Men Need to be Taught of God
But since human nature and natural reason, as it is called, are by nature superstitious and ready to imagine, when laws and works are prescribed, that righteousness must be obtained through them; and further, since they are trained and confirmed in this opinion by the practice of all earthly lawgivers, it is impossible that they should of themselves escape from the slavery of works and come to a knowledge of the liberty of faith. Therefore there is need of the prayer that the Lord may give us [John 6:45] and make us theodidacti, that is, taught of God, and Himself, as He has promised, write His law in our hearts; otherwise there is no hope for us. For if He Himself do not teach our hearts this wisdom hidden in a mystery [1 Cor. 2:7], nature can only condemn it and judge it to be heretical, because nature is offended by it and regards it as foolishness. So we see that it happened in olden times, in the case of the Apostles and prophets, and so godless and blind popes and their flatterers do to me and to those who are like me. May God at last be merciful to them and to us, and cause His face to shine upon us [Ps. 67:1 f.], that we may know His way upon earth. His salvation among all nations, God, Who is blessed forever [2 Cor. 11:31]. Amen.
ENDNOTES.
1 See below, page 304.
2 Sylvester Prierias. See Vol. I, p. 338.
3 Cf. Preface to Prierias’ Epitome, Weimar Ed., VI, 329.
4 Virgil, Georgics, I, 514.
5 Pope Eugene III, 1145-1153, for whom Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a devotional book, De consideratione, in which he rehearsed the duties and the dangers of the pope. See Realencyklopädie II, 632; Kohler, Luther u. die Kirchengeschichte, 311 f. Cf. Resolutiones disput. de indulg. virtute, 1518, Clemen, 1, 113.
6 John Maier, born in Eck an der Günz, and generally known as John Eck; an ambitious theologian, who first attacked his professor in Freiburg, then Erasmus’ Annotations to the New Testament, and next wrote against Luther’s XCV Theses (see Vol. I, 10, 176, etc.). He was the opponent of Luther and Carlstadt at the Leipzig Disputation (1519), to which Luther here refers.
7 Jacopo de Vio, born in Gaeta, Italy, in 1469, died in 1534. The name Cajetan he derived from his birthplace, the Latin name of which is Cajeta. In the Dominican Order he was known as Thomas, so that his writings are published under the title, Thomae de Vio Cajetani opera. He was made cardinal-presbyter with the title of S. Sisto in 1517, and in the following year was sent as papal legate to the Diet of Augsburg. Here he met and examined Luther, but accomplished nothing because he insisted that Luther must recant. See Kolde in Realencyklopädie 3, 632 ff.
8 Carl von Miltitz was educated at Cologne, was prebendary at Mainz, Trier and Meissen, and later went to Rome, where he acted as agent for Frederick, Elector of Saxony, and Duke George the Bearded. “After the endeavours of Cardinal Cajetan to silence Luther had failed, Miltitz appeared to be the person most suited to bring the negotiations to a successful ending.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, X, 318, where, however, the statement that Miltitz was educated at Mainz, Trier and Meissen is evidently a slip.) It seems that Miltitz returned to Rome for a time, but in 1522 again came to Germany, where he was drowned in the Main, November 20, 1529. See Flathe, Art. Miltitz, in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 21, 759 f.
9 The German reads: “Thus I always did what was required of me, and neglected nothing which it was my duty to do.”
10 This was the usual title of the pope, with which the bull of excommunication opened: Leo Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei.
11 See above, pp. 298, 300, and compare the letters of Miltitz to the elector Frederick in Smith, Luther’s Correspondence, I, pp. 367 f.
12 Here the German is more accurate: “Every Christian man.”
13 German: Wie man sein brauchen und niessen soll, “how we are to benefit by and enjoy what He is for us.”
14 German: der heubt gerechtigkteit.
15 Possibly a reminiscence of the Leviathan serpentem tortuosum in Isa. 27:1. Cf. Erl. Ed., xxiv, 73; xxvii, 323 f; xviii, 91. Lemme translates Teuelswahn.
16 German: die fasten und gepett etiichen heyligen so derlich gethan.
Discussion of Confession (1520)
Translated by C. M. Jacobs
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
ENDNOTES.
A DISCUSSION OF CONFESSION
ENDNOTES.
INTRODUCTION
THE CONFITENDI RATIO is the culmination of a series of tracts published by Luther after the memorable October 31st, 1517, and before his final breach with Rome.1 In them is clearly traceable the progress that he was making in dealing with the practical problems offered by the confessional, and which had started the mighty conflict in which he was engaged. They open to us an insight into his own conscientious efforts during the period, when, as a penitent, he was himself endeavoring to meet every requirement which the Church imposed, In order to secure the assurance of the forgiveness of sins, as well as to present the questions which as a father confessor and spiritual adviser he asked those who were under his pastoral care. First of all, we find, therefore, tables of duties and sins, reminding us of the lists of cardinal sins and cardinal virtues in which Roman Catholic books abound. The main effort here is to promote the most searching self-examination and the most complete enumeration of the details of sins, since, from the Medieval standpoint, the completeness of the absolution is proportioned to the exhaustiveness of the confession. Although the first of these briefer tracts closes with its note of warning that the value of the confession is not to be estimated by the enumeration of details, but that it rests solely in the resort that is had to the Grace of God and the word of His promise, the transition from the one mode of thought to the other is very apparent.
In the Kurze Untetweisung wie man beichten soll of 1519, of which this is a Latin re-elaboration, and, therefore, intended more for the educated man than as a popular presentation, he has advanced so far as to warn against the attempt to make an exhaustive enumeration of sins. He advises that the confession be made in the most general terms, covering sins both known and unknown. “If one would confess all mortal sins, it may be done in the following words; ‘Yea, my whole life, and all that I do, act, speak, and think, is such as to be deadly and condemnable.’ For if one regard himself as being without mortal sin, this is of all mortal sins the most mortal.” 2 According to this maturer view, the purpose of the most searching self-examination is to exhibit the utter impossibility of ever fathoming the depth of corruption that lies beneath the surface. The reader of the Tessaradecas will recall Luther’s statement there, that it is of God’s great mercy that man is able to see but a very small portion of the sin within him, for were he to see it in its full extent, he would perish at the sight. The physician need not count every pustule on the body to diagnose the disease as small-pox. A glance is enough to determine the case. The sins that are discovered are the symptoms of the one radical sin that lies beneath them all.3 The cry is no longer “Mea peccata, mea peccata,” as though these recognized sins were the exception to a life otherwise without a flaw, but rather, overwhelmed with confusion, the penitent finds in himself nothing but sin, except for what he has by God’s grace alone. Most clearly does Luther enforce this in his exposition of the Fifty-first Psalm, of 1531, a treatise we most earnestly commend to those who desire fuller information concerning Luther’s doctrine of sin, and his conception of the value of confession and absolution. He shows that it is not by committing a particular sin that we become sinners, but that the sin is committed because our nature is still sinful, and that the poisonous tree has grown from roots deeply imbedded in the soil. We are sinners not because particular acts of sin have been devised and carried to completion, but before the acts are committed we are sinners; otherwise such fruits would not have been borne. A bad tree can grow from nothing but a bad root.4
In his Sermon on Confession and the Sacrament of 1524, he discourages habits of morbid self-introspection, and exposes the perplexities produced by the extractions of the confessional in constan
tly sinking the probe deeper and deeper into the heart of the already crushed and quivering penitent. He shows how one need not look far to find enough to prompt the confession of utter helplessness and the casting of self unreservedly upon God’s mercy. “Bring to the confession only those sins that occur to thee, and say: I am so frail and fallen that I need consolation and good counsel. For the confession should be brief….No one, therefore, should be troubled, even though he have forgotten his sins. If they be forgotten, they are none the less forgiven. For what God considers, is not how thou hast confessed, but His Word and how thou hast believed.” 5
In this is made prominent the radical difference between the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran conception of confession. In the former, it is a part of penance, the second of the three elements of “contrition,” “confession,” and “satisfaction,” an absolute condition of the forgiveness of every sin. In the Roman confessional, sins are treated atomistically. Some are forgiven, while others are still to be forgiven. Every sin stands by itself, and requires separate treatment. No unconfessed sin is forgiven. To be forgiven, a sin must be known and lamented, and confessed in all its details and circumstances to the priest, who, as a spiritual judge, proportions the amount of the satisfaction to be rendered by the penitent to the degree of guilt of the offence, as judged from the facts before him. Thus the debt has to be painfully and punctiliously worked off, sin by sin, as in the financial world a note may be extinguished by successive payments, dollar by dollar. Everything, therefore, is made to depend upon the fulness and completeness of the confession. It becomes a work, on account of which one is forgiven. The absolution becomes simply the stamp of approval that is placed upon the confession.
The Lutheran conception is centered upon the person of the sinner, rather than on his sins. It is the person who is forgiven his sins. Where the person is forgiven but one sin, all his sins are forgiven; where the least sin is retained, all sins are retained, and none forgiven, for “there is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). The value of the confession lies not in the confession itself, but in that, through this confession, we turn to Christ and the word of His promise.6
In Luther’s opinion, there are three species of confession.7 One to God, in one’s own heart, which is of absolute necessity, and which the true believer is always making; a second to our neighbor, when we have done him a wrong, which is also of divine command; and, a third to a “brother,” “wherein we receive from the mouth of that brother the word of consolation sent from God.” 8 This last species, the verbum solatii ex ore fratris, while not commanded in Holy Scripture, is commended because of the great value which it has for those who fed the need of consolation, and the instruction for which it affords the opportunity. It is only by the individualizing of the confession that the comfort to be derived by the individualizing of the promise can be obtained. Hence, as the Augsburg Confession declares (Article XI.): “Private” [i. e., personal] “confession is retained because of the absolution.”9 Not that, without the absolution, there is not forgiveness, but that, through it, the one absolved rejoices all the more in the possession of that which he possessed even before the absolution, and goes forth from it strengthened to meet temptation because of the new assurance that he has of God’s love. This form of confession, therefore, instead of being a condition of forgiveness, as is our inner confession to God, is a privilege of the justified man, who, before he has made such confession, has been forgiven, and whose sins that lie still concealed from his knowledge are just as truly forgiven as those over which he grieves.
The confession, therefore, being entirely voluntary and a privilege, penitents are not to be tormented with “the ocean of distinctions” hitherto urged, such, e.g., as those between mortal and venial sins, whereof he says that “there is no doctor so learned as to draw accurately the distinction”;10 and between the inner impulses that may arise without the least consent of the will resulting from than, and those to which the will, in varying measure, may actually consent. On the contrary, it is not well to look too deeply into the abyss. When Peter began to count the waves, he was lost; when he looked away from them to Jesus, he was saved. Thus, while “the good purpose” to amend the life must be insisted upon as an indispensable accompaniment of every sincere confession, tender consciences may search within for such purpose, and be distressed because they cannot find satisfactory evidence of its presence. How excellent then the advice of this experienced pastor, that those thus troubled should pray for this “purpose” which they cannot detect; for no one can actually pray for such purpose without, in the prayer, having the very object he is seeking.
So also he rules out of the sphere of the confession the violation of matters of purely ecclesiastical regulation. Nothing is to be regarded a sin except that which is a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. To make that a sin which God’s law does not make sin, is only the next step to ecclesiastical regulations to the level of divine commands, we lower divine commands to the level of ecclesiastical regulations. Even Private Confession, therefore, useful as it is, when properly understood and practised, since it rests after all upon ecclesiastical rule, is so little to be urged as a matter of necessity that Luther here defends the suggestion of Gerson, that occasionally one should go to the Lord’s Supper without having made confession, in order thereby to testify that it is in God’s mercy and His promise that we trust, rather than in the value of any particular outward observance.
The treatment of “Reserved Cases,” with which this tract ends, shows the moderation and caution with which Luther is moving, but, at the same time, how the new wine is working in the old bottles, which soon must break. The principle of “the reservation of cases” he discusses in his Address to the German Nobility.11 It is critical also in Augsburg Confession, Article XXVIII, 2, 41; Apology of the Augsburg Confession, English Translation, pp. 181, 212. The Roman Catholic dogma is officially presented in the Decrees of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter 7,12 viz., “that certain more atrocious and more heinous crimes be absolved not by all priests, but only by the highest priests.” Thus the power is centralized in the pope, and is delegated for exercise in ordinary cases to each particular parish-priest within the limits by which he is circumscribed, but no farther.13 The contrast is between delegated and reserved rights. The Protestant principle is that all the power of the Church is in the Word of God which it administers; that wherever all the Word is, there also is all the power of the Church; and hence that, according to divine tight, all pastors have equal authority. For this reason, Luther here declares that in regard to secret sins, i. e., those known only to God and the penitent, no reservation whatever is to be admitted. But there is still a distinction which he is ready to concede. It has to do with public offences where scandal has been given. As “the more flagrant and more heinous crimes,” If public, have to do with a wider circle than the members of a particular parish, the reparation for the offence should be as extensive as the scandal which it has created. In the Apology, Melanchthon claims that such reservation should be limited to the ecclesiastical penalties to be inflicted, but that it had not been Intended to comprise also the guilt involved; it was a reservatio poenae, but not a reservatio culpae.14 Luther suggests the same here, but with more than usual caution.
In the same spirit as in his Treatise on Baptism, he protests against the numerous vows, the binding force of which was a constant subject of treatment in pastoral dealing with souls. The multiplication of vows had caused a depredation of the one all-embracing vow of baptism. Nevertheless the pope’s right to give a dispensation he regards as limited entirely to such matters as those concerning which God’s Word has given no command. With matters which concern only the relation of the individual to God, the Pope’s authority is of no avail.
Literature. — Chemnitz, Martin, Examin Concilii Tridentini, 1578
(Preuss edition), 441-456. Steitz, G. E., Die Privatbeichte und
Privatabsolution d. luth. Kirche aus d. Quellen des XV
I. Jahrh.,
1854. Pfeisterrer, G. F. Luthers Lehre von der Beichte, 1857.
Klieftoth, Th. Lit. Abhandlungen, 2: Die Beichte und
Absolution, 1856. Fischer, E., Zur Geschichte der evangelischen
Beichte, 2 vols., 1902-1903. Rietschel, G., Lehrbuch der
Liturgik, vol 2, particularly secs. 44, 45, Luthers Affassung
der Beichte and Luthers Auffassung von der Absolution.
Koestlin, Julius, Luther’s Theology (English Translation),
I:357, 360, 400. See also Smalcald Articles, Book of Concord
Collected Works of Martin Luther Page 40
