Produced by Giovanni Fini, David Garcia, Marilynda Fraser-Cunliffe and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries) TRANSCRIBERâS NOTES: âObvious print and punctuation errors were corrected. âWhereas adequate character is unavalaible, superscripts are rendered as word^[sup]. LUTHER NIHIL OBSTAT C. SCHUT, S.T.D., _Censor Deputatus._ IMPRIMATUR EDM. CAN. SURMONT, _Vic. Gen._ _Westmonasterii, die 10 Julii, 1913._ LUTHER BY HARTMANN GRISAR, S.J. PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK AUTHORISED TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN BY E. M. LAMOND EDITED BY LUIGI CAPPADELTA VOLUME III LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÃBNER & CO., LTD. BROADWAY HOUSE, 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C. 1914 A FEW PRESS OPINIONS OF VOLUME I âHis most elaborate and systematic biography ... is not merely a book to be reckoned with; it is one with which we cannot dispense, if only for its minute examination of Lutherâs theological writings.ââ_The AthenÃ¦um._ âThere is no room for any sort of question as to the welcome ready among English-speaking Roman Catholics for this admirably made translation of the first volume of the German monograph by Professor Grisar on the protagonist of the Reformation in Europe.... The book is so studiously scientific, so careful to base its teaching upon documents, and so determined to eschew controversies that are only theological, that it cannot but deeply interest Protestant readers.ââ_The Scotsman._ âFather Grisar has gained a high reputation in this country through the translation of his monumental work on the History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages, and this first instalment of his life of Luther bears fresh witness to his unwearied industry, wide learning, and scrupulous anxiety to be impartial in his judgments as well as absolutely accurate in matters of fact.ââ_Glasgow Herald._ âIt is impossible to understand the Reformation without understanding the life and character of the great German. The man and the work are so indissolubly united that we cannot have right judgments about either without considering the other. It is one of Father Grisarâs many merits that he does not forget for a single moment the fundamental importance of this connection. The man and his work come before us in these illuminating pages, not as more or less harmonious elements, but as a unity, and we cannot analyse either without constant reference to the other.ââ_Irish Times._ âProfessor Grisar is hard on Luther. Perhaps no Roman Catholic can help it. But it is significant that he is hard on the anti-Lutherans also.... He shows us, indeed, though not deliberately, that some reformation of religion was both imperative and inevitable.... But he is far from being overwhelmed with prejudice. He really investigates, uses good authorities, and gives reasons for his judgments.ââ_The Expository Times._ âThis Life of Luther is bound to become standard ... a model of every literary, critical, and scholarly virtue.ââ_The Month._ âThe most important book on Luther that has appeared since Denifleâs epoch-making âLuther und Luthertum.â ... It is an ordered biography, ... and is therefore very probably destined to a wider general usefulness as a Catholic authority.ââ_The Irish Rosary._ CONTENTS CHAPTER XV. ORGANISATION AND PUBLIC POSITION OF THE NEW CHURCH _pages_ 3-108 1. LUTHERâS RELIGIOUS SITUATION. WAS HIS REACTION A BREAK WITH RADICALISM? The New Church, with its binding formularies of faith and its constituted authorities, contrasted with Lutherâs earlier demands for freedom from all outward bonds. The change which occurred in his mind in 1522. What prompted the reaction? Did Luther, prior to 1522, ever cherish the idea of a âreligion minus dogmaâ? His clear design from the beginning to preserve all the Christian elements deemed by him essential. His assertion of the freedom of the Christian; the negations it logically involved pass unperceived. Greater stress laid on the positive elements after 1522; the subjective counter-current. Ecclesiastical anarchy. Modern Protestants more willing than was Luther to push his principles to their legitimate consequences. Conclusion: The reaction which set in in 1522 implied no real change of view. How Luther contrived to conceal from himself and from others the incompatibility of his leanings _pages_ 3-21 2. FROM THE CONGREGATIONAL TO THE STATE CHURCH. SECULARISATIONS. Previous to espousing the idea of the Congregational Church Luther invites the secular authorities to interfere; his âAn den christlichen Adelâ; his hopes shattered; Lutherâs new ideal: the Evangel not intended for all; the assembly of true Christians; the Wittenberg congregation and the model one established at Leisnig. The Congregational Church proving impracticable, Luther advocates a popular Church; its evolution into the State Church as it afterwards obtained in Protestant Germany. Secularisation of church property in the Saxon Electorate. Lutherâs view as to the use to which church property should be put by the rulers; he complains of princely avarice. Secularisation of the marriage-courts; matrimonial cases dealt with by secular lawyers; Lutherâs antipathy for lawyers, how accounted for _pages_ 21-43 3. THE QUESTION OF THE RELIGIOUS WAR; LUTHERâS VACILLATING ATTITUDE. THE LEAGUE OF SCHMALKALDEN, 1531. Luther casts all reserve to the winds; his resolve to proceed regardless of the consequences. His earlier opposition to armed resistance; his memoranda on the subject clearly evince his hesitation. His change of view in 1530; reasons why he veered round; the change kept secret; difficulties with the Nurembergers; a tell-tale memorandum published by CochlÃ¦us. The League of Schmalkalden; Lutherâs hopes and fears; a new memorandum. Lutherâs misgivings regarding Philip of Hesseâs invasion of WÃ¼rtemberg; the expedition turning out successful is blessed by Luther. The religious war in Lutherâs private conversations in later years. Later memoranda. A question from Brandenburg. Later attempts to deny the authenticity of the document signed by Luther in 1530 _pages_ 43-76 4. THE TURKS WITHOUT AND THE TURKS [PAPISTS] WITHIN THE EMPIRE. The danger looming in the East. Lutherâs earlier pronouncements (previous to 1524) against any military measures being taken to prevent the Turkish inroads; attitude of the preachers; imminent danger of the Empire after the battle of Mohacz; Lutherâs âVom Kriege widder die TÃ¼rckenâ registers a change of front; his âHeer-Predigt widder den TÃ¼rckenâ and the approval it conveys of warlike measures against the invader; he robs his call to arms of most of its force by insisting on his pet ideas; his later sayings on the subject; the Turk not so dangerous a foe as Popery _pages_ 76-93 5. LUTHERâS NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM. Lutherâs sayings about the virtues and vices of his own countrymen; his teaching sunders the Empire and undermines the Imperial authority; his advocacy of resistance; the âProphet of the Germansâ; discouragement of trade and science; DÃ¶llinger on Luther as the typical German; the power of the strong man gifted with a facile tongue _pages_ 93-108 CHAPTER XVI. THE DIVINE MISSION AND ITS MANIFESTATIONS _pages_ 109-168 1. GROWTH OF LUTHERâS IDEA OF HIS DIVINE MISSION. His conviction of his special call and enlightenment; his determination to brook no doubt; all his actions controlled from on high; finds a confirmation of his opinion in the extent of his success and in his deliverance from his enemies; his untiring labours and disregard for personal advancement; the problem presented by the union in him of the fanatic mystic with the homely, cheerful man enjoying to the full the good things that come his way; his superstitions; his âtemptationsâ promote his progress in wisdom. His consciousness of his Mission intensified at critical junctures, for instance, during his stay at the Wartburg; his letter to Staupitz in 1522; his statement: It is Godâs Word. Let what cannot stand fall _pages_ 109-128 2. HIS MISSION ALLEGED AGAINST THE PAPISTS. How Luther describes the Pope and his Court; his call to reform Catholics generally; his caricature of Erasmus; how later Protestants have taken Lutherâs claims. Lutherâs apocalyptic dreams; his exegesis of Daniel viii.; the Papal Antichrist: A system rather than a man; Lutherâs work on Chronology. The Monk-Calf as a Divine sign of the abomination of Popery and monasticism. Lutherâs âAmenâ to Melanchthonâs Pope-Ass _pages_ 128-153 3. PROOFS OF THE DIVINE MISSION. MIRACLES AND PROPHECIES. Luther on the proofs required to establish an extraordinary mission. The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary calls. His appeal to the rapid diffusion of his doctrine; the real explanation of this spread not far to seek. His appeal to his doctorate, to his appointment by authority, and, finally, to the âWord of Truthâ which was the burden of his preaching. Lutherâs account of the âmiracleâ of Florentinaâs escape from her convent. His unwillingness to ask for the grace of working miracles; his demand that the fanatics should work miracles to substantiate their claims; his allusions to the power of his own prayer in restoring the sick to health. The gift of prophecy; Luther loath to predict anything âlest it should come true.â His own so-called predictions. Earlier predictions of mystics and astrologers taken by him as referring to himself _pages_ 153-168 CHAPTER XVII. GLIMPSES OF A REFORMERâS MORALS _pages_ 169-318 1. LUTHERâS VOCATION: HIS STANDARD OF LIFE. What may rightly be looked for in a reformer of the Church. Lutherâs contemporaries on his shortcomings: Joh. Findling, Erasmus, and Ferreri. The remedy proposed by Luther to drive away depression, viz. self-indulgence _pages_ 169-180 2. SOME OF LUTHERâS PRACTICAL PRINCIPLES OF LIFE. His contradictory views on sin, and on penance; his ideas suited to meet his own case and to relieve his own conscience. His attitude towards human endeavour; predestination and unfreedom; the devilâs dominion; the failings of the Saints. âBe a sinner and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still.â Protestant strictures on Lutherâs doctrine of sin _pages_ 180-199 3. LUTHERâS ADMISSIONS CONCERNING HIS OWN PRACTICE AND VIRTUE. Luther on the weakness of his own faith, his doubts, his utter misery, and the shortcomings of his life. His attitude towards prayer; prayer mingled with imprecation; his threatened prayer against dishonest brewers. Christian joy and peace. Preparation for the sacraments. Mortification and self-conquest. Mediocrity as the aim of ethics. Lack of zeal for the salvation of all men; disregard for missionary work. Luther in his home; minor disappointments _pages_ 200-217 4. THE TABLE-TALK AND THE FIRST NOTES OF THE SAME. Lutherâs evening conversations at Wittenberg recorded by his friends; utility of the notes they left; Walch, Kroker and others on the authority of these notes. Excerpts from the Table-Talk: The pith of the new religion, viz. confidence in Christ. Catholic practices and institutions described: The Mass, fasting, confession, the religious life. Praises heaped on the Table-Talk by Lutherâs early disciples. Luther himself responsible for the foulness of the language. Pommerâs way of dealing with the devil. Filthy references to the Pope; unseemly comparisons; â_adorabunt nostra stercora_.â Such language by no means confined to the Table-Talk; a few quotations from Lutherâs âWider das Bapstum zu Rom.â An excuse alleged, viz. that such language was then quite usual. Sir Thomas Moreâs protest. A modern defender of Luther. The real explanation of Lutherâs unrestraint _pages_ 217-241 5. ON MARRIAGE AND SEXUALITY. On the imperative necessity of marriage; the irresistibility of the natural impulse; the world full of adulterers? The âmiracleâ of voluntary and chaste celibacy. Lutherâs animus against Popish celibacy. His loosening of the marriage-bond. Cases in which marriage is annulled. Meaning of the words âIf the wife refuse, then let the maid come.â A modern secularistâs appeal to Lutherâs principles. Polygamy. Luther, after some hesitation, comes to tolerate polygamy, but makes it a matter of the _forum internum_. The opinions of Catholic theologians. âSecret marriagesâ and concubinage; what those have to do who are forbidden by law to contract marriage. Denial of the sacramental character of matrimony. Lutherâs tone in speaking of things sexual; a letter to Spalatin; regret expressed for offensive manner of speech; odious comparisons contained in his âVom Schem Hamphorasâ (against the Jews) and âWider Hans Worstâ (against the Catholics); improper anecdotes; Luther, like Abraham, âthe father of a great people,â viz. of the children of all the monks and nuns who discarded their vows _pages_ 241-273 6. CONTEMPORARY COMPLAINTS. LATER FALSE REPORTS. Simon Lemnius; fanatics and Anabaptists; Catholics: Hieronymus Dungersheim, Duke George, Ambrosius Catharinus, Hoyer of Mansfeld; Protestants: Melanchthon, Leo Judae, Zwingli, Bullinger, Joh. Agricola. How far the complaints were grounded. Apocryphal legends to Lutherâs discredit: Had Luther three children of his own apart from those born to him by Bora? His jesting letters to his wife not to be taken seriously. Did he indulge in the âworst orgiesâ with the escaped nuns in the Black Monastery of Wittenberg? The passages âwhich will not bear repetition.â Whether Luther as a young monk declared he would bring things to such a pass as to be able to marry a girl; Wolfgang Agricolaâs authority for this statement and the information he gives concerning Spalatin. Lutherâs stay as a boy in Cottaâs house at Eisenach no ground for a charge of immorality. Did Luther describe the lot of the hog as the most enviable goal of happiness? Did he allow the validity of marriage between brother and sister? Whether he counselled people to pray for many wives and few children; variants of an ancient rhyme. Did he include wives in the âdaily breadâ for which we pray in the Our Father? Was he the inventor of the proverb: âWho loves not woman, wine and song, remains a fool his whole life longâ? _pages_ 273-294 7. THE âGOOD DRINK.â Need of examining critically the charges made against Luther; the number of his literary productions scarcely compatible with his having been an habitual drunkard. Testimonies of Musculus, the âDicta Melanchthoniana,â Ickelsamer, Lemnius, etc. Opinions of Catholics: Catharinus, Hoyer of Mansfeld, Joh. Landau and others. Lutherâs own statements about his âGood Drinkâ; his reasons for such indulgence; his distinction between drinking and drunkenness; his reprobation of habitual drunkenness. Melanchthon and Mathesius, two witnesses to Lutherâs temperance. From the cellar and the tap-room; gifts in kind made to Luther; his calls on the cellar of the Wittenberg council; the signature â_Doctor plenus_â appended to one of his letters to be read as â_Doctor Johannes_â; the âold wineâ of the Coburg and Lutherâs indisposition in 1530; beer _versus_ wine _pages_ 294-318 CHAPTER XVIII. LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON _pages_ 319-378 1. MELANCHTHON IN THE SERVICE OF LUTHERANISM, 1518-30. What Luther owed to his friend. Their earlier relations; Lutherâs unstinted praise; Melanchthonâs apprehensions; his work during the Visitation in 1527; is horrified by Lutherâs language to Duke George and saddened by the âProtestâ of the dissidents at Spires. Melanchthon at the Diet of Augsburg, 1530. The âAugsburg Confessionâ and its âApologyâ characteristic of the writer; his admission regarding the use he had made of the name of St. Augustine; his letter to Cardinal Campeggio; some contemporaries on Melanchthonâs âduplicityâ; the Gospel proviso; Melanchthon judged by modern historians; Luther consoles his friend. The âErasmianâ intermediary _pages_ 319-346 2. DISAGREEMENTS AND ACCORD BETWEEN LUTHER AND MELANCHTHON. Melanchthon first accepts the whole of Lutherâs doctrine, but afterwards deviates from it even in essentials; his antipathy to the denial of freedom and to absolute predestination to hell, to faith alone and to the denial of the value of works. Penance and the motive of fear. Differs from Luther on the question of the Supper and gradually approaches the Zwinglian standpoint. Points of accord with Luther; he shares Lutherâs superstition and belief in the Papal Antichrist; has unjustly been accused of being more tolerant than his master; his ideal a pedagogic one _pages_ 346-360 3. MELANCHTHON AT THE ZENITH OF HIS CAREER. HIS MENTAL SUFFERINGS. His interest in the promotion of studies; his correspondence; his intimacy with Luther; his disappointment; what he disliked in Luther; he meets with little sympathy in Lutherâs circle, though Lutherâs personal esteem never fails him; the rumour that he was disposed to return to the Catholic fold; his willingness to find congenial employment away from Wittenberg; his tendency to leave religious affairs in the hands of the State _pages_ 360-378 CHAPTER XIX. LUTHERâS RELATIONS WITH ZWINGLI, CARLSTADT, BUGENHAGEN AND OTHERS _pages_ 379-416 1. ZWINGLI AND THE CONTROVERSY ON THE SUPPER. Earlier relationship between Zwingli and Luther; their divergent opinions on the Eucharist; the Marburg Conference between the two; the power behind this Conference; Luther on Zwingliâs untimely end _pages_ 379-385 2. CARLSTADT. Finding Wittenberg too warm, Carlstadt removes to OrlamÃ¼nde; his meeting with Luther in the Black Bear Inn at Jena; he goes to Strasburg, and thence to Rothenburg; he is driven by want to accept Lutherâs conditions; he breaks his promise, escapes to Switzerland and receives an appointment at Basle. What Luther says of him in the Table-Talk and in his âWidder die hymelischen Prophetenâ: The defects of Carlstadtâs mission, his violent behaviour, his attachment to the Decalogue, his wrong interpretation of the Supper, his stress on the inward rather than on the outward Word, his unacquaintance with âtemptationsâ _pages_ 385-400 3. JOHANN AGRICOLA, JACOB SCHENK, AND JOHANN EGRANUS. Luther on Agricola. Schenk and the question of the Law; an encounter between Schenk and Luther. Egranusâs dissatisfaction with Luther; Lutherâs references to the âbrood of Erasmusâ; the burden of Egranusâs complaints _pages_ 400-404 4. BUGENHAGEN, JONAS AND OTHERS. Lutherâs admiration for Amsdorf and Brenz. Bugenhagen, a legate â_a facie et a corde_â; his antecedents; becomes pastor of Wittenberg; his missionary labours; his intimacy with Luther; his letters from Denmark; a female demoniac. Friendship between Luther and Jonas as attested by the Table-Talk; chief events of Jonasâs life _pages_ 404-416 CHAPTER XX. ATTEMPTS AT UNION IN VIEW OF THE PROPOSED COUNCIL _pages_ 417-449 1. ZÃRICH, MÃNSTER, THE WITTENBERG CONCORD, 1536. The Swiss theologians on Luther and his doctrine. The Anabaptists and Lutherâs opinion of their doings at MÃ¼nster. Pope Paul III. Efforts of the Protestants to reach an understanding among themselves; Martin Bucer; the Wittenberg Concord; attempts to secure the adhesion of the Swiss; Luther pockets his scruples; collapse of the negotiations; Lutherâs âKurtz Bekentnisâ _pages_ 417-424 2. EFFORTS IN VIEW OF A COUNCIL. VERGERIO VISITS LUTHER. Pope Paul III. determines to hold a Council at Mantua in 1537. Vergerio dispatched by the Pope to Germany to smooth the way; the Legate invites Luther to breakfast with him at the Castle of Wittenberg; his description of his guest; his own subsequent apostasy _pages_ 424-430 3. THE SCHMALKALDEN ASSEMBLY OF 1537. LUTHERâS ILLNESS. The Schmalkalden League. The league of the Catholic Princes. Lutherâs âArtickelâ for the Schmalkalden convention. Melanchthonâs endeavour to arrange matters. Lutherâs willingness to promote the Council. The discussions at Schmalkalden; Melanchthonâs backhanded proceedings. Luther, prostrated by an attack of stone, desires to be removed so as not to die in a town defiled by the presence of a Papal envoy. His parting benediction: â_Deus vos impleat odio PapÃ¦_.â The agreement subsequently reached at Schmalkalden. Luther makes his âFirst Willâ; his recovery; his imprecatory Paternoster _pages_ 430-438 4. LUTHERâS SPIRIT IN MELANCHTHON. Melanchthonâs sudden change of attitude whilst at Schmalkalden; he emulates Luther; reason of the change; Melanchthonâs preference for the âneedle,â Lutherâs for the âhog-spear.â Melanchthonâs work for Luther in the Antinomian and Osiander controversies; his â_Confessio Augustana variata_â tacitly sanctioned by Luther; Bucer and Melanchthon and the âCologne Book of Reformâ; Bucer is violently taken to task by Luther, but Melanchthon is spared. The last joint work of Luther and Melanchthon, viz. the âWittenberg Reformationâ (1545) _pages_ 438-449 VOL. III THE REFORMER (I) LUTHER CHAPTER XV ORGANISATION AND PUBLIC POSITION OF THE NEW CHURCH 1. Lutherâs Religious Situation. Was his Reaction a Break with Radicalism? FROM the date of the presentation of the âConfessionâ at the Diet of Augsburg, Lutheranism began to take its place as a new form of religious belief. Before this it had ostensibly been merely a question of reforming the universal Church, though, as a matter of fact, the proposed reform involved the entire reconstruction of the Church. Now, however, Lutherans admittedâat least indirectly, by putting forward this new profession of faithâthat it was their intention to constitute themselves into a distinctive body, in order to impart a permanent character to the recent innovations in belief and practice. The Protestants were prepared to see in Germany two forms of faith existing side by side, unless indeed the Catholic Church should finally consent to accept the âevangelicalâ Profession of Faith. It is true, that, in thus establishing a formula of faith which should be binding on their followers, the Lutherans were taking up a position in contradiction with the principle of private judgment in matters of faith, which, in the beginning, they had loudly advocated. This was, however, neither an isolated phenomenon, nor, considering the circumstances, at all difficult to understand. The principles which Luther had championed in the first part of his career, principles of which the trend was towards the complete emancipation of the individual from outward creeds and laws, he had over and again since his first encounters with the fanatics and Anabaptists honoured in the breach, and, if he had not altogether discarded them, he had at least come to explain them very differently. Hence a certain reaction had taken place in the mind of the originator of the schism upon which in some sense the Confession of Augsburg set a seal. The extent of this reaction has been very variously estimated. In modern times the contrast between the earlier and later Luther has been so strongly emphasised that we even hear it said that, in the first period of his career, what he stood for was a mere âreligion of humanity,â that of a resolute âradical,â whereas in the second he returned to something more positive. Some have even ventured to speak of the earlier stage of Lutherâs career, until, say, 1522, as âLutheran,â and of the later as âProtestant.â In order to appreciate the matter historically it will be necessary for us to take a survey of the circumstances as a whole which led to the change in Lutherâs attitude, and then to determine the effect of these factors by a comparison between his earlier and later life. Amongst the circumstances which influenced Luther one was his tardy recognition of the fact that the course he had first started on, with the noisy proclamation of freedom of thought and action in the sphere of religion, could lead to no other goal than that of universal anarchy and the destruction of both religion and morality. The Anabaptist rising served to point out to him the results of his inflammatory discourses in favour of freedom. He was determined that his work should not degenerate into social revolution, for one reason because he was anxious to retain the good-will of the mighty, above all of the Elector of Saxony. When the Peasant rising, thanks to the ideas he had himself put forth, began to grow formidable he found himself compelled to make a more determined stand against all forms of radicalism which threatened disintegration. This he did indeed more particularly in the political domain, though his changed attitude here naturally reacted also on his conception of matters religious. He treated Andreas Carlstadt and Thomas MÃ¼nzer as foes, not merely because they were turbulent and dangerous demagogues, but also because they were his rivals in the leadership of the movement. The âSpirit,â which he had formerly represented as the possession of all who opposed to the old Church their evangelical interpretation of Scripture, he was now obliged to reserve more and more to himself, in order to put a stop to the destructive effect of the multiplicity of opinions. Instead of the âinward wordâ he now insisted more and more on the âoutward word,â viz. on the Bible preaching, as authorised by the authorities, i.e. according to his own interpretation. The mysticism, which had formerly lent a false, idealistic glamour to his advocacy of freedom, gradually evaporated as years went by. Having once secured a large following it was no longer necessary for him to excite the masses by playing to their love of innovation. After the first great burst of applause was over he became, in the second period of his life, rather more sober, the urgent task of establishing order in his party, particularly in the Saxon parishes which adhered to his cause, calling for prudent and energetic action on his side. In this respect the Visitation in 1527 played a great part in modifying those ideas of his which tended to mere arbitrariness and revolution. Now that the doctrines of the preachers had been made to conform more and more to the Wittenberg standard; now that the appointment of pastors had been taken out of the hands of the Congregations and left to the ruler of the land, it was only natural that when the new national Church called for a uniform faith, a binding confession of faith, such as that of Augsburg, should be proclaimed, however much such a step, such a âconstriction and oppressionâ of freedom, might conflict with the right of private judgment displayed at the outset on the banner of the movement. Such were, broadly stated, the causes which led to the remarkable change in Lutherâs attitude. On the other hand, those who opine that his ardour had been moderated by his stay at the Wartburg seem to be completely in the wrong. The solitude and quiet of the Wartburg neither taught Luther moderation, nor were responsible for the subsequent reaction. Quite otherwise; at the Wartburg he firmly believed that all that he had paved the way for and executed was mystically confirmed from above, and when, after receiving his âspiritual baptismâ within those gloomy walls, he wrote, as one inspired, to the Elector concerning his mission, there was as yet in his language absolutely nothing to show the likelihood of his withdrawing any of the things he had formerly said. Upon his return to Wittenberg he at once took a vigorous part in the putting down of the revolt of the fanatics, not, however, because he disapproved of the changes in themselvesâthis he expressly disclaimsâbut because he considered it imprudent and compromising to proceed in so turbulent a manner.[1] If, in order to estimate the actual extent of the reaction in Lutherâs mind, we compare his earlier with his later years, we find in the period previous to 1522 a seething, contradictory mixture of radicalism and positive elements. We say a mixture, for it is not in accordance with the historical sources to say that, in those first stormy years of Lutherâs career, what he stood for was a mere religion of humanity, or that his mode of thought was quite unchristian. Had this been the case, then the contrast with his later period would indeed be glaring. As it is, however, Lutherâs statements, as previously given, prove that, in spite of certain discordant voices, his intention had ever been to preserve everything in Christianity which he regarded as really positive, i.e. everything which in his then state of thought and feeling he regarded as essential.[2] Indeed, he was even disposed to exaggerate the importance of a positive faith in Christ and manâs dependence upon God at the expense of manâs natural power of reason. âIn spite of all his calls for freedom and of his pronounced individualismâ he preached an extravagant âdependence upon God.â[3] So far was he from the slightest tendency to embracing a religion of pure reason that he could not find terms sufficiently opprobrious to bestow on reason. We also know that he did not evolve his doctrine of Justification in the second or so-called reaction period, as has recently been stated in order to accentuate the contrast, but in the first period and in the quite early stage of his development. His Latin Commentary on Galatians (1519), with the new doctrine of Justification,[4] expresses faith in the Redeemer and His Grace in terms of startling force; he requires of the children of God the fruits of Grace, and attention to every word of Scripture. After that year and till 1521, the â_Operationes in Psalmos_â prove both his desire for a positive religion and his own earnestness in directing others to lead a Christian life;[5] the doctrine of Justification therein advocated was admitted by him, even in his old age, to have been âfaithfully set forth.â[6] As other examples which certainly do not go to prove any conscious tendency towards theological radicalism, we may mention his work on the Ten Commandments and the Our Father, which he published in 1520 for the unlearned and for children;[7] the sermons, which he continued the whole year through; various discourses which he published in 1519, such as that on the Twofold Justice,[8] in which he treats of the indwelling of Christ in man; that on Preparation for Death, where he inculcates the use of Confession, of the Supper and even of Extreme Unction, teaching that hope is to be placed in Christ alone, and that Saints are to be honoured as followers of Christ;[9] finally, many other writings, sermons, letters, already dealt with, dating from the time prior to the change. In view of the statements of this sort with which Lutherâs early works teem we cannot accept the assertion that the words âChrist, Gospel, Faith and Conscienceâ were merely intended by Luther to lend a âsemblance of religionâ to his negations, and were, on his lips, mere biblical phrases. Louis Saltet, a Catholic historian of the Church, is right in his opinion concerning this new theory: âA negative Lutheranism dominant from 1517 to 1521 is something not vouched for by historyâ; that the author of the new teaching âhad arrived at something very much like theological nihilism is a supposition which there is nothing to prove.â[10] As for Lutherâs then attitude towards the Bible, he actually exaggerates its importance at the expense of reason by asserting that reason, whilst well aware of the contradictions and the foolishness of the truths of revelation, was nevertheless obliged to accept them. The incomprehensibility, ever taught by theologians, of many of the mysteries of the faith, for the understanding of which human reason alone does not suffice, Luther represents as an open contradiction with reason; reason and philosophy, owing to original sin, must necessarily be in opposition to God, and hence faith does actual violence to reason, forcing it to submit, contrary to its present nature and to that of man. Hence, in his estimate of Holy Scripture, far from being a rationalist, he was, as a modern Protestant theologian puts it, really an âirrationalist,â holding as he did that an âunreasonable obedience to Holy Scriptureâ[11] was required of us. According to this same theologian, Luther starts from âan irrational conception of Godâs veracity,â indeed it is God, Who, according to Luther, âby the gift of faith, produces in man the irrational belief in the truth of the whole Divine Word.â Thus does Luther reach his âaltogether irrational, cut-and-dry theology.â[12] If the Wittenberg Professor asserts later, that no religion is so foolish and contrary to reason as Christianity, and that nevertheless he believes âin one Jew, Who is called and is Jesus Christ,â[13] this belief, so singularly expressed, was already present to him in his first period, and the same may be said, so the authority above referred to declares, of his apparent adoption in later years of more positive views, âsince Lutherâs theological convictions never underwent any essential change.â[14] If from the positive we pass to the negative side of Lutherâs teaching, we do indeed find the latter more predominant during the first period of his career. An almost revolutionary assertion of religious freedom is found side by side with the above utterances on faith, so that Adolf Harnack could with some justice say that âKant and Fichte both are concealed in this Luther.â[15] âNeither Pope, nor bishop, nor any man,â according to what Luther then says, âhas a right to dictate even a syllable to the Christian without his own consent.â[16] If you have grasped the Word in faith, then âyou have fulfilled all the commandments and must be free from all thingsâ; the believer becomes âspiritually lord of all,â and by virtue of his priestly dignity, âhe has power over all things.â[17] âNo laws can be imposed upon Christians by any authority whatsoever, neither by men, nor by angels, except with their own consent, for we are free of all things.â[18] âWhat is done otherwise is gross tyranny.... We may not become the servants of men.â âBut few there are who know the joy of Christian liberty.â[19] Applying this to faith and the interpretation of Scripture, he says, for instance, in 1522: âFormerly we were supposed to have no authority to decide,â but, by the Gospel which is now preached, âall the Councils have been overthrown and set asideâ; no one on earth has a right to decree what is to be believed. âIf I am to decide what is false doctrine, then I must have the right to judge.â Pope and Councils may enact what they will, âbut I have my own right to judge, and I may accept it or not as I please.â At the hour of death, he continues, each one must see for himself how he stands; âyou must be sharp enough to decide for yourself that this is right and that wrong, otherwise it is impossible for you to hold your own.â âYour head is in danger, your life is at stake; God must speak within your breast and say: âThis is Godâs Word,â otherwise all is uncertain. Thus you must be convinced within yourself, independent of all men.â[20] The individualistic standpoint could scarcely be expressed more strongly. The appeal to the voice of God âspeaking in the heartâ renders it all the more forcible by introducing a pseudo-mystic element. It is an individualism which might logically be made to justify every form of unbelief. In such devious paths as these did Luther lose himself when once he had set aside the doctrinal authority of the Church. In his practical instructions and in what he says on the most important points of the doctrine of salvation, he ever arrogates to himself a liberty which is in reality mere waywardness. If the Sacraments were committed to the Church by her Divine Founder, then she must put the faithful under the obligation of making use of them in the way Christ intended; she may not, for instance, leave her subjects free to bring their children to be baptised or not, to confess or not to do so, to receive the Sacrament of the Altar or to refrain from receiving it altogether. She may, indeed she must, exercise a certain compulsion in this respect by means of ecclesiastical penalties. Luther, however, refused to hear of the Church and her authority, or of any duty of obedience on the part of the faithful, the result being that the freedom which he proclaimed nullified every obligation with respect to the Sacraments. In the booklet which he composed in the Wartburg, âVon der Beicht ob der Bapst Macht habe zu gepietenâ (1521), wherein he sets aside the duty of Confession, he says of the use of the Sacraments, without troubling to exclude even Baptism: âHe [man] is at liberty to make use of Confession if, as, and where he chooses. If he does not wish you may not compel him, for no one has a right to or ought to force any man against his will. Absolution is nevertheless a great gift of God. In the same way no man can, or ought to, be forced to believe, but everyone should be instructed in the Gospel and admonished to believe; though he is to be left free to obey or not to obey. All the Sacraments should be left optional to everyone. Whoever does not wish to be baptised, let him be. Whoever does not wish to receive the Sacrament, has a right not to receive; therefore, whoever does not wish to confess is free before God not to do so.â[21] The receiving of Holy Communion, he declared then and on other occasions, was to remain optional, although in later years he was most severe in insisting upon it. Concerning this Sacrament, at the commencement of 1520 in his âErklerung etlicher Artickel,â he said that Christ had not made the reception of the Sacrament compulsory; reception under one kind or under both was not prescribed, although âit would be a good thing to receive under both kinds.â[22] May we, however, say that Luther made the reception of the Sacrament of Baptism entirely optional? Did he go so far as to consider Baptism as something not necessary? The passage just quoted, which does away so thoroughly with the duty of Confession and instances Baptism as a parallel case, is certainly somewhat surprising with regard to Baptism. Lutherâs train of thought in the passage in question is, however, rather confused and obscure. Is he referring to the liberty of the unbaptised to receive or not receive the Sacrament of Baptism, or to the deferring of Baptism, whether in the case of the adult or in that of the children of Christian parents? He certainly always held Baptism itself to be absolutely essential for salvation;[23] only where it could not be had, was faith able to produce its effects. Hence, in the above passage, stress must be laid on the words âno one can be forced,â Lutherâs meaning being that constraint in the case of this Sacrament is as intolerable as in the case of the others. He, moreover, declares immediately afterwards that Christ demands âBaptism and the Sacrament.â Elsewhere, when again advocating freedom in the matter of Confession and defending the work above referred to, he says: âI will have no forcing and compelling. Faith and baptism I commend; no one, however, may be forced to accept it, but only admonished and then left free to choose.â[24] Nevertheless he had certainly not been sufficiently careful in his choice of words, and had allowed too great play to his boisterous desire for freedom, when, at the conclusion of the passage quoted from his booklet âOn Confession,â he seemingly asserts manâs âfreedom before God,â not only in the matter of Confession and Communion, but also in that of Baptism. Yet the object of the whole tract was to show what the result would be, more particularly in the matter of Confession and Excommunication, were Christâs commandments in Holy Scripture put in practice, instead of attending only to the man-made ordinances of Popes and Councils.[25] One modern school of Protestant unbelief professes to base itself on the earlier Luther, and, in almost every particular, justifies itself by appealing to him. Such theologians are, however, overstepping the limits of what is right and fair when they make out the Luther of that earlier period to have been a true representative of that form of unbelief just tinged with religion which is their own ideal. As a matter of fact, Luther, had he been logical, should have arrived at this conclusion, but he preferred to turn aside, repudiate it, and embrace the profound contradiction involved in the union of that right of private judgment he had proclaimed, with the admission of binding dogmas. Freedom in the interpretation of the sense of Scripture, or more correctly the setting aside of all ecclesiastical and ostensibly human authority, has been termed the formal principle of Lutheranism; the doctrine of Justification, viz. the chief doctrine of Lutheranism, was called by the older theologians its material principle. Both principles were at variance with each other in Lutherâs mind, just as there can be no composition between arbitrary judgment and formulÃ¦ of faith. History has to take Luther as he really was; he demanded the fullest freedom to oppose the Church and her representatives who claimed the right to enact laws concerning faith and morals, but he most certainly was not disposed to hear of any such freedom where belief in revelation, or the acceptance of Godâs commandments, was concerned. In the domain of the State, too, he had no intention of interfering with due subjection to the authorities, though his hasty, ill-considered utterances seemed to invite the people to pull down every barrier. * * * * * In the second period, from 1522 onwards, his tone has changed and he becomes, so to speak, more conservative and more âreligious.â The principle of freedom of interpretation he now proclaims rather more cautiously, and no longer appeals in so unqualified a manner to the universal priesthood and the sovereignty of the Congregation in matters of religion. Now that the State has come to assume the direction of the Church, Luther sees fit to make his own some of the conservative ideas usually dear to those in power. As a preservative against abuse of freedom he lays great stress on the âoffice,â and the call to the work of preaching given by superior authority. âShould a layman so far forget himself as to correct a preacher,â says Heinrich BÃ¶hmer when dealing with Lutherâs attitude at this period, âand speak publicly, even to a small circle, on the Word of God, it becomes the duty of the authorities, in the interests of public order, to proceed against him as a disturber of the peace. How contradictory this was with the great Reformerâs previous utterances is patent, though very likely he himself did not clearly perceive it. The change in his convictions on this point had taken place all unnoticed simultaneously with the change in the inward and outward situation of the evangelical party.... That his [earlier] view necessarily called not only for unrestricted freedom to teach, but also for complete freedom of worship, was indeed never fully perceived by the Reformer himself.â[26] The two divergent tendencies, one positive and the other negative, are apparent throughout Lutherâs career. The positive tendency is, however, more strongly emphasised in the second period. We shall hear him giving vent to the most bitter complaints concerning those who interpret Holy Scripture according to their own ideas and introduce their own notions into the holy and unchanging Word of God. As exemplifying his own adherence to the truths of Christianity, the great and solemn profession of faith contained in the work he wrote in 1528 on the Supper, has been rightly instanced. As P. Albert Weiss remarks, he makes this âfine profession with an energy which goes straight to the heartâ and âin words which bear honourable testimony to the depth of his convictionâ; it is true that here, too, the contrast to the Catholic Church, whose belief he so passionately depreciates, forces itself like a spectre before his mind.[27] âThis is my belief,â he says at the end of the list of Christian dogmas which he accepts, âfor this is what all true Christians believe and what Holy Scripture teaches. Whatever I may have left unsaid here will be found in my booklets, more particularly in those published during the last four or five years.â[28] Hence when it is asserted by Protestants of rationalist leanings that Luther recognised only one form of faith, viz. trust in Christ, and that he reduced all religion to this, it should be pointed out that he required at the same time a belief in all revealed truths, and that his doctrine of confident faith in oneâs personal salvation and of trust in a Gracious God and Saviour, was ultimately based on a general act of faith; âFaith,â he says, in a sermon which was later embodied in his Church-postils, âreally means accepting as true from the bottom of our heart what the Gospel says concerning Christ, and also all the articles of faith.â[29] It is true that Luther ever insisted on awakening of confidence, yet the â_fides fiducialis_â as explained by him always presupposes the existence of the â_fides historica_.â With Luther faith in the whole of Divine revelation comes first, then the trusting faith which âtrusts all to God.â[30] âHis whole manner of life,â Otto Ritschl says, âso far as it was directed to the attainment of practical aims, was fundamentally religious, in the same way as his most important doctrines concerning God, Christ, the Law, Sin, Justification, the Forgiveness of Sins and Christian Freedom all breathe the spirit of faith, which, as such, was confidence.â The Protestant theologian from whom we quote these words thinks it necessary to say of the contradictions in Luther which have been instanced by Catholics and non-Catholics alike, that âat least in Lutherâs own way of thinking,â they were not such, for he based his faith on the ârevelation given by Godâs Word in Holy Scripture.â[31] In the polemical writings directed against Luther, it was pointed out, concerning his faith, that he himself had described faith as a mere âfancy and suppositionâ (_opinio_). We would, however, suggest the advisability of considerable caution, for according to other passages and from the context, it is plain that what he intends by the word â_opinio_â is rather a belief, and, besides, he adds the adjective â_firma_â to the word incriminated. It is of course a different question whether the absolute certainty of faith can be attributed to that faith on which he lays such great stress, viz. the purely personal _fides fiducialis_ in oneâs salvation through Christ, and, further, whether this certainty can be found in the articles, which, according to Lutherâs teaching, the Christian deduces from the Word of God in Scripture by a subjective examination in which he has only his own private judgment to depend on. However this may be, we find Luther till the very end insisting strongly on the submission of reason to the Word of God, so that E. Troeltsch, the Heidelberg theologian, could well describe his attitude as mediÃ¦val on account of the subjection he demands to dogma. For this very reason he questions the view, that Luther really âpaved the way for the modern world.â Troeltsch, nevertheless, is not disinclined to see in Lutherâs independence of thought a considerable affinity with the spirit of modern days.[32] This brings us to the other side of the subject. Let us follow up the other, the negative, tendency in Luther, from 1522 onwards, which makes for complete religious independence. Of one doctrine in which it is manifest Harnack says, and his statement is equally applicable to others: âThe universal priesthood of all the faithful was never relinquished by Luther, but he became much more cautious in applying it to the congregations actually in existence.â[33] Luther, according to him, expresses himself âvery variablyâ concerning the âcompetency of the individual congregations, of the congregations as actually existing or as representing the true Church.â The author of the schism, in spite of all the positive elements he retained during the whole of this period of reaction and till the very end, had no settled conception of the Church, and the subjective element, and with it the negative, disintegrating tendency therefore necessarily predominated in his mind. It is not only Catholics, from their standpoint, who assert that his whole lifeâs work was above all of a destructive character, for many Protestant writers who look below the surface agree with them, notwithstanding all their appreciation for Luther. âWittenberg,â says Friedrich Paulsen, âwas the birthplace of the revolutionary movement in Germany.... Revolution is the fittest name by which to describe it.â The term âReformation,â is, he declares, inexact; a âreformation,â according to Paulsen, was what âthe great Councils of the fifteenth century sought to bring about.â âLutherâs work was not a âreformation,â a re-shaping of the existing Church by her own means, but a destruction of the old form; indeed, we may say, a thorough-going denial of the Church.â Paulsen points out that, in his work addressed to the knights of the Teutonic Order, Luther advocates âecclesiastical anarchyâ in seeking to lead them to despise all spiritual authority and to break their vow of chastity. The tract in question was repeatedly published as a broadside, and passed into the Wittenberg and other early collections of his works.[34] From the Catholic standpoint, says Gustav Kawerau, âPaulsen was quite right in branding Luther as a revolutionaryâ; Lutherâs new wine could not, however, so he says, do otherwise than burst the old bottles.[35] The âwineâ which Luther had to offer was certainly in a state of fermentation, which, with his rejection of all ecclesiastical authority, made it savour strongly of nihilism. According to Luther religious truth had been altogether disfigured even in Apostolic times, owing to the rise of the doctrine of free-will. âFor at least a thousand years,â he repeatedly asserts, truth had been set aside because, owing to the illegal introduction of external authority in the Church, âwe have been deprived of the right of judging and have been unjustly forced to accept what the Pope and the Councils decreedâ; yet no one can âdetermine or decide for others what faith is,â and, since Christ has warned us against false prophets, âit clearly follows that I have a right to judge of doctrine.â[36] One person only has the rightâof this he is ever sureâto proclaim doctrines as undeniable truths come down from heaven. âI am certain that I have my dogmas from heaven.â[37] âI am enlightened by the Spirit, He is my teacher.â[38] âWe have seen him raised up
{'title': 'Luther, vol. 3 of 6 by Hartmann Grisar', 'source': 'Project Gutenberg', 'lang': 'en'}