me how to do so. It does not follow that he mast be con-' suited, or that no bishop has any power without him in any place, nor that nothing can be done in the Church except by his command. . . .
In this manner, therefore, I desire that the superiority of the Roman see be maintained, if necessary, although, as I said, neither at Leipsic was I able to demonstrate this, nor am I able to-day, nor to show any text of Scripture to those who oppose it. For thus I have no fear, lest, in case a war arises with heretics, we be exposed to mockery for having relied on our commentaries and for having spoken without the authority of Scripture. For the devil does not fear the reed of Egjrpt, but the sword of the spirit. In this matter you and all others would greatly please me by examining the words of the Fathers in the light of Scripture, as we read in Acts* that even Paul's words were received by men who examined the Script- ures to see whether these things were so. You and Eck are accustomed to accommodate the words of the Bible to the words of the Fathers, as though they did not desire to draw us to the Bible, rather than to themselves. But contrariwise it is my custom, following the example of Augustine, but reverently, rather to follow up the streams to the source, as Bernard boasts that he did.
As to the second place, in Philippians, ii.,* which you think that I, following Erasmus, have misunderstood, it is really you, who have cited not the text, but the opinions of the Fathers. . . .
It is necessary to defend theologians against Satan by the one simple, sole sense of Scripture. This is my desire and the essence of my controversy with Eck, who defends a multiplicity of senses, which does not please me. Finally, I am glad that out of our debate has arisen the zeal for inquiry, but I am sorry that this inquiry is directed not to the neces- sary things, but to this one point which is not necessary, in which I give up a good deal more than I am able to justify by argument. But I see quite well what many people seek in this debate. But God lives. Farewell in him, excellent Sir.
- Act8, xvii. II.
ThiUiipians, ii. sff. Dungershetm's argument. Enders, i. 392.
�� �
