THE COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. FIRST DISPUTATIONS AND
FIRST TRIUMPHS
1. “The Commencement of the Gospel Business.” Exposition of the Epistle
to the Galatians (1516-17)
LUTHER’S friends and admirers were at a later date loud in their
praise of the lectures on the Epistle to the Romans and on that to the
Galatians which he commenced immediately after, and looked upon these
as marking the dawn of a new epoch in theology. Luther himself, with
more accuracy, designated the first disputations, of which we shall
come to speak presently, as the “commencement of the gospel business.”
Melanchthon in his short sketch of Luther’s life speaks pompously of
these lectures and manifests his entire unacquaintance with the old
Church and the truths for which she stood.
“In the opinion of the wise and pious the light of the new teaching
first broke forth, after a long and dark night, in the Commentary on
these Epistles. There Luther pointed out the true distinction between
the law and the gospel; there he refuted the Pharisaical errors which
then ruled in the schools and in the pulpits, namely, that man was
able to obtain forgiveness of sin by his own efforts and could be
justified before God by the performance of outward works. He brought
back souls to the Son of God, he pointed to the Lamb, Who bore the
guilt of our sins. He demonstrated that sin was forgiven for the sake
of the Son of God and that such a favour ought to be accepted in
faith. He also shed a great light on the other articles of faith.”[795]
Mathesius, Luther’s pupil and eulogist, in his sermons on Luther,
points out, in the following passionate words, the importance of the
lectures and disputations held by his master: “Dr. Luther in all
his lectures and disputations chiefly treats of this question and
article, whether the true faith by which we are to live a Christian
life and die a happy death is to be learned from Holy Scripture or
from the godless heathen Aristotle, on whom the Doctors of the Schools
attempted to base the doctrine of the Romish Church and of the monks.”
“This is the chief issue between Dr. Luther and the Sophists....
Young Dr. Luther has solemnly sworn, in due form, a true, public and
godly oath that he will hold fast by the holy and certain Scriptures;
that it was more reasonable that we should rely in matters of faith
and conscience on the godly Scriptures rather than stake our souls
and consciences on the teaching of darksome Scotus, foolish Albertus,
questionable Thomas of Aquin, or of the Moderns or Occamists.... He
insisted upon this in his writings and disputations before ever he
began his controversy on Indulgences. For this reason he was at the
time scolded as a heretic and condemned by many because he scorned all
the High Schools and the learned men.... Although both his brethren
and other monks questioned all this, yet they were unable to bring
forward anything effective against him and his weighty reasoning.”[796]
Luther’s sermons and letters of the years 1516 to 1518 bear witness to
the commotion caused by his theological opinions.
The “new theology” which was being proclaimed at Wittenberg was
discussed with dismay, particularly at Erfurt and in the more
conservative monasteries. Andreas Carlstadt, Luther’s colleague at the
University, and Peter Lupinus, a former professor at Wittenberg, were
at first among his opponents, but were speedily won over. Carlstadt
indeed, as his 152 theses of April, 1517 show, even went further on
the new lines than Luther himself.[797] Another of his colleagues at
the University, who at a later date proved a more trustworthy ally,
was Nicholas Amsdorf. Schurf, the lawyer, was one of his most able
patrons among the lay professors. Spalatin, Court Chaplain, vigorously
but prudently advocated his cause with the Elector. At Wittenberg
Luther’s party speedily gained the ascendant. The students were full of
enthusiasm for the bold, ready and combative teacher, whose frequent
use of German in his lectures—at that time an unheard-of thing—also
pleased them.[798] The disputations, particularly, could thus be
conducted with less constraint and far more forcibly.
It is hard to say how far Luther realised the danger of the path he was
treading.
He wrote to Dr. Christopher Scheurl, a Nuremberg lawyer, who was also
one of his early patrons and protectors, thanking him in the humble
words of exaggerated humanistic courtesy for the praise he had bestowed
upon him: he (Luther) recognized that the favour and applause of the
world were dangerous for us, that self-complacency and pride were man’s
greatest enemies. He, nevertheless, tells him in the same letter that
Staupitz, at one time his Superior and Director, had repeatedly said
to him much to his terror: “I praise Christ in you, and I am forced to
believe Him in you.”[799]
In his exultation at the great success which he had achieved at
Wittenberg he says joyfully in the spring of 1517 in a letter to a
friend: “Our theology and St. Augustine are progressing happily and
prevail at our University (‘_procedunt et regnant_’, cp. Ps. xliv. 5).
Aristotle is at a discount and is hurrying to everlasting destruction.
People are quite disgusted with the lectures on the Sentences [of Peter
Lombard], and no one can be sure of an audience unless he expounds this
theology, i.e. the Bible or St. Augustine, or some other teacher of
note in the Church.”[800]
He continued to rifle St. Augustine’s writings for passages which
were apparently favourable to his views. He says, later, that he ran
through the writings of this Father of the Church with such eagerness
that he devoured rather than read them.[801] He certainly did not allow
himself sufficient time to appreciate properly the profound teachings
of this, the greatest Father of the Church, and best authority on
grace and justification. Even Protestant theologians now admit that he
quoted Augustine where the latter by no means agrees with him.[802]
His own friends and contemporaries, such as Melanchthon, for instance,
admitted the contradiction existing between Luther’s ideas and those
of St. Augustine on the most vital points; it was, however, essential
that this Father of the Church, so Melanchthon writes to one of his
confidants, should be cited as in “entire agreement” on account of the
high esteem in which he was generally held.[803] Luther himself was,
consciously or unconsciously, in favour of these tactics; he tampered
audaciously with the text of the Doctor of the Church in order to
extract from his writings proofs favourable to his own doctrine; or at
the very least, trusting to his memory, he made erroneous citations,
when it would have been easy for him to verify the quotations at their
source; the only excuse to be alleged on his behalf in so grave a
matter of faith and conscience is his excessive precipitation and his
superficiality.
Luther’s lectures on the Epistle to the Galatians commenced on October
27, 1516.
These he published in 1519 in an amended form,[804] whereas those on
the Epistle to the Romans never appeared to him fit for publication.
Notes of the original lectures on Galatians are said to be in the
possession of Dr. Krafft of Elberfeld, and will in all probability
appear in the Weimar edition of Luther’s works.[805]
The lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews and on that to Titus
followed in 1517. Notes of the former, as stated above, exist at Rome,
and their approaching publication will throw a clearer light on the
change in the theological views of their author.
In the printed Commentary on Galatians Luther’s teaching appears
in a more advanced form. His development had not only progressed
during the course of the lectures, but the time which elapsed before
their publication brought him fresh material which he introduced
into the Commentary. It would be essential to have them in the form
in which they were delivered in order to be able to follow up the
process which went forward in his mind. It is nevertheless worth
while to dwell on the work and at the same time to compare parallel
passages from Luther’s other Commentary on Galatians—to be referred
to immediately—were it only on account of the delight he takes in
referring to this Epistle, or of the fact that his exposition of it
runs counter to the whole of tradition.
Luther ever had the highest opinion of the Epistle to the Galatians
and of his own Commentaries on it. At a later date he says jokingly:
“_Epistola ad Galatas_ is my Epistle to which I have plighted my troth;
my own Katey von Bora.”[806] Melanchthon praises Luther’s Commentary on
Galatians in a more serious fashion and says, it was in truth “the coil
of Theseus by the aid of which we are enabled to wander through the
labyrinth of biblical learning.”[807]
Besides the shorter Commentary on Galatians published in 1519 there is
also a much longer one compiled from notes of Luther’s later lectures,
made public in 1535 by his pupil Rörer, together with a Preface by
Luther himself.[808] Protestants consider it as “the most important
literary product of his academic career” and, in fact, as “the most
important of his theological works.”[809] In what follows we shall
rely, as we said before, on the sources which afford the most accurate
picture of his views, i.e. on both the shorter and the longer redaction
of his Commentary on Galatians, especially where the latter repeats in
still more forcible language views already contained in the former.
It is well to know that, in his expositions of the Epistle to the
Galatians, Luther’s antagonism to the Catholic doctrine of Works,
Justification and Original Sin is carried further than in any other of
his exegetical writings, until, indeed, it verges on the paradoxical.
Nowhere else does the author so unhesitatingly read his own ideas into
Holy Scripture, or turn his back so completely on the most venerable
traditions of the Church.
For instance, he shows how God by His grace was obliged to renew,
from the root upwards, the tree of human nature, which had fallen and
become rotten to the core, in order that it might bear fruit which
was not mere poison and sin and such as to render it worthy to be
cast into hell fire. Everything is made to depend upon that terrible
doctrine of Divine Predestination, which inexorably condemns a portion
of mankind to hell. It never occurred to him that this doctrine of a
Predestination to hell was in conflict with God’s goodness and mercy,
at least, he never had the least hesitation in advocating it. The only
preparation for salvation is the predestination to heaven of the man
upon whom God chooses to have mercy, seeing that man, on his part,
is utterly unable to do anything (“_unica dispositio ad gratiam est
æterna Dei electio_”). Man is justified by the faith, which is wrought
by God’s gracious Word and Spirit, but this faith is really confidence
in God’s pardoning grace through Christ (“_Sufficit Christus per
fidem, ut sis iustus_”). In the printed Commentary on Galatians we
already have Luther’s new doctrine of the absolute assurance of
salvation by faith alone.
This later discovery he insists upon, with wearisome reiteration, in
the Commentary on Galatians as the only means of bringing relief to
the conscience. We shall have occasion later (ch. x., 1, 2) to speak
of the origin of this new element in his theology, which he made his
own before the publication of the first Commentary on Galatians.
He entirely excludes love from this faith, even the slightest
commencement of it, in more forcible terms than ever. “That faith
alone justifies,” he writes, “which apprehends Christ by means of
the Word, and is beautified and adorned by it, not that faith which
includes love.... How does this take place, and how is the Christian
made so righteous?” he asks. “By means of the noble treasure and
pearl, which is called Christ, and which he makes his own by faith.”
“Therefore it is mere idle, extravagant talk when those fools, the
Sophists [the scholastic theologians] chatter about the _fides
formata_, i.e. a faith which is to take its true form and shape
from love.”[810] The relation which exists between this view of a
mechanically operating faith (which moreover God alone produces in us)
and the Lutheran doctrine of the exclusive action of God in the “dead
tree” of human nature, cannot fail to be perceived. How could, indeed,
such a view of God’s action admit of any real, organic co-operation on
the part of man, even when exalted and strengthened by grace, in the
work of his own eternal salvation by virtue of faith working through
love?
God’s mercy, Luther says, is made known to man by a whisper from above
(the “secret voice”): Thy sins are forgiven thee; the perception of
this is not, however, essential; probably, Luther recognised that this
was altogether too problematical. Hence there is no escape from the
fact that justification must always remain uncertain. The author of
this doctrine demands, however, that man should induce in himself a
kind of certainty, in the same way that he demands certainty in the
acceptance of all facts of faith. “You must assume it as certain that
your service is pleasing to God. But this you can never do unless you
have the Holy Ghost.”[811] How are we to know whether we have the Holy
Ghost? Again he answers: “We must accept as certain and acknowledge
that we are the temple of God.”[812] “We must be assured that not our
service only but also our person is pleasing to God.”[813] He goes
on in this tone without in the least solving the difficulty.[814]
He declares that we must risk, try, and exercise assurance. This,
however, merely depends upon a self-acquired dexterity,[815] upon
human ability, which, moreover, frequently leaves even the strongest
in the lurch, as we shall see later from Luther’s own example and that
of his followers.
He goes so far in speaking of faith and grace in the larger Commentary
on Galatians, as to brand the most sublime and holy works, namely,
prayer and meditation, as “idolatry” unless performed in accordance
with the only true principle of faith, viz. with his doctrine
regarding justification by faith alone. This can be more readily
understood when we consider that according to him, man, in spite of
his resistance to concupiscence, is, nevertheless, on account of the
same, guilty of the sins of avarice, anger, impurity, a list to which
he significantly adds “_et cetera_,”[816]
He had expressed himself in a similar way in the shorter Commentary,
but did not think his expressions in that book strong enough
adequately to represent his ideas.[817]
As he constantly connects his statements with what he looks upon as
the main contentions of St. Paul in the Epistles to the Romans and the
Galatians, we may briefly remind our readers of the interpretation
which the older theology had ever placed upon them.
The Apostle Paul teaches, according to the Fathers and the greatest
theologians of the Middle Ages, that both Jews and heathen might
attain to salvation and life by faith. He proves this by showing that
the heathen were not saved by the works of nature, nor the Jews by the
works of the Mosaic Law; but he does not by any means exclude works
altogether as unnecessary for justification. In the important passage
of the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. i. 17) where Paul quotes the words
of Habacuc: “The just man liveth by faith,” there was no call to
define more clearly the nature of justifying faith, or to explain
to what extent it must be a living faith showing itself in works in
charity and in hope. To exclude works from faith, as Luther assumes
him to do, was very far from his intention in that passage. Nor is
this idea involved in the saying which Luther so frequently quotes
(Rom. iii. 28): “We account a man to be justified by faith without
the works of the law,” for here he merely excludes the works “of the
law,” i.e. according to the context such works as do not rest on faith
but precede faith, whether the purely outward works of the Mosaic
ceremonial law, or other natural works done apart from, or before,
Christ. We shall speak later of Luther’s interpolation in this passage
of the word “alone” after “faith” in his translation of the Bible (see
vol. v., xxxiv. 3).
When St. Paul elsewhere describes more narrowly the nature of
justifying faith (a fact to which both the Fathers and the theologians
draw attention), he is quite emphatic in asserting that the sinner
is not admitted by God to grace and made partaker of the heavenly
promises merely by virtue of a dead faith, but by a real, supernatural
faith which works by charity (Gal. v. 6). This in previous ages had
been rightly understood to mean not merely an acceptance of the Word
of God and the intimate persuasion of the remission of one’s sins,
but a faith enlivened by grace with charity. In confirmation of this,
other well-known passages of the New Testament were always quoted:
“Wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” “Do
you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?” “For
even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without
works is dead.” “Labour the more that by good works you may make sure
your calling and election.”[818]
Some important disputations which the youthful University Professor
held on theses and “paradoxa” formulated by himself prove how his
teaching was taking ever deeper root at Wittenberg and elsewhere. The
story of these disputations casts light on his peculiar tactics, viz.
to meet every kind of opposition by still more forcibly and defiantly
advancing his own propositions.
2. Disputations on man’s powers and against Scholasticism (1516-17)
In September, 1516, Luther arranged for a remarkable Disputation to
be held at Wittenberg by Bartholomew Bernhardi of Feldkirchen, in
Swabia, on the occasion of the latter’s promotion to be Lecturer on the
Sentences. From a confidential letter of Luther’s to Johann Lang, Prior
at Erfurt, we learn some particulars as to the motive which determined
the choice of the theses, which latter are still extant. From this we
see that the Disputation was held on account of those who “barked” at
Luther’s lectures. “In order to shut the mouths of yelping curs, and
at the same time to let the opinion of others be heard,” the theses on
man’s absolute inability to do what is good were purposely worded in a
most offensive form. This Disputation brought over Amsdorf, hitherto
an opponent, to Luther’s side. Amsdorf sent a copy of the theses to
Erfurt in order to elicit the opinion of the professors there. But,
fearing lest the storm he foresaw might be directed against Luther, he
deleted the superscription bearing his name (“_Sub eximio viro Martino
Luthero Augustiniano_,” etc.). At the Disputation Luther presided, a
fact which is all the more significant when we remember that he was not
at that time Dean.
Among the theses to be debated one runs as follows: Man is absolutely
unable by his own unaided efforts to keep the commandments of God; he
merely seeks his own, and what is of the flesh; he himself is “vanity
of vanities” and makes creatures, who in themselves are good, also to
be vain; he is necessarily under the dominion of sin, “he sins even
when doing the best he can; for of himself he is unable either to will
or to think.”[819]
It is not surprising that theses such as this again roused the
antagonism of the followers of the old theology. Some of Luther’s
former colleagues among the Erfurt monks considered themselves directly
challenged. Trutfetter and Usingen, two esteemed professors at Erfurt,
having dared to point out the difference between these theses and the
Catholic teaching as expressed in the works of Gabriel Biel, Luther
wrote to their Superior, Johann Lang: “Let them alone, let your
Gabrielists marvel at my ‘position’ (i.e. at the theses), for mine too
(i.e. Biel’s Catholic-minded supporters at Wittenberg) still continue
to be astonished.” “Master Amsdorf formerly belonged to them, but is
now half converted.” “But I won’t have them disputing with me as to
whether Gabriel said this, or Raphael or Michael said that. I know
what Gabriel teaches; it is commendable so long as he does not begin
speaking of Grace, Charity, Hope, Faith and Virtue, for then he becomes
a Pelagian, like Scotus, his master. But it is not necessary for me to
speak further on this matter here.”[820]
In the same letter he deals some vigorous blows at Gratian and the
highly esteemed Peter Lombard; according to him they have made of the
doctrine of penance a torment rather than a remedy; they took their
matter from the treatise “On True and False Penance,” attributed to
St. Augustine; but he had been compelled to deny that this “stupid
and foolish” work was by St. Augustine. It is, however, quite certain
that this spurious work did not constitute “the chief authority for
the mediæval doctrine of Penance,”[821] neither were its contents so
untheological as we are expected to believe.
Bernhardi, Luther’s very devoted pupil, who held the Disputation
mentioned above, has been considered by some to have been the first
priest of the evangelical faith to contract matrimony.[822] This,
however, is not quite correct as others preceded him. But Bernhardi,
as Provost of Kemberg, was one of the first to draw this practical
inference from the freedom of the gospel.
A second pupil, Franz Günther of Nordhausen, who was chosen by Luther
to conduct in the following year a Disputation which partook still
more of the nature of a challenge, became later a prominent partisan
of Lutheranism. His Disputation was held at Wittenberg, September 4,
1517, under his master’s presidency, with the object of obtaining the
degree of Baccalaureus Biblicus. His 97 theses faithfully echo Luther’s
teaching, particularly his antagonism to Aristotle and Scholasticism.
The theses were scattered abroad with the object of making converts.
At Erfurt and elsewhere the friends of the new opinions to whom Luther
despatched the theses were to work for the spread of the theological
revolution. As a result of this Disputation his Erfurt opponents again
complained that Luther was too audacious, that he was overbearing
in his assertions and was flinging broadcast wicked censures of the
Catholic doctors and their teaching. With these complaints, however,
the matter ended, no one daring to do more.
At the end of Günther’s theses the following words occur in print:
“In all these propositions our intention was to say nothing, and
we believe we have said nothing, which is not in accordance with
Catholic doctrine and with ecclesiastical writers.”[823] Yet in these
propositions we read: “Man, who has become a rotten tree, can will and
do only what is evil.... Man’s will is not free but captive” (thesis
5). “The only predisposition to grace is the eternal election by God
and predestination” (29). “From beginning to end we are not masters of
our actions but servants” (39). “We do not become righteous by doing
what is right, but only after we have become righteous do we perform
what is right” (40). “The Jewish ceremonial law is not a good law,
neither are the Ten Commandments, and whatever is taught and commanded
with regard to outward observances” (82, 83). “The only good law is
the love of God which is poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost”
(84).
The following will suffice to give an idea of Günther’s theses on
the relation of Aristotle to Christian philosophy and theology;
“Aristotle’s Ethics almost in its entirety is the worst enemy of
grace” (41). “It is not merely incorrect to say that without Aristotle
no man can become a theologian; on the contrary, we must say: he is no
theologian who does not become one without Aristotle” (43, 44).
At Wittenberg the Disputation called forth enthusiastic applause among
both professors and students, and the defender was unanimously (“_uno
consensu dominorum_”) proclaimed a Bachelor. So deeply was Luther
concerned in this manifesto, that he expressed to Lang his readiness
to go to Erfurt and there personally to conduct the defence of all the
theses. He scoffs at those who had called them not merely paradoxical
but kakodoxical and even kakistodoxical (execrable).[824] “To us,” he
says, “they can only be orthodox.” He was very zealous in distributing
them far and wide, and asked Christoph Scheurl, the Humanist of
Nuremberg, to whom he sent some, to forward a copy to “our Eck ...
who is so learned and intellectual”; such was then his opinion of his
future adversary.[825]
Scheurl, and no doubt Luther’s other friends also, took care to spread
the bold theses. This Humanist, who was prejudiced in favour of Luther,
ventured to prophesy a great revolution in the domain of Divinity. At
the commencement of his reply to Luther’s letter he greets him with the
wish, that “the theology of Christ may be reinstated, and that we may
walk in His Law!”[826]
This Disputation at Wittenberg has been described by Protestants as a
“decisive blow struck at mediæval doctrine.”[827] That it was an open
challenge admits of no doubt. Reticence and humility were not among
Luther’s qualities. It would be to misrepresent him completely were we
to assign to him, as special characteristics, bashfulness, timidity and
love of retirement; however much he himself occasionally claims such
virtues as his. On the other hand, he also assures us that no one can
say of him that he wished the theses of this Disputation to be merely
“whispered in a corner.”
With this impulse to bring his new doctrines boldly before the world
may be connected his taking, about this time, in one of his letters the
name Eleutherius, or Free-spirited. This was his way of rendering into
Greek his name Luther, agreeably with the customs of the time.
Only a few weeks after the second Disputation which we have been
considering, he came forward with his Indulgence theses against Tetzel,
of which the result was to be another great Disputation. Disputations
seemed to him a very desirable method of arousing sympathy for his
ideas; these learned encounters with his opponents gave him a good
opportunity for displaying his fiery temper, his quick-wittedness,
his talent as an orator, his general knowledge, and particularly his
familiarity with the Bible.
But this is not yet the place to discuss the Indulgence theses against
Tetzel.
The better to appreciate the state of Luther’s mind at the time when
he was becoming settled in his new theological principles, we may be
permitted to consider here, by anticipation, another great Disputation
on faith and grace, that, namely, of Heidelberg, which took place after
the outbreak of Luther’s hostilities with Tetzel. In comparison with
these questions, the Indulgence controversy was of less importance,
as we shall have occasion to see; it was in reality an accidental
occurrence, though one pregnant with consequences, and, as it turned
out, the most decisive of all. The common idea that the quarrel with
Tetzel was the real starting-point of Luther’s whole conflict with the
Church is utterly untenable.
3. Disputation at Heidelberg on Faith and Grace. Other Public Utterances
The Disputation at Heidelberg took place on April 25, 1518, about six
months after the nailing up of the theses against Tetzel. A Chapter of
the Augustinian Congregation held in that town afforded the opportunity
for this Disputation.
To make use of the Chapters for such learned celebrations was nothing
unusual, but the selection of Luther to conduct the theological
discussion, at a time when his teaching on Grace and his Indulgence
theses had aroused widespread comment and excitement, and when
an examination of his conduct was pending in the Order, was very
significant. Among the delegates of the priories present at the
Chapter, all of them chosen from the older and more respected monks,
there was clearly a majority in favour of Luther. Another proof of
this fact is, that at the Chapter, Johann Lang, who was entirely of
Luther’s way of thinking, was chosen to succeed him as Rural Vicar on
the expiry of Luther’s term of service. Staupitz was confirmed in his
dignity, though his own attitude and his persistent blind prejudice in
favour of Luther must have been known to all. It appears that Luther’s
controversy with Tetzel was not even discussed in the Chapter;[828] at
any rate, we hear nothing whatever of it, nor even of any difficulties
being raised as to Luther’s position in the much more important
question of justification, although strict injunctions had already been
sent to the Order by the Holy See to place a check on him, and dissuade
him from the course he was pursuing.[829]
If, moreover, we bear in mind the character of the theses at this
Disputation, which went far beyond anything that had yet appeared, but
were nevertheless advocated before all the members assembled, we cannot
but look upon this unhappy Chapter as the shipwreck of the German
Augustinian Congregation. At the next Chapter, which was held after
an interval of two years, i.e. sooner than was customary, Staupitz
received a severe reprimand from the General of the Order and at last
laid down his office as Superior of the Congregation.[830] His weakness
and vacillation had, however, by that time already borne fruit.
Leonard Beyer, an Augustinian, another of Luther’s youthful pupils,
was chosen by him to defend the theses at Heidelberg under his own
supervision. The Disputation was held in the Lecture-room of the
Augustinian monastery in the town. Among the numerous guests present
were the professors of the University of Heidelberg. They were not of
Luther’s way of thinking, and rather inclined to join issue in the
discussion, though in general their demeanour was peaceable; one of the
younger professors, however, in the course of the dispute voiced his
disagreement in an interruption: “If the peasants hear that, they will
certainly stone you.”
Among those present, four young theologians, who at a later date went
over to the new faith and became its active promoters, followed with
lively interest the course of the discussion, in which Luther himself
frequently took part; these were Martin Bucer, an eloquent Dominican,
afterwards preacher at Strasburg and a close friend of Luther; Johann
Brenz, a Master of Philosophy, who subsequently worked for the new
teaching in Swabia; Erhard Schnepf, who became eventually a preacher
in Württemberg, and Theobald Billicanus, whom the theologians at
Heidelberg who remained faithful to the Church summoned to be examined
before them on account of his lectures, and who then was responsible
for the apostasy of the town of Nördlingen. The Disputation at
Heidelberg had a great influence on all these, and rendered them
favourable to Luther.
The first named, Martin Bucer, full of enthusiasm for Luther, informed
a friend, that at the end of the Disputation he had completely
triumphed over all his opponents and roused in almost all his hearers
admiration of his learning, eloquence, and fearlessness.[831]
If, however, we consider the theses from the theological standpoint,
we are able to understand better the impression which Bucer in the same
letter states they made on others, namely, that this new theology of
Wittenberg, which exalted itself above Scholasticism and the learning
of previous ages, and even above the teaching of the whole Church
from the time of her Divine institution, justified the most serious
apprehensions and indictments.
Twenty-eight theses had been selected from theology and twelve from
philosophy. The very first theological proposition declared in
Luther’s bold, paradoxical style, that the law of God was unable to
assist a man to righteousness, but, on the contrary, was a hindrance
to him in this respect.[832] Some of the other propositions were
hardly less strong: Man’s works, however good they may be, are
probably never anything but mortal sins (3); after sin free will is
will only in name, and when a man has done the best he is capable of,
he commits a mortal sin (13). If these assertions recall some which
we have heard before, they are followed by others expressing, in the
most startling manner, his theory on grace. “He is not righteous who
performs many works, but he who, without works, believes firmly in
Christ” (25). “The law says, ‘do this’ and it is never done; Grace
says ‘believe in Him (Christ)’ and everything is already done” (26).
“Man must altogether despair of himself in order to be fit to receive
the grace of Christ” (18).
In the proofs, the text of which is still extant and was probably
printed together with the theses, we read other statements which
remove all doubt as to the seriousness of the propositions put forth:
“Righteousness is infused by faith, for we read: ‘the just man liveth
by faith’ (Rom. i. 17) ... not as though the just man did not perform
any works, but because his works are not the cause of righteousness,
but righteousness is the cause of the works. Grace and faith are
infused without any work on our part, and then the works follow.”[833]
Luther in one passage of these “proofs” addresses to himself the only
too-well-founded objection: “Therefore we will be content without
virtue as we on our part are able only to sin!”[834] But instead of
solving this objection in a proper form, he answers rhetorically: “No,
fall on your knees and implore grace, put your hope in Christ in Whom
is salvation, life and resurrection. Fear and wrath are wrought by the
law, but hope and mercy by grace.”[835]
Underlying the whole Disputation, we perceive that antagonism to the
fear of God as the Judge of transgressions against the law, which
the reader has before remarked in Luther; that fear which Catholic
teaching had hitherto represented as the beginning of conversion and
justification.
Utterances drawn from that mysticism into which he had plunged and
the language of which he had at that time made his own, are also
noticeable. He speaks at the Disputation of the annihilation through
which a man must pass in order to arrive at the certainty of salvation
(a road which is assuredly only for the few, whereas all stand in
need of certainty): “Whoever is not destroyed and brought back to
nothingness by the cross and suffering, attributes to himself works
and wisdom. But whoever has passed through this annihilation does
not pursue works, but leaves God to work and to do all in him; it is
the same to him whether he performs works or not; he is not proud of
himself when he does anything, nor despondent when God does not work
in him.”[836] He then proceeds, describing the absolute passivity of
his mysticism as the foundation of the process of salvation: “He [who
is to be justified] knows that it is enough for him to suffer and be
destroyed by the cross in order to be yet more annihilated. This is
what Christ meant when He said (John iii. 7): ‘Ye must be born again.’
If Christ speaks of ‘being born again,’ it necessarily follows that we
must first die, i.e. feel death as though it were present.”
Besides the antagonism to true and well-grounded fear, and the mystical
veneer, there is a third psychological element which must be pointed
out in the Heidelberg Theses, viz. the uncalled-for emphasis laid on
the strength of concupiscence and man’s inclination to what is evil,
and the insufficient appreciation of the means of grace which lead to
victory. This view of the domination of evil, which must ultimately be
favourable to libertinism, accompanies the theoretical expression and
the practical realisation of his system.
In the Heidelberg Disputation we find in the proof of thesis 13,
already referred to: “It is clear as day that free will in man, after
Adam’s Fall, is merely a name and therefore no free will at all, at
least as regards the choice of good; for it is a captive, and the
servant of sin; not as though it did not exist, but because it is not
free except for what is evil.”[837] This Luther pretends to find in
Holy Scripture (John viii. 34, 36), in two passages of St. Augustine
“and in countless other places.” He undertakes to prove this in a
special note, by the fact that, according to the teaching of the
Fathers of the Church, man is unable during life to avoid all faults,
that he must fall without the assistance of grace, and that, according
to 2 Timothy ii. 26, he is held captive by the “snares of the devil.”
“The wicked man sins,” he says, “when he does what is good.” “The
righteous man also sins in his good works,” according to the words of
the Apostle: “But I see another law in my members fighting against the
law of my mind” (Rom. vii. 23). God works everything in us; but just
as the carpenter, however capable he may be, cannot work properly with
a jagged axe, so, in spite of God’s work, sin still remains, owing to
the imperfection of the tool He makes use of, i.e. on account of the
sinfulness which permeates us.[838]
“The mercy of God consists in this, that He has patience with us
in spite of our sins and graciously accepts our works and our life
notwithstanding their complete worthlessness.... We escape His
Judgment through His mercy [to which we cling through faith alone],
not by our own righteousness.... God excuses our works and makes them
pardonable; He supplies what is wanting in us, and thus He is our
righteousness.”[839]
“How is it possible that a ‘servant of sin’ should do anything else
but sin? How can a man perform a work of light when he is in darkness,
a work of wisdom when he is a fool, the work of a whole man when he is
lying there sick, etc.? Therefore all that a man does is the work of
the devil, of sin, of darkness and foolishness.” “Why do we say that
concupiscence is irresistible? Well, just try to do what you can, but
without concupiscence! Of course, this is impossible. Thus your nature
does not keep the law. If you do not keep this, then still less can
you keep the law of charity.”[840]
The crown of all this is found in certain propositions from another of
Luther’s Disputations (the fourth) held at Wittenberg in 1518, of which
the eminently characteristic title is: “For the ascertaining of the
Truth and for the Quieting of anxious Consciences.” Here we find this
exhortation: “Cast yourself with a certain despair of your own self,
more particularly on account of the sins of which you are ignorant,
with confidence into the abyss of the mercy of God, Who is true to His
promises. The sum total is this: The Just man shall live by faith,
not, however, by works or by the law.”[841] Such is the theology which
he calls the “Theology of the Cross.”[842] The Church, with a past of
fifteen centuries behind her, also taught that the just man must live
by faith, but by this she meant a real faith which leads to the love
of the cross, which expresses itself in submission, in salutary fear,
in a striving after what is good and which bears in itself the seeds
of charity. She thus exhorted the faithful to penance, the practice
of good works and a practical embracing of the cross. That was her
“Theology of the Cross.”
* * * * *
The three more important Disputations considered above were designated
by Luther himself as the “beginning of the evangelical business.”
He gave the title _Initium negocii evangelici_ to a collection of
the theses debated at these Disputations which appeared in print at
Wittenberg in 1538.[843] It is significant that the theses against
Tetzel and on Indulgences have no place in this collection of the
earliest “evangelical” documents.
While Luther was on his way back from Heidelberg, in a letter to
Trutfetter his former professor, he submitted certain thoughts on his
own theological position, which may well be deemed his programme for
the future. To this worthy man, who failed to share his views and had
given him timely warning of his errors, he says: “To speak plainly,
my firm belief is that the reform of the Church is impossible unless
the ecclesiastical laws, the Papal regulations, scholastic theology,
philosophy and logic as they at present exist, are thoroughly uprooted
and replaced by other studies. I am so convinced of this that I daily
ask the Lord that the really pure study of the Bible and the Fathers
may speedily regain its true position.”[844]
In this remarkable letter, which is a curious mixture of respect and
disputatious audacity, Luther admits that, on account of his teaching
on grace, he is already being scolded in public sermons as a “heretic,
a madman, a seducer and one possessed by many devils”; at Wittenberg,
however, he says, at the University all, with the exception of one
licentiate, declare that “they had hitherto been in ignorance of Christ
and His gospel.” Too many charges were brought against him. Let them
“speak, hear, believe all things of him in all places,” he would,
nevertheless, go forward and not be afraid. Here he does not pass over
his theses against Tetzel in silence; they had, he says, been spread in
a quite unexpected manner, whereas with his other theses this had not
been the case; this he regretted as otherwise he would have “expressed
them more clearly.” When publishing his Indulgence theses he had had
the truth concerning “the grace of Christ”—which he also defended at
Heidelberg—much at heart, for the result of the abuse of the system
of Indulgences was, that there was scarcely anyone who did not hope
to obtain the great gift of the “grace of God” by means of a paltry
Indulgence, a disgraceful reversal of the true order of things.
4. Attitude to the Church
The foundations of the principal erroneous doctrines of the new
theology were already laid at a time when Luther was still unmistakably
asserting the authority of the Church and the Papacy and the duty of
submission incumbent on all who desired to be true Christians.
Neither before his deviation from the Church’s doctrine nor whilst
the new views were growing and becoming fixed, did he go astray with
respect to the binding nature of the Church’s teaching office, or seek
to undermine the Divine pre-eminence of the Holy See. Such a course
would, it is true, have been logical, as not one of the doctrines which
the Church proposes for belief can be assailed without the whole of her
doctrinal edifice being affected, and without calling in question both
her infallibility and her rightful authority. Only subsequent to the
Leipzig Disputation, at which Luther unreservedly denied the doctrinal
authority of General Councils, do we find him prepared to abandon the
traditional view with regard to the Church and her teaching office.
The formal principle of Lutheranism dates only from this denial.
The determining factor is no longer ecclesiastical authority, but
the private judgment of the individual, i.e. the understanding of
Holy Scripture—now considered as the only source of religious
knowledge—acquired under the guidance of Divine enlightenment. Even
then Luther was in no hurry to formulate any clear theory of the
Church, of the Communion of the Faithful, of the oneness of Faith, and
of its mouthpiece. On the contrary, he frequently returns then and even
later, as will be seen below, to his earlier conception of the Church,
so natural was it to him and to his time, so indispensable did her
claims appear to him, and so logically did they result from the whole
connection between Divine Revelation and the scheme of salvation.
How are we to explain this contradiction so long present in Luther’s
mind, viz. his abandonment of the principal dogmas of the Church and,
at the same time, his emphatic assertion of the Church’s authority?
Chiefly by his lack of theological training, also by his confusion of
mind and deficiency in real Church feeling; then again by his excess
of imagination, by his pseudo-mysticism, and above all by his devotion
to his own ideas. Moreover, as we know, the two conflicting tendencies
did not dwell at peace within him but were responsible for great
restlessness and trouble of mind. Had he been more in living touch with
the faith and spirit of the Church, he would doubtless have recognised
the urgent necessity of choosing between an absolute abandonment of
his new theological views and a definite breach with the Church of his
fathers. In explanation of the confusion of his attitude to the Church
we must call to mind what has already been said, how, owing to the
evils rampant in the Church, he had not had the opportunity of seeing
that Divine institution at its best, a fact which may have helped
to weaken in his mind the conception of her sublime mission and the
binding nature of her ancient faith. He remained in the Church, just as
he remained in the religious state, though its ideals had become sadly
obscured in his eyes.
In its place he built up for himself an imaginary world, quite
mistaking the true state of affairs with regard to his own position.
He fancied that the representatives of the Church would gradually come
round to his point of view, seeing that it was so well founded. He
thought that the Papacy, when better informed, would never be able to
condemn the inferences he had made from the clear Word of God, and his
precious discovery for the solacing of every sinner.
Perhaps he also sought to shelter himself behind the divergent
opinions entertained by the theologians of that day with regard to
justification. Several details, as yet undefined, of this dogma,
were then diversely explained, though no doubt existed regarding the
essentials. The views propounded by members of the Council of Trent
show how many side questions in this department called for definition
and learned research before the Council could arrive at the classical
formulation of the whole matter.[845] No true theologian, however,
owing to want of distinctness in the minor details of the dogma was,
like Luther, prepared to cast it overboard, or to demand its entire
revision.
In the case of this strangely constituted man inward discernment alone
counted for anything.
With him this outweighed far too easily all the claims of external
authority, and how could it be otherwise when, already at an early
stage of his career, while perusing the Holy Scriptures he had felt
the Spirit of God in his new ideas? We have a picture of his feelings
in his letter to Spalatin of January 18, 1518, in which he says, the
principal thing when studying the Book of Books is to “despair of our
own learning and our own sagacity.” “Be confident that the Spirit
will instil the sense into your mind. Believe this on my experience.
Therefore begin, starting with a humble despair, to read the Bible
from the very commencement.”[846] There is here no reference to the
traditional interpretation handed down from the first centuries through
the Fathers and the theologians; in place of this each one is invited
to seek for enlightenment under the guidance of that light which he
assumes to be the “Spirit.”
And yet Luther’s teaching with regard to the authority of the
Universal Church is, according to a sermon preached in 1516, as
follows: “The Church cannot err in proclaiming the faith; only the
individual within her is liable to error. But let him beware of
differing from the Church; for the Church’s leaders are the walls of
the Church and our fathers; they are the eye of the body, and in them
we must seek the light.”[847] As the idea has not yet dawned upon him
that the whole body of the bishops had strayed from the path of truth,
he does not consider it necessary first to seek where the true Church
is; he simply finds it there where Peter presides in his successors.
No private illumination, no works however great, justify a separation
from the Papacy.[848] In accordance with this principle, even in 1518,
amidst the storm of excitement and not long before the printing of his
sermon on excommunication, he assures Staupitz, his Superior, with
the utmost confidence: “I shall hold the Church’s authority in all
honour”; it is true, he goes on to say: “I have no scruple, Reverend
Father, about going forward with my exploration and interpretation
of the Word of God. The summons [to Rome] and the menaces which have
been uttered do not move me. I am suffering, as you know, incomparably
worse things which allow me to pay but little heed to such as are
temporal and transitory.”[849]
The woes which he repeatedly utters against heretics, and of which
we have already given a striking example (above, p. 225), are very
startling, coming from his lips. In his exposition of the Psalms he
points a warning finger at pride, the source of all heresies: “Out
upon our madness, how often and how greatly, do we fall into this
fault! All the heretics fell through inordinate love of their own
ideas. Hence it was not possible but that what was false should appear
to them true, and, what was true, false.... Wisdom, in its original
purity, can exist only in the humble and meek.”[850]
It would be easy to multiply the passages in which Luther, in his early
days, asserts with absolute conviction the various doctrines of the
Church which at a later date he was to attack.
It may suffice to take as an example the doctrine of Indulgences
which was soon to become the centre of the controversy started by his
theses on this subject. Luther presents the doctrine quite clearly and
correctly in a sermon on Indulgences preached in 1516.[851] Here he
makes his own the general Catholic teaching, notwithstanding that it
clashes with his ideas on grace and justification, a fact of which he
assuredly was aware.
“An Indulgence,” he says, “is the remission of the temporal punishment
which the penitent would have to undergo, whether imposed by the
priest or endured in Purgatory; formerly, for instance, seven years
[of penance] were imposed in this way for certain sins.” “Therefore
we must not imagine that our salvation is straightway secured when
we have gained an Indulgence,” as it merely remits the temporal
punishment. “Those alone obtain complete remission of the punishment
who, by real contrition and confession, are reconciled with God.”
“The souls in Purgatory, as the Bull expressly states, profit by
the Indulgence only so far as the power of the Keys of Holy Church
extend”; “_per applicationem intercessions_,” as he says, i.e. to
use the common theological expression, “_per modum suffragii_.”[852]
“Hence the immediate and complete liberation of souls from Purgatory
is not to be assumed.” “The Indulgences are [i.e. are based on] the
merits of Christ and His saints and are therefore to be accepted with
due veneration.” “However the case may stand with regard to the abuses
to be apprehended in the use of indulgences,” so he ends his lengthy
and important explanation, “the offer and acceptance of Indulgences
is of the greatest utility, and perhaps in our times when God’s
mercy is so greatly despised, it is His Will to bestow His favours
upon us by means of these Indulgences.... Indulgences must, however,
never lead us, of the Church militant, to a false sense of security
and to spiritual indolence.” The speaker goes much more fully into
detail on many difficult questions than could be done in a sermon
to-day. On certain subtle points of theological controversy regarding
Indulgences, which had as yet not been definitely settled among the
learned, he admits his ignorance and his doubts. One thing, however,
is certain, namely, that he had no right to assert, as he did later,
that the age was steeped in the deepest ignorance with regard to the
nature of Indulgences, merely because some of these more recondite
questions had not been fully solved. His own sermon just quoted is a
refutation of the charge.
In this sermon he also attacks the abuses which in those days were
connected with the system of Indulgences, particularly the disorders
which prevailed at the sermons and collections made for Indulgences
granted in support of various pious works and usually undertaken by
certain noted popular preachers. In one of his strong generalisations
he thus addressed his hearers at the very commencement: “Indulgences
have become the dirty tool of avarice! Who is there who seeks the
salvation of souls by their means and not rather the profit of his
purse? The behaviour of the Indulgence-preachers makes this plain; for
these commissaries and their delegates do nothing in their sermons but
praise the Indulgences and urge the people to give donations, without
instructing them as to what an Indulgence is.”[853]
At that time John Tetzel was making a great stir with the preaching of
the Indulgence granted by Pope Leo X for the church of St. Peter in
Rome.
Luther’s inward falling away from the teaching of the Church and his
whole state of mind had made him ripe for a great public struggle.
His action with regard to Tetzel was merely the result of what had
gone before, and the consequences of the controversy were vastly more
important than the actual point in dispute.
Many years later, when the circumstances appeared to him very different
from what they really were, Luther related that he had lived in humble
retirement in his monastery, studying Holy Scripture and following his
calling as Doctor of the Word of God until he was drawn by force into
the controversy, and called forth into the arena of public life. “I
was completely dead to the world till God deemed the time had come;
then Squire Tetzel excited me with the Indulgence and Doctor Staupitius
spurred me on against the Pope.”[854]
Then gradually, so he says, his “other preaching followed,” i.e. that
against “holiness by works,” and set free those who had become “quite
weary” of Popery with its self-righteousness; this “other preaching”
was as follows: “Christ says: Be at rest; thou art not pious, I have
done all for thee, thy sins are forgiven thee.”[855] Nevertheless, for
some years, so he assures us, he continued to practise “in ignorance”
the works of idolatry and unbelief in the monastery, those works to
which “everyone clung”;[856] then at last he cut himself adrift and
laid aside the monk’s habit “to honour God and shame the devil.”[857]