 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| BIBLIOGRAPHICA | ||
MARTIN LUTHER
THE HERO OF THE REFORMATION
1483-1546
BY
HENRY EYSTER JACOBS
IN
preparing this outline, the chief difficulty has been to select and condense
the material. The aim has been to follow the growth of Luther into the position
which has given him his fame, and to describe that position with fairness. I
have drawn chiefly from the letters and works of Luther and Melanchthon, and
collections of documents in Loscher, Gerdesius, and Seckendorf, but have utilised
also all other available sources of information and aids in classifying
material, particularly the scientific biographies of Julius Kostlin and the admirable sketch of Karl Burk, and the still more extensive
popular work of Martin Rade.
Particular
acknowledgments are due the editor of this series, the Rev. Samuel Macauley
Jackson, D.D., LL.D., for many valuable suggestions; to my colleague, the Rev.
Adolph Spaeth, D.D., LL.D., a lifelong student and expounder of Luther’s writings,
for constant advice and numberless favours; and to Julius F. Sachse, the author
of The History of the German Pietists in Pennsylvania, for important aid in
the selection and preparation of illustrations. The apparatus collected by my
predecessor in this seminary, Rev. Charles Porterfield Krauth, D.D., LL.D., for
an exhaustive scientific presentation of Luther’s life from an American
standpoint, upon which he was engaged at the time of his death in January,
1883, has been constantly at hand and gratefully used.
Henry Eyster Jacobs.
Lutheran Theological Seminary,
Philadelphia, Pa., April 27,
1898.
BOOK I. THE MONK
1483-15171483-1517
CHAPTER I.
BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD
CHAPTER
II. STUDENT LIFE
CHAPTER
III. IN THE CLOISTER
CHAPTER
IV. THE PROFESSOR
BOOK II. THE
PROTESTANT (1517-1522).
CHAPTER I.
THE SALE OF INDULGENCES ; AND THE XCV.
THESES
CHAPTER
II. THE RECEPTION OF THE THESES AND THE
HEIDELBERG CONFERENCE
CHAPTER
III. ECK, PRIERIAS, AND THE POPE
CHAPTER
IV. BEFORE CAJETAN AT AUGSBURG
CHAPTER V.
MILTITZ AND THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION
CHAPTER VI. POLITICAL COMPLICATIONS; NEW ALLIES; THE THREE GREAT TREATISES OF 1520
CHAPTER
VII. THE BULL
CHAPTER
VIII. THE DIET OF WORMS
CHAPTER
IX. AT THE WARTBURG
BOOK III. THE
REFORMER (1522-1546).
CHAPTER I.
CARLSTADT AND THE ZWICKAU PROPHETS
CHAPTER
II. REBUILDING
CHAPTER
III. THE LINES DRAWN
CHAPTER
IV. THE PEASANTS’ WAR
CHAPTER V. MARRIAGE
CHAPTER
VI. VISITATION OF CHURCHES AND THE
CATECHISMS
CHAPTER VII. ZWINGLI AND THE
MARBURG COLLOQUY
CHAPTER VIII. COBURG AND
AUGSBURG
CHAPTER
IX. THE SCHMALKALD LEAGUE AND THE
STRUGGLES WITH ROME AND
FANATICISM
CHAPTER X.
VERGERIUS ; THE WITTENBERG CONCORD AND
THE SCHMALKALD ARTICLES
CHAPTER
XI. NEW TRIUMPHS AND TRIALS
CHAPTER
XII. THE LANDGRAVE OF HESSE
CHAPTER
XIII. DIET OF RATISBON ; CONTROVERSIES
WITH THE JURISTS, EMPEROR, AND
POPE
CHAPTER
XIV. luther’s
theology
CHAPTER XV. HOME
LIFE AND LAST DAYS
BOOK I THE
MONK 1483-1517
EISLEBEN
IN LUTHER’S TIME.
CHAPTER I
BIRTH AND
CHILDHOOD
WHATEVER
may have been its defects and abuses, a genuine religious life deeply pervaded
the German people during the Middle Ages. The great movement known as the
Reformation was not the introduction from without of a new principle doing
violence to the matured product of forces nurtured throughout its entire
existence within the Mediaeval Church. Within great institutions, as well as
within the minds of individuals, principles often coexist in apparent peace,
that need only to be earnestly applied and to be carried to their necessary
conclusions, in order to be found antagonistic. The break comes when adherents,
hitherto dwelling in one camp, divide according to their convictions of the
truth or the error of the one or the other principle which both have thus far
confessed in common. Luther was a true son of the Church. His spiritual life
had been enkindled and nurtured from the Church’s ministration of word and
sacrament. Devout parents had trained him from childhood in the fear of God.
His earlier school-days afforded him at least some truth for the faith of his
heart to grasp. The daily services to which he was accustomed long before he found
the Bible at Erfurt, familiarised him with much of the saving word of God. All
through his university career, to the decisive moment when he retired from the
world and became a monk, and then again, as within the monastery he fought over
in his own heart the battles he was afterwards to fight without, his struggle
towards the light was the necessary result of his honest belief of much that
the Church had taught him, and of the constraint of conscience that impelled
him to be true to his convictions. Luther is to be regarded, not as the founder
of a new Church, or as the leader of a new school of Church life and thought,
so much as the representative and heir of all that was noblest and best in
mediaeval Christianity; and as the pioneer of a new order of things only in so
far as he fearlessly carried to their conclusions the premises that others
were either unable or unwilling to apply.
As often
happens with those who have attained a worldwide distinction, there have been
writers who have claimed for Luther noble ancestry. This claim he himself
silenced in the words: “I am a peasant’s son. My father, grandfather, and
ancestors were all peasants.” According to general agreement, the name is
properly the personal name “Lothar,” which, in course of time, became the
family name, Luther.
The home
of the Luther family, which is still that of some of its descendants, was on
the western slope of the Thuringian forest, at the small village of Mohra, a
dry and treeless hamlet, containing at that time about fifty families. Henry,
the grandfather of Martin Luther, owned considerable property; and the entire
family at Mohra, during the life of their great representative, seems to have
been in relatively comfortable circumstances, owning, as was usual among their
neighbours, the farms which they tilled, and the houses in which they lived.
Here Luther’s grandmother lived until 1522. It was from the house of his uncle,
with whom she was making her home, that Luther went forth on the morning of
that memorable day in May, 1521, when, upon his way from the Diet of Worms, he
was arrested and carried to the Wartburg. Two brothers of his father, eminently
respectable men, who had the high esteem of their nephew, appear again and
again, until a late period in Luther’s life, and thus render the inference
highly probable that John, the father of Martin, was the eldest son.
Much
conjecture has been spent upon the question, as to what took John Luther and
his wife to Eisleben, about eighty miles northeast of Mohra, where, during a
brief stay, their son, Martin, was born, November 10, 1483. Who can believe
that, with the primitive mode of travelling then in use, and at a time so
critical for the wife and mother, the young couple could have gone thither
either for attendance on the fair, or for purchases? If, according to a
widely circulated report, for which no evidence exists, however, John Luther
had actually slain a man with whom he had had an altercation, the fact that he
remained within the territory of the Elector of Saxony shows that he was no
fugitive from justice, while the position of honour to which he was elevated
afterwards by his fellow-citizens in Mansfeld, removes any stigma which an
accidental or justifiable homicide may have entailed. On the contrary, we may
well believe that John Luther, realising that not all the children could be
supported from the estate at Mohra, left his younger brothers with their mother
in the possession at least of the family home, while he went forth to search
for another field of labour and means of livelihood. In the hills around Mohra,
he had learned the art of mining copper, and adopted it as his trade. The
neighbourhood of Eisleben, like that of Mansfeld, which was only a few miles
distant, abounded in copper-mines. When the child was only six months old, his
parents removed from Eisleben to Mansfeld; so that the latter, and not his
birthplace, was known as the home of his childhood. Of both parents, as they
appeared in later days, on their visits to Wittenberg, cotemporaries have left
descriptions. The portraits painted by Lucas Cranach in 1527 perpetuate their
faces. Both were of dark complexion, and less than medium stature. In the
features of the father, determination, honesty, common sense, and thrift are
clearly traceable. He
Upon the
testimony of his brother James, the year 1483 is assigned as the year of Martin
Luther’s birth; the parents, in later life, not being certain, and he himself
caring little for the preservation of such personal matters. But the day and
hour, November 10th, between eleven and twelve P.M., were never forgotten by
his mother. Baptised the next day in St. Peter’s Church, where the font of his
baptism
His
reminiscences of his childhood were not those of sunshine and rainbows and
joyful sports and the delight of parents in the pleasure and playfulness of
their children. With all his love for them, and his appreciation of the efforts
they made to do the very best for his welfare, he regretted the harshness and
severity which clouded the memory of his early years. Their love for their
children expressed itself in the strictness with which they exacted the performance
of the utmost detail of every duty, and the excessive punishment that was sure
to follow the detection of the most trifling offence. Under the law themselves,
the fear of punishment and the hope of reward were the chief motives for their
discharge of duty; and they ruled their families as they thought that God ruled
them. Their sombre view of life was doubtless intensified by their poverty and
the strain of overwork.
“The
apple,” says Luther, “should always lie beside the rod. Children
should not be punished for trifling things, like cherries, apples, pears, nuts,
as though they were serious matters. My parents dealt with me so severely that
I was completely cowed. My mother once beat me for the sake of an insignificant
nut, until the blood came. Her strictness and the rigorous life she compelled
me to lead drove me into the monastery and made me a monk. But at heart they
meant it well.
Never did
their devotion to their son cease. As, in later years, they followed him with
implicit confidence, as their spiritual guide, and rejoiced in the freedom of
the Gospel to which he led them, so in childhood his highest interests ever
weighed on their hearts. Friends report that his father was found bending over
his child’s cradle in earnest prayer. He was early taught to pray. From his
mother he learned the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. But
of the meaning of most of that with which his memory was stored he was
ignorant. The instructions of the mother abounded in the superstitions current
at that time among the German peasantry, while the pictures and legends of the
saints, and the processions and other ceremonies of the Church, made a deep impression
upon his youthful mind. St. George, the patron of the Counts of Mansfeld, and
St. Anna, the patroness of miners, were peculiarly revered. In his mature years
he was pleased to read in the legend of the former a useful allegory. As his
veneration for St. Anna was a later acquisition than that for St. George, it
was more readily dismissed. The vivid sense of diabolical agency which
characterised him throughout life was deeply rooted in the fears of
supernatural enemies to be encountered in the dark, that pervaded the mining
community in which he was raised.
Determined
that his son should receive the very
In 1497,
at the age of fourteen, a better school was found for him at Magdeburg. He did
not go from
Mansfeld alone. John Reineck, who accompanied him, remained his lifelong
friend. Forty years afterwards, when Reineck, then foreman of a foundry, lost
his wife, he received a letter of consolation from the schoolmate of his
youth. Magdeburg, about forty miles north of his home, afforded him his first
experience and contact with city life. The veneration with which he regarded
the ecclesiastical buildings that were the ornament of the place, and were
even then grey with age, can be imagined. As his teachers, he tells us, he had
members of the religious society of the “ Noll Brothers," a branch settlement
of the “ Brethren of the Common Life.” This organisation, without exacting
vows, had, as its end, the cultivation of a deeper spiritual life. Among his
comrades was his subsequent co-labourer, Wenceslaus Link. Thrown upon his own
resources for support, he sang for alms at the windows of the wealthier
citizens, a mode of livelihood that had been rendered respectable by the
example of the mendicant friars, who had exalted poverty to the rank of a
virtue. Here he remained for but one year.
The next
year, his parents preferring that he should not remain among entire strangers,
he was transferred to Eisenach, the home of his mother’s family, and not far
from Mohra. But, as he continued to sing for his support, his relatives were
probably not in such circumstances that they could aid him. Attracted by the
open countenance and sweet voice of the boy, Madame Ursula Cotta, whose maiden
name was Schalbe, the wife of a leading
merchant and member of a prominent family of Italian descent, invited him into
her house, and, finally, gave him a home for the rest of his Eisenach life. Not
from its wealth and standing among contemporaries does the Cotta family live in
history, but from this benevolent act, that has linked the name of Ursula Cotta
with that of her renowned pensioner. In her home he was introduced to an
entirely new sphere of life, and, just at the age when he most needed such
advantages, experienced the ennobling influence of a cultivated Christian
woman, and of a peaceful family life, unembarrassed by anxiety for daily
support, spent in the fear of God, and attentive to the wants of those less
highly favoured. At Eisenach he found also an instructor who contrasted greatly
with those under whom he had previously been, and who gave him the first decided
intellectual stimulus. In John Trebonius learning and courtesy were combined.
What must have been the feeling of the boy, accustomed to the barbarous
treatment in the school at his home, at finding at last a preceptor, eminent
for his scholarship, uncovering his head in the presence of his pupils, and
publicly censuring his assistants for neglecting to show the same respect to
the future dignitaries who were, for the time, under their instruction! Such
consideration inspired the pupils with self-respect, and rendered them eager to
prove themselves worthy of the honour shown them. Melanchthon tells us that
Luther was accustomed to boast of having been a pupil of such a teacher. Under
Trebonius his progress was most rapid. All
Four years
having been spent at Eisenach, almost under the shadow of the Wartburg, he
entered the University of Erfurt in the summer semester of 1501. His name was
enrolled as “ Martinus Lud- her ex Mansfeld.” His father having prospered
financially, he was relieved of all further care concerning his own support,
and was thus enabled to devote himself entirely to his studies.
EISENACH
IN LUTHER’S TIME.
CHAPTER II
STUDENT
LIFE
ERFURT
stood at the head of the German universities of the fifteenth century. Opened
to students in 1392, it was chronologically the fifth, but in number of
students the first. Called sometimes “ The German Bologna,” a current saying
ran, that in Erfurt there were as many Masters of Arts as there were stones in
the pavement; while another adage was: “ He who would study well, must go to
Erfurt.” In 1455 alone, five hundred and thirty-eight students were
matriculated, the entire attendance reaching two thousand. Popular
demonstrations marked all public exercises of the University; for it was the
pride of the city, which, while not ranking as a free town, was ambitious and
enterprising, and a place of much importance,
In
entering the University, Luther's plans for his future were not fixed. His father,
who appreciated his marked abilities, thought that the profession of law
offered him the best opportunities for success, and had shaped his course
accordingly. As the first years were devoted to liberal studies, an immediate
decision as to a profession was unnecessary. The two branches to which he
devoted himself were philosophy and classical literature, or Humanism, as it
was then called. Philosophy embraced not only logic and rhetoric, and some of
the topics now assigned to metaphysics, but also the elements of the physical
sciences, including astronomy, as taught in those days. The two best-known
professors in the philosophical faculty at Erfurt were Jodocus Trutvetter, of
Eisenach, and Bartholomew Arnoldi, of Usingen, both representatives of the later
Scholasticism, which, under the banner of Nominalism, was gradually
disintegrating. With all the ardour of his nature, Luther applied himself to
philosophy, and eagerly accepted the teachings of his professors, especially
Trutvetter. The textbooks in use were the writings of William Occam, Peter
D’Ailly, John Gerson, and Gabriel Biel. Nominalism, whose adherents were called
also Terminists, denied the reality of general ideas, affirming that they
have existence only as creations of the mind, and that, as reality is to be
found only in the concrete and particular, objects can be known only as
individuals.
“ The
Terminists,” said Luther, “ is the name of a school in the universities, to
which I belonged. They oppose the Thomists, Scotists, and Albertinists, and are
called also Occamists, from Occam, their founder. The controversy was as to
whether such words as * humanity * mean a common humanity, existing in all men,
as Thomas and the rest held, or, as the Occamites and the Terminists say, there
is no such common humanity, but it means all men individually, just as the
picture of a man stands for all men. They, then, are called Terminists, who
speak of a thing in its own proper terms just as they sound and mean, and
attach thereto no strange and fanciful meanings. Occam is a wise and sensible
man, who endeavoured earnestly to amplify and explain a subject.”
But he
criticises Occam for his lack of spirituality, and “as one who had no
knowledge of spiritual temptations.”Biel, he says, was read with
great disappointment; but Gerson he held in the highest esteem, as one who had
advanced far towards a true knowledge of the Gospel. To Luther, the
mystical side of Nominalism was attractive; since it taught that, as subjects
can be known only individually, all other truths must be remitted to the domain
of faith.
The time
given to logic he never regretted.
“ Logic,”
he says, “ teaches one to say a thing distinctly and plainly, and in short,
clear words. It does not give the ability to teach concerning all subjects, but
is only an instrument enabling one to teach correctly, and
Like
arithmetic, he regarded it an indispensable formal science. His only criticism
is that the technical terms, such as “ syllogism,” “ enthymeme,” “
proposition,” ought to be translated into plain German. For the
study of astronomy, he found a direct command in Gen. xv., 5, and commended it
for the wonders it disclosed, such as the rapid movement of the firmament,
whereby, in twenty-four hours, it traverses “ several thousand miles”; the fact
that “a star is larger than the whole earth, and, yet, there are so many stars
”; the peculiar movements of the planets; the twinkling of the stars, etc. “
Astronomy and mathematics I praise; but astrology I regard of no account.”
But since,
at Erfurt, Humanism was undermining Scholasticism, the study of the Greek and
Latin classics corrected the one-sided development, which exclusive attention
to the merely formal and natural sciences would have given. The classics were
the windows through which he looked from the seclusion of his study into the
world, and was able to read human nature, and to learn the habits and passions
and motives of men of other times and other lands. Little did he care for
comparative etymology or textual criticism. What he sought was the picture of
life, to be found in these writers.
He
estimated them, not according to their style, but according to their sense.
Like a well-trained logician, he weighed their arguments. “ He read them,” says
Melanchthon, “ not like boys who pick out words, but for their doctrine and
pictures of life. The maxims and judgments of these writers were closely
examined, and, as his memory was faithful, most that he read and heard was ever
at his command.” His illustrations from these sources, in after
life, were numerous and apt. Cicero was, above all, his favourite. “ He who
wants to learn true philosophy, must read Cicero.” “ He has written more than
all the philosophers, and has read all the books of the Greeks.”Next in his regard came Ovid and Vergil, whom he prized for their maxims. He
was familiar also with Livy and Strabo, Plautus and Terence. The descriptions
and allusions, reflecting the corruption of the age in which they lived, he
would have banished from the schools.
In the
prosecution of these studies, according to the testimony of Melanchthon, Luther
became so distinguished that “ his talents were the admiration of the
University.” But he was not so absorbed in his studies as to take no interest
in the general life of the place. Academic ceremonies he continued, throughout
life, to commend, as advancing the glory of God. In circles of intimate
friends, the sociability of his nature found frank, and, possibly, even
boisterous expression. They called him “ Musicus,” because of his skill in
playing the lyre,
Of his
religious life during his student days we know little. Matthesius, his pupil
and intimate friend, is authority for two important statements. One is that he
began the work of every day with prayer, according to his motto: Bene orasse
est bene studuisse (“To pray well is to study well ”). The other is that, in
the examination of the volumes in the University library, he found a copy of
the Latin Bible, and was delighted at having, at last, in his hands the entire
volume, from which the lessons already well known to him in the Missal and
Breviary, had been taken. The first passage that met his eyes was the story of
Hannah, in First Samuel.
Among the
preachers at Erfurt, he used to speak of a Dr. Sebastian Weinmann, as a zealous
advocate of the law, but lamented that, during his entire career there, he had
never heard either a gospel or a psalm properly explained. The city abounded in
evidences of religious life. Rich in churches and chapels, cloisters and
fraternities, it recalled at every step the religious instruction of his
childhood.
The
burning coal, thus kept alive, was destined to start a conflagration when the
great crisis in his career came. That crisis was his choice of a profession.
His father intended him for a lawyer. At considerable expense, the necessary
books had been purchased, and he had begun to attend lectures on jurisprudence.
But Luther was never made to be a jurist. For collecting precedents he had no
taste. Red tape has its uses, and the world needs those who insist upon it; but
the free spirit of Luther could never have been confined by its trammels, or
suppressed by the rigidity and minuteness of its demands. His sympathy with
his fellow-men, and his love of determining general principles, and, through
them, reaching a destined end, were too great. Often throughout his life the
adage, Summum jus, summa injuria (“ The strictest justice may be the greatest
injustice ”), came from his pen. There must be, said he, not law, but equity;
since there must be forgiveness of sins. The spiritual danger of those who
adopted the legal profession was a frequent subject of his remarks. For the
calling, therefore, for which his father had intended him, he had no love; and
yet, from obedience to his parents, he felt it his duty to follow the path they
had prescribed. This conflict quickened within him the sense of his relation
to the higher law, on which his obedience to parents was based. The sudden
death of a friend, who, according to the best accounts, was assassinated, some
say by his very side, followed, shortly afterwards, by a narrow escape from
death by lightning, in a forest on the way between
Erfurt and
Eisleben, determined him to obey what he then regarded as the commands of a
higher law. Terrified by the violence of the storm that was raging around him,
and especially by the fearful bolts that were crashing through the trees, addressing
one of the patron saints of his childhood, the protectress of the Saxon miners,
he cried out: ‘ ‘ Help me, dear St. Anna! I will become a monk. ’ ’ Misguided
in this though he was, he thus, under the sense of his responsibility to God,
asserted his Christian freedom.
The vow
thus made was faithfully performed. Two weeks later, on July 16, 1505, he
invited his most intimate friends to spend the evening with him. It was what he
believed to be his farewell to the world. For the last time he determined to
enjoy music and song. The decision once made, all sadness was gone. The
contradictions of his life were clearly reflected by his conduct that evening.
He who could sing and play over the prospect of renouncing, for Christ’s sake,
singing and playing, was to find, hereafter, that Christ was to be honoured by
song and music, rather than by silence, and by social intercourse and contact
with the world, rather than by seclusion. Sorrowfully his friends accompanied
him, the next morning, to the gates of the Augustinian cloister, where he
knocked for admission. As they opened, he entered. They closed. The monastic
habit was assumed. The world was left behind.
CHAPTER III
IN THE
CLOISTER
HE was now
face to face with the deepest question that could agitate man's mind. The one
great subject that was henceforth to absorb his attention was that of his
relation to God. Deeply devout, the principles were already rooted in his heart
that were to push their way through severe conflict to a complete victory over
the errors that attended them and held him captive.
Whatever
abuses pervaded monachism, due credit should ever be given to the moral
earnestness in which it originated, and the spiritual influence which, during
the period of the Church’s decline, it often exercised and diffused. Even
though they fell under the corrupting influences against which they arose as
protests, nevertheless what mediaeval Christianity would have been without its
religious orders, it is difficult to surmise. In the midst of an ignorant,
careless, and often immoral clergy, and
22
under
bishops completely secularised, the monks, as they moved from place to place,
were the preachers and spiritual guides of the people, and, mistaken though
they often were, they asserted the claims of God, and awakened men to the sense
of the eternal and spiritual. When time wrought changes, and institutions,
intent on spiritual interests, were corrupted, reforms were repeatedly
instituted, or new orders were founded, to fulfil the design that the orders
then existing had no longer in view.
The
Augustinian Hermits, to whom the cloister at Erfurt belonged, originated in
1256 by the union of eight minor orders, and received its name from the “ Rule
of St. Augustine,” compiled from the writings of the great Church Father, which
formed the basis of their constitution. A recent vigorous attempt, on the part
of Andreas Proles, to correct abuses and to enforce the requirements of a
stricter life, had led to the establishment, within the Order, of an
organisation or “ special congregation,” to whom the Augustinians of Saxony
belonged. Purity of outward life, deep earnestness, and, especially, activity
and reputation as preachers, characterised these Saxon monks. Among the new
requirements of this “ special congregation ” was that of diligence in the
study of the Holy Scriptures. But it would be erroneous to infer from their
name that any particular stress was laid upon the Augustinian doctrines of sin
and grace. It was rather for the churchly side of his teaching, than as the
opponent of Pela- gius, that Augustine was revered. The Vicar- General of the “
congregation,” John Staupitz,
scended
upon his bared shoulders. Imprisonment, fetters, a fare of bread and water,
were the penalties for the most serious offences. So exacting were the rules, and
so sure the punishment, that a tender conscience would readily find matters of
sin within spheres concerning which God’s word is silent, and would be tortured
lest it might fail to notice any omissions of duty. In order to detect any
trace of sin, every thought and word was analysed. For solid study, there was
little time or taste. Luther’s associates were envious of their more scholarly
brother, and reminded him that his duty was to beg rather than to study. But
what time he could command, was chiefly given to the Holy Scriptures, a copy
of which was placed in his hands. Matthesius reports how he read the Psalter
and the Epistles to the Romans and the Hebrews, weighing each sentence word by
word. Much of his time was occupied with the daily services of the cloister.
Mention may be made alone of the repetition of the Pater Noster twenty times,
with the Ave Maria, at each of the seven daily canonical hours. Some
concession, however, was made in the omission of some hours at certain seasons
of the year.
At the end
of the year he was admitted, with the customary rites, to full membership in
the Order. To Almighty God, the Virgin Mary, and the prior of the monastery he
vowed obedience, promising to live, until death, without property and in
celibacy. The ceremony over, he was pronounced free from sin, just as though he
were a child coming forth from holy baptism. Allotted a cell with the very
plainest
furniture—a table, a chair, a couch, and a lamp,—he was introduced to the study
of scholastic theology, under professors living in the monastery, John Paltz
and John Natin. The text-books for instruction were mainly the writings of the
teachers who had been his masters in philosophy, Occam and Gerson, Biel and
D’Ailly. But he was dissatisfied,, In his studies he took no real interest. He
pursued them alone for the practical end that, by subjection to this
discipline, he might find peace of conscience in the assurance of salvation. So
attentive was he to every duty, that his instructor, Natin, declared to a cloister
of nuns, at Muehlhausen, that he was a model of holiness, and had been
miraculously converted. “ In all the exercises of lessons, discussions,
fastings, prayers,” says Melanchthon, “ he far surpassed all.” “ If a monk ever
could have gone to heaven by his observance of monastic vows,” Luther
afterwards declared, “ I would have been the one.” 1 But the more he
was commended, the more he felt his spiritual poverty. Nothing was as
interesting to him as his Bible; and, yet, he was warned against its constant
use, lest it might nurture his pride, and cause him to undervalue the scholastic
writers, in whom, it was asserted, the very marrow of Scriptural teaching was
to be found.
A survey
of the religious opinions and teachings with which he was struggling, can be
gathered, without difficulty, from his full confessions in subsequent years.
The one thought of God, overshadowing all others, was that of His wrath.
Notwithstanding
1 Erlangen, 31 : 273.
all his
efforts for righteousness, he regarded himself as the object of this wrath.
Christ, he knew, had been given as Redeemer; but not for the sins of all men,
nor even for all the sins of the redeemed. He was entangled in speculations
concerning predestination. Redemption afforded the opportunity for a new effort
on man’s part, rather than paid the full penalty for sin. Only sins committed
before baptism were forgiven because of Christ’s death; the effect of His
vicarious work upon other sins was only to commute the penalty, so as to render
man’s satisfaction possible. Instead of Redeemer, Christ was regarded as a
new Lawgiver, offering salvation upon easier terms than Moses. But, even with
these terms mitigated, how could man ever be sure that he fulfilled them ? If
monastic observances were to advance his salvation, how could he ever be
satisfied that they were performed with sufficient perfection ? He confesses:
“ For so
long a time I laboured and tortured myself with fasts, vigils, prayers, etc.,
that thereby I might attain this assurance. But, for my whole life, my heart
could not be assured that God was well pleased with the work that I had done,
or had certainly heard my prayer. Even when I prayed most devoutly every day,
and confessed most fully, and said Mass, and did the very best, if any one had
asked me, ‘ Are you sure that you have the Holy Ghost?’ I must have answered:
‘God forbid that I should be so presumptuous ! I am a poor sinner. I have done
this and that ; but know not whether it have certainly pleased God.’ For
fifteen years I was just such a pious monk ; and yet never advanced so far
as to be
able to say, ‘ Now I am sure that God is gracious to me/ or, ‘ Now I have
sought and experienced that my devotion to my Order and my strict life have
helped and led me towards heaven.’ Never was I able to say, ‘ O God, I know
that my prayer, made in the Name and faith of Christ, Thy dear Son, pleases
Thee, and is assuredly heard.’ ” 1
Such
prayers were not what the Holy Scriptures know as prayers. There was no joyful
communion of the soul with a reconciled and loving Father. Estimated by their
number and frequency, so that prayers omitted at one time could be made up
afterwards, they were only exercises of self-mortification, whereby an attempt
was made to purchase God’s favour. Between Christ Himself, regarded as Lawgiver,
and therefore, like the Father, an angry Judge, the Virgin Mary and the saints
were interposed ; and only through them could the distressed soul reach its
Redeemer. Even of his favourite among the scholastics, he says: “ Occam, my dear
Master, writes that it cannot be proved from the Holy Scriptures that, in order
to do good works, the Holy Spirit is necessary.” 2
But,
amidst this darkness, there were those who were enlightened by the truth
contained in the portions of the Holy Scriptures they had read, and in the
collects and other portions of the Missal and Breviary. Not so keenly as Luther
had they felt the conflict between the evangelical and unevangelical elements
so strangely intermingled in the Church.
1 Erlangen, 17 : 13 sq. Cf. ib., 46 : 64, 73 ; 49: 300,
314.
* Walch, xix., 2324.
Without
the same depth of spiritual earnestness, they had not made the same endeavour
to fulfil every requirement and meet every condition; and, therefore, were
content to be comforted by the truth that they apprehended, and to overlook the
errors that pervaded the entire system of doctrine and orders of devotion. To
this class belonged an old monk, to whom he once confessed his mental anguish,
and who comforted him by saying: “ My son, do you not know that God has
commanded us to hope?”1 Still more impressive was another answer,
when his adviser pointed him to the article of the Creed: “ I believe the
forgiveness of sins ” ; with the interpretation that we are not to believe that
only some persons receive forgiveness, as the demons believe that David or
Peter is forgiven, but that it is God’s command that each one should believe
that his own sins are forgiven.5 A passage, cited from Bernard of
Clairvaux, in which the emphasis was laid upon the one word, Tibi, “ For
thee,” became a permanent treasure of his heart, as its echo in the explanation
of the Small Catechism, treating of the Lord’s Supper, clearly shows. But, even
with the answer to his doubts within him, the conflict for a long time continued.
The works of Augustine were studied, especially his notes on the Psalms. The
treatise, Of the Spirit and Letter, afforded much support to his faith, but,
again, oc
1 Erlangen edition of Luther’s Latin
exegetical works (subsequently referred to as Op. ex.), 19 : 200.
2 Corpus Reformatorum (containing in its
first 28 vols. the works
of
Melanchthon and subsequently referred to as C. J?.), 6 : 159.
casioned
doubt by its suggestions concerning an absolute predestination.
Another
member of the Order, in whom the evangelical principle prevailed, and who was
of inestimable service to Luther, was its Vicar-General, John von Staupitz. A
man of noble family, of imposing appearance, of liberal culture, of a* deeply
mystical type of Christianity, a graduate of Tuebingen, a professor and dean of
the University of Wittenberg, an intimate friend and influential adviser of the
Elector of Saxony, he had, in 1503, succeeded Andrew Proles as the head of the
Reformed Augus- tinians. In his visitations to Erfurt he became acquainted with
Luther and his spiritual conflicts. With the utmost freedom the young monk
disclosed to him the secrets of his heart. Staupitz told him that the
difficulty was that he was constantly trying to find sins where there were
none, and that his confessions were occupied with matters that were absolutely
trivial. When Luther spoke of his fear of Christ, Staupitz answered: “ That is
not Christ, for Christ does not terrify ; He only consoles.” When he explained
his difficulties concerning predestination, Staupitz advised that, whenever he
considered the subject, he should think of the wounds of Christ, and all his
controversial zeal would vanish.1 Many years after, Luther wrote: “
If Dr. Staupitz, or rather God, through Dr. Staupitz, had not aided me in this,
I would have been long since
1 Luther’s
Letters, edited by De Wette and Seidemann (subsequently referred to as De
Wette), 4: 187 ; Op. ex., 6: 296 ; Erlangen, 57: 146.
DR.
STAUPITZ.
AFTER A
CONTEMPORARY OIL PAINTING IN THE AUGUSTINIAN MONASTERY AT SALZBURG.
in hell.”1
Staupitz warned against the danger of trusting to his own powers, and taught
man’s inability to do aught, except by the grace of God, upon which man is to
implicitly trust, The true meaning of repentance was, likewise, explained as a
habit, or state of heart and life, rooted in love to God, rather than an act or
a succession of acts.’ This explanation afterwards emerged in the very first of
the Ninety-five Theses of 1517.
Ordained
to the priesthood in 1507, his first celebration of the Mass^vas an occasion
of peculiar interest. Cantate Sunday, May 2d, was designated as the time, with
especial reference to the convenience of his father, who, deeply offended by
his entrance into the monastery, had pronounced the son a madman, but had been
softened by the death, from plague, of two other sons. He came, accompanied by
no less than twenty friends, on horseback. To the new priest the service was a
great trial. The sense of his unworthiness and the fear of committing a
grievous sin by making even the most trifling mistake, oppressed him. As he
contemplated the thought, which he actually believed a reality, that his words
brought the Body and Blood of his Lord to the altar, he trembled. The act over,
he received the presents and congratulations of friends, his father honouring
the occasion with a liberal gift. Now was the opportunity, thought Luther, to
obtain a word of acquiescence and approval from his hitherto relentless parent.
At the banquet that followed, he publicly put to him the question, as to
whether he
1 Erlangen, 56 : 39. 9
De Wette, 1 : 116.
were not satisfied. With characteristic frankness and firmness,
the plain old man addressed, not his son, but the whole company: “ Ye learned
men, have ye not read in the Holy Scriptures, that father and mother are to be
honoured ? ” When some one answered that the son, however, had had a call from
heaven, the father was not disconcerted, but suggested that what they regarded
a call from heaven, might have been a delusion of the devil.1
1 De Wette,
2 : 100 sqq.
UNIVERSITY
OF ERFURT.
WITTENBERG
IN LUTHER’S TIME.
THE
PROFESSOR
BOUT sixty
miles S.S.W. from Berlin, and
forty
miles N.N.E. from Leipzig, on the railway route between the two cities, lies
Wittenberg, the small city which is most closely associated with Luther’s
name. At the beginning of the sixteenth century it was, according to Luther, “
on the borders of civilisation,” and contained about three thousand
poverty-stricken inhabitants, living in three or four hundred low, frame,
straw-thatched houses, built upon a sandy plain, that suffered severely from
periodical visitations of the plague. But there were compensations. Here, until
1542, was the residence of the Electoral princes of Saxony. Two large churches,
known as the Stadt Kirche, or Parochial church, and the Schloss Kirche, or
Castle
church,
were centres of religious life. The latter, having originated in the chapel of
the castle, was erected in 1449, anc^ became a point from which the
neighbouring village churches were supplied with priests, a work that had
necessitated the founding of a chapter-house for the accommodation of the
clergy. An Augustinian cloister had also found a home there.
The
Elector Frederick the Wise (born 1463 ; Elector from i486) was a man of
liberal culture, being well versed in the Latin classics, and having the French
language at his command. He was also an interested student of all that was then
taught of the natural sciences, and had supplemented his studies by extensive
travels. In him the suggestion of the Emperor Maximilian I., at the Diet of
Worms in 1495, that each of the Electors should endeavour to found a university
within his territory, for the cultivation of his subjects, met with hearty
sympathy. There is- a tradition of a break in the faculty of Leipzig, on
account of a controversy between its two leading medical professors, Pistoris
and Pollich, rendering their continued association an impossibility, and the
consequent effort of each to establish a new university in which to find a new
field of labour, resulting in the University of Frankfort as the new school for
Pistoris, and that of Wittenberg for Pollich. However this may be, Dr. Pollich
certainly performed an important part in laying the foundations of Wittenberg.
He had been the tutor of the Elector, was both physician and jurist, and had accompanied
Frederick on his pilgrimage to the Holy
Sepulchre.
Neither Erfurt nor Leipzig could be relied upon for any great service to
Ernestine Saxony. The former was under the control of the Archbishop of
Mayence, while the latter belonged to the territory of the Albertine branch of
the Elector’s family. The chapter-house and Augustinian cloister at Wittenberg
offered a supply of teachers who could be advantageously used, as long as the
University would be in a formative state, and its revenues too limited for the
support of a better- equipped corps of instructors. Besides Pollich, Staupitz
was soon enlisted in the enterprise. On October 18, 1502, the University was
formally opened, with Pollich as the first rector, and Staupitz as the dean of
the theological faculty. It was modelled after the University of Tuebingen,
with which it stood in close relations. The opening sermon played upon the
name of the place,and prophesied concerning the true wisdom that would emanate
thence, and be diffused throughout the world. It was an Augustinian
institution, a truly denominational college of the sixteenth century.
Augustine was made its patron saint, and St. Paul the peculiar model of the
members of its theological faculty. On the first day four hundred and sixteen
students were enrolled. But the project was too extensive for the resources.
Enthusiasm was chilled, and a rapid decline in the attendance seemed to
indicate its early dissolution. The removal to Herzberg, in 1506, on account of
the plague, threatened to be the death-blow of the young institution. But in
1507 it was again in Wittenberg, and from that time it
ceased to
be an experiment. The Pope having, in that year, given its establishment his
formal ratification, the Elector, who had hitherto supported it exclusively by
private gifts, was justified in applying public revenues to this end. The
number of instructors and lecturers for that year rose to thirty-eight.
With wise
forethought, Staupitz not only called eminent scholars to important chairs, but
provided for the training of future professors, by appointing the most
promising young scholars among the Augustinians under him as instructors. In
November, 1508, seven such instructors were sent by him to Wittenberg, where,
although engaged in university work, they were to reside at the Augustinian
monastery, and devote a large portion of their time to study, evidently with a
view to service in after years. Luther was summoned to become one of this
number, and so suddenly that he was unable to take leave of his most intimate
friends. At Wittenberg he found the most stimulating of his Erfurt professors,
Trutvetter, who had preceded him by a year, while his former professor of law,
Henning Goede, was soon to follow, and to be the main instrument in thoroughly
organising the new University. The energetic administration of a young
professor of law, Christopher Scheurl, of Nuremberg, as rector, had
contributed much toward increasing the numbers and good discipline of the
students, whom he forbade to carry weapons, or to visit saloons or taverns. In
the theological faculty were Nicholas von Amsdorf, destined to become one of
Luther’s warmest adherents, and Andrew
Bodenstein
von Carlstadt, whose revolutionary radicalism Luther was to resist with as
much vigour as the assumptions of the Papacy.
For the
first few months, the distasteful task of lecturing upon the Dialectics and
Physics of Aristotle was assigned to Luther. These lectures were delivered,
probably, not in the University, but in the monastery. To his friend, Braun of
Eisenach, he wrote that he would very gladly exchange philosophy for theology.
“ Theology is the branch, which examines the kernel of the nut, the flour of
the wheat, and the marrow of the bones.”1 Not long did he wait. On
March 9, 1509, he became a Bachelor of Theology, with authority to lecture upon
the text of the Holy Scriptures. The method employed was to read cursorily
large portions of the books of the Bible, adding brief comments. According to
Melanchthon, so experienced and discriminating a judge as Dr. Pollich
declared, after several of these lectures, that Luther was destined to change
the entire method of instruction then current in the schools. While engaged in
this work, and before attaining the next degree in theology, that of a
Sententiarist, or one authorised to lecture on the first two books of the
Sentences of Peter Lombard, he was recalled, in the autumn of 1509, to Erfurt,
where he entered upon the duties in the theological faculty assigned those who
had taken the second degree. A spirited controversy was agitating the Saxon
Augustinians concerning the policy of their Vicar-General, Staupitz, in which
the sentiment at
1 De Wette, 1 : 6.
Erfurt
was, to say the least, not on his side. Possibly it was for this reason that
Staupitz desired Luther to return to Erfurt. He had been making the effort to
bring all the monasteries of the Augus- tinians in Germany within the so-called
Reformed Congregation; but had met with the most obstinate resistance from the
Nuremberg Augustinians and their adherents, who dreaded concessions relaxing
the severity of the discipline.
Towards
the close of September or beginning of October, 1511, Luther was sent, with
John von Mecheln of the Netherlands, to Rome, in order to represent there the
case of Staupitz; the eminent strictness of Luther’s life, and his rigid
observance of the rules of the Order, givinghis advocacy of what was regarded
the liberal side all the greater weight. By the end of February they had
returned. The result of their mission can only be inferred from the fact that
the project of Staupitz was abandoned, and that he retained the esteem of the
monasteries that had made successful protest.
For
Luther’s training, this mission was far more important than it was for the end
directly in view. He often declared that it was worth to him more than one
hundred thousand guilders. Every theological student, Luther thought, ought to
go to Rome if opportunity offered. Upon foot, from monastery to monastery, he
and his companion went across the Alps, and, by the picturesque plain of
Lombardy, passed into Italy. Everywhere his eyes were open, and important
lessons for the future were learned. At Florence, the hospitals, adminis
tered by
Christian women, delighted him. The first sight of Rome inspired him with an
enthusiasm similar to that with which the crusaders greeted Jerusalem. He fell
upon the ground, and, with outstretched hands, exclaimed: “ Hail, holy Rome!”
Such marks of the ancient city as could still be found he was interested in
tracing, and mentioned afterwards the Colosseum and the Baths of Diocletian,
remarking that the houses of the modern city are built above the roofs of their
predecessors. Still greater attraction for him did the ecclesiastical buildings
have. With admiration he gazed upon St. Peter’s, as an edifice which, although
then very recent, he believed, in his simplicity, to be thirteen hundred years
old.1
The chief
attraction, however, was not that of sight-seeing, but the spiritual blessing
that he hoped to receive. It was his purpose to make there an unreserved
confession of all the sins that he had ever committed. Although he had made
such confession twice before at Erfurt, he expected an especial blessing from
the same confession, if made in the Holy City. Mass he celebrated a number of
times, and actually wished that his parents were dead because, by such service
at Rome, he thought that he would have been able to deliver them from
purgatory. His son Paul told the story that has become familiar, as one that he
had heard from him, concerning his toilsome ascent, upon his knees, of Pilate’s
stairway, and how the words, “ The just shall live by faith,” came to him as
though uttered in tones of thunder.
1 Erlangen, 62 : 438, 441.
To his
German earnestness the frivolity of the Italian priests was a grievous offence.
If he was shocked when, on reading Mass, a priest by his side urged him to
hurry on, he was startled still more when, at the table, some Carmelites told
the story as a matter of mirth, how the holy elements had been consecrated with
the words: Panis es, et panis manebis. Vinum es, et vintim manebis (“ Thou art
bread, and bread shalt thou remain; wine thou art, and wine thou shalt
remain”), thus turning the Holy Eucharist into a farce.1 On his
return journey, in the cathedral at Milan, he heard the Ambrosian, instead of
the Gregorian Mass, and thus learned, for the first time, that within the Roman
Church, and even in Italy, there was no absolute uniformity in the services.
Yet it was
as a faithful son of the Church, and a zealous champion of the Papacy, that he
returned to Germany. The criticism of many things that he saw and heard does
not date from that period, but was made as, in later years, he recalled his
experiences, and judged them in the new light that had dawned upon him.
On his
return to Germany, Luther’s home was for the second time made at Wittenberg. In
the summer of 1512, he was appointed sub-prior of the monastery; in October of
the same year, he became, on the 4th, a licentiate, and, on the 19th, a Doctor
of Theology. His conduct of the mission to Rome had won for him universal
esteem. Stau- pitz desired to assign him, at as early a date as
1 Erlangen, 31 : 327.
possible,
to a prominent position in the University. The rapid succession of degrees in
October had this end in view. They aroused jealousy, however, at Erfurt, whose
authorities were unwilling to relinquish their claim upon Luther, as an alumnus,
and regarded the haste with which the degrees were conferred by Wittenberg as
an unjustifiable attempt to anticipate the institution from which these degrees
would otherwise shortly have come. To Luther the degrees came without his
seeking them. The degree of doctor of theology, he realised, brought with it
new duties and responsibilities. “ Upon a Doctor,” he says, “ it is incumbent,
according to his oath of office, to explain the Scriptures to all the world,
and to teach every one.” 1 Although he shrank from such publicity,
and preferred the retirement and quiet studies of the monastery to the conflict
and bustle of life, he could not dissuade Staupitz from his purpose. Ten years
afterwards, he showed some of his friends a pear tree, under which he had
pleaded with his superior to excuse him from this promotion, with its
responsibilities. But Staupitz was inexorable, and Luther’s vow of obedience
compelled him to submit. The Elector, having heard him preach, showed his
appreciation by providing all the expenses of the promotion. At the ceremony,
his later antagonist, Dr. Carlstadt, presided and conferred the degree. His old
schoolmate, Wenceslaus Link, at that time the prior of the Wittenberg
monastery, participated prominently in the service. He received the hat and
ring of the
1 Erlangen, 39 : 356.
doctorate;
the latter may be seen to-day in the Ducal Museum at Brunswick.
At the age
of twenty-nine, Luther found himself not only installed into a professorship of
theology, with the right to lecture on all the branches of that science, but,
also, with the main responsibility resting upon him for all the instruction
that was to be given. From that time, the presence of Staupitz at Wittenberg
was not frequent, while Trutvetter had been recalled to Erfurt, and neither
Amsdorf nor Link could command the influence of a leader. In this position, he
did not hesitate to break through all traditional modes of theological
instruction. As he preferred to be called a “ Doctor of the Holy Scriptures” to
a “ Doctor of Theology,” so, instead of commenting upon the Scholastics, or attempting
to formulate a theological system, he made the study of the Book of books the
first and main part of all his teaching. When the statement is sometimes made,
that he began the Reformation by the assertion of the Material Principle of
Protestantism, and that its Formal Principle, viz., that of the supreme
authority of the Holy Scriptures, was an after-thought, this revolution, which,
five years before the publication of his Theses, he introduced into the mode
and order of a theological course, is overlooked. The Book of Psalms was
selected, not only because, of all the books of the Bible, he was most familiar
with it, but, especially, since, in the daily services, the words of the
Psalmist were so deeply impressed upon the minds of his students, and pervaded
to such an extent the entire life of the
Church,
that it was of first importance that they who so frequently used the words,
should understand what they mean. “ From the sixth century to the sixteenth,”
says the late Dr. John Mason Neale, “ it is scarcely an exaggeration to assert
that a portion equal to two times the whole Psalter was hebdomadally recited.”
The Book of Psalms was always Luther’s Prayer-Book. To this Melanchthon
referred in his funeral address, stating that he devoted a fixed period of
time almost every day to the private recitation of the Psalms, and had no
patience with those who, either because of indolence, or pressing duties, were
content to pray by the mere direction of the sighs of their heart to heaven.1
New also
was his mode of lecturing. The Psalms in their Latin version were printed with
wide margins, and with spaces between the lines for the insertion of
annotations. The translation was compared constantly with the original, and an
occasional reference was made to Augustine and Reuchlin. The traditional rule
of the fourfold sense of Scripture was observed. The chief canon of
interpretation, with which he starts, is that “ all prophecies and prophets
must be understood as referring to Christ, wherever there are no express words
to the effect that something else is meant.” 2 The Psalter being
interpreted by his own experience of the grace of God, the exposition is
occupied with such topics as the righteousness of faith, the merit of Christ,
and the distinction between the Law and the Gospel.
1 C. Rii : 731.
* Walch, ix., 1476 sq.
However
loyal still to the Church of Rome, and however zealous in performance of the
duties of his Order, in these notes it can be seen that he had already
thoroughly assimilated the principles that were hereafter to determine his
course. Still more significant than its presentation of doctrine is the
omission of much upon which a mediaeval writer would have been particularly
explicit. Nor must it be thought that all this was, at the time, unnoticed.
Matthesius tells us that his teaching was condemned as heretical by some both
in his own and in other orders, who were prevented from preferring charges by
their inability to meet his arguments.
After
completing his exposition of the Psalms in 1516, he next made the Epistle to
the Romans the basis of his instruction. Deterred from this for a while by his
inadequate knowledge of Greek, he applied himself with the greatest diligence
to the study of that language, and found an important assistant and adviser in
John Lange, prior of the monastery at Erfurt. The lectures on Romans are not
extant. In subsequent comments on the Psalms, he speaks of the insight into
their meaning given him by his preparations for these lectures on Romans. Paul
is the best interpreter of David. Then followed a series on Galatians,
re-elaborated in 1519, comments on Hebrews, based on Chrysostom, and on Titus.
As to the impression made by these lectures, Melanchthon writes:
“ After a
long and dark night the light of new doctrine seemed to dawn. He showed the
distinction be-
JOHANNES COCHLAUS. EOBANUS HESSUS.
JOHANNES REUCHLINUS.
HANS SACHS. CONRAD
CELTES.
FROM ENGRAVING IN KREUSSLER’S ANDENKEN IN
MUNZEN."
tween the
Law and the Gospel, and refuted the then prevalent error that, by their own
works, men merit the forgiveness of sins, and, by their observance of
discipline, are righteous before God. Recalling the minds of men to the Son of
God, and, like the Baptist, pointing to the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin
of the world, he declared that sins are remitted freely, on account of the Son
of God, and that this benefit is to be received by faith. Other portions of the
Church’s doctrine were made clear. These beginnings of still better things gave
him great influence, especially since his life corresponded with his speech,
and his words seemed to spring, not from his lips, but from his heart.” 1
The writer
whom Luther read during this period, next to Augustine, if not to an even
greater extent, was John Tauler. The plain and simple language, the popular
style, the directness, the practical point, and the devotional fervor of his
sermons would, of themselves, have attracted Luther. But the complete
renunciation of self, the denial of man’s merits, the clear and forcible
presentation of the work and merits of Christ, and the immediate access of the
believing child of God through Christ to his Father, rendered his writings
peculiarly grateful. The spiritual priesthood of believers is clearly
presented in Tauler, and only by inference in Augustine. In 1516 he wrote to
Spalatin: “ If you take any pleasure in reading the ancient and pure theology
in the German language, read the sermons of John Tauler. For neither in the
Latin, nor the German language, have I found purer and more wholesome theology,
1 C. J?., 6
: 160 sq.
nor any
that so agrees with the Gospel.”1 At another time: “ Although he is
unknown to theologians in the schools, nevertheless I know that I have found
more pure divine doctrine therein than I have found or can be found in all the
books of the Scholastics at all universities.” “ Since the time of the
Apostles, scarcely any writer like him has been born.”9 One who
would thoroughly understand Luther must, therefore, read Tauler. A few extracts
from Tauler will suggest how important such study must prove.
“ The
regenerate and renewed are not concerned as to whether their works be regarded
great or small, glorious or despised. For they ever look only to the will of
God and to the duties of the office they are under obligation to fulfil.
Because of such faith, all their works, even the most trifling and despised,
are in heaven great and glorious. They look not as to whether they may be assigned
a higher or lower station ; for in all things they desire nothing but the sole
will and pleasure of God.” 3
“ Is it
credible that any human heart should be so hardened as not to melt with joy and
love, on hearing that the Creator of all things, in the womb of the Virgin
Mary, took upon Himself our nature, and was subject to death and suffering, and
that the Lord of all lords became the servant and slave of all; the Eternal
Son of God, our Bridegroom ; the Judge of all men and angels, our elder brother
? With all His heavenly treasures and
1 De
Wette, i : 46. Cf. ib., 34, 102 ; also Walch, xviii., 359.
2 Walch,
xxi., 567.
3 Sermons, with an Introduction by Dr. Philip Jacob Spener,
Frankfort-on-the-Main and Leipzig, 1703. On Epistle for First
Sunday in Advent.
gifts, He
has made Himself our own. All this He has given as a treasure to us, mortal
men, unrighteous sinners, who are only earth and dust.”
“ Since He
is in us, and the human nature, which He has assumed of us, has been united
into one Person with His own Almighty Godhead, there is in Him nothing whereof
we cannot partake. Since this human nature has been assumed by the Eternal Son
of God into the unity of His Person, the believing man is a child and son of
God, with Christ, the Eternal Son of the Father.” 1
“ How is
it that men of to-day are so blinded that they are always trying to do so much,
and are ever undertaking new enterprises, as though they had to support God in
heaven ? But all this they do of themselves, i. e.y according to their own
will and the impulse of their nature, and they have especial pleasure in themselves.”
2
“ Prayer
is nothing but the going of the heart to God. Where we should pray the Lord
Himself teaches when He says, ‘ in spirit.’ No one should imagine that that is
a true prayer when one mumbles many outward words and runs over many psalms.”3
The
theologian notices here that, with all his spirituality, Tauler’s doctrine of
Justification differs from that of Luther in that it lays more stress upon 4‘
Christ in us" than upon “Christ for us.” Neither was Luther able to rest
in that purely passive enjoyment of the grace of God, which was the ideal life
of Mysticism ; but the more he experienced this grace, the more it impelled him
to energetic
1 Sermons. On Gospel for First Sunday in Advent.
* lb. On Judica Sunday.
* lb. On Fifth Sunday p.
Trinity.
activity
within the world. From the mystics, however, he learned to submit patiently to
the will of God, to abide by his calling, and to await God’s time and call for
the conflicts of life.
A book
which he had found, without title or name of author, but which he believed to
have been written by Tauler, as it contained an epitome of his theology, he
published, with a preface, in 1516, under the title, What the Old and the New
Man Are. Two years later, having found the entire work, of which the volume he
had published had been only a fragment, he issued it with a new title, A German
Theology concerning the Right Knowledge of How Adam should Die and Christ Rise
within Us. According to a discovery of the present century, the real author
was a priest of Frankfort-on-the-Main, and a member of the mystical society of
“ The Friends of God,” a churchly communion, in antagonism with the
rationalistic “ Brethren of the Free Spirit.” To English readers of to-day the
book is known from the translation of Miss Wink- worth under the title
Theologia Germanicat with an introduction by Canon Kingsley.
The
foundation of his distinction as a preacher was laid about this time. In an old
dilapidated frame building, thirty by twenty feet in size, held together by
props, and daubed with clay, standing within the foundation of the walls of the
new monastery that had been begun, but whose erection had been temporarily
suspended, and from a pulpit, constructed of rough boards, raised three feet
above the ground, the greatest preacher of modern times
preached
his first sermon. Tradition tells of his extreme reluctance to preach, and
that, when Stau- pitz first suggested it, he answered that it was no light
matter to preach to the people in God’s stead. At first he took his turn as one
of the preachers of the monastery; then his services were in demand as a
supply. The pastor of the parochial church, or Stadt Kirche, at Wittenberg,
Simon Heinse of Brueck, brother of Dr. George Brueck, afterwards Chancellor of
Saxony, being in delicate health, Luther was called in to take his place. What
at first was only a temporary expedient became a fixed arrangement when, in
1515, he received from the town council a regular call, as a preacher, to
supply all otherwise unprovided-for appointments in that church. The forty
sermons, or extracts of them, that remain, lack the force and fire and
popularity of those that followed. They are more scholastic in their method,
and abound in quotations from Church writers. But they give promise of the
future. The spirit struggles energetically to break through the bonds by which
it is still fettered. He speaks out freely his convictions concerning the word
of God that he treats, but he has in view the clear statement of truth rather
than its practical adaptation and application to his hearers. Allowance must
be made for the fact that we have only his notes, written in Latin, and not in
the vernacular in which they were delivered in a more direct and popular form.
However this may be, his earnestness, and ardour, and clearness of statement
won a hearing, and drew all classes to his preaching.
The story
is told that Duke George of Saxony, early in 1517, had applied to Staupitz for
some one to preach in the chapel of the castle at Dresden, and that, when
Luther was sent, he preached with such power that, at the table after the
sermon, while one of the lady attendants of the Duchess declared, if she could
only hear another sermon like that, she would die in peace, the Duke said that
he would be willing to give a large sum of money not to have heard it. In the
sermon he had plainly shown that no one who hears God’s word with joy should
doubt concerning his salvation; for such person must be a true follower of
Christ, and one of the elect. Then he dwelt upon the truth that, when its
consideration is begun with the doctrine concerning Christ, the article of
predestination affords the very highest consolation. Within a month the devout
hearer of the sermon had departed this life.
Both for
his own edification and for that of the people he completed early in 1517, and
published the same year, a brief explanation of the seven penitential Psalms.
This exposition, he writes, was prepared, not for cultured Nurembergers, but
for coarse Saxons, to whom Christian doctrine could not be explained in too
simple words.
Administrative
duties, committed to him by his Order, occasioned frequent interruptions of his
professorial and literary labours. Appointed vicar in May, 1515, he was
charged with the oversight of eleven monasteries, viz. : those at Wittenberg,
Dresden, Herzberg, Gotha, Salza, Nordhausen, Sanger- hausen, Erfurt,
Magdeburg, Neustadt, and Eisleben.
It was his
duty, by means of visitations and frequent correspondence, to learn of the
condition and decide concerning the necessities of each monastery and its
inmates. The already thoroughly occupied professor of theology was thus called
to a truly pastoral care of an extensive and difficult field. His letters
testify to the fact that, while in this position he had to settle troublesome
quarrels and misunderstandings, and had often to inquire concerning very
material things, as the cost of clothing, and the amount of beer, wine, bread,
and meat consumed, and even had to compute, according to a money standard, the
damage that a storm had done the vineyards of the Order, nevertheless, the main
thought was the spiritual interest of those with whom he had to deal. Every one
in doubts and perplexities, like those which had agitated him, he seeks to give
the full benefit of his experience.
“ Dear
brother,” he writes to one, “ learn Christ and Him crucified. Learn to despair
of thyself, and to say to Him : ‘ Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness ; but
I am Thy sin. Thou hast assumed what was mine, and given me what was Thine.
Thou hast assumed what Thou wast not, and hast given me what I was not.’ Beware
of aspiring to such purity as to be unwilling to seem to be, aye, even to be a
sinner. For it is only in sinners that Christ dwells ; for He descended from
Heaven, where He dwells among the righteous, in order that He might dwell among
sinners. If, by our labours and afflictions, we could attain peace of
conscience, why, then, did Christ die ? If you firmly believe this, as you
ought (for he who believes it not is accursed), then re
ceive your
uninstructed and still erring brethren and patiently bear with them. Make their
sins yours, and if you have anything good, grant it to them.” 1
One of the
Dresden monks having fled in disgrace to Mayence, Luther writes to the prior at
the latter place to send the monk either back to Dresden, or to him at
Wittenberg, and then adds:
“ That
offences come I know is necessary ; the wonder is that man rises and stands.
Peter fell, that he might know himself to be a man ; to-day the cedars of
Lebanon, which touch the heavens with their heads, are falling. Even an angel
(a wonder surpassing all wonders) fell in Heaven, and Adam in Paradise. What
wonder then if a reed be moved by the wind, and the smoking flax be quenched !
”9
To Michael
Dressel, prior in Neustadt, he writes:
“ You are
seeking peace, but in the reverse order ; for you are seeking it as the world,
and not as Christ gives. Do you not know, good father, that God is wonderful in
His people, just because He has placed His peace in the midst of no peace.
Peace, therefore, is not to be found with the man whom no one disturbs, for
this is the peace of the world, but with him whom all men and all things
disturb, and who, nevertheless, calmly and joyfully bears all things. With
Israel, you are saying: * Peace, peace * ; and there is no peace. Say rather,
with Christ : * Cross, cross ’; and there is no cross. For the cross ceases to
be a cross as soon as you can joyfully exclaim : ‘ Blessed Cross, among all
trees there is none like thee.’ ”s
1 De Wette, 1: 17. 8/£., 20, *16., 27.
ERASMUS.
FROM A COPPER ENGRAVING BY ALBERT DURER.
The above
is a fair specimen of the correspondence that occupied, as he declares, the
most of his time. But a storm was approaching. Current methods and authorities
could not be ignored and discarded in silence. The time came when he was
compelled to be their critic. Luther’s criticism was the direct result of his
positive statement of doctrine. He had no love of criticism and controversy for
their own sake. The theology of the Scholastics was the result of the effort
to force the contents of Revelation into the moulds of thought of the
Aristotelian philosophy. In course of time Aristotle afforded not only the
form, but much of the material of the definitions and principles of these
writers. As Luther progressed, he was indignant at finding that most of his
difficulties and perplexities had arisen from this source; the teaching of the
Church had been corrupted by a rationalism, in which Aristotle had been
permitted to sit in judgment on Christ and the Apostles. Hence, in 1516, he
indignantly declared that if Aristotle had not been flesh, he would not
hesitate to affirm that he was the very devil; and that it was a great cross to
him that so much time was wasted in the universities in studying this writer.” 1
Appreciating
the great impulse that Erasmus had given to the study of the Bible, by the new
interest that he had enkindled not only for the study of the Greek language,
but also of the text of the New Testament, and sympathising with his exposure
of the errors of monks and priests, he was deeply dis
1 To Lange, De Wette, 1 : 15.
appointed
to find this great teacher, after all, missing the central point of the
discussion, and reiterating the platitudes of the Aristotelians. Erasmus, he
thought, would have done far better if he had followed Augustine rather than
Jerome as his master. What particularly grieved him was that Erasmus had
misunderstood the argument of the Epistle to the Romans by interpreting the “
deeds of the law,” to which Paul denies justifying power, as referring to the
ceremonial, and not the moral law.
To
overthrow the foundation on which this entire conception of theology rested, he
had in preparation, in 1516, a commentary on the First Book of Aristotle’s
Physics. While nothing of this work has reached us, its results were undoubtedly
embodied in a series of Ninety-seven Theses concerning the Scholastic Theology,
which he prepared for a discussion to be held under his presidency, on September
4, 1517. These theses were an arraignment of the scholastic theology for its
departures from the teachings of Augustine concerning the bondage of the will
in spiritual things, and the absolute need of God’s grace, from beginning to
end, in man’s return to God. The natural man, they declare, is a bad tree, that
cannot bear good fruit; he can neither do nor will to do aught but evil. Man,
by his natural powers, cannot conform to a correct standard, or wish that God
be God, but, instead of being able to love God above all things, wants self to
be God, and, therefore, God not to be God. Natural virtues, as, e. g., those
belonging to friendship, come from pre- venient grace. The only preparation for
grace is
God’s
election. On man’s part, nothing but indisposition precedes grace. Not by
doing righteous deeds do we become righteous, but only when we become righteous
do righteous deeds result. All citations from Aristotle must be ruled out;
since no one becomes a theologian until he abandons Aristotle.1
In the
discussion and defence of these theses, Francis Guenther of Nordhausen received
the degree of Bachelor of Divinity “ by the unanimous vote of the Faculty.”
Among all at Wittenberg, especially the younger theologians, there was now
general sympathy with this break through the trammels whereby all theological
progress had hitherto been restrained. At first, Carlstadt and Lupinus had
withstood the movement ; but the former was soon converted from a zealous
Thomist into an ardent friend and champion of Luther’s position. A thoughtful
present of a set of Augustine’s works to Amsdorf was followed by his early
accession to the ranks of those who were advocating this cause.
At Erfurt
there was some personal hostility to Luther because he had received his degree
elsewhere than from his Alma Mater. He writes with much concern as to the
probability of his two former instructors, Trutvetter and Arnoldi, accepting
his position. The strength of Luther at Erfurt was in the monastery, of which
his intimate friend, John Lange, was prior. At Nuremberg his former colleague,
Christopher Scheurl, who had become legal
1 Opera varii argumenti (Erlangen), subsequently
referred to as Op. var. argi., 315 sqq.; Weimar, i., 221 sqq.
counsel to
the city, and was a leading member of the literary circle for which the place
was distinguished, was in full sympathy and frequent correspondence with
Luther, while Wenceslaus Link, another intimate friend, had become a prominent
preacher there. After reading the Theses of September 4, 1517, Scheurl wrote
that he was convinced that a great change was about taking place in theological
studies, so that one could become a theologian without either Aristotle or
Plato. At the court of the Elector Frederick was the chaplain and private
secretary, George Spalatin, a fellow-student of Luther at Erfurt, whose
acquaintance had ripened into intimacy, when he attended the University of
Wittenberg in 1511, in order to supervise the studies of the young Duke of
Brunswick, and who had now become an enthusiastic advocate of the revived
Augustinianism.
All
through these efforts, and this period of the maturing of his convictions,
Luther never dreamt of breaking with the Church, or occasioning a serious
conflict within it. So scrupulous was he in the observance of every
ecclesiastical requirement that he afterwards told how, even at this late date,
when his engagements were so numerous as to interfere with his observance of
the canonical hours, he once shut himself up in his cell on Sunday, in order to
make up the number of prayers that he had lost during the pressing labours of
the preceding week.
THE
PROTESTANT 1517—1522
THE SALE OF INDULGENCES; AND THE XCV THESES
HE life of
Luther is marked by sudden and un
looked-for
events; such were his entrance into
the
monastery, his doctorate of theology, and his marriage. Such, also, were the Ninety-five
Theses of October 31, 1517, and their immediate effect. They were the outcome
of his pastoral fidelity to the souls with whom he had to deal in the
confessional. What was intended as a matter of discussion for a very limited
circle of the learned, with a view to an early remedy for an abuse of whose
extent he had at the moment no conception, soon became the property of
Christendom, and revolutionised the social and political, as well as the
religious world of Europe. The day on which the Theses were published is the
birthday of the Protestant Reformation.
Luther was
himself unconscious of what his protest implied. His criticism was called
forth, not by
papal
indulgences in themselves, but what he had found to be their abuse in a
specific case falling under his pastoral jurisdiction. The conception of
indulgences then prevalent had been a gradual growth. The prerequisites to
absolution, such as fasts, alms, and pilgrimages, which the Church had once
demanded only as external pledges of the sincerity of penitents making
confession, just as to-day a consistent Christian life for a considerable
period is often required among Protestants before one separated for gross sin
is restored to full communion, were regarded in course of time as an essential part
of the penitence itself. What at first had the place only of evidence of a
change of heart, at last had attained the rank of a means whereby such change
was effected. The rendering of the satisfactions, appointed by the priest to
whom the confession was made, became an indispensable condition for deliverance
from the consequences of sin. According to the current teaching, sin brought
guilt and punishment. In baptism the guilt and punishment of original sin were
remitted. The guilt of each actual sin, if confessed with true sorrow of heart,
was remitted ; but, while the penitent was absolved from the guilt, he was not
from all the punishment. In virtue of the merits of Christ, eternal was
commuted to temporal punishment; penalties beyond man’s power were, by the
priestly absolution, brought within the reach of man’s ability to make for them
satisfaction. Man escapes Hell, but he does not, by Christ’s atonement, enter
Heaven. In order to escape the temporal punishments of sin, satisfactions,
such as
prayers, fasts, alms, prescribed by the confessor, must be rendered. Since,
therefore, every sin, to have its penalties removed, must be known and grieved
over and confessed, and have its consequences offset by penances appointed by
the Church; and since in this life the greater number of offences pass the
scrutiny of even the most spiritually-minded, Purgatory remains as the realm in
which all these unsatisfied sins of contrite children of God meet their
temporal punishment. From its fires only an indulgence could deliver. The
saints, it was taught, had acquired, by their works of supererogation, a fund
of superfluous merits, and these merits could be transferred by the Church. The
making of satisfactions for crimes, by means of fines, customary in German law,
obtruded itself in course of time into the practice of the sale of indulgences
to those contributing to approved Church funds. In treating of Luther’s
protest, it should always be explicitly taught that the Church, as such, had
not declared that, by indulgences, the guilt of sin or its eternal punishments
were remitted, but only that exemption from Purgatory was provided for all
who, by true contrition and confession, had been absolved of guilt. But, in the
minds of worldly and avaricious venders of indulgences, such distinctions were
not made. The guilt of sin was overlooked and only its punishments kept in
mind, while indulgences from the penalties of sins repented of were soon confounded
with indulgences from the penalties of sins yet to be committed, or, in other
words, with purchased permission to commit sin. Indulgences were
distinguished
as general and particular, the latter referring solely to individual dioceses:
and as plenary and incomplete, according as the indulgence pertained to the entire
burden of penalties, or was limited to the abbreviation of the time of
punishment.
Thus a
means was at hand whereby the money often sorely needed, as the Church or its
dignitaries became secularised, could be most readily raised. The Turkish
invasion formed the occasion for numerous resorts to this convenient
expedient. Such indulgences were authorised by the Council of Basel of 1433, and
the decrees of Pope Nicholas V. in 1450 and 1451, and were endorsed by the
German Estates in 1471 as the best means of raising funds for carrying on war
against the Turks. The completion of St. Peter’s at Rome, and his own luxurious
habits, induced Pope Leo X., in 1516, to resort to the trade in indulgences
upon a more extensive scale than had heretofore been attempted. To prosecute
the work in Germany, three commissioners were appointed, viz. : Dr. John
Angelus Archimbold, the Franciscan General Christopher de Forli, and Albrecht,
Margrave of Brandenburg, and Archbishop of Magdeburg and Mayence. The last is
to us of particular interest, since Saxony was a portion of the territory
assigned him. A young man of only twenty-seven years, his position as
Archbishop, which he had filled already for four years, and as Electoral Prince
and Imperial Chancellor, made him the most prominent and influential figure in
Germany. A cultivated scholar, and one of the leaders of the New Learning, he
was the intimate friend of
Erasmus,
and his praises had been celebrated in verse by Ulrich von Hutten. Thus the two
men, who in Italy and Germany were known as the leaders of the Renaissance, Leo
and Albrecht, show by their prominence in this traffic, that a more sturdy
force than that of the revival of literature was needed to produce the
Reformation.
Living far
beyond his income, and pressed severely by the Augsburg bankers, the Fuggers,
for the payment of loans, of which at least twenty, and some say thirty
thousand guldens had gone to the purchase of the pallium of an archbishop,
Albrecht eagerly engaged in the undertaking for one half of the receipts.
Thirty years later he died, still a debtor to the Fuggers.
In
September, 1517, Albrecht called to his aid, as sub-commissioner, the
Dominican, John Tetzel, who had served the preceding year under Archimbold.
Tetzel (originally Tietze) was a native of Leipzig, of about sixty years of
age, of imposing presence and distinguished gifts of popular oratory that had
been devoted for nearly half a generation to the sale of indulgences. The
traffic had developed so as to demand the services of specialists. Even though
we should concede the claims of the writers of the Roman Catholic Church, that
contemporary Protestant authorities have done him injustice in the charges
that, in 1512, he had been condemned to death, at Innsbruck, for adultery, but
had been saved at the intercession of the Elector of Saxony, and that he
offered indulgences without the conditions of contrition and confession, their
own admissions concern
ing the
nature of his work and preaching demonstrate the necessity for an earnest
protest against his activity. By sheer audacity he had overborne the
resistance that had heretofore been evoked by his assumptions, and had gained
from the Emperor Maximilian the recall of his edict against indulgences, and
the substitution of an express authorisation. Whithersoever he went,
therefore, he appeared as the representative of both State and Church, for,
beside his position of commissioner, he had the rank of Inquisitor-General. The
bells of the towns and cities announced his approach; the officials of the
place, the citizens, even the school-children, went in procession to meet him.
A red cross, on which the coat of arms of the Pope was emblazoned, preceded
him. On a velvet cushion his papal commission was displayed. Entering a church,
the red cross was raised in front of the high altar, and the indulgence chest
placed beside it. Sermons were preached by the commissioner or his deputies,
extolling the worth of indulgences, and urging their purchase. The terrors of
the hearers were excited by graphic pictures of the seven years’ penalty
reserved in Purgatory for every mortal sin, and of the remedy offered at so
small a cost in the letters that were then to be purchased. The indulgence
sellers were reported as bidding the people worship the red cross as the holy
of holies; as declaring that indulgences were more efficacious than baptism,
and restored the innocency that had been lost in Adam; as proclaiming that a
commissioner of indulgences saved more souls than Peter; and
LEO X.
AFTER THE PICTURE BY RAPHAEL IN THE PITTI GALLERY, FLORENCE.
that as
soon as the penny sounded in the chest, the soul was delivered from Purgatory.
Indulgences would avail for justification and salvation, even for him who had
violated the mother of God!
“ Lo ! Heaven
is open. When will you enter, if not now? Oh senseless men, who do not
appreciate such a shedding forth of grace ! How hard-hearted ! For twelve
pennies you can deliver your father, and, nevertheless, you are so ungrateful
as not to relieve him in his distress. At the last judgment, I am free ; but
you are responsible. I tell you, that if you have but one garment, you should
part with it, rather than fail of such grace.” 1
Gratuitous
indulgences were granted the poor, upon the assurance of payment from the first
money they could obtain. Wives were encouraged to purchase without the
knowledge of their husbands.
Numerous
incidents of Tetzel’s traffic are to be read, from which we select one of
especial interest, because relating to one of Luther’s most trusted friends and
co-labourers in later years. Frederick Myconius resided at Annaberg during
Tetzel’s earlier activity, when for two years he preached indulgences daily.
At last a time came when he announced that the cross was to be removed and the
gates of Heaven closed forever. “ Now,” he exclaimed, “ is the acceptable
time; now is the day of salvation.” Plenary indulgences were offered at a
reduced rate, with the generous codicil: Pciuperibus
1 One out of numerous examples, most of them
confirmed by documentary proofs, in Loescher. This passage is in i., 420 sq.
gratis
propter Deum (“To the poor, gratuitously, for God’s sake ”). Myconius, who had
been better taught concerning the free grace of God in Christ than most of the
youth of his time, at the last moment asked for an indulgence upon the ground
of his poverty, and when he persisted, after many refusals, constantly urging:
“To the poor, it is given gratuitously, for God’s sake,” the money was placed
in his hands by the deputies, who could not escape his importunity, and who, at
the same time, did not wish to admit a precedent that threatened so seriously
to diminish the receipts. But Myconius had the courage to reject the offer,
pleading that he asked for the indulgence gratuitously, or not at all.1
During his
visitation of the cloisters, in the spring of 1516, Luther had heard of
Tetzel’s proceedings, and, in a sermon on the Tenth Sunday after Trinity, had
taken occasion to give a warning. How gradually he reached his conclusions is
seen from the fact that, in this sermon, he rejects not indulgences, but their
abuse. What should be regarded with all reverence, he says, has become a horrid
means of pampering avarice, since it is not the salvation of souls, but solely
pecuniary profit that is in view. The people are taught not concerning the
forgiveness of sins, but only concerning the remission of the penances, as
though when these be paid, the soul immediately flies to Heaven. “ Besides,
there is no foundation for the doctrine that, by such in
1 Loescher’s Vollstandige Reformationis A eta,
Leipzig, 1720, i., 405, gives the account written by Myconius in 1546. Cf.
Adam’s Vita Theologorum, p. 12.
diligences,
souls are redeemed from Purgatory. For the Pope is cruel if he do not grant
poor souls gratuitously what can be granted on the payment of money needed by
the Church.” If no one can be certain whether he be himself sufficiently
contrite and have confessed sufficiently, much less can he be so as to others.
How, then, can he assert that the soul of one for whom indulgences have been
procured is immediately released from Purgatory ? The sermon ends with an
appeal against treating indulgences so that they administer only to cherishing
spiritual security and indifference.1
In a
sermon, preached just one year before his theses that provoked the crisis,
viz., on October 31, 1516, Luther is, if possible, still more explicit. He
speaks of the seducers who are misleading the people, and announces that the “
parade of indulgences is at the very doors.” The intention of the Pope is
justified; but the charge is made that his words have been misinterpreted.
Revising the definition of penitence, he distributes it into two parts, viz.,
of the sign and of the thing. Penitence of the thing, i. e.j actual penitence,
is inner penitence of the heart, and is the only true penitence. That of the
sign is the exterior penitence, occurring frequently when the interior is
feigned, and has two parts, confession and satisfaction.
“ To
jurists I refer the proof as to where confession and satisfaction, as now used,
are commanded by Divine
1 Weimar edition of Luther’s works (subsequently
referred to as Weimar), i.f 65-69; <?/. var.
argi., 101-104.
law ; for
the satisfaction prescribed by John (Luke iii.) belongs to the entire Christian
life. Indulgences imply that there has been true contrition ; but remove
nothing except impositions of purely private significance. Hence it is to be
feared that indulgences conspire against inner penitence. One who is truly
penitent wants, if possible, every creature to see and hate his sin, and he is
ready to be trodden under foot by all. He seeks not for indulgences and
remissions of penalties, but for exactions of penalties.”1
In a
sermon of February 24, 1517, he grows in severity. Indulgences, he declares,
are teaching the people to dread the punishment of sin, instead of sin itself.
If it were not to escape the punishment for sin, no one would care about
indulgences, even if offered gratuitously. Such punishment should rather be
sought for; the people should be exhorted to embrace the cross. He ends with
the words: “ O the dangers of our times! O ye slumbering priests!
O darkness denser than that of Egypt! How
secure are we in these extreme evils! ” 2
The
Elector Frederick, although in a far less offensive way, had provided for the
sale of indulgences in connection with visits to the relics he had gathered in
1493 in the Holy Land, as a partial source of revenue for the Castle Church and
cloister. The 5005 relics that were treasured in the Castle Church were said to
give one hundred days’ indulgence each, if properly worshipped, i. e., 1371
years and 85 days, if all were thus used. These vigorous
1 Weimar, i., 94-99 ; Op. var. arg., i., 177-184.
8 Weimar, i., 138-141.
words of
Luther, Frederick therefore regarded as, at least, indiscreet. But as Tetzel
drew near Wittenberg, attracting large numbers of its inhabitants to his
preaching, and as some over whom Luther had spiritual jurisdiction sought to
excuse themselves from worshipping the relics by the presentation of letters,
which they had procured at Jueterbock and Zerbst, he could not, by silence,
connive at what would have carried with it the violation of his fidelity as a
spiritual guide and of his oath as a Doctor of the Holy Scriptures. Ignorant of
the pecuniary interest of the Archbishop of Magdeburg in the sale, Luther, in
his simplicity, appealed to Albrecht to prohibit Tetzel’s further activity;
and, when his letter remained unanswered, a second appeal was made to his
bishop, viz., of Brandenburg, by whom he was warned of the danger of arraying
himself against the Pope. But the widespread dissatisfaction with Tetzel’s
extravagances expressed itself in frequent complaints and appeals from friends
and others who sought his advice. Among them was his spiritual father,
Staupitz. The matter could not rest until some solution of the problem would be
reached. There was an expectation that a crisis was approaching, but no one
could tell when or where it would come.
On the
night of October 30, 1517, according to Spalatin, the Elector tarried at
Schweinitz, and in the morning of the next day committed to writing an account
of a dream, which he said he could never forget, even though he were to live a
thousand years. He had seen a monk, a son of the
Apostle
Paul, and commissioned as a special messenger from Heaven, writing upon the
door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, in letters so large that they could be
read at Schweinitz, twelve miles away to the east, and with a goose quill one
hundred years old, of such length that it reached Rome, piercing first the ear
of a lion, that roared with pain, and then striking the triple crown of the
Pope, so that it almost fell from his head. This pen was readily applied,
after the Reformation began, to John Hus, whose name means “ a goose,” and who
had suffered martyrdom about one hundred years before. Although attested by
the Elector’s own private secretary, the correspondence with facts is so close
that it has brought this story into discredit. Why may it not have been the
product of the “ Wise ” Elector’s waking thoughts concerning the impending
conflict, and the part that one of his most distinguished subjects was to bear
in it ?
The signal
was at last given. The circumstances were not such as Luther had chosen.
Nothing sensational marked the hour. Notwithstanding his extraordinary
popular gifts, he was no agitator, and did not move more rapidly than
Providence opened clearly the way. On Fridays the theologians at Wittenberg
were accustomed, in regular order, to conduct theological discussions, and to
prepare and post up in advance the theses which, on a given date, they were
ready to discuss. Sometimes circulated among scholars in other universities,
in order to give the discussion still greater publicity, the form of a placard
was adopted, that this purpose
might be
served. The current statement, that the eve of All Saints’ Day was chosen in
order to attract greater attention to the subject, is not borne out by the
facts. The document which Luther prepared and that at once gained a universal
hearing, was wr.’tten not in the German, but in the Latin language. It was not
for the people, but for the consideration of scholars and students. Nor had it
in view any circle beyond that at Wittenberg ; until recently, it has been
universally held that the Theses were posted up in Luther’s manuscript.
Intimate friends who afterwards expressed surprise that Luther should have
omitted them in the distribution, were informed that it was neither his
intention nor his wish that the Theses should be noticed, except by a very few
at Wittenberg, with whom he wanted to have a comparison of views, and by a
limited number elsewhere whose written criticisms he invited.
It was,
according to Melanchthon, about noon, when the Theses were attached to the door
of the Castle Church, whether by Luther himself or by someone commissioned for
the work we are not informed. As the church was supported largely from the
revenue of indulgences, and All Saints’ Day was the anniversary of its
consecration, the eve of the festival seems to have been aptly chosen, just as
one year before Luther had selected the same festival for a sermon on the same
subject. The responsibility rested upon him alone, and he took counsel with
none of his intimate friends. Nevertheless, appreciating the seriousness of
the step he had taken, be
fore he
went to rest that night, he promptly informed his archbishop of the fact,
transmitting, with a most humble letter, a copy of the Theses, as well as of
the sermon preached that evening.
The other
theses are only an expansion of the thought with which the whole series begins.
“ When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, says,
‘ Repent/
He means that the entire life of believers should be a repentance." In
these words, he appeals from the scholastic to the Scriptural meaning of the
expression rendered in the Vulgate translation of Matthew iii., 2:
“Pcenitentiam agite.” These words of John the Baptist, although generally interpreted,
“ Do penance,” meant more than any act or series of satisfactions, and
comprised a complete revolution of thought, heart, mind, and will, that can
never be ended while life lasts. Be the explanation of the Church teachers
what it may, the great question to be answered is: “ What does the Lord Jesus
say ? ” From the obligation to such duty no one could be discharged. There is
no price that could be paid for a release. Thus the root of the practice of
indulgences is cut at one blow, the inevitable conclusion being that of the
second thesis: “ This word,” viz., of the Lord Jesus, “ cannot be understood of
sacramental penance, i. e., of confession and satisfaction as celebrated by
the ministry of priests.” The fallacy of the sale of papal indulgences is
exposed by the statement that the Pope can remit no penalties except those
which he has himself imposed, and hence that he is powerless with respect to
any penalties due Divine justice. Priests
have no
authority to reserve some penalties for Purgatory. Death brings immunity from
all canonical requirements, and the Pope, therefore, can remit no penalty to
souls in Purgatory. If the Pope have the power to deliver souls from Purgatory,
why does he not exercise it out of Christian love, instead of demanding money
with which to build a church ? Or why does he not, from his enormous wealth,
buy the release of souls in torment ? Notice is taken of various extravagant
statements that have accompanied the preaching of indulgences. Eternal punishment
is declared to be the lot of those who rely upon letters of indulgence for
their salvation. The truly contrite and believing are proclaimed as needing no
resort to such an expedient. “ Every Christian, truly contrite, has full
remission from both punishment and guilt, even without letters of indulgence.'’
“ Every true Christian, whether alive or dead, has participation in all the
blessings of Christ and the Church, granted him by God, even without letters of
indulgence." The Pope is regarded as esteeming works of mercy far more
highly than the diversion of money from such purpose to that of this trade. The
man who, neglecting the appeal of those in actual need, devotes his means to
the purchase of indulgences, is declared to incur the anger of God. The
treasures of Christ and the saints belong to Christians before and without any
indulgences. The true treasure of the Church is the Holy Gospel of the grace
and glory of God. “ Cursed be he who speaks against the truth of Apostolical indulgences,"
i. e., against the Gospel. “ Blessed is
he who
opposes the lust and licence of the words of a preacher of indulgences.” 1
In Latin,
the English words “ Repentance ” and “ Penance ” are designated by the one
term, “ Pce- nitentia. ” Luther’s effort, in the Theses, is to separate the two
conceptions. “ Repentance,” in the biblical sense, is the inner dissatisfaction
with self, on account of sin, combined with the sincere purpose to conform both
the inner and outward life to the Divine will. But “ Penances,” which Luther is
not yet ready to entirely repudiate, refer altogether to certain external
pledges of the sincerity of repentance, which, in his opinion, the Church could
require, as a matter of discipline and order, but on no other grounds. From
such ecclesiastical appointments the Pope could give a release, but from 110
penalties pertaining to the life beyond. Neither could the Pope release any one
from works of Christian love, even though the means so diverted were applied
to ecclesiastical purposes.
That
night, in the chapel of the Augustinian cloister, he preached a trenchant
sermon, presenting the same subject in German, and in a less technical and more
popular form. The outline, as afterwards published, gives evidently only notes
prepared beforehand. Among other things, it declares that the analysis of the
elements of “ repentance ” by Thomas Aquinas and his followers, although not
found in Scripture, might be conceded. Neverthe
1 Theses in Op. var. argi., 285 sqq.; Weimar, i., 229
sqq. ; Loescher, i., 438 sqq. English translation in Wace and Buchheim’s First
Principles of the Reformation, pp. 6-14.
less these
teachers were careful to declare that the “ satisfaction ” is of service only
where the two preceding parts are present. The satisfaction they distribute
into three parts, viz., prayer, fasting, and alms; the former comprising also
all works of the soul, as the hearing, preaching, and teaching of 'God's word,
etc.; the second, all mortifications of the flesh, as vigils, the use of a hard
bed, rough clothing; and the last, all works of love and mercy for one’s
neighbour. Not a single passage of Scripture can be found, declaring that
God's justice makes any other requirement than true and heartfelt sorrow,
combined with the purpose to bear hereafter the cross of Christ. A thousand
times better would it be, if a Christian were to desire no indulgence, but
would cheerfully do all the appointed works, and suffer all the appointed pain,
since indulgence means exemption from good works and salutary suffering. The
plea that such works and suffering exceed man’s power cannot be urged, since
neither God nor the Holy Church will lay upon anyone more than he can bear (i
Cor. x., 13). It is only for the sake of indolent and imperfect Christians that
indulgences are allowed. Far better to make a contribution towards the building
of St. Peter’s as a present, than that it should reach the same end as the
compensation for an indulgence. A most serious interference with good works are
indulgences. Indigent persons nearest to us demand the first care. If in one’s
own city there be no poor people, contributions to churches, altars, etc., in
that city are in place. When their necessities are
provided
for, then, according to I Tim. v., 8, the turn of St. Peter comes. “If to this,
however, the objection be made that this will effectually prevent all purchase
of indulgences, my answer is that my advice is against such purchase. They may
well be left to lazy and sleepy Christians. ’ ’ The probability of a charge of
heresy is anticipated as likely to follow at the instance of stupid men, who
have never read the Bible, and who are notorious for judging a case before
giving it a hearing.1
1 Weimar, i., 239 sqq. ; Op. var. arg., i., 326 sqq.
In fixing the date we have followed Knaake’s introduction to this sermon in
Weimar edition.
THE RECEPTION OF THE THESES AND THE HEIDELBERG CONFERENCE
ROWDS of
eager students may have gathered
for hours
before the door of the Castle Church,
intent
upon reading and copying the sensation of the day, but this indicated no
general approval, at that time and place, of the aggressive character of the
Theses. The first effect upon those nearest Luther was stunning. Whatever their
abhorrence of the methods of Tetzel, and their dissatisfaction with the whole
system which admitted such manifest abuses, the impression was that he had
spoken unadvisedly. His colleagues were apprehensive of the result for the
University. Carlstadt withheld his approval, and Dr. Schurf of the legal
faculty expostulated with him. The Augustinian monks saw the stake in the
foreground, and dreaded the disgrace which the presence among them of a second
Savonarola would cast upon their Order; while his
former
teachers and associates at Erfurt lamented the pride, which they thought could
be read in his vigorous sentences. Repelling these charges in a letter to
Lange, the prior at Erfurt, he writes: “ If the work be of God, who shall
prevent it ? If it be of man, who shall promote it ? Not my will, nor their
will, nor our will, but Thy will, O Holy Father, be done! ” As the expression
of his confidence and calmness, he signs the letter “ F. Martinus Eleuthe-
rius, Augustiniensis ” ; thus, in the play upon his name (i. e., “ the
liberated”), asserting that, by his apprehension of the fact of his sonship
with God, he has become the Lord’s freeman.1
His
remarks of self-depreciation and the contemptuous slurs of opponents must not
be interpreted as indicating that when he entered upon the contest he was an
unknown and insignificant monk. Throughout a large portion of Germany his
attainments were already conceded, as his rank in his Order and his position
in the University show. Even though, for the moment, he stood alone at
Wittenberg, the Theses, or their general contents, were immediately circulated
through the channels of communication between the various universities; and
from them, as centres, in all directions. It was a live subject of which they
treated. The most pressing question of the hour was here answered. The
revulsion of the general Christian feeling to the indulgence traffic had found
clearest expression. Men were only waiting for some one to speak the first
word; and this had now been done. But more
1 De Wette,
i: 73*
had been
said than they had anticipated. New thoughts of the greatest moment and the
most far- reaching consequences had been suggested. The antagonisms hitherto
felt and the protests made had been directed to the more superficial aspects of
the subject. New relations come to view, as the foundations and consequences
of the teaching by which indulgences were supported, are brought to examination.
The Theses are more than a series of negations; they offer the positive
teaching needed for the rest of the soul. Hence the words of approval rising
from many widely separated quarters, and quickly sent back to encourage and
strengthen weak hearts at Wittenberg. “ In fourteen days,” says Luther, “ they
flew all over Germany.” “ In four weeks,” says his cotemporary, Myconius, “
they were diffused throughout all Christendom, as though the angels were the
postmen.”
The result
was unexpected and even startling to the author. Prepared, as they had been,
for a small circle, the Theses would have been differently framed if he had
anticipated the extent of their influence. On some of the topics presented he
was not yet fully clear, and was earnestly seeking light through a possible
discussion. But they were no longer his property.
Among
those who responded favourably was the preacher, Dr. Fleck, whose discourse at
the inauguration of the University contained the famous play upon the name
Wittenberg, as the ‘ ‘ berg, ’ ’ or mount of “ wit” or wisdom. Reading the
Theses, he exclaimed, “ Well, the man has at last come!” and immediately sent
to Luther a letter of approval.
Meanwhile
the opposition was also gathering its forces. Whether the Archbishop of Mayence
ever received the letter written by Luther that evening is a question. But the
circumstances are promptly reported by his deputies, and his anxiety as to the
effect upon his revenue is excited. At the advice of the theologians and
jurists of the University of Mayence, he issues on the 13th of December “ an
inhibitory process ” against Luther, sends a copy of the Theses to the Pope,
with the request that prompt measures be taken to resist the spread of such
teaching, and seeks to remove some of the complaints against the sale of
indulgences, by instructions to the subordinates of Tetzel to discontinue
some of the practices that have given most offence. But, blind to the real
principle involved, he provides at the same time for an extension of the
territory for the traffic.
Tetzel
also is aroused, and, in order that he may reply to Luther, receives at the
close of the year the degree of a licentiate, and shortly afterwards that of a
Doctor of Theology. Luther’s sermon on indulgences, of the same date as the
Theses, was not published until the succeeding March, the Bishop of Brandenburg
having treated Luther with more consideration than the Archbishop, and sent
the Abbot of Lenin to Wittenberg, with the special request, which Luther for a
long time respected, that he should refrain from its publication. But as the
subject became one of general notoriety, the time came when he felt that no
such restriction should be observed. When published, it evoked an early reply
from
Tetzel, who carefully avoids mentioning either Luther or Wittenberg, but
attempts to refute each of the twenty propositions of the sermon. Prior to
this, however, in the very last days of 1517, one hundred and six theses were
published under the name of Tetzel, generally understood to have been composed
by the Frankfort theologian, Conrad Wimpina, which were directed against
Luther’s, imitating closely their very language, and were soon followed by a
series of fifty more, bearing the same character. When eight hundred copies of
these theses sent to Wittenberg for sale were seized by the students and
publicly burned, Luther expressed from the pulpit his deep regret that, in
their zeal, they had resorted to such lawless methods.
Besides
the publication of the sermon on indulgences, heretofore withheld, he
attempted for the present no further contribution to the controversy than a
sermon upon repentance. He was preparing meanwhile for the gathering storm by
the careful elaboration of an explanation of the Theses, the precise form of
which, as well as the occasion for its publication, was to be determined
hereafter. Calmly he went about his daily work as a professor, projecting
schemes for the enlargement of the course of the University, and faithfully
preaching the word with reference to the individual wants of his hearers. His
correspondence during this period with Spalatin, the secretary and chaplain of
the Elector, is interesting. The latter has asked various perplexing questions,
which Luther promptly answers. One relates to the guilt of invincible
ignorance; to which, after
stating
the ordinary scholastic distinction, he replies that, so far as we are
concerned, all ignorance is invincible, while, so far as the grace of God is
concerned, no ignorance is invincible; and that, therefore, ignorance is no
excuse for a sin. Otherwise there would be no sin in the world.1 In
another letter he answers the question as to how many Marys are mentioned in
the Gospels, and how many women were at the sepulchre.8 He
undertakes to prescribe for his friend a course of theological reading, warning
him, with some hesitancy, against the extravagant estimate Erasmus has placed
upon Jerome as a Church teacher. The very first thing, he says, is to apprehend
the fact that the Scriptures cannot be penetrated by our study, and that,
therefore, prayer is the very first requisite. Despairing, thus, of our own
ability, and looking to God for His Spirit, the next thing is to read the Bible
through, from beginning to end, first with regard to the simple narrative, in
connection with which the reading of the Epistles of Jerome is advised ; and
then with regard to the knowledge of Christ, in which Augustine will be found
most serviceable.3 The Elector, in connection with a kind
intercession on behalf of Staupitz and a warning concerning new charges that he
may expect to hear soon against Luther, is courteously reminded of a promise to
furnish his humble subject with a new coat. Spiritual refreshment he found in
the writing of an exposition of the One Hundred and Tenth Psalm, which, after
transmission to Spalatin, was
1 De Wette, 1 : 74. 3 lb., 80 sq. * It>88.
sent by
the latter to the press, and appeared during the summer of 1518.
Early that
spring his academical labours were interrupted by a journey to Heidelberg, to
attend a meeting of the members of the Augustinian Order, which, as it had no
connection with the controversy, afforded him great physical benefit, by the
respite it gave him from the strain under which he had been labouring. Friends
were apprehensive of danger; but he answered by reminding them of his vow of
obedience, and declaring in reference to enemies: “ The more they rage, the
more I go forward." 1 The Elector’s consent was obtained with
some difficulty ; but when Luther could not be dissuaded he wrote to Staupitz,
requesting that he be not detained longer than was necessary, and gratefully
referred to the fact that Staupitz had recommended him to the place he was
filling with signal success. At the same time, he furnished Luther with a passport
and with letters of‘introduction to the Bishop of Wuerzburg, and to the brother
of the Palatinate Elector, whose residence was at Heidelberg. On the
1 ith of April Luther set out on foot with
an attendant, for whose services he was not able to pay farther than
Wuerzburg. His fame had not brought with it exemption from pecuniary straits.
In four days he reached Coburg, where the Saxon treasury officials had been
instructed to provide for his necessities. Two days later he was hospitably
received by Bishop Lorenz of Wuerzburg, who, shortly before his death in the
following year, wrote to the
1 De Wette, 1: 101.
Elector
concerning the favourable impression that Luther had made during the visit.
Here he was joined by his friend Lange, the prior at Erfurt, and other members
of his Order. Taking carriages, they reached Heidelberg on the 21st, and found
a home in the Augustinian monastery. No reception could have been more cordial
than that which they received from the Count, who showed them every
hospitality, not only because of the letter from the Elector Frederick, but
especially because he was himself an alumnus of Wittenberg, and in 1515 had
been elected Rector of the University.
The
convention having adjourned, after the election of Staupitz as Vicar-General,
and Lange as Provincial Vicar, the usual custom of holding a theological discussion
before separating was observed. Luther was requested to prepare the theses and
preside at the discussion, while the Augustinian, Leonard Beyer, was made the
respondent. The Heidelberg professors not desiring to commit themselves so far
to the endorsement of Luther’s position, the conference was held, not in the
auditorium of the University, but in the Augustinian monastery. The Count and
his friends, all the University professors, and many of the students, besides
the members of the Order, attended. The main interest, of course, was to hear
Luther in his exposition of the principles then attracting the attention of all
Christendom. But neither in the theses nor in their defence did he touch upon
the question of indulgences. He preferred to treat of the underlying principles
that had determined his attitude, and that, in his
opinion,
were indispensable to all sound theological discussion, as well as to all true
Christian life. To him there were thoughts of still greater moment than those
that had thus far entered into public discussion. They were the inability of
man to be justified before God by works of the Law, man’s bondage to sin, and
the absolute need of Divine grace. Even the Divine Law, he says, cannot promote
salvation. How much more impotent are the works of purely natural reason! What
is it that renders the works of the godly other than mortal sins, but the fact
that they distrust them ? What, then, if men trust in their works ? “ Sins are
venial before God, only when dreaded by men as though they were mortal.” “A man
who imagines that he attains grace by doing according to his power, only adds
one sin to another.” “ Man must utterly despair of self, in order to be
prepared for the reception of the grace of God.” “ The Law says: ‘ Do this,’
and it is never done. Grace says: ‘ Believe in Him,’ and, lo, all is done.” “
The love of God does not find, but it makes one worthy of the grace of God.” To
twenty-eight such theses, twelve on philosophical questions were added, in
which he seeks to find a more correct philosophical method for theological
discussions than had heretofore prevailed, contrasting Aristotle with Plato,
etc., and entering a field into which he never advanced farther. It is doubtful
whether any time was actually given in the conference to these latter theses.*
Although
the Heidelberg theologians were still
1 Op. var. arg., i., 387 sqq.; Weimar, i., 353 sqq.
ardent
adherents of the scholastic theology, the best spirit marked the debate.
Strange as his position appeared, they treated Luther with all courtesy, and
he, in turn, appreciated their consideration and admired their acuteness. Only
one remark formed an exception, when one of the younger professors addressed
Luther, “ If the rustics hear such remarks from you, they will stone you.”
None in
the audience were more interested in the proceedings' than a group of young
men, whose minds had for some time been exercised on the themes under
discussion. Among them was John Brentz, then nineteen years old, afterwards to
become the Reformer of Wuerttemburg ; Erhard Schnepf, then twenty-three,
afterwards professor at Jena; Theobald Billicanus, the Reformer of Noerd-
lingen ; and Martin Bucer, a young Dominican monk, who, although a member of
the same Order as Tet- zel, was an accomplished scholar and a youth of deep
earnestness. A letter of Bucer, written directly afterwards, is full of the
glow of admiration that the discussion had infused, and gives a summary of
Luther’s treatment of each of the theses that were reached.
“With all the force that our leaders brought to bear against him, they
were not able with their quibbles to move him even a finger’s breadth. It is
astonishing, with what amenity he answers, with what incomparable patience he
listens to his opponents, and with what genuine Pauline, not Scotist,
acuteness, he unties the knots of objections, so that by his brief and forcible
answers
JOHN
BRc.NTZ.
FROM AN OLD ENGRAVING.
derived likewise from the treasure of Holy Scripture, he easily won the
admiration of all.” 1
After the
discussion these students conferred with Luther. He accepted Bucer’s invitation
to a meal, during which they were alone, and had ample opportunity for the
freest conversation. Bucer makes the significant remark: “ In all things he
agrees with Erasmus; only that what Erasmus merely suggests, he teaches
plainly.2
Leaving
Heidelberg in the beginning of May, his return was not as fatiguing as his
journey thither had been, for his friends saw to it that he rode the entire
distance back. During part of the way he had the company of one of his former
teachers at Erfurt, Dr. Usingen, and used all his powers of persuasion to win
him over. “ I left him,” he says,3 “ thinking and wondering,” and
concludes that little hope can be entertained of those who have grown old in
their opinions, but that it is with the rising generation that the best results
are to be obtained. During his stay at Erfurt he called upon another of his
former instructors, Dr. Jodocus Trutvetter, hoping to answer in person the charges
that the latter had made in a letter reproving him for the Theses, and
especially the sermon on indulgences, but he was not admitted to an interview.
He im
1 Bucer to Rhenanus, in Gerdesius, Historia
Reformationis, i., Monumenta, pp. 176 sq. Other documents of the conference in
Loescher, ii., 40-62.
8 Gerdesius, iM Monumenta, p. 78.
J De Wette, i ? 112.
mediately
wrote a long letter, full of affection, to the man to whom he confesses that he
owes so much, calmly denying some of the matters with which he has been
charged, and expressing the desire to correspond with him at length as to the
points involved, if there be no other way of conferring. But the pupil had
advanced too far for his instructor when he laid down the sweeping proposition
that must have cut the adherent of Scholasticism to the very quick, in the
words: “ I absolutely believe that it is impossible to reform the Church,
unless the canons, decretals, scholastic theology, philosophy, and logic, as
they are now, be eradicated, and other studies be instituted.”1
There was a subsequent interview, but without result. On the 15th of May Luther
is again at home, with his strength greatly renewed for the conflicts that are
at hand.
1 De Wette, 1: 107 sqq.
ECK, PRIERIAS, AND THE POPE HORTLY before Luther’s departure for Heidel
berg he
was annoyed by an underhanded attack from a man who professed to be his friend,
Dr. John Eck, of Ingolstadt. A year before they had been introduced by
Scheurl, and had corresponded. In his “ Obelisks,” Eck applied to Luther
epithets justifiable only when every effort has failed to convince an opponent
of his error. Luther was the more indignant because he conceded the learning
and ability of Eck, and would »have been pleased to have engaged with him in
public and honourable discussion. Although not caring to reply, his friends
induced him to prepare a series of “ Asterisks,” as an answer, which Knaake
has lately shown was not published until in the first collected edition of
Luther’s Works, but, like the attack of Eck, was circulated in manuscript.1
During Luther’s absence, however,
Carlstadt
had posted up theses, announcing his readiness to refute Eck publicly, and a
few days later received from Eck the apology, not unusual with
controversialists, that he was the friend of both Luther and Carlstadt, and
that, if he could have foreseen that his private writing would have been made
so public, he would have written with much greater care.
But the
discussion soon extended beyond Germany. The earliest reports sent to Rome by
the Archbishop of Mayence made no impression upon the Pope. Leo X., a true
humanist, favoured the utmost freedom of opinion, so long as the revenues of
the Papacy were not seriously affected or its orderly government disturbed. Secure
in his position, and preoccupied with other subjects, he seems to have been
secretly amused at the agitation of Albrecht and the Dominicans. The entire
controversy he looked upon as a mere incident of monastic wrangling. “ Brother
Martin,” he said, “ has a very fine head!” Luther heard the report that, after
reading the Theses, the Pope said that they had been written by a drunken
German, who would think differently after he had become sober. So simple a
matter did it seem, by a very mild remedy, to heal the wound, that in February,
1518, Leo instructed the General of the Augustinians to “ pacify the man.” But
the Dominicans at Rome took the matter more seriously. The credit of their
great teacher, Thomas Aquinas, was at stake. In the attack upon one of their
prominent brethren, Tetzel, the Order itself had been injured. The German
Dominicans
clamoured for active measures. The effort to arouse Leo from his indifference
was made by Silvester Mazzolini, generally called, from his native place,
Prierias, the official censor, a Dominican learned in St. Thomas. An attack
upon the Theses was published in June, and received by Luther in August. Luther
acknowledges that on its reception he was terrified, because of the high rank
of his critic; but when he undertook to read it, its superficiality amused him
to such an extent, that he concluded that the best way to reply would be to
republish it. The edition being immediately absorbed after publication, he
inferred that the Dominicans had bought it up, and therefore again reprinted
it, this time with an answer.1
Prierias
entered upon the work with much pretension, referring to the weight of his
years and the extraordinary circumstances that had rendered it necessary for
him to enter the field, but, in order to show how easily Luther could be
answered, boasted that he had written his pamphlet within three days. His
entire strength is applied to the work of testing Luther’s statements according
to the theology of Thomas, with vapid declamations against every questioning of
such authority as final. Four propositions concerning the nature of the
Church, a topic which, as Prierias correctly apprehended, was fundamental to
the controversy, introduce the discussion. He precedes by three centuries and a
half the decree of the Vatican Council concerning papal infallibility.
“ 1. The
Church Universal is essentially the assembly for worship, of all believers in
Christ. But the Church Universal is virtually the Church of Rome, the head of
all the churches, and the Pope. The Roman Church is representatively the
college of cardinals ; but virtually it is the Pope, who is Head of the Church,
although otherwise than Christ. 2. Just as the Church Universal cannot err in
deciding concerning faith and morals, so also a true council, acting according
to its end, viz., to understand truth, and including its Head, cannot finally
err. Although, for a time, it may be deceived, nevertheless, as long as the
motive to inquire after the truth remain, even although it sometimes err, it
shall at length, through the Holy Spirit, have the correct understanding of the
truth. Thus, neither the Roman Church nor its Pope can err, when he decides
concerning that with respect to which he is Pope, i. e., when he makes official
declarations and acts for the understanding of the truth. 3. Whoever does not
rest upon the doctrine of the Roman Church and the Roman Pope, as an infallible
rule of faith, from which even the Holy Scriptures derive their authority, is a
heretic. 4. The Roman Church can determine anything concerning faith and life,
by deed as well as by word. The only difference is that words are more precise.
Custom, therefore, contains the force of law, because the will of a ruler is
expressed in deeds, permissively or effectively. As a heretic, therefore, is
one who thinks incorrectly concerning the truth of the Scriptures, so also is
one who thinks incorrectly as to the doctrine and deeds of the Church,
pertaining to faith and life.” 1
Thus the
practice of the Roman Church, whatever
it be, is
elevated to the rank of an absolute standard of right.
Luther
introduces his reply by asserting the absolute authority of Holy Scripture
above that of all teachers and churches. Further on he criticises the
propositions concerning the Church, in these forcible words:
“ The
Church, virtually, I do not know, except in Christ ; nor do I know it
representatively, except in a council. Otherwise, if whatever the Church,
virtually, i. e., the Pope, do, is called the deed of the Church, what
monstrous crimes, I ask, must we not reckon as good deeds ! Must we not include
among them the horrible shedding of blood by Julius II. ? Must we not include
also the tyranny of Boniface VIII., abhorred by the whole world? Nevertheless
as to the latter, the proverb is well known : ‘ Like a fox he entered ; like a
lion he reigned ; like a dog he died ! ’ Surely you would not have us believe
that all these intolerable monstrosities are the most holy deeds of the Church
! But, if the Pope be the virtual Church, and the cardinals the representative
Church, and the collection of believers the essential Church, what will you
call a general council ? A virtual Church? No! A representative Church ? No! An
essential Church ? No ! What then ? An accidental, perhaps a nominal and
verbal church ! ” 1
If it took
Prierias only three days to write the attack upon Luther, the latter replies
that he spent one day less in preparing the answer! In two subsequent
pamphlets Prierias tried to escape the force of Luther’s reasoning, but was so
heavily encum
bered by
reliance upon the definitions of Thomas that he could not adapt himself to his
opponent. He belonged to a past generation, and had no weapons for the new
warfare that had arisen.
But a
still more important contribution to this controversy had already appeared.
During the entire winter Luther had been at work on a calm and thorough
exposition of his Theses, in which he had availed himself of all the results of
his other controversial writings on the same subject. The aim was to enter into
its consideration more scientifically and without a polemical spirit. In the
Resolutioncsto whose completion he devoted himself with absorbing interest,
immediately after his return from Heidelberg, we find a review of the questions
at issue in the light of subsequent events, and constantly maturing
convictions. It shows that on more than one point he had outgrown the Theses;
that on others, what he had advanced with hesitation he was now ready to
confess boldly before all men; that on still others, concerning which he w^s
afterwards clear, he was still feeling his way. But even in this paper, there
are inconsistencies that are to be explained only upon the supposition that his
opinions changed as he wrote, and even after the earlier pages were in type.
All these facts reveal the sincerity of his character, and that every step
forward was the result of a struggle. Side by side we read “ the devotion of a
monk who had been reared in awe of the Roman See, and the bold selfconsciousness
of a Christian and theologian who, if
what he
hopes cannot be accomplished otherwise, is ready to oppose the convictions of
his conscience against the world.”
In order
that this document be appreciated, it is necessary to read the letters to the
Pope and Staupitz that accompany it.1 To the Pope it was dedicated,
and Staupitz was asked to transmit it to His Holiness. In the letter to
Staupitz he explains the manner in which the controversy began. An incidental
remark of Staupitz concerning the foundation of all true repentance in love to
God had given Luther the clue to the meaning of all the passages of Scripture
in which the word “ Repentance ” occurs. As he became more proficient in
Greek, he found that the New Testament word, by which it is translated, means
no more than a change of mind. When the preachers of indulgences utterly
perverted this meaning, making it nothing else than a series of satisfactions
and confessions, he could not keep silent; and thus, although he preferred to
be hidden in a corner, he had been brought into publicity. He closes with the
eloquent words:
“To my
friends, with their threats, I have no other answer than that of Reuchlin : ‘
He who is poor fears nothing and can lose nothing.’ Property I neither have nor
desire. If I have had fame and honour, he who now loses them loses them
forever. If, then, by force or plots, as God wills, they take away the one
thing that is left, viz., my poor, frail body, already worn out with incessant
troubles, they will make me poorer for perhaps
one or two
hours of this life ! Enough for me is it to have my precious Redeemer and
Advocate, my Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom I will sing as long as I have being. If
any one be unwilling to sing with me, what is that to me ? Let him howl to
himself if he so prefer ! ” 1
To the
Pope he writes with a reverence that would be unintelligible if it were not the
rule that in all progress there is, in every sincere student, a strange
combination of contradictory principles. He states the manner in which he had
come forward, claiming that, all the while, he had been acting by the authority
conferred upon him by his theological doctorate that had been given him by the
Pope. The protection of the Elector of Saxony, with his well-known zeal for the
truth, ought to assure the Pope that he could not be the dangerous man that he
was represented to be! No words of submission could be more emphatic than those
with which he closes: “ Quicken, kill, call, recall, approve, reprove, as you
please. I will acknowledge your voice as that of Christ, presiding and speaking
in you.” a
Introducing
the Resolntiones with a statement of the standard according to which doctrines
are to be judged, the decisions of the scholastics and canonists are ruled out,
and only the Holy Scriptures, the Church Fathers, and the usage of the Roman
Church admitted. While the line between Scriptural and ecclesiastical authority
is not explicitly drawn, nevertheless the treatment shows that he regards Holy
Scripture as the only final authority. Examining each of the Theses, his main
effort is de-
OBSCVRI
VIRI
£piftote Dbfairom viroul ad ^agiftrii Dituimi
£5rariuDauenrrimfan£olomelattrta8litreraep:o firentino illsqdivcfcrcacfptiue
viftffedcfnou$efrtlfep:i'owto j£ leganna argurtje lepoze a c vcrtuftarc longe
fupcnore®.
‘Bd'Zectoiem.
TRifuiti
TDeraelimffc vafti ridcre pararf Srida mucariif pccroia Sroiddar Da mil?»
rriftem am'niuiferatcs ob£»cc lurfuo Difperearnmfimoitomma iRifuaerunf.
£ltercepulmonem. |
TITLE-PAGE OF FIRST EDITION OF “ EPISTOL/E OBSCURORUM VIRORUM.” (slightly reduced,)
voted to
showing its Scriptural foundations. An array of proof-texts meets us,
particularly in the treatment of the earlier and fundamental Theses, suggestive
of the methods of later text-books of theology. Great care is taken to
distinguish between repentance and satisfactions, and to determine the actual
grounds of forgiveness. The principle is maintained that faith alone receives
the forgiveness of sins. Absolution is declared to be the assurance of the
forgiveness that God has already given. It imparts nothing when the Divine
condition of forgiveness is absent. Christ, he says, has not willed that the
salvation of anyone should depend upon the power of any man ; and yet, as a
means whereby consciences are assured of the truth of Christ’s promise and thus
consoled, the power of the keys is to be prized as a gift of God, for which we
cannot be sufficiently thankful. The opinion of the superfluous merits of
saints is opposed by the argument that so far from being able to do more than
the law demands, they cannot fulfil it. The power of the Pope, he teaches, is
to be most highly honoured; but all such authority is to be limited to the
externals of religion, and not to those matters that concern man’s inner
relations to God. The foundation of such authority is placed on the same
grounds as that for obedience to the civil government, but no other. Unless
the decisions of the Pope be inwardly just, they are of no validity, and the
consciences of Christians are not bound to them. The theory of the two swords,
spiritual and temporal, is repudiated, and the point urged that if this
were so,
then it might also be taught that there are two keys, one to the riches of
Heaven and the other to those of this world. The Church, he declares, needs a
reformation, which is not the duty of a single Pope, or of any cardinals, but
of the whole Christian world, nay, of God alone. Only He who has created times,
knows wrhen the time of this reformation is to be. In hope of it,
many things are to be patiently endured. Leo is praised as a pontiff worthy of
better times, whose integrity and learning are the delight of all who hear of
him. He affirms in one place his most firm belief in Purgatory, although he
afterwards adduces arguments against it.
Before
this treatise, with its extravagant compliments, had left the press, Luther
had reason to change his good opinion of the Pope. The phlegmatic spirit of
Leo had at length been excited by the persistent efforts of the Dominicans. The
papal solicitor, Mario Perusco, had preferred charges of heresy against Luther,
and the Pope had appointed a commission to try the case, consisting of his
auditor, Jerome Ghinucci; Bishop of Ascoli, and Prierias. The former not being
eminent for theological attainments, but known only as a financier and
executive officer, the person upon whom would rest the decision as to Luther’s
guilt was the very advocate who had already argued that he was a heretic! The
case was prejudged, and no one could doubt what the verdict was to be.
The
citation reached Luther on the 7th of August. He was summoned to appear at Rome
within sixty
1518] Eck, Prierias, and the
Pope
days. The
charge of heresy for having ventured to take a positive stand upon a question
as to which the Church had never given its decision, combined with the wrong
done him in the selection of the person to judge the case, aroused the
indignation of the entire University, as it felt itself involved in the affront
given its most prominent professor. The Elector, always ready to respond to appeals
where the interests of his University were at stake, was asked by Luther to
intercede with the Emperor and Pope for a change of the place of making answer
from Rome to some city in Germany. Spalatin was implored to use all his
influence with the Elector to this end. At the time both Frederick and his
secretary were at Augsburg, where the Emperor Maximilian was holding an
imperial diet. Kept in suspense for at least two weeks, Luther urges Spalatin
to have the decision hastened.
“You
know,” he writes, “that in all these matters I fear nothing. For if by means of
their flattery or power they cause me to be hated, I have in my heart and conscience
this one thing, that I know and confess that all that I have, and against which
they are contending, I have of God, to Whom I will gladly offer all. If He remove
them, let them be removed ; If He preserve them, let them be preserved ! His
holy Name be blessed forever ! Amen. But I do not see in what way I can escape
the verdict intended against me, unless by aid of the Prince. I would much
rather suffer than that the Prince should, for my sake, incur any ill
reputation. Never will I be a heretic. In disputing, indeed, I can
1 De Wette, i : 131.
err ; but
I am unwilling to decide anything, and yet I cannot be subservient to the
opinions of men.” 1
By these
last words he means to declare that the decision rests with the Church, and
that he cannot accept the decisions of any individuals as those of the Church.
“ Our friends,” he continues, “ have thought that I should ask of the Elector a
safe- conduct through his dominions, and that when he would refuse, as I know
that he would, I should have a valid excuse for not appearing.” 2
Some weeks
before the citation was received, the Count of Mansfeld, who, as the ruler of
Luther’s old home, was deeply interested in his welfare, advised John Lange,
the Erfurt Augustinian Vicar, not to allow Luther to leave Wittenberg, as there
was reason to believe that his life was in danger. Writing to his friend,
Wenceslaus Link, of Nuremberg, Luther says:
“ Like
Jeremiah, I am clearly a man of strife, since I am daily irritating the
Pharisees with what they call new doctrines. But while I am unconscious of
having taught anything but the pure doctrine I, nevertheless, foresee that I will
be an offence to the most holy Jews and foolishness to the most wise Greeks. I
hope that I am debtor to Jesus Christ, who says : ‘I will show him what great
things he must suffer for My name.’ For if He do not say this, why has He put
such an obstinate man as I am in the ministry, or why has He not taught me
something else to say ? ” 3
In this
confidence, he poured forth the innermost
convictions
of his heart as to the real significance of perils he had encountered, in a
sermon on the significance and validity of excommunication, preached shortly
after his return from Heidelberg, but which was not published until after the
reception of the summons to Rome. Commended most highly by friends, when
preached, it had met with such gross misrepresentations from enemies, that he
felt it his duty, weeks after its delivery, to write it out, from memory.
Excommunication, he declares, is the denial of communion, and the placing of
one outside the community of believers. But this is twofold, viz., internal, or
that of faith, hope, and love to God; and external and corporeal, or, properly,
participation in the same sacraments, or, more widely, every form of intimate
association. Of the former, or spiritual communion, a creature can deprive us
no more than it can bestow such a gift (Rom. viii., 38, 39; 1 Pet. iii., 13).
Ecclesiastical excommunication is only the deprivation of external communion (1
Cor. v., 11; 2 Thess. iii., 14; 2 John v., 10). If just, excommunication means
that the soul has been delivered already to the devil, and is deprived of
spiritual communion; ecclesiastical excommunication therefore inflicts neither
death nor punishment, but presupposes them, and is valid only as this condition
is present. God must excommunicate before the Church can. It is the inner
excommunication of God that is to be dreaded rather than the external
excommunication of the Church. Unjust excommunication, viz., that which occurs
when external excommunication is inflicted
upon those
who are not already spiritually excommunicated of God, is a noble merit, and
is to be cheerfully endured if the answer which, in all humility, we make to
charges preferred against us, be unheeded.1 By this argument,
dispelling the dread of extreme discipline, he wrested from the Roman Church
the chief means whereby it had maintained its authority, and encouraged the
freest criticism of its principles and policy. Published at the very time when
he was endeavouring to have his case tried in Germany, it is not strange that
some of his friends were alarmed by what seemed to be its imprudent
expressions, and that the Elector, as well as Spalatin, were much displeased
when their efforts to prevent its publication failed, not because they
dissented from its statements, but because they thought that, of all times,
this was the most unsuitable for a presentation scarcely less irritating than
the Ninety-five Theses themselves. Almost immediately the sermon was
republished, three times at Leipzig and once at Augsburg, and new editions
appeared the next year.
At Augsburg
the course to be taken concerning Luther had become the subject of protracted
negotiations. The Pope’s purpose in the Diet was to secure a tax from Germany
for the prosecution of the war against the Turks. The task of conciliating the
Emperor and the German Electors was entrusted to his delegate, Cajetan, the
former General of the Dominicans, now a cardinal, and a master in the art of
diplomacy. As part of the policy, the Arch
bishop of
Mayence, the chicf German champion of the indulgence system, was invested with
the cardi- nalate, while the Emperor Maximilian was presented with a
consecrated hat and sword. The Emperor was closing the twenty-fifth year of his
reign, and the last summer of his life. A ruler of versatile accomplishments,
his ambitions had been disappointed. No papal coronation had given its sanction
to his election; the title of “ Holy Roman Emperor,” for which he always
aspired, never became his. Made “ Protector of the Church ” in Germany by his
oath of office, the pontiff, for whose favour he was aspiring, was exacting a
rigorous enforcement of the papal policy against Luther. But another motive
deterred him from complying with the papal will. His heart was set upon the
succession of his grandson, Charles, to the imperial throne, and the prince
from whom he had most to fear, and whose favour was most important for this
end, was the Elector of Saxony. Thus distracted by conflicting motives,
sympathising on the one hand with the protest against abuses, and even
commending the monk as one of whom care must be taken and whom the Church
needed, and on the other unable to treat the question except as one of
political expediency, he acquiesced in a formal letter to the Pope against
Luther. Such responses, however, had been awakened from all ranks in Germany,
chafing under the papal exactions, and regarding the tax for the war with the
Turks only an expedient to obtain money for other purposes, that some
concessions were unavoidable. The Elector was inflexible in his de-
mand that
Luther must be tried only upon German soil, and with an entire appreciation of
the Emperor’s embarrassment, conducted the negotiations with Cajetan in such a
way that he gained his point. The Pope tried his own hand with the Elector, and
in a personal letter to Frederick1 stigmatised Luther as a son of
iniquity, and enjoined that he should see to it that Luther be brought “ within
the power and jurisdiction of this Holy See”; while, about the same date, in
his instructions to Cajetan 2 he proclaimed his intention to
inflict the interdict upon “ all princes, communities,'universities, and
powers, or any of them,” receiving Martin or his adherents, or, for any reason
whatever, giving him aid, advice, or favour, whether directly or indirectly, “
until three days after Luther appeared at the place designated.” During the
long suspense as to the result of the Elector’s intercession, Luther’s nearest
friends were almost in despair. Spalatin wrote most gloomy letters from
Augsburg, while Staupitz, in a very touching letter, urged him to come to him
secretly at Saltzburg.
“ The
world,” he writes, “ seems to be enraged against the truth. Once, in its
hatred, Christ was crucified ; and what to-day awaits you except the cross I do
not see. Unless I am deceived, the prevalent opinion is that, save by the will
of the Pope, no one should search the Scriptures to determine what Christ has
commanded. A few advocates you have. O that, for fear of adversaries, they were
not hidden ! I want you to leave Wittenberg for
1 Weimar, ii., 352. *
lb., 354.
a while
and come to me, that we may live and die together. This is also the pleasure
of the Prince. As deserted men let us follow the deserted Christ! ” 1
Meanwhile
other interests divide his attention and relieve the strain of his apprehensions.
His university work proceeds with a constant increase of students. His
thoughts are intent upon the enlargement of the scope of the instruction.
Especially desirous that the Word of God in its original text should be
accessible, a vigorous effort had been made to secure a professor of Greek
thoroughly versed in all the results of the revival of letters. With laudable
ambition, Wittenberg aspired at securing Reuchlin, who, on declining,
recommended his grand-nephew and protege, Philip Melanchthon, then barely past
his twenty-first year, and already widely celebrated for his attainments. On
August 25th he reached Wittenberg, where his extreme youth, unpretentious
appearance, and retiring disposition caused universal disappointment. But his
inaugural address awakened the greatest enthusiasm. No one was more delighted
than Luther. He found in the young professor the accomplished classical
scholar, through whom the results of the New Learning were made available as
instruments for the defence of the faith of the Reformation and the
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Sensible of his defects in the knowledge
of Greek and Hebrew, and candid in acknowledging them, he had now one by his
side upon whose judgment and advice within
1 Loescher, ii., 446.
those
spheres he could ever rely. He regarded him as a boy, cherished him as a son,
confided in him as a brother, and in many things submitted to his advice and
instruction as though he were his father and teacher. So constant and
unreserved was the intimacy between them that, from this time on, it becomes
impossible to absolutely separate their labours, since in the preparation of
most books and papers, and in their decisions on all important questions, they
acted with mutual consultation and revision of each other’s work. It was the
work of Luther to draw from the Holy Scriptures, under the pressure of severe
conflict, the testimony which the particular emergency required. These
testimonies came forth like sparks from the anvil, without regard to any rigid
system. Melanchthon gathered them together, reduced them to scientific
statement and methodical order, enriched them by his more varied reading, and
carried to completion much that Luther had only suggested. Luther became the
representative of the Reformation to the people; Melanchthon to scholars and
courts. As mild and tender as Luther was fiery and impetuous, he moderated the
spirit of his friend, and gained a hearing for their common cause, where
Luther’s methods were sometimes apt only to repell.
PHILIP MELANCHTHON.
FROM
MELANCHTHON’S FU NERAL ORATION ON LUTHER, >546.
/iXTfifen^
Tnei/iuem* fnyaXosraVIr
teCVllx&NtesL
IrLeftlWdX Ck£nilr*
BIRTH MEDAL.
BEFORE CAJETAN AT AUGSBURG
NOT until
the last week in September was Luther informed that he was to be heard, not in
Rome, but at Augsburg. After the other business of the Diet was disposed of, it
was proposed to consider his case. Responding without delay, he left
Wittenberg with Leonard Beyer, who is remembered as one of the participants in
the Heidelberg Conference, and made the journey, with the exception of a few
miles, upon foot. The trying autumn weather, with its raw atmosphere and
overcast skies, is particularly mentioned. At Weimar, where the Elector, who
had already left the Diet, was tarrying, he preached on St. Michael’s Day a
sermon upon Matt, xviii., i-ii,
that surprised his hearers by its absence of any allusion to the proper theme
of the day, the guardianship of angels, and confined its attention to the sin
of self-righteousness. There also he received through Spalatin instructions
from the Elector as to the course to be pursued, letters to
107
persons of
influence in Augsburg, and twenty guldens for expenses. The Franciscans
entertained him, and when one of them expressed his apprehensions for Luther’s
safety, he was asked for his prayers, Luther adding that if the work were not
of God it must be destroyed, but that otherwise no one could hinder it. As he
proceeded, however, the thought of the disgrace that his parents would suffer
in case he were to be condemned could not be entirely suppressed. At Nuremberg,
kind friends notice that his coat is too shabby for the occasion, and provide
him with a new one. There also his old friend, Link, joins him, and attends him
the rest of the way, a partial compensation for the disappointment that the
jurist Scheurl was absent from home, and therefore unable, according to the
Elector’s plans, to be his legal adviser. To many the journey to Augsburg
seemed a death-march; but their expressions of sympathy are answered by the
assurance that, even in Augsburg, Jesus Christ reigns. “ Let Christ live; let
Martin die.” Worn out and sick, and unable for the last few miles to walk, he
enters Augsburg October 7th.
Luther’s
unexpected arrival was the sensation of the hour. Everyone was eager to see and
hear him. The Diet had practically adjourned, the most of the princes having
left, and the Emperor being on a hunting expedition in the mountains. Luther’s
first abode was with his brethren of the Augustinian Order, and afterwards with
the Carmelites. Trustworthy advisers were found in the Elector’s counsellors
and the citizens of Augsburg to whom the
Elector’s
letters introduced him. Beyer immediately was sent to bring Staupitz, who had
promised to appear as soon as he would learn of Luther’s arrival. On the day
of Luther’s entrance, Link was sent to Cajetan, to notify him that a response
to the summons would be made at any hour. Here, however, a protracted series
of negotiations began, that delayed procedure for nearly a week, Luther’s
counsellors insisting that the imperial “ safe-conduct ” must be given before
he could personally appear. In the absence of Maximilian, the imperial
counsellors regarded themselves unauthorised to give such an assurance to one
who had already been adjudged a heretic. Cajetan’s profuse personal pledges
Luther firmly declined to accept. Even the intervention of one whom the Elector
had commended to Luther, Urbanus de Serralonga, could not induce him to comply.
“ Do you suppose,” asked Urbanus, “ that the Elector will go to war on your behalf
?” “ No,” answered Luther. “ Where, then, will you stay ? ” “ Under the
heavens,” was the response. “ What would you do,” continued the diplomat, “ if
the Pope and his cardinals were in your power?” “Treat them with all respect,”
was the prompt answer. The difficulty was finally adjusted, when Cajetan
assured the imperial counsellors that he would connive at their taking the
responsibility for the issue of the safe-conduct, although declining to sign
the document. Luther being satisfied, the 12th of October1 witnessed
the
1 For proceedings at Augsburg see Weimar, ii., i
sqq.; De Wette, i : 142-167, 175 sqq.; Op. var. arg., ii., 340 sqq. ; Loscher,
ii., 435 sqq.
beginning of
the conferences. The delay had enabled Staupitz to reach him in ample time, as
he appeared at Augsburg that very day.
In
character and learning Cajetan stood in the first rank among the Roman
ecclesiastics. The display, in which he is said to have outshone the Emperor at
Augsburg, was intended to make a profound impression of the importance of the
interests he represented. The preparation of a book on the subject of
indulgences, even before the publication of Luther’s Theses, had peculiarly
fitted him for his mission. As an enthusiastic Dominican, his interpretation
of the powers of the Papacy fully anticipated the position which the Roman
Church did not venture to officially endorse until the late Vatican Council.
Instructed
as to the proper procedure by Serra- longa, Luther appeared before Cajetan,
attended by his friends Link and Beyer, the prior Frosch, and two brethren of
the Carmelites. A large number of Italian ecclesiastics, desirous of seeing
and hearing Luther, attended the cardinal. According to instructions, Luther
threw himself prostrate before the representative of the Pope. At the command
to rise he knelt, and then, at the second command, he stood up. A moment of
silence followed. Luther, interpreting it as meaning that now is the time to
speak, expresses regret if, in any way, he has spoken unadvisedly, and asks to
be better instructed. In a courteous and even complimentary reply, Cajetan
declares his unwillingness to enter into a discussion, and propounds, in the
name of
the Pope, three demands, viz., first, a recantation of errors; secondly, a
promise to refrain from them in the future; and, thirdly, the avoidance of all
other acts that might disturb the peace of the Church. Luther asks what the
errors are that he is required to recant. Cajetan specifies two, which
represent what have since been known as the formal and the material principles
of Protestantism. The formal principle, viz., the sole authority of Holy
Scripture in matters of faith, comes into immediate discussion, when Cajetan
points Luther to Thesis LVIII.,1 in which he has denied that the
merits of Christ are the treasures of the Church, distributed by indulgences.
The cardinal triumphantly adduces as his authority, by which to prove the
error, the fact that the thesis is directly contrary to the Bull of Clement
VI., beginning, “ Unigenitusa document of some rarity, of which he seems to
think Luther is ignorant. Luther not only shows his acquaintance with it, but
directs the cardinal’s attention to a similar statement of Sixtus IV. He meets
the argument, not by questioning the genuineness of these documents, but by
antagonising their teaching as doing violence to Holy Scripture. The cardinal
replying that the authority of the Pope is above that of councils and Scripture,
and Luther denying this, the discussion becomes warm, and diverges into a
number of important side topics. The second error alleged against Luther was
that in
1 “ Nec sunt merita Christi et sanctorum, quia haec semper sine Papa
operantur gratiam hominis interioris, et crucem, mortem, in- femumque
exterioris.”
his
Resolntiones 1 he had taught that the sacraments confer no blessing
except upon those confidently believing that the promise attached to the
sacrament received belongs to them. The objection of Cajetan rested upon the
assumption that no one can be sure whether or not he receives the grace of God.
In all the great inner struggles of Luther’s life this had been the
burning-point. The mere suggestion that he should surrender a doctrine entering
so deeply into his entire Christian experience, he tells us, occasioned the
deepest pain, and he made prompt answer that, on this point, he could not
recant, since this alleged error was the clear teaching of Holy Scripture. The
uncompromising answer was: “ Willingly or unwillingly, you must recant to-day,
or, because of this one point, I shall condemn all your Theses.” No result
could be reached in the way of an agreement where the one aimed at nothing more
than the accumulation of citations from the decretals and scholastics, while
the other would admit no evidence not derived from the Scriptures.
The
experience of the first day showed the importance of proceeding to the further
discussions with the utmost caution. Accompanied by the Saxon counsellor, Dr.
Peutinger, and by Staupitz and a notary, he presented at the very beginning of
the interview of the next day a protest, setting forth with most careful
discrimination the precise points of dissent.
“ First of
all,” it ran, “ I, Brother Martin Luther the
Augustinian,
protest that I revere and follow the Holy Roman Church in all my words and
deeds, present, past, and future. If anything otherwise has been said I wish it
unsaid. ... I protest that I am not conscious of having said anything contrary
to Holy Scripture, the Church Fathers, the papal decrees, or right reason, but
that all that I have said seems to me to-day to be sound, true, and catholic.
Nevertheless, as I am not infallible, I have submitted myself, and also now
submit myself to the judgment and determination of the lawful holy Church, and
to all of better mind. Besides, I offer either here or elsewhere to present
publicly a reason for my statements. But if this be not agreeable to Your
Reverence, I am ready either to respond in writing to the objections urged and
to hear the judgment and decision of the doctors of the renowned Imperial
Universities of Basel, Freiburg, Louvain ; or, if they be not enough, of Paris
also, the parent of studies, and from antiquity ever the most Christian
University, and that in which theology has been particularly cultivated.” 1
At what he
deemed the presumption of this appeal, Cajetan professed to be amused.
Unwilling to admit any argument, he insists upon the one word, “ Recant.”
Luther's plea that he might be permitted to present a defence in writing, being
supported by Staupitz, is finally conceded with the declaration that he will
admit it, not as a judge but as a father, since no disputation with Luther can
even be thought of. Dismissed the second time, Luther prepares in the monastery
of the Carmelites a very thorough and comprehensive argument in answer to
the two
specifications of error that Cajetan had preferred on the preceding day.
Laying
down at the very beginning the proposition that the decretals of popes are to
be received only when they are in harmony with Scripture, he shows that as
Peter erred (Gal. ii., 11), and that as, in the synod at Jerusalem, it was not
the teaching of Peter but that of James that was approved, those who claimed to
be his successors certainly should not expect any higher immunity from error.
“ I had
not the temerity, on the ground of one ambiguous and obscure decretal of a
pope, a mere man, to depart from numerous and most clear testimonies of
Scripture, in which the saints are said to be without merits, since the Pope is
not above but beneath the word of God, according to Gal. i., 8.” 1
He
proceeds to show that there is a sense, after all, in which the statements of
the Bull could be admitted, but urges that, as the words are ambiguous, and
can afford only matters of dispute, the language that he had employed in his
Theses is preferable.
As to the
second specification, he says:
“ The
second objection is that I have said that no one can be justified except by
faith, viz., that it is necessary for him, with confident faith, to believe
that he is justified, and in no way doubt that he has received grace ; for if
he doubt and be uncertain, he is not justified, but rejects grace. To this I
reply : 1. The truth is infallible that no one is righteous save he who
believes in God (Rom. i., 17). Whoever believes not is already condemned
and dead,
and hence the righteousness and life of the righteous man is his faith. 2. But
faith is nothing but to believe what God promises or says (Rom. iv., 3). 3.
That one coming to the sacrament must believe that he receives grace and must
not doubt, but believe with surest confidence, or must otherwise come into
condemnation, we prove : 1. From Heb. xi., 6, ‘ But if he must believe God as
rewarder, he must also believe him as a justifier and a present bestower of
grace.’ 2. Under penalty of eternal condemnation and the sin of infidelity, it
is necessary to believe the words of Christ: ‘ Whatsoever ye shall loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ If, then, you come to the sacrament of
repentance, and believe not firmly that you are to be absolved in heaven, you
enter into judgment, because you believe not that Christ spake the truth, when
He said : ‘ Whatsoever ye shall loose,’ etc., and thus, by your doubt, make
Christ a liar, which is a fearful sin. But should you say : ‘ I am unworthy and
unprepared for the sacrament,’ I answer : By no preparation will you be worthy
: by no works will you be prepared, but by faith alone, since faith in Christ’s
word alone justifies, renders worthy, quickens, and prepares, without which all
else are efforts either of presumption or of despair. For the just lives not
from his preparation, but from his faith. Hence your lack of worthiness should
occasion no doubts : for just because you are unworthy you should come, in
order to be made worthy ; and you are justified by Him Who seeks for sinners,
and not for the righteous. In believing the word of Christ you honour His word,
and by His work you are righteous.” 1
Scripture
proof after proof is quoted and com-
mented
upon, viz.: Matt, xv., 28, viii., 13, viii., 8; John iv., 50; Mark xi., 24;
Matt, xvii., 20; James i., 5-7; Luke i., 45; Rom. iv., 21. Supported thus by
Scripture, he quotes triumphantly the adage: “ Not the sacrament of faith, but
the faith of the sacrament justifies,” and he concludes with words in which we
can read his declaration at Worms: “ Only compel me to do nothing against my
conscience. For, without qualification, I believe that this is the meaning of
the Scriptures.” 1
Such a
mode of argument is beyond the appreciation of one who relies exclusively upon
the decrees of popes and the definitions of scholastics. When Luther,
therefore, read it to the cardinal on the morning of October 14th, the indifference
with which he listened and the summary way in which he disposed of it, with
the promise, however, of sending it to Rome, were only what was to be expected.
The
closing scene of this conference was one of excitement. Not a single passage of
Scripture was produced against Luther’s statements, but, instead, the one word
that he heard was the monotone, “ Recant,” “ Recant.” Ten times Luther tried to
speak, but was fairly shouted down, until he adopted the cardinal’s method, and
also let his voice be heard. As the heat of the contest grew, the cardinal’s
citation of his favourite authorities was parried by Luther’s quickness in
detecting and exposing the wrong construction placed upon them. He charged the
cardinal with imagining that the Germans could not understand grammar, and
forgot himself so far
1 Op. var. argii., 379 sqq.
as at one
time to dispense with the courtly style of address. Cajetan finally dismissed
him with the words: “ Recant, or do not come again before my eyes.” Luther
never troubled him afterwards with his presence.
Unwearied
in his efforts, Cajetan next sought to effect his purpose through Staupitz,
whom, with Link, he summoned to an interview. But Staupitz assured him that he
had ever taught Luther the duty of obedience to the Church, and that, as Luther
had passed beyond his ability to influence him, the representative of the Pope
was the proper person to persuade him, if any one could. To the suggestion
that Luther be granted another audience, Cajetan is said by Myconius to have replied:
“ I will talk no more with that beast; for he has deep eyes and wonderful
speculations in his head.” 1 In an interview shortly afterwards with
Link, the offer was made to ignore the position concerning the assurance of
faith, provided he would recant his declarations concerning indulgences.
Staupitz and Link attempted to persuade him to yield, but were overwhelmed with
such an array of Scripture texts that they desisted. Fearing that, as his
Vicar-General, the unpleasant task of calling Luther to account might be
imposed upon him, Staupitz released him from the obligation of obedience, and
greatly encouraged him with the words: “ Remember, brother, that thou hast
begun these things in the
1 Quoted by Loescher, ii., 477, from Myconius, Hist.
Ref., p. 73 : “ Ego nolo amplius cum hac bestia loqui. Habet enim profundos
oculos et mirabiles speculationes in capite suo.”
name of
our Lord Jesus Christ.” The rur^our having reached them that Cajetan was
planning to have them arrested, and taken with Luther to Rome, these two
friends departed hastily and secretly for Nuremberg, leaving Luther awaiting
the pleasure of the cardinal, in case he desired another interview. On Sunday,
October 17th, he wrote a most humble letter to Cajetan, apologising for any
discourtesy he had shown at the last interview. With all due respect, however,
he repeats his constant reply, that while ready to concede everything else, he
can surrender nothing that is a matter of conscience. He also very candidly
gives his judgment concerning the folly of relying upon Thomas Aquinas as an
authority.1 Waiting still another day without an answer, he informed
the cardinal that, unless he heard from him soon, he would waste no more time
imposing upon the hospitality of the Carmelites while there seemed to be
nothing for him to do. On the advice of the legal counsellors of Luther, a
protest had already been prepared from Cajetan to the Pope, or, as he states
it, “ from the Pope ill-informed to the Pope better informed. ’ ’a
Leaving this protest to be handed to Cajetan by his friend Beyer, he passed, in
the night of October 20th, through a small gate in the city walls, opened for
him by a trusted friend, and, attended by an escort, rode on horseback in a
monk’s habit, and without a horseman’s outfit, on the road to Nuremberg.
Reaching the village of Monheim, a distance of eight
1 De Wette, 1: 161, 163 ; Op. var. argii., 393, 395.
3 Protest in Op. var. arg., ii., 307 sqq.
German
miles (thirty-two English miles), on the 21st, he was so fatigued from the
unaccustomed mode of travelling that when he dismounted he fell from exhaustion
upon the straw of the stable. On the next day the protest that he had left was
posted by the cardinal upon the door of the cathedral at Augsburg.
On his
arrival at Nuremberg he received from Spalatin a copy of the instructions sent,
August 23d, to Cajetan by the Pope, showing that all through the pretended
impartial treatment, he was already adjudged a heretic. Unwilling at first to
surrender his good opinion of Leo, he openly pronounced the document a forgery,
fabricated by enemies in Germany. Reaching home on the anniversary of the
nailing up of the Theses, he wrote that evening: “ I am full of peace and joy,
so that I am surprised that this trial of mine seems anything important to many
and great men.” At the same time he announced his intention to appeal to a
future council.
MILTITZ AND THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION NCE more at Wittenberg, Luther
entered with
customary
zeal upon his university duties, having been made the dean of the faculty
during his absence. An interesting incident of the university life was the
conferring of the degree of doctor of divinity upon the Carmelite prior, John
Frosch, who had entertained Luther during his stay at Augsburg, and the banquet
in his honour. Luther was immediately occupied with the preparation of a full
report of the transactions between himself and Cajetan, since he was confident
that his course and responses would be misrepresented. Before it was completed
a letter was received by the Elector from Cajetan laying a complaint against
Luther for his conduct at Augsburg, and demanding that the Elector should
either send him to Rome, or banish him. The letter being immediately sent to
Luther, he prepared on the same day an answer recounting all
the
circumstances, and expressing his deep regret at the unpleasant position in
which the Elector was placed. He begs not to be sent to Rome, as that would be
nothing else than murder. But, at the same time, he declares his readiness,
whenever the Elector thinks best, to leave Saxony. Paris seems to have been in
his mind, and in that of his friends, as a possible place of refuge. From the
pulpit he declared that he might suddenly depart without being able to bid the
congregation farewell. Only once, and that for a brief moment, did the Elector
think that Luther should be asked to leave. His prompt answer to Cajetan was:
“ Since
Dr. Martin offers to submit his case to the judgment of several universities,
and to enter into a discussion at any places that are safe, and, when the case
has been presented, will obediently permit himself to be taught and persuaded,
we think that in all justice his request should be granted, or, at least, his
errors ought to be shown him in writing,—a request that we also make, in order
that we may know why he should be regarded a heretic, and that we may have the
facts upon which to act. For we hold that one not yet convicted should not be
held and branded as a heretic.” 1
As a
preliminary to a personal attack, the Pope published, on November 9th, a Bull
directed in general against all who were protesting against the sale of
indulgences. It was the assumption by Leo of the full responsibility, in answer
to Luther’s belief, so often expressed, that his representatives were
acting
beyond their instructions. Anticipating the arrival at any day of a sentence of
excommunication, Luther made a formal appeal, before a notary and witnesses, in
the chapel of the Parochial Church, from the decision of the Pope to a General
Council.1 Sent to the press, but not intended for publication before
the arrival of the papal Bull, the printer, to Luther’s displeasure, complied
with the demand for its immediate issue. In making this appeal, he had in view
the precedent afforded only a few months previously by the University of Paris.
But
meanwhile Cajetan’s course was not regarded with unqualified satisfaction at
Rome. The firmness of the Elector of Saxony, it was felt, must have some
reason. Tetzel had fallen into disrepute, as one whose extravagant statements
and lack of judgment had occasioned the trouble. A special effort to win over
the Elector was, therefore, determined upon. Mincio, the Venetian ambassador to
the papal court, wrote home, that on September 4th the Pope had announced his
intention of conferring upon the Elector the high honour of the presentation
of the Golden Rose, and added: “ The Pope did thus try, through the medium of
the Duke of Saxony, to allay a heresy of a certain Dominican (!) friar, who was
preaching in those parts of the Apostolic See.” In order to render the present
still more grateful, the nuncio chosen to transmit it was a Saxon nobleman,
Carl von Miltitz, who for a number of years had represented the interests of
the Elector at Rome. But his mission was wider. The
work that
Cajetan had failed in accomplishing was intrusted to him. He was not only to
report as to the actual condition of affairs in Germany, but also to use every
effort to bring about a reconciliation. The contrasts with his predecessor were
very marked. The one was an Italian, not only unacquainted with the German
people, but unable to understand their feeling, or adapt himself to their
peculiarities; the other, as a German, not only knew the Germans, but had
facilities of information and influence that were entirely closed to Cajetan.
The one was an ecclesiastic, the other a jurist and diplomat. The one lived in
the fossilised opinions of Thomas Aquinas, seeking to bend everything to his
definitions, and thinking that all search for truth could be suppressed by the
six letters, “ Recant ” ; the other was a man of the world, devoted to social
pleasure, and adjusting everything to the influences dominant at the hour. The
one was reserved and secretive; the other, at the table, delighted in giving
full liberty to his geniality, by graceful compliments and unanticipated
revelations of what ordinarily belongs to the confidential relations between
ambassadors and their sovereigns.
Miltitz
had scarcely entered Germany before he was convinced that the Pope had a
conflict before him, of the magnitude of which he had no conception. It was
not the work of suppressing a single individual, but that of meeting the
thoroughly aroused indignation of a large part of the nation. Mingling freely,
on his way to Saxony, with the most influential circles at Augsburg and
Nuremberg, he
learned
more and more of the circumstances of the controversy. To Luther himself he
afterwards acknowledged that, of every five men whom he met, scarcely two or
three were on the side of the Pope. Tetzel, although summoned to his presence,
did not venture to appear, the excuse being offered that the popular feeling
against him was such that he could not come to Altenburg, except at peril of
his life.
The
greatest respect and consideration were shown Luther in the conference in the
house of Spalatin, at Altenburg, during the first week of January, 1519.
Miltitz freely conceded the extreme perplexity of the Papacy and the widespread
sympathy and enthusiasm for Luther throughout all Germany. He was surprised at
Luther’s relative youth and vigour, having expected to find an old theologian,
who preferred a quiet corner behind a warm stove from which to carry on his
discussions. He would not venture, he said, with 25,000 men, to attempt to
carry Luther across the Alps. Luther received these professions for what they
were worth, regarding the tears shed by the nuncio, when he dwelt upon his
peril, as “ crocodile’s tears,” and the kiss, with which after dining together
they parted, as “ the kiss of Judas.” The conference was not, however, without
some temporary prospect of results. A German bishop, either of Treves or
Saltz- burg, was to be made arbiter, the disputants on both sides to refrain
from writing on indulgences, Luther to address another letter of apology to the
Pope, and to prepare an address to the people admonishing them of the duty of
submission.
From
Altenburg Miltitz went to Leipzig to look after Tetzel, whom he reproved so
severely that this mortification, following the other expressions of censure,
hastened his physical decline. He died on July 4th, 1519. The tenderness of
Luther’s character appears in a letter of consolation sent him during his last
days, in which Luther assures him that he is not to be regarded the author of
the trouble, but only the agent of another.1
Every
effort seems to have been made by Miltitz to carry out his part of the program.
A new political influence entered with the death of the Emperor Maximilian,
January 12th. Pending the election of a new emperor, the Elector of Saxony
became regent for Northern Germany, and was regarded not only the most
influential ruler in the country, but even as the possible successor to the
Imperial throne. Every motive advised a more conciliatory policy. Hopes of
reconciliation without recantation began to dawn upon Luther. If, on the one
hand, Miltitz secured the approval of Cajetan, Luther, on the other, fulfilled
to the letter every promise he had made. His apology to the Pope, of March 3d,
was written in an entirely different tone from his appeal to a General Council
of the preceding December. It is a combination of the most humiliating, if not
obsequious, professions of
1 De Wette, 6: 18.
Kostlin says that on July 4th Luther began his discussion at Leipzig with
Tetzel, “ on the day of the evening of which Tetzel departed in the Dominican
cloister at Leipzig.” Bottcher, Germania Sacra, gives
same date.
respect,
with the reassertion of his complete justification in regard to the points in
which the controversy had originated.
“Necessity
forces me,” he writes, “as the very dregs of men and the dust of the earth, to
address again Thy Holiness and Majesty. Deign then to bend thy paternal ears,
which are truly those of the Vicar of Christ, to this Thy little lamb, and
attend to my bleating. . . . What am I to thee, Most Blessed Father ? I know
not what to do. Thy wrath I cannot endure ; and yet how to be delivered from it
I know not. I am commanded to recall the discussion. If I could accomplish
what is intended by this demand, it would be done without delay. But, on
account of the resistance of my adversaries, my writings have been published
to a much greater extent than I had intended. They have entered many hearts so
deeply that they cannot be recalled. Nay, our Germany to-day flourishes so
remarkably in learning and sound judgment, that however much I desire to honour
the Roman Church, they cannot be recalled. For this is impossible without
bringing still greater disgrace upon the Roman Church. They whom I have
resisted have brought infamy and shame among us in Germany upon the Church of
Rome. . . . Before God and all creatures I attest that I have never wished,
nor do I wish to-day, to touch in any way or plot against Thy power and that of
the Roman Church ; on the contrary, I acknowledge the power of the Church to
be above all things ; nor is anything in heaven or earth to be preferred to it,
except alone the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of all.” 1
Two points
of contrast distinguish this letter
1 De Wette, 1: 233 sf.
from the
preceding one (May 31, 1518) to Leo. The struggle is no longer an individual
one, but that of the German people ; and it is no longer the power of the Pope,
but that of the Church, to which he declares himself ready to submit.
In the
Instructions concerning Some Articles/ published almost cotemporaneously with
the writing of this letter, he makes a statement on some of the topics
concerning which his teaching had been misrepresented. It is interesting to
observe how gradual is his progress towards the position he ultimately
attained. The invocation of saints, Purgatory, even indulgences, with certain
qualifications, are approved. Miracles, he thinks, are still performed at the
tombs of saints. The great abuse, against which he warns, is that of seeking
only temporal and bodily blessings instead of spiritual by their intercession.
“ Who now invokes them for patience, faith, love, chastity ? ” Nor should they be
invoked as though they had the power, of themselves, to bestow these things;
they secure them only by their intercession with God. Indulgences are entirely
matters of freedom. No one sins who does not procure them; nor does one obtain
merit through their purchase. He who withholds needed help from a poor man in
order to purchase an indulgence, mocks God. God’s commandments are to be esteemed
above those of the Church, as gold and precious stones are to be preferred to
wood and stubble.
1 Weimar, ii., 69 sqq.
“ A man
who swears, curses, slanders, or refuses his neighbour needed assistance is
much worse than one who eats meat or does not fast on Friday. Nevertheless both
classes of commandments are to be observed ; only it is advisable that to
prevent their being placed upon an equal footing, some of the ecclesiastical
requirements be abolished in a General Council. That the Roman Church is
honoured by God above all others is a matter of no doubt, for there Sts. Peter
and Paul and forty-six popes, besides many hundred thousand martyrs, have shed
their blood. Even though matters might be better at Rome, nevertheless no
reason can justify one in separating from this Church. Nay, the worse it is the
more should one adhere to it. No sin or evil can be imagined, for the sake of
which the bonds of love should be sundered and spiritual unity divided. But as
to the power and sovereignty of the Roman See, and as to how far it extends,
the learned must decide.”
Such was
the presentation of the case made by Luther in fulfilment of his promise to
Miltitz.
But the
efforts of the papal nuncio were fruitless. At the beginning of May he invited
Luther to Co- blentz, where the Archbishop of Treves would hear the case; but,
in the absence of an invitation from the Archbishop himself, and of any
approval of the propositions of Miltitz by the Pope, he declined to take it
into consideration. Another barrier was the presence of Cajetan, whom Luther
regarded as disqualified from any participation in the arbitration, since he
had prejudged the case at Augsburg. “ I doubt,” writes Luther, “ whether he be
a Catholic Christian.” A later attempt, in October, to bring
DR. JOHN ECK. traditional portrait.
Luther
before the Archbishop at Liebenwerda failed by the absolute prohibition of the
Elector after Luther had responded that he was ready.
Circumstances
had changed. The agreement of mutual silence awaiting an arbitration had been
broken by the champions of the Papacy.
Two
habitual agitators, both fond of controversy and ambitious of fame, one on the
side of Rome and the other on the side of Luther, Eck and Carl- stadt, could
not be suppressed. With Luther, Eck’s controversy had ceased with the latter's
apology; and, as neither had published his paper, there was no reason for its
renewal. But Carlstadt, who had changed from an unfriendly critic to a radical
and injudicious advocate of Luther’s course, had posted up theses attacking
Eck, which occasioned much irritation and wrangling. Eck proposed a public
discussion, and Carlstadt eagerly assented. Luther, while not regarding himself
involved, was favourable to the plan, “ in order that there might be an end of
the dispute and the writing of books,” that the world might see that
theologians not only can fight, but can also come to an agreement. In-
golstadt, Eck s home, being in the near neighbourhood of Augsburg, Luther,
during his appearance before Cajetan, had private conferences with Eck, in
which the arrangements for the proposed discussion were considered, as
Carlstadt had requested. The Wittenberg theologians invited Eck to meet
Carlstadt in their University; but he declined the invitation, expressing a
preference for Cologne, Paris, or Rome, where the discussion would attract
more
attention; but to this Luther objected. Finally, either Erfurt or Leipzig was
agreed upon, and Carlstadt leaving the choice to Eck, the latter was chosen. A
joint letter from the two disputants requesting the hospitality of the
University of Leipzig met with a cold reception. The professors dreaded having
their academic calm disturbed by what they apprehended might be a furious
storm. The Bishop of Merseburg, within whose jurisdiction Leipzig lay,
supported them in their opposition. But their protests were disregarded by Duke
George, who was anxious that the opportunity should be used to bring his
University into prominence, and who was annoyed at the indolence and want of
enterprise shown by his scholars.
As he had
issued the challenge, Eck published, six months in advance, the theses which he
would make the basis of the discussion. Luther, receiving them shortly after
his conference with Miltitz, was astonished to find that the subjects of
controversy with Carlstadt were almost entirely ignored, and that Eck, quoting
passage after passage from Luther’s own writings, declared himself ready to
refute them. His indignation was thoroughly aroused because of the underhanded
manner in which the attack was made. No other course was open than to
immediately announce his readiness to respond. All obligations to silence were
binding only if mutually observed. Cajetan could soon have silenced Eck, if
his theses had not met his approval. First in an open letter to Carlstadt, and
then in a series of counter-theses, Luther exposes Eck’s duplicity
and repels
his propositions. From that time it is manifest that the focus of any
discussion between them must be in the closing thesis; Eck affirming: “ We deny
the assertion that the Roman Church was not superior to other churches before
the time of Sylvester; but we acknowledge him who has the see and faith of St.
Peter, as the perpetual successor of St. Peter, and the general vicar of Christ
”; and Luther:
“ That the Roman Church is superior to all others is proved from the most
silly decrees of the Roman pontiffs who have been born within the last four
hundred years ; against which is the approved history of fifteen hundred years,
the text of the Holy Scripture, and the decree of the Council of Nice, the most
holy of all councils.” 1
With
reference to the discussion, he undertook the most thorough historical
investigations which the numerous engagements of that winter, crowded with
work, would admit. His daily lectures in the University, the attendance upon
the daily devotional services, his daily expositions to children of the Ten
Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer, the publication in April of the first part
of his Commentary on the Psalms, the preparation of his renowned explanation
of the Epistle to the Galatians, and his Medi- tati07is on the Passion of
Christ, all of which belong to this period, together with his incessant
correspondence, left so little time, that the preparation
1 Op. var. argii., 17.
of a
treatise on the power of the Pope would have seemed out of the question. On
this topic he also carried on a correspondence with Duengersheim, one of the
Leipzig theologians, to whom he wrote:
“With you and Eck it is customary to accept the statements of all the
Fathers, and to interpret the words of Scripture by those of the Fathers, as
though they preferred to draw us to themselves rather than to Scripture. My
custom, however, is, following the example of Augustine, to trace the streams
to their fountain.” 1
The
Resolutio of Luther, which issued from the press cotemporaneously with the
Leipzig discussion for fear that he might not be allowed to appear there, sets
the two concluding theses to be considered in the debate over against each
other, treats of the Scriptural passages generally quoted in support of the
Pope’s supremacy, and then enters into the examination of its historical
foundations.2 In this treatise Luther affirms that the power of the
keys belongs not to the Pope, but to the Church, and that the Church is not the
hierarchy, but the communion of saints. The study of this earlier brochure is
necessary for those who desire to understand the appendix to the Schmalkald
Articles, the material for which appears here in a crude form.
Much
difficulty was experienced by Luther in securing the consent of Duke George to
his appearance at Leipzig and participation in the disputation.
1 De Wette, 1 : 220 ; cf. p. 280 sq.
3 Weimar, ii., 180 sqq. ; Op. var. argiii., 293 sqq.
The matter
was finally arranged by giving the safe- conduct to Carlstadt, and all who
would accompany him. Thus he entered Leipzig, as he said, “ under Carlstadt’s
wings.” As the time approaches, he is prepared for the conflict by a sense of
his unworthiness and sinfulness that almost completely overwhelms him. He
pours forth his heart to his friend, the prior Lange, and asks his prayers. Meanwhile,
in view of the rage of his enemies, he writes: “ Rome glows for my destruction,
and in derision I freeze. ”
On Friday,
June 24th, a notable procession entered Leipzig, with Carlstadt in the first
vehicle, immediately followed by Luther and Melanchthon, Amsdorf, Agricola,
Lange, and two hundred Wittenberg students, with spears and halberds, who attended
them. It was regarded a bad omen for Carlstadt when his carriage broke down
almost at the gate, precipitating him into the mud, and compelling Luther to
take the first place in the line as it passed through the streets. No such
formal welcome greeted them as had been accorded Eck on the two preceding
days. The intense interest in the discussion, however, was evidenced by the
streams of ecclesiastics and others that poured into the city. Although Eck was
reluctant, it was agreed that notaries should be employed to take down all that
was said, a process which at that time was very tedious. Carlstadt also
assented to Eck’s proposition that nothing should be published unless it had
been approved by a board of censors, but Luther withheld his agreement until
the last moment,
when, at
the urgent request of friends, he yielded the point.1
The hall
of the University being too small for the audience, the Elector devoted the
reception-room of his castle to the purpose. On Monday, June 27th, the
disputation was opened with the most elaborate formalities. At seven o’clock in
the morning the representatives of the two sides met in the University, from which
they proceeded in pairs, a Wittenberger and a Leipzig man together, to St.
Thomas’s Church, where Mass was celebrated with a musical program of unusual
excellence. Repairing thence to the castle, they found it guarded by
seventy-five Leipzig citizens, who remained on duty throughout the disputation.
The hall was festally adorned. Four notaries and thirty reporters were prepared
for their duty. The morning was consumed by an address on “ The Proper Mode of
Disputing” by Mosellanus, one of the professors. The address ended, the Veni
Sancte Spiritus was sung on bended knees, and the audience dismissed for the
noon intermission.
In the
afternoon the discussion began. Eck and Carlstadt devoted an entire week to
discussing the question of the freedom of the will. Cotemporaries have left
graphic descriptions of the two contestants. Mosellanus, who made the
introductory address, describes Eck as a man of powerful frame, with a square
chest, a stentorian voice, and a countenance
1 Documents pertaining to Leipzig disputation in
Loescher, iii., 214-556 ; official report as recorded by notaries in Weimar,
ii., 250384; Op. var. arg., iii., 18-217; Walch, xv., 999-1492.
that would
be taken rather for that of a butcher than of a theologian.1 His
strength lay in his remarkable memory rather than in acuteness of perception
or logical order. ‘ ‘ Incredible audacity, covered with rare cunning,”2
marked his conduct throughout. Carlstadt, on the other hand, was of small
stature, swarthy complexion, and weak and disagreeable voice, with hesitating
delivery, and a fiery temper. Objecting to the use of books, from which
Carlstadt was prepared to make citations, and sustained in this by the judges,
Eck swept everything before him by his ponderous volubility. All evidence being
ruled out that had not been committed to memory, the contest ceased to be one
of facts, and became nothing more than a mnemonic tournament. The week was
wasted in a mere war of words, Amsdorf, an eye-witness, asserting that Eck ended
by agreeing with Carlstadt, and claiming to have forced the latter to his
position. With astonishment Melanch- thon looked on, while the oppressive heat
and the tedious talk put a large part of the audience to sleep.
“ Here I first learned,” he writes, “what the ancients mean by playing
the sophist. Wonderful was the flourish and tragic manner in which everything
was done, and as a consequence, it is not surprising that nothing of importance
was accomplished. The Holy Spirit loves silence, in which He steals into our
hearts and makes His home with those intent, not upon vainglory, but upon
learning the truth. The Bride of Christ does not
1 Letter of Mosellanus in Loescher, iii., 248.
8 Loescher, iii., 238.
stand upon
the porch, but brings her spouse into the house of her mother. Nor do any rays
of heavenly wisdom illumine us until we have first been purified by the cross,
and made dead to the elements of the world.” 1 Two holidays relieved
the hearers of that wearisome discussion, on one of which, June 29th, the day
of SS. Peter and Paul, Luther preached, at the invitation of the Duke, in the
hall in which the discussions were held, all the churches of Leipzig being
closed to him, and the chapel of the castle being insufficient to accommodate
the audience. Taking for his text the gospel for the day, Matt, xvi., 13-19,
without an introduction he immediately entered upon the discussion of the
topics that were uppermost in all minds. “ This gospel,” he began, “ comprises
all matters involved in the disputations; for it treats of two things: First,
the grace of God and our free will; and, secondly, the power of St. Peter and
the keys.” Then in brief, clear, and forcible sentences, avoiding altogether
the language of the schools, he goes to the very heart of the subjects,
speaking in an entirely different tone from either of the two contestants, as
one who had learned to treat of these questions from an inner life-struggle,
and who spoke from overpowering conviction, instead of for a display of
learning, or of accomplishments as a debater. Finding the answer to the
question concerning the free will in the words: “ Flesh and blood have not
revealed it unto thee,” he declares that if we want to learn how to become
godly, the very first thing is to despair
1 Loescher, iii., 218 ; C. R., 1: 92.
of self,
and that the Christian’s whole life consists in a constant renunciation of his
own thoughts, words, and works, and a relying solely upon Christ, as in Ps.
xiii., I. The question of the power of the Pope, he says, does not concern the
common man, but only that of how this power is to be used to edification. The
power of the keys was given to St. Peter; not, however, in his own person, but
in that of the Church.
“ It is given you and me for the consolation of our consciences. St.
Peter or a priest is only the servant of the keys. The Church is the bride whom
he is to serve with the keys, as we see in the daily practice, whereby the
sacrament is administered to all who desire it of the priests. . . . The power
of the keys, therefore, aids not the priests, but the sinful and timid
consciences, who there receive grace through faith.”1
This was
not only in anticipation of the discussion that was soon to follow with Eck,
but also indicated the far-reaching bearing of the entire controversy upon the
interests of the people, as well as of theologians. Eck sought to counteract
the effect by sermons preached in the churches of the city.
Excited
discussions were occurring at every place where men met. Special policemen were
required to guard the lodging-places of the Wittenberg students. The Leipzig
professors, with one or two exceptions, took pains to show that their
sympathies were with Eck. The Duke attempted to make up for their lack of
hospitality by inviting the three
1 Weimar, ii., 241 sqq.
contestants
to dine with him. At Luther’s entrance into one of the churches, it is reported
the consecrated elements were hastily removed.
The
feeling reached its climax when, on Monday, July 4th, Luther came forward to
discuss the primacy of the Pope. The Leipzig professor, above cited, notes his
medium stature, slender person, emaciated by study and anxieties, prominent
bones, acute and clear voice, wonderful learning and knowledge of Scripture,
his readiness and eloquence in public debate, the entire absence of everything
stoical and supercilious, his affability, geniality, and cheerfulness in
private intercourse, with the criticism that, as many thought, in his attacks
he was more acrimonious than was becoming a theologian.1 As he ascended
the platform, he wore a silver ring, and held a bouquet in his hand, which he
so frequently applied to his nostrils, as the discussion progressed, that some
suggested that the devil was hidden among the flowers. Agricola acted as his
amanuensis, while Melanchthon was at hand to advise him between the sessions.
Thoroughly loyal, so far, to the Pope, just as to his temporal sovereign, but
regarding both as deriving their authority only from human law, Luther began
by expressing his regret that a question, which he feared might derogate from
the honour due His Holiness, had been so unnecessarily agitated by Eck’s
uncalled-for attack.
1 Loescher, iii., 247 : “ Martinus statura est
mediocri, corpore macilento, curis pariter et studiis exhausto, sicut propius
intuenti omnia pcene ossa liceat dinumerare. ... In congressibus fes- tivus, jucundus, alacris et securus ubique, semper
laeta facie florens.”
mini Soljammjjfcrifct jS>^)inactim flutter in ftufcio
Htpftnftfuttira*
\ i
n
111
m®.
TITLE-PAGE OF ECK'S “ LEIPZIG ARTICLES.”
He also
regretted the absence of those persons who had so often charged him with
heresy, and who, nevertheless, when the case was to be considered, were without
sufficient interest in it to be present. Eck in reply proceeded to attack
Luther’s thesis, that the text of Holy Scripture, and the accepted history of
1100 years, are opposed to the supremacy of the Church of Rome over other
churches. The Church Militant, he urges, must be conformed to the model of the
Church Triumphant; as the latter has a Head, so also must the former. Luther
replies that he has never denied this. Eck asks: " Who, then, is the
monarch, if the Bishop of Rome be not ?” “ No one but Christ,” answers Luther,
“ and this I affirm by divine authority, I Cor. xv., 25; Matt, xxviii., 20;
Acts ix., 5. They who would expel Christ from the Church Militant to the Church
Triumphant are not to be heard, since His kingdom is one of faith.” 1
In support of this, he entered upon a long argument from Holy Scripture, and
cited and commented upon numerous passages from Augustine and other Fathers,
but Eck objects that Luther has just prepared a book on the subject, while his
many engagements have prevented him from making such elaborate preparations,
and then wrestles as well as he can with the patristic citations concerning the
original identity of bishops and presbyters, the equality of the apostles,
etc.3 The discussion begins to grow heavy, as it enters into the
exegesis of particular texts, and the explanation, in their connection, of the
passages quoted by each
1 Weimar, ii., 257. 2/<5.,
260.
side from
the Fathers. But the interest becomes intense when, on the morning of the
second day, Eck ends one of his speeches with the words:
“ I beg pardon of the venerable Father if I am severe towards the
Bohemians (I speak not of Christians, but of schismatics) as enemies of the
Church ; and that, in the present disputation, I am mindful of them, since the
Conclusio itself and that which was declared yesterday, viz., that the primacy
of the Church is established by human law, in my insignificant judgment,
favours very much their errors. This is presented at the present time in order
that we may hear the opinion and explanation of the Reverend Father.” 1
Luther was
indignant. He always had disapproved, he said, and would disapprove of the
schismatic course of the Bohemians as a violation of the supreme divine law,
viz., that of love. “ But why does not the learned Doctor make use of his memory
and talents in refuting their errors ? It is remarkable that, while there are
so many who make charges against the Bohemians, there is no one who, to the
glory of the Roman Church, has deemed it worth while to refute them.” 3
“ It is certain that among the articles of John Hus, there are many that are
absolutely Christian and evangelical, which the Church Universal cannot
condemn, as, e. g.f that there is but one universal Church.” 3
At this point Duke George, who had followed the disputation with the deepest
interest, cried out: “ Plague on
1 Weimar, ii., 275.
9 Jb278.
3Ib.f 279.
it!”
Luther had aroused the prejudices even of those not hostile to him; but he
calmly continued that, by the condemnation of such a statement, the article of
the Creed, “ I believe that there is a Holy Catholic Church, the Communion of
Saints,” also was condemned. But passing by Wiclif and Hus, the non-acceptance
of the supremacy of the Pope by the Greek Church proved that it was not an essential
of salvation.
“ I know,” he continued, “ that Gregory Nazianzen, Basil the Great,
Epiphanius Cyprius, and innumerable other Greek bishops are saved, and yet they
did not hold this article. Neither is it in the power of the Roman pontiff to
frame new articles of faith, but only to judge according to those already
framed. Nor can any faithful Christian be compelled to anything, beyond the
Holy Scriptures, which constitute, properly speaking, the divine law, unless a
new and approved revelation be added. Aye, by divine law we are forbidden
believing anything except what is proved either from Scripture or by manifest
revelation.1 . . . If then the
distinguished doctor presses me with the example of the Bohemians, not yet a
hundred years old, I press upon him that of the Eastern Church, the greater 2 part of the Universal Church, fourteen hundred years old. If they be
heretics because they do not acknowledge the Roman pontiff, I must accuse my
opponent of being a heretic for daring to assert that so many saints throughout
the Church Universal are lost.”
The
opportunity for which Eck had been seeking
1 Weimar, ii., 279.
*/£., 280: Orientalem ccclesiam meliorem partem universalis ecclesice.
was now
his. Luther had pronounced some of the articles of Hus most Christian and
evangelical, notwithstanding the fact that the Council of Constance had
condemned them! Hitherto he had appealed from the authority of the Pope to that
of councils; but now even councils are pronounced fallible. “ If the Reverend
Father,” said Eck, “ believes that a council can err, he is to me a heathen and
a publican.”1 The wonderful tact of the Ingolstadt professor was
equalled only by his coolness and bland courtesy, which contrasts favourably
with the violent language Luther occasionally used. As Ranke has noted, this
disputation was held not far from the borders of Bohemia, in a district that
had suffered severely from the Hussite war, in a university founded to oppose
the teachings of Hus, and before an audience of princes and others whose
fathers had fought in that war. No affiliation could have been more unpopular.
The liberal party in the Church had placed great emphasis upon the authority of
the Council of Constance in its antagonism to the Pope; but against them also,
Luther was now arrayed. The calamity was, however, only a seeming one. Luther
had been led in the heat of the conflict to the logical result of his premises;
and although at first struggling against it, as he had struggled at every previous
step forward, he gladly accepted the consequences, for in so doing he believed
that he
1 Weimar, ii., 311 ; Loescher, iii., 398 : “ Hoc dico
vobis, rever- ende pater, si creditis concilium legitime congregatum errare et
errasse, estis mihi sicut ethnicus et publicanus,”
LUTHER.
FROM THE TITLE-PAGE OF LUTHER’S TREATISE “ THE BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY OF
THE CHURCH," 1520.
was
following the only course that God’s Word left open for him.
The
remainder of the disputation was of comparatively little importance. Five days
had been devoted to the discussion of the Papacy; four more were given to
purgatory, indulgences, and penance. On indulgences, Eck was very moderate and
conciliatory. The only item of moment, during those days, was the answer made
by Luther to a quotation from the Second Book of Maccabees, in which he draws
the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal books. Luther closed the
long debate with the words:
“ I regret
that the Doctor penetrates no more deeply into the meaning of Scripture than a
spider does into water ; nay, he seems to flee from its face as the devil flees
from the cross. Wherefore, with all due respect to the Fathers, I prefer the
authority of Scripture, which I commend to future judges.” 1
After a
further discussion for a day or two with Carlstadt, the disputation ended when
the Duke asked for the room in which it was held for the reception of guests.
Eck, with indefatigable perseverance, would have been glad had the discussion
continued indefinitely. An adjournment was reached on the 15th or 16th of July,
copies of the proceedings having been sent for arbitration to the faculties of
Paris and Erfurt. Eck insisting that the Augustin- ians in the Erfurt Faculty
should not be allowed to participate in the decision, Luther made similar ob-
jection to
the Dominicans and Franciscans, and finally made the astonishing proposition
that the members of the other faculties should be included among the judges,
thus asserting the rights of the laity, in accordance with the statement he had
made during the discussion, “ that a layman who has the Scriptures is more to
be trusted than Pope and council without them.” These demands were not granted.
Erfurt, owing to the presence of John Lange as one of the professors, and
probably averse to a controversy with Luther, never responded. Paris published
its decision, but not until two years later, and then, not upon the discussion
at Leipzig, but upon passages in Luther’s works. Cologne and Louvain hastened,
however, to give their decisions.
Opinions
as to the results were very conflicting, and varied with the standard adopted
for the decision, and with the standpoint of the critic. In clever diplomacy,
Eck had shown himself superior to Luther, but in candour and earnestness, as
well as in knowledge of Scripture and submission to its declarations, Luther
was the master. With a heavy heart, Luther left Leipzig, while Carlstadt was
still in controversy with Eck. Instead of the peace that he had hoped might
ensue, he found himself thrust forward still further into the battle. But what
grieved him most was that, in all the tedious proceedings, so little attention
was given to the subjects belonging to the very centre of Christianity, as
that of the justification of sinful man before God, on which he was ever ready
to speak, but for whose treatment there had been neither oc
casion nor
interest. His object in going before the conclusion of the debate was to meet
his spiritual father, Staupitz, at Grimma, and be refreshed by his sympathy and
advice.
Numerous
accounts of the debate were published by eye-witnesses, or by those to whom
they wrote. Eck, also, who, in his elation, had remained at Leipzig nine days
after the adjournment, boasting much that he had triumphed, was determined to
carry the controversy to a still greater length. To meet all
misrepresentations, Luther prepared what may be called a commentary upon his
theses discussed in Leipzig, with a statement of the argument as presented by
both sides.1 No attempt is made to recede from the position to which
in the heat of the contest Eck had forced him. On the contrary, he shows the
Scriptural foundations on which it rests. Eck’s vindictiveness is shown in a
letter to the Elector, asking that Luther’s books be burned, and in an acrimonious
attack upon Melanchthon for an account of the transactions at Leipzig, which
the latter had sent to Oecolampadius. The able answer was Melanchthon’s first
attempt at polemics. A satire against Eck, published at Nuremberg, was
distasteful to Luther, since he regarded the subject as too serious for such
flippant treatment. Jerome Emser, of Dresden, having attempted to prejudice the
Bohemians against Luther, because of his disclaimer to the charge that he
approved their course, and having represented him as having condemned them
without qualification, he handled this nischief-
1 Weimar, ii., 38S sqq.
IO
maker
without gloves in a protracted controversy. The offence was all the more
irritating, if the statement be correct that during the proceedings at Leipzig
the Bohemians had held public prayers for him. Towards them he was greatly
drawn by the new conception of the nature of the Church that had suddenly come
to him at Leipzig. He began to study the writings of Hus. A few months later he
writes: “ Hus’s doctrine I have already taught without knowing it; so has
Staupitz. We have all been unconsciously Hussites, as are also Paul and
Augustine.” He predicts that the judgments of God must fall upon a world in
which the doctrine of the Gospel, for over a hundred years, has been branded,
as though condemned of God.
Another
step forward was made in the open repudiation of auricular confession in his
answer to certain articles of the Jueterbock Franciscans, which had been
inspired, if not composed, by Eck.1 With every treatise written
Luther’s attitude toward the Papacy becomes more decided. From his discovery of
the contradiction between the Papacy and the Holy Scriptures, he has at last
reached the conviction that this contradiction is irreconcilable. While he is
thus progressing from the side of the practical demands of the Christian life,
Melanchthon is reaching the same position from the scientific side in his work
of reducing to system and tracing the Scriptural grounds of what has thus far
been attained. Every fruit of their studies and struggles is immediately
applied to practice, and is made a part of their
lives; for
they were not mere theorisers. To the world, Luther’s figure as a
controversialist overshadows all else; but at Wittenberg, it was only incidental
to what appeared to be, if possible, the more engrossing duties of the
conscientious teacher, the eloquent preacher, the faithful witness, the
vigilant shepherd of souls, the most considerate and obliging of friends. In
every great crisis of his life, the Psalms were his favourite study; and, in
preparing his lectures upon them after his return from Leipzig, he found
refuge from the strife of tongues. In his lectures on Galatians, he gives
expression to the faith of his heart on the central truths of Christianity, in
language that has made them a favourite in many lands and tongues and ages, and
to men of diverse creeds. In his Tessaradecas, or Fourteen Consolations for
the Weary and Heavy Laden/ he shows the power of the Gospel to heal a
broken heart. Prepared for the Elector in his illness, he borrows the
manuscript afterwards when he needs the consolation he has offered to another,
but cannot recall. In sermons on the sacraments, he unfolds a deeper meaning
of Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Repentance than had hitherto been taught,
or he had previously entertained.2 In his sermon on “ Usury,”3
he endeavours to present a barrier to one of the most flagrant social evils of
the time, occasioned by the encroachments of the great mercantile companies
upon the previously simple business relations between man and man. Whatever was
his
opinion
afterward, at this time he believed that Matt, v., 42, forbids absolutely the
taking of interest. Thus absorbed in the consideration of the pressing
questions of the day, he was ever ready, as his correspondence shows, to look
after the temporal as well as the spiritual interests of his people. His
influence with the Elector and others in high station was continually sought,
and never refused where the applicant was worthy. Replying to a request of
Spalatin in December, 1519, he writes:
“ The work
is so great and I am so burdened ! The lectures on the Psalms demand the entire
time of a man ; the sermons to the congregation on the Gospels and Genesis,
that of another ; my various monastic duties, that of a third ; and the work
you have asked, that of a fourth, to say nothing of the many letters that I
must write, and other engagements, as my intercourse with friends, that steal
entirely too much time.” 1
Among these
duties, his lectures to his students and his sermons were regarded by him as
the most important. Amidst labours prosecuted with such energy, the number of
students constantly grew, crowding to Wittenberg from all quarters.
1 De Wette, 1: 378.
POLITICAL COMPLICATIONS; NEW ALLIES; THE THREE GREAT TREATISES OF I$20
ITH
scarcely less interest than the profess
ors, the
Elector Frederick watched the progress of his University, and sought in every
way to promote its advancement. He applied himself personally to the work of
securing the best teachers, and defrayed the expense of publishing what they
wrote. Under the influence of Staupitz, having himself become an earnest
student of the Bible, he had an excellent spiritual adviser in his private secretary,
Spalatin, Luther’s constant correspondent. The important position occupied by
the Elector in the empire after the death of Maximilian has been already
noticed. For over five months there was an interregnum. Maximilian had died
without realising his ambition of securing the succession to his grandson
Charles. There was at once a struggle between Charles of Spain and Francis,
King of France, for the vacant throne.
All the
influence of the Papacy was exerted on the side of Francis, as the Pope feared
the power of the House of Hapsburg. Only one alternative was presented, and
that was the election of Frederick, a truly German prince. But this plan
encountered an insurmountable obstacle in the absolute refusal of Frederick to
allow the use of his name. He regarded himself too old to undertake an office,
in which the title amounted to nothing, unless supported by power previously
enjoyed. On the second day of the disputation at Leipzig, June 28, 1519, the
election was held at Frankfort-on-the-Main. There had been the most lavish use
of money to determine the result. But the title was gained, not by bribery, but
by the influence of Frederick, who supported the King of Spain, because of his
German blood, a claim which Francis could not boast. Erasmus wrote (October
17, 1519) to the Bishop of Rochester:
“ The Duke
of Saxony was offered the empire, and refused it the day before Charles’s
election, and he but for the Duke would never have obtained it. He was offered
30,000 florins, but would not accept them. When he was urged to allow 10,000 to
be distributed among his retinue, he replied : ‘ They may take them, if they
please, but if any one touches so much as a crown he does not remain in my
service to-morrow.’ Next day he mounted his horse and departed.” 1
1 Letters
and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, of the Reign of Henry VIII. Arranged and
catalogued by J. S. Brewer, M.A., London, 1867, iii-1 Part I., 367.
FREDERICK THE WISE, ELECTOR OF SAXONY. FROM
a PAINTING BY ALBRECHT DURER, 1524.
When the
electors assembled in St. Bartholomew’s Church, and the formal vote was taken,
Charles was unanimously chosen. It was a mortifying defeat for Pope Leo X., who
had favoured Francis I.
A youth of
only nineteen years, Charles found himself the chosen ruler of an empire such
as sovereign had never before governed. The Netherlands, Spain, Austria,
Germany, Navarre, Naples, the Sicilies, and the vast regions opened by the discoveries
of Columbus, as far west as the Pacific, and comprising Mexico, the West
Indies, and all South America, were all put under him. Never were such material
wealth, such indomitable enterprise, or such efficient resources at the service
of monarch. The Pope might well dread the possibility of his displeasure. But
the heavy responsibilities were accompanied by the most perplexing problems
ever given one in his station. The vaster the empire, the more liable is it to
disintegration, and the greater the necessity of ruling the subjects with such
tact and conciliation that they do not feel that they are being governed. The
vaster the empire, the more numerous the points where it must be defended from
external enemies, and the greater the danger of their coalition. The Turks were
a constant menace. The King of France was ready to take up arms against him.
Henry VIII. of England was prepared to take advantage of any blunder that could
be turned to his injury or loss; and his spiritual father, the Pope, had to be
placed beneath the ever-watchful eyes of a trusted ambassador at Rome, as the
archives at Simancas show, in order that every
significant
motion and expression of feeling might be promptly reported, and subtle
diplomacy be met by diplomacy equally subtle. The restiveness of the peasantry,
the nobles, the free cities, and the general revolt against the former order of
things, had to be treated with the utmost patience, and with tender hands. It
was thus manifest that, with the Elector who had decided his election on the
side of Luther, Charles, loyal Catholic though he was, would have to proceed
slowly, or a fire might be kindled that would be past all control. Four months
intervened before his signing of the capitulation, whereby he took upon
himself the office to which he had been elected, and his coronation at
Aix-la-Chapelle, October 23, 1519. The motto that he had inscribed upon his
shield, “ Nondum,” “Not yet,” was prophetic of his deliberate and hesitating
career. Thus a long period was afforded in which the movement begun by Luther
had opportunity to spread and to develop its principles inwardly with
ever-increasing clearness.
Allies
came to Luther from an unexpected quarter. The interference of the Papacy in
the election of the Emperor, and the shameless bribery used in the interests of
the French King excited the national feeling among the knights. Four horsemen
are reported to have entered a house near Mayence, where one of the papal
legates was staying, and to have threatened to expel him from the country, if
the political machinations on behalf of Francis did not cease. Francis von
Sickingen, the most influential of the knights, was preparing to force the
election
of
Charles, if the opposite party had any prospect of success. To Luther they were
attracted by the impression his protests were making upon the papal power.
Their interest in him was political and not religious. In some the knight and
the humanist were combined. The humanists have been divided into two classes,
viz.: those who continued to be students to the end of their lives, and who in
quiet seclusion were constantly seeking to deepen their knowledge,
representatives of a truly scientific spirit, of whom Melanchthon and his
preceptor, Reuchlin, were types; and those of a more superficial nature, who
immediately went forth to apply their attainments to the criticism of existing
institutions and theories, ceaseless agitators, without firm and decided
convictions, yielding nothing but negative results. Of the latter class, Ulrich
von Hutten is a brilliant example. To such men, Luther, at the beginning of his
career, was unattractive. Despising all monks, the earliest discussions, in
their opinion, only indicated another fruitless controversy among
ecclesiastics. But the Leipzig disputation added to their regard for
Melanchthon, and inclined them, so far as their outward relations were
concerned, to enlist in Luther’s cause. Crotus, the joint author with Hutten of
the sarcastic Epistolce Obscurorum VirontJJi, had been a fellow-student
of Luther’s at Erfurt, and read with avidity his writings, as they came into
his hands in Italy, and for a time fell beneath the spiritual influence of
Luther’s words, confessing his acceptance of the doctrine of justification by
faith, and renewing in cordial letters his ac
quaintance
of former days. Hutten, of ancient family, first a monk, afterwards a soldier,
a restless attendant upon various universities, an accomplished' and productive
writer, crowned poet-laureate of Germany by Maximilian at the Diet of Augsburg,
where Luther had appeared before Cajetan, had become an uncompromising foe of
the Papacy, and with material derived from his frequent visits to Italy had
directed his severe satire against it. Singularly enough, the Elector of
Mayence, who had been back of Tetzel in the indulgence traffic, regarded Hutten
with favour, possibly with some expectation that, as the primate of the German
Church, the weakening of the Roman influence might not be to his disadvantage.
With unparallelled effrontery, Hutten had dedicated to Leo X. his
republication of Laurentius Valla’s exposure of the fraud of the Donation of
Constantine, a favourite authority for the temporal claims of the Papacy. When
Luther read this in February, 1520, he was pleased that evidence was being
produced on his side from such a quarter. The plans were then in contemplation,
which afterwards ripened, by which Hutten and Sickingen hoped to overthrow the
bishops, as well as the temporal lords, and to establish the German Empire
upon such a basis that the Emperor would be supreme. In the very beginning of
1520 Hutten wrote, at the request of Sickingen, to Melanchthon, offering Luther
a home at the castle of Sickingen, in case he found his surroundings at
Wittenberg insecure. While nothing but encouragement could be drawn from such
un-
ULRICH VON HUTTEN.
FROM A CONTEMPORARY WOOD-CUT
i55
solicited
help, nevertheless Luther soon saw that they were contending against the Pope
with different weapons from those which he was employing.
“ I would
not,” he said, “ have the Gospel maintained by violence and bloodshed. By the
Word the world has been overcome ; by the Word the Church has been preserved ;
by the Word it will also be restored ; and as Antichrist has gained his power
without violence, so he will fall without violence.” 1
The biting
sarcasm of Hutten may be contrasted with Luther’s letters, most humble and
respectful, until all hope of tolerance for the evangelical faith had to be
abandoned. For the vital questions involved in the controversy, the two
knights and their followers had no sympathy; but would have been glad to have
used Luther as an instrument to accomplish their own purposes. Despite all
this, however, their writings were of service in diffusing the dissatisfaction
that found its end in the hearing of the Word as taught by the Reformers.
Among the
humanists who contented themselves with the more peaceful pursuits of literary
leisure, next to Erasmus, whose relations to Luther will claim more ample
treatment hereafter, the most prominent was Wilibald Pirkheimer of Nuremberg,
author of the satire upon Eck for his part in the Leipzig disputation, and who,
like Crotus, Billica- nus, and a number of others, ultimately turned away from
Luther, when the real issue of the conflict was understood. But from their
ranks Luther gained
the
important accession of the two jurists, Lawrence Spengler of Nuremberg, and
Justus Jonas, rector of the University of Erfurt, afterwards a theologian, and
his colleague at Wittenberg.
Everything
begins now to point towards a crisis. Eck, piqued by the attacks upon him, and
indefatigable when aroused, goes, in February, 1520, to Rome, to prosecute his
case before the Pope. He is supported by the decisions of the faculties of
Paris, Louvain, and Cologne. The Elector, conscious of the peril, urges Luther
to moderate the language of his public utterances. Luther again writes to the
Archbishop of Mayence, from whom he receives a courteous reply, and to the
Bishop of Merseburg, restating the real grounds of the controversy.
“ I call
the Lord Jesus Christ, my future Judge, to witness that I cannot teach
otherwise than I have taught. Nor am I conscious of having taught anything that
does not concern Christ and the commandments of God. What am I to do ? Gain I
am not seeking : nor, were I seeking it, could I find it in the hatred of so
many : much less glory in such infamy. I would be the most insane of all in
pursuing these matters, because of which I suffer loss instead of gain ;
confusion instead of glory; censure, violence, and death, instead of safety and
life : and if I err, after these evils I must endure eternal fire.” 1
The Pope
hesitates about acting. The Spanish ambassador writes to Charles from Rome,
that, as the Pope “ is exceedingly afraid of Friar Martin," “ who
is said to
be a great scholar,” it would be a good plan for the Emperor to show Luther all
possible favour, in order thus to gain more concessions from His Holiness. 1
But diplomacy was unavailing. The only question seemed to be, as to which of
the two sides should break the temporary peace. While Eck, aided by Cajetan and
Aleander, is plotting at Rome, Luther is diligently at work on the first formal
treatise on the subjects of controversy, which thus far had found consideration
only in pamphlets, chiefly of ephemeral value. The Bull against Luther was
completed June 15, 1520, but before it could be circulated, he had anticipated
it with his address: “ To His Imperial Majesty and the Christian Nobility
of the German Nation concerning the Reformation of the Christian Church.”3
This his friend Lange termed * ‘ the trumpet call to battle. ” Viewed in the
light of to-day, it may be entitled: “The Responsibility and Duty of the
Laity in Ecclesiastical Affairs. ” “ The time for silence has passed, and
the time of speaking has come,” is the opening note. The universal priesthood
of believers and the equal rights and dignity of the laity with the clergy are
its great themes. The Papacy, he says,
1 Calendar
of State Papers (Henry VIII.), ii., 305, London, 1866.
2 Erlangen,
21 : 274 sqq. We have quoted, with some slight revision, the excellent
translation in First Principles of the Reformation, which
contains “The Ninety-five Theses,” “Address
to the Nobility,” “On Christian Liberty,” and “ The Babylonish Captivity,”
edited by Wace and Buchheim, London, 1883 ; Philadelphia,
1885.
has sought
defence behind three walls: I. The supremacy of the spiritual power. 2. The
sole right of the Pope to interpret Holy Scripture. 3. The sole authority of
the Pope to convene a general council.
“ But
there is no difference among Christians save of office alone. We have one
baptism, one Gospel, one faith, and are all Christians alike by a higher consecration
than pope or bishop can give. The bishop’s consecration is just as if in the
name of the whole congregation, he took one person out of the community, each
member of which has equal power, and commanded him to exercise this power for
the rest ; in the same way as if ten brothers, co-heirs as king’s sons, were to
choose one from among them to rule over their inheritance : they would all of
them still remain kings and have equal power although one is ordered to govern.
If a little company of pious Christian laymen were taken prisoners and carried away
to a desert, and had not among them a priest consecrated by a bishop, and were
there to agree to elect one of them, married or unmarried, and were to order
him to baptise, to celebrate the Mass, to absolve, and to preach, this man
would be as truly a priest, as if all the bishops and all the popes had
consecrated him. A priest, therefore, should be nothing in Christendom but an
official: as long as he holds his office, he has precedence over others ; if he
be deprived of it, he is a peasant and citizen, like the rest. A cobbler, a
smith, a peasant, every man has the office and function of his calling, and yet
all alike are consecrated priests and bishops, and every man in his office must
be useful and beneficial to the rest, that so many kinds of work may be united
in one community. To say that the temporal
*59
authority,
being inferior to the clergy, dare not punish them, is as though one were to
say, the hand may not help, when the eye is suffering. Inasmuch as the temporal
power has been ordained of God for the punishment of the bad and the
protection of the good, we must let it do its duty throughout the whole
Christian Body, without respect of persons, whether it strike popes, bishops,
priests, or nuns. Why should your body, life, goods, and honour be free, and
not mine, seeing we are equal as Christians and have all received one baptism,
faith, Spirit, and all things? If a priest is killed, the country is laid under
an interdict. Why not also if a peasant is killed ? ”
The “
second wall,” i. e.y the claim that to the Pope alone belongs
the right to interpret the Holy Scriptures, is attacked by the same argument.
“ They
must acknowledge that there are pious Christians among us, that have the true
faith, spirit, understanding and mind of Christ; why, then, should we reject
their word and understanding, and follow a Pope, who has neither understanding
nor Spirit ? What, then, becomes of St. Paul’s words : ‘ But he that is
spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man ’ ? (i Cor.
ii., 15). Balaam’s ass was wiser than the prophet. If God spake by an ass
against a prophet, why should He not speak by a pious man against the Pope ? ”
“ The
third wall falls of itself, as soon as the first two have fallen ; for if the
Pope act contrary to the Scriptures, we are bound to stand by the Scriptures,
to punish and constrain him according to Christ’s commandment, Matt, xviii.,
15-17. If, then, I am to accuse him before the Church, I must call the Church
together. When,
therefore,
need requires, and the Pope is a cause of offence to Christendom, whoever can
best do so, as a faithful member of the whole body, must do what he can to
procure a true free council. This no one can do so well as the temporal
authorities, especially since they are fellow-Christians, fellow-priests,
sharing one spirit and one power in all things ; and since they should exercise
the office that they have received from God without hindrance whenever it is
necessary and useful that it should be exercised. Would it not be most unnatural
if a fire were to break out in a city, and every one were to keep still and let
it burn on and on, whatever might be burnt, simply because they had not the
mayor’s authority, or because the fire perhaps broke out at the mayor’s house ?
Is not every citizen bound in this case to rouse and call the rest? How much
more should this be done in the spiritual city of Christ, either at the Pope’s
government or wherever it may be ! The like happens if an enemy attacks a town.
The first to rouse up the rest earns glory and thanks.”
With these
principles fixed, he proceeds to the consideration of the matters that should
be treated in such a council, and then offers twenty-seven articles concerning
the Reformation of the Christian Estate. From beginning to end it is a scathing
denunciation of the Papacy, characterised by many eloquent passages and
epigrammatic statements. “ God cares not for much prayer, but for good prayer.”
“ It is a greater sin to silence God’s word and service, than if we were to
kill twenty popes at once. ” “ If you try to ride to heaven on the Pope’s wax
and parchment, your carriage will soon break
„ _xv.
P|«*3L
$tt tom
<0)riftItrl)rnn ^Iftutfriitr$atfon: uantts CipflHirtim ttantnsWrnmB:
S>.$artfmra
iDurc&j^tifelbsge/
me^retroDcozrigirt.
TITLE-PAGE OF FIRST EDITION OF LUTHER’S “ADDRESS TO THE GERMAN NOBILITY,”
1520.
(slightly reduced.)
161
down, and
you will fall into Hell.” “ In baptism, you joined a fraternity, of which
Christ, the angels, the saints, and all Christians are members; be true to
this, and satisfy it, and you will have fraternities enough.” “ We should
overcome heretics with books, not with fire, as the old Fathers did.” “ There
is nothing more devilishly mischievous than an unreformed university.” “ I
greatly fear the high schools [universities] are nothing but great gates of
Hell, unless they diligently study the Holy Scriptures and teach them to the
young people.” “ It is not the number of books that make the learned man, nor
much reading; but good books often read, however few, make a man learned in the
Scriptures and pious.” “If we read nothing but the Fathers and never get from
them into the Scriptures, it is as if one should be gazing at the sign-posts,
and never follow the road.” “ Without doubt the greatest misfortune to the
Germans is buying on credit. The devil invented this system, and the Pope has
done an injury to the whole world by sanctioning it.”
This
treatise, which, notwithstanding its impassioned tone and caustic, at times
even violent, language, was most carefully and deliberately elaborated, must
be read, not as the words of an individual, but of the representative of the
German people. Unlike the satires of the humanists, it was not merely negative,
but offered a positive foundation for a new order of things. In vain Staupitz
endeavoured to suppress its publication. The edition of 4000 copies that left
the press in August was
II
insufficient
for the demand, and it was republished, both at Leipzig and Strassburg, the
same year.
A
treatise, written in Latin, for theologians, followed, two months later, in
The Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church.* It is an exhibition of
the manner in which the sources of the Christian life had been affected by the
corruption, on Rome’s part, of the doctrine of the Means of Grace. A critical
examination is made of the entire sacramental system of Rome. In the beginning
he thanks his enemies for the progress he is making under their attacks. He had
in mind only the abuses of indulgences and the Papacy when he began, but now is
ready to surrender both. By the Babylonian captivity of the Church, he means
the perversion of the nature and use of the sacraments that the Church has
suffered. Limiting the sacraments to three, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and
Repentance, and regarding the latter as not properly a sacrament, but only a
return to Baptism, he enters, first, upon a long discussion concerning the
Lord’s Supper. He insists that the doctrine concerning it must be sought only
in the Words of Institution, as found in the Gospels and I Corinthians, and
declares that not a syllable of the sixth chapter of John refers to it, in
connection with which he indicates the distinction between the sacramental and
the spiritual eating of Christ’s Body. Three abuses of the Lord’s Supper he
examines at length, viz., the withdrawal of the cup from the laity, the
doctrine of transubstantiation, and the teaching that
it is a
sacrifice. The Mass, he says, is the testament of Christ. A testament is the
promise of one about to die. The promise of the Mass is that of the forgiveness
of sins, made by God, and attested by the death of the Son of God. If the Mass,
then, be a promise, we approach it by no works or merits, but only by faith.
Nothing but faith, cleaving to this promise, is necessary. The only preparation
and lawful use of the Lord’s Supper is -by faith. For this reason, nothing is
more important than that the communicants should hear and meditate upon the
words of which the sacrament is the sign and memorial. The receiving of a
promise cannot be a good work; neither can such reception be transferred to
another, nor can I believe vicariously or for another. The Mass is not a work
communicable to others, but for the, strengthening of the faith of those
receiving it. , It is not Baptism that justifies, but faith in the word of
promise attending Baptism. “ Let us learn to observe the word rather than the
sign ; faith, rather than the work or use of the sign. ” “ In the sacrament,
faith is so necessary that, even without the sacrament, it can save.” “ The
sacrament of baptism, as a sign, is not momentary, but perpetual; for, while
the use is transient, the thing signified lasts even to death, nay, to the
resurrection at the last day.” No pope or bishop has the power of abrogating
the liberty in Christ, which is made the believer’s in Baptism. The
multiplicity of orders, rites, works, etc., is causing men to forget what has
been given in their baptism. Monastic vows are a denial of Baptism. By the prayer
of the
Church,
bringing children to Baptism, they are given faith. Confirmation, marriage,
ordination, and extreme unction are shown to have no claim to be regarded as
sacraments. He ends the subject with the words:
“ We
distribute the two sacraments, that Baptism may be for the beginning and the
entire course of the Christian life, but the Bread, for its end and for death
; and the Christian is exercised with both in this body, until, fully baptised
and strengthened, he pass from this world, and be born into the new and eternal
world, to sup with Christ in the kingdom of His Father. Then, with the matter
of both sacraments fulfilled, Baptism and Bread shall cease/’
With this
treatise should be read the Sermon on the Mass,1 published
earlier in the same year, where Luther draws a very sharp distinction, in
popular form, between the hitherto prevalent conception of the sacraments and
that to which he has attained. It is an earnest plea for simplicity in the
external regulations of public worship, upon the ground, “ the less law, the
better justice; the fewer commandments, the more good works.” The chief thing
in worship is declared to be the word of God, and man’s chief part is not to
bring something to God, but to receive what God brings him. The chief thing in
the sacrament is the Word of God; man’s part is to receive by faith the promise
therein offered.
In
striking contrast with the two great polemical
treatises
of this year, was an irenic of such nature that in it the trace of controversy
is scarcely perceptible. The Freedom of a Christian Man 1 has been
called the pearl of his writings,
“ perhaps
the most beautiful of Luther’s writings, more the result of religious
contemplation than of theological work, a writing full of deep mystical
thoughts, which, notwithstanding its peculiar reverence for the Word of God,
and its constant reference to the real relations of life, ever recurs to the
world of thought of the mystic.”3
In it, the
Christian experience of Luther finds its expression, apart from and beneath the
external conflicts that occupied him, like the deep calm underneath the most
tumultuous roar of the ocean. 44 It is a small book,” wrote its
author, “ and yet, if its sense be understood, it comprises the sum of the
Christian life.” It belonged to the last effort to conciliate Leo, even after
the papal Bull had been issued, and was written at the request of Miltitz. A
paradox, which Luther finds in I Cor. ix., 19; Rom. xiii., 8, stands at its
head, viz.: “ A Christian is a most free lord over all things, and subject to
no one ” ; and “A Christian is a ministering servant of all, and subject to
every one.” Free through faith, he is servant of all through love. Every
Christian has two natures, spiritual and bodily. According to the former, he is
an inner, new man; according to the latter, a carnal, external, old man. It is
the former that is free. No outward thing has the ability
1 Weimar, vii., 12 sqq.
4 Kolde, Martin Luther, i., 274, Gotha, 1884.
to bring
Christian righteousness or freedom, or, on the other hand, unrighteousness or
bondage. What influence can health and freedom of body, eating and drinking, or
good works have upon the inner man ? How can imprisonment, hunger, and thirst
do him injury ? These things do not reach the soul. The soul needs none of
these things for a Christian life. It is not injured when the body wears
unconsecrated clothing, or when it prays at unconsecrated places. The soul can
dispense with everything except the Word of God; and without the Word of God,
it can find help from no other source. With the Word, it has life, truth,
peace, righteousness, salvation, joy, freedom, wisdom, glory, and every good in
surpassing measure. But what is that Word, and how is it to be used ? That Word
is the Gospel concerning the Son of God ; and this can be received only by
faith. Since, then, it is only faith that can govern the inner man, the inner
man can be justified and saved by no external work or occupation. He who
believes in Christ has the fulfilment of the law, has all that the law demands.
United with Christ, as a bride to her bridegroom, the soul gives Christ all
her sin, and receives from Him, through faith, all His righteousness, His
eternal priesthood, and His glorious kingdom. A spiritual king, there is
nothing so good or so high, that it must not serve me for good, if I believe. A
spiritual priest, I appear before God, and pray for others, and have power with
God, who does as the Christian in faith asks.
But,
although justified, he remains in this life, a
167
man among
other men. In constant struggle against his own flesh and desires, he must
serve and work; by watching, fasting, and prayer, he must rule his body, in
order ever to become more and more conformed to faith and the inner man. He
lives, too, not for himself alone, but also for all men upon earth ; or rather,
he lives alone for others,and not for himself. Thus, the Christian is free from
works, since he does not himself need them, as, by his innermost union with his
Saviour by faith, he has all that his soul requires; but he cannot do otherwise
than serve his neighbour out of pure love. “ Thus we conclude, a Christian
lives, not in himself, but in Christ and his neighbour; in Christ, through
faith; in his neighbour, through love; or he is not a Christian. Through faith,
he reaches upward to God; through love, downward to his neighbour.”
“ These
three treatises together,” says Koestlin, “ are the chief reformatory writings
of Luther. According to their contents, they have a most important relation to
each other. In the first, Luther calls Christendom, in general, to the battle
against the outward abuses of the Pope and of the estate that boasted of being
the only one possessing a spiritual and priestly character. In the second, he
exposes and breaks the spiritual bond, whereby this estate, through its means
of grace, kept souls in bondage. In the third, he reaches the most profound and
important question concerning the relation of the Christian soul to its God and
Redeemer, and the way and nature of salvation.” 1
THE BULL
ALTHOUGH
announced long before by rumour, the Bull did not reach Wittenberg until the
first week in October.1 Eck had gained, as he thought, a triumph,
not only by overcoming all opposition at Rome, but also in being himself
deputed, as nuncio, to publish it in Germany. After invoking God, in the words
of Ps. lxxiv., 22; lxxx., 13, 14, summoning the aid of SS. Peter and Paul, and
all the saints, for the distressed Church, suffering from the assaults of “ a
new Porphyry,” the Bull condemns forty-two errors said to be taken from the
writings of Luther. They consist chiefly of sentences torn from their
connection, most of which had already served Eck a good purpose at Leipzig, or
had been uttered by Luther in that disputation. Among the errors for which
Luther was summoned to recant, the thirty-
1 For “ Bull,” see original text in Op. var. argiv.,
259 sqq. j also in Schaff’s Hist. Christ. Church, vii., 233 sqq. English
translation by the author in the Appendix to this volume.
168
third
reads: “To burn heretics is contrary to the will of the Spirit.”1
All persons, universities, and States are prohibited from affirming, defending,
preaching, or, in any way, publicly or privately, expressly or silently,
favouring them. Wherever found, the writings of Luther are to be publicly
burned. Sixty days are given Luther, within which to recant, and he is summoned
to Rome, with the assurance of a safe-conduct. The penalty of refusal is excommunication
; all persons or States harbouring or holding intercourse with him, after such
excommunication, are to be placed under the ban. All patriarchs, archbishops,
bishops, prelates of patriarchal, metropolitan, and other cathedrals, and other
ecclesiastics, especially in Germany, are required to make solemn proclamation
of the Bull in all their churches, on Sundays and other festivals. It is also
to be nailed to the doors of the cathedrals of Brandenburg, Meissen, and
Merseburg. Eck included in its provisions, by special authority, Carlstadt,
Pirk- heimer, Spengler, and other sympathisers of Luther.
If the
papal court showed great diplomatic wisdom in the selection of the ambassadors
who were to negotiate with the Emperor and Electors, concerning the execution
of the Bull, it manifested astonishing ignorance of the condition of things in
Germany, in commissioning Eck as the agent to proclaim it to the German people.
Instead of striking terror wherever read, it excited only contempt and indignation.
At Leipzig, where a year before he had gloried over what he regarded a decided
victory, he
1 From Luther’s Address to the Nobility, see above,
p. 161.
was mobbed
by the Leipzig students, reinforced by many from Wittenberg. The bull was torn
to pieces. Covered with mud, Eck found refuge in a monastery, whence he
hurried, under cover of night, from the city. At Erfurt the students were supported
by the Faculty, and, instead of being posted up, the document was thrown into
the water, with the words: “It is a bulla [bubble]; let it float.” At
Wittenberg it was suppressed.
Meanwhile
Miltitz, who saw the blunder, had an interview with Luther and Melanchthon,
October 12th, at Lichtenberg, and, upon the representation that the bull was
solely the reflection of Eck’s influence at Rome, and that Leo was still open
to conviction, secured the promise that Luther would address another letter to
the Pope, together with an irenical treatise, stating the principles involved
in his protest, with the understanding that it was to be dated before the
reception of the bull. From this Luther could not have hoped for any result.
The breach had already occurred and was irreparable. But, in deference to the
Elector’s desires, he consented to treat the matter as though the Pope had been
made the innocent victim of Eck. The treatise, prepared within twelve days, we
have in The Freedom of a Christian Man, a summary of which has been given. The
letter,1 while entirely candid in its professions that he is without
any personal feeling against Leo, and that he would gladly honour him, if
false friends would not claim for the Pope what belongs only to God, is, even
to the an-
ticipation
of the date, one of the most severe specimens of satire that can be found. He
addresses the Pope as a “ Daniel among lions,” a “ lamb in the midst of wolves,
” a “ Pope worthy of a better age, ’ ’ and declares with what zeal he has
maintained his cause against such a man as Sylvester Prierias, who has done the
Pope great wrong by his misrepresentations. He apologises for the severe
language he has found it necessary to use, by the example of Christ, who calls
the Pharisees “ a generation of vipers,” and “ children of the devil,” and of
Paul, who called one opponent “ a son of perdition,” and others, “ dogs.” “
What use has salt, if it do not bite ? What, the edge of a sword, if it do not
cut ? ” “ Under the whole heaven, there is nothing more corrupt than the Roman
court. For it incomparably surpasses the godlessness of the Turks. What once
was truly a gate of Heaven, has now become a gaping mouth of Hell.”
“ Believe
not, O Leo, the siren voices of those who would persuade you that you are more
than a mere man, and really, in part, God, to command and exact everything. In
this way, you will not prevail. You are the servant of servants, and, above all
men, in a most miserable and perilous place. Allow not them to deceive you, who
pretend that you are the Lord of the world, and that, without you, no one can
be a Christian, and who prate about your ability to do anything in Heaven,
Hell, or purgatory. They are your enemies, and are seeking to destroy your
soul. They err who elevate you above the Council, and the whole Church ; they
err who ascribe to you alone the right to interpret Scripture.
They are
only seeking, under your name, to establish their impious schemes in the
Church, as, alas ! Satan has already accomplished much through them, in your
predecessors.”
Upon the
same assumption, he had written in September, a brochure on The New Bull and
Lies of Eck/ followed, November 17th, by a formal Appeal to a General Council,2
and, about the same time, another pamphlet, Against the Execrable Bull of
Antichrist.3 In the last of these, he says that he will treat the
bull as though it were not the work of the Pope, for whoever wrote it must be
Antichrist. A few sentences will show its spirit:
“ Where
art thou,most excellent Emperor Charles? and, where are you, ye Christian kings
and princes ? Can you, who have made oath to Christ in baptism, endure these
tartarean declarations of Antichrist ? Where are you, ye bishops, ye doctors,
ye confessors of Christ’s name? In the presence of these horrible portents of
the Papists, can you keep silence? . . . Thee, Leo X., and you, ye cardinals of
Rome, I address, and to your face I freely say : If this bull has gone forth in
your name, and with your knowledge, and you acknowledge it, I will use my
authority, by which, in baptism, by the mercy of God, I became a son of God,
and co-heir with Christ, and was placed upon a firm rock, which dreads neither
the gates of hell, nor heaven, nor earth. I exhort and admonish you in the
Lord, to repent, and to make an end to these diabolical blasphemies, and that
too, speedily.
1 Weimar, vi., 576.
* lb., viii., 74 sqq., in German ; 83 sqq.
316., 595 sqq.
Unless
this be done, know that I, with all who worship Christ, will regard your See
possessed of Satan, and the accursed abode of Antichrist, whom we not only
cannot obey, but detest and execrate, as the chief enemy of Christ. For this
declaration, we are ready not only to bear with joy your foolish censures, but
even not to ask you to absolve us or account us of your number,—aye, we offer
ourselves for death, that you may satisfy your bloody tyranny. But, if the
Spirit of Christ and the power of our faith avail, should you persevere in your
fury after this has been written, we condemn you and, together with the bull
and all the decretals, deliver you to Satan, for the destruction of your flesh,
that your spirit may be delivered in the day of the Lord. In the name of Jesus
Christ, our Lord, whom you persecute. Amen.”
Contemporaneously
with this appeared The Foundation and Reason of all the Articles,
Lately Condemned by the Roman Bull,1 in which each article
of the forty-one is examined, and answer given as to the charge of its
heretical character. The surprise and excitement occasioned by one treatise are
not over before another immediately takes its place. The blows upon the Papacy
are not only sharp and heavy, but they are incessant. No time is given for an
answer. When it is noted that The Address to the German Nobility, The
Babylonia?i Captivity, The Freedom of a Christian Man, the letter to the
Pope, The Appeal to a General Council, The Bull against the Execrable Bull
of Antichrist, and The
Reason for
the Condemned Articles, all appeared within five months, and when the length
and thoroughness of some of these books is considered, we are astonished at
Luther’s literary productivity, and can see how utterly mistaken the adherents
of the Papacy were in their plans to silence him. Letters of encouragement
from all directions and all classes assured him how deep was the impression he
was making.
At Louvain
and Cologne, the demand of the bull for the public burning of Luther’s works
had been complied with. Aimed at creating a moral effect, Luther resolved upon
retaliating in case such acts were repeated. He was awaiting a demonstration of
this kind at Leipzig, with the intention of immediately thereafter committing
the Pope’s bull to the flames. But at Leipzig Luther had gained too strong a
hold. When the news came that at May- ence the example set at Louvain and
Cologne had been followed, he proceeded to action. Early on the morning of
Monday, December 10, 1520, the following notice was posted on the bulletin
board of the University:
“ All
friends of evangelical truth are invited to assemble about nine o’clock at the
Church of the Holy Cross beyond the city wall. There, according to ancient,
apostolical usage, the godless books of the Papal constitutions and the
Scholastic Theology will be burned, inas
much as
the presumption of the enemies of the Gospel has advanced to such a degree that
they have cast the godly, evangelical books of Luther into the fire. Let all
earnest students, therefore, appear at the spectacle ; for it is now the time
when Antichrist must be exposed.”
With the
exception of Adrian, the Professor of Hebrew, all Luther’s colleagues were on
his side. The terrors of the bull had driven from Wittenberg about one hundred
and fifty students, mostly by order of those upon whom they were dependent.
But their places had been supplied by others attracted by the wide publication
of the books of Wittenberg’s leading professor. Spalatin, sent by the Elector
to make an inquiry, had found four hundred students in attendance upon th&
lectures of Luther, and from five to six hundred upon those of Melanchthon. All
had been for months in a state of expectancy. When the signal was thus given,
all lectures were abandoned, and out College Street, through the Elster gate,
they thronged to the appointed place. A hospital, near the church mentioned,
had on its grounds a pest-house, which the frequent visitations of the plague
had rendered necessary, and not far off a spot where infected clothing was burned.
On a pyre there built Luther placed the books of canonical law, which had become
particularly offensive to him, since support was constantly sought from them
for the claims of the
Papacy, in
contradiction of the Scripture passages he had cited against them. A Master of
Arts applied the flame, and, as it grew, Luther hurled into it the bull, with
the words: “ Because thou dost trouble the Holy One of the Lord [Mark i., 24],
may eternal fire consume thee! ”
Before the
canonical books were all consumed, he withdrew. With all his courage, he
confesses that he went forth that morning trembling and praying, but returned
with greater joy than over any previous deed of his life.1 The
students lingered at the place, keeping up the fire, and singing the Te Deum.
Their youthful ardour found expression in proceedings that Luther thought it
necessary the next day, at his lectures, to censure. They converted the burning
into a matter of sport, singing funeral hymns over the expiring embers, and
then, returning to Wittenberg, procured a wagon, and passed through the
streets in procession, gathering large quantities of the books of Luther’s
adversaries, and with them caused the flames at the pest-house to be started
anew. With Luther, however, the act had been no mere sport. He meant what he
said when he announced it as a religious act. It was intended to declare to
his adversaries, that his books must be answered by argument; and that if,
instead of refuting, they chose to burn them, that plan was just as admissible
on his side. The last bridge was broken. The next day he publicly declared: “
If, with your whole heart, you do not separate from the dominion of the Pope,
you cannot be
LUTHER BURNING THE PAPAL BULL.
saved. ...
In this wicked world, I would rather endure all perils than, by silence, burden
my conscience with the account I must render to God. ” 1 With
characteristic promptness, in a pamphlet that appeared the same month, he justifies
his course in burning the canonical law, by the citation of thirty passages, in
which its teaching is directly contradictory to Holy Scripture. Not only was
he at this time aware of his probable appearance before the Emperor to answer
for his course, but his heart was saddened by the defection, under the threats
made by Eck, of Adelmann of Augsburg, and the two Nurembergers, Pirkheimer and
Spengler, and the wavering of Staupitz, Luther’s old friend and preceptor,
who, feeling himself unequal to the conflict, had sought to escape it by
resigning his position as Vicar-General of the Augustines, and had retired to
Saltzburg, where he was preacher to the archbishop, and where he hoped to end
his days in peace. But there he was summoned before a notary and witnesses and
asked to condemn the articles of Luther rejected in the bull. Writing to his
successor, Link, Staupitz said : “ Martin has begun a dangerous enterprise,
and is carrying it on with a high spirit, enlightened of God; but I falter, and
have need of milk.” Luther attempted to comfort and strengthen him, as Staupitz
had so often comforted Luther. The old man finally sought to evade the issue by
the general declaration, that he submitted himself to the Pope, as his judge.
In February, Luther addresses him with decision, combined with tenderness:
“ If
Christ loves you He will compel you to recall that declaration, since in the
bull everything is condemned that you have heretofore taught concerning the
mercy of God. This is no time for fear, but for raising the alarm, when our
Lord Jesus Christ is condemned, dishonoured, and blasphemed. I exhort you,
therefore, to pride with as much urgency as you exhort me to humility ; for you
have too much humility, as I have too much pride. But it is a serious matter.
We see Christ suffering. If, heretofore, we had to keep silent and be humbled,
now, when throughout the whole world our Saviour is made sport of, shall we, I
ask, not contend for Him ? Shall we not, for His sake, offer our necks ? My
Father, the danger is greater than many believe. Here the Gospel begins to have
its application: ‘Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess
also before My Father which is in heaven ; but whosoever shall deny Me before
men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven.’ ” 1
How deeply
Luther felt this alienation of his spiritual father, may be judged from an
incidental remark in a letter of October 3, 1519: “ Last night I had a dream
concerning you. I thought that you were leaving me, and that I was most
bitterly weeping; but I was pacified when you said that you would return.” 2
A book, published by Staupitz, in 1525, on The True Christian Faith, shows how
far apart, since their external separation, the two friends had drifted.
THE DIET OF WORMS
NEVER was
political diplomacy more active than in the negotiations for the execution of
the bull. In the autumn of 1520, the young Emperor —the object of the
conflicting hopes of all the participants in the great struggle—had come to
Germany, to be crowned at the grave of Charlemagne at Aix-la-Chapelle, and to
hold his first Imperial diet. The German knights, under Hutten and Sickingen,
were chafing to carry out their visionary projects, in support of his authority
as an independent German Emperor, and were sanguine as to the early
realisation of their extravagant expectations. They took pains to impress him
with the importance and feasibility of their schemes, and the extent of the
revolt against the papal authority. The Papacy, on the other hand, had selected
as its representatives two accomplished diplomats, both Italians, Carrac- cioli
and Aleander, the latter librarian of the Vatican Library, and a humanist, who
had for ten years
179
been
Professor of Greek in Paris. They had hastened to meet Charles in the
Netherlands. Of the details of their negotiations the Emperor had been well
informed for months by his watchful ambassador at Rome. His course, with
respect to Luther, was to be decided by reasons of State policy. As to the justice
of the condemnation, the sentence of the Pope was sufficient for him, a loyal
Catholic in everything pertaining to his personal convictions and private
religious life. The game of statecraft between Pope and Emperor was one in
which the former demanded the execution of the bull, and the latter sought to
exact the utmost of favours in his projects against France, and the revocation
of certain restrictions which the Pope had recently placed upon the
Inquisition in Aragon. Both were hampered, the one by the apprehension, in
this crisis, of alienating King Francis from the See of Rome, and the other by
his obligations to the Elector of Saxony, and the threats of revolt that came
from so many parts of Germany.
Aleander
approached the Elector; but in his reception at Cologne was met with such
chilling delays and exacting formalities, that the purpose of Frederick was
manifest. Luther was not, in his judgment, to be regarded as a condemned man
until he had been tried by regular process. Thus far Frederick claimed that
Luther had not been refuted. Appealing to Erasmus for advice, he was only
strengthened in his policy; for, in answer to the question, as to whether
Luther had erred, Erasmus answered: “ Yes, in two things; he has attacked
the Pope
in his crown, and the monks in their bellies.” The Elector then presented the
grievance that, in his absence and without his consent, Eck had published the
bull in his territory. The next resort of Aleander was to procure from the Emperor
an edict for the burning of Luther’s books in Saxony, as such edict had been
given for the Netherlands, in order, by this means, to gain the Imperial
sanction for the execution of the bull. But in this he was foiled by the
opinion of Charles’s legal counsellors, that the condemnation of a German
without a hearing would be a violation of the capitulation, to which he had
just made oath at his coronation. Frederick was accordingly instructed to bring
Luther with him to the diet to be held in Worms. It seemed as though this were not
to be accomplished, when, late in December, both parties united in their
opposition to the project; Frederick in protest against the insult offered him
by the burning of Luther’s works at Cologne and Mayence; and Charles, under
the pressure of Aleander’s plea of the offence that would be given the Papacy
if Luther—a man condemned by the Pope—were to be heard before he had recanted.
When the summons of the Emperor was known to have been recalled, a storm of
excitement from the knights and the people broke out, that ultimately procured
a second, and this time a formal summons, directly addressed to Luther, after
the council of electors had requested it; some hoping thus to find the shortest
way to the execution of the bull. The summons was in itself a triumph. Aleander
had used all his
arts
against it. The manner in which he was summoned was also a triumph for Luther.
Never had heretic condemned by the Pope been addressed in such respectful and
friendly terms by a Catholic sovereign. The time had come to gain favours from
the Pope by exciting the suspicion of any growing sympathy with Luther. Manuel
reports from Rome (March 20, 1529):
“ Some of
the cardinals complained that the Emperor had ordered Luther into his presence,
saying that he had arrogated to himself a jurisdiction which belongs to the
Holy See. The Pope said that he had been informed that the Emperor was
ill-advised when he decided to see Martin Luther, who would not be well
received, even in Hell.” 1
The
summons which reached Luther, March 26th, found him thoroughly absorbed again
in literary activity. Priests having in various quarters been diligently
inquiring in the confessional concerning the circulation and reading of his
books, he prepared a book of instructions for those going to confession, in
which he advised them to refuse to make answer, even though this would involve
their deprival, for a time, of sacrament, altar, priest, and church, “ since
the word of God condemned in the bull is more than all things.” 3 On
the day before the burning of the bull he had begun a devotional commentary on
the Magnificat. The first part of his Evangelical Postils, or sermons on the
Epistles, was just ap
1 Calendar of State Papers (Henry VIII.), ii., 1341.
s Erlangen, 24 : 202 sqq.
pearing
from the press. He was continuing his comments on the Psalms, and was writing a
reply to the attacks of a Dominican, Ambrosius Cathari- nus. His controversial
activity, upon which he lamented that three years of his life had been wasted,
was, in his opinion, only a side matter, the chief work to which he had been
called being that of the positive teaching of the word, as drawn from the
Scriptures. But he consoled himself with Neh. iv., 17, and kept three presses
going as, day and night, his pen flew on.
It was
Holy Week, when the Imperial herald, Caspar Sturm, arrived at Wittenberg with
the citation. Hastily finishing, on Easter Monday, his answer to Catharinus,
Luther started the next day, April 2d, accompanied by his colleague, Ams- dorf,
an Augustinian brother, Petzensteiner (for it was the rule of the Order that
its members must travel two by two), and a young Pomeranian nobleman, Swaven,
a representative of the students. The city of Wittenberg furnished them with a
conveyance. The herald rode in advance, while Luther was also well protected
by letters of safe-conduct from the Emperor and the various princes through
whose territory he had to pass. Greeted by the cordial welcome of multitudes,
his course became almost a continual ovation. His reception at Erfurt was
marked by such demonstration that he was dissatisfied, as he deemed it
inconsistent with the nature of the spiritual kingdom, for whose advancement
he was contending. The Rector of the University, with forty horsemen, met him
at Nohra, ten
miles to the
east. Professors, students, large numbers of the citizens, formed a
procession, in honour of Erfurt’s alumnus. Streets, doors, windows, towers,
walls, were filled with eager spectators. There were festive orations and
poems. Tarrying over Sunday at his old home, the Augustinian monastery, when
he preached on the Easter message, “ Peace be unto you,” the crowd was so dense
that there was an ominous crack as though the beams were giving way. The
threatened panic was at once stayed by his words: “ I know thy tricks, O Satan.
Fear not, there is no danger; the devil wants to prevent me from preaching the
Gospel, but he cannot do it.” Continuing his journey, he preached at Gotha and
Eisenach.
Meanwhile
the political complications at Worms had taken another turn. Unwearied in their
efforts to prevent Luther’s appearance, the papal ambassadors had at last
succeeded in procuring an Imperial edict for the delivery and burning of
Luther’s books. This was practically a condemnation in advance, and seemed to
render Luther’s presence unnecessary; but the Emperor tried to steer between
the two parties by saying that Luther was summoned only for the purpose of
having him recant. At Weimar this edict reached him, and its intention was immediately
seen. The Imperial herald, who was favourably disposed to Luther, asked
whether he would proceed. Only for a brief moment did he tremble; but quickly
regaining his self-possession, he answered: “Yes. I will proceed, and entrust
myself to the Emperor’s protection,” thus foiling the plan
of his
adversaries to have him condemned for contumacy in disobeying the summons.
Worn out and sick, he wrote to Spalatin from Frankfort: “ Christ lives; and we
shall enter Worms, though all the gates of Hell and powers of the air be
unwilling.” 1 From still another side was the effort made to deter
him. Glapio, the confessor of Charles, made a visit to Sickingen, then at his
castle at Ebern- burg, and impressing him with the great peril that awaited
Luther, enlisted his influence in the scheme to keep Luther from Worms. At Op-
penheim, Luther’s last stopping-place before reaching Worms, fifteen miles to
the south, a band of knights intercepted him, accompanying the late Dominican
monk, Martin Bucer, who had been entrusted with the commission of informing
Luther of Glapio’s representations, and inviting him to take refuge in
Sickingen’s castle. “ If the Emperor’s confessor,” answered Luther, “ wants to
speak with me, he can do so at Worms.” As he resumed his journey, a message
from Spalatin reminded him of the fate of Hus. Then it is said that he uttered
the memorable words: “ Though there be as many devils in Worms, as tiles in the
roofs, I will enter.” He had been summoned to make a public confession and to
stand a public trial, and he could not be deterred by the arts of private
diplomacy. Shortly before his death, referring to these events, he said: “ I
was unterrified; I was afraid of nothing. God can make one so daring!
1 “ Intrabimus Wormatiam, invitis omnibus portis
inferni et po- tentatibus aeris.” De Wette, i : 587.
I do not
know whether, under the same circumstances, I should now be so joyful.”
At ten
o’clock in the morning of Tuesday, April 16th, a trumpet call from the city
watch on the dome of the cathedral announced to the inhabitants of Worms that
Luther was at hand. The dinner- tables (for at that time such was the usual
hour for dinner) were deserted, while the population turned out en masse to see
him. A number of Saxon noblemen and others belonging to the Elector’s retinue
had gone out to escort him into the city. Two thousand people accompanied him
to his lodgings in the house of the Knights of St. John. In front rode the
Imperial herald, then Luther with his three friends; then, on horseback, Drs.
Jerome Schurf and Justus Jonas, and an escort from Erfurt; and, in the rear,
his Saxon friends. “ God will be with me,” he said to those who greeted him.
The indignation of Aleander knew no bounds. A heretic, he thought, should have
been brought into the city with the utmost privacy. But this demonstration had
the sanction of being preceded by the Imperial herald! Not only was he forced
to recognise how strongly the tide of popular sentiment was with Luther, but he
was smarting under the insolent letters of Hutten, who had actually ordered the
representative of the Pope out of Germany, and had threatened that, if the
order were not promptly obeyed, he should not return to Italy alive.
With wise
forethought the Elector had provided lodgings for Luther in the same house with
the Imperial marshal, Pappenheim, and in the same room
with two
Saxon noblemen. A constant stream of visitors flocked to his quarters, so that
it was nearly midnight before he could be alone. Unable to sleep, he spent a
good portion of the night at the window in prayer and in gently touching his
lute. Early the next morning, while Aleander was arranging with the Emperor
the details of the proceedings against him, he heard the confession, and administered
the communion to a Saxon nobleman who was sick unto death.
Summoned
to appear before the Diet at four o’clock in the afternoon, he was conducted
thither by the Imperial marshal and the herald who had brought him from
Wittenberg.1 The streets were so thronged that, in order to reach
the Episcopal palace, where the Diet was in session, they were compelled to
pass through the gardens and alleys. Reaching the palace, as far as eye could
see a vast crowd of men extended, while windows and roofs were also called into
service. Six o’clock came before he was admitted to the hall. Within and by
the open doors and windows, about five thousand men, Germans, Italians,
Netherlanders, Spaniards, had congregated. Contarini, the Venetian ambassador,
says: “In a hall, seated on a chair of state which was covered with gold
brocade and overhung by a canopy of the same material, sat the Emperor; on the
one side were seated all the electors; on the other, the cardinals.” What
thoughts of Luther occurred to many as he
1 For proceedings at Worms, see Op. var. arg., vi., 1
sqq.; Erlangen, 66: 367 sqq.; Weimar, vii., 814 sqq.; Calendar of State Papers
(Venetian) under dates.
appeared,
and against what prejudices he had to find a hearing, may also be learned from
the same despatches :
“ Luther
has reached such a pitch of madness, that he rejects the decrees of the
Councils, says that any layman can administer the sacrament of the eucharist,
that matrimony can be dissolved, that simple fornication is no sin, and hints
at that community of women, of which Plato treats in his Republic.”
On a
table, or bench, in front of the Emperor, lay copies of a number of Luther’s
books. Before such an audience, aware of the unequal terms upon which he would
be compelled to plead his cause, and thoroughly unacquainted with the mode of
procedure, it is not surprising that at first his embarrassment was manifest.
The program had been arranged by Aleander. A jurist from the retinue of the
Elector of Treves, whose name by a singular coincidence was that of Luther’s
lifelong opponent, Dr. John von Eck, had been selected to represent the
Emperor. Without the privilege of any argument, Luther was to answer
categorically two questions, and was addressed accordingly, first in Latin and
then in German: “ Martin, the Emperor has summoned you hither to answer, first,
whether you have written these books and others published under your name; and,
secondly, whether you will recant, or abide by them ? ”
Any
purpose to charge Luther with the authorship of what he had not written and to
gain his admission, was met by the interposition of Luther’s legal
[Progenies * diwav gyintvs «sic« carolvs
• illeIj Imperii * caesarj lvmina* et-ora-tv lit. |
AET SVAE XXXI
Ann • m d
XXXI
WRERR
tJlila
EMPEROR CHARLES V.
FROM AN ENGRAVING BY BARTEL BEHAM, 1531.
adviser,
Dr. Jerome Schurf, the Wittenberg Professor of Jurisprudence, who called out:
“ Let the titles be read.” When this had been done, Luther answered in a low
and scarcely audible voice, and with a shaking of the head, betraying his
embarrassment, that he had written them. His answer to the second question
was, that since it concerned his soul’s salvation, he must have time for
consideration. The Emperor expressed the opinion that the question was one for
which Luther ought to be prepared to make an immediate answer, but, after
considerable delay and consultation with his advisers, he granted Luther’s
request for a postponement until the next day at the same hour. The possibility
of receding from his position Luther never contemplated. That night he wrote:
“ I shall not recant an iota, if Christ be gracious to me.” But the importance
of the question demanded deliberation, and as his answer would be a formal
confession of his faith not only before the Emperor, but, as the results show,
for all time, he was concerned as to the manner in which that confession should
be made.
The crowd
the next day, Thursday, April 18th, was, if possible, still greater. A larger
hall had been procured, but it was so packed that even the princes had
difficulty to find places. The absence of the legates was conspicuous. On his
way a veteran officer, George von Freundsburg, had said, as he passed: “ My
poor monk, you have a fight before you to-day, such as neither I nor any of my comrades
in arms have ever had in
our
hottest battles.” Night had already fallen, and when Luther entered, the lights
in the hall were lit. With a brief preface, Eck repeated the question of the
preceding day concerning his recantation. Then, with a profound bow, Luther
rose. All the diffidence of the former interview was past. His voice was firm
and clear; his entire bearing, while courteous, that of one who had the fullest
faith in the justice and the ultimate triumph of his cause. After an
introduction, in which he begged pardon for any breach of propriety that his
inexperience in the customs of such assemblies might occasion, since his
training had been entirely that of a monk, he proceeded to the question. His
books, he said, were not all of one kind. Were he to repudiate those the truth
and correctness of which were acknowledged by his adversaries, he would be the
only man condemning them. Neither could those written against the manifest
tyranny and corruptions of the Papacy be recanted without conniving at
wickedness. A third class of books was directed against individuals who had
undertaken to defend the Papacy. Although here he freely acknowledged that he
had sometimes written with more acerbity than was becoming, yet the books
themselves could not be recanted without giving his opponents support for a
statement that, on the topics treated, he had receded from his antagonism.
Quoting the words of Christ, John xviii., 23, he asked for a refutation of his
books, from the prophetical and apostolical Scriptures. “ I am ready, if
convicted, to recall every error, and will be the
first to
throw my books into the fire.” Divisions because of the Gospel are only what
the Lord, who came not to send peace, but a sword, had told us to expect. Then
he warned the young Emperor to beware of committing himself to a policy like
that of Pharaoh and the King of Babylon, and many of the kings of Israel.
“ For God takes the wise in their own craftiness, and causes the
mountains to fall before they know it. This I say, not as though such exalted
dignitaries stand in need of my admonition, but because I cannot withdraw
myself from the service which I owe to Germany. I commit myself, therefore, to
Your Majesty, with the prayer that you will not allow my cause to be prejudiced
by my adversaries.”
This
answer, first made in Latin, was then repeated in German. Many, however,
reverse the order. As the room was close and overheated, he was told that, if
he so desired, he could be excused from this additional exertion ; but he
preferred to be so heard.
Luther’s
reply was followed by a consultation between the Emperor and his
counsellors,—after which Dr. Eck answered that they were not there to hold a
disputation. If the errors, which he held in common with Wiclif and Hus, were
recanted, everything new that was found in his works could be referred to
learned men, who would judge it impartially. The Emperor, he said, demanded a
simple answer, “ without horns.”
“ Well, then,” said Luther, “ since His Imperial Majesty wants a plain
answer, I shall give him a plain
answer, without horns and teeth. Unless I be refuted by Scriptural
testimonies, or by clear arguments—for I believe neither the Pope nor the
councils alone, since it is clear that they have often erred and contradicted
one another—I am convinced by the passages of Scripture, which I have cited,
and my conscience is bound in the word of God. I cannot and will not recant
anything ; since it is insecure and dangerous to act against conscience.”
In his
astonishment, the Emperor is said to have then suggested the question whether
Luther actually were of the opinion that councils could err. The answer was:
“Of course; because they have often erred. For, since the Council of Constance
decided in many points against the clear text of Holy Scripture, Holy
Scripture forces me to say that councils have erred.” Dr. Eck declared that it
could not be proved that general councils had erred; Luther said that he was
ready to prove it. The disputation that they had proclaimed they would avoid
was beginning. The Emperor rose to conclude the session. A confusion followed,
in which Luther again, in words that were scarcely heard above the din, commended
himself to the Emperor, and finally, in louder tones, exclaimed: “ I cannot do
otherwise. Here I stand. God help me! ” 1
Two
guards, whose presence the outbreak of the indignation of the Spaniards
rendered necessary, having been ordered to accompany him as he left
1 The explanation of the confusion of authorities
concerning these words, Kolde regards as owing to the fact that they were
spoken in the tumult. See note, i., 393.
the hall,
there was a moment of intense excitement, when it was supposed that he had been
arrested.
“ lam through
! I am through / I AM THROUGH! ” were the exultant words with which Luther
greeted his friends at his lodgings. “ Even though I had a hundred heads, I
would have had them all cut off at once before I would have recanted anything.”
His hearing had lasted just about two hours. The tankard of Eimbeck beer, sent
by Duke Erich of Brunswick, before he left the Episcopal palace, and the
visits to his lodgings of a number of princes and dukes, among them Philip of
Hesse, who assured him: “You are right, Doctor,” indicated the good impression
he had made upon many in high position. No one was more pleased with his course
than the Elector of Saxony, although, from prudential reasons, he kept at a
distance. The popular feeling was overwhelmingly on his side. The Venetian
ambassador, while prejudiced in many of his statements against Luther, writes:
“ I cannot
tell you how much favour he enjoys here, which is of such nature that, on the
Emperor’s departure, I suspect that it will produce some bad effects, most especially
against the prelates of Germany. In truth, had this man been prudent, had he
restricted himself to his first propositions and not entangled himself in manifest
errors about the faith, he would have been, I do not say favoured, but adored
by the whole of Germany.”
In another
despatch he says: '* He has many powerful partisans, who encourage him, and
against
x3
whom no
one dares to [proceed]. Luther’s works are sold publicly in Worms, although the
Pope and the Emperor, who is on the spot, have prohibited them.” 1
Aleander, on the other hand, was triumphant in the clearness of the case that
could now be made against Luther.
On the
next morning, Friday, April 19th, the Emperor submitted to the estates of the
Empire the proposition to immediately dismiss Luther and then, on the
expiration of his safe-conduct, to proceed against him as a heretic. That
night, a placard on the City Hall, or Rathhaus, pledged four hundred knights to
the defence of Luther. Although ridiculed by the Emperor, the German princes
regarded this a most serious matter, and prevailed upon Charles to endeavour to
conciliate Luther by means of a commission that would confer with him in a less
formal manner. Wednesday, April 24th, at 6 A.M., the commission, under the
presidency of the Archbishop and Elector of Treves, and comprising besides
himself, the Elector of Brandenburg, Duke George of Saxony, the bishops of
Augsburg and Brandenburg, the headmaster of the German knights, Albrecht of
Brandenburg, the Duke of Wertheim, two representatives of the free cities,
Peutinger of Augsburg, and Bock of Strassburg, and the Chancellor of the
Margrave of Baden, Dr. Jerome Vehus, began their sessions. Their conference
with Luther, two days later, in which he was accompanied by Schurf, Jonas, Ams-
dorf, and Spalatin, was fruitless; as was also the
1 Calendar of State Papers (Venetian), 376 sqq.,
under dates given.
more
private interview, for three hours, on the morning of the 25th, with Drs.
Peutinger and Vehus, and, on the afternoon of the same day, with the Archbishop
of Treves.
All
efforts having failed, and the Archbishop of Treves having been asked by Luther
to secure from the Emperor leave for immediate departure, the formal dismissal
was delivered to him at his lodgings by Dr. Eck and the Emperor’s private
secretary. The Emperor stated that, as defender of the Catholic faith, he must
proceed against Luther, but that, meanwhile, the safe-conduct would be
faithfully observed; Luther, however, was to refrain from preaching and
writing. His answer was a courteous acknowledgment of the Emperor’s consideration,
as shown throughout the Diet, and the promise to comply with the Imperial
request, except so far as it affected the binding of God’s word. The next day,
Friday, April 26th, he left. The battle for freedom of conscience had been
fought and won.
The
account of Luther’s experience at Worms would be incomplete without a reference
to the prayer made in his room during the crisis, which, tradition says, some
one heard, and immediately committed to writing, and in which, according to his
habit of praying aloud, he commended himself to God in language of such
eloquence and fervour, and with so many individual characteristics, that every
consideration of internal evidence points to its genuineness. It is his great
hymn, Em fests Burg, in prose.
“ Almighty
and Eternal God, how is there but one thing to be seen upon earth ! How the
people open wide their mouths ! How small and insignificant is their trust in
God ! How tender and weak the flesh, and how mighty and active the devil,
working through his apostles and those wise in this world ! How the world
draws back the hand, and snarls, as it runs the common course —the broad way to
Hell, where the godless belong ! It has regard only for what is pretentious and
powerful, great and mighty. If I should turn my eyes in that direction, it
would be all over with me ; the clock would strike the hour, and sentence would
be passed. O God ! O God ! O Thou, my God ! Do Thou, my God, stand by me,
against all the world’s wisdom and reason. Oh, do it ! Thou must do it! Yea,
Thou alone must do it! Not mine, but Thine, is the cause. For my own self, I
have nothing to do with these great earthly lords. I would prefer to have
peaceful days, and to be out of this turmoil. But Thine, O Lord, is this cause
; it is righteous and eternal. Stand by me, Thou true Eternal God ! In no man
do I trust. All that is of the flesh and that savours of the flesh, is here of
no account. God,
O God ! dost Thou not hear me, O my God ? Art
Thou dead? No. Thou canst not die ; Thou art only hiding Thyself. Hast Thou
chosen me for this work? I ask Thee how I may be sure of this, if it be Thy
will: for I would never have thought, in all my life, of undertaking aught
against such great lords. Stand by me, O God, in the Name of Thy dear Son,
Jesus Christ, who shall be my Defence and Shelter, yea, my Mighty Fortress,
through the might and strength of Thy Holy Ghost. Lord, where abidest Thou ?
Thou art my God ; where art Thou ? Come ! come ! I am ready to lay down my life
patiently as a lamb. For the cause is right and it is
Thine, so
shall I never be separated from Thee. Let all be done in Thy Name ! The world
must leave my conscience unconstrained ; and, although it should be full of
devils, and my body, Thy handiwork and creation, be rent into fragments, yet
Thy Word and Spirit are good to me. All this can befall only the body ; the
soul is Thine, and belongs to Thee, and shall abide with Thee eternally. Amen.
God help me. Amen.”1
After the
Elector of Saxony had left Worms, on May 26th, the Imperial edict against
Luther was published, although bearing the date of eighteen days before, and at
the same time the Pope and the Emperor made common cause against the King of
France.
1 Erlangen, 64 : 289 sqq.
AT THE WARTBURG
N Friday,
April 26, 1521, at 10 A.M., with the
comrades
who had accompanied him from Wittenberg, and Dr. Schurf, Luther left Worms. In
order not to give the matter too much importance, the Imperial herald delayed
his departure for some hours, joining the party at Oppenheim that evening. On
the next day he reached Frankfort, from which place he wrote to his friend the
painter, Lucas Cranach, at Wittenberg, that, for a time, he would not be heard
of. A plan had been devised, probably by John, the Elector's brother, for the
twofold purpose of sheltering Luther from impending danger, and preventing him
from irritating his enemies by any further public utterances. The details of
the plan were concealed from all except those who were to execute it. The night
before leaving Worms, Luther and Amsdorf were admitted to the secret. After
another day’s journey, at Friedberg, the herald
ARREST OF LUTHER BY HIS FRIENDS
was
dismissed, in order that the plan might be carried out, and with him Luther
sent back two letters, one to the Emperor and the other to the princes in
session at the Diet, explaining why it had been impossible for him to recant.
At
Hersfeld he received an ovation, being most cordially greeted by the Benedictines,
and formally received by the magistrates. The next morning (May 2d) he preached
at 5 A.M., and that night reached Eisenach. Here also the demand to hear him
was so great that he preached again, although the parish priest protested. At
Eisenach three of the party left him, Amsdorf and Petzensteiner accompanying
him into the Thuringian forest on a visit to his grandmother, his uncle, and
other relatives. Preaching again at Mohra, the ancestral home of his family,
eight and three quarter miles south of Eisenach, he was accompanied for some
distance by relatives. After they had left him, near the castle of Altenstein,
in the depths of the forest, an armed troop of horsemen suddenly appeared, and
carried Luther off as a prisoner to the castle of the Wartburg, situated on an
eminence overhanging Eisenach, which, by a circuitous route, they reached about
11 p.m. The
scheme had been executed by Hans von Berlepsch, the lord of the Wartburg
castle, and Burchard von Hund, of the Altenstein castle.
Great
consternation followed, as the tidings of Luther’s disappearance spread
throughout Germany, and the conviction became almost universal that his enemies
had made away with him. The indignation
grew to
such an extent that Aleander, in Worms, began to tremble for his life. The
Papal nuncio, however, even then suspected that “ the Saxon fox,” as he called
the Elector, had concealed him.
With the
secret of his name unknown to any about him but his host and hostess, with his
monastic habit exchanged for that of a knight, with a full beard, a sword by
his side and a gold chain around his neck, called “ Sir George,” riding out
frequently with an attendant through the wild mountain passes, occasionally
making a hurried visit to the neighbouring villages or joining in the hunt, or
gathering strawberries in the meadows, or looking forth upon a wide landscape
replete with memories of his boyhood and the homes of his relatives, no change
of life could have been more radical, or more beneficial, notwithstanding his
physical discomfort at times, because of the richness of his food. But he could
not rest. Even the quiet study of the Bible in its original languages seemed
idleness. An exposition of the Sixty-Eighth Psalm, another book on Confession,
an exposition of the Magnificat, a controversial treatise in answer to the
Louvain theologian, Lato- mus, flowed with astonishing rapidity from his pen.
Then he applied himself to the continuation of his commentary on the Psalms,
and especially to the beginning of his Postils, or sermons on the Gospels and
Epistles for the Sundays and Festivals of the Church Year, this time in the
German, as his previous work on the same subject had been in the Latin
language. The Postils not only afforded the laity a plain exposition of Holy Scripture,
but also
put into
the hands of pastors, so few of whom had been properly prepared for the
ministry, both the material and the models for their sermons. Without artistic
elaboration, or even strictly logical order, Luther’s sermons are the plain,
earnest, forceful expression of his sincere convictions, poured forth with all
the ardour of extemporaneous utterance, but, at the same time, the ripe fruit
of his extensive knowledge of Scripture and his deep Christian experience. At
every point, he teaches, warns, exhorts, comforts, reproves in the language of
the time and people, and with respect to the living issues of the hour, always
with the utmost candour, and without regard to the fear or favour of men.
That,
notwithstanding his concealment, Luther’s influence was still dreaded, had soon
a remarkable proof in an incident which concerned his former opponent, the
Archbishop of Mayence. Profiting nothing by his sad experience in the case of
Tetzel, Albrecht’s habitual pecuniary straits had led to the publication of a
sale of indulgences at Halle, which offered 39,540,120 years’ and 220 days’
respite from purgatory. Intimations of the criticism which this sale was likely
to provoke from Luther having reached him, Capito, his chaplain, who was favourably
inclined to the Reformation, was sent to Wittenberg to prevent the attack.
Spalatin undertook to turn Luther from his purpose. As the Elector was
sheltering Luther, in opposition to both Emperor and Diet, he insisted that
Luther should not attack another Elector, who was at the same time archbishop
and cardinal. Luther was indignant.
Was he,
who had dared to withstand the Pope, to shrink from attacking his creature ?
Far better that the whole world should perish than that he should be hindered
in warning Christ’s sheep of the wolf that was after them! All-that he could be
expected to do was to postpone for a time the publication of the book that he
had written. At last, impatient at the delay, he writes directly to the
Archbishop, informing him that he must not think Luther dead, and that if,
within fourteen days, no answer be received, he may expect to be publicly
exposed. A most humiliating letter (December 21st) followed from this
ecclesiastical and secular prince, acknowledging his sin, stating that the sale
of indulgences was suppressed, and promising, for the future, to conduct
himself in a Christian way. This might have satisfied him, had it not been followed
immediately by a letter from Capito, assuring him that Albrecht’s sympathies
were actually with the Reformation, but that he sought to reach the same end by
less aggressive methods.
The
elaborate treatise on Monastic Vows, completed before the close of November,
would alone have constituted a most gratifying fruit of the detention at the
Wartburg. Most interesting is the long letter in which he dedicates the book to
his father.1 It shows most conclusively that the course of the son
was, from the beginning to the end, most powerfully influenced by the father,
and that, even after the former had outgrown the spell of authorities that
seemed for a time to throw the advice of
the humble
miner into the shade, the son recurred to, and scientifically vindicated, his
father's simple judgment. “ I want you to know,” he writes, “that your son has
advanced so far as to be most firmly convinced that no observance is holier,
none higher, none more sacred than a divine command.” Then he recounts the
difference between his father and himself, when he entered the monastery, his
father’s just indignation that for a time withdrew all intercourse from his
disobedient son, and how when he at length was reconciled, it was with the open
protest against the sin he believed that his son had committed in disobeying
him, and becoming a monk. Reviewing the circumstances now, he says that he
clearly sees that, even after he had entered the monastery, not a vow that he
made was worth a straw, when opposed to his father's will. The Lord, however,
had permitted him to enter into that course in order that he might be able to
testify how foolish were the imagined attainments of the schools, and the
vaunted holiness of monastic observances. “You are still my parent, and I am
still your son; and all vows are of no account.” But while his father’s
authority had precedence above all vows, there is one sphere, he says, into
which that cannot enter. The call to the ministry is of divine appointment, and
here, “ he that loveth father or mother more than Me, is not worthy of Me.” Not
that the authority of parents necessarily conflicts with the office of the
ministry, but that, if they should conflict, that of Christ alone is to
prevail.
“ I send
this book, therefore, to you, in order that you may see by what signs and power
Christ now has freed me from my monastic vow, and given me such liberty, that,
although I have been made the servant of all, yet I am subject to no one, but
to Him alone. For He is my immediate Bishop, Abbot, Prior, Lord, Father, and
Master. None other do I know.”
At the
beginning of December he undertook a secret journey to Wittenberg, where he
stayed for several days in the house of Amsdorf, not venturing to visit even
his own apartments at the monastery. Here his portrait in the dress of a knight
was painted by his friend Cranach, and conferences with trusted friends were
held. Notwithstanding his absence, the University had prospered. Students
crowded thither from almost all European nations, for the study not only of
theology, but also of medicine and jurisprudence. The theological faculty had
been strengthened by an accession of youthful professors. Justus Jonas, the
Erfurt jurist, called first to the legal faculty, soon exchanged it for that of
theology. Aurogallus had become Professor of Hebrew; and John Bugenhagen, whose
services became most invaluable in the sphere of Church organisation, had come
to Wittenberg while Luther was at Worms. Melanchthon’s energies had been more
and more concentrated upon theology, and his text-book, the famous Loci
Theologici, was just about appearing. Carlstadt, restless, ambitious,
contentious, censorious in his relations with his colleagues, as well as with
others, supported by a kindred agitator, the Augustinian Zwilling, gave no heed
to the Elector's
cautions,
and precipitated radical changes, some of them not in themselves ungrateful to
Luther. The marriage of priests, the abandonment of monasteries, the abrogation
of all authority within the monasteries for those who remained, the cessation
of the daily masses, the administration of the communion in both forms, were
among the earlier reforms. As previously at Erfurt, so at Wittenberg, the depreciation
of the monastic orders was manifested in open acts of iconoclastic violence.
Understanding
well the excitable and turbulent nature of students, and satisfied that their
zeal would soon abate, Luther feared, from these outbreaks, no general
disorder. The occasion nevertheless seemed to demand his testimony; and this
he gave in the preparation, immediately after his return to the Wartburg, of his
Admonition to all Christians to
Abstain from Riot and Sedition.* The folly of violence, the
dishonour it does to God’s order, the want of confidence in God’s own means of
overthrowing His enemies that it manifests, the great prejudice against the
evangelical cause that it must inevitably occasion are dwelt upon. Riot and
sedition spring only from the devil. If there be evils for which the
magistrates bring no relief, recognise this condition of things as the
punishment of sin, pray to God for deliverance, speak, preach, write, testify
openly against the evil, as God gives opportunity. It is not by our efforts,
but by the breath of Christ’s mouth, that these evils are to be remedied. He
complains of those superficial spirits
who, when
they have read a page or two, or heard a sermon or two, think themselves
entrusted with a special commission to go forth and reprove others for not
holding to the evangelical faith. He warns against the manner in which his name
has been abused. Men should be called Christians, not Lutherans. “ What am I, a
miserable mass of corruption, that the children of Christ should be called by
my name!” 1 Adversaries are of two classes. The hardened should be
left to themselves, for pearls should not be thrown before swine. With those
merely weak, great patience must be exercised, and gentle means employed. With
wolves, you cannot be too severe; with sheep, you cannot be too tender.
But the
more he appealed to the testimony of Holy Scripture, the more need he felt of
an accurate translation in the language of the people. To be guarded against
errorists from both sides that were assailing them, they must have the Word of
God in their own hands, or they would be carried into all kinds of
extravagance. Polemical treatises could serve only a temporary purpose, until
the people could be rooted and grounded in the faith by their own study of Holy
Scripture. While there were in existence no less than fourteen previous German
translations, yet these were from the Latin Vulgate, lacked scholarly precision,
were marked by a style alien to that of the people, and could be procured only
at a high price. During his visit to Wittenberg in December, 1521, his friends
urged
the
undertaking of a new translation of the Bible into German, and within a few days
after his return he was at work upon it. His friend, Lange of Erfurt, having
undertaken a similar translation that proceeded very slowly, he wrote that he
wished that every town should have its translator, so that the Bible should be
in the tongue, hands, eyes, ears, and hearts of all. The second edition of the
Greek Testament of Erasmus (Basel, 1518) furnished the text. With little
apparatus, not even consulting previous translations until the first draught
was finished, he worked with such rapidity that within three months the entire
New Testament was in an idiomatic German that to the present hour is the wonder
of all literary critics. His entire life and character are reflected in the
style. All his attainments are kept subordinate to the one object of presenting
the thoughts of Revelation in language that is the simplest and most intelligible
to all classes of the people. In giving the Germans their Bible he gave the
German language a permanent literary form, and, upon the basis of a common
language replacing the confusion of dialects that had heretofore been current,
unified the German people. The work was rendered relatively easy by his
thorough acquaintance with both the language and the spirit of Scripture. His
translation is not only a rendering of the original into another tongue; it is
an interpretation that touches at once the heart and very life of the most
unlettered as well as the most learned. The achievement of those three months
would alone have given him lasting fame.
Having
calculated with considerable accuracy the length of time required, he announced
to his friends his purpose to return to Wittenberg after Easter. He desired,
with the aid of his associates, to subject his translation to a thorough
revision, and then to proceed to the Old Testament, for which his limited
acquaintance with the Hebrew rendered their cooperation indispensable.
MELANCHTHON’S COAT OF ARMS.
BOOK III
THE REFORMER 1522-1546
/ '
» n
C^y*UiA
^1-yc . ftkfcry* 1v»i • ^ -
~'V>- >wy 'fcyhf-
!yx 'm*trrr~*crt , %f^4rwv^
j.**-*YiU~y +^1?J>*ry*~r*
^^•U-v<TfVi' ''Vr^rr/ j\* a >v~f**-w
^^OTi'Wi y~c "y'*lf^V
£${ (?/Jjj*<ff‘*~%~+ ys,p-r^Cfj y^y^-( /y^hy-f *\i> ~Jy/\ ■
Aj>+\/ >VW ')**+*, <vv^ >-vvvv-<>/K^ ->
<>rvf rvryx^Ajf f\A~$ J^c/rh*
TV> ^.n.L' Syntax} 'T^p y/t■ ^*"
V^r^vry '*~y\r ■ >** r^vv^K n*vS-*
r+t*r *J
$0 yyr^ >w»v, V^*-
^ ^C*-y /vvv^>^'
d h "
7 ^ *^v>^5 TV Va >av*v*wv,
FACSIMILE LETTER OF MARTIN LUTHER TO PASTOR LESTURUS, 1524.
,M
r.niiFcTION OF MR, FREDERICK DRFER, PHILADELPHIA.>
CARLSTADT AND THE ZWICKAU PROPHETS UTHER was compelled to hasten from the
Wartburg
because of the alarming progress that the radical element had made at
Wittenberg. The administration of the Lord’s Supper in both forms would not
have met his disapproval at the time, if it had not been accompanied by the
abolition of all means whereby communicants were prepared for the service. In
the neighbourhood, Zwilling discarded the vestments of the Mass, substituted
the German for the Latin language, and gave the cup and wafers into the hands
of communicants. The altars were removed from the chapel of the Augustinians
and the images of the saints burned. Carlstadt affirmed that the Ten Commandments
were aimed as directly against the retention of images in the churches as
against adultery or theft. The sick and dying were left without the
consolations of the Gospel, and criminals were led
to
execution, as the ox meets its fate, without a word of religious instruction or
prayer. Small children were given the Lord’s Supper. Carlstadt, Zwilling, and
More, the rector of the Boys’ School, visited the plainest of the people, to
seek from them the interpretation of difficult passages of Scripture, upon the
assumption that these things are hidden from the wise and prudent, and revealed
only to babes. All learning and study were disparaged, and parents were advised
to take their children from school. The University began to feel the effects of
such teaching. Students were abandoning their course, and even professors were
contemplating a change of occupation.
The later
extravagances of Carlstadt had been stimulated by a foreign influence that had
entered Wittenberg, and found there a soil ready for its activity. On December
27, 1521, three men arrived in the town, who were followers and propagandists
of the opinions of Thomas Muenzer of Zwickau. Two of them were by trade
cloth-weavers, of whom the leader, Nicholas Storch, was one, while the third
member of the party was a former Wittenberg student, who had lived in
Melanchthon’s house, Mark Thomas Stuebner. They depreciated the authority of
the Holy Scriptures, professed to have immediate revelations and a direct call
from God, and attacked the validity of infant baptism. At Wittenberg they were
listened to with surprising consideration. Melanchthon and Amsdorf were unprepared
to withstand them, and were much perplexed. An earnest appeal was made to the
Elector
that
Luther be sent for, as he only was able to deal with the difficult questions
that were thus raised. That some supernatural influence was at work within them
was to Melanchthon a matter of certainty. He hesitated to say that it was not
of God. Neither the Elector nor Luther regarded the crisis so important.
Luther wrote a mild letter of reproof to Melanchthon:
“ I cannot
approve of your timidity,” he writes. “ When they make professions concerning
themselves, they are not to be immediately heard, but, according to the directions
of John, the spirits must be tested. You have also the advice of Gamaliel
concerning deferring judgment, for there is nothing, as far as I have heard,
that they have said or done, that Satan cannot imitate. Only try, in my stead,
whether they can prove their vocation. For God never sent any one, not even His
Son, unless called by man, or approved by signs. Examine whether they have
experienced spiritual distress. If you hear only smooth, tranquil, devout, and
religious things of them, even though they profess to have been carried to the
third heaven, do not give them your approval, because the sign of the Son of
Man is wanting. Try them, therefore, and listen not even to the glorified
Christ unless you have first seen Him crucified.”
In answer
to their attack upon infant baptism, he
says:
“They urge
nothing but the passage: * He that be- lieveth and is baptised, shall be
saved.’ But what proof is there that infants do not believe ? Is it that they
do not speak and declare their faith ? According to this
test, at
how many hours will we be Christians ? What when we are asleep, or engaged in
other matters ? Cannot God, then, preserve faith in children in the same way,
during the entire time of their infancy, as in a continual sleep ? . . . By a
singular miracle of God, it has come to pass that this article alone concerning
the baptism of infants has never been called in question. No heretics, even,
have denied it. The confession to its validity is constant and unanimous. . . .
Whatever is not against Scripture, is for Scripture, and Scripture is for it.” 1
But upon
what could Luther depend in this crisis at his home, when Melanchthon, the man
upon whom, above all, the responsibility rested, commended the agitator
Zwilling as one “ who preaches so purely and plainly and spiritually, that you
cannot find one to compare with him! ” a The Elector’s command, however,
was peremptory that he should not stir from the Wartburg. But when the
magistrates of Wittenberg and the congregation presented their appeal, he
ventured to disobey. On the evening of March 3d, two Swiss students, on their
way to Wittenberg, met him at the “ Black Bear," in Jena. He was sitting
alone at a table, in a knight’s dress, his hand upon the hilt of a sword, and a
Hebrew Bible before him. The unknown knight was peculiarly friendly, paid for
their supper, and surprised them by his learning. Discussing current topics, he
assured them that it would not be long until Luther would be again in
Wittenberg. When the landlord expressed the opinion that the stranger was
Luther,
he was not
credited. They ventured to ask their companion whether he were not Hutten, and
received the answer that he was not. When they bade him good-bye, he asked
them to call upon Dr. Schurf, when they reached Wittenberg, and to present the
regards of the “ one who is coming/' From Borna he wrote to the Elector,
explaining his return, and assuring Frederick that he relied upon a Higher
Power than that of the Saxon court for his protection. 4 4 I can
offer Your Highness more protection than Your Highness can offer me.” As he
had to pass through the territory of Duke George, he declared that if matters
at Leipzig were in the same condition as at Wittenberg, he would make straight
for Leipzig, even though for nine days it would rain Duke Georges nine times as
furious as the one who threatened him. All that the Elector could do was to
request the preparation of a temperate paper, explaining the reasons for his
return, which would be in proper form for presentation to the Imperial Council.
Reaching
home on Thursday, March 6, 1522, the next day was spent upon this report, and
Saturday among his friends, in order to learn the precise state of affairs.
When, on that afternoon, the two Swiss students called upon Dr. Schurf to
communicate the message with which they had been entrusted by the strange
knight at the 44 Black Bear,” they were surprised to be greeted by
him in the room into which they were ushered. The next day, being the First
Sunday in Lent, he began in the Parish Church a series of eight sermons 1
upon the crisis. Although
1 Erlangen,
28 ; 202 sqq.
the
provocation could scarcely have been greater, neither a word of denunciation,
nor the least reference to the leaders of the agitation, escaped his lips. No
other weapon is used to reclaim his erring people than a clear statement of the
Scriptural teaching that bears upon the events. “ By the Word alone those
things are to be attacked that our men have been attempting to abolish by
violence.” Assuming that the congregation has laid to heart the fact that they
are sinners, and that the Lord Jesus Christ alone is their salvation, he
charges them with lacking Christian love and patience. It is not enough to
have faith, but we must see to it that our faith and liberty in Christ be not
used to the injury of our brethren. If alone, I can wield a naked sword as I
please, but if in a crowd, I must beware, lest, by my carelessness, I injure
others. Much that had occurred in his absence he approved, but regretted that
not sufficient consideration had been had for the weak. In regard even to those
matters where God's word allows no freedom, we dare not attempt to constrain
others by any other means than that of the preaching of this same Word. We must
say: “ Dear sirs, abandon the Mass. Your way of celebrating it is not right,
and you are sinning and provoking God’s wrath.” But if you cannot convince
them, you cannot force them by other means. “ I will preach and talk and write
against these things: but no one will I attempt to force.” “ The Word that has
created the heavens and the earth must do this, or it will be left undone.”
These
sermons, by their calm presentation of the
truth,
disarmed all opposition. Melanchthon was strengthened. Zwilling confessed his
errors. The Council of Wittenberg presented both Luther and his father with
substantial testimonials of their appreciation of his services. Capito,
chaplain of the Archbishop of Mayence, having heard of the two sermons, was
converted by them to the evangelical side. The Zwickau agitators were absent
when Luther appeared upon the scene. Stuebner, some weeks later, sought an interview
with Luther, but obtained it with great difficulty. In the presence of
Melanchthon, Luther administered such a reprimand that Stuebner left
Wittenberg that very day. Storch called upon Luther in the autumn of the same
year. Luther writes of him as a frivolous man, who seemed to have but one idea,
viz., that of the abolition of infant baptism.
REBUILDING
WITH the
eight sermons preached against the Zwickau prophets in Lent, 1522, alluded to
above, in the Parochial Church at Wittenberg, Luther resumed his position as
regular preacher during the continued disablement of its pastor, Brueck. Under
Brueck’s successor, Bugen- hagen, his services in the same capacity were frequent.
According to the principles taught in the eight sermons, and still more fully
elaborated in a pamphlet, Of the Two Forms of the Sacrament,l he
proceeded to restore much of the service that Carlstadt had abolished. While
Carlstadt had administered the Lord’s Supper without requiring any previous
preparation, Luther introduced the practice whereby all intending to commune
applied previously to the pastor, in order that, where it was desirable, there
might be opportunity for instruction
DR. JOHN BUQENHAQEN.
FSOM AN
ENGRAVING BY CRANACH, 1543.
and
admonition. The communion was administered in one or both forms, according to
the desire of the communicant. From the liturgical formularies every reference
to the thought of a sacrifice in the Mass was eliminated. Daily masses were no
longer said. In the Castle Church, upon the door of which Luther had nailed his
Theses, the innovations of Carlstadt had found no entrance, and the clergy of
the Chapter officiating there were so attached to the old order, that the Roman
Mass was retained unchanged, until, after a most vigorous struggle, it was
abandoned late in 1524. In the church of the Cloister, however, where Luther
officiated every Sunday morning at early service, the communion was always
administered in both forms. The diversity in the three churches of Wittenberg
indicates the confusion prevalent in a period of transition. Desirable as
uniformity might be, he was satisfied, for the time, that the essentials of the
service, viz., the Words of Institution, were retained.
With all
his energy he now devoted himself, with the assistance of his colleagues,
especially Melanch- thon, to the thorough revision of his translation of the
New Testament. The court jewels, through Spalatin’s intervention, were
borrowed, in order that a better conception of the precious stones described in
the Book of Revelation might be formed. The first edition appeared in
September, and the second in December, 1522. Introductions to each book of the
New Testament and glosses upon many passages accompanied the translation. Among
the introductions is the famous one to the Epistle to the
Romans,1
remarkable not only for its eloquence and vigour, but also summarising, within
a few pages, what Luther conceived to be the argument not only of the Epistle,
but also of all Scripture. During this summer he published Melanchthon’s commentary
on Romans, without its author's consent, or even his knowledge, until the
printed volume appeared upon the desk of the astonished professor.
Into the
details of his visitation of the churches, made shortly after Easter, we cannot
enter, except to note that his journey through Albertine Saxony was attended
with no inconsiderable danger because of the hostility of Duke George; that at
Zwickau no less than 25,000 people streamed together from all the surrounding
country to see him and to hear him preach, and that of his four sermons there,
one was preached from an open window of the RatJihaus to the crowds beneath.
Nor can we more than mention his important services at Erfurt, in October,
1522, in bringing order out of the confusion that there prevailed.
The
controversy with King Henry VIII. of England was merely an episode of this
period, without any influence upon the main work which then occupied Luther.
The vanity of the King, who especially boasted of his attainments in scholastic
theology, eagerly availed itself of the opportunity for a display of learning
in a reply to Luther’s book on The Babylo?iian Captivity. It won from the Pope
the title of “ Defender of the Faith,” and the reward of an indulgence of ten
years to every one
221
of its
readers. Translated into German, it was extensively circulated wherever there
was prospect of injuring thereby Luther’s cause. Even previously, during the
Diet of Worms, Henry had written to the Emperor, urging the punishment of Luther
and the extirpation of the “ Lutheran pestilence, poison, and death,” by fire
and sword. The question with Luther was simply whether or not the book should
be answered. If it was to be answered, he had to deal not with the King of
England, but with the scholastic theologian on its throne, and the violent
persecutor of God’s word. When Henry directly called Luther “ a devil,” “ more
pernicious than all Turks, Saracens, and unbelievers,” he abandoned all claim
to the courtesies due his royal rank, and issued a challenge which he was
surprised to find so promptly accepted. Never was king so scored in a polemical
treatise, as was Henry in Luther’s answer, written in both Latin and German,1
which is so severe that, even to the present day, it awakens sympathy for the
victim, “ by God’s disgust King of England,” from those not considering the extremity
of the provocation. Henry’s appeal to the Elector to call Luther to an account
was fruitless, since the Elector only held out the hope of a future general council
as the remedy for all ecclesiastical differences and wrongs.
Another
incident was the controversy occasioned by the attempts to suppress the
circulation of Luther’s translation of the New Testament, which
was
received everywhere as the most popular book of the day. A bitter opponent,
Cochlaeus, has recorded his testimony concerning the manner in which even
shoemakers and women became absorbed in its study, so as to be able in a short
time to carry on discussions with doctors of theology. In Bavaria, Austria, and
Mark Brandenburg, the strictest measures were taken to exclude it. Duke George
not only under severe penalties forbade any one to have it in his possession in
Albertine Saxony, but paid the price for all copies surrendered. His chaplain,
Emser, a former friend of Luther, who had before this time written against him,
published, in the beginning of 1523, a tract, charging Luther’s translation
with over 1400 errors, which, on examination, proved to be chiefly variations
from the inaccurate text of the Latin Vulgate. Four years later, when Emser
attempted to meet the demand for a German New Testament by an approved Catholic
translation, he showed his critical attainments by the simple method of
transcribing Luther’s translation, with such changes as would make it conform
with the Vulgate. To serve those who were under perplexity as to their duty,
when their copies of the New Testament were demanded, Luther published, at the
very beginning of 1523, a tract on How Far is a Christian under Obligation to
Obey the Magistrates ? 1 This is a discriminating discussion of the
Scriptural basis for civil government. After citing the positive authority of
Scripture and arguing for the perpetual validity of Old Testament
testimonies,
he shows how such texts as Matt, v., 38, 39; Rom. xii., 19; 1 Pet. iii., 9,
have been misapplied by those claiming that the New Testament has either
annulled all civil ordinances or absolved Christians from obedience. Dividing
men into two classes, Christians and unbelievers, he says that the former
belong to the kingdom of Christ, and the latter to the kingdom of the world.
The former, so far as they are Christians, need no worldly sword or laws, but
are governed by the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. If all the world were completely
Christianised, all rulers and codes of laws could be abolished. Good trees bear
apples without any books of instruction to guide them. Laws must be made and
enforced, because of those who are not true Christians (1 Tim. i., 9), just as
wild beasts must be kept in chains and cages. True Christians, however, even in
Christian lands are rare. The great mass is composed of unbelievers. To abolish
the civil government, and to attempt to rule an entire country simply by means
of the Gospel, would be as though a shepherd were to turn lions and wolves into
the same stall with the sheep, and bid them live in harmony. The sheep, of
course, would keep the peace; but how long would they remain unmolested ? Both
governments must therefore be maintained; the one to keep the outward peace and
repress the lawless; the other to promote faith and a godly life.
But the
civil government must not'be allowed to assume for itself what belongs to the
spiritual. With the thought of the soul, or the faith of the
heart, it
has nothing to do. No one can believe or disbelieve for me; neither can one
force me to faith or unbelief. Faith must be free, or there is no faith. When a
ruler commands one to adhere to the Pope, or to believe in him, answer should
be made that a cheerful obedience will be rendered in regard to everything that
properly belongs to the civil ruler; but that in regard to what is beyond, the
demand is an act of tyranny. If such ruler should require copies of the New
Testament to be surrendered, “ not a page, not even a letter, dare be
surrendered, or the soul’s salvation will be imperilled. . . . For he who does
so, surrenders Christ to Herod.” If, however, the houses be searched, and
copies be found, no resistance should be made to their removal; “ only such
service should not be aided by the moving of a foot or the lifting of a
finger.”
“ From the beginning of the world, a prudent ruler has been a rare bird ;
much rarer still is one that is godly. Ordinarily they are the greatest fools
or the worst rascals on earth, and little good is to be expected of them,
especially in divine things which concern the soul’s salvation. For they are
God’s jailers and hangmen, and God’s wrath uses them to punish the wicked and
maintain external peace. Our God is a great Lord, and He must have hangmen who
are wealthy and noble and of exalted lineage.”
In
conclusion he addresses rulers who are really Christians, not as rulers, but as
Christians called to discharge such important duties. “ Cursed is every life,”
he says, “ that is occupied only with its own
profit and
enjoyment; cursed is every work that is not prompted by love.” The entire paper
is an illustration of the character of Luther’s polemical writings. However
severe they are, their chief value lies in the thorough discussion of
principles. Mere denunciation would soon have expended itself and been
forgotten; the carefully matured thought that accompanies it renders Luther’s
pamphlets upon the living questions of the day permanent treasures.
Such
controversies were merely incidental. He realised that his most important work
was the completion of the translation of the Bible. At this he laboured so
incessantly that we can scarcely understand how time was found for other
literary undertakings. Even before the New Testament appeared from the press,
work upon the Old Testament was v begun.
It received a fresh impulse by the warm reception given the translation of the
New Testament. But in passing from the one part of his work to the other, he
experienced peculiar difficulties. Although in his study of the Psalms he had
for years used the Hebrew, he candidly acknowledged how defective his knowledge
of the language was, and gladly availed himself of the learning of Auro-
gallus, the Professor of Hebrew at Wittenberg, and of Melanchthon. Two other
Wittenberg teachers, Ziegler and Foerster, were soon called in for consultation,
as were Bugenhagen and Roerer. For a time, a weekly collegium was held,
beginning a few hours before supper, in which the various texts and
translations were faithfully compared. Often the work was most tedious, days
being spent upon a
few lines,
Job being particularly difficult, and, as he said, resisting the efforts to
translate his language with as much ill-nature as the patriarch received the
consolations of his friends. When the meaning of a passage was once settled, in
joint discussion, it became the work of Luther to find for it an idiomatic
rendering that would make it intelligible to the plainest people.1
In spite of numerous interruptions, the Pentateuch was completed within three
months from the publication of the New Testament, and appeared at the beginning
of the next year. In 1524, two parts of the work were published, the former
comprising the Historical Books, and the latter, Job, the Psalms, and the
so-called writings of Solomon. Other important engagements frequently
intervening delayed the completion of the canonical books until 1532, and of
the Apocrypha until 1534, when the first edition of the complete translation
was published.
The thorough
reformation of the worship of the Church could not be longer delayed. The
arrangements made on Luther’s return from the Wartburg were understood to be
provisional. As time passed, the hopes of any reform by the bishops vanished.
The people were well instructed by Luther’s constant preaching and writings;
and hence the plea of accommodation to the weak had lost much of its force.
With the New Testament and the Psalms translated and in the hands of the
people, the next thing was to provide for their use by the congrega-
1 See letter of September 8, 1530, Erlangen, 65 : 102
sqq., for full statement of the plan pursued.
tion. The
demand for a change came not only from Wittenberg, but from other places also,
where, while the faith of the Reformation had been accepted, all the provisions
for public worship were unsatisfactory. The necessity was also urgent for new
regulations in the congregational organisation, which would provide for the
support of the clergy, since the saying of masses and other current modes of
income were no longer legitimate; and for the election of pastors by the
congregations without the interference of outside ecclesiastics.
About
Easter, 1523, he accordingly prepared such regulations for the congregation at
Leisnig in Saxony, as well as a paper concerning Public Worship.1 A
new Order for the daily services was introduced into the Parochial Church at
Wittenberg, which heretofore had been closed during week-days, except when
demanded by some particular occasion. Daily morning services were introduced
with the understanding that similar services were to be afterwards provided
for in the evening. They were of the most simple character, consisting of a
Scripture lesson (from the New Testament in the morning, and from the Old
Testament in the evening), an exposition of the lesson read, and an
intercessory prayer. For boys in school and all others who could be profited by
them, he advises the continuance of the daily Matins and Vespers, since they
consist almost entirely of selections from the Scriptures. The Sunday
services, as the times for the worship of the entire congregation, have a
higher
value
attached to them. Here, again, the ordinary chants and collects are to be
retained, since they are generally of a Scriptural character.
The
baptismal formulary, hitherto used only in Latin, was translated by Luther into
German, with some abbreviations, additions, and amendments, in order that the
people might understand what this sacrament actually meant. This was followed
in December by the Formula Misses, or “ Order for the full Morning or Communion
Service,” 1 dedicated to his friend Nicholas Hausmann, pastor at
Zwickau, to whom the confusion wrought by the presence of the fanatics rendered
such an order especially serviceable. After warning against the spirit that is
constantly attempting innovations, he lays down the principle that everything
in the ancient service not contrary to the Word of God is to be retained. Each
part of the Roman Mass is then critically examined, with the result that an
evangelical Order, upon clear historical foundations, is approved. Its several
members are the Introit, Kyrie, Gloria in Excelsis, Collects, the received
Gospels and Epistles for the day, the Hallelujah, the Nicene Creed, and the
full Communion Service for every Sunday. The sermon is an indispensable factor,
but much difficulty is acknowledged concerning its place in the Service.
Luther is most careful to vindicate the claims of Christian freedom, and to
declare that unity in the faith is far more important than uniformity of outward
organisation. This became the foundation of the numerous Lutheran Orders, some
prepared with
his direct
co-operation, and others by Bugenhagen (who was particularly active within this
sphere, in Pomerania, Northern Germany, and Denmark), Melanchthon, Jonas,
Brentz, Osiander, Veit Dietrich, and other of his associates, who were
appointed to discharge such duties by various countries and provinces.
His next
aim was, instead of mere listeners, to make the people active participants,
with heart and voice, in all the various parts of the service. This he
accomplished partly by introducing popular hymns, mainly translations of psalms
and chants sung hitherto by the choir. Justus Jonas and Paul Speratus aided in
the work, but the chief hand in it was that of Luther himself. Of his
thirty-six hymns, twenty-four are traced to the years 1523 and 1524. A popular
ballad on the burning of the two Lutheran martyrs of the Netherlands, Henry
Voe§ and John von Esch, July 1, 1523, called forth his first efforts as a poet.
Several verses of this have been reproduced in the English lines, “ Flung to
the heedless winds,” etc. Seven of his hymns are adaptations of the Psalms, in
which he unfolds the New Testament thought implied, but not expressed, in the
Old Testament language. Several other passages of Scripture (Is. vi., 1-4; Luke
ii., 13, 14, 29-32) were made the basis of hymns. Twelve ancient Latin hymns
and chants were freely rendered into German, adaptations of several older
German hymns made, and five are entirely original with Luther. They have all
the popularity and spirit and devotional unction of his translation of
the Bible,
during the progress of which the most of them were composed. How deeply they
soon became rooted in the minds and hearts of the people, and how powerful the
impression they produced, when sung to melodies hitherto used for secular
songs, are illustrated by the manner in which the attempt of the opponents of
Luther to preach against his doctrines was met on two occasions. At Brunswick,
in 1527, a plain citizen, at the close of a sermon by Dr. Sprengel of
Magdeburg, started Ach Gott vom Himmel sieh darein, which was at once sung by
the entire congregation to the complete discomfiture of the preacher. Two
years later, there was a similar occurrence at Luebeck, where two boys started
the same hymn.
“ With frauds which they themselves invent Thy truth they have confounded
:
Their hearts are not with one consent On Thy pure doctrine grounded :
And, while they gleam with outward show,
They lead Thy people to and fro,
In error’s maze astounded.
'* God surely will uproot all those With vain deceits who store us,
With haughty tongue who God oppose,
And say : ‘ Who ’11 stand before us?
By right or might we will prevail:
What we determine cannot fail,
For who can lord it o’er us?’
“‘For this,’ saith God, ‘ I will arise.
These wolves My sheep are rending;
I’ve heard My people’s bitter sighs To heaven, My throne, ascending:
FRANZ VON SICKINGEN.
Now I will up, and set at rest
Each weary soul by fraud opprest,
The poor with might defending.’ ”1
The first
evangelical Hymn-Book, published in 1524, contains only eight hymns, of which
four are Luther’s. Another book of the same year, the Erfurt Enchiridion, has
twenty-five, eighteen of them by Luther; and still another, the Geistliches
Gescingbuch, for the use of schoolboys as choristers, thirty-two, of which
twenty-four are Luther’s. His greatest hymn, Ein feste Burg ist wiser Gott,
with its inspiring tune, also of his composition, which ranks as a musical
classic, was long believed to have been written about the time of the Diet of
Spires, in 1529, but is now referred to 1527. It is called by Heine “ the
Marseillaise of the Reformation.’*
“ A Fortress firm, a Shield, a Sword,
A Help in all distresses,
A Refuge strong is God the Lord,
However danger presses.
The enemy, I know,
Maddened, with rage doth glow.
Boundless the power and art,
Back of each cruel dart.
Earth never had his equal.
“ Sure were the field left to my might,
All would be pure disaster ;
But I ’ve a Comrade in this fight,
Who any foe can master.
If you should ask His name,
It is the very same Before which angels kneel,
And at which devils quail,
Jesus, true God and Conqueror.
1 Translation of Frances Elizabeth Cox.
“ Then let Hell’s hosts flood all the land,
With myriads trained to end me ;
Why should I fear to make a stand,
When such brave arms defend me ?
One moment—and’t is done,
The victory is won ;
The Mighty Prince is found,
Judged, prostrate on the ground ;
The smallest word can fell him.
“ Ah, then, the Word you ’11 let remain,
A generous foeman surely !
While Christ’s with me upon the plain,
My heart shall rest securely.
Come, take whate’er you see,
There is no loss to me,
His Spirit makes me strong,
His gifts call forth my song,
His kingdom’s mine forever. ”1
The hymn,
Nun freut euch lieben Christen gemein, is a condensed statement of Luther’s
Christian experience, and the plan of salvation, which became a great
favourite, because it spake the language of many hearts. Hesshusius says: “
Through this one hymn of Luther’s many hundreds of Christians have been brought
to the true faith, who before could not endure the name of Luther.”
His
Christmas hymn, never to be separated from the tune which he composed for it,
is known by almost every German child.
“ Good news from heaven the angels bring,
Glad tidings to the earth they sing:
To us this day a child is given,
To crown us with the joy of heaven.
1 Translation by H. E. J. (1886).
“ All hail, Thou noble Guest, this mom,
Whose love did not the sinner scorn!
In my distress Thou cam’st to me:
What thanks shall I return to Thee ?
“ Were earth a thousand times as fair,
Beset with gold and jewels rare,
She yet were far too poor to be A narrow cradle, Lord, for Thee.
“Ah, dearest Jesus, Holy Child I Make Thee a bed, soft, undefiled,
Within my heart, that it may be A quiet chamber kept for Thee.
“ Praise God upon His heavenly throne,
Who gave to us His only Son:
For this His hosts, on joyful wing,
A blest New Year of mercy sing.” 1
He
directed attention also to the importance of the schools, in a treatise
addressed to the mayors and aldermen of the cities of Germany,’ which was
translated into Latin by Melanchthon immediately after its publication. The
schools, in order to e worthy of support, he says, must be thoroughly Christian
both in teaching and in spirit. Nothing can be clearer than the duty of parents
to give their children the best education attainable. Parents who excuse
themselves upon the plea that they will teach their children at home, as a
rule, make a great blunder, since this important work requires a class of
teachers who have special gifts and training for the work, and even where
parents have exceptional abilities, their regular employments make the education
of their children only a side matter. He tries
* Translation by Arthur Tozer Russell and Miss Winkworth, abridged, cf.
Schaffs Christ in Song, p. 55- 5 Ib" 22: 168 m'
to raise
the standard of popular education by insisting upon the study of the classical
languages as indispensable, not only for the preservation of the knowledge of
God’s Word, but also for all good citizenship and respectable culture. He would
have the children taught also history, music, both vocal and instrumental, and
a complete course of mathematics. The learning of a trade, he thinks, could be
readily combined with such schooling, by devoting to the school an hour or two
in every day, and giving the rest of the day to manual labour. Much of the time
spent in ball-playing, he suggests, could be used in physical labour pertaining
to the future calling. The girls, as well as the boys, should have these
advantages, dividing their time between assisting at home with the housework,
and spending an hour or two a day at school. He calls attention to
the'importance of public libraries. Lamenting the short-sightedness of the
Germans in this respect, he declares that, while the Greeks and Romans, and
even the Hebrews, had taken the greatest care to commit everything memorable to
writing, the Germans had neglected to record their heroic deeds and wise
maxims, and, on this account, had not the reputation among foreign nations that
was their due. Luther’s relation to the entire Public-School System is thus
most intimate; since it was largely in response to this appeal that new life
and the most thorough reforms were introduced into the schools of Germany.
Nothing is more foreign to Luther’s mind than the idea that a liberal education
is to be encouraged within the Church only as a preparation for theological
training.
THE LINES DRAWN
WHEN the
ceaseless activity of Luther, and the courageous manner in which he continued
to reiterate his doctrines and to criticise, in the severest terms, the Papacy,
are considered, the question as to why the Edict of Worms was not enforced
against him very naturally arises. The burning of a few of his books and of
some copies of the New Testament, and the prohibition of their possession and
circulation, were impotent barriers against the spread of his writings, as they
came forth, with astonishing rapidity, from the press, and found everywhere
purchasers and readers. His effective measures, on his return from the
Wartburg, in checking the fanatical movement, had shown that he was no radical,
and that the cause of the rulers was safer in his presence than in his absence.
Many influential persons in the government felt the power of his arguments, and
of his conservative and discriminative treatment of the great issues of the
hour. Even
the sister of the Emperor, Isabella, Queen of Denmark, was ultimately won to
his side.
A change
had occurred in the Papacy. Leo X. had died, December 1, 1521, and had been succeeded
by Adrian VI., for thirty years a professor of theology at Louvain, an
Inquisitor-General in Spain, and a former tutor of Charles V. He was a man of
irreproachable character and of moral earnestness, whose antagonism to Luther
was due more to Luther’s attacks upon the scholastic theology than to his
denial of the authority of the Pope, or his assertion of the necessity of
reform. Unexpectedly called to the papal chair, without any scheming on his
part, this Dutch Pope sought to deprive the Reformation of its weapons by rigid
ascetic practices for himself and by seeking to reform abuses in the outward
life at Rome.
Encouraged
by the absence of the Emperor and the dissensions in ecclesiastical matters
among the Electoral princes, Franz von Sickingen had raised the standard of
open revolt, and in August, 1522, had attacked the territory of the Elector and
Archbishop of Treves, under the pretext, among others, of asserting the claims
of religious liberty. The evangelical princes were not deceived by this plea,
but forgetting all religious differences, rallied as one man to the support of
the Archbishop. The revolt came to a disastrous termination with the speedy
defeat of Sickingen, the capture of himself and all his possessions, the
burning of the most of his castles, and his own death from a wound received in
battle. In the beginning, before his plans were ap
parent,
Luther had not repulsed the approaches of Sickingen, and had even dedicated to
him a book written at the Wartburg, and familiarly corresponded with his
kinsman and confederate, Hart- muth von Kronberg. But from the moment that he
unsheathed his sword, he lost Luther’s sympathy. Long before the collapse of
the rebellion, Melanch- thon wrote of the great injury that Sickingen was doing
the cause of Luther, and declared the purpose of the knights to be only
robbery.
It was
while such events were transpiring that the Imperial Diet assembled at
Nuremberg at the close of 1522. In anticipation of the presence of the Elector,
the Pope sent him, by a special messenger, an earnest letter, admonishing him
of his responsibility and duty. Chieregati appeared as the Pope’s legate,
bringing a communication asking for aid against the Turks and Luther, and the
prompt and rigorous execution of the Edict of Worms. Another communication to
Ferdinand asked for the imprisonment of the preachers of the churches of St.
Sebald and St. Lawrence, and the Augustin- ians at Nuremberg, who preached and
held services according to the evangelical order, as well as of all monks who
had abandoned the monasteries. As a concession to the prevalent
dissatisfaction, he made the most candid acknowledgments concerning the
deterioration of the Papacy, and declared that it was no wonder that the
disease had spread from the
head to the
members. ^
The
members of the Diet answered that, in view of the condition of things
acknowledged by the Pope,
any
procedure against Luther would be extremely impolitic. As he had been the
instrument of calling attention to these acknowledged abuses, any such action
would be interpreted as a tyrannical effort to suppress the Gospel. The
evangelical preachers at Nuremberg, even the fiery Osiander, were unmolested
in the free exercise of their office. The Diet recommended the convening of a
general council upon German territory within a year, and that the Elector of
Saxony be asked to prevent Luther meantime from issuing any further
publications. No additional punishment was to be inflicted upon monks deserting
their monasteries than the loss of all monastic rights and income.
The Pope’s
letter to the Diet Luther translated into German, and published with notes and
a supplement. With regard to the prohibition to publish, he declared that he
could not be silent as long as his opponents continued in their publications to
misrepresent the Gospel. The Pope wrote a second letter to the Elector,
threatening him with both the temporal and the spiritual sword, unless he
heeded the papal injunction.
Adrian’s
career was short. He died September 24, 1523, carrying with him to his grave
the reputation of a good priest, but a poor pope, despised by the Italians
because of his birth in the Netherlands, and by the Germans as an
unsophisticated and pedantic representative of Scholasticism. His best
qualities were out of place at Rome, while his weaknesses were conspicuous in
his efforts to master the storm in Germany.
Clement
VII., a cousin of Leo X., elected after a protracted contest Adrian’s
successor, sent, as his legate, to the Second Diet of Nuremberg, in January, 1524,
Cardinal Campeggi, who was made to feel that he was on uncongenial soil. Not
only was there a significant absence of the honours that ordinarily greeted so
high a dignitary, but he met everywhere the most marked indications of the
general popular hostility.
From the
pulpit of the Church of St. Lawrence Osiander inveighed against the “ Papal
Antichrist.” Thousands received the communion in both forms at the Easter
season. Among them were thirty or forty of Ferdinand’s retinue; and, most
mortifying and significant of all to the friends of the Pope, the sister of the
Emperor and Ferdinand, Isabella, Queen of Denmark, was one of the number. All
the Emperor’s entreaties for the execution of the Edict of Worms were seen to
be useless. Another request for a general council, a preparatory conference of
German princes and estates, to be held at Spires on November nth, and the
promise to conform to the decrees of Worms, with the significant qualification
“ as far as possible,” manifested again the spirit of compromise that
endeavoured to keep the peace by an insincere combination of contradictories.
A vain expedient! The Emperor, the Pope, and Luther were for once united.
Luther promptly exposed the imbecility of the edict by publishing it together
with that of Worms, under the title: Two Imperial Contradictory Demands
concerning Luther.1
He shows
how the Diet of Nuremberg at once endorsed the Edict of Worms condemning him,
and at the same time provided for a general council in which an impartial
hearing of his case was promised. He calls them a beautiful set of men to war
against the Turks, since the Turks are ten times as godly as they are! The Pope
pronounced the edict an insult to himself as well as to the Emperor. The
Emperor wrote a caustic letter, in which he denounced the Diet of Nuremberg as
an infringement upon his prerogatives.
The result
was the assembling at Regensburg (Ratisbon), in June, 1524, under the
presidency of the papal legate, of the princes whose loyalty to the Roman
pontiff was unquestioned. The Archduke Ferdinand, the two dukes of Bavaria,
the Archbishop of Salzburg, and a large number of bishops of Southern Germany,
bound themselves together to procure the energetic execution of the Edict of
Worms. Thus the Roman party took the initiative in rending the political unity
of Germany into two divisions, according as the Roman Catholic or the Lutheran
faith prevailed.
Between
the two sides the lines were now sharply drawn. The time for decision had come.
The mere formulation of such compromises as those of Nuremberg was sufficient
to exhibit the inherent weakness of the entire spirit of which it was an expression.
The Elector, to whom the Reformation owed so much, had joyfully accepted the
clearer statement of evangelical doctrine which it had presented, and, with
great courage, protected Luther and his associates in their rights as private
Christians
and public
teachers; nevertheless, he had studiously avoided the position of a partisan.
Strange to say, the Elector and Luther had never met! Only twice in his life
did Luther see Frederick, and then at a distance. The Elector’s constant plea
was for toleration ; theological questions, he urged, as a layman, he should
be excused from deciding. It could not be expected that he would apprehend rapidly
the full consequences of the evangelical position; as late as 1522, he was
still collecting relics for his Castle Church, and, in 1524, favoured the
retention of the ceremonies of the Mass. Luther moved too rapidly and acted too
radically for his mild and conciliatory, although firm and decisive spirit.
Spalatin, his private secretary and chaplain, and Luther’s intimate friend,
was the medium through whom the two conferred. But it was only by Luther’s
urgent intervention that near the close of his life, Spalatin was induced to
remain in a position in which he apprehended that he was losing influence. The
result showed that Luther’s judgment was correct. At Easter, 1525 , Frederick
had the German Mass introduced at his residence at Lochau, and, on his
death-bed, a few weeks later, received the holy communion in both forms, and
without extreme unction. The funeral services were arranged with Luther’s
advice, and two sermons were preached by him on successive days, in which he
paid the most touching tributes to his discreet and peace-loving ruler. In his
brother John, who succeeded to the electorate, the Reformation found a friend,
who had already been prominent as a public champion.
16
While the
Ernestine branch of the House of Saxony was thus committed to Luther’s cause,
the hostility of the Albertine branch was increased by an uncomplimentary
reference to Duke George, of whom Luther had spoken in a letter to Hartmuth von
Kronberg as “ a mere bubble on the water,” and which he declined to retract.
Everywhere the movement was spreading. If the zeal of the Augus- tinians, whose
convents formed centres of influence for the diffusion of Luther’s doctrines,
be urged as indicating that the Reformation originated in the rivalry of the
religious orders, the active participation of members of other orders, of
which we have already noted examples, refutes the charge. Nevertheless, the
agency of the Augustinians was a powerful factor. The support of enthusiastic
students going forth in large numbers from Wittenberg, and the incessant stream
of publications from his pen, were still more important elements. No attempt
had been made at organised propagandism; Luther relied upon the inherent power
of the Word.
In the
Netherlands, Jacob Spreng, commonly called Probst, the prior of the
Augustinians at Antwerp, and Henry Moeller of Zuetphen, as early as 1519 were
pronounced adherents of Luther. Both studied at Wittenberg, the latter
subsequently marrying one of Luther’s near relatives. The doctors of the
University of Louvain having appealed in 1519 to Margaret, the Emperor’s
sister, during her regency, with the complaint that Luther’s writings were
subverting all Christianity, she is reported to have asked: “And who is Luther
?”
“ An
unlearned man,” they answered. 44 Well, then,” she replied, “ I
think there are enough of you to take care of him, since one unlearned man
cannot be a match for the many learned men arrayed against him!” In 1521
persecutions began. Probst wavered in the face of danger, and recanted; but soon
regained confidence, and, recalling his recantation, laboured at Bremen. In
1522, a special commissioner was appointed to search for Luther’s writings. On
July 1, 1523, the first two martyrs of the Lutheran faith, Henry Voes and John
von Esch, were burned at Brussels, chanting the Te Deum responsively in the
midst of the flames. Henry von Zuetphen, delivered from prison by a popular uprising
in 1522, became a martyr December 11, 1524. Other martyrs were a bookseller of
Pesth, burned with Luther’s books which he had on sale, and Caspar Tauber, of
Vienna, who was beheaded.
Early in
1524, the rulers of Mecklenburg, without openly declaring their acceptance of
the evangelical cause, wrote to Luther for evangelists, whom he promptly sent.
Count Albrecht of Mansfeld and the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, although the
latter was a son-in-law of Duke George, openly declared their allegiance to the
Reformation. The Margrave Albrecht of Brandenburg, the Grand Master of the influential
order of Teutonic Knights ruling Prussia, under the influence of Osiander’s
preaching, during his attendance upon the Diet of Nuremberg, was won to the
evangelical faith, and applied to Luther for advice in the reformation of his
order. In this be was supported by the knights and two of the
Prussian
bishops, George von Polenz of Samland, and Erhard von Queiss of Pomerania. Dr.
John Briesmann, Paul Speratus, and John Poliander, having been sent to Prussia,
became the evangelists of that country. The abolition of celibacy among the
knights virtually abolishing the order, and the form of government being
changed, Albrecht became Duke of Prussia, and formally introduced the Reformation.
In many of the larger cities of Germany, the sympathies of the highest classes
of society were enlisted on its behalf. Prominent among these was Nuremberg,
where Luther’s friend, Wenceslaus Link, was preacher in the Augustinian
monastery, and Lawrence Spengler was one of the most influential councillors,
and Osiander was pastor. Here the popular poet, Hans Sachs, especially in his
Witten- berger Nachtigall, devoted his extraordinary genius to the advancement
of the cause in which Luther had enlisted, while Albrecht Diirer, one of
Germany’s greatest painters, belonged to the inner circle of its adherents. To
Magdeburg Amsdorf was called as pastor in 1524, and Cruciger became the rector
of the High School. In Strassburg, Zell, Bucer, and Capito were labouring in
the same spirit as early as 1523; while that same year the activity of John
Brenz was already making itself felt, and he soon had earnest co-labourers in
Erhard Schnepf at Wimpfen, and Michael Stiefel at Esslingen. At Augsburg the
Lord’s Supper was administered in both forms in 1524 by Luther’s friends,
Frosch and Urban Regius.
Henry of
Zuetphen preached the evangelical faith
BVCCER' HAT - V1 EL' GL-TVEN' ENGELANT' HAT' EB--
/S/CH' BEKEFCT DAR'IST'BEGRABE'NACH' SEIM '
AVCH '■W1DR' /S/STjR ABEN'VN-VERBRHNT
ABER'DIE' KOfVGlN ' LOBESAN - HAT' PI E»A9CH - EHR L1CH-BS TATTEN ‘
DR. MARTIN BUCER.
in 1522 at
Bremen, where his colleague and countryman, Probst, became pastor two years
later. About the same time, Bugenhagen was called to Hamburg to introduce the
Reformation; in Breslau the work advanced under the labours of John Hess, while
in Riga, Reval, and Dorpat there were evangelical preachers in 1521, and to the
evangelical Christians in these places Luther sent, in 1523, a summary of
Christian doctrine, and in the next year an exposition of Psalm CXXVII., with
a plan for the organisation of schools. #
In Sweden,
the efforts of Luther s pupils, the brothers Petersen, beginning in 1519, were
approved by Gustavus Vasa on his accession in 1523. Christian II. of Denmark,
nephew of the Elector Frederick, eagerly sought for support from the teachings
of Luther in his struggles with the Danish clergy. Expelled from his country,
his personal intercourse with Luther during a protracted stay at Wittenberg
rendered him still more favourable, while his wife, the sister of the Emperor,
openly announced her conversion to Lutheranism. But when the test came,
Christian denied before the Emperor all sympathy with Luther. Meanwhile,
however, the Reformation was introduced into Denmark by his successor, King
Frederick. ^ ^
The
interest which Luther had manifested in the Bohemians ever since the Leipzig
Disputation, found expression in his effort at this time to promote their
entire independence of the Papacy. The Utraquists, or Calixtine Bohemians,
insisting upon the administration of the Lord’s Supper in both
forms, but
in other respects agreeing with the Roman Catholics, and regarding ordination
by one in the regular succession of bishops an essential, had been compelled,
since the Pope would not concede them bishops of their own, to send their candidates
to Italy for ordination. Learning in 1522 of a possible reconciliation between
them and the Papacy, he wrote them a letter urging them to surrender neither
the communion in both forms, nor the memory of their martyrs, Hus and Jerome of
Prague. The next year one of their clergy, Gallus Cahera, spent several months
in Wittenberg, and persuaded Luther to write a paper to the Council of the city
of Prague, showing how the Christian ministry arises from the needs of the
Christian congregations, and requires no external authority, whether from Rome
or elsewhere. In his simplicity he was used by Cahera only to advance the
latter’s ambitious projects, which, in 1524, were repudiated by his
countrymen. More success was anticipated from his negotiations with another
party of the Bohemians, the Bohemian Brethren, or Hussites, with whom, through
Speratus, he came into nearer relations. He wrote a treatise criticising their
view of the Lord’s Supper, and directing their attention to the legalistic
spirit which characterised their otherwise estimable Christian life; while
they replied by intimating that too much stress was placed by Lutherans upon
the importance of learning.
The
difference between Luther and Erasmus came into prominence in their renowned
controversy concerning the freedom of the will. The distinguished
services
of Erasmus in reviving interest in classical studies and insisting upon the
importance of acquaintance with the original languages of the Holy Scriptures,
as well as in his critical editions of the New Testament, and his protests
against the abuses of monasticism, were always duly recognised by Luther. By
the intervention of Melanchthon and Carlstadt, attempts had been made at an
earlier period to bring them into nearer relations. There was an occasional interchange
of letters, but as their protests against current abuses sprang from different
sources, and their interests were very diverse, any co-operation was
impossible. Luther had been forced into his position by his deep religious
experience, culminating in the assurance of faith and the necessity of
positive testimony to what he believed to be truth, without regard to the
effect of that testimony upon his personal safety, or the external relations,
whether his own or those of any party for which he was supposed to stand.
Erasmus was without this experience, and wrote only as a cultivated critic,
who could expose errors, but was without the call and without the courage to
propose any scheme of improvement. He boasted of his love for peace as even
surpassing his love for truth, looked with disfavour upon Luther’s plainness
and bluntness and carelessness of results, and was betrayed into constant
inconsistencies by his attempts to retain favour and avoid ruptures. In 1523
Luther wrote of him to CEcolampadius:
“ Erasmus
has fulfilled the mission to which he was called. He has introduced the
classical languages and
withdrawn
us from godless studies. Possibly, he will die with Moses in the wilderness of
Moab ; for he does not lead to the better studies, that advance godliness. I
wish only he would stop commenting on Holy Scripture and writing paraphrases—a
work to which he is not equal.” 1
To a
scholar of the temperament of Erasmus, the situation was most embarrassing. He
wished to offend neither side; and yet the time came when an attack upon Luther
was the price demanded for a continuance of the favour of those with whom he
had been acting. Two Popes, Leo and Adrian, urged him to the undertaking.
Luther also sought, by private correspondence in 1524, to dissuade him from
becoming the open advocate of those abuses which he had so severely arraigned.
But the pressure from the other side was too strong, especially since Henry
VIII., from whom he had a pension, vigorously demanded his interference. With
great adroitness, Erasmus chose for his attack a topic which would not compel
him to treat of any of those matters upon which he had already given clear
testimony against the Papacy. The complete helplessness of man’s will in
regaining God’s favour Erasmus had never learned, and hence from a purely philosophical
standpoint he found abundant arguments against Luther’s assertion of the
complete sovereignty of divine grace. With characteristic negative tendency,
he goes no further than a mere criticism of Luther, without presenting any
clear
and
definite statement on the other side. Although part of the book had been
submitted to Henry VIII. and George of Saxony in 1523, it was not published
until September, 1524.
Luther
made no haste in replying. Up to the succeeding November, he had read only two
pages, and his disgust was such that, except for the urgent intercession of
others, he would have left it unanswered. In his reply of December, 1525,
concerning The Servitude of the Will,1 he emphasises the necessity of certainty of faith, and
maintains that, from first to last, man’s salvation is due solely to divine
grace. By nature a bondsman of Satan, man can be delivered by no native power.
The human will is like a horse, upon which either Satan or God sits, directing
it whither he will. The tone of the book is most respectful towards his
opponent, to whom he gives some most graceful compliments for valuable services
rendered the truth in other directions. In its clear statements as to the freedom
of the will in external things, and its denial of the irresistibility of the
divine grace that converts man, as well as in its teaching that it is not by
God’s will that man sins and is lost, it is far removed from fatalistic error.
But it cannot be denied that not all of its teachings are entirely consistent
in this respect. In the endeavour to affirm, with the greatest emphasis, that
when man is saved he owes everything to divine grace, statements are made that
succeeding theologians have found it necessary to qualify. The overpowering
influence of Augus
tine
determined probably more than one passage, where in the haste of composition he
reiterates the phrases of his master concerning matters that he has not as yet
thoroughly solved in his own mind. In this treatise, Luther attempts to meet
Erasmus cn a philosophical rather than a theological basis.
THE PEASANTS’ WAR
IN the
midst of this controversy one of far wider interest was claiming attention.
Between Carlstadt, Muenzer, and the Peasants’ War there is a close connection.
They stand for different stages of revolutionary fanaticism.
The
influence of Carlstadt at Wittenberg had been thoroughly broken by Luther’s
return from the Wartburg. Sullenly he acquiesced in the order established, and
continued his lectures in the University, with noticeable lack of interest in
his work, though receiving from his colleagues every mark of consideration.
Having depreciated the importance of theological science, he was in a false
position as professor of theology. His pen was busy with the preparation of
books of a mystical type, inculcating the necessity of the union of the soul
with God, and depreciating the importance of the knowledge of the letter of
Scripture. Renouncing the title of
251
“ Doctor,”
he assumed that of “ a new layman,” bought a small farm near Wittenberg, where
he was known by the peasants as “ Neighbour Andrew,” still, however, relying
for support largely upon the irregular lectures he gave in the University. Uncomfortable
in this division of occupations, he assumed, in September, 1523, a pastorate at
Orla- muende, near Jena, the revenues of which belonged to his Wittenberg
professorship, and which had been served heretofore by vicars. Here he had
opportunity to carry out all his projects of reform. From the church the altar
and pictures were removed, infant baptism was discontinued, and the communion
was administered without confession. The same innovations were introduced into
the neighbouring village of Kahla. In sympathy with Muenzer, and enforcing his
statements by continual appeals to the Old Testament, he taught that all
idolatry, like crimes against the government, should be punished by the sword.
The Jewish Sabbath laws were asserted in all their rigour; polygamy was
sanctioned ; and for the Words of Institution of the Lord’s Supper the
ingenious explanation was found, that, when Christ uttered them, He pointed to
His Body, as He extended the bread, and said: “ This is My Body.” The basis of
his entire position was that of the permanence of the civil regulations and
social ordinances of the Old Testament, which Jacob Strauss of Eisenach had
applied in another direction, when he urged that the payment of interest on
loans was a sin. At Jena, where he had won to his cause a pastor, Martin
Reinhard, he
established
a press for the publication of his writings, thus escaping the censorship at
Wittenberg. All the while drawing the income of his professorship, the
University at last asserted its rights, and he returned in June, 1524. Luther
now hoped that he had been cured of his eccentricities, but was disappointed
by his complete severance from Wittenberg, and his return to Orlamuende at the
call of the council and congregation. His writings met with much popular
favour; his favourite thoughts, and even the peculiar form in which he clothed
them, were readily caught up and repeated.
Meanwhile
Thomas Muenzer, pastor at Allstedt, was manifesting a revolutionary course so
radical that even Carlstadt, notwithstanding his sympathy, could not openly
approve of it. In July, 1524, before Duke John of Saxony and his son, John
Frederick, he preached that the godless have no right to live, but should be
exterminated, and charged the apostles with weakness, because of their
tolerance of the idolatry of the heathen. All the elect, he taught, have a
truly prophetic spirit and supernatural revelations. In June, 1524, a chapel
at Malderbach, containing a renowned image of the Virgin and many costly
memorials, was burned by a mob, which his harangues had excited to violence.
Constant threats were made against the rulers, and prejudices against
evangelical preachers diffused. A secret league for radical communistic
purposes was formed, and extended far and wide by overzealous propagandists,
with the pledge to put to death any ruler who opposed them. As long as they
confined
their
efforts to the proclamation of their theories, Luther declared that no other
weapon than the preaching of the Word should be used against them; but where
they meant violence, he advised the Elector and Duke John to promptly employ
all the power of the government to suppress them. Summoned before Duke John, at
Weimar, the evidence against Muenzer was overwhelming; but he was dismissed
upon his promise to appear on the coming of the Elector. Before Frederick’s
arrival he had broken his promise and secretly departed. Compelled to leave
Allstedt, he went to Muehlhausen in Thuringia, where he had been preceded by an
adherent, the former Cistercian monk, Henry Pfeiffer. When the council of that
place had received a very emphatic letter of advice from Luther, he was ordered
to leave, and wandered for some weeks in Southwestern Germany and neighbouring
Switzerland, exciting at all points the spirit of insurrection. In Nuremberg
he won to his cause John Denck, the rector of St. Sebald’s School, who soon
became known as an opponent of the doctrines of the Trinity and of the
divinity of Christ. While tarrying there, Muenzer wrote a scurrilous attack
upon Luther. The events that followed his return to Muehlhausen, in December,
1524, will be recounted later.
The
situation was deemed sufficiently alarming to demand Luther’s intervention in
the places of the greatest agitation. The council and congregation at
Orlamuende offered the opportunity by their invitation, which was probably
intended as a challenge.
On August
22d he preached at Jena against “ the Allstedtian spirit and its fruits.”
Carlstadt was present, and, although not mentioned, he felt himself included
in the attack. While Luther was at table at the “ Black Bear,” Carlstadt
approached, and, with much excitement, stated his grievances. The result of the
unpleasant interview, which took place in the presence of many of the guests,
was that Luther urged Carlstadt to attack him publicly, and presented him with
a gold florin as a token that he desired him to publish all that he had to say
against him. Preaching the next day at Kahla, the fragments of a broken
crucifix lying about the pulpit moved his indignation, although he refrained
from expressing it. Arriving at Orlamuende, he declined to preach, but when the
congregation had assembled, took up the letter which it had addressed him, and
commented upon it, sentence by sentence, giving his reasons for his warnings
against Carlstadt. In the midst of his remarks Carlstadt entered. Luther
protested against his presence as that of a personal enemy, to whom he had
given a florin for a written attack, and declared that he would himself leave,
if Carlstadt would not retire. After his departure, a shoemaker, who had been
an apt pupil of Carlstadt, argued with Luther that the Old Testament strictly
prohibited the making of pictures and images, and not merely their worship. The
interview was fruitless. Carlstadt eagerly sought for a public disputation
with Luther, who saw that, for lack of any prospect of convincing him or those
whom he had misled, argument was useless. Banished, like
Muenzer,
he went to Southern Germany. He made Rothenburg on the Tauber, near Nuremberg,
his chief abode, but also spent considerable time at Strassburg, Basel, and
Heidelberg. His intensely practical tendency and his very extravagances made
his writings popular, while the obstacles which Luther attempted to place in
the way of the revolutionary movement alienated from the latter many who had
hitherto regarded him as the embodiment of the German national and popular
spirit. At Strassburg, Carlstadt avoided the evangelical preachers, Bucer and
Capito, and conferred secretly with the laity wherever there was an opportunity
for exciting suspicion against Luther; and, after leaving, industriously
circulated his writings where he had prepared the field for the seeds of
dissension. In response to an appeal from the Strassburg pastors, accompanied
by a statement of their attitude to Carlstadt, and an outline of the Order of
Service in the public worship,1 Luther shows that the great error of
Carlstadt lay in his regarding attention to mere external matters, such as the
absence of images and pictures, as pertaining to the essentials of Christianity.
Concerning the Lord’s Supper, he assures them that if Carlstadt or any one else
could have proved to him five years before that nothing but bread and wine were
present, he would have been inexpressibly grateful, since this would have been
a powerful argument against the Papacy; but so overwhelming is the testimony
of Holy Scripture that he had been deterred from such a position. Another
1 De Wette, 2 : 574 sqq.
\
error of
Carlstadt that he noted was that he preached Christ only as the model of a holy
life, and nothing more. A comprehensive discussion of the entire controversy is
found in his treatise, Against the Heavenly Prophets.* It ranks with the
treatises on The Babylonian Captivity and The Freedom of a Christian, among the
most important of Luther’s writings. The second part is devoted to the refutation
of Carlstadt’s view of the Lord’s Supper, in connection with which he presents
his own doctrine in almost its complete form. Particularly noteworthy is his
illustration concerning the word “ this,” in the Words of Institution, which he
compares to those of a mother, who points to a cradle and says, “ This is my
child,” without imagining that anyone could understand her to mean that the
cradle had been converted into her child.
His
generosity was shown in his readiness to intercede for Carlstadt and the
endeavour to secure for him a safe-conduct to Wittenberg, when there were
intimations that the latter, under the severe punishment of his banishment, had
repented and desired a reconciliation. But when his intercessions were
fruitless, two bitter attacks showed that Carlstadt had not actually changed.
Once more, when at the close of the Peasants’ War Carlstadt was in danger of
being arrested and condemned as an accomplice, Luther interceded, and secured
permission for his residence in the neighbourhood of Wittenberg. There, in
February, 1526, Luther baptised a child of Carlstadt’s in the latter’s home,
Jonas, Melanch-
thon, and
Luther’s wife standing as sponsors! Luther writes: ‘ ‘ Who would have thought
of this last year! ’ ’1 But Carlstadt could not rest, and after
three years removed, to become, first, preacher in Zurich, and then professor
at Basel, where he died in 1541.
Luther’s
prophecy of the bitter fruits that would be borne by the fanaticism of Muenzer
was fulfilled when the atrocities of the Peasants’ War, after some premonitory
outbreaks, came upon the country in all their horror in 1525. The victims of
crushing oppression, restless for generations under the yoke of serfdom, the
peasants long before the Reformation had broken forth into occasional local
revolts. The insurrection of 1491 in the Netherlands, Wuer- temburg, and Alsace
had left a permanent memorial in the extensively diffused alliance called, on
account of the shoe adopted as its badge, the Bundschuh. With the imposition of
new burdens the new life that was penetrating all classes of society, and the
literature that was stimulating even the humblest, awakened their ambition, and
made them peculiarly restive. The successful revolt against spiritual tyranny
by the Reformers encouraged them with hopes of success for a similar movement
in the temporal sphere. For the misinterpretation of his teachings and their
misapplication against his uniform protests, Luther was not responsible. The
liberty that Luther taught demanded the complete subjection of man’s will and
heart to God’s word and God’s appointed order. From Muehlhausen, Muenzer and
Pfeiffer scattered in-
cendiary
publications traducing Luther, as well as undermining the civil authorities,
and sowing everywhere the seed of revolt. The movement was wide-spread. It was
particularly strong where the most vigorous efforts had been made to suppress
the evangelical teaching. The peasants of Southwestern Germany embodied their
demands in “ Twelve Articles.”1 Moderate in tone and abounding in
Scriptural phrases, these articles seemingly placed spiritual interests in the
foreground, although this is found to be only the introduction to purely secular
matters. The first of the articles asks that every Christian congregation have
the right to elect and remove its own pastor, and that the tithes, heretofore
appropriated by the government, be devoted to the support of the ministry and
the assistance of the needy. In the other articles, the abolition of serfdom,
freedom to hunt and fish, the right to cut wood in the forests, the alleviation
of the exactions of masters from servants and of landlords from tenants, are
demanded. Other voices were not so moderate, but clamoured for revolution. No
houses but such as were good enough for peasants should be tolerated. The
existing rulers should abdicate, and give place to those to be chosen by the
people or their representatives. The monks and the nobles were especial objects
of hostility. Plunder and pillage became constantly more common. In Franconia
alone, two hundred cloisters and castles were de-
1 Erlangen, 24 : 257 sqq.; English translation in
Translations and Reprints published by the Department of History of the
University of Pennsylvania, vol. ii., No. 6, Philadelphia, 1895.
molished,
and murders were of frequent occurrence. At the storming of Weinsberg, near
Stuttgart, acts of extreme oppression had infuriated the peasants, so that all
the nobility captured were slain, and the leader, the Count of Helfenstein, was
put to death in a peculiarly atrocious manner before the eyes of his wife, a
daughter of the Emperor Maximilian. The Elector Palatinate appealed to
Melanchthon for a decision concerning the “ Twelve Articles,” and received an
answer justifying in all things the rulers and condemning the peasants. In
answer to an appeal from the peasants, Luther, in An Admonition to Peace'
passed a more discriminating judgment, sharply arraigning the nobility for
their oppression, and pleading for a mitigation of the burdens under which the
peasants were suffering, but also condemning the peasants in no mild terms for
taking the law into their own hands. In very brief terms he answers the demands
of the “ Twelve Articles. ” The right of a congregation to elect its own pastor
he regards as absolute, when it provides entirely for his support, but when the
support comes in whole or in part from other sources, he declares it dishonest
for a congregation to make such claim. Since the tithes also belong to the
rulers, the proposal to devote them to church purposes he pronounces as
another suggestion of robbery. Serfdom he does not consider inconsistent with
Christianity. All other matters contained in the articles he leaves to the
jurists. For the adjustment of the difficulties, he proposes a plan of
arbitration.
In the
moment when the peril was most imminent, Luther hastened to Eisleben, and,
passing through districts filled with insurgents, sought by every means in his
power to persuade them to peace. His words were unheeded. It seemed to him that
the more he admonished, the more violent they became. Nothing was to be done,
he was convinced, but for the rulers to enforce the law against them. In a
paper on The Peasant Robbers and Murderers' he declared that the rebellious
peasants deserved death, both in body and soul; not only because of their
perjury in breaking their oaths of allegiance, and of their acts of violence,
but also because they made the Gospel an excuse for their crimes. He calls upon
all to flee from them, as from the very devil, and calls upon the rulers to put
away all scruples about inflicting the death penalty upon the obstinate.
The offers
of arbitration proposed by the intervention of the Count of Mansfeld having
been rejected by the peasants, who were influenced by the advice of Muenzer,
the Landgrave of Hesse and Dukes George and John of Saxony completely overcame
them in the bloody battle of Frankenhausen, where five thousand perished on the
field, May 15, 1525. Muenzer and Pfeiffer were taken prisoners and executed on
the spot. While Duke John and the Landgrave Philip treated their prisoners with
leniency, terrible was the vengeance inflicted by others. Similar calamities
befell the peasant cause in other parts of Germany. At the castle of Zobern in
1 Erlangen, 24 : 287 sqq.
Alsace,
eighteen thousand of them fell. Over one hundred thousand are believed to have
perished. The desolation in some portions of the country was indescribable. So
completely were they crushed, and so much more miserable was their condition
than it had previously been, that much sympathy was awakened, especially in the
cities, and Luther was severely criticised for his bitter denunciations and the
influence he had exerted against them. The charge was made that he had
stimulated them to rebellion, and then forsaken them in their extremity. He met
his critics in an open letter to the Chancellor of Mansfeld,1 in
which he repeats and justifies what he had written in the book published
several months before. For the time his name was as thoroughly abhorred among
the peasants, as it had been once hailed with acclamations of joy, but his
course with respect to their revolt was entirely consistent with that which he
had a short time before pursued in reference to the uprising of the nobles.
1 Erlangen, 24 : 294 sqq.
MARRIAGE
UTHER
chose a strange time for his marriage.
L/ Never
was prospect more discouraging. Both nobility and peasantry had been alienated.
His power of moving the masses that had once been most effective had failed.
Authority had triumphed, but it had been at a fearful sacrifice. The Elector
had just died. Nevertheless throughout these grave events his thoughts had been
for some weeks upon taking a wife. Even in his mission to the Thurin- gian
peasants, with all the horrors of a war before him, the issues of which he
foresaw must be most distressing, he was meditating this step. His friends
scarcely believed him. But, as usual, when the decision was once made, it was
quickly executed. The announcement that on June 13, 1525, he had married
Catherine von Bora, amazed both friend and foe. For years most firmly
maintaining the sanctity of marriage and denying the obligation of vows made to
abstain from what God has not forbidden, he
had
encouraged a number of his associates to marry who had formerly been priests or
monks. Among them were Bugenhagen, Regius, and Link, as well as Zell, Bucer,
and Carlstadt. The earnest wish and continual importunity of his father were as
strong motives as any in determining his decision. The bride was at hand in one
of the nine nuns who had escaped at Easter, 1523, from the convent at Nimt-
schen, and who, until otherwise provided for, were dependent upon him for
support. The Bora family was of Wendish origin.1 Its name is
equivalent to the German Tanne (fir-tree), and is perpetuated in the Bavarian
family, “ von der Tann.” Catherine was the daughter of Hans von Bora and Anna
von Haugwitz. Their home had been originally at Hirschfeld. She was twenty-six
years of age, and had spent ten years in the cloister. A passing impression
had been made upon a Wittenberg student of a noble Nuremberg family, whose
devotion cooled when his student days were over, much to Luther’s
disappointment, as he was most favourable to the proposed match. Through
Amsdorf, Luther next sought to secure her promise to marry Carlstadt’s
successor at Orlamuende. But the maiden was more ambitious. Her answer was that
instead of the man they wanted her to marry she was ready to take either
Amsdorf or Dr. Luther himself.
Luther’s
mature age and his absorption in his numerous responsibilities prevented him
from being
1 Details of genealogy to the thirteenth century in
Seidemann’s Appendix to De Wette, 6 : 647 sq.t where also several touching letters of Catherine, written shortly after
her husband’s death, are found.
CATHERINE
VON BORA.
FROM A
PAINTING BY CRANACH IN NUREMBERG.
265
influenced
by any strong attachment. Although reacting against the estimate of marriage
formed in his earlier years, it was impossible for him to entirely escape the
influences exerted by monastic conceptions and exercises during that period of
his life when, if ever, men are romantic. A general liking for the maiden, and
sympathy with her in her destitute and dependent condition, which was out of
keeping with her noble origin, were undoubtedly present. But until he knew her
better, her aristocratic bearing had repelled him. Her excellent
administrative abilities and her devotion as a wife and mother are attested
throughout the subsequent twenty-one years of her married life. On the evening
of the day mentioned, Luther invited to his home a very select circle, the two
chief pastors of Wittenberg, Bugenhagen and Jonas, the jurist Dr. Apel, who had
married a former nun, and the painter Lucas Cranach and wife, who brought with
them the bride. The absence of Melanchthon and Schurf indicate that Luther
anticipated their dissatisfaction with his course. The next morning there was
a wedding breakfast, but the formal celebration of the event was deferred
until the 27th, in order to give time for the invitation of friends at a
distance. At the banquet, Luther’s aged parents and Leonard von Koppe, who had
assisted Catherine in her escape from the convent, together with the other
nuns who had been her associates in the flight, were present.
The
marriage, as might be expected, made a great sensation. Jonas wrote the next
day that, while a
witness,
he could scarcely restrain his tears. Melanchthon, in order to be as
confidential as possible, wrote a long letter in Greek, expressing his astonishment
that, at so grave a crisis, a step sure to give occasion for attack on the part
of Luther’s enemies should have been taken. Schurf had prophesied that, in case
the marriage would occur, all the world and the devils would laugh, and
Luther’s work would come to naught. Not so thought Luther, who predicted that
all angels would laugh, while all devils would weep and rage. There were not a
few, however, who were ready to rejoice with him. Substantial gifts from the
magistrates, the University, and many friends, showed how warm a place he
still had in their hearts.
The
Augustinian cloister, whence all the monks had departed, had reverted to the
Elector, who had made it Luther’s home. Here he had lived for a long time with
the last of the brotherhood, Brisger, remaining in a house whence the rigorous
discipline of former days had departed, but had not given place J:o the care of
an efficient housekeeper. For one whole year or more, no one had made Luther’s
bed. It was no light undertaking which the bride assumed, with straitened
means, to furnish the large establishment, and maintain it on an income of but
one or two hundred florins a year. She bravely entered upon her calling as the
wife of one widely hated, and knowing well how opposed to the marriage many of
his best friends had been. But she was encouraged by a present to her husband
from the Elector of a hundred florins for beginning house
keeping,
and, strange to say, a personal gift to herself of twenty florins from so
frequent a subject for her husband’s attacks as the Archbishop of Mayence.
The characteristic
candour of Luther, who in his correspondence always spoke most freely to his
friends, the public position which he occupied, bringing many from various
quarters into the inner circle of his family, and especially the students who
gathered around his board and noted his many sayings in his hours of leisure,
have made the details of his home life well known. Upon his public life the
influence of his marriage cannot be traced. But it gave him rest and
refreshment, and by its trials disciplined him in his inner life for far
greater efficiency than any monastic rule he had ever followed. However the
marriage may be criticised, it should not be forgotten that Luther had rights
as a private man which posterity as well as his cotempo/vries must respect.
VISITATION OF CHURCHES AND THE CATECHISMS
FLUSHED
with his victory over the peasants, Duke George determined to push his advantage
to the utmost. Where the opportunity was present, the pretext of complicity in
the rebellion was employed to punish innocent adherents of the evangelical
faith. Measures were taken for the complete eradication of Lutheranism. It was
useless, it was urged, to be forever cutting away the shoots, while the root
was untouched. Repeated efforts were made to persuade his cousin, the new
Elector, and the Landgrave, his son-in-law, to turn against Luther, and make
common cause against all innovations. A league was formed at Dessau, in July,
1524, to crush out “ the Lutheran sect,” followed by a most positive declaration
of the evangelical princes against the proposal. Towards the close of the
year, the Archbishop of Mayence assembled his clergy to take measures for
checking the spread
268
of the
evangelical cause, and for appealing to the Pope. A commission of rulers, with
George at its head, was suggested, as the best plan for the thorough
extermination of Lutheranism. Luther, in order to give the widest publicity to
“ what Satan wants to do through the bishops and Duke George,” undertook to
have the published scheme reprinted, with his own introduction, and
supplementary remarks 1; but before the printing was completed, it
was suppressed by the Elector.
Christian
II. of Denmark having assured him that there had been a change of mind in Henry
VIII., Luther addressed the English king a most humble letter of apology for
his former attack, upon the assumption that Henry’s book had been written by
another hand.3 A similar letter was written to Duke George. But in
both cases the letters irritated instead of conciliating the persons to whom
they were addressed. War with France had prevented the Emperor from any
aggressive act. But with the victory of Pavia, the King of France became his
prisoner, and by the peace of Madrid, January 14, 1526, they bound each other
to common war against the Turk, and “ the heretics who have severed their
connection with the Pope.” The answer of the evangelical party was the
formation of the Torgau Alliance in the succeeding May. Then on June 25th came
the First Diet of Spires. The lines were now sharply drawn. Danger to the
evangelical cause was averted by a new and strange ally. The Pope intervened by
absolving the King of France
from the
obligations he had assumed in the peace of Madrid. Francis then formed “ The
Holy League ” against the Emperor, by an alliance with the Italian cities,
which was approved by Henry VIII. The execution of the Edict of Worms was now
out of the question. The Emperor’s policy was to conciliate the evangelicals.
The Recess of the Diet deferred the settlement of the questions in dispute
until a future council, either national or general. The arms of the Emperor
were turned against the Pope. Rome was captured and sacked. The Pope, first a
fugitive, was for six months a prisoner. “ Christ so rules,” wrote Luther, “ that,
while the Emperor is persecuting Luther for Christ’s sake, the Emperor is
forced to despoil the Pope for Luther’s sake.”
Meanwhile
the time had come for a vigorous prosecution of the work of reorganising the
churches of Saxony. The Peasants’ War showed the necessity of reaching the
people more directly with conservative and evangelical church influences. The
change in rulers was, in this respect, opportune. Frederick’s tolerance and
protection were succeeded by John’s open sympathy and readiness for aggressive
participation. Four days before Frederick’s death, Spalatin had urged upon him
and John the necessity for prompt measures. After this, Spalatin, although no
longer private secretary to the Elector, but pastor at Altenburg, continued to
be a confidential adviser, and was sent to Wittenberg, to confer with Luther
concerning better provisions for the University, which had not recovered from
the
depletion
of students largely due to Carlstadt’s radicalism. Everywhere there was
confusion in the order of public worship and in all church regulations. Great
difficulty had been experienced in translating the Latin chants into German,
and adapting the music. For three weeks Luther laboured industriously at the
service, with the aid of two musicians, Conrad Rupf and John Walter. The music
for the Gospels, Epistles, Words of Institution, and the German Sanctus was
composed by Luther, much to the astonishment of his associate, Walter, whom he
assured that he found the notes in the text of the words to be sung. As there
were many calls for a similar service for other churches, the famous German
Mass of 1526 was the result.1
The
visitation of the churches was most important in its influence. The necessity
for such visitation Haussmann had urged. But the difficulties involved
occasioned protracted delay. Meanwhile the Landgrave had a Church Constitution
drawn up by Francis Lambert, which was adopted for Hesse at a synod at Homberg
in 1526. Luther could not but recognise in it an application of his principles
of church government, but criticised it because it was adapted only to ideal
conditions, and made no provision for the administration of the means of grace
to the great mass of the people. A year had passed when Luther prepared and
sent to the Elector a general plan for church visitation. It provided for a
commission of four visitors, two for the spiritual
1 Erlangen, 22 : 226sqq.; Richter’sKirchenordnungent\., 35
sqq.; Weimar, xix., 44 sqq., gives the music, as well as the text.
and two
for the temporal interests of each congregation. Late in 1526, and at the
beginning of 1527, the plan was tried in several districts of Saxony, with
results which showed the importance of the work. In these visitations,
Melanchthon and Spala- tin were most active, and from the experience thus
gained, Melanchthon prepared Visitation Articles,* for the use of future
official visitors. The Latin outline appeared prematurely and without authority
in 1527. It became the occasion of a violent attack from his colleague,
Agricola, who objected to the emphasis he had placed upon the preaching of the
Law. This was allayed by Luther’s interference on Melanchthon’s side, but the
controversy broke out with increased bitterness in after years. The Order of
Visitation,a published the next year, was thoroughly revised by
Luther, who wrote the introduction. The dominion of the Elector was divided
into six districts, and four visitors assigned to each. Electoral Saxony, the
district nearest Wittenberg, fell to Luther. The exceptional advantages of
close contact with the influences emanating from the University naturally
resulted in a better showing here than in the other districts. Nevertheless,
as he testifies in the introduction to the Small Catechism, the ignorance not
only of the people, but also of the clergy, was such as to amaze him. Pastors
having more than one congregation were found, who used the Roman Mass in one
church and the revised evangelical service in another. One pastor managed only
with great difficulty to repeat
1 C. J?., 26
: I sqq. * lb29 sqq.
the Lord’s
Prayer and the Creed. The best that could be done in many cases was to forbid
the pastors from preaching sermons of their own composition, and direct them
to use Luther’s Postils. In one village the people objected to learning the
Lord’s Prayer, because they thought it was too long! Drunkenness and other
immoralities among the clergy were not rare; while pursuits most remote from
the clerical office were followed with impunity. There was a lamentable dearth
of schools in the country districts. Everywhere, however, the influence of the
Pope was gone, and there was no need of further attacks upon abuses, but only
of building up the people in the Christian life. These visitations continued
until 1530, and were resumed in 1532. The University suffering from the absence
on these trips of both Luther and Melanchthon, and the students leaving in
large numbers, Luther was relieved of visitation duties, except in special
cases, in March, 1529.
The most
important of all the fruits of the visitation was the preparation of the two
catechisms. For years the idea of an elementary text-book, adapted to the
plainest people, had been in his mind. The suggestion is traced by some to a
question-book of the Bohemian Brethren. In his German Mass of 1526, Luther had
said: “ The first thing needed for the German public worship, is a blunt,
plain, simple, good catechism.” It should consist, he says, of explanations of
the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer, in the form of questions
and answers. As a speci
men, he
treats several petitions of the Lord’s Prayer. The preceding year the attempt
had been made by Agricola and Jonas to prepare such a catechism, and had
failed. The visitation forced him to undertake the long-deferred work. Materials
were at hand in homilies and expositions of the several parts of the Catechism,
published by him between 1516 and 1520. Cyprian and Augustine were freely used.
The Visitation Articles and the Loci of Melanchthon supplied invaluable
suggestions. In January, 1529, he writes that he is “ composing a catechism
for rough peasants.” The Small Catechism is intended to provide the head of
every family with a text-book that every child and servant must learn by heart.
The questions are asked by the child, the answers made by the parent. Adherence
to an unvarying form of words is insisted upon, and failure to learn it is not
only to prevent from admission to the Lord’s Supper, but should be punished by
parents and employers with the denial of food and drink.
Next to
his translation of the Bible, the preparation of the Small Catechism was
Luther’s most important literary work. Thirty-seven years after its
appearance, Matthesius estimates the number of copies published at 100,000,
which is certainly a moderate estimate, when in the United States there cannot
be less than that number now in use every year in the seven languages of the
Lutheran Church of America. By the simplicity of its treatment, it illustrates
Luther’s remark: “ If we would instruct children, we must ourselves become
children.”
LUCAS
CRANACH.
t-KOM HIS
OWN PAINTING.
The
exposition of the second article of the Creed is particularly notable in the
original not only for its inimitable literary form, but for the depth of the
thought and the fervour of its language.
“I believe
that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also
true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord ; who has redeemed me, a lost and
condemned creature, secured and delivered me from all sins, from death, and
from the power of the devil, not with silver and gold, but with His holy and
precious blood, and with His innocent sufferings and death ; in order that I
might be His, live under Him in His kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting
righteousness, innocence, and blessedness ; even as He has risen from the
dead, and lives and reigns to all eternity. This is most certainly true.”
During
these years his private life abounded in trials. Happy as a husband and father,
his son John (“ Hans ”) having been born June 7, 1526, rejoicing in the culture
of flowers in the garden, where many of his hours of recreation were spent, he
experienced the first attacks of the disease from which, in subsequent years,
he endured most frequent and acute suffering. In January, 1527, an attack of
heart trouble was nearly fatal, and six months later he thought his end at hand
from prostration with agonising pains in his head. He had not entirely
recovered when the plague broke out at Wittenberg. The University moved in July
to Jena, where it remained until the succeeding January. Luther felt it to be
a higher duty to remain
by the
side of Bugenhagen, who as pastor had to brave the plague, than to comply with
the Elector’s urgent request that he follow his other colleagues. In a paper on
Whether a Christian should Flee when Death Threatens,* he shows the principles
that prompted and sustained him in this crisis. Pastors, rulers, and servants
needed by their employers, he holds, must remain. Neither is any one whose services
are needed by his neighbours, at liberty to desert them. But where such need
does not exist, it is not right to tempt God; only we are to remember that we
are everywhere in God’s hands, and that immunity from danger is not secured by
flight. Jonas lost a child; the wife of the burgomaster died almost in Luther’s
arms; the wife of the chaplain, Roerer, died in Bugenhagen’s house and his
family found refuge in Luther’s home; the plague at last entered, and that
house too became a hospital. But his faith triumphed; a few students, to whom
he continued lecturing, shared the danger, and by the close of the year the
peril was over. On December 10th his daughter Elizabeth was born, soon by her
premature departure, in the succeeding August 5th, to wring from him the
lament: “ She has left me a wonderfully sick, and almost a womanly heart. I am
so distressed for her. Never have I thought that a father’s heart would be so
tender for his children.” 3
To the
roll of martyrs of the evangelical faith there was added about this time
Leonard Kaiser (or Kaeser), a Bavarian pastor, formerly a student at
Wittenberg,
who was arrested in the territory of the Bishop of Passau, whither he had gone
to the deathbed of his father. When Luther heard of his arrest, he wrote him a
letter of consolation,1 and interested the Elector on his behalf,
but in vain. He was burned at Schaerding, August 16, 1527. Luther published an
account of the martyrdom, terming him a true Kaiser (Emperor), who, by his
death, had conquered the mightiest power on earth.3
Before the
burning of Kaiser, he felt deeply the assassination of George Winkler, preacher
at Halle, upon his return from an appearance at the episcopal court of the
Archbishop of Mayence, where he answered the charge of having administered the communion
in both forms. Many regarded the Archbishop an accomplice in the crime. In his
Consolation to Christians at Halle upon the Death of their Preacher,3
Luther attacks the Recess of Mayence, with its sanguinary threats, as
justifying and instigating such crimes. Acts scarcely less atrocious were heard
of from many quarters, and created ceaseless anxiety.
1 De Wette, 3 : 179.
2 Walch, xxi., 173 sqq.
3 Erlangen,
22 : 294 sqq.
ULRIC
ZWINQLI.
A MEMORIAL
OF HIS DEATH.
ZWINGLI AND THE MARBURG COLLOQUY
IN the
controversy which broke out in 1525, separating into two camps those who had
heretofore seemed to be making common cause against the Papacy, came another
trial. The difference concerning the Holy Supper, that came into prominence,
was only the expression of a different mode of viewing all the articles of
faith. Ulric Zwingli, the Swiss Reformer, seven weeks Luther’s junior, and,
like him, a peasant’s son, knew nothing of the inner conflicts through which
Luther was forced, step by step, to his break with the Papacy. By taste and
training a humanist, in feeling a patriot, and in practice a politician and
statesman, he had the courage which most of the humanists had not, to embody
his convictions of the corruptions of Rome into plans of radical reform that
he did not shrink from executing. Without Luther’s conviction of the
pre-eminence of his calling as an expounder and preacher of the simple Word,
regardless of results, Zwingli concen-
27S
trated all
his energies upon constructive schemes for the reorganisation of society. The
statue at Worms represents Luther armed only with the Bible; that at Zurich is
equally appropriate in presenting Zwingli with one hand grasping the sword, and
the other the Bible. Luther’s theology was grounded upon a profound conviction
of the total corruption of human nature, and the responsibility of every member
of the human race for the depravity in which he is born. Zwingli denied the
Church’s doctrine of original sin, except as it might be regarded as designating
in a figurative sense what is man’s misfortune rather than his guilt. The
doctrine of absolute predestination, which Luther held at this time in common
with Zwingli, without carrying it to consequences for which the Scriptures
gave no warrant, and without making it the centre of his system, Zwingli
pressed to the extreme of denying that there are actual means of grace, since
grace is efficacious only by the immediate impulses of the Holy Spirit. In
this depreciation of the external Word, Luther thought that he could trace the
same spirit as that against which he had contended in his conflicts with the
Anabaptists, and afterwards with Muenzer and Carlstadt. Luther’s conception of
the sacraments was that they are pledges of God’s will towards us; Zwingli
contended that they are pledges of our will towards God and our fellow-
Christians. In Luther’s system they are divine; in Zwingli’s, only human acts.
Baptism Luther looked upon as God’s covenant assuring and applying God’s grace;
while Zwingli esteemed it simply as a pro
mise of
the one baptised that he will lead a Christian life, and a testimony of the
Church that he is entitled to its privileges. To Luther the sacraments were
particularly precious, since he found in them the application to every individual
of the special assurance Of divine grace, which, in the hearing and reading of
the Word, is given only in a general form ; according to Zwingli’s view, this
individual application is made only by the inner testimony of the Spirit,
without any external pledge. Luther regarded the Words of Institution
unsusceptible of any but a literal interpretation, and held that they clearly
teach the true presence of the body and blood of Christ with the bread and
wine, at the moment of the reception of the elements, as a pledge of everything
comprehended in the words: “ Given and shed for you/’ Zwingli, on the other
hand, resorted to the figurative interpretation: “ This represents,” in order
to overthrow most effectively the Roman Catholic doctrine of transub-
stantiation, and with it the sacrifice of the Mass. The divergence between the
two leaders on the doctrine of the sacraments is only a result of their
difference on the doctrine of the Word.
Luther
favoured the retention of everything in the practice and usages of the Church
not contrary to Holy Scripture. Zwingli proceeded upon the theory that, without
express Scriptural command, nothing should be retained. The service was reduced
to extreme simplicity; pictures and statues were removed from the churches,
upon the assumption that their presence was contrary to the Ten Com
mandments;
organs were banished, and sacred music disparaged as interfering with
spirituality.
Luther’s
nature was fiery and impetuous; his speech was frank, open, and straightforward.
If he were angry, he uttered all his wrath; if convinced that he had erred, he
cared nothing about a reputation for consistency, but frankly acknowledged the
error. Eveiything was spontaneous. He lived, with all his intensity, in the
moment in which he spoke. Nothing was done by indirection or diplomacy. Zwingli
was as cool and self-possessed as Luther was passionate. He knew how to hold
his indignation in check, to suppress his words, and to conceal his feelings. A
skilful logician, and an adroit man of affairs, he sought a definite end by
carefully planned methods, and was rarely betrayed into inconsistencies. Luther
won his battles by sudden and unexpected charges that broke upon his enemies
with the force of a tornado. Zwingli’s strength lay in strategy.
Zwingli’s
doctrine of the Lord’s Supper coincides with suggestions previously made by
Erasmus. All connection with Carlstadt he indignantly repudiated. Professing to
have held his explanation for a number of years as a private opinion, he
refrained from publishing until it could first be submitted to learned judges.
But when Carlstadt’s view, with its exaggerations, was diffused, he undertook
to present his own, first in a private letter to Alberus of Reut- lingen, which
was sent also to the Strassburgers a month later, when both his opinion and
that of Luther were asked, and then, in the succeeding
year, in
his Commentary on True and False Religion. The coming conflict was seen, when
Luther’s formal opinion reached the Strassburgers about the same time, although
Luther did not deem Zwingli’s opinion worthy of immediate answer, and Bugen-
hagen was the first to make an attack. In September, 1525, CEcolampadius,who
held a similar opinion, although he found the figure in the word “ body,”
sought to gain adherents by a letter addressed the Wuertemburg clergy, which
was answered in the Syngramma, composed by John Brenz. In Silesia, Kaspar
Schwenckfeldt, a nobleman, hitherto one of Luther’s most zealous friends,
sought to spiritualise the Words of Institution, and was supported by the
theologian, Krautwaldt. They were answered by Hess, while the Baden preacher,
Jacob Strauss, attacked Zwingli. At Strassburg, Capito and Bucer were won to
Zwingli’s side, but hoped, by mediation, to avoid an open rupture with Luther.
Ger- belius, a Strassburg jurist, kept Luther informed concerning what was
transpiring there, and represented that the pastors were secret adherents of
Carlstadt. Luther’s distrust was increased when Bucer, who translated the
writings of the Wittenberg theologians, published an edition of Luther’s
Postils and one of Bugenhagen’s exposition of the Psalms, in which he modified
the teaching concerning the Lord’s Supper, so as to make it harmonise with
that of Zwingli.1 Party spirit ran high. The Council of Nuremberg
sent a protest to that of
1 See the charge made by Luther against
Bucer in “ That these words : ‘ This is My Bodyabide” (1527). Erlangen, 30 :
147 sqq.
Strassburg
concerning the doctrine encouraged in the latter city.
The
political crisis in Germany in 1525 advising a union of all the opponents of
the Papacy, George Cassel was sent to Wittenberg to confer with Luther; but
their meeting was without result. As long as Zwingli addressed only his friends
and wrote only in the Latin language, Luther remained silent, but when, in
1526, Zwingli sought to popularise his doctrine in a German treatise, A Clear
Explanation of the Lord's Supper, Luther replied in an introduction to the
Syngramma, followed by A Sermon. It was during the years 1527 and 1528 that the
chief burden of this controversy fell upon him. The severity of his language
against his opponents can be understood only when it is remembered how heavy
was the responsibility upon him for the correct representation of the movement
which he had started. In his Large Confession concerning the Lord's Supper ' he
treats of the errors of his opponents, then enters into a critical examination
of the passages of Scripture involved, and concludes with a comprehensive
confession of his faith.
“ Since I see,” he says, “ that sects and errors are continually
increasing, in order that, hereafter, during my life or after my death, no one
may appeal to or falsely quote my writings to strengthen his error, as the
Sacramentarians and Anabaptists are doing, I will, herewith, confess my faith,
article by article, before all the world. By this expression I purpose to abide
until
death, and by God’s help, to depart from this world and to stand before
the judgment seat of our Lord Jesus Christ. If any one after my death will say
: ‘ If Luther were still living he would teach and hold differently concerning
this article, for he had not sufficiently examined it,’ etc., I say in reply,
for the present as well as for the future, that I have tested all these articles
most carefully by the Holy Scriptures, and am now ready to defend them as
vigorously as I have defended that of the Sacrament of the Altar. I am not
drunk, neither do I speak rashly, but know what I am saying, and am well aware
of the account I must render the Lord Jesus at the Day of Judgment. Let no one,
therefore, regard this a matter of jest or trifling ; for I am in earnest.” 1
New
dangers were threatening the evangelical cause, rendering the division among
its adherents most inopportune. Peace had been made between Pope and Emperor,
and the time had come when it seemed to the evangelical princes that they could
no longer remain undisturbed by attempts to coerce them. In their alertness to
be informed as to the first approaches of danger, the Elector and Landgrave
were imposed upon by the forgeries of Otto von Pack, a former counsellor of
Duke George, in which a counterfeit agreement of Ferdinand and George with the
Electors of Brandenburg and May- ence, and the Bishops of Salzburg, Wuerzburg,
and Bamberg, was produced. Lutheranism was to be extirpated; the Elector and
Landgrave were to be deprived of their dominions, and the confederates were to
divide the territory. Without a suspicion
THE
ELECTOR JOHN FREDERICK OF SAXONY.
AFTER THE
COPPER ENGRAVING BY G. PENCZ, 1543.
as to its
genuineness, the Frotestant princes prepared for war. The Landgrave was for
moving at once upon the confederates. The Elector summoned Luther to Torgau
for consultation. Although also deceived as to the genuineness of the
document, he used all his influence to dissuade from any aggressive movement.
There was no proof that the Emperor approved the conspiracy, and therefore, he
argued, it would be a crime to break the peace. The only course was to wait
patiently for the ripening of the plot. If the Landgrave still insisted on
making war, then the Elector, he declared, should not co-operate, as it would
be contrary to God’s will. The wisdom of Luther’s advice was seen, when the
Landgrave’s demand for an explanation exposed the fraud. Luther had saved Germany
from a religious war.
As the
dark cloud of Turkish invasion was casting its shadows upon the boundaries of
Hungary, and threatening Germany, he deemed it his duty to raise the cry of
alarm and explain the position he had taken, years before, in antagonism to the
Pope’s call to arms.1 The Christian, as a Christian, must use only
the sword of the Spirit; but, as an obedient subject of the Emperor, he must
use also the temporal sword to repel robbers and murderers, such as the Turks
are. This treatise, scattered throughout the country in large editions, was
followed by A Summons to Battle,2 when the Turks had advanced so far
as to besiege Vienna.
At the
Second Diet of Spires, which assembled
March 15,
1529, the opponents of the evangelical cause were in the large majority. All
concessions of the Diet of 1526 were revoked; the execution of the Edict of
Worms was enforced in all countries where it had been observed; and all
innovations in other places prohibited. The celebration of the Mass according
to the old order was everywhere protected, and the revenues of the clergy
assured. The Zwinglians and Anabaptists were to be extirpated wherever found.
The protests entered against this by the five evangelical princes and the
representatives of fourteen cities, April 19th, gave them the name of “
Protestants.” Directed not so much against ecclesiastical and worldly rulers as
against the despotism of mere majorities, this Instrumentum Magnum/ as it is
sometimes called, is the Magna Charta of modern civil and religious liberty.
With a wide outlook the signers of this document appeal not only for themselves
and their subjects, but also for “ all who either now or in the future, will
adhere to the holy Word of God,” declare that membership in the one spiritual
Body of Christ requires each one to provide for the spiritual interests of his
brethren, and assert the right of private judgment in words worthy of
everlasting memory, viz., that “ IN MATTERS
PERTAINING TO GOD’S HONOURa
1 In full in
Walch, xvi., 364 sqq.; Muller’s Historie von der Ev. Stdnde Protestation und
Appelation (Jena, 1705), 51 sqq. Summaries in Latin, Seckendorf,
ii., 130 ; in German, Gieseler’s Church History, notes to vol. iv., 131 (Am.
ed.).
2 “ In den
Sachen, Gottes Ehre und unserer Seelen Heilund Selig- keit belangend, ein
jeglicher fur sich selbst vor Gott stehen, und Rechenschaft geben muss.”
KASPAR
CRUCfQER.
FROM A
WOOD-CUT BY TOBIAS STIMMER.
AND OUR SOULS’ SALVATION, EVERY ONE MUST STAND AND GIVE AN ACCOUNT
OF HIMSELF BEFORE God.”
So
critical was the situation that the Protestants immediately entered into an
armed alliance for mutual defence. It being important that the alliance should
be extended as far as possible, the Landgrave was intent upon securing the
co-operation of the Swiss, while the Swiss, in turn, desired that Venice and
France should be included. But as the only object of the Elector was to secure
mutual defence in the right to have the same Gospel, there had to be agreement
as to what was meant by “ the Gospel.” Unjust as was the decree of Spires
against Zwinglianism, those who regarded Zwinglianism as a departure from truth
could not be expected to go to war for its maintenance. The contest in
progress was not one in which all wrongs were to be righted, but one in which
they felt themselves justified in resistance only where the Emperor attacked
that which they were convinced was of God. A conference of theologians, for the
purpose of settling, if possible, the points of dispute, was the result. It
was due to the tireless efforts of the Landgrave, and was held October 1-3,
1529, in his castle at Marburg, where he royally entertained all the
participants. Luther was accompanied by Melanchthon, Jonas, and Cruciger of
Wittenberg, Myconius of Gotha, Brenz of Hall, Osiander of Nuremberg, and
Stephen Agricola of Augsburg; Zwingli, by CEcolampadius of Basel, and the two
Strassburgers, Bucer and Hedio. After a
day of
private conferences, in which Luther was closeted with CEcolampadius, and
Melanchthon with Zwingli, and exchanged views concerning the other articles, a
public discussion on the Lord’s Supper was held, beginning at 6 A.M., Saturday,
October 2d. With the Landgrave, who took the deepest interest in all the
proceedings, were the exiled Duke Ulrich of Wuertemberg and a select number of
guests. The four contestants sat around a table; Luther and Melanchthon on the
one side, and Zwingli and CEcolampadius on the other. Except for a few
incidental remarks of Melanchthon and Brenz, Luther was the sole speaker on his
side, while his two opponents alternated in their replies. The arguments were
not new; they had been already presented in the controversial writings that
had appeared. Luther laid all the stress upon the words, 44 This is
My Body,” which he had written in chalk upon the table; while Zwingli insisted
that in the sixth chapter of John is found the key to the doctrine. Neither
expected that he would make a convert of the other, but contended with a view
to the effect to be produced upon the audience. Luther spoke at times with
characteristic severity, but with more than usual self-control and courtesy.
The controversy being clearly irreconcilable, the Landgrave asked that other
grounds of union be sought, which Luther declared to be impossible. The
rejection of Zwingli’s hand, offered with tears, the repudiation of the term 44
brethren,” and the words: 44 You have another spirit,” so often dramatically
described as discreditable to Luther, should
always be
understood as meaning nothing more than a declaration of the absolute
impossibility of making common cause with Zwingli, in a political alliance,
upon such terms. To have accepted Zwingli's hand under such circumstances would
have meant readiness to defend unto death his explanation of the Lord’s
Supper. It was not a question of respecting the convictions of his opponent,
but of arraying the entire evangelical party in its support against the
Emperor. Nor, in view of the other political alliances that Zwingli was then projecting,
could any one divine to what extent such responsibility would be carried. That
there was no personal rancour present may be learned from Luther’s statement a
few days later: “ We gave them, nevertheless, the right hand of peace and love,
and promised, meanwhile, to abstain from bitter words and writings, so that,
while each may teach his own opinion, he may do so without invective, but not
without the right of defence and refutation.” 1 They all mingled
cordially around the Landgrave’s table, and spent a day in social intercourse,
with candid and informal comparison of views, the fruit of which appears in The
Marburg Articles, 3 drawn up by Luther, and with the . exception of
a portion of the article on the Lord’s Supper, signed also by Zwingli and his
associates.
“ We left
Marburg with the hope, that as they con-
1 De Wette, 3 : 5-13 ; cf Erlangen, 32 :
398 sqq., 36: 320 sqq.; Melanchthon’s account in C. R1 : 1099 sqq.
2 Erlangen, 65 : 88 sqq.; in English, Book
of Concord (Jacobs), ii., 69-74.
19
ceded all
the Christian articles, and had receded from their former error concerning the
Holy Sacrament, they would in time completely unite with us.” 1 The
prevalence of an epidemic hastened the dispersion of the participants to their
homes. Called upon to preach on the morning before he left Marburg, Luther’s
sermon 2 is without the least reminiscence of the contest. It is a
calm, practical, edifying discourse on civil rights and the forgiveness of
sins.
1 Short
Confession concerning the Lord's Supper (1545), Erlangen,
32: 405.
9 Erlangen,
14 : 206 sqq.
COBURG AND
AUGSBURG N his journey homeward Luther tarried at
Schleiz,
to prepare a doctrinal basis for a conference, to be held at Schwabach, October
i6th.‘ The coming of the Emperor to Germany was regarded with serious
apprehension. Luther’s opinion being invoked by the Elector as to whether the
evangelical princes would be justified in making armed resistance, in case
Charles should undertake to enforce the decree of Spires, he gave an unqualified
negative answer. If the Emperor act unjustly, the remedy, he maintains, is
deposition by due legal process. But as long as he is the sovereign, he must
be obeyed, and to resort to revolutionary measures implies a denial of faith
in the power of God’s word to bring about the change. A few days afterwards the
announcement was made that the Emperor would open the Diet at Augsburg _ 1
Schwabach Articles ; in English, Book of Concord, ii., 69-74.
on the 8th
of April, 1530. Measures against the Turk, and the settlement of the religious
dissension in the spirit of love, were the announced program. The Wittenberg
theologians were summoned by the Elector (March 14th), to prepare, within six
days, a report concerning the disputed ceremonies and matters of doctrine. The
result was a memorandum, chiefly concerning ceremonies.1 The
Elector, uncertain as to what issues might be sprung upon him, wanted his
theological advisers with him. Leaving Wittenberg on Sunday, April 3d, the
theologians joined the Elector at Torgau. Palm Sunday was spent at Weimar,
where the Lord’s Supper was administered, and a rest of several days was
taken. On Good Friday (April 15th) Coburg was reached, where the party remained
for over a week.
The
prediction had been made that the Elector would not venture to appear at
Augsburg. Not only was he to be the first on the ground, but he was taking with
him the man wrho was the chief cause of offence. No Imperial passes
had been furnished, and it was deemed the part of prudence to move cautiously.
The Elector seems to have given up, with great reluctance, the thought of
having Luther by his side during this crisis; but the opposition of the
Nurembergers to the continuance of his journey resulted in the Elector’s
placing him in the powerful citadel of Coburg, behind walls that in the Thirty
Years’ War were to defy all the
1 Book of Concord, ii., 75 sqq.; in German
(original), Foerstemann’s Urkundenbuch, i,, 68 sqq.
efforts of
Wallenstein. Luther acquiesced reluctantly, and suggested that the real reason
was that he had “ too coarse a voice ” for the Diet.1 But he took
comfort in the thought: “ Whatever pleases God, pleases me.”3 Taken
to the fortress before break of day on the 23d, he remained for more than five
months on an elevation of over 1500 feet above the sea, and 500 feet above the
city which it overhangs. In this ideal place for a summer home, with the quiet
broken only by the songs and cries of birds, and its magnificent prospect
covering many miles, he found a much-needed change of scene, even though his
restless spirit only turned to other forms of work. Always living intensely
amidst whatever surroundings, his fancy saw, in the daws and crows and ravens,
now crowds of chattering sophists, who consumed the grain, only to dispute, and
then an Imperial Diet, such as was assembling at Augsburg. Their
characteristics were closely observed, and, as they strutted before him, individual
participants in current events were recognised.
The
mountain he called “ Sinai but said that he would change it into Zion, by
building there three tabernacles, one for the Psalms, another for the Prophets,
and a third for y£sop.3 His effort to complete the translation of
the Psalms by Whitsunday^ was thwarted by frequent attacks of head-
1 The suggestion of Pallavicini, however,
seems most plausible, viz., that the Emperor would have regarded the presence
of one who had been condemned by the Edict of Worms as an unpardonable act of
defiance. Vera Historia Concilii Tridentini (Latin translation),
Antwerp, 1670, i., 232.
2 De
Wette, 4 : 12. 3 2.
ache and
insomnia and symptoms of his former heart trouble. For a time his illness
occasioned the gravest apprehensions at Augsburg, and a physician was sent to
the castle by the Elector. The shadow of a severe affliction was cast upon him
by the tidings, on June 9th, that his father had departed this life, strong in
the faith his son had confessed and taught. Veit Dietrich, a young Nuremberg
pastor, and former inmate of his house, who was Luther’s companion at Coburg,
narrates that, on reading the letter, he picked up his Psalter and retired for
the rest of the day to his room, where in solitude he comforted himself with
the consolations so abundantly offered in his favourite book of devotion. To
Melanchthon he poured out his grief in a letter in which he said that to his
father he owed all that he was and had.1
But grief
was as powerless as joy to interrupt long his work. In the writing of an
exposition of Psalm CXVIII., he found especial comfort. Recreation was afforded
by paraphrasing some of iEsop’s fables. Here, too, shortly after learning of
his father’s death, he wrote a letter to his four-year-old son, Hans, in which
he describes the joys of Heaven under imagery that a child can best understand:
“ Where merry children run about in their little golden coats, gathering
nice apples and pears and cherries and plums from under the trees, and riding on
pretty horses with golden bridles and silver saddles, and where they have pipes
and drums and lutes and all sorts of stringed instruments, and shoot with their
cross-bows.” 2
1 De Wette, 4 : 33. 2
lb., 41 sqq.
IHESV ET MARIAE PATROCINIO,
ArticuTos 404partim ad difputationes Lipficam^Baden,& Bcmcfi
artinentes^partim veto cx fcripris paccm cccldi* per* lurbantium cxtraftoCoram
diuo Caefare Ca» rolo V«Ro* Imp* femper Augu. 2c«ac
proccribas Imperii'loan; Eckius minimus ccckftx minifter* offcrtfc
difputatua nm^vt in fchedalatiuscx* plicatur Augulhc Vin« ddicorunn
TITLE-PAQE
OF ECK'S 404 THESES CIRCULATED AT AUGSBURG, TO WHICH THE AUGSBURG CONFESSION IS
IN PART A REPLY.
Ok: Ochora confcnfu
In spirit
at Augsburg, he determined to make his voice also heard there, and wrote,
accordingly, during the first weeks of his stay at the castle, an Exhortation
to the Clergy,* then assembled at the Diet. Before the Diet actually opened,
the book, which has been called “ Luther’s Augsburg Confession,” had been
printed and was on sale at the place where all eyes, for the time, were
resting.
What
course to pursue in case the Emperor should forbid evangelical preaching during
the Diet was a question that much agitated the Protestants on the ground.
Luther’s answer, when his opinion was asked, was that the only proper course
would be to submit under protest. The Emperor, to conciliate them as much as
possible, made the prohibition universal, and while the Diet was in session
neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant sermon was preached.
Not until
June 15th did the Emperor reach Augsburg. The Elector had been awaiting his
arrival for over six weeks. Ample time, therefore, was given Melanchthon for
the preparation of the Confession. Begun at Coburg, with the portion treating
of abuses based upon the Torgau A rticles, and the doctrinal part upon the
Schwabach Articles, every moment that could be found at Augsburg had been
devoted to writing and rewriting and improving every sentence. The 404 Theses
of Eck, consisting of extracts not only from the writings of the Saxon
theologians,2 but also from those of Zwingli, Carlstadt, and Denck,
col-
1 Erlangen, 24 : 329 sqq.
9 Including the forty-one alleged errors of Luther
contained in the Pope’s Bull,
“ The
remarkable firmness, cheerfulness, faith, and hope of the man I cannot
sufficiently admire. These he nourishes by diligent meditation upon God’s word.
Not a day passes that he does not devote three hours, and those the hours most
suitable for study, to prayer. Once I happened to hear him praying. ‘ I know,’
he said, ‘that Thou art our God and Father ; I am sure, therefore, that Thou
wilt destroy the persecutors of thy children ; if not, the danger is Thine as
well as ours. We have been compelled to meet it ; defend us, then ! ’ In almost
these very words I heard him pray, as he stood up and spake with a clear
voice.” 1
No
settlement of the doctrinal questions in dispute was anticipated by Luthor.
That the adherents of Rome would not yield he was confident, and he knew that
the representatives of the evangelical cause could not. His sole care was not
the wrath of enemies, but the timidity of Melanchthon, and the danger of
unwarranted concessions that this brought. Once, when Melanchthon wrote him of
Eck’s acceptance, under certain qualifications, of the formula “ Men are
justified by faith alone,” preferring the statement “ they are justified by
grace and faith,” and at the same time suggested that Eck did not understand
the meaning of the terms, Luther wrote sharply: “ Oh, that you had not forced
him to lie! ” 2
When the
work of the Diet was over, and the danger of perilous concessions seemed, for
the time, to have passed, he congratulated Melanchthon and his associates in
glowing words:
“ You have
confessed Christ, you have offered peace, you have obeyed the Emperor, you have
borne injuries, you have been loaded with blasphemies, you have not rendered
evil for evil ; in short, you have worthily conducted a holy work of God—as
becometh saints ; I will canonise you as faithful members of Christ; and what
greater glory can you seek ? ” 1
Almost at
the last moment, however, vigilant friends at Augsburg suggest to Luther new
suspicions concerning Melanchthon. At once he informs Melanchthon of the
charge, and adds: “ I would sooner believe you than them ”; but asks an immediate
explanation,3 and, lest this should not be enough, writes to Jonas:
“ I know
the tricks of Eck. I am almost bursting with wrath and indignation. Cease, I
beseech you, to deal with them, and return. They have the Confession ; they
have the Gospel. If they want, let them receive these ; if not, let them go to
their own place.” 3
But the
danger having passed before the letters reached Nuremberg, they were prudently
withheld by the trusted friend through whom they were to be delivered.
On
September 14th, Duke John Frederick, the Electoral Prince, reached Coburg
unexpectedly, on his way from the Diet, and presented Luther with a gold ring,
which proved to be entirely too large. Luther’s remark, as it fell from his
finger, was that he was born to wear lead or a halter, rather than
gold. On
the 25th, Bucer, who had been uniformly repulsed by Melanchthon in all his
approaches at Augsburg, arrived, in order to see if some agreement could not be
reached with Luther on the Lord’s Supper. He was received with every courtesy.
Luther was gratified that since Marburg decided progress had been made in what
he regarded the right direction.
“ I told
you at Coburg,” he wrote several months afterwards to Bucer, “ that I wanted
this dissension settled, even though my life had to be laid down three times
on account of it ; because I saw how necessary association with you would be,
and what advantages to the Gospel it would bring, so that I am certain that all
the gates of Hell, all the Papacy, all the Turks, all the world, and the flesh,
and all evils whatsoever, could not do such harm to the Gospel, if we were only
united.” 1
The
evangelical representatives were already on their return. The Landgrave, in
disgust, had left precipitately, August 6th, creating strong apprehensions
that he was plotting against the Diet, and that a military attack might be
expected at any time. Extraordinary precautions against the danger were taken.
A preliminary draught of the Recess was submitted to the evangelicals on
September 22d, in which it was stated that, as their Confession had been
thoroughly refuted in the Confutation, prepared by Eck, Faber, Wimpina, and
Cochlaeus, a period until the succeeding April 15th was allowed for them to
return to the Catholic faith. Until then
they were
prohibited from publishing anything on the subjects in controversy. The sole
concession to the evangelicals was the promise of a general council. In reply,
they offered a refutation of the Confutation, prepared by Melanchthon, known as
The Apology of the Augsburg Confession. The Emperor declining to receive it,
it was afterwards much more fully elaborated and published the succeeding
spring. When the Emperor and the Elector parted the next day, the scene was
full of pathos. “ Uncle,” said the Emperor, “ I would not have expected this of
you!” The Elector was too deeply moved to reply. The Catholic party, left to
themselves, continued in session until November 19th. Their counsels were divided;
since the German princes and states, especially in view of the threatened
Turkish invasion, were not ready to war upon their neighbours and kinsmen,
while other members of the Diet urged the forcible execution of the edicts of
Worms and Spires.
The Elector
and Melanchthon reached Luther at the castle on October 4th, and on the
following day all started for Wittenberg. Sunday was spent at Altenburg, where
Spalatin was then pastor. Luther preached, and during the course of the day,
finding Melanchthon labouring in Spalatin’s house on the Apology, snatched the
pen from his colleague’s hand, with the remark that God has commanded rest, as
well as labour.
A memorial
of the stay at Coburg, which Luther explained in a letter to his friend,
Spengler,1 was
“ the coat
of arms,” devised as an emblem of his theology. It was probably engraved on the
ring presented by the Electoral Prince at this time. Within a heart, retaining
its natural colour, there lies a black cross, to show that nothing but faith in
the Crucified saves. This heart, in which the cross is enshrined, rests upon a
white rose, to indicate that joy and peace are gifts of the Holy Spirit. The
rose is in an azure field, to declare that such peace and faith are the
beginning of heavenly joys; and the whole is surrounded by a gold ring, emblematic
of eternity, as well as of the preciousness of these gifts. Nevertheless the
emblem was used by Luther before, and appears upon the title-page of the first
edition of his Confession concerning the Lord's Supper, published in 1528.
MUSIC COMPOSED BY LUTHER FOR HIS GREAT REFORMATION HYMN. CSee p. 231.
THE SCHMALKALD LEAGUE AND THE STRUGGLES WITH ROME AND FANATICISM.
WITH the
pastoral duties of Bugenhagen, who was sent to Luebeck for a protracted period,
added to his own, Luther undertook a burden upon his return from Coburg that he
was scarcely able to bear. The calls for his advice and his offices as an
arbiter in Church troubles great and small were incessant. So intensely had he
lived and laboured, that at forty-seven he began to feel the infirmities of
age. Never afterwards was he in robust health. He suffered frequent attacks of
vertigo and roaring in his head, interrupting all regular habits of work. “ My
head is no longer equal to such labours,” was his sad remark, when cherished
schemes had to be foregone.
Preparing
for the worst, in view of the final decree of the Diet, the evangelical princes
sought his advice once more as to their right to resist the Emperor.
303
in his
answer he modified his preceding opinion so as to place upon the jurists the
responsibility of deciding the constitutional limits, beyond which the Emperor
could not demand obedience; although, in the absence of such decision, and the
regular action of the princes and estates, the Emperor was still to be obeyed.
Meanwhile, against the protest of the Elector, Ferdinand had been elected “
King of the Romans,” and charged with the authority of the Emperor in the
administration of affairs in Germany. In making this protest, the Elector
acted against Luther’s advice, who preferred to risk Ferdinand’s election to
the danger of having John deposed to make room for Duke George as elector. An
alliance was formed by the evangelicals, March 29, 1531, in “ The Schmalkald
League,” combining all the Lutheran princes and states, with the four cities
that had presented the Tetrapolitan Confession at Augsburg, into a strong
military confederation. The League was strengthened by an alliance with the
Catholic Dukes of Bavaria, who were hostile to Ferdinand’s election. Treaties
were made the following year with Denmark and France, while England’s silent
approval was understood. Pressed by the growing importance of the League, and
never relieved from the threatened invasion of the Turks, the “ Peace of
Nuremberg ” was conceded by the Emperor, guaranteeing, until the convening of a
diet or general council, religious liberty to the confederates, upon the
stipulation that they would allow no innovations beyond those admitted in the
Augsburg Confession and the Apology.
FERDINAND I.
FROM AH RAV'HG BY BEHAM.
During the
progress of these political negotiations, Luther in several publications 1
exposed the errors that the Diet of Augsburg had promulgated, and made a strong
appeal to the people against the war that his enemies were contemplating. When
attacked by an anonymous writer, who misrepresented him as inciting to
insurrection, he repelled the charge in his book Against the Assassin at Dresden."1
Luther may or may not have known that his antagonist was none other than Duke
George. At any rate, he had thus another difficulty with the Duke to settle,
who, according to his custom, laid his grievances before the Elector.
Radicalism once more claimed attention, in his book, written in 1532, Against
the Sneaks and Hedge Preachers.3 It was a warning against those who, under the plea of the universal
priesthood of believers, claimed that the exercise of the ministerial office is
allowed all Christians, and that, therefore, the Church regulations setting
men apart for this work are a remnant of the Papacy. A controversy also broke
out at Nuremberg, where Osiander attacked the general Absolution, and Luther’s
services were employed to bring peace. The Elector’s commandant at Wittenberg,
having been known to be guilty of immorality, was resolutely excluded from the
communion. Much correspondence and many interviews were occasioned by this
delicate but decided exercise of the pastoral office.
Luther
lost his mother, June 30, 1531. His second son, Martin, was born November 9th
of the same
year, and
his youngest son, Paul, January 28, 1533. The declining health of the Elector
summoned him several times to his bedside during a critical illness early in
1532. After seeming recovery, the Prince was stricken with apoplexy, and died,
in his sixty- fifth year, August 16, 1532. His son and successor, John
Frederick, was on more intimate terms with Luther, and, by his unflinching
courage in confessing the faith, in peril of life and in protracted imprisonment,
amidst the trials that followed Luther’s death, deserves to be honoured as one
of the greatest heroes of the Reformation. His wife, Sybilla, also took an
active interest in everything pertaining to the cause, and was an occasional
correspondent with Luther.
Zwingli’s
projects of reformation meanwhile had met with a disastrous end in the battle
of Cappel, October 11, 1531, in which he was among the slain. Luther compared
his fate with that of Muenzer, and regarded it as a divine judgment. “ Not that
we rejoice,” he writes, “ at their calamity, but from our hearts lament it.” 1
Much to
his displeasure, Luther was compelled to give an opinion in September, 1531,
concerning the proposed divorce of Henry VIII. from Catherine of Aragon, aunt
of the Emperor. Catherine was older than Henry, had been his brother’s widow,
and was forced upon him, with the Pope’s dispensation, by his father, Henry
VII., in an arrangement which he
1 De Wette, 4 : 352: “ Nicht dass wir uns freuen ihres Ungliicks, das uns
von Herzen leid ist, und alle Zeit gewesen ; sondern dass wir das Zeugniss der
Wahrheit Gottes nicht lassen konnen.”
openly
repudiated on coming of age, but in which he afterwards acquiesced. There was
no question about the entire irregularity of the marriage according to
Canonical Law. Clement VII., while at war with the Emperor, was favourable to
Henry’s petition, but when peace followed, his refusal to grant the divorce
was absolute. An attempt was made by Henry to create a sentiment in his favour
by an accumulation on his side of opinions from universities throughout all
Europe. Dr. Robert Barnes, a convert to Lutheranism, represented Henry’s cause
at Wittenberg. Luther’s answer was most decided : “ If the adversaries carry
the King with them, let our men try, with all their might, at least to keep the
Queen from consenting in any way to the divorce. Let her die rather than become
an accomplice in such a crime.” 1
The
accession of John Frederick to the Electorate was followed by new activity in
visitations, the preparation of Church Constitutions, and the reorganisation
of the University. Luther’s ill-health prevented him from active participation
in the visitations, although his counsel was constantly employed. A Church
Constitution was prepared for Wittenberg in 1533,2 defining it as
the metropolis of Saxony, and its pastor as Chief Superintendent. The
regulations are of a more permanent character than in the preceding Orders,
although everything still has reference to a possible acceptance of the
evangelical faith by the bishops, and the restoration of their supervision. The
Margrave of
1 De Wette, 4 : 306. 2
Richter, iM 220 sqq.
Brandenburg
and the Council of Nuremberg entrusted the preparation of a common Order for
their churches to Osiander and Brenz, who submitted it to the thorough revision
of the Wittenberg faculty. It was published the same year, 1533, and became one
of the most influential Lutheran Orders.1 The revised statute of the
University made the exposition of the Scriptures the chief duty of every
member of the theological faculty, and particularly mentioned the Epistle to
the Romans, the Gospel of John, the Psalms, Genesis, and Isaiah as topics for
lectures. The first doctors of divinity, under the new Order, received their
titles with much ceremony, and a largely attended banquet. They were Bugen-
hagen, Cruciger, and the Hamburg superintendent, vEpinus.
Unwearied
in his efforts to prevent the spread of the evangelical cause, Duke George was
ever falling beneath the censure of Luther’s pen, whose words stung him to the
quick. An order that the citizens of Leipzig should receive, on Easter, 1533,
the communion in one form, in order that the Lutherans might be known by their
refusal to comply, occasioned a request for his advice. In a private letter,
which fell into the hands of the Duke, he declared that no one convinced that
the Lord’s Supper should be received in both forms, could receive it otherwise,
without doing violence to conscience.3 The title “ apostle of the
devil” having been applied to George, he complained to the Elector that Luther
was instigating his subjects to rebellion.
When
called to account by John Frederick, Luther published his defence,1
in which he disclaimed any attempt to interfere with George’s exercise of his
rights as a lawful ruler. But, he continued, if, in this letter, Duke George
was called by such name, this was not saying too much.
“We know
well that, before the world, Duke George is invested with princely honour, and
is a noble prince of the Empire ; but before God, and in spiritual things, we
concede him no honour, unless it be that of Pilate, Herod, and Judas, who
condemned and slew Christ and His apostles because of God’s Word.”
Advance
sheets of a violent defence of George having been received, Luther anticipated
it by A Short Answer to Duke George's Next Book? In 1534 the controversy
threatened to break out once more, when Luther was reported to have asked the
congregation to pray against the Duke. That he had ever made such a request,
he emphatically denied.
Relieved
by Bugenhagen’s return of his duty of filling the pulpit of the Parochial
Church, Luther conducted a service every Sunday in his house, in which he
expounded the Gospel for the day. It attracted not only a large number of
friends, but also of strangers who visited Wittenberg. Reduced to writing by
some of the listeners, this series of sermons constitutes the famous House
Postils? At the same time he was devoting his chief attention, as a university
teacher, to a new exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, which, as
published in
1535,1 has been termed “ Luther’s Dogmatics and
Ethics, upon the Basis of Justification by Faith Alone.” For his barber, Peter,
he wrote, in 1534, A Simple Way to Pray? •
Notwithstanding
the bitter experience of the Peasants’ War, Anabaptism had continued to spread.
The rejection of infant baptism was only one of its characteristics. The real
principle, from which all the peculiarities of its advocates proceeded, was
that of the Zwickau prophets. They undervalued the authority of the written
Word, and professed to have new and immediate revelations. They made much of
regulations concerning mere externals, such as the cut of the clothing, eating
and drinking and laughing; repudiated the magistracy, and denied the right of
individuals to possess property. Muenster, in Westphalia, became in 1534-35, in
spite of Luther’s earnest warnings, the scene of their most extravagant
procedures. The reformatory movement, under Rottman, was diverted from its
course by their emissaries, and the pastor himself became a proselyte and
preached polygamy. Under John Bockelson of Leyden, and Jan Matthiesen, the most
radical form of communism was advocated in the name of religion. Thither
congregated their persecuted co-religionists from all quarters. Death inflicted
with brutal cruelty was the penalty of those of the citizens who persisted in
resistance to their lawless schemes. For sixteen months the place withstood a
siege from the forces of the Bishop of Muenster, supported by all the power of
the Em
1 Op. ex., 24-5. 3
lb., 23 : 214 sqq.
peror, and
reinforced by the Protestants, who, by their co-operation in the effort to
suppress fanaticism, emphasised their utter repudiation of radicalism. Terrible
were the privations endured by those besieged, and most severe was the
punishment meted to those who surrendered. Upon the capture of the city, June
25, 1535, the Roman Catholic power was completely re-established.
A less
serious outbreak of fanaticism was that of which Michael Stiefel, pastor at
Lochau, was guilty, who, by arithmetical calculations, inferred from the
Apocalypse that the end of the world would occur October 19, 1533» eight
o’clock in the morning. The importunate efforts of Stiefel to convert him to
this belief, Luther answered by stating that he preferred to expect that
Christ might come at any hour, and warned his friend of the snare into which he
was falling by his mathematical calculations.1 Against the
prohibition of the magistrates, Stiefel assembled his congregation early in the
morning of the appointed day; but, when the hour for the Lord’s appearance had
passed, the officers, who were patiently waiting, arrested and conducted him, a
somewhat wiser man, to Wittenberg. “Michael,” said Luther, “has had a small
trial; but it will not hurt him; on the contrary, thank God! he will be the
better for it.”
A bold
stroke of great political significance was made by the Landgrave, when, without
the support of the Elector of Saxony, and against the protests of Luther, ever
advocating peace to the very farthest limit, he carried to a successful
conclusion a plan to
1 De Wette, 4 : 463.
restore
Wuertemberg to his friend, the exiled Duke Ulrich. ’ No one was more rejoiced
by the result than was Luther, although the enterprise had been contrary to his
best judgment.
The
growing influence of the Schmalkald League made its friendship desirable on the
part of all arrayed against the Emperor, or jealous of his power. Francis I.
invited Melanchthon to France, that an agreement between the French and the
Lutheran theologians might be reached. Although this scheme was favoured by
Luther, the Elector’s opposition could not be overcome. Henry VIII. did not
allow any feeling of resentment he may have harboured because of the decision
concerning his divorce and the scathing attacks of Luther to interfere with his
ambition, not only to be enrolled as a member of the League, but even to be its
head. His approaches were favoured by the flattering introduction in which
Melanchthon (much to Luther’s disgust) had dedicated to the English King the
edition of his Loci of 1535. The Elector met all propositions by the answer
that the acceptance of the Augsburg Confession and the Apology was an indispensable
condition of admission into the League. At the sessions of the League in
December, 1535, a commission of three English theologians, Edward Fox, Bishop
of Hereford, Nicholas Heath, afterwards Archbishop of York, and Dr. Robert
Barnes, accordingly appeared, and proceeded thence to Wittenberg, where they spent
the greater portion of the months of January, February, and March, 1536, in
frequent consultations with the theologians there, in
the course
of which they discussed the Augsburg Confession, article by article, and
considered elaborate papers prepared for its explanation. On the doctrinal
articles agreement was found to be much easier than upon those concerning
abuses. The commission was embarrassed by the necessity of consulting the King
at every step; and, finally, the negotiations were broken by unsurmountable obstacles
encountered while considering the abuses of the Mass. Resumed in 1538 by a
Lutheran commission to England, they were fruitless, so far as the end
immediately in view was concerned, but had a permanent influence upon the
subsequent history of the English Church.1
1 For details and documents see my Lutheran Movement
in England and its Literary Monuments (Philadelphia, 1890).
VERGERIUS; THE WITTENBERG CONCORD; AND THE SCHMALKALD ARTICLES
HE
long-delayed Council was at last in prospect.
Cardinal
Vergerius was sent to Germany as papal nuncio to make the necessary
preparations, and, by intercourse with the German princes, to learn the exact
condition of things there. Although the University had again removed from
Wittenberg to Jena because of the plague, Luther, as before, remained at his
home, and, on account of the lightness of the epidemic, was spared the sad
scenes through which he had passed in 1527. Here Vergerius braved whatever
peril there was on his way from Halle to Berlin by tarrying overnight (November
6, 1535) at the neighbouring castle of the Elector. Luther declined his
invitation to supper, but accepted one from the governor of the castle, sent
at the cardinal’s request, to breakfast there the next morning. He treated the
entire transaction with
C«0M
CARDINAL VERGERIUS.
N ENGRAVING BY HENDRIK HONDIUS.
1537] The Schmalkald Articles 3r5
humour.
Shaved, in order that the appearance of youth might terrify his adversary,
dressed in his best attire because it was Sunday, with a gold chain around his
neck, a ring on his finger, and a priest’s cap on his head, he set out for the
castle with Bugen- hagen as his companion. As they entered the carriage, he
exclaimed : “ Here go the Pope of Germany and Cardinal Pomeranus.” It was a
different interview from that which he had with Cajetan at Augsburg,
seventeen years before. Vergerius was received with courtesy, but the weapons
of Italian diplomacy were foiled by those of German Gemuethlichkeit.
The
cardinal was entertained with accounts of Luther’s interesting children and
his hopes of his eldest son, while inquiries concerning the negotiations with
the English were skilfully averted by the expression of surprise at the
interest still taken at Rome in the affairs of Henry VIII. “ During the whole
meal," he writes, “ I played the genuine Luther.” The Wittenbergers, he
said, did not need a council, for their position with respect to the Gospel was
now fixed; but it was needed by the world, in order that all might learn to know
what truth and what error are. In their requests for such a council, he did not
think the Papists in earnest; and if a council were called, the only subjects
they would care about having discussed, would be those of monks’ cowls,
priests’ tonsures, etc. “ He has hit the nail on the head,” said Vergerius in
subdued voice to a companion. “ Nevertheless,” said Luther,1 “ I am
1 De Wette, 4: 648, 655 ; C. R., 2: 782, 896, 973,
979, 1018 ; Walch, xvi., 2293.
coming to
the Council, and, if I do not defend my position there, I will lose my head.”
Thirteen years later, Vergerius abandoned bishopric, country, and all that he
had, to become a Lutheran, and spent the close of his life as translator and
author of books teaching the faith he had once sought to suppress. In his
reports to Rome of his interview, there are, however, no indications that he
was already shaken in his position. He speaks of Luther as “ a beast,” and
shows how well Luther’s strategy had succeeded by his statement that, while
Luther was slightly over fifty, his appearance was so fresh that he would
scarcely be taken for a man who had passed beyond forty.
The
personal presence of the Emperor at Rome was needed before the indefinite
purposes of Paul III. ripened into the decree, which he published, calling the
Council at Mantua, for the 23d of May, 1537. While these
negotiations were transpiring, those between Bucer and the Wittenberg theologians,
after passing through several critical stages, had reached a successful
termination. The conference, arranged to meet at Eisenach, and then, on
account of the state of Luther’s health, at Grimma, was finally transferred to
Wittenberg, and met in Luther’s house. With interruptions because of his
illness, it was in session from May 22d to 29th. On the very eve of this
meeting, Luther’s friendly attitude towards Bucer received a severe shock, and
his indignation was aroused by the publication of the correspondence between
Zwingli and CEcolampa- dius, with an introduction by Bucer, inconsistent, as
Luther
thought, with any change in his doctrine of the Holy Supper. A preliminary
interview, in which Bucer was received with marked coldness, resulted in a
reconciliation; and the conference, in which Bucer and Capito were the chief
representatives of the other side, proceeded. An agreement was soon reached
that 4 4 with the bread and wine, the Body and Blood of Christ are
truly and substantially present, offered and received.” As to the communion of
the unworthy, they could not agree, Bucer maintaining that the unbelieving do
not receive the Body of Christ, and Luther, that they receive it to their
condemnation. 44 Concerning this, said Luther, 44 we will
not quarrel. Since such is your position, we are one, and we recognise and
receive you as our dear brethren in the Lord, so far as concerns this article.”
With tears Bucer and Capito received Luther’s hand. The Augsburg Confession and
the Apology were accepted as correct exhibitions of doctrine. In the midst of
the conference Ascension Day came, and Luther preached on the text, 44
Go ye into all the world,” etc., with a vigour and an eloquence that astonished
even his nearest friends. In the evening he entertained the entire party at his
house, and provided for them vocal and instrumental music. On Sunday, Alberus,
one of Bucer’s party, preached in the morning, Bucer in the afternoon, and
Luther in the evening.1 Capito and Bucer communed with
1
Wittenberg Concord in English, Book of Concord, ii., 253 sqq.; for history see
authorities there cited, Original documents in C.
3: 75
the
congregation. As they left the next day, Luther said : “ Let us bury the past
and roll the stone upon it.”
With great
disfavour the Elector received the Papal Bull convening the Council to be held
at Mantua. In it he saw only another plot, and wished to decline its further
consideration. But Luther, supported by all his colleagues and the jurists,
urged the importance of an acceptance. A declinature he thought justifiable
only in case the evangelicals were summoned to hear, without being also heard.
The League was called upon to meet at Schmalkald, in February, 1537. Luther was
commissioned to prepare a paper setting forth
“ with Scriptural arguments, what in all the articles which he had
hitherto taught, he had now to assert before a council, and in view of his
final departure from this world to God’s Judgment, and from which, without respect
to peace or war and in spite of danger to body and property, he could not think
of receding.”
This
paper, after submission to the other theologians, was to be transmitted to the
Elector. Thus originated the so-called Schmalkald Articles, which were in the
Elector’s hands early in January. In these Articles, the antithesis with the
Roman Catholics is most sharply emphasised. The irenic tone of the Augsburg
Confession is changed for the notes of uncompromising war. They are intended to
break off all negotiations with the Papacy once and forever. The Preface closes
with the words: “ O Lord Jesus Christ, do Thou Thyself convoke a council, and
d^
liver Thy
servants by Thy glorious advent. The Pope and his adherents are lost. They wish
Thee not." The first section treats of those things concerning which
there is no controversy; it consists of a restatement of the doctrine of the
Trinity. The second comprises the doctrines of the Office and Work of Christ.
Here the declaration is made: “ Of this article, nothing can be yielded or
surrendered, even though heaven and earth and all things should sink to ruin.”
The teaching in the Roman Church concerning the Mass, and the Invocation of
Saints, and the Power of the Pope, are shown to detract from the merits and
authority of Christ. In the third section those articles are considered, with
respect to which the Papacy is said to be indifferent, but which,
nevertheless, are fundamental to the controversy. The chief place here is given
to the treatment of Repentance.1
Reaching
Schmalkald on February 7th, Luther found there a large and influential assembly
of princes, representatives of cities, and theologians, together with the
Vice-Chancellor of the Empire and a papal nuncio. While the statesmen were occupied
for a number of days with political negotiations, the theologians were idle.
An “ opinion,” it is true, was prepared as to the policy of representation at
the general council, and Luther preached several times; but he was restive at
the inaction. At last he was seized by a most severe attack of calculus that
threatened to be fatal. For eight
1 Schmalkald Articles in English, Book of Concord,
i., 303 sqq.; in German, Erlangen, 25 : 109 sqq.
days he
was in agony. The Elector visited his sickbed, and assured him that, if taken
away, his wife and children would be provided for. The thought of dying away
from Wittenberg distressed him, and he begged to be taken home. Accompanied by
a skilful physician, and his friends Bugenhagen, My- conius, and Spalatin, he
was sent from Schmalkald in a carriage on the 28th of February. Every motion
of the carriage increased his suffering, and on the first day they proceeded
but a few miles. But the ride did more for him than the remedies of the
physician. Suddenly that night the cause of the trouble was removed, all his
pain left him, and be« fore daybreak he had written a letter to Melanchthon. As
one of Luther's party hastened back to Schmab kald to convey the good news he
rode past the lodging-place of the papal nuncio, crying out ii> Latin: ‘ ‘
Lutherns vivit / ’ ’ (Luther lives). The words have been transmitted to
posterity as a watchword. Reaching Gotha the next day, he wrote to his wife,
ascribing his recovery to the many prayers that had been offered on his behalf.
But the relief was but temporary. The following day he was prostrated again,
and for several days he lingered near the gates of death. He made his will and
every preparation for his funeral. He reached home March 14th, greatly reduced
in strength; for a week his limbs could scarcely bear the weight of his body.
Luther’s
Articles were never submitted to the statesmen assembled at Schmalkald, nor
were they ever adopted in any assembly of theologians. The
most of
the theologians had signed them at Wittenberg before they were sent to the
Elector. At Schmalkald other names were added, yet by no one in a
representative capacity, but only privately. The term Schmalkald Articles is a
misnomer. They are a private confession of Luther, with the approval of those
whose names are attached. An explicit declaration concerning the power of the
Pope and the rights of bishops was called for by the presence at Schmalkald of
the papal nuncio, and the refusal of the conference to receive him. This
declaration, prepared by Melanchthon, and approved by the League, is published
as an Appendix to the Schmalkald Articles. Melanchthon had caught the spirit of
the meeting, and wrote with more than ordinary decision.
Against
Luther’s advice, the League decided to have nothing to do with the proposed
council, the chief reason assigned being that it was not to be held on German
soil. For a long time Luther continued to hold the opinion that the
evangelical princes had made a great mistake, and the question has been raised
in later years as to whether in case his advice had been followed the
Schmalkald War would have arisen. It became manifest, therefore, that if the
council were held, it would be composed exclusively of partisans of the Pope.
Postponed from Mantua to Vicenza, the war between France and the Emperor first,
and then the necessity of concentrating all efforts upon repelling the Turks,
rendered a general council even of those faithful to Rome impossible.
21
An
interesting episode of the convention at Schmalkald was the letter which Bucer
brought thither from the Swiss to Luther. It was received and answered in a
cordial spirit. Bucer followed Luther on his homeward way, in order to have, if
possible, the conference with him that had been prevented by his severe
illness. They had a conversation at Gotha. A letter, in the following December,
expresses Luther’s great hope that an entire reconciliation may yet be reached.
New advances from the Bohemian Brethren were also received in the most friendly
manner, and Luther tried to minimise the points of difference that still separated
them.
NEW TRIUMPHS AND TRIALS ITH his restoration to health, all Luther’s
energy was
again thrown into his work at
Wittenberg.
Of the privilege afforded him by a generous increase of salary, and of relief
from University duties, he did not avail himself. A course of lectures on
Genesis was begun, which continued with many interruptions until the November
before his death. The best fruits of his studies and of his varied experience
are crowded into these comments, that touch an extraordinary range of subjects,
and make the volume containing them among the most instructive, as well as most
uniformly interesting of his works.1 This work has been termed his
swan’s song, with allusion to the adage that just before death the swan sings
her sweetest strains.
Bugenhagen
having been relieved from his labours
for two
years, in order that he might organise the reformation of the churches in
Denmark, Luther assumed once more his pastoral duties, preaching regularly
three times a week, and even oftener. Much time was devoted to the preparation
of the book Of the Councils and the Church, which appeared in 1539.1
This is another of his most thoroughly elaborated books. A great portion of the
argument is historical, in which he reviews the various councils, and shows
that they never originated an article of faith, but only declared what articles
were found in Holy Scripture.
“ There is no council or Father,” he says, “in whom we can find or from
which we can learn the entire Christian doctrine. That of Nice treats only of
the fact that Christ is true God ; that of Constantinople, that the Holy Ghost
is God ; that of Ephesus, that Christ is not two persons, but one ; that of
Chalcedon, that Christ has not one, but two natures. These are the four chief councils,
and yet they have only these four doctrines. Nevertheless, this is not the
Christian Faith. ... In short, put all the councils and all the Fathers
together and even then you cannot derive from them the entire doctrine of the
Christian Faith. If the Holy Scriptures were not retained, the Church would not
long abide by the councils or the Fathers.”
The
apprehension he expressed, when he thought that he was dying at Schmalkald,
that hereafter dissensions would arise among those who had most cordially
co-operated at Wittenberg, was based upon the knowledge of troubles that had
already arisen,
and amidst
which he had soon most earnestly to contend. Melanchthon s timidity and
concessions, as well as his singular zeal in amending and reformulating definitions
and official statements, occasioned frequent suspicions. The new edition of his
Loci of 1535 offered abundant material for the attacks of those
disposed to be critical. Conrad Cordatus, visiting the lecture-room of
Cruciger, was greatly exercised by his statement, which he defended by an
appeal to Melanchthon, that repentance is an indispensable condition of
justification. Cordatus understood them, by their expression sine qua 7ion, to
mean that repentance contributes towards justification, while they meant only
to affirm that repentance was inseparably connected with justification.
If
Cordatus was a narrow and dogmatical, but thoroughly conscientious opponent, in
Dr. Jacob Schenck of Freiburg controversial ambition seemed to be the
determining motive. He laid a complaint before the Elector charging Melanchthon
with teaching that where the ruler so commanded, the Lord’s Supper should be
received in but one form. Changes in the statement of the doctrine of the
Freedom of the Will dissatisfied Chancellor Brueck. Nor were charges wanting of
secret inclination to Zwinglianism, and unwarranted concessions in the
conference at Cassel. It had thus become fashionable to try to expose errors
of Melanchthon. This was the very opportunity that Agricola wanted for renewing
his obsolete controversy of ten years before. For years he had been serving as
pastor at Eisleben; but, in answer to Luther’s invitation to
participate
in the deliberations of the theologians to whom the Schmalkald Articles were
submitted, he resigned his pastorate and came to Wittenberg with his wife and
nine children, as Luther’s guest, greatly to the amazement of the Wittenberg
household. Luther generously decided to give his visitor employment, and,
therefore, charged him with filling his place both in the pulpit and in the
lecture-room during his absence at Schmalkald. Thus entrusted with a most
influential position, he used it for vindicating his imagined wrongs in the
old controversy. In several sermons and in a series of theses, which he had
printed for private distribution, he not only reasserted his rejection of the
preaching of the Law, but collected a number of passages from the writings of
Luther and Melanchthon, which he freely criticised and opposed to one another.
Luther’s first course was to preach on the relation of the preaching of the Law
to that of the Gospel, with most careful suppression of every personal
allusion. Afterwards he reprinted Agricola’s theses, as those “ of a certain
Antinomian.” This he followed with six public discussions of the theses, still
carefully avoiding any mention of Agricola’s name.1
“ They
preach beautifully,” he said, “ of grace and the forgiveness of sins and
redemption, but avoid the doctrine of sanctification and the new life in
Christ, in order that men may not be terrified but enjoy perpetual comfort.
When they ought to say : ‘ You cannot be a Christian if you be an adulterer, a
fornicator, a drunkard,’ etc., they say : ‘ If you be such only believe in
Christ,
and you
need not fear the Law, for Christ has entirely fulfilled it for us.’ ”
For years
there was irritation, Agricola privately renouncing his published statements,
and then hesitating about making a public disclaimer, and his wife seeking
with her tears to mitigate Luther’s judgment of her husband. Some relief was
gained by his removal to Berlin as court preacher; but, in spite of his
professed change of mind, Luther continued to distrust him.
The
complete argument of Luther in this controversy with Agricola is the best
answer that can be given to the charge of his enemies, so frequently repeated,
concerning the famous Pecca fortiter passage, in a private letter to
Melanchthon, August I,
1521.1 Letters between confidential friends,
and not written with the thought that any other eye will see them, must not be
interpreted or criticised as though the expressions belonged to a formal theological
treatise. Melanchthon, in distress of conscience, had been passing through an
experience similar to that of Luther in the cloister. He was looking within
himself for some ground of the grace of God. Hence Luther impresses upon him
that all his hopes for God’s favour must rest solely upon the merits of Christ,
and nothing else. To the end of life he must be content to appear before God’s
bar —there was no help for it—as a sinner and nothing more. “ Be a sinner,” he
writes, i. e., Remember with all your distress that it is so, and that, with
all
effortS to
avoid sin, some sin still remains, and utterly prevents any hope of God’s
favour on the ground of your intrinsic holiness. But “ sin boldly,” i. e., Do
not be discouraged that you must constantly find yourself a sinner; but, since
you have Christ, look up, with all your sin, in the full confidence that, for
the sake of His merits, and not because of any hoped-for moral improvement, you
are forgiven and adopted as God's child.
Through
Ludwig Rabe, a citizen of Mayence, who boarded at Luther’s table, and was
threatened with punishment by Archbishop Albrecht, Luther’s old antagonist, he
was led to write him several severe letters, in which the Archbishop was
accused of the murder of his confidential financial agent, John Schoenitz, or
Schantz. Luther told the Archbishop that he deserved a gallows ten times as
high as the castle of Giebichenstein in which his victim had been imprisoned.
Begged to desist from such attacks by the bishop’s cousin, the Elector of
Brandenburg, his answer was that the house of David had many degenerate scions,
the college of apostles had a Judas, and the company of angels a devil.1
Meanwhile
the political situation in Germany was that of a drawn battle. The Frankfort
Convention of 1539 resulted in a truce for fifteen months. Lutheranism was
strengthened by the deaths in 1535 of Joachim of Brandenburg, and,
in 1539, of George of Saxony. In Brandenburg the new Elector first tolerated,
and then, in 1539, formally accepted the Reformation. The Church Constitution,
DUKE ALBERT OF PRUSSIA.
FROM AN OLD ENGRAVING.
prepared
to carry out his plans of reorganisation, is among the most conservative of
Lutheran orders, retaining all the ceremonies that are not antagonistic to
evangelical teaching.1 The opinion of Luther concerning this Order
was:
“ If the
Margrave and Elector will have the Gospel preached in its purity, without human
additions, and the two sacraments administered according to their institution,
and will discontinue the intercession of saints, and the carrying of the
sacrament in procession, and masses for the dead, and abolish holy water, and
consecrated salt and herbs, and will have pure responsories and hymns sung in
processions, then let him go on in God’s Name, whether he have a silver or a
golden cross carried, or wear a cap and gown of velvet, silk, or linen ; and
if one cap and gown be not enough, let them put on three, like Aaron ; and if
one procession be not enough, let them go round seven times, like Joshua ; and
if the Margrave should care about dancing with the music of harps and cymbals,
as David did before the ark, I am satisfied. For such things neither add
anything to the Gospel nor remove anything from it, if only they be not
regarded as necessary for salvation or made a matter of conscience.” 9
The season
of Whitsunday, 1539, was one °f triumphant thanksgiving for Luther,
when the successor of Duke George, his brother Henry, who, with his wife, had
been for years an earnest friend of the Reformation, brought him to Leipzig,
and the pulpits of all the churches in that city were filled
1 Known as Mark-Brandenburg of 1540. Richter, i., 323 sqq.
* De Wette, 5 : 235 sqq.
with
evangelical preachers. This was followed shortly afterwards by a systematic
visitation, on which Jonas, Cruciger, and Spalatin were employed, and which in
its revelations of the incompetency of the priests surpassed, if possible, even
the visitation in the Elector’s domains. The Reformation was accepted also in
a portion of Mecklenburg in 1538, and in Brunswick-Calenberg in 1540.
In 1540,
Dr. Robert Barnes, the English theologian, who had long been in sympathy with
the doctrine of the Reformers, and had spent much time at Wittenberg, a
frequent guest at Luther’s table, and a member of the commission to Wittenberg
in 1536, had to pay the penalty for his faith by martyrdom in the fires of
Smithfield. At the stake he made a full confession of his faith, which Luther
had translated into German, and published, with an introduction, at Wittenberg.
“ It is an
especial joy to us,” he says, “ to hear that our good, pious table-companion
and guest has been so graciously called upon by God to shed his blood for His
dear Son’s sake, and to become a holy martyr. Thanks be to the Father of our
dear Lord Jesus Christ, that He has permitted us to see again, as in the
beginning, the times when Christians who have eaten and drunk with us, are
taken before our eyes to become martyrs, which means to go to Heaven and become
saints. . . . Dr. Barnes himself often told me : ‘ My king cares nothing for
religion.’ But he so loved his king and country that he was ready to endure
everything, and was always meditating how to help England ; for he was ever
hoping that his king would turn out well at the last.” 1
THE LANDGRAVE OF HESSE HE endorsement of the secret marriage of Philip,
Landgrave
of Hesse, during the lifetime, but with the consent, of his first wife, was the
greatest blunder in Luther's career. When less than twenty years old, Philip
had been married to the daughter of Duke George, and her moral and physical
infirmities he alleged as his excuse for infidelity to his marriage vows.
Adultery was so ordinary a vice among princes that Philip's course formed no
great exception, and occasioned no special remark. But the conscience of the
Landgrave was uneasy as he read in the Bible the divine judgments upon those
who lead an impure life. Unwilling to return to his wife for reasons that he
offered frankly to disclose, in case Luther would insist, he proposed as a
remedy for his alleged irresistible temptations to sensuality, to follow the
Old Testament example of taking a second wife. As early as 1526 he had
submitted
to Luther
the general question of the permissibility of polygamy, without reference to
any particular case, and received the reply that it was absolutely unjustifiable.
Melanchthon’s opinion in 1531 as to the divorce of Henry VIII., in which he had
pronounced against the divorce, but suggested the expedient of Old Testament
polygamy, encouraged Philip.1 A severe attack of illness was the consequence
of the mental anguish through which he then passed. Dr. Sayler, his physician,
having approved the plan, Bucer, the versatile theological diplomat, was
summoned from Strassburg, and measures discussed for gaining the approval of
the Wittenberg theologians. Margaret de Sale, a young lady whom he had met at
the court of his sister, the Duchess of Rochlitz, and a distant relative, it
was said, of Luther’s wife, consented to marry Philip in case such approval
were obtained. The Landgrave threatened that, if the approval were withheld, he
would appeal to the Emperor. What Philip wanted Bucer to procure was a document
expressing the public, or, if that were impossible, the private opinion of
Luther and Melanchthon, that such second marriage, without a divorce from the
former wife, was, under the peculiar circumstances, valid.
On Bucer’s
presentation of the case at Wittenberg, Luther’s attitude to the case of Henry
VIII., as well as his subsequent relations to Philip, showed that political
motives had little consideration. His entire anxiety was to aid the Landgrave
to a purer
life, to
relieve him from distress of conscience, and to save his soul. The error into
which Luther fell may be traced to several causes. His monastic life had given
him a wrong conception of marriage, from the influence of which, despite his
efforts, he never entirely escaped. He thought of it chiefly as a remedy for
sensuality, and that, without a peculiar divine gift, no pure celibacy is
possible. As Philip maintained that he was without such peculiar gift, and,
according to his solemn asseveration, was unable to live with his wife, yet
could secure no divorce, the inference of the validity of a second marriage was
inevitable. To this was added a depreciation of woman—the remnant of his
earlier years —which suggested that while such marriage, as a very rare
exception, might be tolerated, nevertheless, for the sake of avoiding offence,
it could be allowed only under the sanction of the utmost secrecy; so that
while before God Margaret would be his lawful wife, she was to be known before
the world only as his concubine ! Still another motive was the reluctance to
regard anything expressly sanctioned in the Old Testament as a sin. We can well
understand how Bucer, in arguing the case, knew how to cite a passage in
Luther's treatise on The Babylonian Captivity, in which,1 as an
extreme case, a second marriage, even without a divorce, is allowed to a wife
who is in similar spiritual danger.
Luther and
Melanchthon, accordingly, with the concurrence of Bucer and the Hessian
theologians, in their opinion of December 10, 1539, declared that
monogamy
is the original institution, and that, but for man’s corrupt nature, no other
marriage would be allowed ; at the same time they maintain that the New
Testament nowhere absolutely annuls the permission of polygamy given in the
Old. They argue, therefore, that dispensations permitting a plurality1
of wives are still possible, and yet that the cases in which they are
justifiable are so exceedingly peculiar and rare that such dispensations should
not be published or be made known to the people generally. Expressing their
deep regret at the impure life that the Landgrave has hitherto led, they
implore him to reform, and approve only in casu necessitatis a marriage before
witnesses sworn to absolute secrecy, while the world would be allowed to draw
its own inferences!1
With this
remarkable document Bucer hastened to the Elector at Weimar, whose indignation
was thoroughly aroused when he read it. Not only was he humbled that the
evangelical cause was thus disgraced, but was wounded that the Wittenberg theologians
should have so far forgotten what was due their sovereign as to have reached so
unusual a decision on a question involving him, without first informing him of
what was in contemplation. To the Landgrave he wrote begging him, notwithstanding
the approval he had secured, to disregard it and proceed no farther. When,
however, Bucer produced the written consent of the Landgrave’s wife, the
Elector urged that, if the marriage could not be prevented, it be secret. When
the ceremony was
performed
at Rothenburg, in March, 1540, Melanchthon accompanied Bucer as a witness. The
very presence of Melanchthon, even if, as is sometimes affirmed, he had been
taken thither by strategy, was an additional guarantee to the deceived woman
that her course was not disapproved by those to whom she had looked for
spiritual advice.
The
transaction could not long be kept secret Rumours of the marriage were soon
afloat, traceable, it was said, to Margaret and her mother. Philip was anxious
to meet these rumours by publishing the marriage, and defending it as a matter
of conscience. But both the Elector and Luther demanded that no testimony
concerning it should be given by those who actually knew the facts, Luther
pleading that whatever pertained to confession for spiritual advice was forever
confidential, and declaring that what is given as a private opinion is rendered
null and void by publication. Never would he publicly defend the Landgrave’s
marriage! The Elector also declared that, in case Philip were called to account
for the matter, he could not rely upon any aid from those with whom he stood in
political alliance.1
Upon
Melanchthon the anxiety bore most heavily. The responsibility of meeting the
issue in the conference which the Emperor had called at Hagenau, and for which
he knew that the chief burden of preparing all important papers would fall to
his lot, oppressed him until, in June, 1540, he fell dangerously ill at
Weimar. Luther was hastily summoned, and found Melanchthon at the very brink of
the
grave.
Consciousness had gone. His eyes were set. The physician sent by the Elector,
the same whose skill had been employed when Luther was ill at Schmalkald,
pronounced him beyond all human help. It was one of the great moments of
Luther's life. Appalled at the scene, he exclaimed: “O God, how has the devil
injured this Thy instrument! '' Then he went to the window and prayed. All the
promises of the Holy Scriptures concerning answers to prayer that he could
recall were repeated and woven into the prayer. This done, he turned to the
bed, and grasped his friend by the hand with the words: “ Be of good cheer,
Philip, thou shalt not die! Although God might justly slay thee, yet he wills not
the death of the sinner.” Regaining consciousness, the sick man asked that he
should not be detained, but Luther assured him that there was still much for
which the Lord needed him. When food was ordered it was at first refused. But a
stronger will prevailed when he was told : “ Philip, you must eat, or I will
excommunicate you.” “ The prayer of the Church,” said Luther afterwards, “
works great miracles. Three persons in our day it has raised from the dead,
viz., me, who have often been mortally sick, my wife, Katie, and Philip
Melanchthon, who lay sick unto death at Weimar in 1540.” 1
Melanchthon himself testified: “ If he had not come, I should certainly have
died.” But the trouble occasioned by the unfortunate procedure was not over
with Melanchthon's recovery. It shook the confidence of their associates
1 Erlangen, 59: 3 ; cf. ib., 25.
in the
judgment of the chief reformers. It became the subject of acrimonious
correspondence, with charges and countercharges. It deprived them of the unity
and enthusiasm with which they should have encountered their enemies. “ It is
highly probable," says Kolde, “ that the beginning of the decline of
Protestantism as a political power coincides with this marriage transaction of
the Prince of Hesse.”
22
DIET OF RATISBON; CONTROVERSIES WITH THE JURISTS, EMPEROR, AND POPE
THE
Frankfort truce about to end, all eyes were turned towards Hagenau, where
another conference was to be held. Because of Melanchthon’s disablement,
Luther remained at Eisenach, within easy reach. The result was a reference of
the questions involved to a Diet to be held at Worms. This diet, which met in
January, 1541, promised important gains for the Protestant side. The Electors
of Brandenburg and the Palatinate had been added to their ranks. The Electoral
Archbishop of Cologne was preparing to take a similar step, while his colleague
of Treves could not be regarded as an enemy of the evangelical faith. Eleven
men had been selected on each side as the commission to decide theological questions.
The change of the religion of their rulers transferred three from the Catholic
to the evangelical camp. But the deliberations had
338
DUKE MORITZ OF SAXONY.
FROM A PAINTING BY CRANACH THE YOUNGER.
only
fairly begun when they were postponed to another diet to be held at Ratisbon
(Regensburg). In the proceedings of this body a conciliatory spirit prevailed
that framed a basis of union by the adoption of a formula that seemed to
approach most nearly the Lutheran position on justification, and was yet
susceptible of the opposite interpretation. Towards this result two men
particularly co-operated, viz., Gropper, the theologian of the Archbishop of
Cologne, who was inclined to the evangelicals, and Martin Bucer, the mouthpiece
of the Landgrave, .whose fears rendered him favourable to compromises with Rome
which contrast strangely with his earlier radical tendencies. The imminent
danger from the Turks made the Emperor anxious for a peaceable solution of the
difficulties.
The
decision reached concerning justification was “ that the sinner is justified by
living and efficacious faith.” Freely acknowledging and commending the good
intention of its composers, Luther warned against such a deceptive compromise,
especially when unaccompanied by any repudiation of the errors hitherto
current.1 To win Luther's support a special commission was sent with
the Prince of Anhalt at its head, by whose arguments they hoped to remove his
scruples. They were successful in obtaining from him a qualified endorsement.
In case no restriction was placed on the preaching with respect to the articles
agreed upon, he was ready to approve them, trusting that, with this much
gained, the concession of what still remained must follow.
But the
Emperor could promise nothing more than a reference of the question to a future
council for its decision. The entire project was wrecked upon the doctrines of
the Church and the sacraments, on which agreement was impossible.
During the
absence of the Archbishop of Mayence at Ratisbon, measures were taken for the
introduction of the Reformation into Halle, and Justus Jonas, under the
protection of the Elector, was appointed to superintend the work. The protests
of the Archbishop, although most emphatic, were of no avail. In Naumburg, where
the people sympathised with the Reformation, the death of the bishop in 1541
was followed by the accession of Julius von Pflug, a prominent moderate
Catholic, as his successor. He was elected by the chapter of the cathedral,
the majority of whom were opposed to the Reformation. Against the protests of
the Emperor and of the Wittenberg theologians, who earnestly questioned his
authority to take so radical a step, the Elector set aside the election and
appointed as bishop, Nicholas von Amsdorf, a warm friend of Luther and a man of
aggressive character, although of narrow spirit. In the presence of the Elector
and his brother, this Lutheran bishop was consecrated by Luther, January 20,
1542, as the consecrator reported, “ without all chrism, also without butter,
lard, pork, tar, grease, incense, and coals.”1 The people, as a part
of the service, were asked whether his selection met their approval, and
declared their
1 In a
treatise: Proper Way to Consecrate a True Christian Bishop, 1542, Erlangen, 26
: 76-108.
assent by
an affirmation so emphatic that the Elector was surprised as well as
gratified. The ancient hymn, Ve?ii Scincte Spiritus, with the Latin collect,
was chanted by Luther, who then, with the other clergymen present, laid hands
upon the head of Ams- dorf. The Te Deum was sung, and the new bishop, seated on
his throne, received the congratulations of the princes and other prominent
persons present.
But now a
critical danger threatened the peace of Saxony. After a very brief term of
service as ruler of Albertine Saxony, Duke Henry had died, and had been
succeeded by his son Maurice. The antagonism between him and his relative the
Elector was soon manifest, and threatened to break out into open war because of
a dispute concerning their rights to the little town of Wurzen. In a sharp
letter of April 7, 1542,1 Luther interposed, admonishing the princes
of the consequences of their quarrel, and telling them in the plainest terms
that sensible people would regard war about such an insignificant place as
Wurzen upon an equality with the fight of two drunken peasants at a country inn
over a broken beer-glass, or of two fools about a piece of bread. “ The devil
will say: ‘ Look there! Those are the evangelical princes who want to show the
world the way to Heaven, and yet they have become such fools that they do not
know how, with reason and justice, to settle even the most trifling matters! ’
” 9 By the mediation of the Landgrave, however, the difficulty was
adjusted.
In 1541
Duke Henry of Brunswick, a bitter foe
of the
Reformation, published a virulent attack upon the Protestant princes. Luther
received most unfavourable notice, and was charged with having called his own
prince “ Hans Wurst,” i. e., “ Jack Sausage.” Luther retorted in a book bearing
the title of this nickname,1 in which he turned it upon the Duke,
and handled him without mercy. The Duke having broken the peace by seizing the
town of Goslar, the Elector and Landgrave drove him from his country. Thus
Brunswick also was opened to the Reformation.
Bucer and
Melanchthon, at the request of Hermann von Wied, Elector and Archbishop of
Cologne, having prepared a Church Constitution for the reformation of the
Church in his domains, the statements in it with respect to the Lord’s Supper
proved particularly offensive to Luther, and almost occasioned a rupture
between the two friends.8 An unpleasant difference separated Luther
also from his early friend and colleague, Dr. Jerome Schurf. The latter, while
always a zealous friend of Luther’s doctrine, retained at the same time a
profound respect for the Canonical Law, which Luther treated with contempt. In
1529 this led to a disagreement on the subject of secret betrothals. Schurf
also taught that it is unlawful for pastors to marry after
1 Erlangen,
26 : 1 sqq.
2 Details
with references in Koestlin’s Luther's Theology (English
translation), ii., 185 sqq. See De Wette, 5 : 708 sqq. On “ Re
formation of Cologne,” see Varrentrapp, Hermann von Wied, Leip
zig, 1878 ; Drouven, Reformation in Koeln-Provinz, Cologne, 1876;
Lutheran
Church Review, xi., 301 sqq.
CONRAD WIMPINA. ANDREAS
MUSCULUS.
JOHANN AGRICOLA. HIERONYMUS
SCHURF.
FROM ENGRAVING IN KREUSSLER S
“aNDENKEN IN MUNZEN.”
the death
of a first wife, and that one so doing disqualified himself for the
performance of any ministerial act. Against this view Luther protested and
wrote. Some years later, Kling, a colleague of Schurf, and known to be in
sympathy with him, raised the question of the legitimacy of the children born
of such marriages. Another difficulty the jurists raised was as to the validity
of sacraments administered by those not ordained by bishops in the regular
external succession. Schurf would not commune at Wittenberg, but sought the
Lord’s Supper from evangelical clergymen with whose attitude towards the
succession he was satisfied. In 1537 there were sharp conflicts between them.
Two years later Luther took the matter into the pulpit and preached against the
jurists. Relief from the public discussion of these questions was found by the
establishment of consistories. But the subject of secret betrothals became a
burning question again in 1544. Luther felt that the good name of the
University was at stake. The boldness of the young women of Wittenberg in
inveigling the students into marriage engagements had become a scandal. He
complains that they took every occasion to throw themselves in the way of the
young men, even visiting them in their rooms. Parents began to withdraw their
sons from the University rather than have them entrapped. Melanchthon’s son,
and a member of Luther’s family, probably one of his nephews, living as a
student in his house, were among the victims. Regarding the secret betrothal as
“ a Papistical affair and an institution of the
devil,” he
attacked it most vigorously in several sermons. “ I cast thee, secret vow, into
hell, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost!” The
jurists he attacked bitterly, and explained his severity by saying: “ I am
angry and will be; for they are assuming to themselves the power of God.” He
carried his point, both by securing the Elector’s veto of the validity of the
engagement of a student whom the jurists had decided bound by such secret
betrothal, and also in the negotiations with the jurists themselves in 1545, in
which they agreed that all betrothals made without the knowledge and consent
of parents are null and void, until they have such approval, or until the
consistory have decided whether the opposition of parents have just and
sufficient grounds.1 But complete as was his victory, his heart
bled over the separation of friends which was the price of the battle.
Never
relieved of his sense of responsibility as a preacher of all the counsel of
God, he was distressed by a growing laxness of morals that he noticed particularly
at Wittenberg, but also at other places where the Reformation had triumphed.
Licentiousness protected or even connived at by law, he regarded as a sin
against which he could not sufficiently warn. Coarse indeed were the words in
which he warned the Wittenberg students against the disreputable women who had
come thither, but they were sharp and effective, a desperate remedy for a
desperate disease.2 His complaints are grossly per-
1 On
secret betrothals, De Wette, 5 : 615 sqq., 626, 669, 676; C. R., 5 : 586 sqq. 2 De Wette, 5 560 sqq.
verted
when they are construed as meaning that the vices arraigned are the fruits of
the evangelical preaching. He recognises explicitly the improvement over the
condition of things under the Papacy; but he was disappointed because, with the
clear light of the Gospel before them, a much higher standard had not been
reached.1
Among all
his severe denunciations none were more bitter than those in his later years
against the Jews, for whose conversion to Christianity he had once hoped, but
for whom, at last, especially after some proselytes had been made from
Christianity, he entertained no hope, but consigned them to God’s judgment.
This is seen in its most marked form in the treatise, Of the Jews and their
Lies, of 1542-3
The results
of the Diet of Spires in June, 1544, were favourable to the Reformers, whose
demands for a continuance of peace were conceded until a new Diet or General
Council. The Protestants, in turn, incensed at the persecution of their
brethren in France and the French alliance with the Turks, pledged their
assistance in the war against Francis, who was forced to the Peace of Crespy,
September 18, 1544, both Emperor and King agreeing to unite in efforts to
restore the peace of the Church.
The Pope,
indignant at the decision of the Diet of Spires, gave expression to his wrath
in a most severe reprimand addressed to the Emperor, at the same time summoning
the Council of Trent to meet March 15,1545. In one of the two letters to
Charles, the Pope informs him that, by his approval of the
action of
Spires, he has endangered the salvation of his soul, charges him with the sin
of assuming to judge in regard to matters of faith, a right which belongs only
to the Pope, and of allowing heretics the same privilege, and warns him of the
sad end of all who have undertaken to assume for themselves the prerogatives of
priests. The Emperor was silent under the reprimand, but the Elector’s urgent
request induced Luther to review the letter. His review bears the caustic
title, Against the Papacy at Rome, Instituted by the Devil? It was Luther’s
last book against the Papacy, and summarises all that he had previously
written. The book was written while he was suffering unintermitting pains in
his head, and, with its abundant epithets, instead of promoting, possibly
prejudiced the appreciation of the argument. Scarcely had it been published
before an Italian pamphlet came to hand professing to give an account of
Luther’s death. The pamphlet related that he had died shortly after receiving
the sacrament, and that his body was placed on the altar for adoration. After
his burial there was a terrific storm, and the communion-wafer was seen suspended
in the air. The next night there was a great noise at his grave, which was
found empty, and so pervaded by stifling sulphurous fumes that no one could
approach. Luther’s answer was to republish it with some remarks,2
stating that it might be regarded as a joke, if it were not sacrilegious.
LUTHER’S THEOLOGY
BEFORE
recounting the closing scenes of Luther’s life a survey may be made of his
matured theological teaching. The very words in which he presented his
convictions will be used so far as possible. His gradual development as a
theologian as well as a religious leader has been traced. In estimating any
theological statement of a constantly growing student it is of the highest
importance to determine the era to which it belongs and the circumstances
under which it was uttered. Rarely in his controversies does he have any other opponents
or critics in view than those with whom he is then dealing. He writes without
regard to posterity, or to those who would be ready to apply his language to
relations entirely different. Hence he rarely pauses to modify or qualify. For
the decision then made he feels himself responsible, while he throws the
responsibility for the use or the abuse of what
347
he says
upon those who choose to assume it. Nothing is easier, therefore, than to quote
the very words of Luther, and at the same time entirely pervert his meaning.
Like every thinker who pursues an independent course, and whose opinions
gradually mature, inconsistencies and vacillations upon the surface occur in
connection with a growth which is nevertheless inwardly consistent. With the
completion of the translation of the New Testament his theological conclusions
reach a relatively fixed form, although it must be remembered that until the
very last he continued to learn both from the Holy Scriptures and from his
experience, and was always slow in forming his opinions, and until constrained
by the force of overwhelming evidence, reserved in expressing them.
The
relative place and emphasis of each doctrine in the system of a great teacher
are as important as are the statements of doctrine themselves. Luther’s
theology springs not directly and entirely from the Holy Scriptures, but from
the effort to state correctly the truths of the Christian life as they are
tested at every stage by the infallible standard of the Scriptures. They are
not the sources of his Christian experience, but the goal to which this
experience led and the spring whence it drew nourishment. His theology is an
answer to the one question: “ What is meant by faith in Christ ? ” Its centre
is Christology. Its great aim is to unfold the meaning of redemption, and to
show how redemption is applied. “ There is but one article and rule in all
theology. He who does not have this at
heart and
observe it well is no theologian. This rule is true faith and trust in Christ.
Into this article all the rest coalesce, and without it the others do not
exist.” 1 “In my heart there dominates but this one article, viz.,
faith in my Lord Christ, Who is the sole beginning, middle, and end of all my
spiritual and divine thoughts that I have day or night.”2 Upon this
principle he makes Scripture and experience the two tests of doctrine.
“We have
both, viz., the certain testimony of Scripture, and also experience. These are
to be regarded as the two witnesses and touch-stones of sound doctrine. He who
will not believe these two, or seeks another, cannot complain if he be led
astray. Thank God, I can preach from my experience that no work can help or
console me against sin and the judgment of God, but that Christ alone pacifies
and consoles the heart and conscience. To this all Scripture bears witness, as
well as the examples of many godly men.” 3
Thus
driven to the Holy Scriptures by the necessities of the Christian life, he
makes no effort to construct a symmetrical system, or to present an exhaustive
summary of their contents, but only attempts to draw from them answers to the
questions which from time to time he was called upon to give. The books of the
Bible, therefore, that are particularly occupied with the explanation of the
manner in which sinful man is restored to God’s favour, had to him a
significance and value that he could not
1 Table-Talk,
Erlangen, 58 : 398.
2 Preface
to Galatians (1535), Com. Gal., I : 3.
3 On 1 Cor.
xv. (1534), Erlangen, 51 : 103.
attach to
the rest. The very centre of Holy Scripture he finds in the epistles of St.
Paul, particularly those to the Romans and Galatians, and assigns the first
rank among the Gospels to that of St. John, regarding the doctrine of these
books the key to the interpretation of all the rest. His free language
concerning the Epistle of St. James, in the form in which it is generally
quoted, omits the contrast which he makes with what he regards as the chief
books of the New Testament. His words are:
“The
Gospel of St. John and his First Epistle, the epistles of St. Paul, especially
those to the Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and the First Epistle of St.
Peter, are the books that instruct us concerning Christ and teach us all that
it is necessary and salutary for us to know, even though you should never see
or hear another book. In comparison with these, therefore, the Epistle of St.
James is actually nothing but an epistle of straw, for it has in it nothing
whatever of the Gospel.” 1
His
thought is this: If James be arrayed against Paul, and the doctrine of works be
made the standard to which the doctrine of faith must be conformed, then,
however useful in its proper sphere, the Epistle of James becomes one of straw.
He interpreted the Old Testament by the New; the Law by the Gospel. A single
word of the Gospel was to him the end of all controversy.
This same
practical method of interpreting Holy Scripture solely by its Christological
and soterio- logical teaching renders him relatively indifferent to
1 Introduction
to New Testament (1522), Erlangen, 63 : 115. Cf. On 1 Peter i., 3, Erlangen, 51 : 337.
the
question of the accuracy, or even the correctness, of the details of
chronology, geography, and topography, pertaining to the human, rather than to
the divine side of Scripture, and forming the human background for the
statement of the truths of revelation, rather than the revelation itself. Referring
to one such chronological problem he says:
“ If a
controversy occur as to matters in the Holy Scriptures and it cannot be
harmonised, let it go. This is not in conflict with the articles of the
Christian Faith. For all evangelists agree in testifying to the fact that
Christ died for our sins ; but with respect to His deeds and miracles they
observe no order.” 1
He
recognises a direct contradiction between the accounts of the synoptists and
John concerning the number of times Peter denied Christ in the house of
Caiaphas, and decides against his favourite evangelist, John. “ One will go
neither to Heaven nor Hell for holding that all three denials occurred in the
house of Caiaphas. The reconciliation of these passages I commend to acute
reasoners. ” 2 Stephen, he declares, made a small historical blunder
in his address before his martyrdom, since his mind was intent upon the main
argument he was urging, the force of which was in no way affected by his
trifling mistake.3 But at the same time he enters his protest
against the abuse of critical methods. “ It is absurd to imitate those bold
spirits who, whenever such a difficulty occurs, cry out at once that a man-
1 On John
ii., 13-15 (1537-38), Erlangen, 46: 172.
2 On John
xviii., 15 sqq. (1528-29), Erlangen, 50: 308 sqq., 375.
ifest
error has been committed, and presume to revise the books of other men." 1
But with
respect to all matters of faith, as at Marburg, he put his finger upon the
unerring word of God recorded in the Scriptures, firm in his resolution not to
depart a hair’s-breadth therefrom.
“ God’s
word is God’s word ; that needs no long discussion. He that charges God with
falsehood, or blasphemes Him in respect to one word, or says that it is a
matter of little importance that He be blasphemed and charged with falsehood,
blasphemes all of God, and makes light of all blasphemy of God.” 3
He cuts
loose, therefore, from the scholastics in his treatment of the doctrine
concerning God. Christology is the key to all knowledge concerning the nature
and attributes of God and the doctrine of the Trinity. His method is not to
treat theology “ from above downwards," but from “ beneath upwards.’’ He
does not begin with the idea of God, ^ His decrees, etc., and then infer
the other articles of faith, but he begins with the revelation of God in
Christ. “ We must not investigate concerning the Divine Majesty, but must tie
our wandering and soaring thoughts to the Word. Pie who attempts to speculate
concerning the clouds falls into an abyss."3 “ We must not
investigate as to what His Divine Nature is, but learn only to recognise His
Will, as He offers it to us in Christ." 4 “ All
1 On Gen.
xi., 27 sqq..
Op. ex., 3 : 71.
2 That these words of Christ stand fast (1527), Erlangen, 30: 28.
3 On Is. xxxviii., 11 (1534),
Walch, vi., 738.
thoughts
and speculations concerning the Divine majesty and glory I dismiss, and cleave
alone to the humanity of Christ. From this proceed such light and knowledge,
that I can know what God is, what all creatures are, and what all villainy in
the kingdom of the devil is.”1 Firmly holding to the doctrine of
the Trinity, he accepts, but regrets the necessity for, the technical terms in
which the Nicene theology has stated it. The main thought with him lies in the
coequal and coeternal divinity of the Son with the Father.
A
consistent Augustinian, nothing is more pronounced in all his teaching than
his presentation of the doctrine of Original Sin. It is not the act of Adam
that he makes most prominent, but the natural depravity which is its
consequence.
“ It is so
deep and horrible a corruption of nature that no reason can comprehend it, but
it must be believed upon authority of the revelation in the Scriptures."a
“ It is the chief sin ; if it were not, there would be no actual sin. This sin
is not, like all other sins, committed ; but it is. It lives, and commits all
sins, and is the essential sin, which exists not for an hour or for any period
; but as long as the person lives there also is sin. This natural sin God alone
sees. It can be restrained by no law or punishment, even though there were a
thousand hells ; only the grace of God can purify and renew the nature.” *
1 On Gal. i., 4, Com. Gal., 1 : 64. Cf. On Gen. vi.,
6 (Op. ex.,
2 : 170): “ All questions
leading to the throne of pure Divinity I avoid. It is better and safer to stand
by the manger of Christ, the man.” 2
Schmalkald Articles (1537), Erlangen, 25 : 126.
3 On New Year’s Day, Erlangen, 10: 322.
It is the
heritage of “ all who are or shall be born into the world, Christ alone
excepted.” Commenting on Psalm LI., he interprets David’s language as meaning:
“ I am a
sinner, not because I committed adultery and murder, and caused the death of
Uriah, but I committed adultery and murder, because I was born a sinner, aye,
conceived and formed in the womb as such. So we too are sinners, not because we
plot this or that sin; but such things are devised by us, because we are first
sinners, i. e., just as corrupt trees and corrupt seed produce corrupt
fruit, and from a bad root nothing but a bad tree can grow.” “ He confesses
that he was corrupt by his own fault, and not only by that of his parents,
while he was still an embryo in the womb.1 ”
So
important is the clear conception of this doctrine to him that he declares
that his opponents were unable to teach correctly concerning repentance, “
because they do not hold aright concerning Original Sin.” 2 ‘
Man,
therefore, without the grace of God, is in spiritual things entirely helpless;
by his own powers he can neither put forth any effort to return to God, nor
even respond when God’s grace approaches him. In the simplest and most popular
form, he says in his Catechism: “ I believe that I cannot, by my own reason or
strength, believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him”; and in the
Schmalkald A rtides :
“ They do
not hold aright concerning Original Sin,
1 Enarratio in Ps. LI. (1532), Op. ex., 69 sqq.
9 Schmalkald Articles {1537), Erlangen, 25 : 129.
because
they say that the natural powers of man havt remained entire and incorrupt, and
that the reason can teach, and the heart do what is taught, and that God grants
His grace when man acts, so far as he is able, according to his free will.” 1
It was
with respect to man’s return to God, and not with respect to the works of
outward morality, that he declared that “ free will is a title without a
corresponding thing, or a thing with nothing but the title.”3 “ Man,
without the Holy Spirit, can do nothing but sin; and he proceeds from sin to
sin.” 3
Luther’s
doctrine of Predestination is not the centre of his system, but only a
corollary to his doctrine of the bondage of the will, and the utter
helplessness of man without the grace of God. It appears in its most absolute
form in his treatise, De Servo Arbitrio, and was never recalled; but in after
years was constantly kept in the background, as, in fact, it was also
previously, except when some exaggeration of human freedom provoked the most
complete denial of all human agency in man’s return to God.
“ By this
predestination,” he says in his Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans, “
that we are godly is taken altogether out of our own, and is placed in God’s
hands. This is also most highly necessary. For we are so weak and uncertain
that if it depended upon us, no man what-
1 Schmalkald Articles (1537),
Erlangen, 25 : 129.
2 Asscrtio Omnium Articulorum,
No. 365, Op. varii argumenti, Erlangen, 5 : 225 sq.
3 On Gen.
vi., 5 (i544)» Op. ex., 2 : 164.
ever would
be saved.” “A limit must be set to those ambitious spirits who bring hither
their reason and begin from above to investigate the abyss of God’s predestination,
and in vain torment themselves with the question whether they be of the elect
or not. But follow thou the order of this epistle, and concern thyself with
Christ and the Gospel, that thou mayest recognise thy sins and His grace ; then
fight with sins, as Chapters I.-VIII. have taught. After that, when thou hast
come to the eighth chapter, and art under the cross and suffering, thou wilt
learn right well in Chapters IX.-XI. how comforting predestination is. For
unless one have experienced suffering, the cross, and the sorrows of death, he
cannot meddle with predestination without injury and secret wrath against God.
Adam, therefore, must be well killed ere thou canst bear this and drink such
strong wine. See to it then that thou drink not wine while thou art still a
suckling. Every doctrine has its measure, time, and age.” 1
The lesson
learned, while in spiritual distress in the monastery, to find the solution of
all the problems concerning predestination in the wounds of Jesus, was never
forgotten.
“ Christ,”
he says, “ is the golden book, in which the will of the Father stands before
our eyes.” “ Christ is the Book of Life, wherein thou art written ; he who
hears Him and is baptised, is written in the Book of Life.” “ God has adapted
himself to our curiosity. ‘ I will show you My will and purpose,’ He says, ‘
but this I will not do in the way of carnal wisdom, as you imagine. This I will
do : Instead of an unrevealed, I will become
a revealed
God; and, nevertheless, I will remain the same God. I will become incarnate, or
will send My Son ; He will die for your sins, and will rise again from the
dead. Thus I will satisfy your desire to know whether or not you are
predestinated. Behold My Son ; hear Him (Matt, xvii., 5). See Him lying in the
manger, in the lap of His mother, and hanging on the cross ! Note what He does
and what He says ! In so doing you apprehend Me. For he that seeth Me, says
Christ (John xiv., 9), seeth also the Father Himself. If you hear Him, and are
baptised in His name, and love His word, you are assuredly predestinated, and
are sure of your salvation.’ ” 1
The
incarnation, he teaches, presupposes man’s sin. “ This is the cause of His
incarnation. If God had not become man, He could not have suffered, or died.
For God is a Spirit, who cannot suffer or die. If God, then, is to suffer and
die, He must become man.” 2 All that is done and suffered by the Son
of God, in His human nature, is done and suffered by the Divine Person Himself.
“ If it
were not true that God suffered and died for us, and if man alone had died for
us, then we would be altogether lost. . . . For God could not die in His own
nature, but since God and man are united in one Person, it is truly said : ‘
God died,’ viz., when that man dies with whom God is one Person.” 3
“There are not two Jesuses, one of whom alone came from the Father, and the
other was born of the Virgin Mary ; but there is
1 On
Raising of Lazarus (1518), Erlangen, 18 : 207.
2 On Ex.
iii. (1524), Erlangen, 35 : 91.
3 Of the
Councils and the Church (i539)> Erlangen, 25 : 312.
only one
Jesus. The ancient Fathers, therefore, have declared that the attributes of
both natures are ascribed to the entire Person of Christ in the concrete, and
that there is a communion or participation, where the attribute of one nature
is communicated to the other. For each nature has its own characteristics; as
it is an attribute of the human to be born of the Virgin Mary, and the divine
has other attributes. But since the persons are not to be separated, there is a
communication, so that we can say: ‘ The child Jesus, Who lies in the cradle,
has created Heaven and earth,’ and ‘ The Son of God, Who, from eternity, is,
with the Father, God, hangs on the breast of His mother, is crucified, and
dies.’ . . . Hence, when the prayer is made: ‘ Thou Son of David,’ or ‘ Thou
Son of Mary, have mercy upon me,’ it is the same as: ‘ O Jesus, Thou Son of
God, have mercy upon me ’; for the two natures are in the one Christ.” 1
It is
entirely to the humanity of Christ that the humiliation of Christ is ascribed;
“for a divine nature cannot be humbled or exalted.” " The form of God,” in
Phil, ii., 5, he argues cannot be the divine nature, but means, where one
claims to be God, and asserts this claim by external acts, as Christ did by His
miracles and words; while “ the form of a servant ” is where one conducts
himself towards others as a servant. His humiliation consists, then, in the
fact, not
“ that He
had laid aside or could lay aside His divinity, but only the form of His divine
majesty, and did not assert Himself to be God, as He truly is. Nevertheless His
laying aside of the divine form was not in such wise
that this
could not be seen or felt, for then no divine form would remain, but only that
He did not avail Himself of it, or dazzle us with it, but, on the contrary,
served us therewith; for He wrought miracles even in His passion, and on the
cross, when, as God, He gave Paradise to the thief, and in the garden, with one
word prostrated the band of soldiers.” 1
While
giving prominence to the office of Christ as a Prophet, the Revealer of the
Father’s will, without Whose word we can know nothing of God aright, and Whose
authority as a teacher, when contrasted with that of popes and councils, is
supreme and final, he constantly shows that the goal of the Prophetic is the
Priestly office. The centre of Christology is expressed in the words of his
Catechism: “ Who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, secured and
delivered me from all my sins, not with silver and gold, but with His holy and
precious blood, and with His innocent suffering and death.” “All that our Lord
suffered, He suffered for us, and God laid on Him such sufferings, and would
not remove them, although He was innocent, in order that we might thereby be
freed from sin, and be reconciled with God.” 3
“ As to
His own person, Christ is innocent and should not be hung upon a tree; but,
since according to the law, every robber should be hung, this, according to the
law of Moses, should be done to Christ, because He sustained the person of a
sinner and robber, and that, too, not of one, but of all sinners and robbers. .
. .
1 On Epistle for Palm Sunday, Erlangen 2,
8 : 168.
8 On Fourth Sunday in Advent (1534), Erlangen2,
2 : 92.
The
Merciful Father, seeing that we were laden with the curse of the law, and so
bound by it, that, of our own strength, we could not be freed, sent His
Only-Begotten Son into the world, and laid upon Him the sins of us all, saying:
' Thou art Peter, Paul, David, the sinner who ate the fruit in Paradise, the
robber on the cross, in a word, Thou art the person who committed the sins of
all men.’ ” 1
But the
vicarious work of Christ is not limited to His subjection to the law, and His
suffering the penalties for sin. “ Every work, which God does in Christ, is
done for me, aye, is presented and given me, so that His resurrection causes me
to rise again, and quickens me with Him.” 2 Hence “the words: ‘ Christ has risen ’
should be written with the very largest letters in the heart, so that faith may
see, hear, think, and know of no other article.” “ Know, then, sin, death, and
the devil, that I am not terrified by you ; for Christ, my dear Lord, has
presented me with His triumph and victory.” 3 All sins being
comprised within the compass of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction, man has no
longer any satisfaction to render.
M If the
law, then, come and accuse thee, for not having observed it, point to Christ,
and say: ‘ There is the man who has done all; upon Him I depend. He has
fulfilled it for me and presented me with His fufil- ment ’; and it will be
silent. If sin come to slay thee, point again to Christ and say: ‘ Whatever you
can effect
1 On Gal. iii., 13, Com. Gal. (1535). 2 : 15, 19.
* Sermon on Easter (1521),
Erlangen 2, 11 : 214.
3 Easter
Sermon (Coburg, 1530), 18 : 95.
with Him
you will effect with me; for I am in Him and He is in me.’ If death come to
devour thee, say to it:
‘ Well,
death, don’t you know that man there ? Go, bite Him for me; He once made your
bite sour enough for you. But if you want anything more, provoke Him again. ...
To that man I belong; I am His and He is mine, and wherever He abides there
also do I.’ If the devil come to gain a share in thee, and hell want to devour
thee, only point to Christ; and they will be still. See, therefore, what we
have in Christ, viz., the man, who is given us of God, who is to extinguish
sin, crush death, burst Hell, and take the devil captive; all of which is for
our profit.” 1
This
righteousness of Christ becomes ours only by faith. The expressions “ by faith
alone,” and “ by faith alone, without works,” are the watchwords of Luther’s
theology, often designated by unfriendly critics as “ solifidianism.” By these
statements he means only to declare that man is justified before God, i. e.,
forgiven and accounted righteous, only by the work and merit of Christ, and that
these merits are applied and appropriated only through faith.
“ No one
but Jesus Christ has died for our sins; but if He be the only one who takes
away our sins, we cannot do this by our works; so if it is impossible for me to
apprehend and receive such a sole and only Redeemer otherwise than by faith,
He cannot be apprehended by works. But since faith embraces such a Redeemer
prior to works, which follow, it must be true that faith, before and without
works, embraces Him; and this is equivalent
to being
justified. But after such faith, good works follow as the fruits of faith.” 1
“By faith alone in Christ, and not by the works of the law, or love, are we
declared righteous; not that we reject works and love, as the adversaries
accuse us, but that we do not allow ourselves to be diverted from the state of
the present case.” 3 « " Faith brings with it a band of most
beautiful virtues, nor is it ever alone; but, on this account, differ- * ent
things are not to be confused, and what belongs to faith alone to be ascribed
to the rest. Faith is the mother, whence these virtues, as children, are born.
Unless faith had first embraced the promises concerning Christ, the other
virtues would not be present.” 3 “ Just as the consecration of
churches and confirmation and other official acts do not make one who has been
consecrated to the episcopate a bishop, but if he have not been first
consecrated the works would be invalid and foolish; so a Christian who has been
consecrated by faith is made no better a Christian by the works which he does
—for only an increase of faith can accomplish that—and if he have not believed,
all his works are nothing but foolish and condemnable sins. Hence these two
sayings are correct: ‘ Good and godly works never make a good and godly man;
but a good and godly man does good works.’ ‘ Evil deeds never make a bad man;
but a bad man commits evil deeds.’ The person must always be good and godly,
before there are good works, and good works follow and proceed from a godly and
good person. The trees grow not upon the fruits, but the fruits upon the
trees.” 4
1 Gloss on Imperial Edict (1531), Erlangen. 25 : 76.
8 Commentary on Galatians (1535)-
3 On Gen.
xv. (i545)> Op. ex., 3 : 305.
4 On the
Freedom of a Christian (1520), Erlangen, 27 : 191.
But faith
is neither, as Luther has sometimes been charged with teaching, a mere emotion,
nor the mere acceptance of certain doctrines; to him it is a life-principle. “
Faith is not man’s opinion and dream, which some take to be faith.” 1
He speaks of some who
. “ when
they hear the Gospel, immediately devise, from their own powers, the
imagination in their hearts, to which they give expression in the words: ‘ I
believe.’ This they regard as right faith. Nevertheless, it is nothing but
man’s thought and imagination, which is never experienced at heart; hence it
accomplishes nothing, and no amendment follows.”3 “Often one who
imagines he believes, does not believe at all; and, on the other hand, one who
imagines that he does not believe, but doubts, believes most of all. This
passage (Mark xvi., 16) does not say: ‘ He who knows that he believes,’ or ‘
when he knows that he believes ’, but: ‘ He that be- lieveth shall be saved.’ ”
3 “ Faith is a divine work in us, which transforms us." “ Faith
is a living, wideawake confidence in God’s grace, that is so certain that one
who has it is ready to die a thousand times for it.” 4
Nevertheless
it justifies, not because it is so excellent a work, but solely because of the
object which it apprehends. “ I am accustomed,” he says, “ to conceive this
idea, that there is no quality in my heart at all, call it either faith or
charity; but, instead of these, I set Christ Himself, and say: ‘ There is my
righteousness.’ ” 5 Such faith
1 Introduction
to Romans (1522), Erlangen, 63 : 124. * lb.
3 Ag.
Anabaptists (1528), Erlangen, 26 : 269.
4 Introduction
to Romans, Erlangen, 63 : 124.
5 Correspondence
with Brentz, De Wette, 4 : 271.
“ makes us
entirely different men in heart, mind, sense, and all powers, and brings with
it the Holy Spirit. Oh, it is a living, active, busy thing that we have in
faith! It is impossible for one who has faith to do otherwise than incessantly
to do good. He asks not whether good works are to be done, but before such a
question can be asked, he has done them, and is always busy. . . . As
impossible is it to separate works from faith, as to separate heat and light
from fire.” 1
Hence the
paradox: “ We are justified by faith alone, and yet it is never alone.” The
always present good works in no way merit the favour of God, and induce Him to
forgive our sins and pronounce us righteous, but are only the seals and fruits
of that favour. “ As the circumcision of Abraham was an external sign, whereby
he proved his righteousness by faith, so all good works are only outward
signs, which, as good fruits, follow faith, and prove that man is already
justified before God.”a “ Of this article, nothing can be yielded or
surrendered, even though heaven and earth and all things should sink to ruin. ”
3
The definition
of “ a good work ” was also revised, and limited to works done according to the
direc- V tions of the Ten Commandments, and not merely according to any
self-imposed or human prescriptions. A divine call and appointment must lie at
the root of every good work.4
1 Introduction to Romans,
Erlangen, 63 : 125.
2 Ib.t Erlangen, 63 : 129.
3 Schmalkald Articles, Erlangen,
25 : 115.
4 Gloss on
Imperial Edict (1531), Erlangen, 25 : 85.
Faith,
however, comes not from the free will of man, or any human powers, but is the
gift of God wrought within man by the Holy Spirit through the Word.
“ God
grants His Spirit or grace to no one except through or with the preceding
outward Word.” 1 “ God wishes to deal with us in no other way than
through the spoken Word and the sacraments; and whatever, without the Word and
sacraments, is extolled as Spirit, is the devil himself.” a “ The
Holy Spirit works inwardly in the heart. But such work He effects, in His
ordinary and usual way, only through the oral word, as Paul says (Rom. x., 4).
No one, therefore, desiring consolation, should wait until the Holy Spirit
addresses him personally in His majesty. For His testimony He brings to us
publicly in the preaching of the Word; there you must seek and await Him,
until, by the word which you hear with your ears, He touches your heart, and so
also, by His working, inwardly testifies, in your heart, to Christ.” * “There
is no other way or means of coming to faith, than hearing, learning, and
meditating upon the Gospel.” 4
The Gospel
being thus emphasised as that part of the Word that is used by the Spirit to
work faith, the distinction between Law and Gospel and the Old and the New
Testaments is drawn with great prominence. t
“ Without
the Holy Spirit, it is impossible to observe
1 Schmalkald Articles, Erlangen, 25 : 140.
8 lb.
3 On Ascension Day (1532),
Erlangen2, 5 : 173.
4 On John
i., 7 (1537-38), Erlangen, 45 : 360.
this
distinction. How difficult it is, I experience in myself and observe daily in
others. By the Law, nothing else is meant than God’s word and command, wherein
He enjoins what we should do and leave undone, and demands our obedience. But
the Gospel is that doctrine or word of God that neither requires works of us,
nor enjoins the doing of anything, but announces only the offered grace of the
forgiveness of sins and eternal life. The Gospel offers God’s gifts, and bids
us only open the sack to receive them, while the Law gives nothing, but only
takes and demands of us. The Gospel consoles and says: 1 Lo, Christ
is thy treasure, thy present, thy Saviour, thy help.’ ” 1
Paul’s
definition of the Gospel is said to be, that Christ died for our sins and rose
again. “ Nothing here-is said as to what I must do, or leave undone, but only
of what Christ has done.”2 Guarding carefully against Antinomian
licence, and teaching the perpetual obligation of obedience to the Law, he
warned particularly against the danger of regarding Christ as only a new
Lawgiver, offering salvation upon easier terms than Moses, and the Gospel as “
a book of laws and commands,” instead of “ a book of promises.” 9 “
The Gospel, properly, is not Scripture, but the oral word or living voice.” 4
This
Gospel, or assurance of God’s grace, comes in three forms, viz., the preaching
of the Word,
1 Sermon
on Distinction between the Law and the Gospel (1532), Erlangen, 19 : 236 sqq.
2 On 1 Cor.
xv., 5-7 (1534), Erlangen, 51 : 104.
3 Introduction
to Winter part of Church Postils, Erlangen5, 7 : 7,0.
* On Fourth Sunday in Advent, Erlangen2, 7 : 12.
baptism,
and the Lord’s Supper. “ The Holy Spirit sanctifies the Christian Church
through the Word and sacraments, whereby He inwardly works faith and the
knowledge of Christ. They are the instruments and means whereby He incessantly
sanctifies and cleanses the Church.” 1 What the preaching of the
Word offers in a general way to all, that the sacraments offer to the
individual to whom they are administered. Hence, as the Augsburg Confession
teaches, “ they were instituted not merely to be signs whereby Christians might
externally recognise one another, but signs and testimonies of God’s will
towards us, to awaken and strengthen our faith.” 8 They “ are
visible signs of grace, that we may be assured that our sins are removed by the
sufferings of Christ, and that we are redeemed by His blood.” 3 Not
the element, nor even, in the Lord’s Supper, the body and blood of Christ, but
only the word of the Gospel accompanying them, assures of salvation and works
faith.
“ Water,
without the word of God, is simply water, and not baptism; but, when connected
with the word of God, it is a baptism, i. e., a gracious water of life, and a
washing of regeneration.” 4 “ The eating and drinking do not produce
such great effects, but the words which stand here, viz., ‘ Given and shed for
you, for the remission of sins.’ These words, that accompany the bodily eating
and drinking, are the chief things in the sacra-
1 On John xiv., 26 (1538),
Erlangen, 49 : 220.
2 Art.
XIII.
3 On Gen.
iv., 3, Op. ex., 1 : 313-315.
4 Small
Catechism (1529).
ment, and
he who believes these words, has that which they declare and set forth, viz.,
the remission of sins.” 1 “ Often have we said that the chief part
in the sacrament, is the word of Christ, where He says: ‘ Take eat, this is My
body, which is given for you,’ etc. In these words, everything is found, that
every Christian should know and maintain, and should not permit to be wrested
from him by any other doctrine, even though it were that of an angel from heaven.
They are words of life and salvation, so that to him who believes them, through
such faith all sins are forgiven him, and he is a child of life, and has
overcome hell and death. How great and mighty these words are, is
inexpressible; for they are the sum of the entire Gospel. Far more stress,
therefore, is to be laid upon these words than upon the sacrament itself; and a
Christian should accustom himself to regard these words rather than the
sacrament. Erroneous teachers, however, have perverted this everywhere, so that
the Word is disparaged before the people, and this faith vanishes, and the
sacrament is converted into a mere external work without faith. Where, then,
you attach the less honour to the words than to the sacrament itself, it is a
certain sign that you do not understand the sacrament aright.”2 “
Although baptism is in itself a transcendent divine treasure, it is of no avail
without faith. ... By suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not
received baptism so that it becomes a blessing to you; but it will be a
blessing if you have yourself baptised with the purpose, according to God’s
command and institution, and in God’s name, to receive in the water the
promised salvation. This the
1 Small Catechism (1529).
* Von Anbeten des Sacraments
(1523), Erlangen, 28 : 390 sq.
hand
cannot do, or the body, but the heart must believe it.” 1
Baptism
being thus a covenant of God with an individual soul, is unalterable, so far
as God is concerned. Man may entirely forfeit the blessing by repelling God’s
offers and casting away faith; but the blessing becomes his once more when he
returns. Alluding to Jerome’s declaration that penance is the second plank upon
which one escapes when the ship of his baptism is wrecked, Luther says:
“ The ship
never breaks, because it is an institution of God, and not a matter of ours;
but it happens that we slip and fall out of the ship. Yet, if any one so fall,
let him see that he come again into it, and live therein.” a “Just
as, when a bride marries against her will, and without affection to her
husband, while, before God, she is not the true wife of the man she marries,
yet if, in two years, he win her love, you would not say that a new betrothal
and marriage were necessary, upon the ground that the former betrothal and
marriage were invalidated by her insincerity. So when an adult receives baptism
insincerely, you would not advise him, a year later, when he becomes a
believer, to be rebaptised ! ” *
The daily
life of the Christian, therefore, is nothing more than the continual exercise
and practice of that which has been given him in baptism.
“ If you
live in repentance you walk in baptism, which not only signifies such a new
life, but produces, begins,
1 Large
Catechism (1529), Erlangen, 21 : 134.
141.
and
exercises it. . . . For this reason, let every one esteem his baptism as a
daily dress, in which he shall constantly walk that he may suppress the old man
and grow up in the new.” 1
All the
efficacy of baptism is thus that of the Gospel, of which it is the pledge and
seal.
“ The word
of the Gospel shows and reveals the Exalted and Crucified Christ, as the only
Saviour and Mediator. Baptism is a sure sign and testimony accompanying the
Word, whereby it is attested. . . . With this Word and baptism, the Holy Spirit
is present with His power and gifts, enkindling faith, that, amid fear and
terrors, man holds, with sure confidence, to the promise concerning Christ. If,
then, through the Holy Spirit, one firmly believes that Christ, the Son of God,
died for our sins on the cross, this imparts a new heart and a new sense, so
that, through the Word, an entirely new man results.” a
For infant
baptism, he finds the strongest proof in the fact that the holy lives of so
many baptised in infancy clearly show that the Holy Spirit has been given them.8
Its end is stated in the words: “ We bring the child in the purpose and hope
that it may believe, and we pray that God may grant it faith; but we do not
baptise it upon that faith, but solely upon the command of God." 4
He challenges proof
1 Large
Catechism (1529), Erlangen, 21 : 141.
2 On
Trinity Sunday (1533), Erlangen9, 5 : 251.
8 Large Catechism, Erlangen, 21 : 136.
for the
assertion that infants cannot believe, and argues at length to the contrary,
citing numerous passages of Scripture, such as Luke i., 41 ; Matt, xix., 14.1
The difficulty involved he meets thus:
“ When God
commands, says or does anything, put your hand upon your mouth, and fall upon
your knees, and, without asking or saying anything more, do what He commands,
hear what He says, and submit to whatever He says.” 3 “If any one
should deny that when an infant is baptised, he is given righteousness and salvation,
and explain away the promise by declaring that it would be valid, and would
work only when one would attain the use of reason, and, by working, attain what
is offered in the promise; also, that baptism is not a sign of God’s will to
us, but only a mark to distinguish believers from unbelievers, etc., he
absolutely denies salvation to baptism, and ascribes it to works.” 3
His
numerous discussions concerning the Lord's Supper, narrated in the foregoing
chapters, were marked by the constant reiteration of this same principle.
“ What is
more silly, reason suggests, than that in the Lord’s Supper, under the bread
and wine, the true body and blood of Christ should be eaten and drunk, for the
forgiveness of sins ? Of what help, says reason, is a bite of bread or a sip of
wine ? But, if reason is to judge concerning divine things, Abraham also might
have
1 Against
the Anabaptists (1528), Erlangen, 26 : 254-294.
* Sermon on Gospel for New Year
(1531), Erlangen2, 4: 181 sqq.
3 On Gal. iii., 8, Op. ex., 24:
348.
said: ‘
Hast Thou no other sign of the covenant between me and Thee than this foolish
business of circumcision ? ’ " 1
Inflexible
to the very end of his life in maintaining the real presence and the literal
interpretation of the Words of Institution, he is just as pronounced in repudiating
transubstantiation as a sophistical subtlety, without Scriptural foundation,
and the source of much of the idolatry sanctioned by the Papacy.
Consubstantiation, often ascribed to him, is without a word of approval in his
writings. The body and blood of Christ, he is careful to teach, are present in the
Lord’s Supper in an entirely different way from the bread and wine. The bread
and wine are received by the mouth in a natural, and the body and blood in a
supernatural, manner. Whatever stress, however, is laid upon the real presence,
is subordinate to the importance of the Word of which it is the pledge. The
Catechism declares, therefore, that the chief thing in the sacrament is “ not
the bodily eating and drinking, but the words: ‘ Given and shed for you, for
the remission of sins. ’ ’' “We hold, ’ ’ he says, “ to both the bodily and the
spiritual eating. The mouth eats the body of Christ bodily; but the heart
apprehends the Word by faith, and eats it spiritually. For both heart and mouth
eat, each in its own way; the heart cannot eat bodily, and the mouth cannot eat
spiritually.”2 “ In the Lord’s Supper there is a spiritual eating,
nevertheless only
1 On
Gospel for New Year, Erlangen'2, 4 : 181.
2 “ That
these words stand firm ” (1527), Erlangen, 30 : 93.
by
believers; and, besides, a bodily eating common to believers and unbelievers.” 1
The
sacramental presence is intended only to apply in all its force the promise of
the Gospel, and thus to confirm and strengthen faith. Where this promise is not
received the sacramental presence remains, but it brings judgment instead of
blessing. “ A just man shall live, not from the sacraments, but from faith. For
not the sacraments, but faith at the sacrament, quickens and justifies. Where
there is no faith, baptism is of no avail; for not baptism, but faith at baptism,
saves.” a In marled contrast with the mediaeval theory, Luther
taught that the sacraments were not rites, in which man brought something to
God, but that they were institutions and acts of God, in which He offered and
conferred the grace of the Gospel.
“ In the
Mass, we give nothing to Christ, but only receive from Him.” 3 “
The Mass is nothing but the divine promise or testament of Christ, commended by
the sacrament of His body and blood.” 4 “ The worthy preparation
and legitimate use of the Mass is nothing but faith, whereby the Mass, i. e.,
the divine promise, is believed. Let him who comes to the altar beware of
appearing empty before God. But he will be empty, if he have
1 Explained
at length in sermon on John vi., 55-58 (1524), Erlangen9, 15 : 368
; and in letter to Albert of Prussia (i532)» Erlangen, 54 : 281 ;
and De Wette, 4 : 349.
2 Against
the Bull of Antichrist (1520), Erlangen, 24: 61.
* Sermon on the New Testament,
i. e., the Holy Mass (1520), Erlangen, 27 : 155.
4 Babylonian
Captivity (1520), Weimar, i., 520.
not faith
in the Mass, i. e., in this new testament. . . . The entire virtue of the Mass
consists in the words of Christ, whereby He testifies that the remission of
sins is given all who believe that the body of Christ was given and His blood
shed for them. . . . For this reason nothing more is necessary for those who
participate than to meditate earnestly and with full faith upon the words of
the Mass.” 1
The
blessings received by the communicant in the Lord’s Supper cannot be
communicated by him to others. “ The Mass is not a work communicable to others;
but it is presented each one individually for the nourishment and strengthening
of his own faith.”3 “ It can profit no one, be applied to no one,
can aid no one, can be communicated to no one, unless he himself alone believe
by his own faith.” 3
With the
rejection of the sacrificial theory of the Mass, the sacerdotal idea of the
ministry and the entire hierarchy vanish. .
“ Only one
Priest do we have, viz., Christ who offered Himself for us all. This is a
spiritual priesthood common to all Christians, whereby we are all priests with
Christ, i. e., we are all the children of Christ, the High Priest, and need no
other priest or mediator. As every priest (Heb. v., 1) is set apart to pray for
the people and preach, so every Christian, for himself, may pray in Christ and
come to God (Rom. v., 2). . . . In the New Testament, the external priesthood
is overthrown; for it makes prayer, access to God, and teaching common
1 Babylonian Captivity (1520), Weimar, i., 517. 3 lb., 523.
8 lb., 521.
to all
men.” 1 “ But you say: ‘ If it be true that we are all priests and
should preach, what chaos will result! Is there no difference, then, among the
people, and are the women also priests ? ’ Answer: ‘ In the New Testament, no
priest should wear a tonsure, not that it is of itself wrong, but that no
distinction be made between him and the ordinary Christian; for it is
inconsistent with faith. So that all those now called priests should be all
laymen, like the rest, only some should be chosen by the congregation, as its
officers, to preach. The distinction, therefore, is one that is only external,
and respects the office, to which one is called by a congregation; but before
God, there is no distinction. Only some are selected from the mass, in order to
exercise, for the congregation, the office which belongs to all, and not that
one has more power than another.’ ” 2 “ Since Christ is the
Bridegroom, and we the bride, the bride has all that belongs to the Bridegroom,
even His body. For when He gives Himself to the bride, He gives her all that He
is, and in turn the bride gives herself to Him. Christ is the eternal High
Priest, anointed of God Himself, who has offered for us His own body, and prayed
for us on the cross, and also preached the Gospel, and taught all men to
acknowledge God and Him. These three offices He has given us all. Since He is
Priest, and we are all His brethren, all Christians have the authority and
command to preach and proclaim God’s grace and virtue, etc., and to go before
God, that one may intercede for the other, and offer himself to God.
Nevertheless, as St. Paul says that everything should be done in order, not
every one should teach and administer
1 Of the Abuse of the Mass (1522), Erlangen, 28 : 34.
* On 1
Peter ii., 9 (1523), Erlangen, 51 : 387 sqq.
the
sacraments in the congregation, but those only who are called by the
congregation, and to whom the office is entrusted, and the rest should listen
in silence.” 1 “ Pastors are priests (as Scripture uses the term),
not because of their office, but they are such before their office, from their
baptism. . . . For while all are priests, yet not all are to preach or teach or
govern, but some must be chosen from the entire body, to whom such office is to
be entrusted. He who administers it, is, with respect to his office not a
priest as the rest are, but a minister of all the rest; and when he can or will
no longer preach or minister, he returns to the common body, hands his office
to another, and is nothing more than any private Christian.” 2
The
Church, with Luther, is not a visible organisation, or any earthly
institution, but only “ the communion of saints,” or sum total of all
believers. In his Large Catechism he construes “ communion of saints ” as in
apposition to “ Holy Christian Church.” The German word, Kirche, he disliked as
a foreign word for what would be much better expressed by Gemeinde, or
congregation.3
“ Thank
God! to-day a child seven years old knows what the Church is, viz., saints,
believers, and lambs, who hear the voice of their Shepherd.” 4 “ The
Christian Church on earth is the communion and number or assembly of all
Christians in all the world, the only bride
1 On I Peter ii., 9 (1523), Erlangen, 52 : 72 sq.
* On
Ps. ex., 4 (1539), Erlangen, 40: 171 sq.
5 Large Catechism, Erlangen, 21
: 102.
4 Schmalkald Articles, Erlangen,
25 : 142.
and
spiritual body, whereof He is the only Head; and the bishops or pastors are not
heads or lords or bridegrooms of the same, but only its ministers, friends,
and, as the word bishop means, overseers, attendants, or presidents. This
Christian Church is not confined to the Roman Church or pope, but is in all the
world.” 1 “ It cannot be brought together into one assembly, but is
scattered throughout the entire world.” a
All power
in the Church is spiritual; for it is not a worldly government, but its realm
is within men’s hearts, and its only weapon and means of conquest is the Word.
“ Church
government is one where one has only the Word. . . . God, therefore, wants to
maintain and rule His Church only through the Word and not through human power.
Those invested with the office of the ministry have the Word only for the
purpose of serving, and not thereby to make themselves lords. . . . Reason
regards it confusion and dangerous error that all ministers should be equal,
and that one should have the same power as another. To avoid such confusion,
the Pope has instituted an order similar to civil governments, where one is
superior and has more authority than another. But we have an express command
of our Lord Christ who wants things different in His kingdom, which is
spiritual, from what they are in a worldly kingdom; that every one may learn
how, in the kingdom of God, it is not human authority, or great reputation, but
only the word of God that is to prevail. Nevertheless, in such
1 Confession concerning the Lord’s Supper (1528),
Erlangen, 30:
369
* On John vii., 40-42 (1530),
Erlangen, 48 : 211.
Church
government, there is an order and difference, according to the principle: ‘
Difference of gifts, but not of power ’; for one has more influence than
another, and a different calling or gifts from another." 1
Not to the
ministry as such, but to the entire congregation, and to the ministry only as
it acts by the authority and in the name of the congregation, belongs the
Power of the Keys.
“ No one
but the Christian Church, i. e., the assembly of all believers in Christ, has
this key; of this, there is no doubt. He who appropriates it to himself, be he
Pope, or who he may, commits sacrilege.”3 “Christ gives the keys to
the entire congregation, and not to St. Peter. This is shown in Matt, xviii.,
18-20, where Christ gives them to St. Peter for the entire congregation.” 3
“ A pastor exercises the office of the keys, baptises, preaches, administers
the sacrament, and does other offices, whereby he serves the congregation, not
for his own sake, but for the sake of the congregation, which has entrusted the
keys to him, even though he be a rascal. For if he do this instead of the
congregation, the Church does it.” 4 “ The key of binding and
loosing, is the authority to teach, and not only to absolve.” 6
“ The
Church is bound neither to place, time, person, nor to anything but the
confession concerning Christ.
1 On St.
Bartholomew’s Day, Luke xxii., 24-30, Melanchthon’s notes, Erlangen5,
3 : 446.
a On Confession (1521), Erlangen, 27 : 350 sq.
3 Jb.,
363.
4 On St. Peter and St. Paul’s
Day (1526), Erlangen2, 15 : 433.
6 /<*., 434-
That is
the foundation upon which Christ Himself builds through the Holy Ghost and the
preaching of the Gospel.” 1 “ The Church is where one teaches the
Word of God purely, and has baptism and the sacrament.” * “ The temple is now
as wide as the world. For the Word is preached and the sacraments administered
everywhere; and wherever these are properly observed, whether it be in a ship
on the sea, or in a house on land, there is God’s house, or the Church, and
there God should be sought and found.” 3 “In every parish where
children are baptised and the Gospel preached and Christ proclaimed to men,
there is the Church.” 4 “ One might as well doubt whether the Gospel
be the Word of God, as to doubt this.” 6 “ Some have this Word
entirely pure, and others not so pure. Those having it pure are said to build
gold, silver, precious stones upon the foundation; those having it not so pure
are said to build upon the same foundation, wood, hay, and stubble, and,
nevertheless, are saved, as though through fire. . . . Wherever, then, you hear
or see such Word preached, believed, confessed, practised, have no doubt that
there must be the Holy Catholic Church, i. e.y a Christian,
holy people, even though they be few. For God’s Word does not return unto Him
void (Is. Iv., ii), but must have at least a fourth of the field. Were there no
sign but this alone, it would be enough to prove that a holy Christian people
must be there. For God’s Word cannot be without God’s peo-
1 On St. Peter and St. Paul’s
Day (1526), Erlangen2, 3 : 386.
2 For full
discussion of the marks of the Church, see Of Councils and the Church (1539),
Erlangen, 25 : 360 sqq.
3 On Matt, xxi., 12 sq. (1538), Erlangen, 44 : 253.
4 On Matt, xv., 3 (1537), Erlangen, 44 : 24.
5 Von der Winkelmesse (1533), Erlangen, 31 : 374.
pie, or
God’s people without God’s Word. If there were no Christian people, who would
preach or attend preaching ? and if there were no Word of God, what could or
would God’s people believe ? ” 1
Among
those under the Papacy he acknowledges that there are true children of God, and
therefore that, in this respect, the Church is there, but maintains that the
organisation under the Papacy professing to be the Church is no church, and
that the Pope is Antichrist.
“ I
believe and am sure, that, even under the Papacy, the true Church remains. But,
on the other hand, I know that the great mass of its subjects, if we have regard
for all, are not the Church. . . . Some among the mass are true Christians,
although they are misled, nevertheless, by God’s grace, they are wonderfully
preserved.” 2 “If I see that they preach and confess Christ, as
sent by God the Father, that, by His death, He reconciles us to Himself, and we
should obtain grace, we are one in this matter, and I regard them as dear
brethren in Christ and members of the Christian Church; as also, under the
Papacy, this preaching remains, so far as the text is concerned, together with
baptism and the sacrament of Christ, and the Creed, etc. Although much error
has been introduced, yet many a one has been saved thereby on his death-bed,
when he dismissed this other false trust, and held only to Christ, and
confessed Him in faith.” 3
1 Of Councils and the Church (1539), Erlangen, 25 :
359 sqq.
s On John xvi., 1 sqq. (1538), Erlangen, 18 : 9.
That the
Pope is Antichrist, he maintains, proves that he sits in the temple of God, and
“ not in the devil’s stable,” and this temple of God is nothing but the Holy
Christian Church.
“We do not
rave, like the fanatics, so as to reject everything that the Pope has under
him; for, then, we would reject also the Holy Christian Church \Christen- heit\
the temple of God, with all that it has from Christ. But we contend against and
reject the work of the Pope, in not abiding by those blessings, which the
Christian Church has inherited from the Apostles,” etc.
He
illustrates the course of the radical movement against the Papacy by the story
of two brothers, in a forest, attacked by a bear. When the one was seized and
the bear was lying upon him, the other brother in the excitement struck his
brother while aiming a deadly blow at their common enemy. Such he regards the
Christian Church, lying in the embrace of Antichrist, and such the course of
the fanatics in inflicting upon it still more serious injury. “ For where
baptism and the sacrament are properly used, Christians, under the Papacy, may
still escape and be saved.” 1 So also of his adversaries at the
other extreme he writes:
“We must
acknowledge that the fanatics have the Scriptures and God’s Word in other
articles, and that he who hears it of them and believes, shall be saved, even
though they be heretics and blasphemers of Christ.
It is no
small grace that God gives His Word through such men.” 1
But when
an institution is to be sought in which the Word of God is to be heard, and
from which the sacraments are to be received, he declares:
“ We do
not acknowledge them as the Church, and they are not; we also will not listen
to those things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid.” “ Here
I summon the Pope and his bishops and all who call themselves the Church to
judgment, and ask them: ‘ Do you not also believe in Christ, that you have the
forgiveness of sins only through His blood, that this is God’s will, and that,
therefore, you were baptised and received the Holy Supper, and do you not
expect everlasting life?’ ‘Yes,’ they say, ‘we also believe this.’ But, that
you may determine whether you actually believe this, I ask further: ‘ Why,
then, do you teach that we adults have long since lost our baptism, and every
one must now do penance for his sins, and be saved by good works ? and how is
it that you now preach and write that Christ made satisfaction and died only
for Original Sin, while we must see to it that we do penance for our actual
sins ? ’ Notice only how they lead the people away from Christ to their own
works. . . . Thus they make of Christ nothing but a strict and wrathful judge,
before whom we are to tremble, as though He would cast us into Hell; as He has
been painted as sitting in judgment upon a rainbow, with His mother Mary and
John the Baptist, one on each side, as intercessors. This is to entirely
abolish Christ, so as to prevent me
LUTHER.
FROM
MELANCHTHON’SFUNERAL ORATION ON LUTHER, 1546.
from
seeing that He was born, suffered, died, and rose again for me. . . . When I
thus see Him, I cannot run to Him, but must flee from Him and take refuge with
Mary and other saints instead of with Christ and His redemption. Such are the
people who want to be called the Christian Church.” 1
To these
marks, whereby the presence of a true Church may be recognised, he adds the
exercise of the Power of the Keys, both publicly and privately; the existence
of a ministry for the administration of the means of grace, which the whole
body can employ only through appointed organs; and the cross, or the
persecutions and trials of all kinds that are the lot of those who follow Christ.8
The unity
of the Church, therefore, is found only in agreement of its members in the
confession and teaching of the same faith of the Gospel.
“ The Word
and doctrine should effect Christian unity or fellowship; where it is the same
and alike, the rest will follow, but where it is not, there is no unity. Speak
not to me of love or friendship, where the Word or faith is renounced; for it
is not love, but the Word, that brings eternal life, God’s grace, and all
heavenly treasures.” * “ Never will the Church be without offences, scandals,
dissensions, and various infirmities. It would be desirable if these were
absent, and the comparison of the Church to a bride without spot or wrinkle
should apply; but such you will never see it externally, for it is
1 On John xvi., I sqq., Erlangen, 18 : 10 sq.
5 Of
Councils and the Church, Erlangen, 25 : 363 sqq.
3 On Eph. vi., 10 sqq. (1532),
Erlangen, 19 : 248.
always
oppressed by tyrants, vexed by heretics, exercised by both internal and
external afflictions. In all these dangers, we must retain the consolation that
the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, and we must proceed courageously
to teach, exhort, correct, and whatever else belongs to the ministry of the
Word. If some are disobedient, let them go; it is enough that there are some,
to whom Christ and the ministry of the Gospel are the resurrection.”1
“The reproach is sometimes scornfully urged against the Christian Church, that
dissensions, sects, errors, heresies, and offences are so numerous; as though
the doctrine of the Gospel should be regarded false and incorrect, since the
Christian Church should be harmonious and at peace. These critics are wise and
excellent men, since they are able to teach the Holy Spirit how to rule the
Church ! Indeed, if the devil were not always biting Christ in the heel, it
would be very easy to have such a quiet and peaceable Church. But he is
Christ’s enemy, and incessantly stirs up in the Church war and sects and disturbance.
. . . The dear Church must be without peace, if it will not listen to the enemy
of the Lord Jesus Christ. How can it be otherwise ? For the heel-biter, the
devil, will not rest, or give peace to the head-crusher; and, on the other
hand, the head-crusher, our Lord, will not endure such a heel-biter.” a
So also
the holiness of the Church is entirely a matter of faith.
“ We are
to believe that the Church is holy; we cannot see it. For the Creed says: ‘ I
believe that there is
1 On Ps. cxxxii., 11, Op. ex20
: 260. s Die di-ei Symbola (1538), Erlangen, 23 : 263.
a Holy
Christian Church,’ it does not say: ‘ I see a Holy Church.’ If you judge
according to the outward appearance, you will see that it is sinful and
infirm, and has numerous offences, so that one is inclined to impatience,
another to wrath, one has one fault, and another, another. Hence, it is
written, not: ‘ I see, ’ but: ‘ I believe there is a Holy Christian Church.’ I
refer to this, as a consolation against those who when they find in our body
the least scab or freckle, at once make much of it, and say: ‘ Lo, these are
fruits of the Gospel! ’ ” 1
The
perpetuity of the Church he rests upon the promise of the abiding presence of
the Holy Spirit upon earth, to lead believers into all truth (John xiv., 17,
18). The Christian Church, therefore, must remain, even though there should be
but two believers on earth. As in the future so also in the past. It is no new
Church that came into being at the Reformation. “ We are the true ancient
Church, one Body and one Communion of Saints with the entire Holy Christian
Church.”5 “ Our baptism is not new, or one invented at this time,
but it is the same old baptism which Christ instituted, and with which the
Apostles and the first Church and all Christians since then have baptised.” 3
“ We have the Lord’s Supper just as Christ instituted it, and the Apostles and
the entire Christian Church have used it; and thus eat and drink from one table
with the ancient and entire Christian Church.”4 “We devise nothing
new,
1 On Gal.
v., g, Com. Gal., 3 : 40.
2 Against Hans Wurst (1541),
Erlangen, 26 : 12 sq.
3Ib., 13. 4 lb.
25
but hold
and abide by the old Word of God as the Ancient Church did; we are, therefore,
with the same true Ancient Church, one Church believing and teaching one Word
of God.” 1 He freely acknowledged his indebtedness: “ Everything
have we received from the churches among you (not of you)/’2 “ We
are not ashamed of praising whatever good we find in the papal churches.”
While antiquity of itself has no claim, for “ then the devil would be the most
righteous person on earth, since he is now over five thousand years old,”s
nevertheless,
“ if what
has been in use, from of old, is to be changed or abolished, an indubitable
proof must be given that it is contrary to God’s Word. Otherwise, what is not
against us is for us (Mark vi., 38; Luke ix., 49). Thus, in abolishing
cloisters and masses and clerical celibacy, we have cited clear passages of
Scripture against them. If we had not done this, we should have allowed them to
remain as they were.” 4 “ It is dangerous and terrible to hear or
believe anything contrary to the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of
the entire Holy Christian Church, which, for over fifteen hundred years now,
it has unanimously held throughout all the world.” 5
No new articles
of faith or good works can be prescribed by the Church, whose entire office it
is
1 Against Hans
Wurst (1541), Erlangen, 26 : 14. * lb., 25.
8 Answer to Henry VIII. (1522),
Erlangen, 28 : 358.
4 Against
the Anabaptists (1528), Erlangen, 26 : 269.
5 Letter to
Duke Albert of Prussia (1532), De Wette, 4: 354 ; Erlangen, 54 : 288a.
simply to
declare what it finds laid down in Holy Scripture. The members of the Church
are in duty bound to test all the Church’s teaching by the Scriptures, and
never to be satisfied with a doctrine simply because it has been approved by
councils or synods or distinguished teachers or majorities.
“ If you
say: ‘ How can we know what is God’s Word, and what is right or wrong ? We must
learn this of the Pope or councils.’ Let them decide what they will, I tell you
that you cannot, in that way, satisfy your conscience. Your life is at stake,
and you must decide the question for yourself. Until God says in your heart: ‘
This is God’s Word,’ the matter will not rest. . . . They quote the saying of
Augustine: ‘ I would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of the
Church had moved me thereto ’; and think that, by this, they have won. But I
say: ‘ What matters it to me whether Augustine or Jerome, St. Peter or St.
Paul, and what is much more, the archangel Gabriel from heaven, say this ?
Nothing of all this helps me. I must have God’s Word. I will hear what God, the
Lord, will say.’ ” 1
Luther’s
doctrine of the right of private judgment, it will be noticed, is not that
every one is at liberty to pass what judgment he pleases with respect to
spiritual things. There is a fixed and unerring norm which the private
Christian is under as much obligation to follow as any judge is restrained from
arbitrary verdicts by the law that he has sworn to administer. “ Such judging
of doctrine must not
1 First
sermon on Gospel for Eighth Sunday after Trinity, Erlang
en5, 13 : 230.
be
according to our own thoughts, or from one's own wisdom, but there must be a
fixed, clear rule, according to which to judge; and such rule is the word of
Christ. This alone is the norm and test, as we have often said.” 1
Upon this principle, then, “ Christ takes away from bishops and learned men and
councils the right of judging concerning doctrine, and gives it to every one,
and to all Christians in common, as He says (John x., 4): ‘ My sheep know My
voice; My sheep know not the voice of strangers. ’ ’ 2
Thus not
only with respect to the faith of the individual, but also with respect to the
rights of congregations.
“ Even
though the bishops were what they should be, and wished to promote the Gospel,
and would appoint preachers of the right kind, nevertheless they should not do
this without the will, election, and call of the congregation, except where
necessity constrains them to act to prevent souls from going to ruin because of
the absence of God’s Word.” 3
Luther’s
eschatology is marked by the same practical features that determine the other
articles of his system. Questions concerning the state of the dead he dismisses
as relatively unimportant. “ I pray in
1 Second
sermon on Gospel for Eighth Sunday after Trinity, Erlangen2, 13 :
275.
2 “ That a
Christian congregation has the authority to judge all doctrine, and call and
depose ministers” (1523), Erlangen, 22 : 143.
3 lb., 149.
Christ
that your teachers would avoid questions concerning the saints in Heaven and
the dead, and would turn the people therefrom, since there will be no end to
such questions, if you allow but one.” 1 Salvation, without faith in
Christ, he declares impossible. “ We have strong passages that, without faith,
God neither will nor can save any one (Mark xvi., 16; Heb. xi.,6; John iii., 6;
v., 18). If now God save any one without faith, He acts against His own words
and convicts Himself of falsehood.” 2 “ There is no help or grace
without Jesus Christ, who has helped us gratuitously, since we are all sinners,
at the cost of His own blood and suffering. If, then, any should take
exception to this, keep silent; it is better than for you to deny such a clear
and certain foundation.” 8 The heathen who experienced God’s grace
under the Old Testament were brought to faith “ when they heard the sermons
and doctrine of the patriarchs.”4 If those who die without faith be
ultimately saved, he maintains it can occur only if faith be given in the
world to come; for which he can find no warrant in God’s Word. “ There is yet
another question, viz. : Whether at death or after death, God could give faith,
and thus save through faith ? Who is it that doubts that He could do this ? But
that He does
1 To
Christians at Erfurt (1522), Erlangen, 53: no; De Wette,
2 : 20.
2 To Hans von Rechenberg (1522),
Erlangen, 22 : 34 ; De Wette,
2 : 455
3 On Gen.
xx. (1527), Erlangen, 33 : 385.
4 On Gen.
xlvii. (between 1535 and 1545), Op. ex., n : 76.
this
cannot be proved.” 1 Concerning the question of consciousness
between death and the resurrection, he is much perplexed. While he applies the
analogy of sleep, he is unwilling to accept it as a satisfactory explanation.
“ How the
soul rests we ought not to know. It is certain that it lives. Consider men in a
trance or sleeping. ... I do not feel that I am living when I am asleep. . . .
Often when I have earnestly tried to notice the moment of my falling asleep,
and the moment of my waking, I have wakened already before I took notice.”3
“Nevertheless, the sleep of this life and that of the future life differ; for
in this life, man, fatigued by his daily labour, at nightfall goes to his
couch, as in peace, to sleep there, and enjoys rest; nor does he know anything
of evil, whether of fire or of murder. But the soul does not sleep in such way,
but watches and experiences visions of angels and the like.” 9
The
question of the immediate punishment of the godless at death is one upon which
he repeatedly expressed himself unwilling to give any opinion. While prayers
for the dead are without any Scriptural foundation, he is unwilling to forbid
them absolutely. “ For the dead, since Scripture mentions nothing concerning them,
I do not regard it a sin to pray thus, or the like: ‘ O God, if Thou hast such
relations with souls that Thou canst help them, be gracious to them ’; and if
this occur once or twice,
1 To von Rechenberg, De Wette,
2 : 455.
9 On Gen. xxvi., Op. ex., 6 :
329.
3 On Gen. xxv., Op. ex., 6 :
120.
JUSTUS JONAS.
AFTER A
PORTRAIT BY L. CRANACH, ‘ GENEALOGY," 1543.
let that
be enough.” 1 Hell, he teaches, is not entered by the wicked until
the Last Day. “ Hell, at this place, cannot be the proper Hell, which will
begin at the Last Day.”2 “ In this rich man, I think, that is
indicated which would occur in all unbelievers if their eyes should be opened
in death, or under the necessities of death. This can happen only for a moment,
and then cease again until the Last Day, as it pleases God.”3 Almost
the very words of the Augsburg Confession (Art. XVII.) are used in rejecting
the doctrine of a reign of Christ upon earth prior to the Last Day.4
The end of
the world he believed to be very near.
“ The
world is running so hastily towards its end that serious thoughts often occur
as to whether the Last Day may not break before the translation of Holy
Scriptures into German can be completed. For it is certain that no more
temporal things prophesied in the Scriptures are to be fulfilled. The Roman
Empire has fallen; the Turk has reached his height; the glory of the Papacy is
declining, and the world is cracking at all ends, as though about to break and
fall.” *
His belief
of this nearness of the end had probably much to do with his change of opinion
concerning the future of the Jews, whose general conversion he
1 Confession concerning the
Lord’s Supper (1528), Erlangen, 30: 370.
2 On Gospel for First Sunday
after Trinity, Erlangen3, 13 : 13.
ZIK 15.
4 On Matt, xxiv., Erlangen, 45 : no.
5 Introduction to Daniel (1530),
Erlangen, 41 : 233.
first
taught, but for whom in his later years he had no hope.1
Often he
portrays in most sombre pictures, which his opponents for generations have
industriously published as though they were confessions of failures, the low
moral tone and immoralities of many of those to whom the Gospel had been
preached as he has restored it. But never does he waver concerning his
confidence that it has been God’s Word that he has preached, or in his purpose,
so long as life lasts, to continue in the course he had begun. In the fact that
the more the Gospel is preached the worse the world grows, he not only draws a
comparison with the experience of men of God who have preceded him, and whose
lives are recorded in Scripture, but also sees therein a fulfilment of
prophecy, and a token of the deliverance that is approaching with the descent
of God’s judgments upon the ungodly.2
The denial
of the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, he says, is equivalent to
saying “ that there is no Gospel, no baptism, no Christ, no God.” 3
The identity of the resurrection-body with that borne in this life is
maintained, only a change
1 On St.
Stephen's Day (1521), Erlangen5, 10 : 244 sq., compared with Of the
Jews and their Lies (1543). Erlangen, 32 : 99-274.
2 Such
passages, among many others, industriously collected by unfriendly critics, of
whose methods the citations in Dollinger’s Die Reformation, ihre innere
Entwicklung und ihre Wirkungen (Regensburg, 1848), 1 : 289-359, are a fair
specimen, misleading no one who reads them in the context, are Op. ex., 5 : 328
; Erlangen2, 14 : 8992 ; Erlangen, 17 : 457 ; 36 : 302, 401 ; 48 :
198.
3 On 1 Cor.
xv., 35-38 (1544). Erlangen, 19 : 107.
of
properties being admitted, that does not extend so far even as to eradicate
distinctions of sex. “ The same body and soul which each one has, will remain,
with all the members; but the body will have another form and use, and will not
eat or drink, etc., and will need none of those things belonging to this
transitory life.” 1 “ The body will have sharp eyes, so as to be
able to see through a mountain, and quick ears, so as to be able to hear from
one end of the earth to the other.” 2
“ I would
not surrender a moment of heaven for all the possessions and joy of all the
world, even though they should last for thousands and thousands of years. Only
think what you would like to have! Is it money and clothing ? He will clothe
you more richly than your Emperor can be clad. Is it to be a lord ? You shall
have more than you can desire. You will be sharp to see and hear for over a
hundred miles, through walls and battlements, and so light, that, in a moment,
you can be wherever you wish, either here upon earth or above in the clouds.” 3
The world
will be transfigured and shine in new beauty. “ Now it has on its
working-clothes; then it will put on its Easter and Whitsunday robes.” 4
“ Everything will be far more beautiful than now, water and trees and grass,
and the earth will be entirely new.” 5
1 On i
Cor. XV., 39-44 (i544), Erlangen, 19 : 135 sq.; cf. 51 : 219.
2 lb., 120.
3 On 1 Cor.
xv. (i534), Erlangen, 51 : 184.
4 On Gen. xlv., 22 ; Op. ex., 10 : 392.
* Qn 1 Cor. xv., Erlangen, 51 :
183.
“ If the
sun is now a beautiful bright light, so that no man, however sharp and clear
his eyes, can endure its brilliancy without being overcome, what will it be in
the life to come, when the sun shall shine sevenfold more •early than now!
Bright, clear eyes will be given, that we may endure such sunlight. If Adam had
remained in the innocency in which he was created, he would have had bright,
clear eyes that could have gazed upon the sun like an eagle. In that day, all
shall be made new and beautiful once more. The creature shall be made free from
the service of this transitory life and be introduced into the glorious
liberty of the children of God.” 1
1 On Ps. viii. (1537), Erlangen, 39 : 36.
THE LORD'S SUPPER, COMMEMORATING THE DEFEAT OF A MEDAL OF 1546. JOHN FREDERICK,
APRIL 24 1547.
HOME LIFE AND LAST DAYS S we approach the closing events of this career,
so crowded
with labours and incidents of far-
reaching
significance that it is difficult to embrace them within a brief compass,
attention must be given to some of the details of his private life. No
engagements, however pressing, were allowed to interfere with his constant
association with his family. In its circle he daily found relief and relaxation
from his numerous cares.
Five
children survived infancy. John (Hans), born in 1526, became a jurist and
counsellor at Weimar. Martin, born in 1531, studied theology, but his health
being frail, he never entered the ministry; he married well and died early.
Paul, the most gifted of the three sons, born in 1533, studied medicine and became
physician, first to the Elector of Brandenburg and afterwards to the Elector
August of Saxony. His youngest daughter,
Margaretta,
married a nobleman by the name of von Kunheim. While but one attained eminence,
none of them in any way disgraced the good name which they bore. The last
descendant in a direct line, Martin Gottlob, a Dresden lawyer, died November
3, 1759.
The most
pathetic scene in Luther’s life was that of the death of his daughter,
Magdalena, in her fourteenth year, September 20, 1542, a child of singular
depth of character, amiable, affectionate, and deeply religious. Without the
ordinary failings of children, the father testified that she had never done an
act that required parental reproof. Deeply attached to her brother John, when
her illness became alarming, he was brought from school at Torgau to be with
her in her last days. A profound impression was made upon all Luther’s acquaintances,
as they saw or heard of a man of such rugged strength overcome with emotion by
the side of his dying child, and asking her: “ Magdalena, darling daughter, is
it not true that you would like to stay here with your father, and yet that you
want to go to your Father above ? ” “ Yes, dear father,” came the answer, “
just as God wills.” “ Dear little daughter! the spirit is willing, but the
flesh is weak.” Then aside: “ Oh, how I love her! If the flesh is so strong,
what must the spirit be! I am angry with myself for not rejoicing and being
thankful.” Gently, in her father’s arms, the little girl fell asleep. As he
gazed upon her in her coffin, he exclaimed : “ Dear Lenchen, thou shalt rise
again, and shine as a star, aye, as the sun! ” When his friends comforted him,
the answer
was: “ I have sent a saint, a living saint, to Heaven ! ” To his friend, Justus
Jonas, he wrote :
“ The
features, words, movements of this most obedient and reverent daughter, both
living and dying, remain deeply imprinted on my heart, so that not even the
death of Christ, in comparison with which all other deaths are as nothing, can
altogether efface this. Hers was so mild, so sweet, and, in every way, so
lovely a disposition! Blessed be our Lord Jesus Christ, who has called,
chosen, and glorified her. Oh, that such a death, as well as such a life, were
mine, and that of mine! ” 1
In his
house various theological students served at different times as private
instructors. His wife’s aunt, “ Muhme Lene,” as she was familiarly called, a
former nun, made her home with the family. Luther’s messages and allusions to
her in his letters show how highly she was esteemed. Two nieces, and while they
were students, five nephews, sons of his two sisters and his brother, were also
inmates of the house. A number of students boarded usually at his table. His
servant, Wolf Sieberger, generally known as “ Wolf,” was a character who
afforded the family much amusement. A student too dull to have any prospects of
intellectual success, Wolf had acquiesced in the general judgment of his incapacity,
and was content thereafter to serve as Luther’s factotum. He did many offices
for the family and entertained the children. Once when he entered into an
elaborate plan, by means of nets, to catch birds, Luther drew up a formal
charge, “ Com-
plaint of
the Birds to Martin Luther concerning his Servant, Wolf Sieberger.” 1
He kept
open house, and was often imposed upon. Guests came from all quarters and from
all classes of the community. During the epidemics of the plague his house was
crowded with those who fled from the contagion at their homes. A frequent visitor
was the Electoral Princess of Brandenburg, exiled for a time on account of her
faith, who was once nursed through an illness of four months in Luther’s house.
Luther’s
habits were the simplest. Without being an ascetic, and believing in the
enjoyment of the good gifts of God as a Christian duty, he was most temperate
in regard to food and drink and very plain in his dress. At the table,
especially in the evening, when his mind was not preoccupied by the important
subjects on which he was writing, he gave the freest expression to his judgment
on all subjects suggested by his guests, condensing the matured fruit of his
studies and wide observation into a few words, and stating it in the most
popular form. Notes of these sayings were taken by a number of the students who
boarded at his table, such as Veit Dietrich, Matthesius, Aurifaber, and others,
and these notes were finally collected into his renowned Table- Talk.
In later
years the eminent executive ability of his wife, who, besides caring for their
own home, also administered a small farm at Zulsdorf, near Wittenberg,
together with the increase in his salary, and
FROM A
WOOD-CUT BY TOBIAS STIMMER.
annual
gifts from princes and other friends, raised him above all want, and gave him
some of the comforts of life which in his earlier years he had not enjoyed.
The
company of a small circle of his most intimate friends he particularly
welcomed. Such was the “ Sanhedrim,” whom he entertained once a week while the
translation of the Bible was in progress of revision, and such also were the
birthday gatherings at his table on November ioth of each year. Melanchthon
tells us of such a company held on Luther’s last birthday.
Besides
music and the culture of flowers he found recreation for a time in the use of a
turning-lathe, and afterwards in bowling, for which he had an alley built in
his garden. He delighted in short excursions into the country, visiting with
his wife and children the neighbouring pastors, gathering fruit, and partaking,
in truly modern picnic fashion, of the ample luncheon from the family basket.
But the
end rapidly approached, and during the early part of the summer of 1545, his
old infirmity, the calculus, gave him the greatest discomfort. Anxieties as to
the coming council and the Turks troubled him. His experience with some of his
old friends made him suspicious and irritable. Some of his confidants were not
judicious, and excited the sick man by their reports of irregularities as well
as of imagined projects, from the consideration of which he had been excluded.
At the close of July he determined to accompany Cruciger to Zeitz, whither the
latter had been called with Bishop Amsdorf, to adjust some church troubles. His
son John and
John’s
tutor accompanied him. Although needing absolute quiet, he had to listen to
tales concerning things at Wittenberg, of which he had never heard at home.
Injudicious scandalmongers drove him almost frantic. From Leipzig he wrote to
his wife that he wished never to return to Wittenberg. Their possessions there
could be sold. The family might retire to their little farm at Zulsdorf. His
salary, which was now that of an Emeritus Professor, would still be available.
The disorderly conduct of the young women of Wittenberg, their fashionable
dress, which he pronounces indecent, and the utter unconcern of those whose
duty it was to reprove them, are particularly mentioned as reasons why he
should leave. “ Away from such a Sodom! I would sooner wander about and beg my
bread than vex my last days with the irregular proceedings at Wittenberg.”1
If she pleased, she might tell this to Melanchthon and Bugenhagen. When the
contents of the letter became known to the authorities they occasioned no small
amount of consternation. The two colleagues just mentioned hastened to persuade
him to dismiss all such thoughts, and the Elector, probably recognising a
physical cause for the despondency, sent his physician with a similar message.
They met Luther at Merseburg, where he was assisting Amsdorf in the
consecration of George of Anhalt as bishop. On August 16th, yielding to the
entreaties of his friends, he reached home, after conferring at Torgau with the
Elector.
In the
autumn he was called to his old home in the domain of the Counts of Mansfeld.
For years he had presented the complaints of some of the peasants, among them
his own relatives, to Count Albrecht, concerning the oppression which they
claimed to be suffering. These communications were always kindly received. A
dispute having arisen between the counts themselves, they agreed to refer the
matter to Luther as one of the arbitrators. His first trip in October was
fruitless, as the sudden attempt of Henry of Brunswick to recover his territory
had called the counts away, but Luther had the satisfaction of rejoicing over
the complete victory gained by the Landgrave, and the capture of Henry and his
eldest son. He wrote an open letter to the Elector and Landgrave, urging them
to hold Henry in captivity. The negotiations between the counts were again
opened. After completing his lectures on Genesis, upon which he had been
occupied for years, on November 17th, with the words: “ I can do no more. I am
weak. God grant me a blessed end ! ” he started for Mansfeld at the close of
December, accompanied by Melanchthon. But the proceedings had scarcely begun
when Melanchthon was taken ill, and Luther hastened to Wittenberg with him,
promising that he would soon return. Reaching Wittenberg, January 6, 1546, he
preached for the last time there, and with unusual power, January 17th. On the
23d he started for the third time on his errand of peace, taking with him his
sons, their tutor, and Aurifaber. Eisleben was appointed for the conference,
and they expected
26
to reach
their destination on the day after leaving Wittenberg. But a freshet had
swollen the Saale, and the flood and floating ice detained them at Halle as
guests of Jonas until the 28th. On this visit, or the one shortly before,
Luther presented Jonas with a glass goblet, bearing the following inscription
in Latin:
“ Luther himself but glass, to Jonas glass, gives glass,
That each may know how like to fragile glass he is.”
Just as
they were entering his native place, Luther, who had been walking and become
overheated, was prostrated by an attack of oppression on his breast, attended
with a sense of suffocation and faintness, that greatly alarmed his companions.
Taken to a house near by, hot cloths were applied, and under this treatment he
promptly rallied. By the next Sunday he was able to preach. His boys meanwhile
were sent to Mansfeld to spend the time with their relatives, while their
father was engaged in the arbitration.
A number
of nobles had been called in to participate in the proceedings, among them
Wolfgang of Anhalt and the Count of Schwartzburg. The tedious processes of the
law, and what Luther regarded as the senseless quibbling of the lawyers, were
irksome in the extreme. As the case was prolonged, he thought once of bringing
it to an abrupt termination by taking his departure, but was deterred by a
sense of duty to his country. He wrote to Melanchthon, however, suggesting
that, in case the proceedings were carried much farther, the Elector should be
requested
to command his return. With his wife, who was particularly anxious about him,
and with Melanchthon, he maintained a constant correspondence. With tender
sarcasm he tried to soothe her fears when he wrote to his wife:
“ Only
read, dear Kate, St. John, and the Small Catechism, of which you once said to
me that everything in the book was said of you. For you want to care for your
God precisely as though He were not Almighty, and could not create ten Dr.
Martins if the old one were to be drowned in the Saale, or be burned in the
oven, or be caught in Wolf’s bird-trap. Dismiss your cares, for I have One Who
cares for me better than you or angels can. He lies in a manger, and hangs on
the breast of a virgin, but is also seated at the right hand of God the Father
Almighty.” 1
A few days
afterwards:
“ We thank
you most sincerely for your great anxiety, which would not let you sleep; for
since the time when you began to care for us the fire wanted to consume us in
our lodging, just by my door, and yesterday a stone almost fell on my head, and
came near crushing me, as in a mouse-trap. ... I am really anxious; for if you
do not cease caring, the earth will swallow us up, and all the elements pursue
us! Only pray, and let God do all the caring; for it is written: 4
Casting all your care upon Him,’ etc.” 5
On
February i6th he wrote to Melanchthon, announcing his speedy return, and
asking him to send
by special
messenger, who would meet him on the way, an ointment which he was in the habit
of using to keep open a sore on his limb. It had been forgotten, and the wound
was healing, from which he apprehended danger. On the same day he preached for
the last time; it was his fourth sermon during the arbitration. He also
received the Lord’s Supper, and ordained two ministers. On the 16th, an
agreement was reached and received his signature. The next day some additional
matters were settled, but his presence was not required below stairs. He
remained all the day above in his apartments, which consisted of a sitting- and
a sleeping-room. In the evening he was much better, and came down to supper.
Although his thoughts and conversation were largely upon death and the world to
come, he was unusually cheerful, enjoyed his meal, and said that it was worthy
of those that in his childhood he had there known. Bidding the company
good-night, he retired with his two younger sons, who had returned from
Mansfeld. Dr. Jonas and Aurifaber accompanied him. Intending at once to go to
rest, he withdrew to the window of the sitting-room to pray, when he was seized
suddenly with an alarming attack of oppression on the breast, which soon
yielded to vigorous rubbing and the application of hot cloths. Then, lying upon
a lounge in the same room, he slept until ten o’clock. Thinking that he could
now safely take his bed, he walked into the sleeping-room, and while doing so
was heard to repeat the words: “ Into Thy hands I commend my spirit,” etc. As
he bade Jonas and Pastor Coelius
of
Eisleben good-night, he asked them to pray against the machinations of the
Council of Trent. It was one o’clock when he was again aroused, and another attack
speedily followed. “ Dr. Jonas,” he cried out, “ here in Eisleben, where I was
born and baptised, I think I shall remain.” As he re-entered the sitting-room,
he again repeated the words: “ Into Thy hands,” etc., and after pacing the
floor for a short time, sank upon the lounge. The pain increased; two
physicians were summoned. Count Albrecht and the Countess were soon at hand,
and were unwearied in their attention. In the midst of his paroxysms he prayed:
“ I thank
Thee, O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, that Thou hast revealed Thy
Son to me, on Whom I have believed, Whom I have loved, Whom I have preached and
confessed and worshipped, Whom the Pope and all the ungodly abuse and slander.
O Lord Jesus Christ, I commend my poor soul to Thee. O Heavenly Father, I know
that, although I shall be taken away from this life, I shall live forever with
Thee. ‘ God so loved the world that he gave His only-begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ Father,
into Thy hands I commend my spirit.” 1
Then there
was a silence that no one ventured for a time to interrupt. Were those lips forever sealed
1 Votn Christlichen abschied aus diesen todlichen leben des Ehrwir- digen
Herrn D. Martini Lutheri, bericht, durch D. Justum Jonayn, M. Michaelem Celium,
und ander die dabeygewesen, Wittemberg, 1546, p. 15.
until the
morning of the Resurrection ? Could not just one word more of testimony to his
faith be heard ? One message, if possible, must still be received from the
receding spirit as it leaves all earthly cares behind. The two pastors, Jonas
and Coelius, shake him, and call with a loud voice into his ear: “Reverend
Father, do you die in the faith of your Lord Jesus Christ, and in the doctrine
which you preached in His Name?” The answer was clear and distinct: “Yes.” With
this he turned upon his side and peacefully went to sleep. It was just fifteen
minutes before three o’clock when he breathed his last. For this hour he had
long been preparing.
“ He was
dying,” said Coelius, “ for more than a year; i. e., he thought of death,
preached about death, conversed about death, wrote about death. The day before
he departed I read to him, at his own request, many consoling passages from his
Psalter, which he had marked and written in it, in order to comfort himself
with them.” 1
Of the
same careful preparation Jonas writes: “ In his Psalter and Prayer-Book, which
he always carried with him, he wrote more than twenty consolatory passages, as
much as to say: ‘ I will, with the help of God, lay hold of one of these
passages in my last hour.’ ” s
1 Zwo Trosliche Predigt iiber der Leich D. Doct. Martini Luther, zu
Eisleben den XIX. und XX. Februarii gethan,
durch D. Doct.
Justutn
Jonam et M. Michaelem Celium, Anno 1546, Wittemberg, p. 50.
3 lb., p.
11.
Before
daybreak the messenger was off for Wittenberg, carrying with him a full report
to the Elector of the sad scene that had just transpired, prepared by Dr. Jonas
immediately after its occurrence. The letter of Jonas was at once transmitted
by the Elector to Wittenberg. On the next morning at nine o’clock, when the
students assembled to hear a lecture on the Epistle to the Romans, Melanchthon
announced the news that had just been received, and gave them a full account of
the particulars as they had been reported, with the statement that false
reports were likely to be circulated, the Italian pamphlet of the year before
having suggested the probability of such slander on the part of his enemies.
Although
the Counts of Mansfeld urged that he be buried in his native land, the Elector
decided that Wittenberg was the proper place for his grave.
On
February 19th services were held in St. Andrew’s Church, Eisleben, where Dr.
Jonas preached from 1 Thess. iv., 13-18, and Coelius from Is. lvii.,
1. Attended by two of the counts and a guard
of honour of about fifty riders, the procession from Eisleben to Wittenberg was
marked by demonstrations of grief in all the places through which it passed,
where bells were tolled and the whole population turned out to pay their
tribute of respect. The first night the corpse rested in one of the churches of
Halle, guarded by faithful watchers. On February 22d, at nine o’clock in the
morning, they reached Wittenberg. In the Castle Church, upon whose doors the
XCV. Theses had been nailed, the sermon was preached by Bugenhagen, from the
same text
that had been used by Jonas at Eisleben, and then Melanchthon, standing by the
side of the casket, delivered in Latin a most eloquent tribute to his friend,
as tender and loyal as it was discriminating. He was a man, said the speaker,
who wielded the sword with one hand while he built the walls of Jerusalem with
the other. If his words were sometimes open to criticism because of their
severity, the remark of Erasmus might be recalled, that the extremity of the
diseases in this last age of the world required a physician who resorted to
heroic remedies. While he could not maintain that he was right in all these
severities, nevertheless, as the one who knew him best, he could testify to the
absence of personal rancour, and to the fact that, in his private life, he was
in no way contentious, but was most affable and considerate of the interests of
those around him. Without any ambition except to be faithful to his divine
calling, a stranger to the arts of diplomacy, pure in life and candid in
speech, sustained and impelled in his work by the Spirit of God, with whom he
communed in the daily study of the Word, and in most ardent prayers, often
wrung from his heart, as his friends knew, with tears, God has raised up in him
a leader and teacher, for whose life devout minds throughout all eternity wrould
give God all the praise and glory.1 By the pulpit, where he had so
often preached, he was buried.
The church
upon the wooden doors of which in 1517 the XCV. Theses had been nailed, became
the
“
Westminster Abbey" of the Lutheran Church. These doors were burned in
1760, when Wittenberg was bombarded, and in their place bronze doors were
erected in 1812, upon which the Theses were cast. Within them lie the Electors
Frederick the Wise and John the Constant. There also, fourteen years after
Luther’s death, Melanchthon was laid. Around them are no less than ninety
university professors and teachers. The University lived upon the memories of
its brilliant career in the sixteenth century, in spite of the notoriously
unsuitable location of Wittenberg for such an institution, until, in 1817, it
was merged with Halle. A famous painting in the Capelle zum heiligen Leichnam,
near the Parochial Church, represents the Emperor Charles V. standing by the
grave of Luther, when, in March, 1547, Wittenberg fell by the fortunes of war
into his hands. The Duke of Alva is supposed to be suggesting that Luther’s
remains be disinterred and dishonoured, but the Emperor answers: “ I war not
with the dead, but with the living. ” In the absence of cotemporary records of
such an event, we must regard it as embodying only a conception of the artist,
intended, probably, to show the reverence that the memory of Luther inspired in
the mind of the highest earthly potentate, but also susceptible of the
interpretation of the triumph of the living Empero rover the dead Luther. The
hour of vengeance for Charles seemed to have come, and the movement begun at
that spot thirty years before to be weakening. But there is a power that is
mightier than that of vast armies. It is that power on which
Luther
placed his reliance in all the conflicts through which he passed: the simple
power of the living Word. The Word which he brought to light and embodied in
his translation of the Bible, his catechisms, his hymns, with their matchless
melodies, his sermons, his revision of the Church Service, his Theses, his
controversial writings, his positive presentations of doctrine, such as the
Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans and his Freedom of a Christian Mail,
still live, and will continue to live from generation to generation. As time
advances Charles is remembered more and more only as the Emperor whose reign
was in the days of Luther. That Luther’s influence does not diminish with time
is shown by the incessant attacks of enemies. One of the most lauded and
admired, he is also one of the most disparaged of the great characters of
history; for his words not only still touch, but continue to powerfully
influence, living issues. One of the greatest needs of modern times is the
careful, scientific, discriminating study of Luther’s writings and acts,
according to his own presentations, and in their historical setting. The canons
of historical criticism, which honesty in the treatment of other lives demands,
must be applied here also.
“ The
world,” says the late Dr. Krauth, “ knows his faults. He could not hide what he
was. His transparent candour gave his enemies the material of their misrepresentation;
but they cannot blame his infirmities without bearing witness to the nobleness
which made him careless of appearances in a world of defamers. For himself, he
had as little of the virtue of caution as
he had,
towards others, of the vice of dissimulation. Living under thousands of jealous
and hating eyes, in the broadest light of day, the testimony of enemies but
fixes the result: that his faults were those of a nature of the most consummate
grandeur and fulness, faults more precious than the virtues of the common
great. Four potentates ruled the mind of Europe in the Reformation, the
Emperor, Erasmus, the Pope, and Luther. The Pope wanes, Erasmus is little, the
Emperor is nothing, but Luther abides as a power for all time. His image casts
itself upon the current of ages, as the mountain mirrors itself in the river
that winds at its foot—the mighty fixing itself immutably upon the changing.” 1
1 Conservative Reformation, p. 87.
MEDAL OF
LUTHER.
FROM
QRETSER'8 “ DE 8ANCTA CRUOI."
BULL OF LEO X. AGAINST THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER AND HIS FOLLOWERS1
Leo,
Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God.
For the
perpetual memory of the subject.
[The Pope
invokes God and the saints to defend the Church against the new heretics.]
RISE, O
Lord, and judge thy cause, be mindful of
thy
reproaches, with which the foolish reproach thee daily; incline thine ear to
our prayers, since foxes have arisen seeking to spoil the vineyard, whose winepress
thou hast trodden alone, and whose care, government and administration when
thou wast about to ascend
1 Latin original in SchafTs Church History, 233 sqq.;
Gerdesius, Hisioria Reformationis, Monumenta, i., 129 sqq.; Op. var. arg.,
iv., 263 sqq. German translation of Ulrich von Hutten, Walch, xv., 1691
sqq. The capitalisation of this translation is identical with that of the
original. The analysis is that of the editor. The translation is by the author.
to the
Father, thou didst entrust to Peter, as its head and thy vicar, and to his
successors, after the image of the triumphant Church: the boar out of the wood
is seeking to waste it, and a peculiar wild beast doth devour it.
Arise, O
Peter, and, by virtue of the pastoral office entrusted thee (as before said)
and divinely required of thee, attend to the cause of the holy Roman Church,
the Mother of all churches, and mistress of the faith, which thou, at God’s
command, didst consecrate with thy blood, against which, as thou didst deign to
forewarn, false teachers are rising, introducing ruinous sects, and inducing
upon themselves swift destruction, whose tongue is fire, a restless evil, full
of deadly poison, who having bitter zeal and contentions in their hearts, do
boast and lie against the truth.
Arise,
thou too, O Paul, we ask, who hast illumined and illustrated it [the Church]
with thy doctrine and likewise with thy martyrdom. For a new Porphyry is
arising; since, just as he of old attacked unjustly the holy Apostles, so
against thy doctrine this one fears not to attack and wound, and, where he
distrusts his cause, to reproach the holy Pontiffs, our predecessors, not by
entreaties, but by vituperations, after the manner of heretics (as Jerome
saith), whose last resort it is, when they see that their causes are about to
be condemned, to begin to scatter with their tongues the venom of the serpent;
and when they see that they have been conquered, to break forth in abuse. For
although thou hast said that heresies are for the purpose of testing the faithful,
nevertheless, by thy aid and intercession, they should be suppressed in the
very beginning, before they grow or the little foxes gather strength.
Finally,
let the entire congregation of saints, and the
rest of
the Church universal arise, whose true interpretation of holy scriptures being
set aside, some, whose minds the father of lies hath blinded, according to the
ancient custom of heretics, wise in their own eyes, interpret the same
scriptures otherwise than the holy Spirit requireth, only according to their
own sense, for ambition, and, as the Apostle witnesseth, for popularity, and,
in so doing, even wrest and corrupt the scriptures, so that, as Jerome saith,
it is no longer the gospel of Christ, but of man, or what is worse, of the
devil, that they preach. Let the aforesaid holy Church of God, I say, arise,
and, with the aforesaid most blessed Apostles, intercede with God almighty,
that, their sheep being freed from all errors, and all heresies being excluded
from the borders of the faithful, he may deign to preserve the peace and unity
of his holy Church universal.
[The
Pope’s distress at the revamping of condemned Greek and Bohemian heresies.]
For some
time already, a matter, whereof we can scarcely make mention, because of our
distress and sorrow, hath come to our hearing by the report of trustworthy
persons, as well as by common rumour, yea, alas! we have even seen and read
with our own eyes many and various errors, viz., some condemned by the Councils
and Constitutions of our Predecessors, containing expressly the heresy of the
Greeks and Bohemians; but others, on their part, either heretical or false or
scandalous, or offensive to godly ears, or seductive to simple minds, recently
agitated and diffused among some trifling persons in the renowned German
nation, by false worshippers of faith, who, in their proud curiosity, aiming
for the glory of the world, want, in opposition to the doctrine of the Apostle,
to be wiser than they ought to
be; whose
garrulity (as Jerome saith) would have no credit, unless they seemed to support
their perverse doctrine also by divine testimonies, falsely interpreted, and
from whose eyes the fear of God hath vanished.
[The
distress the greater because the Germans were formerly such defenders of the
Church.]
For this
we grieve the more, because we and our Predecessors have always entertained for
this nation the highest affection. Inasmuch as, since the transfer of the
imperial power from the Greeks to the aforesaid Germans by the Roman Church,
our aforesaid Predecessors and we have always found among them advocates and
defenders of the same Church, it is manifest that these Germans, as true “
germans ” [brothers] of the Catholic truth, have always been the most zealous
assailants of heresies: as witnesses thereof, we appeal to the praiseworthy
laws of the German Emperors for the liberty of the Church, and for expelling
and exterminating heretics from all Germany, under the most severe penalties,
even the loss of lands and dominions, published in former times and confirmed
by our Predecessors, against those receiving or not expelling them, which laws
if enforced to-day, both we and they would undoubtedly be free from this
trouble. As witness thereof, we appeal to the condemnation and punishment of
the Hussites and Wiclifites, and of Jerome of Prague in the Council of
Constance. As witness thereof, we appeal to the frequent shedding of the blood
of the Germans in war against the Bohemians. As witness thereof, we appeal,
finally, to the no less learned than true and holy refutation, rejection and
condemnation of the aforenamed errors, or many of them, by the Universities of
Cologne and Louvain, most godly and devout tillers of the Lord’s
field.
Many more citations could be made, which we have decided should be omitted,
lest we might seem to be composing history.
[Forty-one
selected errors in the writings of Martin Luther.]
In the
exercise, therefore, of the pastoral office, entrusted us by divine grace, we
can without disgrace to the Christian religion, and injury to the orthodox
faith, neither tolerate nor pass by longer the deadly poison of the aforenamed
errors. Of these errors, we have thought that some should be here cited. Their
substance is as follows: 1
I. It is an heretical but a usual statement,
that the Sacraments of the new testament give justifying grace to those who
interpose no obstacle.
II. To deny that sin remains in a child after
baptism, is to treat both Paul and Christ with contempt.
III. The tinder of sin, even though no actual sin
be present, excludes a soul leaving the body from entrance into heaven.
IV. The imperfect love of a dying person
necessarily carries with it great fear, which is alone sufficient to produce
the punishment of purgatory, and prevents entrance into the kingdom.
V. There is no foundation in holy scripture or
in the ancient Christian teachers for the doctrine that there are three parts
of penitence, viz., contrition, confession, and satisfaction.
VI. One is made a hypocrite, aye, a great sinner,
by
[' Compare Luther’s answer to these forty-one alleged errors in his
Assertio omnium Articulorum, Weimar, vii., 91 sqq.; Op. var. arg.,
v., 154 sqq.; in German, Erlangen, 24 : 52 sqq.;
Walch, xv., 175, sqq.]
contrition
arising from self-examination, and reflection upon and detestation of sins,
whereby, in the bitterness of his soul, one reviews his years, by considering
the gravity of his sins, their multitude and heinousness, the loss of eternal
blessedness, and the penalty of eternal condemnation.
VII. Most true is the proverb, and preferable to the
doctrine of all hitherto taught concerning contrition, that not to do [penance]
is the highest penitence, and a new life the best penitence.
VIII. Presume in no way to confess venial, or
even mortal sins, because it is impossible to know all mortal sins; hence in the
primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.
IX. In wishing to confess all things absolutely,
we only show our unwillingness to leave anything for the mercy of God to
forgive.
X. No sins are forgiven, unless when the priest
forgives, the person believes that they are forgiven him; aye, sin would
remain unless he would believe that it is forgiven; for the remission of sins
and the bestowal of grace are insufficient, but one must believe that sin is
forgiven.
XI. Trust in no way that you are absolved because
of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: “Whatsoever ye shall
loose,” etc. So, I say, trust, if you have obtained absolution of a priest, and
believe firmly that you have been absolved; and without regard to contrition,
you will be truly absolved.
XII. If it were possible for a person not contrite
to confess, or for a priest to absolve not seriously, but in jest, and if one
should, nevertheless, believe that he were absolved, he would be absolved.
XIII. In the sacrament of penance, or
remission of
guilt, the
Pope or Bishop does no more than the lowest priest; aye, when there is no
priest, any Christian, even a woman or boy, would do equally well.
XIV. No one should answer the priest that he
is contrite, neither should the priest ask it of any one.
XV. Great is the error of those who come to the
sacrament of the Eucharist, relying upon the fact that they have confessed;
that they are not conscious of any mortal sins; that they have said their
prayers and made their preparations. All these eat and drink judgment to
themselves: but if they believe and trust that they will there receive grace,
this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.
XVI. It would be well for the Church, in a
general council, to resolve that the laity should commune under both forms; and
the Bohemians communing under both forms, are not heretic, but schismatics.
XVII. The treasures of the Church, from which
the Pope gives indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and the saints. -
XVIII. Indulgences are pious frauds upon
believers, and hindrances to good works, and belong to the number of those
things that are lawful, and not to the number of those that are expedient.
XIX. Indulgences do not avail, where truly
received, to remit the punishment which divine justice demands for actual sins.
XX. They are deceived who believe that indulgences
bring salvation, and a spiritual benefit.
XXI. Indulgences are necessary only for
public crimes, and are granted properly only to the hardened and impatient.
XXII. For six classes of men indulgences are
not necessary or useful: viz., the dead, or dying, the sick,
those
hindered for sufficient reason, those who have not committed crimes, those who
have committed crimes, but such as are not public, and those who have reformed.
XXIII. Excommunications are only outward punishments,
and do not deprive a man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
XXIV. Christians should be taught to love
rather than fear excommunication.
XXV. The Roman Pontiff, the successor of
Peter, is not the vicar of Christ, appointed by Christ Himself in St. Peter,
over all the churches of the world.
XXVI. The word of Christ to Peter: “ Whatsoever
thou shalt loose upon earth,” etc., extends only to those things which Peter
himself has bound.
XXVII. It is certain that it is within the power
neither of the Church nor of the Pope to frame articles of faith or commands
concerning morals or good works.
XXVIII. Even though the Pope, with the great part of
the Church, should think so and so, and in thus doing should not err, it is
still not a sin or heresy, to think the contrary, especially in a matter
unnecessary for salvation, until the one were rejected and the other approved
by a General Council.
XXIX. We have the liberty [Lit.: “The way has
been opened to us ”] to state the authority of Councils, and freely contradict
their doings and judge their decrees, and confidently confess whatever seems
true, whether it have been approved or rejected by any council.
XXX. Some articles of John Hus condemned in
the council of Constance are most Christian, true, and evangelical, and cannot
be condemned by the universal Church.
XXXI. In every good work, the righteous man
sins.
XXXII. A good work done in the best way is a
venial sin.
XXXIII. To burn heretics is against the will Of the
Spirit.
XXXIV. To war against the Turk is to resist God
visiting our iniquities upon us through them.
XXXV. No one is sure that he is not always
mortally sinning because of the most secret vice of pride.
XXXVI. Free Will after sin is a thing with the
title alone, and in doing what belongs to it, sins mortally.
XXXVII. Purgatory cannot be proved from the canonical
scriptures.
XXXVIII. Souls in purgatory are not secure with respect
to their salvation, at least not all; neither can it be proved either by reason
or Scripture, that they are beyond meriting or increasing love.
XXXIX. Souls in purgatory sin without intermission,
as long as they seek rest and dread punishments.
XL. Souls
delivered from purgatory by the intercessions of the living have less
happiness, than if they had made satisfaction of themselves.
XLI.
Ecclesiastical prelates and secular princes would do no wrong if they were to
entirely suppress all the mendicant orders.
[The Pope
denounces the sentences quoted as contrary to Catholic doctrine.]
No one of
sound mind is ignorant how poisonous, how pernicious, how scandalous, how
seductive to godly and simple minds, and, finally, how contrary to all love and
reverence for the holy Roman Church, the mother of all believers, and the
mistress of the faith, and the nerve of ecclesiastical discipline, obedience,
which is
the
fountain and source of all virtues, without which every one is proved to be an
infidel, these errors are. Desiring, therefore, in matters of such importance as
the aforesaid, to proceed earnestly (as the case demands), and to prevent the
spread of this pestilence and cancerous disease, like a noxious thorn in the
Lord’s field, and having subjected the aforesaid errors, one and all, to
diligent investigation and discussion, rigid examination and mature
deliberation, and having considered all things in due form and order, and
frequently reviewed them with our venerable brethren, the Cardinals of the holy
Roman Church and the Priors of the regular orders, or general ministers, and
very many other Masters of Sacred Theology, besides Professors or Masters of
both Laws, and those too the most accomplished,—we have found the errors (as
before said) to be either articles that are not catholic, or such as are not to
be regarded as dogmas, but to be contrary to the doctrine or tradition of the
Catholic Church, and the true interpretation of the divine scriptures received
therefrom, to whose authority, in the opinion of Augustine, such respect
should be shown that he would not believe the Gospel, unless the authority of
the Catholic Church would intervene. For according to these errors, or one or
several of them, it manifestly follows that the same Church that is ruled by
the holy Spirit errs and always has erred. This is undoubtedly contrary to what
Christ said to His disciples at His ascension (as it is read in the Gospel of
St. Matthew): “ I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world as well as
to the decisions of the holy Fathers, and to the express enactments or canons
of the Council and supreme Pontiffs, disobedience to which, according to the
testimony of Cyprian, has been the tinder and cause of all heresies and
schisms.
[The Pope
condemns the teaching of the sentences and prohibits it and its defence.]
By the
advice and with the approval, therefore, of our aforenamed venerable brethren,
and with the already mentioned mature deliberation of each and all the above,
upon the authority of God almighty, and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and
Paul, and our own, each and all the aforesaid articles, or errors (according to
what has been already stated), we condemn, repudiate, and altogether reject as
heretical or scandalous or false or offensive to pious ears, or seductive to
simple minds and opposed to the Catholic truth, and, in accordance with the
purpose of these letters, decree and declare that they should be treated as
condemned, repudiated, and rejected by all the faithful in Christ of both
sexes. We also prohibit, in virtue of the holy obedience, and under penalty of
the proclamation of the sentence of the greater excommunication, depriving
both Ecclesiastics and Regulars [/. e.y members of orders] of all the
ecclesiastical dignities or investitures of all Episcopal and also Patriarchal,
Metropolitan, and other Cathedral Churches, as well as of Monasteries,
Priories, and Convents, and the like, whether of Secular or Regular Orders, and
disqualifying them for these and other things to be obtained in the future.
Convents, Chapters, or houses, or pious places of seculars or regulars, also of
the Mendicants, and likewise the Universities we prohibit under penalty of the
deprival of whatever privileges have been granted by the Apostolic See or its
Legates, or have been held and obtained in any other way, and whatever be the
tenure by which they stand: likewise the deprival of the name and power of
conducting a university, and of lecturing upon and interpreting any sciences
and branches, and of disqualification for
these and
other things to be obtained in the future: also by the penalty of the loss of
the office of Preaching and of general study and of all the privileges thereof.
The seculars likewise we prohibit under penalty of the same excommunication and
the loss of every feudal tenure, whether acquired from the Roman Church, or in
any other way whatever, and also of disqualification of these and other things
to be obtained hereafter. Each and all the above-named we prohibit under
penalty of the prohibition of Ecclesiastical burial, and of disqualification
for each and all transactions at law, and the penalties of infamy, and
challenging and treason, and the punishments laid down in the law against
heretics and their favourers, to be incurred by the fact and without further
explanation by each and all the above-mentioned, if (as we hope not) they
withstand us. From these penalties they cannot be absolved in virtue of any
power and exceptions entrusted to any to whom confession shall be made, or
under any form of words whatever, unless by the Roman Pontiff, or one having
special authority therefor from him—those alone excepted who are at the point
of death. Each and all believers in Christ, of both sexes, Lay and Clerical,
Seculars and members of whatever Regular Order, and every other person, of
whatever estate, grade, or condition he may be, and in whatever worldly or
ecclesiastical dignity he may shine, even in the Holy Roman Church, the
Cardinals, Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, Bishops, and the prelates,
clergy, and other ecclesiastical persons of the Patriarchal, Metropolitan, and
other cathedral, Collegiate, and inferior churches, Clerks and other
Ecclesiastical persons, the Seculars and regulars of whatever Mendicant Orders,
the Abbots, Priors, or Ministers, whether general or particular, the Brethren
or Religious, exempt or non
exempt:
the Secular members of Universities, and regulars of whatever Order of
Mendicants, as well as Kings, the Electors of the Emperor, Princes, Dukes,
Marquises, Counts, Barons, Captains, Conductors, Chamberlains, and all Officials,
Judges, Ecclesiastical and Secular Notaries, Communities,Universities, Powers,
Cities, Camps, Lands, and places, or their citizens, inhabitants, and tenants,
or any other persons, Ecclesiastical or Regular (as before said), everywhere
throughout the world, especially living in Germany, or who for a time will live
there,—we warn not to presume to assert, affirm, defend, or preach the
above-named errors or any one of them, and such perverse doctrine, not in any
way, publicly or secretly, or from any purpose or pretext, silently or
expressly to favour them.
[Any use
of Luther’s writings prohibited, and they are to be publicly burned.]
Since the
errors aforenamed and many others are contained in the books or writings of
Martin Luther, the books mentioned and all the writings or sermons of said
Martin, whether found in Latin or any other idiom, in which the said errors or
any thereof are contained, we absolutely condemn, repudiate and entirely
reject, and wish them to be regarded as condemned, repudiated, and rejected (as
before said), enjoining in virtue of the holy obedience [that is due] and under
liability, by the very act, to the penalties aforenamed, each and every
faithful one in Christ, of both sexes above named, not to presume, in any way,
to read, quote, preach, commend, print, publish, or defend such writings,
books, sermons, or schedules, whether by himself or through others, directly or
indirectly, silently or expressly, publicly or secretly, or to possess them
either in their own houses or in other
public or
private places: but that immediately upon the publication of these letters,
wherever they may be, under penalty of each and all the above-named
punishments, the officials and others above mentioned make a diligent search
for said writings, and publicly and solemnly burn them, in the presence of the
clergy and the people.
[Stubbornness
of Luther in repelling the kind attempts of the Pope to convince him of his
error.]
As to
Martin himself (good God!) what office of paternal affection have we neglected
or left undone or omitted in order to recall him from such errors ? For since
wishing to proceed with great mildness, we cited him, and invited and exhorted
him, both through various interviews with our legate, and by letter, to desist
from the aforenamed errors, or, a safe-conduct and the necessary travelling
expenses being offered him, to come without fear or apprehension, and, although
it would have been consistent with perfect love to have cast him out, we urged
him to address us, according to the example of our Saviour and of the Apostle
Paul, not secretly, but openly, and face to face. Had he done this, he would
undoubtedly (as we think) have returned to his senses, and acknowledged his
errors, nor would he have found in the court of Rome as many errors as he
charges us with, by ascribing more weight than is their due to the vain rumours
of malevolent persons: and I would have taught him more clearly than light,
that the holy Roman Pontiffs, whom he maliciously attacks beyond all bounds, have
never erred in their canQns or constitutions, which he seeks to attack:
because, according to the prophet, neither balm nor a physician is wanting in
Gilead. BuV he has persistently disobeyed, and despising the above citation,
and each and all things above said, has borne
the
censures insolently and with a hardened heart for over a year: and what is
worse, adding evil to evil, having knowledge of said citation, he has broken
out in a declaration of a rash appeal to a future council, against the decree of
Pius the Second and Julius the Second our predecessors, whereby they who thus
appeal are warned that they will incur the penalty of heretics (for in vain
does he seek aid from a Council, who openly declares that he does not believe
such council); so that against him, as one notoriously under suspicion, with
respect to faith, we can proceed, without further citation or delay, to his
condemnation and damnation, as that of a heretic, and to the severity of each
and all above-enumerated penalties and censures.
[Repetition
of this kind attempt.]
Nevertheless,
at the advice of the same brethren, imitating the clemency of almighty God,
who wishes not the death of a sinner, but rather that he may be converted and
live, forgetful of all the injuries thus far offered us and the Apostolic see,
we have determined to exercise all gentleness, and, so far as in us lies, to
act so that, the way of clemency being offered him, he may be brought back to
his senses, and withdraw from the aforenamed errors, that we may kindly receive
him, as a prodigal returning to the bosom of the Church. With our whole heart,
therefore, we exhort and beg the said Martin and his adherents and his
harbourers and favourers, by the bowels of mercy of our God, and by the
sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, by and through whom the
redemption of the human race and the building up of the holy mother Church
have been accomplished, to desist from disturbing the peace, unity, and truth
of the Church, for which the Saviour so earnestly
prayed the
Father, and to abstain entirely from the said pernicious errors, with the
assurance that, if they effectually obey, and certify us by legal documents,
that they have so obeyed, they shall find with us the affection of paternal
love, and the opened fountain of mildness and clemency.
[Luther
and his followers silenced and given sixty days to publicly recant.]
Enjoining,
nevertheless, the said Martin, from now on, meanwhile, to desist from all
preaching or office of preaching, and otherwise [declaring] against Martin
himself, that, if perchance the love of virtue do not withdraw him from sin,
and the hope of indulgence lead him to repentance, the terror of the discipline
of punishment may restrain him; the same Martin and his adherents,
accomplices, favourers, and harbourers, we require according to the tenor of
the present letters, and we admonish, in virtue of the holy obedience [that is
due] and we command by rigidly directing that, under liability of incurring by
the deed, each and all the penalties to be incurred by the very act, that,
within sixty days immediately following (of which twenty for the first, twenty
for the second, and the remaining twenty for the third peremptory limit), to be
reckoned from the posting up of the present letters in the below-named places,
Martin himself, his accomplices, favourers, adherents, and harbourers
aforementioned, altogether desist from the above-named errors, and their
proclamation, publication, assertion, and defence, and from the circulation of
books or writings upon them or any of them, and that they burn or cause to be
burned all the books and writings, containing, in any way, each or all the
aforesaid errors, or any one of them. That Martin
LUDWIQ VON
SECKENDORF,
THE
HISTORIAN OF THE REFORMATION. FROM AN ENGRAVING BY HEINZELMANN.
himself
also entirely recall such errors and assertions, and inform us concerning such
recall by public documents, in the valid form of law, signed by two prelates,
and to be transmitted to us within other sixty days, or in person if he be
willing to come to us (as we would prefer) with the aforenamed unlimited
safe-conduct, which, from now on, we grant, in order to remove every scruple of
doubt as to his true obedience.
[If they
do not recant they are to be condemned as heretics and handed over to the
secular arm for punishment.]
But if (as
we hope not) the said Martin and the aforesaid accomplices, favourers,
adherents, and harbourers do otherwise, or do not fulfil effectually each and
all their promises within the set limit, in accord with the teaching of the
Apostle, who declared that an heretical man, after the first and second
admonitions, is to be avoided, from now as from then, and conversely, we
condemn the same Martin and the said accomplices, adherents, favourers, and
harbourers, and any of them, as withered branches not abiding in Christ, but
teaching a contrary doctrine, hostile to the Catholic faith, whether scandalous
and condemned, to the no small offence of the divine majesty, and a detriment
and scandal to the universal Church and the Catholic faith, depreciating the
keys of the Church, and declaring that notorious and obstinate heretics have
been and are of the same authority, and as in the rank of such heretics; and we
will and command that they be regarded such by all the faithful in Christ above
mentioned of both sexes. These, all and each, we subject to all the above-named
and other penalties inflicted by law against such, and declare and decree that
they are and have been ensnared in the same.
[The
Faithful are to burn the writings of Luther, under penalty of being condemned
and punished like him.] Under liability to incur, by the very act, all and each
of the aforenamed punishments, we enjoin upon each and all the faithful in
Christ above named, not to presume in any way to read, quote, refer to,
praise, print, publish, or defend, either by themselves or by another or
others, directly or indirectly, silently or expressly, publicly or secretly, or
to have in their homes or other places, public or private, even the writings or
any of them not containing the above-named errors, that have either been
already published or that are to be composed and published hereafter by the
said Martin, but, as aforesaid, to burn them, since they are written by a man
hostile to the orthodox faith, and, therefore, are particularly under
suspicion, and that the memory of him may be entirely obliterated from the
faithful in Christ.
[The
Faithful must have no intercourse with the Lutheran heretics under penalty of
excommunication after the limit has been passed.]
Furthermore,
under penalty of the same sentence of excommunication, we admonish each and all
the abovementioned faithful in Christ, after the expiration of the limit
stated, to avoid the declared and condemned heretics aforesaid, who do not
comply with our commands, and, so far as they can, cause them to be avoided,
and neither with the same nor with any of them to have communication or any conversation
or intercourse, nor to supply them with the necessaries of life.
[The
Faithful, lay and clerical, are required to arrest Luther and his followers and
send them to Rome after the limit has been passed.]
Besides,
for the greater confusion of said Martin and
his
accomplices, favourers, adherents, and harbourers, and thus of those declared
and condemned heretics after the expiration of the fixed limit, we command each
and all faithful in Christ of both sexes, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops,
the Prelates and Chapters and other ecclesiastical persons of Patriarchal,
Metropolitan, and other cathedral, collegiate, and inferior churches, secular
or regular, whatever be the Order of Mendicants (especially those of the
congregation of which said Martin is a member, and in which he is said to be
living and staying) exempt and non-exempt, and each and every prince, whatever
be the ecclesiastical or worldly dignity in which he shine, Kings, Electors of
the Emperor, Dukes, Marquises, Counts, Barons, Captains, Conductors,
Chamberlains, Communities, Universities, Powers, Cities, Lands, Camps, and
places, or their inhabitants, citizens, and tenants, and all others, each and
everyone, above mentioned throughout the whole World, especially those living
in Germany, that, under the aforenamed penalties, all and each, they or any of
them, personally arrest the said Martin, and his accomplices, adherents,
harbourers, and favourers, and hold them when arrested subject to our demand,
and send them to us, to receive in return for so good a work from us and the
Apostolical'See due remuneration and reward; or, at least, that the clergy and
the members of Orders, as well as the laymen, one and all above named, entirely
expel them, and every one of them, from the Metropolitan, Cathedral,
Collegiate, and other churches, houses, Monasteries, Convents, Cities, Domains,
Universities, Communities, Camps, Lands, and territories respectively.
[An
interdict will lie upon any place harbouring Luther or his followers.]
But the
Cities, Domains, Lands, Camps, Villages, palaces, fortresses, Towns, and
places, wherever they may lie, as well as their Metropolitan, Cathedral, Collegiate,
and other churches, Monasteries, Priories, Houses, Convents, and religious
places, of whatever order (as before said), to which the said Martin or any of
the aforenamed may resort are to be shunned, [and] we subject [them] to the
ecclesiastical interdict as long as he remains there and for three days after
his departure.
[All
ecclesiastics enjoined to announce the condemnation of Luther and his
followers.]
And, in
order that what is above declared may be made known to all, we command all the
Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, the Prelates of the Patriarchal,
Metropolitan, and other cathedral and collegiate churches, Chapters, and other
ecclesiastical persons, whether seculars or regulars, of whatever Order,
members of religious fraternities, whether exempt or non-exempt monks, as above
mentioned, everywhere, and especially those living in Germany, that they or any
of them, under liability of incurring by the very act the same censures and
penalties, to publicly announce in their churches, on the Lord’s Day and other
festival days, when the largest number of people assemble for divine worship,
that the said Martin and each and all those above mentioned, who at the
expiration of the time have not obeyed our commands and admonitions, have been
declared heretics, and condemned, and to cause and order such announcement to
be made by others, and that they be avoided by all. Likewise, that all the
Christian faithful avoid them, in like manner under the abovenamed censure and
penalties. And that they cause the present letters or a copy of them made
according to the form below written,
to be
read, published, and posted in their churches, monasteries, houses, convents,
and other places. We also excommunicate and anathematise each and all of
whatever estate, rank, condition, eminence, dignity, and excellence, who shall
do aught or in any way provide, by himself, or through another or others,
publicly or secretly, directly or indirectly, silently or expressly, to hinder
the present letters or transcripts or copies thereof from being read, posted
and published in their lands and dominions.
[Certified
copies of this Bull will answer in place of the original for posting.]
Lastly,
since it will be difficult to send the present letters to every place where
necessary, we determine and decree by Apostolic authority, that transcripts of
the same prepared and signed by the hand of a public notary, or printed in the
nourishing City [Rome], and attested by the seal of any ecclesiastical Prelate,
shall, when presented or displayed, have everywhere equal authority and
credit, as the original letters.
[Plan to
make it impossible that Luther should be ignorant of the Bull.]
And lest
the aforementioned Martin and all the others above named, whom the present
letters in any way concern, should be able to pretend ignorance of these same
letters and of each and all contained therein, we will that the same letters be
published, and posted on the doors of the Cathedral of the Chief of the
Apostles, and of the Apostolic Chancellery, as well as of the Cathedrals of the
churches of Brandenburg, Meissen, and Merseburg, decreeing that the publication
of the same letters thus made binds the above-mentioned
Martin and
each and all others whom such letters concern, just as though these letters on
the day when they were posted up and published, had been personally read to
such and had been made known to them, since it is not probable that those
things which are done so openly should remain unknown to them.
[No legal
hindrance to the Bull.]
Nor do the
apostolical laws and ordinances oppose any hindrance, or, if any indulgence or
concession exist that has been conceded to all and each of the above mentioned
or any of them, or to any others, by the abovementioned Apostolical See, or by
those having authority from it, under whatever form (even in letters of indulgence
and with some most strong reservations) or from whatever cause, or important
consideration, that they cannot be interdicted, suspended, or excommunicated by
Apostolical letters, which make no full and explicit, and word for word
mention, but only imply the same by general exceptions,—having the grants,
causes, and forms of the same favour, as though they had been inserted word for
word, so that present things being regarded as expressly stated, the entire
provision is annulled.
[No one
dare oppose the Bull under penalty of the Divine anger.]
Let no
one, therefore, infringe upon, or, by his rash boldness, contradict this page
of our condemnation, reprobation, rejection, decree, declaration, inhibition,
will, command, exhortation, obsecration, requisition, monition, assignment,
concession, condemnation, subjection, excommunication, and anathematisation.
If, however, any presume to attempt this, let him know that he shall incur the
indignation of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.
Given at
St Peter’s, Rome, in the year of the incarnation of our Lord, the One Thousand
Five Hundred and Twentieth. On the seventeenth day before the first of July [/.
e., Friday, June 15th]. The Eighth Year of our pontificate.
Attested. R. Milanesius.
Albergatus.
Printed at
Rome by Jacob Mazochius.
By command
of S. D. N. [/. our holy Lord] Pope [Leo X.].
[As the
papal Bulls are called after the opening word or words, this is cited as “
Exsurge Domini,” these being the first two words.]
LUTHER’S CONFESSION
[In the invaluable series of volumes that have been in process of
publication under the authority of the British Government for a number of
years, known as “The Master of the Rolls Series,” there is much material drawn
from the archives of various European governments, bearing upon Luther and the
history of the Reformation that has not been utilised by Church historians. In
the volume of the Venetian Papers, published under the title: Calendar of State
Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Archives
and Collections of Venice and in Other Libraries of Northern Italy, vol. iv.,
1527-1533, edited by Rawson Brown, published by the authority of the Lords
Commissioners of Her Majesty’s Treasury, under the direction of the Master of
the Rolls, London, 1871, there is an Appendix, pp. 497-515, with thirty-five
documents, under the heading “ The Confession of Augsburg.” Among these
documents is the following translation of what is called “ Luther’s
Confession,” which is marked as registered by Paul Sanuto, the Venetian
ambassador to Germany, May 31, 1531. It proves to be a most admirable
translation of the Schwabach Articles of October 16, 1529, found in Latin in
the histories of the Augsburg Confession by Chytraeus (159 sqq.) and Coelestine
(25 sqq.). The fact that at the date given it was in the hands of Sanuto,
indicates that its presentation as the confession of the Lutheran Princes was
at that time under consideration. The dependence of the Augsburg Confession
upon it is self-evident. We insert it with the punctuation and capitalisation
of the Roll Series, as a most accurate official summary of Luther’s teaching.]
CONFESSION OF THE OPINION OR MANIFESTO (RES- OLUTIO INTENTIONIS) OF
MARTIN LUTHER; FOR PROPOSAL IN THE PRESENT IMPERIAL DIET OF AUGSBURG, COMPRISED
IN SEVENTEEN ARTICLES.
1st Article.—Man is to be taught firmly and “ unani- miter ” that the
only (solum unicuni) true God is the Creator of Heaven and Earth, so that (ita
quod) in the single (unicd) true, divine essence, there be three distinct
persons, namely, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost; which Son
begotten of the Father, being eternally by nature from the beginning true God
together with the Father and the Holy Ghost (proceeding ?) from the one and
the other, from the Father and from the Son, he likewise from the beginning
being eternally by nature true God with the Father and the Son; all which can
be clearly and irrefragably demonstrated by Holy Writ, according to the First
of John: “ In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God. All things were made by him,” &c., and in the last of
Matthew: “ Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Ilnd Article.—That God’s
Son alone became man, of a pure virgin born, perfect in body and mind; nor were
the Father and the Holy Ghost made man, as taught by certain heretics. Moreover
the Son did not assume the body alone, without the soul, as the Phocinians
(Photi- niani) said; as in the Gospel he himself very often speaks of his soul,
as when he says: “ My soul is sorrowful unto death,” &c.; and that the Son
of Man be man, is expressly said by St. John, chapter i: “And the Word was made
flesh,” and in the 4th chapter of Gala
tians: “
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son,” &c.
Illrd
Article.—That God the Son, true God and Lord Jesus Christ, be one sole
indivisible Person, [who] suffered for us men, was crucified, died, was
buried, rose again the third day from the dead, ascended into heaven, sat on
the right hand of God, Lord over the whole creation (super omnes creaturas) so
that it neither may nor can be believed or taught that Jesus Christ, as man, or
as having assumed this human form, suffered for us; but that it should be
believed and taught that under this form, being God and man, not two persons
but one person indivisible, God and man, Son of God, he really suffered for us:
as in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: “ He that spared not his own son, but delivered
him up for us all ”; and in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 2, “
for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory.”
IVth
Article.—That original sin be a real sin according to the correct, true
quality, nature or form of sin, and not merely a lack (privacio) deficiency, or
want, but sin of such a sort, that it condemns and separates from God all men
descended from Adam, had not Jesus Christ presented himself for us, taking upon
himself this sin, and all sins proceeding thence, atoning for them by his
passion, having thus entirely removed and cancelled them in himself, as clearly
written concerning this sin in 52 (sic 51st) Psalm and Rom. 5.
Vth
Article.—As now therefore, all men are sinners subject to sin and death, and
moreover to the Devil likewise, it is impossible for any man by his own
exertions and good works, to rid, disembarrass and free himself from them by
these works, or by their means justify himself anew, or become assuredly good
and just;
nor can he prepare or dispose himself for justice or justification; nay, the
more he proposes, or intends, labouring of himself to exonerate, free or purge
and justify himself, the worse does his condition become. The only way
therefore to justice (justitiam) and the absolution from sin and death is
this—without any merit or work to have faith and believe in the Son of God, who
suffered for us, etc. as aforesaid. This faith is our justice; for God of his
justice, goodness and holiness, commands (Deus enim vult) man to believe and
hold, that He has chosen to pardon the sins of all men, or give them
gratuitously, life eternal. Those who have this faith in the Son of God are
through that Son to be received into His grace, and be sons in His kingdom,
etc. All these things are taught diffusely by Saints Paul and John, in their
epistles, as in chapter 10 to the Romans: “For with the heart man believeth
unto righteousness,” etc. ; and in the 3rd chapter of St. John: “ He that
believeth on the Son, doth not perish, but hath everlasting life.”
Vlth
Article.—That this faith is not human, nor even possible for our strength, but
is the work of God, and a gift which the Holy Ghost operates in us given us
through Christ; and such like faith, when not feeble, or an infirm opinion, or
an obscure adhesion of the heart, such as the pseudo-faithful have, but a
vigorous, fresh, lively, essential substance, is a thing bearing much fruit;
always operating good things with regard to God, praising, thanking, praying,
preaching and teaching; with regard to man (erga proximum) loving, serving,
aiding, counselling, lending and enduring every adversity until death.
Vllth
Article.—To acquire for, or give us men this faith, God instituted the office
of preaching or the word
of the
allocution of the mouth, that is to say, of the tongue, namely the Gospel, by
means of which he causes the utility and fruit of this faith and power, or
virtue, to be promulgated and preached; and for this same word, thus sown, he
also gives, as the means, the faith, through his Holy Ghost. Notwithstanding
the opinion of others, there is no other mode, or way, or path, or road, to acquire
the faith. Our meditations, save and except the word of mouth (verbum oris),
although they may appear holy and good, are, nevertheless, vain, mendacious and
erroneous.
Vlllth
Article.—With regard to this “word” of preaching (prczdicationis) delivered by
the living mouth, or together with it, God also instituted external signs
called sacraments, especially baptism and the eucharist, through which,
together with the “ word,” God also gives faith and his Holy Ghost, and comfort
to all who desire it.
IXth
Article.—Baptism—the first sign or sacrament— is effected by two things—by
water and by the word of God. Baptism is performed by water, and the utterance
of the word of God; the effect being produced not by mere water or washing—as
now taught by the blasphemers about baptism; but by uniting the word of God
with the sprinkling of water; which washing, based on the word of God, is holy
and efficacious; as in St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus, chapter 3, and to the
Ephesians, chapter 5, “ the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy
Ghost ” (Tit. 3: 5), and “ that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the word ” (Eph. 5: 26). And this baptism be administered
and communicated even to infants, as the words of God, whereon baptism is based
are these: “ Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ” (Matth.
28: 19).
He who will believe, must believe this likewise {qui crediderit, et jam ibi
oportet credere).
Xth
Article.—That the Eucharist or sacrament of the Altar, consists moreover in two
things, and especially that there be truly (veraciter) present in the bread and
wine, the true body and blood of Christ, according to the tenour of the words:
“ This is my Body; this is my Blood,” and not merely the bread and wine, as the
appearance would cause it to be believed. These words require faith, and
moreover induce it in all who desire the sacrament, and do not act contrary
thereto; in like manner, as baptism also lends and gives faith, when the desire
for it exists.
Xlth
Article. — That secret confession (confessio secreta) ought not to be
compulsory as precept and law, but free, neither should baptism itself, the
Sacraments, the Gospel (evangelium) be enforced ; though it be known that the
consolation is wholesome, fruitful, useful and good; that thereby
absolution—which is the word and sentence of God—is given. The conscience being
thus free, relieved and tranquillized, recovers from its mental disquietude;
but it is not at all necessary to enumerate every sin, merely notifying and
concealing such as corrode (mordent) the heart and disquiet it.
XHth
Article.—That there is no doubt whatever but that the Holy Christian Church
will last on earth eternally, as Christ says in the last of Matthew: “ Lo, I
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.” This Church is formed by
the believers in Christ, who maintain, believe and teach the aforesaid
articles and particulars (articulos et particulas) and, therefore, suffer
persecution and martyrdom in the world; for where the Gospel is preached and
the sacraments rightly administered or conferred, there is the Holy Christian
Church;
nor is it
to be fashioned, instructed or bound by institutions, rights or laws, by
extrinsics, state, pomp or mode of living, custom or habit, nor by hours or
seasons, persons or ceremonies.
XHIth
Article.—That our Lord Jesus Christ will come at the end of the world, to judge
the living and the dead, and will free his faithful [followers] from all evil,
and will lead them into life eternal; he will punish the infidels and those
condemned by God, namely bad men; and will condemn them eternally, together
with the Devil, to Hell.
XlVth
Article.—That in the meanwhile until the Lord shall come to [pass] judgment and
[assume] all power (potestatem) and sovereign dominion (dominandi superior-
itatem), the secular and temporal sovereignty and dominion is to be honored
and obeyed, as a Government (statui), thus ordained for the defence of good men
and the dispersion of the wicked; so that a Christian man when cited in a
regular or legitimate manner for this purpose, without deceit, and peril to his
faith and salvation of his soul, may bless or adhere to that Government, and
serve it diligently.
XVth
Article.—From the whole writing, it appears, that the doctrine which forbids
marriage to priests and friars—namely the clergy—and to the people in general
meat and food (carries ac cibos) is all of a piece (una par iter cu7ti omnt).
XVIth
Article.—That amongst all the errors or things to be avoided, there be included
the mass, hitherto considered so efficacious and so much reverenced, that
thereby one man procured grace for another. Instead of it be the divine
ordinance or disposition observed, the Holy Sacrament of the body and blood of
Christ; be it administered under both forms to every one, according to his
faith, and the measure of his need.
DUKE
ERNEST THE PIOUS, CHAMPION OF THE LUTHERAN CAUSE IN THE THIRTY YEARS’ WAR.
FROM AN
ENGRAVING BY JACOB SANDRART.
XVIIth
Article.—That the church ceremonies at variance with Holy Writ be abolished.
The observance of the others to be optional, in such wise as not to create
scandal causelessly or from levity; and that the common peace be not disturbed
unnecessarily.
Registered by Sanuto,
May 31st.
, Publishers—London