Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  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. 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.”

  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!” 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.”

  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.” 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.” 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.

  “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.”

  “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.”

  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.” Such is the theology which he calls the “Theology of the Cross.” 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. 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 Father
s may speedily regain its true position.”

  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. 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.” 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.” 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. 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.”

  The woes which he repeatedly utters against heretics, and of which we have already given a striking example (above, ), 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.”

  It would be easy to multiply the passages in which Luthe
r, 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. 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.” “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.