Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  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.” 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.” “We must be assured that not our service only but also our person is pleasing to God.” He goes on in this tone without in the least solving the difficulty. He declares that we must risk, try, and exercise assurance. This, however, merely depends upon a self-acquired dexterity, 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,”

  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.

  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.”

  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.”

  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.”

  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,” 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. This, however, is not quite correct as others preceded him. But Bernhardi, as Provost of Kemb
erg, 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.” 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). “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.

  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!”

  This Disputation at Wittenberg has been described by Protestants as a “decisive blow struck at mediæval doctrine.” 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; 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.

  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. 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.”

&
nbsp; 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.

  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.