IN THE NARROWER CIRCLE OF THE PROFESSION AND FAMILY LUTHER’S BETTER
FEATURES
1. The University Professor, the Preacher, the Pastor
_Relations with the Wittenberg Students._
AMONG the pleasing traits in Luther’s picture a prominent one is the
care he evinced for the students at Wittenberg.
The disagreeable impression caused by the decline of the University
town is to some extent mitigated by the efforts Luther made to check
the corruption amongst the scholars of the University. He saw that
they were supervised, so far as academic freedom permitted, and never
hesitated to blame their excesses from the pulpit. At the same time,
in spite of the growing multiplicity of his labours and cares, he
showed himself a helpful father to them even in temporal matters, for
instance, when he inveighed in a sermon against their exploitation
at the hands of burghers and peasants: They were being sucked dry
and could scarcely be treated worse; this he had heard from all he
knew.[777]
The respect he enjoyed and the example of his own simple life lent
emphasis to his moral exhortations. His eloquent lectures were eagerly
listened to; his delivery was vivid and impressive. People knew that he
did not lecture for the sake of money and, even at the height of his
fame, they gladly pointed to the unassuming life he led at home. He did
not expect any marks of respect from the students, greatly as they, and
not only those of the theological Faculty, esteemed him. Melanchthon
had introduced the custom of making the students stand when Luther
entered the class-room; Luther, however, was not at all pleased with
this innovation and said petulently: “_Doxa, doxa est magna noxa_; who
runs after glory never gets it.”[778]
Oldecop, the Catholic chronicler and Luther’s former pupil, who, as
a youth and before the apostasy, had listened to him at Wittenberg,
remembered in his old age how Luther, without setting himself in
opposition to their youthful jollifications had known how to restrain
them; just as he “reproved sin fearlessly from the pulpit,”[779] so
he earnestly sought to banish temptation from the pleasures of the
students.
We may here recall, that, as early as 1520, Luther had urged that all
bordels should be done away with, those “public, heathenish haunts of
sin,” as he termed them, at the same time using their existence as a
weapon against the Catholic past.[780] The fact that many such houses
were closed down at that time was, however, to some extent due to fear
of the prevalent “French disease.”
When, in his old age, in 1543, the arrival of certain light women
threatened new danger to the morals of the Wittenberg students, already
exposed to the ordinary temptations of the town, Luther decided to
interfere and make a public onslaught at the University. This attack
supplies us with a striking example of his forcefulness, whilst
also showing us what curious ideas and expressions he was wont to
intermingle with his well-meant admonitions.
“The devil,” so he begins, “has, by means of the gainsayers of our
faith and our chief foes [presumably the Catholics], sent here certain
prostitutes to seduce and ruin our young men. Hence I, as an old and
tried preacher, would paternally implore you, my dear children, to
believe that the Wicked One has sent these prostitutes hither, who are
itchy, shabby, stinking and infected with the French disease as, alas,
experience daily proves. Let one good comrade warn the other, for one
such infected strumpet can ruin 10, 20, 30, or even 100 sons of good
parents and is therefore to be reckoned a murderess and much worse
than a poisoner. Let one help the other in this poisonous mess, with
faithful advice and warning, as each one would himself wish to be done
by!”
He then threatens them with the penalties of the Ruler, which
dissolute students had to fear, “in order that they may take
themselves off, and the sooner the better”; “here [at Wittenberg]
there is a Christian Church and University to which people resort to
learn the Word of God, virtue and discipline. Whoever wants to drab
had better go elsewhere.”
Were he able, he would have such women “bled and broken on the
wheel.” Young people ought, however, to resist concupiscence and fight
against “their heat”; it was not to no purpose that the Holy Ghost had
said: “Go not after thy lusts” (Eccl. xviii. 30). He concludes: “Pray
God He may send you a pious child [in marriage], there will in any
case be trouble enough.”[781]
Some polemics have characterised such exhortations of Luther’s as mere
“hypocrisy.” Whoever knows his Luther, knows, however, how unfounded
is this charge. Nor was there any hypocrisy about the other very
urgent exhortation which Luther caused to be read from the pulpit
at Wittenberg in 1542, when himself unable to preach, and which is
addressed to both burghers and students. He there implores “the town
and the University for God’s sake not to allow it to be said of them,
that, after having heard God’s Word so abundantly and for so long,
they had grown worse instead of better.” “Ah, brother Studium,” he
says, “spare me and let it not come to this that I be obliged like
Polycarp to exclaim, ‘O my God, why hast Thou let me live to see
this?’” He points to his “grizzly head” which at least should inspire
respect.[782]
_The Preacher and Catechist._
As a preacher Luther was hard-working, nay, indefatigable; in this
department his readiness of speech, his familiarity with Holy Scripture
and above all his popular ways stood him in good stead. At first he
preached in the church attached to the monastery; later on his sermons
were frequently preached in the parish church, and, so long as his
health stood the strain, he sometimes even delivered several sermons
a day.[783] Even when not feeling well he took advantage of every
opportunity to mount the pulpit. In 1528 he took over the parochial
sermons during Bugenhagen’s absence from Wittenberg,[784] in spite of
being already overworked and ill in body.
All were loud in their praise of the power and vigour of his style.
Mathesius in his “Historien” records a remark to this effect of
Melanchthon’s.[785] Luther frequently laid down, after his own fashion,
the rules which should guide those who preach to the little ones and
the poor in spirit: “Cursed and anathema be all preachers who treat
of high, difficult and subtle matters in the churches, put them to
the people and preach on them, seeking their own glory or to please
one or two ambitious members of the congregation. When I preach here
I make myself as small as possible, nor do I look at the Doctors and
Masters, of whom perhaps forty may be present, but at the throng of
young people, children and common folk, from a hundred to a thousand
strong; it is to them that I preach, of them that I think, for it is
they who stand in need.”[786] And elsewhere: “Like a mother who quiets
her babe, dandles it and plays with it, but who must give it milk
from her breast, and on no account wine or Malmsey, so preachers must
do the same; they ought so to preach in all simplicity that even the
simple-minded may hear, grasp and retain their words. But when they
come to me, to Master Philip, to Dr. Pommer, etc., then they may show
off their learning--and get a good drubbing and be put to shame.” But
when they parade their learning in the pulpit this is merely done “to
impose on and earn the praise of the poor, simple lay-folk. Ah, they
say, that is a great scholar and a fine speaker, though, probably, they
neither understood nor learnt anything.”[787]
“Nor should a preacher consider individual members of his congregation
and speak to them words of comfort or reproof; what he must seek to
benefit is the whole congregation. St. Paul teaches this important
doctrine [2 Cor. ii. 17]: ‘We speak with sincerity in Christ as from
God and before God.’ God, Christ and the angels are our hearers, and if
we please them that is enough. Let us not trouble ourselves about the
world and about private persons! We will not speak in order to please
any man nor allow our mouth to be made the ‘Arschloch’ of another. But
when we have certain persons up before us, then we may reprove them
privately and without any rancour.”[788]
As a preacher he was able often enough to tell the various classes
quite frankly what he found to censure in them. At the Court, for
instance, he could, when occasion arose, reprove the nobles for their
drunkenness, and that in language not of the choicest.[789] He was not
the man to wear kid gloves, or, as an old German proverb he himself
quoted said, to let a spider spin its web over his mouth. A saying
attributed to him characterises him very well, save perhaps in its
latter end: Come up bravely, speak out boldly, leave off speedily.[790]
“I have warned you often enough,” so we read in the notes of a
Wittenberg sermon of Sep. 24, 1531,[791] “to flee fornication, and
yet I see that it is again on the increase. It is getting so bad
that I shall be obliged to say: Bistu do zurissen, sso lop dich der
Teuffl.”[792] The preacher then turns to the older hearers, begging
them to use their influence with the younger generation, to prevail on
them to abstain from this vice.
As to his subject-matter, he was fond of urging Biblical texts and
quotations, wherein he displayed great skill and dexterity. In general,
however, his attacks on Popery are always much the same; he dwells with
tiresome monotony on the holiness-by-works and the moral depravity of
the Papists. Though his theory of Justification may have proved to him
a never-failing source of delight, yet his hearers were inclined to
grow weary of it. He himself says once: “When we preach the ‘_articulum
justificationis_’ the people sleep or cough”; and before this: “No one
in the people’s opinion is eloquent if he speaks on justification; then
they simply close their ears.” Had it been a question of retailing
stories, examples and allegories he could have been as proficient as
any man.[793]
Mathesius has incorporated in his work some of Luther’s directions on
preaching which might prove a good guide to any pulpit orator desirous
of being of practical service to his hearers.[794] Some of these
directions and hints have recently appeared in their vigorous original
in the Table-Talk edited by Kroker.
It was his wish that religious addresses in the shape of simple, hearty
instructions on the Epistles and Gospels should be given weekly by
every father to his family.[795] He himself, in his private capacity,
set the example as early as 1532 by holding forth in his own home on
Sundays, when unable to preach in the church, before his assembled
household and other guests. This he did, so he said, from a sense of
duty towards his family, because it was as necessary to check neglect
of the Divine Word in the home as in the Church at large.[796]
He also himself catechised the children at home, in order, as he
declared, to fulfil the duties of a Christian father; on rising in the
morning he was also in the habit of reciting the “Ten Commandments, the
Creed, the Our Father and some Psalm as well” with the children.
He even expressed the opinion that catechetical instruction in church
was of little use to children, but that in the home it was more
successful and was therefore not to be omitted, however much trouble
it might give. When, however, he adds, that the Papists had neglected
such home teaching and had sacrificed the flock of Christ,[797] he is
quite wrong. The fact is, that, before his day, it was left far too
much to the family to give religious instruction to the children, there
being as yet no properly organised Catechism in schools and churches.
It was only the opposition aroused among Catholics by the religious
changes that led to religious teaching becoming more widespread in
the Catholic schools, and to a catechetical system being organised; a
fuller religious education then served to check the falling away.[798]
How highly, in spite of such apparent depreciation, he valued the
ministerial teaching of the Catechism we learn from some words
recorded by Mathesius: “If I had to establish order, I should see that
no preacher was nominated who had not previously taught the ‘_bonæ
artes_’ and the Catechism in the schools for from one to three years.
Schools are also temples of God, hence the olden prophets were at once
pastors and schoolmasters.”[799] “There is no better way,” he writes,
“of keeping people devout and faithful to the Church than by the
Catechism.”[800]
At Wittenberg an arrangement existed, at any rate as early as
1528,[801] by which, every quarter, certain days were set apart for
special sermons on the articles of the Catechism.[802] The Larger and
the Smaller Catechism published by Luther (see vol. v., xxxiv., 2) were
intended to form the basis of the verbal teaching everywhere. The three
courses of sermons preached by Luther at Wittenberg in May, Sep. and
Nov., 1528, and since edited by George Buchwald, were arranged to suit
the contents of the Greater Catechism and to some extent served Luther
as a preparation for this publication. Luther, in the first instance,
brought out the Smaller Catechism, as we see from certain letters
given by Buchwald, not in book form, but, agreeably with an earlier
ecclesiastical practice, on separate sheets in the shape of tablets
to hang upon the walls; hence what he said on Dec. 18, 1537, of his
being the author of the Catechism, the “_tabulæ_” and the Confession of
Augsburg.[803]
He displayed great talent and dexterity in choosing the language best
suited to his subject. We hear him denouncing with fire and power the
vice of usury which was on the increase.[804] He knows how to portray
the past and future judgments of God in such colours as to arouse the
luke-warm. When treating of the different professions and ways of
ordinary life he is in his own element and exhibits a rare gift of
observation. On the virtues of the home, the education of children,
obedience towards superiors, patience in bearing crosses and any
similar ethical topics which presented themselves to him, his language
is as a rule sympathetic, touching and impressive; in three wedding
sermons which we have of him he speaks in fine and moving words on love
and fidelity in the married state.[805]
In addition to his printed sermons, which were polished and amended for
the press and from which we have already given many quotations on all
sorts of subjects, the hasty, abbreviated notes of his sermons, made by
zealous pupils, give us an insight into a series of addresses full of
originality, outspokenness and striking thoughts. Indeed these notes,
which are becoming better known at the present day, frequently render
the sermons in all their primitive simplicity far better than do the
more carefully arranged printed editions.
Luther, in 1524, according to one of these sets of notes, spoke
on Good Works in the following style: “The Word is given in order
that you may awaken! It is meant to spur you on to do what is good,
not that you should lull yourself in security. When fire and wood
[come together there ensues a fire; so you in like manner, must be
inflamed]. If, however, the effect of the sermon is, that you do not
act towards your brother as Christ does towards you, that is a bad
sign, not, indeed, that you must become a castaway, but that you may
go so far as one day to deny the Word.” “The devil knows that sin
does not harm you, but his aim is to tear Christ out of your heart,
to make you self-confident and to rob you of the Word. Hence beware
of being idle under the influence of Grace. Christ is seen with you
when you take refuge in Him, whether you be in sin or at the hour of
death,” etc. “This is preached to you daily, but we produce no effect.
Christ has bones and flesh, strength and weakness. Let each one see
to it that above all he possess the faith ... the Gospel is preached
everywhere, but few indeed understand it. Christ bore with His
followers. In the same way must we behave towards the weak. And the
day will come when at last they will understand, like the disciples.
But that will never be unless persecution comes.”[806]
_Excerpts from Luther’s Sermons on Our Lady._
In a sermon of 1524 on the Feast of the Visitation, taken down in
Latin by the same reporter and recently published, Luther not only
voices the olden view concerning the virtues and privileges of the
Blessed Virgin but also, incidentally, supplies us with a sample
of his candour in speaking of the faults of his hearers: “You are
surprised that now I preach here so seldom, I, on the other hand,
am surprised that you do not amend. There may possibly be a few to
whom the preaching is of some avail; but the more I preach, the
more ungodliness increases. It is not my fault, for I know that I
have told you all what God gave me [to speak]. I am not responsible
and my conscience is at peace. I have forced you to nothing. We
have introduced two collections. If they are not to your taste, do
away with them again. We shall not force you to give even a single
penny.”[807]--He then deals with the Gospel of the Feast which records
Mary’s visit to Elizabeth, and the canticle of praise with which she
greeted her cousin. He draws apt lessons from it and praises the
virtues and the dignity of the Blessed Virgin in a way that does him
honour: “First of all you see how Mary’s faith finds expression in
a work of charity. Her faith was not idle but was proved real by
her acting as a mere maid, seeking out Elizabeth and serving her.
Her faith was immense, as we also learn from other Gospel-readings.
That is why Elizabeth said to her: ‘Blessed art thou that hast
believed.’... This is a true work of faith when impelled thereby we
abase ourselves and serve others. We, too, hear all this, but the
works are not forthcoming.... Yet where there is real faith, works are
never absent.”
“When Mary was magnified by Elizabeth with words of praise, it was
as though she did not hear them, for she paid no heed to them. Every
other woman would have succumbed to the temptation of vainglory, but
she gives praise to Him to Whom alone praise is due. From this example
all Christians, but particularly all preachers, ought to learn. You
know that God preserves some preachers in a state of grace, but others
He permits to fall.... God must preserve them like Mary so that they
do not grow proud. When God bestows His gifts upon us it is hard not
to become presumptuous and self-confident. If, for instance, I am well
acquainted with Scripture, people will praise me on this account,
and when I am praised, I, as a carnal man, am exposed to the fire;
when on the contrary I am despised, etc. [i.e. this is helpful for my
salvation].... Mary acted as though she did not hear it, and never
even thanked Elizabeth for her praise.”
Mary said, so he continues, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, not
myself; I am a mere creature of God; He might have set another in
my place; I magnify Him Who has made me a Mother.” In this way
Mary teaches us the right use of the gifts bestowed by God, for
she rejoiced only in God. On the other hand, any woman who is even
passably pretty becomes vain of herself, and any man who has riches,
boasts of his possessions. Mary is merely proud that God, as she
says, has regarded her humility. This is the praise which we too
must pay her. We ought to extol her because she was chosen by the
Divine Majesty to be the Mother of His Son. That, she says, will be
proclaimed to the end of the world (“all generations shall call me
blessed”), not on her own account, but because God has done this.
Concerning her own good works and her virginity she was silent and
simply said: “He has done great things in me.” In the same way we
ought to be nothing in our own eyes and before the world, but to
rejoice simply because God has looked down on us, confessing that all
we have comes from Him. In this spirit Mary counted up great gifts;
though she could have said: All that you have just told me is true.
“Ah, hers was a fine spirit; and her example will assuredly endure.”
“The whole world will never attain to it, for the soul that is not
exalted by God’s gifts and depressed by poverty is indeed hard to
find.” By her words, so the speaker continues, Mary condemned the
world, raised herself above it and cast it aside; her language was not
human, but came to her from God.
Though such praise of Mary--from which at a later date Luther
desisted--may be placed to his credit, yet it must be pointed
out, that even the above discourse is disfigured by bitter and
unwarrantable attacks on Catholic doctrine and practice. He even
speaks as though the veneration of Mary did not rest on the principles
we have just heard him expound, viz. on the dignity bestowed by God
on Mary as the Mother of God, and on the virtues with which she was
endowed from on high, such as faith and humility. The Catholic Church,
so Luther complains quite unjustly and falsely, had made of Mary a
goddess (“_fecimus eam Deam_”) and had given her honour and praise
without referring it to God.[808]
The supreme distinction which the Church acknowledges in Mary--viz.
her immaculate conception and exemption from original sin from the
first moment of her soul’s existence--Luther himself accepted at
first and adhered to for a considerable time, following in this the
tradition of his Order.[809]
All honour was to be given to Christ as God; this right and
praiseworthy view, which Luther was indefatigable in expressing,
misled him in the matter of the veneration and invocation of Mary and
the Saints. Of this he would not hear, though such had ever been the
practice of the Church, and though it is hard to see how God’s glory
can suffer any derogation through the honour paid to His servants. In
this Luther went astray; the dogma of the adorable Divinity of Jesus
Christ was, however, always to remain to him something sacred and
sublime.
_Statements to Luther’s advantage from various Instructions. His
Language._
In his sermons Luther was so firm in upholding the Divinity of Christ,
in opposition to the scepticism he thought he detected in other
circles, that one cannot but be favourably impressed. He was filled
with the liveliest sense of man’s duty of submitting his reason to
this mystery; he even goes too far, in recommending abdication of the
intellect and in his disparagement of human reason; what he is anxious
to do is to make all his religious feeling culminate in a trusting
faith in the words: “God so loved the world that He gave His only
begotten Son for us.”
In his sermons and instructions he demands a similar yielding of
reason to faith with regard to the mystery of Christ’s Presence in the
Sacrament, though in this case he had not shrunk from twisting the
doctrine to suit his own ideas. It would hardly be possible to maintain
more victoriously against all gainsayers the need of standing by the
literal sense, or at least of excluding any figurative interpretation
of, the words of institution “This is My Body,” than Luther did in many
of his pronouncements against the Sacramentarians.[810]
With advancing years, and in view of the dissensions and confusion
prevailing in the Reformed camp, he came to insist more and more on
those positive elements, which, for all his aversion for the ancient
Church, he had never ceased to defend. Of this we have a monument in
one of his last works, viz. the “Kurtz Bekentnis,” to which we shall
return later. Embittered by the scepticism apparent in Zwinglianism and
elsewhere, which, as he thought, threatened to sap all religion, he
there obeys his heart’s instincts and gives the fullest expression to
his faith in general and not merely to his belief in Christ’s presence
in the Sacrament.[811]
Concerning the Sacrament of the Altar he gave the following noteworthy
answer to a question put to him jointly, in 1544, by the three princely
brothers of Anhalt, viz. whether they should do away with the Elevation
of the Sacrament in the liturgy. “By no means,” he replied, “for
such abrogation would tend to diminish respect for the Sacrament and
cause it to be undervalued. When Dr. Pommer abolished the Elevation
[at Wittenberg, in 1542] during my absence, I did not approve of it,
and now I am even thinking of re-introducing it. For the Elevation is
one thing, the carrying about of the Sacrament in procession quite
another [at Wittenberg Luther would not allow such processions of the
Sacrament]. If Christ is truly present in the Bread (‘_in pane_’),
why should He not be treated with the utmost respect and even be
adored?”--Joachim, Prince of Anhalt, added, when relating this: “We
saw how Luther bowed low at the Elevation with great devotion and
reverently worshipped Christ.”[812]
Certain controversialists have undoubtedly been in the wrong in making
out Luther to have been sceptical about, or even opposed at heart to,
many of the ancient dogmas which he never attacked, for instance,
the Trinity, or the Divinity of Christ. A few vague and incautious
statements occasionally let slip by him are more than counterbalanced
by a wealth of others which tell in favour of his faith, and he
himself would have been the last to admit the unfortunate inferences
drawn more or less rightly from certain propositions emitted by him.
It is a lucky thing, that, in actual life, error almost always claims
the right of not being bound down too tightly in the chains of logic.
When Luther, for instance, made every man judge of the meaning of the
Bible, he was setting up a principle which must have dissolved all
cohesion between Christians, and thus, of necessity, he was compelled
to limit, somewhat illogically, the application of the principle.
In a passage frequently cited against him, where he shows himself
vexed with the ancient term employed by the Church to express the
Son’s being of the same substance with the Father (“_homoousios_”), it
was not his intention to rail against the doctrine therein expressed,
but merely to take exception to the word. He explicitly distinguishes
between the word and the thing (“_vocabulum et res_”). He says that,
so long as one holds fast to the doctrine (“_modo rem teneam_”)
scripturally defined by the Nicene Council, it was no heresy to
dislike the word or to refuse to employ it.[813] Hence the passage
affords no ground for saying, that “Luther was rash enough to tamper
with the doctrine of the Person of Christ.” On the other hand, the
new doctrine of the omnipresence of the Body of Christ evolved by him
during the controversy on the Sacrament, can scarcely be considered
creditable.[814] His views on the “_communicatio idiomatum_”[815]
in Christ, and particularly on the Redemption,[816] also contain
contradictions not to be explained away.
Contrariwise we must dismiss the charge based on his repugnance for
the word “Threefoldhood,” by which Germans designate the Trinity, as
if this involved antagonism on his part to the mystery itself. He was
referring merely to the term when he said: “It is not particularly
good German and does not sound well, but since it cannot be improved
upon, we must speak as best we can.”[817] An undeniable confession
of faith in the Trinity is contained in this very passage, and in
countless others too.--When abbreviating the Litany he indeed omitted
the invocation “_Sancta Trinitas unus Deus_,” but this was not from
any hostility to the doctrine but from a wish not to have “too many
words.” He left in their old places the separate invocations of the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and deemed this quite sufficient.
By his retention of the belief in the three Divine Persons and in the
Divinity of the Redeemer, Luther was instrumental in preserving among
his future followers a treasure inherited from past ages, in which not
a few have found their consolation. We must not be unmindful of how he
strove to defend it from the assaults of unbelief, in his time still
personified in Judaism. He did not sin by debasing the Second Person
of the Trinity, but rather by foisting on God Incarnate attributes
which are not really His; for instance, by arguing that, owing to the
intimacy of the two Natures, Divine and Human, in Christ, His Human
Nature must be as omnipresent as His Divine; or, again, by teaching
that mere belief in one’s redemption and sanctification suffices to
destroy sin; or, again, when his too lively eschatological fancy led
him to see Christ, the Almighty conqueror of the devil and his world,
already on the point of coming to the Judgment. And just as Christ’s
Godhead was the very fulcrum of all his teaching, so he defended
likewise the other Articles of the Apostles’ Creed with such courage,
force and eloquence, as, since his death, few of his followers have
found themselves capable of. About the Person of the Redeemer he wove
all the usual Christological doctrines, His Virgin Birth, His truly
miraculous Resurrection, His descent into Hell, His Ascension and
Second Advent; finally, also, the resurrection of the dead, the future
Judgment, and the everlasting Heaven and everlasting Hell. From the
well-spring of the ancient creed, under God’s Grace, Lutherans without
number have drawn and still continue to draw motives for doing what is
good, consolation amidst affliction and strength to lead pious lives.
“What holiness, devotion and heroic virtue do we not find among
non-Catholics. God’s Grace is not confined within the four walls of
the Catholic Church, but breathes even in the hearts of outsiders,
working in them, when opportunity affords, the miracle of justification
and adoption, and thus ensuring the eternal salvation of countless
multitudes who are either entirely ignorant of the true Church, as
are the upright heathen, or mistake her true form and nature as do
countless Protestants, brought up amidst the crassest prejudice. To
all such as these the Church does not close the gates of Heaven” (J.
Pohle).
* * * * *
It would be superfluous to enumerate amongst Luther’s favourable
traits the respect he always paid to Holy Scripture as the Word of
God, demanding for its infallible revelations a willing faith and the
sacrifice of one’s own whims.
Greatly as he erred in wilfully applying his new, subjective principle
of interpretation and in excluding certain of the Sacred Books, still
the Bible itself he always declared to be an object of the highest
reverence. Thanks to a retentive memory he made his own the words
of Scripture, and even adopted its style. His “enthusiasm for the
inexhaustible riches and Divine character of Holy Scripture,” of
which the earlier Döllinger speaks,[818] has, and with some reason,
been held up by Luther’s followers as the model, nay, the palladium
of Lutheranism as a whole; on the other hand, however, Döllinger’s
accompanying censure on Luther’s “arbitrary misuse” of the Bible-text
must also commend itself not only to Catholics but to every serious
student of the Bible. High praise for Luther’s acquaintance with
Scripture combined with severe blame for his deviation from tradition
are forthcoming from a contemporary of the early years of Luther’s
public career. In a short, unprinted and anonymous work entitled
“Urteil über Luther,” now in the Munich State Library, we read: “In
the fine art of the written Word of God, i.e. the Bible, I hold Martin
Luther to be the most learned of men, whether of those now living on
earth or of those who have departed long since; he is, moreover, well
versed in the two languages, both Latin and German. I do not, however,
regard him as a Christian--for to be learned and eloquent is not to be
a Christian--but as a heretic and schismatic”; he was, it adds, “the
scourge of an angry God.”[819]
In the field of scriptural activity his German translation of the whole
Bible has procured for him enduring fame. Since the birth of Humanism
not a few scholars had drawn attention to the languages in which the
Bible was originally written; Luther, however, was the first who
ventured to make a serious attempt to produce a complete translation of
all the Sacred Books on the basis of the original text.
Thanks to his German version, from the linguistic point of view so
excellent, Protestants down to our own day have been familiar with the
Bible. His rendering of the Bible stories and doctrines, at once so
able and so natural, was a gain not only to the language of religion
but even to profane literature, just as his writings generally have
without question largely contributed to the furtherance of the German
tongue.
The scholarly Caspar Ulenberg, writing on this subject from the
Catholic side in the 16th century, expresses himself most favourably.
“What Luther,” he says, “after consulting the recognised opinion of
Hebrew and Greek experts, took to be the true meaning of the text
under discussion, that he clothed in pure and elegant German, on the
cultivation of which he had all his life bestowed great care. He had
made such progress in the art of writing, teaching and expounding,
that, if we take into consideration the beauty and the brilliance of
his language, so free from artifice, as well as the originality of
his expression, we must allow that he excelled all in the use of the
German tongue so that none can compare with him. Thus it was that
he gained so uncanny an influence over the hearts of his Germans,
that, by caressing and flattering and using the allurements of the
Divine Word, he could make them believe whatever he pleased. In this
translation of the Bible he was, above all, at pains, by means of a
certain elegance and charm of speech, to entice all to become his
readers, and thus to win men’s hearts.”[820]
Luther cannot indeed be called the creator of New-High-German, either
by reason of his translation of the Bible or of his other German
writings. Yet, using as he did the already existing treasure of the
language with such ability, his influence on the German language was
necessarily very great, especially as, owing to the great spread
of his writings in those early days of printing, his works were
practically the first in the literary field, and, indeed, in many
places excluded all others. “Luther’s importance as regards the
language,” declares one of the most recent students of this matter,
“is less apparent in the details of grammar, in which he is sometimes
rather backward, than in the general effect of his exertions on behalf
of New-High-German.” It is of small importance, the same writer
remarks, “if in the mere wealth of common idioms one or other of the
towns even within the confines of his native Saxon land--Grimma,
Leipzig, Dresden--were in advance of the language employed by
Luther.”[821]
Luther’s translation of the Bible will be treated of more in detail
elsewhere (vol. v., xxxiv., 3). Here, however, mention may be made of
the fine quality of the German used in his sermons, his theological and
polemical writings, as well as in his popular works of devotion.
The figures and comparisons in which his sparkling fancy delights,
particularly in the devotional booklets intended for the common people,
his popular, sympathetic and often thoughtful adaptation of his
language to the subject and to the personality of the reader, the truly
German stamp of his phraseology, lending to the most difficult as well
as to the most ordinary subjects just the clothing they require--all
this no one can observe and enjoy without paying tribute to his gift of
description and language.
“His vocabulary was strong and incisive,” Johannes Janssen truly
remarks, “his style full of life and movement, his similes, in their
naked plainness, were instinct with vigour and went straight to the
mark. He drew from the rich mines of the vernacular tongue, and in
popular eloquence and oratory few equalled him. Where he still spoke
in the spirit of the Catholic past his language was often truly
sublime. In his works of instruction and edification he more than once
reveals a depth of religious grasp which reminds one of the days of
German mysticism.”[822]
His first pupils could not sufficiently extol his gift of language.
Justus Jonas in his panegyric on Luther declares, though his words are
far-fetched: “Even the Chanceries have learnt from him, at least in
part, to speak and write correct German; for he revived the use of the
German language so that now we are again able to speak and write it
accurately, as many a person of degree must testify and witness.”[823]
And of the influence of his spoken words on people’s minds Hieronymus
Weller declares, that it had been said of him, his words “made each
one fancy he could see into the very hearts of those troubled or
tempted, and that he could heal wounded and broken spirits.”[824]
_The Spiritual Guide._
Not merely as professor, preacher and writer, but also as spiritual
leader, did Luther exhibit many qualities which add to the attraction
of his picture. Whatever may be the habits of polemical writers, the
historian who wishes to acquit himself properly of his task must not in
so momentous a matter evade the duty of depicting the favourable as
well as the unfavourable sides of Luther’s character.
Though Luther did not regard himself as the pastor of Wittenberg, yet
as much depended on him there as if he had actually been the regular
minister; moreover, as was only to be expected, throughout the Saxon
Electorate as well as in other districts won over to him, he exercised
a certain sway. As can be proved from his letters and other documents,
he freely offered his best services, if only for the good repute of the
Evangel, to abolish scandals, to punish preachers who led bad lives, to
promote attendance at public worship and the reception of communion, to
help on the cause of the schools and the education of the young, and in
every other way to amend the Christian life.
In order to revive discipline at Wittenberg, he tried the effect of
excommunication, though with no very conspicuous success. He took the
brave step of placing the Town Commandant, Hans Metzsch, under a sort
of ban for his notorious disregard of the Church.[825] What he then
told the congregation was calculated to inspire a wholesome dread, and
to recall them to their duties towards God and their neighbour. The
incident was likely to prove all the more effectual seeing that Luther
had on his side both Town Council and congregation, Metzsch having
previously fallen out with them, a fact which undoubtedly emboldened
Luther.[826]
When Antinomianism, with its perilous teaching against the binding
character of the Divine Law, strove to strike root in the Saxon
Electorate, he set himself with unusual vigour to combat the evil,
and in his writings, sermons and letters set forth principles worthy
of being taken to heart concerning the importance of the Commandments
and the perils of self-will. Similar edifying traits are apparent in
his struggle with other “Rotters.” In the elimination of the sectarian
element from the heart of the new faith and in instancing its dangers,
he shows himself very emphatic, and, at times, the force of his
reasoning is inimitable. Neither was he slow to find practical measures
to ensure its extirpation, especially when it threatened the good name
and stability of his work.[827]
He exercised many of the other labours of his ministry by means of his
writings; with the help of his pen and the press, he, in his quality
of spiritual guide, attacked all the many-sided questions of life,
seeking to impart instruction to his followers wherever they might
chance to be. No one so far had made such use of the newly invented art
of printing for the purpose of exerting religious influence and for
spiritual government.
He despatched a vast number of circular-letters to the congregations,
some with detailed and fervent exhortations; his Postils on the
scriptural Lessons for the Sundays and Feast Days he scattered far
and wide amongst the masses; he was also interested in good books
on profane subjects, and exhorted all to assist in the suppression
of obscene romances and tales;[828] he also set to work to purify
Æsop’s Fables--which, under Humanist influence, had become a source of
corruption--from filthy accretions so that they might be of use in the
education of the young.[829] The collection of German Proverbs which he
commenced was also intended to serve for the instruction of youth.[830]
He justly regretted that amongst the Legends of the Saints current
amongst the people there were many historical untruths and
impossibilities. Many of his remarks on these stories do credit to
his critical sense, particularly as in his time very few had as yet
concerned themselves with the revision of these legends. It was far
from advantageous to ecclesiastical literature, that, in spite of
the well-grounded objections raised by Luther and by some Catholic
scholars, deference to old-standing tradition allowed such fictions to
be retained and even further enhanced. “It is the devil’s own plague,”
Luther groans, “that we have no reliable legends of the Saints.... To
correct them is an onerous task.” “The legend of St. Catherine,” he
says on the same occasion to his friends, “is quite at variance with
Roman history. Whoever concocted such a tale must now assuredly be
sitting in the depths of hell.”[831] He goes, however, too far when he
says that the inaccuracies were intentional, “infamous” lies devised by
Popery, and adds: “We never dared to protest against them.”--As though
such literary and often poetic outgrowths of a more childlike age were
not to be regarded as merely harmless, and as though criticism had been
prohibited by the Church. It is true, nevertheless, that criticism had
not been sufficiently exercised, and if Luther’s undertaking and the
controversies of the 16th century helped to arouse it, or, rather, to
quicken the efforts already made in this direction, first in the field
of Bible-study and Church-history and then, more gradually, in that
of popular legendary and devotional literature, no wise man can see
therein any cause for grief.
“An die Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches Lands, das sie christliche
Schulen auffrichten und halten sollen” is the title of one of Luther’s
writings of 1524, in which he urges the erection of schools with such
vigour that the circular in question must be assigned a high place
among his hortatory works: “With this writing Luther will recapture
the affection of many of his opponents,” wrote a Zwickau schoolmaster
after reading it.[832] “Ob Kriegsleutte auch ynn seligem Stande seyn
künden” (1526) is the heading of another broadsheet of his, dealing
with the secular sword, the divinely established “office of war” and
the rights of the authorities. For this Luther made use of Augustine’s
work “_Contra Faustum manichæum_.”[833] It is said that part of the
proofs, without any author’s name, was put into the hands of Duke
George of Saxony; thereupon he remarked to Lucas Cranach: “See, I have
here a booklet which is better than anything Luther could do.”[834] At
a later date Luther urged the people in eloquent words to take up arms
against the Turk, though he had at first been opposed to resistance;
nevertheless, he ever maintained his unfavourable attitude towards
the Empire, already described in vol. iii., even on this question of
such vital importance to Germany. He was relentless in his criticism
of German unpreparedness for war, of the fatal habit of disregarding
danger and of other possible sources of disaster; he also advanced
religious motives for joining in the war, and exhorted all the faithful
bravely to assist by their prayers.
Whilst these and other writings deal with practical questions
affecting public life in which his position and religious ideas
entitled him to interfere, a large number of works and pamphlets are
devoted to domestic and private needs. In his “Trost fur die Weibern
welchen es ungerat gegangen ist mit Kinder Geberen” (1542) he even has
a kind word for such wives as had had a miscarriage, and consoles those
who were troubled about the fate of their unbaptised infants. From
the theological point of view this subject had, however, been treated
better and more correctly by others before his day. He was also at his
post with words of direction and sympathy when pestilence threatened,
as his writing “Ob man fur dem Sterben fliehen muge” (1527) bears
witness. He frequently composed Prefaces to books written by others, in
order to encourage the authors and to help on what he considered useful
works; thus, for instance, he wrote a commendatory Introduction to
Justus Menius’s “_Œconomia Christiana_” (1529).
_The New Form of Confession._
Luther’s pastoral experience convinced him that Confession was
conducive to the maintenance and furtherance of religious life.
He accordingly determined to re-introduce it in a new shape, i.e.
without invalidating the doctrines he had preached concerning faith
and freedom. Hence, at times we find him speaking almost like an
apologist of the Church concerning this practice of earlier ages and
its wholesome effects. He insists, however, that no confession of all
mortal sins must be required, nor ought Confession to be made a duty,
but merely counselled.
In his work “Von der Beicht, ob der Bapst Macht habe zu gepieten”
(1521) he begins one section with the words: “Two reasons ought to make
us ready and willing to confess,” which he then proceeds to expound
quite in the manner of the olden Catholic works of instruction.[835]
Elsewhere he expresses his joy that Confession had been bestowed on the
Church of Christ, especially for the relief of troubled consciences;
Confession and Absolution must not be allowed to fall into disuse; to
despise so costly a treasure would be criminal.
Of Luther himself it is related again and again, that, after having
confessed, he received “Absolution,” either from Pastor Bugenhagen of
Wittenberg or from someone else.
The words Absolution and Confession must not, however, as already
hinted, be allowed to mislead those accustomed to their Catholic sense.
Sometimes in Catholic works we read quotations from Luther which convey
the wrong impression, that he had either retained the older doctrine
practically entire, or at least wished to do so. So little is this the
case, that, on the contrary, when he mentions Confession it is usually
only to rail at the “slavery” of conscience and the spiritual tyranny
of the past.[836] Absolution, according to him, could be received
“from the lips of the pastor, or of some other brother.”[837] Even
the ordinary preaching of the Gospel to the faithful he considers as
“fundamentally and at bottom an ‘_absolutio_’ wherein forgiveness of
sins is proclaimed.”[838] In Confession there was no “Sacrament” in
the sense that Baptism and the Supper were Sacraments, but merely “an
exercise of the virtue of Baptism,” an act in which the simple Word
became a means of grace. The Word was to arouse and awaken in the
heart of the Christian the assurance of forgiveness. The faith of the
penitent is the sole condition for the appropriation of the Divine
promises.[839] Of the way in which Luther in the Smaller Catechism
nevertheless emphasises the significance of the Absolution given by the
confessor,[840] Julius Köstlin says: “These statements of Luther’s are
in several ways lacking in clearness.”[841]
I must, in my trouble, Luther says elsewhere of Confession, seek
for comfort from my brother or neighbour, and “whatever consolation
he gives me is ratified by God in heaven [’_erunt soluta in cœlo_’
(Mat. xviii. 18)]”; “He consoles me in God’s stead and God Himself
speaks to me through him.” “When I receive absolution or seek for
comfort from my brother,” then “what I hear is the voice of the Holy
Ghost Himself.” “It is a wonderful thing, that a minister of the
Church or any brother should be ‘_minister regni Dei et vitæ æternæ,
remissionis peccatorum...._’”[842]
But all such private exercise of the power of the keys
notwithstanding, the public exercise by the ordinary ministers of
the Church was also to be held in honour; it was to take place “when
the whole body of the Church was assembled.”[843] In spite of the
opposition of some he was always in favour of the general absolution
being given during the service.[844] In this he followed the older
practice which still exists, according to which, out of devotion and
not with any idea of imparting a sacrament, the “_Misereatur_” and
“_Indulgentiam_” were said over the assembled faithful after they
had said the “_Confiteor_.” He also drew up a special form for this
general confession and absolution.[845]
But even such public Confession was not, however, to be made
obligatory; the very nature of Luther’s system forbade his setting
up rules and obligations. In the present matter Luther could not
sufficiently emphasise the Christian’s freedom, although this freedom,
as man is constituted, could not but render impossible any really
practical results. Hence Confession, private as well as public, was
not to be prescribed, so much so that “those who prefer to confess to
God alone and thereafter receive the Sacrament” are “quite at liberty
to do so.”[846] For Confession was after all merely a general or
particular confession of trouble of conscience or sinfulness, made in
order to obtain an assurance that the sins were all forgiven.
It was, however, of the utmost importance that the penitents should
declare whether they knew all that was necessary about Christ and
His saving Word, and that otherwise they should be instructed. “If
Christians are able to give an account of their faith,” Luther says
in 1540 of the practice prevailing at Wittenberg, “and display an
earnest desire to receive the Sacrament, then we do not compel them to
make a private Confession or to enumerate their sins.” For instance,
nobody thinks of compelling Master Philip (Melanchthon). “Our main
reason for retaining Confession is for the private rehearsal of the
Catechism.”[847]
In 1532, amidst the disturbance caused by Dionysius Melander, the
Zwinglian faction gained the upper hand at Frankfort on the Maine,
and the preachers, supported by the so-called fanatics, condemned and
mocked at the Confession, which, according to the Smaller Catechism,
was to be made to a confessor, to be duly addressed as “Your
Reverence.” Luther, in his “Brieff an die zu Franckfort am Meyn” (Dec.
1532), accordingly set forth his ideas on Confession, in what manner
it was to be retained and rendered useful.[848] “We do not force
anyone to go to Confession,” he there writes, “as all our writings
prove, just as we do not enquire who rejects our Catechism and our
teaching.” He had no wish to drive proud spirits “into Christ’s
Kingdom by force.” As against the self-accusation of all mortal sins
required in Popery he had introduced a “great and sublime freedom” for
the quieting of “agonised consciences”; the penitent need only confess
“some few sins which oppress him most,” even this is not required of
“those who know what sin really is,” “like our Pastor [Bugenhagen] and
our Vicar, Master Philip.” “But because of the dear young people who
are daily growing up and of the common folk who understand but little,
we retain the usage in order that they may be trained in Christian
discipline and understanding. For the object of such Confession is not
merely that we may hear the sins, but that we may learn whether they
are acquainted with the Our Father, the Creed, the Ten Commandments
and all that is comprised in the Catechism.... Where can this be
better done, and when is it more necessary than when they are about to
approach the Sacrament?”[849]
“Thus, previously [to the Supper], the common people are to be
examined and made to say whether they know the articles of the
Catechism and understand what it is to sin against them, and if they
will for the future learn more and amend, and otherwise are not to
be admitted to the Sacrament.” “But if a pastor who is unable at all
times and places to preach God’s Word to the people, takes advantage
of such time and place as offers when they come to Confession, isn’t
there just the devil of a row! As if, forsooth, he were acting
contrary to God’s command, and as if those fanatics were saints, who
would prevent him from teaching God’s Word at such a time and place,
when in reality we are bound to teach it in all places and at all
times when or wheresoever we can.”[850]
This instruction, which is the “main reason” for retaining Confession,
is to be followed, according to the same letter, by “the _Absolutio_”
pronounced by the preacher in God’s stead, i.e. by the word of the
confessor which may “comfort the heart and confirm it in the faith.”
Of this same word Luther says: “Who is there who has climbed so high
as to be able to dispense with or to despise God’s Word?”[851]
It is in the light of such explanations that we must appreciate the
fine things in praise of Confession, so frequently quoted, which Luther
says in his letter to Frankfurt.
Luther goes on to make an admission which certainly does him honour:
“And for this [the consolation and strength it affords] I myself stand
most in need of Confession, and neither will nor can do without it; for
it has given me, and still gives me daily, great comfort when I am sad
and in trouble. But the fanatics, because they trust in themselves and
are unacquainted with sadness, are ready to despise this medicine and
solace.”
He had already said: “If thousands and thousands of worlds were mine, I
should still prefer to lose everything rather than that one little bit
of this Confession should be lost to the churches. Nay, I would prefer
the Popish tyranny, with its feasts, fasts, vestments, holy places,
tonsures, cowls and whatever I might bear without damage to the faith,
rather than that Christians should be deprived of Confession. For it
is the Christian’s first, most necessary and useful school, where he
learns to understand and to practise God’s Word and his faith, which
cannot be so thoroughly done in public lectures and sermons.”[852]
“Christians are not to be deprived of Confession.” On this, and for the
same reasons, Luther had already insisted in the booklet on Confession
he had published in 1529. The booklet first appeared as an appendix
to an edition of his Greater Catechism published in that year, and is
little more than an amended version of Rörer’s notes of his Palm Sunday
sermon in 1529.[853]
In this booklet on Confession, also entitled “A Short Exhortation to
Confession,”[854] he says of the “secret Confession made to a brother
alone”: “Where there is something special that oppresses or troubles
us, worries us and will give us no rest, or if we find ourselves
halting in our faith,” we should “complain of this to a brother and
seek counsel, consolation and strength.” “Where a heart feels its
sinfulness and is desirous of comfort, it has here a sure refuge
where it may find and hear God’s Word.” “Whoever is a Christian, or
wishes to become one, is hereby given the good advice to go and fetch
the precious treasure.” “Thus we teach now what an excellent, costly
and consoling thing Confession is, and admonish all not to despise
so fine a possession.” As the “parched and hunted hart” panteth
after the fountains, so ought our soul to pant after “God’s Word or
Absolution.”--The zeal expected of the penitent is well described, but
here, as is so often the case with Luther, we again find the mistake
resulting from his false idealism, viz. that, after doing away with
all obligation properly so called, personal fervour and the faith he
preached would continue to supply the needful.
Before Luther’s day Confession had been extolled on higher grounds
than merely on account of the comfort and instruction it afforded. It
had been recognised as a true Sacrament instituted by Christ for the
forgiveness of sins, and committed by Him with the words “Whose sins
you shall forgive,” etc. (John xx. 22 f.), to the exercise of duly
appointed ministers. Yet the earlier religious literature had not
been behindhand in pointing out how great a boon it was for the human
heart to be able to pour its troubles into the ears of a wise and
kindly guide, who could impart a true absolution and pour the balm of
consolation and the light of instruction into the soul kneeling humbly
before him as God’s own representative.
As regards the instruction, on which Luther lays such stress as the
“main reason” for retaining the practice, the Catholic Confession
handbooks of that period, particularly some recently re-edited, show
how careful the Church was about this matter.
Franz Falk has recently made public three such handbooks, of which
very few copies were hitherto known.[855] One of these is the work
of a priest of Frankfurt a. M., Magister Johann Wolff (Lupi), and
was first published in 1478; the second is a block-book containing a
preparation for Confession, probably printed at Nuremberg in 1475;
the third an Augsburg manual of Confession printed in 1504. The
last two were intended more for popular use and give the sins in the
order of the Decalogue. The first, by Wolff, pastor of St. Peter’s
at Frankfurt, consists of two parts, one for children, the other for
“older people, learned or unlearned,” containing examinations of
conscience, very detailed and explicit in some parts, into the sins
against the Ten Commandments, the seven capital sins, and, finally,
the sins committed with “the five outward senses.” The examination of
conscience for children, for the sake of instruction also includes
the Our Father, Hail Mary, Creed and Decalogue, also the list of
capital sins, Sacraments and Eight Beatitudes. The copious Latin tags
from Peter Lombard, Scotus, Gerson, etc., point to the manual having
been meant primarily as a guide for the clergy, on whom an appendix
also impresses the advantages of a frequent explanation of the Ten
Commandments from the pulpit. Schoolmasters too, so the manual says,
should also be urged to instruct on the Commandments those committed
to their care. Luther’s manual on Confession contains so many echoes
of Wolff’s work (or of other Catholic penitential handbooks) that one
of Wolff’s Protestant editors remarks: “Such agreement is certainly
more than a mere chance coincidence,” and, further: “It is difficult
in view of the great resemblance of thought, and in places even of
language, not to assume that the younger man is indebted to his
predecessor.”[856] However this may be, Wolff’s work, though holding
no very high place as regards either arrangement or style, clearly
expresses the general trend of the Catholic teaching on morality
at that time, and refutes anew the unfounded charge that religious
instruction for the people was entirely absent.
“We see how mature and keen in many particulars was the moral sense
in that much-abused period.... The author is not satisfied with
merely an outward, pharisaical righteousness, but the spirit is what
he everywhere insists on.... He also defines righteousness ... as
absolute uprightness of spirit, thankful, devoted love of God and pure
charity towards our neighbour, free from all ulterior motive.” These
words, of the “Leipziger Zeitung” (“Wissenschaftliche Beilage,” No.
10, 1896), regarding the Leipzig “Beichtspiegel” of 1495, Falk applies
equally to Wolff’s handbook for Confession.[857]
This latter instruction dwells particularly on the need of
“contrition, sorrow and grief for sin” on the part of the penitent.
N. Paulus, in several articles, has furnished superabundant proof,
that in those years, which some would have us believe were addicted
to the crassest externalism, the need of contrition in Confession was
earnestly dwelt upon in German religious writings.[858]
Luther, however, even in the early days of his change, under the
influence of a certain distaste and prejudice in favour of his own
pet ideas, had conceived an aversion for Confession. Here again his
opposition was based on purely personal, psychological grounds. The
terrors he had endured in Confession owing to his curious mental
constitution, his enmity to all so-called holiness-by-works--leading
him to undervalue the Church’s ancient institution of Confession--and
the steadily growing influence of his prejudices and polemics, alone
explain how he descended so often to the most odious and untrue
misrepresentations of Confession as practised by the Papists.
What in the depths of his heart he really desired, and what he openly
called for, viz. a Confession which should heal the wounds of the soul
and, by an enlightened faith, promote moral betterment--that, alas, he
himself had destroyed with a violent hand.