Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  Fortunate it was, that the infancy of modern and the birth of Luther were contemporary, and that Luther turned to the printing press to such an extent in that critical period, that in the single year under discussion the number of printed German works was doubled.

  Our little book of June 26, 1520, is the earliest of his writings to present a full outline of his teaching on the nature of the Christian Church. Driven by an antagonist, to whom his work is a reply, to write4 in German for the laity, Luther gives them a clear and fundamental insight into this burning subject. His teachings “which he had just one year before maintained at the Leipzig Disputation are here unfolded, following to their logical conclusions and clearly presented.”5 This flying counter-attack against the “famous Romanist at Leipzig” thus becomes, in the judgment of Köstlin,6 “one of the most important of his general doctrinal treatise of that period.”

  Luther’s reply was written in short order during the last two weeks in May.7 It came about in this wise: Eck at the Disputation had driven Luther to declare that belief in the divine supremacy of Rome was not necessary to salvation. Following this, in fall, a Franciscan friar, Augustine von Avleld, had risen to attack Luther and glorify the papacy, having received an appointment from Adolph, the Bishop of Merseburg (who had posted the inhibition on the Leipzig churches against the Disputation,8 to write against the Reformer. Alveld’s work, justifying the divine right of the Apostolic Chair, to all learned men, appeared early in May,9 in the Latin language, in a first edition full of errors, followed quickly by a second edition.10 Alveld attempted to cut Luther to pieces with “seven swords,” of which the first was recta ratio; the second, canonica scriptura; the third, vera scientia (gained through the Church teachers and scholastics); the fourth, pietas sacra; the fifth, sanus intellectus; the sixth, simplex et pudica sapientia; the seventh, pura et integra scientia.

  On Alved’s miserable jumble, in which the Reformer is alluded to as a “heretic,” “lunatic,” “wolf,” Luther was not willing to waste any time (despite a threatening letter from Alveld); but jotted down some points for John Lonicer,11 who on June 1st, published a sharp exposé12 of the Leipzig Romanist’s weaknesses13. Although the monastic authorities at Leipzig, fearing Luther, now attempted to suppress Alveld, that worthy at once came out14 with a new work15 on the same theme and this time in the German language16. It stirred Luther’s blood. “If the jackanapes had not issued his little book in German to poison the defenceless laity,” he said, “I would have looked on it as too small a matter to take up.” As it was, with great rapidity he wrote his “The Papacy at Rome against the Celebrated Romanist at Leipzig.” Going to press in May, the book was completed on the 26th of June. The twelve known editions are all quartos and range in size from twenty-two to thirty-two leaves. The first17 two editions were printed by Melchior Lotther in Wittenberg; one by Peypus in Nuremberg; two by Silvan Otmar in Augsburg; one by George Nadler in Augsburg; one by Adam Petri in Basel and one by Andrew Exatander.18

  Incidentally Luther handles the “Alveld Ass” 19 and the Roman cause without gloves, but in substance he explains to the layman what Christianity really is,20 i. e., unfolds to them the essence of the Christian Church.21 In doing so he takes advanced ground for civil and religious liberty. The traditional mediæval idea of universal monarchy is dealt a heavy blow. Neither in Civil Government nor in the Church is the need of a single monarchical head. “The Roman Empire governed itself for a long time, and very well, without the one head, and many other countries in the world did the same. How does the Swiss Confederacy govern itself at present?”

  Against the modern demand that the Church shall socialize itself, that it shall organize as a public center in a community of the people’s civic life, that it shall enter the nation’s political activities for moral uplift, and that ministers should become what Luther would call “preachers of dreams in material communities,” our book places itself on record22.

  Against the widespread demand that Christianity should get together into one world-wide visible ecclesiastical order, Luther’s words are peremptory. He declares that the one true Church is already a spiritual community composed of all the believers in Christ upon the earth, that it is not a bodily assembly, but “an assembly of the hearts in one faith,” that the true Church is “a spiritual thing, and not anything external or outward,” that “external unity is not the fulfilment of a divine commandment,” and that those who emphasize the externalization of the Church into one visible or national order “are in reality Jews.”23

  Luther refers to those without the unity of the Roman Church as still within the true Church. “For the Muscovites, Russians, Greeks, Bohemians, and many other great peoples in the world, all these believe as we do, baptise as we do, preach as we do, live as we do.”

  But if Luther attacks the supremacy of the outer organization in the Church, he no less forcibly disputes the supremacy of man’s own inner thinking, his reasoning, in theology. He defines human reason as “our ability which is drawn from experience in temporal things” and declares it ridiculous to place this ability on a level with divine law24. He compares the man who uses his reason to defend God’s law with the man who in the thick of battle would use his bare hand and head to protect his helmet and sword. He insists that Scripture is the supreme and only rule of faith25, and ridicules the Romanists who inject their reason into the Scriptures, “making out of them what they wish, as though they were a nose of wax to be pulled around at will.”

  As might be supposed, Luther’s book, thus set against the external unity of human ecclesiastical organization, and against the inner rule of human thinking, is equally strong against the human visualization of divine worship. He argues against those who “turn spiritual edification into an outward show”, and those who chiefly apply the name Church to an assembly in which “the external rites are in use, such as chanting, reading, vestments; and the name ‘spiritual estate’ is given to the members of the holy orders, not on account of their faith (which perhaps they do not have), but because they have been consecrated with an external anointing, wear distinctive dress, make special prayers and do special works, have their places in the choir, and seem to attend to all such external matters of worship.”26

  The fallacy of the argument that because the Old Testament was a type of the New, therefore the material types of the Old Testament must be reproduced in the New, is exposed by him. 27 The open and fearless opposition to the popedom at Rome, which already appeared in the Diet at Augsburg in 1518, and more circumspectly, in the Leipzig Disputation in 1519, is very free28 in this booklet to the laity of 1520, and is preliminary to the more intense antagonism which will appear in “The Babylonian Captivity.” At Leipzig, Eck had laid emphasis on the Scripture passage, “Feed my sheep,” and both this passage29 and the one of Matthew 16:18 (“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church”) are explained by Luther for the laity. He charges the popes with having forsaken the faith, with living under the power of Satan, and with being themselves heretical.30

  This tractate applies doctrine to existing institutions, and makes the truth clear to the laity. We see in it the power of Luther in stirring the popular mind. We do not regard the coarse invectives of Luther (which many cultured men of to-day seem to cite with outward horror — and inner enjoyment) as a remark of low peasant birth, or of crudeness of breeding, but as the language of a great leader who, in desperate struggle with the powers that be, knew how to attach himself to the mind of his age in such way as to influence it. How noble and great is his own remark at the close of his booklet on others’ allusion to himself in print! “Whoever will, let him freely slander and condemn my person and my life. It is already forgiven him. God has given me a glad and fearless spirit, which they shall not embitter for me, I trust, not in all eternity.”

  Luther in this pamphlet, insists that none are to be regarded as heretics simply because they are not under the Pope; and that the Pope’s decrees, to stand, must endure the test
of Scripture. Luther wrote in May. In June he told Spalatin that if the Pope did not reform, he would appeal to the Emperor and German nobility. Within another month that appeal appeared.

  The men of Leipzig feared the work of Luther, and the rector of the University had pled for mercy. Luther replied that Leipzig deserved to be placed in the pillory31, that he had no desire to make sport of the city and its university, but was pressed into it by the bombast of the Romanist, who boasted that he was a “public teacher of the Holy Scripture at Leipzig”; and by the fact that Alveld had dedicated his work to the city and its Council. Alveld answered Lonicer and Luther bitterly, but Luther replied no more.

  Theodore E. Smauk.

  Lebanon, Pennsylvania.

  ENDNOTES.

  1 Still earlier, in his Resolutions to the 95 Theses (Resolut. Disputat., etc. Erl. Fr. Ed. II, 122 sqq., 137 sqq.) Luther had in an historical and objective way spoken of a time when the Roman Church had not been exalted over the other churches, at least not above those of Greece; that it was thus yet in the time of Pope Gregory I.

  2 Luther’s Thirteen Theses against Eck’s Thirteen Theses. Frater Mar. Luth. Dsupt. etc., Erl.-Fr. Ed. III, 4 sqq., 11 sqq. “Bruder Martin Luther’s Disputation und Entschuldigung wider die Anschuldigungen des D. Johann Eck.” St. Louis Ed. XVIII, 718. The oldest print is doubtless one in possession of the University at Halle.

  3 January 10, 1520, to Spalatin; January 26, to John Lang; February 5, to Spalatin; February 18, to Spalatin; April, Alved to Luther; Ma 5, May 17, May 31, June 8, and June 20, to Spalatin, with a letter of July or August to Peter Mosellanus, rector of the University at Leipzig.

  4 He alluded to the subject in his Sermon on the Ban.

  5 Köstlin, Theology of Luther, translated by Hay, I, 363.

  6 Martin Luther, I, 299.

  7 Alved’s second book, the Confutatio Inepti, was dedicated to the Council and honorable citizens of the city of Leipzig on the 23d of April, and appeared in print in the middle of May. Its smooth and popular form roused Luther to this reply, which was put in press before the end of May, and published before the end of June.

  8 See Luther to Spalatin, July 20, 1519.

  9 See Luther to Spalatin, May 5, 1520. “Exiit tandem frater Augustinus Afveidenais cum sus offs,” etc. He characterises Alved in this letter, and refers to the approval it found in Meissen in his letter to Spalatin of May 17th.

  10 The title is as follows: “Super apostolica ne-de, An Videlicet diuino sit iure nec ne, anque potifex qui Papa dici caeptus est, iure diuino in ea ipea president, no paru laudanda ex sacro Biblior. canone declaratio. sedita p. F. Augustinu Ahldesem Franciscanu, regularis (vt dicit) observuatíae sacredote, Prouin ciae Saxoniae, Sancte crucia, Sa-criq Biblioru canonis publi-cu lectore i couetu Lipsico, ad Reurendu in Chro patre & dom, dom Adolphu pricipe Illust. i Anhaldt ic Episcope Mersen-burge sem.” See Super apostolica sed declario edita per Augustinum Alveldensem Bl.; E. S. Cyprian, Nütsliche Urkunden, Leipzig, 1718, II S. 160 f.

  11 Luther’s famulus. “Ich werde meinem Bruder Famulus anstellen.” — To Spalatin already on May 5th.

  12 “Contra Romanistam fratrem Augustinu, Alulden. Fran-ciscanu Leipaica Canonis Biblici publicu lictore eiusdem. F. Joanes Lonicerus. Augustinianus. VVITTENBERGAE, APVD, COLLEGIVM NOVVM. ANNO. M.D.XX.”

  13 Lonicer’s reply had been preceded by one more detailed and less impetuous by Bernardi Feldkirch, teacher in the Wittenberg High School. This work is wrongly regarded as Melanchton’s. Its title is: “CONFUTATIO INEP-ti & impli Libelli F. August. AL-VELD. Franciscani Lipsici, pro D. M. Luthero. Vmittenbergae, apud Melciorem Lottherum iuniorem, Anno M. D. XX.”

  14 He requested the Nuncio Milits to secure authority for him to write.

  15 Cf. Luther in the Tractate: “They cling to me like mud to a wheel.”

  16 “Eyn gar fruchtbar vu nutsbarlich buchbleyn vo dë Babstliche stul: vmud von sant Peter: vund vo den, die warhafftige schef-lein Christi sein, die Christus vner herr Petro befolen hat in sein hute vnd reglrung, gemacht durch bruder Augustinu Alueldt sant Francisci ordens tzu Leiptsk.”

  See Cyprian, Urkunden, II, 161 f.

  On May 31, Luther puts the whole situation graphically in a letter to Spalatin as follows: “Lonicers Schrift wird morgen fergig sein. Die Leipziger sind besorgt, ihre Schülter zu behalten; sie rühmen, dases Erasmus zu ihnen kommen werde. Wie geschäftig und doch wie unglüchlich ist der Neid. Vor einem Jahre, da sie ührer uns, als währen wir besiegt, spotteten, saben sie nicht voraus, dass ihnen dies Kreut bevorstebe. Der Herr regiert…Ochsenfart soll sich wider das Büchlein Feldkirchens rüston, in welchem er durch gehechbelt wird. Ich habe ein deutsches Buch wider den Esel von Alveld fertiggestellt, welches jetzt under der Presse ist.”

  17 “Von dem Bapstum zu Rome: wid der den hochberupton Romanisten zu Leipzck D. Martinus Lu-ther ther Agust. Vuittenberg.” 50 leaves, quarto, last page blank.

  18 For titles of these editions see Weimar Ed., vi, 281.

  19 Luther in this tractate aims beyond the “undersized scribe of the barefoot friars at Leipzig,” at the “brave and great flag-bearers who remain in hiding, and would win a notable victory in another’s name,” namely Prierias, Cajetan, Eck, Emser and the Universities of Cologne and Louvaine. Luther uses the epithet quoted above in one of his letters to Spalatin.

  20 “I welcome the opportunity to explain something of the nature of Christianity for the laity.”

  21 “I must first of all explain what these things mean, the Church, and the One Head of the Church.”

  22 “On this point we must hear the word of Christ, Who, when Pilate asked Him concerning His Kingdom answered, My Kingdom is not of this world. This is indeed a clear passage in which the Church is made separate from all temporal communities. Is not this a cruel error, when one places the Christian Church, separated by Christ Himself from temporal cities and places, and transferred to spiritual realms, is made a part of material communities?”

  “No hope is left on earth except in the temporal.”

  23 Among many things that Luther says on this point are the following: “According to the Scriptures the Church is called the assembly of all the believers in Christ upon the earth. This community consists of all those who live in true faith, hope and love, so that the essence, life and nature of the Church is not a bodily assembly, but an assembly of the hearts in one faith. Thus, though they be a thousand miles apart in body, they are yet called an assembly in spirit, because each one preaches, believes, hopes, loves, and lives like the other. So we sing of the Holy Ghost: ‘Thou, Who through diverse tongues gatherest together the nations in the unity of the faith.’ That means spiritual unity. And this unity is of itself sufficient to make a Church, and without it no unity, be it of place, of time, of person, of work, or of whatever else, makes a Church.”

  “A man is not reckoned a member of the Church according to his body, but according to his soul, nay, according to his faith…It is plain that the Church can be classed with a temporal community as little as spirits with bodies. Whosoever would not go astray should therefore hold fast to this, that the Church is a spiritual assembly of souls in one faith, that no one is reckoned a Christian for his body’s sake; that the true, real, essential, Church is a spiritual thing, and not anything external or outward.”

  “All those who make the Christian communion a material and outward thing, like other communities, are in reality Jews, who wait for their Messiah to establish an external kingdom at a certain definite place, namely Jerusalem; and so sacrifice the faith, which alone makes the kingdom of Christ a thing spiritual or of the heart.”

  In this and the following notes, for brevity’s sake, various quotations are summarized and connected.

  24 “For the teachings of human experience and (Deut. xii:8) reason are far below the divine law. The Scriptures expressly forbid us to follow our own reason, Deut. xii: ‘Ye shall not do…every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes’; for human reason ever strives against the law (Gen. v
i:5) of God. Therefore the attempt to establish or defend divine order with human reason, unless that reason has previously been established and enlightened by faith, is just as futile, as if I would throw a light upon the sun with a lightless lantern, or rest a rock upon a reed. For Isaiah vii makes reason subject to faith, when he says (vii:9): ‘Except ye believe, ye shall not have understanding or reason.’ He does not say, Except ye have reason, ye shall not believe. Therefore this scribe would better not have put forth a claim to establish the faith and the divine law by mere reason.”

  25 “That the serpent lifted up by Moses, signifies Christ, is taught by John iii. If it were not for that passage, my reasoning might evolve many strange and weird fancies out of that type. That Adam was a type of Christ, I learn not from myself, but from St. Paul. That the rock in the wilderness represents Christ is not taught by my reason, but by St. Paul. None other explains the type but the Holy Spirit Himself. He has given the type and wrought the fulfillment, that both type and fulfillment and the interpretation may be God’s own and not man’s, and our faith he founded not on human, but on divine words. What leads the Jews astray but that they interpret the types as they please, without the Scriptures? What has led so many heretics astray but the interpretation of the types without reference to the Scriptures?”

  26 “The word Church, when it is used for such external affairs, whereas it concerns the faith alone, is done violence to; yet this manner of using it has spread everywhere, to the great injury of many souls, who think that such outward show is the spiritual and only true estate in Christendom. Of such a purely external Church, there is not one letter in the Holy Scriptures. The building and increase of the Church, which is the body of Christ, cometh alone from Christ, Who is its head. Christendom is ruled with outward show; but that does not make us Christians. The Church is a spiritual and not a bodily thing, for that which one believes is not bodily or visible. The external marks whereby one can perceive this Church is on earth, are Baptism, the Sacrament and the Gospel. For where Baptism and the Gospel are no one may doubt that there are saints, even if it were only the babes in their cradles.”