Luther Examined and ReexaminedA Review of Catholic Criticism and a Pleafor Revaluation

By W. H. T. Dau, Professor, Concordia Theological Seminary

St. Louis, Mo. Concordia Publishing House1917

PREFACE. One may deplore the pathetic courage which periodically heartensCatholic writers for the task of writing against Luther, but one canunderstand the necessity for such efforts, and, accordingly, feel a realpity for those who make them. Attacks on Luther are demanded forCatholics by the law of self-preservation. A recent Catholic writercorrectly says: "There is no doubt that the religious problem to-day isstill the Luther problem. " "Almost every statement of those religiousdoctrines which are opposed to Catholic moral teaching find theirauthorization in the theology of Martin Luther. "

Rome has never acknowledged her errors nor admitted her moral defeat. The lessons of past history are wasted upon her. Rome is determined toassert to the end that she was not, and cannot be, vanquished. In theage of the Reformation, she admits, she suffered some losses, but sheclaims that she is fast retrieving these, while Protestantism isdecadent and decaying. No opposition to her can hope to succeed. 

This is done to bolster up Catholic courage. The intelligent Catholiclayman of the present day makes his own observations, and draws his ownconclusions as to the status and the future prospect of Protestantism. Therefore, he must be invited to "acquaint himself with the lifestory ofthe man, whose followers can never explain away the anarchy of thatimmoral dogma: 'Be a sinner, and sin boldly; but believe more boldlystill!' He must be shown the many hideous scenes of coarseness, vulgarity, obscenity, and degrading immorality in Martin Luther's life. "When the Catholic rises from the contemplation of these scenes, it ishoped that his mind has become ironclad against Protestant argument. These attacks upon Luther are a plea _pro domo_, the effort of a strongman armed to keep his palace and his goods in peace. 

Occurring, as they do, in this year of the Four-hundredth Anniversary ofthe Reformation, these attacks, moreover, represent a Catholiccounter-demonstration to the Protestant celebration of theQuadricentenary of Luther's Theses. They are the customary cries ofdissent and vigorous expressions of disgust which at a public meetingcome from parties in the audience that are not pleased with the speakeron the stage. If the counter-demonstration includes in its program theobliging application of eggs in an advanced state of maturity to thespeaker, and chooses to emphasize its presence to the very nostrils ofthe audience, that, too, is part of the prevailing custom. It isaesthetically incorrect, to be sure, but it is in line historically withformer demonstrations. No Protestant celebration would seem normalwithout them. They help Protestants in their preparations for thejubilee to appreciate the remarks of David in Psalm 2, 11: "Rejoice withtrembling. " And if Shakespeare was correct in the statement: "Sweet arethe uses of adversity, " they need not be altogether deplored. 

An attempt is made in these pages to review the principal charges andarguments of Catholic critics of Luther. The references to Luther'sworks are to the St. Louis Edition; those to the Book of Concord, to thePeople's Edition. 

Authors must be modest, and as a rule they are. In the domain ofhistorical research there is rarely anything that is final. Thisobservation was forced upon the present writer with unusual power as therich contents of his subjects opened up to him during his study. He hassought to be comprehensive, at least, as regards essential facts, inevery chapter; he does not claim that his presentation is final. Hehopes that it may stimulate further research. 

This book is frankly polemical. It had to be, or there would have beenno need of writing it. It seeks to meet both the assertions and thespirit of Luther's Catholic critics. A review ought to be a mirror, andmirrors must reflect. But there is no malice in the author's effort. 

W. H. T. Dau. 

Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo. May 10, 1917. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS. 

 l. Luther Worship 2. Luther Hatred 3. Luther Blemishes 4. Luther's Task 5. The Popes in Luther's Time 6. Luther's Birth and Parentage 7. Luther's Great Mistake 8. Luther's Failure as a Monk 9. Professor Luther, D. D. 10. Luther's "Discovery" of the Bible 11. Rome and the Bible 12. Luther's Visit at Rome 13. Pastor Luther 14. The Case of Luther's Friend Myconius 15. Luther's Faith without Works 16. The Fatalist Luther 17. Luther a Teacher of Lawlessness 18. Luther Repudiates the Ten Commandments 19. Luther's Invisible Church 20. Luther on the God-given Supremacy of the Pope 21. Luther the Translator of the Bible 22. Luther a Preacher of Violence against the Hierarchy 23. Luther, Anarchist and Despot All in One 24. Luther the Destroyer of Liberty of Conscience 25. "The Adam and Eve of the New Gospel of Concubinage" 26. Luther an Advocate of Polygamy 27. Luther Announces His Death 28. Luther's View of His Slanderers

1. Luther Worship. 

Catholic writers profess themselves shocked by the unblushing venerationwhich Luther receives from Protestants. Such epithets as "hero of theReformation, " "angel with the everlasting Gospel flying through themidst of heaven, " "restorer of the Christian faith, " grate on Catholicnerves. Luther's sayings are cited with approval by all sorts of men. Men feel that their cause is greatly strengthened by having Luther ontheir side. Luther's name is a name to conjure with. Hardly a great manhas lived in the last four hundred years but has gone on record as anadmirer of Luther. Rome, accordingly, cries out that Luther is becomethe uncanonized saint of Protestantism, yea, the deified expounder ofthe evangelical faith. 

Coming from a Church that venerates and adores and prays to--you mustnot say "worships"--as many saints as there are days in the calendar, this stricture is refreshing. Saints not only of questionable sanctity, but of doubtful existence have been worshiped--beg pardon! venerated--by Catholics. What does the common law say about the prosecution cominginto court with clean hands? If there is such a thing among Protestantsas "religious veneration" of Luther, what shall we call the venerationof Mary among Catholics? Pius IX, on December 8, 1854, proclaimed the"immaculate conception, " that is, the sinlessness of Mary from the veryfirst moment of her existence, thus removing her from the sphere ofsin-begotten humanity. In 1913, the press of the country was preparingits readers for another move towards the deification of Mary: her"assumption" was to be declared. That is, it was to be declared aCatholic dogma that the corpse of Mary did not see corruption, and wasat the moment of her death removed to heaven. The _Pasadena Star_ ofAugust 15th in that year wrote: "It is now known that since his recentillness Pope Pius, realizing that his active pontificate is practicallyat an end, has expressed to some of the highest dignitaries of theCatholic Church at Rome the desire to round out his career by this lastgreat act. " The _Western Watchman_ of July 3d in that year had in itsinimitable style referred to the coming dogma, thus: "What Catholic inthe world to-day would say that the immaculately conceived body ofthe Blessed Virgin was allowed to rot in the grave? The Catholic mindwould rebel against the thought; and death would be preferred to theblasphemous outrage. " The grounds for wanting the "assumption" of Maryfixed in a dogma were these: "Catholics believe in the bodily assumptionof the Blessed Virgin, because their faith instinctively teaches themthat such a thing is possible and proper, and that settles it in favorof the belief. The body of our Lord should not taste corruption, neithershould the body that gave Him His body. The flesh that was bruised forour sins was the flesh of Mary. The blood that was shed for oursalvation was drawn from Mary's veins. It would be improper that theVirgin Mother should be allowed to see corruption if her Son wasexempted from the indignity. " If any should be so rash as to questionthe propriety of the new dogma, the writer held out this pleasantprospect to them: "Dogmas are stones at the heads of heretics. . . . Theeyes of all Catholics see aright; if they are afflicted with strabismus, the Church resorts to an operation. All Catholics hear aright; if theydo not, the Church applies a remedy to their organ of hearing. Thesesurgical operations go under the name of dogmas. " The world rememberswith what success an operation of this kind was performed on a number ofRoman prelates, who questioned the infallibility of the Pope. The dogmawas simply declared in 1870, and that put a quietus to all Catholicscruples. Some day the "assumption" of Mary will be proclaimed as aCatholic dogma. We should not feel surprised if ultimately a dogma werepublished to the effect that the Holy Trinity is a Holy Quartet, withMary as the fourth person of the Godhead. 

The Roman Church is accustomed to speak of her Supreme Pontiff, the HolyFather, the Vicegerent of Christ, His Infallible Holiness, in terms thatlift a human being to heights of adoration unknown among Protestants. For centuries the tendency in the Roman Church to make of the Pope "agod on earth" has been felt and expressed in Christendom. 

This Church wants to preach to Protestants about the sin of man-worship!Verily, here we have the parable of the mote and the beam in a twentiethcentury edition. Catholic teachers would be the last ones, we imagine, whom scrupulous Christians would choose for instructing them regardingthe sin of idolatry and the means to avoid it. 

No Protestant regards Luther as Catholics regard Mary, not even Patrick. Luther has taught them too well for that. Unwittingly the Catholicsthemselves have immortalized Luther by naming the Evangelical Churchafter Luther. Luther declined the honor. "I beg, " he said, "not to havemy name mentioned, and to call people not Lutheran, but Christian. Whatis Luther? The doctrine is not mine, nor have I been crucified for anyone. . . . The papists deserve to have a party-name, for they are notcontent with the doctrine and name of Christ; they want to be popishalso. Well, let them be called popish, for the Pope is their master. Iam not, and I do not want to be, anybody's master. " (10, 371. )

It is likely that the frequent laudatory mention of Luther's name, especially in connection with the present anniversary of theReformation, is taken as a challenge by Catholics. If it is that, it isso by the choice of Catholics. It is impossible to speak of a great manwithout referring to the conflicts that made him great. "He makes nofriend, " says Tennyson, "who never made a foe. " "The man who has noenemies, " says Donn Piatt, "has no following. " Opposition is one of theaccepted marks of greatness. The opposition which great men arousedduring their lifetime lives after them, and crops out again on a givenoccasion. This is deplorable, but it is the ordinary course. Moreover, it is possible that in a season of great joy like that which theQuadricentenary of the Reformation has ushered in orators and writersmay fail to put a due check on their enthusiasm and may overstate afact. Such things happen even among Catholics, we believe, But they willbe negligible quantities in the present celebration. The propercorrective for them will be provided by Protestants themselves. The vastmajority of those who have embraced the spiritual leadership of Lutherin matters pertaining to Christian doctrine and morals will prove againthat they are in no danger of inaugurating man-worship. The spirit ofLuther is too much alive in them for that. They will, with the Marquisof Brandenburg, declare: "If I be asked whether with heart and lip Iconfess that faith which God has restored to us by Luther as Hisinstrument, I have no scruple, nor have I a disposition to shrink fromthe name Lutheran. Thus understood, I am, and shall to my dying hourremain, a Lutheran. " They will ever be able to distinguish between theman Luther, prone to error and sin like any other mortal, and the Lutherwho fought the battle of the Lord and had a mission of everlastingimport to the Church and the world. They have shown on numerousoccasions that they can be friends of Luther, and yet criticize him ordissent from him. If they had not, there would be no Protestants whomCatholics can quote as "opponents" of Luther. On the other hand, if anyone undertakes to enlighten the public with a view of Luther, Protestants will insist that his estimate comport with the facts in thecase, and that the name of a great man who deserves well of posterity benot traduced. Why, even the Catholic von Schlegel thinks Luther has notbeen half esteemed as he ought to be. 

2. Luther Hatred. 

Catholic writers have found so much to censure in the character andwritings of Luther that one is amazed, after reading them, how Lutherever could become regarded as a great and good man. Criminal blindnessmust have held the eyes, not only of Luther's associates, but of hisentire age, yea, of men for centuries after, if they failed to seeLuther's constitutional baseness. Quite recently a Catholic writer hastold the world in one chapter of his book that "the apostate monk ofWittenberg" was possessed of "a violent, despotic, and uncontrollednature, " that he was "depraved in manners and in speech. " He speaks ofLuther's "ungovernable transports, riotous proceedings, angry conflicts, and intemperate controversies, " of Luther's "contempt of all theaccepted forms of human right and all authority, human and divine, " of"his unscrupulous mendacity, " "his perverse principles, " "his wildpronouncements. " He calls Luther "a lawless one, " "one of the mostintolerant of men, " "a revolutionist, not a reformer. " He says thatLuther "attempted reformation and ended in deformation. " He chargesLuther with having written and preached "not for, but against goodworks, " with having assumed rights to himself in the matter of libertyof conscience which "he unhesitatingly and imperiously denied to all whodiffered from him, " with having "rent asunder the unity of the Church, "with having "disgraced the Church by a notoriously wicked and scandalouslife, " with having "declared it to be the right of every man tointerpret the Bible to his own individual conception, " with "one dayproclaiming the binding force of the Ten Commandments and the nextdeclaring they were not obligatory on Christian observance, " with having"reviled and hated and cursed the Church of his fathers. "

These opprobrious remarks are only a part of the vileness of which thewriter has delivered himself in his first chapter. His whole bookbristles with assertions of Luther's inveterate badness. This coarse andcrooked Luther, we are told, is the real Luther, the genuine article. The Luther of history is only a Protestant fiction. Protestants likeProf. Seeberg of Berlin, and others, who have criticized Luther, areintroduced as witnesses for the Catholic allegation that Luther was athoroughly bad man. We should like to ascertain the feelings of theseProtestants when they are informed what use has been made of theirremarks about Luther. Some of them may yet let the world know what theythink of the attempt to make them the squires of such knights errant asDenifle and Grisar. 

It is about ten years ago since the Jesuit Grisar began to publish his_Life of Luther, _ twice that time, since Denifle painted his caricatureof Luther. Several generations ago Janssen, in his _History of theGerman Nation, _ gave the Catholic interpretation of Luther and theReformation. Going back still further, we come to the Jesuit Maimbourg, to Witzel, and in Luther's own time to Cochlaeus and Oldecop, all ofwhom strove to convince the world that Luther was a moral degenerate anda reprobate. The book of Mgr. O'Hare, which has made its appearance onthe eve of the Four-hundredth Anniversary of Luther's Theses, is merelyanother eruption from the same mud volcano that became active inLuther's lifetime. It is the old dirt that has come forth. Rome mustperiodically relieve itself in this manner, or burst. Rome hated theliving Luther, and cannot forget him since he is dead. It hates himstill. Its hatred is become full-grown, robust, vigorous with theadvancing years. When Rome speaks its mind about Luther, it cannot butspeak in terms of malignant scorn. If Luther could read Mgr. O'Hare'sbook, he would say: "Wes das Herz voll ist, des gehet der Mund ueber. "(Matt. 12, 34: "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. ")

Luther has done one thing which Rome will never pardon: he dared toattack the supreme authority of the Pope. He made men see theignominious bondage in which cunning priests had ensnared them, and byrestoring them to the liberty with which Christ had made them freeLuther caused the papacy an irreparable loss. The papal system ofteaching and government was so thoroughly exposed by Luther, and hassince been so completely disavowed by a great part of professingChristians that Rome cannot practise its old frauds any longer. Men havebecome extremely wary of Rome. That is what hurts. The Catholic writerto whom we referred sums up the situation thus: Since Luther "allProtestant mankind descending by ordinary generation have come into theworld with a mentality biased, perverted, and prejudiced. " That isRome's way of looking at the matter. The truth is: the world isforewarned, hence forearmed against the pleas of Rome. It pays only anindifferent attention to vilifications of Luther that come from thatquarter, because it expects no encomiums and only scant justice forLuther from Rome. But it is the business of the teachers of Protestantprinciples in religion, particularly of the church historians ofProtestantism, to take notice of the campaign of slander that islaunched against Luther by Catholic writers at convenient intervals. Itis not a task to delight the soul, rather to try the patience, ofChristians. For in the study of the causes for these calumnies against agreat man of history, and of the possible means for their removal, oneis forced invariably to the conclusion that there is but one cause, andthat is hatred. What can poor mortal man do to break down such a cause?It does not yield to logic and historical facts, because it is in itsvery nature unreasoning and unreasonable. 

Still, for the hour that God sends to all the Sauls that roam the earthbreathing threatening and slaughter, the counter arguments should beready. No slander against Luther has ever gone unanswered. As thecharges against Luther have become stereotyped, so the rejoinder cannothope to bring forward any new facts. But it seems necessary that eachgeneration in the Church Militant be put through the old drills, andlearn its fruitful lessons of spiritual adversity. Thus even thesepolemical exchanges between Catholics and Protestants become blessingsin disguise. But they do not affect Luther. The sublime figure of thecourageous confessor of Christ that has stood towering in the annals ofthe Christian Church for four hundred years stands unshaken, silent, andgrand, despite the froth that is dashed against its base and thelightning from angry clouds that strikes its top. "Surely, the wrath ofman shall praise thee. " (Ps. 76, 10. )

3. Luther Blemishes. 

When Luther is charged with immoral conduct, and the specific factstogether with the documentary evidence are not submitted along with thecharge, little can be done in the way of rebuttal. One can only guess atthe grounds on which the charge is based. For instance, when Luther issaid to have disgraced the Church by a notoriously wicked and scandalouslife, the reason is most likely because he married although he was amonk sworn to remain single. Moreover, he married a noble lady who was anun, also sworn to celibacy. According to the inscrutable ethics of Romethis is concubinage, although the Scripture plainly declares that aminister of the Church should be the husband of one wife, 1 Tim. 3, 2, and no vows can annul the ordinance and commandment of God: "It is notgood that man should be alone. " Gen. 2, 18. Comp. 1 Cor. 7, 2, andAugsburg Confession, Art. 27. 

When Luther is said to have reviled, hated, and cursed the Church of hisfathers, the probable reason is, because he wrote the _BabylonianCaptivity of the Church_ and _The Papacy at Rome Founded by the Devil_. In these writings Luther depicts the true antichristian inwardness ofthe papacy. By so doing, however, Luther restored the Church of hisfathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers in Christ down to the firstancestor of our race. Luther's faith is none other than the faith of thetrue Church in all the ages. Luther's own father and mother died in thatfaith. 

When Luther is said to have taught Nietzsche's insanity about the"Superhuman" (Uebermensch) before Nietzsche, to have put the TenCommandments out of commission for Christians, and to have preachedagainst good works, the reasons most likely are these: Luther taughtsalvation in accordance with Rom. 3, 25: "We conclude that a man isjustified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. " Luther taught that aperson is not saved by his own works, and if he performs good works withthat end in view, he shames his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who is theend of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Rom. 10, 4), and he falls under the curse of God for placing his own meritsalongside of the merit of the Redeemer's sacrifice. In no otherconnection has Luther spoken against good works. He has rather taughtmen how to become fruitful in well-doing by the sanctifying grace of Godand according to the inspiring example of the matchless Jesus. Concerning the Law, Luther preached 1 Tim. 1, 9: "The Law is not madefor a righteous man, " that is, Christians do the works of the Law, notfor the Law's sake, but for the sake of Christ, whom they love and whosemind is in them. They must not be driven like slaves to obey God, buttheir very faith prompts them to live soberly, righteously, and godly inthis present world (Tit. 2, 12). But Luther always held that the rulefor good works is laid down in the holy Law of God, and only in that;also that the Law must be applied to Christians, in as far as they stilllive in, the flesh, and are not become altogether spiritual. Luther'spublic activity as a preacher began with a series of sermons on the TenCommandments, and this effort to expound the divine norm ofrighteousness was repeated several times during Luther's life. Luther'sexpositions of the Decalog are among the finest that the worldpossesses. Moreover, Luther wrote the Small Catechism. Hand any Catholicwho talks about Luther having abolished the Ten Commandments this littlebook. That is a sufficient refutation. What Luther teaches in this bookhe has given his life to reduce to practise in himself and others. Hesays in a sermon on Easter Monday, 1530: "When rising in the morning, Ipray with my children the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord'sPrayer, and some Psalm. I do this because I want to make myself cling tothese truths. I shall not suffer my faith to become mildewed with theimagination that I am above these things (_dass ich's koenne_). " Hissermon on the First Sunday in Advent in the same year he begins thus:"Dear friends, I am now an old Doctor, still I find every day that Imust recite with the children the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and theLord's Prayer, and I have always derived a great benefit and blessingfrom this practise. " (12, 1611. 1641. )

Luther is charged with mendacity, that is, he is said to have lied. Thereasons that will be given for this charge, when called for, willprobably be these: Luther at various times in his life gave threedifferent years as the year of his birth, three different years as theyear when he made his journey to Rome, and advised somebody in 1512 tobecome a monk when he had already commenced to denounce the monasticlife: It is true that Luther did all these things, but it is also truethat Luther believed himself right in each of his statements. He wassimply mistaken. Other people have misstated the year of their birthwithout being branded liars on that account. Sometimes even a professorforgets things, and Luther was a professor. What Luther has said aboutthe rigor of his monastic life is perfectly true, but it was no reasonwhy in 1512 he should counsel men to become monks. He had not yet cometo the full knowledge of the wrong principles underlying that mode oflife. To adduce such inaccuracies as evidence of prevarication is itselfan insincere act and puts the claimant by right in the Ananias Club. 

Luther is said to have been a glutton and a drunkard. "Let us examinethe facts. What is the evidence? Luther's obesity and his gout. Is thatevidence? Not in any court. It would be evidence if both conditions werecaused, and caused only, by gluttony and tippling. But this notoriouslyis not the case. Obesity may be due to disease. A man may even eatlittle and wax stout if what he eats turns into adipose rather than intomuscular tissue. As for gout, it is the result of uric acid diathesis. Now uric acid diathesis may be, and very often is, caused by highliving, but often, too, it is due to quite different causes. Just as inthe case of Bright's disease. I do not deny that Luther drank freelyboth beer and wine. So did everybody else. People drank beer as we docoffee. . . . Moreover, in the sixteenth century alcoholic beverageswere prescribed for the maladies from which Luther suffered much--kidneysand nervous trouble. We now know that in such cases alcohol proves avery poison; but this Luther could not know. But intemperate . . . Inhis use of strong drink Luther was not. Neither was he a glutton. Beforehe married, he ate very irregularly, and often completely forgot hismeals. When he could not get meat and wine, he contented himself withbread and water. . . . Melanchthon tells us that Luther loved the coarsefood as he did the coarse speech of the peasantry, and even of that foodate little, so little that Melanchthon marveled how Luther couldmaintain strength upon such a diet. --It is further a noteworthy factthat, when we read the sermons of the day, we find nobody who sofrequently and so earnestly attacks the prevailing vice of drunkennessas does Luther. Now, whatever Luther may or may not have been, hypocritehe was not. Had he himself been intemperate, he would not have preachedagainst it in such a manner. Furthermore, Luther was under constantespionage. His every move was noted. People knew how many patches therewere on his undergarments. Think you, think you for a moment, that theWittenbergians would have listened meekly to Luther's repeated assaultsupon the wide-spread sin of intemperance, had they known him for aconfirmed tippler? It is too absurd. --But the best evidence for thedefense comes from a mute witness--Luther's industry. He wrote more thanfour hundred books, brochures, sermons, and so forth, filling more thanone hundred volumes of the Erlangen edition. There are extant more thanthree thousand of his letters, which represent only a small proportionof all that he wrote. Thus we know, for example, that one evening in1544 Luther wrote ten letters, of which only two have been preserved. Hewas, furthermore, in frequent conference with leaders in both Church andState. He preached on Sundays and lectured on week-days. Now, a man may, it is true, perform a considerable amount of manual labor even afterovereating and overdrinking, but every physician will admit thecorrectness of my assertion, it is a physiological impossibility that aman could habitually overindulge in food or liquor, or both, and stillget over the enormous amount of intellectual work that Luther performedday to day" (Boehmer, _The Man Luther, _ p. 16 f. )

Most shameless have been the charges of lewdness and immorality againstLuther. His relation to Frau Cotta has been represented as impure. Thinkof it, a boy of sixteen to eighteen thus related to an honorablehousewife! Illegitimate children have been foisted upon him. A humorousremark about his intention to marry and being unable to choose betweenseveral eligible parties has been twisted into an immoral meaning. Thefact that he gave shelter overnight to a number of escaped nuns, when hewas already a married man, has been meaningly referred to. Boehmer hasexhaustively gone into these charges, examining without flinching everyasserted fact cited in evidence of Luther's moral corruptness, and hasshown the purity of Luther as being above reproach. Not one of thesexual vagaries imputed to Luther rests on a basis of fact. (Boehmer, _Luther in Light of Recent Research, _ pp. 215-223. )

When the modern reader meets with a general charge of badness, or evenwith the assertion of some specific form of badness, in Luther, heshould inquire at once to what particular incident in Luther's lifereference is made. These charges have all been examined and the evidencesifted, and that by impartial investigators. Protestants have taken thelead in this work and have not glossed anything over. Boehmer's abletreatise has been translated into English. Walther's _Fuer Luther widerRom_ will, no doubt, be given the public in an English edition soon. Works like these have long blasted the claim of Catholics thatProtestants are afraid to have the truth told about Luther. They onlydemand that the _truth_ be told. 

4. Luther's Task. 

One blemish in the character of Luther that is often cited withcondemnation even by Protestants deserves to be examined separately. Itis Luther's violence in controversy, his coarse language, his angrymoods. All will agree that violence and coarse speech must not becountenanced in Christians, least of all in teachers of Christianity. Inthe writings of Luther there occur terms, phrases, passages that soundrepulsive. The strongest admirer of Luther will have moments when hewishes certain things could have been said differently. Luther'slanguage cannot be repeated in our times. Some who have tried to do thatin all sincerity have found to their dismay that they were whollymisunderstood. What Jove may do any ox may not do, says an old Latinproverb. 

Shall we, then, admit Luther's fault and proceed to apologize for himand find plausible reasons for extenuating his indiscretions in speechand his temperamental faults? We shall do neither. We shall let this"foul-mouthed, " coarse Luther stand before the bar of public opinionjust as he is. His way cannot be our way, but ultimately none of us willbe his final judges. The character of the duties which Luther was sentto perform must be his justification. 

It is true, indeed, that the manners of the age of Luther were generallyrough. Even in polite society language was freely used that would makeus gasp. Coarse terms evidently were not felt to be such. In theirpolemical writings the learned men of the age seem to exhaust azoological park in their frantic search for striking epithets to hurl attheir opponent. It was an age of strong feeling and sturdy diction. Itis also true that Luther was a man of the people. With a sort of homelypride he used to declare: "I am a peasant's son; all my forbears werepeasants. " But all this does not sufficiently explain Luther's"coarseness. "

Most people that criticize Luther for his strong speech have read littleelse of Luther. They are not aware that in the, great mass of hiswritings there is but a small proportion of matter that would nowadaysbe declared objectionable. Luther speaks through many pages, yea, through whole books, with perfect calmness. It is interesting to observehow he develops a thought, illustrates a point by an episode fromhistory or from every-day life, urges a lesson with a livelyexhortation. He is pleasant, gentle, serious, compassionate, artlesslyeloquent, and, withal, perfectly pure in all he says. When Lutherbecomes "coarse, " there is a reason. One must have read much in Luther, one should have read all of Luther, and his "billingsgate" will assume adifferent meaning. If there is madness in his reckless speech, there ismethod in it. One must try and understand Luther's objective andpurpose. 

Luther had a very coarse subject to deal with, and Luther believed thata spade is best called a spade. Luther never struck at wickedness withthe straw of a fine circumlocution. He believed that he had the right, yea, the duty, to call coarse things by coarse names; for the Bible doesthe same. Luther has called the gentlemen at the Pope's court in his daysome very descriptive names. He did not merely insinuate that thecardinals of his day were no angels, but said outright what they were. He did not feebly question the holiness of His Holiness, but he calledsome of the Popes monsters of iniquity and reprobates. We shall showanon that in that age there lived men who spoke of the same matters asLuther, who told tales and used expressions that would render theirwritings unmailable to-day. 

The great men of any age are products of that age. Man is as much thecreature of circumstances as circumstances are the creatures of men--Disraeli to the contrary notwithstanding. While men may createsituations, they may also be made to fit into a situation. Men havebecome great for this very reason that they understand the spirit oftheir age and were able to respond to its call. Back of both men andcircumstances, however, stands sovereign Providence, shaping our ends, rough-hew them how we will. 

No character-study is just that fails to take into consideration theforce of circumstances under which the subject of the study has acted ata given moment in his life. In the case of Luther there is a more thanordinary necessity for adopting this equitable method; for Luther hasdeclared hundreds of times that his stirring utterances and incisivedeeds were not the result of long premeditation, or the sudden outburstsof uncontrolled passion, --though neither he nor we would have anyinterest in denying that he could be angry and did become angry, --butthe answer to crying needs of the times. This answer was on many asignal occasion wrung from Luther after much wrestling with God inprayer. He was moved to action by the heroism of that faith which hadbeen kindled in him. He acted in harmony with the particular issue withwhich he was called upon to deal. Deep compassion at the sight of hissuffering fellow-men put strong language on his lips. Between thepleading of friends and the storming of enemies he had no choice but toact as he did. Luther often seems unconscious of the greatness of hisacts: he speaks of them as "his poor way of doing things, " and invitesothers to improve what he has attempted. We fear that many in our dayfail to see the greatness of the achievement while they stricture themanner of achieving it. 

Few men have so utterly lived for a cause, in a cause, and with a causeas Luther. It is the heart of an entire people that cries out throughLuther; it is the soul of outraged Christianity that moans in anguish, and speaks with the majesty of righteous anger through Luther. An age ofunparalleled ferment that had begun long before Luther has reached itsculminating point, and lifts up its strident voice of long-restrainedexpostulation through Luther. Remove the conditions under which Lutherhad to live and labor, and the Luther whom men bless or curse becomes animpossibility. 

In Luther's life-work there is discernible the influence not only ofgood men, such as the scholarly Melanchthon, the faithful Jonas, thefirm and kind Saxon electors, the eager Amsdorf, the alert Link, butalso of evil men like the blunt Tetzel, the wily Prierias, and the hordeof ignorant monks which the monasteries and chancelleries of Rome letloose upon one man. The course which Luther had to pursue was shaped forhim by others. We do not mean to suggest that Luther in his polemicalwritings employed the cheap method of replying to the coarse languageadopted by his opponents in similar language; but it is fair to him thatthis fact be recorded. Some people remember very well that Lutheraddressed the Pope "Most hellish father!" and are horrified, but theyforget that the Pope had been extremely lurid in the appellatives whichhe applied to Luther. "Child of Belial, " "son of perdition, " were someof the endearing terms with which Luther was to be assured of the lovinginterest the Holy Father took in him. That Luther called Henry VIII "adamnable and rotten worm" seems to be well remembered, but that theBritish king had called Luther "a wolf of hell" is forgotten. It goeswithout saying that the contact with such opponents did for Luther whatit does for every person who is not made of granite and cast iron: itroused his temper. It should not have been permitted to do that, we say. Assuredly. Luther thinks so too, but with a reservation, as we shalllearn. 

The "imperious spirit" and "violent measures" charged against Luther acareful reader of history will rather find on the side of Luther'sopponents. They plainly relied on the power of Rome to crush Luther bybrute force. What respect could a plain, honest man like Luther conceivefor men like Cajetanus, Eck, and Hoogstraten, who were first sent by theVatican to negotiate his surrender? For publishing simple Bible-truththe cardinal at Augsburg roared and bellowed at him, "Recant! Recant!"Even at this early stage of the affair matters assumed such an ominousaspect that Luther's friends urged him to quietly leave the city. Theydid not trust the amicable gentleman from the polished circle of thePope's immediate counselors. At Leipzig, Eck had been driven into thecorner by Luther's unanswerable arguments from Scripture; then he turnedto abuse and called Luther a Bohemian and a Hussite, and finally leftthe hall with the air of a victor to celebrate his achievement in thetaverns and brothels of the city, where he found his customary delightslearned from his masters at Rome. Can any language of contempt in whichLuther afterwards spoke of this doughty champion of Rome be too strong?Among the attendants at the Leipzig Debate was Hoogstraten. Thisgentleman followed the elevating profession of torturing and burningheretics in Germany, --the territory especially assigned to him. Itlooked as if he had come to Leipzig to follow up Eck's verbal thunderwith the inquisitorial lightning, and make of Luther actually anotherHus. When he found that he would not have an opportunity for plying hishideous trade this time, he ventured into territory where he was astranger: he attempted a theological argument with Luther. He assertedthat by denying the primacy of the Pope, Luther had contradicted theScriptures and defied the Council of Nice, and must be suppressed. Luther called him an unsophisticated ass and a bloodthirsty enemy of thetruth. Certainly, that does not sound nice, but such things happen, as arule, when fools rush in where angels fear to tread. 

What was the papal bull of excommunication against Luther, with its listof most opprobrious terms, but an unwarranted provocation of Luther, whohad a right to expect different treatment from the foremost teacher ofChristianity to whom he had entrusted his just grievance as a dutifulson of the Church? Thus we might go on for pages citing instances ofreckless attack upon Luther, often by most unworthy persons, that drewfrom Luther a reply such as his assailants deserved. 

It is a gratuitous criticism to say that Christians must not revile whenthey are reviled. Those who think that Luther did not know this rule ofthe Christian religion, or did not apply it to himself, do not know thefull story of his life. He certainly did wrestle with the flesh andblood in himself. He sighed for peace, but the moment he seemed tobecome conciliatory and pacific, his enemies set up a shout that he wasvanquished. It seemed that they could not be made to comprehend theissues confronting them unless they were blown in upon them on the wingsof a hurricane. As early as 1520 Luther replies to an anxious letter ofSpalatin, who thought that Luther had used too strong language againstthe Bishop of Meissen, as follows: "Good God! how excited you are, mySpalatin! You seem even more stirred up than I and the others. Do younot see that my patience in not replying to Emser's and Eck's five orsix wagonloads of curses is the sole reason why the framers of thisdocument have dared to attack me with such silly and ridiculousnonsense? For you know how little I cared that my sermon at Leipzig wascondemned and suppressed by a public edict; how I despised suspicion, infamy, injury, hatred. Must these audacious persons even be permittedto add to these follies scandalous pamphlets crammed full of falsehoodsand blasphemies against Gospel-truth? Do you forbid even to bark atthese wolves? The Lord is my witness how I restrained myself lest Ishould not treat with reverence this accursed and most impotent documentissued in the bishop's name. Otherwise I should have said things thoseheads ought to hear, and I will yet, when they acknowledge theirauthorship by beginning to defend themselves. I beg, if you thinkrightly of the Gospel, do not imagine its cause can be accomplishedwithout tumult, scandal, and sedition. Out of the sword you cannot makea feather, nor out of war, peace. The Word of God is a sword, war, ruin, destruction, poison, and, as Amos says, it meets the children of Ephraimlike a bear in the way and a lioness in the woods. --I cannot deny that Ihave been more vehement than is seemly. But since they knew this, theyought not to have stirred up the dog. How difficult it is to temperone's passions and one's pen you can judge even from your own case. Thisis the reason I have always disliked to engage in public controversy;but the more I dislike it, the more I am involved against my will, andthat only by the most atrocious slanders brought against me and the Wordof God. If I were not carried away thereby either in temper or pen, evena heart of stone would be moved by the indignity of the thing to take uparms; and how much more I, who am both passionate and possessed of a pennot altogether blunt! By these monstrosities I am driven beyond modestyand decorum. At the same time, I wonder where this new religion camefrom, that whatever you say against an adversary is slander. What do youthink of Christ? Was He a slanderer when He called the Jews anadulterous and perverse generation, the offspring of vipers, hypocrites, sons of the devil? And what about Paul when he used the words dogs, vainbabblers, seducers, ignorant, and in Acts 13 so inveighed against afalse prophet that he seems almost insane: `Oh, thou full of deceit andof all craft, thou son of the devil, enemy of the truth'? Why did he notgently flatter him, that he might convert him, rather than thunder insuch a way? It is not possible, if acquainted with the truth, to bepatient with inflexible and ungovernable enemies of the truth. Butenough of this nonsense. I see that everybody wishes I were gentle, especially my enemies, who show themselves least so of all. If I am toolittle gentle, I am at least simple and open, and therein, as I believe, surpass them, for they dispute only in a deceitful fashion. " (19, 482 f. Translation by McGiffert. )

Nobody should make Luther any better than he makes himself. Still, thequestion is pertinent whether violent polemics can ever be engaged in byChristians with a good conscience. Luther has asserted that, while hehurled his terrible denunciations against the adversaries of the truth, his heart was disposed to friendship and peace with them. (16, 1718 f. )Is a state of mind like this altogether inconceivable, viz. , that aperson can curse another for a certain act and at the same time lovehim? We think not. In his day this boisterous, turbulent Luther wasunderstood, trusted, and loved by the people. After the publication ofthe Theses against Tetzel "the hearts of men in all parts of the landturned toward him, and his heart turned toward them. For the religiousprinciples underlying the theses they cared little, for the argumentssustaining them still less. They saw only that here was a man, muzzledby none of the prudential considerations closing the mouths of many inhigh places, who dared to speak his mind plainly and emphatically, andwas able to speak it intelligently and with effect upon a great andgrowing evil deplored by multitudes. It is such a man the people loveand such a man they trust. " (McGiffert, _Luther, _ p. 98 f. )

McGiffert has the right perception of the Luther of 1517-1519 when hedescribes him as "the awakening reformer, " thus: "He had the truereformer's conscience--the sense of responsibility for others as well asfor himself, and the true reformer's vision of the better things thatought to be. He was never a mere faultfinder, but he was endowed withthe gifts of imagination and sympathy, leading him to feel himself apart of every situation he was placed in, and with the irrepressibleimpulse to action driving him to take upon himself the burden of it. Inany crowd of bystanders he would have been first to go to the rescuewhere need was, and quickest to see the need not obvious to all. Thealoofness of the mere observer was not his; he was too completely onewith all he saw to stand apart and let it go its way alone. Fearful anddistrustful of himself he long was, but his timidity was only thenatural shrinking before new and untried duties of a soul that saw moreclearly and felt more keenly than most. The imperative demandsinevitably made upon him by every situation led him instinctively todread putting himself where he could not help responding to the call ofunfamiliar tasks; but once there, the summons was irresistible, and hethrew himself into the new responsibilities with a forgetfulness of selfpossible only to him who has denied its claims, and with a fearlessnesspossible only to him who has conquered fear. He might interpret hisconfidence as trust in God, won by the path of a complete contempt ofhis own powers; but however understood, it gave him an independence anda disregard of consequences which made his conscience and his visioneffective for reform. "

McGiffert suggests a comparison of Luther with, let us say, Erasmus. Hadhe been a humanist, he would have laughed the whole thing [Tetzel'sselling of indulgences] to scorn as an exploded superstition beneath thecontempt of an intelligent man; had he been a scholastic theologian, hewould have sat in his study and drawn fine distinctions to justify thetraffic without bothering himself about its influence upon the lives ofthe vulgar populace. But he was neither humanist nor schoolman. He had aconscience which made indifference impossible, and a simplicity anddirectness of vision which compelled him to brush aside all equivocationand go straight to the heart of things. With it all he was at once adevout and believing son of the Church, and a practical preacherprofoundly concerned for the spiritual and moral welfare of the commonpeople. " (p. 66f. 87. ) Had Luther considered his personal interests asErasmus did, he would not have become the Luther that we know. Erasmusin his day was regarded as the wisest of men; Luther in his own view, like Paul, frequently had to make a fool of himself in order to achievehis purpose. For instance, when he wrote against the dullards at theUniversity of Louvain, against the sacrilegious coterie at Rome that wasrunning the Church and the world pretty much as they pleased, or againstthe brutal "Hans Wurst" (Duke Henry of Brunswick). Erasmus and hisschool of gentle reformers always counseled a slackening of the pace andthe use of the soft pedal. Where is Erasmus to-day in the world'svaluation? Even Rome, in whose bosom he nestled, and who fondled him fora season, has cast him aside as worthless. Luther lives yet, to thedelight not only of Coleridge, but of millions of the world's best men, who, with the British divine, regard him this very hour as "a purifyingand preserving spirit to Christianity at large. "

Luther was conscious of the difference in the method of warfare betweenhimself and his colaborer Melanchthon. He says: "I am rough, boisterous, stormy, and altogether warlike. I am born to fight against innumerablemonsters and devils. I must remove stumps and stones, cut away thistlesand thorns, and clear wild forests; but Master Philip comes along softlyand gently, sowing and watering with joy, according to the gifts whichGod has abundantly bestowed upon him, " (14, 176. )

Dr. Tholuck, writing on "Luther's rashness, " says: "What would havebecome of the Church if the Lord's servants and prophets had at alltimes done nothing else than spread salves upon sores and walk softly?"He introduces Luther in his own defense: "On one occasion, when asked bythe Marquis Joachim I why he wrote against the princes, he returned thebeautiful answer: 'When God intends to fertilize the ground, He mustneeds send first of all a good thunderstorm, and afterwards slow andgentle rain, and thus make it thoroughly productive. ' Elsewhere he says:'A willow-branch may be cut with a knife and bent with a finger, but fora great and gnarled oak we must use an ax and a wedge'; and again: 'Ifmy teeth had been less sharp, the Pope would have been more voracious. ''Of what use is salt, ' he exclaims in another passage, 'if it do notbite the tongue? or the blade of a sword unless it be sharp enough tocut? Does not the prophet say, "Cursed be he that doeth the work of theLord deceitfully, and keepeth back his sword from blood"?'"

One reflection suggests itself in this connection that goes far toexonerate Luther: the language which the Bible employs against hereticsand ungodly men. It calls them dogs, Ps. 22, 20; 59, 6; Is. 56, 10;Matt. 7, 6; Phil. 3, 2; Rev. 22, 15; swine, Matt. 7, 6; boars and wildbeasts, Ps. 80, 13; dromedaries and asses, Jer. 2, 23f. ; bullocks, Jer. 31, 18; bellowing bulls, Jer. 50, 11; viper's brood, Matt. 3, 7; foxes, Cant. 2, 5; Luke 13, 32; serpents, Matt. 23, 33; sons of Belial, 1 Sam. 2, 12; children of the devil, Acts 13, 10; Satan's synagog, Rev. 2, 9. As regards its language, the Bible, too, agrees with the conditions ofthe times in which it was written. When God, to express His righteousanger, addresses the ungodly in such terms of utter contempt, He teachesus how to regard them and, on occasion, to speak of them. This "coarse"Luther is not more vehement and repulsive in his speech than the holyWord of God. 

We remarked before that we would not apologize for Luther's rashness andcoarse speech. Luther's acts are self-vindicating; they will approvethemselves to the discriminating judgment of every reader of history. Wecan appreciate this sentiment of McGiffert : "As well apologize for thefury of the wind as for the vehemence of Martin Luther. " The Psalmistcalls upon the forces of nature: "Praise the Lord, fire, and hail; snowand vapors; stormy wind fulfilling His word. " (Ps. 148, 7. 8. ) God has amission that our philosophy does not fathom for the mad hurry anddestruction of the whirlwind. How silly it would be to criticize acyclone because it is not a zephyr! We can imagine a scene like this:The battle of Gettysburg is in progress and a gentle lady is permittedto see it from a distance by a grim, warlike guide, and the followingconversation ensues:

"Why, they are shooting at each other! Did you see that naughty man stabthe pretty soldier right through his uniform?"

"Yes, madam, that is what he is there for. "

"But is it not horrid?"

"Yes, madam, it is perfectly horrid. It is hell. "

"But what are they doing this beastly work for?"

"Madam, they are fighting for a principle that is to keep this country aunited republic. "

"Can anything be more horrid?--I mean, not the principle, but this awfulbutchery. "

"Yes, madam, there is something more horrid than that. "

"What is it?"

"If there would be no one to fight for that principle. "

War is never a pleasant affair. When men are forced to fight for what isdearer to them than life, they will strike hard and deep. It is silly toexpect a soldier to walk up to his enemy with a fly brush and shoo himaway, or to stop and consider what posterity would probably regard asthe least objectionable way for dispatching an enemy. Luther was calledto be a warrior; he had to use warriors' methods. Any general in abloody campaign can be criticized for violence with as much reason as isshown by some critics of Luther. 

5. The Popes in Luther's Time. 

To judge intelligently the activity of Luther it is necessary tounderstand the state of the Church in his day and the character of thechief bishops of the Church. When reading modern censures of Luther'sattacks upon the papacy, one wonders why nothing is said about the thingthat Luther attacked. Catholic critics of Luther surely must know whatpapal filth lies accumulated in the _Commentarii di Marino Sanuto, _ inAlegretto Alegretti's _Diari Sanesi, _ in the _Relazione di PoloCapello, _ in the _Diario de Sebastiano di Branca de Tilini, _ in the_Successo di la Morte di Papa Alessandro, _ in Tommaso Inghirami's _Fea, Notizie Intorno Rafaele Sanzio da Urbino, _ and others. Ranke worked withthese authorities when he wrote his _History of the Popes_. What aboutthe authorities which Gieseler cites in his _Ecclesiastical History_--Muratori, Fabronius, Machiavelli, Sabellicus, Raynaldus, Eccardus, Burchardus, etc. ? A compassionate age has relegated the exact account ofthe moral state of the papacy in Luther's days to learned works, andeven in these they are given mostly in Latin footnotes. In the languageof Augustus Birrell, they are "too coarse. "

Luther's life (1483-1546) falls into the administration of nine Popes:Sixtus IV, 1471-1484; Innocent VIII, 1484-1492; Alexander VI, 1492-1503;Pius III, 26 days in 1503; Julius II, 1503-1513; Leo X, 1513-1521;Hadrian VI, 1522-1523; Clement VII, 1523-1534; Paul III, 1534-1549. 

Speaking of this series of Popes, the historian Gieseler says: "Thesuccession of Popes which now follows proves the degeneracy of thecardinals (from among whom the Pope is chosen) as to all discipline andsense of shame: they were distinguished for nothing but undisguisedmeanness and wickedness; they were reprobates. "

Of Sixtus IV he says: "His chief motive was the small ambition to raisehis family from their low estate to the highest rank. " Infamoustransactions which resulted in the murder of Julian de Medici while athigh mass in church and the hanging of the archbishop of Pisa from awindow of the town hall by the exasperated people, wars, conspiracies, alliances, annulments of alliances, in short, all the acts that fill upthe turbulent life of a crafty and grasping politician, are recorded forhis administration. He did not scruple to employ the authority of hisexalted office for the furtherance of his political schemes. Thus heexcommunicated Venice and formed a warlike alliance against the city. But the Venetians regarded his religious thunderbolts as little as hisphysical prowess. "Vexation at this hastened the death of the Pope, whowas hated as much as he was despised. "

Ranke, on the authority of Alegretti, relates of Pope Sixtus IV: "TheColonna family, opponents of the Pope's nephew Riario, was persecuted byhim with the most savage ferocity. He seized on their domain of Marino, and causing the prothonotary Colonna to be attacked in his own house, took him prisoner, and put him to death. The mother of Colonna came toSt. Celso, in Banchi, where the corpse lay, and lifting the severed headby its hair, she exclaimed: 'Behold the head of my son. Such is thetruth of the Pope. He promised that my son should be set at liberty ifMarino were delivered into his hands. He is possessed of Marino, and, behold, we have my son--but dead. Thus does the Pope keep his word. '"

His successor, Innocent VIII, "in defiance of the conditions of hiselection, sought with a still more profligate vileness to exalt andenrich his seven illegitimate children. " He had been elected on thecondition that he would make only one blood relative a cardinal, andthat certain other benefices of the Church should not be given to anyone related to him. The people called him Nocens (the Guilty One, or theHarmful One) instead of Innocent, and immortalized the prolificpaternity of this saintly celibate in the following epigram:

 Octo Nocens genuit pueros totidemque puellas, Hunc merito poterit dicere Roma patrem, that is, Nocens begat eight boys and an equal number of maidens; Rightly, then, Rome will be able to call this gentleman father. 

"He carried on two wars with Ferdinand, king of Naples, until the year1492, and brought forward Renatus, duke of Lorraine, as pretender to hiscrown. True, he proceeded, as his predecessors had done, to encourageprinces and people to undertake expeditions against the Turks; but whenDschem, the brother and rival of the Turkish Sultan Bajazet, wasdelivered over to him at the head of an army against the Turks, he choserather to detain him in prison on consideration of an annual tributefrom the Turkish Sultan. " The story how the Pope got possession of theTurkish prince and refused 200, 000 ducats ransom for him because he hadreceived an offer of 600, 000 from another party, reads like a story ofprofessional brigandage. 

Alexander VI, "the most depraved of all the Popes, likewise recognizedno loftier aim than to heap honors and possessions upon his fiveillegitimate children, and among them especially his favorite, CaesarBorgia. " The nuptials celebrated for the Pope's daughter Lucretia--who, by the way, was a _divorcee_--were "by no means peculiarly decorous. "The Latin chronicler who has related them reports in this connectionthat the moral state of the clergy at Rome was indescribably low. Theexample of the Popes had set the pace for the rest. From the highest tothe lowest each priest had his concubine as a substitute for marriedlife (_"concubinas in figura matrimonii"_), and that, quite openly. Thegood chronicler remarks: "If God does not provide a restraint, thiscorruption will pass on to the monks and the religious orders; however, the monasteries of the city are nearly all become brothels already, andno one raises his voice against it. " Wading through the mephiticrottenness of these ancient chronicles, one is seized with nausea. 

Holy things, religious privileges, had become merchandise with which thePopes trafficked. The chronicler Burchardus relates: "In those days thefollowing couplet was sung in nearly the whole Christian world:

 "Vendit Alexander claves, Altaria, Christum, Emerat ista prius, vendere juste potest. "

The meaning of this satire is: Alexander sells the power of the keys ofheaven, the right to officiate at the altar, yea, Christ Himself; he hadfirst bought these things himself, therefore he has a right to sell themagain. Unblushing perfidy was practised by this Pope in his dealingswith kings who were his religious subjects. In a quarrel with CharlesVIII of France he threatened the king with excommunication, and soughtaid from the Turkish Sultan. "However, when Charles appeared in Rome, the Pope went over to his side immediately, and delivered up to himPrince Dschem; but he took care to have him poisoned immediately, thathe might not lose the price set upon his head by the Sultan. " Thus heconciliated the French monarch and filled his purse by one and the sameact. "By traffic in benefices, sale of indulgences, exercise of theright of spoils, and taxes for the Turkish war, as well as by the murderof rich or troublesome persons, Alexander was seeking to scrape togetheras much money as possible to support the wanton luxury and shamefullicentiousness of his court, and provide treasures for his children. " Intheir correspondence men who had dealings with him would refer to him insuch terms as these: "That monstrous head--that infamous beast!" ("_Hocmonstruoso capite--hac infami belua!"_)

"At length the poison which the Pope had meant for a rich cardinal, inorder to make himself master of his wealth, brought upon himselfwell-deserved death. " The Pope's butler had been bribed and exchangedthe poison-cup intended for the Pope's victim for the Pope's cup, andthe Pope took his own medicine. 

On the basis of Alegretti's notes, Ranke has drawn a fine pen-picture ofthe reign of terror which Caesar Borgia, the favorite son of AlexanderVI, inaugurated at Rome. "With no relative or favorite would CaesarBorgia endure the participation of his power. His own brother stood inhis way: Caesar caused him to be murdered and thrown into the Tiber. Hisbrother-in-law was assailed and stabbed, by his orders, on the steps ofhis palace. The wounded man was nursed by his wife and sister, thelatter preparing his food with her own hands, to secure him from poison;the Pope set a guard upon the house to protect his son-in-law from hisson. Caesar laughed these precautions to scorn. 'What cannot be done atnoonday, ' said he, 'may be brought about in the evening. ' When theprince was on the point of recovery, he burst into his chamber, droveout the wife and sister, called in the common executioner, and causedhis unfortunate brother-in-law to be strangled. Toward his father, whoselife and station he valued only as a means to his own aggrandizement, hedisplayed not the slightest respect or feeling. He slew Peroto, Alexander's favorite, while the unhappy man clung to his patron forprotection, and was wrapped within the pontifical mantle. The blood ofthe favorite flowed over the face of the Pope. --For a certain time thecity of the apostles and the whole state of the Church were in the handsof Caesar Borgia. . . . How did Rome tremble at his name! Caesarrequired gold, and possessed enemies. Every night were the corpses ofmurdered men found in the streets, yet none dared move; for who butmight fear that his turn would be next? Those whom violence could notreach were taken off by poison. There was but one place on earth wheresuch deeds were possible--that, namely, where unlimited temporal powerwas united to the highest spiritual authority, where the laws, civil andecclesiastical, were held in one and the same hand. "

Pope Julius, who came into power after the twenty-six days' reign ofPius III, was a warlike man. "He engaged in the boldest operations, risking all to obtain all. He took the field in person, and havingstormed Mirandola, he pressed into the city across the frozen ditchesand through the breach; the most disastrous reverses could not shake hispurpose, but rather seemed to waken new resources in him. " "He wrestedPerugia and Bologna from their lords. As the powerful state of Venicerefused to surrender her conquests, he resolved at length, albeitunwillingly, to avail himself of foreign aid; he joined the League ofCambrai, concluded between France and the Emperor, and assisted withspiritual and temporal weapons to subdue the republic. Venice, now hardpressed, yielded to the Pope, in order to divide this overwhelmingalliance. Julius, already alarmed at the progress of the French inItaly, readily granted his forgiveness, and now commenced hostilitiesagainst the French and their ally, Alphonso, Duke of Ferrara. Hedeclared that the king of France had forfeited his claim on Naples, andinvested Ferdinand the Catholic with the solo dominion of his realm. Heissued a sentence of condemnation against the Duke of Ferrara. Lewis XIIstrove in vain to alarm him by the National Council of Tours, --Germany, by severe gravamina (complaints of national grievances against the PapalSee), and by the threat of the Pragmatic Sanction (an imperial order toconfirm the decrees of such reform councils as that of Basel). Not evena General Council, summoned at Pisa by the two monarchs for the first ofSeptember, 1511, with the dread phantom of a reform of the Church, couldbend the violent Pope. " The Council of Pisa the Pope neutralized byconvening a Lateran Council, which at the Pope's bidding hurled itsthundering manifestos in the name of the Almighty against the Pope'senemies. He died while this conflict was raging. Luther was in Romewhile the Pope was engaged as just related. 

What elements of appalling greed and levity had entered the holiesttransactions of the Church can be seen from the following summing up ofthe situation daring Luther's time: "A large amount of worldly power wasat this time conferred in most instances, together with the bishoprics;they were held more or less as sinecures according to the degree ofinfluence or court favor possessed by the recipient or his family. TheRoman Curia thought only of how it might best derive advantage from thevacancies and presentations; Alexander extorted double annates orfirst-fruits, and levied double, nay, triple tithes; there remained fewthings that had not become matter of purchase. The taxes of the papalchancery rose higher from day to day, and the comptroller, whose duty itwas to prevent all abuses in that department, most commonly referred therevision of the imposts to those very men who had fixed their amounts. For every indulgence obtained from the datary's office, a stipulated sumwas paid; nearly all the disputes occurring at this period between thestates of Europe and the Roman Court arose out of these exactions, whichthe Curia sought by every possible means to increase, while the peopleof all countries as zealously strove to restrain them. 

"Principles such as these necessarily acted on all ranks affected by thesystem based on them, from the highest to the lowest. Many ecclesiasticswere found ready to renounce their bishoprics; but they retained thegreater part of the revenues, and not unfrequently the presentation ofthe benefices dependent on them also. Even the laws forbidding the sonof a clergyman (!) to procure induction to the living of his father, andenacting that no ecclesiastic should dispose of his office by will (!), were continually evaded; for as all could obtain permission to appointwhomsoever he might choose as his coadjutor, provided he were liberal ofhis money, so the benefices of the Church became in a manner hereditary. 

"It followed of necessity that the performance of ecclesiastical dutieswas grievously neglected. . . . In all places incompetent persons wereintrusted with the performance of clerical duties; they were appointedwithout scrutiny or selection. The incumbents of benefices wereprincipally interested in finding substitutes at the lowest possiblecost; thus the mendicant friars were frequently chosen as particularlysuitable in this respect. These men occupied the bishoprics under thetitle (previously unheard of in that sense) of suffragans; the curesthey held in the capacity of vicars. " (!)

In order not to extend this review too long, we shall refer only to oneother Pope, Leo X. It was in the main a prosperous reign that wasinaugurated by Leo X. A treaty was concluded with France, which hadinvaded Italy. By a diplomatic maneuver the Pragmatic Sanction wasannulled, and the Lateran Council was ordered to pronounce itsdeath-warrant. France was humbled. "All resistance was vain against thealliance of the highest spiritual with the highest temporal power. Now, at last, the papacy seemed once more to have quelled the hostile spiritwhich had grown up at Constance and Basel (two church councils whichtried to reform the papacy, but failed), and found its stronghold inFrance, and at this very time it was near its most grievous fall. " Twoyears later Luther, not fathoming as yet the depths of iniquity which hewas beginning to lay bare, published his Ninety-Five Theses. 

Leo X is the Pope that excommunicated Luther. Ranke describes theclosing hours of his life. The Pope had been extremely successful in hispolitical schemes. "Parma and Placentia were recovered, the French werecompelled to withdraw, and the Pope might safely calculate on exercisinggreat influence over the new sovereign of Milan. It was a crisis ofinfinite moment: a new state of things had arisen in politics--a greatmovement had commenced in the Church. The aspect of affairs permittedLeo to flatter himself that he should retain the power of directing thefirst, and he had succeeded in repressing the second. " (This refers toLuther's protest; the Pope was, of course, mistaken in the view that hehad put a stop to Luther's movement by excommunicating him. ) "He wasstill young enough to indulge the anticipation of fully profiting by theresults of this auspicious moment. Strange and delusive destiny of man!The Pope was at his villa of Malliana when he received intelligence thathis party had triumphantly entered Milan; he abandoned himself to theexultation arising naturally from the successful completion of animportant enterprise, and looked cheerfully on at the festivities hispeople were preparing on the occasion. He paced backward and forwardtill deep in the night, between the window and the blazing hearth--itwas the month of November. Somewhat exhausted, but still in highspirits, he arrived at Rome, and the rejoicings there celebrated for histriumph were not yet concluded, when he was attacked by a mortaldisease. 'Pray for me, ' said he to his servants, 'that I may yet makeyou all happy. ' We see that he loved life, but his hour was come, he hadnot time to receive the sacrament nor extreme unction. So suddenly, soprematurely, and surrounded by hopes so bright! he died-'as the poppyfadeth. '" In the record of Sanuto, who is witness for these events, there is a "Lettera di Hieronymo Bon a suo barba, a di 5 Dec. " whichcontains the following: "It is not certainly known whether the Pope diedof poison or not. He was opened. Master Fernando judged that he waspoisoned, others thought not. Of this last opinion is Master Severino, who saw him opened, and says he was not poisoned. " (Ranke, I, 34 ff. ;Gieseler, III, 290 ff. , at random. )

Out of such conditions grew Luther's work. But on these conditionsCatholic critics of Luther maintain a discreet--shall we not say, aguilty?--silence. Few Catholic laymen to whom the horrors of Luther'slife are painted with repulsive effect know the horrors which Lutherfaced. They are only told that Luther attacked "Holy Mother. " They arenot told that "Holy Mother" had become the harlot of the ages. 

6. Luther's Birth and Parentage. 

Catholic writers make thorough work in explaining the reasons forLuther's "defection" from Rome. They apply to Luther's stubbornresistance the law of heredity: Luther's wildness was congenital. Somehave declared him the illegitimate child of a Bohemian heretic, others, the oaf of a witch, still others, a changeling of Beelzebub, etc. 

Many of these writers, giving themselves the airs of painstakinginvestigators who have made careful research, repeat the tale ofBarbour, viz. , that Luther was born in the day-and-night room of an innat Eisleben. If this is so, Luther's mother must have been a traveler onthe day of her first confinement. If this were so, the fact could, ofcourse, be easily explained without dishonor to Luther's mother: shemerely miscalculated the date of the birth of her first-born, --not anunusual occurrence. Carlyle believed this story, but gave it an almosttoo honorable turn, by likening the inn at Eisenach to the inn atBethlehem. 

But this story of Luther's birth in a bar-room is not history; itbelongs in the realm of mythology. Nobody knows to-day the house whereLuther was born. Preserved Smith, his latest American biographer, saysthere is a house shown at Eisleben as Luther's birthplace, but it is"not well authenticated. " (p. 2. ) There is a bar and a restaurant inthis particular building _now, _ for the accommodation of foreignvisitors. It is possible that in this mythical birthplace of Luther youcan get a stein of foaming "monk's brew" or a "benedictine" from themonastery at Fecamp, or a "chartreuse" from Tarragona, distilledaccording to the secret formula of the holy fathers of La GrandeChartreuse. If you sip a sufficient quantity of these persuasiveliquors, you will find it possible to believe most anything. And theblessing of the holy fathers who have prepared the beverages for yourrepast will be given you gratis in addition to their liquors. 

The journey of Luther's mother to Eisleben which compelled her to put upat an inn is, likewise, imaginary. Melanchthon, Luther's associateduring the greater part of the Reformer's life, investigated the matterand states that Luther was born at his parents' home in Eisenach duringtheir temporary sojourn in that city, prior to their removal to Mansfeld. 

These stories about the place and manner of Luther's birth originated inthe seventeenth century. They were unknown in Luther's time. Generationsafter a great man has died gossip becomes busy and begins to relateremarkable incidents of his life. Lincoln did not say or do one half ofthe interesting things related about him. He has been drawn into thatmagical circle where myths are formed, because his great name willarouse interest in the wildest tale. That is what has happened toLuther. These "myths" are an unconscious tribute to his greatness. Onemight let them pass as such and smile at them. 

But the Catholic version of Luther's birth is needed by their writers asa corollary to another "fact" which they have discovered about Luther'sfather Hans. Hans Luther, so their story runs, was a fugitive fromjustice at the time of his Martin's birth. In a fit of anger he hadassaulted or slain a man in his native village of Moehra, and abandoninghis small landholdings, he fled with his wife, who was in an advancedstage of pregnancy. Color is lent to this story by the discovery thatthe Luthers at Moehra were generally violent folk. Research in theofficial court-dockets at Salzungen, the seat of the judicial districtto which Moehra belonged, shows that brawls were frequent in thatvillage, and some Luthers were involved in them. Now follows theCatholic deduction, plausible, reasonable, appealing, just like the"assumption" of Mary: "Out of the gnarly wood of this relationship, consisting mostly of powerful, pugnacious farmers, assertive of theirrights, Luther's father grew. "

This story was started in Luther's lifetime. George Wicel, who hadfallen away from the evangelical faith, accused Luther of having ahomicide for a father. In 1565, he published the story under a falsename at Paris, but gave no details. In Moehra nothing was known of thematter until the first quarter of the twentieth century. Thiscircumstance alone is damaging to the whole story. Luther was during hislifetime exposed to scrutiny of his most private affairs as no otherman. If Wicel's tale could have been authenticated, we may rest assuredthat would have been done at the time. 

In the eighteenth century a mining official in Thuringia by the name ofMichaelis told the story of Hans Luther's homicide with the necessarydetail to make it appear real. Observe, this was 220 years after thealleged event. It had been this way: Hans Luther had quarreled with aperson who was plowing his field, and had accidentally slain the manwith the bridle, or halter, of his horse. Several Protestant writers nowbegan to express belief in the story. Travelers came to Moehra for theexpress purpose of investigating the matter, _e. G. , _ Mr. Mayhew of the_London Punch_. Behold, the story had assumed definite shape throughbeing kept alive a hundred years: the accommodating citizens of Moehrawere now able to point out to the inquiring Englishman the very meadowwhere the homicide had taken place. It takes an Englishman on theaverage two years and four months to see the point of a joke. By thistime, we doubt not, it will be possible to exhibit to any confidingdunce the very horse-bridle with which Hans Luther committedmanslaughter, also the actual hole which he knocked into the head of hisvictim, beautifully surrounded by a border of blue and green, which arethe colors which the bruise assumed six hours after the infliction. Theborder may not be genuine, but we dare any Catholic investigator todisprove the genuineness of the hole. 

Writers belonging to a church that is rich in legends of the saints andin relics ought to know how a tale like Wicel's can assumerespectability and credibility in the course of time. It is not any moredifficult to account for these tales about Hans Luther's homicide thanfor the existence in our late day of the rope with which Judas hangedhimself, or the tears which Peter wept in the night of the betrayal, orthe splinters from the cross of the Lord, or the feathers from the wingsof the angel Gabriel, and sundry other marvels which are exhibited inCatholic churches for the veneration of the faithful. 

No historian that has a reputation as a scholar to lose to-day creditsthe story of Hans Luther's homicide. It is improbable on its face. Thesmall landholdings of Hans at Moehra are not real, but irreal estate. Nobody has found the title for them. There is, however, a very goodreason why Hans should want to leave Moehra. He was, according to allthat is known of his father's family, the oldest son. According to theold Thuringian law the home place and appurtenances of a peasantfreeholder passed to the youngest son. McGiffert regards the custom as"admirably careful of those most needing care. " (p. 4. ) Luther's father, on coming of age, was by this law compelled to go and seek his fortuneelsewhere, because opportunity for rising to independence there was nonefor him at Moehra. 

If Hans was a fugitive from justice, he was certainly unwise in notfleeing far enough. For at Eisenach, whither he went, he was still underthe same Saxon jurisdiction as at Moehra. He seems to have had no fearof abiding under the sovereignty which he is claimed to have offended. This observation has led one of the most exact and painstaking of modernbiographers of Luther, Koestlin, to say that the homicide story, if itrests on any basis of fact, must either refer to a different Luther, orif to Hans, the incident cannot have been a homicide. It should beremembered that there is no authentic record which in any wayincriminates Hans Luther. 

Lastly, this homicide Hans Luther, eight years after coming to Mansfeld, is elected by his fellow-townsmen one of the "Vierherren, " or aldermen, of the town. Only most trusted and well-reputed persons were given suchan office. A homicide would not have been allowed to settle at Mansfeld, much less to govern the town. Any rogue in the town that he had todiscipline in his time of office would have thrown his bloody record upto him. 

A Catholic writer says: "The wild passion of anger was an unextinguishedand unmodified heritage transmitted congenitally to the whole Lutherfamily, and this to such an extent that the Lutherzorn (Luther rage) hasattained the currency of a German colloquialism. " Mr. Mayhew thinks that"Martin was a veritable chip of the hard old block, " the "high-mettledfoal cast by a fiery blood-horse. " Catholic writers cite Mr. Mayhew as adistinguished Protestant. If you have not heard of him before, look himup in _Who is Who?_ most anywhere. 

All this, however, is a desperate attempt to find proof against anassumed criminal by circumstantial evidence. No direct evidence has everbeen available to implicate Luther's father in a village brawl. As tothe Lutherzorn, Luther has in scores of places explained the real reasonof it: Luther did not inherit, but Rome roused it. This Lutherzorn mayarise in any person that is not remotely related to the Luthers afterreading Catholic biographies of Martin Luther. 

7. Luther's Great Mistake. 

Catholic writers contend that Luther made a mistake when he became monk. Protestants share this view, but put the emphasis in the sentence:Luther became a monk, at a different place. In the Protestant view themistake is this, that Luther became a _monk, _ in the Catholic view, itis this, that _Luther_ became a monk. Protestants regard monasticismlargely as a perversion of the laws of nature and of Christian morals. In an institution of this kind Luther could not find the relief hesought. His mistake was that he sought it there. Catholics view monkeryas the highest ideal of the Christian life, and blame Luther forentering this mode of life when he was altogether unfit for it. Theyregard Luther as guilty of sacrilege far seeking admission into theorder of Augustinian friars. When he was permitted to turn monk, thatwhich is holy was given unto a dog, and pearls were cast before a swine. 

Catholics argue that Luther's cheerless boyhood, the poverty of hisparents, the hard work and close economy that was the order in the homeat Mansfeld, the harsh and cruel treatment which Luther received fromparents that were given to "fits of uncontrollable rage" induced inLuther a morose, sullen spirit. He became brooding and stubborn when yeta child. He was a most unruly boy at school. His character was notimproved when he was sent abroad for his education and had to sing forhis bread or beg in the streets. His rebellious spirit found nourishmentin these humiliations. Owing to his melancholy temperament and gloomyfits, he made no friends. He felt himself misunderstood everywhere. Eventhe little season of sunshine that came into his young life at the Cottahome in Eisenach did not cure him of the morbid feeling that nobodyappreciated him. He began to loathe the studies which he was pursuing inaccordance with the wish of his father. To certain occurrences, like theslaying of a fellow-student, an accident with which he met on a vacationtrip, and a sudden thunderstorm, he gave an ominous interpretation whichdeepened his despondency. At last he determined, "inconsiderately andprecipitately, " to enter a cloister. His friends "instinctively felt hewas not qualified or fitted for the sublime vocation to which heaspired, and they accordingly used all their powers to dissuade him fromthe course he had chosen. All their efforts were fruitless, and from thegayety and frolic of the banquet" which he had given his fellow-studentsas a farewell party "he went to the monastery. " He was so reckless thathe took this step even without the consent of his parents. "He knewlittle about the ways of God, and was not well informed of the gravityand responsibilities of the step he was taking. " "He was not called byGod to conventual life; . . . He was driven by despair, rather than thelove of higher perfection, into a religious career. " Catholics feel sosure that they have a case against Luther that in all seriousness theyask Protestants the question: Did he act honestly when he knelt beforethe prior asking to be received into the order?

Luther has later in life given various reasons for entering themonastery. His case was not simple, but complex. One reason, however, which he has assigned is the severe bringing up which he had at hishome. Hausrath is satisfied with this one reason, and many Catholicwriters adopt his view. But this remark of Luther is evidentlymisapplied if it is made to mean that Luther sought ease, comfort, leniency in the cloister as a relief from the hard life which he hadbeen leading. Luther had grasped the fundamental idea in monkery quitewell: flight from the secular life as a means to become exceptionallyholy. He sought quiet for meditation and devotion, but no physical easeand earthly comforts. He knew of the rigors of cloister-life. Hewillingly bowed to "the gentle yoke of Christ"--thus ran the monkishritual--which the life of an eremite among eremites was to impose onhim. His hard life in the days of his boyhood and youth had been anunconscious preparation for this life. He had been strictly trained tofear God and keep His commandments. The holy life of the saints had beenheld up to him as far back as he could remember as the marvel ofChristian perfection. Home and Church had cooperated in deepening theimpressions of the sanctity of the monkish life in him. When he saw theemaciated Duke of Anhalt in monk's garb with his beggar's wallet on hisback tottering through the streets of Magdeburg, and everybody held hisbreath at this magnificent spectacle of advanced Christianity, and thenbroke forth in profuse eulogies of the princely pilgrim to the gloriesof monkish sainthood, that left an indelible impression on thefifteen-year-old boy. When he observed the Carthusians at Eisenach, weary and wan with many a vigil, somber and taciturn, toiling up therugged steps to a heaven beyond the common heaven; when he talked withthe young priests at the towns where he studied, and all praised thelife of a monk to this young seeker after perfect righteousness; when incloister-ridden Erfurt he observed that the monks were outwardly, atleast, treated with peculiar reverence, can any one wonder that in amind longing for peace with God the resolve silently ripened into theact: I will be a monk?

We, too, would call this an act of despair. We would say with Luther:Despair makes monks. But the despair which we mean, and which Luthermeant, is genuine spiritual despair. What Catholics call Luther'sdespair is really desperation, a reckless, dare-devil plunging of acriminal into a splendid Catholic sanctuary. That Luther's act decidedlywas not. By Rome's own teaching Luther belonged in the cloister. Thatmode of life was originally designed to meet the needs of just suchminds as his. His entering the monastery was the logical sequence of hisprevious Catholic tutelage. Rome has this monk on its conscience, and agood many more besides. 

As piety went in those days, Luther had been raised a pious young man. He was morally clean. He was a consistent, yea, a scrupulous member ofhis Church, regular in his daily devotions, reverencing every ordinanceof the Church. Also during his student years he kept himself unspottedfrom the moral contaminations of the academic life. He abhorred thestudents who were devoted to King Gambrinus and Knight Tannhaeuser. Heloathed the taverns and brothels of Erfurt. The Cotta home was no_Bierstube_ in his day. The banquet-hall where he met his friends theevening before he entered the cloister was no banquet-hall in the modernsense of the term. That he played the lute at this farewell party, andthat there were some "honorable maidens" present, is nowadays relatedwith a wink of the eye by Catholics. But there was nothing wrong in allthe proceedings of that evening. It was indeed an honorable gathering. Luther was never a prudish man or fanatic. He loved the decent joys andpleasures of life. Luther gathered his friends about him to take adecent leave of them. He did not run away from them secretly, as manymonks have done. He opened up his mind to them at this last meeting. Theconversation that ensued was a test of the strength of the convictionshe had formed. His was an introspective nature. He had wrestled dailywith the sin that ever besets us. He knew that with all his conventionalreligiousness he could not pass muster before God. Over his wash-basinhe was overheard moaning: "The more we wash, the more unclean webecome. " He felt like Paul when he groaned: "O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7, 24. ) He wassorrowing for his poor soul. He was hungering and thirsting forrighteousness. "When will I ever attain to that state of mind that I amsure God is pleased with me?" he mused distractedly. What he could notfind while engaged in his secular pursuits, that, he was told, thecloister could give him. To obtain that he entered the monastery. Ifever Rome had an honest applicant for monkery, Luther is that man. 

Nor did he act precipitately. As shown, the thought of this act had beenquietly forming in him for years. When he made his rash vow to St. Anna, he still allowed two weeks to pass before he put his resolution intoaction. Try and picture to yourself his state of mind during thosefourteen days! Moving about in his customary surroundings, he was dailyprobing the correctness of his contemplated change of life. He fought asoul-battle in those days, and the remembrance of his father made thatbattle none the easier. From the Catholic standpoint Luther deserves anaureole for that struggle. After entering the cloister, he was still atliberty for a year and a half to retrace his fatal step. But his firstimpressions were favorable; monkery really seemed to bring him heart'sease and peace, and there was no one to disabuse his mind of thedelusion. After nearly two years in the monastery, while sitting withhis father at the cloister board on the event of his ordination to thepriesthood, he declares to his father that he enjoys the quiet, contemplative life that he has chosen. Surely, he made a mistake bybecoming monk, but Catholics cannot fault him for that mistake. If thelife of monks and nuns is really what they claim that it is: the highestand most perfect form of Christianity, they should consistently give anyperson credit for making the effort to lead that life. In fact, theyought all to turn monks and nuns to honor their own principles. 

8. Luther's Failure as a Monk. 

Monasticism is a pagan shoot grafted on a Christian tree. At its baselies the heathenish notion that sin can be extirpated by severeonslaughts upon the body and the physical life. It has existed inBuddhism before some Christians adopted it. In the early days ofChristianity it was proclaimed as superior wisdom by the Platonicphilosophers. Like many a lie it has been decked out with Bible-texts togive it respectability, and to soothe disquieted consciences. TheScripture-sayings regarding fasting, sexual continence, chastity, crucifying the flesh, etc. , are made to stand sponsor for this bastardoffspring of the brain of Christian mystics. 

With excellent discrimination Mosheim has traced the origin ofmonasticism to the early Christian fathers. The earliest impulses tomonasticism are contained in such writings as the Epistle to Zenas, found among the writings of Justinus, the tracts of Clement ofAlexandria on Calumny, Patience, Continence, and other virtues, thetracts of Tertullian on practical duties, such as Chastity, Flight fromPersecution, Fasting, Theatrical Exhibitions, the Dress of Females, Prayer, etc. These writings "would be perused with greater profit, wereit not for the gloomy and morose spirit which they everywhere breathe. .. . In what estimation they ought to be held, the learned are notagreed. Some hold them to be the very best guides to true piety and aholy life; others, on the contrary, think their precepts were the worstpossible, and that the cause of practical religion could not becommitted to worse hands. . . . To us it appears that their writingscontain many things excellent, well considered, and well calculated tokindle pious emotions; but also many things unduly rigorous, and derivedfrom the Stoic and Academic philosophy; many things vague andindeterminate; and many things positively false, and inconsistent withthe precepts of Christ. If one deserves the title of a bad master inmorals who has no just ideas of the proper boundaries and limitations ofChristian duties, nor clear and distinct conceptions of the differentvirtues and vices, nor a perception of those general principles to whichrecurrence should be had in all discussions respecting Christian virtue, and therefore very often talks at random, and blunders in expounding thedivine laws; though he may say many excellent things, and excite in usconsiderable emotion; then I can readily admit that in strict truth thistitle belongs to many of the Fathers. . . . They admitted, with goodintentions no doubt, yet most inconsiderately, a great error in regardto morals, and pernicious to Christianity; an error which, through allsucceeding ages to our times, has produced an infinity of mistakes andevils of various kinds. Jesus, our Savior, prescribed one and the samerule of life or duty to all His disciples. But the Christian doctors, either by too great a desire of imitating the nations among whom theylived, or from a natural propensity to austerity and gloom, (a diseasethat many labor under in Syria, Egypt, and other provinces of the East, )were induced to maintain that Christ had prescribed a twofold rule ofholiness and virtue; the one ordinary, the other extraordinary; the onelower, the other higher; the one for men of business, the other forpersons of leisure, and such as desired higher glory in the futureworld. They therefore early divided all that had been taught them eitherin books or by tradition, respecting a Christian life and morals, intoPrecepts and Counsels. They gave the name Precepts to those laws whichwere universally obligatory, or were enacted for all men of alldescriptions; but the Counsels pertained solely to those who aspireafter superior holiness and a closer union with God. There soon arose, therefore, a class of persons who professed to strive after thatextraordinary and more eminent holiness, and who, of course, resolved toobey the Counsels of Christ, that they might have intimate communionwith God in this life, and might, on leaving the body, rise withoutimpediment or difficulty to the celestial world. They supposed manythings were forbidden to them which were allowed to other Christians, such as wine, flesh, matrimony, and worldly business. They thought theymust emaciate their bodies with watching, fasting, toil, and hunger. They considered it a blessed thing to retire to desert places, and bysevere meditation to abstract their minds from all external objects, andwhatever delights the senses. Both men and women imposed these severerestraints on themselves, with good intentions, I suppose, but setting abad example, and greatly to the injury of the cause of Christianity. They were, of course, denominated Ascetics, Zealous Ones, Elect, andalso Philosophers; and they were distinguished from other Christians, not only by a different appellation, but by peculiarities of dress anddemeanor. Those who embraced this austere mode of life lived indeed onlyfor themselves, but they did not withdraw themselves altogether from thesociety and converse of men. But in process of time, persons of thisdescription at first retired into deserts, and afterwards formedthemselves into associations, after the manner of the Essenes andTherapeutae. 

"The causes of this institution are at hand. First, the Christians didnot like to appear inferior to the Greeks, the Romans, and the otherpeople among whom there were many philosophers and sages, who weredistinguished from the vulgar by their dress and their whole mode oflife, and who were held in high honor. Now among these philosophers (asis well known) none better pleased the Christians than the Platonistsand Pythagoreans, who are known to have recommended two modes of living, the one for philosophers who wished to excel others in virtue, and theother for people engaged in the common affairs of life. The Platonistsprescribed the following rule for philosophers: The mind of a wise manmust be withdrawn, as far as possible, from the contagious influence ofthe body. And as the oppressive load of the body and social intercourseare most adverse to this design, therefore all sensual gratificationsare to be avoided; the body is to be sustained, or rather mortified, with coarse and slender fare; solitude is to be sought for; and the mindis to be self-collected and absorbed in contemplation, so as to bedetached as much as possible from the body. Whoever lives in this mannershall in the present life have converse with God, and, when freed fromthe load of the body, shall ascend without delay to the celestialmansions, and shall not need, like the souls of other men, to undergo apurgation. The grounds of this system lay in the peculiar sentimentsentertained by this sect of philosophers and by their friends, respecting the soul, demons, matter, and the universe. And as thesesentiments were embraced by the Christian philosophers, the necessaryconsequences of them were, of course, to be adopted also. 

"What is here stated will excite less surprise if it be remembered thatEgypt was the land where this mode of life had its origin. For thatcountry, from some law of nature, has always produced a greater numberof gloomy and hypochondriac or melancholy persons than any other; and itstill does so. Here it was long before the Savior's birth, not only theEssenes and Therapeutae--those Jewish sects, composed of persons with amorbid melancholy, or rather partially deranged--had their chiefresidence; but many others also, that they might better please the gods, withdrew themselves as by the instinct of nature from commerce with menand with all pleasures of life. From Egypt this mode of life passed intoSyria and the neighboring countries, which in like manner alwaysabounded with unsociable and austere individuals: and from the East itwas at last introduced among the nations of Europe. Hence the numerousmaladies which still deform the Christian world; hence the celibacy ofthe clergy; hence the numerous herds of monks; hence the two species oflife, the theoretical and mystical. " (_Eccles. Hist. , _ I, 128 f. )

One may well feel pity for the original monks. Their zeal was heroic, but it was spent upon an issue that is in its very root and core ahaughty presumption and a lie. Exhaust all the Scripture-texts whichspeak of indwelling sin, of the lust that rages in our members, of theduty to keep the body under by fasting and vigilance, and there will notbe found enough Bible to cover the nakedness of the monastic principle. Its fundamental thought of a select type of piety to be attained byspectacular efforts at self-mortification flies in the face of thedoctrine that we are rid of sin and sanctified by divine grace alone. Monkish holiness is a slander of the Redeemer's all-sufficient sacrificefor sin and of the work of the Holy Spirit. It started in paganism, andwants to drag Christianity back into paganism. 

But monasticism in Luther's day was no longer of the sort which one mayview with a pathetic interest. The old monastic ideals had been largelyabandoned. Instead of crucifying the flesh, the monks were nursing andfondling carnal-mindedness. The cloisters had become cesspools ofcorruption. Because the reputation of monks was utterly bad, and monkswere publicly scorned and derided, Luther's friends tried to dissuadehim from entering the cloister. That was the reason, too, why Luther'sfather was so deeply shocked when he heard of what his Martin had done, and Luther had to assure his father that he had not gone into the herdof monks to seek what people believed men sought in that profligatecompany. For that reason, too, he had chosen the Augustinian order, because a strong reform movement had been started in that order, and itsreputation was better than that of the other orders. Luther meant to bea monk of the original type. 

Since the days of Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, and ThomasAquinas the Roman Church teaches that there is in the Church a treasuryof supererogatory works, that is, of good works which Christ and thesaints have performed in excess of what is ordinarily demanded of everyman in the way of upright living. We shall meet with this idea again inanother connection. It flows from the monastic principles. Monks musthave not only enough sanctity for their own needs, but to spare. Of thissuperfluous sanctity they may make an assignment in favor of others. Donot smile incredulously; monks actually make such assignments. Luthermay not have thought of this when he entered the cloister, but herejoiced in this scheme of substitutive sanctity later. He thought hehad found in monkery a gold-mine of holiness that would be sufficientnot only for himself, but also for his parents. While at Rome some yearslater, he was in a way sorry that his father and mother were not alreadyin purgatory. He had such a fine chance there to accumulatesupererogatory good works which he might have transferred to them toshorten their agonies, or release them entirely. 

In order to make a successful monk, one must be either a Pharisee or anepicurean. The Pharisee takes an inventory of the works named in the Lawof God, and sets out to perform these in an external, mechanical manner. He adds a few works of his own invention for good measure. Every workperformed counts; it constitutes merit. On the basis of his two pecksand a half of merit the Pharisee now begins to drive a bargain with God:for so much merit he claims so much distinction and glory. He figures itall out to God, so that God shall not make a mistake at the time of thesettlement: I have not been this, nor that, nor the other thing; I havedone this, and that, and some more. Consequently . . . ! The epicureanis a jolly fatalist. Whatever is to happen will happen. Why worry? Goalong at an even pace; eat, drink, be merry, but for Heaven's sake donot take a serious or tragical view of anything! Take things as theyare; if you can improve them, well and good; if not, let it pass; forgetit; eat a good meal and go to sleep. 

Luther was never an epicurean. The seriousness of life had confrontedhim at a very early date. The sense of duty was highly developed in himfrom early youth. In all that he did he felt himself as a being that isresponsible to his Maker and Judge. Easy-going indifference and readyself-pity were not in his character. For this Luther is now faulted byCatholics. It is said he extended the rigors of monasticism beyond thebounds of reasonableness. He was too severe with himself. He outragedhuman nature. Quite correct; but is not monasticism by itself anoutrage upon human nature? Luther had endured the monastery for the verypurpose of enduring hardness. He did not flinch when the battle intowhich he had gone commenced in earnest. Luther is said to have beentardy and neglectful in the observance of the rules of the order. Sometimes he would omit the canonical hours, that is, the statedprayers, or some form of prescribed devotion, and then he would endeavorto make up for the loss by redoubled effort, which overtaxed hisphysical strength. Quite true. It is not such a rare occurrence that amonk forgets the one or the other of the minutiae of the daily monkishroutine. The regulations of his orders extended to such things as theposture which he must assume while standing, while sitting, whilekneeling; the movement of his arms, of his hands; how to approach, howto move in front of the altar, how to leave it, etc. When his mind wasengrossed with the study of the Bible or some commentary of a ChurchFather, it was easy for Luther to forget parts of the program which hewas to carry out. Whenever this happened, was it not his duty toendeavor to repair the damage? Were not penances imposed on him in theconfessional for every default? Luther is said to have been led intostill deeper gloom by his study of the doctrine of predestination. True, but even this study did not lead Luther off into fatalism. It terrifiedhim, because he studied that profound doctrine without a true perceptionof divine grace and the meaning of the Redeemer's work. However, thisstudy did not at any time permanently affect his vigorous striving afterholiness. 

When Catholics explain Luther's failure as a monk by such assertions, they involve themselves in self-contradiction. By their own principlesmonkery is not a natural life; yet, when a monk fails in his monkery, they fault him for not being natural. First, they tell the applicantthat he must not be what he is, and afterwards they blame him forwanting to be what they told him to be, and what he finds he cannot be. If this is not adding insult to injury, what is? Francis of Assisibecame a great saint by that very inhuman treatment of himself for whichLuther is censured. But then Francis of Assisi did not quit his orderand did not attack the Pope. 

The other reason why Luther failed is, because he could not make aPharisee of himself, which is only another name for hypocrite. The Lawof God had such a terrible meaning to him because he applied it as theLawgiver wants it applied, to his whole inner life, to the heart, thesoul, the mind, and all his powers of intellect and will. It iscomparatively easy to make the members of the body go through certainexternal performances, but to make the mind obey is a differentproposition. The discovery which disheartened Luther was, that while hewas outwardly leading the life of a blameless monk, his inward life wasnot improved. Sin was ever present with him, as it is with every humanbeing. He felt the terrible smitings of the accusing conscience becausehe was keenly alive to the real demands of God's Law. The holy Law ofGod wrought its will upon him to the fullest extent: it roused him toanger with the God who had given this Law to man; it led him intoblasphemous thoughts, so that he recoiled with horror from himself. Doesthe true Law of God, when properly applied, ever have any other effectupon natural man? Paul says: "It worketh wrath" (Rom. 4, 15), namely, wrath in man against God. It drives man to despair. That is itslegitimate function: No person has touched the essence of the Law whohas not passed through these awful experiences. Nor did any man everflee from the Law and run to Christ for shelter but for theseunendurable terrors which the Law begets. That was Luther's wholetrouble, and that is why he failed as a monk: he had started out tobecome a saint, and he did not even succeed in making a Pharisee ofhimself. If Rome has produced a monk that succeeded better than Luther, he ought to be exhibited and examined. He will be found either an angelor a brazen fraud. He will not be a true man. 

9. Professor Luther, D. D. 

Catholic writers greedily grab every opportunity to belittle Luther'sscholarship. Incentives to study at home, they say, he received none. His common school education was wretched. During his high school studieshe was favored with good teachers, but hampered by his home-bredroughness and uncouthness and his poverty. He applied himself diligentlyto his studies, but gave no sign of being a genius. At the University ofErfurt, too, he was studious, but he seems to have made no greatimpression on the University. "He paid little attention to grammaticaldetails, and never attained to Ciceronian purity and elegance in speechand writing. " When he made his A. B:, he ranked thirteenth in a class offifty-seven. He did a little better in his effort for the title of A. M. , when he came out second among seventeen candidates. But Melanchthonis declared entirely wrong when he relates that Luther was the wonder ofthe University. His theological studies preparatory to his entering thepriesthood were very hasty and superficial. Still less prepared was hefor the work of a professor. His duties in the cloister left him littletime for learned studies. Yet he went to "bibulous Wittenberg, " to alittle five-year-old university, and lectured "as best he could. " By theway, our Catholic friends seem to forget that "bibulous" Wittenberg wasa good old Catholic town at the time. All things considered, Luther'sadvancement was all too rapid; it was not justified by his preparatorystudies, which had been "anything but deep, solid, systematic. " "Thetheological culture he received was not on a par with that required nowby the average seminarian, let alone a Doctor of Divinity. " He acceptedthe title of D. D. Very reluctantly, being conscious that he did notdeserve it. A feeling of the insufficiency of his education tormentedhim all through life. "It cannot be denied that he was industrious, self-reliant, ambitious, but withal, he was not a methodically trainedman. At bottom, he was neither a philosopher nor a theologian, and at notime of his life, despite his efforts to acquire knowledge, did he showhimself more than superficially equipped to grapple with serious anddifficult philosophical and religious problems. His study never rose tobrilliancy. " Thus runs the Catholic account of Professor and DoctorLuther. 

We have not quoted the worst Catholic estimates of Luther's scholarship. He has also been called a dunce, an ignoramus, a barbarian. Again itseems to escape the Catholics that this ill-trained, insufficient, half-baked Doctor of Divinity is a product of their own educational art. Whatever advancement he received in those days was actually forced uponhim by Catholics. All his academic and ecclesiastical honors came fromCatholic sources, came to him, moreover, as a good Catholic. Also thathighest and noblest distinction which made him a duly called andaccredited expounder of the Holy Scriptures. If there is fault to befound with anything in this matter, it lies with the Catholic method andprocess of making a young man within the space of ten years a Bachelorof Arts, a Master of Arts, a priest, a professor, and a Doctor of SacredTheology; it does not lie with the innocent subject to whom this presto!change! process was applied. 

But does this estimate of Luther square with the facts in the case? Fora dunce or a mediocre scholar Luther has been a fair success. His littleability and scanty preparation makes his achievements all the moreremarkable. The most brilliant minds of the race, for whom the home, theChurch and the State, religion, science and art, had done their best, have accomplished immeasurably less than this poor and mostlyself-taught country boy. God give His Church many more such dunces!

The net results of Luther's learning are open to inspection by the worldin his numerous works. Able scholars of most recent times have lookedinto Luther's writings with a view of determining how much learnedknowledge he had actually acquired, even before he began his reformatorywork, They have found that Luther was "very well versed in the favoriteLatin authors of the day: Vergil, Terence, Ovid, Aesop, Cicero, Livy, Seneca, Horace, Catullus, Juvenal, Silius, Statius, Lucan, Suetonius, Sallust, Quintilian, Varro, Pomponius Mela, the two Plinies, and the_Germania_ of Tacitus. " He possessed a creditable amount of knowledge ofGeneral History and Church History. He had made a profound study of theleading philosophers and scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages:Thomas of Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Bernard of Clairvaux, Duns Scotus, Occam, Gregory of Rimini, Pierre d'Ailly, Gerson, and Biel. Two of thesehe knew almost by heart. He had studied the ancient Church Fathers:Irenaeus, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory ofNanzianzen, Jerome, and such later theologians as Cassiodorus, Gregorythe Great, and Anselm of Canterbury; Tauler, Lefevre, Erasmus, and Picodella Mirandola. "He was quite at home in the exegetical Middle Ages, inthe Canon Law, in Aristotle and Porphyry. " "He was one of the firstGerman professors to learn Greek and Hebrew. " Moreover, Lutherpossessed, besides knowledge, those indispensable requisites in a goodprofessor: "the faculty of plain, clear, correct, and independentthought, resourcefulness, acumen" (Boehmer, p. 179 f. ). He had thecourage to tell the Church that it was a shame, that a heathenphilosopher, Aristotle, should formulate the doctrines which Christiansare to believe and their pastors are to teach. He threw this heathen, who had for ages dominated Christian teaching, out of his lecture-room, and took his students straight to the pure fountain of religious truth, the Word of God. He publicly burned the Canon Law by which the RomanChurch had forged chains for the consciences of men, and which sheupholds to this day. His lecture-room became crowded with eager andenthusiastic students, and the stripling university planted on the edgeof civilization in the sands along the Elbe became for a while thereligious and theological hub of the world. The students who gatheredabout Luther knew that they had a real professor in him. The world ofhis day came to this fledgling doctor with the weightiest questions, andreceived answers that satisfied. That part of the intelligent world ofto-day which has read and studied Luther endorses the verdict ofLuther's contemporaries as regards his ample learning and proficiency asa teacher. 

More learned men, indeed, than Luther there have been. Some of thesehave also made attempts to introduce needed reforms in the corrupt RomanChurch. Rome met their learned and labored arguments with the consummateskill of a past master in sophistry. Those learned efforts came tonaught. Rome will never be reformed by human learning and scholarship. Scholars are rarely men of action. It is because Professor Luther taught_and acted_ that Rome hates him. He would have been permitted to lecturein peace whatever he wished--others in the universities were doing thatat the time--if he had only been careful not to do anything, at leastnot publicly, against the authority of the Church. That was theunpardonable blunder of Luther that he wanted to live as he believed, and that he taught others to do the same. For this reason he is adullard, an ignoramus, a poor scholar, a poor writer, in a word, aninferior person from a literary and scholarly point of view. 

In Numbers (chap. 22) there is a story told of the prophet Balaam, whowent out on a wicked mission for which a great reward had been promisedhim. He rode along cheerfully, feasting his avaricious heart on thegreat hoard he would bring back, when suddenly the ass that bore himbalked. The prophet began to beat the animal, but it did not budge aninch. All at once this dunce of an ass which had never been put througha spelling-book began to talk and remonstrated with the prophet: "Am Inot thine ass? What have I done unto thee that thou hast smitten me?" Tohis amazement the prophet was able to understand the ass quite well. This dumb brute made its meaning plain to a learned man. It was anintolerable outrage that an ass should lecture a doctor, and balk him inhis designs. Luther is that ass. Rome rode him, and he patiently borehis wicked master until the angel of the Lord stopped him and he wouldgo no further. The only difference is that Balaam had his eyes opened, left off beating his ass, and felt sorry for what he had done. Rome'seyes have not been opened for four hundred years. It is still beatingthe poor ass. It does not see the Lord who has blocked her path andsaid, You shall go no further!

In 2 Kings, chap. 5, there is another story told of the Syrian captainNaaman, who came to be healed of his leprosy by the prophet Elijah. Withhis splendid suite the great statesman drove up in grand style to theprophet's cottage. He expected that the holy man would come out to meethim, and very deferentially engage to do the great lord's bidding. Theprophet did not even come out of his hut, but sent Naaman word to go andwash seven times in Jordan and he would be cleansed. Now Naaman flewinto a rage, because the prophet had, in the first place, not evendeigned to speak to him, and, secondly, had ordered a ridiculouslycommonplace cure for him. He stormed that he would do no such thing aswash in that old Jordan River. He had better waters at home. Let theprophet keep his old Jordan for such as he was. And he rode off in greatdudgeon. Rome is the leprous gentleman, and Luther is the man of God whotold her how to become clean. The only difference is this: Naamanlistened to wise counsel, and finally did what he had been told to do, and was cleansed. Rome disdains to this day to listen to the ill-bredson of a peasant, the theological upstart Luther, and remains as filthyas she has been. 

10. Luther's "Discovery" of the Bible. 

Since Luther's study of the Bible has been referred to several times inthese pages, it is time that the righteousness of a certain indignationbe examined which Catholic writers display. They pretend to bescandalized by the tale that in Luther's time the Bible was such a rarebook that it was practically unknown. With the air of outraged innocencesome of them rise to protest against the stupid myth that Luther"discovered" the Bible. They claim that their Church had been so eagerto spread the Bible, and had published editions of the Bible in suchrapid succession, that in Luther's age Christian Europe was full ofBibles. Moreover, that age, they tell us, was an age of intenseBible-study. Not only the theologians, but also the laymen, not only thewealthy and highly educated, but also the common people, had unhinderedaccess to the Bible. The historical data for Rome's alleged zeal inbehalf of the Bible these Catholic writers gather largely fromProtestant authors. For greater effect they propose to buttress, withthe fruits of the laborious research of Protestants, their charge thatLuther's ignorance of the Bible was self-inflicted and reallyinexcusable. 

What are the facts in the case? The whole account which we possess ofLuther's "discovery" of the Bible is contained in Luther's Table Talk. (22, 897. ) This is a book which Luther did not personally compose noredit. It is a collection of sayings which his guests noted down while atmeat with Luther, or afterwards from memory. From a casual remark duringa meal Mathesius obtained the information which he published in hisbiography of Luther, _viz. , _ that, when twenty-two years old, Luther oneday had found the Bible in a library at Erfurt. 

Now, we do not wish to question the general credibility of the TableTalk, nor the authenticity of this particular remark of Luther about hisstumbling upon the Bible by accident. But it is certainly germane to oursubject to strip the incident of the dramatic features with whichCatholic writers claim that most Protestants still surround the event. Did Luther say, and did Mathesius report, that up to the year 1505 hehad not known of the Bible? Not at all. He merely stated that up to thattime he had not seen _a complete copy of the Bible_. Luther himself hastold scores of times that when a schoolboy at Mansfeld, and later atMagdeburg and Eisenach where he studied, he had heard portions of theGospels and Epistles read during the regular service at church. Somepassages he had learned by heart. Luther's guests would have laughed athim if he had claimed such a "discovery" of the Bible as Catholicwriters--and some of their Protestant authorities--think that Mathesiushas claimed for him and modern Protestants still credit him with. 

What Luther did relate we are prepared to show was not, and could notbe, an unusual occurrence in those days. "Even in the University ofParis, which was considered the mother and queen of all the rest, not aman could be found, when Luther arose, competent to dispute with him outof the Scriptures. This was not strange. Many of the doctors of theologyin those times had never read the Bible. Carolostadt expressly tells usthis was the case with himself. Whenever one freely read the Bible, hewas cried out against, as one making innovations, as a heretic, andexposing Christianity to great danger by making the New Testament known. Many of the monks regarded the Bible as a book which abounded innumerous error. " (Mosheim, III, 15. ) The spiritual atmosphere in whichLuther and all Christians of his time were brought up was unfavorable toreal Bible-study. 

But before we exhibit the true attitude of Rome toward the Bible, itwill be necessary to examine the Catholic claim regarding the extensivedissemination and the intensive study of the Bible among the people inand before Luther's times. Before the age of printing one cannot speak, of course, of "editions" of the Bible. The earliest date for thepublication of a printed edition of the Bible is probably 1460--twenty-three years before Luther's birth. That was an event fully asmomentous as the opening of the transatlantic cable in our time. Beforeprinting had been invented, the Bible was multiplied by being copied. That was a slow process. Even when a number of copyists wrote at thesame time to dictation, it was a tedious process, requiring much time, and not very many would join in such a cooperative effort of Bibleproduction. Besides, few men in those early ages were qualified for thiswork. A certain degree of literary proficiency was required for thetask. The centuries during which the papacy rose to the zenith of itspower are notorious for the illiteracy of the masses. It was considereda remarkable achievement even for a nobleman to be able to scribble hisname. Among those who possessed the ability few had the inclination andpersistency necessary for the effort to transcribe the Bible. Thecloisters of those days were the chief seats of learning and centers oflower education, but even these asylums of piety sheltered many anignorant monk and others who were afflicted with the proverbial monks'malady--laziness. It is to the credit of the pious members of the RomanChurch in that unhappy age that they manifested such a laudable interestin the Bible. The achievement of copying the entire Bible with one's ownhand in that age is so great that it palliates some of the glaring evilsof the inhuman system of monasticism. But if every monk in everycloister, every priest in every Catholic parish, every professor inevery Catholic university, could have produced twenty copies of theBible during his lifetime, how little would have been accomplished tomake the Bible available for the millions of men then living!

Reading is the correlate of writing. The person who cannot write, as arule, cannot read. For this reason the Bible must have remained a sealedbook to many who had ample opportunity to become acquainted with it. Thewide diffusion of Bible knowledge which Catholic writers would lead usto believe always existed in the Roman Church is subject to question. Itis true that in the first centuries of the Christian era there was agreat hunger and thirst for the Word of God. But that was before theRoman Church came into existence. For it is a reckless assumption thatthe papacy is an original institution in the Church of Christ, and thatRoman Catholicism and Christianity are identical. It is also true thatin the early days of the Reformation the people manifested a greatdesire for the Word of God. It was as new to them as it had been toLuther. They would crowd around a person who was able to read, and wouldlisten for hours. At St. Paul's in London public reading of the Biblebecame a regular custom. But between the early days of Christianity andthe beginning of the Reformation lies a period which. Is known as theDark Ages. No amount of oratory will turn that age into a Bright Age. "From the seventh to the eleventh century books were so scarce thatoften not one could be found in an entire city, and even richmonasteries possessed only a single text-book. " (_Universal Encycl. , _2, 96. ) These conditions were not greatly improved until printing wasinvented. Luther had to do with people who were emerging from the sadconditions of that age, the effects of which were still visiblecenturies after. He writes: "The deplorable destitution which I recentlyobserved, during a visitation of the churches, has impelled andconstrained me to prepare this Catechism, or Christian Doctrine, in sucha small and simple form. Alas, what manifold misery I beheld! The commonpeople, especially in the villages, know nothing at all of Christiandoctrine; and many pastors are quite unfit and incompetent to teach. Yetall are called Christians, have been baptized, and enjoy the use of theSacraments, although they know neither the Lord's Prayer, nor the Creed, nor the Ten Commandments, and live like the poor brutes and irrationalswine. " (Preface to the Small Catechism. ) Remember, these people livedin that age when Luther was born and grew up, which Catholic writerspicture to us as a Bible-knowing and Bible-loving age. 

The invention of printing wrought a mighty change in this respect. Thisglorious art became hallowed from the beginning by being harnessed forservice to the Bible. But even this invention did not at once remove theprevailing ignorance. We must not transfer modern conditions to thefifteenth century. In 1906, one of the many Protestant Bible Societiesreported that it had disposed in one year of nearly 80, 000, 000 Biblesand parts of the Bible in many languages. The Bible is perhaps thecheapest book of modern times. It was not so in the days of Gutenberg, Froschauer, Luft, and the Claxtons. Even after printing had beeninvented, Bibles sold at prices that would be considered prohibitive inour day. When the Duke of Anhalt ordered three copies of the Bibleprinted on parchment, he was told that for each copy he must furnish 340calf-skins, and the expense would be sixty gulden. (Luther's Works, 21b, 2378. ) But even the low-priced editions of the Bible, printed on commonpaper (which was not introduced into Europe until the thirteenthcentury), cost a sum of money which a poor man would consider a fortune, and which even the well-to-do would hesitate to spend in days when moneywas scarce and its purchasing power was considerably different from whatit is to-day. At a period not so very remote from the present a Biblewas considered a valuable chattel of which a person would dispose by aspecial codicil in his will. For generations Bibles would thus be handeddown from father to son, not only because of the sacred memories thatattached to them as heirlooms, but also because of their actual value inmoney. 

Everything considered, then, we hold the argument that the Bible was awidely diffused book in the days before Luther to be historicallyuntrue, because it implies physical impossibilities. With themagnificent printing and publishing facilities of our times, how manypersons are still without the Bible? How many parishioners in all theCatholic churches of this country to-day own a Bible? The modern Biblesocieties are putting forth an energy in spreading the Bible that isunparalleled in history. Still their annual reports leave the impressionthat all they accomplish is as a drop in the bucket over and against theenormous Bible-need still unsupplied. Catholic writers paint theBible-knowledge of the age before Luther in such exceedingly brightcolors that one is led to believe that age surpassed ours. Theyovershoot their aim. Nobody finds fault with the Roman Church for nothaving invented the printing-press. All would rather be inclined toexcuse her little achievement in spreading the Bible during the MiddleAges on the ground of the poor facilities at her command. Everyintelligent and fair person will accord the Roman Church every moiety ofcredit for the amount of Bible-knowledge which she did convey to thepeople. We heartily join Luther in his belief that even in the darkestdays of the papacy men were still saved in the Roman Church, becausethey clung in their dying hour to simple texts of the Scriptures whichthey had learned from their priests. (22, 577. ) But no one must try andmake us believe that the Roman Church before Luther performed marvels inspreading the Bible. She never exhausted even the poor facilities at hercommand. 

Far from wondering, then, that Luther had not seen the complete Bibleuntil his twenty-second year, we regard this as quite natural in view ofhis lowly extraction, and we consider the censure which superficialProtestant writers have applied to Luther because of his early ignoranceof the Bible as uncommonly meretricious. When we bear in mind the knowncharacter of the Popes in Luther's days, we doubt whether even they hadread the entire Bible. Luther's "discovery" of the Bible, however is notregarded by Protestants as a discovery such as Columbus made when hefound the American continent. Luther knew of the existence of the Bibleand could cite sayings of the Bible at the time when he found the bulkyvolume in the library that made such a profound impression upon him. 

And yet his find was a true discovery. Luther discovered that his Churchhad not told him many important and beautiful things that are in theBible. He became so absorbed with the novel contents of this wonderfulbook that the desire was wrung from his: heart: Oh, that I could possessthis book! But this enthusiastic wish at once became clouded by anotherdiscovery which he made while poring over the precious revelation of thevery heart of Jesus: his Church had told him things differently fromwhat he found them stated in the Bible. He was shocked when hediscovered that in his heart a new faith was springing up which had cometo him out of the Bible, --a faith which contradicted the avowed faith ofthe Roman Church. Poor Luther! He had for the first time come under theinfluence of that Word which is quick and powerful, and sharper than anytwo-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul andspirit, and of the joints and marrow (Hebr. 4, 12), and he did not knowit. Some of the noblest minds in the ages before him have had to passthrough the same experience. With the implicit trust which at that timelie reposed in the Roman Church, Luther suppressed his "heretical"thoughts. He said: "Perhaps I am in error. Dare I believe myself sosmart as to know better than the Church?" (Hausrath, 1, 18. ) Yes, Lutherhad really discovered the Bible, namely, the Bible which the RomanChurch never has been, and never will be, willing to let the people seewhile she remains what she is to-day. This "discovery"-tale which sooffends Catholic writers could be verified in our day. Let Catholicwriters put into the hands of every Catholic of America the true, genuine, unadulterated Word of God, without any glosses and comment, andlet them watch what is going to happen. There will be astonishing"discoveries" made by the readers, and those discoveries will be nofabrications. 

11. Rome and the Bible. 

Catholic writers claim for the Roman Church the distinction which at onetime belonged to the Hebrews, that of being the keepers of the oraclesof God. They claim that to the jealous vigilance of the Roman Churchover the sacred writings of Christianity the world to-day owes theBible. The pagan emperors of Rome would have destroyed the Bible in thepersecutions which they set on foot against the early Christians, if thefaithful martyrs had not refused to surrender their sacred writings. Again, the Roman Church is represented as the faithful custodian of theBible during the political and social upheaval that wrecked the RomanEmpire when the barbarian peoples of the North overran Rome and Greece. Only through the care of the Roman Church the Bible is said to have beensaved from destruction in the general confusion. 

The reasoning of Catholics on this matter is specious. In the firstplace, the early Christian martyrs were not Roman Catholics. The claimof the Roman Church that the papacy starts with Peter is a myth. In thesecond place, much patient labor has been expended in the last centuriesto collate existing manuscripts of the Bible for the purpose of removingerrors that had crept into the text and making the original text of theBible as accurate as it is possible to make it. In these labors mostlyProtestants were engaged. Fell, Mill, Kuster, Bengel, Wetzstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, havethrough three centuries of untiring research cooperated in placingbefore the world the authentic text of the Bible. 

To-day we have not a single one of the autograph manuscripts of theGospels and Epistles of the New Testament. If the Roman Church existedin the days when Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, and Jameswrote, and if she exercised such scrupulous care over the Bible, why hasshe not preserved a single one of these invaluable documents? We suggestthis thought only in view of the unfounded Catholic boast; we do notcharge the Catholic Church with a crime for having permitted theautographs of our Bible to become lost, we only hold that the CatholicChurch is not entitled to the eulogies which her writers bestow uponher. 

Even the condition of the copies that were made from the autographwritings of the apostles does not speak well for the care which theRoman Church took of the Bible, assuming, of course, that she existed inthose early centuries. "It is evident that the original purity (of theNew Testament text) was early lost. . . . Irenaeus (in the secondcentury) alludes to the differences between the copies. . . . Origen, early in the third century, expressly declares that matters were growingworse. . . . From the fourth century onward we have the manuscript textof each century, the writings of the Fathers, and the various Orientaland Occidental versions, all testifying to varieties of readings. "(_New Schaff-Herzog Encycl. , _ II, 102. ) Our sole purpose in callingattention to this fact, which every scholar to-day knows, is, to bringthe fervor of Catholic admiration for the Bible-protecting andBible-preserving Church of Rome somewhat within the bounds of reason. Wedo not charge the Roman Church with having corrupted the text, but ifthe claim of Catholics as to the age of their Church is correct, everycorruption in the copies that were made from the original documentsoccurred while she was exercising her remarkable custodianship over theBible. That officials of the Church, especially as we approach theMiddle Ages, had something to do with corrupting the sacred text is thebelief of the authority just quoted. "The early Church, " he says, "didnot know anything of that anxious clinging to the letter whichcharacterizes the scientific rigor and the piety of modern times, andtherefore was not bent upon preserving the exact words. Moreover, thefirst copies were made rather for private than for public use. " Not afew were found in sarcophagi; they had been buried with their owners. "Copyists were careless, often wrote from dictation, and were liable tomisunderstand. Attempted improvements of the text in grammar and style;efforts to harmonize the quotations in the New Testament with the Greekof the Septuagint, but especially to harmonize the Gospels; the writingout of abbreviations; incorporation of marginal notes in the text; theembellishing of the Gospel narratives with stories drawn fromnon-apostolic, though trustworthy, sources, --it is to these that we mustattribute the very numerous 'readings' or textual variations. It is truethat the copyists were sometimes learned men; but their zeal in makingcorrections may have obscured the true text as much as the ignorance ofthe unlearned. The copies, indeed, came under the eye of an officialreviser, but he may have sometimes exceeded his functions, and done moreharm than good by his changes. "

All this happened while the Roman Church, according to Catholic writers, was keeper of the Bible. The honor which these writers assert for theirChurch is spurious. If there is any class of men for whom the glory mustbe vindicated of having given to the world the pure Word of God in areliable text, it is the band of textual, or lower, critics who havegathered and collated all existing manuscripts of the Bible. What animmense amount of painstaking labor this necessitated the reader canguess from the fact that for the New Testament alone about 3, 000manuscripts had to be examined word for word and letter for letter. Themen who undertook this gigantic task, arid who are always on the watchfor new finds, do not belong in the Roman fold, and did not receive theincentive for their work from the Roman Church. This work started soonafter the Reformation, and the intense interest aroused in God's Word bythat movement is the true cause of it. The Protestant Church, not theChurch of Rome, has given back to the world the pure Word of God in morethan one sense. 

The official Bible of the Roman Church to-day is the Latin Vulgate. ThisBible, which is a revision by Jerome and others of many variant Latintexts in use towards the end of the fourth century, has been elevated tothe dignity of the inspired text. The original purpose was good: it wasto remove the confusion of many conflicting texts and to establishuniformity in quoting the Bible. The errors of the Vulgate are many, butwhile it was understood that the Vulgate was merely a translation, theerrors could be corrected from the original sources. Little, however, was done in this respect before the Reformation, and since then theRoman Church has become rigid and petrified in its adherence to thisLatin Bible. In its fourth session (April 8, 1546) the Council of Trentdecreed that "of all Latin editions the old and vulgate edition be heldas authoritative in public lectures, disputations, sermons, andexpositions; and that no one is to dare or presume under any pretext toreject it. " "The meaning of this decree, " says Hodge, "is a matter ofdispute among Romanists themselves. Some of the more modern and liberalof their theologians say that the council simply intended to determinewhich among several Latin versions was to be used in the service of theChurch. They contend that it was not meant to forbid appeal to theoriginal Scriptures, or to place the Vulgate on a par with them inauthority. The earlier and stricter Romanists take the ground that theSynod did intend to forbid an appeal to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, and to make the Vulgate the ultimate authority. The language of thecouncil seems to favor this interpretation. " We might add, the practiseof Romanists, too. At the debate in Leipzig Eck contended that the LatinVulgate was inspired by the Holy Ghost. (Koestlin, I, 455. )

Whatever knowledge of Scripture the people in the Middle Ages possessedwas confined to those who could read Latin. Catholic writers claim thiswas at that time the universal language of Europe, but they wisely add:"among the educated. " One of them says: "Those who could read Latincould read the Bible, and those who could not read Latin could not readanything. " Exactly. And now, to prove the wide diffusion ofBible-knowledge in their Church before Luther, these Catholic writersshould give us some exact data as to the extent of the Latin scholarshipin that age. Fact is, the Latin tongue acted as a lock upon theScriptures to the common people. Hence arose the desire to have theBible translated into the vernacular of various European countries. 

This desire Rome sought to suppress with brutal rigor. The bloodypersecutions of the Waldensians in France, which almost resulted in theextirpation of these peaceful mountain people, of the followers ofWyclif in England, whose remains Rome had exhumed after his death andburned, of the Hussites in Bohemia, were all aimed at translations ofthe Bible into the languages which the common people understood. 

In July, 1199, Pope Innocent III issued a breve, occasioned by thereport that parts of the Bible were found in French translation in thediocese of Metz. The breve praises in a general way the zeal forBible-study, but applies to all who are not officially appointed toengage in such study the prohibition in Ex. 19, 12. 13, not to touch theholy mountain of the Law. 

During the reign of his successor, Honorius III, in 1220, laymen inGermany were forbidden to read the Bible. 

Under Gregory IX the same prohibition was issued, in 1229, to laymen inGreat Britain. 

In the same year the crusades against the Albigenses were concluded, andthe Council of Toulouse issued a severe order, making it a grave offensefor a layman to possess a Bible. 

In 1234, the Synod of Tarragona demanded the immediate surrender of alltranslations of the Bible for the purpose of having them burned. 

In 1246, the Synod of Baziers issued a prohibition forbidding laymen topossess any theological books whatsoever, and even enjoining the clergyfrom owning any theological books written in the vernacular. 

Eleven years after Luther's death, in 1557, Pope Paul IV published theRoman Index of Forbidden Books, and, with certain exceptions, prohibitedlaymen from reading the Bible. 

Not until the reign of King Edward VI was the "Act inhibiting thereading of the Old and New Testament in English tongue, and theprinting, selling, giving, or delivering of any such other books orwritings as are therein mentioned and condemned" (namely, in 34 Hen. VIII. Cap. 1) abrogated. 

The Council of Trent ordered all Catholic publishers to see to it thattheir editions have the approval of the respective bishop. 

Not until February 28, 1759, did Pope Clement XIII give permission totranslate the Bible _into all the languages of the Catholic states_. 

Not until November 17, 1893, did Pope Leo XIII issue an encyclicalenjoining upon Catholics the study of the Bible, always, however, _ineditions approved by the Roman Church_. (Kurtz, _Kirchengesch_. II, 2, 94. 217; _Univers. Encycl_. , under title "Bible"; Peter Heylyn, _Ecclesia Restaurata_ I, 99; Denzinger, _Enchiridion, _ 1429. 1439. 1567. 1607. )

Catholic writers seek to make a great impression in favor of theirChurch by enumerating, on the authority of Protestant scholars, thenumber of German translations of the Bible that are known to have beenin existence before Luther. But they omit to inform the public that nota single one of those translations obtained the approbation of a bishop. One cannot view but with a pathetic interest these sacred relies of anage that was hungering for the Word of God. The origin of these earlyGerman Bibles has been traced by scholars to Wycliffite and Hussiteinfluences, which Rome never stamped out, though her inquisitors triedtheir best to do so. The earliest of these Bibles do not state the placenor the year of publication. Can the reader guess why? They were notpublished at the seat of the German Archbishop, Mainz, but most of themat the free imperial city of Augsburg. Can the reader suggest a reason?Many of them are printed in abnormally small sizes, facilitating quickconcealment. Can the reader imagine a cause for this phenomenon? Inthese old German Bibles particular texts are emphasized, for example, Rom. 8, 18; 1 Cor. 4, 9; 2 Cor. 4, 8 ; 11, 23; 1 Pet. 2, 19; 4, 16; 5, 9; Acts 5, 18. 41; 8, 1; 12, 4; 14, 19. If the reader will take thetrouble to look up these texts, he will find that they warn Christiansto be prepared to be persecuted for their faith. Has the reader everheard of such an officer of the Roman Church as the inquisitor, one ofwhose duties it was to hunt for Bibles among the people? In places theseold German Bibles contain significant marginal glosses, for example, at1 Tim. 2, 5 one of them has this gloss: "_Ain_ mitler Christus, achmerk!" that is: _One_ mediator, Christ--note this well!

In 1486, Archbishop Berchtold of Mainz, Primate of Germany, issued anedict, full of impassioned malice against German translations of theBible, and against laymen who sought edification from them. He says that"no prudent person will deny that there is need of many supplements andexplanations from other writings" than the Bible, to the end, namely, that a person may construe from the German Bibles the true Catholicfaith. Fact is, that faith is not in the Bible. This happened threeyears after the birth of Luther. (Kurtz, II, 2, 304. )

Instead of finding fault, then, with Luther's ignorance of the Bibleprior to 1505, we feel surprised that the young man knew as much of theBible as he did. He must in this respect have surpassed many in his age. 

The Roman Church does not permit her laymen to read a Bible that she hasnot published with annotations. "Believing herself to be the divinelyappointed custodian and interpreter of Holy Writ, " says a writer in the_Catholic Encyclopedia_ (II, 545), "she cannot, without turning traitorto herself, approve the distribution of Scripture 'without note orcomment. '" For this reason the Roman Church has cursed the Biblesocieties which early in the eighteenth century began to be formed inProtestant Churches, and aimed at supplying the poor with cheap Bibles. In 1816, Pope Pius VII anathematized all Bible societies, declaring them"a pest of Christianity, " and renewed the prohibition which hispredecessors had issued against translations of the Bible. (Kurtz, II, 2, 94. ) Leo XII, on May 5, 1824, in the encyclical _Ubi Primum, _ said:"Ye are aware, venerable brethren, that a certain Bible society isimpudently spreading throughout the world, which, despising thetraditions of the holy Fathers and the decree of the Council of Trent, is endeavoring to translate, or rather to pervert, the Scriptures intothe vernacular of all nations. . . . It is to be feared that by falseinterpretation the Gospel of Christ will become the gospel of men, or, still worse, the gospel of the devil. " Pius IX, on November 9, 1846, inthe encyclical _Qui Pluribus, _ said: "These crafty Bible societies, which renew the ancient guile of heretics, cease not to thrust theirBible upon all men, even the unlearned--their Bibles, which have beentranslated against the laws of the Church and after certain falseexplanations of the text. Thus the divine traditions, the teaching ofthe fathers, and the authority of the Catholic Church are rejected, andevery one in his own way interprets the words of the Lord, and distortstheir meaning, thereby falling into miserable error. " (_Cath. Encycl_. II, 545. ) The writer whom we have just quoted says: "The fundamentalfallacy of private interpretation of the Scriptures is presupposed bythe Bible societies. " These papal pronunciamentos arc directed chieflyagainst the Canstein Bibelgesellschaft and her later sisters, such asthe Berliner Bibelgesellschaft, and against the British and AmericanBible Societies. 

The face of the Roman Church is sternly set against the plain text ofthe Scriptures. To defeat the meaning of the original text, she not onlymutilates the text and adds glosses which twist the meaning of the textinto an altogether different meaning, but she declares that the Bible isnot the only source from which men must obtain revealed truth. Alongsideof the Bible she places an unwritten word of God, her so-calledtraditions. These, she claims, are divine revelations which were handeddown orally from generation to generation. The early fathers and thecouncils of the Church referred to them in defining the true doctrineand prescribing the correct practise of the Church. Nobody has collectedthese traditions, and nobody will. But to what extent the Roman Churchoperates with them, is well known. 

Speaking of learned Bible-study in the Middle Ages, Mosheim says:"Nearly all the theologians were _Positivi_ and _Sententiarii_ [that is, they taught what the Church ordered to be taught], who deemed it a greatachievement, both in speculative and practical theology, either tooverwhelm the subject with a torrent of quotations from the fathers, orto anatomize it according to the laws of dialectics [that is, the lawsof reasoning, logic]. And whenever they had occasion to speak of themeaning of any text, they appealed invariably to what was called the_Glossa Ordinaria_ [that is, the official explanation], and the phrase_Glossa dicit_ (the Gloss says), was as common and decisive on theirlips as anciently the phrase _Ipse dixit_ (he, viz. , the teacher, hassaid) in the Pythagorean school. " (III, 15. )

In his controversies with the theologians of Rome, Luther found thatthey were constantly wriggling out of the plain text of the Bible andrunning for shelter to the traditions, to the fathers, to the decrees ofcouncils of the Church. 

At the Council of Trent some one rose to inquire whether all thetraditions recognized as genuine by the Church could not be named; hewas told that he was out of order. (Pallavivini, VI, 11, 9; 18, 7. ) Hasehas invited the Roman Church to say whether all the traditions are nowknown. He has not been answered. (_Protest. Polem_. , p. 83. ) IfRomanists answer: Yes, the reasonable request will be made of them topublish those traditions once for all time, in order that men may knowall that God is supposed to have really said to men that is not in theBible. If they answer: No, the conclusion is inevitable that theChristian faith is an uncertain thing. Any tradition may bob up thatupsets a part of the Creed. 

Add to this the dogma of papal infallibility, promulgated July 18, 1870, which asserts for the Pope "the entire plenitude of supreme power" todetermine the faith and morals of Christians, and we have reached apoint where it becomes plain to any thoughtful person that the Bible is, from the Catholic view-point, not at all such a necessary book as menhave believed. Nor can the faith of a Romanist be a fixed and stablequantity. Any papal deliverance may bring about a change, and theconscientious Catholic must study the news from the Vatican with thesame vital interest as the merchant studies the market reports in hismorning paper, and a very pertinent question that he may ask his wifeover his coffee at the breakfast table would be, "Wife, what do webelieve to-day?"

12. Luther's Visit at Rome. 

Catholic writers ask the world not to believe Luther's tales about thecity of Rome. Luther, they say, came to Rome as a callow rustic comes toa metropolis. To the wily Italians he was German Innocence Abroad; theyhoaxed him by telling him absurd tales about the Popes, the priests, thewonders of the city, etc. , and the credulous monk believed all they toldhim. He left Rome with his faith in the Church unimpaired. Later inlife, after his "defection" from Rome, he told as true facts and asreminiscences of his visit at the Holy City many of the false storieswhich had been palmed off on him. This is said to have given rise to theprevailing Protestant view that during his visit at Rome Luther's eyeswere opened to the corruption of the Roman Church and his resolutionformed to overthrow that Church. Luther himself is said to beresponsible for this false view. He fostered it by his tales of what hehad seen and heard at Rome with disgust and horror. His horridimpressions are declared pure fiction, and simply serve to show howlittle the man can be trusted in anything he states. 

To leave a way open for a decent retreat, Catholics also point to adifference in temperament between the phlegmatic Luther coming from anorthern clime, which through its atmospheric rigors begets somberreflections and gloomy thoughts, and the airy, fairy Italians, who revelin sunshine, flowers, and fruits, drink fiery wines, and naturally growup into a freedom of manners and lack of restraint that ischaracteristic of people living in southern climes. All of which means--if it means anything serious--that the Ten Commandments are subject torevision according to the geographic latitude in which a person happensto be. When your austere gentleman, raised among the fens and bogs ofthe Frisian coast, sees something in a grove in Sicily which hedenounces as wicked, you must tell him that there is nothing wrong inwhat he has seen. He has only omitted to adjust his temperament to thelocality. If you follow out this line of thought to the end, you willcome to a point where you strike hands with Rudyard Kipling, who hassung enthusiastically about a certain locality beyond Aden where the TenCommandments do not exist. And to think that this plea is made by peoplewho have charged Luther with having put the Ten Commandments out ofcommission for himself and others! Italians, lovers of freedom andunrestraint, were the first to fill the world with tales about the moralbesottedness of Luther! This goes to show that in any application of theTen Commandments it matters very much who does the applying. 

We have in a previous chapter briefly reviewed the Popes that werecontemporaries of Luther. Their character was stamped on the life of theHoly City: The Popes and their following gave Rome its moral, orimmoral, face. The chroniclers of those days have described the existingconditions. Luther need not have said one word about what wicked thingshe had seen and heard at Rome, either ten years, or twenty years, orthirty years after he had been there, and the world would still know therecord of the residence of the Popes. Luther really saw very little ofwhat he might have seen, and it is probable that he has told less. Butwhat he did see and hear are facts. He did not grasp their full meaningnor see their true bearing at the time. The real import of his Romanexperiences dawned on him at a later period. He spoke as a man of thingsthat he had seen as a child. But that does not alter the facts. 

Luther was shocked at the levity of Italian monks who were babblingfaulty Latin prayers which they did not understand and remarked laughingto him: "Never mind; the Holy Ghost understands us, and the devil fleesapace. "

Luther's confidence in the boasted unity of the Roman Church wassomewhat shaken when he discovered that he could not read mass in anychurch in the territory at Milan, because there the Ambrosian form ofservice was prescribed while he had been trained to the Gregorian. 

Luther shook his head at the freedom of certain public manners of theItalians which reminded him of dogs and of what he had read aboutKerkyra. 

Luther heard of a Lenten collation, probably at the abbey of SanBenedetto de Larione, where the word "fast" had to be spelled with an_e_ as the second letter. 

The loquaciousness, spicy talk, blasphemy, dishonesty, treachery, quarrelsomeness, and deadly animosities of the Italians, Luther regardsas strange, considering that they live so near to the Holy City. 

He wondered why the Italians do not permit their women to go out oftheir houses except deeply veiled. 

He finds that the Italians show no respect for their beautiful churchesand the divine service conducted in them. Even on great festivals themagnificent cathedrals are almost empty, the worshipers are chattingwith one another while the service is in progress. Even quarrels aresettled at these holy places, sometimes with the knife. When there is aburial, they hurry the corpse to the grave, not even the relatives beingin attendance. 

He is grieved at the irreligious manner in which the priests at Romeread mass. They hurry through the performance with incredible rapidity. They crowd each other away from the altar in their haste to get theirperformance finished. "Hurry, hurry! Begone! Come away!" he hears themcalling to one-another. Sometimes two priests are reading mass at onealtar at the same time. They had finished the whole mass before Lutherhad reached the Gospel in the service of the mass. And then they wouldreceive money from the bystanders who had come in and had watched them. In a half hour a priest could get a handful of silver. Luther refusedsuch gifts. 

Luther heard few preachers at Rome, and those that he heard he did notlike. They were very lively in the delivery of their sermons, they wouldrun to and fro in their pulpit, bend far over toward the audience, utterviolent cries, change their voice suddenly, and gesticulate like madmen. 

Luther saw Pope Julius from a distance several times. He thought itqueer that a healthy and strong man like the Pope should have himselfcarried to church in a litter instead of walking thither, and that suchshow should be made of his going there and a procession should be formedto accompany him. He saw the Pope sit at the altar and hold out his footto be kissed by people. He saw the Pope take communion. He did notkneel like other communicants, but sat on his magnificent throne; acardinal priest handed him the chalice, and he sipped the wine through asilver tube. 

However, these and other things did not at the time shake Luther'sbelief in the Catholic Church. He came to Rome and left Rome a devoutCatholic. Staupitz, the vicar of his order, had really gratified him inpermitting him to go to Rome as the traveling companion of another monk. Luther had expressed the wish to make a general confession at Rome. Withthis thought on his mind he started out, and he treated the wholejourney as a pilgrimage. After the manner of pious monks the twocompanions walked one behind the other, reciting prayers and litanies. Whether his general confession and his first mass at Rome, probably atSanta Maria del Popolo, gave him that sense of spiritual satisfactionwhich he craved, he has not told us. When he had come in sight of thecity, he had fallen on his face like the crusaders in sight ofJerusalem, and had fervently blessed that moment. Now he ran through theseven stations of Rome, read masses wherever he could, gathered anabundance of indulgences by going through prescribed forms of worship atmany shrines, listened to miracle-tales, knelt before the veil of St. Veronica near the Golden Gate at San Giovanni and before the bronzestatue of St. Peter in the chapel of St. Martin, where a crucifix had ofits own accord raised itself up and become transfixed in the dome, sawthe rope with which Judas hanged himself fastened to the altar of theApostles Simon and Judas at St. Peter's, the stone in the chapel of St. Petronella on which the penitential tears of Peter had fallen, cutting agroove in it two fingers wide, had the guide show him the Pope's crown, the tiara, which, he thought, cost more money than all the princes ofGermany possessed, was perplexed at finding the heads and bodies ofPeter and Paul assigned to different places, at the Lateran Church andat San Paolo Fuori, mounted the Scala Santa--Pilate's staircase--on hisknees, passed with awe the relief picture in one of the streets whichthe popular legend declared to be that of the female Pope Johanna andher child, saw the ancient pagan deities of Rome depicted in Santa Mariadella Rotonda, the old Pantheon, stared at the head of John the Baptistin San Silvestro in Capite, tried, but failed to read the famousSaturday mass at San Giovanni, the oldest and greatest sanctuary ofChristianity, rested from a fatiguing tour through the Lateran in SantaCroce in Gerusalemme, where Pope Sylvester II, the Faustus of theItalians, was carried away by the devils, went through the catacombswith its 6 martyred Popes and 176, 000 other martyrs, etc. , etc. 

Looking back to this visit later, Luther remarked, "I believedeverything" Just what official Rome expected every devout pilgrim to do, just what it expects them to do to-day. And these Romanists want topoint the finger of ridicule at the simpleton, the easy dupe, the holyfool Luther! Does Rome perhaps think the same of all the pious pilgrimsthat annually crowd Rome? Luther heard himself called "un buonChristiano" at Rome and discovered that that meant as much as "anegregious ass. " But he considered that a part of Italian wickedness. TheChurch, he was sure, approved of all that he did, in fact, had taughthim to do all that. It required ten years or more to disabuse his mindof the frauds that had been practised on him, and then he declared thathe would not take 100, 000 gulden not to have seen with his own eyes howscandalously the Popes were hoodwinking Christians. If it were not forhis visit at Rome, he says, he might fear that he was slandering thePopes in what he wrote about them. 

While Luther's visit at Rome, then, brought about no spiritual change inhim, it helped to give him a good conscience afterwards when hisconflict with Rome had begun. 

13. Pastor Luther. 

Luther's famous protest against the sale of indulgences, publishedOctober 31, 1517, in the form of ninety-five theses, is represented byCatholic writers as an outburst of Luther's violent temper and anassault upon the Catholic Church that he had long premeditated. By thistime, it is said, Luther had become known to his colleagues as aquarrelsome man, loving disputations and jealous of victory in a debate. His methods of teaching at the university were novel, in defiance of thesettled customs of the Church. His dangerous innovations caused thesuspicion to spring up that he was plotting rebellion against theauthority of the Church. The arrival of the indulgence-hawker Tetzel inthe neighborhood of Wittenberg gave him the long-looked-for occasion tostrike a blow at the sacred teachings of the Church which he hadsolemnly promised to support and defend against all heretics, and fromwhose teachings he had already apostatized in his heart. 

The fact is that Luther was so little conscious of an intention to stirup strife for his Church that he was probably the most surprised man inGermany when he observed the excitement which his Theses were causing. The method he had chosen for voicing his opinion had no revolutionaryelement in it. It was an invitation to the learned doctors to debatewith him the doctrinal grounds for the sale of indulgences. Catholicwriters point to the fact that Luther declared at a later time that hedid not know what an indulgence was when he attacked Tetzel. They seekto prove from this remark of Luther that it was not conscientiousscruples, but the desire to cause trouble in the Church that promptedLuther to his action. They do not see that this remark speaks volumesfor Luther. By his Theses he meant to get at the truth of the teachingconcerning indulgences. His Theses were written in Latin, not in thepeople's language. Others translated them into German and scattered thembroadcast throughout Germany. The Theses are no labored effort to setup, by skilful, logical argument and in carefully chosen terms, a newdogma in oppositon [tr. Note: sic] to the teaching of the Church, butthey are exceptions hurriedly thrown on paper, like the notes jotteddown by a speaker to guide him in a discussion of his subject. Last, notleast, the Theses, while contradicting the prevailing practise ofselling indulgences, breathe loyalty to the Catholic Church. From ourmodern standpoint Luther appears in the Theses as half Protestant, orevangelical, half Roman Catholic. In his own view he was altogetherCatholic. His Theses were merely a call: Let there be light! Let ourconsciences be duly instructed!

We still have a letter which Luther wrote to Pope Leo X about six monthsafter he had published the Theses. This letter shows in what an orderlyand quiet way Luther proceeded in his attack upon the traffic inindulgences, and how much he believed himself in accord with the Popeand the Church. We shall quote a few statements from this letter: "Inthese latter days a jubilee of papal indulgences began to be preached, and the preachers, thinking everything allowed them under the protectionof your name, dared to teach impiety and heresy openly, to the gravescandal and mockery of ecclesiastical powers, totally disregarding theprovisions of the Canon Law about the misconduct of officials. . . . They met with great success, the people were sucked dry on falsepretenses, . . . But the oppressors lived on the fat and sweetness ofthe land. They avoided scandals only by the terror of your name, thethreat of the stake, and the brand of heresy, . . . If, indeed, this canbe called avoiding scandals and not rather exciting schisms and revoltby crass tyranny. . . . 

"I privately warned some of the dignitaries of the Church. By some theadmonition was well received, by others ridiculed, by others treated invarious ways, for the terror of your name and the dread of censure arestrong. At length, when I could do nothing else, I determined to stoptheir mad career if only for a moment; I resolved to call theirassertions in question. So I published some propositions for debate, inviting only the more learned to discuss them with me, as ought to beplain to my opponents from the preface to my Theses. [This was, by theway, a common practise in those days among the learned professors atuniversities. ] Yet this is the flame with which they seek to set theworld on fire! . . . " (15, 401; transl. By Preserved Smith. )

Luther's publication of the Theses was the act of a conscientiousChristian pastor. Being a priest, Luther had to hear confession. Throughthe confessional he learned how the common people viewed theindulgences: they actually believed that by buying indulgences they werefreed from all the guilt and punishment of their sins. Absolution becamea plain business transaction: you pay your money and you take yourgoods. Luther wrote this to his archbishop the same day on which hepublished his Theses. "Papal indulgences, " he says in the letter toAlbert, Archbishop of Mayence and Primate of Germany, "for the buildingof St. Peter's are hawked about under your illustrious sanction. I donot now accuse the sermons of the preachers who advertise them, for Ihave not seen the same, but I regret that the people have conceivedabout them the most erroneous ideas. Forsooth, these unhappy soulsbelieve that, if they buy letters of pardon, they are sure of theirsalvation; likewise, that souls fly out of purgatory as soon as money iscast into the chest; in short, that the, grace conferred is so greatthat there is no sin whatever which cannot be absolved thereby, even if, as they say, taking an impossible example, a man should violate themother of God. They also believe that indulgences free them from allpenalty and guilt. " (15, 391; transl. By Preserved Smith, p. 42. )

Luther had preached against the popular belief in indulgences, pilgrimages to shrines of the saints and their relics, for two yearsbefore he published his Theses. He was confident that the Church couldnot countenance this belief. Forgiveness of sins is to the penitent inheart who are sorry for their sins, and their sins are forgiven forChrist's sake, who atoned for them, and in whom we have the forgivenessof sin by the redemption through His blood. This is the Scripturaldoctrine of penitence, --that sorrowful, contrite, and believing attitudeof the heart which is the characteristic of true Christians throughouttheir lives. Through penitence we become absolved in the sight of Godfrom all guilt and punishment of our sins, and the minister, byannouncing this fact, is to convey to the penitent the assurance thathis sins have been forgiven. Whatever penances or pious exercises theChurch may impose an sinners who have confessed their sins can only beimposed as a wholesome disciplinary measure and as aids to the neededreformation of life. These penances, since they originate in the choiceof the Church, may also be remitted by the Church, and for thesepenances the Church may accept a commutation in money, which payment, however, cannot supersede the paramount duty of the penitent to amendhis sinful conduct. Such were Luther's views in brief outline at thetime he published his Theses. If we are to take modern Catholic criticsof Luther seriously, that has also been the teaching of their Church onthe subject of indulgences. They claim that the good intentions of thePopes were grossly misinterpreted and the system of indulgences was putto uses for which it was never intended. If that is the case, why dothey attack Luther for his attempt to have the abuses corrected?According to their own presentation of the true teaching of the Churchon the subject of indulgences, Luther was the most dutiful son of theChurch in his day in what he did on All Souls' Eve, 1517. 

But the Roman teaching on indulgences is not such an innocent affair asCatholics would have us believe. The practise of substituting forpenances some good work or contribution to a pious purpose had arisen inthe Church at a very early time. "This, " says Preserved Smith, who haswell condensed the history of indulgences, "was the seed of indulgencewhich would never have grown to its later enormous proportions had itnot been for the crusades. Mohammed promised his followers paradise ifthey fell in battle against unbelievers, but Christian warriors were atfirst without this comforting assurance. Their faith was not long leftin doubt, however, for as early as 855 Leo IV promised heaven to theFranks who died fighting against the Moslems. A quarter of a centurylater John VIII proclaimed absolution for all sins and remission of allpenalties to soldiers in the holy war, and from this time on the'crusade indulgence' became a regular means of recruiting, used, forexample, by Leo IX in 1052 and by Urban II in 1095. By this time thepractise had grown up of regarding an indulgence as a remission not onlyof penance, but of the pains of purgatory. The means which had provedsuccessful in getting soldiers for the crusade were first used in 1145or 1146 to get money for the same end, pardon being assured to those whogave enough to fit out one soldier on the same terms as if they had gonethemselves. 

"When the crusades ceased, in the thirteenth century, indulgences didnot fall into desuetude. At the jubilee of Pope Boniface VIII, in 1300, a plenary indulgence was granted to all who made a pilgrimage to Rome. The Pope reaped such an enormous harvest from the gifts of thesepilgrims that he saw fit to employ similar means at frequent intervals, and soon extended the same privileges as were granted to pilgrims to allwho contributed for some pious purpose at their own homes. Agents weresent out to sell these pardons, and were given power to confess andabsolve, so that in 1393 Boniface IX was able to announce completeremission of both guilt and penalty to the purchasers of his letters. 

"Having assumed the right to free living men from future punishment, itwas but a step for the Popes to proclaim that they had the power todeliver the souls of the dead from purgatory. The existence of thispower was an open question until decided by Calixtus III in 1457, butfull use of the faculty was not made until twenty years later, afterwhich it became of all branches of the indulgence trade the mostprofitable. "

The reader will note that the indulgence trade in its latest form hadnot become a general thing until about six years before Luther's birth. It was a comparatively new thing that Luther attacked. In our remarks onmonasticism in a previous chapter we alluded to the Roman teachingconcerning the Treasure of the Merits of the Saints, or the Treasure ofthe Church. This teaching greatly fructified the theory of indulgences. It has never been shown, and never will be, how this Treasureoriginates. In the work of our Redeemer there was nothing superabundantthat the Scriptures name. He fulfilled the entire Law for man, and Hismerits are of inestimable value. But they were all needed for the workof satisfying divine justice. Moreover, all these merits of Christ arefreely given to each and every believer and cancel all his guilt, according to the statement of Paul: "Christ is the end of the Law forrighteousness to every one that believeth. " As regards the merits of thesaints, which they accumulated by doing good works in excess of whatthey were required to do, this is a purely imaginary asset of the papalbank of Rome. Every man, with all that he is and has and is able to do, owes himself wholly to God. At the best he can only do his duty. Thereis no chance for doing good works in excess of duty. If he were reallyto do all, he would only do what it was his duty to do, Luke 17, 10, andwould be told to regard himself, even in that most favorable case, as anunprofitable servant. 

But supposing there were superabundant merits, supererogatory works ofChrist and the saints, who has determined their quantity? Who takes theinventory of this stock of the papal bank of Rome? Is he the same partywho determines the length of a person's stay in purgatory and can tellhow much he has been in arrears in the matter of goodness andvirtuousness, and how much cash will purchase his release? How is thisintelligence conveyed to purgatory that Mr. So-and-so is free to proceedto heaven? A multitude of such questions arising in all thinking mindsthat want to arrive at rock bottom facts in so serious a matter alwaysbaffle the theologians of Rome. They owe the world an answer on thesequestions for four hundred years. Is the world doing Rome an injusticewhen it regards the sale of indulgences a pure confidence game in holydisguise, the offer of a fictitious value for good cash, the boldest andbaldest gold-bricking that mankind has heen [tr. Note: sic] subjectedto?

The sale of indulgences which was started in Luther's days was aparticularly offensive enterprise. "It was not so much the theory of theChurch that excited Luther's indignation as it was the practises of someof her agents. They encouraged the common man to believe that thepurchase of a papal pardon would assure him impunity without any realrepentance on his part. Moreover, whatever the theoretical worth ofindulgences, the motive of their sale was notoriously the greed ofunscrupulous ecclesiastics. The 'holy trade' as it was called had becomeso thoroughly commercialized by 1500 that a banking house, the Fuggersof Augsburg, were the direct agents of the Curia in Germany. In returnfor their services in forwarding the Pope's bulls, and in hiringsellers of pardons, this wealthy house made a secret agreement in 1507by which it received one-third of the total profits of the trade, and in1514 formally took over the whole management of the business in returnfor the modest commission of one-half the net receipts. Naturally not aword was said by the preachers to the people as to the destination of solarge a portion of their money, but enough was known to make many menregard indulgences as an open scandal. 

"The history of the particular trade attacked by Luther is one ofspecial infamy. Albert of Brandenburg, a prince of the enterprisinghouse of Hohenzollern, was bred to the Church and rapidly rose bypolitical influence to the highest ecclesiastical position in Germany. In 1513, he was elected, at the age of twenty-three, Archbishop ofMagdeburg and administrator of the bishopric of Halberstadt, --anuncanonical accumulation of sees confirmed by the Pope in return for alarge payment. Hardly had Albert paid this before he was electedArchbishop and Elector of Mayence and Primate of Germany (March 9, 1514). As he was not yet of canonical age to possess even one bishopric, not to mention three of the greatest in the empire, the Pope refused toconfirm his nomination except for an enormous sum. The Curia at firstdemanded twelve thousand ducats for the twelve apostles. Albert offeredseven for the seven deadly sins. The average between apostles and sinswas struck at ten thousand ducats, or fifty thousand dollars, a sumequal in purchasing power to near a million to-day. Albert borrowedthis, too, from the Fuggers, and was accordingly confirmed on August 15, 1514. 

"In order to allow the new prelate to recoup himself, Leo obliginglydeclared an indulgence for the benefit of St. Peter's Church, to runeight years from March 31, 1515. By this transaction, one of the mostdisgraceful in the history of the papacy, as well as in that of thehouse of Brandenburg, the Curia made a vast sum. Albert did not come offso well. First, a number of princes, including the rulers of bothSaxonies, forbade the trade in their dominions, and the profits of whatremained were deeply cut by the unexpected attack of a young monk. "(Preserved Smith, p. 86 ff. )

Luther had ample reason to dread the demoralizing effect of theindulgence-venders' activity upon the common people. In the sermons ofTetzel the church where he happened to do business was raised to equaldignity with St. Peter's at Rome. Instead of confessing to an ordinarypriest, he told the masses they had now the rare privilege of confessingto an Apostolical Vicar, specially detailed for this work. Withconsummate skill he worked on the tender feelings of parents, ofmothers, who were mourning the loss of children, or of children who hadlost their parents. He impersonated the departed in their agonies inpurgatory, he made the people hear the pitiful moaning of the victims inthe purgatorial fires, and transmitted their heartrending appeals forspeedy help to the living. He clinched the argument by playing on thepeople's covetousness: for the fourth part of a gulden they couldtransfer a suffering soul safely to the home of the eternal paradise. Had they ever had a greater bargain offered to them? Never would theyhave this indispensable means of salvation brought within easier reach. Now was the time, now or never! "0 ye murderers, ye usurers, ye robbers, ye slaves of vice, " he cried out, "now is the time for you to hear thevoice of God, who does not desire the death of the sinner, but wouldhave the sinner repent and live. Turn, then, O Jerusalem, to the Lord, thy God!" He declared that the red cross of the indulgence-venders, withthe papal arms, raised in a church, possessed the same virtue as thecross of Christ. If Peter were present in person, he would not possessgreater authority, nor could he dispense grace more effectually than he. Yea, he would not trade his glory as an indulgence-seller with Peter'sglory; for he had saved more souls by selling the indulgences than Peterby preaching. Every time a coin clinked in his money chest a liberatedsoul was soaring to heaven. 

Catholic writers declare that the people were told that they must repentin order to obtain forgiveness. So they were, in the manner aforestated. Repenting meant buying a letter of pardon from the Pope. That is thereason why Luther worded the first two of his Ninety-five Theses as hedid: "Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: _Poenitentiam agite!_meant that the whole life of the faithful should be repentance. Andthese words cannot refer to penance--that is, confession andsatisfaction. " The Latin phrase "poenitentiam agere" has a doublemeaning: it may mean "repent" and "do penance. " Our Lord used the phrasein the first, the indulgence-sellers in the second sense. Since thepeople had been raised in the belief that the Church had the authorityfrom God to impose church fines on them for their trespasses, by whichthey were to remove the temporal punishment of their sins, this wascalled "doing penance, "--they were actually led to believe that thewere obeying a command of Christ in buying a letter of indulgence. Andnot only did the people believe that they were purchasing release fromtemporal punishment, but from the guilt of sin and all its effects. Thecommon man from the fields and the streets did not make the finedistinction of the hair-splitting theologians: his bargain meant to himthat hell was closed and heaven open for him. 

Another favorite defense of modern Catholic writers is, that the moneypaid for an indulgence was not meant to purchase anything, but was to beviewed as a thank-offering which the grateful hearts of the pardonedprompted them to make to the Church who had brought them the pardonfree, gratis, and for nothing. This is Cardinal Gibbons's argument. Hepoints triumphantly to the fact that the letters of indulgence werenever handed the applicants at the same desk at which the"thank-offerings" were received. He does not say which desk theapplicant approached first. But, supposing he obtained the letter firstand then, with a heart bounding with joy and gratitude, hurried to theother desk, we have an interesting psychological problem confronting us. The two acts, the delivery of the letter of indulgence and thesurrendering of the thank-offering, we are told, are independent the oneof the other. Both are free acts, the one the free forgiveness of theChurch, the other the free giving of the pardoned. The Church's grant ofpardon has nothing to do with the payment of indulgence-money, and theindulgence-money is not related to the letter of indulgence. Now, then, the purchaser of an indulgence performs this remarkable feat: when hestands at the desk where the letter is handed to him, he does not thinkof any cost that he incurs. He views the letter as a pure gift. Then, obeying a sudden impulse of gratitude, he turns to the other desk andhands the official some money. He manages to think that he is not payingfor anything, that would be utterly improper. How could a person pay fora donation, especially such a donation of spiritual and heavenlytreasures? One disturbing element, however, remains: the amount of thethank-offering was fixed beforehand for particular sins, probably toregulate the recipient's gratitude and make it adequate. The writer hasresolved to test the psychology of this process on himself the next timethe Boston Symphony Company comes to town. He will try and think of thegreat singers as true benefactors of mankind, who go about the countrybestowing favors on the public, and when he comes to the ticket-windowhe will merely make a thank-offering for the pleasure he is receiving. The scheme ought to work as well in this instance as in the other. 

14. The Case of Luther's Friend Myconius. 

There is a remarkable instance recorded in the annals of the Reformationwhich strikingly illustrates the operations of the indulgence-venders. This record deserves not to be forgotten. Gustav Freitag, the famouswriter of German history, has embodied it in his sketch "Doktor Luther. "

Frederic Mecum, in Latin Myconius, had become a monk in the Franciscanorder. He had had an experience with Tetzel which caused him to turn toLuther with joy and wonder when the latter had published his Theses. Fewof the writings of Myconius, who afterwards became the evangelicalpastor of the city of Gotha, have been preserved. In the ducal libraryat Gotha Freitag found [tr. Note: sic] an account in Latin of theincident to which we have referred. It is as follows: "John Tetzel, ofPirna in Meissen, a Dominican friar, was a powerful peddler ofindulgences or the remission of sins by the Roman Pope. He tarried withthis purpose of his for two years in the city of Annaberg, new at thattime, and deceived the people so much that they all believed there wasno other way of obtaining the forgiveness of sins and eternal lifeexcept to make amends with our works; concerning this making of amends, however, he said that it was impossible. But a single way was stillleft, that is, if we purchased the same for money from the Roman Pope, bought for ourselves, therefore, the Pope's indulgence, which he calledthe forgiveness of sins and a certain entrance into eternal life. Here Imight tell wonders upon wonders and incredible things, what kind ofsermons I heard Tetzel preach these two years in Annaberg, for I heardhim preach quite diligently, and he preached every day; I could repeathis sermons to others, too, with all the gestures and intonations; notthat I made him an object of ridicule, but I was entirely in earnest. For I considered everything as oracles and divine words, which one hadto believe, and what came from the Pope I regarded as if coming fromChrist Himself. 

"Finally, at Pentecost, in the year of our Lord 1510, he threatened hewould lay down the red cross and lock the door of heaven and put out thesun, and it would never again come about that the forgiveness of sinsand eternal life could be obtained for so little money. Yes, he said, itwas not to be expected that such charitableness of the Pope should comehither again as long as the world would stand. He also exhorted thatevery one should attend well to the salvation of his own soul and tothat of his deceased and living friends. For now was at hand, accordingto him, the day of his salvation and the accepted time. And he said:'Let no one under any condition neglect his own salvation; for if you donot have the Pope's letters, you cannot be absolved and delivered by anyhuman being from many sins and "reserved cases"' (that is, cases withwhich an ordinary priest was not qualified to deal). On the doors andwalls of the church printed letters were publicly posted in which it wasordered that one should henceforth not sell the letters of indulgenceand the full power at the close as dear as in the beginning, in order togive the German people a sign of gratitude for their devotion; and atthe end of the letter at the foot was written in addition, _'Pauperibusdentur gratis, '_ to the needy the letters of indulgence are to be givenfor nothing, without money, for the sake of God. 

"Then I began to deal with the deputies of this indulgence-peddler; but, in truth, I was impelled and urged to do so by the Holy Ghost, althoughI myself did not understand at the time what I was doing. 

"My dear father had taught me in my childhood the Ten Commandments, theLord's Prayer, and the Christian Creed, and compelled me always to pray. For, he said, we had everything from God alone, gratis, for nothing, andHe would also govern and lead us if we prayed with diligence. Of theindulgences and Roman remission of sins he said that they were onlysnares with which one tricked the simple out of their money and took itfrom their purses, that the forgiveness of sins and eternal life couldcertainly not be purchased and acquired with money. But the priests orpreachers became angry and enraged when one said such things. Because Iheard then nothing else in the sermons every day but the greatest praiseof the remission of sins, I was filled with doubt as to whom I was tobelieve more, my father or the priests as teachers of the Church. I wasin doubt, but still I believed the priests more than the instruction ofmy father. But one thing I did not grant, that the forgiveness of sinscould not be acquired unless it was purchased with money, above all bythe poor. On this account I was wonderfully well pleased with the littleclause at the end of the Pope's letter, _'Pauperibus gratis denturpropter Deum. '_

"And as they, in three days, intended to lay down the cross with specialmagnificence and cut off the steps and ladders to heaven, I was impelledby my spirit to go to the commissioners and ask for the letters of theforgiveness of sins 'out of mercy for the poor. ' I declared also that Iwas a sinner and poor and in need of the forgiveness of sins, which wasgranted through divine grace. On the second day, around evening, Ientered Hans Pflock's house where Tetzel was assembled with thefather-confessors and crowds of priests, and I addressed them in Latinand requested that they might allow me, poor man, to ask, according tothe command in the Pope's letter, for the absolution of all my sins fornothing and for the sake of God, _'etiam nullo casu reservato, '_ withoutreserving a single case, and in regard to the same they should give methe Pope's _'literas testimoniales, '_ or written testimony. Then thepriests were astonished at my Latin speech, for that was a rare thing atthis time, especially in the case of young boys; and they soon went outof the room into the small chamber which I was alongside, to thecommissioner Tetzel. They made my desire known to him, and also asked inmy behalf that he might give me the letters of indulgence for nothing. Finally, after long counsel, they returned and brought this answer:_'Dear son, we have put your petition before the commissioner with alldiligence, and he confesses that he would gladly grant your request, butthat he could not; and although he might wish to do so, the concessionwould nevertheless be naught and ineffective. For he declared unto usthat it was clearly written in the Pope's letter that those wouldcertainly share in the exceeding generous indulgences and treasures ofthe Church and the merits of Christ _qui porrigerent manum adjutricem, _who offered a helping hand; that is, those who would give money. ' Andall that they told me in German, for there was not one among them whocould have spoken three Latin words correctly with any one. 

"In return, however, I entreated anew, and proved from the Pope's letterwhich had been posted that the Holy Father, the Pope, had commanded thatsuch letters should be given to the poor for nothing, for the sake ofthe Lord; and especially because there had also been written there _'admandatum domini Papae proprium, '_ that is, at the Pope's own command. 

"Then they went in again and asked the proud, haughty friar, that hemight kindly grant my request and let me go from him with the letter ofindulgence, since I was a clever and fluently-speaking young man andworthy of having something exceptional granted me. But they came outagain and brought again the answer, _'de manu auxiliatrice, ' concerningthe helping hand, which alone was fit for the holy indulgence. I, however, remained firm and said that they were doing me, a poor man, aninjustice; the one whom both God and the Pope were unwilling to shut outof divine grace was rejected by them for some few pennies which I didnot have. Then a contention arose that I should at least give somethingsmall, in order that the helping-hand might not be lacking, that Ishould only give a groschen; I said, 'I do not have it, I am poor. ' Atlast it came to the point where I was to give six pfennigs; then Ianswered again that I did not have a single pfennig. They tried toconsole me and spoke with one another. Finally I heard that they wereworried about two things, in the first place, that I should in no casebe allowed to go without a letter of indulgence, for this might be aplan devised by others, and that some bad affair might hereafter resultfrom it, since it was clear in the Pope's letter that it should be givento the poor for nothing. Again, however, something would neverthelesshave to be taken from me in order that the others might not hear thatthe letters of indulgence were being given out for nothing; for thewhole pack of pupils and beggars would then come running, and each onewould want the same for nothing. They should not have found it necessaryto be worried about that, for the poor beggars were looking more fortheir blessed bread to drive away their hunger. 

"After they had held their deliberation, they came again to me and onegave me six pfennigs that I should give them to the commissioner. Through this contribution I, too, should become, according to them, abuilder of the Church of St. Peter, at Rome, likewise a slayer of theTurk, and should furthermore share in the grace of Christ and theindulgences. But then I said frankly, impelled by the Spirit, if Iwished to buy indulgences and the remission of sins for money, I couldin all likelihood sell a book and buy them for my own money. I wantedthem, however, for nothing, as gifts, for the sake of God, or they wouldhave to give an account before God for having neglected and trifled awaymy soul's salvation on account of six pfennigs, since, as they knew, both God and the Pope wished that my soul should share in theforgiveness of all my sins for nothing, through grace. This I said, andyet, in truth, I did not know how matters stood with the letters ofindulgence. 

"At last, after a long conversation, the priests asked me by whom I hadbeen sent to them, and who had instructed me to carry on such dealingswith them. Then I told them the pure, simple truth, as it was, that Ihad not been exhorted or urged by any one at all or brought to it by anyadvisers, but that I had made such a request alone, without counsel ofany man, only with the confidence and trust in the gracious forgivenessof sins which is given for nothing; and that I had never spoken or haddealings with such great people during all my life. For I was by naturetimid, and if I had not been forced by my great thirst for God's grace, I should not have undertaken anything so great and mixed with suchpeople and requested anything like that of them. Then the letters ofindulgence were again promised me, but yet in such a way that I shouldbuy them for six pfennigs which were to be given to me, as far as I wasconcerned, for nothing. I, however, continued to insist that the lettersof indulgence should be given to me for nothing by him who had the powerto give them; if not, I should commend and refer the matter to God. Andso I was dismissed by them. 

"The holy thieves, notwithstanding, became sad in consequence of thesedealings; I, however, was partly downcast that I had received no letterof indulgence, partly I rejoiced, too, that there was, in spite of all, still One in heaven who was willing to forgive the penitent sinner hissins without money and loan, according to the words that I had oftensung in church: 'As true as I live, says the Lord, I desire not thedeath of the sinner, but that he be converted and live. ' Oh, dear Lordand God, Thou knowest that I am not lying in this matter, or inventinganything about myself. 

"While doing this, I was so moved that I, on returning to my inn, almostgushed forth and melted to tears. Thus I came to my inn, went to myroom, and took the cross which always lay upon the little table in mystudy-room, placed it upon the bench, and fell down upon the floorbefore it. I cannot describe it here, but at that time I was able tofeel the spirit of prayer and divine grace which Thou, my Lord and God, pouredst out over me. The essential import of the same, however, wasthis: I asked that Thou, dear God, mightst be willing to be my Father, that Thou mightst be willing to forgive me for my sins, that I submittedmyself wholly to Thee, that Thou mightst make of me now whatsoeverpleased Thee, and because the priests did not wish to be gracious to mewithout money, that Thou mightst be willing to be my gracious God andFather. 

"Then I felt that my whole heart was changed. I was disgusted witheverything in this world, and it seemed to me that I had quite enough ofthis life. One thing only did I desire, that is, to live for God, that Imight be pleasing to Him. But who was there at that time who would havetaught me how I had to go about it? For the word, life, and light ofmankind was buried throughout the whole world in the deepest darkness ofhuman ordinances and of the quite foolish good works. Of Christ therewas complete silence, nothing was known about Him, or, if mention wasmade of Him, He was represented unto us as a dreadful, fearful Judge, whom scarcely His mother and all the saints in heaven could reconcileand make merciful with bloody tears; and yet it was done in such a waythat He, Christ, thrust the human being who did penance into the painsof purgatory seven years for each capital sin. It was claimed that thepain of purgatory differed from the pain of hell in nothing except thatit was not to last forever. The Holy Ghost, however, now brought me thehope that God would be merciful unto me. 

"And now I began to take counsel a few days with myself as to how Imight take up some other vocation in life. For I saw the sin of theworld and of the whole human race; I saw my manifold sin, which was verygreat. I had also heard something of the secret holiness and the pure, innocent life of the monks, how they served God day and night, wereseparated from all the wicked life of the world, and lived very sober, pious, and virtuous lives, read masses, sang psalms, fasted, and prayedat all times. I had also seen this sham life, but I did not know andunderstand that it was the greatest idolatry and hypocrisy. 

"Thereupon I made my decision known to the preceptor, Master AndreasStaffelstein, who was the chief regent of the school; he advised mestraightway to enter the Franciscan cloister, the rebuilding of whichhad been begun at that time. And in order that I might not becomedifferently minded in consequence of long delay, he straightway wentwith me himself to the monks, praised my intellect and ability, declaredin terms of praise that he bad considered me the only one among hispupils of whom he was entirely confident that I should become a verydevout man. 

"I wished, however, first to announce my intention to my parents, too, and hear their ideas about the matter, since I was a lone son and heirof my parents. The monks, however, taught me from St. Jerome that Ishould drop father and mother, and not take them into consideration, andrun to the cross of Christ. They quoted, too, the words of Christ, 'Noone who lays hands to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom ofGod. ' All of this was bound to impel and enjoin me to become a monk. Iwill not speak here of many ropes and fetters with which they bound andtied my conscience. For they said that I could never become blessed if Idid not soon accept and use the grace offered by God. Thereupon I, whowould rather have been willing to die than be without the grace of Godand eternal life, straightway promised and engaged to come into thecloister again in three days and begin the year of probation, as theycalled it, in the cloister; that is, I wanted to become a pious, devout, and God-fearing monk. 

"In the year of Christ 1510, the 14th of July, at two o'clock in theafternoon, I entered the cloister, accompanied by my preceptor, some fewof my school-comrades, and some very devout matrons, to whom I had inpart made known the reason why I was entering the spiritual order. Andso I blessed my companions to the cloister, all of whom, amid tears, wished me God's grace and blessing. And thus I entered the cloister. Dear God, Thou knowest that this is all true. I did not seek idleness orprovision for my stomach, nor the appearance of great holiness, but Iwished to be pleasing unto Thee--Thee I wished to serve. 

"Thus I at that time groped about in very great darkness" (p. 38 ff. )* *This account is published by the courtesy of the LutheranPublication Society of Philadelphia; it is taken from their publication_Doctor Luther, _ by Gustav Freitag. 

Few Christians can read this old record without pity stirring in them. The man of whom Myconius tells all this, Tetzel, has been recentlyrepresented to the American public as a theologian far superior toLuther, calm, considerate, kind, and of his actions the public has beenadvised that they were so utterly correct that the Roman Catholic Churchof to-day does not hesitate one moment to do what Tetzel did. So mote itbe! We admire the writer's honesty, and blush for his brazen boldness. 

15. Luther's Faith without Works. 

Out of Luther's opposition to the sale of indulgences there grew in thecourse of time one of the fundamental principles of Protestantism:complete, universal, and free salvation of sinners by grace throughfaith in Jesus Christ. In the controversies which started immediatelyafter the publication of the Ninety-five Theses, Luther was led step bystep to a greater clearness in his view of sin and grace, faith andworks, human reason and the divine revelation. Not yet realizing thefull import of his act, Luther had in the Theses made that article ofthe Christian faith with which the Church either stands or falls theissue of his lifelong conflict with Rome--the article of thejustification of a sinner before God. It is, therefore, convenient toreview the misrepresentations which Luther has suffered from Catholicwriters because of his teaching on the subject of justification at thisearly stage in our review, though in doing so a great many things willhave to be anticipated. 

Catholic writers charge Luther with having perverted the meaning ofjustifying faith. Luther held that justifying faith is essentially theassurance that since Christ lived on earth as a man, labored, suffered, died, and rose again in the place of sinners, the world _en masse_ andevery individual sinner are without guilt in the estimation of God. "Godwas in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing theirtrespasses unto them. " (2 Cor. 5, 19. ) To this reconciliation the sinnerhas contributed nothing. It has been accomplished without him. He cannotadd anything to it. God only asks the sinner to believe in his salvationas finished by Jesus Christ. To believe this fact does not mean toperform a work of merit in consideration of which God is willing tobestow salvation on the believer, but it means to accept the work ofChrist as performed in our place, to rejoice therein, and to repose asure confidence in this salvation in defiance of the accusations of ourown conscience, the incriminations which the broken Law of God hurls atus, and the terrors of the final judgment. The believer regards himselfas righteous before God not because of any good work that he has done, but because of the work which Christ has performed in his place. Thebeliever holds that, when God, by raising Christ from the dead, acceptedHis work as a sufficient atonement for men's guilt and an adequatefulfilment of the divine Law, He accepted each and every sinner. Thebeliever is certain that through the work of his Great Brother, Christ, he has been restored to a child relationship with God and enjoys child'sprivileges with his Father in heaven. The idea that he himself has doneanything to bring about this blessed state of affairs is utterly foreignto this faith in Christ. 

Catholic writers assert that the doctrine which we have just outlined isnot Scriptural, but represents the grossest perversion of Scripture. They say this doctrine originated in "the erratic brain of Luther. "Luther "was not an exact thinker, and being unable to analyze an ideainto its constituents, as is necessary for one who will apprehend itcorrectly, he failed to grasp questions which by the general mass of thepeople were thoroughly and correctly understood. . . . He allowedhimself to cultivate an unnecessary antipathy to so-called 'holiness byworks, ' and this attitude, combined with his tendency to look at theworst side of things, and his knowledge of some real abuses thenprevalent in the practise of works, doubtless contributed to develop hisdislike for good works in general, and led him by degrees to strike atthe very roots of the Catholic system of sacraments and grace, ofpenance and satisfaction, in fact, all the instruments or meansinstituted by God both for conferring and increasing His savingrelationship with man. " Luther's teaching on justification is said to bethe inevitable reverse of his former self-exaltation. Abandoning theindispensable virtue of humility, he had become a prey to spiritualpride, and had entered the monastery to achieve perfect righteousness byhis own works. He had disregarded the wise counsels of his brethren, whohad warned him not to depend too much on his own powers, but seek theaid of God. Then failing to make himself perfect, he had run to theother extreme and declared that there was nothing good in man at all, and that man could not of himself perform any worthy action. Finally hehad hit upon the idea that justification means, "not an infusion ofjustice into the heart of the person justified, but a mere externalimputation of it. " Faith, in Luther's view, thus becomes an assurancethat this imputation has taken place, and man accordingly need not givehimself any more trouble about his salvation. 

This teaching, Catholic writers contend, subverts the prominent teachingof the Scriptures that man must obey God and keep His commandments, thathe must be perfect, even as his Father in heaven is perfect, that hemust follow in the footsteps of Jesus who said: "I am not come todestroy the Law, but to fulfil it. " Furthermore, this teaching is saidto dehumanize man and make out of him a stock and a stone, utterly unfitfor any spiritual effort. God, they say, constituted man a rationalbeing and imposed certain precepts on him which he was free to keep orviolate as he might choose unto eternal happiness or eternal misery. Thesin which all inherit from Adam has weakened the powers of man to dogood, but it has not entirely abolished them. There is still somethinggood in man by nature, and if he wants to please God and obtain His aidin his good endeavors, he must at least do as much as is still in hispower to do, and believe that God for Jesus' sake will assist him tobecome perfect, if not in this life, then, at any rate, in the life tocome. He cannot avoid sin altogether, but he can avoid sin to a certainextent; he can at least lead an outwardly decent life. That is worthsomething, that is "meritorious. " He may not feel a very deep contritionover his wrong-doings, but he can feel at least an attrition, that is, alittle sorrow, or he can wish that he might feel sorry. That is worthsomething; that is "meritorious. " He cannot love God with all his heartand all his soul, and all his strength, but he can love Him some. Thatis worth something; that is "meritorious. " Accordingly, when the richyoung man asked the Lord what he must do to gain heaven, the Lord didnot say, "Believe in Me, Accept Me for your personal Savior, Have faithin Me, " but He said: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep thecommandments. " Paul, likewise teaches that faith and love must cooperatein man, for "faith worketh by love. " Therefore, "faith in love and lovein faith justify, " but not faith alone. Faith without works is dead andcannot justify. A live faith is a faith that has works to show as itscredentials that it is real faith. Hence, faith alone does not justify, but faith and works. Love is the fulfilment of the Law; faith works bylove, hence, by the fulfilment of the Law. Therefore, faith alone doesnot justify, but faith plus the fulfilment of the Law. In endlessvariations Catholic writers thus seek to upset with Scripture Luther'steaching that man is justified by faith in Christ alone, and that allthe righteousness which a sinner can present before God without fearthat it will be rejected is a borrowed righteousness, not his ownwork-righteousness. 

We might express a just surprise that Catholics should be offended atthe doctrine that the righteousness of Christ is imputed, that is, reckoned or counted, to the sinner as his own. For, does not theirsystem of indulgences rest on a theory of imputation? Do they not, byselling from the Treasure of the Church the superabundant merits ofChrist and the saints to the sinner who has not a sufficient amount ofthem, make those merits the sinner's own by just such a process ofimputation? They surely cannot infuse those merits into the sinner. ButCatholics probably object to the Protestant imputation-teaching becausethat is too cheap and easy, and because Protestant success has spoiled alucrative Catholic imputation-business. --This in passing. Let the Bibledecided [tr. Note: sic] whether Luther was right in teachingjustification by faith alone, by faith without works. 

What does the Bible say about the condition of natural man after thefall? It says: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, " that is, corrupt (John 3, 6); "The imagination of man's heart is evil from hisyouth" (Gen. 8, 21); "They are all gone aside, they are altogetherbecome filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Ps. 14, 3);"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one" (Job 14, 4);"There is here no difference; for all have sinned and come short of theglory of God (Rom. 3, 22. 23). 

What does the Bible say about the powers of natural man after the fallin reference to spiritual matters? It says: "The natural man receivethnot the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him;neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned" (1Cor. 2, 14); "Ye were dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2, 1); "Thecarnal mind, " that is, the mind of flesh, the natural mind of man, "isenmity against God" (Rom. 8, 7); "Without Me"--Jesus is the Speaker--"yecan do nothing" John 15, 5). 

What does the Bible say about the value of man's works of righteousnessperformed by his natural powers? It says: "We are all as an uncleanthing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" (Is. 64, 6); "Acorrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit" (Matt. 7, 17). 

What does the Bible say about man's ability to fulfil the Law of God? Itsays: "Cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to dothem" (Deut. 27, 26) ; "Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yetoffend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jas. 2, 10) ; "What the Lawcould not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending Hisown Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin inthe flesh" (Rom. 8, 38); "The Law worketh wrath, " that is, by convincingman that he has not fulfilled it and never will fulfil it, it rousesman's anger against God who has laid this unattainable Law upon him(Rom. 4, 15). 

What does the Bible say about the relation of Christ to the Law and tosin? It says: "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under theLaw, that He might redeem them that were under the Law" (Gal. 4, 4);"Christ is the end of the Law 'for righteousness to every one thatbelieveth" (Rom. 10, 4); "God hath made Him to be sin for us who knew nosin, that we might be made the righteous of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5, 21);"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law; being made a cursefor us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree"(Gal. 3, 13). 

What does the Bible say about faith without works as a means ofjustification? It says: "We conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law" (Rom. 3, 28); "To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is countedfor righteousness" (Rom. 4, 5); "I rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have noconfidence in the flesh, though I might also have confidence in theflesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust inthe flesh, I more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the Law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the Church; touching therighteousness which is in the Law, blameless. [The speaker is theapostle Paul. ] But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss forChrist. Yea, doubtless; and I count all things but loss for theexcellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I havesuffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I maywin Christ and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, whichis of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, therighteousness which is of God by faith" (Phil. 3, 3-9) ; "If by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if itbe of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work"(Rom. 11, 6). (The Catholic Bible omits the last half of this text. )

What does the Bible say about faith being assurance of pardon andeverlasting life? It says: "If God be for us, who can be against us? Hethat spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shallHe not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anythingto the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he thatcondemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession forus. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, ordistress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him thatloved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separateus from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord" (Rom. 8, 31-39); "I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is ableto keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day" (2 Tim. 1, 12). 

Here we rest our case. If Luther was wrong in teaching the justificationof the sinner by faith, without the deeds of the Law, then Paul waswrong, Jesus Christ was wrong, the apostles and prophets were wrong, thewhole Bible is wrong. Catholics must square themselves to these textsbefore they dare to open their mouths against Luther. If Luther was aheretic, the Lord Jesus made him one, and He is making a heretic ofevery reader of the texts aforecited. Rome will have to answer to Him. 

But what about the answer of the Lord to the rich young man? What aboutthe commandment to be perfect? Does not the doctrine of justification byfaith alone, without the deeds of the Law, abolish the holy and good Lawof God? Not at all. When Paul expounds to the Galatians the doctrine ofjustification by faith as compared with justification by works, hearrays the Law against the Gospel, and raises this question: "Is theLaw, then, against the promises of God?" His answer reveals the wholedifficulty that attends every effort to obtain righteousness byfulfilling the Law, he says: "God forbid: for if there had been a lawgiven which could have given life, verily, righteousness should havebeen by the Law. " (Gal. 3, 21. ) Christ expressed the same truth when Hesaid to the lawyer: "Do this, and thou shalt live. " (Luke 10, 28. ) Thereason why the Law makes no person righteous is not because it is not asufficient rule or norm of good works by which men could earn eternallife, but because it does not furnish man any ability to achieve thatrighteousness which it demands. No law does that. The law only createsduties, and insists on their fulfilment under threat of punishment. Itis not the function of the law to make doers of the law. Originally theLaw was issued to men who were able to fulfil it, because they werecreated after the image of God, in perfect holiness and righteousness. That they lost this concreate [tr. Note: sic] ability through the fall isno reason why God should change or abrogate His Law. He purposes to helpthem in another way, by sending them His Son for a Redeemer, who fulfilsthe Law in their stead. But this wonderful plan of God for the rescue oflost man is not appreciated by any one who still believes, as theCatholics do, that he has some good powers in him left which he candevelop with the help of God to such an extent that he can make himselfrighteous. To such a person Jesus says to-day as He said to the richyoung man: "Keep the commandments!" That means, since you believe inyour ability, proceed to employ it. Your reward is sure, provided onlyyou do what the Law demands. But just as surely the curse of God restson you if you do not do it. When you have become convinced that it isimpossible to fulfil the Law, you may ask a different question, aquestion which the knowledge of your spiritual disability has wrestedfrom you as it did from the jailer at Philippi: "What must I do to besaved?" and you will not receive the answer: "Keep the commandments!"but: "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, " (Acts16, 29. 30. ) Not a word will be said any more about anything that youmust do. You will be told: All that you ought to have done has beenaccomplished by One who died with the exclamation: "It is finished!"(John 19, 30), and who now sends His messengers abroad inviting men toHis free salvation: "Come, for all things are now ready!" (Luke 14, 17. )"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hathno money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk withoutmoney and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which isnot bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? Hearkendiligently unto Me, and eat ye that which is good" (Is. 55, 1. 2. ) Whenyou have wearied yourself to death by your efforts to achieverighteousness, as Paul did when he was still the Pharisee Saul ofTarsus, as Luther did while he was still in the bondage of popery, whenyou have become hot in your confused and despairing mind against God andthe Law, which you cannot fulfil, you will appreciate the voice thatcalls to you as it has called to millions before you: "Come unto Me, allye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. " (Matt. 11, 28. ) And if you are wise, then, with the wisdom which the Spirit givesthe children of God, you will not delay a minute, but come rejoicingthat you need not get salvation by works, and will sing:

 Just as I am, without one plea But that Thy blood was shed for me, And that Thou bidst me come to Thee, O Lamb of God, I come, I come!

Rome has cursed Luther for teaching justification by faith, without thedeeds of the Law. The principles which he had timidly uttered in theTheses led to bolder declarations later, when the full light of theblessed Gospel had come to him. It brought him the curse of the Pope inthe bull _Exsurge, Domine!_ of June 15, 1520. The following estimate bya recent Catholic writer is a fair sample of the sentiments cherished byofficial Rome for Luther: "From out the vast number whom the enemy ofman raised up to invent heresies, which, St. Cyprian says, 'destroyfaith and divide unity, ' not one, or all together, ever equaled orsurpassed Martin Luther in the wide range of his errors, the ferocitywith which he promulgated them, and the harm he did in leading soulsaway from the Church, the fountain of everlasting truth. The heresies ofSabellius, Arius, Pelagius, and other rebellious men were insignificantas compared with those Luther formulated and proclaimed four hundredyears ago, and which, unfortunately, have ever since done serviceagainst the Church of the living God. In Luther most, if not all, formerheresies meet, and reach their climax. To enumerate fully all thewicked, false, and perverse teachings of the arch-heretic would requirea volume many times larger than the Bible, and every one of the lies andfalsehoods that have been used against the Catholic Church may be tracedback to him as to their original formulator. " The cause for thisundisguised hatred of Luther is chiefly Luther's teaching ofjustification by faith, without works. In its Sixth Session the Councilof Trent condemned the following doctrines:

_On Free Will:_ Canon IV: "If any one says that the free will of man, when moved and stirred by God, cannot, by giving assent, cooperate withGod, who is stirring and calling man, so that he disposes and prepareshimself for obtaining the grace of justification, or that he cannotdissent if he wills, but, like some inanimate thing, does absolutelynothing and is purely passive, --let him be accursed. "

_On Justification:_ Canon IX: "If any one says that the ungodly arejustified by faith alone, in the sense that nothing else is required ontheir part that might cooperate to the end of obtaining the grace ofjustification, and that it is in no wise necessary that they be preparedand disposed (for this grace) by a movement of the will, --let him beaccursed. "

Canon XI: "If any one says that man is justified either by theimputation of the righteousness of Christ alone or by the remission ofhis sins alone, without grace and love being diffused through his heartby the Holy Spirit and inhering therein, or that the grace whereby weare justified is merely the good will of God, --let him be accursed. "

Canon XII: "If any one says that justifying faith is nothing else thantrust in the divine mercy which forgives sins for Christ's sake, or thatit is this trust alone by which we are justified, --let him be accursed. "

Canon XXIV: "If any one says that righteousness, after having beenreceived, is not conserved nor augmented before God by good works, butthat these works are merely the fruits or signs of the justificationwhich one has obtained, and that they are not a reason why justificationis increased, --let him be accursed. "

It is a well-known characteristic of the decrees of the Council of Trentthat truth and error appear skilfully interwoven in them. They are likea double motion that is offered in a deliberative body: they containthings which one must affirm, and other things which one must negative. They cannot be voted on--many of them--except after a division of thequestion. They contain "riders" like those in a bill that comes before alegislative body: in order to pass the bill at all, the "rider" must bepassed along with the bill. But enough crops out in these decrees toshow that the Catholic Church is not willing to let the merits of Christbe regarded as the only thing that justifies the sinner. He mustcooperate with the Holy Spirit to the end of being justified. He mustprepare and dispose himself for receiving justifying grace, and thisgrace is infused into him, and manifests itself in holy movements of theheart and by good works, in acts of love. The Roman Catholic Christianis taught to believe that he is justified partly by what Christ hasdone, partly by what he himself is doing. He cannot subscribe to Paul'sstatement: "By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not ofyourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man shouldboast. " (Eph. 2, 8. 9. ) Nor is his justification ever complete, becausehis love is never perfect. It must be increased even after his death. The Roman purgatory contains sinners whom God had justified as far as Hecould, the sinners remaining in arrears with their, part of thecontract. Accordingly, the sinner can never have the assurance that hewill enter heaven. It would be presumptuous for him to think so. He mustlive on and work on at his poor dying rate, and hope for the best. 

This teaching of the Church of Rome subverts Christianity. It strikes atthe root of the faith that saves. It is a relapse into paganism and anaffront offered to the Savior. It borrows the language of Scripture toexpress the most hideous error. By this teaching Rome does not drive meninto purgatory, --which does not exist, --but into hell. It is only by amiracle of divine grace that sinners are saved where such teachingprevails: they must forget what is told them about the necessity oftheir own works and cling only to the Redeemer, and must thuspractically repudiate the teaching of their Church. Some do this, andescape the pernicious consequences of the error of their Church. All ofthem will rise up in the Judgment to accuse their teachers of a heresythe worst imaginable. 

Rome has, indeed, assailed "the article with which the Church eitherstands or falls. " All its other errors, crass, grotesque, and repulsivethough they are, are mere child's play in comparison with this damningand destructive error of justification by works. Luther rightlyestimated the virulence of this abysmal heresy when he said that thosewho attacked his teaching of justification by grace through faith alonewere aiming at his throat. Rome's teaching on justification is anattempt to strike at the vitals of Christian faith and life. It sinksthe dagger into the heart of Christianity. 

16. The Fatalist Luther. 

Catholic writers have discovered a fatalistic tendency in Luther'steaching of justification by faith without works. They declare thatLuther's theory of the utter depravity of man by reason of inherited sinand his incapacity to perform any work that can be accounted good in thesight of God kills every ambition to virtuous living in man. They arguethat when you tell a person that he is not capable to do good, he is aptto believe you and make no effort to perform a good deed. The situationbecomes still worse when the divine predestination is introduced at thispoint, as has been done, they say, by Luther. If God has determined allthings beforehand by a sovereign decree, if there really is no suchthing as human choice, and all things occur according to a foreordainedplan, man no longer has any responsibility. He is reduced to anautomaton. Free will is denied him; he cannot elect by voluntary choiceto engage in any God-pleasing action; for he is told that his naturalreason is blinded by sin and his understanding darkened, rendering itimpossible for him to discern good and evil, and leading him constantlyinto errors of judgment on what is right or wrong, while he is made tobelieve that his will is enslaved by evil lusts and passions, ever proneto wickedness and averse to godliness. As a consequence, it is claimed, man must necessarily become morally indifferent: he will not fightagainst sin nor follow after righteousness, because he has becomeconvinced that it is useless for him to make any effort either in theone direction or in the other. The doctrine of man's natural depravityand the divine foreordination of all things, it is held, must drive maneither to despair, insanity, and suicide, or land him hopelessly infatalism: he will simply continue his physical life in a mechanical way, like a brute or a plant; he merely vegetates. 

These fatal tendencies which are charged against Luther are refuted byno one more effectually than by Luther himself. As regards the doctrineof original sin and man's natural depravity, Luther preached that withapostolic force and precision. That doctrine is a Bible-doctrine. Noperson has read his Bible aright, no expounder of Scripture has begun toexplain the divine plan of salvation for sinners, if he has failed tofind this teaching in the Bible. This doctrine is, indeed, extremelyhumiliating to the pride of man; it opens up appalling views of themisery of the human race under sin. We can understand why men would wantto get away from this doctrine. But no one confers any benefit on men byminimizing the importance of the Bible-teaching, or by weakening thestatements of Scripture regarding this matter. Any teaching which admitsthe least good quality in man by which he can prepare or dispose himselfso as to induce God to view him with favor is a contradiction of thepassages of Scripture which were cited in a previous chapter, and worksa delusion upon men that will prove just as fatal as when a physicianwithholds from his patient the full knowledge of his critical condition. Yea, it is worse; for a physician who is not frank and sincere to hispatient may deprive the latter of his physical life, but theteacher of God's Word who instils in men false notions of their moraland spiritual power robs them of life eternal. 

Luther avoided this error. He led men to a true estimate of themselvesas they are by nature. But over and against the fell power of sin hemagnified the greater power of divine grace. "Where sin abounded, gracehath much more abounded" (Rom. 5, 20), --along this line Luther found thesolution for the awful difficulty which confronts every man when hestudies the Bible-doctrine of original sin, and when he discovers, moreover, that this Bible-doctrine is borne out fully by his ownexperience. Just for this reason, because man can do nothing to restorehimself to the divine favor, God by His grace proposes to do all, andhas sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to do all, and, lastnot least, publishes the fact that all has been done in the Gospel ofthe forgiveness of sin by grace through faith in Christ. Luther hastaught men to confess: "I believe that I cannot by my own reason orstrength believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him, " but he taught themalso to follow up this true confession with the other: "The Holy Ghosthas called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctifiedand kept me in the true faith. "

The Gospel is called in the Scriptures "the Word of Life, " not onlybecause it speaks of the life everlasting which God has prepared for Hischildren, but also because it gives life. It approaches man, dead intrespasses and sins, and quickens him into new life. It removes from themind of man its natural blindness and from the will of man its innateimpotency. It regenerates all the dead powers of the soul, and makes manwalk in newness of life. The difficulty which original sin has createdis not greater than the means and instruments which God has provided forcoping with it. "God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He might havemercy on all. " (Rom. 11, 32. )

This is the only true salvation, every other is fictitious. It teachesman both to face the fearful odds against him because of his corruption, and to relish all the more the points in his favor by reason of God'sredeeming and regenerating grace. It starts its work with crushing man'spride and self-confidence utterly, and hurling him into the abyss ofdespair, but it lifts him out of despair with a mighty power that breaksthe power of evil in him. This change is brought about in such a gentle, tender way that the sinner has no sensation of being coerced into thenew life by some farce which he cannot resist. It wins him over to Godand his Christ in spite of his resistance, and makes out of hisunwilling heart a willing one, which gladly coincides with the leadingsof grace. 

The Roman scheme of salvation might be called the ostrich method: itteaches men the foolish strategy of the bird of the desert, which hidesits head in the sand when it sees an enemy approaching, and thenimagines the enemy does not exist. Original sin may be disputed out ofthe Bible by a false interpretation, but it is not thereby ruled out ofexistence. When face to face with his God--if no sooner, then in thehour of death--every man feels that he is utterly corrupt and worthless, and he will curse any teacher that caused him to believe otherwise. Freewill is not created by assertions. Let the apostles of free will onlytry, and they will find out that their freedom is nil. Catholicsdenounce Luther for having declared the free will of man to be nothingthan a word without substance: we hear the sound when the word ispronounced, and grasp its grammatical meaning, but we do not realize itin ourselves. Every person, however, who has truly come to know himselfwill side with Luther, or rather with the Bible. Furthermore, to thesame extent to which the Roman view exalts man's natural powers forgood, it lowers and limits the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, andbegets a false confidence and security that is rudely shaken when thefirst slip and fall occurs in the person's Christian life. He has neverreally laid hold of the grace of God, because he has not been taught totrust only to the grace of God to lead and preserve him in the way oflife. He will begin to distrust the Gospel as a very inefficientinstrument, and this will lead him to become indifferent to it, andfinally fall away from it entirely. A real danger of apostasy anddespair exists wherever the Roman dogma of man's natural free will isproclaimed. 

It is, however, doing Luther a flagrant injustice when he is made todeny that man has no longer any natural reason and will in the secularaffairs of this life. Luther used to divide the entire life of man intotwo hemispheres, the upper embracing man's relation to God, holy things, the interests of the soul here and hereafter, and the lower, embracingthe purely human, temporal, and secular interests of man. It is only inthe higher hemisphere that Luther denies the existence of free will. Throughout his writings Luther asserts the existence, the actualoperation, and the necessity of human free will, though sadly weakenedby sin, in the affairs of this present life. It will be sufficient tocite as evidence the Augsburg Confession which was drawn up withLuther's aid and submitted to Emperor Charles V in 1530 as the jointbelief of Luther and his followers. "Of the Freedom of the Will, " saythe Protestant confessors, "they teach that man's will has some libertyfor the attainment of civil righteousness and for the choice of thingssubject to reason. Nevertheless, it has not power, without the HolyGhost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritualrighteousness, since the natural man receiveth not the things of theSpirit of God (1 Cor. 2, 14); but this righteousness is wrought in theheart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things aresaid in as many words by Augustine in his _Hypognosticon_ (Book III):'We grant that all men have a certain freedom of will in judgingaccording to natural reason; not such freedom, however, whereby it iscapable, without God, either to begin, much less to complete aught inthings pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether goodor evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in Nature, that is, to have a will to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to havea friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry, to keep cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life, none of which things are without dependence on the providence of God;yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their beginning. "Evil" Icall such things as, to have a will to worship an idol, to commitmurder, ' etc. " (Art. 18. )

Luther has always held that there is a natural intelligence and wisdom, a natural will-power and energy which men employ in their dailyoccupations, their trades and professions, their trade and commerce, their literature and art, their culture and refinement, yea, that thereis also a natural knowledge of God even among the Gentiles, who yet"know not God, " and a seeming performance of the things which God hascommanded. But these natural abilities do not reach into the higherhemisphere; they cannot pass muster at the bar of divine justice. Theydo not spring from right motives, nor do they aim at right ends; theyare determined by man's self-interest. They come short of that glorywhich God ought to receive from worshipers in spirit and in truth (Rom. 3, 23; John 4, 23); they are evil in as far as they are the corruptfruits of corrupt trees. In condemning the moral quality of thesenatural works of civil righteousness, Luther has said no more thanChrist and His apostles have said. 

Luther taught the Bible-doctrine that there is in God a hidden willwhich He has reserved to His majesty (Dent. 29); that His judgments areunsearchable and His ways past finding out (Rom. 11, 33); that not evena sparrow falls to the ground without His will, and that the very hairsof our head are numbered (Matt. 10, 29. 30); that no evil can occuranywhere without His permission (Amos 3, 6; Is. 45, 7). To deny thesetruths is to reject the Bible and to destroy the sovereign omniscienceand omnipotence of God. Those who attack Luther for believing that alsothe evil in this world is related to God will have to change their billof indictment: their charge is really directed against Scripture. Lutherhas, however, warned men not to attempt a study of this secret will ofGod, for the plain reason that it is secret, and it would be blasphemouspresumption to try and find it out. All our dealings with God must be onthe basis of His revealed will. If we only will study that, we will befully occupied our whole life. 

As regards the Scriptural doctrine of predestination, that those whoultimately attain to the life everlasting have been chosen to that end, Luther has warned men not to study this doctrine outside of Christ andthe Gospel. God has told His children for their comfort amid thevicissitudes of this life that He has secured their eternal happinessagainst all dangers, but He has not asked them, nor does He permit them, to find out _a priori_ whether this or that person is elect. JesusChrist is the Book of Life in which the elect are to find their namesrecorded, and in the general way of salvation through repentance, faith, and sanctification of life they are to be led to the heritage of thesaints in light. In his summary of the ninth, tenth, and eleventhchapters of Romans, Luther states that by His eternal election God hastaken our salvation entirely out of our hands and placed it in His ownhands. "And this is most highly necessary. For we are so feeble andfickle that, if salvation depended upon us, not a person would be saved;the devil would overcome them all. But since God is reliable and Hiselection cannot fail or be thwarted by any one, we still have hope overand against sin. But at this point a limit must be fixed for thepresumptuous spirits who soar too high. They lead their reason first tothis subject, they start at the pinnacle, they want to explore first theabyss of the divine election, and wrestle vainly with the questionwhether they are elect. These people bring about their own overthrow:they are either driven to despair or become reckless. --Follow the orderof this Epistle: First, occupy yourself with Christ and the Gospel, inorder that you may learn to know your sin and His grace; next, begin towrestle with your sin, as chapters 1-8 teach you to do. Then, after youhave reached the doctrine concerning crosses and tribulations in theeighth chapter, you will rightly learn the doctrine of election inchapters 9-11, because you will realize what a comfort this doctrinecontains. For the doctrine of election can be studied without injury andsecret anger against God only by those who have passed throughsuffering, crosses, and anguish of death. Accordingly, the old Adam inyou must be dead before you can bear this subject and drink this strongwine. See that you do not drink wine while you are still a babe. Thereis a proper time, age, and manner for propounding the various doctrinesof God to men. " What is there fatalistic about this?

17. Luther a Teacher of Lawlessness. 

Luther's teaching on the forgiveness of sin is sternly rebuked byCatholic writers because of its immoral tendencies. They say, when theforgiveness of sins is made as easy as Luther makes it, the people willcease being afraid if sinning. 

The danger of the Gospel of the gracious forgiveness of sins beingmisapplied has always existed in the Church. Every student of churchhistory knows this. Catholic writers know this. Paul wrestled with thispractical perversion of the loving intentions of our heavenly Father inhis day. After declaring to the Romans: "Where sin abounded, grace didmuch more abound, " he raises the question: "What shall we say then?Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?" He returns thishorrified answer: "God forbid! How shall we, that are dead to sin, liveany longer therein?" (Rom. 5, 20-6, 2. ) Actually there were people inthe apostle's days who drew from his evangelical teaching thispernicious inference, that by sinning they gave the forgiving grace ofGod a larger opportunity to exert itself, hence, that they wereglorifying grace by committing more sin. This meant putting a premium onsinning. For God's sake, how can you conceive a thought like that? theapostle exclaims. He repudiates the idea as blasphemous, which it is. Tosin in the assurance that sin will be forgiven is not honoring, butdishonoring God and His grace; it is not exalting, but traducing faith;it is not Christian, but devilish. Summarizing the contents of Romans, chapter 5, Luther says: "In the fifth chapter Paul comes to speak of thefruits and works of faith, such as peace, joy, love of God and all men, and in addition to these, security, boldness, cheerfulness, courage andhope amid tribulations and suffering. All these effects follow wherethere is genuine faith, because of the superabundant blessing which Godhas conferred upon us in Christ by causing Him to die for us before wecould pray that He might do this, yea, while we were yet His enemies. Accordingly, we conclude that faith justifies without works of any kind, and yet it does not follow that we must not do any good works. Genuinegood works cannot fail to flow from faith, --works of which theself-righteous know nothing, and in the place of which they invent theirown works, in which there is neither peace, joy, security, love, hope, boldness, nor any other of the characteristics of a genuine Christianwork and faith. " In his Preface to Romans, Luther meets a somewhatdifferent objection to faith: Christians, after they have begun tobelieve, still discover sin in themselves, and on account of thisimagine that faith alone cannot save them. There must be something donein addition to believing to insure their salvation. In replying to thisscruple, Luther has given a classical description of the quality andpower of faith. This description serves to blast the Catholic chargethat Luther's easy way of justifying the sinner leads to increasedsinning. Luther says: "Faith is not the human notion and dream whichsome regard as faith. When they observe that no improvement of life norany good works flow from faith even where people hear and talk muchabout faith, they fall into this error that they declare: faith is notsufficient, you must do works if you wish to become godly and be saved. The reason is, these people, when they hear the Gospel, hurriedlyformulate by their own powers a thought in their heart which asserts: Ibelieve. This thought they regard as genuine faith. However, as theirfaith is but a human figment and idea that never reaches the bottom ofthe heart, it is inert and effects no improvement. Genuine faith, however, is a divine work in us by which we are changed and born anew ofGod. (John 1, 13. ) It slays the old Adam, and makes us entirely new menin our heart, mind, ideas, and all our powers. It brings us the HolySpirit. Oh, this faith is a lively, active, busy, mighty thing! It isimpossible for faith not to be active without ceasing. Faith does notask whether good works are to be done, but before the question has beenasked, it has accomplished good works; yea, it is always engaged indoing good works. Whoever does not do such good works is void of faith;he gropes and mopes about, looking for faith and good works, but knowsneither what faith nor what good works are, though he may prate andbabble ever so much about faith and good works. "

There has never been a time when the Gospel and the grace of God havenot been wrested to wicked purposes by insincere men, hypocrites, andbold spirits. For this reason God has instructed Christians: "Give notthat which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls beforeswine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rendyou. " (Matt. 7, 6. ) The danger of misapplied grace is a present-daydanger in every evangelical community. Earnest Christian ministers andlaymen strive with this misapplication wherever they discover it. Canthey do any more?

Rome will say: Why do you not do as we do in our Church? We do notpreach the Gospel in such a reckless fashion, we make men work for theirsalvation. Rome would abolish or considerably limit the preaching offree and abundant grace to the sinner. We recoil from this suggestionbecause it makes the entire work of Christ of none effect, and wipes outthe grandest portions of our Bible. If every abuse of something that isgood must be stopped by abolishing the proper use, then let us give upeating because some make gluttons of themselves; drinking, because someare drunkards; wearing clothes, because there is much vanity in dresses;marriage, because some marriages are shamefully conducted, etc. , etc. 

The Roman Church does not operate on evangelical principles. Does itsucceed better in cultivating true holiness among its members by itssystem of penances and its teaching of the meritoriousness of men's actsof piety? Catholics say to us sneeringly: It is easy to have faith; itis very convenient, when you wish to indulge, or have indulged, somepassion, to remember that there is grace for forgiveness. But is anygreat difficulty connected with going through a penance that the priesthas imposed, buying a wax candle, reciting sixteen Paternosters and tenAve Marias, and then sitting down and saying to yourself: "Good boy!you've done it, you have squared your account again with the Almighty"?What sanctifying virtue lies in abstaining from beefsteak on Friday?Rome nowhere has improved men by her mechanical piety. What she hasaccomplished was made possible by the fear of purgatorial torments, byslavish dread of her mysterious powers, by ambition and bigotry. Wewould not exchange our abused treasures for her system of workmongery. 

But the Catholic charge of tendencies to lawlessness that are said to becontained in. Luther's teaching of faith without works are more serious. Luther is cited by them as declaring that one may commit innumerablesins, and they will not harm one as long as one keeps on believing inthe grace of forgiveness. It is true, Luther has spoken words to thiseffect, and that, on quite a number of occasions. Worsethan that, what Luther has said is actually true. As a matter of fact, no sin can deprive the believer of salvation. There is only one sin thatultimately damns, final impenitence and unbelief, by which is understoodthe rejection of the atonement which Christ offered for the sins of theworld. That atonement is actually the full satisfaction rendered to ourJudge for all the sins which we have done, are doing, and will be doingtill the end of our lives. For the person that dies a perfect saint, sinless and impeccable, is still to be born. The comfort that I derivefrom my Redeemer to-day will be my comfort to-morrow, that will be myonly prop and stay in my dying hour. I shall need Him every hour. Thisis a perfectly Christian thought. St. John writes: "My little children, these things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any man sin, "--mark this well: "If any man sin, " though he ought not to sin, --what doesthe apostle say to him? He does not say: Then you are damned! or: Itwill require so many fasts, masses, and candles to restore you! but thisis what he says: "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins, andnot for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. " (1 John2, 1. 2. ) John, then, must be included in the Catholic indictment ofLuther. Luther would not have been a preacher of the genuine and fullGospel if he had not declared the impossibility of any sin or any numberof sins depriving a believer of salvation. 

But if the Catholics mean to say that Luther's evangelical declarationmeans that no believer can fall from grace by sinning, that he may sinand remain in a state of grace, --that is simply slander. Luther holds, indeed, that a person does not cease to be a Christian by every slip andfault, but he insists that no dereliction of duty, no deviation from therule of godly living can be treated with indifference. It must berepented of, God's forgiveness must be sought, and only in this way willthe Holy Spirit again be bestowed on the sinner. God may bear awhilewith a Christian who has fallen into sin, but the backslider has nopleasant time with his God while he stays a backslider. This being aquestion of every-day, practical Christianity, Luther frequently touchesthis subject in his sermons, both in the Church Postil, the HousePostil, and in his occasional sermons. Luther's Catholic critics coulddisabuse their mind about the tendencies to lawlessness in Luther'steaching if they would look up references such as these: 9, 730. 1456f. ; 11, 1790; 12, 448. 433; 13, 394; 6, 294. 1604. In one of thesereferences (9, 1456) Luther comments on 1 John 3, 6: "Whosoever abidethin Him sinneth not; whosoever sinneth hath not seen Him, neither knownHim, " as follows: "'Seeing' and 'knowing' in the phraseology of John isas much as believing. `That every one which seeth the Son, and believethon Him, may have everlasting life' (John 6, 40). 'This is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thouhast sent. ' Accordingly, he that sins does not believe in Him; for faithand sin cannot coexist. We may fall, but we may not cling to sin. Thekingdom of Christ is a kingdom of righteousness, not of sin. " In theSmalcald Articles Luther says: "But if certain sectarists would arise, some of whom are perhaps already present, and in the time of theinsurrection of the peasants came to my view, holding that all those whohave once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or have becomebelievers, even though they would afterwards sin, would still remain inthe faith, and sin would not injure them, and cry thus: 'Do whatever youplease; if you believe, it is all nothing; faith blots out all sins, 'etc. They say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faithand the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith. I have seen andheard of many men so insane, and I fear that such a devil is stillremaining in some. If, therefore, I say, such persons would hereafteralso arise, it is necessary to know and teach that if saints who stillhave and feel original sin, and also daily repent and strive with it, fall in some way into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, andblasphemy, they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghostdoes not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to becompleted, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what itwishes. But if it do what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are notthere present. For St. John says (1. Ep. 3, 9): 'Whosoever is born ofGod doth not commit sin, . . . And he cannot sin. ' And yet that is alsothe truth which the same St. John says (1. Ep. 1, 8): 'If we say that wehave no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. '" (PartIII, Art. 3, §§ 42-45; p. 329. ) The Lutheran Church has received thisstatement of Luther into her confessional writings. This is the Lutherof whom a modern Catholic critic says: "This thought of theall-forgiving nature of faith so dominated his mind that it excluded thenotion of contrition, penance, good works, or effort on the part of thebeliever, and thus his teaching destroyed root and branch the whole ideaof human culpability and responsibility for the breaking of theCommandments. "

It is amazing boldness in Catholics to prefer this charge againstLuther, when they themselves teach a worse doctrine than they impute toLuther. The Council of Trent in its Sixth Session, Canon 15, also in itsSixteenth Session, Canon 15, Coster in his Enchiridion, in the chapteron Faith, p. 178, Bellarminus on Justification, chapter 15, declare itto be Catholic teaching that the believer cannot lose his faith by any, even the worst, sin he may commit. They speak of believing fornicators, believing adulterers, believing thieves, believing misers, believingdrunkards, believing slanderers, etc. The very teaching which Catholicsfalsely ascribe to Luther is an accepted dogma of their own Church. Their charge against Luther is, at best, the trick of crying, "Holdthief!" to divert attention from themselves. 

But did not Luther in the plainest terms advise his friends Weller andMelanchthon to practise immoralities as a means for overcoming theirdespondency? Is he not reported in his Table Talk to have said thatlooking at a pretty woman or taking a hearty drink would dispel gloomythoughts? that one should sin to spite the devil? Yes; and now thatthese matters are paraded in public, it is best that the public be givena complete account of what Luther wrote to Weller and Melanchthon. Thereare three letters extant written to Weller during Luther's exile atCastle Coburg while the Diet of Augsburg was in progress. On June 19, 1530, Luther writes: "Grace and peace in Christ! I have received twoletters from you, my dear Jerome [this was Weller's first name], both ofwhich truly delighted me; the second, however, was more than delightfulbecause in that you write concerning my son Johnny, stating that you arehis teacher, and that he is an active and diligent pupil. If I could, Iwould like to show you some favor in return; Christ will recompense youfor what I am too little able to do. Magister Veit has, moreover, informed me that you are at times afflicted with the spirit ofdespondency. This affliction is most harmful to young people, asScripture says: 'A broken spirit drieth the bones' (Prov. 17, 22). TheHoly Spirit everywhere forbids such melancholy, as, for instance, inEccles. 11. , 9: 'Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, and let thy heartcheer thee in the days of thy youth, ' and in the verse immediatelyfollowing: 'Remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thyflesh. ' Ecclesiasticus, likewise, says, chap. 30, 22-25: 'The gladnessof the heart is the life of man, and the joyfulness of a man prolongethhis days. Love thine own soul, and comfort thy heart, remove sorrow farfrom the; for sorrow hath killed many, and there is no profit therein. Envy and wrath shorten the life, and carefulness bringeth age before thetime. A cheerful and good heart will have a care of his meat and diet. 'Moreover, Paul says 2 Cor. 7, 10: 'The sorrow of the world workethdeath. ' Above all, therefore, you must firmly cling to this thought, that these evil and melancholy thoughts are not of God, but of thedevil; for God is not a God of melancholy, but a God of comfort andgladness, as Christ Himself says: 'God is not the God of the dead, butof the living' (Matt. 22, 32). What else does living mean than to beglad in the Lord? Accordingly, become used to different thoughts, inorder to drive away these evil thoughts, and say: The Lord has not sentyou. This chiding which you experience is not of Him who has called you. In the beginning the struggle is grievous, but by practise it becomesmore easy. You are not the only one who has to endure such thoughts, allthe saints were afflicted by them, but they fought against them andconquered. Therefore, do not yield to these evils, but meet thembravely. The greatest task in this struggle is not to regard thesethoughts, not to explore them, not to pursue the matters suggested, butdespise them like the hissing of a goose and pass them by. The personthat has learned to do this will conquer; whoever has not learned itwill be conquered. For to muse upon these thoughts and debate with themmeans to stimulate them and make them stronger. Take the people ofIsrael as an example: they overcame the serpents, not by looking at themand wrestling with them, but by turning their eyes away from them andlooking in a different direction, namely, at the brazen serpent, andthey conquered. In this struggle that is the right and sure way ofwinning the victory. A person afflicted with such thoughts said to acertain wise man: What evil thoughts come into my mind! He received theanswer: Well, let them pass out again. That remark taught the person afine lesson. Another answered the same question thus: You cannot keepthe birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them frombuilding their nests in your hair. Accordingly, you will do the correctthing when you are merry and engage in some pleasant pastime with someone, and not scruple afterwards over having done so. For God is notpleased with sadness, for which there is no reason. The sorrow over oursins is brief and at the same time is made pleasant to us by the promiseof grace and the forgiveness of sins. But the other sorrow is of thedevil and without promise; it is sheer worry over useless and impossiblethings which concern God. I shall have more to say to you when I return. Meanwhile give my greetings to your brother; I began writing to him, butthe messenger who is to take this letter along is in a hurry. I shallwrite to him later, also to Schneidewein and others. I commend yourpupil to you. May the Spirit of Christ comfort and gladden your heart!Amen. ' (21a, 1487 ff. )

The second letter to Weller was presumably written some time in July. Itreads as follows: "Grace and peace in Christ. My dearest Jerome, youmust firmly believe that your affliction is of the devil, and that youare plagued in this manner because you believe in Christ. For you seethat the most wrathful enemies of the Gospel, as, for instance, Eck, Zwingli, and others, are suffered to be at ease and happy. All of us whoare Christians must have the devil for our adversary and enemy, as Petersays: 'Your adversary, the devil, goeth about, ' etc. , 1 Pet. 5, 8. Dearest Jerome, you must rejoice over these onslaughts of the devil, because they are a sure sign that you have a gracious and merciful God. You will say: This affliction is more grievous than I can bear; you fearthat you will be overcome and vanquished, so that you are driven toblasphemy and despair. I know these tricks of Satan: if he cannotovercome the person whom he afflicts at the first onset, he seeks toexhaust and weaken him by incessantly attacking him, in order that theperson may succumb and acknowledge himself beaten. Accordingly, wheneverthis affliction befalls you, beware lest you enter into an argument withthe devil, or muse upon these death-dealing thoughts. For this meansnothing else than to yield to the devil and succumb to him. You mustrather take pains to treat these thoughts which the devil instils in youwith the severest contempt. In afflictions and conflicts of this kindcontempt is the best and easiest way for overcoming the devil. Make upyour mind to laugh at your adversary, and find some one whom you canengage in a conversation. You must by all means avoid being alone, forthen the devil will make his strongest effort to catch you; he lies inwait for you when you are alone. In a case like this the devil isovercome by scorning and despising him, not by opposing him and arguingwith him. My dear Jerome, you must engage in merry talk and games withmy wife and the rest, so as to defeat these devilish thoughts, and youmust be intent on being cheerful. This affliction is more necessary toyou than food and drink. I shall relate to you what happened to me whenI was about your age. When I entered the cloister, it happened that atfirst I always walked about sad and melancholy, and could not shake offmy sadness. Accordingly, I sought counsel and confessed to Dr. Staupitz, --I am glad to mention this man's name. I opened my heart to him, telling him with what horrid and terrible thoughts I was being visited. He said in reply: Martin, you do not know how useful and necessary thisaffliction is to you; for God does not exercise you thus without apurpose. You will see that He will employ you as His servant toaccomplish great things by you. This came true. For I became a greatdoctor--I may justly say this of myself--; but at the time when I wassuffering these afflictions I would never have believed that this couldcome to pass. No doubt, that is what is going to happen to you: you willbecome a great man. In the mean time be careful to keep a brave andstout heart, and impress on your mind this thought that such remarkswhich fall from the lips chiefly of learned and great men contain aprediction and prophecy. I remember well how a certain party whom I wascomforting for the loss of his son said to me: Martin, you will see, youwill become a great man. I often remembered this remark, for, as I said, such remarks contain a prediction and a prophecy. Therefore, be cheerfuland brave, and cast these exceedingly terrifying thoughts entirely fromyou. Whenever the devil worries you with these thoughts, seek thecompany of men at once, or drink somewhat more liberally, jest and playsome jolly prank, or do anything exhilarating. Occasionally a personmust drink somewhat more liberally, engage in plays, and jests, or evencommit some little sin from hatred and contempt of the devil, so as toleave him no room for raising scruples in our conscience about the mosttrifling matters. For when we are overanxious and careful for fear thatwe may be doing wrong in any matter, we shall be conquered. Accordingly, if the devil should say to you: By all means, do not drink! you musttell him: Just because you forbid it, I shall drink, and that, liberally. In this manner you must always do the contrary of what Satanforbids. When I drink my wine unmixed, prattle with the greatestunconcern, eat more frequently, do you think that I have any otherreason for doing these things than to scorn and spite the devil who hasattempted to spite and scorn me? Would God I could commit some realbrave sin to ridicule the devil, that he might see that I acknowledge nosin and am not conscious of having committed any. We must put the wholelaw entirely out of our eyes and hearts, --we, I say, whom the devil thusassails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins andpronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admitthat I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, youwill be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has sufferedand made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Where He abides, there will I also abide. " (21a, 1532 ff. )

The third letter to Weller is dated August 15th. It reads as follows:"Grace and peace in Christ. I have forgotten, my dear Jerome, what Iwrote you in my former letter concerning the spirit of melancholy, and Imay now be writing you the same things and harping on the same string. Nevertheless, I shall repeat what I said, because we all share eachother's afflictions, and as I am suffering in your behalf, so you, nodoubt, are suffering in mine. It is one and the same adversary thathates and persecutes every individual brother of Christ. Moreover, weare one body, and in this body one member suffers for every othermember, and that, for the sole reason that we worship Christ. Thus ithappens that one is forced to bear the other's burden. See, then, thatyou learn to despise your adversary. For you have not sufficientlylearned to understand this spirit, who is an enemy to spiritualgladness. You may rest assured that you are not the only one who bearsthis cross and are not suffering alone. We are all bearing it with youand are suffering with you. God, who commanded: 'Thou shalt not kill, 'certainly declares by this commandment that He is opposed to thesemelancholy and death-bringing thoughts, and that He, on the contrary, would have us cherish lively and exceedingly cheerful thoughts. So thePsalmist declares, saying: 'In His favor is life, ' Ps. 30, 5 [Lutherunderstands this to mean: He favors life] and in Ezekiel God says: 'Ihave no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turnfrom his way and live' (chap. 33, 11). On the other hand, etc. Now, then, since it is certain that such melancholy is displeasing to God, wehave this reliable comfort that if this demon cannot be entirely removedfrom us, divine strength will be supplied to us, so that we may not feelthe affliction so much. I know that it is not in our power to removethese thoughts at our option, but I also know that they shall not gainthe upper hand; for we are told: 'He shall not suffer the righteous tobe moved, ' if we only learn to cast our burden upon Him. The Lord Jesus, the mighty Warrior and unconquerable Victor, will be your aid. Amen. "(21a, 1543 f. )

These three letters constitute the whole evidence for the Catholiccharge against Luther that he offered advice to Weller that is immoraland demoralizing. The indictment culminates in these three distinctpoints: Luther advises Weller 1. To drink freely and be frivolous; 2. Tocommit sin to spite the devil; 3. To have no regard for the TenCommandments. Since we shall take up the last point in a separatechapter, we limit our remarks to the first two points. 

When Luther advises Weller to drink somewhat more liberally, that doesnot mean that Luther advises Weller to get drunk. This, however, isexactly what Luther is made to say by his Catholic critics. They make noeffort to understand the situation as it confronted Luther, but pounceupon a remark that can easily be understood to convey an offensivemeaning. Neither does what Luther says about his own drinking mean thathe ever got drunk. We have spoken of this matter in a previous chapter, and do not wish to repeat. Luther's remarks about jesting, merry plays, and jolly pranks in which he would have Weller engage are likewisevitiated by the Catholic insinuation that he advises indecentfrivolities, yea, immoralities. Why, all the merriment which he urgesupon Weller is to take place in Luther's home and family circle, in thepresence of Luther's wife and children, in the presence of Weller'slittle pupil Hans, who at that time was about four years old. Thefriends of the family members of the Faculty at the University, ministers, students who either stayed at Luther's home, like Weller, orfrequently visited there, are also included in this circle whose companyWeller is urged to seek. Imagine a young man coming into this circledrunk, or half drunk, and disporting himself hilariously before thecompany! We believe that not even all Catholics can be made to believethe insinuations of their writers against Luther when all the facts inthe case are presented to them. 

Let us, moreover, remind ourselves once more that, to measure the socialproprieties of the sixteenth century by modern standards, is unfair. Adegree of culture in regard to manners and speech can be reached by veryrefined people that grows away from naturalness. The old Latin saying:_Naturalia non sunt turpia_ (We need not feel ashamed of our naturalacts), will never lose its force. There are expressions in Luther'swritings--and in the Bible--that nowadays are considered unchaste, butare in themselves chaste and pure. Even the extremest naturalness thatspeaks with brutal frankness about certain matters is a better criterionof moral purity than the supersensitive prudishness that squirms andblushes, or pretends to blush, at the remotest reference to suchmatters. It all depends on the thoughts which the heart connects withthe words which the mouth utters. This applies also to the manner inwhich former centuries have spoken about drinking. We sometimes begin tomove uneasily, as if something Pecksniffian had come into our presence, when we behold the twentieth century sitting in judgment on the mannersand morals of the sixteenth century. 

In Luther's remarks about sinning to spite the devil we have alwaysheard an echo from his life at the cloister. One's judgment about themonastic life is somewhat mitigated when one hears how Dr. Staupitz andthe brethren in the convent at Erfurt would occasionally speak to Lutherabout the latter's sins. Staupitz called them "Puppensuenden. " It is noteasy to render this term by a short and apt English term; "peccadillo"would come near the meaning. A child playing with a doll will treat itas if it were a human being, will dress it, talk to it, and pretend toreceive answers from it, etc. That is the way, good Catholics weretelling Luther, he was treating his sins. His sins were no real sins, orhe had magnified their sinfulness out of all proportion. This sameadvice Luther hands on to another who was becoming a hypochondriac as hehad been. When the mind is in a morbid state it imagines faults, errors, sins, where there are none. The melancholy person in his self-scrutinybecomes an intolerant tyrant to himself. He will flay his poor soul fortrifles as if they were the blackest crimes: In such moments the devilis very busy about the victim of gloom and despair. Luther has diagnosedthe case of Weller with the skill of a nervous specialist. He counselsWeller not to judge himself according to the devil's prompting, and, inorder to break Satan's thrall over him, to wrench himself free from hisfalse notions of what is sinful. In offering this advice, Luther usessuch expressions as: "Sin, commit sin, " but the whole context shows thathe advises Weller to do that which is in itself not sinful, but lookslike sin to Weller in his present condition. When Luther declares hewould like to commit a real brave sin himself as a taunt to the devil, he adds: "Would that I could!" That means, that, as a matter of fact, hecould not do it and did not do it, because it was wrong. What boldimmoral act did Weller commit in consequence of Luther's advice? Whatimmoralities are there in Luther's own life? Luther's letters did notconvey the meaning to his morbid young friend that Catholic writersthink and claim they did. 

Luther's advice to Melanchthon which is so revolting to Catholics thatthey have made it the slogan in their campaign against Luther refers toa state of affairs that is identical with what we noted in our review ofthe correspondence with Weller. It is contained in a letter which Lutherwrote August 1, 1521, while he was an exile in the Wartburg. He says tohis despondent friend and colleague at the University of Wittenberg: "Ifyou are a preacher of grace, do not preach a fictitious, but the truegrace. If grace is of the true sort, you will also have to bear true, not fictitious, sins. God does not save those who only acknowledgethemselves sinners in a feigned manner. Be a sinner, then, and sinbravely, but believe more bravely still and rejoice in Christ, who isthe Victor over sin, death, and the world. We must sin as long as we arein this world; the present life is not an abode of righteousness;however, we look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwellethrighteousness, says Peter (2. Ep. 3, 13). We are satisfied, by therichness of God's glory, to have come to the knowledge of the Lamb thattaketh away the sins of the world. No sin shall wrest us from Him, werewe even in one day to commit fornication and manslaughter a thousandtimes. Do you think the price paltry and the payment small that has beenmade for us by this great Lamb?" (15, 2589. )

"Be a sinner, and sin bravely, but believe more bravely still"--this isthe _chef d'oeuvre_ of the muck-rakers in Luther's life. The reader hasthe entire passage which contains the outrageous statement of Lutherbefore him, and will be able to judge the connection in which the wordsoccur. What caused Luther to write those words? Did Melanchthoncontemplate some crime which he was too timid to perpetrate? Accordingto the horrified expressions of Catholics that must have been thesituation. Luther, in their view, says to Melanchthon: Philip, you are asimpleton. Why scruple about a sin? You are still confined in thetrammels of very narrow-minded moral views. You must get rid of them. Have the courage to be wicked, Make a hero of yourself by executing somebold piece of iniquity. Be an "Uebermensch. " Sin with brazen unconcern;be a fornicator, a murderer, a liar, a thief, defy every moral statute, --only do not forget to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. His grace isintended, not for hesitating, craven sinners, but for audacious, spirited, high-minded criminals. 

This, we are asked to believe, is the sentiment of the same Luther whoin his correspondence with Weller declares that he could not if he wouldcommit a brave sin to spite the devil. Can the reader induce himself tobelieve that Luther advised Melanchthon to do what he himself knew was amoral impossibility to himself because of his relation to God? And againwe put the question which we put in connection with the Weller letters:What brave sin did Melanchthon actually commit upon being thus advisedby Luther?

One glance at the context, a calm reflection upon the tenor of thisentire passage in the letter to Melanchthon, suffices to convince everyunbiased reader that Luther is concerned about Melanchthon as he wasabout Weller: he fears his young colleague is becoming a prey to morbidself-incrimination. It is again a case of "Puppensuenden" being expandedtill they seem ethical monstrosities. But, as the opening words of theparagraph show, Luther had another purpose in writing to Melanchthon ashe did. Melanchthon was a public preacher and expounder of the doctrineof evangelical grace. He must not preach that doctrine mincingly, haltingly. Is that possible? Indeed, it is. Just as there are preachersafraid to preach the divine Law and to tell men that they are under thecurse of God and merit damnation, so there are preachers afraid, actually afraid, to preach the full Gospel, without any limiting clausesand provisos. Just as there are teachers of Christianity who promptlyput on the soft pedal when they reach the critical point in their publicdeliverances where they must reprove sin, and who hate intensivepreaching of the Ten Commandments, so there are evangelical teachers whodole out Gospel grace in dribbles and homeopathic doses, as if it werethe most virulent poison, of which the sinner must not be given toomuch. Luther tells Melanchthon: If you are afraid to draw every stop inthe organ when you play the tune of Love Divine, All Love Excelling, youhad better quit the organ. There are some sinners in this world thatwill not understand your faint evangelical whispers; they need to havethe truth that Christ forgives their sins, all their sins, --their worstsins, blown into them with all the trumpets that made the walls ofJericho fall. If Melanchthon did not require a strong faith in theforgiving grace of God for himself, he needed it as a teacher of thatgrace to others; he must, therefore, familiarize himself with theimmensity and power of that grace. 

In conclusion, it should be noted that the Catholic writers who expresstheir extreme disgust at the immoral principles of Luther belong to aChurch whose theologians have made very questionable distinctionsbetween venial sins and others. Papal dispensations and decisions ofCatholic casuists, especially in the order of the Jesuits, have startledthe world by their moral perverseness. Yea, the very principles ofprobabilism and mental reservation which the Jesuits have espoused areantiethical. In accordance with the principle last named, "whenimportant interests are at stake, a negative or modifying clause mayremain unuttered which would completely reverse the statement actuallymade. This principle justified unlimited lying when one's interest orconvenience seemed to require it. Where the same word or phrase hasmore than one sense, it may be employed in an unusual sense with theexpectation that it will be understood in the usual. [This is called"amphibology" by them. ] Such evasions may be used under oath in a civilcourt. Equally destructive of good morals was the teaching of manyJesuit casuists that moral obligation may be evaded by directing theintention when committing an immoral act to an end worthy in itself; asin murder, to the vindication of one's honor; in theft, to the supplyingof one's needs or those of the poor; in fornication or adultery, to themaintenance of one's health or comfort. Nothing did more to bring uponthe society the fear and distrust of the nations and of individuals thanthe justification and recommendation by several of their writers of theassassination of tyrants, the term 'tyrant' being made to include allpersons in authority who oppose the work of the papal church or order. The question has been much discussed, Jesuits always taking the negativeside, whether the Jesuits have taught that 'the end justifies themeans. ' It may not be possible to find this maxim in these precise wordsin Jesuit writings; but that they have always taught that for the'greater glory of God, ' identified by them with the extension of RomanCatholic (Jesuit) influence, the principles of ordinary morality may beset aside, seems certain. The doctrine of philosophical sin, inaccordance with which actual attention to the sinfulness of an act whenit is being committed is requisite to its sinfulness for the personcommitting it, was widely advocated by members of the society. Therepudiation of some of the most scandalous maxims of Jesuit writers bylater writers, or the placing of books containing scandalous maxims onthe Index, does not relieve the society or the Roman Catholic Churchfrom responsibility, as such books must have received authoritativeapproval before publication, and the censuring of them does notnecessarily involve an adverse attitude toward the teaching itself, butway be a more measure of expediency. " (A. H. Newman, in _NewSchaff-Herzog Encycl. , _ 6, 146. )

18. Luther, Repudiates the Ten Commandments?

In Luther's correspondence with Weller there occurs a remark to theeffect that Weller must put the Decalog out of his mind. Similarstatements occur in great number throughout Luther's writings. In someof these statements Luther speaks in terms of deep scorn and contempt ofthe Law, and considers it the greatest affront that can be offeredChristians to place them under the Law of Moses. He declares that Mosesmust be regarded by Christians as if he were a heretic, excommunicatedby the Church, and assigns him to the gallows. Some of the strongestinvectives of this kind are found in his exposition of the Epistle tothe Galatians. These stern utterances of Luther against the Law servethe Catholics as the basis for their charge that Luther is the mostdestructive spirit that has arisen within the Church. He is said to havedestroyed the only perfect norm of right and wrong by his violentonslaughts on Moses. Once the commandments of God are abrogated, thefeeling of duty and responsibility, they argue, is plucked from thehearts of men, and license and vice rush in upon the world with theforce of a springtide. 

The reader will remember what has been said in a previous chapter aboutLuther's labors to expound and apply the divine Law, also about theintimate and loving relation which he maintained to the Ten Commandmentsto the end of his life. Luther has spoken of Moses as a teacher of trueholiness in terms of unbounded admiration and praise. Ho declares thewritings of Moses the principal part of our Bible, because all theprophets and apostles have drawn their teaching from Moses andhave expanded the teaching of Moses. Christ Himself has appealed toMoses as an authority in matters of religion. The greatest distinctionof Moses in Luther's view is that he has prophesied concerning Christ, and by revealing the people's sin through the teaching of the Law hasmade them see and feel the necessity of a redemption through theMediator. However, also the laws of Moses are exceedingly fine, Lutherthinks. The Ten Commandments are essentially the natural moral lawimplanted in the hearts of man. But also his forensic laws, his civilstatutes, his ecclesiastical ordinances, his regulations regarding thehygiene, and the public order that must be maintained in a greatcommonwealth, are wise and salutary. The Catholics are forced to admitthat alongside of the open contempt which Luther occasionally voices forMoses and the Mosaic righteousness inculcated by the Law there runs acordial esteem of the great prophet. Luther regards the Law of Moses asdivine; it is to him just as much the Word of God as any other portionof the Scriptures. To save their faces in a debate they must concedethis point, but they charge Luther with being a most disorderlyreasoner, driven about in his public utterances by momentary impulses:He will set up a rule to-day which he knocks down to-morrow. He willcite the same Principle for or against a matter. He is so erratic thathe can be adduced as authority by both sides to a controversy. TheCatholic may succeed with certain people in getting rid of Luther on theclaim that his is a confused mind, and that in weighty affairs he adoptsthe policy of the opportunist. Most men will demand a better explanationof the seeming self-contradiction in Luther's attitude toward the divineLaw. 

There is only one connection in which Luther speaks disparagingly of theLaw, and we shall show that what he says is no real disparagement, butthe correct Scriptural valuation of the Law. Luther holds that the TenCommandments do not save any person nor contribute the least part to hissalvation. They must be entirely left out of account when such questionsare to be answered as these: How do I obtain a gracious God? How is mysin to be forgiven? How do I obtain a good conscience? How can I come toI live righteously? How can I hope to die calmly, in the confidence thatI am going to heaven? On such occasions Luther says: Turn your eyes awayfrom Moses and his Law; he cannot help you; you apply at the wrongoffice when you come to him for rest for your soul here and hereafter. He gives you no comfort, and he cannot, because it is not his functionto do so. It is Another's business to do that. Him you grossly dishonorand traduce when you refuse to come to Him for what He alone can give, and when you go to some one who does not give you what you need, thoughyou pretend that you get it from this other. A proper relation to God isestablished for us only by Jesus Christ. He is the exclusive Mediatorappointed by God for His dealing with man and for man in his dealingswith God. There is salvation in none other; nor can our hope of heavenbe placed on any other foundation than that which God laid when Heappointed Christ our Redeemer (Acts 4, 12; 1 Cor. 3, 11). 

This is Bible-doctrine. "The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truthcame by Jesus Christ, " says John (chap. 1, 17). Here the two fundamentalteachings of the Scriptures are strictly set apart the one from theother. They have much in common: they have the same holy Author, God;their contents are holy; they serve holy ends. But they are differentlyrelated to sinful man: the Law tells man what he must do, the Gospel, what Christ has done for him; the Law issues demands, the Gospel, gratuitous offers; the Law holds out rewards for merits or severepenalties, the Gospel, free and unconditioned gifts; the Law terrifies, the Gospel cheers the sinner; the Law turns the sinner against God byproving to him his incapacity to practise it, the Gospel draws thesinner to God and makes him a willing servant of God. 

Paul demands of the Christian minister that he "rightly divide the Wordof Truth" (2 Tim. 2, 15). To preach the Bible-doctrine of salvationaright and with salutary effect, the Law and the Gospel must be keptapart as far as East is from the West. The Law is truth, but, it is notthe truth that saves, because it knows of no grace for the breakers ofthe Law. The Gospel teaches holiness and righteousness, however, notsuch as the sinner achieves by his own effort, but such as has beenachieved for the sinner by his Substitute, Jesus Christ. The Gospel isnot for men who imagine that they can do the commandments of God; JesusChrist says: "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, torepentance" (Matt. 9, 13). On the other hand, the Law is not for sinnerswho know themselves saved. "The Law is not made for a righteous man" (1Tim. 1, 9). Christians employ the Law for the regulation of their lives, as a pattern and index of holy works which are pleasing to God and as adeterrent from evil works, but they do not seek their salvation, neitherwholly nor in part, in the Law, nor do they look to the Law for strengthto do the will of God. Moreover Christians, while they are still in theflesh, apply the Law to the old Adam in themselves; they bruise theflesh with its deceitful lusts with the scourge of Moses, and thus theyare in a sense under the Law, and can never be without the Law whilethey live. But in another sense they are not under the Law: all theirlife is determined by divine grace; their faith, their hope, theircharity, is entirely from the Gospel, and the new man in themacknowledges no master except Jesus Christ, who is all in all to them(Eph. 1, 23). 

When Luther directed men for their salvation away from the Law, he didwhat Christ Himself had done when He called to the multitudes: "Comeunto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give yourest" (Matt. 11, 28). The people to whom these words were addressed hadthe Law of Moses and wearied themselves with its fulfilment, such as itwas under the direction of teachers and guides who had misinterpretedand were misapplying that Law continually. Even in that false view ofthe Law which they had been taught, and which did not at all exhaust itsmeaning, there was no ease of conscience, no assurance of divine favor, no rest for their souls. Christ with His gracious summons told them, ineffect: You must forget the Law and the ordinances of your elders andyour miserable works of legal service. You must turn your back uponMoses. In Me, only in Me, is your help. 

Moses himself never conceived his mission to be what the Catholicsdeclare it to be by their doctrine of salvation by faith plus works. Moses directed his people to the greater Prophet who was to come in thefuture, and told them: "Unto Him shall ye hearken" (Deut. 18, 15). Jesuswas pointed out to the world as that Prophet of whom Moses had spoken, when the Father at the baptism and the transfiguration of Christrepeated from heaven the warning cry of Israel's greatest teacher underthe old dispensation (Matt. 3, 17; 17, 5). 

But was it necessary, in speaking of the inability of the Law to savemen, to use such strong and contemptuous terms as Luther has used? Yes. The Catholics do not seen to know in what strong terms the Bible hasrejected the Law as a means of salvation. Paul denounces the Galatiansagain and again as "foolish, " "bewitched, " and bastards of a bondwoman, because they think they will be saved by their works done according tothe Law (chap. 3, 1. 3; 4, 21 ff. ). He calls them godless infidels, slaves, silly children still in their nonage, because they imagine thatthey become acceptable to God by their own righteousness (chap. 4, 9; 3, 23 ff. ). Yea, he reprobates their legal service when he says: "As manyas are of the works of the Law are under the curse" (chap. 3, 10). Howcontemptuous does it not sound to hear him call the legal ordinanceswhich the Galatians were observing "beggarly elements" (chap. 4, 9), andthe law a "schoolmaster" (chap. 3, 24), that is, a tutor fit only forlittle abecedarians who cannot be treated as full-grown persons that areable to make a right use of their privileges as children and heirs ofGod. Why do not the Catholics turn up their nose at Paul, as they do atLuther, when Paul calls all his legal righteousness "dung" (Phil. 2, 8), or when he speaks slightingly of the observance on which the Colossiansprided themselves as "rudiments of the world" (Col. 2, 20)? Why does hecall the Law "the handwriting of ordinances that has been blotted out"(Col. 2, 14) but to declare to the Colossians that they are to fear theLaw as little as a debtor fears a canceled note that had been drawnagainst him? What was it that Paul rebuked Peter for when he told himthat he was building again the things which they both had destroyed(Gal. 2, 18)? Mark you, he says, "destroyed. " Why, it was this verything for which Luther is faulted by Rome, the Law as an instrument forobtaining righteousness before God. Could a person renounce the Law inmore determined, one might almost say, ruthless fashion, than by saying:"I am dead to the Law, that I might live unto God"? Paul is the personwho thus speaks of the Law (Gal. 2, 19). The Catholics have again takenhold of the wrong man when they assail Luther for repudiating the Law ofGod; they must start higher up; they will find the real culprit whomthey are trying to prosecute among the holy apostles. Yea, even theapostles will decline the honor of being the original criminals, theywill pass the charges preferred against them higher up still; for whatcontemptuous terms were used by them in speaking of the Law wereinspired terms which they received from God the Holy Ghost. Thatcontempt for the Law which Luther voices under very particularcircumstances Luther has learned from his Bible and under the guidanceof the Holy Ghost. 

That contempt is a mark of every evangelical preacher to-day. Ifministers of the Gospel to-day do not denounce the Law when falselyapplied, they betray a sacred trust and become traitors to Christ andthe Church. For every one who teaches men to seek their salvation in anymanner and to any degree in their own works serves not Christ, butAntichrist. This is such a fearful calamity that no terms should beregarded as too scathing in which to rebuke legalistic tendencies. Thesetendencies are the bane and blight of Christianity; if they are notrooted out, Christianity will perish from off the face of the earth. Workmongers are missionaries of the father of lies and the murderer fromthe beginning: so far as in them lies, they slay the souls of men bytheir false teaching of the Law. 

However, Luther reveals another attitude toward the Law. At threedistinct times in his public career he had to do with people who hadassumed a hostile attitude to the Law of God. If the contention ofLuther's Catholic critics were true, Luther ought to have hailed theseoccasions with delight and made common cause with the repudiators of theLaw. While he was at the Wartburg, a disturbance broke out atWittenberg. Under the leadership of Carlstadt, a professor at theUniversity, men broke into the churches and smashed images. Churchordinances of age-long standing were to be abrogated, the cloisters wereto be thrown open, and a new order of things was to be inaugurated byviolence. Against the will of the Elector of Saxony, who had affordedLuther an asylum in his castle, Luther, at the risk of his life, cameout of his seclusion, boldly went to Wittenberg, and preached a seriesof sermons by which he quelled the riotous uprising. Even before hisreturn to Wittenberg he had published a treatise in which he warnedChristians to avoid tumult and violent proceedings. The eight sermonswhich he preached to the excited people of Wittenberg are an invaluableevidence that Luther meant to proceed in the way of order. The mass andthe confessional would have been abolished at that time, had it not beenfor Luther's interference. He made some lifelong enemies by insistingthat the reformatory movement must be conservative. He held that beforemen's consciences had been liberated by the teaching of Christ, theywere not qualified for exercising true Christian liberty, and theirviolent proceedings were nothing but carnal license. Everybody knows howdeeply Luther himself was interested in the abolition of the idolatrousMass and the spiritual peonage which Rome had created for men by meansof the confessional. Only a person who puts principles above policiescould have acted as Luther did in those turbulent days. He wanted forhis followers, not wanton rebels and frenzied enthusiasts, but men whorespect the Word of Cod, discreet and gentle men whose weapons ofwarfare were not carnal. A man who is so cautious as not to approve theputting down of acknowledged evils because he is convinced that theattempt is premature and exceeds the limits of propriety, will not lendhis hand to abolishing the divine norm of right, the holy commandmentsof God. 

The second occasion on which Luther in a most impressive manner showedhis profound regard for the maintenance of human and divine laws wasduring the bloody uprising of the peasants. While thoroughly in sympathywith the rebellious peasants in their righteous grievances against theirsecular and spiritual oppressors, the barons and the bishops, andpleading the peasants' cause in its just demands before their lords, heunflinchingly rebuked their extreme demands and their still extremeractions. If by his preaching of the Gospel Luther had been theinstigator of the peasants' uprising, what a brazen hypocrite he musthave been in denouncing acts which he must have acknowledged to befruits of his teaching! Among the noblemen of Germany Luther counted nota few frank admirers and staunch supporters of his reformatory work. Their influence was of the highest value to him in those critical dayswhen his own life was not safe. Yet he rebuked the sins of the high andmighty, their avarice and insolence, which had brought on this terribledisturbance. In his writings dealing with this sad conflict Lutherimpresses one like one of the ancient prophets who stand like a rockamid the raging billows of popular passions and with even-handed justicedeliver the oracles of God to high and low, calling upon all to bowbefore the supreme will of the righteous Lawgiver. Would the great lordsof the land have meekly taken Luther's rebuke if they had been able tocharge Luther with being an accessory to the peasants' crimes?

The third occasion on which Luther's innocence of the charges ofRomanists that he was an instigator of lawlessness was most effectuallyvindicated was the Antinomian controversy. This episode, more than anyother, embittered the life of the aging Reformer. The Antinomians drewfrom the evangelical teachings those disastrous consequences which theCatholics impute to Luther: they claimed that the Law is not in any wayapplicable to Christians. They insisted that the Ten Commandments mustnot be preached to Christians at all. Christians, they claimed, determine in the exercise of their sovereign liberty what they may ormay not do. Being under grace, they are superior to the Law and a lawunto themselves. At first Luther had been inclined to treat this errormildly, because it seemed incredible to him that enlightened children ofGod could so fatally misread the teaching of God's Word. He thought theAntinomians were either misunderstood by people who had no conception ofthe Gospel and of evangelical liberty, or they were grossly slandered bypersons ill-disposed to them because of their successful preaching ofthe Gospel. When their error had been established beyond a doubt, he didnot hesitate a moment to attack it. In sermons and public disputations, before the common people of Wittenberg and the learned doctors and thestudents of the University, he defended the holy Law of God as the normof right conduct and the mirror showing up the sinfulness of man alsofor Christians, and he insisted that those who had fallen into thiserror must publicly recant. It was due to Luther's unrelentingopposition that Agricola, one of the leaders of the Antinomians and atone time a dear friend of Luther, withdrew his false teaching andoffered apologies in a published discourse. To his guests Luther inthose days remarked at the table: "Satan, like a furious harlot, ragesin the Antinomians, as Melanchthon writes from Frankfort. The devil willdo much harm through them and cause infinite and vexatious evils. Ifthey carry their lawless principles into the State as well as theChurch, the magistrate will say: I am a Christian, therefore the lawdoes not pertain to me. Even a Christian hangman would repudiate thelaw. If they teach only free grace, infinite license will follow, andall discipline will be at an end. " (Preserved Smith, p. 283. ) Lutherheld that forbidding the preaching of the Law meant to prohibitpreaching God's truth (20, 1635), and to abrogate the Law he regarded astantamount to abrogating the Gospel (22, 1029). 

Far from repudiating the Ten Commandments, then, Luther, by insisting ona distinction between Law and Gospel, and assigning to each a separatesphere of operation in the lives of Christians, has done more than anyother teacher in the Church since the days of Paul to impress men with asincere respect of the Law, and to honor it by obedience to itsprecepts. 

19. Luther's Invisible Church. 

In his Theses against the sale of indulgences, especially in the firsttwo, Luther had uttered a thought which led to a new conception of theChurch. He had declared that Christian life does not consist in theperformance of certain works of piety, such as going to confession, performing the penances imposed by priests, hearing Mass, etc. , --all ofwhich are external, visible acts, --but in a continuous penitentialrelation of the heart to God. The Christian, conscious of his innatecorruption and his daily sinning, faces God at all times in the attitudeof a humble suitor for mercy. The posture of the publican is the typicalattitude of the Christian. He recognizes no merit in himself, he pleadsno worthiness which would give him a just claim upon God's favor. Hissingle hope and sole reliance is in the merit and atoning work of hisSavior Jesus Christ. The Christian's penitence embraces as a constituentelement faith in the forgiveness of sin for Christ's sake. In thestrength of his faith the Christian begins to wrestle with the sin whichis still indwelling in him and which besets him from without. The agonyof the Redeemer which he places before his eyes at all times proves adeterrent from sin, and the holy example of Jesus, who ran withrejoicing the way of the commandments of God, becomes an inspiringexample to him: actuated by gratitude for the love of the Son of God whogave Himself for him and reclaimed him from certain perdition, he beginsto reproduce the life of Jesus in his own conversation. His whole lifeis determined by his relation to Jesus: his thoughts, affections, words, and deeds are a reflex of the life of his Lord. For him to live isChrist (Phil. 1, 21). All his acts become expressions of his faith. Hesays with Paul: "I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and thelife which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son ofGod, who loved me, and gave Himself for me" (Gal. 2, 20). 

During the discussions which followed the publication of the Theses, especially during the Leipzig Debate with Eck in 1519, this thought ofLuther was expanded, and applied to the idea of the Church. Christianity, in Luther's teaching, came to be set forth as somethingvastly different from the external and mechanical religiousness whichhad been accepted as Christianity by Rome. Christianity meant a newlife, swayed by new motives, governed by new principles. It was seen tobe entirely inward, an affair of the heart and soul and mind, and, ulteriorly, an affair of the body and the natural life. The religion ofRome, with its constant emphasis on works of men's piety and the meritresulting therefrom, had become thoroughgoing externalism. So manyprayers recited, so many altars visited, so many offerings made, meantso many merits achieved. The scheme worked out with mathematicalprecision. Devout Catholics might well keep a ledger of their devotionalacts, as Gustav Freitag in his _Ancestors_ represents Marcus Koenig ashaving done. 

In the Catholic view the Church is a visible society, an ecclesiasticalorganization with a supreme officer at the head, and a host ofsubordinate officers who receive their orders from him, and lastly, alay membership that acknowledges the rule of this organization. TheChurch in this view is a religious commonwealth, only in form andoperation differing from secular commonwealths. Cardinal Gibbons callsit "the Christian Republic. " In Luther's view the Church is, first ofall, an invisible society, known to God, the Searcher of hearts, alone. The Church of Christ is the sum-total of believers scattered through thewhole world and existing in all ages. To this Church we refer when weprofess in the Apostles' Creed: "I believe one holy, Christian Church, the communion of saints. " This is the Church, the real Church, theChurch which God acknowledges as the spiritual body of Christ, who isthe Head of the Church, and with which He maintains the most intimateand tender relations. 

This invisible Church exists within the visible societies of organizedChristianity, in the local Christian congregations. Christian faith isnever independent of the means which God has appointed for producingfaith, the Gospel and the Sacraments. "Faith cometh by hearing, andhearing by the Word of God" (Rom. 10, 17). This faith-creating word ofevangelical grace is an audible and visible matter. Its presence in anylocality is cognizable by the senses. It becomes attached, moreover, byChrist's ordaining, to certain visible elements, as the water in Baptismand the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Hence these two Christianordinances--the only two for which a divine word of command and promise, hence, a divine institution can be shown--also become related to faith, to its origin and preservation. For of Baptism our Lord says: "Except aman be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom ofGod" (John 3, 5). To be "born again, " or to become a child of God, according to John 1, 12, is the same as "to believe. " Accordingly, Paulsays: "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For asmany of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal. 3, 26. 27). Of the Sacrament our Lord says: "This is the blood of thecovenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26, 28); and His apostle declares that communicants, "as often as they eatof this bread and drink of this cup, do show the Lord's death till Hecome" (1 Cor. 11, 26). 

The Gospel and the Sacraments, now, become the marks of the Church, theunfailing criteria of its existence in any place. For, according to thedeclaration of God, they are never entirely without result, though manyto whom they are brought resist the gracious operation of the Spiritthrough these means. By Isaiah God has said: "As the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth theearth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to thesower and bread to the eater: so shall My Word be that goeth forth outof My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplishthat which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sentit" (Is. 55, 10. 11). 

Among the people who in a given locality rally around the Word and theSacraments and profess allegiance to them, there is the Church, becausethere is the power of God unto salvation, the faith-producing andfaith-sustaining Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who embrace what theGospel offers with a lively faith, and in the power of their faithproceed to lead holy lives in accordance with the teaching of God'sWord, are the members of the true Church of God, the kingdom of Christ. Those who adhere only externally to these institutions are merelynominal members. They may at heart be hypocrites and secret blasphemers. 

Catholic writers charge Luther with having set up this teaching, partlyto spite the Pope whom he hated, partly to gratify his vaingloriousaspirations to become famous. He had at one time held the Catholic dogmathat the Church is the visible society of men who profess allegiance tothe Bishop of Rome and accept his overlordship in matters of theirreligion. But through neglect of his religious duties and the failure tobridle his imperious temper he had by degrees begun to revolt from theteaching of the Catholic Church, until he publicly renounced the Churchthat had existed in all the ages before him, and set up his own Church. By forsaking the communion of the Roman church organization he severedhis soul from Christ and became an apostate. For, according to Catholicbelief, Christ founded the Church to be a visible organization with avisible head, the Pope, and plainly and palpably "governing" men. 

Everybody who has read the records of Luther's work knows that nothought was more foreign to his mind than that of founding a new church. He believed himself in hearty accord with the Catholic Church and thePope when he published his Theses. He did not wantonly leave the Church, but was driven from it by most ruthless measures. It was while he wasdefending the principles which he had first uttered against Tetzel thathis eyes were opened to the appalling defection which had occurred inthe Catholic Church from every true conception of what the Church reallyis. His appeals to the Word of God were answered by appeals to theChurch, the councils of the Church, the Pope. In his unsophisticatedmind Luther held that Church, councils, and Pope are all subject toChrist, the Head of the Church. They cannot teach and decree anythingbut what Christ has taught and ordained. It is only by abiding in thewords of Christ that men become and remain the true disciples of Christ, hence, His Church (John 8, 31). Now, he was told that Christ had erectedthe visible organization of the Catholic Church with the Pope at itshead into the Church, and had handed over all authority to this society, with the understanding that there can be no appeal from this body toChrist Himself. Salvation is only by submitting to the rule of thissociety, adopting its ways, following its precepts. From this teachingLuther recoiled with horror, and rightly so. 

At one time God had erected a theocracy on earth, a Church which was avisible society, and for which He had made special laws and ordinances. The Church of the Old Covenant is the only visible Church which Godcreated. But even in this Church He declared that external compliancewith its ways did not constitute any one a true member of His Church. Hetold the Jews by Isaiah: "To this man will I look, even to him that ispoor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My Word. He that killethan ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cutoff a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation as if he offered swine'sblood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol" (chap. 66, 2. 8). Here God abominates the mere external performance of acts of worshipas an outrage and a crime that is perpetrated against His holy name. Repeating a saying of this same prophet, our Lord said to the members ofthe Jewish Church in His day: "Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesyof you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, andhonoreth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vaindo they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"(Matt. 15, 7-9). The Pharisees in the days of Christ are the trueancestors of Catholics in their belief that the Church is a great, powerful, visible organization in this world, subject to the supremewill of a visible ruler, and capable of being employed in great worldlyenterprises like a political machine. The Pharisees were always lookingfor the establishment of a mighty church organization which woulddominate the world. They expected the Messiah to inaugurate a Church ofthis kind. With this ambitious thought in their heart they approachedChrist on a certain occasion and asked Him "when the kingdom of Godshould come. He answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh notwith observation; neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, Lo, there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17, 20. 21). To the sameeffect Paul declares "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither isthat circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew whichis one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter" (Rom. 2, 28. 29). And to a young pastor whom hehad trained for work in the Church, he describes the Church as follows:"The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweththem that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christdepart from iniquity" (2 Tim. 2, 19). 

By making the Gospel the mark of the Church and faith the Gospel thebadge of membership in the Church Luther has rendered an incalculableservice to Christianity. This view of the Church shows the immenseimportance of a live, intelligent, and active personal faith. It puts aban on religious indifference and mechanical worship. It destroysformalism, ceremonialism, Pharisaism in the affairs of religion. JustlyLuther has ridiculed the implicit, or blind, faith of Catholics, when hewrites: "The papists say that they believe what the Church believes, just as it is being related of the Poles that they say: I believe whatmy king believes. Indeed! Could there be a better faith than this, afaith less free from worry and anxiety? They tell a story about a doctormeeting a collier on a bridge in Prague and condescendingly asking thepoor layman, 'My dear man, what do you believe?' The collier replied, 'Whatever the Church believes. ' The doctor: 'Well, what does the Churchbelieve?' The collier: 'What I believe. ' Some time later the doctor wasabout to die. In his last moments he was so fiercely assailed by thedevil that he could not maintain his ground nor find rest until he said, 'I believe what the collier believes. ' A similar story is being told ofthe great [Catholic theologian] Thomas Aquinas, viz. , that in his lastmoments he was driven into a corner by the devil, and finally declared, 'I believe what is written in this Book. ' He had the Bible in his armswhile he spoke these words. God grant that not much of such faith befound among us! For if these people did not believe in a differentmanner, both the doctor and the collier have been landed in the abyss ofhell by their faith. " (17, 2013. )

Luther's teaching regarding the Church leads to a proper valuation ofthe means of grace. Only through the evangelical Word and theevangelical ordinances is the Church planted, watered, and sustained. Itis, therefore, necessary that the world be supplied in abundance withthe Word through the missionary operations of Christians, and that theChristians themselves have the Word dwell among them richly (Col. 3, 16). "He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth muchfruit; for without Me ye can do nothing, " says the Head of the Church toHis disciples (John 15, 5); and in His last prayer He pleads with theFather in their behalf: "Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word istruth" (John 17, 17). For the same reason it is necessary that the Wordand Sacraments be preserved in their Scriptural purity, that anydeviation from the clear teaching of the Bible be resisted, andorthodoxy be maintained. Errors in doctrine are like tares in awheat-field: they are useless in themselves, and they hinder the growthof good plants. Error saves no one, but some are still saved in spite oferror by clinging to the truth which is offered them along with theerror. Luther believed that this happened even in the error-riddenCatholic Church. 

Luther's teaching regarding the Church enables us, furthermore, to forma right estimate of the ministry in the Church. Christ wants allbelievers to be proclaimers of His truth and grace. The apostle whomCatholics regard as the first Pope says to all Christians: "Ye are achosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiarpeople, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called youout of darkness into His marvelous light" (1 Pet. 2, 9). To the localcongregation of believers, which is to deal with an offending brother, even to the extent of putting him out of the church, Christ says: "If heneglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and apublican. Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earthshall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shallbe loosed in heaven. " There is nothing that God denies even to thesmallest company of believers while they are engaged in the discharge oftheir rights and duties as members of the Church; for Christ adds:"Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth astouching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of MyFather which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered togetherin My name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matt. 18, 17-20). Allrights and duties of the Church are common to all members. All have theright to preach, to administer the Sacraments, etc. Over and above this, however, Christ has instituted also a personal ministry, men who can be"sent" even as He was sent by the Father (John 20, 21; comp. Rom. 10, 15: "How shall they preach, except they be sent?"); men who are todevote themselves exclusively to the reading of the Word (1 Tim. 4, 13), to teaching and guiding their fellow-believers in the way of divinetruth (see the Epistles to Timothy and Titus). But the ministry in theChurch does not represent a higher grade of Christianity, --the laymenrepresenting the lower, --but the ministry is a service ordained for the"perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ, " viz. , His Church (Eph. 4, 11. 12; 1, 23). _Minister_ is derived from _minus, _"less, " not from _magis_--from which we have _Magister_--meaning "more. "The ministry of the Church of the New Testament is not a hierarchy, endowed with special privileges and powers by the Lord, but a body ofhumble workmen who serve their fellow-men and fellow-Christians in thespirit of Christ, who said: "The Son of Man came not to be ministeredunto, but to minister and to give His life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20, 28). Ministers merely exercise in public the common rights of allbelievers and are the believers' representatives in all their officialacts. So Paul viewed the absolution which he pronounced upon thepenitent member of the Corinthian congregation (2 Cor. 2, 10). When theCorinthians had begun to exalt their preachers unduly, he told them thatthey were "carnal. " "Who is Paul, " he exclaims, "and who is Apollos, butministers by whom ye believed? . . . Let no man glory in men. For allthings are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, orlife, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours" (1Cor. 3, 4. 5. 20. 21). And Peter, the original Pope in the Catholics'belief, says: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also anelder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker ofthe glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is amongyou, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, notfor filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God'sheritage, but being ensamples to the flock" (1 Pet. 5, 1-3). 

Lastly, Luther's teaching regarding the Church affords a wealth ofcomfort and sound direction in view of the divided condition of thevisible Church. Through the ignorance and malice of men and through thewily activity of Satan, who creates divisions and offenses contrary tothe doctrine of Christ, and is busy sowing tares among the wheat, therehave arisen many church organizations, known by party names, differingfrom one another in their creedal statements, and warring upon eachother. This is a sad spectacle to contemplate, and grieves Christianhearts sorely. But these divisions in the external and visibleorganizations do not touch the body of Christ, the communion of saints, the one holy Christian Church. In all ages and places the true believersin Christ are a unit. Among those who by faith have "put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him, there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond, nor free; but Christ is all, and in all"(Col. 3, 10. 11). This is the true Catholic, that is, universal, Church. The visible society which has usurped this name never was, nor isto-day, the universal Church. Before Protestantism arose, there was theEastern Church, which has maintained a separate organization. This holyChristian Church is indestructible, because the Word of Christ, which isits bond, shall never pass away, and Christ rules even in the midst ofHis enemies. Visible church organizations are valuable only in as far asthey shelter, and are nurseries of, the invisible Church. Luther neverconceived the idea of founding a visible organization more powerful thanthe Catholic; he did not mean to pit one ecclesiastical body of menagainst another. His single aim was to restore the purity of teachingand the right administration of the Sacraments in accordance with theScriptures. That his followers were named after him, we have shown notto be Luther's fault: Luther did not form a Church, but reformed theChurch; he did not establish a new creed, but reestablished the old. Thevisible society of Lutherans to-day does not regard itself as thealone-saving Church, or as immune from error, or as infallible, but itdoes claim to be the Church of the pure Word and Sacraments. It knowsthat it is one in faith with all the children of God throughout theworld and in all ages. 

20. Luther on the God-Given Supremacy of the Pope. 

In the opinion of Catholics Luther's greatest offense is what he hasdone to their Pope. This is Luther's unpardonable sin. Luther has donetwo things to the Pope: he has denied that the Pope exists by divineright, and he has in the most scurrilous manner spoken and written aboutthe Pope and made his vaunted dignity the butt of universal ridicule. The indictment is true, but when the facts are stated, it will be seento recoil on the heads of those who have drawn it. 

Luther denies that Matt. 16, 18. 19 establishes the papacy in the Churchof Christ. He denies that this text creates a one-man power in theChurch, that it vests one individual with a sovereign jurisdiction overthe spiritual affairs of all other men, making him the sole arbiter oftheir faith and the exclusive dispenser of divine grace, and, last, notleast, that it says one word about the Pope. Luther makes, indeed, aclean and sweeping denial of every claim which Catholics advance for theGod-given supremacy of their Popes. Inasmuch as the papacy stands orfalls with Matt. 16, 18. 19, he has put the Catholics in the worstpredicament imaginable. 

Catholics believe that Peter was singled out for particular honors inthe Church by being declared the rock on which Christ builds His Church, and by being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter's supremacyas Primate of the World, they hold, passed over to Peter's successor andis perpetuated in an unbroken line of succession in the Roman Popes. Three questions, then, confronted Luther in the study of this text inMatthew. First, does the "rock" in Matt. 16, 18 signify Peter? The Lordhad addressed to all His disciples the question, "Whom say ye that Iam?" Instead of all of them answering and creating a confusion, Peter, the most impulsive of the apostles, speaks up and says, "Thou art theChrist, the Son of the living God. " With these words Peter expressed thecommon faith of all the disciples. Not one of them dissented from hisstatement; he had voiced the joint conviction of them all. Peter was thespokesman, but the confession was that of the apostles. Any otherapostle might have spoken first and said the same, had he been quickerthan Peter. If there is any merit in Peter's confession of Christ, allother disciples, yea, all who confess Christ as Peter did, share thatmerit. In replying to Peter the Lord takes all merit away from Peter bysaying to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and bloodhath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. " Headdresses Peter by the name he had borne before he became an apostle:Simon, son of Jonas, and tells him that if he were still what he used tobe before he came to Christ, he could not have made the confession whichhe had just uttered. In his old unconverted state he would not haveformed any higher opinion concerning Christ than the people throughoutthe country, some of whom thought that Christ was John the Baptist risenfrom the dead; others, that he was Jeremias; still others, that he wasone of the ancient prophets come back to life. The deity of Jesus andHis mission as Christ, that is, as the Messiah, our Lord says, aregrasped by men only when the Father reveals these truths to them. Aspiritual nature, a new mind such as the Spirit gives in regeneration, is required for such a confession. The glory of Peter's confession, therefore, is the glory of every believer. To every Sunday-school childwhich recites Luther's explanation of the Second Article: "I believethat Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, andalso true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemedme, " the Lord would say the same thing as He did to Peter: My child, yours is an excellent confession; there is nothing fickle or undecidedin it like in the vague and changing opinions which worldly men formabout Me. Thank God that He has given you the grace to know Me as Iought to be known. 

But did not the Lord proceed to declare Peter the rock on which He wouldbuild His Church? That is what Catholics believe, in spite of the factthat this would be the only place in the whole Bible where a human beingwould be represented as the foundation of the Church, while there arescores of passages which name quite another person as the rock thatsupports the Church. Catholics read this text thus: "Thou art Peter, and_on thee_ will I build My Church. " That is precisely what Christ did notsay, and what He was most careful not to express. The words "Peter" and"rock" are plainly two different terms and denote two different objects. That is the most natural view to take of the matter. In the originalGreek we find two words similar in sound, but distinct in meaning forthe two objects to which Christ refers: Peter's name is _Petros, _ whichis a personal noun; the word for "rock" is _petra, _ which is a commonnoun. In the Greek, then, Christ's answer reads thus: "Thou art_Petros, _ and on this _petra_ will I build my Church. " Catholics claimthat Christ, in answering Peter, introduced a play upon words, such as awitty person will indulge in: _Petros, _ the apostle's name, signifies arock-man, a firm person, and from this meaning it is an easy step to_petra, _ which is plain rock or stone. If this interpretation isadmitted, the expression "upon thee" may be substituted for theexpression "on this rock. " Yet not altogether. By adopting the peculiarphraseology "upon this rock" in the place of "upon thee, " Christ avoidsreferring to the individual Peter, to the person known as Peter, andrefers rather to a characteristic in him, namely, his firmness andboldness in confessing Christ. This every careful interpreter of thistext will admit. Christ could easily have said: Upon thee will I buildMy Church, if it had been His intention to say just that. And we imagineon such a momentous occasion Christ would have used the plainest terms, containing no figure of speech, no ambiguities whatever; for was he notnow introducing to the Church the distinguished person who was topreside over its affairs? Catholics claim that when Christ spoke thesewords, "upon this rock, " He had extended His hand and was pointing toPeter. That would help us considerably in the interpretation of thetext. The trouble is only that we are not told anything about such agesture of Christ, and if a gesture must be invented, it is possible toinvent an altogether different one, as we shall see. But if Christ, bysaying, "upon this rock, " instead of saying, "upon thee, " referred notto Peter as a person, but to a quality in Peter, namely, to his firmfaith, then it follows that the Church is not built on the person ofPeter, but on a quality of Peter. This is the best that Catholics canobtain from the interpretation which they have attempted. But if theChurch is built on firm faith, there is no reason why that faith shouldbe just Peter's. Would not every firm believer in the deity andRedeemership of Christ become the rock on which the Church is built justas much as Peter? Luther declared quite correctly: "We are all Peters ifwe believe like Peter. " Really, the Catholics ought to be willing tohelp strengthen the foundation of the Church by admitting that the rockwould become a stouter support if, instead of the firm faith of one man, the equally firm faith of hundreds, thousands, and millions of other menwere added to prop up the Church. In all seriousness, it will beabsolutely necessary to give Peter some assistants; for we know that thejob of holding up the Church was too big for him on at least twooccasions. What became of the Church in the night when Peter denied theLord? In that night, the Catholics would have to believe, the Church wasbuilt on a liar and blasphemer. What became of the Church in the dayswhen Peter came to Antioch and Paul withstood him to the face because hewas dissembling his Christian convictions not to offend a Judaizingparty in the Church? (Gal. 2. ) Was the Church in those days built on acanting hypocrite?

But the greatest difficulty in admitting the Catholic interpretation ismet when one remembers those Bible-texts which name an altogetherdifferent rock as the foundation and corner-stone of the Church. Paulsays that in their desert wanderings the Israelites were accompanied byChrist. He was their unseen Guide and Benefactor. He supported theirfaith. "They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and thatRock was Christ" (1 Cor. 10, 4). At the conclusion of the Sermon on theMount the Lord relates a parable about a wise and a foolish builder. Thefoolish builder set up his house on sand; the wise builder built onrock. By the rock, however, the Lord would have us understand "thesesayings of Mine" (Matt. 7, 24). Paul speaks of the Church to theEphesians thus: "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles andprophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone" (chap. 2, 20). Most fatal, however, to the Catholic interpretation is thetestimony of Peter. Exhorting the Christians to eager study of the Wordof the Lord, he goes on to say: "To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, aslively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, tooffer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion achief corner-stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shallnot be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious, butunto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and arock of offense, even to them which stumble at the Word, beingdisobedient" (1 Pet. 2, 4-8). Here Peter in the plainest and strongestterms declares Christ to be the rock on which the Church is built. Thescribes and Pharisees rejected Him, as had been foretold, but the commonpeople who heard Him gladly embraced His message of salvation, andrested their faith on what He had taught them and done for them. Peterevidently did not understand the text in Matthew as the Catholicsunderstand it. Peter in his Epistle is really a heretic in what he saysabout the rock, and if the Catholics could spare him from under theChurch, they ought to burn him. 

Instead of connecting the two parts of the statement: "Thou art Peter, "and, "Upon this rock I will build My Church, " as closely as Catholicsdo, the two parts ought to be kept separate. What the Lord says to Petermay be paraphrased thus: Peter, there was a time when you were merelySimon, Jonas's son. At that time you had thoughts and formed opinionsabout holy matters such as your flesh and blood, your natural reason, suggested to you. All that is changed now that you are a Peter, a firmbeliever in the revelation which the Father makes to men about Me. Whatyou have confessed is the exact truth; cling to that against all odds;for upon this person whom you have confessed, as upon a rock, I willbuild My Church. --And now we may imagine that the Lord, while utteringthe words, "upon this rock, " pointed to Himself. The text does not saythat the Lord made such a gesture; we simply imagine this, but ourimagination is not only just as good as that of the Catholics, butbetter, for the gesture which we assume agrees with the teachings of allthe Scriptures that speak of Christ's person and work. 

However, the Catholics remind us that Christ gave to Peter the keys ofthe kingdom of heaven and made him the doorkeeper of paradise. Yes, sothe text reads, and with Luther we should now inquire: Was it a brass, or silver, or golden, or wooden key? Is the lock on the gate of heaven acommon padlock, or like the cunning contrivances which are nowadaysemployed in safety vaults? Catholics are very much offended when onespeaks thus of the keys of Peter. They say sarcasm is out of place insuch holy matters. That is quite true; but, again with Luther, we wouldurge that the keys of which we are speaking sarcastically are not thekeys in Matt. 16, 10, but the keys in the Catholic imagination. Andthese latter one can hardly treat with reverence. The Catholics mustadmit that no real key, or anything resembling a key, was given to Peterby Christ. The language in this text is figurative: the words whichfollow state the Lord's meaning in plain terms. The power of the keys isthe preaching of the forgiveness of sins to penitent sinners, and thewithholding of grace from those who do not repent. If that is admittedto be the meaning, we need turn only one leaf in our Bible, and readwhat is stated in Matt. 18, 18. There the Lord confers the sameauthority on all the disciples which He is said in Matt. 16, 19 to haveconferred on Peter exclusively. On this latter occasion Peter, if theCatholics have the right view of the keys, ought to have interposed anobjection and said to the Lord, What you give to the others is myproperty. Evidently Peter did not connect the same meaning with thewords of Christ about the keys as the Catholics. Christ spoke of thismatter once more, and in terms still plainer, at the meeting on EasterEve, and again addressed all the disciples. Again Peter made nocomplaint. (John 20. )

It should be noted, moreover, that in this entire text in Matthew theLord speaks in the future tense: "I will build, " "I will give. " Thewords do not really confer a grant, but are at best a promise. It isnecessary now that the Catholics find a complement to this text inMatthew, a text which relates that Christ actually carried out laterwhat He promised to Peter in Matt. 16, 18. 19. The Lord seems to haveforgotten the fulfilment of His promise, and the matter seems to haveslipped Peter's mind, too; for we are not told that he reminded the Lordof His promise, though he asked him on another occasion what would bethe reward of his discipleship. (Matt. 19, 27 ff. )

Luther has, furthermore, appealed to the Catholics to prove from theScriptures that Peter ever exercised such an authority as they claim forhim. If Peter had been created the prince of the apostles or the visiblehead of the Church, we should expect to find evidence in our Bible thatPeter acted as a privileged person and was so regarded by the otherapostles. But we may read through the entire book of Acts and all theapostolic epistles: they tell us very minutely how the Church wasplanted in many lands, how it grew and spread, but there is not even afaint hint that Peter was regarded as the primate, or Pope, in his day. When a certain question of doctrine was to be decided in which thecongregations of Paul were interested, Paul did not lay the matterbefore Peter to obtain his judgment on it, but referred it to a councilof the Church. At this council many spoke, and it was not Peter's, butJames's speech which finally decided the matter. (Acts 15. ) When Philiphad organized congregations in Samaria, the church at Jerusalem sentPeter and John to visit them. Peter did not assume control of thesechurches by his own right, nor had Philip in the first place directedthe Samaritans to Peter as their head. (Acts 8, 14 ff. ) We have thirteenletters of Paul, three of John, besides the Revelation, one of James, and one of Jude. The state of the Church, its affairs and development, are the subject-matter of all these writings, but not one of themreveals the popedom of Peter. Yea, Peter himself has written twoepistles and appears utterly ignorant of the fact that the Lord hadcreated him His vicegerent and the visible head of the Church. 

The Catholic argument for the God-given supremacy of their Pope, however, becomes perfectly reckless when we bear in mind that theirbanner text speaks only of Peter, but says nothing at all about Peter'ssuccessors. If Peter possessed the supremacy that Catholics claim forhim, how and by what right did he dispose of it at his death? How didthis power become attached to Rome? On all these questions the Bible issilent. Catholics construct a skilful argument from fragmentary anddoubtful historical records, which are not God's Word, to show thatPeter chore Rome as his episcopal see, and therewith transferred hisprimacy for all time to this place. To fabricate a dogma that is to bebinding on the consciences of all Christians in such a way is daringimpudence. The devout Catholic must close his eyes to all history if heis to believe that Christ really appointed a Pope. When he reads thehistory of the Popes, and comes to the period of the papal schism, whenthe Church had not only one, but two visible heads, one residing atRome, the other at Avignon, yea, when he reads of three contestants forpapal honors, and beholds the Church as a tricephalous monster, he muststop thinking. 

Luther regarded the papacy as the most monstrous fraud that has beenpractised on Christianity. In its gradual and persistent development andthe success with which it has maintained itself through all reverses, itimpresses one as something uncanny. It requires more than human wilinessto originate, foster, perfect, and support such a thoroughly unbiblicaland antichristian institution. Luther spoke of the papal deception asone of the signs foreboding the end of the world. He has not spoken indelicate terms of the Popes. His most virulent utterances are directedagainst the "Vicar of Christ" at Rome. He traces the papacy todiabolical origin. When he lays bare the shocking perversions ofrevealed truths of which Rome has been guilty, and talks about the foulpractises of the Popes and their courtesans, Luther's language becomesappalling. In a series of twenty-six cartoons Luther's friend Cranachdepicted the rule of Christ and Antichrist. The series was publishedunder the title "Passional Christi und Antichristi. " (14, 184 ff. ) Byplacing alongside of one another scenes from the life of the Lord andscenes from the lives of the Popes, the artist displayed veryeffectually the contrast between the true religion which the Redeemerhad taught men by His Word and example, and the false religiousnesswhich was represented by the papacy. On the one side was humility, onthe other, pride; poverty was shown in contrast with wealth; meeknesswas placed over and against arrogance, etc. At a glance the people sawthe chasm that yawned between the preaching and practise of Jesus andthat of His pretended representative and vicar, and they verified thepictures showing the Pope in various attitudes from their ownexperience. These cartoons became very popular, and have maintainedtheir popularity till the most recent times. During the "Kulturkampf"which the German government under Bismarck waged against the aggressivepolicy of the Vatican, the German painter Hofmann issued a new editionof the "Passionale, " and Emperor William I sent a copy to the Pope witha warning letter. 

Catholics complain about the rudeness and nastiness of these cartoonsand others that followed. Luther is supposed to have furnished therhymes and descriptive matter which accompanied them. Lather is alsocited as uttering most repulsive and scurrilous sentiments about thePope. 

What are we to say about this antipapal violence of Luther? Certainly, it is not a pleasant subject. We are in this instance facing essentiallythe same situation as that which confronted us when we studied Luther's"coarseness" (chap. 5), and all that was said in that connection applieswith equal force to the subject now before us. One may deplore thenecessity of these passionate outbursts ever so much, but when all theevidence in the case has been gathered and the jury begins to sift theevidence and weigh the arguments on either side, there is at the worst adrawn jury. All who have truly sounded "the mystery of iniquity" whichhas been set up in the Church by the papacy will affirm Luther'ssentiments about the Pope as true. 

It is necessary, however, to point out certain facts that may beregarded as additional argument to what was said in chap. 5. In thefirst place, the cartoon is a recognized weapon in polemics. Thestruggle of the Protestants against the Pope was not altogether areligious and spiritual one; political matters were discussed togetherwith affairs of religion at every German diet in those days. The age wasrude and largely illiterate. Many who could never have made any senseout of a page of printed matter, very easily understood a picture. Itconveyed truthful information, though in a form that hurt, as cartoonsusually do, and it roused a healthy sentiment against a very malignantevil in the Church and in the body politic. If the Popes would keep outof politics, they and their followers would enjoy more quiet nerves. 

In the second place, it should be borne in mind that the claim of papalsupremacy is no small and innocent matter. The Popes wrested tothemselves the supreme spiritual and temporal power in the world. Theypretended to be the custodians of heaven, the directors of purgatory, and the lords of the earth. Across the history of the world in the eraof Luther is written in all directions the one word ROME. It is Rome atthe altar swinging the censer, Rome in the panoply of battle stormingtrenches and steeping her hands in gore, Rome in the councils of kings, Rome in the halls of guilds, Rome in the booth of the trader at atown-fair, Rome in the judge's seat, Rome in the professor's chair, Romereceiving ambassadors from, and dispatching nuncios to, foreign courts, Rome dictating treaties to nations and arranging the cook's _menu, _ Romelabeling the huckster's cart and the vintner's crop, Rome levying a taxupon the nuptial bed, Rome exacting toll at the gate of heaven. Out ofthe wreck of the imperial Rome of the Caesars has risen papal Rome. Oncemore, though through different agents, the City of the Seven Hills isruling an _orbis terrarum Romanus, _ a Roman world-empire. The ruleextends through nearly a thousand years. How deftly do cunning priestsmanipulate every means at their command to increase their power!Learning, wealth, beauty, art, piety, --everything is used as an asset inthe ambitious game for absolute supremacy which the mitered vicegerentof Christ is playing against the world. Rome's ancient pontifex maximus--the pagan high priest of the Rome before Christ--had been a tool ofthe consuls and the Caesars; the new pontiff makes the Caesars histools. Princes kiss his feet and hold the stirrup for him as he mountshis bedizened palfrey. An emperor stands barefoot in the snow of thePope's courtyard suing pardon for having dared to govern without thePope's sanction. --The forests of Germany are reverberating with theblows of axes which Rome's missionaries wield against Donar's Oaks. Thesanctuaries of pagan Germany are razed. Out of the wood of idolscrucifixes are erected along the highways. Chapels and abbeys andcathedrals rise where the aurochs was hunted. Sturdy barbarians bend theknee at the shrines of saints. Hosts set out to see the land where theLord had walked and suffered, and brave all dangers and hardships towrest its possession from infidel hands. But at the place where allthese activities center, and whence they are being fed, a shockingabomination is seen: Venus is worshiped, and Bacchus, and Mercurius, andMars, while white-robed choirs chant praises to the mother of God, andclouds of incense are wafted skyward. Here is a mystery--a mystery ofiniquity: the son of perdition in the temple of God! Proud, haughtyRome, wealthy, wicked and wanton, is filling up her measure of wrathagainst the day of retribution. --We are now so far removed from thesescenes that they seem unreal; in Luther's days they were decidedly real. Rome's aggressiveness has been perceptibly checked during the last fourcenturies; in Luther's days papal pretensions were a more formidableproposition. 

Human arrogance may be said to have reached its limit in the papacy. ThePope is practically a God on earth. "Sitting in the temple of God asGod, he is showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2, 4). He has beenaddressed by his followers in terms of the Deity. "When the Pope thinks, it is God thinking, " wrote the papal organ of Rome, the _CiviltaCattolica, _ in 1869. He has asserted the right to make laws forChristians, and to dispense with the laws of the Almighty. Although thisseemed a superfluous proceeding, he declared himself infallible on July18, 1870. Under a glowering sky, as if Heaven frowned angrily at thePope's attempt, Plus IX had entered St. Peter's. As a "second Moses" hemounted the papal throne to read the Constitution "Aeternus Pater, " thedocument in which he made the following claims: Canon III: "If any onesays that the Roman Pontiff has only authority to inspect and direct, but not plenary and supreme authority of jurisdiction over the entireChurch, not only in matters which relate to faith and morals, but alsoin matters that belong to the discipline and government of the Churchscattered through the whole earth; or that he has only the more eminentpart of such authority, but not the full plenitude of this supremeauthority; or that this authority of his is not his ordinary authoritywhich he holds from no intermediary, and that it does not extend overall churches and every single one of them, over all pastors and everysingle one of them, over all the faithful and every single one of them, --let him be accursed!" Canon IV: "With the approval of the SacredCouncil we teach and declare it to be a dogma revealed from heaven thatthe Roman Pontiff, when he speaks _ex cathedra, _ that is, when, inaccordance with his supreme apostolic authority, be discharges hisoffice as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, and defines a doctrinerelating to the faith or morals which is to be embraced by the entireChurch, he is, by divine assistance promised to him in the blessedPeter, vested with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemerdesired His Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine of faith andmorals; and that for this reason such definitions of the Roman Pontiffare in their very nature, not, however, by reason of the consent of theChurch, unchangeable. If--which God may avert!--any one should presumeto contradict this definition of ours, --let him be accursed!" Amidflashes of lightning and peals of thunder this document was read to acouncil whose membership had shrunk during seven months of deliberationfrom 767 to 547 attendants, --277 qualified members had never put in anappearance, --and of these all but two had been cowed into abjectsubmission. When one recalls scenes like these, and remembers thatCatholic teaching on justification attacks the very heart ofChristianity, anything that Luther has said about the Popes appearsmild. Such heaven-storming and God-defying arrogance deserves to bedragged through the mire--with apologies to the mire. 

21. Luther the Translator of the Bible. 

A violent attack upon Luther by Catholic writers is caused by theadmiration which Protestants manifest for Luther because he translatedthe Bible into German. Catholics, of course, cannot deny that Luther didtranslate the Bible, and that his translation is still a cherishedtreasure of Protestants; but in order to belittle this achievement ofLuther, which inflicted incalculable damage on Rome, they talk aboutLuther's unfitness for the work of Bible-translation and about theunwarranted liberties Luther took with the Bible. 

These writers claim that Luther was, in the first place, morally unfitto undertake the translation of the Bible. To show to what desperatemeans Luther's Catholic critics will resort in order to make out a caseagainst him, we note that one of the most recent disparagers of Lutherinforms the public that Luther's original name had been Luder. This nameconveys the idea of "carrion, " "beast, " "low scoundrel. " When Lutherbegan to translate the Bible, we are told, he changed his name into"Squire George. " Once before this, at the time of his entering theuniversity, Catholics note that he changed his name from Luder toLueder. But these changes of his name, they say, did not improve hischaracter. We are told that, while Luther was engaged upon the work ofrendering the Bible into German, he was consumed with fleshly lust andgiven to laziness. Luther's own statements in letters to friends arecited to corroborate this assertion. The conclusion which we are to drawfrom these "facts" is this: Such a corrupt person could not possibly bea proper instrument for the Holy Spirit to employ in so pious anundertaking as the translation of the Word of God. 

Catholics should be reminded that they misquote the book ofmatriculation in which the students at Erfurt signed their names onentering the university. Luther's signature is not "Lueder" but"Ludher. " Other forms of the name "Luder" and "Lueder" occur elsewhere. But in any form the name has a more honorable derivation and meaningthan Catholic writers are inclined to give it. It is derived from"Luither, " which means as much as "People's Man, " (= der Leute Herr). Another well-known form of the same name is Lothar, which some, tracingthe derivation still further, derive from the old German Chlotachar, which means as much as "loudly hailed among the army" (= _hluit, _ loud, and _chari, _ army). Respectable scholars to-day so explain the nameLuther. 

At the Wartburg, where Luther was an exile for ten months, his name waschanged by the warden of the castle, Count von Berlepsch. This was donethe better to conceal his identity from the henchmen of Rome, who by theimperial edict of outlawry had been given liberty to hunt Luther andslay him where they found him. 

The sexual condition of Luther during the years before his marriage wasthe normal condition of any healthy young man at his age. Luther speaksof this matter as a person nowadays would speak about it to hisphysician or to a close friend. The matter to which he refers is initself perfectly pure: it is an appeal of nature. Do Luther's Catholiccritics mean to infer that Luther was the only monk, then or now, thatfelt this call which human nature issues by the ordination of theCreator? Rome can inflict celibacy even on priests that look likestall-fed oxen, but she cannot unsex men. Mohammedans are less inhumanto their eunuchs. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Luthercomplains of this matter as something that disturbs him. It vexed hispure mind, and he fought against it as not many monks of his day havedone, by fasting, prayer, and hard work. Yes, hard work! The remarks ofLuther about his physical condition are simply twisted from their trueimport when Luther is represented as a victim of fleshly lust and ahabitual debauchee. Luther's Catholic critics fail to mention thatduring his brief stay at the Wartburg Luther not only translated thegreater part of the New Testament, but also wrote about a dozentreatises, some of them of considerable size, and that of hiscorrespondence during this period about fifty letters are stillpreserved. Surely, a fairly respectable record for a lazy man!

Catholic writers also declare Luther spiritually unfit for translatingthe Bible. They say that all the time that Luther spent at the Wartburghe was haunted by the devil. He would hear strange noises and see weirdshadows flit before him. He felt that he had come under the sway of thepowers of darkness. This, we are assured, was because he had risen inrebellion against the divine power of the papacy. The Holy Father whomhe had attacked was being avenged upon Luther by an accusing conscience. Luther was given a foretaste of the terrors that await the reprobate. Hehad become an incipient demoniac. The inference which we are to drawfrom this delightful description is this: Could such an abandoned wretchas Luther was during the exile at the Wartburg be favored with the holycalm and composure and the heavenly light which any person must possesswho sets out upon the arduous task of telling men in their own tonguewhat God has said to them in a foreign tongue?

There is hardly a period in Luther's life that is entirely free fromspiritual affliction. In this respect Luther shares the common lot ofgodly men in responsible positions in Church or State during criticaltimes. Moreover, Luther with all Christians believed in a personal andincessantly active devil. Luther's devil was not the denaturedmetaphysical and scientific devil of modern times, which meets us in theform of the principle of negation, or logical contradiction, or ademoralizing tendency and influence, but an energetic devil, possessedof an intelligence and will of his own, and going about as a roaringlion, seeking whom he may devour. Luther accepted the teaching of theBible that this devil is related to men's sinning, that men can be madeto do, and are doing, his will, and are led about by the devil likeslaves. Luther knew that for His own reasons God permits the devil toafflict His children, as happened to Job and Paul. Add to this thereaction that must have set in after Luther had quitted the stirringscenes and the severe ordeals through which he had passed before theimperial court at Worms. In the silence and solitude of his secludedasylum in the Thuringian Forest the recent events in which he had been aprincipal actor passed in review before his mind, and he began to spellout many a grave and ominous meaning from them. If it is true that thedevil loves to find a lonely man, here was his chance. 

And if the devil ever had material interests at stake in attacking aparticular person, he made no mistake in assailing this isolated monk, Martin Luther, in his moments of brooding and depression. Lastly, Luther's physical condition at the Wartburg must be taken intoconsideration. Trained to frugal habits in the cloister and habituatedto fasts and mortification of the flesh, Luther found the new mode ofliving which he was compelled to adopt uncongenial. He was the guest ofa prince and was treated like a nobleman. The rich and abundant foodthat was served him was a disastrous diet for him, even though he didnot yield overmuch to his appetite. He complains in his letters tofriends during the Wartburg period about his physical distress, chieflyconstipation, to which he was constitutionally prone. 

But after all these elements have been noted, it must be stated that thereports about diabolical visitations to which Luther was subject at theWartburg are overdrawn for a purpose by Catholics. Luther's referencesto this matter in his letters written at the time suggest only spiritualconflicts, but no physical contact with the devil. Reminiscences of hisfirst exile which he relates at a much later period to the guests at histable are also exaggerated. These soul-battles, far from unfitting himfor the work of translating the Bible, were rather a finetraining-school through which God put His humble servant, and helped himto understand the sacred text over which he sat poring in deepmeditation. 

Lastly, Catholic critics have pronounced Luther intellectuallydisqualified for translating the Bible. His Greek scholarship, they say, was poor. He had barely begun to study that language. It stands toreason that his translation must be very faulty. They also emphasize therapidity with which Luther worked. The translation of the entire NewTestament was completed between December 8, 1521, and September 22 thefollowing year. (It will be remembered that Luther had returned toWittenberg in the first days of March, 1522, and all through the springand summer of that year was busily engaged, with the aid of friends, onhis German New Testament. ) Finally, Catholics, in their efforts tobelittle Luther's works, have claimed that he plagiarized a Germantranslation already in existence, the so-called Codex Teplensis. 

It seems a mere waste of time to answer these criticisms. They remindone of a scene in the life of Columbus: the learned Catholic divines ofSalamanca had to their own satisfaction routed the bold navigator withtheir arguments that he could not possibly start out by his proposedroute. No doubt, some of them contended that he never made his famousvoyage even after his return. What profit can there be in arguing theimpossibility of a thing when the reality confronts you? Luther'stranslation is before the world; everybody who knows Greek can compareit with the original text. The Teplensian translation, too, can belooked into. In fact, all this has been done by competent scholars, andLuther's translation has been pronounced a masterpiece. Not only does itreproduce the original text faithfully, but it speaks a good and correctGerman. Luther's translation of the Bible is now regarded as one of theclassics of German literature. It is true that the philologicalattainments of the world have increased since Luther, and thatimprovements in his translations have been suggested, but they do notaffect any essential teaching of the Christian religion. Biblecommentators to-day are still citing Luther's rendering as an authority. The movement recently started in Germany to replace Luther's translationby a modern one deserves little consideration because it originated inquarters that are professedly hostile to Christianity. The things inLuther's German Bible which vex Catholics most are in the original Greektext. Luther did not manufacture them, he merely reproduced them. It isthe fact that Luther made it possible for Germans to see what is reallyin the Bible that hurts. To please the Catholics, Luther should not havetranslated the Bible at all. 

The truth of this remark is readily seen when one examines specificexceptions which Catholics have taken to Luther's translation. They findfault with Luther's translation of the angel's address to Mary: "DuHoldselige, " that is, Thou gracious one, or well-favored one. TheCatholics demand that this term should be rendered "full of grace, "because in their belief Mary is really the chief dispenser of grace. They complain that in Matt. 3, 2 Luther has rendered the Baptist's call:"Tut Busse, " that is, Repent, instead of, Do penance. They fault Lutherfor translating in Acts 19, 18: "Und verkuendigten, was sie ausgerichtethatten, " that is, They reported what they had accomplished. Catholicsregard this text as a stronghold for their doctrine of confession, especially for that part of it which makes satisfaction by works ofpenance a part of confession; they insist that the text must berendered: They declared their deeds, that is, the works which they hadperformed by order of their confessors. Catholics charge Luther withhaving inserted a word in Rom. 4, 15, which he translates: "Das Gesetzrichtet nur Zorn an, " that is, The law worketh only wrath, or nothingbut wrath. They object to the word "only, " because in their view man canby his own natural powers make himself love the Law. They set up a greathue and cry about another insertion in Rom. 3, 28, which Luthertranslates: "So halten wir es nun, dass der Mensch gerecht werde ohnedes Gesetzes Werk', allein durch den Glauben, " that is, We conclude, therefore, that a man is justified without the deeds of the Law, byfaith alone; they object to the word "alone, " because in their teachingjustification is by faith plus works. It is known that there aretranslations before Luther which contain the same insertion. On thisinsertion Luther deserves to be heard himself. "I knew full well, " hesays, "that in the Latin and Greek texts of Rom. 3, 28 the word solum(alone) does not occur, and there was no need of the papists teaching methat. True, these four letters sola, at which the dunces stare as a cowat a new barn-door, are not in the text. But they do not see that theyexpress the meaning of the text, and they must be inserted if we wish toclearly and forcibly translate the text. When I undertook to translatethe Bible into German, my aim was to speak German, not Latin or Greek. Now, it is a peculiarity of our German language, whenever a statement ismade regarding two things, one of which is affirmed while the other isnegatived, to add the word solum, 'alone, ' to the word 'not' or 'none. 'As, for instance: The peasant brings only grain, and no money. Again:Indeed, I have no money now, but only grain. As yet I have only eaten, and not drunk. Have you only written, and not read what you havewritten? Innumerable instances of this kind are in daily usage. Whilethe Latin or the Greek language does not do this, the German has thispeculiarity, that in all statements of this kind it adds the word 'only'(or 'alone'), in order to express the negation completely and clearly. For, though I may say: The peasant brings grain and no money, still theexpression 'no money' is not as perfect and plain as when I say: Thepeasant brings grain only, and no money. Thus the word 'alone' or 'only'helps the word 'no' to become a complete, clear German statement. Whenyou wish to speak German, you must not consult the letters in the Latinlanguage, as these dunces are doing, but you must inquire of a motherhow she talks to her children, of the children how they talk to eachother on the street, of the common people on the market-place. Watchthem how they frame their speech, and make your translation accordingly, and they will understand it and know that some one is speaking German tothem. For instance, Christ says: _Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. _ IfI were to follow the dunces, I would have to spell out those words andtranslate: 'Aus dem Ueberfluss des Herzens redet der Mund!' Tell me, would that be German? What German would understand that? What sort ofthing is 'abundance of heart (Ueberfluss des Herzens)' ? No Germanperson could explain that, unless he were to say that, possibly, theperson had enlargement of the heart, or too much heart. And that wouldnot be the correct meaning. 'Ueberfluss des Herzens' is not German, aslittle as it is German to say 'Ueberfluss des Hauses (abundance ofhouse), Ueberfluss des Kachelofens (abundance of tile-oven), Ueberflussder Bank (abundance of bench). ' This is the way the mother speaks to herchildren and the common people to one another: 'Wes das Herz voll ist, des gehet der Mund ueber. ' That is the way to speak good German. That iswhat I have endeavored to do, but I did not succeed nor achieve my aimin all instances. Latin terms are an exceedingly great hindrance to onewho wishes to talk good German. " (19, 974. )

In insisting on the principle that a translation must reproduce theexact thought of a language, that idiomatic utterances of the onelanguage must be replaced by similar utterances in the other, and thatthe genius of both the language from which and the one into which thetranslation is made must be observed by the translator, Luther has everyrhetoric and grammar on his side. Those who find fault with him on thisscore deserve no better titles than those which he applied to them, allthe more because he knew the true reason of their faultfinding. TheCatholic charges of Bible perversion against Luther flow, not from aknowledge of good grammar, but from bad theology. Luther was, of course, fundamentally in error according to the opinion of Catholics by notmaking his translation from the approved and authorized Latin Vulgate, the official Catholic Bible, but from the Greek original. 

To return favor for favor, we shall note a few places where Catholicsmight bring their own Bible into better harmony with the original text. In Gen. 3, 15 their translation reads: "She shall crush thy head, andthou shalt lie in wait for her heel. " This rendering has been adopted inorder to enable them to refer this primeval prophecy of the futureRedeemer to Mary. Gen. 4, 13 they have rendered: "My iniquity is greaterthan that I may deserve pardon. " This is to favor their teaching ofjustification on the basis of merit. The rendering "Speak not much" for"Use not vain repetitions" in Matt. 6, 7 weakens the force of the Lord'swarning. In Rom. 14, 5 the Catholic Bible tells its readers: "Let everyman abound in his own sense, " whatever the sense of that direction maybe. What the apostle really means is: "Let every man be fully persuadedin his own mind. " In Gal. 3, 24 the Catholic Bible calls the Law "ourpedagog in Christ"; the correct rendering is: "our schoolmaster to bringus unto Christ. " In the Catholic Bible the following remarkable eventtakes place in Luke 16, 22: "The rich man also died: and he was buriedin hell. " The pall-bearers, funeral director, and mourners at theseobsequies deserve a double portion of our sympathy. In Acts 2, 42 we aretold that the disciples at Jerusalem were persevering "in thecommunication of the breaking of the bread. " The last verse inGalatians, chap. 4, is made to read: "So then, brethren, we are not thechildren of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewithChrist has made us free. " The next chapter begins: "Stand fast, " etc. 

Luther has expressed opinions of certain books of the Bible whichquestion their divine authorship. These opinions are being assiduouslycanvassed by Catholic writers to prove that Luther accepted only suchportions of the Bible as suited his purpose, and rejected all the restas spurious. He is said to have arrogated to himself the authority todeclare any book of the Scriptures inspired or not inspired, and is, therefore, justly regarded as the father of the higher criticism ofmodern times, which has taken the Bible to pieces and destroyed itspower. But Catholic writers fail to state that the uncertainty whichLuther occasionally manifests regarding the divine origin andauthenticity of certain books of the Bible is due to the confusion whichthe Catholic Church has created by decreeing that the apocryphal booksshall be considered on a par with the canonical writings of the Bible. Setting aside the verdict of the ancient Church, and even of theirfamous church-father Jerome, the Catholic Church has by an arbitrarydecree ruled the following books into the Bible: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus(Sirach), Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah, The Song of the ThreeHoly Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer ofManasses, 1 and 2 Maccabees. These writings are called apocrypha becausetheir divine origin is in doubt. Scrupulously careful to keep thedivinely inspired writings separate from all other writings, no matterhow godly their contents might seem to be, the Church of the OldCovenant excluded these writings from the canon, that is, from the listof fully accredited inspired writings. Besides, in the Catholic Bible inLuther's days there were apocryphal portions inserted in canonicalwritings like Esther. 

In the course of his studies Luther learned that certain writings in theCatholic Bible represented as Biblical were no part of the Bible. Actingupon the direction which the Lord gave to the Jews: "Search theScriptures . . . They are they which testify of Me" (John 5, 39), heconsidered this a good test of the genuineness of any portion of theBible, viz. , that it conveyed to him knowledge of Christ and the way ofsalvation. The Bible, he held, can speak only for, never against Christ. By this principle he determined for himself the respective value ofvarious writings in the Bible. Ecclesiastes and Jonah did not appeal tohim as very full of Christ. In the New Testament he seems stronglyattracted by the Gospel of John. But there are statements in hiswritings in which he expresses a preference for Matthew, Mark, and Luke. One must understand Luther's view-point and aim on a given occasion tograsp these valuations. In regard to Job he expressed the opinion thatthe book is dramatic rather than historical: it does not relate actualoccurrences, but rather points a moral in the form of a narrative. Inthe New Testament the overgreat emphasis which he thought James placedon works as against faith caused him to depreciate this Epistle and toquestion its apostolic authorship. Luther also knew that in the earliestcenturies of the Christian era the question had been raised whetherSecond Peter, Jude, James, Revelation, really belonged in the canon. 

Unbiased readers will see in all these remarks of Luther nothing but theearnest struggle of a sincere soul to get at the real Word of God. Aperson may express a preference for certain portions of the Biblewithout declaring all the rest of the Bible worthless. Doubts concerningthe divine character of certain, portions of the Scripture arise and areoccasionally expressed by the best of Christians. But Luther's criticalattitude toward certain books of the Bible is either misunderstood ormisrepresented when it is made to appear that Luther permanentlyrejected, or tore out of his Bible, such books as Esther, Jonah, Ecclesiastes, Second Peter, James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. SomeCatholics go so far as to charge Luther with having rejected thePentateuch, the first five books in the Bible, because he speaksslightingly of Moses' law as a means of justification. Not only didLuther translate and take into his German Bible all the writings justnamed, but he also cites them in his doctrinal writings as proof-texts. In the Index of Scripture citations which Dr. Hoppe, the editor of theonly complete edition of Luther's works printed in America, has added tothe last volume we find 11 such references to Job, 12 to Ecclesiastes, 6to Jonah, 48 to Second Peter, 18 to James, 6 to Jude, 61 to Hebrews, 17to Revelation. We have counted only such references as show that Lutheremployed these writings as divine in his doctrinal arguments. By actualenumeration it would be found that he has referred to them much morefrequently. On Jonah, Second Peter, and Jude he wrote specialcommentaries, and for all the books of the Bible he furnishedilluminating summaries, in some cases, as in Revelation, the summariesare furnished chapter for chapter. This goes to prove that Luther hadultimately reached very clear and settled opinions regarding theauthenticity and divine character of those books of the Bible which heis charged with having blasphemously criticized. Luther's criticism ofthese portions of the Bible is the most respectable criticism that hascome to our knowledge. It shows his scrupulous care not to admitanything as being God's Word of the divine origin of which he was notfully convinced. It is Rome, not Luther, that has vitiated the Bible andcreated confusion in Christian minds, by admitting into the sacredvolume portions which do not belong there. 

Luther's questioning attitude towards the books of the Bible, which wehave named is the attitude of the early Christians. There was doubtexpressed in the first centuries as to the genuineness of these books, and it required convincing information in those days when facilities forcommunication were poor to secure the adoption of the books which we nowhave in the Bible. Why do not the Catholics embrace the early Christiansin their charge of Bible mutilation? Nor were those early Christians whoquestioned the divine authorship of certain books about the origin ofwhich they had no definite knowledge any less Christian than those whohad convincing information about them. For the former possessed in thewritings which they had accepted as authentic the same truths which thelatter had embraced. 

Luther voices his profound reverence for the Scriptures in innumerableplaces throughout his writings. "The Holy Scriptures, " he says, "did notgrow on earth. " (7, 2094. ) Again: "When studying the Scriptures, youmust reflect that it is God Himself who is speaking to you. " (3, 21. )Again: "The Scriptures are older and possess greater authority than allCouncils and Fathers. Moreover, all the angels side with God and theScriptures. . . . If age, duration, greatness, multitude [of followers], holiness, are inducements to believe something, why do we believe menwho live but a short time rather than God, who is the Oldest, theGreatest, the Holiest, the Mightiest of all? Why do we not believe allthe angels, since a single one of them has greater authority than thePope? Why do we not believe the Bible, when one passage of Scriptureoutweighs all the books in the world?" (19, 1734. ) Again: "The Biblealone is the true lord and master over all writings on earth. If thisis not so, of what use is the Bible? Then let us cast it aside, and besatisfied with the books and teachings of men. " (15, 1481. ) Again: "AllScripture is full of Christ, the Son of God and Mary. Its sole object isto teach us to know Him as a distinct person, and that through Him wemay in eternity behold the Father and the Holy Ghost, one God. TheScriptures are ajar to him who has the Son, and in the same proportionas his faith in Christ increases the Scriptures become clear to him" (3, 1959. ) How little Luther would have in common with the destructivehigher critics of the Bible in our day, we can gather from the followingstatement: "If cutting and tearing the Bible to pieces were a great art, what a famous Bible would I produce! Especially if I were to lay my handon the important passages, those on which the articles of our faith rest.. . . My position, then, is this: In view of the fact that our faith issupported by Holy Writ, we must not depart from its words as they read, nor from the order in which they are placed. . . . Otherwise, what is tobecome of the Bible?" (20, 213. )

22. Luther a Preacher of Violence against the Hierarchy. 

In his fight against papal supremacy Luther discovered that the Romanpriesthood was the Pope's chief support. The principle of community ofinterests had knitted both the higher and the lower clergy, thecardinals, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, parish priests, monks, etc. , together into one firmly compacted society. All its membersunderstood that they were working in a common cause, and kept inconstant and close rapport with one another: What concerned oneconcerned all the rest. Each aided and abetted the other, and all strovejointly to exalt their master, the Pope. Like a huge net the rule ofpriests was spread over mankind, and all men, with their spiritual andsecular interests, were caught in this net. The system was called ahierarchy, that is, a holy government. The priesthood and the holyorders were the Pope's collateral. All its members derived whatauthority they possessed from the Pope; their fortunes were bound up inthe Pope's. This priest-rule Luther overthrew by causing men to see theliberty with which Christ has made them free. Catholic critics claimthat by so doing Luther rebelled against an ordinance of God. We haveshown in chapter 18 that Luther acknowledges in the Church of Christ aministry that exists by divine appointment. Hence the Catholic chargethat Luther revolted from God when he disputed the divine right of thehierarchy is silly. 

However, Luther is said to have "recklessly encouraged the destructionof the episcopate, and openly commanded sacrilege and murder" to mobs. The appeal of Luther that the _rule_ of bishops be exterminated isinterpreted to mean that the bishops be exterminated. This is one of themost wanton charges that could be preferred against Luther. By theTheses against Tetzel the attention of many prominent men in Germany wasattracted to Luther. Princes and noblemen of the Empire had for sometime been studying from a secular point of view the evils which Lutherhad begun to attack on spiritual grounds. These men understood thecharacter of the Roman hierarchy much better than Luther. They saw atonce that Luther's action would lead to serious complication that mightultimately have to be settled with the sword. When Luther was stilldreaming about convincing the Pope with arguments from Scripture, Germannoblemen were preparing to defend him against physical violence. Theyknew that the hierarchy would not without a fierce struggle submit toany curtailment of their power. They offered Luther armed support. Luther recoiled with horror from this suggestion. In a letter from theWartburg which he wrote to his friend Spalatin who was still tarrying atWorms, Luther refers to one of these warlike knights as follows: "WhatHutten has in mind you can see [from the writings of the knight which heenclosed]. I would not like to see men fight for the Gospel with forceand bloodshed. I have answered that parson (_dem Menschen_) accordingly. By the Word the world has been overcome, the Church has been preserved;by the Word it will also be restored. As to Antichrist, he began hisrule without physical force, and will also be destroyed without physicalforce, by the Word. " (15, 2506. ) The letter from which these words arequoted is dated January 16, 1522. Nine months before this date, on May14, when he had been on the Wartburg about ten days, Luther writes tothe same party: "It is for good reasons that I have not answered yourletter ere this: I hesitated from fear that the report recently gone outof my being held captive might prompt somebody to intercept my letters. A great many things are related about me at this place; however, theopinion is beginning to prevail that I was captured by friends sent forthis purpose from Franconia. To-morrow the safe-conduct granted me bythe emperor expires. I am sorry that, as you write me, there is anintention to apply the very severe [imperial] edict also for the purposeof exploring men's consciences; not on my account, but because they [thepapists] are ill-advised in this and will bring misfortune on their ownheads, and because they continue to load themselves with very greatodium. Oh, what hatred will this shameless violence kindle! However, they may have their way; perhaps the time of their visitation is near. --So far I have not heard from our people either at Wittenberg orelsewhere. About the time of our arrival at Eisenach the young men [thestudents] at Erfurt had, during the night, damaged a few priests'dwellings, from indignation because the dean of St. Severus Institute, agreat papist, had caught Magister Draco, a gentleman who is favorablyinclined to us, by his cassock and had publicly dragged him from thechoir, pretending that he had been excommunicated for having gone tomeet me at my arrival at Erfurt. Meanwhile people are fearing greaterdisturbances; the magistrates are conniving, for the local priests arein ill repute, and it is being reported that the artisans are allyingthemselves with the student-body. The prophetic saying seems about tocome true which runs: Erfurt is another Prague. [There was rioting inPrague in the days of Hus, whom Rome burned at the stake. ]--I was toldyesterday that a certain priest at Gotha has met with rough treatmentbecause his people had bought certain estates (I do not know which), inorder to increase the revenue of the church, and, under pretext of theirecclesiastical immunity, had refused to pay the incumbrances and taxeson the same. We see that the people, as also Erasmus writes, are unableand unwilling any longer to bear the yoke of the Pope and the papists. And still we do not cease coercing and burdening them, although--nowthat everything has been brought to light--we have lost our reputationand their good will, and our former halo of sanctity can no longer availor exert the influence which it exerted formerly. Heretofore we haveincreased hatred by violence and by violence have suppressed it;however, whether we can continue suppressing it experience will show. "(15, 2510. ) To Melanchthon he wrote about this time: "I hear that atErfurt they are resorting to violence against the dwellings of priests. I am surprised that the city council permits this and connives at it, and that our dear friend Lang keeps silent. For although it is good thatthose impious men who will not desist are kept in check, still thisprocedure will bring the Gospel into disrepute, and will cause menjustly to spurn it. I would write to Lang, but as yet I dare not. Forsuch a display of friendliness to our cause as these people show is veryoffensive to me, because it clearly shows that we are not yet worthyservants in God's sight, and that Satan is mocking and laughing at ourefforts [of reform]. Oh, how I do fear that all this is like the figtree in the parable, of which the Lord, Matt. 21, predicts that it willmerely sprout before the Day of Judgment, but will bear no fruit. Whatwe teach is, indeed, the truth; however, it amounts to nothing if we donot practise what we preach. " (15, 1906. )

Disquieting rumors of excesses that were being perpetrated by radicalfollowers of the evangelical teaching had reached Luther also fromWittenberg. To obtain a clear insight into the actual state of affairs, he made a secret visit to his home town in the beginning of December, 1521. Returning to his exile, he wrote his _Faithful Admonition to AllChristians to Avoid Tumult and Rebellion. _ In this treatise Lutherreasons as follows: The papacy, with all its great institutions, cloisters, universities, laws and doctrines, is nothing but lies. Onlies it was raised, by lies it is supported, with lies and frauds andcheats it deceives, misleads, and oppresses men. Accordingly, all thatis necessary to overthrow its dominion is to recognize its lyingcharacter, and to publish it and the papacy will collapse as if blownaside by the breath of the Almighty, as Scripture says it shall happento Antichrist. To start a riot against the papists would never improvethem, and would only cause them to vilify the cause of their opponents. In times of tumult, people lose their reason and do more harm toinnocent people than to the guilty. Public wrongs should be redressed bythe magistrates, who are vested with authority for that purpose. Nomatter how just a cause may be, it never justifies rioting. Lutherdeclares that he will rather side with those who suffer in, than withthose who start, a riot. Rioting is forbidden in God's Law (Dent. 16, 20; 32, 35). This particular rioting against the papists has beeninstigated by the devil, in order to divert people's minds from the realspiritual issues of the times, and to bring the cause of the Gospel intodisrepute. Luther feels these tumultuous proceedings as a disgrace. "People who read and understand my teaching correctly, " he says, "do notstart riots. They were not taught such things by me. If any engage insuch proceedings and drag my name into it, what can I do to stop them?How many things are the papists doing in the name of Christ which Christnever commanded!" Luther begs all who glory in the name of Christians toconduct themselves as Paul demands 2 Cor. 6, 3: "Giving no offense inanything, that the ministry be not blamed. " (10, 360 ff. ) Whoever can, ought to treat himself to the reading of this fine treatise of theexiled monk of Wittenberg. 

The iconoclastic uprising which broke out in Wittenberg in the closingdays of the month of February, 1522, finally decided Luther, at the riskof his life, to quit his exile and to fight the devil, who was trying tosubvert his good doctrine by such wicked practises. The world knows thatit was Luther who quelled the riot in his town. Luther's face was eversternly set against those who wanted to wage the Lord's wars with thedevil's weapons. No murder or sacrilege that was committed in those dayscan be laid at the door of Luther's teaching. 

The Catholics are trying to divert attention from their own unwarrantedand violent proceedings by charging Luther with preaching a war ofextermination against their hierarchy. How did they treat the justclaims and reasonable demands of the German nation for measures thatwere admitted to be crying needs of the times? No German diet met but along list of grievances was submitted by the suffering people. It was ofno avail. The haughty clergy rode over the people's rights and prayersrough-shod. The tyrannous devices which their cunning had invented wereexecuted with brazen impudence. How had they treated simple laymen inwhose possession a Bible was found? What was their inquisitorial courtbut the anteroom to holy butchers' shambles, the legal vestibule tomurder that had been sanctioned by the Popes? How had they treatedLuther? If the papal nuncio at the Diet of Worms had had his way withthe emperor and the princes, Luther would not have left that city alive. They openly declared to the emperor that he was not obliged to keep hisplighted word for a safe-conduct to a heretic. These people come now atthis late day prating about violence that they have suffered from thissacrilegious and bloodthirsty Luther. They themselves were theperpetrators of the most appalling violence against God and men: theirwhole system rests, as Johann Gerhard in his famous _ConfessioCatholica_ rightly asserts, on _Fraus et Vis, _ that is, Fraud andViolence. 

23. Luther, Anarchist and Despot All in One. 

Extremes met, with most disastrous effect-so Catholic writers tell us-inLuther's views of the political rights of men. At one time he was sooutspoken in his condemnation of the oppression which the common peoplewere suffering from the clergy, the nobility, and their aristocraticgovernors that he incited them to discontent with their humble lot inlife, to unrest, and to open rebellion against their magistrates. Atanother time he became the spokesman for the most pronounced absolutismand despotism. He turned suddenly against the very people whose causehe had so signally championed, and who hailed him as their prophet andleader. When the poor, downtrodden people needed him most, Luthercowardly deserted them, and by frenzied utterances excited the nobilityto slay the common people without mercy in the most ruthless fashion, and even promised the lords whom he had denounced as tyrants heaven forenacting the barbaric cruelties to which he was urging them. This is theCatholic portrayal of Luther during the Peasants' War. 

The relation of the peasant uprising to Luther's preaching is grosslymisrepresented when the impression is created that Luther had beforethis sad upheaval worked hand in glove with the malcontent rustics forthe overthrow of the government. Disturbances of this kind had beenperiodical occurrences in Europe for many hundreds of years. The heavytaxes and tithes, and the forced labor which the lords exacted fromtheir tenants, who were little better than serfs, the gallingrestrictions in regard to hunting, fishing, gathering wood in theforests which they had imposed on them, the foreign Roman law underwhich they tried cases in court, and, in general, their haughty andcontemptuous bearing toward the common people had for many generationscreated strained relations between the upper and the lower classes. Theestrangement which developed into open defiance existed among thepeasants before Luther had begun to preach. Nor can Luther's teaching besaid to have fanned the slumbering embers of discontent into a hugeflame. The liberty of a Christian man which he had proclaimed was notsuch liberty as the peasants demanded and wrested to themselves when therevolt had reached its height. Luther had consistently taught thatobedience to the government is a Christian duty. He had, as we haveshown in the preceding chapter, warned with telling force against riot, tumult, and sedition. He had deprecated any allying of the cause of theGospel and of spiritual freedom with the carnal strivings of disaffectedmen for mere temporal and secular advantages. He had reminded Christiansthat it was their duty to suffer wrong rather than do wrong. 

On the other hand, Luther had pleaded the cause of the poor before thelords, and had earnestly warned the nobility not to continue theirtyranny, but conciliate their subjects by yielding to their justdemands. He had fearlessly pointed out to the lords what was galling intheir conduct to the common, people-their pride and luxurious living, their disregard of the commonest rights of man, their despotic dealingswith their humble subjects, their rude behavior and exasperating conducttoward the men, women, and children whom they made toil and slave forthem. 

Maintaining, thus, an honest equipoise between the two contrary forces, and dealing out even-handed justice to both, Luther was conscious ofserving the true interests of either side and laboring for the commonwelfare of all. With his implicit faith in the power of God's Word hewas hoping for a gradual improvement of the situation. The conflictwould be adjusted in a quiet and orderly manner by the truth obtaininggreater and greater sway over the minds of men. Luther had had noinkling of an impending clash between the peasants and the nobility whenthe revolt broke out with the fury of a cyclone. Luther was shocked. Hepromptly hurried to the scene of the disturbances by request of theCount of Mansfeld. It speaks volumes for the integrity of Luther thatboth sides were willing to permit him to arbitrate their differences. The invitation came originally from the peasants and was addressed toLuther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and the Elector Frederick jointly, butit was not acted on until Count Albert invited Luther to come toEisleben. The _Exhortation to Peace on the Twelve Articles of thePeasants_ which Luther issued, after having investigated the situation, rebukes the lords with considerably more sternness than the commoners, but makes fair suggestions for the composition of the differences. Before Luther takes up the "Twelve Articles of the Peasants" fordetailed discussion, he informs them that he considers their wholeprocedure wrong, even if all their demands were just, because they haveresorted to force to secure their right. A beautiful sentiment for ananarchist to utter, is it not? In Article I the peasants demandedfreedom to elect their own pastors, who were to preach the Gospelwithout any human additions. That this request should be embodied in thepeasants' plea for their political rights, and that it should be madethe foremost demand, is highly suggestive as to the principal cause oftheir unrest. To this article Luther gave his unreserved endorsement. Article II sought to regulate the income of priests-again a verysuggestive request: preachers were to receive for their sustenance nomore than the tithes, the remainder of the church-income was to be setaside so as to render it unnecessary to tax the poor in war-times. Onthis point Luther held that the tithes belong to the government, and toturn them over to any one else would be simple robbery. Article IIIdemanded the abolition of serfdom, however, as a test whether theChristianity of the lords was genuine. The peasants implied that theirpolitical liberty had been secured by Christ, and that the lords werewithholding it from them. This argument Luther rejected as a carnalperversion of the Gospel. Articles IV-X submitted these demands: Thepoor man is to be accorded the right to fish and hunt; all wooded landsusurped by bishops or noblemen without making payment therefor are torevert to the community, and in case payment had been made, a settlementis to be effected by mutual agreement; burdensome exactions, services, taxes, and fines are to be rescinded; court trials are to be free frompartiality and jealousy; meadows and lands which of right belong to thecommunity are to be returned by their present owners. On these pointsLuther suggests that the opinions of good lawyers be obtained. ArticleXI deals with the right of heriot, or the death-tax imposed upon thewidow or heir of a tenant. This was approved. In the last article thepeasants express their readiness to withdraw any or all of theserequests that are shown to be contrary to Scripture, and ask permissionto substitute others for them. 

Luther was in a fair way of bringing about an amicable settlement of thedifferences. Philip of Hesse had at the same time come to a fullagreement with the peasants in his domains, and peace seemed near, whenthe real genius of the whole peasant movement, Muenzer, interfered. Luther had suspected for some time that this unscrupulous agitator wasspreading the teaching of unbridled license under pretense of preachingliberty, and that the mystical piety which he was reported aspractising, his leaning towards the reform movement, and his referencesto Luther and the "new Gospel, " were nothing but the angel's garmentwhich a very wicked devil had borrowed for purposes of deception. WhenMuenzer at the head of hordes of men who through his inflammatoryspeeches had been turned into unreasoning brutes was spreading ruin anddesolation along his path, wiping out in a few days the products of thepatient labors of generations, subverting the fundamental principles ofhonesty, justice, and morality on which the organized public life of thecommunity and the private life of the individual must rest, and rapidlychanging even the well-meaning and reasonable among the peasants intofrenzied madmen, Luther recognized that conciliatory measures andarbitration would not avail with these mobs. His duty as a teacher ofGod's Word and as a loyal subject of his government demanded prompt andstern action from him. However, back of the terrible mien with whichLuther now faced the wild peasants there is a heart of love; in theappalling language which he now uses against men whose cause he hadbefriended there is discernible a note of pity for the poor deludedwretches who thought they were rearing a paradise when they werebuilding bedlam. Above all, the great heart of Luther is torn withanguish over the shame that is now being heaped on the blessed Gospel ofhis dear Lord. Luther did not desert the peasants, but they desertedhim; they were the traitors, not he. 

There is a diabolical streak in the character of Thomas Muenzer. Heparades as the People's Man, and the German people in the sixteenthcentury never had a worse enemy. His fluent speech and great oratoryseemed honey to the peasants, but they were the veriest poison. Hespoke the language of a saint, and lived the life of a profligate and areprobate. It is hard to believe that his error was merely the honestfanaticism of a blind bigot; there is a malign element in it thatbetrays conscious wickedness. This raving demon should be studied moreby Catholics when they investigate the Peasants' Revolt. They have theireyes on Luther; his every word and action are placed under themicroscope. But the real culprit is treated as the hero in a tragedy. Hewas a blind enthusiast; he mistook his aims; he selected wrong means andmethods for achieving his aim. He did wickedly, and we may have to cursehim some for decency's sake, but be deserves pity, too, for he was themisguided pupil of that arch-heretic Luther. That is Catholic equity inestimating Luther's share in the peasant uprising. We only note inconclusion that Thomas Muenzer died in the arms of the alone-savingChurch, a penitent prodigal that had returned to the bosom of "HolyMother. " Luther did not die thus, and that makes a great deal ofdifference. 

Catholics father upon Luther not only the Peasants' Revolt, but everyrevolutionary movement which since then has occurred in Europe. Thepolitical unrest which has at various times agitated the masses inFrance, England, and Germany, the changes in the government which werebrought about in such times, are all attributed to the revolutionarytendencies in Luther's writings. So is the disrespect shown by citizensof the modern State to persons in authority, the bold and scathingcriticism indulged in by subjects against their government. There ishardly a political disturbance anywhere but what ingenious Catholicswill manage to connect with Luther. Read Luther, and you will inevitablybecome an anarchist. 

But Luther is also credited with the very opposite of anarchism. Whenthe Peasants' Revolt had been put down by the lords, they began tostrengthen their despotic power over the people, and a worse tyrannyresulted than had existed before. It is pointed out that absolutism, theclaim of kings that they are ruling by divine right and are notresponsible to the people, has taken firm root in all Protestantcountries, and that even the Protestant churches in these countries aremere fixtures of the State. This, too, we are asked to believe, is aresult of Luther's teaching. Luther is not only the spiritualring-leader of mobs, but also the sycophant of despots. It isparticularly offensive to Catholics to see Luther hailed as the championof political liberty. Let us try and make up our minds about Luther'sviews of the secular government from Luther's own words. Dr. Waring, inhis _Political Theories of Luther, _ has made a very serviceablecollection of statements of Luther on this matter. 

"In his tract on Secular Authority (10, 374 ff. ) Luther maintains thatthe State exists by God's will and institution; for the Apostle Paulwrites: 'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there isno power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoevertherefore resisteth the power resiseth [tr. Note: sic] the ordinance ofGod; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation' (Rom. 13, 1. 2). The Apostle Peter exhorts: 'Submit yourselves to everyordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king, assupreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for thepunishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well' (1Pet. 2, 13. 14). The right of the sword has existed since the beginningof the world. When Cain killed his brother Abel, he was so fearful ofbeing put to death himself that God laid a special prohibition thereuponthat no one should kill him, which fear he would not have had, had henot seen and heard from Adam that murderers should be put to death. Further, after the Flood, God repeated and confirmed it in explicitlanguage, when He declared: 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shallhis blood be shed' (Gen. 9, 6). This law was ratified later by the lawof Moses: 'But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slayhim with guile, thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die'(Ex. 21, 14); and yet again: 'Life for life, eye for eye, tooth fortooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound forwound, stripe for stripe' (Ex. 21, 23-25). Christ confirmed it also whenHe said to Peter in the garden: 'All they that take the sword shallperish with the sword' (Matt. 26, 52). The words of Christ: 'But I sayunto you, That ye resist not evil' (Matt. 5, 38. 39), 'Love yourenemies, . . . Do good to them that hate you' (Matt. 5, 44), and similarpassages, having great weight, might seem to indicate that Christiansunder the Gospel should not have a worldly sword; but the human race isto be divided into two classes, one belonging to the kingdom of God andthe other to the kingdom of the world. To the first class belong alltrue believers in Christ and under Christ, for Christ is King and Lordin the kingdom of God (Ps. 2, 6, and throughout the Scriptures). Thesepeople need no worldly sword or law, for they have the Holy Ghost intheir hearts who suffer wrong gladly and themselves do wrong to no one. There is no need of quarrel or contention, of court or punishment. St. Paul says: 'The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawlessand disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners' (1 Tim. 1, 9), for therighteous man of himself does everything that the law demands, and more;but the unrighteous do nothing right, and they therefore need the law toteach, constrain, and compel them to do right. A good tree requires noinstruction or law that it may bring forth good fruit, but its naturecauses it to bear fruit after its kind. Thus are all Christians sofashioned through the Spirit and faith that they do right naturally, more than man could teach them with all laws. All those who are notChristians in this particular sense belong to the kingdom of the world. Inasmuch as there are few who are true Christians in faith and life, Godestablished, in addition to the kingdom of God, another rule-that oftemporal power and civil government, and gave it the sword to compel thewicked to be orderly. It is for this worldly estate that law is given. Christ rules without law, alone through the Spirit, but worldlygovernment protects the peace with the sword. Likewise, true Christians, although not in need of it for themselves, nevertheless render cheerfulobedience to this government, through love for the others who need it. AChristian himself may wield the sword when called upon to maintain peaceamong men and to punish wrong. This authority, which is God's handmaid, as St. Paul says, is as necessary and good as other worldly callings. God therefore instituted two regimens, or governments-the spiritual, which, through the Holy Ghost under Christ, makes Christians and piouspeople, and the worldly or temporal, which warns the non-Christians andthe wicked that they must maintain external peace. We must clearlydistinguish between these two powers and let them remain-the one thatmakes pious, the other that makes for external peace and protectsagainst wickedness. Neither one is sufficient in the world without theother; for without the spiritual estate of Christ no one can be goodbefore God through the worldly estate. Where civil government alonerules, there would be hypocrisy, though its laws were like God'scommandments themselves; for without the Holy Spirit in the heart nonecan be pious, whatever good works he may perform. Where the spiritualestate rules over land and people, there will be unbridled wickednessand opportunity for all kinds of villainy, for the common world cannotaccept or understand it. -But it may be said, If, then, Christians do notneed the temporal power or law, why does St. Paul say to all Christians:'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers' (Rom. 13, 1)? Inreply to this, it is to be said again that Christians among themselvesand by and for themselves require no law or sword, for to them they arenot necessary or useful. But because a true Christian on earth lives forand serves not himself, but his neighbor, so he also, from the nature ofhis spirit, does that which he himself does not need, but which isuseful and necessary to his neighbor. The sword is a great and necessaryutility to the whole world for the maintenance of peace, the punishmentof wrong, and the restraint of the wicked. So the Christian pays tributeand tax, honors civil authority, serves, assists, and does everything hecan do to maintain that authority with honor and fear. " (p. 73 ff. )

In his _Appeal to the German Nobility_ (10, 266 ff. ) Luther says:"Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained by God for thepunishment of the bad and the protection of the good, therefore we mustlet it do its duty throughout the whole Christian body, without respectof persons, whether it strike Popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, orwhoever it may be. If it were sufficient reason for fettering thetemporal power that it is inferior among the offices of Christianity tothe offices of priest or confessor, to the spiritual estate, -if thiswere so, then we ought to restrain tailors, cobblers, masons, carpenters, cooks, cellarmen, peasants, and all secular workmen fromproviding the Pope or bishops, priests and monks, with shoes, clothes, houses, or victuals, or from paying them tithes. But if these laymen areallowed to do their work without restraint, what do the Romanist scribesmean by their laws? They mean that they withdraw themselves from theoperation of temporal Christian power, simply in order that they may befree to do evil, and thus fulfil what St. Peter said: 'There shall befalse teachers among you, . . . And through covetousness shall they withfeigned words make merchandise of you' (2 Pet. 2, 1. 3). Therefore thetemporal Christian power must exercise its office without let orhindrance, without considering whom it may strike, whether Pope orbishop, or priest. Whoever is guilty, let him suffer for it. -Whateverthe ecclesiastical law has said in opposition to this is merely theinvention of Romanist arrogance. For this is what St. Paul says to allChristians: 'Let every soul' (I presume, including the Popes) 'besubject unto the higher powers. . . . Do that which is good, and thoushalt have praise of the same, . . . For he beareth not the sword invain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath uponhim that doeth evil' (Rom. 13, 1-4). Also St. Peter: 'Submit yourselvesto every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; . . . For so is the willof God' (1 Pet. 2, 13. 15). He has also foretold that men would come whowould despise government (2 Pet. 2), as has come to pass throughecclesiastical law. -Although the work of the temporal power relates tothe body, it yet belongs to the spiritual estate. Therefore it must doits duty without let or hindrance upon all members of the whole body, topunish or urge, as guilt may deserve, or need may require, withoutrespect of Pope, bishops, or priests, let them threaten or excommunicateas they will. That is why a guilty priest is deprived of his priesthoodbefore being given over to the secular arm; whereas this would not beright if the secular powers had not authority over him already by divineordinance. -It is, indeed, past bearing that the spiritual law shouldesteem so highly the liberty, life, and property of the clergy, as iflaymen were not as good spiritual Christians, or not equally members ofthe Church. Why should your body, life, goods, and honor be free, andnot mine, seeing that we are equal as Christians, and have receivedalike baptism, faith, spirit, and all things? If a priest is killed, thecountry is laid under an interdict; why not also if a peasant is killed?Whence comes this great difference among equal Christians? Simply fromhuman laws and inventions. " (p. 96 ff. ) This citation deserves to bespecially pondered in view of the Catholic charge that Luther was adefender of absolutism, the divine right of kings. If Rome's attitude tokingcraft be studied, it will be found that Rome has been the supporterof the most tyrannous rulers. It is well, too, to remember Rome's claimof a "divine right" of priests. Special laws of exemption and immunity, laws creating special privileges for priests, are not unknown in theannals of the world's history. Whoever can, ought to read the entire_Appeal to the German Nobility;_ it will tell him many things thatexplain the Peasants' Revolt. 

In his _Severe Booklet against the Peasants_ (16, 71 ff. ) Lutherexplains the reasons for the harsh language which he uses against themarauders. "He says that the maxims dealing with mercy belong to thekingdom of God and among Christians, not to the kingdom of the world, which is the instrument of godly wrath upon the wicked. The instrumentin the hand of the State is not a garland of roses or a flower of love, but a naked sword. As I declared at the time, he says, so declare I yet:Let every one who can, as he may be able, cut, stab, choke, and strikethe stiff-necked, obdurate, blind, infatuated peasants; that mercy maybe shown towards those who are destroyed, driven away, and misled by thepeasants; that peace and security may be had. It is better tomercilessly cut off one member rather than lose the entire body throughfire or plague. Furthermore, the insurgents are notoriously faithless, perjured, disobedient, riotous thieves, robbers, murderers, andblasphemers, so that there is not one of them but has well deserveddeath ten times over without mercy. If my advice had been followed inthe very beginning, and a few lives had been taken, before theinsurrection assumed such large proportions, thousands of lives wouldhave been saved. The experience should make all parties involved wise. "-"If it be said, " he continues, "that I myself teach lawlessness, when Iurge all who can to cut down the rioters, my booklet was not writtenagainst common evil-doers, but against seditious rioters. There is amarked distinction between such a one and a murderer or robber and otherordinary criminals; for a murderer or similar criminal lets the head andcivil authority itself stand, and attacks merely its members or itsproperty. He, indeed, fears the government. Now, while the head remains, no individual should attack the murderer, because the head [civilauthority] call punish him, but should wait for the judgment andsentence of that authority to which God has given the sword and office. But the rioter attacks the head itself, so that his offense bears nocomparison with that of the murderer. " (p. 147. )

Under the restriction under which this book was written as regardsspace, we cannot enter as we would like to upon an exhaustivediscussion of Luther's political views. Luther was in this respect themost enlightened European citizen of his age. He has voiced soundprinciples on the rights of the State and its limitations and theobjects for which the State exists and does not exist, on the separationof Church and State, on the removal of bad rulers from authority, andespecially on liberty. The power of the State he values because itsecures to each individual citizen the highest degree of libertypossible in this life. Those who represent Luther as a defender ofanarchy or tyranny either do not know what they are talking about, orthey do it for a purpose, and deserve the contempt of all intelligentmen. 

24. Luther the Destroyer of Liberty of Conscience. 

Catholics claim that Luther's work, though ostensibly undertaken inbehalf of religious liberty, necessarily had to result in the veryopposite of freedom. They point to the fact that in most countries whichaccepted the Protestant faith the Church became subservient to theState. These state churches of Europe, however, which in the view ofCatholics are the product of Luther's reform movement, are to beregarded as only one symptom of the intolerance which characterizes theentire activity of Luther. He had indeed adopted the principle of"private interpretation" of the Scriptures, however, only for himself. He was unwilling to accord to others the right which he claimed forhimself. All who dissented from his teaching were promptly attacked byhim, and that, in violent and scurrilous language. The Protestant partyin the course of time became a warring camp of Ishmaelites, Lutherfighting everybody and everybody fighting Luther. Religious intoleranceand persecution became the prevailing policy of Protestants in theirdealings with other Protestants. The burning of Servetus at Geneva byCalvin was the logical outcome of Luther's teaching. The maxim, _Cuiusregio, eius religio, _ that is, The prince, or government, in whoseterritory I reside determines my religion, became a Protestant tenet. America got its first taste of religious liberty, not from the originalProtestant settlers, but from the Catholic colonists whom LordBaltimore brought to Maryland, etc. , etc. 

The view here propounded is in plain contravention of what the world hashitherto believed, and to a very large extent still believes, regardingLuther's attitude toward the right of the individual to choose his ownreligion and to determine for himself matters of faith. The positionwhich Luther occupies in his final answer before the Emperor at Worms isgenerally believed to state Luther's position on the question ofreligious liberty in a nutshell. "Unless convinced by the Word of God orby cogent reason" that he was wrong, he declared at the Diet of Worms, he could not and would not retract what he had written. The individualconscience, he maintained, cannot be bound. Each man must determine themeaning of the Word for himself. And the inevitable result of thisprinciple is individual liberty. This principle Luther maintained to theend of his life. His appeal to the magistrates to suppress the Peasants'Revolt was not a call to suppress the false teachings of the peasants, but their disorderly conduct. Against their spiritual aberrations Lutherproposed to wage war with his written and oral testimony. "The peace andorder of the State must be maintained against disorder, personalviolence, destruction of property, public immorality, and treason, though they come in the guise of religion. The State must grant libertyof conscience, freedom of speech, and the privilege of the press. Theseare inalienable rights belonging alike to every individual, subject onlyto the limitation that they are not permitted to encroach upon therights of others. The natural, the almost inevitable, consequence of thedeclaration and recognition of these principles was eventually theestablishment of modern constitutional law. It was not in consequence ofhis teaching, but merely in spite of it, that for the next two centuries(in certain instances) monarchical government became more autocratic, asfeudalism was being transformed into civil government. . . . All throughLuther's writings, and in his own acts as well, is to be read the rightof the individual to think and believe in matters political, religious, and otherwise as he sees proper. His is the right to read the Bible, andany other book he may desire. He has the right to confer and counsel, with others, to express and declare his views _pro_ and _con, _ in speechand print, so long as he abides by, and remains within, the laws of theland. Luther firmly believed in the liberty of the individual as toconscience, speech, and press. The search for truth must beuntrammeled. " (Waring, _Political Theories of Luther, _ p. 235 f. )

This testimony of one who has made a careful investigation of Luther'swritings on the subject of liberty of conscience is, of course, notfirst-hand evidence; it merely shows what impressions people take awayfrom their study of Luther. Let us hear Luther himself. In the _Appealto the German Nobility_ he says: "No one can deny that it is breakingGod's commandments to violate faith and a safe-conduct, even though itbe promised to the devil himself, much more then in the case of aheretic. . . . Even though John Hus were a heretic, however bad he mayhave been, yet he was burned unjustly and in violation of God'scommandments, and we must not force the Bohemians to approve this, ifwe wish ever to be at one with them. Plain truth must unite us, notobstinacy. It is no use to say, as they said at the time, that asafe-conduct need not be kept if promised to a heretic; that is as muchas to say, one may break God's commandments in order to keep God'scommandments. They were infatuated and blinded by the devil, that theycould not see what they said or did. God has commanded us to observe asafe-conduct; and this we must do though the world should perish; muchmore, then, where it is only a question of a heretic being set free. Weshould overcome heretics with books, not with fire, as the old Fathersdid. If there were any skill in overcoming heretics with fire, theexecutioner would be the most learned doctor in the world; and therewould be no need of study, but he that could get another into his powercould burn him. " (10, 332. )

In his treatise _On the Limits of Secular Authority, _ Luther says:"Unbearable loss follows where the secular authority is given too muchroom, and it is likewise not without loss where it is too restricted. Here it punishes too little; there it punishes too much. Although it ismore desirable that it offend on the side of punishing too little thanthat it punish too severely; because it is always better to permit aknave to live than to put a good man to death, inasmuch as the worldstill has and must have knaves, but has few good men. 

"In the first place, it is to be noted that the two classes of the humanrace, one of whom is in the kingdom of God under Christ, and the otherin the kingdom of the world under civil authority, have two kinds oflaws; for every kingdom must have its laws and its rights, and nokingdom or _regime_ can stand without law, as daily experience shows. Temporal government has laws that do not reach farther than over personand property, and what is external on the earth; for God will not permitany one to rule over the soul of man but Himself. Therefore, wheretemporal power presumes to give laws to the soul, it touches God's rule, and misleads and destroys the souls. We wish to make that so clear thatmen may comprehend it, in order that our knights, the princes andbishops, may see what fools they are when seeking to force people bytheir laws and commandments to believe thus or so. When a man lays ahuman law or commandment upon the soul, that it must believe this orthat, as the man prescribes, it is assuredly not God's Word. . . . Therefore it is a thoroughly foolish thing to command a man to believethe Church, the Fathers, the councils, although there is nothing on itfrom God's Word. 

"Now tell me, how much sense does the head have that lays down a commandon a matter where it has no authority? Who would not hold as of unsoundmind the person who would command the moon to shine when it wishes? Howfitting would it be if the Leipzig authorities would lay down laws forus at Wittenberg, or we at Wittenberg for the people of Leipzig?Moreover, let men thereby understand that every authority should and mayconcern itself only where it can see, know, judge, sentence, transform, and change; for what kind of judge is he to me who would blindly judgematters he neither hears nor sees? Now tell me, how can a man see, know, judge, sentence, and change the heart? For that is reserved to Godalone. A court should and must be certain when it sentences, and haveeverything in clear light. But the soul's thoughts and impulses can beknown to no one but God. Therefore it is futile and impossible tocommand or compel a man by force to believe thus or so. For that purposeanother grip is necessary. Force does not accomplish it. For myungracious lords, Pope and bishops, should be bishops and preach God'sWord; but they leave that and have become temporal princes and rule withlaws that concern only person and property. They have reversed the orderof things. Instead of ruling souls (internally) through God's Word, theyrule (externally) castles, cities, lands, and people, and kill soulswith indescribable murder. The temporal lords should, in like manner, rule (externally) land and people; but they leave that. They can donothing more than flay and shave the people, set one tax and one rent onanother; there let loose a bear and here a wolf; respect no right, orfaith, or truth, and conduct affairs so that robbers and knavesincrease in number; and their temporal _regime_ lies as far beneath asthe _regime_ of the spiritual tyrants. Faith is a matter concerningwhich each one is responsible for himself; for as little as one man cango to heaven or hell for me, so little can he believe or not believe forme; and as little as he can open or close heaven or hell for me, solittle can he drive me to belief or unbelief. We have the saying fromSt. Augustine: 'No one can or should be compelled to believe. ' The blindand miserable people do not see what a vain and impossible thing theyundertake; for, however imperiously they command, and however hard theydrive, they cannot force people any farther than they follow with theirmouth and the hand. They cannot compel the heart, though they shouldbreak it. For true is the maxim: _Gedanken sind zollfrei_. (No toll islevied on thought. ) When weak consciences are driven by force to lie, deceive, and say otherwise than they believe in the heart, they burdenthemselves also with a heavy sin; for all the lies and false witnessgiven by such weak consciences rest upon him who forces them. 

"Christ Himself clearly recognized and concisely stated this truth whenHe said: 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's' (Matt. 22, 21). Now, whenimperial authority stretches itself over into God's kingdom andauthority and does not keep within its own separate jurisdiction, thisdiscrimination between the two realms has not been made. For the soul isnot under authority of the emperor. He can neither teach nor guide it, neither kill it nor give it life, neither bind nor loose, neither judgenor sentence, neither hold nor let alone; which necessarily would existhad he authority so to do, for they are under his jurisdiction andpower. 

"David long ago expressed it briefly: 'The heaven, even the heavens, arethe Lord's; but the earth hath He given to the children of men' (Ps. 115, 16). That is to say, over what is on the earth and belongs to thetemporal earthly kingdom, man has power from God; but what belongs toheaven and to the eternal kingdom is under the Lord of heaven alone. Butfinally, this is the meaning of Peter: 'We ought to obey God rather thanmen' (Acts 5, 29). He here clearly marks a limit to temporal authority;for were men obliged to observe everything that civil authority wished, the command, 'We ought to obey God rather than men, ' would have beengiven in vain. 

"If, now, your princes or temporal lord command you to believe this orthat, or to dispense with certain books, say: 'I am under obligations toobey you with body and estate; command me within the compass of yourauthority on earth, and I will obey you. Put if you command me as tobelief, and order me to put away books, I will not obey, for then youbecome a tyrant and overreach yourself, and command where you haveneither right nor power. ' If your goods are taken and your disobedienceis punished, you are blessed, and you may thank God that you are worthyto suffer for God's Word. When a prince is in the wrong, his subjectsare not under obligations to follow him, for no one is obliged to doanything against the right; but we must obey God, who desires to havethe right rather than men. 

"But thou sayest once more: 'Yea, worldly power cannot compel to belief. It is only external protection against the people being misled by falsedoctrine. How else can heretics be kept it bay?' Answer: That is thebusiness of bishops, to whom the office is entrusted, and not toprinces. For heresy can never be kept off by force; another grip iswanted for that. This is another quarrel and conflict than that of thesword. God's Word must contend here. If that avail nothing, temporalpower will never settle the matter, though it fill the world with blood. Heresy pertains to the spiritual world. You cannot cut it with iron, norburn it with fire, nor drown it in water. You cannot drive the devil outof the heart by destroying, with sword or fire, the vessel in which helives. This is like fighting a blade of straw. " (10, 395 ff. )

Referring to the Anabaptists, Luther wrote in 1528: "It is not right, and I think it a great pity, that such wretched people should be somiserably slain, burned, cruelly put to death; every one should beallowed to believe what he will. If he believe wrongly, he will havepunishment enough in the eternal fire of hell. Why should he be torturedin this life, too; provided always that it be a case of mistaken beliefonly, and that they are not also unruly and oppose themselves to thetemporal power?" (17, 2188. )

To his friend Cresser he wrote: "If the courts wish to govern thechurches in their own interests, God will withdraw His benediction fromthem, and things will become worse than before. Satan still is Satan. Under the Popes he made the Church meddle in politics; in our time hewishes to make politics meddle with the Church. " (21b, 2911. Translations by Waring. )

But why did not these excellent principles attain better results inLuther's own time? On this question we have no better answer than thatgiven by Bryce: "The remark must not be omitted in passing how much lessthan might have been expected the religious movement did at firstactually effect in the way of promoting either political progress orfreedom of conscience. The habits of centuries were not to be unlearnedin a few years, and it was natural that ideas struggling into existenceand activity should work erringly and imperfectly for a time. " (_HolyRoman Empire_, p. 381. ) This would be Luther's own answer. His work wasamong people who were just emerging from the ignorance and spiritualbondage in which they had been reared in the Catholic Church. They hadto be gradually and with much patience taught, not only in regard totheir rights and privileges, but also in regard to their proper and mostefficient application. But it is not in agreement with the facts whenthe charge is directed against Luther that he employed the authority ofthe State for furthering the ends of the Church because he urged theSaxon Elector to arrange for a visitation of the demoralized churchesin the country, and to order such improvements to be made as would befound necessary (Erlangen Ed. 55, 223); also when he sought theElector's aid for the reform party at Naumburg at the election of a newbishop (17, 113). In both instances he speaks of the Elector as a"Notbischof, " that is, an emergency bishop. But his remarks must becarefully studied to get his exact meaning. For he declares that theElector as a magistrate is under no obligation to attend to thesematters. They are not state business. But he is asked as a Christian toplace himself at the head of a laudable and necessary movement, and toplace his influence and ability at the disposition of the Master, justas a Christian laborer, craftsman, merchant, musician, painter, poet, author, consecrate their abilities to the Lord. This means that the"emergency bishop" has not the right to issue commands in the Church, but he has the privilege and duty to serve. The people needed a leader, and who was better qualified for that than their trusted prince?Besides, the churches had to be protected in their secular and civilinterests in those days. The young Protestant faith would have beenmercilessly extirpated by Rome, which was gathering the secular powersaround her to fight her battles with material weapons againstProtestants. The Protestant princes would have betrayed a trust whichcitizens rightly repose in their government, if they had not taken stepsto afford the Protestant churches in their domains every legalprotection. The protection of citizens in the exercise of theirreligious liberty is within the sphere of the civil magistrates. Thecitizens can appeal to the government for such protection, and when thegovernment in the interest of religious liberty represses elements thatare hostile, it is not intolerant, but just. If a religion, like that ofthe bomb-throwing anarchists and the vice-breeding Mormons, is forbiddento practise its faith in the land, that is not intolerance, but commonequity. 

One of the most pathetic spectacles which the student of medievalhistory has to contemplate is the treatment of the Jews at the hands ofthe Christians. "Few were the monarchs of Christendom, " says Prof. Worman, "who rose above the barbarism of the Middle Ages. Byconsiderable pecuniary sacrifices only could the sons of Israel enjoytolerance. In Italy their lot had always been most severe. Now and thena Roman pontiff would afford them his protection, but, as a rule, theyhave received only intolerance in that country. Down even to the time ofthe deposition of Pius IX from the temporal power (1810) it has been thebarbarous custom, on the last Saturday before the Carnival, to compelthe Jews to proceed _en masse_ to the capitol, and ask permission of thepontiff to reside in the city another year. At the foot of the hill thepetition was refused them, but, after much entreaty, they were grantedthe favor when they had reached the summit, and as their residence theGhetto was assigned them. " In France a prelate condemned the Jewsbecause the "country people looked upon them as the only people ofGod, " whereupon "all joined in a carnival of persecution, and thehistory of the Jews became nothing else than a successive series ofmassacres. " In Spain the Jews were treated more kindly by the Moors thanby the Catholics. At first their services were valued in the crafts andtrades, "but the extravagance and consequent poverty of the nobles, aswell as the increasing power of the priesthood, ultimately brought abouta disastrous change. The estates of the nobles and, it is also believed, those attached to the cathedrals and churches, were in many casesmortgaged to the Jews; hence it was not difficult for 'conscience' toget up a persecution when goaded to its 'duty' by the pressure of wantand shame. Gradually the Jews were deprived of the privilege of livingwhere they pleased; their rights were diminished and their taxesaugmented. "

To their lowest stage of misery, however, the Jews were reduced duringone of the most holy enterprises which the papacy launched during theMiddle Ages--the Crusades. "The crusading movement was inaugurated by awholesale massacre and persecution first of the Jew, and afterwards ofthe Mussulman. . . . Shut out from all opportunity for the developmentof their better qualities, the Jews were gradually reduced to a declineboth in character and condition. From a learned, influential, andpowerful class of the community, we find them, after the inauguration ofthe Crusades, sinking into miserable outcasts; the common prey of clergyand nobles and burghers, and existing in a state worse than slaveryitself. The Christians deprived the Jews even of the right of holdingreal estate; and confined them to the narrower channels of traffic. Their ambition being thus fixed upon one subject, they soon mastered allthe degrading arts of accumulating gain; and prohibited from investingtheir gain in the purchase of land, they found n more profitableemployment of it in lending it at usurious interest to the thoughtlessand extravagant. " In course of time the borrowers recouped their lossesby inaugurating raids upon the Jews. Jew-baiting, persecutions, expatriations of Jewish settlers, were of frequent occurrence. Towardsthe end of the thirteenth century 16, 000 Jews were expelled from Englandand their property confiscated. In Germany "they had to pay all mannerof iniquitous taxes--body tax, capitation tax, trade taxes, coronationtax, and to present a multitude of gifts, to mollify the avarice orsupply the necessities of emperor, princes, and barons. It did notsuffice, however, to save them from the loss of their property. Thepopulace and the lower clergy also must be, satisfied; they, too, hadpassions to gratify. A wholesale slaughter of the 'enemies ofChristianity' was inaugurated. Treves, Metz, Cologne, Mentz, Worms, Spires, Strassburg, and other cities were deluged with the blood of the'unbelievers. ' The word _Hep_ (said to be the initials of _Hierosolymaest perdita_, Jerusalem is taken) throughout all the cities of theempire became the signal for massacres, and if an insensate monk soundedit along the streets, it threw the rabble into paroxysms of murderousrage. The choice of death or conversion was given to the Jews; but fewwere found willing to purchase their life by that form of perjury. Rather than subject their offspring to conversion and such Christiantraining, fathers presented their breast to the sword after puttingtheir children to death, and wives and virgins sought refuge from thebrutality of the soldiers by throwing themselves into the river withstones fastened to their bodies. " (_McClintock and Strong Cyclop_. , 4, 908 f. )

All this happened under the most Christian rule of the Popes. Thecharacteristic temper of the Jew in the Middle Ages, his fierce hatredof Christianity, his sullen mood, his blasphemous treatment of mattersand objects sacred to Christians, are the result of the treatment hereceived even from the members and high officials of the Church. Nowhere comes Rome in our day asserting the kindness and generosity shownthe Jews by their Popes, because these afforded them shelter in theGhetto of the Holy City! How differently, they say, was this from thetreatment accorded the Jews by Luther. Why, these Catholic writers donot tell the hundredth part of the truth about the attitude of theirChurch to the Jews in the Middle Ages. 

Let this be remembered when Luther's remarks about the Jews are taken upfor study. He is very outspoken against them; his utterances, however, relate for the most part to the false teaching and religious practises, to their perversion of the text and the meaning of the Scriptures, andto the blasphemies which they utter against God, Jesus Christ, and HisChurch, and to the lies which they assiduously spread about theChristian religion. In all that Luther says against the Jews under thishead he is simply discharging the functions of a teacher ofChristianity; for Scripture says that it was given also "for reproof"(2 Tim. 3, 16). No one can be a true theologian without being polemicalon occasion. In another class of his references to the Jews Lutherrefers to their character: their arrogance and pride, theirstiffneckedness and contumacy, their greed and avarice, which makestheir presence in any land a public calamity. Though their church andstate has long been overthrown, and they are a people without a country, homeless wanderers on the face of the earth, they still boast of being"the people of God, " and are indulging the wildest dreams about thereestablishment of their ancient kingdom. They are looking for a Messiahwho will be a secular prince, and will make them all barons living inbeautiful castles and receiving the tribute of the Goyim. One may reasonand plead with them and show them that their belief contradicts theirown Scriptures, that their Talmud is filled with palpable falsehoods, and that their hope is a chimera; but they turn a deaf ear to argumentand entreaty, and turn upon you with fierce resentment at your effortsto show them the truth. Although they know that their habits of graspingand hoarding wealth, driving hard and unfair bargains, their hunting forsmall profits by contemptible methods like hungry dogs searching theoffal in the alley, rouses the enmity of communities against them andcauses them to become a blight to all true progress, to honest trade andbusiness in any land where they have become firmly established, so thatlaws must be made against them, still they blindly and passionatelycontinue their covetous strivings. When Luther observes the corruptinginfluence of the Jews on the public life and morals, he declares thatthey ought to be expelled from the country, and their synagogs ought tobe destroyed, that is, they have deserved this treatment. But it is aremarkable fact that even in these terrible denunciations of the JewsLuther moves on Bible ground, as any one can see that will examine hisexposition of an imprecatory psalm, like Psalm 109 and 59. If thesewords of God mean anything and admit of any application to an apostateand hardened race, the Jews are that race, and a teacher of the Biblehas the duty to point out this fact. But Luther has not been aJewbaiter; he has not incited a riot against then, nor headed a raidupon them, as Prof. Worman tells us that Catholic priests in the MiddleAges occasionally would do. What Luther thought of persecuting the Jewsfor their religion can be seen from his exposition of Psalm 14. He didnot believe in a general conversion of the Jews, but he held thatindividual Jews would ever and anon be won for Christ and would begrafted on the olive-tree of the true Church. "Therefore, " he says, "weought to condemn the rage of some Christians--if they really deserve tobe called Christians--who think that they are doing God a service bypersecuting the Jews in the most hateful manner, imagining all manner ofevil about them, proudly and haughtily mocking them in their pitifulmisery. According to the statement in this Psalm (Ps. 14, 7) and theexample of the Apostle Paul in Rom. 9, 1, we ought rather to feel aprofound and cordial pity for them and always pray for them. . . . Bytheir tyrannical bearing these wicked people, who are nominallyChristians, cause not a little injury, not only to the cause ofChristianity, but also to Christian people, and they are responsiblefor, and sharers in, the impiety of the Jews, because by their cruelbearing toward them they drive them away from the Christian faithinstead of attracting them with all possible gentleness, patience, pleading, and anxious concern for them. There are even some theologiansso unreasonable as to sanction such cruelty to the Jews and to encouragepeople to it; in their proud conceit they assert that the Jews are theChristians' slaves and tributary to the emperor, while in truth they arethemselves Christians with as much right as any one nowadays is RomanEmperor. Good God, who would want to join our religion, even though hewere of a meek and submissive mind, when he sees how spitefully andcruelly he is treated; and that the treatment he can expect is not onlyunchristian, but worse than bestial? If hating Jews and heretics andTurks makes people Christians, we insane people would indeed be the bestChristians. But if loving Christ makes Christians, we are beyond a doubtworse than Jews, heretics, and Turks, because no one loves Christ lessthan we. The rage of these people reminds me of children and fools, who, when they see a picture of a Jew on a wall, go and cut out his eyes, pretending that they want to help the Lord Christ. Most of the preachersduring Lent treat of nothing else than the cruelty of the Jews towardsthe Lord Christ, which they are continually magnifying. Thus theyembitter believers against them, while the Gospel aims only at showingand exalting the love of God and Christ. " (4, 927. )

The Catholic claim that the Maryland Colony in the days of the Calvertsbecame the first home of true religious liberty on American soil hasbeen so often blasted by historians that one is loath to enter upon thismoth-eaten claim for fear of merely repeating what others have moreexhaustively stated. Catholics seem to forget what Bishop Perry hascalled attention to: "The Maryland charter of toleration was the gift ofan English monarch, the nominal head of Church of England, and thecredit of any merit in this donative is due the giver, and not therecipient, of the kingly grant. " Prof. Fisher has called attention toanother fact: "Only two references to religion are to be found in theMaryland charter. The first gives to the proprietary patronage andadvowson of churches. The second empowers him to erect churches, chapels, and oratories, which he may cause to be consecrated accordingto the ecclesiastical laws of England. The phraseology is copied fromthe Avalon patent (drawn up in England in 1623 for a portion of thecolony of Newfoundland) that was given to Sir George Calvert (firstLord Baltimore) when he was a member of the Church of England. Yet theterms were such that recognition of that Church as the established formof religion does not prevent the proprietary and the colony from theexercise of full toleration toward other Christian bodies. " (_ColonialEra_, p. 64. ) The Maryland Colony was admittedly organized as abusiness venture, and its original members were largely Protestants. Itwas to secure the financial interests of the proprietary that tolerancewas shown the colonists. Prof. Fisher says: "Any attempt to proscribeProtestants would have proved speedily fatal to the existence of thecolony. In a document which emanated partly from Baltimore himself, itis declared to be evident that the distinctive privileges 'usuallygranted to ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic Church by Catholicprinces in their own countries could not be possibly granted hero (inMaryland) without great offense to the King and State of England. '" (p. 63. ) We have not the space in this review of Catholic charges and claimsto go into the religious history of the Maryland Colony as we shouldlike to do; otherwise we should explain the machinations of the Jesuitsin this colony, and prove that what tolerance Maryland in its early daysenjoyed it owed to the preponderating influence of non-Catholic forces. 

It requires an unusual amount of courage for a Catholic writer at thislate day to parade his Church as the mother and protectress of religiousliberty and tolerance. Any person who has but a smattering knowledge ofthe history of the world during the last four centuries will smile atthis claim. The old Rome of the days of the Inquisition and the _auto dafes_ may seem tolerant in our days, but she is so from sheer necessity, not from any voluntary and joyous choice of her own. Her intolerantprinciples remain the same, only she has not the power to carry theminto effect. 

One of the Catholic bishops who was opposed to the dogma of papalinfallibility, Reinkens, published a book bearing the remarkable title_Revolution and Church_. In this book a thought is suggested whichconnects the Roman Curia with political disturbances that occur in theworld. The author regards the declaration of papal infallibility asanother step forward in the imperialistic program of the Curia lookingtowards world-dominion. He argues that it is in the interest of theVatican policies to foment trouble and breed revolutions in thecommonwealths of the world. "The thoughts of the Roman Curia, " he says, "are not the thoughts of God. Inasmuch, however, as it is these latterthat are realized with increasing force in the history of the world, andthat animate the formation of every true civil and ecclesiasticalinstitution, the Curia is gradually forced into a conflict with thewhole world. . . . The Curia (to carry its aims into effect) tries onelast means: its last attempt is to bring about a revolution. As 'theChurch' succeeded in digging her charter out of the ruins of thecommonwealths of the ancient world, so the spirits of Vaticanism hopeagain to rebuild the palace of their dominion out of ruins. " (p. 4. )Again: "Bishop Hefele entertains the fear that the recent elevation ofthe Pope to power (the infallibility dogma) will soon become the primarydogma in the instruction of children. We regret to say that this fearhas proven well founded: all the governments, even the German, aid inthis instruction of the schoolchildren, because they retain religiousinstruction on a confessional basis [we in America say on "sectarian"lines], hence also that prescribed by the Vatican, as obligatory, andthe infallibilist clergy is salaried by the State for providing thisinstruction The divine authority of the Pope extending over all mentends to disturb the minds of the children in the schools: they aretaught at an early age to obey the Viceregent of God in preference toobeying the Emperor and the State. In the higher schools this is done bythe clergy that is commissioned to teach in such schools. " (p. 7. )Again: "The Roman order of the Jesuits is not only spread like a netover all countries, but it sinks its roots into every age, sex, estate, and loosens and forces apart the ligaments of civil institutions. " (p. 8. )

Luther's views on human free will are brought forward once more to showthat his teaching necessarily is hostile to liberty. Luther's famousreply to Erasmus _On the Bondage of the Will_ is made to do yeoman'sservice in this respect. What Luther has declared regarding thesovereignty of God's rulership over men, regarding the relation of Godalso to the evil existing in this world, regarding the absence of chancein the affairs of men, regarding man's utter helplessness over andagainst the supreme will of God, is cited to prove that Luther'steaching leads, not to liberty, but either to recklessness or despair. Luther's views on "the captive, or enslaved, will" are declared to bethe most degrading and demoralizing teaching that men have been offeredduring the last centuries. Luther's famous illustration, _viz_. , thatman is like a horse which either God or the devil rides, has promptedthe following remarks of one of Luther's most recent critics: "Thisparable summarizes the whole of Luther's teaching on the vital andall-important subject of man's free will. . . . All who are honest andfearless of consequences must admit in frankest terms that Luther'steaching on free will, as expounded in his book, and explicitly makingGod the author of man's evil thoughts and deeds, cannot but lend amighty force to the passions and justify the grossest violations of themoral law. Indeed, the enemy of souls, as Anderson remarks, 'could notinspire a doctrine more likely to effect his wicked designs thanLuther's teaching oil the enslavement of the human will. '" There is adogmatic reason for this excoriation of Luther: Rome's teaching ofrighteousness by works and human merit. The same author says, inimmediate connection with the foregoing: "Likening man to a 'beast ofburden, ' does Luther not maintain that man is utterly powerless 'byreason of his fallen nature' to lead a godly life, and merit by thepractise of virtue the rewards of eternal happiness? Does he not say:'It is written in the hearts of men that there is no freedom of will, 'that 'all takes place in accordance with inexorable necessity, ' andthat, even 'were free will offered him, he should not care to have it'?But does not all this contradict the Spirit of God when, speaking in theBook of Ecclesiasticus, He says: 'Before man is life and death, good andevil; that which he shall choose shall be given him'?"

We submitted in chap. 15 the Scriptural evidence on the spiritualdisability of man. (The passage from Ecclesiasticus in the lastquotation is not Scripture. ) It is useless to argue with a person whorefuses to accept this teaching of Scripture. We can only repeat what wesaid before: Let the advocates of human free will proceed to do whatthey claim they are able to do, and do it thoroughly. No one willbegrudge them the crown of glory when they obtain it. On the other hand, they will have none but themselves to blame if they do not obtain it. Inthe light of God's holy Word, in the light, moreover, of the experienceof the most spiritual-minded and saintly men that have lived on earth, we see in the claim of the advocates of human free will regarding thefulfilment of God's Law nothing but a vain boast, and a most mischievousattempt to be smarter than God. The theory of salvation by merit is themost disastrous risk that the human heart can take. Christ hasmercifully warned men not to take this risk. If they will not hear Him, they will have to perish in their sins (John 8, 24). 

In chap. 15 we also explained Luther's views on human free will in theaffairs of this life. We only have to add a word on the subject ofcontingency. Are Luther's Catholic, critics really so blind as not tosee that man even in his ordinary affairs of common every-day life issubject to the inscrutable government of God? Our physical life in itsmost trivial aspects is entirely dependent not only on the laws ofnature, which are nothing but the order which the Creator has appointedfor the created universe, but also on extraordinary acts of God overwhich no man has control. The farmer sows his wheat and expects to reapa crop. How? By reason of the power of germination which the Creator hasput in the grain, and the laws which govern atmospheric changes, whichlaws, again, the Creator governs. The farmer can do nothing to make thewheat grow and ripen. He is utterly dependent upon God. --A merchantdecides that he will make a business trip to New York. He will leave thenext morning on the nine o'clock train. He orders his transportation, and the next morning-he does not leave. "Something happened; I had tochange my plans, " he tells his friends. Ah, says our Catholic critic, but was he not free to change his mind? We say: You may talk as much asyou wish about the person's freedom; the fact remains that the personwould not have changed his mind unless he had to. - Let us follow thismerchant a little further: He actually starts on his trip two dayslater. He is to arrive at his destination at two o'clock in theafternoon of the next day, and very much depends on his arriving just atthat time. But he does not even get to Cincinnati. "Something happened, "he wires to his friend. And now his human free will goes into operationagain: he changes his mind. - "Man proposes, but God disposes, " thisbelief is ineradicably written into the consciousness of all intelligentmen, even of intelligent pagans, and no philosophy of free will willwipe it out. The wise farmer, after he has finished sowing his field, says, "God willing, I shall reap a good crop. " The wise merchant says, "God willing, I shall be in New York to-morrow. " And God approves ofthis wise reservation which causes the prudent to submit their mostordinary actions to divine revision. He says in Jas. 4, 13-16: "Go tonow, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into such a city, andcontinue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain, whereas ye knownot what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even avapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. Forthat ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, orthat. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. "Let Luther's Catholic critics wrestle with these and similar texts ofScripture, with these and similar facts of daily life. Luther hasrightly declared the sovereignty of God a mighty ax and thunderbolt thatshatters the assertion of human free will. 

We have shown that Luther is no fatalist. His warning, on the one hand, not to disregard the secret will of God, and on the other, not to seekto find it out, is a masterpiece of wisdom. In view of the absolutesovereignty of God and man's absolute dependence upon it, Luther urgesman to go to work in his chosen occupation in childlike reliance uponGod. He is to employ to the utmost capacity all his God-given energiesof mind and body and work as if everything depended on his industry, strength, prudence, thrift, planning, and arranging. Having done all, he is to say: Dear Lord, it is all subject to Thy approval. Thou artMaster; do Thou boss my business. If Thou overrulest my plans, I havenothing to say; Thou knowest better. Not my will, but Thine, be done. 

This is the whole truth in a nutshell that Luther drives home in thatpart of his reply to Erasmus which treats of contingency. If everstatements garbled from the context are unfair to the author, what theCatholics are constantly doing in quoting Luther on the Bondage of theWill is one of the most glaring exhibitions of unfairness on record. This treatise of Luther deserves to be studied thoroughly andrepeatedly, and measured against the facts of the common experience ofall men. For a profitable study of this treatise there is, moreover, required a very humble mind, a mind that knows its sin, and is sincerein acknowledging its insufficiency. 

The generation of Luther and the generations after him have had thisparticular teaching of Luther before them four hundred years. Whateffect has it had on human progress in every field of secular activityin Protestant lands? Has it created that chaos and confusion whichCatholics claim it must inevitably lead to? Quite the contrary hashappened. And now let the patrons of the theory of human free willmeasure their own success as recorded by history against that ofProtestants. 

25. "The Adam and Eve of the New Gospel of Concubinage. "

This is the honorary title which Catholics bestow upon Martin Luther andCatherine von Bora, who were married June 13, 1525, during the Peasants'War. Luther was forty-two years old at the time and his bride pasttwenty-six. She had left the cloister two years before her marriage, andhad found employment during that time in the home of one of the citizensof Wittenberg. Their first child, Hans, was born June 7, 1526. 

The grounds on which Catholics object to this marriage are, chiefly, three. In the first place, they declare the marriage the outcome of animpure relation which had existed between Luther and Catherine prior totheir marriage. The marriage had virtually become a matter of necessity, to prevent greater scandal. Moreover, in this impure relationship Lutherwith his lascivious and lustful mind, in which fleshly desires werecontinually raging, had been the prime mover. The second ground on whichCatholics object to Luther's marriage is, because Luther heldprofessedly low views of the virtue of chastity and the state ofmatrimony. He had stripped matrimony of its sacramental character, andregarded it as a mere physical necessity and a social and civilcontract. Thirdly, Catholics criticize Luther's marriage because it wasentered into by both the contracting parties in violation of a sacredvow: Luther had been a monk and Catherine a nun, both sworn to perpetualcelibacy. 

Moral cleanness is indelibly stamped upon hundreds of pages of Luther'swritings. The Sixth Commandment in its wider application to the mutualrelation of the sexes and the sexual condition of the individual was toLuther the solemn voice of God by which the holy and wise Creator guardsand protects the fountains whence springs human life. "Because there isamong us, " he says, "such a shameful mixture and the very dregs of allkinds of vice and lewdness, this commandment is also directed againstall manner of impurity, whatever it may be called; and not only is theexternal act forbidden, but every kind of cause, incitement, and means, so that the heart, the lips, and the whole body may be chaste and affordno opportunity, help, or persuasion for impurity. And not only this, butthat we may also defend, protect, and rescue wherever there is dangerand need; and give help and counsel, so as to maintain our neighbor'shonor. For wherever you allow such a thing when you could prevent it, orconnive at it as if it did not concern you, you are as truly guilty asthe one perpetrating the deed. Thus it is required, in short, that everyone both live chastely himself and help his neighbor do the same. "(_Large Catechism_, p. 419. ) The reason why God in the Sixth Commandmentrefers to only one form of sexual impurity Luther states correctly thus:"He expressly mentions adultery, because among the Jews it was a commandand appointment that every one must be married. Therefore also the youngwere early married, so that the state of celibacy was held in smallesteem, neither were public prostitution and lewdness tolerated as now. Therefore adultery was the most common form of unchastity among them. "(_Ibid_. )

In his _Appeal to the German Nobility_ Luther says: "Is it not aterrible thing that we Christians should maintain public brothels, though we all vow chastity in our baptism? I well know all that can besaid on this matter; that it is not peculiar to one nation, that itwould be difficult to demolish it, and that it is better thus than thatvirgins, or married women, or honorable women should be dishonored. Butshould not the spiritual and temporal powers combine to find some meansof meeting these difficulties without any such heathen practise? If thepeople of Israel existed without this scandal, why should not aChristian nation be able do so? How do so many towns and villages manageto exist without these houses? Why should not great cities be able to doso? . . . It is the duty of those in authority to see the good of theirsubjects. But if those in authority considered how young people might bebrought together in marriage, the prospect of marriage would help everyman and protect him from temptations. " (10, 349; transl. By Waring. )

This is the Luther of whom Catholic writers say that he would not beconsidered qualified to sit with a modern Vice Commission. 

But what about the many coarse references in Luther's writings to sexualmatters-references which are unprintable nowadays? Do these not showthat Luther was far from being even an ordinary gentleman, that he wasdepraved in thought and vulgar nauseating, in speech whenever heapproached the subject of marriage and sexual conditions? We have justcited a few of Luther's references to these matters. They are clean andproper. We could fill pages with them, and they would prove mostprofitable reading in our loose, profligate, and adulterous age. Thoseother references which are also found in Luther's writings should bestudied in their connection. Leaving out of the account humorousreferences and playful remarks, which only malice can twist into alascivious meaning, they are indignant and scornful expostulations withthe defenders and practisers of vice that flaunted its shame in the faceof the public. Righteous anger will give a person the courage to speakout boldly and in no mincing words about things which otherwise nauseatehim. When Catholic writers cull from Luther vile and disgusting remarksabout sexual affairs, it should be investigated to whom Luther madethose remarks, and what reason he had for making them. There is anotherside to this matter, and that concerns medieval Catholicism itself. Wehave indicated in sundry places in this review the social conditions inrespect of the sex relations that existed under the spiritualsovereignty of the Roman Church in Luther's day in the very city ofRome, and had grown up and were being fostered by her leading men. Luther's references to lustfulness are paraded as evidence of the lustthat was consuming him; they are, in reality, evidences of the lust thathe knew to be raging in very prominent people with whom he had dealings. 

Luther's words and teaching would count for little if his personalconduct and his acts were in open contradiction to his chasteprofessions. We would simply have to set him down as a hypocrite. But sowould the people in Luther's own day have done. It is a poor argument tosay that the common people were no match for Luther in an argument. Theywere cowed into silence, they were afraid to tell him to his face thathe ought to practise what he preached. Luther's work proved thespiritual emancipation of the common people, and one of the effectswhich mark his reformatory work is the intelligent layman, who forms hisown judgment on what he hears and sees, and speaks out to his superiors. The Wittenbergers in Luther's day were not a set of ninnies; theconstant association with the professors and students of the university, the growing fame of their town, which brought many strangers to it, important civil and religious affairs on which they had to come to adecision, had made many of them far-sighted and resolute men of affairs. Luther's home life before and after his marriage was open to publicinspection as few homes are. The most intimate and delicate affairs hadto be arranged before company at times. In a small town-and Wittenbergwas no modern metropolis-what one person knows becomes publicinformation in a short time. Small communities have no secrets, or atleast find it extremely difficult to have any. 

But the lewdness which Luther attacked in his writings on chastityexisted chiefly among persons of wealth and among the nobility. Not afew of them resented Luther's invectives against their mode of life. They surely did not lack the courage nor the ability to expressthemselves in retaliation against Luther if they had known him to beimmoral himself while preaching morality to others. Last, not least, there were the Catholic priests and dignitaries of the Roman Churchwhose scandalous life Luther exposed. Aside from their disagreement fromLuther in point of doctrine, personal revenge animated not a few of themwith the desire to find a flaw in Luther's conduct. A few recklessspirits among them insinuated and declared openly that Luther wasimmoral, but the animus back of the charge was so well understood atthe time, and the people who were in daily and close touch with Lutherwere so fully convinced of the purity of his life, that the charges weretreated with contempt. 

Luther's life from the age of puberty to his marriage was, indeed, afight against temptations to unchastity. Is it anything else in the caseof other men? The physical effects of adolescence, as we remarkedbefore, are a natural and morally pure phenomenon; Luther's frank way ofspeaking of them does not make them impure. But this physical conditionin a growing young man or woman may become the occasion for impure acts. Against these Luther strove as every Christian strives against them whohas not the special grace of which our Lord speaks Matt. 19, 12, in thefirst part of the verse. Luther had his flesh fairly well in subjectionto the Spirit. History has not recorded those acts of immorality whichhis enemies insinuate or openly charge him with. The illegitimatechildren which are imputed to him were born in Catholic fancy. Hisconstitutional amorous propensities, too, are fiction. Though Lutheradmits a few months prior to his marriage that he wears no armor platearound his heart, it is known that he had been all his life anythingrather than a ladies' man. 

Luther's courtship of Catherine--if we may call it that--was almost voidof romance. The nine nuns who had fled from the cloister at Nimpschen toescape "the impurities of the life of celibacy, " had turned toWittenberg in their trouble. They were not seeking new impurities, butrunning away from old ones. What was more natural than that they shouldseek the protection of the man whose teaching had opened the road toliberty for them. They did not come to Wittenberg to surrenderthemselves to Luther, but to seek his protection, advice, and help inbeginning a new, natural life after the unnatural life which they hadbeen leading. Luther responded to the call of distress. He did notreceive them into his own domicile in the cloister where he lived, butfound shelter for them with kind citizens of the town. Next, he foundhusbands for them. In less than two years after the escape from thecloister all had been respectably married, except Catherine. Alove-affair of hers with Jerome Baumgaertner of Nuernberg had terminatedunhappily, in spite of Luther's urging the young man. Another choicewhich Luther proposed to her--Dr. Glatz of Orlamuende--was declinedperemptorily by Catherine, because, it seems, she had read the man'scharacter. In declining this second offer, Catherine had made complaintto Luther's friend Amsdorf that Luther was trying to marry her againsther will. She appears to have been a frank and resolute woman; in herconversation with Amsdorf she remarked that her decision would bealtogether different if either he or even Luther were to ask for herhand. This was not, as has been said, a bald invitation to either ofthese two gentlemen, but only Catherine's energetic way of explainingwhat sort of a husband she would like, and why she would not take Glatz. Amsdorf so understood her remark and made nothing of it. By an accidenthe came to relate it to Luther six months later, when the latter hadwritten to him in great despondency, describing his lonely life and thedisorderly state of his domicile which needed very much the care of awoman's hand. Then it was that Amsdorf related what Catherine hadremarked. Luther had never thought of her in such a relation. He hadbeen attracted, it seems, by another of the nine escaped nuns, Ave vonSchoenfeld, but whatever affection he may have entertained for her musthave been a passing incident, never seriously entertained, for it mustbe remembered that at that time Luther declared that he would live anddie a bachelor. Besides, Ave had now been happily married to another. Atthis juncture the influence of another woman enters into the privatelife of Luther. Argula von Staufen, a noblewoman who had been won overto the cause of the Reformation and was actively engaged in breakingdown the power of the hierarchy even by her pen, wrote to Luther, expressing her surprise that he who had written so ably and so well onthe holy estate of matrimony was still single. Among the peasants, too, the question was being debated whether Luther would follow up hispreaching with the logical action. Luther was ruminating on thesematters when the Peasants' Revolt broke out, and with them in his mindwent to Mansfeld. He soon reached the conclusion that he owed it to hisprofession as a preacher of the divine Word, to his Creator, to himself, and to the lonely Catherine to marry. He foresaw that the celibateclergy of Rome would raise a hue and cry about the act, but heconsidered it a noble work to offend these men, because they had bytheir law of celibacy offended the most holy God. He would marry tospite all of them, and the Pope, and the devil. This resolution waspromptly carried out, for Luther was not in the habit of dallying longwith serious matters. If he had asked his timid friend Melanchthon, hewould most likely have been advised against his marriage. Faint-heartedPhilip was not the man to advise in a matter which at the time requireda heroic faith. Philip, therefore, was duly shocked when he heard aboutit. His consternation is now used by Catholics to prove that he regardedLuther's marriage as a wanton act prompted by lust. This is utterlyunhistorical: Philip was only afraid of the wild talk that would now bestarted against all of them. On the right and duty of the clergy tomarry he believed with Luther. 

And now a word about the chastity of Rome, particularly that peculiarbrand which was inaugurated by Gregory VII for the Roman clergy and thereligious of both sexes, and riveted upon them by the Council of Trent-the chastity of the celibate state. That the unnatural principle hadnever worked out toward true chastity, that the robbery which it hasperpetrated on men and women had to be compensated for by connivance at, and open permission of, concubinage, is a matter of current knowledge. Luther's advice to priests and bishops who had opened their hearts tohim on the state of their chastity to marry their cooks, even if theyhad to do it secretly; rather than maintain the other relation to them, was a good man's effort to meet a grave difficulty as best he could. This advice is now used to show that Luther was ready to approve anykind of cohabitation. The very opposite is true: it was because he didnot approve of any kind of sexual intercourse, but because he desired toobtain some kind of a legal character for that relation, that he gavethe advice to which we have referred. 

Before the assembled representatives of the Church and of the Germannation the following statements were read in Article XXIII of theAugsburg Confession: "There has been common complaint concerning theexamples of priests who were not chaste. For that reason, also, PopePius is reported to have said that there were certain reasons whymarriage was taken away from priests, but that there were far weightierones why it ought to be given back; for so Platina writes. Since, therefore, our priests were desirous to avoid these open scandals, theymarried wives, and taught that it was lawful for them to contractmatrimony. First, because Paul says (1 Cor. 7, 2): 'To avoidfornication, let every man have his own wife. ' Also (9): 'It is betterto marry than to burn. ' Secondly, Christ says (Matt. 19, 11): 'All mencannot receive this saying, ' where He teaches that not all men are fitto lead a single life; for God created man for procreation (Gen. 1, 23). Nor is it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of God, toalter this creation. Therefore, those that are not fit to lead a singlelife ought to contract matrimony. For no man's law, no vow, can annulthe commandment and ordinance of God. For these reasons the prieststeach that it is lawful for them to marry wives. It is also evident thatin the ancient Church priests were married men. For Paul says (1 Tim. 3, 2) that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. And in Germany, fourhundred years ago for the first time, the priests were violentlycompelled to lead a single life, who indeed offered such resistance thatthe Archbishop of Mayence, when about to publish the Pope's decreeconcerning this matter, was almost killed in the tumult raised by theenraged priests. And so harsh was the dealing in the matter that notonly were marriages forbidden for the time to come, but also existingmarriages were torn asunder, contrary to all laws, divine and human, contrary even to the canons themselves, made not only by the Popes, butby most celebrated councils. 

"Seeing also that, as the world is aging, man's nature is graduallygrowing weaker, it is well to guard that no more vices steal intoGermany. Furthermore, God ordained marriage to be a help against humaninfirmity. The old canons themselves say that the old rigor ought nowand then, in the latter times, to be relaxed because of the weakness ofmen; which, it is to be devoutly wished, were also done in this matter. And it is to be expected that the churches shall at length lack pastors, if marriage should any longer be forbidden. 

"But while the commandment of God is in force, while the custom of theChurch is well known, while impure celibacy causes many scandals, adulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of justmagistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more crueltyexercised than against the marriage of priests. God has givencommandment to honor marriage. By the laws of all well-orderedcommonwealths, even among the heathen, marriage is most highly honored. But now men, and also priests, are cruelly put to death, contrary to theintent of the canons, for no other cause than marriage. Paul (in 1 Tim. 4, 3) calls that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage. This maynow be readily understood when the law against marriage is maintained bysuch penalties. 

"But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither canit be done by any vow. Accordingly Cyprian also advises that women whodo not keep the chastity they have promised should marry. His words are, these (Book I, Epistle XIX): 'But if they be unwilling or unable topersevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire bytheir lusts; at least, they should give no offense to their brethren andsisters. ' And even the canons show some leniency toward those who havetaken vows before the proper age, as heretofore has generally been thecase. " (p. 48 f. )

Not a word of dissent arose in the august assembly while these facts andarguments were presented. The Germans had not forgotten the riotousproceedings and the cruel heartaches that were caused by the enforcementof the decrees of the Lenten Synod of 1074 under the theocratic GregoryVII, who wanted to set up a universal monarchy over the whole world andrequired an unmarried priesthood as his consecrated army. In hishistorical novel, _Die Letzten ihres Geschlechts_, M. Ruediger hasgraphically described the scenes enacted throughout Germany whenGregory's inhuman order was put into effect. 

Similar statements regarding priestly celibacy are found in Art. XXVIIof the First, and in Art. XXIX of the Second Helvetic Confession of theReformed. The Episcopal Church has declared itself to the same effect inArt. XXXII of the Thirty-nine Articles. 

However, did not Luther and Catherine both perjure themselves bymarrying? What about their religious vow, which had been given to God?Also on this matter we might cite Luther's numerous statements andexpository writings, but we prefer to quote again the AugsburgConfession which grew out of Luther's testimony for the truth. InArticle XXVII the Lutheran confessors state: "What is taught on our partconcerning monastic vows will be better understood if it be rememberedwhat has been the state of the monasteries, and how many things weredaily done in those very monasteries, contrary to the canons. InAugustine's time they were free associations. Afterward, when disciplinewas corrupted, vows were everywhere added for the purpose of restoringdiscipline, as in a carefully planned prison. Gradually, many otherobservances were added besides vows. And these fetters were laid uponmany before the lawful age, contrary to the canons. [Catherine von Borahad taken the veil at the age of sixteen. ] Many also entered into thiskind of life through ignorance, being unable to their own strength, though they were of sufficient age. Being thus ensnared, they werecompelled to remain, even though some could have been freed by theprovision of the canons. And this was more the case in convents of womenthan of monks, although more consideration should have been shown theweaker sex. This rigor displeased many good men before this time, whosaw that young men and maidens were thrown into convents for a living, and what unfortunate results came of this procedure, and what scandalswere created, what snares were cast upon consciences! They were grievedthat the authority of the canons in so momentous a matter was utterlydespised and set aside. 

"To these evils was added an opinion concerning vows, which, it is wellknown, in former times, displeased even those monks who were morethoughtful. They taught that vows were equal to Baptism; they taughtthat, by this kind of life, they merited forgiveness of sins andjustification before God. Yea, they added that the monastic life notonly merited righteousness before God, but even greater things, becauseit kept not only the precepts, but also the so-called 'evangelicalcounsels. '

"Thus they made men believe that the profession of monasticism was farbetter than Baptism, and that the monastic life was mere meritoriousthan that of magistrates, than the life of pastors and such like, whoserve their calling in accordance with God's commands, without anyman-made services. None of these things can be denied; for they appearin their own books. . . . 

"These things we have rehearsed without odious exaggerations, to the endthat the doctrine of our teachers, on this point, might be betterunderstood. First, concerning such as contract matrimony. " Here the 27thArticle rehearses in the main the argument of Article XXIII. 

"In the second place, why do our adversaries exaggerate the obligationor effect of a vow, when, at the same time, they have not a word to sayof the nature of the vow itself, that it ought to be in a thingpossible, free, and chosen spontaneously and deliberately? But it is notknown to what extent perpetual chastity is in the power of man. And howfew are they who have taken the vow spontaneously and deliberately!Young men and maidens, before they are able to judge, are persuaded, andsometimes even compelled, to take the vow. Wherefore it is not fair toinsist so rigorously on the obligation, since it is granted by all thatit is against the nature of a vow to take it without spontaneous anddeliberate action. . . . 

"But although it appears that God's command concerning marriage deliversmany from their vows, yet our teachers introduce also another argumentconcerning vows to show that they are void. For every service of Godordained and chosen of men without commandment of God to meritjustification and grace is wicked as Christ says (Matt. 15, 9): 'In vainthey worship Me with the commandments of men. ' And Paul teacheseverywhere that righteousness is not to be sought by our own observancesand acts of worship devised by men, but that it comes by faith to thosewho believe that they are received by God into grace for Christ's sake. "

The confessors then proceed to show how spiritual pride was fostered bythe monkish teaching of perfection, and how by their rites andordinances and rules the true worship of God was obscured, and men werewithdrawn from useful pursuits in life to be buried in cloisters. Theyconclude: "All these things, since they are false and empty, make vowsnull and void. " (p. 57 ff. )

Luther never had taken his own nor other monks' vows lightly. He spokeand wrote to Melanchthon from the Wartburg against the mere throwing offof the vows on the ground that they were not binding anyway. He arguedthe sacredness of the oath, and held that first the consciences of thosebound by vows must be set free through the evangelical teaching; then, when they are qualified to make an intelligent choice on spiritualgrounds, they may discard their vows. When he married Catherine, he hadlong become a free man in his mind. So had Catherine. 

Luther is charged with having entertained a purely secular view of theessence of marriage. It is true that Luther repudiated the Catholic viewof the sacramental character of matrimony. By the teaching of the RomanChurch a legal marriage can be effected only by the ratification of themarriage-promise and the blessing spoken over the couple by aconsecrated priest, who thus, by his official quality, imparts to themarriage which he solemnizes a sacred character. In Luther's days it washeld that "the Church alone properly had jurisdiction over the questionof marriage, and the canonical laws (of the Church) included civil aswell as spiritual affairs. Luther repudiated these canonical laws on thesubject of marriage, and separated its civil from its ecclesiasticalaspect. He maintained that marriage, as the basis of all family rights, lies entirely within the province of the State, and mast be regulated ofnecessity by the civil government. 'Marriage and the married state, ' hedeclared in his _Traubuechlein_ (10, 721), 'are civil matters, in themanagement of which we priests and ministers of the Church must notintermeddle. But when we are required, either before the church, or inthe church, to bless the pair, to pray over them, or even to marry them, then it is our bounden duty to do so. '" (Waring, p. 221. )

In 1906, a papal decree was published which declares any betrothal ormarriage entered into by a Catholic with a Catholic, or by a Catholicwith a non-Catholic, to be valid only on condition that either thebetrothal or the marriage take place in the presence or with thesanction of a Catholic priest This decree is known as the _Ne Temere_decree. It is called thus according to a custom prevailing in theCatholic Church by which the official deliverances of the Popes arecited by giving the initial word, or words, of such a deliverance. Thetwo Latin terms _Ne Temere_ are a warning against reckless action, andthe reckless action intended is the one indicated above. 

We quote a few statements from the _Ne Temere_ decree, from the work ofDr. Leitner of Passau, which was issued in its fifth edition atRegensburg in 1908. Dr. Leitner is a Catholic professor at Passau andbears the title "Doctor of Theology and Canon Law. " Dr. Leitner's bookis in German: _Die Verlobungs- und Eheschliessungsform nach dem DekreteNe Temere_, which means, "The Form of Betrothal and Marriage accordingto the _Ne Temere_ Decree. " Throughout his book the author cites theoriginal language of the papal deliverance. The decree reaffirms, in thefirst place, the decree of the Council of Trent, to this effect: "TheHoly Congregation declares any person who dares to enter into the estateof matrimony, except upon license from the parish priest or of someother priest of the same parish, or of the ordinary, and of two or threewitnesses, incapacitated for such a contract, and contracts of this kindare declared null and void. " (p. 9. )

Regarding betrothals the decree declares: "Only such betrothals areregarded as valid and efficacious, according to the law of the Church, as are set down in a document signed by the contracting parties and bythe parish priest, or the local ordinary, and by at least twowitnesses. "

Regarding marriage the decree hands down the following ruling: "Onlysuch marriages are valid as are entered into in the presence of theparish priest, or the local ordinary, or of a priest delegated for thepurpose by either of these, and of two witnesses. " Again: "To the abovelaw are amenable all persons baptized in the Catholic Church, also whohave joined the Catholic Church from errorist or schismatic societies(notwithstanding the fact that either former or the latter haveapostatized later) whenever they entered into betrothal or matrimony. "Lastly: "The laws apply to the aforenamed Catholics whenever they enterinto betrothal or matrimony with non-Catholics, baptized or not, evenwhen they have obtained a dispensation from the obstacle of a mixedreligion or of a disparity of cult; except the Holy See decreesotherwise for a certain or locality. "

The operations of this decree have been peculiar. Some countries asGermany and Belgium, promptly secured exemption from it. In Canada thedecree has caused law suits. One of them, Morin _vs_. Le Croix, wastried in Justice Greenshield's court at Montreal, June 21, 1912. Thejudge in his ruling said; "No Church, be it the powerful Roman CatholicChurch, or the equally great and powerful Anglican Catholic Church, possesses any authority to overrule the civil law. Such authority as anyChurch has (in the matter of marriages) is given it by the civil law andis subservient to the civil law. "

The _Protestant Magazine_, in Vol. IV, No. 2, published a facsimile of abaptismal certificate for Anna Susanna Dagonya, daughter of StephenDagonya, Roman Catholic, and Mary Csoma, Reformed, who were married atPerth Amboy, N. J. , August 4, 1909, by Rev. Louis Nannassy, Reformed. Their child was born November 6, 1910, and baptized by Rev. FrancisGross, priest of the Holy Cross Church at Perth Amboy. In writing outthe baptismal certificate, the priest has stated that the child isillegitimate, and that the parents are living in concubinage. 

Under the civil laws of most states the _Ne Temere_ decree will lead toactions for libel. As related to the authority of the State, it isriotous and seditious. For the State will protect even those for whomthe decree is specially published in their civil rights as over againsttheir Church. But the decree shows to what absurdities the logicalapplication of Rome's teaching on matrimony leads. Concubinage--that isthe name which it applies to every marriage which she has notsanctioned. Marriages of this kind began to be celebrated in countrieswhich Rome had theretofore held firmly under its jurisdiction, whenMartin Luther and Catherine von Bora were married. Accordingly, they areentitled to the distinction of being called the Adam and Eve of thenon-Catholic paradise of concubinage which pretends to be matrimony. Enough said. 

26. Luther an Advocate of Polygamy. 

During the debate on the abolition of polygamy Congressman Roberts ofUtah, on January 29, 1900, made a speech in the House of Representativesin which he said: "Here, in the resident portion of this city youerected--May 21, 1884--a magnificent statue of stern old Martin Luther, the founder of Protestant Christendom. You hail him as the apostle ofliberty and the inaugurator of a new and prosperous era of civilizationfor mankind, but he himself sanctioned polygamy with which I am charged. For me you have scorn, for him a monument. " Taking his cue from thisMormon speaker, one of the most recent of Luther's Catholic criticsremarks: "Let the wives and mothers of America ponder well thepolygamous phase of the Reformation before they say 'Amen' to theunsavory and brazen laudations of the profligate opponent of Christianmarriage, Christian decency, and Christian propriety. Compare theteachings of Luther on polygamy with those of Joseph Smith, the Mormonprophet and visionary, and see their striking similarity. Mormonism inSalt Lake City, in Utah, which has brought so much disgrace to theAmerican people, is but a legitimate outgrowth of Luther andLutheranism. " This, then, is what will have to be done: a comparisonwill have to be instituted between the teaching of Martin Luther andthat of the Mormon prophet on the subject of polygamy. We may assumethat the teachings of the latter are universally known, and shall, accordingly, confine ourselves to Luther. 

Two curious facts may be noted before we start our investigation ofLuther's writings: 1. Is it not remarkable that Joseph Smith himselfdoes not cite Luther as his authority in defense of plural marriages?What an impression would the man have made, had he known what Mr. Roberts and some Catholics know! 2. Charging Lutheranism, that is, theLutheran Church, with teaching polygamy, implies that the confessionalwritings of the Lutheran Church contain this teaching. The person whowill furnish the evidence for this charge from the Book of Concord, which contains the symbolical writings of the Lutheran Church, willbecome famous. Mr. Roberts was not so bold as to embrace Lutheranismamong the sponsors of his polygamous cult; he only spoke of Luther. Hewas wise. And now, what does Luther say on the subject of polygamy? Wepass by, as unworthy of note, Luther's humorous remarks made in a spiritof banter to his wife, that he would marry another wife. Only ill-willcan find in this friendly jest an evidence of Luther's polygamouspropensities. 

Serious references to this matter occur in Luther's remarks on thepractise of polygamy among the Israelites. The Mosaic account ofAbraham's relation to Agar, the two marriages of Jacob, the regulationsregarding women who had become captives in war, the harems of the kingsof Judah and Israel, --all these Biblical records, which have perplexedmany a student of the Bible, necessarily interested Luther as atheologian and expounder of the Scriptures. Every reader of the Biblehas to form an opinion on these matters. Polygamous thoughts, therefore, did not originate in the lustful mind of Luther, but statements on thesubject of polygamy were demanded of him as a religious teacher. He heldthat the polygamous relations which the Bible notes among theIsraelites, even among saintly members of this people, must be explainedeither on the ground of a special dispensation of God for which we donot know the reason, or they must be regarded in the same light asChrist regarded the divorces among the Jews of His day, namely, asthings which God permits among men because of their hardness of heart, and in order to prevent greater evils. (3, 1556. ) This view determinedLuther's attitude toward Carlstadt, after this turbulent spirit hadquitted Wittenberg and gone to Orlamuende, where he advocated, amongstother things, the introduction of polygamy. Inasmuch as Carlstadt didnot mean to enforce his strange reforms by arms, as Muenzer and thepeasants were doing, Luther inclined to condone his views on polygamy. He evidently regards this matter as a matter of public policy, likeprostitution, which every community and commonwealth must regulate bysuch statutes as can be devised, "because of the hardness of men'shearts. " Luther has frequently propounded this perfectly sound viewregarding the life and conduct of non-Christians: since these people donot acknowledge the laws of God as binding, it matters little whatpractises they adopt. All that can be done to keep the animal impulsesin them somewhat in check is to fix certain limits by means of civillaws beyond which their license may not go. For their rejection of God'slaws they will have to answer to their future Judge. 

In a letter addressed to Joseph Levin Metzsch of December 9, 1526, Luther says: "Your first question: Whether person may have more than onewife? I answer thus: Let unbelievers do what they please; Christianliberty, however, is regulated by love (charity), so that all that aChristian does is done to serve his fellow-man, provided only that hecan render such service without jeopardy and damage to his faith andconscience. Nowadays, however, everybody is striving for a liberty thatprofits and pleases him, without regard for the profit and improvementwhich his neighbor might derive from his action. This is contrary tothe teaching of St. Paul, who says: 'All things are lawful unto me, butall things are not expedient' (1 Cor. 6, 12). Only see that your libertydoes not become an occasion to the flesh. . . . Moreover, although thepatriarchs had many wives, Christians may not follow their example, because there is no necessity for doing this, no improvement is obtainedthereby, and, especially, there is no word of God to justify thispractise, while great offense and trouble may come from it. Accordingly, I do not believe that Christians any longer have this liberty. God wouldhave to publish a command that would declare such a liberty. " (21a, 901f. ) To Clemens Ursinus, pastor at Bruck, Luther writes under date ofMarch 21, 1527: "Polygamy, which in former times was permitted to theJews and Gentiles, cannot be honestly approved of among Christians, andcannot be engaged in with a good conscience, unless in an extreme caseof necessity, as, for instance, when one of the spouses is separatedfrom the other by leprosy or for a similar cause. Accordingly, you maysay to the carnal people (with whom you have to do), if they want to beChristians, they must keep married fidelity and bridle their flesh, notgive it license. If they want to be heathen, let them do what theyplease, at their own risk. " (21a, 928. )

In his comment on the question of the Pharisees regarding divorce (Matt. 19, 3-6), Luther says: "Many divorces occur still among the Turks. If awife does not yield to the husband, nor act according to his whim andfancy, he forthwith drives her out of the house, and takes one, two, three, or four additional wives, and defends his action by appealing toMoses. They have taken out of Moses such things as please them andpander to their lust. In Turkey they are very cruel to women; any womanthat will not submit is cast aside. They toy with their women like a dogwith a rag. When they are weary of one woman, they quickly put herbeneath the turf and take another. Moses has said nothing to justifythis practise. My opinion is that there is no real married life amongthe Turks; theirs is a whorish life. It is a terrible tyranny, all themore to be regretted because God does not withhold the common blessingfrom their intercourse: children are procreated thereby, and yet themother is sent away by the husband. For this reason there is no truematrimony among the Turks. In my opinion, all the Turks at the presenttime are bastards. " (7, 965. )

All this is plain enough and should suffice to secure Luther against thecharge of favoring polygamy. The seeming admission that polygamy mightbe permissible relates to cases for which the laws of all civilizednations make provisions. How a Christian must conduct himself in such acase must be decided on the evidence in each case. Likewise, thereference to the Christian's liberty from the law does not mean that theChristian has the potential right to polygamy, but it means that he mustmaintain his monogamous relation from a free and willing choice to obeyGod's commandments in the power of God's grace. Polygamy, this is thefirm conviction of Luther, could only be sanctioned if there were aplain command of God to that effect. Luther's remarks about matrimonyamong the Turks should be remembered when Catholics cite Luther'sremarks about King Ahasuerus dismissing Vashti and summoning Esther, andthe right of the husband to take to himself his maid-servant when hiswife refuses him. By all divine and human laws the matter to whichLuther refers is a just ground for divorce, and that is all that Lutherdeclares. 

But did not Luther sanction the bigamy of Philip of Hesse? So he did. Luther's decision in this case must be studied in the light of all theevidence which we possess. Catholic theologians, before all others, should be able to appreciate Luther's claim that what was said to theLandgrave was said to him "in the person of Christ, " as the counselwhich a confessor gave to a burdened conscience. Catholics fail tomention that Luther repelled bigamous thoughts in Philip of Hessefourteen years before the Landgrave took Margaret von der Saal. Theevidence was found in the state archives at Kassel, now at Marburg, ina fragment of a letter which Niedner published in the _Zeitschrift fuerhistorische Theologie_, 1852, No. 2, p. 265. The letter is datedNovember 28, 1526; Philip's bigamous marriage took place March 9, 1540. In this letter Luther says to Philip: "As regards the other matter, myfaithful warning and advice is that no man, Christians in particular, should have more than one wife, not only for the reason that offensewould be given, and Christians must not needlessly give, but mostdiligently avoid giving, offense, but also for the reason that we haveno word of God regarding this matter on which we might base a beliefthat such action would be well-pleasing to God and to Christians. Letheathen and Turks do what they please. Some of the ancient fathers hadmany wives, but they were urged to this by necessity, as Abraham andJacob, and later many kings, who according to the law of Moses obtainedthe wives of their friends, on the death of the latter, as aninheritance. The example of the fathers is not a sufficient argument toconvince a Christian: he must have, in addition, a divine word thatmakes him sure, just as they had a word of that kind from God. For wherethere was no need or cause, the ancient fathers did not have more thanone wife, as Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and many others. For this reason Icannot advise for, but must advise against, your intention, particularlysince you are a Christian, unless there were an extreme necessity, as, for instance, if the wife were leprous or the husband were deprived ofher for some other reason. On what grounds to forbid other people suchmarriages I know not" (21a, 900 f. ) This letter effected that theLandgrave did not carry out his intention, but failing, nevertheless, tolead a chaste life, he did not commune, except once in extreme illness, because of his accusing conscience. 

How Luther, fourteen years later, was induced to virtually reverse hisopinion he has told himself in a lengthy letter to the ElectorFrederick. This letter is Luther's best justification. It is dated June10, 1540, and reads: "Most serene, high-born Elector, most graciousLord:--I am sorry to learn that Your Grace is importuned by the court ofDresden about the Landgrave's business. Your Grace asks what answer togive the men of Meissen. As the affair was one of the confessional, bothMelanchthon and I were unwilling to communicate it even to Your Grace, for it is right to keep confessional matters secret, both the sinconfessed and the counsel given, and had the Landgrave not revealed thematter and the confessional counsel, there would never have been allthis nauseating unpleasantness. --I still say that if the matter werebrought before me to-day, I should not be able to give counsel differentfrom what I did. Setting apart the fact that I know I am not as wise asthey think they are, I need conceal nothing, especially as it hasalready been made known. The state of affairs is as follows: MartinBucer brought a letter and pointed out that, on account of certainfaults in the Landgrave's wife, the Landgrave was not able to keephimself chaste, and that he had hitherto lived in a way which was notgood, but that he would like to be at one with the principal heads ofthe Evangelic Church, and he declared solemnly before God and hisconscience that he could not in future avoid such vices unless he werepermitted to take another wife. We were deeply horrified at this taleand the offense which must follow, and we begged his Grace not to do ashe proposed. But we were told again that he could not abandon hisproject, and if he could not obtain what he wanted from us, he woulddisregard us and turn to the Emperor and Pope. To prevent this wehumbly begged that if his Grace would not, or, as he averred before Godand his conscience, could not, do otherwise, yet that he could keep it asecret. Though necessity compelled him, yet he could not defend his actbefore the world and the imperial laws; this he promised to do, and weaccordingly agreed to help him before God and cover it up as much aspossible with such examples as that of Abraham. This all happened asthough in the confessional, and no one can accuse us of having acted aswe did willingly or voluntarily or with pleasure or joy. It was hardenough for our hearts, but we could not prevent it, we thought to givehis conscience such counsel as we could. --I have indeed learned severalconfessional secrets, both while I was still a papist and later, which, if they were revealed, I should live to deny or else publish the wholeconfession. Such things belong not to the secular courts, nor are theyto be published. God has here His own judgment, and must counsel soulsin matters where no worldly law nor wisdom can help. My preceptor in thecloister, a fine old man, had many such affairs, and once had to say ofthem with a sigh: 'Alas, alas! such things are so perplexed anddesperate that no wisdom, law, nor reason can avail; one must commendthem to divine goodness. ' So instructed, I have, accordingly, in thiscase also acted agreeably to divine goodness. --But had I known that theLandgrave had long before satisfied his desires, and could well satisfythem with others, as I have now just learned that he did with her ofEschwege, truly no angel would have induced me to give such counsel. Igave it only in consideration of his unavoidable necessity and weakness, and to put his conscience out of peril, as Bucer represented the case tome. Much less would I ever have advised that there should be a publicmarriage, to which (though he told me nothing of this) a young princessand young countess should come, which is truly not to be borne and isinsufferable to the whole empire. But I understood and hoped, as long ashe had to go the common way with sin and shame and weakness of theflesh, that he would take some honorable maiden or other in secretmarriage, even if the relation did not have a legal look before theworld. My concession was on account of the great need of hisconscience--such as happened to other great lords. In like manner Iadvised certain priests in the Catholic lands of Duke George and thebishops secretly to marry their cooks. --This was my confessional counselabout which I would much rather have kept silence, but it has been wrungfrom me, and I could do nothing but speak. But the men of Dresden speakas though I had taught the same for thirteen years, and yet they give usto understand what a friendly heart they have to us, and what greatdesire for love and unity, just as if there were no scandal or sin intheir lives, which are ten times worse before God than anything I everadvised. But the world must always smugly rail at the moat in itsneighbor's eye, and forget the beam in its own eye. If I must defend allI have said or done in former years, especially at the beginning, I mustbeg the Pope to do the same, for if they defend their former acts (letalone their present ones), they would belong to the devil more than toGod. --I am not ashamed of my counsel, even if it should be published inall the world; but for the sake of the unpleasantness which would thenfollow, I should prefer, if possible, to have kept it secret. MartinLuther, with his own hand. " (21b, 2467; transl. By Preserved Smith. )

About a year later a Hessian preacher, by the name of Johann Lening, undertook to justify the bigamy of the Landgrave. Under the pseudonym"Huldricus Neobulus" he published a "Dialogus, " that is, "an amicableconversation between two persons on the question whether it is inaccordance with, or contrary to, divine, natural, imperial, andspiritual laws for a person to have more than one wife at a time, " etc. The writer defended bigamy. In an unfinished reply to this book Luthertakes strong grounds against him. Referring to the author's argumentthat bigamy was sanctioned by Moses, Luther says: "The reference to thefathers of whom Moses speaks is irrelevant: Moses is dead. Granted, however, that bigamy was legal in the days of the fathers and Moses, --which can never be established, --still they had God's word for it thatsuch a permission was given them. That we have not. And although it waspermitted to the Jews and tolerated by God, while God Himself consideredit wrong, . . . It was merely a dispensation. . . . Now, there is agreat difference between a legal right and a dispensation, or somethingthat is tolerated or permitted. A legal right is not a dispensation, anda dispensation is not a legal right; whoever does, obtains, or holdssomething by a dispensation does not do, obtain, or hold it by legalright. " Luther then enters upon a brief discussion of the bigamousrelationships which were created by the Mosaic laws, and explains thatlegislation as emergency legislation. He says: "What need is there whywe should try to find all sorts of reasons to explain why the fathersunder Moses were permitted to have many wives? God is sovereign; He mayabrogate, alter, mitigate a law as He pleases, for emergency's sake ornot. But it does not behoove us to imitate such instances, much less toestablish them as a right. But this Tulrich [so Luther calls the unknownauthor] rashly declares carnal lust free, and wants to put the worldback to where it was before the Flood, when they took them wives, notlike the Jews by God's permission, or because of an emergency or forcharity's sake towards homeless women, as Moses directs, but, as thetext says, 'which they chose' (Gen. 6, 2). That is the way nowadays torise to the stars. In this way we have Moses and the fathers with theirexamples as beautiful cloaks for carnal liberty; we say with our lipsthat we are following the examples of the fathers, but in very deed weact contrary to them. Lord, have mercy! If the world continues, what allmay we not expect to happen these times, if even now shameless fellowsmay print what they please. " (21b, 2691 f. )

One might go more exhaustively into the evidence, but the materials heresubmitted will suffice to convince most men that, while Luther's adviceto Philip did create a bigamous relation, Luther was not a defender ofbigamy. Every one who has had to deal with questions relating to marriedlife knows that situations arise in the matrimonial relation whichsimply cannot be threshed out in public, and in which the honest adviceof a pious person is invoked to find a way out of a complication. Thatwas the situation confronting Luther: what he advised was meant as anemergency measure to prevent something that was worse. In the samemanner Luther had expressed the opinion that it would have been easierto condone a bigamous relation in Henry VIII of England than the unjustdivorce which the king was seeking. As a matter of fact, however, Lutherand his Wittenberg colleagues were grossly hoodwinked in the matter, both by the Landgrave himself and, what is worse, by the Landgrave'scourt-preacher, Bucer. Had the true facts been known, the advice, asLuther clearly states, would never have been given. But we can wellunderstand how Luther can declare that under the circumstances underwhich he thought he was acting he could not have given any differentadvice. Personally, we have always resented the veiled threat in theLandgrave's request that he would apply to the Pope or the Emperor. Perhaps the remark was not understood as a threat, but as an expressionof despair. At any rate, Philip was confident of getting from Rome whathe was not sure of obtaining from Luther. 

Ought not this remark of the Landgrave caution Luther's Catholic criticsto be very careful in what they say about the heinousness of Luther'soffense in granting a dispensation from a moral precept? Have theyreally no such thing as a "dispensation" at Rome? Has not the marriedrelationship come up for "dispensation" in the chancelleries of theVatican innumerable times? Has not one of the canonized saints of Rome, St. Augustine, declared that bigamy might be permitted if a wife wassterile? Was not concubinage still recognized by law in the sixteenthcentury in Ireland? Did not King Diarmid have two legitimate wives andtwo concubines? And he was a Catholic. What have Catholics to say inrejoinder to Sir Henry Maine's assertion that the Canon Law of theirChurch brought about numerous sexual inequalities? Or to JosephMacCabe's statement that not until 1060 was there any authoritativemandate of the Church against polygamy, and that even after thisprohibition there were numerous instances of concubinage and polygamicmarriages in Christian communities? Or to Hallam in his _Middle Ages_, where he reports concubinage in Europe? Or to Lea, who proves that thisevil was not confined to the laity? (See Gallighan, _Women underPolygamy_, pp. 43. 292. 295. 303. 330. 339. )

All that has so far been said about Luther's views on the subject ofpolygamy could be most powerfully reinforced by a review of Luther'steaching on matrimony as a divine institution, which Luther consistentlythroughout his writings regards as monogamous. But this is too wellknown to require restatement, and is really outside of the scope of thisreview, which must content itself with submitting the direct argument inrebuttal of the Catholic charge of Luther's advocacy of polygamy. Thispolygamous Luther, too, is a vision that is rendered possible onlythrough spectacles of hopeless bias. 

27. Luther Announces His Death. 

Mark Twain awoke one morning to find himself reported dead. He did notaccept the invitation suggested in the report, but wired to his friends:"Reports of my death grossly exaggerated. " Luther was placed in asimilar predicament by Catholics who were deeply interested in thequestion how long he was to continue to live. One day, in the early partof March, 1545, he was handed a printed letter in Italian whichcontained the news of his demise under curious circumstances. He thoughtthat he ought not to withhold this interesting information from theworld: he had a German translation made of the document, which hepublished with his remarks as follows:

"Copy of a Letter of the Ambassador of the Most Christian King regardinga Horrible Sign which Occurred in the Shameful Death of Martin Luther. 

"A horrible and unheard-of miracle which the blessed God has wrought inthe shameful death of Martin Luther, who went to hell, soul and body, asmay be clearly seen from a chapter of the letter of the ambassador ofthe Most Christian King, to the praise and glory of Jesus Christ and theconfirmation and comfort of the faithful. 

_"Copy of the Letter_. 

"1. Martin Luther, having been taken ill, desired the holy Sacrament ofthe body of our Lord Jesus Christ. He died immediately upon receivingit. When he saw that his sickness was very violent and he was neardeath, he prayed that his body might be placed on an altar and worshipedas Cod. But the goodness and providence of God had resolved to put anend to his great error and to silence him forever. Accordingly, God didnot omit to work this great miracle, which was very much needed, tocause the people to desist from the great, destructive, and ruinouserror which the said Luther has caused in the world. As soon as his bodyhad been placed in the grave, an awful rumbling and noise was heard, asif hell and the devils were collapsing. All present were seized with agreat fright, terror, and fear, and when they raised their eyes toheaven, they plainly saw the most holy host of our Lord Jesus Christwhich this unworthy man was permitted to receive unworthily. I affirmthat all who were present saw the most holy host visibly floating in theair. They took the most holy host very devoutly and with greatreverence, and gave it a decent place in the sanctuary. 

"2. When this had been done, no such tumult and hellish rumbling washeard any more that day. However, during the following night, at theplace where Martin Luther's corpse had been buried, there was heard byeverybody in the community a much greater confusion than the first time. The people arose and flocked together in great fear and terror. Atdaybreak they went to open the grave where the wicked body of Luther hadbeen placed. When the grave was opened, you could clearly see that therewas no body, neither flesh nor bone, nor any clothes. But such asulphuric stench rose from the grave that all who were standing aroundthe grave turned sick. On account of this miracle many have reformedtheir lives by returning to the holy Christian faith, to the honor, praise, and glory of Jesus Christ, and to the strengthening andconfirmation of His holy Christian Church, which is a pillar of truth. "

Luther appended the following comment to this pious document:

"And I, Martinus Luther, D. , do by these indentures acknowledge andtestify that I have received this angry fiction concerning my death onthe twenty-first day of March, and that I have read it with considerablepleasure and joy, except the blasphemous portion of the document inwhich this lie is attributed to the exalted majesty of God. Otherwise Ifelt quite tickled on my knee-cap and under my left heel at thisevidence how cordially the devil and his minions, the Pope and thepapists, hate me. May God turn them from the devil!

"However, if it is decreed that theirs is a sin unto death, and that myprayer is in vain, then may God grant that they fill up their measureand write nothing else but such books for their comfort and joy. Letthem run their course; they are on the right track; they want to have itso. Meanwhile I want to know how they are going to be saved, and howthey will atone for and revoke all their lies and blasphemies with whichthey have filled the world. " (21b, 3376 f. )

Similar, even more grotesque tales have been served the faithful byCatholic writers. The star production of this kind was published yearsago in the _Ohio-Waisenfreund_. It related that horrible and uncannysigns had accompanied Luther's death. Weird shrieks and noises wereheard, devils were flying about in the air; the heavens were shrouded ina pall of gloom. When the funeral cortege started from Eisleben, a vastflock of ravens had gathered and accompanied the corpse croakingincessantly and uttering dismal cries all the way to Wittenberg, etc. , etc. 

These crude stories have now been censored out of existence. Catholicsnowadays prefer to lie in a more refined and cultured manner aboutLuther's death: Luther committed suicide; he was found hanging from hisbedpost one morning. 

Comment is unnecessary. 

Luther died peacefully in the presence of friends, confessing, Christand asserting his firm allegiance to the faith he had proclaimed withhis last breath. The probable cause of his death was a stroke ofparalysis. Luther began to feel pains in the chest late in the afternoonof February 17, 1546. He bore up manfully and continued working at hisbusiness for the Count of Mansfeld who had called him to Eisleben. Aftera light evening meal he sat chatting in a cheerful mood with hiscompanions, and retired early, as was his custom in his declining years. The pains in the chest became worse, and he began to feel chilly. Medicaments were administered, and after a while he fell into a slumber, which lasted an hour. He awoke with increased pain and a feeling ofgreat congestion, which caused the death-perspiration to break out. Hewas rapidly turning cold. All this time he was praying and recitingportions from the Psalms and other texts. Three times in succession herepeated his favorite text, John 3, 16. Gradually he became peaceful, and his end was so gentle that the bystanders were in doubt whether hehad expired or was only in a swoon. They worked with him, trying torouse him, until they were convinced that he had breathed his last. TheCatholic apothecary John Landau, who had been called in while Luther wasthought to be in a swoon, helped to establish the fact of his death. 

28. Luther's View of His Slanderers. 

Luther was the subject of gross misrepresentation and vile slanderduring his lifetime: At first he used to correct erroneous reports abouthimself, usually in his polemical writings, later he merely noted themwith a brief and scornful comment, and finally ignored them altogether. He relates that he had treated many slanderous publications of Eck, Faber, Emser, Cochlaeus, and many others with silent contempt. (18, 1991; 14, 331. ) It was a physical impossibility for him to reply to allthe misleading and vicious reports that were being circulated about him. He was convinced that he must use his time and strength for morenecessary matters. His friends in many instances relieved him of theunpleasant task. Moreover, after he had answered those who had firstassailed him in the beginning of his public activity, he could afford todisregard many slanders, because they were mere repetitions. 

Luther was aware that he was probably the worst-hated man of his times. He declares his belief that in the last hundred years there has notlived a man to whom the world was more hostile than to himself. (22, 1660. ) Persons praising him, he says, are regarded as having committeda more grievous sin than any idolater, blasphemer, perjurer, fornicator, adulterer, murderer, or thief. (9, 553. ) Anything that Luther has said, he observes, is denounced as coming from the devil; what Duke George(one of his fiercest enemies), Faber, or Bucer say or do is highlyapproved, (4, 1606. ) Like Elijah, he was charged with having disturbedIsrael: before he began preaching there was peace and quiet, now all isconfusion. (9, 587. ) He is held responsible for the Peasants' Revolt andthe rise of the Sacramentarian sects. (22, 1602. ) A laborer whom hiswife had hired became drunk and committed murder; at once the rumor wasspread that Luther kept a murderer as his servant. (21b, 2225. ) What hewrites is represented as having been inspired by envy, pride, bitterness, yea, by Satan himself; those, however, who write against himare regarded as being inspired by the Holy Ghost. (18, 2005. ) Heobserves that beggars become rich, obtain favors from princes and kings, remunerative positions, honors, and bishoprics by turning against him. (18, 2005. ) Some attribute the election of Adrian VI as Pope to Luther(this Pope was believed to favor reforms: he did not last long); andLuther expects that he is helping Dr. Schmid to become a cardinalbecause he is opposing him. (19, 1347. ) Dunces become doctors, knavesbecome saints, and the most besotted characters are glorified when theytry their vile mouths and pens against Luther. (19, 1347. ) The easiestway for any man to become a canonized saint even during his lifetime, though he were a person of the stripe of a Nero or Caligula, is byhating Luther. (18, 2005. ) On the cover of the pamphlet containing hisSermon on the Sacrament Luther ordered a picture consisting of twomonstrances printed; this was promptly explained to mean that he hadadopted the Bohemian errors, for Hus had administered the Lord's Supperin both kinds. (19, 457. ) Some pretended that they could see two geesein this picture; the meaning was plain: one of them signified Hus (Husin Bohemian means goose), the other, Luther. (19, 458. )

Luther would not have been human if incidents like these had not causedhim pain. Occasionally he would give vent to his grief, but his manlycourage, too, would soon assert itself, and he would expose thehollowness, insincerity, and futility of the lying tales that werespread about him. At a public meeting in Campo Flore he was cursed, sentenced to death, and burned in effigy. (21a, 174. ) He has readoffensive reports about himself, and puts them down with the calmdeclaration: There is not a man that writes against Luther withouthaving to resort to horrible and manifest lies. (19, 583. ) He is surethat he has not had an opponent who in an argument would stick to thepoint; they all had to evade the issue. (22, 658. ) Shameful falsehoodsare canvassed about him at the court of King Ferdinand (15, 2623);Luther comforts himself with the reflection that others have sufferedthe same vilification before him, for instance, Wyclif, Hus, and others(5, 308). Besides, he is able to understand that the real reason whythe papists regard him as such a perverse and untractable person isbecause they are utterly perverse themselves. (4, 1499. )

But his sweetest comfort is in reflecting that it is his preaching whichhas brought his manifold afflictions upon him. Poor Luther is alwayswrong: the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists hate him worse than they hatethe Pope, and the Pope hates him worse than he hates other heretics, because they all fight against the Gospel which Luther preaches. (22, 1015. ) If I were to keep silent, he says, or preach as I used to do, concerning indulgences, pilgrimages, adoration of the saints, purgatory, the carnival of the Mass, I could easily keep the favor and friendshipof the great. (8, 569. ) But for the sake of the true doctrine and thosewho profess it, --whom his opponents wish to suppress, Luther is willingto suffer hatred, persecution, calumnies, and everything else that hisenemies may devise against him. (5, 587. ) What have I done, he exclaims, to deserve the enmity of the Pope and his rabble, except that I havepreached Christ? (8, 569. ) He is convinced from the papists' ownconfession that he is being persecuted for no other reason than becausehe is preaching the Gospel. (8, 399. }

Knowing the reason why he is hated, Luther glories in his tribulations. Duke George, he says, calls me a desperate, low-bred, perjured knave: Ishall consider those ugly names my emeralds, rubies, and diamonds. (19, 457. ) He would fear that there must be something wrong about histeaching if the people whom he knows would not fight against him: ifthese people do not condemn his doctrine, his doctrine cannot beacceptable to God. (10, 351. ) He prefers to have them rage against him. Their violence shall not disturb him greatly, because he has championedthe Lord's cause, and that, in all sincerity, without malice toward anyperson. (21a, 301. ) . Let the papists exhaust themselves in slandersagainst him: he knows he has the Scriptures on his side, and they havethe Scriptures against them. (5, 310. ) They intend to grind Luther topieces, not a hair of him is to remain; he knows that they will not beable to harm a hair on his head. (8, 119. )

Thus Luther thought and spoke of his detractors and defamers. Such washis comfort and his courage in the face of base calumnies and undeservedhatred. Those who know him best will continue to love him, and admirehim the more for the enemies he has made. 

--

If the reader of this book has had the sensation of a traveler in astorm-tossed vessel, he has experienced mentally what Luther faced indread reality during almost the whole of his agitated life. He had toweather many a squall, and storm, and hurricane. Outwardly his lifeseems a continuous hurly-burly. Yet there is in this man's heart a greatand holy calm. The tumult of his life is all on the surface. He remindsone of the lines in Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Hymn":

 When winds are raging o'er the upper ocean, And billows wild contend with angry roar, 'T is said, far down beneath the wild commotion, That peaceful stillness reigneth evermore. 

 Far, far beneath, the noise of tempest dieth, And silver waves chime ever peacefully, And no rude storm, how fierce soe'er it flieth, Disturbs the Sabbath of that deeper sea. 

We have had glimpses of the hidden depths in Luther's mind: his thoughtreaches down to the lowest depths of human misery, and then goes deeperstill towards the limits of God's rescuing love and conquering gracewhich human mind has never reached. For these divine profundities noplummet will ever sound. He who could surrender himself wholly to thestudy of the greatness and beauty of Luther's constructive thought wouldenjoy a spiritual luxury and be drawn into that sublime and solemn peaceof God which passes all understanding. He would behold this strenuousman; who has been shown mostly in his working-clothes in these pages, inhis holiday-attire, with that Sabbath in his heart which occurs whereverChrist is the loved and adored object of the thinker's contemplation.