LUTHER AND CARLSTADT.
The case of Carlstadt worthy of notice—His difficulty with
Luther respecting the Epistle of James—His boldness in
standing with Luther against the pope—What Carlstadt did
during Luther’s captivity—How far he came under fanaticism—Who
acted with Carlstadt in the removal of images from the
churches, the suppression of masses, and the abolition of
the law of celibacy—Luther on returning restored the mass
and suppressed the simple ordinance of the supper—Carlstadt
submitted to Luther’s correction—After two years, Carlstadt
felt constrained to oppose Luther respecting the supper—The
grounds of their difference respecting the Reformation—Luther
said Christ’s flesh and blood were literally present IN the
bread and wine—Carlstadt said they were simply represented
by them—The controversy which followed—Carlstadt refuted by
banishment—His cruel treatment in exile—He was not connected
with the disorderly conduct of the Anabaptists—Why Carlstadt
has been so harshly judged—D’Aubigné’s estimate of this
controversy—Carlstadt’s labors in Switzerland—Luther writes
against him—Luther and Carlstadt reconciled—D’Aubigné’s
estimate of Carlstadt as a scholar and a Christian—Carlstadt a
Sabbatarian—Wherein Luther benefited Carlstadt—Wherein Luther
might have been benefited by Carlstadt.
It is worthy of notice that at least one of the reformers of considerable
prominence—Carlstadt—was a Sabbatarian. It is impossible to read the
records of the Reformation without the conviction that Carlstadt was
desirous of a more thorough work of reformation than was Luther. And that
while Luther was disposed to tolerate certain abuses lest the Reformation
should be endangered, Carlstadt was at all hazards for a complete return
to the Holy Scriptures.
The Sabbatarian principles of Carlstadt, his intimate connection with
Luther, his prominence in the early history of the Reformation, and the
important bearing of Luther’s decision concerning the Sabbath upon the
entire history of the Protestant church, render the former worthy of
notice in the history of the Sabbath. We shall give his record in the
exact words of the best historians, none of whom were in sympathy with
his observance of the seventh day. The manner in which they state his
faults shows that they were not partial toward him. Shortly after Luther
began to preach against the merit of good works, his deep interest in
the work of delivering men from popish thralldom led him to deny the
inspiration of some portion of those scriptures which were quoted against
him. Dr. Sears thus states the case:—
“Luther was so zealous to maintain the doctrine of
justification by faith, that he was prepared even to call in
question the authority of some portions of Scripture, which
seemed to him not to be reconcilable with it. To the Epistle
of James, especially, his expressions indicate the strongest
repugnance.”[986]
Before Luther’s captivity in the castle of Wartburg, a dispute had arisen
between himself and Carlstadt on this very subject. It is recorded of
Carlstadt that in the year 1520,
“He published a treatise ‘Concerning the Canon of Scripture,’
which, although defaced by bitter attacks on Luther, was
nevertheless an able work, setting forth the great principle of
Protestantism, viz., the paramount authority of Scripture. He
also at this time contended for the authority of the Epistle
of St. James, against Luther. On the publication of the bull
of Leo X. against the reformers, Carlstadt showed a real and
honest courage in standing firm with Luther. His work on ‘Papal
Sanctity’ (1520) attacks the infallibility of the pope on the
basis of the Bible.”[987]
Luther, as is well known, while returning from the Diet of Worms, was
seized by the agents of the Elector of Saxony, and hidden from his
enemies in Wartburg Castle. We read of Carlstadt at this time as follows:—
“In 1521, during Luther’s confinement in the Wartburg,
Carlstadt had almost sole control of the reform movement at
Wittemberg, and was supreme in the university. He attacked
monachism and celibacy in a treatise ‘Concerning Celibacy,
Monachism, and Widowhood.’ His next point of assault was the
Mass, and a riot of students and young citizens against the
Mass soon followed. On Christmas, 1521, he gave the sacrament
in both kinds to the laity, and in German; and in January,
1522, he married. His headlong zeal led him to do whatever he
came to believe right, at once and arbitrarily. But he soon
outran Luther, and one of his great mistakes was in putting the
Old Testament on the same footing as the New. On Jan. 24, 1522,
Carlstadt obtained the adoption of a new church constitution at
Wittemberg, which is of interest only as the first Protestant
organization of the Reformation.”[988]
There were present at this time in Wittemberg certain fanatical teachers,
who, from the town whence they came, were called “the prophets of
Zwickau.” They brought Carlstadt for a time so far under their influence,
that he concluded academical degrees to be sinful, and that, as the
inspiration of the Spirit was sufficient, there was no need of human
learning. He therefore advised the students of the university to return
to their homes.[989] That institution was in danger of dissolution. Such
was Carlstadt’s course in Luther’s absence. With the exception of this
last movement, his acts were in themselves right.
The changes made at Wittemberg during Luther’s absence, whether timely or
not, are generally set down to Carlstadt’s account, and said to have been
made by him on his individual responsibility, and in a fanatical manner.
But this was quite otherwise. Dr. Maclaine thus states the case:—
“The reader may perhaps imagine, from Dr. Mosheim’s account of
this matter, that Carlstadt introduced these changes merely by
his own authority; but this was far from being the case; the
suppression of private masses, the removal of images out of the
churches, the abolition of the law which imposed celibacy upon
the clergy; which are the changes hinted at by our historian as
rash and perilous, were effected by Carlstadt, in conjunction
with Bugenhagius, Melancthon, Jonas Amsdorf, and others, and
were confirmed by the authority of the Elector of Saxony;
so that there is some reason to apprehend that one of the
principal causes of Luther’s displeasure at these changes, was
their being introduced in his absence; unless we suppose that
he had not so far shaken off the fetters of superstition, as to
be sensible of the absurdity and the pernicious consequences of
the use of images.”[990]
Carlstadt had given the cup to the laity of which they had long been
deprived by Rome. He had set aside the worship of the consecrated bread.
Dr. Sears rehearses this work of Carlstadt, and then tells us what Luther
did concerning it on his return. These are his words:—
“He [Carlstadt] had so far restored the sacrament of the Lord’s
supper as to distribute the wine as well as the bread to the
laity. Luther, ‘in order not to offend weak consciences,’
insisted on distributing the bread only, and prevailed. He
[Carlstadt] rejected the practice of elevating and adoring the
host. Luther allowed it, and introduced it again.”[991]
The position of Carlstadt was at this time very trying. He had not
received “many things taught by the new teachers” from Zwickau. But
he had publicly taught some of their fanatical ideas relative to the
influence of the Spirit of God superseding the necessity of study. But
in the suppression of the idolatrous services of the Romanists, he was
essentially right. He had the pain to see much of this set up again.
Moreover the elector would not allow him either to preach or write upon
the points wherein he differed from Luther. D’Aubigné states his course
thus:—
“Nevertheless, he sacrificed his self-love for the sake of
peace, restrained his desire to vindicate his doctrine, was
reconciled, at least in appearance, to his colleague [Luther],
and soon after resumed his studies in the university.”[992]
As Luther taught some doctrines which Carlstadt could not approve, he
felt at last that he must speak. Dr. Sears thus writes:—
“After Carlstadt had been compelled to keep silence, from 1522
to 1524, and to submit to the superior power and authority of
Luther, he could contain himself no longer. He, therefore,
left Wittemberg, and established a press at Jena, through
which he could, in a series of publications, give vent to his
convictions, so long pent up.”[993]
The principles at the foundation of their ideas of the Reformation were
these: Carlstadt insisted on rejecting everything in the Catholic church
not authorized in the Bible; Luther was determined to retain everything
not expressly forbidden. Dr. Sears thus states their primary differences:—
“Carlstadt maintained, that ‘we should not, in things
pertaining to God, regard what the multitude say or think, but
look simply to the word of God. Others,’ he adds, ‘say that,
on account of the weak, we should not _hasten_ to keep the
commands of God; but wait till they become wise and strong.’ In
regard to the ceremonies introduced into the church, he judged
as the Swiss reformers did, that all were to be rejected which
had not a warrant in the Bible. ‘It is sufficiently against the
Scriptures if you can find no ground for it in them.’
“Luther asserted, on the contrary, ‘Whatever is not against
the Scriptures is for the Scriptures, and the Scriptures for
it. Though Christ hath not commanded adoring of the host,
so neither hath he forbidden it.’ ‘Not so,’ said Carlstadt,
‘we are bound to the Bible, and no one may decide after the
thoughts of his own heart.’”[994]
It is of interest to know what was the subject which caused the
controversy between them, and what was the position of each. Dr. Maclaine
thus states the occasion of the conflict which now arose:—
“This difference of opinion between Carlstadt and Luther
concerning the eucharist, was the true cause of the violent
rupture between those two eminent men, and it tended
very little to the honor of the latter; for, however the
explication, which the former gave of the words of the
institution of the Lord’s supper, may appear forced, yet the
sentiments he entertained of that ordinance as a commemoration
of Christ’s death, and not as a celebration of his bodily
presence, in consequence of a consubstantiation with the bread
and wine, are infinitely more rational than the doctrine
of Luther, which is loaded with some of the most palpable
absurdities of transubstantiation; and if it be supposed that
Carlstadt strained the rule of interpretation too far, when
he alleged, that Christ pronounced the pronoun _this_ (in
the words _This is my body_) pointing to his body, and not
to the bread, what shall we think of Luther’s explaining the
nonsensical doctrine of consubstantiation by the similitude of
a red-hot iron, in which two elements are united, as the body
of Christ is with the bread of the eucharist?”[995]
Dr. Sears also states the occasion of this conflict in 1524:—
“The most important difference between him and Luther, and
that which most embittered the latter against him, related to
the Lord’s supper. He opposed not only transubstantiation, but
consubstantiation, the real presence, and the elevation and
adoration of the host. Luther rejected the first, asserted the
second and third, and allowed the other two. In regard to the
real presence, he says: ‘In the sacrament is the real body of
Christ and the real blood of Christ, so that even the unworthy
and ungodly partake of it; and “partake of it corporally” too,
and not spiritually as Carlstadt will have it.’”[996]
That Luther was the one chiefly in error in this controversy will be
acknowledged by nearly every one at the present day. D’Aubigné cannot
refrain from censuring him:—
“When once the question of the supper was raised, Luther
threw away the proper element of the Reformation, and took
his stand for _himself_ and _his church_ in an _exclusive
Lutheranism_.”[997]
The controversy is thus characterized by Dr. Sears:—
“A furious controversy ensued. Both parties exceeded the bounds
of Christian propriety and moderation. Carlstadt was now in
the vicinity of the Anabaptist tumults, excited by Muntzer. He
sympathized with them in some things, but disapproved of their
disorders. Luther made the most of this.”[998]
It is evident that in this contest Luther did not gain any decisive
advantage, even in the estimation of his friends. The Elector of Saxony
interfered and banished Carlstadt! D’Aubigné thus states the case:—
“He issued orders to deprive Carlstadt of his appointments, and
banished him, not only from Orlamund, but from the States of
the electorate.”[999]
“Luther had nothing to do with this sternness on the part of
the prince: it was foreign to his disposition,—and this he
afterward proved.”[1000]
Carlstadt, for maintaining the doctrine now held by almost all
Protestants, concerning the supper, and for denying Luther’s doctrine
that Christ is personally present in the bread, was rendered a homeless
wanderer for years. His banishment was in 1524. What followed is thus
described:—
“From this date until 1534 he wandered through Germany,
pursued by the persecuting opinions of both Lutherans and
Papists, and at times reduced to great straits by indigence
and unpopularity. But, although he always found sympathy and
hospitality among the Anabaptists, yet he is evidently clear
of the charge of complicity with Muntzer’s rebellion. Yet he
was forbidden to write, his life was sometimes in danger, and
he exhibits the melancholy spectacle of a man great and right
in many respects, but whose rashness, ambition, and insincere
zeal, together with many fanatical opinions, had put him under
the well-founded but immoderate censure of both friends and
foes.”[1001]
Such language seems quite unwarranted by the facts. There was no justice
in this persecution of Carlstadt. He did for a brief time hold some
fanatical ideas, but these he did not afterward maintain. The same writer
speaks further in the same strain:—
“It cannot be denied that in many respects he was apparently in
advance of Luther, but his error lay in his haste to subvert
and abolish the external forms and pomps before the hearts of
the people, and doubtless his own, were prepared by an internal
change. Biographies of him are numerous, and the Reformation no
doubt owes him much of good for which he has not the credit, as
it was overshadowed by the mischief he produced.”[1002]
Important truth relative to the services of Carlstadt is here stated,
but it is connected with intimations of evil which have no sufficient
foundation in fact. Dr. Sears speaks thus of the bitter language
concerning him:—
“For three centuries, Carlstadt’s moral character has been
treated somewhat as Luther’s would have been, if only Catholic
testimony had been heard. The party interested has been both
witness and judge. What if we were to judge of Zwingle’s
Christian character by Luther’s representations? The truth
is, Carlstadt hardly showed a worse spirit, or employed more
abusive terms toward Luther, than Luther did toward him.
Carlstadt knew that in many things the truth was on his side;
and yet, in these, no less than in others, he was crushed by
the civil power, which was on the side of Luther.”[1003]
D’Aubigné speaks thus of the contest between these two men:—
“Each turns against the error which, to his mind, seems most
noxious, and in assailing it, goes—it may be—beyond the truth.
But this being admitted, it is still true that both are right
in the prevailing turn of their thoughts, and though ranking in
different hosts, the two great teachers are nevertheless found
under the same standard—that of Jesus Christ, who alone is
TRUTH in the full import of that word.”[1004]
D’Aubigné says of them after Carlstadt had been banished:—
“It is impossible not to feel a pain at contemplating these two
men, once friends, and both worthy of our esteem, thus angrily
opposed.”[1005]
Sometime after Carlstadt’s banishment from Saxony he visited Switzerland.
D’Aubigné speaks of the result of his labors in that country, and what
Luther did toward him:—
“His instructions soon attracted an attention nearly equal to
that which had been excited by the earliest theses put forth by
Luther. Switzerland seemed almost gained over to his doctrine.
Bucer and Capito also appeared to adopt his views.
“Then it was that Luther’s indignation rose to its hight; and
he put forth one of the most powerful but also most OUTRAGEOUS
of his controversial writings,—his book ‘_Against the Celestial
Prophets_.’”[1006]
Dr. Sears also mentions the labors of Carlstadt in Switzerland, and
speaks of Luther’s uncandid book:—
“The work which he wrote against him, he entitled ‘The book
against the Celestial Prophets.’ This was uncandid; for the
controversy related chiefly to the sacrament of the supper.
In the south of Germany and in Switzerland, Carlstadt found
more adherents than Luther. Banished as an Anabaptist, he was
received as a Zwinglian.”[1007]
Dr. Maclaine tells something which followed, which is worthy of the
better nature of these two illustrious men:—
“Carlstadt, after his banishment from Saxony, composed a
treatise against enthusiasm in general, and against the
extravagant tenets and the violent proceedings of the
Anabaptists in particular. This treatise was even addressed
to Luther, who was so affected by it, that, repenting of his
unworthy treatment of Carlstadt, he pleaded his cause, and
obtained from the elector a permission for him to return into
Saxony.”[1008]
“After this reconciliation with Luther, he composed a treatise
on the eucharist, which breathes the most amiable spirit of
moderation and humility; and having perused the writings of
Zwingle, where he saw his own sentiments on that subject
maintained with the greatest perspicuity and force of evidence,
he repaired the second time to Zurich, and thence to Basil,
where he was admitted to the offices of pastor and professor of
divinity, and where, after having lived in the exemplary and
constant practice of every Christian virtue, he died, amidst
the warmest effusions of piety and resignation, on the 25th of
December, 1541.”[1009]
Of Carlstadt’s scholarship, and of his conscientiousness, D’Aubigné
speaks thus:—
“‘He was well acquainted,’ says Dr. Scheur, ‘with Latin, Greek,
and Hebrew;’ and Luther acknowledged him to be his superior
in learning. Endowed with great powers of mind, he sacrificed
to his convictions fame, station, country, and even his
bread.”[1010]
His Sabbatarian character is attested by Dr. White, lord bishop of Ely:—
“The same [the observance of the seventh day] likewise being
revived in Luther’s time by Carolastadius, Sternebergius, and
by some sectaries among the Anabaptists hath both then and
ever since been censured as Jewish and heretical.”[1011]
Dr. Sears alludes to Carlstadt’s observance of the seventh day, but as
is quite usual with first-day historians in such cases, does it in such
a manner as to leave the fact sufficiently obscure to be passed over
without notice by the general reader. He writes thus:—
“Carlstadt differed essentially from Luther in regard to the
use to be made of the Old Testament. With him, the law of
Moses was still binding. Luther, on the contrary, had a strong
aversion to what he calls a legal and Judaizing religion.
Carlstadt held to the divine authority of the Sabbath from the
Old Testament; Luther believed Christians were free to observe
any day as a Sabbath, provided they be uniform in observing
it.”[1012]
We have, however, Luther’s own statement respecting Carlstadt’s views of
the Sabbath. It is from his book “Against the Celestial Prophets:”—
“Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about the Sabbath,
Sunday would have to give way, and the Sabbath—that is to say,
Saturday—must be kept holy; he would truly make us Jews in all
things, and we should come to be circumcised: for that is true,
and cannot be denied, that he who deems it necessary to keep
one law of Moses, and keeps it as the law of Moses, must deem
all necessary, and keep them all.”[1013]
The various historians who treat of the difficulty between Luther and
Carlstadt, speak freely of the motives of each. But of such matters it is
best to speak little; the day of Judgment will show the hearts of men,
and we must wait till then. We may, however, freely speak of their acts,
and may with propriety name the things wherein each would have benefited
the other. Carlstadt’s errors at Wittemberg were not because he rejected
Luther’s help, but because he was deprived of it by Luther’s captivity.
Luther’s error in those things wherein Carlstadt was right were because
he saw it best to reject Carlstadt’s doctrine.
1. Carlstadt’s error in the removal of the images, the suppression of
masses, the abolition of monastic vows, or vows of celibacy, and in
giving the wine as well as the bread in the supper, and in performing the
service in German instead of Latin, if it was an error, was one of time
rather than of doctrine. Had Luther been with him, probably all would
have been deferred for some months or perhaps some years.
2. Carlstadt would probably have been saved by Luther’s presence from
coming under the influence of the Zwickau prophets. As it was, he did for
a brief season accept, not their teaching in general, but their doctrine
that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in believers renders human
learning vain and worthless. But in both these things Carlstadt submitted
to Luther’s correction. Had Luther regarded Carlstadt, he would have been
benefited in the following particulars:—
1. In his zeal for the doctrine of justification by faith, he would have
been saved from the denial of the inspiration of the epistle of James,
and would not have called it a “strawy or chaffy epistle.”[1014]
2. Instead of exchanging transubstantiation, which is the Romish doctrine
that the bread and wine of the supper become Christ’s literal flesh and
blood, for consubstantiation, the doctrine which he fastened upon the
Lutheran church that Christ’s flesh and blood are actually present _in_
the bread and wine, he would have given to that church the doctrine that
the bread and wine simply represent the body and blood of Christ, and are
used in commemoration of his sacrifice for our sins.
3. Instead of holding fast every thing in the Romish church not expressly
forbidden in the Bible, he would have laid all aside which had not the
actual sanction of that holy book.
4. Instead of the Catholic festival of Sunday, he would have observed and
transmitted to the Protestant church the ancient Sabbath of the Lord.
Carlstadt needed Luther’s help, and he accepted it. Did not Luther
also need that of Carlstadt? Is it not time that Carlstadt should be
vindicated from the great obloquy thrown upon him by the prevailing
party? And would not this have been done long since had not Carlstadt
been a decided Sabbatarian?