Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  What the above Catholic polemics said may be summed up as follows: —

  Because the Church, according to Christ’s plan, was to be an independent and living institution, His future “kingdom” and “heavenly vineyard,” it replaced the Jewish synagogue by an even better institution. This Church was to be indestructible and the gates of hell were not to prevail against her (Matt. xvi. 18).

  As a real institution the Church was marked out by the gifts bestowed on it at the outset by the Divine Founder; out of the plenitude of the power He possessed “in heaven and on earth” He created in her a real, and no mere phantom office, comprising ghostly superiors, viz. the “ministerium ecclesiasticum”; hence a twofold society arose consisting of those whose duty it is to guide and those who are guided. The latter receive from the former, i.e. from the hierarchy of priests, bishops and Pope, viz. the successor of Peter, the doctrine handed down by Christ, and preserved intact and infallible, together with Holy Scripture and its true reading. Those who have the oversight over the rest admit the faithful into the sacred company by means of visible rites, and, thanks to the obedience they receive as God’s representatives, there results “a body” of faithful united with Christ, the One True Head.

  It was to this hierarchy that, according to the Catholic theologians, the solemn words of Christ were spoken: “He that heareth you heareth Me, and he that despiseth you despiseth Me” (Luke x. 16). “Go ye and teach all nations baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost … and lo I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. xxviii. 19 f.). The “Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” are entrusted to them and they are told: “Amen I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” (Matt. xviii. 18). They may “command” as Paul did, who journeyed from place to place and “commanded them to keep the precepts of the apostles and the ancients” (Acts xv. 41). Peter, moreover, and his successors, received the right and duty to feed “the sheep” as well as the “lambs” (John xxi. 16), besides the especial custody of the keys (Matt. xvi. 19); on him and on his God-given constancy the Church of Christ was built (Matt. xvi. 18).

  The Holy Ghost “placed” the bishops “to rule the Church of God” (Acts xx. 28). Whoever “will not hear the Church” is shut out from salvation and is to be regarded “as the heathen and publican” (Matt. xviii. 17).

  Nowhere in these passages, so it was pointed out, is there ever a word about the secular power having any hand in the growth of the great society of God upon earth. Nor could Christ, in view of the object to which He had founded His Church, without proving untrue to Himself, have left behind Him a helpless and unfinished work, dependent for its very life on the discretion of the secular authorities and taking its laws from the State. The Church’s four marks (above, ) point to something higher.

  Even did Luther wish to disregard the words of institution, he should at least, so it was urged, not shut his eyes to history; now, from the earliest historical times, the Church had always existed under the form of a society, i.e. divided into the two categories of the teachers and the taught. Even according to Protestant writers this form may be traced back at least as far as the 2nd century, and, to an unprejudiced eye, its traces will be discernible even earlier in the authentic sources, i.e. the Bible and history. None, however, was better fitted to bear witness to the earliest organisation of the Church than the Church herself, for she could do so out of the unbroken and untarnished consciousness of her existence; her testimony confirms her Divine appointment to be an independent society and a hierarchically governed institution.

  Lutheranism, however, took scant notice of these Biblical and historical proofs. Its founder, at the end of his life, left it as his legacy a church, or rather churches, of a different structure. In the evening of his days, in spite of the hopeless and imperilled state of his congregations, he refused to admit any gleam of light that might have brought him back to the unwavering authority of the ancient Church which once, in the days of his crisis, he had extolled. By heavenly signs and wonders, so he had pointed out in his Commentary on Romans (1516), this Church was introduced into the world; she is the mother of those who teach; to her decision every doctrine must bow if it is not to become a heresy, “robbed of the witness of God and of that divinely authenticated authority” which “down to the present day supports the Roman Church.”

  Since he had descended into the arena of controversy his attitude towards the dogma of the Church had become not so much a matter of doctrine (for the essential question was, as Köstlin aptly remarks, “very insufficiently grasped and explained by him”) as one of policy.

  5. Luther’s Tactics in Questions concerning the Church

  Both for Luther’s views on doctrine and for his psychology his tactics in his controversy about the nature of the Church offer matter for consideration.

  Controversy, as we know, tended to accentuate his peculiarities. His talents, his gift of swift perception, his skill for vivid description, his art of exploiting every advantage to the delight of the masses were all of value to him. What he wrote when not under the stress of controversy lacked these advantages, advantages, moreover, which, for the most part, were merely superficial, and sometimes, when he was in the wrong, display a very unpleasing side.

  The Erfurt Preachers in a Tight Place

  In 1536 Luther took a hand in a controversy which had arisen at Erfurt as to whether the “true Church was there,” and whether his preachers, who represented the Church and were being persecuted by some of the Town Council, should leave the town.

  As early as 1527 he had had occasion to complain of the Erfurt Councillors; they had not the courage “to go to the root of the matter”; they tolerated the “dissensions” in the town arising from the divergent preaching of the “Evangelicals” and the “Papists,” instead of “making all the preachers dispute together and silencing those who could not make good their cause.” Since the Convention of Hamelburg in 1530 both forms of worship had been tolerated in the town. To the great vexation of Johann Lang and the other preachers the quick-witted Franciscan, Conrad Kling, an Erfurt Doctor of Theology (above, vol. v., ), delivered in the Spitalkirche sermons which were so well attended that the audience overflowed even into the churchyard. Catholic citizens of standing in the town and possessed of influence over the Council, spread the report that the Lutheran preachers were intruders who had no legitimate mission or call, and had not even been validly appointed by the Council. In consequence of this, Luther, with Melanchthon and Jonas, addressed a circular letter in 1533 to his old friend Lang and the latter’s colleagues, in which he encourages them to stand firm and not to quit the town; he points out that their call, in spite of all that was alleged, had been “with the knowledge of the magistracy,” and not the result of “intrigue.” It is plain from this letter that the tables had to some extent been turned on Lang and his followers who had once behaved in so high-handed a manner at Erfurt, and that they were now tasting “want and misery” as well as contempt. In vain did the preachers attempt to shake off the authority of the Council by claiming to hold their commission from God.

  Some while after, owing to the further efforts of Kling and his friends, the situation of the Lutherans became even worse; it was then that Frederick Myconius, Superintendent at Gotha, took their side and persuaded Luther to write the above memorandum of Aug. 22(?), 1536, on the True Church of Christ at Erfurt. This was signed by Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Jonas and Myconius, and may have been the latter’s work. The document is highly characteristic of Luther’s tactics in the shifty character of the proofs adduced to prove the call of the Erfurt pastors. It did not succeed in inducing the Council to grant the preachers independence or to abrogate the restrictions of which they complained, although, as Enders remarks, “it exalted the spiritual power as supreme over the secular.”

  There can be no doubt, so Luther argues, t
hat, among his followers in the town of Erfurt, there was indeed the true “Holy Catholic Church, the Bride of Christ,” for they possessed the true Word and the true Sacraments. God had indeed “sent down on the people of Erfurt the Holy Ghost, Who worked in some of them a knowledge of tongues, discernment of spirits,” etc. (1 Cor. xii. 10), in the same way He had given them Evangelists, teachers, interpreters and everything necessary for the upbringing of His Body (Eph. iv. 11 f.). He urges that the ministers of the Word were rightly appointed, though here he does not appeal as much as usual, to the supposed validity of the call by the Town Council, as the whole trouble had its source in the town magistracy. The appointment of the preachers, so he now says, was the duty of the Church rather than of the magistrates; the Town Council had given them the call only in its capacity as a “member of the Church,” for which reason their dismissal or persecution was quite unjustifiable. He also brings forward other personal, mystic grounds for the validity of their call: they were “very learned men and full of all grace”; the appointment, which they had received not only from the “people and the Church, but also from the supreme authority,” had taken place under the breath of the Spirit (“impetu quodam spiritus”) Who had sent them as reapers into the harvest; they are recognised by all the Churches abroad, even the most important, and no less do their sheep hear their voice. Hence, if some of the magistrates now refuse to recognise them, they must simply appeal to their calling “by the Holy Ghost and the Church”; the efficient cause here is, and remains, Christ, Who gives the Church her authority. Hence at all costs they must stick to their post.

  The whole of the extremely involved explanation points to the reaction now taking place in his mind owing to his bitter experiences with the authorities in the question of Church government.

  In this frame of mind he often makes the call depend solely on the Church, nay, on Christ Himself. If the Courts are to rule as they please, so he wrote in the midst of one of these conflicts with the authorities, the last state of things will be worse than the first. They ought to leave the Churches to the care of those to whom they have been committed and who will have to render an account to God. Hence Luther urges that the two callings be kept separate.

  What is also noteworthy in the memorandum for the people of Erfurt is that, in order to defend the legal standing of the preachers, he insists on the fact of their having been recognised by their congregation, who are willing to listen to them as their shepherds. Here we have the revival of an old idea of his, viz. that the soul-herd was really appointed by the people and in their name. In his later years he tended to revert to this view, though, in reality, the people never had a say in the matter. After having, in 1542, consecrated Amsdorf as “Bishop” of Naumburg, in the ensuing controversies he referred to the will of the “Church,” i.e. of the Naumburg Lutherans. “All depends,” so he wrote, “whether the Church and the Bishop are at one, and whether the Church will listen to the Bishop and the Bishop will teach the Church. This is exemplified here.”

  Controversies with the Catholics on the Question of the Church

  In what Luther wrote against the Catholics we occasionally meet some fine sayings on the unfettered authority of the Church in its relations to the secular rulers, so greatly was his versatile mind governed by the spirit of opportunism.

  It was from motives of expediency that, in 1529, in his “Vom Kriege widder die Türcken” he makes out Emperors and kings to be no protectors of the Church; these worldly powers are “as a rule the worst foes of Christendom and the faith.” “The Emperor’s sword has nothing to do with the faith, but only with bodily and worldly affairs.” It must be remembered that he wrote this just before the dreaded Diet of Augsburg. — Again, in 1545, in the Theses against the “Theologists of Louvain” who had requested the State to protect the Catholic faith as heretofore, Luther says: “It is not the duty of Kings and Princes to confirm right doctrine; they have themselves to bow to it and obey it as the Word of God and God Himself.” — If the “Emperor’s sword” and the “Kings and Princes” had been on his side, then his language would have been quite different. As it was, however, whenever he thought it might prove useful, he was not unwilling to come back even later to the standpoint of his writing “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt.”

  When the Catholics, for instance at the Diet of Augsburg, reproached his party with having completely secularised the Church and with prohibiting Catholic worship with the help of the Princes who favoured him, his replies were eminently characteristic both of his temper and his mode of controversy.

  He knew very well, so he wrote in 1530, “that the Prince’s office and the preacher’s are not one and the same, and that the Prince as such ought not to do this [i.e. prohibit the Mass].” But in this the Prince was acting, not as a Prince, but as a Christian. It is also “a different thing whether a Prince ought to preach or whether he ought to consent to the preaching. It is not the Prince, but rather Scripture, that prohibits ‘winkle-masses’”; if a Prince chose to take the side of Scripture that was his own business.

  Another answer of Luther’s was to the effect that the abominations of Catholic worship which were being abolished by the secular authorities were, after all, outward things, and that the power of the sovereign without a doubt stretched over “res externæ.”

  Of these attempts at justification and of his doctrine of the Church in general, Köstlin’s observations hold good: “We cannot escape the fact that, here, there is much vacillation and that Luther stands in danger of contradicting himself.” “We must admit that he had not studied deeply enough the questions arising out of the relations of the authorities to matters ecclesiastical.” “The decision [of the sovereigns] as to what constituted right doctrine was final as regards the substance of the preaching in their lands.” “A nobleman who had received orders from his sovereign, the Duke of Saxony, to expel the Evangelical preachers, was told by Luther — though what he said was undeniably at variance with other utterances — that the sovereign had no right to do this because God’s command obliged him to rule only in secular and not in spiritual concerns.” “In fact the only answer he could give to the Popish persecutors when they alleged they were forced by their office and conscience to act as they did was: ‘What is that to me?’ for it was clear enough that they were using their authority wantonly.”

  But how are we to explain his apparent readiness at the time of the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 to recognise the olden Church, and the power of the bishops, and even himself to submit to them if only they would allow him and his followers freedom to preach the Evangel? The statements to this effect in his “Vermanug” of this year have been widely misunderstood through being taken apart from their setting. He does not for a moment imagine, as he has been falsely credited with doing, that it was not “his vocation to found a new Church separate from Catholicism”; neither has he any desire to remain united with his foes “in one communion under the Catholic bishops.”

  Luther, as he here says, is only willing, “for the sake of peace, to allow the bishops to be princes and lords,” and this only on condition that “they help to administer the Evangel” — i.e. take his part; in that case they “would be free to appoint clerics to the parishes and pulpits.” His offer is, “that we and the preachers should teach the Evangel in your stead,” and “that you should back us by means of your episcopal powers; only your personal mode of life and your princely state would we leave to your conscience and to the judgment of God.” In the meantime, on account of the Catholic faith to which they clung, he calls them “foes of God,” speaks of their “anti-Christian bishopry,” and, because of the infringements of the law of celibacy, scourges them as the “greatest whoremongers and panders upon earth.”

  In his controversies with the Catholics he often enough found himself faced by the objection, that the true Church could not be with him, because on his side all the fruits of holiness were wanting; the Church being essentially holy should needs be able to point to her good influence
on morals.

  Thus, for instance, a Dominican adversary had written: According to Luther the Gospel had been under the bench for the last four hundred years; but, now, surely enough, “it is under the bench even more than heretofore, for the Gospel and the whole of Scripture have never been so despised as at present owing to Luther’s teaching, who excludes all love of God and man, all concord between lords and serfs, priests and laity, men and women, rejects all good works and discipline, obscures the truth and replaces it by nothing but lies and introduces hatred and envy, unchastity, blasphemy and disobedience.”

  In his replies to such arguments against the truth of his Church Luther was loath to attempt the difficult task of proving the existence of holiness in the domain of the Evangel. On the contrary, with surprising candour, he usually meets his opponents half-way as regards the facts. Thus, in his “Wider Hans Worst,” in 1541, he admits that things are just as bad as they had been in Jerusalem in the days of the prophets, “with us too there is flesh and blood, nay, the devil among the sons of Job. The peasants are savage, the burghers avaricious and the nobles grasping. We shout and storm our best, helped by the Word of God, and resist as far as we can.… Willingly we confess and frankly that we are not as holy as we should be.”

  Such admissions are followed by astonishing attempts to evade the force of the objection and by coarse attacks on the immorality of the Papacy which he exaggerates beyond all measure.

  The few, he declares, who are good and virtuous suffice to prove the Church’s holiness. “Some do more than their part; that they are few in number does not matter. God can help a whole nation for the sake of one man as he did by Naaman, the Syrian (4 Kings v.). In short, one’s life cannot be made a subject of debate.” — On another occasion he replies shrewdly that the mark of holiness was not nearly so safe as other marks, for distinguishing the true Church; for pious works were also practised at times by the heathen.… As regards its importance as a mark, holiness must be subordinated to the true preaching of the Word and to pure doctrine, which in the end will always bring amendment of life; whereas corrupt doctrine poisoned the whole mass, a scandalous life was damaging chiefly to the man who lived it; but corruption of doctrine had penetrated Popery through and through. “We do not laugh when wickedness is committed amongst us as they [the Papists] do in their Churches; as Solomon says (Prov. ii. 14): ‘Who are glad when they have done evil and rejoice in most wicked things,’ and also seek to defend them by fire and sword.”