The Project Gutenberg EBook of Luther, vol. 5 of 6, by Hartmann Grisar 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'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. Title: Luther, vol. 5 of 6 Author: Hartmann Grisar Editor: Cappadelta Luigi Translator: E. M. Lamond Release Date: June 9, 2015 [EBook #49171] Language: English Character set encoding: UTF-8 *** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LUTHER, VOL. 5 OF 6 *** 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) TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES: —Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected. —The transcriber of this project created the book cover image using the title page of the original book. The image is placed in the public domain. [i] LUTHER IMPRIMATUR EDM. CAN. SURMONT, Vic. Gen. Westmonasterii, die 13 Decembris, 1915. 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 V LONDON KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÜBNER & CO., LTD. BROADWAY HOUSE, 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C. 1916 A FEW PRESS OPINIONS OF VOLUMES I-IV. “HIS MOST ELABORATE AND SYSTEMATIC BIOGRAPHY ... IS NOT MERELY A BOOK TO BE RECKONED WITH; IT IS ONE WITH WHICH WE CANNOT DISPENSE, IF ONLY FOR ITS MINUTE EXAMINATION OF LUTHER’S theological writings.”—The Athenæum (Vol. I). “THE SECOND VOLUME OF DR. GRISAR’S ‘LIFE OF LUTHER’ IS FULLY AS INTERESTING AS THE FIRST. THERE IS THE SAME MINUTENESS OF CRITICISM AND THE SAME WIDTH OF SURVEY.”— The Athenæum (Vol. II). [ii] [iii] [iv] “ITS INTEREST INCREASES. AS WE SEE THE GREAT REFORMER IN THE THICK OF HIS WORK, AND THE HEYDAY OF HIS LIFE, THE ABSORBING ATTRACTION OF HIS PERSONALITY TAKES HOLD OF US MORE AND MORE STRONGLY. HIS STUPENDOUS FORCE, HIS AMAZING VITALITY, HIS SUPERHUMAN INTEREST IN LIFE, IMPRESS THEMSELVES UPON US WITH REDOUBLED EFFECT. WE FIND HIM THE MOST MULTIFORM, THE MOST PARADOXICAL OF MEN.... THE PRESENT VOLUME, WHICH IS ADMIRABLY TRANSLATED, DEALS RATHER WITH THE MORAL, SOCIAL, AND PERSONAL SIDE OF LUTHER’S CAREER THAN WITH HIS THEOLOGY.”— The Athenæum (Vol. III). “FATHER GRISAR HAS GAINED A HIGH REPUTATION IN THIS COUNTRY THROUGH THE TRANSLATION OF HIS MONUMENTAL WORK ON THE HISTORY OF ROME AND THE POPES IN THE MIDDLE AGES, AND THIS FIRST INSTALMENT OF HIS ‘LIFE OF LUTHER’ BEARS FRESH WITNESS TO HIS UNWEARIED INDUSTRY, WIDE LEARNING, AND SCRUPULOUS ANXIETY TO BE IMPARTIAL IN HIS JUDGMENTS AS WELL AS ABSOLUTELY ACCURATE IN matters of fact.”—Glasgow Herald. “THIS ‘LIFE OF LUTHER’ IS BOUND TO BECOME STANDARD ... A MODEL OF EVERY LITERARY, CRITICAL, and scholarly virtue.”—The Month. “LIKE ITS TWO PREDECESSORS, VOLUME III EXCELS IN THE MINUTE ANALYSIS NOT MERELY OF LUTHER’S ACTIONS, BUT ALSO OF HIS WRITINGS; INDEED, THIS FEATURE IS THE OUTSTANDING MERIT OF THE author’s patient labours.”—The Irish Times. “THIS THIRD VOLUME OF FATHER GRISAR’S MONUMENTAL ‘LIFE’ IS FULL OF INTEREST FOR THE THEOLOGIAN. AND NOT LESS FOR THE PSYCHOLOGIST; FOR HERE MORE THAN EVER THE AUTHOR ALLOWS HIMSELF TO PROBE INTO THE MIND AND MOTIVES AND UNDERSTANDING OF LUTHER, SO AS TO GET AT THE significance of his development.”—The Tablet (Vol. III). “HISTORICAL RESEARCH OWES A DEBT OF GRATITUDE TO FATHER GRISAR FOR THE CALM UNBIASED MANNER IN WHICH HE MARSHALS THE FACTS AND OPINIONS ON LUTHER WHICH HIS DEEP ERUDITION HAS gathered.”—The Tablet (Vol. IV). [v] CONTENTS CHAPTER XXIX. ETHICAL RESULTS OF THE NEW TEACHING pages 3-164 1. PRELIMINARIES. NEW FOUNDATIONS OF MORALITY. Difficulties involved in Luther’s standpoint; poverty of human reason, power of the devil, etc. How despair may serve to excite humility pages 3-7 2. THE TWO POLES: THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL. His merits in distinguishing the two; what he means by “the Gospel”; his contempt for “the Law”; the Law a mere gallows pages 7-14 3. ENCOUNTER WITH THE ANTINOMIANISM OR AGRICOLA. Connection between Agricola’s doctrine and Luther’s. Luther’s first step against Agricola; the Disputations; the tract “Against the Antinomians”; action of the Court; end of Agricola; the reaction of the Antinomian movement on Luther pages 15-25 4. THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION AND ITS RELATION TO MORALITY. Psychology of Luther’s conception of this certainty as the very cause and aim of true morality. Luther’s last sermons at Eisleben; notable omissions in these sermons on morality; his wavering between Old and New pages 25-43 5. ABASEMENT OF PRACTICAL CHRISTIANITY. Faith, praise and gratitude our only duties towards God. “All works, apart from faith, must be for our neighbour’s sake.” There are “no good works save such as God commands.” Good works done without faith are mere sins. Annulment of the supernatural and abasement of the natural order. The Book of Concord on the curtailment of free-will. Christianity merely inward. Divorce of Church and World, of Religion and Morals. Lack of obligation and sanction pages 43-66 6. THE PART PLAYED BY CONSCIENCE AND PERSONALITY. LUTHER’S WARFARE WITH HIS OLD FRIEND CASPAR SCHWENCKFELD. On Conscience and its exercise; how to set it to rest. Help of conscience at critical junctures. Conscience in the religious questions of the day. Schwenckfeld pages 66-84 7. SELF-IMPROVEMENT AND THE REFORMATION OF THE CHURCH. Whether Luther founded a school of godly, Christian life. A Lutheran theologian on the lack of any teaching concerning emancipation from the world. The means of self-reform and their reverse side. Self-reform and hatred of the foe. Companion phenomena of Luther’s hate. Kindlier traits and episodes: The Kohlhase case in history and legend. The Reformation of the Church and Luther’s Ethics; His work “Against the new idol and olden devil.” The Reformation in the Duchy of Saxony. The aims of the Reformation and the currents of the age pages 84-133 8. THE CHURCH APART OF THE TRUE BELIEVERS. Luther’s earlier theory on the subject; Schwenckfeld; the proceedings at Leisnig; the Popular Church supported by the State; the abortive attempt to create a Church Apart in Hesse pages 133-144 9. PUBLIC WORSHIP. QUESTIONS OF RITUAL. The “Deutsche Messe”; the liturgy not meant for “true believers”; place of the sermon pages 145-154 10. SCHWENCKFELD AS A CRITIC OF THE ETHICAL RESULTS OF LUTHER’S LIFE-WORK. Schwenckfeld disappointed in his hope of a moral renovation. Luther’s wrong teaching on Law and Evangel; on predestination, on freedom and on faith alone, on the inward and outward Word. Schwenckfeld on the Popular Church and the new Divine Service pages 155-164 CHAPTER XXX. LUTHER AT THE ZENITH OF HIS LIFE AND SUCCESS, FROM 1540 ONWARDS. APPREHENSIONS AND PRECAUTIONS pages 165-224 1. THE GREAT VICTORIES OF 1540-1544. Success met with at Halle and Naumburg; efforts made at Cologne, Münster, Osnabrück, Brunswick, and Merseburg. Progress abroad; the Turkish danger; the Council pages 165-168 [vi] 2. SAD FOREBODINGS. False brethren; new sects; gloomy outlook for the future pages 169-174 3. PROVISIONS FOR THE FUTURE. A Protestant Council suggested by Bucer and Melanchthon. Luther’s attitude towards the Consistories. He seeks to reintroduce the Lesser Excommunication. The want of a Hierarchy begins to be felt pages 174-191 4. CONSECRATION OF NICHOLAS AMSDORF AS “EVANGELICAL BISHOP” OF NAUMBURG (1542). The Ceremony. Luther’s booklet on the Consecration of Bishops. Excerpts from his correspondence with the new “Bishop” pages 192-200 5. SOME FURTHER DEEDS OF VIOLENCE. FATE OF ECCLESIASTICAL WORKS OF ART. End of the Bishopric of Meissen. Destruction of Church Property. Luther’s attitude towards pictures and images. Details as to the fate of works of art in Prussia, Brunswick, Danzig, Hildesheim, Merseburg, etc. Protest of the Nuremberg artists pages 200-224 CHAPTER XXXI. LUTHER IN HIS DISMAL MOODS, HIS SUPERSTITION AND DELUSIONS pages 225-318 1. HIS PERSISTENT DEPRESSION IN LATER YEARS. PERSECUTION MANIA AND MORBID FANCIES. Weariness and pessimism. Grounds of his low spirits; suspects the Papists; and his friends. His single-handed struggle with the powers of evil pages 225-241 2. LUTHER’S FANATICAL EXPECTATION OF THE END OF THE WORLD. HIS HOPELESS PESSIMISM. Why he was convinced that the end was nigh. Allusions to the end of the world in the Table-Talk pages 241-252 3. MELANCHTHON UNDER THE DOUBLE BURDEN, OF LUTHER’S PERSONALITY AND HIS OWN LIFE’S WORK. Some of Melanchthon’s deliverances. His state of servitude. His last years. His real character. Unfounded tales about him pages 252-275 4. DEMONOLOGY AND DEMONOMANIA. Luther’s devil-lore. On all the evil the devil works in the world. On the devil’s dwelling-place, his shapes and kinds. Witchcraft. Connection of Luther’s devil-mania with his character and doctrine. The best weapons to use against the devil pages 275-305 5. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LUTHER’S JESTS AND SATIRE. His humour in the home and in his writings. He finds relief in it amidst his troubles. Some instances of his jests pages 306-318 CHAPTER XXXII. A LIFE FULL OF STRUGGLES OF CONSCIENCE pages 319-375 1. ON LUTHER’S “TEMPTATIONS” IN GENERAL. Some characteristic statements concerning his “combats and temptations” pages 319-321 2. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE “TEMPTATIONS.” “Supposing you had to answer for all the souls that perish!” “If you do not penance shall you not likewise perish?” “See how much evil arises from your doctrine!” pages 321-326 3. AN EPISODE. TERRORS OF CONSCIENCE BECOME TEMPTATIONS OF THE DEVIL. Schlaginhaufen falls into a faint at Luther’s house. Luther persuades himself that his remorse of conscience comes from the devil pages 326-330 4. PROGRESS OF HIS MENTAL SUFFERINGS UNTIL THEIR FLOOD-TIDE IN 1527-1528. “What labour did it not cost me ... to denounce the Pope as Antichrist.” The height of the storm; “tossed about between death and hell”; “I seek only for a gracious God.” Luther pens his famous hymn, “A safe stronghold our God is still”; the hymn an echo of his struggles pages 330-345 5. THE TEN YEARS FROM 1528-1538. HOW TO WIN BACK PEACE OF CONSCIENCE. At the Coburg. “I should have died without a struggle.” The waning of the “struggles by day and by night”; thoughts of suicide; how to reach peace pages 346-356 [vii] [viii] 6. LUTHER ON HIS FAITH, HIS DOCTRINE, AND HIS DOUBTS, PARTICULARLY IN HIS LATER YEARS. His notion of faith, (a) the accepting as true, (b) the believing trust. His picture of himself and his difficulties in late years; he compares his case with that of St. Paul and with that of Christ in the Garden. Some misunderstandings and false reports as to Luther’s having himself condemned his own life-work pages 356-375 CHAPTER XXXIII. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT IS CONVOKED, 1542. LUTHER’S POLEMICS AT THEIR HIGHEST TENSION pages 376-431 1. STEPS TAKEN AND TRACTS PUBLISHED SUBSEQUENT TO 1537 AGAINST THE COUNCIL OF THE CHURCH. The Schmalkalden meeting in 1537. Luther, after having asked for a Council, now opposes such a thing. His “Von den Conciliis.” The Ratisbon Interim. The Council is summoned pages 376-381 2. “WIDER DAS BAPSTUM ZU ROM VOM TEUFFEL GESTIFFT.” THE PAPACY RENEWS ITS STRENGTH. Luther is urged by highly placed friends to thwart the plans of Pope Paul III. The fury of his new book. How to deal with Pope and Cardinals. The “Wittenberg Reformation” drawn up as a counterblast against the Council of Trent pages 381-389 3. SOME SAYINGS OF LUTHER’S ON THE COUNCIL AND HIS OWN AUTHORITY. “If we are to submit to this Council we might as well have submitted twenty-five years since to the lord of the Councils.” How Luther would have spoken to the Fathers of the Council had he attended it pages 389-394 4. NOTABLE MOVEMENTS OF THE TIMES ACCOMPANIED BY LUTHER WITH “ABUSE AND DEFIANCE DOWN TO THE VERY GRAVE.” THE CARICATURES. The Brunswick raid and Luther’s treatment of Duke Henry. His wrath against the Zwinglians: “A man that is a heretic avoid.” The exception Luther made in favour of Calvin, the friendly relations between the two, their similarities and divergencies. Luther vents his anger on the Jews in his “Von den Jüden” and “Vom Schem Hamphoras” (1543); exceptional foulness of his language in these two screeds. An earlier work of his on the Jews; reason why, in it, he is fairer to the Jews than in his later writings; some special motives for his later polemics against the Jews; his “De ultimis verbis Davidis.” His crusade against the Turks; his translation of the work of Richardus against the Alcoran. His last effort against the Papacy: “Popery Pictured”; some of the abominable woodcuts described; the state of soul they presuppose. Pirkheimer on “the audacity of Luther’s unwashed tongue” pages 394-431 CHAPTER XXXIV. END OF LUTHER’S LITERARY LABOURS. THE WHOLE REVIEWED pages 432-556 1. TOWARDS A CHRISTIANITY VOID OF DOGMA. PROTESTANT OPINIONS. Harnack, etc., on Luther’s abandonment of individual points of Christian doctrine and destruction of the older idea of faith: The Canon and true interpretation of Scripture; speculative theology. Luther’s own admissions that Christian doctrine is a chain the rupture of any link of which involves the rupture of the whole. Luther’s inconsistencies in matters of doctrine as instanced by Protestant theologians: Original sin and unfreedom; Law and Gospel; Penance; Justification and good works; his teaching on merit, on the sacraments and the supper; on the Church and Divine worship pages 432-469 2. LUTHER AS A POPULAR RELIGIOUS WRITER. THE CATECHISM. Collected works: Luther’s preface to the Latin and German Collections. The Church-postils and Home-postils; advantages and shortcomings of his popular works; his silence regarding self-denial. Origin and character of the Larger and Smaller Catechisms. His Catechisms compared with the older catechetic works pages 470-494 3. THE GERMAN BIBLE. [ix] The work of translation completed in 1534; how it was launched on the public and the extent of its success. The various revisions of the work and the notes of the meetings held under Luther’s presidency. His anxiety to use only the best German; “Chancery German.” The language of the German Bible, its scholarship; its inaccuracies; Luther’s “Sendbrieff” to defend his addition of the word “alone” in Romans iii. 28. The corrections of Emser the Dresden “scribbler.” How Luther belittled certain books of Scripture. Some side-lights into the psychology of Luther’s translation. The Bible in earlier ages; the “Bible in chains.” Luther’s indebtedness to earlier German translators pages 494-546 4. LUTHER’S HYMNS. His efforts to interest his friends in the making of hymns. His best-known hymn, “A safe stronghold our God is still.” Other hymns; their character and musical setting. The “Hymn for the Out- driving of Antichrist” once falsely ascribed to Luther pages 546-556 CHAPTER XXXV. LUTHER’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS SOCIETY AND EDUCATION (continued in Vol. VI) pages 557-606 1. HISTORICAL OUTLINES FOR JUDGING OF HIS SOCIAL WORK. Luther’s “signal services” as they appear to certain modern Protestants. The fell results of his twin principle: 1º, that the Church is alien to the world, and 2º, has no power to make binding laws pages 557-568 2. THE STATE AND THE STATE CHURCH. The State de-Christianised and the Church regarded as a mere union of souls. Luther as “Founder of the modern State.” The secular potentate assimilated to King David. The New Theocracy. The Established Church. Significance of the Visitation introduced in the Saxon Electorate. The “Instructions of the Visitors.” Luther to the end the plaything of divergent currents pages 568-606 VOL. V. THE REFORMER (III) [1] [2] [3] LUTHER CHAPTER XXIX ETHICAL RESULTS OF THE NEW TEACHING 1. Preliminaries. New Foundations of Morality LUTHER’S SYSTEM OF ETHICS MIRRORS HIS OWN CHARACTER. IF LUTHER’S PERSONALITY, IN ALL ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL INDIVIDUALITY, SHOWS ITSELF IN HIS DOGMATIC THEOLOGY (SEE VOL. IV., P. 387 FF.), STILL MORE IS THIS THE CASE IN HIS ETHICAL TEACHING. TO OBTAIN A VIVID PICTURE OF THE MENTAL CHARACTER OF THEIR AUTHOR AND OF THE INNER WORKING OF HIS MIND, IT WILL SUFFICE TO UNFOLD HIS PRACTICAL THEORIES IN ALL THEIR BLATANT CONTRADICTION AND TO EXAMINE ON WHAT THEY REST AND WHENCE THEY spring. First and foremost we must investigate the starting-point of his moral teaching. TO BEGIN WITH, IT WAS GREATLY INFLUENCED BY HIS THEORY THAT THE GOSPEL CONSISTED ESSENTIALLY IN FORGIVENESS, IN THE CLOAKING OVER OF GUILT AND IN THE SOOTHING OF “TROUBLED CONSCIENCES.” THANKS TO A LIVELY FAITH TO REACH A FEELING OF CONFIDENCE, IS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE HIGHEST ACHIEVEMENT OF ETHICAL EFFORT. AT THE SAME TIME, HOWEVER, LUTHER LETS IT BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT WE CAN NEVER GET THE BETTER OF SIN. IN THE SHAPE OF ORIGINAL SIN IT EVER REMAINS; CONCUPISCENCE IS ALWAYS SINFUL; AND, EVEN IN THE RIGHTEOUS, ACTUAL SIN PERSISTS, ONLY THAT ITS CRY IS DROWNED BY THE VOICE SPEAKING FROM THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. MAN MUST LOOK UPON HIMSELF AS ENTIRELY UNDER THE DOMINATION OF THE DEVIL, AND, ONLY IN SO FAR AS CHRIST OUSTS THE DEVIL FROM HIS HUMAN STRONGHOLD, CAN A MAN BE ENTITLED TO BE CALLED GOOD. IN HIMSELF HE IS NOT EVEN FREE TO do what is right. TO THE AUTHOR OF SUCH DOCTRINES IT WAS NATURALLY A MATTER OF SOME DIFFICULTY TO FORMULATE THEORETICALLY THE INJUNCTIONS OF MORALITY. SOME PROTESTANTS INDEED VAUNT HIS SYSTEM OF ETHICS AS THE BEST EVER KNOWN, AND AS BASED ON AN ENTIRELY “NEW GROUNDWORK.” MANY OTHERS, HEADED BY STÄUDLIN THE THEOLOGIAN, HAVE NEVERTHELESS OPENLY ADMITTED THAT “NO SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN morality could exist,” granted Luther’s principles.[1] OF HIS PRINCIPLES THE FOLLOWING MUST BE BORNE IN MIND. MAN’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS THINGS DIVINE IS JUST THAT OF THE DUMB, LIFELESS “PILLAR OF SALT INTO WHICH LOT’S WIFE WAS CHANGED”; “HE IS NOT ONE WHIT BETTER OFF THAN A CLOD OR STONE, WITHOUT EYES OR MOUTH, WITHOUT ANY SENSE AND WITHOUT A HEART.” [2] HUMAN REASON, WHICH OUGHT TO GOVERN MORAL ACTION, BECOMES IN MATTERS OF RELIGION “A CRAZY WITCH AND LADY HULDA,” [3] THE “CLEVER VIXEN ON WHOM THE HEATHEN HUNG WHEN THEY THOUGHT THEMSELVES CLEVEREST.” [4] LIKE REASON, SO THE WILL TOO, IN FALLEN MAN, BEHAVES QUITE NEGATIVELY TOWARDS WHAT IS GOOD, WHETHER IN ETHICS OR IN RELIGION. “WE REMAIN AS PASSIVE,” HE SAYS, “AS THE CLAY IN THE HANDS OF THE POTTER”; FREEDOM THERE IS INDEED, “BUT IT IS NOT UNDER OUR CONTROL.” IN THIS CONNECTION HE REFERS TO MELANCHTHON’S “ Loci communes,”[5] WHENCE SOME STRIKING STATEMENTS AGAINST FREE-WILL HAVE ALREADY BEEN QUOTED IN THE COURSE OF this work.[6] IT IS ONLY NECESSARY TO IMAGINE THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF SUCH PRINCIPLES TO PERCEIVE HOW FAULTY IN THEORY LUTHER’S ETHICS MUST HAVE BEEN. LUTHER, HOWEVER, WAS LOATH TO SEE THESE principles followed out logically in practice. OTHER THEORIES OF HIS WHICH HE APPLIES EITHER NOT AT ALL OR ONLY TO A VERY LIMITED EXTENT IN ETHICS ARE, FOR INSTANCE, HIS OPINIONS THAT THE BELIEVER, “EVEN THOUGH HE COMMIT SIN, REMAINS NEVERTHELESS A GODLY MAN,” AND, THAT, OWING TO OUR TRUSTING FAITH IN CHRIST, GOD CAN DESCRY NO SIN IN US “EVEN WHEN WE REMAIN STUCK IN OUR SINS,” BECAUSE WE “HAVE DONNED THE GOLDEN ROBE OF GRACE FURNISHED BY CHRIST’S BLOOD.” IN HIS COMMENTARY ON GALATIANS HE HAD SAID: “ACT AS THOUGH THERE HAD NEVER BEEN ANY LAW OR ANY SIN BUT ONLY GRACE AND SALVATION IN CHRIST”; [7] HE HAD DECLARED THAT ALL THE DAMNED WERE PREDESTINED TO HELL, AND, IN SPITE OF THEIR BEST EFFORTS, could not escape eternal punishment. (Vol. ii., pp. 268 ff., 287 ff.) IN VIEW OF ALL THE ABOVE WE CANNOT HELP ASKING OURSELVES, WHENCE THE MORAL INCENTIVE IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST THE DEPRAVITY OF NATURE IS TO COME; WHERE, GRANTED THAT OUR WILL IS UNFREE AND OUR REASON BLIND, ANY REAL ETHICAL ANSWERABLENESS IS TO BE FOUND; WHAT MOTIVE FOR MORAL CONDUCT A MAN CAN HAVE WHO IS IRREVOCABLY PREDESTINED TO HEAVEN OR TO HELL; AND WHAT grounds God has for either rewarding or punishing? TO ADD A NEW DIFFICULTY TO THE REST, LUTHER IS QUITE CERTAIN OF THE OVERWHELMING POWER OF [4] [5] THE DEVIL. THE DEVIL SWAYS ALL MEN IN THE WORLD TO SUCH A DEGREE, THAT, ALTHOUGH WE ARE “LORDS OVER THE DEVIL AND DEATH,” YET “AT THE SAME TIME WE LIE UNDER HIS HEEL ... FOR THE WORLD AND ALL THAT BELONGS TO IT MUST HAVE THE DEVIL AS ITS MASTER, WHO IS FAR STRONGER THAN WE AND CLINGS TO US WITH ALL HIS MIGHT, FOR WE ARE HIS GUESTS AND DWELLERS IN A FOREIGN HOSTELRY.” [8] BUT BECAUSE THROUGH FAITH WE ARE MASTERS, “MY CONSCIENCE, THOUGH IT FEELS ITS GUILT AND FEARS AND DESPAIRS ON ITS ACCOUNT, YET MUST INSIST ON BEING LORD AND CONQUEROR OF SIN ... UNTIL SIN IS ENTIRELY BANISHED AND IS FELT NO LONGER.” [9] YEA, SINCE THE DEVIL IS SO INTENT ON AFFRIGHTING US BY TEMPTATIONS, “WE MUST, WHEN TEMPTED, BANISH FROM SIGHT AND MIND THE WHOLE DECALOGUE WITH which Satan threatens and plagues us so sorely.”[10] SUCH ADVICE COULD, HOWEVER, ONLY TOO EASILY LEAD PEOPLE TO RELINQUISH AN UNEQUAL STRUGGLE WITH AN UNQUENCHABLE CONCUPISCENCE AND AN OVERWHELMINGLY POWERFUL DEVIL, OR, TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ACTUAL SIN AND OUR MERE NATURAL CONCUPISCENCE, BETWEEN SIN AND MERE TEMPTATION; LUTHER FAILED TO SEE THAT HIS DOCTRINES WOULD ONLY TOO READILY INDUCE AN artificial confidence, and that people would put the blame for their human frailties on their lack of freedom, their ineradicable concupiscence, or on the almighty devil. HOW, ALL THIS NOTWITHSTANDING, HE CONTRIVED TO TURN HIS BACK ON THE NECESSARY CONSEQUENCES OF HIS OWN TEACHING, AND TO EVOLVE A PRACTICAL SYSTEM OF ETHICS FAR BETTER THAN WHAT HIS THEORIES WOULD HAVE LED US TO EXPECT, IS PLAIN FROM HIS WARM RECOMMENDATION OF good works, of chastity, neighbourly love and other virtues. IN BRIEF, HE TAUGHT IN HIS OWN WAY WHAT EARLIER AGES HAD ALSO TAUGHT, VIZ. THAT SIN AND VICE MUST BE SHUNNED; IN HIS OWN WAY HE EXHORTED ALL TO PRACTISE VIRTUE, PARTICULARLY TO PERFORM THOSE DEEDS OF BROTHERLY CHARITY RECKONED SO HIGH IN THE CHURCH OF YORE. IN WHAT FOLLOWS WE SHALL HAVE TO SEE HOW FAR HIS PRINCIPLES NEVERTHELESS INTERVENED, AND HOW MUCH PERSONAL COLOURING HE THEREBY IMPARTED TO HIS SYSTEM OF ETHICS. IN SO DOING WHAT WE MUST BEAR IN MIND is his own way of viewing the aims of morality and practical matters generally, for here we are concerned, not with the results at which he should logically have arrived, but with the opinions he actually held. THE DIFFICULTY OF THE PROBLEM IS APPARENT NOT MERELY FROM THE NATURE OF CERTAIN OF HIS THEOLOGICAL VIEWS JUST STATED, BUT PARTICULARLY FROM WHAT HE THOUGHT CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN AND concupiscence, which colours most of his moral teaching. IN HIS TEACHING, AS WE ALREADY KNOW, ORIGINAL SIN REMAINS, EVEN AFTER BAPTISM, AS A REAL SIN IN THE GUISE OF CONCUPISCENCE; BY ITS EVIL DESIRES AND SELF-SEEKING IT POISONS ALL MAN’S ACTIONS TO THE END OF HIS LIFE, EXCEPT IN SO FAR AS HIS DEEDS ARE TRANSFORMED BY THE “FAITH” FROM ABOVE INTO WORKS PLEASING TO GOD, OR RATHER, ARE ACCOUNTED AS SUCH. OWING TO THE ENMITY TO GOD WHICH PREVAILS IN THE MAN WHO THUS GROANS UNDER THE WEIGHT OF SIN EVEN “CIVIL JUSTICE IS MERE SINFULNESS; IT CANNOT STAND BEFORE THE ABSOLUTE DEMANDS OF GOD. ALL THAT MAN CAN DO IS TO acknowledge that things really are so and to confess his unrighteousness.”[11] Such an attitude Luther calls “humility.” Catholic moralists and ascetics have indeed ever made all other virtues TO PROCEED FROM HUMILITY AS FROM A FERTILE SOURCE, BUT THERE IS NO NEED TO POINT OUT HOW GREAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LUTHER’S “HUMILITY” AND THAT SUBMISSION OF THE HEART TO GOD’S WILL OF WHICH CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS SPEAK. HUMILITY, AS LUTHER UNDERSTOOD IT, WAS AN “ADMISSION OF OUR CORRUPTION”; ACCORDING TO HIM IT IS OUR RECOGNITION OF THE ENDURING CHARACTER OF ORIGINAL SIN THAT LEADS US TO GOD AND COMPELS US “TO ADMIT THE REVELATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD BESTOWED ON US IN CHRIST’S WORK OF REDEMPTION,” BY MEANS OF “FAITH, I.E. SECURITY OF SALVATION.” IT IS POSSIBLE TO SPEAK “ONLY OF A GRADUAL RESTRAINING OF SIN,” SO STRONGLY ARE WE DRAWN TO EVIL. WE INDEED RECEIVE GRACE BY FAITH, BUT OF ANY INFUSED GRACE OR BLOTTING OUT OF SIN, LUTHER REFUSES TO hear, since the inclinations which result from original sin still persist. Hence “by grace sin is not BLOTTED OUT.” RATHER, THE GRACE WHICH MAN RECEIVES IS AN IMPUTED GRACE; “THE REAL ANSWER TO THE QUESTION AS TO HOW LUTHER ARRIVED AT HIS CONVICTION THAT IMPUTED GRACE WAS NECESSARY AND NOT TO BE ESCAPED IS TO BE FOUND IN HIS OWN INWARD EXPERIENCE THAT THE TENDENCIES DUE TO ORIGINAL SIN REMAIN, EVEN IN THE REGENERATE. THIS SIN, WHICH PERSISTS IN THE BAPTISED, ... FORCES HIM, IF HE WISHES TO AVOID THE PITFALL OF DESPAIR ... TO KEEP BEFORE HIS MIND THE CONSOLING thought ... ‘that God does not impute to him his sin.’”[12] 2. The two Poles: the Law and the Gospel ONE OF THE ETHICAL QUESTIONS THAT MOST FREQUENTLY ENGAGED LUTHER’S ATTENTION CONCERNED the relation of Law and Gospel. In reality it touched the foundations of his moral teaching. HIS HAVING RIGHTLY DETERMINED HOW LAW AND GOSPEL STOOD SEEMED TO HIM ONE OF HIS GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS, IN FACT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THE REVELATIONS MADE TO HIM FROM ON HIGH. “WHOEVER IS ABLE CLEARLY TO DISTINGUISH THE LAW FROM THE GOSPEL,” HE SAYS, “LET SUCH A ONE GIVE THANKS TO GOD AND KNOW THAT HE IS INDEED A THEOLOGIAN.” [13] ALLUDING TO THE VITAL IMPORTANCE OF LUTHER’S THEORY ON THE LAW WITH ITS DEMANDS AND THE GOSPEL WITH ITS ASSURANCE [6] [7] OF SALVATION, FRIEDRICH LOOFS, THE HISTORIAN OF DOGMA, DECLARES: HERE “MAY BE PERCEIVED THE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LUTHERAN AND THE CATHOLIC CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY,” [14] THOUGH HE DOES NOT FEAR TO HINT BROADLY AT THE “DEFECTS” AND “LIMITATIONS” OF LUTHER’S NEW DISCOVERY; RATHER HE ADMITS QUITE OPENLY, THAT SOME LEADING ASPECTS OF THE QUESTION “NEVER EVEN REVEALED THEMSELVES CLEARLY” TO LUTHER, BUT BETRAY A “NOTABLE” LACK OF DISCERNMENT, AND THAT LUTHER’S WHOLE CONCEPTION OF THE LAW CONTAINED “MUCH THAT CALLED FOR FURTHER explanation.”[15] IN ORDER TO GIVE HERE A CLEARER PICTURE OF LUTHER’S DOCTRINE ON THIS MATTER THAN IT WAS POSSIBLE TO DO IN THE EARLIER PASSAGES WHERE HIS VIEW WAS TOUCHED UPON IT MAY BE POINTED OUT, THAT, WHEN, AS HE SO FREQUENTLY DOES, HE SPEAKS OF THE LAW HE MEANS NOT MERELY THE OLD-TESTAMENT CEREMONIAL AND JUDICIAL LAW, BUT EVEN THE MORAL LAW AND COMMANDS BOTH OF THE OLD COVENANT [16] AND OF THE NEW,[17] IN SHORT EVERYTHING IN THE NATURE OF A PRECEPT BINDING ON THE CHRISTIAN THE INFRINGEMENT OF WHICH INVOLVES HIM IN GUILT; HE MEANS, AS HE himself expresses it, “everything ... that speaks to us of our sins and of God’s wrath.”[18] BY THE GOSPEL MOREOVER HE UNDERSTANDS, NOT MERELY THE PROMISES CONTAINED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT CONCERNING OUR SALVATION, BUT ALSO THOSE OF THE OLD COVENANT; HE FINDS THE GOSPEL EVERYWHERE, EVEN PREVIOUS TO CHRIST: “THERE IS NOT A BOOK IN THE BIBLE,” HE SAYS, “WHICH DOES NOT CONTAIN THEM BOTH [THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL]. GOD HAS THUS PLACED IN EVERY INSTANCE, SIDE BY SIDE, THE LAW AND THE PROMISES, FOR, BY THE LAW, HE TEACHES WHAT WE ARE TO DO, AND, BY THE PROMISES, HOW WE ARE TO SET ABOUT IT.” IN HIS CHURCH-POSTILS WHERE THIS PASSAGE OCCURS LUTHER EXPLAINS MORE FULLY WHAT HE MEANS BY THE “PROMISE,” OR GOSPEL, AS AGAINST THE LAW: IT IS THE “GLAD TIDINGS WHEREBY GRACE AND FORGIVENESS OF SINS IS OFFERED. HENCE WORKS DO NOT belong to the Gospel, for it is no law, but faith only [is required], for it is simply a promise and an offer of Divine grace. Whoever believes it receives the grace.”[19] AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL: WHEREAS THE LAW DOES NOT EXPRESS THE RELATION BETWEEN GOD AND MAN, THE GOSPEL DOES. THE LATTER TEACHES US THAT WE MAY, NAY MUST, BE ASSURED OF OUR SALVATION PREVIOUS TO ANY WORK OF OURS, IN ORDER, THAT, BORN ANEW BY SUCH FAITH, WE MAY BE READY TO FULFIL GOD’S WILL AS FREE, CHRISTIAN MEN. THE LAW, ON THE OTHER HAND, REVEALS THE WILL OF GOD, ON PEDAGOGIC GROUNDS, AS THE FOUNDATION OF A SYSTEM OF MERIT OR REWARD. IT IS INDEED NECESSARY AS A NEGATIVE PREPARATION FOR FAITH, BUT ITS DEMANDS CANNOT BE COMPLIED WITH BY THE NATURAL MAN, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE FACT THAT IT SEEMS TO MAKE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION, UPON WHICH EVERYTHING DEPENDS IN OUR MORAL LIFE, CONTINGENT ON THE fulfilment of its prescriptions.[20] From this one can see how inferior to the Gospel is the Law. THE LAW SPEAKS OF “facere, operari,” OF “DEEDS AND WORKS” AS ESSENTIAL FOR SALVATION. “THESE WORDS”—SO LUTHER TOLD THE STUDENTS IN HIS DISPUTATIONS IN 1537 ON THE VERY EVE OF THE ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY—“I SHOULD LIKE TO SEE ALTOGETHER BANISHED FROM THEOLOGY; FOR THEY IMPLY THE NOTIONS OF MERIT AND DUTY (“ meritum et debitum”), WHICH IS BEYOND TOLERATION. Hence I urge you to refrain from the use of such terms.”[21] WHAT HE HERE ENJOINS HE HAD HIMSELF STRIVEN TO KEEP IN VIEW FROM THE EARLIEST DAYS OF HIS STRUGGLE AGAINST “SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS” AND “HOLINESS-BY-WORKS.” THESE HE STROVE TO UNDERMINE, IN THE SAME MEASURE AS HE EXALTED ORIGINAL SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. PSYCHOLOGICALLY HIS ATTITUDE IN THEOLOGY TOWARDS THESE QUESTIONS WAS BASED ON THE RENEGADE MONK’S AVERSION TO WORKS AND THEIR SUPPOSED MERIT. HIS CHIEF BUGBEAR IS THE MERITORIOUSNESS OF ANY KEEPING OF THE LAW. FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER HE WENT FURTHER AND DENIED EVEN ITS BINDING CHARACTER (“debitum”); CAUGHT IN THE MESHES OF THAT PSEUDO-MYSTIC IDEALISM TO WHICH HE WAS EARLY ADDICTED WE HEAR HIM DECLARING: THE CHRISTIAN, WHEN HE IS JUSTIFIED BY “FAITH,” DOES OF HIS OWN ACCORD AND WITHOUT THE LAW EVERYTHING THAT IS PLEASING TO GOD; WHAT IS REALLY GOOD IS PERFORMED WITHOUT ANY CONSTRAINT OUT OF A SIMPLE LOVE FOR WHAT IS GOOD. IN THIS WISE IT WAS THAT HE REACHED HIS INSIDIOUS THESIS, VIZ. THAT THE BELIEVER STANDS EVERYWHERE ABOVE THE LAW AND THAT THE CHRISTIAN KNOWS NO LAW WHATEVER. [22] IN QUITE GENERAL TERMS HE TEACHES THAT THE LAW IS IN OPPOSITION TO THE GOSPEL; THAT IT DOES NOT VIVIFY BUT KILLS; AND THAT ITS REAL TASK IS MERELY TO FRIGHTEN US, TO SHOW US WHAT WE ARE UNABLE TO DO, TO REVEAL SIN AND “INCREASE IT.” THE PREACHING OF THE LAW HE HERE DEPICTS, NOT AS “GOOD AND PROFITABLE, BUT AS ACTUALLY harmful,” as “nothing but death and poison.”[23] THAT SUCH A SETTING ASIDE OF THE SPECIFICALLY MOSAIC LAW APPEALED TO HIM, WE CAN READILY UNDERSTAND. BUT DOES HE INCLUDE IN HIS REPROBATION THE WHOLE “ lex moralis,” THE NATURAL LAW which the Old Testament merely confirmed, and which, according to Luther himself, is written IN MAN’S HEART BY NATURE? THIS LAW HE ASSERTS IS IMPLICITLY OBEYED AS SOON AS THE HEART, BY ITS ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSURANCE OF SALVATION, IS CLEANSED AND FILLED WITH THE LOVE OF GOD. [24] AND YET “IN MANY INSTANCES HE APPLIES TO THIS NATURAL LAW WHAT HE SAYS ELSEWHERE OF THE LAW OF MOSES; IT TOO AFFRIGHTS US, INCREASES SIN, KILLS, AND STANDS OPPOSED TO THE GOSPEL.” [25] [8] [9] [10] DESIROUS OF DESTROYING ONCE AND FOR ALL ANY IDEA OF RIGHTEOUSNESS OR MERIT BEING GAINED THROUGH ANY FULFILMENT OF ANY LAW, HE FORGETS HIMSELF, IN HIS USUAL WAY, AND SAYS STRONG THINGS against the Law which scarcely agree with other statements he makes elsewhere. OWING TO POLEMISTS TAKING TOO LITERALLY WHAT HE SAID, HE HAS BEEN REPRESENTED AS HOLDING OPINIONS ON THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL WHICH IN POINT OF FACT HE DOES NOT HOLD; INDEED, SOME HAVE MADE HIM OUT A REAL ANTINOMIAN. YET WE OFTEN HEAR HIM EXHORTING HIS FOLLOWERS TO BOW WITH HUMILITY TO THE COMMANDMENTS, TO BEAR THE YOKE OF SUBMISSION AND THUS TO GET THE BETTER OF SIN AND DEATH. NEVERTHELESS, PARTICULARLY WHEN DEALING WITH THOSE WHOSE “CONSCIENCE IS AFFRIGHTED,” HE IS VERY APT TO FORGET WHAT HE HAS JUST SAID IN FAVOUR OF THE LAW, AND PREFERS TO HARP ON HIS PET THEOLOGY: “MAN MUST PAY NO HEED TO THE LAW BUT ONLY TO CHRIST.” “IN DEALING WITH THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WE CANNOT SPEAK TOO SLIGHTINGLY OF SO CONTEMPTUOUS A THING [AS the Law].”[26] His changeableness and obscurity on this point is characteristic of his mode of thought. At times he actually goes so far as to ascribe to the Law merely an outward, deterrent force and to make its sole value in ordinary life consist in the restraining of evil. Even when he is at pains to emphasise the “real, theological” use of the Law as preparatory to grace, he deliberately introduces statements concerning the Law which do not at all help to explain the matter. According to him, highly as we must esteem the Law for its sacred character, its effect upon people who are unable to keep it is nevertheless not wholesome but rather harmful, because thereby sin is multiplied, particularly the sin of unbelief, i.e. as seen in want of confidence in the certainty of salvation and in the striving after righteousness by the exact fulfilling of the Law.[27] “Whoever feels contrition on account of the Law,” he says for instance, “cannot attain to grace, on the contrary he is getting further and further away from it.”[28] Even for the man who has already laid hold on salvation by the “fides specialis” and has clothed himself in Christ’s merits, the deadening and depraving effect of the Law has not yet ceased. It is true that he is bound to listen to the voice of the Law and does so with profit in order to learn “how to crucify the flesh by means of the spirit, and direct his steps in the concerns of this life.” Yet—and on this it is that Luther dwells— because the pious man is quite unable to fulfil the Law perfectly, he is only made sensible of his own sinfulness; against this dangerous feeling he must struggle.[29] Hence everything depends on one’s ability to set oneself with Christ above the Law and to refuse to listen to its demands; for Christ, Who has taken the whole load upon Himself, bears the sin and has fulfilled the Law for us.[30] That this, however, was difficult, nay, frequently, quite impossible, Luther discovered for himself during his inward struggles, and made no odds in admitting it. He gives a warning against engaging in any struggles with our conscience, which is the herald of the Law; such contests “often lead men to despair, to the knife and the halter.”[31] Of the manner in which he dealt with his own conscience we shall, however, speak more in detail below (XXIX, 6). It is not necessary to point out the discrepancies and contradictions in the above train of thought. Luther was untiring in his efforts at accommodation, and, whenever he wished, had plenty to say on the matter. Here, even more plainly than elsewhere, we see both his lack of system and the irreconcilable contradictions lying in the very core of his ethics and theology. Friedrich Loofs says indulgently: “Dogmatic theories he had none; without over much theological reflection he simply gives expression to his religious convictions.”[32] It is strange to note how the aspect of the Law changes according as it is applied to the wicked or to the just, though it was given for the instruction and salvation of all alike. In the New Testament we read: “My yoke is sweet and my burden light,” but even in the Old Testament it had been said: “Much peace have they that love thy Law.”[33] According to Luther the man who is seeking for salvation and has not yet laid hold on faith in the forgiveness of sins must let himself be “ground down [’conteri,’ cp. ‘contritio’] by the Law” until he has learnt “to live in a naked trust in God’s Mercy.”[34] The man, however, who by faith has assured himself of salvation looks at the Law and its transgressions, viz. sin, in quite a different light. “He lives in a different world,” says Luther, “where he must know nothing either of sin or of merit; if however he feels his sin, he is to look at it as clinging, not to his own person, but to the person (Christ) on whom God has cast it, i.e. he must regard it, not as it is in itself and appears to his conscience, but rather in Christ by Whom it has been atoned for and vanquished. Thus he has a heart cleansed from all sin by the faith which affirms that sin has been conquered and overthrown by Christ.... Hence it is sacrilege to look at the sin in your heart, for it is the devil who puts it there, not God. You must say, my sins are not mine; they are not in me at all; they are the sins of another; they are Christ’s and are none of my business.”[35] Elsewhere he describes similarly the firm consolation of the righteous with regard to the Law and its accusations of sin: “This is the supreme comfort of the righteous, to vest and clothe Christ with my sins and yours and those of the whole world, and then to look upon Him as the bearer of all our sins. The man who thus regards Him will soon come to scorn the fanatical notions of the sophists concerning justification by works. They rave of a faith that works by love (‘fides formata caritate’), and assert that thereby sins are taken away and men justified. But this simply means to undress Christ, to strip Him of sin, to make Him innocent, to burden and load ourselves with our own sins and to see them, not in Christ, but in ourselves, which is the same thing as to put away Christ and say He is superfluous.”[36] The confidence with which Luther says such things concerning the transgression of the Divine Law by the righteous is quite startling; nor does he do so in mere occasional outbursts, but his frequent statements to this effect seem measured and dispassionate, nor were they intended simply for the learned but even for common folk. It was for the [11] [12] latter, for instance, that in his “Sermon von dem Sacrament der Puss” he said briefly: “To him who believes, everything is profitable and nothing harmful, but, to him who believes not, everything is harmful and nothing profitable.”[37] “Whosoever does not believe,” i.e. has failed to lay hold of the certainty of salvation, deserves to feel the relentless severity of the Law; let him learn that the “right understanding and use of the Law” is this, “that it does no more than prove” that all “who, without faith, follow its behests are slaves, stuck [in the Law] against their will and without any certainty of grace.” “They must confess that by the Law they are unable to make the slightest progress.” “Even should you worry yourself to death with works, still your heart cannot thereby raise itself to such a faith as the Law calls for.”[38] Thus, by the Law alone, and without the help of Luther’s “faith,” we become sheer “martyrs of the devil.” It is this road, according to him, that the Papists tread and that he himself, so he assures us, had followed when a monk. There he had been obliged to grind himself on the Law, i.e. had been forced to fight his way in despair until at last he discovered justification in faith.[39] One thing that is certain is his early antipathy—due to the laxity of his life as a religious and to his pseudo-mysticism—for the burdens and supposed deadening effect of the Law, an antipathy to which he gave striking expression at the Heidelberg Disputation.[40] LUTHER REMAINED ALL HIS LIFE AVERSE TO THE LAW. [41] IN 1542, I.E. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY, HE EVEN COMPARED THE LAW TO THE GALLOWS. HE HASTENS, HOWEVER, TO remove any bad impression he may have made, by referring to the power of the Gospel: “The LAW DOES NOT PUNISH THE JUST; THE GALLOWS ARE NOT PUT UP FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT STEAL BUT FOR robbers.”[42] THE WORDS OCCUR IN AN ANSWER TO HIS FRIENDS’ QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE BIBLICAL OBJECTIONS ADVANCED BY THE CATHOLICS. THEY HAD ADDUCED CERTAIN PASSAGES IN WHICH EVERLASTING LIFE IS PROMISED TO THOSE WHO KEEP THE LAW (“ factores legis”) AND WHERE “LOVE OF GOD WITH THE WHOLE HEART” RATHER THAN FAITH ALONE IS REPRESENTED AS THE TRUE SOURCE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND SALVATION. LUTHER SOLVES THE QUESTIONS TO HIS OWN CONTENT. THOSE WHO KEEP THE LAW, HE ADMITS, “ARE CERTAINLY JUST, BUT NOT BY ANY MEANS OWING TO THEIR FULFILMENT OF THE LAW, FOR THEY WERE ALREADY JUST BEFOREHAND BY VIRTUE OF THE GOSPEL; FOR THE MAN WHO ACTS AS RELATED IN THE BIBLE PASSAGES QUOTED STANDS IN NO NEED OF THE LAW.... SIN DOES NOT REIGN OVER THE JUST, AND, TO THE END, IT WILL NOT SULLY THEM.... THE LAW IS NAMED MERELY FOR THOSE WHO SIN, FOR PAUL THUS DEFINES THE LAW: ‘THE LAW IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN’ (ROM. III. 20).”—IN REALITY WHAT ST. PAUL SAYS IS THAT “ By the Law IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF SIN,” AND HE ONLY MEANS THAT THE OLD-TESTAMENT ORDINANCES OF WHICH HE IS SPEAKING, LED, ACCORDING TO GOD’S PLAN, TO A SENSE OF UTTER HELPLESSNESS AND THEREFORE TO A YEARNING FOR THE SAVIOUR. LUTHER’S VERY DIFFERENT IDEA, VIZ. THAT THE LAW WAS MEANT FOR THE SINNER AND SERVED AS A GALLOWS, IS STATED BY W. WALTHER THE LUTHER RESEARCHER, IN THE FOLLOWING MILDER THOUGH PERFECTLY ACCURATE FORM: “IN SO FAR AS THE CHRISTIAN IS NOT YET A BELIEVER HE LACKS TRUE MORALITY. EVEN IN HIS CASE THEREFORE THE LAW IS NOT yet abrogated.”[43] “A DISTINCTION MUST BE MADE,” SO LUTHER DECLARES, “BETWEEN THE LAW FOR THE SINNER AND THE LAW FOR THE NON-SINNER. THE LAW IS NOT GIVEN TO THE RIGHTEOUS, I.E. IT IS NOT AGAINST them.”[44] The olden Church had stated her conception of the Law and the Gospel both simply and logically. In her case there was no assumption of any assurance of salvation by faith alone to disturb the relations between the Law and the Gospel; one was the complement of the other; though, agreeably to the Gospel, she proclaimed the doctrine of love in its highest perfection, yet at the same time, like St. Peter, she insisted in the name of the “Law,” that, in the fear of sin and “by dint of good works” we must make sure our calling and election (2 Peter i. 10). She never ceased calling attention to the divinely appointed connection between the heavenly reward and our fidelity to the Law, vouched for both in the Old Testament (“For thou wilt render to every man according to his works,” Ps. lxi. 13) and also in the New (“The Son of Man will render to every man according to his works,” Mt. xvi. 27, and elsewhere, “For we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ that everyone may receive the proper things of the body according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil,” 2 Cor. v. 10). 3. Encounter with the Antinomianism of Agricola JUST AS THE ANABAPTIST AND FANATIC MOVEMENT HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN FOSTERED BY LUTHER’S doctrines, so Antinomianism sprang from the seed he had scattered. JOHANN AGRICOLA, THE CHIEF SPOKESMAN OF THE ANTINOMIANS, MERELY CARRIED CERTAIN THESES OF LUTHER’S TO THEIR LOGICAL CONCLUSION, DOING SO OPENLY AND REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES. HE WENT MUCH FURTHER THAN HIS MASTER, WHO OFTEN HAD AT LEAST THE PRUDENCE HERE AND ELSEWHERE TO TURN BACK HALF-WAY, A WANT OF LOGIC WHICH LUTHER HAD TO THANK FOR HIS ESCAPE FROM MANY DANGERS IN BOTH DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE. IN THE SAME WAY AS LUTHER, WITH THE UTMOST TENACITY AND VIGOUR, HAD WITHSTOOD THE ANABAPTISTS AND FANATICS WHEN THEY STROVE TO PUT IN FULL PRACTICE HIS OWN PRINCIPLES, SO ALSO HE PROCLAIMED WAR ON THE ANTINOMIANS’ ENLARGEMENT AND APPLICATION OF HIS IDEAS ON THE LAW AND GOSPEL WHICH APPEARED TO HIM FRAUGHT WITH THE [13] [14] [15] GREATEST DANGER. THAT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ANTINOMIANS WERE LARGELY HIS OWN, FORMULATED anew, must be fairly evident to all.[45] JOHANN AGRICOLA, THE FICKLE AND REBELLIOUS WITTENBERG PROFESSOR, SEIZED ON LUTHER’S DENUNCIATIONS OF THE LAW, MORE PARTICULARLY SUBSEQUENT TO THE SPRING OF 1537, AND BUILT THEM UP INTO A FANTASTIC ANTINOMIAN SYSTEM, AT THE SAME TIME ROUNDING ON LUTHER, AND EVEN MORE ON THE CAUTIOUS AND RETICENT MELANCHTHON, FOR REFUSING TO PROCEED ALONG THE ROAD ON WHICH THEY HAD VENTURED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS VIEWS HE APPEALED TO SUCH SAYINGS OF LUTHER’S, AS, THE Law “was not made for the just,” and, was “a gallows only meant for thieves.” HE SHOWED THAT, WHEREAS LUTHER HAD FORMERLY REFUSED TO RECOGNISE ANY REPENTANCE DUE TO FEAR OF THE MENACES OF THE LAW, HE HAD COME TO HOLD UP THE TERRORS OF THE LAW BEFORE THE EYES OF SINNERS. AS A MATTER OF FACT LUTHER DID, AT A LATER DATE, TEACH THAT JUSTIFYING FAITH WAS PRECEDED BY A CONTRITION PRODUCED BY THE LAW; SUCH REPENTANCE DUE TO FEAR WAS EXCITED BY GOD ALMIGHTY IN THE MAN DEPRIVED OF MORAL FREEDOM, AS IN A “ materia passiva.”—The following THESES WERE ISSUED AS AGRICOLA’S: “1. THE LAW [THE DECALOGUE] DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE CALLED THE WORD OF GOD. 2. EVEN SHOULD YOU BE A PROSTITUTE, A CUCKOLD, AN ADULTERER OR ANY OTHER KIND OF SINNER, YET, SO LONG AS YOU BELIEVE, YOU ARE ON THE ROAD TO SALVATION. 3. IF YOU ARE SUNK IN THE DEPTHS OF SIN, IF ONLY YOU BELIEVE, YOU ARE REALLY IN A STATE OF GRACE. 4. THE DECALOGUE BELONGS TO THE PETTY SESSIONS, NOT TO THE PULPIT. 11. THE WORDS OF PETER: ‘THAT BY GOOD WORKS YOU MAY MAKE SURE YOUR CALLING AND ELECTION’ [2 PETER I. 10] ARE ALL RUBBISH. 12. SO SOON AS YOU BEGIN TO FANCY THAT CHRISTIANITY REQUIRES THIS OR THAT, OR THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE GOOD, HONEST, MORAL, HOLY AND CHASTE, YOU HAVE ALREADY RENT ASUNDER THE GOSPEL [LUKE, CH. vi.].”[46] IN HIS COUNTER THESES LUTHER INDIGNANTLY REJECTED SUCH OPINIONS: “THE DEDUCTION IS NOT VALID,” HE SAYS, FOR INSTANCE, “WHEN PEOPLE MAKE OUT, THAT WHAT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR JUSTIFICATION, EITHER AT THE OUTSET, LATER, OR AT THE END, SHOULD NOT TO BE TAUGHT” (AS OBLIGATORY), E.G. THE KEEPING OF THE LAW, PERSONAL CO-OPERATION AND GOOD WORKS. “EVEN THOUGH THE LAW BE USELESS TO JUSTIFICATION, STILL IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT IT IS TO BE MADE AWAY WITH, OR NOT TO BE taught.”[47] LUTHER WAS THE MORE INDIGNANT AT THE OPEN OPPOSITION MANIFEST IN HIS OWN NEIGHBOURHOOD AND AT THE YET WORSE THINGS THAT WERE BEING WHISPERED, BECAUSE HE FEARED, THAT, OWING TO THE FRIENDLY UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN AGRICOLA, JACOB SCHENK AND OTHERS, THE NEW MOVEMENT MIGHT EXTEND ABROAD. THE DOCTRINE, IN ITS EXCESSES, SEEMED TO HIM AS COMPROMISING AS THE TEACHING OF CARLSTADT AND THE DOINGS OF THE FANATICS IN FORMER DAYS. IN REALITY IT DID EMBODY A FANATICAL doctrine and an extremely dangerous pseudo-theology; in Antinomianism the pseudo-mystical IDEAS CONCERNING FREEDOM AND INNER EXPERIENCE WHICH FROM THE VERY BEGINNING HAD BROUGHT Luther into conflict with the “Law,” culminated in a sort of up-to-date gnosticism. WE NOW FIND LUTHER, IN THE TEETH OF HIS PREVIOUS STATEMENTS, DECLARING THAT “WHOEVER MAKES AWAY WITH THE LAW, MAKES AWAY WITH THE GOSPEL.” [48] HE SAYS: “AGRICOLA PERVERTS OUR DOCTRINE, WHICH IS THE SOLACE OF CONSCIENCES, AND SEEKS BY ITS MEANS TO SET UP THE FREEDOM OF THE FLESH”; [49] THE GRACE PREACHED BY AGRICOLA WAS REALLY NOTHING MORE THAN immoral licence.[50] THE BETTER TO COUNTER THE NEW MOVEMENT LUTHER AT ONCE PROCEEDED TO MODIFY HIS TEACHING CONCERNING THE LAW. IN THIS WISE ANTINOMIANISM EXERCISED ON HIM A RESTRAINING INFLUENCE, AND WAS TO SOME EXTENT OF SERVICE TO HIS DOCTRINE AND UNDERTAKING, WARNING HIM, AS the fanatic movement had done previously, of certain rocks to be avoided. LUTHER NOW CAME TO PRAISE MELANCHTHON’S VIEW OF THE LAW, WHICH HITHERTO HAD NOT APPEALED TO HIM, AND DECLARED IN HIS TABLE-TALK: IF THE LAW IS DONE AWAY WITH IN THE CHURCH, that will spell the end of all knowledge of sin.[51] THIS LAST UTTERANCE, DATING FROM MARCH, 1537, IS THE FIRST TO FOREBODE THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT TO COMMENCE, WHICH WAS TO CAUSE LUTHER SO MUCH ANXIETY BUT WHICH AT THE SAME TIME AFFORDS US SO GOOD AN INSIGHT INTO HIS ETHICS AND, NO LESS, INTO HIS CHARACTER. EVEN MORE NOTEWORTHY ARE THE TWO SERMONS IN WHICH HE EXPOUNDS HIS STANDPOINT AS AGAINST THAT OF Agricola, whom, however, he does not name.[52] THE FIRST STEP TAKEN BY LUTHER AT THE UNIVERSITY AGAINST THE ANTINOMIAN MOVEMENT WAS THE DISPUTATION OF DEC. 18, 1537. FOR THIS HE DREW UP A LIST OF WEIGHTY THESES. WHEN THE DISPUTATION WAS ANNOUNCED EVERYONE WAS AWARE THAT IT WAS AIMED AT A MEMBER OF THE WITTENBERG PROFESSORIAL STAFF, AT ONE, MOREOVER, WHOM LUTHER HIMSELF, AS DEAN, HAD AUTHORISED TO DELIVER LECTURES ON THEOLOGY AT WITTENBERG. WHEN AGRICOLA FAILED EVEN TO PUT IN AN APPEARANCE AT THE DISPUTATION, AS THOUGH IT IN NO WAY CONCERNED HIM, AND ALSO CONTINUED [16] [17] [18] TO “AGITATE SECRETLY” AGAINST THE WITTENBERG DOCTRINE, LUTHER, IN A LETTER ADDRESSED TO AGRICOLA ON JAN. 6, 1538, WITHDREW FROM HIM HIS FACULTY TO TEACH, AND EVEN DEMANDED THAT HE SHOULD forswear theology altogether (“a theologia in totum abstinere”); IF HE NOW WISHED TO DELIVER LECTURES HE WOULD HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION “OF THE UNIVERSITY” (WHERE LUTHER’S INFLUENCE WAS paramount).[53] THIS WAS A SEVERE BLOW FOR AGRICOLA AND HIS FAMILY. HIS WIFE CALLED ON LUTHER, DROPPED A HUMBLE CURTSEY AND ASSURED HIM THAT IN FUTURE HER HUSBAND WOULD DO WHATEVER HE WAS TOLD. THIS SEEMS TO HAVE MOLLIFIED LUTHER. AGRICOLA HIMSELF ALSO PLUCKED UP COURAGE TO GO TO HIM, ONLY TO BE INFORMED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO APPEAR AT THE SECOND DISPUTATION ON THE SUBJECT—FOR WHICH LUTHER HAD DRAWN UP A FRESH SET OF THESES—AND THERE MAKE A PUBLIC RECANTATION. DRIVEN INTO A CORNER, AGRICOLA AGREED TO THESE TERMS. AT THE SECOND DISPUTATION (JAN. 12, 1538) HE DID, AS A MATTER OF FACT, GIVE EXPLANATIONS DEEMED SATISFACTORY BY LUTHER, BY WHOM HE WAS REWARDED WITH AN ASSURANCE OF CONFIDENCE. HE WAS, NEVERTHELESS, EXCLUDED FROM ALL ACADEMICAL OFFICE, AND THOUGH THE ELECTOR OF SAXONY PERMITTED HIM TO ACT AS PREACHER THIS SANCTION WAS NOT EXTENDED BY BUGENHAGEN TO ANY PREACHING AT WITTENBERG. [54] A THIRD AND FOURTH SET OF THESES DRAWN UP BY LUTHER, [55] WHO COULD NOT DO ENOUGH AGAINST THE NEW HER...