One must let Aaron be just Aaron in the simple sense, unless the Spirit himself interprets him in a new sense, which then would be a new literal sense—as when St. Paul makes Christ out of Aaron for the Hebrews [Hebrews 9–10].

Why are you so bold now, Emser, that you dare to say that this literal meaning is deadly? You babble on, not knowing yourself what you are saying, when you claim it is better to read one of Virgil's fables than such a meaning in Scripture. This means to condemn the whole Scripture and to prefer the devil's lies or fables to the holy word of God, especially since it [Scripture] has no other meaning that counts but the one you teach as deadly and to be avoided. This is called striking with the blade and a true Emserian spiritual interpretation! This is the way to strike the heretic Luther! Turn the leaf over, Emser, and you will find that the meaning you call spiritual and alive is precisely the one which, if one adheres to it alone and lets the literal meaning go, would better be replaced by the mere fables of poets. For it is dangerous, and Scripture can exist without it. But Scripture cannot exist without the other meaning. That is why

Origen received his due reward a long time ago when his books were prohibited, for he relied too much on this same spiritual meaning, which was unnecessary, and he let the necessary literal meaning go. When that happens Scripture perishes and really good theologians are no longer produced. Only the true principal meaning which is provided by the letters can produce good theologians.

The Holy Spirit is the simplest writer and adviser in heaven and on earth. That is why his words could have no more than the one simplest meaning which we call the written one, or the literal meaning of the tongue. But [written] words and [spoken] language cease to have meaning when the things which have a simple meaning through interpretation by a simple word are given further meanings and thus become different things [through a different interpretation] so that one thing takes on the meaning of another. This is true for all other things not mentioned in Scripture because all God's creatures and works are sheer living signs and words of God, as Augustine and all the teachers say. But one should not therefore say that Scripture or God's word has more than one meaning.

The fact that a painted picture signifies a living man without any words or writing should not cause you to say that the little word "picture" has two meanings, a literal one, signifying the picture, and a spiritual one, signifying the living man. Likewise, even though the things described in Scripture mean something further, Scripture should not therefore have a twofold meaning. Instead, it should retain the one meaning to which the words refer. Beyond that we should give idle spirits permission to hunt and seek the - 72 manifold interpretations of the things indicated besides the words. But they should beware of losing themselves in the hunt or the climb, as happens to those who climb after chamois, and as also happened to Origen. It is much more certain and much safer to stay with the words and the simple meaning, for this is the true pasture and home of all the spirits.

Now see how well Emser rides along with his twofold Bible. The result [of his effort] is that nothing remains certain. When St. Peter says, "We are all priests" [I Pet. 2:9], he says this is said in the spiritual sense and not in the literal one. But when I ask why it is not the literal sense, he answers, because the literal sense kills. He does not understand a jot of what he says. He does not see that he himself now really disgraces his own priesthood by teaching clearly that it is not the living and spiritual, but rather the literal, deadly, and harmful priesthood, and that it would really be better to be a poet-priest than such a literal priest. If whatever is not Spirit does not live and cannot be understood according to the spiritual meaning, then it must certainly be understood according to the letter as dead, harmful, and worse than pagan, if the high and hyperspiritual theology of Emser is to endure. That is why it would be good if a smith remained a smith, a verse-maker a verse-maker, and let those who have power and marrow in their fists and arms wield the spiritual sword. Scripture does not tolerate the division of letter and Spirit, as Emser so outrageously [divides them]. It contains only a simple priesthood and a simple meaning.

Those who have called the letter a veiled and hidden word, as Augustine also did for a while, have committed a more reasonable error. For example, if I said, "Emser is a crude ass," and a simple man following the words understood Emser to be a real ass with long ears and four feet, he would be deceived by the letter, since through such veiled words I wanted to indicate that he had a crude and unreasonable mind. One teaches such flowery words to boys in school, calling them schemata in Greek and figurae in Latin, because one dresses up and ornaments speech with them just as one ornaments a body with a jewel.

Scripture is full of such flowers, especially in the prophets. For example, John and Christ in Luke 3[:7] call the Jews "a brood of vipers." And St. Paul calls them "dogs" in Colossians 2 [Phil. 3:2]. Psalm

110[:3] says, "The dew of your children will come from the womb of the morning." Again, "The Lord will send forth from Zion the scepter of your power" [Ps. 110:2], that is, Christ's children will not be born from the womb of a physical woman or mother, but rather without the work of a man, like the dew from the sky, from the womb of the morning of the Christian church. Again, Christ, in Matthew 5[:13–14] says,

"You are the salt of the earth, and the light of the world." But St. Paul does not mean a letter like this; this belongs to grammar and to elementary school.

If you can humble yourself and not despise me completely, then listen to me: I shall do my Christian duty toward you as I am bound to do it to my enemy; and I shall not withhold from you God's gift to me.

In this matter I shall teach you better (to speak without boasting) than you have ever been taught by any other teacher, with the exception of St. Augustine—if you have read his On the Spirit and the Letter.67

None of the others will teach you this. You will not find a single letter in the whole Bible that agrees with what you, along with Origen and Jerome, call the "spiritual meaning." St. Paul calls it mysteria, that is, veiled and secret meaning. Therefore, the earliest fathers called it anagogas, that is, "the more withdrawn meanings, separate knowledge" (remotiores sensus, separatas intelligentias). At times they also called it

"allegory," as St. Paul himself does, Galatians 4[:24]; but this is not yet Spirit, although the Spirit grants this as well as the letter and all gifts. As we read in I Corinthians 14[:2], "The Spirit utters the hidden meaning." Some people, out of ignorance, therefore, attributed a fourfold meaning to Scripture: the literal, the allegorical, the anagogical, and the tropological. But there is no basis for it.

Thus "literal meaning" is not a good term, because Paul interprets the letter quite differently than they do. Those who call it "grammatical, historical meaning" do better. It would be appropriate to call it the "meaning of the tongue or of language" as St. Paul does in I Corinthians 14[:2–19], because, according to the sound of the tongue or speech, it is understood in this way by everyone. For the language or tongue which hears that Abraham had two sons from two wives retains this same meaning and does not think beyond the meaning [given] by the tongue or language until the Spirit leads it on and discloses the hidden understanding about Christ, about two kinds of testaments and peoples. These are called mysteria, just as Paul, Ephesians 5[:32], calls [the unity of] Christ and the church in one body mysterium, although

Scripture and the letter speak of husband and wife—Genesis 2[:24]. But here it is necessary that no one invent mysteries on his own, as some people have done and are still doing. The Spirit himself must do it— or else one must prove it with Scripture, as I have written in the book on the papacy.68

- 73 That is why Paul's saying, II Corinthians 4 [3:6], "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," harmonizes with these two meanings, the literal and the spiritual, as well as Emser's mind harmonizes with philosophy and theology. At the moment I shall ignore how and why Origen, Jerome, and some other fathers have stretched and misused this passage. Certainly they stretched more passages in the same way to fend off Jews and heretics, as everyone well knows or is able to know. They should be excused for this, but we should not follow them in this as these unclean animals are doing who have no judgment with regard to the work and teaching of the fathers; they gobble up everything they find until they obey the fathers only in those things in which the dear fathers slipped as men. And they drop them when they did well, as I could easily prove with regard to all the teachings and lives now held to be the very best.

Let us deal now with the passage concerning the Spirit and the letter. In this passage [II Cor. 3:6], St.

Paul does not write one iota about these two meanings, only about two kinds of preaching or preaching offices. One is that of the Old Testament, the other is that of the New Testament. The Old Testament preaches the letter, the New [Testament] preaches the Spirit. And, to avoid the kind of dreaming goat

Emser does, let us hear the Apostle's own clear words spoken about the servants or preachers of the New Testament. They are written in II Corinthians 4 [3:3–6]: "You are a letter from Christ made through our preaching and written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on stone tablets but on tablets of human hearts. That is why we need no other letter of recommendation. Such is the confidence we have through Christ in God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our sufficiency is from God, who has qualified us to be servants and preachers of the New Testament, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," etc.

Are not these clear words about preaching? Here we see clearly that St. Paul names two tablets and two sermons. Moses' tablets were made of stone in which God's finger inscribed the law, Exodus 20 [:1–

17; 24:12; 31:18]. Christ's tablets, or (as he says here) Christ's letters, are the hearts of Christians in which not letters, as in Moses' tablets, but the Spirit of God is inscribed through the preaching of the gospel and through the office of the apostles. What does all this mean? The letter is nothing but divine law or commandment which was given in the Old Testament through Moses and preached and taught through Aaron's priesthood. It is called "letter" because it is written in letters on stone tablets and in books. It remains letter, and does not yield more than that, because no man improves through the law; he only becomes worse. Thus the law does not help, nor does it grant grace; it only commands and orders something done which man is neither able nor willing to do. But the Spirit, the divine grace, grants strength and power to the heart; indeed, he creates a new man who takes pleasure [in obeying] God's commandments and who does everything he should do with joy.

This Spirit can never be contained in any letter. It cannot be written, like the law, with ink, on stone, or in books. Instead, it is inscribed only in the heart, and it is a living writing of the Holy Spirit, without [the aid of] any means. That is why St. Paul calls it Christ's letter and not Moses' tablets, for it is not written with ink but with God's Spirit. Through this Spirit or grace man does what the law demands. He pays what he owes the law, and thus becomes liberated from the letter which kills him, living now through the grace of the Spirit. For everything which does not have the grace of the living Spirit is dead, even though external obedience to the whole law glitters. That is why the Apostle says of the law that it kills, gives no one life, and holds one eternally in death if grace does not arrive to redeem and give life.

These then are the two ways of preaching: the priests, preachers, and sermons of the Old Testament deal with no more than the law of God. The Spirit and grace are not yet openly preached. But in the New

Testament only Spirit and grace, given to us through Christ, are preached. For the New Testament preaching is but an offering and presentation of Christ, through the sheer mercy of God, to all men. This is done in such a way that all who believe in him will receive God's grace and the Holy Spirit, whereby all sins are forgiven, all laws fulfilled, and they become God's children and are eternally blessed. Thus St.

Paul here calls the New Testament preaching the "ministry of the Spirit" [II Cor. 3:6], that is, the office of preaching whereby God's Spirit and grace are offered and put before all those who are burdened by the law, who are killed, and who are greedy for grace. He calls this law "a ministry of the letter," that is, the office of preaching whereby no more is given than the letter or law. No life flows from it, the law is not fulfilled by it, and man can never satisfy it. That is why it remains letter, and in the letter it can do no more than kill man, that is, show him what he should do and yet cannot do. Thus he recognizes that he is dead

- 74 and without grace before God and that he does not fulfil the commandment, which, however, he should fulfil.

From this it is now clear that the words of the apostle, "The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life," could be said in other words: "The law kills, but the grace of God gives life." Or, "Grace grants help and does everything that the law demands and yet is unable to do by itself." St. Paul therefore calls the law of God a law of death and of sin, saying in Romans 8[:2–4], "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ has set me free from the law of sin and death. For it was impossible for the law to help me; indeed, it only made things worse because of the malice of the old flesh. That is why God sent his Son in our likeness and let him put on our sinful flesh. Thus he destroyed our sin through the sin Christ took upon himself in his suffering, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us." Thus we see that in a masterful way St.

Paul teaches us how to understand Christ, God's grace, and the New Testament correctly—namely, that it is nothing but [the story] of how Christ stepped into our sins, carried them on the cross in his flesh, and destroyed them, so that all who believe in him are set free from sin through him and receive the grace to enable them from now on to satisfy the law of God and the letter that kills, and to live in eternity. You see, this is "ministry of the Spirit and not of the letter," the preaching of the Spirit, the preaching of grace, the preaching of true indulgence, the preaching about Christ. This is the New Testament about which there would be much to say if the evil spirit had not blinded the world through the pope and had not led human teaching into the abyss of utter darkness.

Now we see that all commandments are deadly, since divine commandments are also deadly. For everything that is not Spirit or grace is death. Therefore, it is a crude misunderstanding to call allegories, tropologies, and the like "Spirit," since all of them are contained in letters and cannot give life. Grace has no other vessel than the heart. Now just as not all men accept the life of this Spirit—indeed, the majority let this Spirit's servants present and preach this rich grace in vain, and do not believe the gospel—so too, not everyone takes up the ministry of the letter or the preaching of the law. They do not want to let themselves be killed; that is, they do not understand God's law, and they go on without receiving either the letter or the Spirit. But let us set forth goat Emser's blind mind even more clearly: he thinks the letter should be avoided and the death of the letter should be escaped. This is what happens to those who read only the books of the fathers and leave Scripture aside. They juggle with their spears and daggers, making an obscure fog out of Scripture and a light out of the teaching of the fathers.

The Apostle does not want us to avoid the letter or to escape its death. Indeed, he complains in the same passage [II Cor. 3:7] that there was a veil hanging over the law for the Jews, just as over the face of Moses (Exodus 34[:33–35]), so that they failed to see the letter, its death, or its brilliance. He wants us to preach and make the letter clear and to lift the veil from Moses' face. This is how it happens: he who understands the law of God correctly and looks it in the face—without the veil—will find that the works of all men are sin and that there is nothing good in them unless the grace of the Spirit enters into them.

This then is the end of the law and its meaning, of which Paul speaks in II Corinthians 4 [3:13], "They did not see the end of Moses." For it [the law] wants to make everyone a sinner and all that is ours into sin; in this way it wants to show us our misery, our death, and our merit, and lead us into true knowledge of ourselves. As St. Paul says, Romans 7[:7], "If it had not been for the law, I should not have known sin"; and Romans 3 [Gal. 3:22], "Scripture consigned all men to sin," so that the whole world's mouth might be stopped and it might know that no man can be upright before God without grace, even though he does works of the law.

Those who want to emphasize their good works and boast about free will do not allow all human works to be sin. They still find something good in nature, just as the Jews and our sophists, together with the pope, do. They are the ones who do not want to let Moses' face shine clearly. They put a veil over the law and do not really look it in the face. They refuse to let everything belonging to them be either sin or death before God; that is, they do not really want to know themselves or to be humble. They only strengthen their pride. They flee the letter and a true understanding of it, just as the Jews fled the face of Moses. That is why their mind remains blind and they never come to the life of the Spirit. Therefore, it is impossible for someone who does not first hear the law and let himself be killed by the letter, to hear the gospel and let the grace of the Spirit bring him to life. Grace is only given to those who long for it. Life is a help only to those who are dead, grace only to sin, the Spirit only to the letter. No one can have the one without the other. Therefore, what Emser calls the letter and death is, in reality, nothing but the veil, the - 75 harmful misunderstanding of the letter, and the damnable flight from this blessed death. In fact, it is not even this good an understanding. So far away is this poor and blind man from Scripture, and he pretends to hit the mark with the sword blade! I think he has only struck his own cheek!

My good advice to such unlearned minds would be to give up writing books. For while they madly cite the words of a few fathers, they thumb their noses at the poor people so that they fall for it and accept this error, perhaps for life. Thus such books are not without harm, and their insane author is guilty before God because of such corruption. Who will give Emser the grace to eradicate, as he ought to, the errors and lies resulting from his book? It would have been better for him, as Christ says, to have a millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea [Matt. 18:6]. For not only does he write erroneous, harmful, and scandalous teaching, but he also blasphemes the very best teachings of Christ and completely poisons the poor people and drives them away. Woe to you, Emser! If you had waited until

God called you and drove you, he would have worked with you too and given you his Spirit to write something useful. But now you do as Jeremiah says, "I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied" [Jer. 23:21]. The hateful and deceitful spirit has driven you. That is why you do not write anything but lies and error. I can do no more than to warn everyone against your poison. And if I were not afraid for these poor people I would not have considered you worth answering, just as I did not before,69 for in these matters you are ignorance itself!

But to return to our topic: it is certainly true that wherever the law alone is preached and only the letter is dealt with, as happened in the Old Testament, and where the Spirit is not preached afterward, there is death without life, sin without grace, misery without consolation. This creates miserable and imprisoned consciences who in the end despair and are forced to die in sin. They are thus condemned to eternity through such preaching. In our day the murderous sophists have done this kind of thing and are still doing it with their "systems" [summae] and "confessionals" [confessionales],70 in which they drive and torture people with commands to do penance, to confess, to repent, and to make satisfaction. After this they teach good works and preach good doctrine, as they say. But never once do they hold the Spirit and Christ up to the sorrowful consciences, so that Christ is now unknown in the whole world and the gospel is pushed under the rug.71 The whole New Testament office is silenced and only the very best people explain Moses and the commandments, and even they are quite rare. The majority deals only with tomfoolery, teaching canon law, papal laws, human teaching, and their own statutes. To these things they cling, these they keep, these they teach daily; and they no longer have an opportunity to know the truth, as St. Paul says [II Tim.

If God's commandment, preached and explained as well as possible, is harmful and damning, as St.

Paul says here, why then do the sophists and the goat pretend to make people godly with human teachings, with their own laws and an increase in good works? Indeed, since the law kills and condemns everything which is not grace and Spirit, they do no more with their many laws and works than to give the law much to kill and to condemn. Thus all their labor and effort is in vain, and the more they do the worse they become; for it is impossible to satisfy the law with works and teachings. Only the Spirit can satisfy it. That is why Scripture calls their nature aven and amal [in Hebrew], that is, "trouble" and "effort" [Ps. 10:7]; and it calls this same lost crowd Behaven, that is, the "church or crowd of trouble" [Hos. 4:15]. Again,

Amos 7[:16] calls it Beth-Ishac, that is, the "church of deceit," because everyone under it is deceived by their false teaching, work, and life.

That is why I advised, and still advise, that one should not pretend to institute a reformation to better such human teaching and canon law as Emser foolishly suggests, for that is impossible. Rather, they

[human teaching and canon law] should be burned, eliminated, destroyed, and reversed. Or else they should be reduced as much as possible and the two offices of the letter and the Spirit advanced once again, which can only be done if human teaching is left far behind. It is only fair that they give way to the letter and the Spirit of God, since they hinder it and are detrimental to it. We have more than enough to preach on the letter and the Spirit, even if we preached from the beginning of the world until the end of it.

But even though we are already in the New Testament and should have only the preaching of the Spirit, since we are still living in flesh and blood, it is necessary to preach the letter as well, so that people are first killed by the law and all their arrogance is destroyed. Thus they may know themselves and become hungry for the Spirit and thirsty for grace. So [the letter] prepares the people for the preaching of the Spirit, as it is written about St. John [the Baptist], that he made the people ready for Christ through the - 76 preaching of repentance [Matt. 3:1–12]. This was the office of the letter. After that he led them to Christ, saying, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away all the sins of the world" [John 1:29]. This was the office of the Spirit. These then are the two works of God, praised many times in Scripture: he kills and gives life, he wounds and heals, he destroys and helps, he condemns and saves, he humbles and elevates, he disgraces and honors, as is written in Deuteronomy 32[:39], I Kings 2 [I Sam. 2:6–8], Psalm 112[:7–8], and in many other places. He does these works through these two offices, the first through the letter, the second through the Spirit. The letter does not allow anyone to stand before his wrath. The Spirit does not allow anyone to perish before his grace. Oh, this is such an overwhelming affair that one could talk about it endlessly! But the pope and human law have hidden it from us and have put up an iron curtain in front of it. May God have mercy! Amen.

On the basis of this [discussion] everyone can easily understand what St. Paul means when he says, Romans 7[:12], "the law is good, just, holy, and spiritual," and yet, it is still a killing letter. For it shows how man should be truly good, just, holy, spiritual, and in harmony with all things. But, as the law discloses, things are quite different with man; he is evil, unjust, sinful, carnal, and out of harmony with the law in every measure. This disharmony brings him eternal death, God's wrath, and disgrace before God, who wants his law fulfilled (as is only right) to the last letter and iota. Thus man recognizes himself in the mirror and in face of the letter or the law—how dead he is and in what disgrace he is with God. This knowledge makes him afraid and drives him to seek the Spirit, who makes him good, godly, holy, spiritual, brings all things into accord with the law, and leads him to God's grace. The law then becomes dear to him, and the letter never kills him. Instead, he lives in the Spirit as the law demands; indeed, he no longer needs any law to teach him, for he knows it now by heart. Everything the law demands has become his nature and essence through the Spirit.

Thus we want to finish this [discussion] now with St. Augustine's fine comment regarding Psalm 17, in which he defines nicely and briefly what the letter is. He says, "The letter is nothing but LAW

WITHOUT GRACE."72 We, on the other hand, may say that the Spirit is nothing but GRACE WITHOUT LAW. Wherever the letter is, or the law without grace, there is no end to making laws, to teachings, and to works. And yet they are of no avail; no one becomes better through them, everything remains dead in the letter. On the other hand, wherever the Spirit of God exists, there is freedom, as St. Paul says [II Cor.

3:17]; there no teaching or law is needed; everything happens as it should happen. It is just like the man who has healthy, good vision; he does not need anyone to teach him how he should see. His vision is unhindered, and he has more than any teaching could help him get or give to him. But if his vision is not healthy, he is no longer free, and there is not enough teaching to help and protect him. He will have to worry about every single glance and have a rule about it in order to see. Thus it is St. Paul's opinion, I Timothy 1[:9], that "the law is not laid down for the just," for the Spirit gives him everything that the law demands. Thus when he says, "God has made us preachers of the Spirit and not of the letter," he means that in the New Testament only grace and not law should be preached, so that men become truly godly through the Spirit.

Where are you now, Goliath Emser, with your spear and sword? You have buckled on this sword and let your own head be cut off with it. You could not have found a passage in the whole Bible which serves me as well against you as does this one on which you base your argument and comfort. You boast to strike with the blade, but you do not even get to the point of touching either sheath or hilt! Do you see now how you torture this saying spiritually, dragging it to the point that the letter means literal meaning and the Spirit means spiritual meaning? And you say that one should flee the letter and death. What a fine fencer you are! What a fine round you have fought with the famous fencer! Now then, since I have unbuckled your sword and have beheaded your arrogance, we shall come back again to your spear, your dagger, and your whole armor. I hope I shall uncover a dead Goliath, hold up his head, and show everyone your abomination, your threat, and your Goliath-like blasphemy. Let us see where your idol the pope will be with his laws, and where the entire army of these Philistines will be with their human teachings.

If the pope, with his bishops and priests, is a pious and loyal follower and heir to the apostolic see, I hope he is also obliged to execute their office and to preach the Spirit, in accord with these words of St.

Paul. But if he is to preach the Spirit, he is not to preach any law but rather freedom from even the laws of God, as was said. Thus I ask: Where do this pope and priesthood come from? Not only do they never preach this Spirit, indeed, they do not even explain the letter correctly. Instead, they [preach] their own

- 77 law, canon law, and nothing but human teaching—consecrated salt, water, vigils, masses, and whatever other tomfoolery like this you can name. They fill the world with them, obscure the law of God, and replace the veil of Moses which the apostles had lifted. Furthermore, they imprison the world in their law, destroy Christian freedom, ruin the Spirit, and drive away grace. [In return] for such abominable evil they steal, rob, and take all our money and property. St. Paul says that even the brilliance of Moses, that is, the law of God, is annulled through the preaching of the Spirit, so that only the brilliance of the Spirit shines in the church. But the pope does not only reintroduce Moses (which would still be a favor), but also replaces the veil before his eyes and, indeed, with his innumerable laws builds a stone wall before him so that now neither Spirit nor letter is recognized or preached, only fables about human teaching, of which Christ says in Matthew 15[:8–9], "In vain do they serve me with human laws and teachings; they honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."

Where does such a pope come from with his priesthood? Indeed, he is not the heir to the apostolic see, for he surely destroys the apostles' office and teaching with his teaching. St. Paul stands firm here, saying,

"We are servants or preachers of the Spirit and not of the letter." But what does the pope say? "We are preachers neither of the Spirit nor of the letter, but only of our own dream which is written down nowhere." Where then does he come from? I shall tell you: Christ names him in Matthew 24[:15, 23–26],

"When you see the desolating sacrilege in the holy place" (that is, the pope with his own teaching in the church, sitting in the chair of the apostles) "let the reader understand. For false prophets, teachers, and Christs will arise, saying, 'Lo, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' and they will lead many people astray."

That is, they will present human teachings with which one looks for Christ here and there, thinking one could find him through works and ceremonies. Instead, he [Christ] lets himself be found only in the heart,

Spirit, and faith, everywhere, every time, and by everyone. St. Paul [says], II Thessalonians [2:3, 9], "The man of sin and perdition will be revealed through the activity of Satan"; and in Daniel 7 [8:23–25] [we read], "At the end of the Roman Empire, a king will arise. His strength will consist of externals and appearance" (that is, of human teachings which teach only external ways and habits, as, for example, the lives of bishops, priests, and monks with their vestments and external works and ways). "He will cause fearful destruction, his cunning will be swift and geared to making human laws and increasing them," etc.

Now listen to what else God says about your idol and human teachings: St. Paul, Colossians 2[:8], "Take care that no one deceives you through philosophy and empty deceit, human teachings, commandments concerning temporal, external things, which are not according to Christ's teaching."73

What kind of teachings these are follows later when he says, "If you died with Christ, why do you live as though you still lived with human laws and submit to regulations, 'Do not eat, Do not drink, Do not handle, Do not touch'? These are nothing but temporal things which perish as they are used, on which human commandments and laws center—and yet they [human laws] have the appearance of being well and wisely ordered. Yet they are nothing but superstition and false, foolish humility, intent only on hurting the body and perverting it. They [human laws and teachings] satisfy their animal-like mind, but they are of no value."74 Where is the blade of the goatish spirit here? Did not St. Paul in a masterful manner here expose the lives of pope, bishops, clerics, and monks? Such lives consist only of not eating this, or not drinking that, of not touching money or not wearing a certain vestment or color and so on. Their spirituality is geared to temporal things which perish as they are used and represent nothing but an illusion and a shadow of holiness. But they thus deceive everyone and subjugate the world to themselves with their foolish humility. This is the king whose strength consists only of externals and not of armor, word, or word of God, Daniel 8[:23–25].

Again, Christ says in Matthew 7[:15], "Beware of false teachers, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." What else is sheep's clothing but such external holiness in vestments, shoes, tonsures, eating, drinking, days, and places? These are temporal things, and inwardly, in faith, which grants eternal holiness and rests on eternal goods, they are nothing. Indeed, they are only destroyers of such faith and ravenous wolves, as St. Paul confesses too, I Timothy 2 [II Tim. 3:5, 7], saying, "They have a form of piety without substance. They always teach and learn and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth." If all of this were removed and changed, as it should be, where then would the papacy be, since it rests upon only this? Christ himself has to remove it on the Last Day; otherwise, nothing will come of it. Here we see clearly that we should flee sheep's clothing, namely, human laws and works.

- 78 Again, St. Paul [writes], Galatians 1[:8], "If anyone, even an angel from heaven, should teach you differently than you learned, let him be accursed." And Colossians 2[:7–8], "Beware of that which is not taught according to Christ."75 Indeed, St. Paul wants nothing taught here except Scripture. What do you say to that, Emser? Perhaps you will introduce SS. Augustine, Benedict,76 Francis,77 Dominic, and other fathers, all of whom taught and maintained holy but human teachings. I answer that this is not enough to satisfy Scripture. God s word is more than all the angels, saints, and creatures. Therefore, no one can say that these same saints never erred. Who will guarantee, then, that they did not err in this either, since

Aaron and all the elect could err here, and since Scripture is clearly before me? I want to be and must be defeated with Scripture, not with the uncertain teachings and lives of men, no matter how holy they may be.

Moreover, these same saints kept their teachings free and open, without making commandments out of them. Thus he who wanted to live accordingly could do so, and, if he desired, could also give up doing so.

And even if they had erred so much as to make a commandment and law out of them, which I do not believe, I would judge them according to the words of Ezekiel [14.9], "If the prophet be deceived, I, the Lord, have deceived that prophet." I would count them among those of whom Christ says, Matthew

24[:24], that the rule of the Antichrist will be so brilliant, with such erroneous teachings, and will perform so many signs and wonders, that, if possible, even the elect will be led astray. Accordingly, these holy fathers with the Spirit they had in faith may have miraculously escaped from the dangers of human teaching, and yet, their successors may all be lost, for they hold only to their works and human teachings at the expense of their faith and Spirit. But your pope, who should allow these teachings to be as free as the saints had them, makes necessary eternal commandments and laws out of them with his confirming, just as he does with his own laws.

Furthermore, I think you know that in the Old Testament the people were as much obliged to listen to their priests as we are obliged to listen to ours. Nor did God permit them to teach their own teachings and he forbade their doing so. That is why Moses and all the prophets so often preferred the little word, "My voice." He commands in Deuteronomy 4[:2], "You shall not add to the words I command you, nor take from them." And in Zechariah 2 [Mal. 2:7], "The people should seek God's commandments and teaching from the mouth of the priest for he is the messenger of God." And Christ says in Matthew 23[:2–3] that one should listen to the scribes because they sit in the chaff of Moses, that is, because they teach the law of Moses. On the other hand, Scripture calls all those who teach their own laws false prophets, false priests, deceivers, seducers, wolves, ravenous animals, of whom He says in Jeremiah 23[:32], "They have led my people astray when I did not send them or charge them to teach such things." Indeed, all the priests were sent and, on the basis of their office, charged with teaching the law; but they were not charged with teaching their own law. Again, [He says in] Jeremiah 25 [23:21–22], "I did not send the prophets, yet they preached. I did not command anything to them, yet they taught. If they had remained in my teaching, then they would have proclaimed my words to the people, and I could have turned them from their evil lives."

How will you survive in the face of such passages, pope? Where are you, Emser, you who pretend that one must have more than God's word? You invent dagger and spear. God says here one should teach nothing but his word. Otherwise, he would not convert anyone. Thereby he teaches us this: if something more than God's word is presented to us, it is certainly erroneous, seductive, un-Christian, lying, and deceiving. It only hinders God's work and grace within us. For this reason St. Paul calls the Antichrist the "man of lawlessness and son of perdition" [II Thess. 2:3–4], because he will turn the whole world away from God through his own law and teaching and thus prevent its encounter with God. Thus he will be a master of all sin and of all perdition, and yet he will use the name and image of Christ, calling himself

"most holy" [Sanctissimum], "vicar of God" [Vicarium dei], and "head of the church" [caput Ecclesiae].

He will persecute all those who do not obey him in this regard, as is more than evident and obvious in the example of the pope.

Is there any greater labor on the part of all prophets than that of fighting against human teaching and keeping only God's word in a people? All idolatry is nothing but human teaching—for example, the cows of Bethaven [Hos. 4:15–16], Aaron's calf, the idol Baal, and the like. Who can safeguard himself enough against such teachings? Aaron, the highest priest, worshiped the golden calf, and Christ himself says,

Matthew 24[:24], that such deceit and imagery could even lead the elect astray. If the pope did not have such a great following and so much deceit, he could never be the Antichrist. There has to be deceit and a - 79 following among all the bishops, priests, monks, universities, princes, and all authorities. There is but one item God does not permit him to cover up—here the ears of the ass still stick out—and that is his disregard for the word of God, which he does not preach either. He is content to preach his own teaching.

His singing betrays the kind of bird he is.78 Just as John envisaged in Revelation 13[:11] an animal with two horns, looking like a lamb yet speaking like a dragon, so too the crowd of papists has to be viewed; they appear to be Christians yet preach like the devil. Daniel 11[:37–38] said regarding this that the Antichrist will give no heed to the god of his fathers, will not propagate his teaching, and will not be married; instead he will honor his god Maozim79—that is, he prohibits marriage only for the sake of his appearance and that of his papists. In place of God and his gospel he erects the idol Maozim, his decretals and his teachings, and binds spirituality to external places, as Christ says, "They will say, 'Here is Christ!' and, 'There is Christ!' " [Matt. 24:23].

Again, Jeremiah 19[:5] says regarding the great Baal worship that they even sacrificed and burned their children, thinking they thereby did a great service to God. But God said, "I have not commanded it, and it never entered my heart," etc. From this it also becomes clear that nothing should be preached or presented to the people that God has neither commanded nor desired. Now we are certain that the pope with his papists has no commandment from God to propagate his own teaching in Christendom. It is nothing but a trick of the devil to hinder God and his commandment and the salvation of all men.

Therefore, my goat should first prove and make clear that God approves of his spear and dagger. He thinks it is sufficient when the spear is long and the dagger is short. It should be sufficient to call the one usage and the other human teaching, and [he thinks] that I should drop Scripture and make my judgment according to his mind instead.

So that you may also see the extravagance of your cleverness, listen to me: I certainly know about human teaching and usage with which you fight against me. How could I not know them, since I fight against them? What are you doing, you great philosopher, by bringing up against me the very thing that I am attacking? You should instead protect it by other means. If I besieged a city with an army and shot against its walls and gates until they collapsed, and you, from inside, became very angry at me and determined to get up and fight me, and yet if you did no more than to point out with your hand precisely these same walls and gates which I had shot down, shouted menacingly that I should look at them, and then pretended you had defeated me in this manner—what should I think of you? I would summon a cooper to have him put one or two hoops around your head so that it would not burst from too much nonsense. But even though you have heard how I make use of Scripture and attack human teaching and usage and will not accept their validity unless they have Scripture on their side, you are so smart that you do not protect them with Scripture but only carry them around, showing them to me as if I had never seen them. You claim you have won and have broken open the cuirassier, but everyone can see how desperate you are.80 St. Augustine, in Against the Donatist Petilian,81 considered it a great joke that when Ticonius introduced the thunder of Scripture against him [i.e., Petilian], he could answer only with the human teachings of his ancestors. He [Augustine] thought it was the most foolish answer. And I, who also introduce only Scripture, should regard goat Emser's answer as dear and precious wisdom when it is but human fancy and imagination presented without scriptural foundation! Nevertheless, he immediately threatens with it, calling it dagger and usage. It would therefore be good to advise you to stay home with your spear and dagger and to fight with Scripture against me, just as I do against you. What has become of your philosophy now which teaches "not to beg the question" (petere principium)? I think it is idiotic and your Aristotle is an arch-fool.82 The same fate awaits a verse-maker83 who wants to be a philosopher and theologian as awaited the ass with the bagpipes.

If the Manichaean heresy were to arise today and men pretended that Scripture did not give us enough, but that the Holy Spirit had awakened them and one should follow them, how would you, with all your papists, fend them off? In this ease would you also not do any more than point with your finger to your teaching? Or would you say, "Oh, you are too slow; we ourselves have already discovered that one should believe and obey more than Scripture offers"? How nicely you papists would stand if you strengthened your enemy with your own example and admitted teaching and living outside Scripture! Now, is it not foolish and shameful that we ourselves not only confess freely but also boast that our cause is not founded upon Scripture? We go so far as to follow the example of the cuckoo84 and sing our own praises as good

Christians, berating everyone else as heretics, even though they have all of Scripture on their side, as we - 80 well know. This should be so intolerable to us, if we were not completely mad, that if our enemy accused us of doing it, we would risk life and limb [to deny] it. Is there anyone who would not rightfully mock us, if we ourselves confess that our foe has Scripture but our cause does not? How could we sing about ourselves more disgracefully and about our enemies more honestly? Nor should we present such crude folly to the whole world as wisdom. Indeed, it is time that we used the scabbards of these brave war heroes for latrines!

Moreover, what I wanted [to show] in all my books was precisely what Emser confesses here. Yet he complains about me with a great, earnest, and murderous noise! Did I not also say that the affairs of the pope and of all papists are nothing but human teaching and usage, without any Scripture—something

Eraser wants to extort from me at all cost? What else am I fighting about but precisely this? I do it so that everyone may understand the true difference between divine Scripture and human teaching or usage and so that a Christian heart does not buy the one for the other—straw for gold, hay for silver, and wood for jewels—as St. Paul teaches, I Corinthians 2 [3:12], and St. Augustine too in many places, as well as the holy carnal law, if the hyperlearned "licentiate of holy canon law" had looked at it soberly. Why does this goat accuse me so fiercely when we both are of one mind and agree on the matter? Perhaps it was my sin to have spoken impolitely when I did not call human teaching a short dagger and usage a long spear? The reason is that I am not a rhymester. Moreover, since he has no other reason to write books than to show off his masterly skill in inventing names, to call human teaching a short dagger and usage a long spear, it would not have helped me at all to call it that. He might still, just to teach us, have called human teaching

"goat horn" and usage "goat beard" and thereby knocked me down and confused me. Such wise and intelligent masters do philosophy and the arch-feel Aristotle create through the sophists!

If, then, goat Emser makes a murderous noise about me throughout the whole book for the sake of his anti-Christian head in Rome and thus gains great honor, it is only proper for me to make a noise about him for the sake of my head in heaven, whom he slanders and blasphemes. He may pretend that the Holy Spirit and Christ did not teach us enough, that Scripture is not enough, and that God's word must have an addition; and that whoever has nothing more than God's word, Scripture, and teaching is poison, a heretic, an apostate, and the worst man on earth and that all those who live with such words of God and such teaching and do not keep human teaching are condemned, cursed, and to be burned. Thus Christ and the Holy Spirit too must be guilty and responsible; indeed, they deserve such blasphemy, since they produced and daily preserve such blasphemous, accursed, and condemned people through their word and teaching.

Look here! Is he not the greatest blasphemer ever known? Who indeed has ever heard more blasphemous, poisonous, hellish, heretical, raging, and nonsensical words than those Emser here pours from his poisonous and hellish mouth and lets stink to heaven? This poor creature spits and sprays his spit at God his Creator so terribly and gruesomely that it is abominable to listen to or speak of. If he could at least show where the Holy Spirit teaches too little and where Scripture needs the additions of men, there would be some appearance of reason. But now he himself admits that Scripture is on our side and he is unable to criticize us on the basis of Scripture; he also freely admits that his human work is not in Scripture, yet he nevertheless pours out such blasphemy upon us—that is, upon Scripture, as he himself admits—that I would not have thought even a devil in hell would be permitted to do such things. I say this only so that you, dear goat, may see that if sheer murderous noise and raging amplification could strengthen your cause, I could strengthen my cause even more with them. My cause does not need them. It is well grounded in Scripture. Yours certainly does, because it is built upon human dreams and upon the chamber of his [the pope's] heart.85

I trust that from all this everyone may see what Emser's spear and dagger are and what kind of bout he has fought with the famous fencer. I shall improve things for him when he returns for another round. But I do not swear to it either by my priesthood or by my holiness.86 I shall satisfy him in other ways. Here I shall conclude with the three main parts of his book, the sword, the spear, and the dagger. They are so overcome that the whole book built upon them is also overcome. But to explain my view again: since

Emser concedes that I have opposed neither the articles of faith nor Scripture—whereby he becomes my unwilling, unfavorable, but therefore all the more convincing witness to the fact that I am a truly devout

Christian and have falsely been called a heretic by him for no reason—I shall wrest one more thing from him which he never expected and which he does not like to let go.

- 81 He should grant us freedom from human laws so that it is up to us whether or not we obey them. And if we are indeed to live under them, as I have taught and still teach, he should nevertheless grant us permission to state that they are neither necessary nor good for us and that we do not have to obey them; that moreover the pope is a tyrant, without any right to make these laws and that he thus commits an injustice; that we may obey them, not because it is our duty or the pope's due, but because it is our own free will to do so to serve him, just as Christ says in Matthew 6 [5:25] that we should make friends with the accuser; and that those who do not obey them [laws] should rightly not be called heretics. All this should be granted to us, and we shall prove it in the following manner.

When we have Scripture and Scripture has us, as Emser admits—which is undoubtedly satisfactory to God—we are more than sufficiently praised as devout Christians; those who slander us have to give the lie to themselves. What more do you people want from us? When you call us heretics, whom do you call heretics, since you yourselves admit that we are in agreement with Scripture? Can you condemn those whom God justifies? Does not truth punish you through your own Caiaphian and Baalian mouths? For you are only put in office to lead us to God and to God's word and to tend us with God's word, as Christ says in Matthew 4[:4], "Man shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God." Why do you pretend to lead us further and indeed pull us away from God toward yourselves and drive us from his word to your teaching and usage? Is this the office of shepherds or of wolves?87

Therefore I say: Let us be free, Emser, and admit, as your conscience implores you, that the pope is a tyrant who has no right to make laws which are neither good nor necessary for us anyway. And, so that conscience does not vanish from the pope and you papists, admit that you are thieves, robbers, wolves, seducers, and betraying Judases with your laws. Then we shall gladly obey and endure them, just as Christ endured his rope and cross, to which Judas, the ancestor of the pope, had brought him. Then they do not harm us, and we endure them in the same way we endure someone's taking clothes, money, property, even life from us. We will even endure you too, when you burden our Christian freedom with your insane, foolish, and useless laws. But our conscience remains free from you and unburdened. But if you were to insist (as you do) that it is your right to do so and that we should take it as proper and right—just as though a murderer forced me to say that he has a claim on my life and property—then, Emser, we shall cry No as long as there is breath in us. For you wish to imprison our conscience so that we should stand in fear as before the law—even when it is an unjust law. Thus you want to catch us and strangle us with innumerable ropes, just as you do with your unlawful ban, forcing people to obey your roguery.

We shall endure injustice from you, but we shall never approve of it. Therefore, tell your idol the pope that he may make laws over me—as many as he pleases. I shall obey them all. But also tell him that he has no right to do so and that I do not owe obedience to him. However, I shall gladly endure his injustice, as Christ teaches [Matt. 5:39–42], and I shall no longer oppose the pope. Everything might as well be bad!

What more do you want from me? Did I not teach this in [the commentary on] Galatians88 and in all my books? But when the pope drives the whole world as though he had a right to do so, he confuses innumerable souls and seduces them into hell. That is why he is the "man of lawlessness and the son of perdition" [II Thess. 2:3], because he has imprisoned consciences and forced them to sanction his injustice, thus filling the world with sin and destruction. For anyone who believes the pope has the right and power to make laws soon thinks he has to obey them as good and necessary and he does not endure them as tyranny and injustice. He obeys them unwillingly; he would like to get rid of the law but is not able to, and so he finally suffocates in sins. For whoever dislikes doing something he must do or thinks he must do, sins in his heart. Accordingly, all the pope's commandments (which are innumerable) are nothing but a rope strangling souls. With these he causes only sin and destruction in the whole world and thus destroys all of Christendom, as Daniel prophesied [Dan. 8:24–25; 9:27]. Christ therefore calls him an "abomination" [Matt. 24:15]. Few people, if any, escape him, except those who die in the cradle.

Do you understand me now, Emser? I do not desire to be free of human laws and teachings. I only desire to have the conscience free and to have all Christians make the sign of the cross against a faith which believes that the pope is right in his rule. For such a faith destroys faith in Christ and drowns the whole world in nothing but sin and destruction. The pope and you papists are the pious heirs of this sort of thing. You, who do no more than propagate such superstition, seduce the world, destroy Christian faith, and lead all souls to the devil when you should believe only in Christ and preach freedom from human laws so as to remain "ministers of the Spirit" and not "of the letter." Likewise, I do not desire to be free of - 82 Emser's slandering, hatred, and envy; but I do desire to be free in conscience so that I am allowed to believe Emser is tyrannizing me and doing me an injustice. For if I should sanction this as right, my conscience would already be imprisoned and could not be free until Emser ceased to hate, which might never happen. For if I had to sanction it, which I would not do willingly (since I cannot), I would be sinning endlessly against my conscience. Thus the whole world is now sinning endlessly and is perishing if it believes that the pope is right with his rule, domination, and governance. Yet no one is doing so willingly, since everyone hates the papacy—except those who want to enjoy it—so that it is justifiably called an abomination. The pope has therefore imprisoned the whole world with false conscience and superstition. People have to sin endlessly and unwillingly and [finally] perish. Woe to you, you terrible abomination! Come, Lord Jesus Christ, and save us from the Antichrist! Push his see into the abyss of hell, as he deserves, so that sin and destruction may cease. Amen.

Concerning the Indolence of the Papists Let this be enough for the time being. Now let us pursue Emser's and the papists' lies and indolence further, in regard to the writings of the fathers and the usages upon which they build.

Emser and all the papists say that St. Peter was in Rome and ruled as a bishop for twenty-five years.

This crude lie has been in existence longer than a thousand years, so that a long spear would indeed have resulted if usage would suffice to base the truth upon, as Emser dreams. Even St. Jerome is led into this error.89 The papists began to lie very early and have continued to inherit and to increase the lie so much from one to the other that the pope is now nothing but lies. But we shall make this lie about the twentyfive years of St. Peter in Rome so clear that even Emser is forced to grasp it.

St. Luke, Luke 3[:1], writes that John the Baptist began to preach in the fifteenth year of the Emperor Tiberius' reign.90 Then, although no one really knows how long Christ preached, we could let the common opinion prevail that it was for a duration of four and a half years, namely, until the nineteenth or twentieth year of Tiberius' reign, and that he was crucified, resurrected, and gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles in that same year. After that Tiberius ruled until the twenty-fourth year. After him Caius ruled91 for four years, then Claudius92 for fourteen years; and after that Nero93 for fourteen years too. Thus there would be a total of thirty-six years from the twentieth year of Tiberius' reign until the last year of Nero's. This was the year in which they say that St. Peter was killed by Nero.

Now if St. Peter had been in Rome for twenty-five years, beginning with the fourth year of Claudius' reign, as they say, he was in Jerusalem and Antioch for only eleven years after Christ's ascension. Again, they say that he was in Antioch for seven years, and therefore in Jerusalem for only six years. St. Paul falls among the liars here and misses the mark, for he writes in Galatians 1[:18] that he saw St. Peter for the first time three years after his own conversion in Jerusalem, which took place in the fourth year after the ascension of our Lord at the earliest. Moreover, more than fourteen years later, Peter, James, and John are found in Jerusalem [Gal. 2:1–10]. This makes eighteen years altogether that St. Paul alone attributes to St.

Peter in Jerusalem. Who knows how long he stayed there after that?

If you add to these eighteen or perhaps twenty years the seven years in Antioch and the twenty-five years in Rome, then St. Peter would have been crucified by Emperor Nero forty-six or forty-seven years after Christs ascension. But Nero had already died ten years earlier, namely, in the thirty-sixth year! That,

I think, is talking a little too foolishly.94 This is what happens to people who build on human teaching and usage, do not look at Scripture, and swallow whatever they find in the writings of the fathers. What now,

Emser? If someone had a good dagger and spear to illumine this obscure fog of Scripture, he could make six years of the eighteen years St. Paul says Peter spent in Jerusalem, so that there could be seven years for Antioch and twenty-five years for Rome—indeed, Scripture is an obscure fog here!

In addition to those who say that St. Peter came to Rome in the fourth year of Claudius' reign, there are others who say he came in the second year, and so they give Peter twenty-seven years in Rome and three years in Jerusalem. Here, too, St. Luke, in Acts 18[:2], agrees with [the chronology] of Paul in Galatians 1[:18], saying that Claudius drove all the Jews from Rome, among whom he names Aquila and Priscilla. How then could St. Peter have come to Rome under Claudius? In short, I have never read more inconsistent and more uncertain histories than those about St. Peter's activities in Rome. As a result, there are many people who say freely and openly that St. Peter never went to Rome. You papists have brought this about with your lies and inconsistent writings. The one says that he was martyred together with St.

- 83 Paul on the same day, the other says there is a difference of two years. Whatever is written about it is shaky.

Although I maintained that St. Peter was in Rome, and still do, I would not want to die for it as for an article of faith. Moreover, I do not know how it could be either maintained or proven; indeed, no one (as far as I know) can prove it. It is not an article of faith, and no one is a heretic if he does not believe St.

Peter was in Rome. On the other hand, it is outrageous to deny it unless it is thoroughly refuted. The safest thing is to let it remain uncertain and doubtful. For we ought to believe only what God has commanded us to believe in Scripture, and no one should either add to it or retract from it, as Moses teaches [Deut. 12:32] and as Paul says, Galatians 4 [3:15], "No one changes a man's testament or adds to it." How much less, then, should anyone change or add to God's testament.

But it is my opinion that it was by God's special providence that St. Paul's journey to Rome rather than St. Peter's was recorded in Scripture. For he foresaw very well that the papists would build their papacy upon it. That is why he placed them in mire and sand before they began to build, not leaving them any stable foundation. For if it cannot be proven with certainty by Scripture that St. Peter was in Rome

(which is not possible), the papacy already lies in mud and amounts to nothing. For just as unnecessary as it is to believe that St. Peter was in Rome, since Scripture does not say so, so is it equally unnecessary to believe that the pope is the heir to his see and [therefore] the pope. Now see what the pope is sitting on!

All they do with their propaganda is enable us to find their false and unworthy foundation even earlier, and so we may see them unhorse themselves with their wild raging. That is why I come to the conclusion here that it is unnecessary to consider the pope either the pope or the heir to St. Peter's see until they verify with Scripture that St. Peter was in Rome. Hey now, you papists! Be clever and lively, and look for spear, dagger, and sword to drive away this fog of Scripture!

But in thinking about it, I ask myself whether there was not a mistake in regard to Peter's twenty-five years in Rome; perhaps someone either said or wrote that St. Peter only came to Rome after the twentyfifth year, and some people then understood it in the sense of his having been in Rome for twenty-five years. For if he was in Jerusalem for eighteen years, as Paul says in Galatians 1[:18], and in Antioch for seven years, as they say, this adds up to twenty-five years. Accordingly, he would have been in Rome eleven years and been crucified by Nero in his last year—that is, the thirty-sixth year after the Lord's ascension. Thus it could also be a mistake [when they say] that he came to Rome in the third or fourth year of Claudius' reign, since it occurred in Nero's third or fourth year; accordingly, he would have lived eleven years under Nero, until Nero's last year, namely, the fourteenth. Indeed, it could not have happened otherwise if he came to Rome at all. But I shall let it stand as it stands.

Concerning Clerical Marriage Since I gave the advice95 that if a godly minister were weak, burdened with a woman and a child, and wanted to marry, he should listen to me and go ahead with it, you, you chaste goat, make a murderous noise saying, "Well, let the raging devil follow you in my stead." You boast very much about your extraordinary and blameless chastity, and your goat smells like real balsam in your nose. I answer: Well, you holy, holy virgin St. Emser, why has your chastity become so steely and so hard and unmerciful toward poor sinners? Moreover, I did not give the advice in a way to make your dear chastity follow me, as you pervert my words and poison the people in accordance with the custom of your Christian love and divine priesthood. Instead, my advice was to a poor priest burdened with children who is otherwise godly and leading a decent life. Your Holiness knows all this very well, and it does not involve you at all. I have neither given to nor taken anything from canons, vicars, evil priests who keep whores, or Emsers. But you have made a firm decision and thought, "Well, we must curse this monk and lie about him, even if I should have to make up the accusations myself."96 Thus you rage against me only with human laws, just as though you had won from me the concession that human laws count with me; and you think it unnecessary first to ground them in Scripture.

Your lily-white chastity does not need to tell me what human law says about this. I knew that very well and, if challenged, would not need the instruction of either a goat or an ass, but would instead have answered that St. Paul, I Timothy 4[:1–3], does not speak as a man but as God himself when he says very clearly that to prohibit marriage is devilish teaching. An "iron eater"97 would show his teeth here and bite a hole into my armor. But you flee before such a passage as if your horns were on fire. You fall silent and disappear like a water bubble. Why do you not strike me for once with such a sword too? I shall stand up

- 84 against you without any guard. How often do I have to yell at you, you crude and unlearned papists, before you come with Scripture at least once? Scripture, Scripture, Scripture! Don't you hear me, you dumb goat and crude ass? Hey goat, get angry and butt me once! But do not step back too far so that you will not exhaust yourself in the attack! Are you not ashamed, you great teachers of the world, to let yourselves be mocked so often in regard to Scripture, even though you should be using it to defy me most emphatically and to gain the advantage over me? Indeed, you cannot deny that there never was a teacher on earth except the pope who prohibited marriage, meat, eggs, milk, butter, and the like and then sold them again afterward—and did so throughout the whole world. There have certainly been heretics who rejected marriage; but there were not many. Moreover, no uniform law was ever made out of it. Thus you cannot find fault with St. Paul or deny that such commandments of the pope are commandments of the devil, as St. Paul dearly says. Here you must allow the pope to be the apostle of the devil and the Antichrist. You cannot prevent it, in spite of all your efforts.

Tell me, then: Is it proper for Christian people, especially priests, to be obedient to the devil and to follow his apostle the pope? If the priesthood had followed him up to now, forced and seduced by tyranny or deceit, does it not have the power to send the devil and his apostle packing? Or must they remain knowingly, unnecessarily, without courage and against their wills, under the laws of the devil? Where are you, Emser? Are you not listening? Are you sleeping with Baal? Or did you go on a journey [I Kings

18:27]? There is no question here of whether or not your chastity should follow me. I do not ask whether or not the devil follows me in your stead. At this point nobody cares about your wanting and following, or that of all the devils. Want, rage, follow, and fume until you have had enough! This is the crux of the matter,98 and you should look with both eyes to see, if you can, whether such commandments are proper or improper. You are so evil that you knock down the Apostle himself!

To make sure I speak to you in the appropriate manner, you hyperlearned scholar in grammar, logic, and philosophy, do not make "a mode of necessity" [modalem de necesse] out of "a proposition of particulars" [proposition de inesse],99 you sharp logician; do not "turn a fact into law" [ius ex facto], you hyperlearned licentiate of the holy burned law. And do not make a general "obligation" [debere] out of your personal "doing" [facere], you fledgling poet and grammarian—unless you want to run to the archfool100 to look for "what is simply secondary" [secundum quid simpliciter],101 as you do with the priesthood where you call the literal, external, deadly priesthood—indeed the null and void priesthood

—"simply priesthood" [sacerdotium simpliciter] and the one, spiritual, true, and living priesthood the "secondary one" [secundum quid]. How well you know what secundum quid et simpliciter means! You are just as fine a logician as you are a theologian. If I did not know logic and philosophy, you crude asses might well dare to make a name for yourselves as logicians and philosophers, even though you know as much about these things as an ass knows about music.102 And although you have learned to use the words

—as nuns use the psalter and the parakeet uses language—you nevertheless know neither the use nor the application of them; the farmer is recognized by his work and not by his dress.

But let me give you a piece of advice here: take your short dagger, with which you kill the cuirassiers, and say that this passage is obscure fog; we cannot understand it without the interpretation of the fathers.

Further, with your high mind persuade us that we cannot know the meaning of "prohibit," "marry,"

"doctrine," "demons," "abstain," "food," "God," "create"; change "prohibit" into "command," "marry" into "to be without marriage," "demons" into "church," "God" into "pope," "create" into "be obedient."

For you took it upon yourself to change and to pervert everything according to your whim. You have a good example and teaching for all of this in St. Aristotle, who also calls "nonbeing" [non ens] what others call "being" [ens], and "being" what others call "nonbeing." In addition, he invented "act and power, in itself and accidentally" [actum et potentiam per se et per accidens], just as you have invented the spear and dagger, sheath and blade. Your canon law assists you too, which creates sin where there is none and law where there is none, as is quite evident in ceremonies. It is therefore very fitting that you need to explain such philosophy and canon law without obscure Scripture.

Since, with this prohibition [i.e., against the marriage of priests] the pope is clearly proven to be the apostle of the devil, let Your Humble Chastity listen to the consequences. First, the whole priesthood, for the salvation of its soul, must flee from the pope, cursing and opposing him as if he were the devil himself.

It must break the vow forced on it in the act of consecration, which was made for the devil and not for God [I Tim. 4:1–3], as your own holy law itself says, "It is not expedient for faith to obey evil laws."103

- 85 All this is not my advice but that of St. Paul, who here speaks up strongly and judges the whole matter by saying that such teaching is of the devil and not of God. Second, it follows that all bishops and priests who follow the pope in this matter are messengers and helpers of the devil too. Thus it is clear that the papacy with its priesthood is the kingdom of the devil and the rule of the Antichrist, and that Emser is the defender of the devil and of the Antichrist. For to accept the devil's teaching and to defend it can surely never be justified. Who, in spite of all you papists, will oppose me here? Look around for the cuirassier and strike with your blade, you miserable Emser! However, if you say that St. Paul's word is directed against Faustus104 and Jovinian,105 whom Jerome and Augustine have opposed, I will judge that you have run around in the carnival mask of the past.106 St. Jerome reproves Jovinian for praising marriage, whereas you say he prohibited marriage. This is how well you read Jerome and history! Faustus was a Manichaean whom Augustine did not oppose on the grounds of marriage. You crude ass's head! Should you not be more careful what you write about such matters? Some people have been called "Tatians,"107 but their cause is nothing compared with the pope's prohibition. And even if it were, it is enough for me that the pope is just as much a heretic as they are, since he collects almost every heresy like a pot of soup, just as the Romans did in earlier times with their Pantheon—but more on that another time.

How very nicely you also reject St. Ulrich's epistle,108 even though I do not build upon it, since I want to checkmate you not with human teaching but with Scripture. But if he had been on your side he would have had to count, since Scotus, Gerson, Bede,109 and whoever else you want must count. Is this not fine logic: St. Ulrich's epistle was not found in Augsburg, therefore it is not by St. Ulrich? Quintilian's book110 is found neither in Rome nor in Italy, therefore it is not by Quintilian. Emser's book is not found in Dresden; is it therefore not by Emser? Did Malmsey wine or Rastrum beer111 teach you your logic? And who told you that St. Ulrich's epistle was not found in Augsburg, except your logic which always infers from the individual to the universal?

Indeed, I think that you have written this book under the impression that the whole world consists only of Jerome Emser, Jerome Walther,112 and other similar clods, so clumsily do you step along without caution or care. For example, you write that it is necessary to burn heretics today because printing easily increases books and error, which did not occur before. You do not even have enough brains in your crude head to remember that John Huss and Jerome [of Prague] were burned at Constance before printing was invented. It is a similar [stupidity] when you compare me with the pharmacists who write fine titles on their boxes but put poison into them; for I write the name "Jesus" in my poisonous books—even though it is not I but the printers who do so throughout the book; I do it only on the first sheet. Where did you ever see such pharmacists? Or do the pharmacists, too, have to turn into murderers and betrayers on my account? Your raving hatred does not let you put down a single good word. Ecclesiasticus [21:26] said it well, "The fools' hearts are in their mouth, but the wise men's mouth is in their hearts." That is why fools just prattle whatever comes to their mind, but wise men think before they speak. Why should you write anything good if you spit out so carelessly and thoughtlessly whatever comes into your mouth? And why do you always strike your own cheeks?

Therefore my advice, as before, is not to the chaste Erasers or miraculously holy goats but to the poor crowd of fallen priests: whoever cannot hold out may get married and still live without sin. If he cannot live without lust, despite the pope with all his devilish prohibitions, he should not be thrown into turmoil because of the arbitrary promise forced from him by the bishop in the place of the devil. For it certainly was not made sincerely or voluntarily. If the pope had caused no other disaster than these prohibitions he would still be the Antichrist, and he could be called the "man of sin" and the "son of perdition and abomination" [II Thess. 2:3; Dan. 9:27], since so many sins and so much perdition have come from this one prohibition. If you, goat, would take yourself by the nose you too would have to admit that it did not bring you much holiness. If you are chaste, God be praised! Just watch out how long it will last! You are not over the hill yet! Do not despise your poor fallen neighbors, and, you great giant, do not devour all the tainted and sick children!

I want to say one more thing and then come to an end: you and Murner, together with many others, burden me with the charge that I criticize only the vices of the clergy and remain silent about the punishable vices of the nobility and worldly authorities. Since you see this great fault of mine, why do you not criticize them and thus rectify my fault? Why do you always pick on me regarding something you yourselves do not want to do? Indeed, why do you not censure the vices of the clergy? Do I have to deal

- 86 with everything in one book? Even if I had done it, you certainly would have found a reason to say that I did not maintain my course,113 that I wanted to address the nobility but scolded it instead—as you do when you say that I taught less than the mendicant orders did and accuse me of being a bird fouling my own nest.114 What could I write that your raging hatred would not slander, since you blaspheme God's word and work and look only for ways to increase your slander and lies? But I shall give you an answer. I think

I have censured the nobility and the world more than you clergy—for example, in my books on good works,115 on the Ten Commandments,116 and my address to the German nobility.117 In these books I have never really touched on the clerical vices, such as unchastity, avarice, hatred, gluttony, pride, indolence— except in the one addressed to the German nobility. But in that one I showed not the vices of the clergy in general but the avarice of the pope and the Roman curia and a small portion of its abominable nature. My dear fellows, truth hurts you. That is why you want to find something against me. The sheep has muddied the water for the wolf.118

But to tell you still more: I have not yet reached the point of openly attacking the vices of the clergy and of the worldly estate. It is my duty to pass judgment on the vices you papists consider virtues. By means of them you have filled the world with deception and superstition—such as indulgence, mass, vigils, churches, vestments—in short, with all your human teaching, which you regard as something holy.

I fight all of this for the sake of the pure faith and I simply want to tear off your carnival masks. I am still far from morals and works. If we had the faith again and were liberated from your devilish laws and sects, it would be easy for us to teach morals and to punish vices; and if the spiritual estate were first of all pure in faith and faithful in God's word, it would easily lead the nobility and worldly estates in the direction they should go. But since we ourselves are of no use, what good does it do to censure and to scold them much? Bad morals and works are but a small thing, compared with the false teachings and superstitions in which the spiritual estate has drowned. That is why I did not write a very skilled book addressed to the German nobility, but have shown only the crude practices they could certainly improve. But we clerics need to teach faith and the word of God against human law and superstition. This is a work which is higher than heaven is above earth, as Isaiah 55[:9] says. You clerics are accustomed only to being praised in your work, to receiving honor and money for it. If a little criticism is thrown at you, you are afraid the whole sky might fall on you. In all your books you only want to have the people punished without mercy, but you want to be called "gracious squires," to have everything you do accepted, and to have the most charitable construction placed on it. This is what you call honoring the priesthood, and if one refuses to do it, it is called shaming the priesthood.

Here I shall leave Emser for the time being. For whatever he babbles about the mass, brotherhoods, ascension of saints, vows, and other things is now sufficiently answered. Meanwhile, his booklet is in my favor with regard to four points.

First, he flees Scripture just as the devil flees the holy cross,119 and he wants to lead me away from Scripture. This he will not and cannot accomplish, God willing.

Second, he lies in such an un-Christian, shameful, and wilful manner; he imposes errors upon me which he himself invents and which he could invent in sufficient number to write about unto eternity.

From this I notice that it was not his intention to write against my teaching. Instead, he only wanted to do penance for his lust by blaspheming and lying.

Third, he freely admits that I attack neither the articles of faith nor Scripture. I am very grateful for this since I have never asked for a greater honor and prize, even from my best friends or God himself, than this one given to me by my deadliest enemy himself.

Fourth, he admits that his cause stands outside Scripture and depends only on human teaching and usage and that he wants to draw me into it. I have never in all my writings sought more, and still do not seek more, from the pope and all my enemies than their confession that their cause is not founded on Scripture. Thus one can easily see what kind of wise man goat Emser is: he writes against me, and everything he attacks he also confesses and praises as being in Scripture, that is, founded upon God's word. And yet he rages and foams against God's word, for God's sake, so that he certainly needs not a sneezing plant but rather to be led to St. Cyriacus in chains.120 But if he comes again I can pay him whatever is still unpaid. For now it is enough, or the reader will be swamped.

- 87 You should not think, dear fool Murner, that I despise your good opinion, for I shall believe you this first time, despite all those who give me a different picture of you. And although you are full of bitter, malicious, and vicious words, I still welcome your kind (as you write) admonition.121 What I say here is by far not enough to answer each one of you individually. But since you are Emser's comrade, in that you base your cause on human teaching and usage and do not attack me with Scripture, I shall have answered you with what I said to Emser, for I do not sense the same lies in you as I do in Emser.122 You are indeed strange soldiers; you do not want to meet me on my battleground, you shoot off many blind and useless shots, and you shake in your skin before Scripture. When I bring in Scripture against your human teaching and usage, you come along as if you had won the argument that human teaching and usage are right; you urge me only to consider the consequences, and thus you want to tear me away from Scripture. For heaven's sake, can I not bring you to Scripture at all?

Why do you teach me so skilfully what the crudest peasant or child, or indeed even a born fool, could teach me? Indeed, no born fool is so insane, and no devil is so malicious, as not to know and to confess that one should follow what is right. Listen to me, you poor, superficially learned papists. I shall clearly put a syllogism before you: I concede the major premise, "One should do everything that is good." Why should you quarrel with me about this? Are you not smarter than that? Instead, you should confront me when I attack you and fight against your minor premise, "Every human teaching and usage which I have attacked is good." Here I go to war, dear fellows, and this castle I shall besiege. This is where you should defend yourselves and be lively. If you are able to rescue yourselves here and bring me down, you should not worry about the conclusion; I shall gladly accept it and say, "Therefore, human teaching and usage which I have attacked should be kept." But since you do not protect the minor premise and advance only the major one and a conclusion, you are doing exactly what the builders of Babylon did [Gen. 11:7]: when stones were called for they brought water. When I hit you on the head you treat your feet. When I set fire to the roof, you try to extinguish it in the cellar. Why? Do you want to make seriousness a carnival? You ask me to drink and when I knock at the jug to have you pour for me, dear brethren, you drink from empty jugs and count money out of empty pockets.123 This skill I have not yet learned!

You also threaten to retort with many books and with a great surplus of your skill in order to frighten me.124 You reckon victory on the length and quantity of writing. Because you are certainly unable to win with arguments, you hope to overcome me with length and quantity.125 But I am already overloaded, and you, you lazy and miserable hero, want to belabor me, a hardworking and laboring man! Why do you not get some lazy and unburdened fellows like yourself, or an evil wife who would like to have the last word too? But, fool Murner, do you regard me as the kind of fool who would quarrel with you or with anyone else over who might be able to prattle longest or have the last word? You would win the prize without difficulty. For it is quite obvious which way the scale would tip if you were weighed according to the size of your tongue. The Rhine would run dry before you ran out of words. But is this advising and rightly teaching the people in a Christian way when you rely on many words, always seek your own advantage, and march about on the field but have no intention of coming to battle, so that the poor people are detained and stand there with their mouths uselessly hanging open?

Have you not read that "mere talk tends only to want" [Prov. 14:23]? I think if you would deal with Scripture you would soon lose your way of triplicating everything and there would be a lot of empty space left on a sheet of paper. You have not yet tried the kind of skill and work needed to deal with Scripture, dear Murner. Indeed, you do not cite any and talk only about your own opinion. You do not analyze my writing, and pretend to have some kind of unusual skill. It is just as though I did not have anything else to do but to write one book after another to you alone; and if I do not do so, I am supposed to concede victory to you.

You have my book and scriptural arguments. Take them, argue also with Scripture, and leave the talkative blabbermouth Thomas Murner at home. Refute my Scripture with better Scripture, show the foundations for your teaching, and step into the light. Why do you have to tease and to defy me so long?

Just come on, ride against me and see to it that you hit the mark; I shall not disappoint you. You do not have to hide your skill before anyone. If it is true skill it will not flee the light. Otherwise, your writing looks as though you wanted to collect honor and publicity rather than seeking me out with true seriousness, as you pretend. If you are able to teach me differently with Scripture, you need not have any doubt that I shall follow you. Indeed, you know quite well that all the fathers have erred many times.

- 88 Therefore, usage and long tradition have uncertain value before God. Moreover, his word demands from us not to have either human teaching or usage. That is why I want to have Scripture. Scripture, fool

Murner! Fool Murner, Scripture! Otherwise, look for another fighter. I have more important things to do than to wait for your babbling without Scripture.

I do not want your mere reasoning either. It is too spoiled, and worth nothing. This I shall show you in regard to one argument which you thought the very best: since I had called the Christian church a "spiritual assembly,"126 you mocked me as though I wanted to build a church just as Plato built a city which is nowhere. And you are very pleased with your idea, thinking you had hit the mark. You say,

"Would it not be a nice city, with spiritual walls, spiritual towers, spiritual cannons, spiritual horses, and everything spiritual?" It is your final opinion that the Christian church cannot exist without a physical location, space, and goods. My answer, dear fool Murner, is: Should I deny Scripture for the sake of reason and put you above God? Why do you not respond to my passages? For example: "There is no partiality before God" [Rom. 2:11]; "The kingdom of God is in the midst of you" [Luke 17:21]; and "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; nor will they say, 'Lo, here it is!' or 'There!' "

[Luke 17:20–21]. And Christ says in John 1 [3:6], "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit." Indeed, I think you call the Christian church or us the kingdom of God in which God lives and reigns. How can I follow your reasoning and deny Christ who says clearly that the kingdom of God is not a city, a place, or anything external? It is neither here nor there, but a Spirit within us. But you say that it is here and there.

What do you say to St. Stephen, Acts 8 [7:48], "The Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands"? My dear, let your reasoning show itself here and make an "also" out of the "not," saying that God also dwells in houses made by hands! And Isaiah 66[:1], which St. Stephen quotes, saying, "What is the place of my rest? What is the house which you would build for me?" [Acts 7:49]. Dear Isaiah, do you not know? Well, Murner will certainly tell you it is in Rome or wherever the pope and Christians are. "No," he says, "but my Spirit dwells in a poor and humble spirit which honors my word" [Isa. 66:2]. What do you think now, fool Murner? I think even now you come along with your church on physical horses, places, and towers. Look how the best part of your booklet agrees with Scripture! Therefore, let your reason sleep and show me a single letter of Scripture proving that temporal place, city, or building belong to the church. If you can, I shall make no more demands and shall soon follow you.

Here is a lesson for you: nothing can be so pointedly argued with reason which cannot also be refuted by reason. If the temporal place or city is "churchly"127 because Christians cannot live on earth without temporal space, then wine and bread—indeed, even the stomach with all its contents—would also be

"churchly." Do spittle, snot, and excrement belong to or are they a part of the nature of the body because it cannot exist without them? Perhaps your cowl is not without lice either; do the lice therefore have to be monks' cowls? Since the Christian church cannot exist without suffering, persecution, death, or indeed sin, do suffering, death, persecution, and sin therefore have to be church and life? You want to build the church half upon temporal things, to mix the physical and the spiritual, and to unite sin and grace. Yet St.

Paul says, "Our commonwealth is in heaven" [Phil. 3:20], and Christianity lives only by fleeing and deserting temporal cities, places, goods, honor, body, and everything earthly, and goes through them to eternal life just as it goes through sin, suffering, and death. Do you see now, my fool Murner, what it means to do theology with mere reason and without Scripture? If you reply to this [argument] do you think I could not reply to you again? But where then is the final truth?

I therefore conclude that the Christian church is not bound to any one city, person, or time. And even though the unlearned mob—the pope with his cardinals, bishops, priests, and monks–does not want to understand this or let it be true, it is certainly true for me and for everyone else,128 even for the children in the street and all of Christendom in all the world. They stand on my side against the painted and invented church of the pope and his papists. But if you ask why this is so, I give you this brief answer: All

Christians in the world pray, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, one holy Christian church, the community of saints." If this article is true, it follows that no one can either see or feel the holy Christian church, nor can anyone say, "See, here or there it is!" For what one believes one can neither see nor feel, as St. Paul teaches in Hebrews 11[:1]. On the other hand, what one can see or feel one does not believe. Is this not clear enough, dear Murner and Emser? Let us see what you can say against that! Are not children and peasants here more learned than the pope, cardinals, bishops, priests, and monks? Where are you, you squires who dare to interpret Scripture, to explain faith, and to proclaim with certainty that the common

- 89 man does not understand any of it? The case is different: it is the pope and his bishops, with their followers, who do not know as much by far as the crude peasants and children.

Compare, then, the holy church of Christ and the insane church of the pope. The holy church of Christ says, "I believe one holy Christian church." The insane church of the pope says, "I see a holy Christian church." The former says, "The church is neither here nor there." The latter says, "The church is here and there." The former says, "The church is not dependent on any person." The latter says, "The church is dependent on the pope." The former says, "The church is not built on anything temporal." The latter says,

"The church is built on the pope." What do you think, Murner? Are you not fine fellows? How nicely you interpret Scripture! It is just as St. Peter said about you, II Peter 2[:3], "In their greed they will exploit you with false words." Is it not true that the pope, with his papacy, does not seek anything other than the money and goods of the whole world, and does not care at all about the gospel and faith? Yet he still invents things, and you join him, pretending to interpret Scripture and to teach faith. But there are no more unlearned people on earth than popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, and monks so that it is a miracle if anyone learned is found among you.

The consequence of such blind blasphemy is that there is no other place in the world where there are so many sects, schisms, and errors as in the papal church. For the papacy, because it builds the church upon a city and person, has become the head and fountain of all sects which have followed it and have characterized Christian life in terms of eating and drinking, clothes and shoes, tonsures and hair, city and place, day and hour. For the spirituality and holiness of the papal church lives by such things, as was said above.129 This order fasts at this time, another order fasts at another time; this one does not eat meat, the other one does not eat eggs; this one wears black, the other one white; this one is Carthusian,130 the other

Benedictine;131 and so they continue to create innumerable sects and habits, while faith and true Christian life go to pieces. All this is the result of the blindness which desires to see rather than believe the Christian church and to seek devout Christian life not in faith but in works, of which St. Paul writes so much in Colossians [2]. These things have invaded the church and blindness has confirmed the government of the pope.

But when you quote, with big letters, the passage in Matthew 16[:18], "You are Peter," etc., saying that this is the text by which the papacy has been proven up to now, you are not scaring me, dear Murner.

Moreover, there was no need to show me that the papacy was proven up to now by this text. Our question is not whether it is proven by this text, but rather whether it is proven correctly and well. Here you should use big letters to let yourself be seen as the undefeatable Murner and give me the correct answer. For in all of Scripture I have no stronger text against the papacy than precisely this passage that you regard as the single, strongest foundation for the papacy. When I take it away from you and knock it down so clearly that you could even grasp it with your hands, I trust you will admit that I have won and will allow me to knock the papacy down before your very eyes and call all of you, including the pope, false and lying perverters of Scripture. Therefore listen to me, because no papist has ever cracked this little nut for me, and none shall ever crack it.

Christ says, Matthew 16[:18], "The gates of hell shall not prevail against the rock and the church built on the rock." Is this not true, Murner? Now, you cannot deny that the gates of hell daily dominate the papists and that the papacy, including the pope, does much evil and errs. Can you deny this, too, Murner?

Indeed, you can see that those who adhere to the pope most tenaciously live the most evil life, and thus the gates of hell certainly dominate them. Accordingly, Christ's saying that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the rock and the church agrees with the pope and his church just as light agrees with darkness and Christ with Belial [II Cor. 6:15]. If you want to prove the papacy with this passage, then I am quite right to demand from you that you show us such a pope and papacy in which there is no sin and over which the gates of hell cannot dominate at all. When do you want to do this, Murner? Hurry and build a physical city for the church—come along on your horse, but beware of falling. It is dangerous for you to ride here.

Since this passage then does not tolerate a sinful pope and a sinful papacy, and since no one knows which pope is without sin–besides, the majority is sinning publicly and there is therefore neither a single person nor a place not dominated by the gates of hell—it is clear enough, I trust, that the holy Christian church cannot be demonstrated physically but can only be believed. Contrary to Murner and all the papists, it will have to remain a spiritual place standing in the Spirit, invisibly built upon the rock of Christ. Herewith I hope the papacy is reduced to ashes, since the one basic passage opposes it. Moreover,