Luther, vol. 1 of 6
by Hartmann Grisar · English · Gutenberg #48995 · 1,159,788 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Luther, vol. 1 of 6
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Luther, vol. 1 of 6
Author: Hartmann Grisar
Editor: C. L. Dessoulavy
Translator: E. M. Lamond
Release date: May 19, 2015 [eBook #48995]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48995
Credits: Produced by Giovanni Fini, David Garcia, Marilynda
Fraser-Cunliffe and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet
Archive/Canadian Libraries)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LUTHER, VOL. 1 OF 6 ***
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.
—Whereas adequate character is unavalaible, superscripts are rendered
as word^[sup].
LUTHER
NIHIL OBSTAT
_Sti. Ludovici, die 26 Jan., 1913._
F. G. HOLWECK,
_Censor_.
IMPRIMATUR
_Sti. Ludovici, die 30 Jan., 1913._
JOHANNES J. GLENNON,
_Archiepiscopus Sti. Ludovici_.
LUTHER
BY
HARTMANN GRISAR, S. J.
PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK
AUTHORISED TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN BY
E. M. LAMOND
EDITED BY
LUIGI CAPPADELTA
VOLUME I
LONDON
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÜBNER & CO., LTD.
BROADWAY HOUSE, 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C.
1913
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ _BY THE SAME AUTHOR_ │
│ │
│ In Three Volumes. Royal 8vo, each 15s. net. │
│ │
│ HISTORY OF ROME AND THE POPES IN THE MIDDLE AGES │
│ │
│ │
│ Authorised English Translation, edited by LUIGI │
│ CAPPADELTA. Profusely Illustrated. With maps, plans, │
│ and photographs of basilicas, mosaics, coins, and other │
│ memorials. │
│ │
│ “The present work might be described as a history of │
│ the mediæval Popes, with the history of the City of │
│ Rome and of its civilization as a background, the │
│ author’s design being so to combine the two stories │
│ as to produce a true picture of what Rome was in the │
│ Middle Ages.”—_Author’s Preface._ │
│ │
│ The three volumes now issued represent Volume I in the │
│ bulky German original. This portion of Father Grisar’s │
│ great enterprise is self-contained, and the history is │
│ brought down to the epoch of St. Gregory I. │
│ │
│ “A valuable and interesting book, well translated ... │
│ will, we are sure, be welcomed by all students and │
│ lovers of Rome, whether Catholic or not.”—_The Tablet._ │
│ │
│ “Dr. Grisar’s splendid history has long been the │
│ treasured possession of students of mediæval art and │
│ church history. We welcome its appearance in an English │
│ translation, which has been executed with scrupulous │
│ care and with every advantage of type, paper, and │
│ illustration.”—_The Guardian._ │
│ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
_The rights of translation and of reproduction are reserved_
EMENDATIONS AND ADDITIONS
P. 9, line 12 ff. On the habit, cp. Paulus, “Joh. Hoffmeister,” 1891,
p. 4.
P. 13, note, read “Oergel.”
P. 14, line 4 from below. For “Augustinian,” read “colleague at the
University of Wittenberg.”
P. 27, line 2 from below to p. 28, line 1. Elsewhere he does so quite
clearly, cp. “Tischreden” (Veit Dietrich), Weim. ed., 1, p. 61.
P. 29, line 7 from below. It was not actually a papal Bull, but a
document in the Pope’s name drawn up by Carvajal, the legate.
P. 30, line 12. Read: “Cochlæus, who knew something of the matter”;
line 2 from below, after “told us” add: “In point of fact it is clear
that Luther’s journey failed in its purpose, and that the dispute was
finally settled only in May, 1512, at the Cologne Chapter”; note 1,
last line, omit “his” and add after date “p. 97.”
P. 33, line 11. The account of the incident at the Scala Santa must be
corrected in the light of new information. See vol. vi., xlii., 2.
P. 38, line 2 from below. Read: “October 18.”
P. 39, line 21. For “He himself admits, etc.,” read: “Yet he seems to
have looked on his removal to Wittenberg as a ‘come down.’” See below,
p. 127.
P. 59, line 9 f. For “amazed replies” read “silly letters” (“_litteras
stupidas_”).
P. 72, line 18. Read: “_captiosi et contentiosi_.”
P. 148, note 1, line 3. For “Luther” read “Lang.”
P. 169, note 2, line 8. Read “_longissime_.”
P. 178, note 3, line 3. For “1826” read “1864.”
P. 184, line 14. For “Vogel” read “Vopel.”
P. 199, last paragraph. Correct according to vol. vi., xlii., 4.
P. 219, note 5. Add: “That, in the Commentary on Romans Justification
is produced by humility, is admitted by Wilh. Braun (‘Evang.
Kirchenzeitung,’ 1911, No. 32, col. 506).”
P. 297, note 1, line 6. After “conventualiter” add “per omnia.”
P. 312, line 20. For “97” read “99.”
P. 315, line 1. For “April 25” read “April 26.”
P. 332, note 1, line 1. For “February 13” read “May 22.”
P. 337, note 1. For “May” read “September.”
P. 396. See the various texts in greater detail in vol. vi., xlii., 6.
CONTENTS
BIBLIOGRAPHY _pages_ xv-xxv
INTRODUCTION _pages_ xxvii-xxxix
CHAPTER I. COURSE OF STUDIES AND FIRST YEARS
IN THE MONASTERY _pages_ 3-60
1. LUTHER’S NOVITIATE AND EARLY LIFE.
The new postulant at the gate of the Erfurt
priory. Luther’s youth; his parents; early
education; stay at Eisenach. Enters the
University of Erfurt. Humanist friends. His
novitiate. Troubles of conscience quieted by
Staupitz, the Vicar of the Saxon Congregation
of Augustinian Hermits. Luther’s professors _pages_ 3-12
2. FIDELITY TO HIS NEW CALLING; HIS TEMPTATIONS.
Luther’s theological course. Lectures and
lecturers; Bible-study; first Mass. His father
on his vocation; his father’s character.
Luther’s inward troubles; falls into a fit
in choir; Melanchthon on Luther’s attacks of
fear. St. Bernard on certainty of salvation.
Luther’s “own way” with his difficulties. He is
sent to Wittenberg and back to Erfurt. Learned
occupations. Luther’s assurance manifest in
his earliest notes, the glosses on Peter
Lombard; his glosses on Augustine; his fame;
his virulent temper; his acquaintance with Hus.
Oldecop, Dungersheim and Emser on his moral
character in early days. Humanistic influences.
Luther is chosen by the Observantines to
represent them in Rome _pages_ 12-29
3. THE JOURNEY TO ROME.
Dissensions within the Congregation. Staupitz
opposed by seven Observantine priories, on
whose behalf Luther proceeds to Rome. The
visit’s evil effect on the monk. His opinion
of the Curia and the moral state of Rome. An
episode at the Scala Santa. Luther’s belief
in the Primacy not shaken by what he saw. On
the Holy Mass; his petition to be secularised;
perils of an Italian journey. Luther returns
to Wittenberg and forsakes the cause of the
Observantines _pages_ 29-38
4. THE LITTLE WORLD OF WITTENBERG AND THE GREAT
WORLD IN CHURCH AND STATE.
Luther takes the doctorate; his first
lectures; his surroundings at the University of
Wittenberg; the professors; Humanism; schemes
for reform; Mutian, Spalatin, Reuchlin, the
“Letters of Obscure Men,” Erasmus. Luther’s
road not that of his Humanist friends. Currents
of thought in the age of discovery and awakened
learning; decay of Church life; attempts at
reform; abasement of clergy; abuses rampant
everywhere; sad state of the Curia. Signs of
the coming storm. Luther’s way prepared by the
course of events. A curious academic dispute _pages_ 38-60
CHAPTER II. HARBINGERS OF CHANGE _pages_ 61-103
1. SOURCES OLD AND NEW.
Peculiar difficulties of the problem. Process
of Luther’s inward estrangement from the
Church. The sources, particularly those
recently brought to light. The marginal
notes in Luther’s books now at Zwickau. His
letters; earliest scriptural notes, i.e. the
glosses and scholia; lectures on Scripture;
sermons, 1515-1516; earliest printed works; his
Disputations. Two stages of his development,
the first till 1517, the second till the end of
1518 _pages_ 61-67
2. LUTHER’S COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS (1513-15). DISPUTE
WITH THE OBSERVANTINES AND THE “SELF-RIGHTEOUS.”
His passionate opposition to the Observantines
in his Order, and to “righteousness by works,”
a presage of the coming change. He vents his
ire on the “Little Saints” of the Order in his
discourse at Gotha. On righteousness by grace
and righteousness by works; on the force of
concupiscence and original sin. No essential
divergence from the Church’s belief and
tradition to be found in the Commentary on the
Psalms; reminiscences of Augustine; mystical
trend; defects of Luther’s early work _pages_ 67-78
3. EXCERPTS FROM THE OLDEST SERMONS. HIS ADVERSARIES.
The sermons and their testimony to Luther’s
scorn for the Observantines. Echoes of the
controversy proceeding within the Order. The
Leitzkau discourse and its mysticism _pages_ 78-84
4. PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON YOUNG LUTHER’S
RELATIONS TO SCHOLASTICISM AND MYSTICISM.
His early prejudice against Scholasticism,
its psychological reason; his poor opinion of
Aristotle and the Schoolmen. Martin Pollich’s
misgivings. Luther’s leaning to mysticism, its
cause. Esteem for Tauler and the “Theologia
Deutsch.” His letter to G. Leiffer _pages_ 84-88
5. EXCERPTS FROM THE EARLIEST LETTERS.
Signs of a change in Luther’s letter to G.
Spenlein; self-despair and trust in Christ.
To Johann Lang on a work wrongly ascribed to
St. Augustine and on his difficulties with
his colleagues at Wittenberg. To Spalatin on
Erasmus; his dislike of everything savouring of
Pelagianism _pages_ 88-93
6. THE THEOLOGICAL GOAL.
The first shaping of Luther’s heretical
views, in the Commentary on Romans. Imputation
of Christ’s righteousness; uncertainty of
justification; original sin remains after
baptism, being identical with concupiscence;
impossibility of fulfilling the law without
justification; absence of all human freedom for
good; sinful character of natural virtue; all
“venial” sins really mortal; no such thing as
merit; predestination _pages_ 93-103
CHAPTER III. THE STARTING-POINT _pages_ 104-129
1. FORMER INACCURATE VIEWS.
The starting-point not simply the desire to
reform the Church; nor mere antipathy to the
Dominicans. Hus’s influence merely secondary.
Luther’s own account of his search for a
“merciful God” not to be trusted any more than
his later descriptions of his life as a monk _pages_ 104-110
2. WHETHER EVIL CONCUPISCENCE IS IRRESISTIBLE?
Luther’s belief in its irresistibility not to
be alleged as a proof of his moral perversity.
Traces of the belief early noticeable in him;
he demands that people should nevertheless
strive against concupiscence with the weapons
of the spirit; concupiscence ineradicable,
identical with original sin, and actually
sinful. Luther not a determinist from the
beginning. His pseudo-mysticism scarcely
reconcilable with his supposed moral perversity _pages_ 110-117
3. THE REAL STARTING-POINT AND THE CO-OPERATING
FACTORS.
Luther’s new opinions grounded on his
antipathy to good works; hence his belief
in the incapacity of man for good. Other
factors; his character, his self-confidence and
combativeness; his anger with the formalism
prevalent in his day; his fear of eternal
reprobation; his inadequate knowledge of the
real doctrine of the Church; his hasty promotion _pages_ 117-129
CHAPTER IV. “I AM OF OCCAM’S PARTY” _pages_ 130-165
1. A CLOSER EXAMINATION OF LUTHER’S THEOLOGICAL
TRAINING.
Not trained in the best school of
Scholasticism. His Occamist education. Positive
and negative influence of Occamism on Luther _pages_ 130-133
2. NEGATIVE INFLUENCE OF THE OCCAMIST SCHOOL ON
LUTHER.
Luther’s criticism of Occam; he abandons
certain views of the Occamists and flies
to the opposite extreme; offended by their
neglect of Scripture and by the subtlety of
their philosophy; hence he comes to oppose
Aristotelianism and the Scholastics generally.
Occamistic exaggeration of man’s powers leads
him _ex opposito_ to underrate the same.
Negative influence of Occamism on Luther’s
teaching regarding original sin. Gabriel
Biel on original sin; the keeping of the
commandments; the love of God; whether man can
merit grace; Gregory of Rimini; the principle:
“_Facienti quod est in se Deus non denegat
gratiam_”; the deficiencies of the Occamists
laid at the door of Scholasticism. Three
answers to the question how Luther failed to
perceive that he was forsaking the Church’s
doctrine. His denial of natural righteousness,
and his ignorance of the true scholastic
teaching on the point; misunderstands his own
masters. His interpretation of the words,
“Without me ye can do nothing.” His rejection
of actual grace _pages_ 133-154
3. POSITIVE INFLUENCE OF OCCAMISM.
Occamist “acceptation” and Lutheran
“imputation.” Luther assails the habit of
supernatural grace and replaces the doctrine
of an essential order of things by the
arbitrary _pactum Dei_. Divorce of faith and
reason. Feeling and religious experience.
Predestination; transubstantiation. Luther’s
anti-Thomism, his combativeness and loquacity.
Other alleged influences, viz. Gallicanism,
ultra-realism, Wiclifism, and Neo-Platonism _pages_ 155-165
CHAPTER V. THE ROCKS OF FALSE MYSTICISM _pages_ 166-183
1. TAULER AND LUTHER.
Tauler’s orthodox doctrine distorted by Luther
to serve his purpose. Passivity in the hands
of God explained as the absence of all effort.
Luther’s application of Tauler’s teaching to
his own states of anxiety. His knowledge of
Tauler; annotations to Tauler’s sermons; the
German mystics; a “return to nothingness” the
supreme aim of the Christian _pages_ 166-174
2. EFFECT OF MYSTICISM ON LUTHER.
Advantages of its study outweighed by
disadvantage. Why Luther failed to become
a true mystic. Specimens of his mystic
utterances. His edition of the “Theologia
Deutsch”; attitude to pseudo-Dionysius the
Areopagite, St. Bernard and Gerson; an excerpt
from his “_Operationes in psalmos_” _pages_ 175-183
CHAPTER VI. THE CHANGE OF 1515 IN THE LIGHT OF
THE COMMENTARY ON ROMANS (1515-16) _pages_ 184-261
1. THE NEW PUBLICATIONS.
Denifle the first to utilise the Commentary
on Romans. Ficker’s recent edition of the
original. General remarks on the Commentary.
Aim of St. Paul according to Luther _pages_ 184-187
2. GLOOMY VIEWS REGARDING GOD AND
PREDESTINATION.
Luther’s “more profound theology” and
unconditional predestination to hell; God’s
will that the wicked be damned. God to be
approached in fear and despair, not with
works and in the hope of reward. The mystic
on resignation to hell. Man’s will and his
salvation entirely in God’s hands. Objections:
Is it not God’s will that all be saved? Why
impose commandments which the will is not free
to perform? Unperceived inconsistencies _pages_ 187-197
3. THE FIGHT AGAINST “HOLINESS-BY-WORKS” AND
THE OBSERVANTINES IN THE COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.
Luther’s aversion to works and observances.
His rude description of the “Observants” and
“Justiciaries.” The very word “righteousness” a
cause of vexation _pages_ 197-202
4. ATTACK ON PREDISPOSITION TO GOOD AND ON FREE
WILL.
Human nature entirely spoiled by original
sin. Being unable to fulfil the command “_Non
concupisces_,” we are ever sinning mortally.
Uncertainty of salvation; the will not free for
good. Interpretation of Rom. viii. 2 f. Against
Scholasticism. In penance and confession no
removal (_ablatio_) of sin _pages_ 202-209
5. LUTHER RUDELY SETS ASIDE THE OLDER DOCTRINE
OF VIRTUE AND SIN.
The habit of sanctifying grace; “cursed
be the word ‘_formatum charitate_’”; sin
coexistent with grace in the good man;
Augustine on concupiscence. “Nothing is of
its own nature good or bad”; the Occamist
acceptation-theory against the “Aristotelian”
definition of virtue and the scholastic
doctrine that virtues and vices are qualities
of the soul _pages_ 209-213
6. PREPARATION FOR JUSTIFICATION.
Christ’s grace does all, and yet man disposes
himself for justification. Man’s self-culture.
Inconsistencies explained by reminiscences of
his early Catholic training _pages_ 213-214
7. APPROPRIATION OF THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST BY
HUMILITY—NEITHER “FAITH ONLY” NOR ASSURANCE OF
SALVATION.
Imputation applied to justification. Another’s
righteousness is imputed to us and becomes
ours; sin remains, but is no longer accounted;
our inability to know whether Christ’s
righteousness has been imputed to us. Advantage
of fear. “He who renounces his own self and
willingly faces death and damnation” is truly
humble, and in such humility is safety. Faith
not yet substituted for humility. Passivity
again emphasized _pages_ 214-222
8. SUBJECTIVISM AND CHURCH AUTHORITY. STORM AND
STRESS.
The back place already taken in Luther’s
mind by the Church and her teaching-office;
his preference for a theology of his own
invention. Our duty of not judging Luther by
the later Tridentine decrees. His Catholic
sentiments on the hierarchy; denounces abuses
whilst respecting the rights of the Roman
Church; desiderates a reduction of festivals;
reproves Bishops for insisting on their rights
instead of rejoicing to see them infringed. On
listening to the inner voice _pages_ 223-230
9. THE MYSTIC IN THE COMMENTARY ON ROMANS.
Luther’s misapprehension of Tauler and other
mystics clearly proved in the Commentary.
Quietism. The “Spark in the Soul.” The
“Theology of the Cross.” The “Night of the
Soul.” Readiness for hell the joy of the
truly wise; Christ and Paul the Apostle, two
instances of such readiness _pages_ 230-240
10. THE COMMENTARY ON ROMANS AS A WORK OF
RELIGION AND LEARNING.
Its witness to the unsettled state of the
writer’s mind. Texts and commentaries utilised;
neglect of Aquinas’s Commentary; the author’s
style; obscenity and paradox; a tilt at the
philosophers; the character of the work rather
spoilt by unnecessary polemics. Appeal to
Augustine. Misuse of theological terms. “The
word of God is every word which proceeds from
the mouth of a good man.” Contradiction a
criterion of truth. All the prophets against
observances. Unconscious self-contradiction on
the subject of freedom. Whether any progress
is apparent in the course of the Commentary.
Comparison of Luther’s public utterances with
those in the Commentary. Some excerpts from the
Commentary on Hebrews _pages_ 241-261
CHAPTER VII. SOME PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO
THE OUTWARD CIRCUMSTANCES AND INWARD LIFE OF
LUTHER AT THE TIME OF THE CRISIS _pages_ 262-302
1. LUTHER AS SUPERIOR OF ELEVEN AUGUSTINIAN
HOUSES.
His election as Rural Vicar, 1516; his
discourse on the Little Saints delivered at
the Chapter; influence of his administration;
extracts from his correspondence; his quick
despatch of business _pages_ 262-268
2. THE MONK OF LIBERAL VIEWS AND INDEPENDENT
ACTION.
His ideal of humility. On vows. Prejudice
against observances. Blames formalism prevalent
in the Church generally and in the monasteries.
Paltz and Tauler on this subject. Overwork
leads Luther to neglect his spiritual duties;
Mass and Divine Office; his final abandonment
of the Breviary. His outward appearance; his
quarrelsomeness _pages_ 268-280
3. LUTHER’S ULTRA-SPIRITUALISM AND CALLS FOR
REFORM. IS SELF-IMPROVEMENT POSSIBLE? PENANCE.
His pessimism; the whole world sunk in
corruption. Opinion of theologians. Justifiable
criticism. On the clergy; proposes placing
the administration of all temporalities in
the hands of the Princes. On Indulgences. His
familiarity with the Elector of Saxony. On
the dreadful state of Rome. The prevalence
of Pelagianism; three deadly vices; on his
own temptations; how people fall and rise
again; on diabolical terrors; on making the
best of things and reconciling ourselves to
remaining in sin; his inability to understand
the nature of contrition; denial that perfect
contrition exists; his mysticism averse to
the motive of fear or of heavenly recompense;
misrepresentation of the Church’s doctrine
concerning attrition. Ascribes his view of
penance to Staupitz; the part of Staupitz in
the downfall of the Congregation. Möhler and
Neander on Luther’s resemblance to Marcion the
Gnostic. Paradoxical character of the monk _pages_ 280-302
CHAPTER VIII. THE COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO
THE GALATIANS. FIRST DISPUTATIONS AND FIRST
TRIUMPHS _pages_ 303-326
1. ”THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE GOSPEL BUSINESS.”
EXPOSITION OF THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS
(1516-17).
Melanchthon and Mathesius on the birth of the
“Evangel.” Luther’s first disciples, Carlstadt,
Amsdorf, etc. His appeals to St. Augustine.
The Commentary on Galatians begins in 1516.
Luther’s progress in the light of this and the
longer Commentary published later _pages_ 303-310
2. DISPUTATIONS ON MAN’S POWERS AND AGAINST
SCHOLASTICISM (1516-17).
Bernhardi’s Disputation in 1516 presided
over by Luther; “Man sins in spite of every
effort.” Luther to Lang on the scandal of
the “Gabrielists.” Günther’s Disputation in
1517; specimens of the theses defended; Luther
circulates them widely _pages_ 310-314
3. DISPUTATION AT HEIDELBERG ON FAITH AND
GRACE. OTHER PUBLIC UTTERANCES.
The Heidelberg Chapter. Leonard Beyer defends
Luther’s theses in the presence of Bucer and
other future adherents of the cause. The
theses and their demonstration; Grace not to
be obtained by works; the motive of fear; free
will a mere name. A Wittenberg Disputation
in 1518, “For the Quieting of Anxious
Consciences.” The three great Disputations
described by Luther as “_Initium negocii
evangelici_.” Luther to Trutfetter on his aims _pages_ 315-321
4. ATTITUDE TO THE CHURCH.
Luther continues to acknowledge the doctrinal
office of the Church. The principle of private
interpretation of Scripture not yet enunciated.
Explanation of Luther’s inconsistency in
conduct; on obedience to the Church; traces all
heresies back to pride; his correct description
of Indulgences in 1516, his regret at their
abuse _pages_ 321-326
CHAPTER IX. THE INDULGENCE-THESES OF 1517
AND THEIR AFTER-EFFECTS _pages_ 327-373
1. TETZEL’S PREACHING OF THE INDULGENCE; THE 95
THESES.
The St. Peter’s Indulgence and its preaching;
Luther’s information regarding it; his sermon
before the Elector. The 95 theses nailed to the
door of the Castle Church; their contents; the
excitement caused; Augustinians refrain from
any measure against the author; the Heidelberg
Chapter; the “Resolutions”; Dominicans take
up the challenge. Fables regarding Luther and
Tetzel; Tetzel’s private life; charges brought
against him by Luther and Miltitz; the real
Tetzel; Luther’s statement that he did not know
“what an Indulgence was.” Luther’s letter to
Tetzel on his death-bed _pages_ 327-347
2. THE COLLECTION FOR ST. PETER’S IN HISTORY
AND LEGEND.
The Indulgence granted on behalf of the
building fund; new sources of information;
Albert of Brandenburg obtains the See of
Mayence; his payments to Rome; the Indulgence
granted him for his indemnification;
arrangements made for its preaching; the
pecuniary result a failure _pages_ 347-355
3. THE TRIAL AT AUGSBURG (1518).
The summons. Luther before Cardinal Cajetan
at Augsburg; Letters written from Augsburg;
refuses to recant; his flight; his appeal
to a General Council. Popular works on the
Penitential Psalms, the Our Father, and the Ten
Commandments _pages_ 355-362
4. THE DISPUTATION AT LEIPZIG, 1519. MILTITZ.
QUESTIONABLE REPORTS.
Circumstances of the Disputation. Luther’s
dissatisfaction with the result. Unfortunate
attempts of Miltitz to smooth things down.
Luther’s justification of his polemics. Stories
of his doings and sayings at Dresden; his
sermon before the Court; Emser’s reports of
certain utterances _pages_ 362-373
CHAPTER X. LUTHER’S PROGRESS IN THE NEW TEACHING _pages_ 374-404
1. THE SECOND STAGE OF HIS DEVELOPMENT:
ASSURANCE OF SALVATION.
In the first stage assurance of salvation
through faith alone was yet unknown to him. The
Catholic doctrine on this subject. How Luther
reached his doctrine by the path of despair;
the several steps of his progress from 1516
onwards; the Resolutions; the “pangs of Hell”;
the interview with Cajetan; first clear trace
of the doctrine in his works written in 1519 _pages_ 374-388
2. THE DISCOVERY IN THE MONASTERY TOWER,
1518-19.
The information contained in Luther’s later
_Præfatio_ to be trusted in the main; other
testimonies; his state at the time one of great
anxiety; his terror of God’s justice. The
Gate of Paradise suddenly opened by the text:
“The just man liveth by faith”; where this
revelation was vouchsafed: In the “cloaca” on
the tower; the revelation referred by Luther to
the Holy Ghost; its importance and connection
with Luther’s mysticism _pages_ 388-400
3. LEGENDS. STORM-SIGNALS.
Luther’s faulty recollection in later life
responsible for the rise of legends regarding
his discovery. His statement that he was the
first to interpret Romans i. 17 as speaking
of the justice by which God makes us just.
His “discovery” confirms him in his attitude
towards Rome; the Pope a more dangerous foe of
the German nation than the Turk. The legend
that the German knights and Humanists were
responsible for Luther’s opposition to Rome _pages_ 400-404
BIBLIOGRAPHY
NOTE.—The following is an alphabetical list of the books, etc.,
referred to in an abbreviated form in the course of our work, the title
under which they are quoted in each case figuring first.
For the Bibliography of Luther generally, we may refer to the
following: E. G. Vogel, “Bibliographia Lutheri,” Halle, 1851; I. A.
Fabricius, “Centifolium Lutheranum,” 2 parts, Hamburg, 1728-1730; Wm.
Maurenbrecher, “Studien und Skizzen,” Leipzig, 1874, p. 205 ff. (a good
list of the studies on Luther and his work). The articles on Luther in
the “Deutsche Biographie,” in the Catholic “Kirchenlexikon” (2nd ed.),
and the Protestant “Realenzyklopädie für Theologie,” etc., also provide
more or less detailed bibliographies. So also do W. Möller, “Lehrbuch
der Kirchengeschichte,” vol. 3, ed. by Kawerau (3rd ed., particularly
p. 4 ff.); Hergenröther, “Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte,” vol. 3,
3rd ed., by J. P. Kirsch (particularly p. 4 ff.); Janssen-Pastor,
“Geschichte des deutschen Volkes,” etc. (in the lists at the
commencement of each vol., particularly vols. ii. and iii.). The
bibliographical data added by various writers in the prefaces to the
various works of Luther in the new Weimar complete edition are not
only copious but also often quite reliable, for instance, those on the
German Bible.
“Analecta Lutherana, Briefe und Aktenstücke zur Geschichte Luthers,
Zugleich ein Supplement zu den bisherigen Sammlungen seines
Briefwechsels,” ed. by Th. Kolde, Gotha, 1883.
“Analecta Lutherana et Melanchthoniana,” see Mathesius,
“Aufzeichnungen.”
“Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte. Texte und Untersuchungen. In
Verbindung mit dem Verein für Reformationsgeschichte,” ed. W.
Friedensburg. Berlin, later Leipzig, 1903-1904 ff.
Balan, P., “Monumenta reformationis Lutheranæ ex tabulariis S. Sedis
secretis, 1521-1525,” Ratisbonæ, 1883, 1884.
Barge, H., “Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt,” 2 vols., Leipzig, 1905.
Beatus Rhenanus, see Correspondence.
Berger, A., “Martin Luther in kulturgeschichtlicher Darstellung.” 2
vols., Berlin, 1895-1898.
Bezold, F. von, “Geschichte der deutschen Reformation,” Berlin, 1890.
“Bibliothek des Kgl. Preussischen Historischen Instituts in Rom,”
Rome, 1905 ff.
Blaurer, see Correspondence.
Böhmer, H., “Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung” (from “Natur und
Geisteswelt,” No. 113), Leipzig, 1906, 2nd ed., 1910.
Brandenburg, E., “Luthers Anschauung von Staat und Gesellschaft”
(Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte), Hft. 70, Halle,
1901.
Braun, W., “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und
Lehre,” Berlin, 1908.
“Briefe,” see Letters.
“Briefwechsel,” see Correspondence.
Brieger, Th., “Aleander und Luther. Die vervollständigten
Aleander-Depeschen nebst Untersuchungen über den Wormser Reichstag,”
I, Gotha, 1884.
Burkhardt, C. A., “Geschichte der sächsischen Kirchen—und
Schulvisitationen von 1524-1545,” Leipzig, 1879.
Calvini, I., “Opera quæ supersunt omnia, ediderunt G. Braun, E.
Cunitz, E. Reuss,” 59 vol. (29-87 in the “Corpus Reformatorum”),
Brunsvigæ, 1863-1900.
Cardauns, L., “Zur Geschichte der kirchlichen Unions—und
Reformbestrebungen von 1538-1542” (“Bibliothek des Kgl. Preuss.
Historischen Instituts in Rom,” vol. 5), Rome, 1910.
—see “Nuntiaturberichte.”
Cochlæus, I., “Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri ... ab a.
1517 usque ad a. 1537 conscripta,” Moguntiæ, 1549.
(“Colloquia,” ed. Bindseil), Bindseil, H. E., “D. Martini Lutheri
Colloquia, Meditationes, Consolationes, Iudicia, Sententiæ,
Narrationes, Responsa, Facetiæ e codice ms. Bibliothecæ Orphanotrophei
Halensis cum perpetua collatione editionis Rebenstockianæ edita et
prolegomenis indicibusque instructa,” 3 voll., Lemgoviæ et Detmoldæ,
1863-1866.
(“Commentarius in Epist. ad Galat.”), “M. Lutheri Commentarius in
Epistolam ad Galatas,” ed. I. A. Irmischer, 3 voll., Erlangæ, 1843
_sq._
(Cordatus, “Tagebuch”), Wrampelmeyer, H., “Tagebuch über Dr. Martin
Luther, geführt von Dr. Conrad Cordatus, 1537,” 1st ed., Halle, 1885.
“Corpus Reformatorum,” ed. Bretschneider, Halis Saxoniæ, 1834, _sqq._
voll. 1-28, “Melanchthonis opera”; voll. 29-87, “Calvini opera”; voll.
88-89, “Zwinglii opera.”
Correspondence: “Dr. Martin Luthers Briefwechsel,” edited with
annotations by L. Enders, 11 vols., Frankfurt a/M., also Calw and
Stuttgart, 1884-1907, 12 vols., ed. G. Kawerau, Leipzig, 1910; see
also Letters.
—“Briefwechsel Luthers, mit vielen unbekannten Briefen und unter
Berücksichtigung der De Wetteschen Ausgabe,” ed. C. A. Burkhardt,
Leipzig, 1866.
—“Briefwechsel des Beatus Rhenanus,” etc., ed. A. Horawitz and K.
Hartfelder, Leipzig, 1886.
—“Briefwechsel der Brüder Ambrosius und Thomas Blaurer, 1509-1548,”
ed. Tr. Schiess, 1 vol., Freiburg i/Breisgau, 1908.
—“Briefwechsel des Justus Jonas,” etc., ed. G. Kawerau, 2 vols.,
Halle, 1884.
—“Briefwechsel Landgraf Philipps des Grossmütigen von Hessen
mit Bucer,” ed. by M. Lenz (“Publikationen aus dem Kgl. Preuss.
Staatsarchiv,”), 3 vols., Leipzig, 1880-1891.
Denifle, H., O.P., “Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwickelung
quellenmässig dargestellt,” 1 vol., Mayence, 1904; 2nd ed., 1st part,
1904; 2nd part, ed. A. M. Weiss, O.P., 1906. Quellenbelege zu 1², 1-2,
“Die Abendländische Schriftauslegung bis Luther über Iustitia Dei
(Rom. i. 17) und Iustificatio. Beitrag zur Geschichte der Exegese, der
Literatur und des Dogmas im Mittelalter,” 1905, 2nd vol. of the main
work, ed. A. M. Weiss, O.P., 1909.
—“Luther in rationalistischer und christlicher Beleuchtung,
Prinzipielle Auseinandersetzung mit A. Harnack und R. Seeberg,”
Mayence, 1904.
“Deutsch-evangelische Blätter. Zeitschrift für den gesamten Bereich
des deutschen Protestantismus,” Halle, 1891, _sq._
(“Disputationen,” ed. Drews), Drews, P., “Disputationen Dr. Martin
Luthers, in den Jahren, 1535-1545 an der Universität Wittenberg
gehalten,” 1st ed., Göttingen, 1895.
(“Disputationen,” ed. Stange), Stange, C., “Die ältesten ethischen
Disputationen Dr. Martin Luthers” (“Quellenschriften zur Geschichte
des Protestantismus,” 1), Leipzig, 1904.
Döllinger, J. I. von, “Luther, eine Skizze,” Freiburg i/B., 1890 (also
in Wetzer and Welte’s Kirchenlexikon, 1st and 2nd ed., Art. “Luther”).
—“Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwickelung und ihre Wirkungen im
Umfange des lutherischen Bekenntnisses,” 3 vols., Ratisbon, 1846-1848
(l², 1851).
Ehses St., “Geschichte der Packschen Händel. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte der deutschen Reformation,” Freiburg i/B., 1881.
Ellinger, G., “Philipp Melanchthon. Ein Lebensbild,” Berlin, 1902.
“Erasmi D. Roterodami Opera omnia emendatiora et auctiora,” ed.
Clericus, 10 tom., Lugd. Batavorum, 1702-1706.
“Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des deutschen
Volkes,” ed. L. von Pastor, Freiburg i/B., 1898, _sq._
Evers, G., “Martin Luther. Lebens-und Charakterbild, von ihm selbst
gezeichnet in seinen eigenen Schriften und Korrespondenzen,” Hft.
1-14, Mayence, 1883-1894.
Falk, F., “Die Bibel am Ausgang des Mittelalters,” Mayence, 1905,
—“Die Ehe am Ausgang des Mittelalters” (“Erläuterungen und
Ergänzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des deutschen Volkes,” Vol. 6, Hft.
4), Freiburg i/B., 1908.
“Flugschriften aus den ersten Jahren der Reformation,” ed. O. Clemen,
Leipzig and New York, 1907 ff.
Förstemann, C. E., “Neues Urkundenbuch zur Gesch. der evangelischen
Kirchenreform” (one only vol. published), Hamburg, 1842.
Harnack, A., “Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte,” 3 vols.: “Die
Entwickelung des kirchlichen Dogmas”; ii, iii, 4th ed., Tübingen, 1910.
Hausrath, A., “Luthers Leben,” 2 vols., Berlin, 1904 (2nd reimpression
with amended preface).
Hergenröther, Card. J., “Handbuch der allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte,”
4th ed., ed. J. P. Kirsch, 3 vols., Freiburg i/B, 1909.
“Historisches Jahrbuch,” ed. the Görres-Gesellschaft, Münster, later
Munich, 1880 ff.
“Historisch-politische Blätter für das katholische Deutschland,”
Munich, 1838 ff.
“Hutteni Ulr. Opera,” 5 vol., ed. Böcking, Lipsiæ, 1859-1862.
(Janssen-Pastor) Janssen, J., “Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit
dem Ausgang des Mittelalters,” 17-18 ed. by L. von Pastor, vol. 1-2,
Freiburg i/B., 1897; vol. 3, 1899. English Trans., “History of the
German People at the Close of the Middle Ages,” 1-2², 1905; 3-4¹,
1900; 5-6¹, 1903 (see also “Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen”).
—“An meine Kritiker. Nebst Ergänzungen und Erläuterungen zu den drei
ersten Bänden meiner Geschichte des deutschen Volkes,” Freiburg i/B.,
1882.
—“Ein zweites Wort an meine Kritiker. Nebst Ergänzungen und
Erläuterungen zu den drei ersten Bänden meiner Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes,” Freiburg i/B., 1883.
Kahnis, C. F. A., “Die deutsche Reformation,” vol. 1, Leipzig, 1872
(no others published).
Kalkoff, P., “Forschungen zu Luthers römischem Prozess” (“Bibliothek
des Kgl. Preuss. Histor. Instituts in Rom,” vol. 2), Rome, 1905.
“Kirchenordnungen, Die evangelischen des 16 Jahrhunderts,” ed.
E. Sehling: 1, “Die Ordnungen Luthers für die ernestinischen und
albertinischen Gebiete,” Leipzig, 1902; 2, “Die vier geistlichen
Gebiete,” etc., 1904; 3, “Die Mark Brandenburg,” 1909.
Köhler, W., “Katholizismus und Reformation. Kritisches Referat üher
die wissenschaftlichen Leistungen der neueren katholischen Theologie
auf dem Gebiete der Reformationsgeschichte,” Giessen, 1905.
—“Luther und die Kirchengeschichte,” 1, vol. 1, Erlangen, 1900.
Köstlin, J., “Luthers Theologie in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung
und in ihrem Zusammenhang dargestellt,” 2nd ed., 2 vols., Stuttgart,
1901.
(Köstlin-Kawerau), Köstlin, J., “Martin Luther. Sein Leben und seine
Schriften,” 5th ed., continued after the death of the author by G.
Kawerau, 2 vols., Berlin, 1903.
Kolde, Th., see “Analecta Lutherana.”
—“Die deutsche Augustinerkongregation und Johann von Staupitz.
Ein Beitrag zur Ordens-und Reformationsgeschichte nach meistens
ungedruckten Quellen,” Gotha, 1879.
—“Martin Luther, Eine Biographie,” 2 vols., Gotha, 1884-1893.
Læmmer, H., “Monumenta Vaticana historiam ecclesiasticam sæculi XVI,
illustrantia,” Friburgi Brisgoviæ, 1861.
(Lauterbach, “Tagebuch”), Seidemann, J. K., “A. Lauterbachs Tagebuch
auf das Jahr 1538. Die Hauptquelle der Tischreden Luthers,” Dresden,
1872.
Letters, “M. Luthers Briefe, Sendschreiben und Bedenken,” ed. M. De
Wette, 5 parts, Berlin, 1825-1828; 6th part, ed. J. K. Seidemann,
Berlin, 1856.
Loesche, G., see Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen”; Mathesius, “Historien.”
Löscher, V. E., “Vollständige Reformationsacta und Dokumenta,” 3
vols., Leipzig, 1720-1729.
Loofs, F., “Leitfaden zum Studium der Dogmengeschichte,” 4th ed.,
Halle a/S., 1906.
Luthardt, C. E., “Die Ethik Luthers in ihren Grundzügen,” 2nd ed.,
Leipzig, 1875.
Luther’s Works: 1, Complete editions of his works, see “Werke,”
“Opera Lat. var.,” “Opera Lat. exeg.,” “Commentarius in Epist. ad
Galatas,” Römerbriefkommentar; 2, Correspondence, see Letters,
Correspondence, and “Analecta”; 3, Table-Talk, see “Tischreden,” ed.
Aurifaber, ed. Förstemann, also “Werke,” Erl. ed. vol. 57-62, “Werke,”
Halle, ed., vol. 22, “Colloquia,” Cordatus, Lauterbach, Mathesius,
“Aufzeichnungen,” Mathesius, “Tischreden,” Schlaginhaufen; 4, on other
matters see “Analecta,” “Disputationen,” “Symbolische Bücher.”
(Mathesius, “Aufzeichnungen”), Loesche, G., “Analecta Lutherana et
Melanchthoniana, Tischreden Luthers und Aussprüche Melanchthons
hauptsächlich nach den Aufzeichnungen des Johannes Mathesius, aus
der Nürnberger Handschrift im Germanischen Museum mit Benützung von
Seidemanns Vorarbeiten,” Gotha, 1892.
Mathesius, J., “Historien von des ehrwürdigen in Gott seligen thewren
Manns Gottes Doctoris Martini Luther Anfang Lehr, Leben und Sterben,”
Nürnberg, 1566, ed. G. Loesche, Prague, 1898 and 1906 (“Bibliothek
deutscher Schriftsteller aus Böhmen,” vol. 9). Our quotations are from
the Nuremberg ed.
(Mathesius, “Tischreden”), Kroker, E., “Luthers Tischreden in
der Mathesischen Sammlung. Aus einer Handschrift der Leipziger
Stadtbibliothek,” ed. Leipzig, 1903.
Maurenbrecher, W., “Studien und Skizzen zur Geschichte der
Reformationszeit,” Leipzig, 1874.
—“Geschichte der katholischen Reformation,” 1 vol., Nördlingen, 1880.
Melanchthon, see “Analecta,” by Loesche.
Melanchthon, see “Vita Lutheri.”
“Melanchthonis opera omnia,” ed. Bretschneider (in “Corpus
Reformatorum,” vol. 1-28), Halis Saxoniæ, 1834-1863.
Möhler, J. A., “Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte,” ed. Pius Gams, 3
vols., Ratisbon, 1868.
—“Symbolik oder Darstellung der dogmatischen Gegensätze
der Katholiken und Protestanten nach ihren öffentlichen
Bekenntnisschriften,” 1st ed., Ratisbon, 1832; 10th ed., with
additions, by J. M. Raich, Mayence, 1889.
Möller, W., “Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte,” 3 vols., “Reformation
und Gegenreformation,” ed. G. Kawerau, 3rd ed., Tübingen, 1907.
Müller, K., “Luther und Karlstadt. Stücke aus ihrem gegenseitigen
Verhältnis untersucht,” Tübingen, 1909.
—“Kirche Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther,” Tübingen, 1910.
Münzer, Th., “Hochverursachte Schutzrede und Antwort wider das
geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg,” ed. Enders (“Neudrucke
deutscher Literaturwerke,” No. 118), Halle, 1893.
“Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des 16 und 17 Jahrhunderts,”
Halle, 1876 ff.
“Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken:
1, 1533-1559, ed. Kgl. Preuss. Institut in Rom, & Kgl. Preuss.
Archivverwaltung; vols. 5-6, “Nuntiaturen Morones und Poggios,”
“Legationen Farneses und Cervinis, 1539-1540,” ed. L. Cardauns;
“Gesandtschaft Campeggios,” “Nuntiaturen Morones und Poggios,
1540-1541,” ed. L. Cardauns, Berlin, 1909.
(“Opp. Lat. exeg.”), “M. Lutheri Exegetica opera latina,” cur. C.
Elsperger, 28 voll., Erlangæ, 1829 _sqq._ (also published apart), “D.
M. Lutheri Commentarius in Epistolam ad Galatas,” ed. I. A. Irmischer,
3 voll., Erlangæ, 1843, _sq._
(“Opp. Lat. var.”), “M. Lutheri Opera latina varii argumenti ad
reformationis historiam imprimis pertinentia,” cur. H. Schmidt, voll.
1-7, Francofurti, 1865 _sqq._ (part of the Erlangen ed. of Luther’s
works).
Oergel, G., “Vom jungen Luther. Beiträge zur Lutherforschung,” Erfurt,
1899.
Pastor, L. von, “Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des
Mittelalters. Mit Benützung des päpstlichen Geheimarchivs und vieler
anderer Archive bearbeitet,” vols. 1-3 in 3rd-4th ed., Freiburg i/B.,
1901, 1904, 1899; vol. 4 first half 1906, second half 1907; vol. 5
1909. English Trans., “History of the Popes from the close of the
Middle Ages,” 1-2³, 1906; 3-4², 1900; 5-6², 1901; 7-8¹, 1908.
Paulsen, F., “Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts auf den deutschen
Schulen und Universitäten vom Ausgang des Mittelalters bis zur
Gegenwart. Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf den klassischen Unterricht,”
Leipzig, 1885, 2nd ed., 2 vols. 1896-1897.
Paulus, N., “Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther,
1518-1563” (“Erläuterungen und Ergänzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des
deutschen Volkes,” vol. 4, 1-2). Freiburg i/B., 1903.
—“Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16 Jahrhundert,” Freiburg
i/B., 1910.
—“Luther und die Gewissensfreiheit” (“Glaube und Wissen,” Hft. 4),
Munich, 1905.
—“Luthers Lebensende. Eine kritische Untersuchung” (“Erläuterungen
und Ergänzungen zu Janssens Geschichte des deutschen Volkes,” vol. 1,
P. 1), Freiburg i/B., 1898.
—“Kaspar Schatzgeyer, ein Vorkämpfer der katholischen Kirche gegen
Luther in Süddeutschland” (“Strassburger theologische Studien,” vol.
3, 1), Freiburg i/B., 1898.
—“Johann Tetzel, der Ablassprediger,” Mayence, 1899.
—“Bartholomäus Arnoldi von Usingen” (“Strassburger theologische
Studien,” vol. 1, 3), Freiburg i/B., 1893.
“Quellen und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte in Verbindung
mit ihrem historischen Institut zu Rom,” ed. the Görres-Gesellschaft,
Paderborn, 1892 ff.
“—aus den italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken,” ed. Kgl. Preuss.
Histor. Institut in Rom, Rome, 1897 ff.
“Quellenschriften zur Geschichte des Protestantismus zum Gebrauch in
akademischen Übungen,” in Verbindung mit anderen Fachgenossen ed. J.
Kunze and C. Stange, Leipzig, 1904, ff.
(Oldecop), “Joh. Oldecops Chronik,” ed. K. Euling (“Bibl. des
literarischen Vereins von Stuttgart,” vol. 190), Tübingen, 1891.
(Ratzeberger), “Ratzeberger M., Handschriftliche Geschichte über
Luther und seine Zeit,” ed. Ch. G. Neudecker, Jena, 1850.
“Raynaldi Annales ecclesiastici. Accedunt notæ chronologicæ,” etc.,
auct. J. D. Mansi, Tom. 12-14, Lucæ, 1755.
“Reformationsgeschichtliche Studien und Texte,” ed. J. Greving,
Münster i/W., 1906 ff.
“Reichstagsakten, Deutsche,” N.S., 2 vols.: “Deutsche Reichstagsakten
unter Karl V,” ed. Adolf Wrede. At the command of H.M. the King of
Bavaria, ed. by the Historical Commission of the Kgl. Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Gotha, 1896.
Riffel, K., “Christliche Kirchengeschichte der neuesten Zeit, von dem
Anfänge der grossen Glaubens-und Kirchenspaltung des 16 Jahrhunderts,”
3 vols. (vol. 1, 2nd ed.), Mayence, 1842-1846.
Ritschi, A., “Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung,” 3 vols., 2nd ed., Bonn,
1882 f.
—O., “Dogmengeschichte des Protestantismus,” vol. 1, Leipzig, 1908.
Romans, Commentary on, Ficker, J., “Luthers Vorlesung über
den Römerbrief 1515-1516,” Glossen, 2, Scholien (“Anfänge,
reformatorischer Bibelauslegung,” ed. J. Ficker, vol. 1), Leipzig,
1908.
“Sammlung gemeinverständlicher Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiete
der Theologie und Religionsgeschichte.” Tübingen and Leipzig, 1896 ff.
Scheel, O., “Luthers Stellung zur Heiligen Schrift” (“Sammlung
gemeinverständlicher Vorträge und Schriften aus dem Gebiete der
Theologie,” No. 29), Tübingen, 1902.
(Schlaginhaufen, “Aufzeichnungen”), “Tischreden Luthers aus den Jahren
1531 und 1532 nach den Aufzeichnungen von Johann Schlaginhaufen aus
einer Münchener Handschrift,” ed. W. Preger, Leipzig, 1888.
“Scholia Rom,” see Romans, Commentary on.
“Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte,” Halle, 1883 ff.
Seckendorf, V. L. a, “Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de
Lutheranismo sive de reformatione religionis ductu D. Martini Lutheri
... recepta et stabilita,” Lipsiæ, 1694.
Spahn, M., “Johann Cochläus. Ein Lebensbild aus der Zeit der
Kirchenspaltung,” Berlin, 1898.
“Studien und Darstellungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte. Im Auftrage
der Görres-Gesellschaft und in Verbindung mit der Redaktion des
Historischen Jahrbuches,” ed. H. Grauert, Freiburg i/B., 1900 ff.
“Studien und Kritiken, Theologische. Zeitschrift für das gesamte
Gebiet der Theologie,” Hamburg, later, Gotha, 1835 ff.
(“Symbolische Bücher”), Müller H. T., “Die symbolischen Bücher der
evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche deutsch und lateinisch. Mit einer
neuen historischen Einleitung von Th. Kolde,” 10th ed., Gütersloh,
1907.
“Table-Talk,” see “Tischreden.”
“Tischreden oder Colloquia M. Luthers,” ed. Aurifaber, 2 vols.,
Eisleben, 1564-1565.
(Tischreden ed. Förstemann), Förstemann, K. E., “Dr. Martin
Luthers Tischreden oder Colloquia. Nach Aurifabers erster Ausgabe
mit sorgfältiger Vergleichung sowohl der Stangwaldischen als der
Selneccerschen Redaktion,” 4 vols. (4th vol. ed. with assistance of H.
E. Bindseil), Leipzig, 1844-1848.
Ulenberg, C., “Historia de Vita ... Lutheri, Melanchthonis, Matth.
Flacii Illyrici, G. Maioris et Andr. Osiandri,” 2 voll., Coloniæ, 1622.
(“Vita Lutheri”), “Melanchthonis Philippi Vita Lutheri,” in “Vitæ,
quatuor reformatorum,” Berolini, 1841. Also in “Corp. Ref.” 6, p. 155
_sq._ and previously as Preface to the 2nd vol. of the Wittenberg
Latin edition of Luther’s works.
Walther, W., “Für Luther, Wider Rom. Handbuch der Apologetik Luthers
und der Reformation den römischen Anklagen gegenüber,” Halle a/S.,
1906.
Weiss, A. M., O.P., “Lutherpsychologie als Schlüssel zur
Lutherlegende. Denifles Untersuchungen kritisch nachgeprüft,” Mayence,
1906; 2nd ed., 1906.
—“Luther und Luthertum,” 2, see Denifle.
(“Werke,” Erl. ed.), “M. Luthers sämtliche Werke,” 67 vols., ed. J.
G. Plochmann and J. A. Irmischer, Erlangen, 1826-1868, vols. 1-20
and 24-26, 2nd ed., ed. L. Enders, Frankfurt a/M., 1862 ff. To the
Erl. ed. belong also the Latin “Opp. Lat. exeg.,” the “Commentar.
in Epist. ad. Galat.,” the “Opp. Lat. var.,” and the Correspondence
(Briefwechsel) ed. by Enders (see under these four titles).
—Weim. ed., “Dr. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe,”
Weimar, 1883 ff., ed. J. Knaake, G. Kawerau, P. Pietsch, N. Müller, K.
Drescher and W. Walther. So far (Jan., 1911) there have appeared vols.
1-9; 10, 1, 2, 3; 11-16; 17, 1; 18-20; 23-29; 30, 2; 3; 32; 33; 34, 1,
2; 36; 37. “Deutsche Bibel (1522-1541),” 2 vols. with introductions.
—Altenburg ed., 1661-1664, 10 vols. (German); reprinted Leipzig,
1729-1740, 22 vols.
—Eisleben ed. (“Supplement zur Wittenberger und Jenaer Ausg.”), ed.
J. Aurifaber, 2 vols., 1564-1565.
“Werke,” Halle ed., ed. J. G. Walch, 24 vols., 1740-1753 (German),
“Neue Ausgabe im Auftrage des Ministeriums der deutschen
evangelisch-lutherischen Synode von Missouri, Ohio und andern
Staaten,” St. Louis, Mo., Zwickau, Schriftenverein, 22 vols.,
1880-1904, 23 (index), 1910.
—Jena ed., 8 vols. of German and 4 vols. of Latin writings,
1555-1558; re-edited later.
—Wittenberg ed., 12 vols. of German (1539-1559) and 7 vols. of Latin
writings (1545-1558).
—“Auswahl,” ed. Buchwald, Kawerau, Köstlin, etc., 8 vols., 3rd ed.,
Brunswick and Berlin, 1905 ff.; also 2 supplementary vols.
Wiedemann, Th., “Johann Eck, Professor der Theologie an der
Universität Ingolstadt,” Ratisbon, 1865.
Works (Luther’s), see “Werke.”
“Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie,” Innsbruck, 1877 ff.
“—für Kirchengeschichte,” ed. Th. Brieger, Gotha, 1877 ff.
“—für Theologie und Kirche,” Tübingen, 1890 ff.
“Zwinglii H. Opera. Completa editio prima cur. M. Schulero et H.
Schulthessio,” 8 voll. (voll. 7 et 8 “epistolæ”), Turici, 1828-1842.
In “Corpus Reformatorum” (2 vols.), voll. 88-89, Berlin and Leipzig,
1905-1908.
INTRODUCTION
(PREFACE TO THE FIRST AND SECOND GERMAN EDITIONS)
THE author’s purpose in the present work[1] has been to give an exact
historical and psychological picture of Luther’s personality, which
still remains an enigma from so many points of view. He would fain
present an accurate delineation of Luther’s character as seen both from
within and from outside throughout the history of his life and work
from his earliest years till his death. He has, however, placed his
hero’s interior life, his spiritual development and his psychic history
well in the foreground of his sketch.
The external history of the originator of the great German schism has
indeed been dealt with fully enough before this. Special historical
studies on the various points of his career and times exist in great
number and are being daily added to. Whenever necessary, the author
has made use of such existing material, although these works are only
rarely quoted, in order not to overload the book.
Everyone knows with what animation Luther’s life has recently been
discussed, how his doctrines have been probed, and how they have been
compared and contrasted with the theology of the Middle Ages. The
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, a work of Luther’s youth,
which was first made use of by Denifle and which now exists in a
printed form, has supplied very important new material for the study
of the rise of his opinions. With the assistance of this work it has
become possible to give an entirely new explanation of how the breach
with Rome came about. With regard to the actual questions of dogma,
it has been my endeavour to bestow upon them the attention necessary
for a right comprehension of history; at the same time the theological
element can only be considered as secondary, our intention being to
supply an exact portrait of Luther as a whole, which should emphasise
various aspects of his mind and character, and not to write a
history of dogma, much less a controversial or theological tract. The
investigation of his mind, of his intellectual and moral springs of
action, and of the spiritual reaction which he himself experienced from
his life’s work, is indispensably necessary if we wish to do justice
to the man who so powerfully influenced the development of Europe, and
to form a correct idea of the human sides, good as well as bad, of his
character.
We have preferred, when sketching the psychological picture, to do so
in Luther’s own words. This method was, however, the most suitable
one, in spite of its apparent clumsiness; indeed it is the only one
which does not merely put the truth before the eyes of the reader, but
likewise the proofs that it is the truth, while at the same time giving
an absolutely life-like picture. It has frequently been necessary to
allow Luther to speak in his own words in order that in matters which
have been diversely interpreted, or on which he was somewhat uncertain,
he may be free to bring forward the pros and cons himself; we have thus
given him the fullest opportunity to defend or accuse himself. If, for
this reason, he is quoted more often than some readers may like, yet
the originality of his mode of expression, which is always vivid, often
drastic, and not infrequently eloquent, should suffice to prevent any
impression of tiresomeness.
Luther’s personality with all its well-known outspokenness has, as a
matter of course, been introduced, unvarnished and unexpurgated, just
as it betrays itself in the printed pamphlets, which as a rule give so
vivid a picture of the writer, in the confidential letters, and in the
chatty talk with his friends and table-companions. In a book which,
needless to say, is not destined for the edification of the young, but
to describe, as an historical work should, the conditions of things as
they really were, the author has not thought it permissible to suppress
certain offensive passages, or to tone down expressions which, from the
standpoint of modern taste, are often too outspoken. With regard to
the Table-Talk it may at once be stated that, by preference, we have
gone to the actual sources from whence it was taken, so far as these
sources are known, i.e. to the first Notes made by Luther’s own pupils
and recently edited from the actual MSS. by Protestant scholars such as
Preger, Wrampelmeyer, Loesche, Kroker, and others.
In order to preserve the character of the old-time language, the
original words and phrases employed by Luther, and also by his friends,
have been, as far as possible, adhered to, though not the actual
mode of spelling. A certain unequalness was, however, unavoidable
owing to the fact that some of Luther’s Latin expressions which have
been translated into modern German appear side by side with texts in
old German, and that in the first written notes of the Table-Talk
frequently only half the sentence is in German, the other half, owing
to the use of Latin stenography, or because the speakers intermingled
Latin and German haphazard, being given in Latin. Some difficulties
presented by the German of that day have been made plain to the reader
by words introduced in brackets.
In selecting and sifting the material, a watchful eye has been kept
not only on Luther’s mental history, but also on the Luther-Legends,
whether emanating from advocates of the Wittenberg Doctor or from his
Catholic opponents. It is a remarkable phenomenon only to be explained
by the ardent interest taken in the struggle which Luther called forth,
how quickly and to what an extent legendary matter accumulated, and
with what tenacity it was adhered to. The inventions which we already
find flourishing luxuriantly in the earliest panegyrics on the Reformer
and in the oldest controversial works written to confute him (we
express no opinion on the good faith of either side), are many of them
not yet exploded, but continue a sort of tradition, even to the present
day. Much that was false in the tales dating from the outset, whether
in Luther’s favour or to his disadvantage, is still quoted to-day, in
favour of or against him. In the light of a dispassionate examination
the cloud-banks of panegyrics and embellishments tend, however, to
vanish into thin air, though, on the other hand, a number of dark spots
which still clung to the memory of the man—owing to hasty acceptance
of the statements of older anti-Lutheran writers, have also disappeared.
The Protestant historian, Wilhelm Maurenbrecher, declared in 1874
in his “Studien und Skizzen zur Geschichte der Reformationszeit”
(p. 239), that a good life of Luther could not soon be written
owing to the old misrepresentations having given birth to a _fable
convenue_; “the rubbish and filth with which the current theological
view of the Reformation period has been choked up, intentionally or
unintentionally, is too great, and the utter nonsense which it has been
the custom to present and to accept with readiness as Luther’s history,
is still too strong.” Maurenbrecher, speaking of the Protestant
tradition, felt himself justified in alluding to “a touching affection
for stories which have become dear.” During the forty years or so which
have elapsed since then, things have, however, improved considerably.
Protestant scholars have taken on themselves the honourable task of
clearing away the rubbish. Nevertheless, looking at the accounts in
vogue of Luther’s development, one of the most recent historians of
dogma, writing from Luther’s own camp, at the very commencement of
a work dealing with the Reformer’s development, declares: “We still
possess no reliable biography of Luther.” So says Wilhelm Braun in
his work, “Die Bedeutung der Concupiscenz in Luthers Leben und Lehre”
(Berlin, 1908).
The excrescences on the Catholic side have also been blamed by
conscientious Catholic historians. I am not here speaking of the
insulting treatment of Luther customary with some of the older
polemical writers, with regard to which Erasmus said: “_Si scribit
adversus Lutherum, qui subinde vocat illum asinum, stipitem, bestiam,
cacodæmonem, antichristum, nihil erat facilius quam in illum scribere_”
(“Opp.,” ed. Lugd., 3, col. 658); I am speaking rather of the great
number of fables and false interpretations which have been accepted,
mostly without verification. Concerning these Joseph Schmidlin says
in his article, “Der Weg zum historischen Verständnis des Luthertums”
(III., “Vereinsschrift der Görresgesellschaft für 1909,” p. 32 f.):
“The Luther-problem has not yet found a solution.... To what an extent
the apologetico-dogmatic method, as employed by Catholics, can deviate
from historical truth is proved down to the present day by the numerous
controversial pamphlets merely intended to serve the purposes of the
moment.... The historical point of view, on the contrary, is splendidly
adapted to bring into evidence the common ground on which Catholic and
Protestant scholars can, to a certain extent, join hands.”
While confronting the fables which have grown up on either side with
the simple facts as they are known, I was, naturally, unwilling to
be constantly denouncing the authors who were responsible for their
invention or who have since made them their own, and accordingly, on
principle, I have avoided mentioning the names of those whose accounts
I have rectified, and confined myself to the facts alone; in this wise
I hope to have avoided giving offence or any reason for superfluous
personal discussions. I trust that it is clear from the very form of
the book, which deals with Luther and with him alone, that the history
of the Wittenberg Doctor is my only concern and that I have no wish to
quarrel with any writer of olden or more recent times. I have been able
to profit by the liberty thus attained, to attack the various fables
without the slightest scruple.
With regard to the other details of the work; my intention being to
write a psychology of Luther based on his history, it necessarily
followed that some parts which were of special importance for this
purpose had to be treated at greater length, whereas others, more
particularly historical events which had already been repeatedly
described, could be passed over very lightly.
Owing to the psychological point of view adopted in this work the
author has also been obliged to follow certain rules in the division
and grouping. Some sections had to be devoted to the consideration of
special points in Luther’s character and in the direction of his mind,
manifestations of which frequently belong to entirely different periods
of his life. Certain pervading tendencies of his life could be treated
of only in the third volume, and then only by going back to elements
already portrayed, but absolutely essential for a right comprehension
of the subject. Without some such arrangement it seemed impossible to
explain satisfactorily his development, and to produce a convincing
picture of the man as a whole.
Although a complete and lengthy description has been devoted to
Luther’s idea of his higher mission (vol. iii., ch. xvi.)—a subject
rightly considered of the greatest interest—yet the growth of this
idea, its justification, and its various phases, is really being dealt
with throughout the work. The thoughtful reader will probably be able
to arrive at a decision as to whether the idea was well founded or not,
from the historical materials furnished by Luther himself. He will see
that the result which shines out from the pages of this book is one
gained purely by means of history, and that the mere scientific process
is sufficient to smooth the way for a solution of the question; to
discuss it from a sectarian standpoint never entered into my mind.
The writer’s unalterable principle on this point has been, that in
historical studies the religious convictions of the author must never
induce him to set aside the stubborn facts of the past, to refuse
their full importance to the sources, or pusillanimously to deny the
rightful deductions from history. This, however, does not mean that he
has imposed on himself any denial of his religious convictions. Just
as the convinced Protestant, when judging of historical facts, cannot
avoid showing his personal standpoint, and just as the freethinking
historian applies his own standard everywhere in criticising events
both profane and religious, so the Catholic too must be free to express
his opinion from the point of view of his own principles as soon as the
facts have been established. The unreasonableness and impossibility of
writing a history from which personal convictions are entirely absent
has been recognised by all competent authorities, and, in a subject
like that here treated, this is as plain as day. Such an artificial
and unreal history of Luther would surely be dreary and dull enough to
frighten anyone, apart from the fact that Luther himself, whose fiery
nature certainly admitted nothing of indifference, would be the first
to protest against it, if he could.
Is it really impossible for a Catholic historian to depict Luther
as he really was without offending Protestant feelings in any way?
Without any exaggerated optimism, I believe it to be quite possible,
because honesty and historical justice must always be able to find a
place somewhere under the sun and wherever light can be thrown, even
in the most delicate historical questions. In the extracts from my
studies on Luther (cp. for instance the article “Der ‘gute Trunk’ in
den Lutheranklagen, eine Revision” in the “Historisches Jahrbuch,”
1905, pp. 479-507), Protestants themselves admitted that the matter
was treated “with entire objectivity” and acknowledged the “moderate
tone” which prevailed throughout. Such admissions were to me a source
of real pleasure. Other critics, highly prejudiced in favour of
Luther, actually went so far as to declare, that this impartiality
and moderation was “all on the surface” and a mere “ingenious
make-believe,” employed only in order the better to deceive the reader.
They took it upon themselves to declare it impossible that certain
charges made against Luther should have been minimised by me in real
earnest, and various good aspects of his character admitted frankly and
with conviction. Such discoveries, as far-fetched as they are wanting
in courtesy, may be left to take care of themselves, though I shall not
be surprised to be again made the object of similar personal insults on
the appearance of this book.
I may, however, assure Protestant readers in general, whose esteem
for Luther is great and who may be disagreeably affected by certain
passages in this book which are new to them, that the idea of offending
them by a single word was very far from my intention. I am well
aware, and the many years I have passed at home in a country of which
the population is partly Catholic and partly Protestant have made
it still clearer to me, how Protestants carry out in all good faith
and according to their lights the practice of their religion. Merely
in view of these, and quite apart from the gravity of the subject
itself, everything that could be looked on as a challenge or an insult
should surely be avoided as a stupid blunder. I would therefore ask
that the book be judged impartially, and without allowing feelings,
in themselves quite natural, to interfere unduly; let the reader ask
himself simply whether each assertion is, or is not, proved by the
facts and witnesses. As regards the author, however, he would ask his
readers to remember that we Catholics (to quote the words of a Swiss
writer) “are not prevented by the view we hold of the Church, from
rejoicing over all that our separated brethren throughout the world
have preserved of the inheritance of Christ, and display in their
lives, that, on the contrary, our best and sincerest esteem is for the
_bona fides_ of those who think otherwise than we” (“Schweizerische
Kirchenzeitung,” 1910, No. 52, December 29).
With regard to “inconvenient facts,” Friedrich Paulsen wrote in
his “Geschichte des gelehrten Unterrichts” (I², 1896, p. 196): “If
Protestant historians had not yielded so much to the inclination to
slur over inconvenient facts, Janssen’s ‘History of the German People’
[English trans., 1901-1909] would not have made the impression it
did—surely an ‘inconvenient fact’ for many Protestants.” The same
respected Protestant scholar also has a word to say to those who were
scandalised at some disagreeable historical home-truths which he had
published, “as though it were my fault that facts occurred in the
history of the Reformation which a friendly biographer of Luther must
regret.”
Even in the Protestant world of the present day there is a very
general demand for a plain, unvarnished picture of Luther. “_Amicus
Lutherus magis amica veritas_,” as Chr. Rogge said when voicing this
demand; the same writer also admitted that there was “much to be
learnt from the Catholics, even though they emphasised Luther’s less
favourable qualities”; that, “we could not indeed expect them to look
at Luther with our eyes, but nevertheless we have not lost all hope
of again finding among them men who will fight the Monk of Wittenberg
with weapons worthy of him.” And further, “the scholar given up to
historical research can and ought to strive to bring the really
essential element of these struggles to the knowledge and appreciation
of his opponents, for, if anywhere, then surely in the two principal
camps of Christendom, large-minded polemics should be possible” (“Zum
Kampfe um Luther” in the “Türmer,” January, 1906, p. 490).
I have not only avoided theological polemics with Protestants, but
have carefully refrained from considering Protestantism at all,
whether that of to-day or of the two previous centuries. To show the
effects of Luther’s work upon the history of the world was not my
business. The object of my studies has not been Lutheranism, but Luther
himself considered apart from later Protestantism, so far as this
was possible; of course, we cannot separate Luther from the effects
he produced, he foresaw the results of his work, and the acceptance
of this responsibility was quite characteristic of him. I will only
say, that the task I set myself in this work closes with the first
struggles over his grave. I may remark further, that the Luther of
theology, even in Protestant circles, is being considered more and more
as an isolated fact. Are there not even many Protestant theologians
who at the present day allow him no place whatever in the theological
and philosophical doctrines which they hold? Indeed, is it not an
understood thing with many of our Protestant contemporaries, to reject
entirely or in part the doctrines most peculiar and most dear to
Luther. Two years ago the cry was raised for “a further development of
religion,” for “a return from Trinitarian to Unitarian Christianity,
from the dogmatic to the historic Christ,” and at the same time the
Allgemeine Evangelisch-Lutherische Konferenz at Hanover received a
broad hint that, instead of wasting time in working for the Lutheran
tenets, they would be better employed in devising a Christianity which
should suit the needs of the day and unite all Protestants in one body.
In these and similar symptoms we cannot fail to see a real renunciation
of Luther as the founder of Protestant belief, for there are many who
refuse to hold fast even to that rudimentary Christianity which he,
in agreement with all preceding ages, continued to advocate. Only on
account of his revolt against external authority in religious questions
and his bitter opposition to the Papacy, is he still looked up to as
a leader. There is therefore all the less reason for the historian,
who subjects Luther to his scrutiny, to fear any reproach of having
unwarrantably assailed the Protestantism of to-day.
As in these pages my only object has been to examine Luther’s person,
his interior experiences and his opinions from the point of view of
pure history, I think I have the right to refuse beforehand to be
drawn into any religious controversy. On the other hand, historical
criticism of facts will always be welcomed by me, whether it comes from
the Catholic or from the Protestant camp, and will be particularly
appreciated wherever it assists in elucidating those questions which
still remain unsolved and to which I shall refer when occasion arises.
Finally, an historical reminiscence, which carries us back to the
religious contradictions as they existed in Germany a hundred years
ago, may not be out of place. At that time Gottlieb Jakob Planck of
Württemberg, Professor of Theology at Göttingen, after the lengthy and
unprofitable polemics of earlier ages, made a first attempt to pave
the way for a more just treatment by the Protestant party of Luther’s
history and theology. In his principal work, i.e. in the six volumes of
his “Geschichte der Entstehung, der Veränderung und der Bildung unseres
protestantischen Lehrbegriffs” (finished in 1800), he ventured, with
all the honesty of a scholar and the frankness natural to a Swabian, to
break through the time-honoured custom according to which, as he says,
all “those who dared even to touch on the mistakes of our reformers
were stigmatised as blasphemers.” “While engaged on this work,” he
declares, “I never made any attempt to forget I was a Protestant, but
I hope that my personal convictions have never led me to misrepresent
other people’s doctrines, or to commit any injustice or even to pass
an unkind judgment. Calm impartiality is all that can be demanded.”
I should like, _mutatis mutandis_, to make his words my own, and to
declare that, while I, too, have never forgotten that I am a Catholic,
I stand in no fear of my impartiality being impugned.
I would likewise wish to appropriate the following words taken from
Planck, substituting the word “Protestants” for “Catholics”: “The
justice which I have thought it necessary to do to Catholics may
perhaps excite some surprise, because some people can never understand
one’s treating opponents with fairness.” But “I am convinced that,
if my readers are scandalised, this will merely be on account of the
novelty of the method. I really could not bring myself to sacrifice
truth and justice to any fear of giving offence.” Planck admits,
elsewhere, speaking of Lutheran history, that compliance with the
demands of impartiality in respect of certain persons and events which
he had to describe, was sometimes “incredibly hard,” and he proceeds:
“There are circumstances where every investigator is apt to get annoyed
unless indeed disinterestedness is to him a natural virtue.... It is
exasperating [the present writer can vouch for this] to have to waste
time and patience on certain things.” So speaks a theologian renowned
among Protestants for his earnestness and kindliness.
With the best of intentions Planck spent part of his time and
strength in the chimerical task of bringing about a “reunion of the
principal Christian bodies.” He wrote a work, “Ueber die Trennung und
Wiedervereinigung,” etc. (on Schism and Reunion, 1803), and another
entitled “Worte des Friedens an die katholische Kirche” (Words of
Peace to the Catholic Church, 1809). It was his desire “to seek out
the good which surely exists everywhere.” The ideas he put forward
were, it is true, unsuited for the realisation of his great plan.
He was too unfamiliar with the organisation of the Catholic Church,
and the limitations of his earlier education disqualified him for
the undertaking he had in view. What really shattered the hopes of
reunion held by many during that period of triumphant Rationalism
was, not merely the shallowness of the views prevailing, but above
all the spirit of animosity let loose among all fervent Lutherans by
the celebration, in 1817, of the third centenary of the Reformation.
Catholics soon perceived that reunion was unfortunately still very far
distant, and that, in the interests of the public peace, all that could
be expected was the retention of mutual esteem and Christian charity
between the two great denominations.
It is also my most ardent desire that esteem and charity should
increase, and this growth of appreciation between Catholics and
Protestants will certainly not be hindered by the free and untrammelled
discussion of matters of history.
On the contrary, as a Protestant critic of Walter Köhler’s
“Katholizismus und Reformation” says, “it is to be hoped that
historical investigation may lessen the contradictions, and if in this
way it is possible to come closer together, not indeed perhaps to
understand each other completely, yet at least to make some attempt to
do so, then something deeper and more lasting will have been gained
than at the time when Rationalism prevailed. The attempt then made
to bring the parties together was the result of a levelling down of
religious beliefs, now the same object is sought by penetrating more
profoundly into the essentials of the different creeds” (“Theologische
Literaturzeitung,” 1907, p. 250).
The quotations from Luther’s writings have been taken from the most
recent Weimar edition so far as it at present reaches. What is not
contained in the Weimar edition has been taken from the previous
Erlangen edition (method of quotation: Weim. ed., Erl. ed.); the
latter is, however, often quoted as well as the Weimar edition because
it is more widely known and more readily available for reference.
Luther’s letters have been taken from the new edition of the
“Briefwechsel” by Enders, which is also not yet quite complete. The
epistles of Luther’s later years, which are still wanting in Enders’
work, and also some of earlier date, are given as in volumes lii.-liv.
of the Erlangen edition, where a great number of German letters are
collected, or else as in the old edition of “Briefe, Sendschreiben
und Bedenken” by De Wette-Seidemann. (_See_ above, p. xvii. ff.,
“Correspondence,” “Letters,” “Works.”)
With regard to the other sources of information we need only state,
that until the whole of the “Tischreden” (Table-Talk) have been
edited by Ernst Kroker in the Weimar series, we are compelled to
have recourse to the older German and Latin collections of the
same, together with the original notes mentioned above (p. xx.). Of
the German collection, in addition to the work of Aurifaber, the
“Tischreden” of Förstemann-Bindseil and of the Erlangen edition (vols.
lvii.-lxii.) have been used, and, for the Latin collection, Bindseil’s
careful edition (see p. xvi. f.).
From among the large number of lives of Luther which have been
consulted I shall mention only the two latest, one by a Catholic,
Denifle, and the other by two Protestants, Köstlin and Kawerau.
It is hardly necessary to say, that I brought to the study of the
two last-mentioned works an absolutely independent judgment. The
information—universally acknowledged as extremely valuable—- supplied
by Denifle’s ponderous volumes on the relation between Luther’s
theology and that of the Middle Ages, was of considerable service
to me. To Köstlin’s biography of Luther, continued by Kawerau, I am
indebted for some useful data with regard to the history and chronology
of Luther’s writings.
This most detailed of the Protestant biographies, and the most
frequently quoted by me, offers this further advantage that in its
judgment of Luther, his life’s work, and his personal qualities,
it occupies a middle line between two Protestant extremes. Köstlin
having belonged to the so-called intermediary school of theology, the
author, in his delineation of Luther, avoids alike certain excesses
of the conservatives and the caustic, subtilising criticism of the
rationalists. There is no such thing as a simple “Protestant opinion”
on Luther; and Köstlin’s intermediary treatment is the one least likely
to lead a Catholic to commit an injustice against either of the extreme
parties in Protestantism.
Does a Catholic opinion exist with regard to Luther’s personal
qualities and his fate? Does the much-discussed work of Denifle
represent the “Catholic feeling”? That it does has frequently been
asserted by those most strongly opposed to Denifle. Yet Denifle’s
manner of regarding Luther was, on the whole, by no means simply
“Catholic,” but largely biassed by his individual opinion, as indeed
has ever been the appreciation by Catholic authors of the different
points of Luther’s character. Only on those points could Denifle’s
opinion strictly be styled “Catholic” where he makes the direct
acknowledgment of dogmas and the essential organisation of the Church
the standard for Luther’s views and reforms; and in this he certainly
had on his side the repudiation of Luther by all Catholics. A “Catholic
opinion,” in any other sense than the above, is the sheerest nonsense,
and the learned Dominican would certainly have been the last to make
such a claim on his own behalf. The present writer protests beforehand
against any such interpretation being placed on his work. The following
statements, whether they differ from or agree with those of Denifle,
must be looked on as a mere attempt to express what appears to the
author to be clearly contained in the sources whence his information
comes. In all purely historical questions, in questions of fact and
their inferences, the Catholic investigator is entirely free, and
decides purely and simply to the best of his knowledge and conscience.
A list of Luther’s writings with the volumes in which they occur in the
last two editions, as well as a detailed index of subjects and names at
the end of the sixth volume, will facilitate the use of this work.
The author would like to take this opportunity of expressing his most
cordial thanks to the Royal Bavarian Library of Munich, and also to the
University Library in that city, for the friendly assistance rendered
him. These rich sources of information have afforded him, during his
frequent and lengthy visits to the Bavarian capital, what the libraries
of Rome, which he had been in the habit of consulting for his History
of Rome and the Popes of the Middle Ages (Eng. trans., 3 vols.,
1911-12), could not supply on the subject here treated. The author will
now return to the exploitation of the treasures of Rome and to the task
he originally undertook and hopes to bring out, in the near future, a
further volume of the History of Rome.
THE AUTHOR.
MUNICH, _January 1, 1911_.
VOL. I
LUTHER THE MONK
LUTHER
CHAPTER I
COURSE OF STUDIES AND FIRST YEARS IN THE MONASTERY
1. Luther’s Novitiate and Early Life
ON July 16, 1505, Martin Luther, then a student at the University of
Erfurt, invited his friends and acquaintances to a farewell supper. He
wished to see them about him for the last time before his approaching
retirement to the cloister. “The bright, cheerful young fellow,” as
his later pupil, Mathesius,[2] calls him, was a favourite in his own
circle. Those assembled to bid him farewell, amongst whom were also
“honest, virtuous maidens and women,”[3] were doubtless somewhat taken
aback at their friend’s sudden determination to leave the world; but
Luther was outwardly “beyond measure cheerful” and showed himself so
light of heart that he played the lute while the wine-cup circled
round.[4]
On the following morning—it was the feast of St. Alexius, as Luther
remembered when an old man[5]—some of his fellow-students accompanied
him to the gate of the Augustinian monastery and then, with tears in
their eyes, saw the doors close upon him. The Prior, who was already
apprised of the matter, greeted the timid new-comer, embraced him,
and then, in accordance with the Rule, confided him to the Master of
Novices to be initiated into the customs of the community.
In the quiet monastic cell and amid the strange new surroundings the
student was probably able little by little to master the excitement
which, though hidden from outsiders, raged within his breast; for the
determination to become a monk had been arrived at under strange,
soul-stirring circumstances. He was on his way back to Erfurt, after a
visit to his parents’ house, when, near Stotternheim, he was overtaken
by a thunderstorm, and as a flash of lightning close beside him
threatened him “like a heavenly vision,” he made the sudden vow: “Save
me, dear St. Anne, and I will become a monk.”[6] He appears also at
that very time to have been reduced to a state of great grief and alarm
by the sudden death of a dear comrade, also a student, who had been
stabbed, either in a quarrel or in a duel. Thus the thoughts which had
perhaps for long been attracting his serious temperament towards the
cloister ripened with overwhelming rapidity. Could we but take a much
later assertion of his as correct, the reason of his resolve was to be
found in a certain vexation with himself: because he “despaired” of
himself, he once says, therefore did he retire into the monastery.[7]
It was his earnest resolution to renounce the freedom of his academic
years and to seek peace of soul and reconciliation with God in the
bosom of the pious community. He persisted in keeping the vow made in
haste and terror in spite of dissuading voices which made themselves
heard both within himself and around him, and the determined opposition
of his father to his embracing the religious state. Some were full
of admiration for the energetic transformation of the new postulant.
Thus the respected Augustinian of Erfurt, Johann Nathin, compared
the suddenness and decision of his step to the one-time conversion
of Saul into the Apostle Paul.[8] Crotus Rubeanus, the Humanist,
then stopping at Erfurt, in a later letter to Luther, expressed
himself no less forcibly with regard to the heavenly flash which had
made him a monk.[9] The brothers of the “German Congregation of the
Order of Hermits of St. Augustine”—such was the full title of the
Order—on their part rejoiced at the acquisition of the highly gifted
and promising youth, who had already taken his degree as Master of
Philosophy at the University of Erfurt.
If the novice, after gradually regaining peace of mind within the
silent walls, permitted his thoughts to recur to his former way of
life, this must have presented itself to him as full of trouble and
care and very deficient in the homely joys of family life. Luther’s
early career differed hardly at all from that of the poorest students
of that time. He was born on November 10, 1483, in Eisleben in Saxony;
his parents were Hans Luther, a miner of peasant extraction (he signed
himself Luder) and Margaret Luther. They had originally settled in the
town of Mansfeld, but had gone first to Möhra and then to Eisleben.
Their gifted son spent his childhood in Mansfeld and first attended
school there. His father was a stern, harsh man. His mother, too,
though she meant well by him, once beat him till the blood came, all
on account of a nut.[10] The boy was also intimidated by the stupid
brutality of his teachers, and it does not appear that the customary
religious teaching he received, raised his spirits or led to a freer,
more hopeful development of his spiritual life. He was one day, as
he relates later, “beaten fifteen times in succession during one
morning” at school, to the best of his knowledge without any fault of
his own, though, probably, not without having brought the punishment
upon himself by insubordination and obstinacy. After that, in his
fourteenth year, he received instruction in Magdeburg from the “Pious
Brethren of the Common Life,” and begged his bread by singing from door
to door. A year later he went to Eisenach, where his mother had some
poor relatives, to continue his Latin studies. In this town he still
pursued the same hard mode of earning his living, until a charitable
woman, Ursula, the wife of Kunz (Konrad) Cotta, received him into her
well-to-do and comfortable household, furnishing him with food and
lodging. Luther, in his old age, recalled with great gratitude the
memory of his noble benefactress.[11]
As a boy he had experienced but little of life’s pleasures and received
small kindness from the world; but now life’s horizon brightened
somewhat for the growing youth.
Full of enthusiasm for the career mapped out for him by his father,
that, namely, of the Law, he went in the summer of 1501 to the
University of Erfurt. His parents’ financial circumstances had
meanwhile somewhat improved as the result of his father’s industry in
the mines at Mansfeld. The assiduous student was therefore no longer
dependent on the help of strangers. According to some writers he
took up his abode in St. George’s Hostel.[12] He was entered in the
Matriculation Register of the Erfurt High School as “Martinus Ludher
ex Mansfelt,” and for some considerable time after he continued to
spell his family name as Luder, a form which is also to be found up
to the beginning of the seventeenth century in the case of others
(Lüder, Luider, Leuder). From 1512 he began, however, to sign himself
“Lutherus” or “Luther.”[13] The lectures on philosophy, understood in
the widest sense of the term, which he first attended were delivered
at the University of Erfurt by comparatively capable teachers, some
of whom belonged to the Augustinian Order. The Catholic spirit of
the Middle Ages still permeated the teaching and the whole life of
the little republic of learning. As yet, learning was still cast in
the mould of the traditional scholastic method, and the men, equally
devoted to the Church and to their profession, who were Luther’s
principal teachers, Jodocus Trutfetter of Eisenach and Bartholomew
Arnoldi of Usingen,[14] later an Augustinian, were well versed in the
scholastic spirit of the day.
Alongside the traditional teaching of the schools there already existed
in Erfurt and the neighbourhood another, viz. that of the Humanists, or
so-called poets, which, though largely at variance with Scholasticism,
was cultivated by many of the best minds of the day. Luther, with his
vivacity of thought and feeling, could not long remain a stranger to
them. With their spiritual head Mutianus at Gotha, close by, they
formed one of the more prominent groups of German Humanists, although,
so far, they had not produced any work of great consequence. The
contrast between Humanism and Scholasticism, which was to come out
so strongly at a later period, was as yet hardly noticeable in the
Erfurt schools. Crotus Rubeanus, at that time a University friend of
Luther’s, became at a later date, however, the principal author of
the “Epistolæ Obscurorum Virorum,” a clever and biting libel on monks
and Scholastics, written from a Humanist standpoint. Crotus boasted
subsequently of his intimate intercourse (“_summa familiaritas_”) with
Luther.[15]
Another Humanist friend whose spiritual relationship with him dates
from that time, was Johann Lang, afterwards an Augustinian monk, with
whom Luther stood in active interchange of thought during the most
critical time of his development, as may be seen from the letters
quoted below, and who, caught up by the Lutheran movement, left his
Order[16] to become the first preacher of the new faith in Erfurt.
The third name which we find in connection with Luther is that of
Kaspar Schalbe, a cousin, or possibly a brother of the lady already
mentioned, Mistress Ursula Cotta of Eisenach. Schalbe did not turn out
any better than the others. A few years later, on being charged before
the Elector of Saxony with a crime against morality, he was glad to
avail himself of Luther’s mediation with the Ruler of the land.[17]
Finally, we also know that a later patron and supporter of Luther, the
Humanist Spalatinus, was then carrying on his studies in Erfurt. George
Burckhardt of Spalt—whence his name Spalatinus—was a student there
from 1498 to 1502, and, from 1505 to 1508, was engaged as a clerical
preceptor in the immediate vicinity of the town. Luther and Spalatinus
always looked on themselves later as early friends whom fate had
brought together.
As a student, Luther devoted himself with great zest to the various
branches of philosophy, and, carried away by the spirit of the
Humanists, in his private time he studied the Latin classics, more
particularly Cicero, Virgil, Livy, Ovid, also Terence, Juvenal, Horace
and Plautus. At a later date he was able to make skilful use of
quotations from these authors when occasion demanded. Amongst others,
he attended the lectures of Hieronymus Emser, a subsequent opponent
well worth his metal. Of his life during those years, which, owing to
the laxity of morals prevailing in the town, must have been full of
danger for him, we learn little, owing to the silence of our sources.
Luther himself in his later years coarsely described the town as a
“beer house” and a “nest of immorality.”
Unlike his frivolous comrades, he was often beset with heavy thoughts,
no doubt largely due to the after effects of his gloomy youth. Among
his chums he was known as “Musicus,” on account of his learning to
play the lute, and as the “Philosopher,” owing to his frequent fits of
moodiness.
In the monastery, where the reader left him, he no doubt remained
subject to such fits of depression, especially at the beginning when
dwelling on his change of life. It is difficult to say how far the
feeling of self-despair, which he mentions, had mastered him before his
entry into conventual life. In later years, apart from the vow and the
mysterious “heavenly terror,” he also says that in leaving the world
he was seeking to escape the severity of his parents. His statements,
however, do not always agree. As for the precipitate vow to enter
a monastery, he must have been well aware that, even if valid when
originally made, it was no longer binding on him from the day when,
after conscientious self-examination, he became aware that, owing to
his natural disposition, he had no vocation for a religious life. Not
every character is fitted for carrying out the evangelical counsels,
and to force oneself into a mould, however good, for which one is
manifestly unsuited is certainly not in accordance with the will of a
wise and beneficent Providence.
Luther, agreeably with the statutes of the Order, during the whole
period of his novitiate and until the hour of his profession had
arrived, was perfectly free to return to his fellow-students, the
religious tie never having been intended to bring him misery in
place of the happiness which it promises. Immediately after coming
to the monastery, i.e. before his clothing, he was, according to the
Rule, given considerable time in which to weigh earnestly, under the
direction of an experienced brother of the Order, whether, as stated
in the statutes of the Augustinians, “the spirit which was leading him
was of God.” Only after this did he receive the habit of the Order,
apparently, however, in the same year, 1505. The habit consisted of a
white woollen tunic, a scapular, also white, falling over the breast
and back, and a black mantle with a hood and wide sleeves to be worn
over all.
After the clothing began the novitiate, which lasted a whole year.
During this period the candidate had not only to undertake a series of
exercises consisting in prayer, manual labour and penitential works,
but had also to discharge certain humiliating offices, which might help
him to acquire the virtue of humility as practised in the Order. Out of
consideration for the University and his academic dignity Luther was,
however, speedily exempted from some of the latter duties. It appears
that during his noviceship he was attentive to the rules, and that the
superiors treated him with fatherly kindness. Although some members of
the community may have observed the Rule from routine, while others, as
is often the case in large communities, may not have been conspicuous
for their charity—Luther refers to something of this kind in his
Table-Talk—yet the spirit of the Erfurt monastery was, like that
of most of the other houses of the Congregation, on the whole quite
blameless. The novice himself, as yet full of goodwill, was not only
satisfied with his calling, but even looked on the state he had chosen
as a “heavenly life.”[18]
From the very first, however, as he himself complains later, he was
constantly “worried and depressed”[19] by thoughts connected with
religion. He was sorely troubled by the fear of God’s judgment, by
gloomy thoughts on predestination, and by the recollection of his
own sins. Although he made a general confession in the monastery
and renewed it again later, his confessions never gave him any
satisfaction, so that his director laid on him the obligation not to
hark back to things which caused him sadness of spirit nor to dwell on
the details of his sins. “You are a fool,” he once said to him; “God is
not angry with you, but it is you who are angry with Him.”
Those versed in the ways of the spiritual life are well aware that
many a one aiming at perfection is exposed to the purifying fire of
trials such as these. Traditional Catholic teaching and the experience
of those skilled in the direction of conventual inmates had laid
down the remedies most effectual for such a condition. What Luther
himself relates later with regard to the encouragement he received
from his superiors and brothers in the monastery, shows clearly that
suitable direction, enlightenment and encouragement were not wanting
to him either then or in the following years. He himself praises his
“Præceptor” and “monastic pædagogue,” i.e. the Novice-Master, as “a
dear old man,”[20] who “under the damned frock was without doubt a
true Christian.”[21] It was probably he who said to him in an hour of
trial that he should always recall the article of the Creed “I believe
in the forgiveness of sins.”[22] “What are you doing, my son?” he said
to him on another occasion; “do you not know that the Lord has Himself
commanded us to hope?”[23] words which made a great and unforgettable
impression on him. Later, in the year 1516, he pointed out another
brother, Master Bartholomew (Usingen), as the “best paraclete and
comforter”[24] in the Erfurt monastery, as he could testify from his
own experience. The monks knew well and impressed it upon his troubled
mind that, through the merits of the Redeemer, and after earnest
preparation of the soul, true forgiveness may be obtained, and that
through the cross of Christ, and through it alone, we can do all things
necessary, even in the midst of the bitterest assaults.
Luther, however, too often responded to such admonitions only by
cherishing his own views the more. He continued morbidly to torment
himself. This self-torture, at any rate during the first enthusiastic
days of his religious life, may have assumed the form of pious
scruples, but later it gradually took on another character under the
influence of bodily affections. He did not, like other scrupulous
persons, regain his peace of mind, because, led away by his distorted
and excited fancy, he liked, as he himself admits, to dwell on the
doubts as to whether the counsels he received were not illusion and
deception. Sad experience taught him into what devious paths and to
“what a state of inward unrest, self-will and self-sufficiency are
capable of leading a man.”[25]
The Superior or Vicar-General of the Saxon or German Augustinian
Congregation to which Luther belonged was at that time Johann Staupitz,
a man highly esteemed in the world of learning and culture.
He frequently visited Erfurt and had thus the opportunity of talking
to the new brother whom the University had given him, and who may well
have attracted his attention by his careworn look, his restless manner
and his peculiar, bright, deep-set eyes. Staupitz soon began to have
a great esteem for him. He had great influence over Luther, though
unable to free him from the strange spirit, already too deeply rooted.
To the sad doubts concerning his own salvation which Brother Martin
laid before him, Staupitz replied by exhorting him as follows in the
spirit of the Catholic Church: “Why torment yourself with such thoughts
and broodings? Look at the wounds of Christ and His Blood shed for
you. There you will see your predestination to heaven shining forth to
your comfort.”[26] Quite rightly he impressed upon him, in the matter
of confession and penance, that the principal thing was to arouse in
himself the will to love God and righteousness, and that he must not
pause before unhealthy imaginations of sin. The lines of thought,
however, which the imaginative and emotional young man laid bare to
him, were probably at times somewhat strange, and it is Luther himself
who relates that Staupitz once said to him: “Master Martin, I fail to
understand that.”
In spite of his inward fears Luther persevered, which goes to prove
the strength of will which was always one of his characteristics. As
the Order was satisfied with him, he was admitted at the end of the
year of novitiate to profession by the taking of the three Vows of the
Order. He received on this occasion the name of Augustine, but always
preferred to it his baptismal name of Martin. The text of the Vows
which he read aloud solemnly before the altar, according to custom, in
the presence of the Prior Winand of Diedenhofen and all the brothers,
was as follows: “I, Brother Augustine Luder, make profession and vow
obedience to Almighty God, Blessed Mary ever Virgin and to thee Father
Prior, in the name of, and as representing the Superior-General of
the Hermits of St. Augustine, and his successors, likewise to live
without property and in chastity until death, according to the Rule of
our Holy Father Augustine.” The young monk, voluntarily and after due
consideration, had thus taken upon himself the threefold yoke of Christ
by the three Vows, i.e. by the most solemn and sacred promise which it
is possible to make on earth. He had bound himself by a sacred oath to
God to prepare himself for heaven by treading a path of life in which
perfection is sought in the carrying out of the evangelical counsels of
our Saviour, and throughout his life to combat the temptations of the
world with the weapons of poverty, chastity and obedience.
Such was the solemn Vow, which, later on, he declared to have been
absolutely worthless.
2. Fidelity to his new calling; his temptations
After making his profession the young religious was set by his Erfurt
superiors to study theology, which was taught privately in the
monastery.
The theological fare served up by the teachers of the Order was not
very inviting, consisting as it largely did of the mere verbalism
of a Scholasticism in decay. With the exception of the Sentences of
Peter Lombard, the students at the Erfurt monastery did not study the
theological works of the great masters of the thirteenth century;
neither Thomas of Aquin, the prince of scholastic theology and
philosophy, nor his true successors, not even Ægidius Romanus, himself
a Hermit of St. Augustine, were well known to them. The whole of their
time at Erfurt, as elsewhere also, was devoted to the study of the last
of the schoolmen who, indeed, stood nearer in point of time, but who
were far from teaching the true doctrine with the fulness and richness
of the earlier doctors. They were too much given to speculation and
logical word-play. The older schoolmen were no longer appreciated and
nominalistic errors, such as were fostered in the school of William
of Occam, held the field. One of the better schoolmen of the day was
Gabriel Biel. His works, which have a certain value, together with some
of the writings of the Fathers of the Church, formed the principal
arsenal from which Luther drew his theological knowledge, and upon
which he exercised his dialectics. In addition to this, he also studied
the theological tractates of John Gerson and Cardinal Peter d’Ailly,
works which, apart from other theological defects, contain various
errors concerning the authority of the Church and her Head; that
these particular errors had any deeper influence on the direction of
Luther’s mind cannot, however, be proved. What we do find is that the
one-sidedness of this school, with its tendency to hairsplitting, had
a negative effect upon him. At an early date he was repelled by the
scholastic subtleties, for which, according to him, Aristotle alone
was responsible, and preferred to turn to the reading and study of
the Bible. He nevertheless made the prevalent school methods so much
his own as to apply them often, in a quite surprising fashion, in his
earliest sermons and writings.
The man who exercised the greatest influence on the theological study
in the Erfurt monastery was the learned Augustinian, Johann Paltz,
who was teaching there when Luther entered. He was a good Churchman
and a fair scholar, and was also much esteemed as a preacher. By his
side worked Johann Nathin, who has already been mentioned, likewise
one of the respected theologians of the Order.[27] Luther’s teachers,
full of veneration for the Holy Scriptures as the revealed Word of
God, were not at all displeased to see their pupil having frequent
recourse to the Bible, in order to seek in the well of the Divine Word
instruction and enlightenment, by which to supplement the teachings of
the schoolmen and the Fathers.
Luther had, moreover, already become acquainted with the Bible in the
library of the Erfurt University, whilst still engaged in studying
philosophy. He had, however, not prosecuted his reading of the Bible,
though the same library would doubtless have supplied him with numerous
well-thumbed commentaries on Holy Writ. In the monastery a copy of the
Bible was given him at the beginning of his theological course. It was,
as we learn from him incidentally, a Latin translation bound in red
leather, and remained in his hands until he left Erfurt. The statutes
of the Order enjoined on all its members “assiduous reading, devout
hearing and industrious study of the Holy Scriptures.”
The young monk immersed himself more and more in the study of his
beloved Bible when Staupitz, the Vicar, advised him to select the same
as his special subject in order to render himself a capable “_localis_
and _textualis_” in the Holy Scriptures.
The Superior seems to have had even then the intention of making use
later of Luther as a public professor of biblical lore. So ardently
was the Vicar’s advice followed by Luther that, in his preference for
reading the Bible and studying its interpretation, he neglected the
rest of his theological education, and his teacher Usingen was obliged
to protest against his one-sided study of the sacred text. So full was
Luther of the most sacred of books, that he was able (at least this is
what he says later) to show the wondering brothers the exact spot in
his ponderous red volume where every subject, nay even every quotation,
was to be found. It was with great regret that, on leaving this
community, he found himself prohibited by the Rule from taking the copy
away with him. Later, as an opponent of the religious life, he states
that no one but himself read the Bible in the monastery at Erfurt,
whilst of his foe Carlstadt, a former Augustinian, he bluntly says
that he had never seen a Bible until he was promoted to the dignity of
Doctor. Of course, neither assertion can be taken literally.
When the day drew nigh for him to celebrate his first Mass as newly
ordained priest, he invited not only his father but several other
guests to be present at a ceremony which meant so much both to him and
to his friends. Thus, in a letter of invitation to Johann Braun, Vicar
in Eisenach, who had shown him much kindness and help during his early
years in that town, he says that: “God had chosen him, an unworthy
sinner, for the unspeakable dignity of His service at the altar,”
and begged his fatherly friend to come, and by his prayers to assist
him “so that his sacrifice might be pleasing in the sight of God.”
He also expressed to him his great indebtedness to Schalbe’s College
at Eisenach, which he would also have gladly seen represented at the
ceremony. This is the first letter of Luther’s which has been preserved
and with which the critical edition of his “Correspondence,” now being
published, commences.[28] The first Mass took place on Cantate Sunday,
May 2, 1507. Luther relates later, with regard to his state of mind
during the sacred ceremony, that he could hardly contain himself for
excitement and fear. The words “_Te igitur clementissime Pater_,” at
the commencement of the Canon of the Mass, and “_Offero tibi Deo meo
vivo et vero_,” at the oblation, brought so vividly to his mind the
Awful, Eternal Majesty, that he was hardly able to go on (“_totus
stupebam et cohorrescebam_”); he would have rushed down from the altar
had he not been held back; the fear of making some mistake in the
ceremonies and so committing a mortal sin, so he says, quite bewildered
him.[29] Yet he must have known, with regard to the ceremonies, that
any unintentional infringement of them was no sin, and least of all
a mortal sin, although he attributes the contrary opinion to the
“Papists” after his apostasy.
His father Hans assisted at the celebration. His presence in the
church and in the refectory was the first sign of his acquiescence
in his son’s vocation. But when the latter, during dinner, praised
the religious calling and the monastic life as something high and
great,[30] and went on to recall the vow he had made at the time of
the thunderstorm, asserting that he had been called by “terrors from
Heaven” (“_de cœlo terrores_”), this was too much for his level-headed
father, who, to the astonishment of the guests, sharply interposed with
the words: “Oh, that it may not have been a delusion and a diabolical
vision.” He could not overcome his dislike for his son’s resolve. “I
sit here and eat and drink,” he cried, “and would much rather be far
away.” Luther retorted he had better be content, and that “to be a monk
was a peaceful and heavenly life.”[31] The statement with regard to the
elder Luther agrees with the character of the man and with the severity
which he had displayed long before to Martin.
Here an assertion must be mentioned made by George Wicel, a
well-informed contemporary; once a Lutheran, he was, from 1533-8,
Catholic priest at Eisleben. Two or three times he repeats in print,
that Hans Luther had once slain a man in a fit of anger at his home
at Möhra. Luther and his friends never denied this public statement.
In recent years attempts have been made to support the same by local
tradition, and the fact of the father changing his abode from Möhra
to Mansfeld has thus been accounted for.[32] According to Karl
Seidemann, an expert on Luther (1859), the testimony of Wicel may be
taken as settling definitively the constantly recurring dispute on the
subject.[33]
The following facts which have been handed down throw some light on the
inward state of the young man at this time and shortly after.
At a procession of the Blessed Sacrament he had to accompany Staupitz,
the Vicar, as his deacon. Such was the terror which suddenly seized him
that he almost fled. On speaking afterwards of this to his superior,
who was also his friend, he received the following instructive
reply: “This fear is not from Christ; Christ does not affright, He
comforts.”[34]
One day that Luther was present at High Mass in the monks’ choir, he
had a fit during the Gospel, which, as it happened, told the story of
the man possessed. He fell to the ground and in his paroxysms behaved
like one mad. At the same time he cried out, as his brother monks
affirmed: “It is not I, it is not I,” meaning that he was not the man
possessed.[35] It might seem to have been an epileptic fit, but there
is no other instance of Luther having such attacks, though he did
suffer from ordinary fits of fainting. Strange to say, some of his
companions in the monastery had an idea that he had dealings with the
devil, while others, mainly on account of the above-mentioned attack,
actually declared him an epileptic. We learn both these facts from
his opponent and contemporary, Johann Cochlæus, who was on good terms
with Luther’s former associates. He asserts positively that a “certain
singularity of manner” had been remarked upon by his fellows in the
monastery.[36] Later on his brother monk, Johann Nathin, went so far
as to assert that “an apostate spirit had mastered him,” i.e. that he
stood under the influence of the devil.[37]
Melanchthon was afterwards to hear from Luther’s own lips something of
the dark states of terror from which he had suffered since his youth.
When he speaks of them at the commencement of his biographical eulogy
on his late friend[38] he connects Luther’s strange excitement in the
days before his entrance into religion with a certain event in his
later history at a time when he was engaged in public controversy.
“As he himself related, and as many are aware,” says Melanchthon,
“when considering attentively examples of God’s anger, or any notable
accounts of His punishments, such terror possessed him (‘_tanti
terrores concutiebant_’) as almost to cause him to give up the ghost.”
He describes how, as a full-grown man, when such fears overcame him,
he would actually writhe on his bed. He suffered from these terrors
(_terrores_) either for the first time, or most severely, in the year
in which he lost his friend by death in an accident, i.e. before
his admission to the monastery. “It was not poverty,” Melanchthon
continues, “but his love of piety which led him to choose the
religious life, and, while pursuing his theological and scholastic
studies, he drank with glowing fervour from the springs of heavenly
doctrine, namely, the writings of the prophets and apostles (i.e. the
Old and New Testament) in order to instruct his spirit in the Divine
Will and to nourish fear and love with strong testimony. Overwhelmed
with these pains and terrors (‘_dolores et pavores_’), he plunged only
the more zealously into the study of the Bible.”
According to Melanchthon’s account, the same old Augustinian who once
had directed Luther’s attention in an attack of faint-heartedness to
the Christian’s duty of recalling the article of the forgiveness of
sins, also quoted him a saying of St. Bernard: “Only believe that thy
sins are forgiven thee through Christ. That is the testimony which the
Holy Ghost gives in thy heart: ‘Thy sins are forgiven.’ Such is the
teaching of the apostle, that man is justified by faith.”[39]
Such words of Catholic faith and joyful trust in God might well have
sufficed to reassure an obedient and humble spirit. Luther began to
read more and more the mystic writings of the saint of Clairvaux, but
as to how far they served to bring him peace of conscience no one can
now say; certain it is that, at a later date, he placed a foreign
interpretation upon the above-mentioned text and upon many other
similar sayings of St. Bernard, which, taken in a Catholic sense, might
have been of comfort to him, in order to render them favourable to
the methods by which he proposed to make his new teaching a source of
consolation. He accustomed himself more and more to follow “his own
way,” as he calls it, in mind and sentiment. Though in later times he
speaks often and at length of his spiritual trials in the monastery, we
never hear of his humbling himself before God with childlike, trustful
prayer in order to find a way out of his difficulties.
If we consider the temptations of which he speaks, we might be tempted
to think that he, with his promising disposition and proneness to
extremes, had been singled out in a quite special manner by the
tempter. During the term of novitiate, writes Luther when more
advanced in years, the evil spirit of darkness, so he has learned,
does not usually assail so bitterly the monk who is striving after
perfection. Satan generally tempts him but slightly, and, more
especially as regards temptations of the flesh, the novice is left in
comparative peace, “indeed, nothing appears to him more agreeable than
chastity.”[40] But, after that time, so he tells us, he himself had to
bewail not only fears and doubts, but also numberless temptations which
“his age brought along with it.”[41] He felt himself at the same time
troubled with doubts as to his vocation and by “violent movements of
hatred, envy, quarrelsomeness and pride.”[42]
“I was unable to rid myself of the weight; horrible and terrifying
thoughts (‘_horrendæ et terrificæ cogitationes_’), stormed in upon
me.”[43] Temptations to despair of his salvation and to blaspheme God
tormented him more especially.
He had often wondered, he says on one occasion to his father Hans,
whether he was the only man whom the devil thus attacked and
persecuted,[44] and later he comforted one who was in great anxiety
with the words: “When beset with the greatest temptations I could
scarcely retain my bodily powers, hardly keep my breath, and no one was
able to comfort me. All those to whom I complained answered ‘I know
nothing about it,’ so that I used to sigh ‘Is it I alone who am plagued
with the spirit of sorrow!’”[45]
He thinks that he learned the nature of these temptations from the
Psalms, and that he had by experience made close acquaintance with the
verse of the Bible: “Every night I will wash my bed: I will water my
couch with my tears” (Ps. vi. 7). Satan with his temptations was the
murderer of mankind; but, notwithstanding, one must not despair. Luther
here speaks of visions granted him, and of angels who after ten years
brought him consolation in his solitude; these statements we shall
examine later.
Elsewhere he again recounts how Staupitz encouraged him and the manner
in which he interpreted his advice reveals a singular self-esteem.
Staupitz had pointed out to him the interior trials endured by holy
men, who had been purified by temptation, and, after having been
humbled, had risen to be powerful instruments in God’s hand. Perhaps,
said Staupitz, God has great designs also for you, for the greater
good of His Church. This well-meant encouragement remained vividly
impressed upon Luther’s memory, not least because it seemed to predict
a great future for him. “And so it has actually come to pass,” he
himself says later, “I have become a great doctor though in the time
of my temptations I could never have believed it.”[46] Speaking later
of a reference made by Staupitz to the temptations which humbled
St. Paul, he says: “I accepted the words which St. Paul uses: ‘A
sting of my flesh was given me lest the greatness of the revelation
should exalt me’ (2 Cor. xii. 7), wherefore I receive it as the word
and voice of the Holy Spirit.” Such reflections as these, to which
Luther gave himself up, certainly did not tend to help him to rid
himself completely of the temptations, and to vanquish his melancholy
thoughts of predestination. As a result of following “his own way” and
cultivating his morbid fears, he never succeeded in shaking himself
free from the thought of predestination. This will appear quite clearly
in his recently published Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
written in 1515-16. In fact, the whole of the theology which he set up
against that of the Catholic Church was in some sense dominated by his
ideas on predestination.
We must, however, pay him this tribute, that during the whole of his
stay in the Erfurt monastery he strove to live as a true monk and to
keep the Rule. Such was the testimony borne by an old brother monk, as
Flacius Illyricus relates, who had lived with him at Erfurt and who
always remained true to the Church.
Though such may well have been the case, we cannot all the same accept
as reliable the accounts, exaggerated and distorted as they clearly
are, which, long after his falling away, he gives of his extraordinary
holiness when in the monastery. He there attributes to himself, from
controversial motives, a piety far above the ordinary, and speaks of
the tremendous labours and penances which he imposed upon himself in
his blindness. Led away by his imagination and by party animus, he
exalts his one-time “holiness by works,” as he terms it, to be the
better able to assure his hearers—ostensibly from his own experience
and from the bitter disappointment he says he underwent—that all
works of the Papists, even those of the most pious, holy and mortified,
were absolutely worthless for procuring true peace for the soul
thirsting after salvation, and that the Catholic Church was quite
unable by her teaching to reconcile a soul with God. History merely
tells us that he was an observant monk who kept the Rule, and, for that
reason, enjoyed the confidence of his superiors.[47]
Relying upon his ability and his achievements, Staupitz, the Vicar,
summoned him in the autumn of 1508, to Wittenberg, in order that he
might there continue his studies and at the same time commence his work
as a teacher on a humble scale.
As Master of Philosophy Luther gave lectures on the Ethics of Aristotle
and probably also on Dialectics, though, as he himself says, he would
have preferred to mount the chair of Theology, for which he already
esteemed himself fitted, and which, with its higher tasks, attracted
him much more than philosophy. In March, 1509, he was already the
recipient of a theological degree and entered the Faculty as a
“Baccalaureus Biblicus.” This authorised him to deliver lectures on the
Holy Scriptures at the University.
In the same year, however, probably in the late autumn, Luther’s
career at Wittenberg was interrupted for a time by his being sent back
to Erfurt. With regard to the reasons for this nothing is known with
certainty, but a movement which was going forward in the Congregation
may have been the cause. In the question of the stricter observance
which had recently been raised among the Augustinians, and which will
be treated of below, Luther had not sided with the Wittenberg monastery
but with his older friends at Erfurt. He was opposed to certain
administrative regulations promoted by Staupitz, which, in the opinion
of many, threatened the future discipline of the Order. At any rate, he
had to return to Erfurt just as he was about to become “Sententiarius,”
i.e. to be promoted to the office of lecturing on the “Magister
Sententiarium.” For these lectures, too, he had already qualified
himself. His second stay at Erfurt and the part—so important for the
understanding of his later life—which he played in the disputes of the
Order, are new data in his history which have as yet received little
attention.
He was made very welcome by his brothers at Erfurt, at once took up his
work as “Sententiarius” and, for about a year and a half, held forth on
that celebrated textbook of theology, the Book of Sentences.
He was also employed in important business for the monastery and
accompanied Dr. Nathin on a mission in connection with the question of
the statutes of the Congregation and the above-mentioned dispute. Both
went to Halle to Adolf of Anhalt, Provost of Magdeburg Cathedral, for
the purpose of defending the “observance in the vicariate.” The monk
made an excellent impression on the Provost of the Cathedral.[48] The
esteem which Luther enjoyed while he was at Erfurt exposes the futility
of those old fables, once widely circulated and generally believed,
that whilst there he had entered into a liaison with a girl and had
declared that he intended to go as far as he could until the times
permitted of his marrying in due form.[49]
Of Luther’s lectures at that time some traces are to be found in a book
in the Ratsschul-Library at Zwickau, these being the oldest specimens
of his handwriting which we possess. They were made public in 1893
in volume ix. of the “Kritische Gesamtausgabe” of Luther’s works now
appearing, and consist of detailed marginal notes to the Sentences of
the Lombard of which the book in question is a printed copy.[50] The
notes consist chiefly of subtle dialectic explanations or corrections
of Peter Lombard and are quite in the theological style of the day.
The vanity and audacity of the language used is frequently surprising;
for instance, when the young master takes upon himself to speak of the
“buffoonery” of contemporary theologians and philosophers, or of an
ostensibly “almost heretical opinion” which he discovers in Venerable
Duns Scotus; still more is this the case when he expresses his dislike
of the traditional scholastic speculation and logic, alluding to the
“rancid rules of the logicians,” to “those grubs, the philosophers,” to
the “dregs of philosophy” and to that “putrid philosopher Aristotle.”
It is worthy of note in connection with his mental growth that, on
the very cover of the book, he, most independently, declares war on
the “Sophists,” though we do not mean to imply that such a war was
not justifiable from many points of view. As a torch, however, for
the illuminating of theological truth he is not unwilling to use
philosophy. Very strong, nay emphatic, is his appeal to the Word of
God on a trivial and purely speculative question relating to the inner
life of the Trinity. He says: “Though many highly esteemed teachers
assert this, yet the fact remains that on their side they have not Holy
Scripture, but merely human reasons: but I say that on my side I have
the Written Word that the soul is the image of God, and therefore I say
with the Apostle ‘Though an angel from Heaven, i.e. a Doctor of the
Church, preach to you otherwise, let him be anathema.’”
In these glosses we may, however, seek in vain for any trace, even
the faintest, of Luther’s future teaching. The young theologian still
maintains the Church’s standpoint, particularly with regard to the
doctrines which he was afterwards to call into question.
He still speaks correctly of “faith which works through charity and by
which we are justified.” Equally blameless are his statements regarding
concupiscence in fallen man and the exercise of free will in the choice
of good under the influence of Divine Grace. Once, it is true, he
casually speaks of Christ as “our righteousness and sanctification,”
but, in spite of the weight which has been laid on this expression,
it is in no wise remarkable, and merely voices the Catholic view of
St. Augustine, or better still, of St. Paul. To Romans i. 16 f., to
which he was later to attach so much importance in his new system, he
refers once, interpreting it correctly and agreeably with the _Glossa
ordinaria_; clearly enough it had not yet begun to interest him and his
harmless words afford no proof of the statement which has been made,
that already at the time he wrote “the birth-hour of the reformation
had rung.”
That Luther also studied at that time some of the writings of St.
Augustine we see from three old volumes of the works of this Father in
the Zwickau Library, which contain notes made in Luther’s handwriting
on the _De Trinitate_, on the _De Civitate Dei_, and other similar
writings. These notes, made about the same time, are correct in their
doctrine. According to Melanchthon, already at Erfurt he had begun a
“very thorough study” of the African Father of the Church.
In the latter notes, which were also published in the Weimar edition
of Luther’s works,[51] he once flies into a violent fit of indignation
with the celebrated Wimpfeling, who was mixed up in a literary dispute
with the Augustinian Order. He calls the worthy man “a garrulous barker
and an envious critic of the fame of the Augustinians, who had lost
his reason through obstinacy and hate, and who requires a cut of the
knife to open his mole’s eyes”; he, “with his brazen front, should be
ashamed of himself.”[52] Glibness of tongue, combined with intelligence
and fancy, and, in addition to unusual talents, great perseverance in
study, these were the qualities which many admired in the new teacher.
Whoever had to dispute with so sharp and fiery an opponent, was sure to
get the worst of the encounter. The fame of the new teacher soon spread
throughout the Augustinian province, but his originality and want of
restraint naturally raised him up some enemies.
Alongside of his readiness in controversy which some admired, many
remarked in him quarrelsomeness and disputatiousness. He never learnt
how to live “at peace” with his brothers,[53] as some of the old monks
afterwards told the Humanist Cochlæus. His Catholic pupil Johann
Oldecop, says of his leaving Erfurt for Wittenberg, that the separation
was not altogether displeasing to the Augustinians of Erfurt, because
Luther was always desirous of coming off victor in differences of
opinion, and liked to stir up strife.[54] Hieronymus Dungersheim, a
subsequent Catholic opponent who watched him very narrowly, writes
that he “had always been a quarrelsome man in his ways and habits,”
and that he had acquired that reputation even before ever he came to
the monastery.[55] Dungersheim questioned those who had known him as a
secular student at Erfurt. The above statements come, it is true, from
the camp of his adversaries, but they are not only uncontradicted by
any further testimony, but entirely agree with other data regarding his
character.
Luther, in his own account of himself which he gave later, tells us
that he was then and during the first part of his career as a monk,
so full of zeal for the truth handed down by the Church that he would
have given over to death any denier of the same, and have been ready
to carry the wood for burning him at the stake. He also says in his
queer, exaggerated fashion, that in those days he worshipped the Pope.
At the same time he announces that his study of the Bible at Erfurt
had already shown him many errors in the Papist Church, but that he
had sought to soothe his conscience with the question: “Art thou the
only wise man?” though by so doing he had retarded his understanding
of the Holy Scriptures.[56] He also asserts later that his father’s
words spoken at the banquet which followed his first Mass, viz. that
his religious vocation was probably a delusion, had pierced ever deeper
into his mind and appeared to him more and more true. Yet he likewise
tells us elsewhere of his persevering zeal in his profession, and of
his excessive fastings and disciplines.
It is hard to find the real clue in this tangle of later statements,
all of them influenced by polemical considerations.
He says quite seriously, and this may very well be true, that what
he was wont to hear at times outside the monastery from unbelieving
“grammarians,” i.e. humanists, regarding the great difference between
the teaching of Holy Scripture and that of the existing Church, made
a deep impression on him.[57] He had, however, calmed himself, so he
says, with the thought that this was other people’s business. In the
monastic library he once came across some sermons of John Hus. Their
contents appeared to him excellent, nevertheless, so he writes, from
aversion for the author’s name, he laid aside the book without reading
any further, though not without surprise that such a man should have
written in many ways so well and so correctly. Johann Grefenstein, his
master at Erfurt, had once let fall the remark in his presence that
Hus had been put to death without any previous attempt being made to
instruct or convert him.
At that time, Hus failed to make any impression on him. Doubts,
however, assaulted him in the shape of temptations. Those he repulsed,
well aware of the danger. In June, 1521, writing at the Wartburg,
he says that more than ten years before, much that was taught by
Popes, Councils and Universities had appeared to him absurd and in
contradiction with Christ, but that he had put a bridle on his thoughts
in accordance with the Proverb of Solomon: “Lean not upon thy own
prudence.”[58] Certain it is that his clear mind must early have
perceived that the Church of that day fell far short of the ideal, and
it is possible that even in those early years, such a perception may
have awakened in him doubts and discontent and have led him to take a
too gloomy view of the state of the Church.
In any case, Luther’s own testimony as given above leads us to
suspect the presence in his mind at an early date of a deep-seated
dissatisfaction which foreboded ill to the monk’s future fidelity to
the Church.[59]
A strong moral foundation would have been necessary to save a mind
so singularly constituted from wavering, and if we may believe the
statement of his contemporary, Hieronymus Dungersheim of Leipzig, this
was just what Luther had always lacked. Dungersheim, in a pamphlet
against Luther the heretic, harks back to the years he spent at
Erfurt as a secular student and accuses him of evil habits, probably
contracted then, but the after effects of which made themselves felt
when he had entered into religion and caused him to rebel against his
profession. If Luther, so he says, was now persuaded that no religious
could keep the vow of chastity, in his case the inability could only be
due to a certain “former bad habit,” of which stories were told, and
to his neglect of prayer.[60] In another writing the same opponent
accuses him openly of having indulged in the grossest vice during his
academic years, and mentions as his informant one of the comrades who
had, later on, accompanied Luther to the gates of the monastery.[61] He
says nothing, perhaps, indeed, he knew nothing more definite, and with
regard to Luther’s life in religion, he is unable to adduce anything to
his discredit.
But yet another of Luther’s later adversaries has strong words for
our hero’s early life. His testimony, which has not so far been
dealt with, must be treated of here because such charges, if well
founded, doubtless contribute much to the psychological explanation
of the processes going forward in Luther. This testimony is given by
Hieronymus Emser of Dresden, who, it is true, was himself by no means
spotless, and who, on that account, was roundly reprimanded by the man
he had attacked. In his rejoinder to Luther, a pamphlet published in
1520, and the only one preserved, he says: “Was it necessary on account
of my letter that you should hold up to public execration my former
deviations which are indeed, for the most part, mere inventions? What
do you think has come to my ears concerning your own criminal deeds
(‘_flagitia_’)?” He will be silent about them, he says, because he does
not wish to return evil for evil, but he continues: “That you also
fell, I must attribute to the same cause which brought about my own
fall, namely, the want of public discipline in our days, so that young
men live as they please without fear of punishment and do just what
they like.”[62] We must remember that at Erfurt Emser and Luther had
stood in the relation of teacher and disciple. His words, like those of
Dungersheim written from Leipzig, voice the opinion on Luther later on
current in the hostile University circles of Erfurt.
When Luther in his later years speaks of the “sins of his youth,” this,
in his grotesquely anti-catholic vocabulary, means the good works of
his monastic life, even the celebration of Holy Mass. Once, however,
at the end of his tract on the Last Supper (1528),[63] speaking of the
sins of his youth, he seems to distinguish between the Catholic works
above referred to and other faults of which he accuses himself in the
same general terms.
In the young Augustinian’s Erfurt days he was prevented by the Rule
from cultivating any intimate and distracting friendship with persons
in the world. We only know that he, and likewise his brother monk
Johann Lang, had some friendly intercourse with the Humanist Petreius
(Peter Eberbach), who not long after, in a letter dated May 8, 1512,
greets Lang—then already with Luther at Wittenberg—in these words:
“_Sancte Lange et Sancte Martine orate pro me_.” Mutianus, the Gotha
canon and chief of the Humanists, who was very unorthodox in his views,
in a letter to Lang of the beginning of May, 1515, seems to remember
Luther, for he sends greetings to the “pious Dr. Martin.”
His intercourse with the Humanists led Luther to make use of philology
in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. He thus entered upon a
useful, we may even say indispensable, course, in which he might have
done great service. At Erfurt he continued constantly to study his copy
of the Bible, which had become an inseparable companion. “As no one in
the monastery read the Bible” (at any rate not with his zeal) he was
able to flatter himself with being first in the house in the matter of
biblical knowledge; indeed in this field he was probably the greatest
expert in the whole Congregation.
In addition to this, he began to turn his busy mind to the study of
Hebrew, and contrived to provide himself with a dictionary, which at
that time was considered a treasure. Lang, with his humanistic culture,
was able to assist him with the Greek.
Meanwhile the dispute in the Order with regard to the observance had
reached a point when it seemed right to the party to which Luther
belonged to seek the intervention of Rome in their favour, or to
anticipate an appeal on the part of their opponents. The choice of
seven houses “of the observance” resulted in Luther being chosen as the
delegate to represent them in Rome. So little opposed to the Church
was Luther’s theology and Bible interpretation in his Erfurt days, and
so considerable was the number of brethren, even in other Observantine
houses who held him to be a faithful monk, that they deemed him
best suited for so difficult a mission. What Cochlæus, according to
information drawn from Augustinian sources, relates later sounds,
however, quite reasonable, viz. that he was selected on account of his
“cleverness and his forceful spirit of contradiction,” which promised a
complete victory over the other faction.[64]
Luther’s journey to Rome, according to Oldecop, was undertaken from
Erfurt.
3. The Journey to Rome
The Saxon, or more correctly German, Congregation of Augustinians,
at the time of Luther’s journey to Rome, had reached a crisis in its
history.
Founded on the old Order of Hermits of St. Augustine, by the pious
and zealous Andreas Proles (1503), and provided by him with excellent
statutes intended to promote a reform of discipline, the Congregation
had, since its foundation, been withdrawn from the control of the
Provincial of the unreformed Augustinian Province of Saxony in order
the better to preserve its stricter observance.[65] It stood directly
under the General of the Order at Rome, whose German representative
was a Vicar-General—in Luther’s time, Staupitz. He was simply styled
Vicar, or sometimes Provincial. The monasteries under him numbered
about thirty, and were distributed throughout several so-called
districts, each headed by a Rural Vicar.
Staupitz’s aim was to bring about a reunion of the German Congregation
with the numerous non-observant monasteries in Germany, an amalgamation
which would probably have led indirectly to his becoming the head
of all these communities. He had already, September 30, 1510, after
sounding the Pope, published a papal Bull approving such a union, and,
by virtue of the same, begun to style himself Provincial of Thuringia
and Saxony. His efforts were, however, met by decided opposition
within the Congregation. Certain houses which were in favour of the
old state of things and feared that union would lead to a relaxation
of discipline, vehemently opposed Staupitz and his plans. To this
party belonged also the Erfurt monastery, and Luther himself took an
active part in the position assumed by his house. The object of his
visit to Halle with Dr. Nathin to see Prince Adolf of Anhalt, the
Cathedral Provost, had been to obtain a “petition” in favour of the
“observance.” The opposition became acute when the Bull above referred
to was published by Staupitz, and we may consider the protest of the
seven Observantine monasteries against the Bull as the direct cause of
Luther’s despatch to Rome.
The monk, then seven-and-twenty years of age, with his written
authority to act as procurator in the case (“_litis procurator_” is
what Cochlæus, who was well informed on these matters, styles him),
set out forthwith on his journey. It was in the autumn 1510,[66] and
Luther was then lecturing on the third book of the Sentences. His
absence lasted four or five months, i.e. until the spring 1511, when we
again find him at Erfurt. Luther, and those who felt with him, found
no difficulty in reconciling their efforts for the preservation of the
observance against the will of Staupitz, with due submission to him as
their Superior.
Another monk of the Order accompanied Luther to the capital of
Christendom as the Rule enjoined in the case of journeys. The joy
at such an opportunity of seeing the Eternal City, of quenching his
ardent thirst for knowledge by the acquisition of new experiences and
of gaining the graces attached to so holy a pilgrimage, may well have
hurried his steps during the wearisome journey, which in those days had
to be undertaken on foot. He had even, according to a later statement,
made the resolution to cleanse his conscience—so frequently tortured
by fears—by a general confession, indeed he once says that this was
his main object, passing over the real reason.
With regard to the effect of the journey on the question concerning
the Order, according to Cochlæus a certain compromise was reached, the
details of which are, however, not told us. At any rate Staupitz was
unable to carry out his plan and eventually gave it up. The dispute
between “Observants” and “non-Observants” thus started, as we may
gather from statements made by Luther to which we refer later, far from
being at an end became more and more acute. It appears to have done
untold harm to the Congregation and to have largely contributed to its
fall.
What effect had the visit to Italy and Rome upon the development of the
young monk?
Thousands have been cheered in spirit by the visit to the tombs of the
Apostles; prayer at the holy places of Rome, the immediate proximity
of the Vicar of Christ and of the world-embracing government of the
Church made them feel what they had never felt before, the pulse-beat
of the heart of Christendom, and they returned full of enthusiasm,
strengthened and inspirited, and with the desire of working for souls
in accordance with the mind of the Church.
With Luther this was not the case.
He was much less impressed by the Rome of the Saints than by the
corruption then rampant in ecclesiastical circles.
On first perceiving Rome from the heights of Monte Mario, he devoutly
greeted the city, as all pilgrims were wont to do, overjoyed at
having reached the goal of their long pilgrimage.[67] After that, he
untiringly occupied himself, so far as his chief business permitted,
in seeing all that Rome had to show. He assures us that he believed
everything that was told him of the real or legendary reminiscences
of the holy places both above and under ground. He does not, however,
appear to have been very careful in his choice of guides and
acquaintances, for the anecdotes concerning the condition of things at
Rome which he brought back with him to his own country were, if not
untrue, at least exceedingly spiteful. The Augustinians whom he there
met had not the spirit of the reform inaugurated by Proles. Their
southern freedom and lack of restraint found all too strong an echo
in Luther’s character. The general confession he had projected was
probably never made,[68] for, as he asserts later, he had not found
among the clergy a single suitable, worthy man. During his distracting
stay in the Eternal City he said Mass, so he tells us, perhaps once,
perhaps ten times, i.e. occasionally, not regularly.[69] He was
greatly scandalised at much he heard and saw, partly owing to his
looking at things with the critical eye of a northerner, partly owing
to the really existing moral disorders.
The Rome of that day was the Rome of Julius II, the then Pope, and
of his predecessor Alexander VI; it was the Rome of the Popes of the
height of the Renaissance, glorified by art, but inwardly deeply
debased. The capital of Christendom, under the influence of the
frivolity which had seized the occupants of the Papal throne and
invaded the ranks of the higher clergy, had proved false to her dignity
and forgetful of the fact that the eyes of the Faithful who visited
Rome from every quarter of the globe were jealously fixed upon her in
their anxiety lest the godless spirit of the world should poison the
very heart of the Church.
Instead of being edified by the good which he undoubtedly encountered
and by the great ideal of the Church which no shadow can ever darken,
Luther, with his critically disposed mind, proved all too receptive to
the contrary impressions and allowed himself to be unduly influenced by
the dark side of things, i.e. the corruption of morals. Subsequently,
in his public controversies and private Table-Talk, he tells quite
a number of disreputable tales,[70] which, whether based on fact or
not, were all too favourable to his anti-Roman tendencies. He was in
the habit of saying, in his usual tone, that whoever looked about him
a little in Rome, would find abominations compared to which those of
Sodom were mere child’s play. He declares that he heard from the mouth
of Papal courtiers the statement: “It cannot go on much longer, it must
break up.” In the company in which he mixed he heard these words let
fall: “If there be a Hell, then Rome is built over it.” He says that
he had heard it said of one, who expressed his grief at such a state
of things, that he was a “_buon cristiano_” which meant much the same
as a good-natured simpleton. In his proneness to accept evil tales
he believed, at least so he asserts later, the statement made in his
presence, that many priests were in the habit of repeating jokes at
Mass in place of the words of consecration. He relates that he even
questioned whether the bishops and priests at Rome, the prelates of the
Curia, aye, the Pope himself, had any Christian belief left. It is not
worth while to go into the details of the scandals he records, because,
as Hausrath justly remarks, “it is questionable how much weight is due
to statements which, in part, date from the later years of his life,
when he had so completely altered.”[71]
In his accounts the share which he himself actually took in the pious
pilgrim-exercises of the time is kept very much in the background.
He came to the so-called Scala Santa at the Lateran, and saw the
Faithful, from motives of penance, ascending the holy steps on their
knees. He turned away from this touching popular veneration of the
sufferings of the Redeemer, and preferred not to follow the example
of the other pilgrims. An account given by his son Paul in 1582
says that he then quoted the Bible verse: “The just man liveth by
faith.” If it be a fact that he made use of these words which were to
assume so great importance and to be so sadly misinterpreted in his
subsequent theology, it was certainly not in their later sense. In
reality we have here in all probability an instance of a later opinion
being gratuitously anticipated, for Luther himself declares that he
discovered his gospel only after he had taken his Doctor’s degree, and
this we shall show abundantly further on. Older Protestant writers
have frequently represented the scene at the steps of the Lateran
in unhistorical colours owing to their desire to furnish a graphic
historical beginning of the change in Luther’s mind. Mylius of Jena was
one of the first to do this.[72] Mylius, in 1595, quite falsely asserts
that Luther had already commented on the Epistle to the Romans previous
to his journey to Rome, and adds that he had already then noted the
later interpretation of the Bible text in question. It is true that
his son Paul, where he speaks of Luther’s exclamation as having been
communicated to him by his father, expressly states that “he had
_then_, through the spirit of Jesus, come to the knowledge of the
truth of the holy gospel.” But Köstlin’s Biography of Luther rightly
denies this, and describes it as an “exaggeration”[73]—“error” would
have been better—for the assumption to which Luther’s friends still
cling with such affection, namely, that from the very commencement of
his journey to Rome he had been “haunted by the Bible text concerning
justification by faith,” at a time “when he still was striving to
serve God by his own works,” must be struck out of history as a mere
fiction.[74]
At Rome Luther’s conviction of the authority of the Holy See was in
no wise shaken, in spite of what some people have thought. All the
scandals had not been able to achieve this. As late as 1516 he was
still preaching in entire accordance with the traditional doctrine
of the Church on the power of the Papacy, and it is worth while to
quote his words in order to show the Catholic thoughts which engaged
him while wandering through the streets of Rome. “If Christ had not
entrusted all power to one man, the Church would not have been perfect
because there would have been no order and each one would have been
able to say he was led by the Holy Spirit. This is what the heretics
did, each one setting up his own principle. In this way as many
Churches arose as there were heads. Christ therefore wills, in order
that all may be assembled in one unity, that His Power be exercised
by one man to whom also He commits it. He has, however, made this
Power so strong that He looses all the powers of Hell (without injury)
against it. He says: ‘The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it,’
as though He said: ‘They will fight against it but never overcome it,’
so that in this way it is made manifest that this power is in reality
from God and not from man. Wherefore whoever breaks away from this
unity and order of the Power, let him not boast of great enlightenment
and wonderful works, as our Picards and other heretics do, ‘for much
better is obedience than the victims of fools who know not what evil
they do’ (Eccles. iv. 17).”[75] That, when in Rome, he was still full
of reverence for the Pope, Luther shows in his Table-Talk, though his
language on this occasion can only be described as filthy.[76]
His ideas with regard to the Church’s means of Grace, the Mass,
Indulgences and Prayer had not, at the time of his return to Germany,
undergone any theoretical change, though it is highly probable that his
practical observance of the Church’s law suffered considerably. The
fact is, his character was not yet sufficiently formed when he started
on his journey; he was, as Oldecop says, “a wild young fellow.”[77]
Luther later on relates it as a joke, that, when at Rome, he had been
so zealous in gaining Indulgences that he had wished his parents
were already dead so that he might apply to their souls the great
Indulgences obtainable there.[78] Of the Masses which he celebrated
in the Holy City he assures us—again more by way of a joke than as
an exact statement of fact—that he said them so piously and slowly
that three, or even six, Italian priests or monks had finished all
their Masses in succession before he had come to the end of one. He
even declares that in Rome Mass is said so rapidly that ten, one after
another, occupied only one hour, and that he himself had been urged
on with the cry: “Hurry up, Brother, hurry up.” Whoever is familiar
with the older Luther’s manner of speech, will be on his guard against
taking such jests seriously or as proof of scrupulosity; he is, in
reality, merely laying stress on the blatant contrast between his own
habit and the precipitation of the Italians.
In 1519, i.e. not yet ten years after Luther’s visit, his pupil Oldecop
came to Rome and set to work to make diligent enquiries concerning the
stay there of his already famous master, with whose teaching, however,
he did not agree. As he says in his “Chronik,” published not long
since, he learned that Luther had taken lessons in Hebrew from a Jew
called Jakob, who gave himself out to be a physician. He sought out the
Jew, probably a German, and heard from him that “Martinus had begged
the Pope to be allowed to study in Italy for ten years in secular
dress,” but that, owing to the absence of any authorisation from his
Superiors, his request had been refused, and Martinus, instead of being
privileged to dress as a secular priest, had been obliged to retain
his “cowl,” i.e. the habit of his Order. Oldecop then betook himself
to the official who, as he learnt, had drafted the monk’s petition,
and who fully confirmed the Jew’s statement. There is no reason for
doubting these new tales,[79] notwithstanding the fact that in some
of the other statements made by Oldecop, especially those in which he
had no personal concern, some unintentional errors occur. According to
the character given him by his editor Carl Euling, he was “an educated
and honourable man, with good judgment.”[80] Notice deserves to be
taken of a minor detail of the incident which confirms the truth of
this account, namely, that the official, affrighted at the mention of
Luther’s name, was at first unwilling to speak, and then begged that
the fact of his having had dealings with him should not be betrayed.
The man, who is here portrayed to the life, after he became more
loquacious, also expressed the opinion that had Luther been allowed
to take off the cowl he would never have put it on again; a view, of
course, merely based on the later course of events. Luther’s desire
for learning was so great, and his impulsive character so marked, that
it is quite possible that he cherished such a project. Nor was there
anything so very singular in the plan, for about that time other monks
had been secularised at their own request. In a Brief dated January
26, 1517, Erasmus, who was an Augustinian canon, received permission
to wear the dress of a secular priest, a fact to which Luther, on
occasion, makes allusion. As such a privilege, even though restricted
as to duration, would without doubt have appealed to the freedom of
thought which at that time Luther was beginning to cultivate, the
fact that it was refused owing to the lack of authorisation by his
German Superiors assuredly cannot have sweetened his recollection of
the Roman Curia; its only effect was probably to wound his vanity. He
himself never speaks of this petition; he had no cause to do so, and
indeed it ill agreed with the legend which, with advancing years, he
began to weave about his life in the monastery. On the other hand, we
have probably a distorted version of the incident in an assertion,
circulated later by his opponents, viz. that during his stay at Rome he
had sought secularisation in order to be able to marry.[81]
Regarding the morals of the Italians and not the Romans only, he makes
many unfavourable and even unfair statements in his later reminiscences
of his wanderings through their country. The only things which found
favour in his eyes were, in fact, their charity and benevolence as
displayed in some of the hospitals, particularly in Florence, the
sobriety of the people and, at Rome, the careful carrying out of
ecclesiastical business. An evil breath of moral laxity was passing
over the whole country, more especially, however, over the rich and
opulent towns and the higher classes, infected as they were with
the indifferentism of the Humanists. Those travelling alone found
themselves exposed in the inns to the worst moral dangers. We must
also call to mind that, in those very years the Neapolitan, or French
disease, as syphilis was then called, infested a wide area of this
otherwise delightful country, having been introduced by the troops
who came to southern Italy. The places where strangers from other
lands were obliged to spend the night on their travels were hotbeds of
infection for both body and soul.
Luther returned to Germany towards the month of February, 1511, though
he was no longer the same man as when he set out. He said, after his
apostasy: “I, like a fool, carried onions to Italy and brought garlic
(i.e. worse stuff) back with me.” As a controversialist he declared
that he would not take 100,000 gulden to have missed seeing Rome, as
otherwise he would feel that he was doing the Papacy an injustice; he
only wished that everyone who was about to become a priest would visit
Rome.
A notable result of his stay in Italy was, that Luther, after his
return to the monastery, immediately changed his standpoint regarding
the “observance.” Sent to Rome for the defence of the “observance,” he
now unexpectedly veered round and became its opponent. “He deserted
to Staupitz” as Cochlæus puts it, evidently using the very words of
the Observantines, and soon Luther was seen passionately assailing
the Observantines, whose spokesman he had been shortly before. In all
likelihood his changed view stood in some connection with a change in
his domicile. No sooner had he returned to the Observantine monastery
of Erfurt, than he left it for Wittenberg, where he was to take his
degree of Doctor of Divinity and then ascend the professorial chair.
Doubtless under Staupitz’s influence the fulfilment of those great
hopes which he had formerly cherished now arose on the horizon of his
mind. To continue to withstand Staupitz in the matter of the observance
could but prove a hindrance to his advance, especially as the
Wittenberg community was for the most part opposed to the observance.
Nothing further is, however, known with regard to this strange change
of front. It was of the greatest importance for his future development,
as will appear in the sequel; the history of his warfare against the
Observantines, to which as yet little attention has been paid, may also
be considered as a new and determining factor in his mental career.
4. The Little World of Wittenberg and the Great World in Church and
State
Since the spring 1511, Luther had been qualifying, by diligent study in
his cell in the great Augustinian monastery at Wittenberg, to take his
degree of Doctor in Divinity in the University of that city.
In his later statements he says that he had small hopes of success
in his new career on account of his weak health; that he had in vain
opposed Staupitz’s invitation to take his doctorate, and that he had
been compelled by obedience to comply with his Superior’s orders. After
passing brilliantly the requisite tests, the University bestowed upon
him the theological degree on October 1, 1512. Luther at once commenced
his lectures on Holy Scripture, the subject of this, his first course,
being the Psalms (1513-16). His audience consisted mainly of young
Augustinians, to whom a correct understanding of the Psalms was a
practical need for their services in choir.
He displayed already in these early lectures, no less than in those of
the later period, the whole force of his fancy and eloquence, his great
ability in the choice of quotations from the Bible, his extraordinary
subjectivity, and, however out of place in such a quarter, the
vehemence of his passion; in our own day the sustained rhetorical tone
of his lectures would scarcely appeal to the hearer.
The fiery and stimulating teacher was in his true element at
Wittenberg. The animation that pervaded students and teachers, the
distinction which he enjoyed amongst his friends, his unlimited
influence over the numerous young men gathered there, more especially
over the students of his own Order, no less than the favour of the
Elector of Saxony for the University, the Order, and, subsequently,
for his own person, all this, in spite of his alleged unwillingness
to embrace the profession, made his stay at Wittenberg, and his work
there, very agreeable to him. He himself admits that his Superiors had
done well in placing him there. Wittenberg became in the sequel the
citadel of his teaching. There he remained until the evening of his
days as Professor of Holy Scripture, and quitted the town only when
forced by urgent reasons to do so.
As with all men of great gifts, who make a deep impression on their
day, but are, all the same, children of their time, so was it with
Luther. In his case, however, the influence from without was all the
deeper because his lively and receptive temperament lent itself to a
stronger external stimulus, and also because the position of so young
a man in a professorial chair in the very heart of Germany did much to
foster such influences.
Martin Pollich of Mellerstadt, formerly Professor at Leipzig, a
physician, a jurist and a man of humanistic tendencies who had helped
Staupitz to organise the new University, enjoyed a great reputation in
the Wittenberg schools. Alongside him were the theologians Amsdorf,
Carlstadt, Link, Lang and Staupitz. Nicholas von Amsdorf, who was
subsequently said to be “more Luther than Luther himself,” had been
since 1511 licentiate of theology, and had at the same time filled,
as a secular priest, the office of Canon at the Castle Church. Andreas
Bodenstein von Carlstadt, usually known as Carlstadt, occupied a
position amongst the Augustinians engaged in teaching. He had taken
his degree at Wittenberg in 1510, and was at the outset a zealous
representative of Scholasticism, though he speedily attached himself
to Luther’s new teaching. He was the first to proclaim the solubility
of religious vows. Wenceslaus Link worked at the University from
1509 to about 1516, eventually succeeding Staupitz as Augustinian
Vicar-General, and, later, by his marriage in 1523, gave the last
Augustinians of the unfortunate Congregation the signal for forsaking
the Order. Another Augustinian, Johann Lang, who had been Luther’s
friend since the days of his first studies at Erfurt, had come to
Wittenberg about 1512 as teacher at the “Studium” of the Order, though
he soon left it to return to Erfurt. Johann Staupitz, the Superior of
the Congregation, resigned in 1512 his Professorship of Holy Scripture
at Wittenberg, being unable to attend to it sufficiently owing to his
frequent absence, and made over the post to Luther, whom, as he says in
his eulogistic speech to the Elector of Saxony, he had been at pains to
form into a “very special Doctor of Holy Scripture.”
The teaching in the University at that time was, of course, from the
religious standpoint, Catholic. Its scholarship was, however, infected
with the humanistic views of the Italian naturalism, and this new
school had already stamped some of the professors with its freethinking
spirit.[82]
The influence of Humanism on Luther’s development must be admitted,
though it is frequently overrated, the subsequent open alliance of the
German Humanists with the new gospel being set back, without due cause,
to Luther’s early days. As a student he had plunged into the study of
the ancient classics which he loved, but there was a great difference
between this and the being in complete intellectual communion with
the later Humanists, whose aims were in many respects opposed to the
Church’s. Thanks to the practical turn of his mind, the study of the
classics, which he occasionally continued later, never engaged his
attention or fascinated him to the extent it did certain Humanists
of the Renaissance, who saw in the revival of classic Paganism the
salvation of mankind. As a young professor at the University he was
not, however, able to escape entirely the influence of the liberalism
of the age, with its one-sided and ill-considered opposition to so many
of the older elements of culture, an opposition which might easily
prove as detrimental as a blind and biassed defence of the older order.
It is not necessary to demonstrate here how dangerous a spirit of
change and libertinism was being imported in the books of the Italian
Humanists, or by the German students who had attended their lectures.
With regard to Luther personally, we know that he not only had some
connection with Mutian, the leader of a movement which at that time was
still chiefly literary, but also that Johann Lang at once forwarded to
Mutian a lecture against the morals of the “little Saints” of his Order
delivered by Luther at Gotha in 1515.[83] Luther also excused himself
in a very respectful letter to this leader of the Humanists for not
having called on him when passing through Gotha in 1516.[84] Luther’s
most intimate friend, Lang, through whom he seems to have entered
into a certain exchange of ideas with Humanism, was an enthusiastic
Humanist and possessed of great literary connections. Lang, for his
part, speaks highly to Mutian of the assistance rendered him in his
studies by Luther.[85] There can therefore be no doubt that Luther was
no stranger to the efforts of the Humanists, to their bold and incisive
criticism of the traditional methods, to their new idealism and their
spirit of independence. Many of the ideas which filled the air in those
days had doubtless an attraction for and exerted an influence on the
open-hearted, receptive disposition of the talented monk.
Luther’s friendship with Spalatin, which dated from his Erfurt days,
must also be taken into account in this regard. For Spalatin, who came
as tutor and preacher in 1508 to the Court of the Elector of Saxony,
was very closely allied in spirit with the Humanists of Erfurt and
Gotha. It was he who asked Luther for his opinion respecting the famous
dispute of the Cologne Faculty with the Humanist Reuchlin, a quarrel
which engaged the sympathy of scholars and men of education throughout
the length and breadth of Germany. Luther, in his reply, which dates
from January or February, 1514, had at that time no hesitation in
emphatically taking the side of Reuchlin, who, he declared, possessed
his love and esteem. God, he says, would carry on His work in spite of
the determined opposition of one thousand times one thousand Cologne
burghers, and he adds meaningly that there were much more important
matters with the Church which needed reform; they were “straining at
gnats and swallowing camels.”[86] The conservative attitude of the
authorities at Cologne was at that time not at all to his taste. Not
long after Luther writes very strongly to Spalatin, again in favour
of Reuchlin, against Ortwin de Graes of Cologne, and says among other
things that he had hitherto thought the latter an ass, but that he must
now call him a dog, a wolf and a crocodile, in spite of his wanting
to play the lion,[87] expressions which are quite characteristic of
Luther’s style.
On the appearance of the “Letters of Obscure Men,” and a similar
satirical writing which followed them, and which also found its way
into Luther’s hands, the young Wittenberg professor, instead of taking
the field against the evil tendency of these attacks of the Humanist
party on the “bigots of Scholasticism and the cloister” as such
diatribes deserved, and as he in his character of monk and theologian
should have done, sought to take a middle course: he approved of the
purpose of the attacks, but not of the satire itself, which mended
nothing and contained too much invective. Both productions, he says,
must have come out of the same pot; they had as their author, if not
the same, at least a very similar comedian. It is now known that the
real author of the letters which caused such an uproar was his former
University friend, Crotus Rubeanus.[88]
On what terms did Luther stand with respect to Erasmus, the leader
of the Humanists, before their great and final estrangement? As he
speaks of Erasmus in a letter of 1517 to Lang as “our Erasmus,” we may
infer that until then he was, to a certain extent, favourably disposed
towards him. He rejoiced on reading his humanistic writings to find
that “he belaboured the monks and clergy so manfully and so learnedly
and had torn the veil off their out-of-date rubbish.”[89] Yet, on the
same occasion, he confesses that his liking for Erasmus is becoming
weaker. It was not the attitude of Erasmus to the Church in general
which even then separated Luther from him, but his new teaching on
Grace, the origin of which will be treated of later. It is true Luther
conveyed to him through Spalatin his good wishes for his renown and
progress, but in the same message he admonished him not to follow the
example of nearly every commentator in interpreting certain passages
where Paul condemns “righteousness by works” as referring only to
the Mosaic ceremonial law, and not rather to all the works of the
Decalogue. If such are performed “outside the Faith in Christ,” then
though they should make of a man a Fabricius, a Regulus, or a paragon
of perfection, yet they have as little in common with righteousness
as blackberries have with figs”; it is not the works which justify a
man, but rather our righteousness which sanctifies the works. Abel was
more pleasing to God than his works.[90] The exclusive sense in which
Luther interprets these words, according to which he does not even
admit that works of righteousness are of any value for the increase of
righteousness, is a consequence of his new standpoint, to which he is
anxious to convert Erasmus and all the Humanists.
He had the Humanists in his mind when he wrote as follows to Johann
Lang: “The times are perilous, and a man may be a great Greek, or
Hebrew [scholar] without being a wise Christian.... He who makes
concessions to human freewill judges differently from him who knows
nothing save Grace alone.”[91] But this is to forestall a development
of his error, which will be described later. At the time that his new
doctrine originated he was far more in sympathy with the theories
of certain groups of late mediæval mystics than with the views of
the Humanists, because, as will appear later, he found in them the
expression of that annihilation of the human by means of Grace, of
which the idea was floating before his mind, and because he also
discovered in them an “inwardness” which agreed with his own feelings
at that time.
From Erasmus and his compeers he undoubtedly borrowed, in addition
to a spirit of justifiable criticism, an exaggerated sentiment of
independence towards ecclesiastical antiquity. The contact with their
humanistic views assuredly strengthened in him the modern tendency to
individualism. Not long after a change in the nature of his friendship
necessarily took place. His antagonism to Erasmus in the matter of his
doctrine of Grace led to a bitter dispute between the two, to which
Luther’s contribution was his work on “The Servitude of the Will” (_De
servo arbitrio_); at the same time his alliance with the Humanists
remained of value to him in the subversive movement which he had
inaugurated.
Mighty indeed were the forces, heralds of a spiritual upheaval, which,
since the fifteenth century, had streamed through the Western world in
closer or more distant connection with the great revival of the study
of classical antiquity. They proclaimed the advent of a new cycle in
the history of mankind. This excited world could not fail to impart its
impulse to the youthful Luther.
The recently discovered art of printing had, as it were at one blow,
created a world-wide community of intellectual productions and literary
ideas such as the Middle Ages had never dreamed of. The nations were
drawn closer together at that period by the interchange of the most
varied and far-reaching discoveries. The spirit of worldly enterprise
awoke as from a long slumber as a result of the astonishing discovery
of great and wealthy countries overseas.
With the greater facilities for intellectual intercourse and the
increase of means of study, criticism set to work on all branches of
learning with greater results than ever before. The greater States
now did what they had been willing but unable to do before; they freed
themselves more and more from the former tutelage of the Church; they
aimed at securing freedom and shaking off that priestly influence to
which, in part at least, they owed their stability and their growth;
nor was this movement confined to the greater States, for, in Germany,
at any rate, the wealthy cities, the great landed proprietors and
princes were all alike intent on ridding themselves of the oppression
under which they had hitherto laboured and on securing for themselves
an increase of power. In brief, everywhere the old restraints were
breaking down, everywhere a forward movement of individualism was in
progress at the expense of the commonweal and the traditional order
of the Middle Ages; but, above all, at the expense of the Church’s
religious authority, which, alone till then, had kept individualism in
check to the profit of humanity.
It would indeed have been well had at least the Catholic Church at that
critical period been free from weakness and abuse. Her Divine power
of blessing the nations, it is true, still survived, her preaching
of the truth, her treasure of the Sacraments, in short, her soul,
was unchanged; but, because she was suffering from many lamentable
imperfections, the disruptive forces were able to come into play with
fatal results. The complaints of eloquent men full of zeal for souls,
both at that time and during the preceding decades, particularly in
Germany, over the decline of religious life among the Faithful and the
corruption in the clergy, were only too well founded, and deserved to
have met with a much more effectual reception than they did. What the
monk of Wittenberg, with unbridled passion and glaring exaggeration,
was about to thunder forth over the world in his mighty call for
reform, had already for the most part been urged by others, yea, by
great Saints of the Church who attacked the abuses with the high-minded
zeal of ripe experience. Strict, earnest and experienced men had set to
work on a Catholic reform in many parts of the Church, not excepting
Germany, in the only profitable way, viz. not by doctrinal innovation,
but by raising the standard of morality among both people and clergy.
But progress was slow, very slow, for reasons which cannot be dealt
with here. The life-work of the pious founder of his own Congregation
might well have served Luther as an admirable example of moral
regeneration and efficiency; for the aim of Andreas Proles was, as a
Protestant writer remarks: “A strong and mighty Reformation”; he lived
in hopes that God would shortly raise up a hero capable of bringing it
about with strength and determination, though the Reformation he had in
his mind, as our historian allows, could only have been a Reformation
in the Catholic sense.[92] Another attractive example of reforming zeal
was also given under Luther’s very eyes by the Windesheim Congregation
of the Brethren of the Common Life, with whom he had been in friendly
intercourse from his boyish days.
The disorders in Germany had an all too powerful stronghold in
the higher ranks of ecclesiastical authority. Not until after the
Council of Trent did it become apparent how much the breaking down
of this bulwark of corruption would cost. The bishops were for the
most part incapable or worldly. Abbots, provosts, wealthy canons
and dignitaries vied with and even excelled the episcopate in their
neglect of the duties of their clerical state. In the filling of
Church offices worldly influence was paramount, and in its wake
followed forced nominations, selfishness, incompetence and a general
retrograde movement; the moral disorders among the clergy and the
people accumulated under lazy and incompetent superiors. The system of
indulgences, pilgrimages, sodalities and numerous practices connected
with the veneration of the Saints, as well as many other details of
worship, showed lamentable excesses.
Of the above-mentioned evils within the German Church, two will be
examined more closely: the interference of the Government and the
worldly-minded nobility in Church matters, and the evil ways of the
higher and lower grades of the clergy.
Not merely were the clerical dues frequently seized by the princes
and lesser authorities, but positions in the Cathedral chapters
and episcopal sees were, in many cases, handed over arbitrarily to
members of the nobility or ruling houses, so that in many places the
most important posts were held by men without a vocation and utterly
unworthy of the office. “When the ecclesiastical storm broke out at
the end of the second decade of the sixteenth century the following
archbishoprics and bishoprics were filled by the sons of princes:
Bremen, Freising, Halberstadt, Hildesheim, Magdeburg, Mayence,
Merseburg, Metz, Minden, Münster, Naumburg, Osnabrück, Paderborn,
Passau, Ratisbon, Spires, Verden and Verdun.”[93] The bishops drawn
from the princely houses were, as a rule, involved in worldly business
or in Court intrigues, even where, as was the case, for instance, with
the powerful Archbishop of Mayence, Albrecht of Brandenburg, their
early education had not been entirely anti-ecclesiastical.
Another evil was the uniting of several important bishoprics in the
hands of one individual. “The Archbishop of Bremen was at the same time
Bishop of Verden, the Bishop of Osnabrück also Bishop of Paderborn,
the Archbishop of Mayence also Archbishop of Magdeburg and Bishop of
Halberstadt. George, Palsgrave of the Rhine and Duke of Bavaria, had
already in his thirteenth year been made Cathedral Provost of Mayence
and afterwards became a Canon of Cologne and Treves, Provost of St.
Donatian’s at Bruges, patron of the livings of Hochheim and Lorch on
the Rhine and finally, in 1513, Bishop of Spires. By special privilege
of Pope Leo X, granted June 22, 1513, he, an otherwise earnest and
pious man, was permitted to hold all these benefices in addition to
his bishopric of Spires.”[94] A contemporary, reviewing the condition
of the worldly-minded bishops, complains “that the higher clergy are
chiefly to blame for the careless way in which the cure of souls is
exercised. They place unsuitable shepherds over the people, while they
themselves draw the tithes. Many seek to unite in their grasp the
greatest possible number of livings without fulfilling the duties they
entail and waste the revenues of the Church in luxury, on servants,
pages, dogs and horses. One seeks to outvie the other in ostentation
and luxury.”[95] One of the most important explanations of the fact,
that, at the very outset of the religious innovation, the falling away
from the Church took place with such astonishing celerity, is to be
found in the corruption and apathy of the episcopate.[96]
Bertold Pirstinger, Bishop of Chiemsee and author of the lament
“_Onus ecclesiæ_,” wrote sadly in 1519: “Where does the choice fall
upon a good, capable and learned bishop, where on one who is not
inexperienced, sensual and ignorant of spiritual things?... I know
of some bishops who prefer to wear a sword and armour rather than
their clerical garb. It has come to this, that the episcopate is now
given up to worldly possessions, sordid cares, stormy wars, worldly
sovereignty.... The prescribed provincial and diocesan synods are
not held. Hence many Church matters which ought to be reformed are
neglected. Besides this, the bishops do not visit their parishes at
fixed times, and yet they exact from them heavy taxes. Thus the lives
of the clergy and laity have sunk to a low level and the churches are
unadorned and falling to pieces.” The zealous bishop closes his gloomy
description, in which perhaps he is too inclined to generalise, with a
touching prayer to God for a true reformation from within: “Therefore
grant that the Church may be reformed, which has been redeemed by
Thy Blood and is now, through our fault, near to destruction.”[97]
He considers, however, that a reform of the Church undertaken from
within and preserving her faith and institutions is what is needed. The
deterioration was in his eyes, and in those of the best men of the day,
undoubtedly very great, but not irreparable.
A glance at the work of many excellent men, such as Trithemius,
Wimpfeling, Geiler of Kaysersberg and others, may serve as a warning
against an excessive generalisation with regard to the deterioration
in the ranks of the higher and lower clergy. Weaknesses, disorders and
morbid growths are far more apparent to the eyes of contemporaries than
goodness, which usually fails to attract attention. Even Johann Nider,
the Dominican, who, as a rule, is unsparing in lashing the weaknesses
of the clergy of his day, is compelled to speak a word of warning:
“Take heed never to pass a universal judgment when speaking only of
many, otherwise you will never, or hardly ever, escape passing an
unjust one.”[98]
That there was, however, the most pressing need of a reform in the
lives of both higher and lower clergy is proved by a glance at the
state of the priesthood. The position of the lower clergy, in
comparison with that of their betters “who rolled in riches and
luxury,” was one not in keeping with the dignity of their state.
“Apart from the often very precarious tithes and stole-fees they
had no stipend, so that their poverty, and sometimes also their
avarice, obliged them to turn to other means of livelihood, which ...
necessarily exposed them to the contempt of the people. There can be
no doubt that ‘a very large portion of the lower clergy had fallen
so far from the ideal of their calling, that one may speak of the
priestly proletariat of that day, using the word in both its ordinary
and its literal sense.’ This clerical proletariat was ready to join any
movement which promised to promote its own low aims.”[99]
The number of clergy, largely owing to the excessive multiplication
of small foundations without any cure of souls, had increased to such
an extent that among so many there must necessarily have been a very
large number who had no real vocation, while their lack of employment
must have spelt a real danger to their morals. Attached to two churches
at Breslau at the end of the fifteenth century were 236 clerics, all
of them mere Mass-priests, i.e. ordained simply to say Mass in the
chantry chapels founded with very small endowments. Besides the daily
celebration, these Mass-priests had as their only obligation the
recital of the Breviary. In the Cathedral at Meissen there were, in
1480, besides 14 canons, 14 Mass-priests and 60 curates. In Strasburg
the Cathedral foundation comprised 36 canonries, that of St. Thomas 20,
Old St. Peter’s 17, New St. Peter’s 15 and All Saints’ 12. In addition
to these were also numerous deputies who were prepared to officiate
at High Mass in place of the actual beneficiaries. Of such deputies
there were no fewer than 63 attached to the Cathedral, where there
were also 38 chaplaincies. In Cologne Johann Agricola gives the number
of “priests and monks” (though he adds “so it is said”) as 5000; on
another occasion he estimates the number of monks and nuns only, at
5000. What is certain is that the “German Rome” on the Rhine numbered
at that time 11 collegiate foundations, 19 parish churches, over 100
chapels, 22 monasteries, 12 hospitals and 76 religious houses.[100]
The above-mentioned Bishop of Chiemsee attributes the corruption of
the priesthood principally to the misuse by clergy and laity of their
right of patronage both in nominations and by arbitrary interference.
Geiler of Kaysersberg is of the same opinion; he attributes to the
laity, more particularly to the patrons among the nobility, the sad
condition of the parishes. Uneducated, bad, immoral men were now
presented, he says, not the good and virtuous.[101] Cardinal Nicholas
of Cusa, who did so much service to Germany, had declared quite openly
the cause of the deformation of the clerical system to be the admission
to Holy Orders of unworthy candidates, the concubinage of the clergy,
plurality of benefices, and simony. Towards the end of the fifteenth
century the complaints increased, more especially with regard to the
immorality of the clergy. “The numerous regulations of bishops and
synods leave no doubt about the fact that a large portion of the
German clergy transgressed the law of celibacy in the most flagrant
manner.”[102] A statement which was presented to the Dukes of Bavaria
in 1477 declared that in the opinion of many friends and advocates of
a healthy reform, an improvement in the morals of the clergy, where
the real cause of all the Church’s evils lay, must be taken in hand.
It is true there were districts where a blameless and praiseworthy
clergy worked, as, for example, the Rhine-Lands, Schleswig-Holstein
and the Algäu. On the other hand, in Saxony, Luther’s home, and in
Franconia and Bavaria great disorders were reported in this respect.
The “_De ruina ecclesiæ_,” an earlier work, attributed to Nicholas of
Clémanges, tells us of bishops in the commencement of the fifteenth
century who, in consideration of a money payment, permitted concubinage
to their clergy, and Hefele’s “History of the Councils” gives numerous
synodical decrees of that date forbidding the bishops to accept money
or presents in return for permitting or conniving at concubinage.[103]
Along with concubinage many of the higher clergy displayed a luxury and
a spirit of haughty pride which repelled the people, especially the
more independent burghers. Members of the less fortunate clergy gave
themselves up to striving after gain by pressing for their tithes and
fees and rents, a tendency which was encouraged both in high and low
by the excessive demands made by Rome. Worthless so-called courtisans,
i.e. clerks furnished with briefs from the Papal Court (_corte_),
seized upon the best benefices and gave an infectious example of greed,
while at the same time their action helped to add fuel to the prejudice
and hatred already existing for the Curia.[104]
Innumerable were the causes of friction in the domain of worldly
interests which gave rise to strife and enmity between laity and
clergy. Laymen saw with displeasure how the most influential and
laborious posts were filled, not by the beneficiaries themselves, but
by incapable representatives, while the actual incumbents resided
elsewhere in comfortable ease and leisure at the expense of the old
foundations endowed by the laity. On the other hand, the churches and
monasteries complained of the rights appropriated or misused by the
princes and nobility, an abuse which often led to the monasteries
serving as homes for worn-out officials, or to the vexatious seizure
and retention of the estates of deceased priests or abbots. It is clear
that such a self-seeking policy on the part of the powerful naturally
resulted in the most serious evils and abuses in Church matters, quite
apart from the bad feeling thus aroused between the clerical and lay
elements of the State.
The richer monasteries in particular had to submit to becoming the
preserves of the nobles, who made it their practice to provide in this
way for the younger scions of their family, and for that reason sought
to prevent members of the middle classes being admitted to profession.
The efforts to reform lax monasteries, which are often met with about
the close of the Middle Ages, were frequently stifled by these and
similar worldly influences.
In the disintegration of ecclesiastical order, the power and influence
of the rulers of the land with regard to Church matters was, as might
be expected, constantly on the increase.
Many German princes, influenced by the ideas with regard to the dignity
of the State which came into such vogue in the fifteenth century, and
dissatisfied with the concessions already made to them by the Church,
arrogated still further privileges, for example, the taxation of Church
lands, the restriction of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the so-called
Government Placet and an oppressive right of visiting and supervising
the parishes within their territories. There had thus grown up in
many districts a system of secular interference in Church matters
long before the religious apostasy of the sixteenth century resulted
in the total submission of the Church to the Protestant princes of
the land. The Catholic ruler recognised in principle the doctrines
and rights of the Church. What, however, was to happen if rulers,
equipped with such twofold authority, altered their attitude to the
Church on the outbreak of the schism? Their fidelity was in many cases
already put to a severe test by the disorders of the clergy, which
were doing harm to their country and which Rome made no attempt to
suppress. The ecclesiastico-political complaints of the princes (the
famous Gravamina) against Rome are proofs of their annoyance; for
these charges, as Dr. Eck pointed out, were for the most part well
founded; Eck’s opinion was shared by other authorities, such as Bertold
von Henneberg, Wimpfeling, Duke George of Saxony, and Aleander the
Papal Nuncio, who all express themselves in the same manner regarding
the financial grievances against Rome, which were felt in Germany
throughout all ranks and classes down to the meanest individual.[105]
“On account of these and other causes the irritation and opposition
to the Holy See had, on the eve of the great German schism, reached
boiling point; this vexation is explained, as the _’Gravamina nationis
Germanicæ_’ clearly prove, by the disorders of the Curia, and still
more by its unceasing demands.” “That the smouldering discontent
broke into open flame was the doing of those scoffers without faith
or conscience, such as the Humanists, who persisted in pouring on the
fire the oil of their sophistries.”[106] The Catholic historian from
whom these words are borrowed rightly draws attention to the “mistaken
policy” entered on by Luther’s followers when they attacked the
hierarchical order on account of the disorders rampant in the life and
administration of the Church. The success of their “mistaken policy”
was a “speaking proof of the coarseness, blindness and passion of the
German people at that time,” but in its practical results their policy
helped to bring about an ever-to-be-regretted alteration and to open
a yawning chasm which still exists to-day. “That the vexation was not
altogether without cause no honest historian can deny, whatever his
enthusiasm for the Catholic Church,” for “the action of Churchmen,
whether belonging to the hierarchy or to the regular or secular clergy,
cannot be misunderstood. Throughout the whole of Christendom, and
particularly in Germany, the general state of things was deplorable....
Even though the evils of the waning Middle Ages may have been, and
still continue to be, grossly exaggerated by Protestants, and though in
the fifteenth century we see many cheering examples and some partially
successful attempts at reform, yet there still remains enough foulness
to account psychologically for the falling away.”[107]
And yet the disorders in matters ecclesiastical in Germany would
not have entailed the sad consequences they did had they not been
accompanied by a great number of social evils, especially the intense
discontent of the lower classes with their position and a hostile
jealousy of the laity against the privileges and possessions of the
clergy. Savage outbreaks of rebellion against the old traditional order
of things were of frequent occurrence. In many localities the peasants
were in arms against their princes and masters for the improvement of
their conditions; the knights and the nobility, to say nothing of the
cities, gave themselves up to the spirit of aggrandisement referred
to above. It was just this spirit of unrest and discontent of which
the coming mighty movement of intellectual and religious reform was to
avail itself.
If we look more closely at Italy and Rome we find that in Italy,
which comprised within its limits the seat of the supreme authority
in the Church and of which the influence on civilisation everywhere
was so important, complete religious indifference had taken root among
many of the most highly cultured. The Renaissance, the famed classic
regeneration, had undergone a change for the worse, and, in the name of
education, was promoting the most questionable tendencies. After having
been welcomed and encouraged by the Papacy with over-great confidence
it disappointed both the Popes and the Church with its poisonous fruits.
At the time that the Holy See was lavishing princely gifts on art and
learning, the pernicious system of Church taxation so often complained
of by the nations was becoming more and more firmly established.
This taxation, which had started at the time of the residence of the
Popes at Avignon in consequence of the real state of need in which
the central government of the Church then stood, became more and more
an oppressive burden, especially in Germany. It was exploited by
Luther in one of his earliest controversial writings where, voicing
the popular discontent in that spiteful language of which he was a
master, he joined his protest to that of the German Estates of the
realm. Combining truth and fancy, the administration of the Papal
finances became in his hands a popular and terribly effective weapon.
It has frequently been pointed out how much the authority of the Holy
See suffered in the preceding age, not only on account of the Western
Schism when three rival claimants simultaneously strove for the tiara,
but also through the so-called reforming councils and their opposition
to the constitution of the Church, through the political mistakes of
the Popes since they established their headquarters in France, through
the struggle they waged to assert their power in Italy, that apple of
discord of rising nations, and also, in the case of the Avignon Popes,
through their lack, or, at any rate, suspected lack, of independence.
To this we must add the shocking behaviour of the Curial officials and
of several of the cardinals in the Eternal City, especially at the
turn of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, also the disgraceful
example of Alexander VI and the Borgia family, the bearing of his
successor Julius II, more befitting a soldier than an ecclesiastic,
and the very worldly spirit of Leo X and his Court. Ostentation and
the abuse of worldly possessions and Church revenues which Alvarez
Pelayo, the Spanish Franciscan, had already bewailed in his “_De
planctu ecclesiæ_” had risen to still greater heights at Rome. The
work of this severe critic, who, in spite of his fault-finding, was
nevertheless well disposed to the Curia, was in general circulation
just previous to Luther’s appearance on the field; it was several
times reprinted, for instance, at Ulm in 1474, and again at Lyons in
1517, with a dedication to the later Pope Hadrian VI. It is there we
find the indignant assertion, that those who bear the dignity of the
primacy are God’s worst persecutors.[108] In the work “_De squaloribus
Romanæ curiæ_” various well-founded complaints were adduced, together
with much that was incorrect and exaggerated. The book “_De ruina
ecclesiæ_” (see above, p. 50) contained accusations against the Popes
and the government of the Church couched in rude and violent language,
and these too gained new and stronger significance at the end of the
fifteenth and commencement of the sixteenth century. We actually read
therein that the number of the righteous in the Church is diminutive
compared with that of the wicked.[109]
There is no doubt that the state of things, so far as it was known from
the above-mentioned books, or from observation or rumour, was busily
and impatiently discussed in the company frequented by Luther at the
University of Wittenberg. What Luther had himself seen at Rome must
have still further contributed to increase the bitterness among his
friends.
When the Monk of Wittenberg openly commenced his attacks on the Papacy,
it became apparent how far the disorders just alluded to had prepared
the way for his plans. It was clear that all the currents adverse to
the Papacy were, so to speak, waiting for the coming of one man, who
should unchain them with his powerful hand. Amongst those who hitherto
had been faithful adherents of the Church, Luther found combustible
material—social, moral and political—heaped up so high that a
stunning result was not surprising. Had there arisen a saint like St.
Bernard, on whose words the world of the Middle Ages had hung, with the
Divine gift of teaching and writing as the times demanded, who can say
what course events would have taken? But Luther arrived on the scene
with his terrible, mighty voice, pressed all the elements of the storm
into his service, and, launching a defiance of which the world had
never before heard the like, succeeded in winning an immense success
for the standard he had raised.[110]
Luther from the very outset of his career was too liberal in his blame
of the customs and conditions in the Church which happened to meet with
his disapproval.
Scarcely had he finished his course of studies as a learner than
he already began to wax eloquent against various abuses. In his
characteristic love of exaggeration of language he did not fear to use
the sharpest epithets, nor to magnify the evil, whether in his academic
lectures or in the pulpit, or in his letters and writings. He wrote,
for instance, to Spalatin in 1516 to dissuade the Elector of Saxony,
Frederick the Wise, from promoting Staupitz to a bishopric: he who
becomes a bishop in these days falls into the most evil of company,
all the wickedness of Greece, Rome and Sodom were to be found in the
bishops; Spalatin should compare the carryings-on of the present
bishops with those of the bishops of Christian antiquity; now a pastor
of souls was considered quite exemplary if he merely pursued his
worldly business and built up for himself with his riches an insatiable
hell.[111]
In his first lectures at Wittenberg he complains that “neither
monasteries nor colleges, nor Cathedral churches will in any sort
accept discipline.”[112] The clergy, he says, in another place,
generalising after the fashion common among preachers, should be the
eyes of the Church, but to-day they do not direct the body, i.e. the
Faithful, for they are blinded: they are the soul, but they do not
give life, but rather kill by their deadly example; about nothing do
they trouble less than about souls.[113] In similar language he, in
these lectures, represents the bishops and priests as simply “full of
the most abominable unchastity”; according to him, they bring to the
pulpit nothing but “their views and fables, nothing but masquerading
and buffoonery,” so that the Church can do nothing but cry aloud over
the misery in which it is sunk. “The strength of her youth has forsaken
her.”[114]
One of the earliest portions of Luther’s correspondence which has been
preserved and which takes us back to his little world at Wittenberg,
throws a clearer light on his character at that time. It deals with an
unpleasant dispute with his brother monks at Erfurt, which he became
involved in owing to his having taken his doctorate at Wittenberg
instead of at Erfurt. The Erfurt monastery reproached him with a
serious infringement of the rules and disrespect for the Theological
Faculty there; he had, they said, entered the teaching Corporation
of Erfurt in virtue of the oath which he had taken in the customary
manner on his appointment as Sententiarius, and was therefore under
strict obligation to take his degree of Doctor in this Faculty and not
elsewhere. Other unknown charges were also made against him, but were
speedily withdrawn. It is highly probable that the tension between
Observantines and Conventuals increased the misunderstanding.
Nathin, the Erfurt Augustinian, first wrote a rather tactless letter
to Luther about it all, as it would appear in the name of the
council of the monastery. Luther was extremely angry and allowed his
excitement free play. He first expresses his surprise in two letters
to the Prior and the council, and was about to despatch a third when
he learnt that the accusations against him, with the exception of that
regarding his doctorate, had been withdrawn. While Nathin’s letter and
also the two passionate replies of the young Doctor have been lost,
two other letters of the latter regarding the matter exist, and are
professedly letters of excuse. The first is in reality nothing of the
kind, but rather the opposite. In this letter, dated June 16, 1514,
and addressed to the Prior and the council, Luther to begin with
complains vehemently of the evil reports against his person which,
according to his information, some of those he was addressing at
Erfurt had circulated previously. Nathin’s letter had, however, been
the last straw. “This letter,” he says, which wa
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48995