Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  138 The Summa angelica of Angelus de Clavassio of Genoa (died about 1495), published 1486, one of the favorite handbooks of casuistry, in which all possible cases of conscience were treated in alphabetical order. Cf. Zeitschrit für Kirchengesch., XXVII, 296 ff. The Summa angelica was among the papal books burned by Luther, together with the bull, December 10, 1520. Cf. Smith, Luther’s Correspondence, I, no. 355.

  139 For a full discussion of the hindrances see article Eherecht, by Sehung, in Prot. Realencyklopädie, V.

  140 On this whole paragraph compare Vol. I, p. 294.

  141 It is to be borne in mind that all that follows is in the nature of advice to confessors in dealing with difficult cases of conscience, and is parallel to the closing paragraphs of the section on The Sacrament of the Bread.

  142 Namely, by officiating at the marriage ceremony.

  143 Namely, by betrothal (sponsalia de praesenti).

  144 Lemme pertinently reminds the reader that by “laws of men” Luther here understands the man-made laws of the Church of Rome.

  145 See above, p. 103, note 2.

  146 Relationship arising from sponsorship and legal adoption. Cf. above, p. 128.

  147 Cognatio spiritualis.

  148 The res sacramenti. See above, p. 182.

  149 Cognatio legalis.

  150 Disparilitas religionis.

  151 Impedimentum criminis.

  152 Impedimentum ligamiais.

  153 The fides data et accepta, which Luther finds in the fides (faith) of Gal. 5:22

  154 Page 243.

  155 Impedimentum erroris. With fine sarcasm Luther here plays of one hindrance against another.

  156 Impedimentum ordinis.

  157 Impedimentum publicae honestatis.

  158 An untranslatable pun: non iustitia sed inscitia.

  159 Page 244.

  160 See p. 263, note 2.

  161 Page 242.

  162 The following points need to be borne in mind in order to a fair evaluation of this much criticized section: (1) What is here given is in the nature of advice to confessors, and the one guiding principle is the relief of souls in peril. (2) It must not be forgotten that Luther wrote the treatise in Latin, and not for the general public. There is without doubt a certain betrayal in turning into the vernacular a passage written in the language of the learned. Yet we have done this, being unwilling to all under the charge of giving a garbled version. (3) The hindrance Luther is here discussing was one recognized and provided or by the Church of Rome, and the remedy suggested by him was prescribed by the German Volksrecht in many localities. (4) Divorce was absolutely forbidden. (5) Luther’s error grew out of an unhistorical interpretation of the Old Testament, and consisted in his undervaluing the importance of the public law. “To make the individual conscience the sole arbiter in matters belonging to public law, leads to dangerous consequences.” (See Kawarau, Berlin Ed., II, 482 f., where references are given.)

  163 As he actually did in the case of Henry VIII and Philip of Hesse.

  164 See above, p. 269, note 1.

  165 Page 271.

  166 An allusion to the act that what he is writing is a “Prelude.” See Introduction, p. 168.

  167 Contra epistolam Manichaei, 5, 6 (Migne, XLII, 176). Cf. below, p. 451.

  168 De trinitate, 9, 6, 10 (Migne, VIII, 966).

  169 See below, pp. 451 ff.

  170 The council that condemned and burned John Hus (1414-1418).

  171 Dionysius Areopagita, the pseudonym (cf. Acts 17:54) of the unknown author (about 500, in Syria?) of the neoplatonic writings, Of the Celestial, and Of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, etc.

  172 William Durandus the elder, died 1296.

  173 The Franciscan Bonaventura (†1274) in his De reductione artium ad theologiara.

  174 Donatus (ab. 350 A.D.), a famous Latin grammarian, whose Ars minor was a favorite mediæval text-book. The chancellor of the University of Paris, John Gerson († 1429), published a Donatus moralisatus seu per allegoriam traductus — a mystical grammar, in which the noun was compared to man, the pronoun to man’s sinful state, the verb to the divine command to love, the adverb to the fulfilment of the divine law, etc.

  175 See above, p. 190.

  176 The so-called character indelebilis, the peculiar gift of ordination, so that “once a priest, always a priest.” See above, p. 68, note 5.

  177 See above, pp. 178 ff.

  178 The stated daily prayers, fixed by canon, of the clergy. The seven hours are respectively: matins (including noctums and lauds), prime, tierce, sext, nones, vespers, and compline.

  179 Comp. above, p. 69. The fullest development of Luther’s doctrine of the spiritual priesthood of believers is to be found in his writings against Emser, especially Auf das überchristliche, übergeistliche und überkünstliche Buch Bock Emsers Antwort, 1521.

  180 On the last sentence see above, pp. 251 f.

  181 See p. 278, note 1.

  182 See above, p. 92.

  183 See above, p. 280.

  184 See above, p. 185.

  185 See above, p. 213.

  186 Covers for the chalice.

  187 This promise was fulfilled in the Liberty of a Christian Man.

  188 Thus Erasmus: Fieri potest ut nomen commune cum apostolo praebuerit occasionem ut haec epistola lacobo apostolo ascriberetur, cum uerit alterius cuiusdam Iacobi. — Moffatt, Introduction to the Lit. of the N. T., p. 472.

  189 See above, p. 275.

  190 Comp. above, p. 171.

  191 See above, p. 285.

  192 See above, p. 226.

  193 See above, p. 275.

  194 See above, p. 226.

  195 See above, p. 177.

  196 See above, pp. 220 f.

  197 The res sacramenti. See above, p. 182, note 2.

  198 Vergil’s Eclogues, VIII, 63.

  199 See Introduction, p. 168.

  200 The remainder of Luther’s “recantation” was the De libertate. In the letter to the pope, which accompanied it, he gave ample proof of his obedience.

  201 The eighth stanza of Coehus Sedulius’ Hymnus acrostichis totam vitam Christi continens (beginning, A solis ortus cardine), of the fifth century. Stanzas 8, 9, 11 and 13 were used as an Epiphany hymn, which Luther translated on December 12, 1541,— “Was fürchtst du, Feind Herodes, sehr.” The above translation is taken from Hymns Ancient and Modern, No. 60.

  A Treatise on Christian Liberty (1520)

  Translated by W. A. Lambert

  CONTENTS

  A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY WITH A LETTER TO POPE LEO X

  INTRODUCTION

  ENDNOTES.

  LETTER TO POPE LEO X.

  A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY

  ENDNOTES.

  A TREATISE ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY WITH A LETTER TO POPE LEO X

  1520

  INTRODUCTION

  THE LETTER TO the Pope, like an earlier letter dated March 3, 1519, was written at the suggestion of Carl von Miltitz. Sent to Germany to bring Luther to Rome, this German diplomat knew German conditions and to some extent sympathized with Luther’s denunciation of Tetzel and the sellers of indulgences. He preferred, therefore, to try to settle the controversy and to leave Luther in Germany. Although the pope insisted that Luther must come to Rome and recant, Miltitz arranged for a hearing of the case before a German bishop. Evidently Miltitz was far too optimistic in his representations both to Luther and to the pope. The pope, in a writing dated March 29, 1519, spoke in friendly terms to Luther, and urged him to come to Rome immediately and to make his recantation there. Luther, in the letter dated March 3, 1519, writes in most humble language to the pope, but declares it impossible for him to recant what he had written in the XCV Theses. The pope’s letter did not reach Luther; Luther’s letter was not forwarded to the pope.

  Luther had promised to keep silent if his opponents would do the same, and had devoted himself to the study of the Scriptures. John Eck, however, had no such occupation to keep him from controversy, and Lu
ther was not averse to a debate. At the Leipzig disputation, June 27-July 15, 1519, Luther learned more of the logical implications of his position. The plan of Miltitz had failed, but he would not be discouraged.

  When Miltitz went to Germany, it was under the pretence of a mission “to deliver to his elector the papal golden rose, which the latter had coveted in vain for two years.”1 Now he decided to go in person to Augsburg, where it had been deposited with the Fuggers, and present it to Frederick. This also gave an opportunity for a second meeting with Luther at Liebwierde, October 9, 1519. Luther, although placing little confidence in Miltitz, consented to argue his case before the archbishop of Treves. The plan failed, partly because there was no citation for Luther to appear, partly because the Elector would not allow Luther to go without proper safe-conduct, and partly because Miltitz had not tried to prevent Luther’s opponents from challenging him.

  In spite of the evident lack of confidence on both sides, and in spite of Luther’s constant progress in opposition to the Roman Church, Miltitz insisted that “the case is not as black as we priests make it,” even when a papal bull was issued against Luther on June 15, 1520. On August 28th Miltitz attended a meeting of the Augustinian monks in Eisleben, and obtained their promise that Luther should be requested to write a letter to the pope assuring him that he had never attacked the pope’s person. On September 11th Luther reported to Spalatin what he had done, and said that, although neither he nor his fellow-monks had any confidence in the plan, he would do Miltitz the favor of writing such a letter. This promise seemed meaningless to him after the bull against him had been published. The papal bull had been obtained by Eck, whom Miltitz now considered to be substituted for himself in dealing with Luther, in spite of the authority he had received. That the bull was ignored in some places and despised in others, pleased him and gave him new courage. There might, after all, be some chance for him to make use of his diplomatic skill.

  Again he invited Luther to meet him in Lichtenberg. They met in the monastery of St. Anthony on October 12th, and Luther renewed his promise to write to the pope, to send the letter within twelve days, and to date it back to September 6th, that the appearance of intimidation by the papal bull might be avoided. It was agreed that Luther should send with the letter an historical account of his difficulties with the Roman Church which would show that Eck was the chief instigator, and that Luther had been forced to take the positions he defended. In writing, however, the historical review became a part of the letter, and a treatise of far different tone was sent as a gift to the pope, and as an evidence of the kind of work Luther would prefer to do if his opponents permitted him to choose — the Treatise on Christian Liberty.

  It is again a question whether the pope received this letter. It has been an interesting speculation for more than one writer, what the thoughts and feelings of Leo the Tenth might have been if he did receive and read it. Schaff traces the progress of Luther in the three letters he wrote to the pope: “In his first letter to the pope, 1518, Luther had thrown himself at his feet as an obedient son of the vicar of Christ; in his second letter, 1519, he still had addressed him as a humble subject, yet refusing to recant his conscientious convictions; in his third and last letter he addressed him as an equal, speaking to him with great respect for his personal character even beyond his deserts, but denouncing in the severest terms the Roman See, and comparing him to a lamb among wolves, and to Daniel in the den of lions.”2 If the pope ever read it, “it must have filled him with mingled feelings of indignation and disgust.”

  We may go even farther. Luther thinks of St. Bernard’s attitude toward Pope Eugene, and Bernard was Eugene’s superior in the Cistercian order and had been looked up to as “father.” Luther writes as a father confessor to a friend in trouble, and might have quoted Bernard’s words: “I grieve with you. I should say, I grieve with you if, indeed, you also grieve. Otherwise I should have rather said, I grieve for you; because that is not grieving with another when there is none who grieves. Therefore if you grieve, I grieve with you; if not, still I grieve, and then most of all, knowing that the member which is without feeling is the farther removed from health and that the sick man who does not feel his sickness is in the greater danger.”3

  The pope was a humanist, not a spiritually minded priest; we may, therefore, believe that Charles Beard is not far wrong in his estimate of the possible effect of this letter upon him: “If Giovanni de Medici, the head of a house which had long come to consider itself princely, and the occupant of the Fisherman’s chair, when it claimed to be the highest of earthly thrones, read this bold apostrophe, addressed to him by a ‘peasant and a peasant’s son,’ he must have thought him mad with conceit and vanity. He was incapable of being touched by the moral nobleness of the appeal, and so audacious a contempt of merely social distinctions the world has rarely seen.”4

  After the mighty thunder of the Address to the Christian Nobility and the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, the Treatise on the Liberty of a Christian Man is, indeed, like a still, small voice. Luther himself says: “Unless I am deceived, it is the whole of Christian living in a brief form.” Perhaps we may trace here also the influence of St. Bernard’s De Consideratione, which was written as a devotional book for the pope and was a manual of Christian living for the pope, as this is a manual of Christian living or all Christians.

  It has been rather difficult for the enemies of Luther to find much fault with this book. The Catholic historians, Janssen and Hergenröther, do not mention it. Grisar characteristically devotes a little space to each of the three great writings of 1520, and considers the book on Christian Liberty as the most mischievous of them all. “It does, indeed, frequently bring its false thoughts in the form of that mystical, heart-searching style which Luther learned from older German models.”5 The French Catholic, Leon Cristiani, is far more generous in his estimate: “A truly religious spirit breathes in these pages. Provoking polemic is almost entirely avoided. Here one finds again the inspiration of the great mystics of the Middle Ages. Does not the ‘Imitation’ continually describe the powerlessness of man when left to himself, the infinite mercy of God, the great benefit of the redemption of Christ? Does it not preach the necessity of doing all things through love, nothing of necessity? He is not a true Christian who would venture to disapprove the passages in which Luther speaks so eloquently of the goodness of God, of the gratitude which it should inspire in us, of the spontaneity which should mark our obedience, of the desire of imitating Christ which should inspire us.”6

  Protestants consider this book “perhaps the most beautiful of Luther’s writings, the result of religious contemplation rather than of theological labor.”7 “It takes rank with the best books of Luther, and rises far above the angry controversies of his age, during which he composed it, in the full possession of the positive truth and peace of the religion of Christ.”8 The clear presentation of the thought of the liberty of a Christian man occurs at the close of the Tessaradecas.9 In the Babylonian Captivity Luther had promised to publish a treatise on the subject after he had seen the effect of that treatise.10 But the promise to send a treatise to the pope gave him an earlier opportunity, so that barely a month and a half intervened between the publication of the Captivity, October 6th, and that of the Liberty, middle of November. The German, although a translation in part and in part an abbreviation and rewriting of the Latin, appeared first, before November 16th. The publisher, seeing his opportunity, had, however, issued the Letter to the Pope in German separately before November 4th,11 so that a new dedicatory letter, addressed to Hieronymus Mülphordt (Mühlpfort), of Zwickau, was prefixed to the German edition.

  Our translation is made from the Latin, although the German has been compared wherever it is a real translation.

  Two translations into English appeared in the sixteenth century: one printed by John Byddell before 1544, the translation being, according to Preserved Smith,12 by John Tewkesbury; the other, prepared by James Bell and printed by Ralph
Newbery and H. Bynneman, in 1579. Unfortunately, neither of these was accessible to the present translators. Modern translations, into English by Wace and Buchheim, and into German by Lemme, have been consulted.

  W. A. LAMBERT.

  South Bethlehem, PA.

  ENDNOTES.

  1 Catholic Encyclopedia, x, 318.

  2 Church History, vi, 224 f.

  3 De consideratione, i, I.

  4 Martin Luther and the Reformation in Germany, London, 1889, p. 370.

  5 Luther, I, 351.

  6 Du Luthéranisme au Protestantisme, 1911, p. 199.

  7 Kolde, Luther, 1, 274.

  8 Schaff, VI, 224.

  9 Vol. I, p. 170.

  10 See above, page 284.

  11 Enders, II, p. 496, gives as the date when the letter was written, “after Oct. 13th”; Smith, Life and Letters of Martin Luther, p. 91, dates it Oct. 20th.

  12 Nation, May 29, 1913.

  LETTER TO POPE LEO X.

  JESUS.

  To Leo the Tenth, Pope at Rome: Martin Luther wishes thee salvation in

  Christ Jesus our Lord. Amen.

  The Pope’s Person

  In the midst of the monsters of this age with whom I am now for the third year waging war, I am compelled at times to look up also to thee, Leo, most blessed Father, and to think of thee; nay, since thou art now and again regarded as the sole cause of my warfare, I cannot but think of thee always. And although the causeless raging of thy godless flatterers against me has compelled me to appeal from thy See to a future council, despite those most empty decrees of thy predecessors Pius and Julius, who with a foolish tyranny forbade such an appeal, yet I have never so estranged my mind from thy Blessedness as not with all my heart to wish thee and thy See every blessing, for which I have, as much as lay in me, besought God with earnest prayers. It is true, I have made bold almost to despise and to triumph over those who have tried to righten me with the majesty of thy name and authority. But there is one thing which I cannot despise, and that is my excuse for writing once more to thy Blessedness. I understand that I am accused of great rashness, and that this rashness is said to be my great fault, in which, they say, I have not spared even thy person.