Preface, no date, by Thomas Erastus (BP.Erastus.1589-01)
| Author: | Thomas Erasuts |
| Recipient: | Reader |
| Type: | Preface |
| Date: | no date |
| Place: | no place |
| Pages: | 9 |
| Language: | Latin |
| Quote as: | https://www.theatrum-paracelsicum.com/index.php?curid=3034 |
| Editor: | Edited by Julian Paulus |
| Source: | Thomas Erastus, Explicatio Grauissimae Quaestionis, no place, no printer [London: John Wolfe] 1589, sig. A4r–A8r [BP.Erastus.1589-01]
|
| Translation: | Raw translation see below |
| Abstract: | Erastus addresses his readers to explain his motivations for writing on the topic of excommunication. About sixteen years prior, he observed some individuals fervently advocating for a form of excommunication, which they deemed as divinely ordained. Erastus was concerned about the potential division this could cause within the Church, especially when many were still hostile to their teachings. He believed the focus should be on bringing more people to the truth rather than excluding them. Erastus delved into ancient writings and consulted with scholars to understand the historical and theological perspectives on excommunication. He found inconsistencies and disagreements among theologians. Turning to the scriptures, he noted that the Jewish community, which God praised for its laws, did not have separate political and ecclesiastical judgments. He wondered why the Christian Church, blessed with Christian governance, couldn't be governed similarly. After sharing his thoughts with reputed individuals, he was met with resistance and even hostility. Some, he felt, prioritized their authority over the truth. When Erastus condensed his writings into theses for broader consultation, he faced further opposition. Critics argued that he shouldn't engage in theological matters, given his medical background. They also tried to discredit him with various arguments and accusations. Despite the opposition, Erastus revised his theses, aiming to clarify his stance and provide stronger evidence. He emphasized his sole desire for the truth to be understood and for God to be glorified, even if it meant facing personal shame or criticism. (generated by Chat-GPT) |
| Back to Paratexts Back to Texts by Thomas Erasuts |
[sig. A4r] Thomas Erastvs Medicvs, pio & veritatis studioso lectori, S[alutem] P[lurimam] D[icit].
Vt ne miretur aliquis, in haec nostra scripta incidens, quae me causae impulerint, adeóque permouerint, vt hanc dispuationem de Excommunicatione mouerim; originem & occasionem motae disceptationis, breuiter & verè exponam. Anni exacti sunt plus-minus sexdecim, ex quo nonnulli febre quadam excommunicatoria, (quam titulo disciplinae ecclesiasticae ornabant, & sanctam atque à Deo praeceptam Ecclesiae, contendebant) correpti sunt, quam vehementer toti Ecclesiae maximè affricare cupuebant. Rationem eius hanc esse aiebant, vt certi Presbyteri Ecclesiae totius nomine sederent, & qui ad coenam dignè, vel indignè accedere poßint, iudicarent. Mirabar eos tum haec agitare consilia, cùm neque excommunicandos, neque excommunicatores idoneos haberemes. Etenim vix trigesima populi pars doctrinam intelligebat, & approbabat: coeteri omnes hostes nobis erant infestißimi: adeò vt nullus mente praeditus non prospiceret, periculosam multitudinis scißionem necessariò ex ea re consequuturam. Proinde non hoc mihi tunc videbatur quaerendum, quo modo è societate Ecclesiae aliqui exturbarentur: sed contrarium potius agendum iudicabam, vt quo modo plurimi ad veritatis cognitionem adducerentur, inqúe Ecclesiam includerentur, ratio iniretur. Quos verò praeesse oportuisset, neque aetate & vsu, neque ingenio & iudicio, neque moribus & auctoritate tantùm caeteris praestabant, vt rem tan- [sig. A4v] tam cum dignitate sustinere posse viderentur. Quocirca cum absque pernicie & euersione Ecclesiae obtineri non posse viderem, quod vehementer illi cupiebant, monui soepiùs, vt rem accuratè perpenderent, nec temerè aliquid inchoarent, cuius eos deinde frustrà poeniteret. Etsi autem in sacris literis præceptam excommunicationem tunc opinabar, modum tamen, quem nobis proponebant, mandatum in eis non reperiebam. Quare cum modum nobis liberum reliquisse veretur Christus, de via & ratione, quae nostris rebus esset aptior, minúsque turbarum secum traheret, ipse quoque sedulò cogitabam. Quod eò faciebam studiosiùs, quo exitiosiorem Christianitati hanc rem non olim tantùm, sed etiam hodiè fuisse obseruaueram.
Dum in hac versor cogitatione, & quid veteres super hac re scripsißent, exquiro, informioráque apud eos omnia comperio, quàm mihi persuaseram, de tota re nonnihil dubitare coactus sum. Consului mox etiam Scholasticos, apud quos nihil inueni melius. Ab his ad Recentiores me contuli. Sed ne apud hos quidem exactius & firmius aliquid deprehendi: imò manifestè eos inter se in quibusdam dissentire animaduerti: quod me multò reddidit attentiorem. Ergò relictis interpretibus ad sacras literas redij: atque inter legendum pro captu meo diligenter notaui, quid dissentaneum vel consentaneum receptae opinioni esset. Jn qua re non vulgariter me adiuuit contemplatio status Reipublicae & Ecclesiae Iudaicae. Sic enim apud me cogitabam: Deus ipse testatur Deut[eronomio] 4. populum suum statuta, & leges habere tam iustas & sapientes, vt cum illis nullarum gentium instituta, nullius Reipublicae sanctiones, nullae ordina- [sig. A5r] tiones, quantumuis sapienter excogitatae, contendere poßint. Proindè necesse est, vt praeclarißimè, sapientißimeq́ue disposita sit Ecclesia, quae ad Iudaicae formam proximè accedit. At in hac ita fuerunt constitutae res à Deo, vt duo diuersa de moribus iudicia, Politicum, & Ecclesiasticum, nusquàm reperiantur. Quid igitur prohibet, quominùs nunc quoque Ecclesia, cui clementissimus Deus Christianum largitus est Magistratum, vna gubernatione contenta esse poßit?
Contuli deindè cum viris bonis, pijs, & doctis cogitationes meas, eósque, vt non obiter tantùm causam expenderent, hortatus sum. Videri enim mihi minimè necessarium, vt duo ponantur capita in vno visibilis Ecclesiae corpore, quorum imperia, decreta, & gubernationes diuersae sint hactenùs, vt vnius rectio alterius curationi non sit subiecta, sed vtriusque gubernatio in suo genere summa existat. Equidem Senatum Ecclesiasticum siue Presbyterium, sic volebant ordinari, vt summum ius haberet vitia puniendi, in ipsis etiam Magistratibus: attamen poenis non corporalibus, sed prohibitione Sacramentorum priuata primùm, deinde, si parùm sic proficeretur, solenni & publica. Ego verò putare me dixi, vnum à Dei constitutum Magistratum, flagitiosos non minus hodiè coërcere omnes posse, quàm olim potuerit. Exemplo mihi proponebam illustrißimum Salomonis Regnum, quod Ecclesiae Christi in hac terra regnantis, veluti quidam typus esset. Neque sub hoc, neque sub Mose, vel Judicibus, vel alijs Regibus, vel optimâtum vocata procuratione duo nos ita discrepantia iudicia inuenire. Natura negat, (inquit Musculus) in eodem populo duas authenticas gubernationes, quarum vna non sit alteri subiecta. Non sum ab illis, quibuscum contuli, [sig. A5v] parùm adiutus: partim quia nonnulla quàm ego rectiùs obseruarunt, partim quia de alijs quibusdam exactiùs cogitandi occasionem praebuerunt.
Interim quietum me continui: nec cum quoquam hac de re contendi, à quo non prouocarer. Prouocatus etiam moderatißimè semper respondi: propterea quod neque vtile, neque necessarium videbatur Ecclesias nostras hac disputatione turbare, dum nemo illis palàm formulam istam administrationis obtrudere sciretur. Illi verò qui longè putant esse suauius ac dulcius imperare, quàm parere, non sic quiuerunt, sed quibuscunque potuerunt artibus (quod postea cognoui) sanctißimo Principi conati sunt persuadere, vt aliquid tale conareutr in Ecclesias nostras inuehere. Ac nisi obstitissent alia quaedam, fortè persuasuri fuerant. Quibus interim conuitijs me (quemsibi non consentire, & ne voti compotes fierent, operam da re non nesciebant) vbique prosciderint, nonattinet hoc loco referre.
Accidit deinde, vt Anglus quidam, qui propter rem vestiariam, ex Anglia ferebatur exceßisse, Doctoris titulo ocuperet insigniri, & de adiaphoris ac vestibus disputationem proponeret. Hanc Theologi admittere noluerunt, nè scilicet Anglos offenderent, (tametsi quaedam in posterioribus quoque thesibus de hac re continerentur) vt autem nostrae res turbarentur, pro nihilo, vt videtur, duxerunt. Quare inter alias hanc thesim proposuit, oportere in quauis rectè instituta Ecclesia hanc seruari procurationem, in qua ministri cum suo delecto ad eam rem Presbyterio ius teneant, quosuis peccantes, etiam Principes excommunicandi. Quanquam metuebam decertationem hanc non frustra institutam fuisse, sperabam tamen nihil aliud fore, quàm ordinariam disputationem, quales non ad decidendas controuer- [sig. A6r] sias, sed ad iuuentutem exercendam, & ad dijudicanda ingenia eorum, qui publicos petunt honores, institutae sunt. Itaque nec ego aliquid mouere volui, nec propter negotia, interesse potui. Hortatus quoque sum alios, quos contrà disputaturos videbam, vt maiorem haberent Ecclesiae rationem, quàm imprudentiae paucorum. Disputauit nihilominus vnus atque alter: quos si deinde vnà mecum non vocauissent profanos, Satanicos, Diabolicos, turbatores, hostes pietatis, phanaticos, &c. nil aliud, quàm ordinaria disceptatio fuisset.
Equidem, quod ad me attinet, sanctè affirmare possum, me nunquam induxisse in animum meum de hac re, & controuersia aliquid scribere, priusquam eos tam intemperanter publicè, priuatímque agere audiui, & vidi. Quippe putaui diutius silere, nil esse aliud, quàm veritatem prodere. Quia verò tunc eram praeter solitum occupatißimus (propter milites, qui tunc, anno videlicet 1568. cum Duce Casimiro &c. ex Gallia varijs morbis affecti, redibant) cogitantiones meas frustillatim, vt in tantis negotijs, quouis tempore quaelibet occurrebat, annotaui. Quas licet perturbatè congessissem nulloq́ue ordine certo, propter dictam causam distribuissem, partim dum transcribebantur, partim mox atque transcriptæ fuerant, nonnullis quorum iudicio plurimum tribuebam, & à quibus me non vulgariter amari non sine causa quidem, & falsè tamen, credebam, examinandas, iudicandásque dedi: simúlque rogaui, vt si quid non rectè affirmatum, firméue probatum inuenirent, melioribus rationibus liberè confutarent. Si nihil aliud, hoc saltem impetraturum me sperabam, vt visis argumentis ab ipsis mitescerent aliquantum, & non sine argumentis ab ipsis dissentire, cogitarent. Vnus ex duobus primis, quibus- [sig. A6v] cum decreueram praecipuè conferre, de quatuor partibus, tres vidit, ac legit, priusquàm omnia descripta fuissent. De quibus sententiam rogatus, postmodùm se dicturum promittebat, vbi totum perlegisset. Obiter tamen de fermento nescio quid proponebat, ac veteris Ecclesiæ consensum magni aestimandum putabat: demùm alia quaedam talia adferebat, ex quibus facillimum mihi erat de sententia animóque eius iudicare. Intellexi eodem ferè tempore hunc-ipsum de Excommunicatione Tracatum scripsisse, in quo sententiam comunem probaret. Quo cognito dubium non erat, quid responsurus esset. Nôram enim eum ab eo, quod semel affirmauisset absque periculi metu non discessurum. Itaque cùm haec ipsa, quae opponebat, in parte postrema confutata essent, alteri totum obtuli: quo mihi amiciorem viuere neminem putabam. Is non tantùm fastidiosè (nescio vtrùm admonitus prius fuerit) librum à me accipiebat, sed apertè negabat se legere velle: etsi vrgerem, inuitum huc se adigi, affirmabat. Reliqui ei nihilominus per aliquot dies, & quanto studio, quantisque precibus potui, vt perlegeret, mihíque suum de eo iudicium exponeret, oraui. Quod cùm frustrà me ab eo flagitare certis argumentis cognouissem, post dies plus-minus duodecim ab eo repetiui, vt aliorum iudicia exquirerem. Caeterùm, quia scriptum illud longius erat, quàm vt breui tempore à pluribus perlegi posset, in theses quasdam contraxi: quò facilius pluribus communicari posset. Cecidit consilium hoc in parte non infoeliciter. Nam & complurium per Germaniam clarißimorum & summorum Theologorum sententias perspexi, quod vnicè cupiebam: & sic inter studiosos sparsae fuerunt, vt, qui me rogante legere noluerant, contra suam voluntatem deinde legere coacti sunt.
[sig. A7r] Vt porrò constaret omnibus, me praeter nudam veritatem nihil quaerere aliud, Praefationem praefixi, in qua duo haec petiui: Primum quidem, vt omnes diligenter singula examinarent, & ad sacrarum literarum trutinam expenderent, ac si me in errore esse viderent, ab eo me liberarent, quò ipse quoque alios liberare possem. Pollicitus sum ex toto corde (testor Deum cordium scrutatorem) me ei, qui errorem mihi monstrasset, coràm Deo & hominibus gratias acturum. Quoniam autem futurum praeuidebam, quod postea accidit, rogaui secundo loco, vt si quid repehendere constituissent, illis modis ac locis facerent, quibus & mea interpretari, & iniustè damnata, iustè tueri mihi liceret, Etsi enim me constantißimum sibi amicum, & ad omnia officia paratissimum experti semper fuissent, vix tamen sperare ex antegressis poteram, eos sic mecum acturos, vt cum ipsis ego egeram. Nec opinione mea sum falsus. Etenim ex amicissimis, vt stultè credideram, hostes mihi repentè facti sunt, adeò, vt ne alloquio quidem suo dignarentur ampliùs, quantumuis nec dicto, nec facto eos vllo per omnem vitam læsissem, sed optimè de eis mereri semper studuissem, quod adhuc facere cogito. Deo interim gratias agebam, quòd in re tali potiùs, quàm alia quapiam, de fide, & beneuolentia eorum periculum facere contigisset.
Non quieuerunt interim: sed postquàm se per Magistratum frustrà viderunt tentauisse, Theses ex studiosorum manibus extorquere, alilud aus sunt: nempè sub specie legum, quae nullibi extant, petiuerunt, vt, quemadmodum Theologi in dogmata & iura aliorum nihil tentent, ità etiam alijs professoribus mandaretur, vt à Theologorum schola abstineant. Si fuisset hoc antè [sig. A7v] annos sexaginta petitum, tolerabile videri poterat: nunc quo modo ferri poßit, iudicent alij. An solis illis, qui pro aliquot centenis florenis annuis Theologiam docent, dictum est, Scrutamini Scripturas: Probate Spiritus num ex Deo sind. Omna probate, quod bonum est tenete? & quae huius generis alia legimus? Putaui communem esse doctrinam Theologiam Christianorum omnium, ideóque publicè eam vbique doceri. Quid aliud petunt, cum, vt ab eorum schola sic abstineamus, petunt, quo modo ipsi in iura, & dogmata aliarum facultatum nihil tentent? Non puto eos hoc velle, vt non audiamus eorum praelectiones, aut in locum illum non intremus discendi gratiâ: praesertim cum propter meas theses modestissimè propositas id petiuerint. Quis quaeso illis Medicinae, Philosophiae, Linguarum, & Iuris studio interdixit? An quia haec ipsi studia non curant, nos Theologiae studium negligere similiter debemus? Si non plus incommodi ex ignoratione Sacrarum litterarum, quàm ex inscitia illarum rerum acciperemus, gratificari ipsis fortè possemus. Facilè vicerint, si contradicere statuis eorum nulli concessum sit. Jdem iam olim Romanenses à nobis petiuerunt, ac paulò meliore iure petiuerunt. At ego neutris gratificari possum, dum aliud me iubet Seruator meus Christus.
Nihil interim me mouet, quod dicunt, dedecere me Theologica tractare: méque sic existimationi meae parum rectè consulere: fortè quia sine mercede veritatem inquiro. Etenim si stipendio conductus Theologica docerem, nihil, secundùm ipsos, ab officio, & munere meo in hac parte alieni facerem. Ego verò nihil aliud cupio, quàm veritatem intelligi, Deum glorificari, & me pudefieri potius, quàm vt veritas prematur. Non frustrà [sig. A7r] dixit alicubi Christus, illos credere non posse, qui mutuam gloriam quaerunt, neglecta Dei gloria.
Ergo cum ne hoc quidem ex sententia cecidisset, conceptumque odium continere non possent, argumentis oppugnare coeperunt: quae non sine atrocibus criminationibus, quauis opportunitate oblata, proposuerunt. Quae etsi mihi à pluribus indicarentur, facilè tamen, pacis causa, contempsi. & speraui futurum, vt, cum impetus ille animi languescere coepisset, atque ira aliquantulum deferbuisset, aequiores nobis redderentur. Veruntamen nimis falsus hic etiam sum. Etenim post quintum ferè mensem, neque de odio aliquid remiserunt, neque impugnare nostra partim conuitijs, partim calumnijs, partim nescio quibus ratiunculis sophisticis, destiterunt. Quam ob rem Theses centum sub incudem reuocaui, quas redegi ad septuaginta quinque, & suo ordine collocaui, quae de principio, non vbi oportebat posueram, sed vbi occurrerant. Exposui in ijsdem nonnulla planiùs: & probaui etiam quaedam firmiùs: deniquè operam dedi, vt veritatis amantibus, plenè satisfacerem, quod in scripto tam breui, hoc à me praestari potuit.
English Raw Translation
Generated by ChatGPT-4 on 19 August 2023. Attention: This translation is a machine translation by artificial intelligence. The translation has not been checked and should not be cited without additional human verification.
Thomas Erastus, Physician, to the pious and truth-seeking reader, sends many greetings.
Lest anyone, stumbling upon these writings of ours, wonders what reasons have driven and so deeply moved me to initiate this discussion on Excommunication, I will briefly and truthfully explain the origin and occasion of the raised dispute. About sixteen years have passed since some were seized by a certain fever of excommunication (which they adorned with the title of ecclesiastical discipline, and argued it to be holy and commanded by God to the Church) and they ardently wished to impose it upon the entire Church. They claimed the reason for this was so that certain Presbyters might sit in the name of the entire Church and judge who might worthily or unworthily approach the communion. I was astonished then that they pursued these plans when we neither had those to be excommunicated nor suitable excommunicators. Indeed, scarcely a thirtieth of the people understood and approved the doctrine; all the rest were our most vehement enemies. So much so that anyone of sound mind could foresee that a dangerous schism of the masses would necessarily result from this matter. Therefore, it did not seem to me then that we should be seeking ways to expel some from the Church community, but rather, I judged that we should be considering how to bring as many as possible to the knowledge of the truth and include them in the Church. However, those who should have been in charge were not so much superior to the rest in age & experience, talent & judgment, or in character & authority that they seemed capable of upholding such a significant matter with dignity. Therefore, seeing that what they ardently desired could not be achieved without the destruction and overthrow of the Church, I often warned them to carefully consider the matter and not rashly begin something they would later regret in vain. Although I then believed excommunication was commanded in the sacred scriptures, I did not find the method they proposed to us mandated therein. Therefore, since Christ seems to have left the method up to us, I diligently pondered the way and means that would be more suitable for our affairs and would bring less turmoil. I did this all the more eagerly because I observed that this matter was not only once, but even today, very destructive to Christianity.
While I was engrossed in this thought, and sought what the ancients had written on this matter, I found their explanations to be less clear than I had assumed, and I was forced to doubt the whole matter somewhat. I soon consulted the Scholastics, among whom I found nothing better. From them, I turned to the more recent authors. But even among them, I did not find anything more precise or solid; in fact, I clearly noticed that they disagreed with each other on certain points, which made me even more attentive. Therefore, leaving the interpreters behind, I returned to the sacred scriptures and, while reading, I diligently noted, to the best of my ability, what was inconsistent or consistent with the accepted opinion. In this matter, the contemplation of the state of the Republic and the Jewish Church greatly helped me. For I thought to myself: God Himself testifies in Deuteronomy 4 that His people have statutes and laws so just and wise that no institutions of any nation, no decrees of any Republic, no ordinances, however wisely devised, can compete with them. Therefore, it is necessary that the Church, which closely follows the form of the Jewish one, is most excellently and wisely arranged. But in this [Jewish Church], things were so ordained by God that two different judgments about morals, Political and Ecclesiastical, are found nowhere. What then prevents the Church, to which the most merciful God has granted a Christian Magistrate, from being content with one governance?
I then shared my thoughts with good, pious, and learned men and urged them to consider the matter not just superficially. For it seemed to me not at all necessary that two heads be placed in one visible Church body, whose commands, decrees, and governance differ so much that the direction of one is not subject to the care of the other, but the governance of each is supreme in its own kind. Indeed, they wanted the Ecclesiastical Senate or Presbytery to be organized in such a way that it had the highest right to punish vices, even in the Magistrates themselves: however, not with corporal punishments, but first with private prohibition of the Sacraments, and then, if little progress was made, with solemn and public [prohibition]. But I said I believed that a single Magistrate established by God could today restrain all the wicked just as effectively as he could in the past. I took as my example the most illustrious Kingdom of Solomon, which was a kind of type of the Church of Christ reigning on this earth. Neither under him, nor under Moses, nor the Judges, nor other Kings, nor under the governance of the elite, do we find two judgments so different. Nature denies, (says Musculus) in the same people two authentic governances, where one is not subject to the other. I was not little aided by those with whom I consulted: partly because they observed some things more correctly than I did, and partly because they provided an opportunity to think more precisely about certain other matters.
In the meantime, I kept quiet and did not dispute this matter with anyone unless provoked. Even when provoked, I always responded very moderately, because it seemed neither useful nor necessary to disturb our churches with this debate, as long as no one was known to openly impose that form of administration on them. But those who think it is far sweeter and more pleasant to rule than to obey could not do the same, but by whatever means they could (which I later learned), they tried to persuade our most holy Prince to introduce something like this into our churches. And if some other things had not stood in their way, they might have persuaded him. It is not relevant here to recount the insults with which they everywhere attacked me (knowing that I did not agree with them and was working to prevent their wishes from being fulfilled).
It then happened that a certain Englishman, who was said to have left England because of the vestment issue, sought to be distinguished with the title of Doctor and proposed a debate on adiaphora and vestments. The theologians did not want to accept this, presumably to avoid offending the English (although some points on this matter were also contained in the later theses). However, they seemed to care little about disturbing our affairs. Therefore, among other things, he proposed this thesis: that in any properly established Church, this governance should be maintained, in which ministers, with their chosen Presbytery, have the right to excommunicate any sinners, even Princes. Although I feared this debate was not initiated without reason, I still hoped it would be nothing more than an ordinary debate, such as those not meant to settle controversies but to train the youth and to judge the talents of those seeking public honors. Therefore, I neither wanted to raise any issue nor, because of my duties, could I attend. I also urged others, whom I saw would dispute against it, to have greater concern for the Church than for the imprudence of a few. Nevertheless, one or another debated. If they had not subsequently called me and others profane, Satanic, Diabolic, disruptors, enemies of piety, fanatics, etc., it would have been nothing more than an ordinary debate.
Indeed, as far as I am concerned, I can solemnly affirm that I never intended to write anything about this matter and controversy until I heard and saw them acting so immoderately both publicly and privately. I believed that to remain silent any longer would be nothing less than a betrayal of the truth. However, at that time I was unusually busy (due to the soldiers who were returning from France in the year 1568, with Duke Casimir, etc., affected by various diseases) so I noted down my thoughts bit by bit, whenever any opportunity arose amidst such business. Although I had gathered them in a disordered manner and arranged them without any definite order due to the aforementioned reason, I gave them, either while they were being transcribed or as soon as they had been transcribed, to some individuals whose judgment I highly valued and from whom I believed, perhaps mistakenly but not without reason, that I was especially loved. I simultaneously asked them to freely refute with better reasons anything they found not rightly affirmed or sufficiently proven. If nothing else, I hoped to achieve at least this: that after seeing the arguments, they would soften somewhat and consider that they disagreed without any arguments from their side. One of the first two with whom I had decided to primarily consult, saw and read three out of the four parts before everything was transcribed. When asked for his opinion, he promised to give it later after he had read the whole. However, he mentioned something about leaven and believed that the consensus of the ancient Church should be highly valued. Finally, he brought up some other points from which it was very easy for me to judge his opinion and mindset. I understood that he had written a treatise on Excommunication at about the same time, in which he would prove the common opinion. Knowing this, there was no doubt about what he would respond. For I knew him to be someone who would not depart from what he had once affirmed without fearing danger. Therefore, since the very points he opposed were refuted in the latter part, I presented the whole to another person, whom I believed to be the friendliest to me. Not only did he reluctantly (I don't know if he had been warned beforehand) accept the book from me, but he openly refused to read it. Even when I pressed him, he claimed he was being forced against his will. Nevertheless, I left it with him for several days, and with as much passion and as many pleas as I could muster, I urged him to read it and share his judgment with me. When I realized from certain signs that my request was in vain, I retrieved it after about twelve days to seek the opinions of others. However, since that writing was longer than what could be read by many in a short time, I condensed it into certain theses so that it could be more easily shared with others. This plan, in part, was not unsuccessful. For I saw the opinions of many of the most distinguished and leading theologians throughout Germany, which I greatly desired, and the theses were so spread among scholars that those who did not want to read at my request were later forced to read against their will.
Moreover, to make it clear to everyone that I seek nothing other than the bare truth, I prefixed a preface in which I asked for two things: Firstly, that everyone carefully examine each point and weigh them against the balance of the sacred scriptures, and if they saw me in error, to free me from it, so that I too might free others. I promised with all my heart (I call upon God, the examiner of hearts, as my witness) that I would give thanks before God and men to the one who showed me my error. However, foreseeing what would later come to pass, I asked secondly that if they decided to criticize something, they do so in ways and places where I could interpret my position and defend what was unjustly condemned. For even though they had always found me to be a most steadfast friend and ready for all duties, I could hardly hope, given past experiences, that they would deal with me as I had dealt with them. And I was not mistaken in my opinion. Indeed, those whom I had foolishly believed to be my closest friends suddenly became my enemies, to the extent that they no longer deemed me worthy of even a greeting, even though throughout my life I had neither said nor done anything to harm them and had always strived to earn their good favor, which I still intend to do. In the meantime, I thanked God that I had come to test their faith and goodwill in such a matter rather than in some other.
They did not rest, however. After seeing that they had tried in vain through the Magistrate to wrest the theses from the hands of the scholars, they tried something else: namely, under the guise of laws that exist nowhere, they asked that just as theologians do not meddle in the doctrines and rights of others, so too other professors should be commanded to abstain from the school of theology. If this had been asked sixty years ago, it might have seemed tolerable. Now, let others judge how it can be borne. Is it said only to those who teach theology for a few hundred florins annually, "Search the Scriptures," "Test the spirits to see whether they are from God," "Test everything; hold on to what is good," and other such things we read? I thought theology was the common doctrine of all Christians and therefore was taught publicly everywhere. What else are they asking for when they ask us to abstain from their school, just as they do not meddle in the doctrines and rights of other faculties? I don't think they want us not to hear their lectures or not to enter that place for the sake of learning, especially since they asked for this because of my theses, which were proposed most modestly. Who, I ask, has forbidden them the study of medicine, philosophy, languages, and law? Or because they do not care about these studies, should we similarly neglect the study of theology? If we would suffer no more harm from ignorance of the sacred scriptures than from ignorance of those subjects, perhaps we could accommodate them. They will easily have won if no one is allowed to contradict their decrees. The Romans asked the same of us long ago, and with slightly better reason. But I cannot accommodate either group, as my Savior Christ commands me otherwise.
In the meantime, I am not troubled by their claims that it is unbecoming for me to engage in theological matters and that I am not acting in the best interest of my reputation, perhaps because I seek the truth without payment. Indeed, if I were hired with a salary to teach theology, according to them, I would be doing nothing outside of my duty and role in this regard. But I desire nothing more than for the truth to be understood, for God to be glorified, and for me to be shamed rather than for the truth to be suppressed. Christ rightly said somewhere that those who seek mutual glory, neglecting the glory of God, cannot believe.
So, when even this did not go according to their wishes, and they could not contain their conceived hatred, they began to attack with arguments, which they presented at every opportunity, not without severe accusations. Even though many reported these to me, I easily dismissed them for the sake of peace and hoped that, as their emotional fervor began to wane and their anger cooled somewhat, they would become more reasonable towards us. However, I was once again mistaken. For after nearly five months, they neither lessened their hatred nor ceased to attack our position, sometimes with insults, sometimes with false accusations, and sometimes with I know not what sophistical reasoning. For this reason, I revisited the hundred theses, reducing them to seventy-five and arranging them in their proper order, placing them not where they should have been but where they had occurred to me. In them, I explained some points more clearly and provided stronger evidence for others. In the end, I endeavored to fully satisfy lovers of truth, as much as could be achieved in such a brief writing.
