An
Open Letter on Translating
By
Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546
Translated from:
"Sendbrief von Dolmetschen"
in _Dr. Martin Luthers Werke_,
(Weimar: Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1909),
Band 30, Teil II, pp. 632-646
by Gary Mann, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Religion/Theology
Augustana College
Rock Island, Illinois
Preface
Wenceslas
Link to all believers in Christ:
The
wise Solomon says in Proverbs 11: "The people who withhold grain curse
him. But there is a blessing on those
who sell it." This verse speaks
truly concerning all that can serve the common good or the well-being of
Christendom. This is the reason the
master in the gospel reprimands the unfaithful servant like a lazy scoundrel
for having hidden and buried his money in the ground. So that this curse of the Lord and the entire Church might be
avoided, I must publish this letter which came into my possession through a
good friend. I could not withhold it,
as there has been much discussion about the translating of the Old and New Testaments. It has been charged by the despisers of
truth that the text has been modified and even falsified in many places, which
has shocked and startled many simple Christians, even among the educated who do
not know any Hebrew or Greek. It is
devoutly hoped that with this publication the slander of the godless will be
stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least in part. It may even give rise to more writing on
such matters and questions such as these.
So I ask all friends of the Truth to seriously take this work to heart
and faithfully pray to God for a proper understanding of the divine Scriptures
towards the improvement and increase of our common Christendom. Amen.
Nuremberg
Sept. 15, 1530.
To
the Honorable and Worthy N., my favorite lord and friend.
Grace
and peace in Christ, honorable, worthy and dear Lord and friend. I received your writing with the two
questions or queries requesting my response.
In the first place, you ask why I, in the 3rd chapter of Romans,
translated the words of St. Paul: "Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide
absque operibus" as "We hold that the human will be justified without
the works of the law but only by faith." You also tell me that the Papists
are causing a great fuss because St. Paul's text does not contain the word sola
(alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to be tolerated. Secondly, you ask if the departed saints
intercede for us. Regarding the first
question, you can give the papists this answer from me - if you so desire.
On
the first hand, if I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the Papists together
were capable of translating even one passage of Scripture correctly and well, I
would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in
translating the New Testament into German.
However, I spared them and myself the trouble, as I knew and still see
with my own eyes that not one of them knows how to speak or translate
German. It is obvious, however, that
they are learning to speak and write German from my translations. Thus, they are stealing my language from me
– a language they had little knowledge of before this. However, they do not thank me for this but
instead use it against me. Yet I readily
grant them this as it tickles me to know that I have taught my ungrateful
students, even my enemies, to speak.
Secondly,
you might say that I have conscientiously translated the New Testament into
German to the best of my ability, and that I have not forced anyone to read
it. Rather I have left it open, only
doing the translation as a service to those who could not do it as well. No one is forbidden to do it better. If someone does not wish to read it, he can
let it lie, for I do not ask anyone to read it or praise anyone who does! It is my Testament and my translation - and
it shall remain mine. If I have made
errors within it (although I am not aware of any and would most certainly be
unwilling to intentionally mistranslate a single letter) I will not allow the
papists to judge for their ears continue to be too long and their hee-haws too
weak for them to be critical of my translating. I know quite well how much skill, hard work, understanding and
intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the
miller's donkey for they have never tried it.
It
is said, "The one who builds along the pathway has many
masters." It is like this with me.
Those who have not ever been able to speak correctly (to say nothing of
translating) have all at once become my masters and I their pupil. If I were to have asked them how to
translate the first two words of Matthew "Liber Generationis" into
German, not one of them would have been able to say "Quack!" And they judge all my works! Fine fellows! It was also like this for St. Jerome when he translated the
Bible. Everyone was his master. He
alone was entirely incompetent as people, who were not good enough to clean his
boots, judged his works. This is why it
takes a great deal of patience to do good things in public for the world
believes itself to be the Master of Knowledge, always putting the bit under the
horse's tail, and not judging itself for that is the world's nature. It can do nothing else.
I
would gladly see a papist come forward and translate into German an epistle of
St. Paul's or one of the prophets and, in doing so, not make use of Luther's
German or translation. Then one might
see a fine, beautiful and noteworthy translation into German. We have seen that
bungler from Dresden play master to my New Testament. (I will not mention his name in my books as he has his judge and
is already well- known). He does admit
that my German is good and sweet and that he could not improve it. Yet, anxious to dishonor it, he took my New
Testament word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and glosses,
replacing them with his own. Then he published my New Testament under his
name! Dear Children, how it pained me
when his prince in a detestable preface condemned my work and forbid all from
reading Luther's New Testament, while
at the same time commending the Bungler's New Testament to be read - even though
it was the very same one Luther had written!
So
no one thinks I am lying, put Luther's and the Bungler's New Testaments side by
side and compare them. You will see who
did the translation for both. He has
patched it in places and reordered it (and although it does not all please me)
I can still leave it be for it does me no particular harm as far as the
document is concerned. That is why I
never intended to write in opposition to it.
But I did have a laugh at the great wisdom that so terribly slandered,
condemned and forbade my New Testament, when it was published under my name,
but required its reading when published under an other's name! What type of virtue is this that slanders
and heaps shame on someone else's work, and then steals it, and publishes it
under one's own name, thereby seeking glory and esteem through the slandered
work of someone else! I leave that for
his judge to say. I am glad and satisfied that my work (as St. Paul also boasts ) is furthered by
my enemies, and that Luther's work, without Luther's name but that of his
enemy, is to be read. What better vengeance?!
Returning
to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word
"alone" (sola), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it
so and he says that a papist and an ass are the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione
voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not
going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and
master. We, too, are going to be proud
and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul brags against his madly
raving saints, I will brag over these asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I am as well. They are
philosophers? And I. They are dialecticians? I am too.
They are lecturers? So am I.
They write books? So do I.
I
will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms and the
prophets, and they cannot. I can
translate, and they cannot. I can read
Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can
pray, they cannot. Coming down to their
level, I can do their dialectics and
philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of
them understands Aristotle. If, in
fact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapter of
Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am
not overdoing it for I have been educated in and have practiced their science
since my childhood. I recognize how
broad and deep it is. They, too, know
that everything they can do, I can do.
Yet they handle me like a stranger in their discipline, these incurable
fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what
they know and teach. How they do so
brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty
years ago! To all their shouting and
screaming I join the harlot in singing: "I have known for seven years that
horseshoe nails are iron."
So
this can be the answer to your first question.
Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying
about that word "sola" than simply "Luther will have it so, and
he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors." Let it remain at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt,
and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people
that they are - asses, I should say.
And there are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own
art of sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them. They set
themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but
as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. An ass truly does not have to sing much as
he is already known for his ears.
For
you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word "sola"
- even though in Romans 3 it wasn't "sola" I used but
"solum" or "tantum".
That is how closely those asses have looked at my text! However, I have used "sola fides"
in other places, and I want to use both "solum" and
"sola". I have continually
tried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happened that I have sometimes searched and inquired about
a single word for three or four weeks.
Sometimes I have not found it even then. I have worked Meister Philip and Aurogallus so hard in
translating Job, sometimes barely translating 3 lines after four days. Now that it has been translated into German
and completed, all can read and criticize it.
One can now read three or four pages without stumbling one time -
without realizing just what rocks and hindrances had once been where now one
travels as if over a smoothly-cut plank.
We had to sweat and toil there before we removed those rocks and
hindrances, so one could go along nicely.
The
plowing goes nicely in a clear field.
But nobody wants the task of digging out the rocks and hindrances. There
is no such thing as earning the world's thanks. Even God cannot each thanks, not with the sun, nor with heaven
and earth, or even the death of his Son.
It just is and remains as it is, in the devil's name, as it will not be
anything else.
I
also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in either
Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is
fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not
there. And these knotheads stare at
them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that
it conveys the sense of the text - if the
translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there. I wanted to
speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or
Greek. But it is the nature of our
language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other
denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word "not"
(nicht) or "no" (kein). For
example, we say "the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money";
or "No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only
eaten and not yet drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it
over?" There are a vast number of
such everyday cases.
In
all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is not the Latin or
Greek usage. It is the nature of the
German tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or
"kein" may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmer brings grain and no
(kein) money, but the words "kein money" do not sound as full and
clear as if I were to say, "the farmer brings allein grain and kein
money." Here the word
"allein" helps the word "kein" so much that it becomes a
clear and complete German expression.
We
do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to speak German - as
these asses do. Rather we must ask the
mother in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the market
about this. We must be guided by their
tongue, the manner of their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then they will understand it and recognize
that we are speaking German to them.
For
instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I am to follow these
asses, they will lay the original before me literally and translate it as:
"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." Is that speaking with a German tongue? What
German could understand something like that?
What is this "abundance of the heart?" No German can say that; unless, of course,
he was trying to say that someone was altogether too magnanimous, or too
courageous, though even that would not yet be correct, as "abundance of
the heart" is not German, not any more than "abundance of the house,
"abundance of the stove" or "abundance of the bench" is
German. But the mother in the home and
the common man say this: "What fills the heart overflows the
mouth." That is speaking with the
proper German tongue of the kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not
always successfully. The literal Latin
is a great barrier to speaking proper German.
So,
as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: "Ut quid perditio haec?" and
in Mark 14: "Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?" Subsequently, for these literalist asses I
would have to translate it: "Why has this loss of salve
occurred?" But what kind of German
is this? What German says "loss of
salve occurred"? And if he does
understand it at all, he would think that the salve is lost and must be looked
for and found again; even though that is still obscure and uncertain. Now if that is good German why do they not
come out and make us a fine, new German testament and let Luther's testament
be? I think that would really bring out
their talents. But a German would say
"Ut quid, etc.." as "Why this waste?" or "Why this
extravagance?" Even "it is a shame about the ointment" - these
are good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the
salve she poured out and had done wrong.
That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used it better.
Now
when the angel greets Mary, he says: "Greetings to you, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with
you." well up to this point, this
has simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is that good
German? Since when does a German speak like that – being "full of
grace"? One would have to think
about a keg "full of" beer or a purse "full of" money. So I translated it: "You gracious one". This way a German can at last think about
what the angel meant by his greeting.
Yet the papists rant about me corrupting the angelic greeting - and I
still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most satisfactory German
and translated the salutation: "God says hello, Mary dear" (for that
is what the angel was intending to say and what he would have said had he even
been German!). If I had, I believe that
they would have hanged themselves out of their great devotion to dear Mary and
because I have destroyed the greeting.
Yet
why should I be concerned about their ranting and raving? I will not stop them from translating as
they want. But I too shall translate as
I want and not to please them, and whoever does not like it can just ignore it
and keep his criticism to himself, for I will neither look at nor listen to
it. They do not have to answer for or
bear responsibility for my translation.
Listen up, I shall say "gracious Mary" and "dear
Mary", and they can say "Mary full of grace". Anyone who knows German also knows what an
expressive word "dear"(liebe)
is: dear Mary, dear God, the dear emperor, the dear prince, the dear
man, the dear child. I do not know if
one can say this word "liebe" in Latin or in other languages with so
much depth of emotion that it pierces the heart and echoes throughout as it
does in our tongue.
I
think that St. Luke, as a master of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, wanted to
clarify and articulate the Greek word "kecharitomene" that the angel
used. And I think that the angel
Gabriel spoke with Mary just as he spoke with Daniel, when he called him
"Chamudoth" and "Ish chamudoth, vir desiriorum", that is
"Dear Daniel." That is the
way Gabriel speaks, as we can see in Daniel.
Now if I were to literally translate the words of the angel, and use the
skills of these asses, I would have to translate it as "Daniel, you man of
desires" or "Daniel, you man of lust". Oh, that would be beautiful German! A German would, of course, recognize "Man", "Lueste"
and "begirunge" as being German words, although not altogether pure
as "lust" and "begir" would be better. But when those words are put together you
get "you man of desires" and no German is going to understand that.
He might even think that Daniel is full of lustful desires. Now wouldn't that be a fine translation! So I have to let the literal words go and
try to discover how the German says what the Hebrew "ish chamudoth"
expresses. I discover that the German
says this, "You dear Daniel", "you dear Mary", or "you
gracious maiden", "you lovely maiden", "you gentle
girl" and so on. A translator must
have a large vocabulary so he can have more words for when a particular one
just does not fit in the context.
Why
should I talk about translating so much?
I would need an entire year were I to point out the reasons and concerns
behind my words. I have learned what an
art and job translating is by experience, so I will not tolerate some papal ass
or mule as my critic, or judge. They
have not tried the task. If anyone does
not like my translations, they can ignore it; and may the devil repay the one
who dislikes or criticizes my translations without my knowledge or
permission. Should it be criticized, I
will do it myself. If I do not do it,
then they can leave my translations in peace.
They can each do a translation that suits them - what do I care?
To
this I can, with good conscience, give witness - that I gave my utmost effort
and care and I had no ulterior motives.
I have not taken or wanted even a small coin in return. Neither have I made any by it. God knows that I have not even sought honor
by it, but I have done it as a service to the blessed Christians and to the
honor of the One who sits above who blesses me every hour of my life that had I
translated a thousand times more diligently, I should not have deserved to live or have a sound eye for even a
single hour. All I am and have to offer
is from his mercy and grace - indeed of his precious blood and bitter sweat. Therefore, God willing, all of it will also
serve to his honor, joyfully and sincerely.
I may be insulted by the scribblers and papists but true Christians,
along with Christ, their Lord, bless me.
Further,
I am more than amply rewarded if just one Christian acknowledge me as a workman
with integrity. I do not care about the
papists, as they are not good enough to acknowledge my work and, if they were
to bless me, it would break my heart. I
may be insulted by their highest praise and honor, but I will still be a
doctor, even a distinguished one. I am
certain that they shall never take from me until the final day.
Yet
I have not just gone ahead, ignoring the exact wording in the original. Instead, with great care, I have, along with
my helpers, gone ahead and have kept literally to the original, without the
slightest deviation, wherever it appeared that a passage was crucial. For instance, in John 6 Christ says:
"Him has God the Father set his seal upon (versiegelt)." It would be more clear in German to say
"Him has God the Father signified
(gezeiehent)" or even "God the Father means him." But rather than doing violence to the
original, I have done violence to the German tongue. Ah, translating is not every one's skill as some mad saints
think. A right, devout, honest,
sincere, God-fearing Christian, trained, educated, and experienced heart is
required. So I hold that no false Christian or divisive spirit can be a good
translator. That is obvious given the
translation of the Prophets at Worms which although carefully done and approximating
my own German quite closely, does not show much reverence for Christ due
to
the Jews who shared in the translation.
Aside from that it shows plenty of skill and craftsmanship there.
So
much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending
upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word
"solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning,
urgently necessitated and demanded it.
He is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this passage
- namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the
Law. In fact, he rejects all works so
completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and
word, do not aid us in justification.
Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified
without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over
and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in
justification. Instead, Abraham was
justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says
in Chapter 4: "If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, but not
before God." However, when all
works are so completely rejected - which must mean faith alone justifies -
whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would
have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself
and the nature of language necessitates it.
"Yet",
they say, "it has such an offensive tone that people infer from it that
need not do any good works." Dear,
what are we to say? IS it not more
offensive for St. Paul himself to not use the term "faith alone" but
but spell it even more clearly, putting the finishing touches on it by saying
"Without the works of the Law?"
Gal. 1 [2.16] says that "not by works of the law' (as well as in
many other places) for the phrase "without the works of the law" is
so sever offensive, and scandalous that no amount of revision can help it. How much more might people learn from
"that they need not do any good works", when all they hear is about
the preaching about the works
themselves, sated in such a clear strong way: "No works",
"without works", "not by works"! If it is not offensive to
preach "without works", "not by works"! If it is not
offensive to preach "without works", "not by works"!, "no
works", why is it offensive to preach "by faith alone"?
Still
more offensive is that St. Paul does not reject just ordinary works, but works
of the law! It follows that one could
take offense at that all the more and say that the law is condemned and cursed
before God and one ought only do what is contrary to the law as it is said in
Rom. 3: "Why not do evil so that there might be more good?" which is
what that one divisive spirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul's word because of such `offense' or
refrain from speaking freely about faith?
Gracious, St. Paul and I want to offend like this for we preach so
strongly against works, insisting on faith alone for no other reason that to
offend people that they might stumble and fall and learn that they are not
saved by good works but only by Christ's death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot be saved by their
good works of the law, how much more
will they realize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without the
law! Therefore, it does not follow that
because good works do not help, bad works will; just as it does not follow that
because the sun cannot help a blind person see, the night and darkness must
help him see.
It
astounds me that one can be offended by something as obvious as this! Just tell me, is Christ's death and
resurrection our work, what we do, or not?
It is obviously not our work, nor is it the work of the law. Now it is Christ's death and resurrection
alone which saves and frees us from sin, as Paul writes in Rom. 4: "He
died for our sin and arose for our righteousness." Tell me more! What is the work by which we take hold of Christ's death and
resurrection? It must not be an external
work but only the eternal faith in the heart that alone, indeed all alone,
which takes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached through the
gospel. Then why all this ranting and
raving, this making of heretics and burning of them, when it is clear at its
very core, proving that faith alone takes hold of Christ's death and
resurrection, without any works, and that his death and resurrection are our
life and righteousness? As this fact is so obvious, that faith alone gives,
brings, and takes a hold of this life and righteousness - why should we not say
so? It is not heretical that faith
alone holds on to Christ and gives life; and yet it seems to be heresy if
someone mentions it. Are they not
insane, foolish and ridiculous? They
will say that one thing is right but brand the telling of this right thing as wrong
– even though something cannot be simultaneously right and wrong.
Furthermore,
I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one
righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine
and many others who said it before me.
And if one is to read and understand St. Paul, the same thing must be
said and not anything else. His words,
as well, are blunt - "no works" - none at all! If it is not works, it must be faith alone. Oh what a marvelous, constructive and
inoffensive teaching that would be, to be taught that one can be saved by works
as well as by faith. That would be like
saying that it is not Christ's death alone that takes away our sin but that our
works have something to do with it. Now
that would be a fine way of honoring Christ's death, saying that it is helped
by our works, and that whatever it does our works can also do - that we are his
equal in goodness and power. This is
the devil itself for he cannot ever stop abusing the blood of Christ.
Therefore
the matter itself, at its very core, necessitates one say: "Faith alone
makes one righteous." The nature
of the German tongue teaches us to say it in the same way. In addition, I have the examples of the holy
fathers. The dangers confronting the people
also compel it so they do not continue to hang onto works and wander away from
faith, losing Christ, especially at this time when they have been so accustomed
to works they have to be pulled away from them by force. It is for these reasons that it is not only
right but also necessary to say it as plainly and forcefully as possible:
"Faith alone saves without works!"
I am only sorry I did not add "alle" and "aller",
and said "without any (alle) works of any (aller) laws." That would have stated it most
effectively. Therefore, it will remain
in the New Testament, and though all the papal asses rant and rave at me, they
shall not take it away from me. Let
this be enough for now. I will have to speak more about this in the treatise
"On Justification" (if God grants me grace).
On
the other question as to whether the departed saints intercede for us. For the present I am only going to give a
brief answer as I am considering publishing a sermon on the beloved angels in
which I will respond more fully on this matter (God willing).
First,
you know that under the papacy it is not only taught that the saints in heaven
intercede for us - even though we cannot know this as the Scripture does not
tell us such - but the saints have been made into gods, and that they are to be
our patrons to whom we should call.
Some of them have never existed! To each of these saints a particular
power and might has been given - one over fire, another over water, another
over pestilence, fever and all sorts of plagues. Indeed, God must have been altogether idle to have let the saints
work in his place. Of this atrocity the
papists themselves are aware, as they quietly take up their pipes and preen and
primp themselves over this doctrine of the intercession of the saints. I will leave this subject for now -but you
can count on my not forgetting it and allowing this primping and preening to
continue without cost.
And
again, you know that there is not a single passage from God demanding us to
call upon either saints or angels to intercede for us, and that there is no
example of such in the Scriptures. One
finds that the beloved angels spoke with the fathers and the prophets, but that
none of them had ever been asked to intercede for them. Why even Jacob the patriarch did not ask the
angel with whom he wrestled for any intercession. Instead, he only took from
him a blessing. In fact, on finds the
very opposite in revelation as the angel will not allow itself to be worshipped
by John. [Rev. 22] So the worship of
saints shows itself as nothing but human nonsense, our own invention separated
from the word of God and the Scriptures.
As
it is not proper in the matter of divine worship for us to do anything that is
not commanded by God (and that whoever does is putting God to the test), it is therefore
also not advisable or tolerable for one to call upon the saints for
intercession or to teach others to do so.
In fact, it is to be condemned and people taught to avoid it. Therefore, I also will not advise it and
burden my conscience with the iniquities of others. It was difficult for me to stop from worshipping the saints as I
was so steeped in it to have nearly drowned.
But the light of the gospel is now shining so brightly that from now on
no one has an excuse for remaining in the darkness. We all very well know what we are to do.
This
is itself a very risky and blasphemous way to worship for people are easily
accustomed to turning away from Christ. They learn quickly to trust more in the
saints than in Christ himself. When our nature is already all to prone to run
from God and Christ, and trust in humanity, it is indeed difficult to learn to
trust in God and Christ, even though we have vowed to do so and are therefore obligated
to do so. Therefore, this offense is
not to be tolerated whereby those who are weak and of the flesh participate in
idolatry, against the first commandment and our baptism. Even if one tries nothing other than to
switch their trust from the saints to Christ, through teaching and practice, it
will be difficult to accomplish, that one should come to him and rightly take
hold of him. One need not paint the
Devil on the door - he will already be present.
We
can finally be certain that God is not angry with us, and that even if we do
not call on the saints for intercession, we are secure for God has never
commanded it. God says that God is a
jealous God granting their iniquities on those who do not keep his commandments
[Ex.20]; but there is no commandment here and, therefore, no anger to be
feared. Since, then, there is on this
side security and on the other side great risk and offense against the Word of
God, why should we go from security into danger where we do not have the Word
of God to sustain, comfort and save us in the times of trial? For it is written, "Whoever loves
danger will perish by it" [Ecclus. 3], and God's commandment says,
"You shall not put the Lord your God to the test" [Matt. 4].
"But,"
they say, "this way you condemn all of Christendom which has always
maintained this - until now." I
answer: I know very well that the priests and monks seek this cloak for their
blasphemies. They want to give to
Christendom the damage caused by their own negligence. Then, when we say, "Christendom does
not err," we shall also be saying
that they do not err, since Christendom believes it to be so. So no pilgrimage can be wrong, no matter how
obviously the Devil is a participant in it.
No indulgence can be wrong, regardless of how horrible the lies involved. In other words, there is nothing there but
holiness! Therefore to this you reply, "It is not a question of who is and
who is not condemned." They inject
this irrelevant idea in order to divert us from the topic at hand. We are now discussing the Word of God. What Christendom is or do does belongs
somewhere else. The question here is:
"What is or is not the Word of God?
What is not the Word of God does not make Christendom.
We
read that in the days of Elijah the prophet there was apparently no word from
God and not worship of God in Israel. For Elijah says, "Lord, they have
killed your prophets and destroyed your altars, and I am left totally
alone" [I Kings 19]. Here King Ahab and others could have said,
"Elijah, with talk like that you are condemning all the people of
God." However God had at the same
time kept seven thousand [I Kings 19].
How? Do you not also think that
God could now, under the papacy, have preserved his own, even though the
priests and monks of Christendom have been teachers of the devil and gone to
hell? Many children and young people have died in Christ. For even under the anti-Christ, Christ has
strongly sustained baptism, the bare text of the gospel in the pulpit, the
Lord's Prayer, and the Creed. By this
means he sustained many of his Christians, and therefore also his Christendom,
and said nothing about it to these devil's teachers.
Now
even though Christians have done some parts of the papal blasphemy, the papal
asses have not yet proved that they did it gladly. Still less does it prove that they even did the right thing. All Christians can err and sin, but God has
taught them to pray in the Lord's Prayer for the forgiveness of sins. God could very well forgive the sins they
had to unwillingly, unknowingly, and under the coercion of the Antichrist
commit, without saying anything about it to the priests and monks! It can,however, be easily proven that there
has always been a great deal of secret murmuring and complaining against the
clergy throughout the world, and that they are not treating Christendom
properly. And the papal asses have
courageously withstood such complaining with fire and sword, even to the
present day. This murmuring proves how
happy Christians have been over these blasphemies, and how right they have been
in doing them!
So
out with it, you papal asses! Say that
this is the teaching of Christendom: these stinking lies which you villains and
traitors have forced upon Christendom and for the sake of which you murderers
have killed many Christians. Why each
letter of every papal law gives testimony to the fact that nothing has ever
been taught by the counsel and the consent of Christendom. There is nothing
there but "districte precipiendo mandamus" ["we teach and
strictly command"]. That has been
your Holy Spirit. Christendom has had to suffer this tyranny. This tyranny has robbed it of the sacrament
and, not by its own fault, has been held in captivity. And still the asses would pawn of on us this
intolerable tyranny of their own wickedness as a willing act and example of
Christendom - and thereby acquit themselves!
But
this is getting too long. Let this be
enough of an answer to your questions for now.
More another time. Excuse this
long letter. Christ our Lord be with us
all. Amen.
Martin
Luther,
Your
good friend.
The
Wilderness, September 8, 1530
________________________________________________________________
This
text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Dr. Gary Mann in 1995 and was
placed by him in the public domain. You
may freely distribute, copy or print this text, providing the information in
this statement remains attached. Please direct any comments or suggestions to:
Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at Concordia Theological Seminary.
E-mail:
smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface
Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne,
IN 46825 USA
Phone:
(260) 481-2123
Fax: (260) 481-2126
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate
.