{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_16322/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_16322","id":"gutenberg_16322","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/16322","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Luther, Martin, 1483-1546"],"text":"Produced by Kurt A. Bodling, Ganser Library, Millersville\nUniversity, Millersville, PA, USA\n\n\n\n\n\n\nLuther Examined and Reexamined\nA Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea\nfor Revaluation\n\nBy W.H.T. Dau,\nProfessor, Concordia Theological Seminary\n\nSt. Louis, Mo.\nConcordia Publishing House\n1917\n\nPREFACE.\nOne may deplore the pathetic courage which periodically heartens\nCatholic writers for the task of writing against Luther, but one can\nunderstand the necessity for such efforts, and, accordingly, feel a real\npity for those who make them. Attacks on Luther are demanded for\nCatholics by the law of self-preservation. A recent Catholic writer\ncorrectly says: \"There is no doubt that the religious problem to-day is\nstill the Luther problem.\" \"Almost every statement of those religious\ndoctrines which are opposed to Catholic moral teaching find their\nauthorization in the theology of Martin Luther.\"\n\nRome has never acknowledged her errors nor admitted her moral defeat.\nThe lessons of past history are wasted upon her. Rome is determined to\nassert to the end that she was not, and cannot be, vanquished. In the\nage of the Reformation, she admits, she suffered some losses, but she\nclaims that she is fast retrieving these, while Protestantism is\ndecadent and decaying. No opposition to her can hope to succeed.\n\nThis is done to bolster up Catholic courage. The intelligent Catholic\nlayman of the present day makes his own observations, and draws his own\nconclusions as to the status and the future prospect of Protestantism.\nTherefore, he must be invited to \"acquaint himself with the lifestory of\nthe man, whose followers can never explain away the anarchy of that\nimmoral dogma: 'Be a sinner, and sin boldly; but believe more boldly\nstill!' He must be shown the many hideous scenes of coarseness,\nvulgarity, obscenity, and degrading immorality in Martin Luther's life.\"\nWhen the Catholic rises from the contemplation of these scenes, it is\nhoped that his mind has become ironclad against Protestant argument.\nThese attacks upon Luther are a plea _pro domo_, the effort of a strong\nman armed to keep his palace and his goods in peace.\n\nOccurring, as they do, in this year of the Four-hundredth Anniversary of\nthe Reformation, these attacks, moreover, represent a Catholic\ncounter-demonstration to the Protestant celebration of the\nQuadricentenary of Luther's Theses. They are the customary cries of\ndissent and vigorous expressions of disgust which at a public meeting\ncome from parties in the audience that are not pleased with the speaker\non the stage. If the counter-demonstration includes in its program the\nobliging application of eggs in an advanced state of maturity to the\nspeaker, and chooses to emphasize its presence to the very nostrils of\nthe audience, that, too, is part of the prevailing custom. It is\naesthetically incorrect, to be sure, but it is in line historically with\nformer demonstrations. No Protestant celebration would seem normal\nwithout them. They help Protestants in their preparations for the\njubilee to appreciate the remarks of David in Psalm 2, 11: \"Rejoice with\ntrembling.\" And if Shakespeare was correct in the statement: \"Sweet are\nthe uses of adversity,\" they need not be altogether deplored.\n\nAn attempt is made in these pages to review the principal charges and\narguments of Catholic critics of Luther. The references to Luther's\nworks are to the St. Louis Edition; those to the Book of Concord, to the\nPeople's Edition.\n\nAuthors must be modest, and as a rule they are. In the domain of\nhistorical research there is rarely anything that is final. This\nobservation was forced upon the present writer with unusual power as the\nrich contents of his subjects opened up to him during his study. He has\nsought to be comprehensive, at least, as regards essential facts, in\nevery chapter; he does not claim that his presentation is final. He\nhopes that it may stimulate further research.\n\nThis book is frankly polemical. It had to be, or there would have been\nno need of writing it. It seeks to meet both the assertions and the\nspirit of Luther's Catholic critics. A review ought to be a mirror, and\nmirrors must reflect. But there is no malice in the author's effort.\n\nW. H. T. Dau.\n\nConcordia Seminary, St. Louis, Mo.\nMay 10, 1917.\n\n\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.\n\n   l. Luther Worship\n   2. Luther Hatred\n   3. Luther Blemishes\n   4. Luther's Task\n   5. The Popes in Luther's Time\n   6. Luther's Birth and Parentage\n   7. Luther's Great Mistake\n   8. Luther's Failure as a Monk\n   9. Professor Luther, D. D.\n   10. Luther's \"Discovery\" of the Bible\n   11. Rome and the Bible\n   12. Luther's Visit at Rome\n   13. Pastor Luther\n   14. The Case of Luther's Friend Myconius\n   15. Luther's Faith without Works\n   16. The Fatalist Luther\n   17. Luther a Teacher of Lawlessness\n   18. Luther Repudiates the Ten Commandments\n   19. Luther's Invisible Church\n   20. Luther on the God-given Supremacy of the Pope\n   21. Luther the Translator of the Bible\n   22. Luther a Preacher of Violence against the Hierarchy\n   23. Luther, Anarchist and Despot All in One\n   24. Luther the Destroyer of Liberty of Conscience\n   25. \"The Adam and Eve of the New Gospel of Concubinage\"\n   26. Luther an Advocate of Polygamy\n   27. Luther Announces His Death\n   28. Luther's View of His Slanderers\n\n\n1. Luther Worship.\n\nCatholic writers profess themselves shocked by the unblushing veneration\nwhich Luther receives from Protestants. Such epithets as \"hero of the\nReformation,\" \"angel with the everlasting Gospel flying through the\nmidst of heaven,\" \"restorer of the Christian faith,\" grate on Catholic\nnerves. Luther's sayings are cited with approval by all sorts of men.\nMen feel that their cause is greatly strengthened by having Luther on\ntheir side. Luther's name is a name to conjure with. Hardly a great man\nhas lived in the last four hundred years but has gone on record as an\nadmirer of Luther. Rome, accordingly, cries out that Luther is become\nthe uncanonized saint of Protestantism, yea, the deified expounder of\nthe evangelical faith.\n\nComing from a Church that venerates and adores and prays to--you must\nnot say \"worships\"--as many saints as there are days in the calendar,\nthis stricture is refreshing. Saints not only of questionable sanctity,\nbut of doubtful existence have been worshiped--beg pardon! venerated--\nby Catholics. What does the common law say about the prosecution coming\ninto court with clean hands? If there is such a thing among Protestants\nas \"religious veneration\" of Luther, what shall we call the veneration\nof Mary among Catholics? Pius IX, on December 8, 1854, proclaimed the\n\"immaculate conception,\" that is, the sinlessness of Mary from the very\nfirst moment of her existence, thus removing her from the sphere of\nsin-begotten humanity. In 1913, the press of the country was preparing\nits readers for another move towards the deification of Mary: her\n\"assumption\" was to be declared. That is, it was to be declared a\nCatholic dogma that the corpse of Mary did not see corruption, and was\nat the moment of her death removed to heaven. The _Pasadena Star_ of\nAugust 15th in that year wrote: \"It is now known that since his recent\nillness Pope Pius, realizing that his active pontificate is practically\nat an end, has expressed to some of the highest dignitaries of the\nCatholic Church at Rome the desire to round out his career by this last\ngreat act.\" The _Western Watchman_ of July 3d in that year had in its\ninimitable style referred to the coming dogma, thus: \"What Catholic in\nthe world to-day would say that the immaculately conceived body of\nthe Blessed Virgin was allowed to rot in the grave? The Catholic mind\nwould rebel against the thought; and death would be preferred to the\nblasphemous outrage.\" The grounds for wanting the \"assumption\" of Mary\nfixed in a dogma were these: \"Catholics believe in the bodily assumption\nof the Blessed Virgin, because their faith instinctively teaches them\nthat such a thing is possible and proper, and that settles it in favor\nof the belief. The body of our Lord should not taste corruption, neither\nshould the body that gave Him His body. The flesh that was bruised for\nour sins was the flesh of Mary. The blood that was shed for our\nsalvation was drawn from Mary's veins. It would be improper that the\nVirgin Mother should be allowed to see corruption if her Son was\nexempted from the indignity.\" If any should be so rash as to question\nthe propriety of the new dogma, the writer held out this pleasant\nprospect to them: \"Dogmas are stones at the heads of heretics. . . . The\neyes of all Catholics see aright; if they are afflicted with strabismus,\nthe Church resorts to an operation. All Catholics hear aright; if they\ndo not, the Church applies a remedy to their organ of hearing. These\nsurgical operations go under the name of dogmas.\" The world remembers\nwith what success an operation of this kind was performed on a number of\nRoman prelates, who questioned the infallibility of the Pope. The dogma\nwas simply declared in 1870, and that put a quietus to all Catholic\nscruples. Some day the \"assumption\" of Mary will be proclaimed as a\nCatholic dogma. We should not feel surprised if ultimately a dogma were\npublished to the effect that the Holy Trinity is a Holy Quartet, with\nMary as the fourth person of the Godhead.\n\nThe Roman Church is accustomed to speak of her Supreme Pontiff, the Holy\nFather, the Vicegerent of Christ, His Infallible Holiness, in terms that\nlift a human being to heights of adoration unknown among Protestants.\nFor centuries the tendency in the Roman Church to make of the Pope \"a\ngod on earth\" has been felt and expressed in Christendom.\n\nThis Church wants to preach to Protestants about the sin of man-worship!\nVerily, here we have the parable of the mote and the beam in a twentieth\ncentury edition. Catholic teachers would be the last ones, we imagine,\nwhom scrupulous Christians would choose for instructing them regarding\nthe sin of idolatry and the means to avoid it.\n\nNo Protestant regards Luther as Catholics regard Mary, not even Patrick.\nLuther has taught them too well for that. Unwittingly the Catholics\nthemselves have immortalized Luther by naming the Evangelical Church\nafter Luther. Luther declined the honor. \"I beg,\" he said, \"not to have\nmy name mentioned, and to call people not Lutheran, but Christian. What\nis Luther? The doctrine is not mine, nor have I been crucified for any\none. . . . The papists deserve to have a party-name, for they are not\ncontent with the doctrine and name of Christ; they want to be popish\nalso. Well, let them be called popish, for the Pope is their master. I\nam not, and I do not want to be, anybody's master.\" (10, 371.)\n\nIt is likely that the frequent laudatory mention of Luther's name,\nespecially in connection with the present anniversary of the\nReformation, is taken as a challenge by Catholics. If it is that, it is\nso by the choice of Catholics. It is impossible to speak of a great man\nwithout referring to the conflicts that made him great. \"He makes no\nfriend,\" says Tennyson, \"who never made a foe.\" \"The man who has no\nenemies,\" says Donn Piatt, \"has no following.\" Opposition is one of the\naccepted marks of greatness. The opposition which great men aroused\nduring their lifetime lives after them, and crops out again on a given\noccasion. This is deplorable, but it is the ordinary course. Moreover,\nit is possible that in a season of great joy like that which the\nQuadricentenary of the Reformation has ushered in orators and writers\nmay fail to put a due check on their enthusiasm and may overstate a\nfact. Such things happen even among Catholics, we believe, But they will\nbe negligible quantities in the present celebration. The proper\ncorrective for them will be provided by Protestants themselves. The vast\nmajority of those who have embraced the spiritual leadership of Luther\nin matters pertaining to Christian doctrine and morals will prove again\nthat they are in no danger of inaugurating man-worship. The spirit of\nLuther is too much alive in them for that. They will, with the Marquis\nof Brandenburg, declare: \"If I be asked whether with heart and lip I\nconfess that faith which God has restored to us by Luther as His\ninstrument, I have no scruple, nor have I a disposition to shrink from\nthe name Lutheran. Thus understood, I am, and shall to my dying hour\nremain, a Lutheran.\" They will ever be able to distinguish between the\nman Luther, prone to error and sin like any other mortal, and the Luther\nwho fought the battle of the Lord and had a mission of everlasting\nimport to the Church and the world. They have shown on numerous\noccasions that they can be friends of Luther, and yet criticize him or\ndissent from him. If they had not, there would be no Protestants whom\nCatholics can quote as \"opponents\" of Luther. On the other hand, if any\none undertakes to enlighten the public with a view of Luther,\nProtestants will insist that his estimate comport with the facts in the\ncase, and that the name of a great man who deserves well of posterity be\nnot traduced. Why, even the Catholic von Schlegel thinks Luther has not\nbeen half esteemed as he ought to be.\n\n\n2. Luther Hatred.\n\nCatholic writers have found so much to censure in the character and\nwritings of Luther that one is amazed, after reading them, how Luther\never could become regarded as a great and good man. Criminal blindness\nmust have held the eyes, not only of Luther's associates, but of his\nentire age, yea, of men for centuries after, if they failed to see\nLuther's constitutional baseness. Quite recently a Catholic writer has\ntold the world in one chapter of his book that \"the apostate monk of\nWittenberg\" was possessed of \"a violent, despotic, and uncontrolled\nnature,\" that he was \"depraved in manners and in speech.\" He speaks of\nLuther's \"ungovernable transports, riotous proceedings, angry conflicts,\nand intemperate controversies,\" of Luther's \"contempt of all the\naccepted forms of human right and all authority, human and divine,\" of\n\"his unscrupulous mendacity,\" \"his perverse principles,\" \"his wild\npronouncements.\" He calls Luther \"a lawless one,\" \"one of the most\nintolerant of men,\" \"a revolutionist, not a reformer.\" He says that\nLuther \"attempted reformation and ended in deformation.\" He charges\nLuther with having written and preached \"not for, but against good\nworks,\" with having assumed rights to himself in the matter of liberty\nof conscience which \"he unhesitatingly and imperiously denied to all who\ndiffered from him,\" with having \"rent asunder the unity of the Church,\"\nwith having \"disgraced the Church by a notoriously wicked and scandalous\nlife,\" with having \"declared it to be the right of every man to\ninterpret the Bible to his own individual conception,\" with \"one day\nproclaiming the binding force of the Ten Commandments and the next\ndeclaring they were not obligatory on Christian observance,\" with having\n\"reviled and hated and cursed the Church of his fathers.\"\n\nThese opprobrious remarks are only a part of the vileness of which the\nwriter has delivered himself in his first chapter. His whole book\nbristles with assertions of Luther's inveterate badness. This coarse and\ncrooked Luther, we are told, is the real Luther, the genuine article.\nThe Luther of history is only a Protestant fiction. Protestants like\nProf. Seeberg of Berlin, and others, who have criticized Luther, are\nintroduced as witnesses for the Catholic allegation that Luther was a\nthoroughly bad man. We should like to ascertain the feelings of these\nProtestants when they are informed what use has been made of their\nremarks about Luther. Some of them may yet let the world know what they\nthink of the attempt to make them the squires of such knights errant as\nDenifle and Grisar.\n\nIt is about ten years ago since the Jesuit Grisar began to publish his\n_Life of Luther,_ twice that time, since Denifle painted his caricature\nof Luther. Several generations ago Janssen, in his _History of the\nGerman Nation,_ gave the Catholic interpretation of Luther and the\nReformation. Going back still further, we come to the Jesuit Maimbourg,\nto Witzel, and in Luther's own time to Cochlaeus and Oldecop, all of\nwhom strove to convince the world that Luther was a moral degenerate and\na reprobate. The book of Mgr. O'Hare, which has made its appearance on\nthe eve of the Four-hundredth Anniversary of Luther's Theses, is merely\nanother eruption from the same mud volcano that became active in\nLuther's lifetime. It is the old dirt that has come forth. Rome must\nperiodically relieve itself in this manner, or burst. Rome hated the\nliving Luther, and cannot forget him since he is dead. It hates him\nstill. Its hatred is become full-grown, robust, vigorous with the\nadvancing years. When Rome speaks its mind about Luther, it cannot but\nspeak in terms of malignant scorn. If Luther could read Mgr. O'Hare's\nbook, he would say: \"Wes das Herz voll ist, des gehet der Mund ueber.\"\n(Matt. 12, 34: \"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.\")\n\nLuther has done one thing which Rome will never pardon: he dared to\nattack the supreme authority of the Pope. He made men see the\nignominious bondage in which cunning priests had ensnared them, and by\nrestoring them to the liberty with which Christ had made them free\nLuther caused the papacy an irreparable loss. The papal system of\nteaching and government was so thoroughly exposed by Luther, and has\nsince been so completely disavowed by a great part of professing\nChristians that Rome cannot practise its old frauds any longer. Men have\nbecome extremely wary of Rome. That is what hurts. The Catholic writer\nto whom we referred sums up the situation thus: Since Luther \"all\nProtestant mankind descending by ordinary generation have come into the\nworld with a mentality biased, perverted, and prejudiced.\" That is\nRome's way of looking at the matter. The truth is: the world is\nforewarned, hence forearmed against the pleas of Rome. It pays only an\nindifferent attention to vilifications of Luther that come from that\nquarter, because it expects no encomiums and only scant justice for\nLuther from Rome. But it is the business of the teachers of Protestant\nprinciples in religion, particularly of the church historians of\nProtestantism, to take notice of the campaign of slander that is\nlaunched against Luther by Catholic writers at convenient intervals. It\nis not a task to delight the soul, rather to try the patience, of\nChristians. For in the study of the causes for these calumnies against a\ngreat man of history, and of the possible means for their removal, one\nis forced invariably to the conclusion that there is but one cause, and\nthat is hatred. What can poor mortal man do to break down such a cause?\nIt does not yield to logic and historical facts, because it is in its\nvery nature unreasoning and unreasonable.\n\nStill, for the hour that God sends to all the Sauls that roam the earth\nbreathing threatening and slaughter, the counter arguments should be\nready. No slander against Luther has ever gone unanswered. As the\ncharges against Luther have become stereotyped, so the rejoinder cannot\nhope to bring forward any new facts. But it seems necessary that each\ngeneration in the Church Militant be put through the old drills, and\nlearn its fruitful lessons of spiritual adversity. Thus even these\npolemical exchanges between Catholics and Protestants become blessings\nin disguise. But they do not affect Luther. The sublime figure of the\ncourageous confessor of Christ that has stood towering in the annals of\nthe Christian Church for four hundred years stands unshaken, silent, and\ngrand, despite the froth that is dashed against its base and the\nlightning from angry clouds that strikes its top. \"Surely, the wrath of\nman shall praise thee.\" (Ps. 76, 10.)\n\n\n3. Luther Blemishes.\n\nWhen Luther is charged with immoral conduct, and the specific facts\ntogether with the documentary evidence are not submitted along with the\ncharge, little can be done in the way of rebuttal. One can only guess at\nthe grounds on which the charge is based. For instance, when Luther is\nsaid to have disgraced the Church by a notoriously wicked and scandalous\nlife, the reason is most likely because he married although he was a\nmonk sworn to remain single. Moreover, he married a noble lady who was a\nnun, also sworn to celibacy. According to the inscrutable ethics of Rome\nthis is concubinage, although the Scripture plainly declares that a\nminister of the Church should be the husband of one wife, 1 Tim. 3, 2,\nand no vows can annul the ordinance and commandment of God: \"It is not\ngood that man should be alone.\" Gen. 2, 18. Comp. 1 Cor. 7, 2, and\nAugsburg Confession, Art. 27.\n\nWhen Luther is said to have reviled, hated, and cursed the Church of his\nfathers, the probable reason is, because he wrote the _Babylonian\nCaptivity of the Church_ and _The Papacy at Rome Founded by the Devil_.\nIn these writings Luther depicts the true antichristian inwardness of\nthe papacy. By so doing, however, Luther restored the Church of his\nfathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers in Christ down to the first\nancestor of our race. Luther's faith is none other than the faith of the\ntrue Church in all the ages. Luther's own father and mother died in that\nfaith.\n\nWhen Luther is said to have taught Nietzsche's insanity about the\n\"Superhuman\" (Uebermensch) before Nietzsche, to have put the Ten\nCommandments out of commission for Christians, and to have preached\nagainst good works, the reasons most likely are these: Luther taught\nsalvation in accordance with Rom. 3, 25: \"We conclude that a man is\njustified by faith, without the deeds of the Law.\" Luther taught that a\nperson is not saved by his own works, and if he performs good works with\nthat end in view, he shames his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, who is the\nend of the Law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Rom. 10,\n4), and he falls under the curse of God for placing his own merits\nalongside of the merit of the Redeemer's sacrifice. In no other\nconnection has Luther spoken against good works. He has rather taught\nmen how to become fruitful in well-doing by the sanctifying grace of God\nand according to the inspiring example of the matchless Jesus.\nConcerning the Law, Luther preached 1 Tim. 1, 9: \"The Law is not made\nfor a righteous man,\" that is, Christians do the works of the Law, not\nfor the Law's sake, but for the sake of Christ, whom they love and whose\nmind is in them. They must not be driven like slaves to obey God, but\ntheir very faith prompts them to live soberly, righteously, and godly in\nthis present world (Tit. 2, 12). But Luther always held that the rule\nfor good works is laid down in the holy Law of God, and only in that;\nalso that the Law must be applied to Christians, in as far as they still\nlive in, the flesh, and are not become altogether spiritual. Luther's\npublic activity as a preacher began with a series of sermons on the Ten\nCommandments, and this effort to expound the divine norm of\nrighteousness was repeated several times during Luther's life. Luther's\nexpositions of the Decalog are among the finest that the world\npossesses. Moreover, Luther wrote the Small Catechism. Hand any Catholic\nwho talks about Luther having abolished the Ten Commandments this little\nbook. That is a sufficient refutation. What Luther teaches in this book\nhe has given his life to reduce to practise in himself and others. He\nsays in a sermon on Easter Monday, 1530: \"When rising in the morning, I\npray with my children the Ten Commandments, the Creed, the Lord's\nPrayer, and some Psalm. I do this because I want to make myself cling to\nthese truths. I shall not suffer my faith to become mildewed with the\nimagination that I am above these things (_dass ich's koenne_).\" His\nsermon on the First Sunday in Advent in the same year he begins thus:\n\"Dear friends, I am now an old Doctor, still I find every day that I\nmust recite with the children the Ten Commandments, the Creed, and the\nLord's Prayer, and I have always derived a great benefit and blessing\nfrom this practise.\" (12, 1611. 1641.)\n\nLuther is charged with mendacity, that is, he is said to have lied. The\nreasons that will be given for this charge, when called for, will\nprobably be these: Luther at various times in his life gave three\ndifferent years as the year of his birth, three different years as the\nyear when he made his journey to Rome, and advised somebody in 1512 to\nbecome a monk when he had already commenced to denounce the monastic\nlife: It is true that Luther did all these things, but it is also true\nthat Luther believed himself right in each of his statements. He was\nsimply mistaken. Other people have misstated the year of their birth\nwithout being branded liars on that account. Sometimes even a professor\nforgets things, and Luther was a professor. What Luther has said about\nthe rigor of his monastic life is perfectly true, but it was no reason\nwhy in 1512 he should counsel men to become monks. He had not yet come\nto the full knowledge of the wrong principles underlying that mode of\nlife. To adduce such inaccuracies as evidence of prevarication is itself\nan insincere act and puts the claimant by right in the Ananias Club.\n\nLuther is said to have been a glutton and a drunkard. \"Let us examine\nthe facts. What is the evidence? Luther's obesity and his gout. Is that\nevidence? Not in any court. It would be evidence if both conditions were\ncaused, and caused only, by gluttony and tippling. But this notoriously\nis not the case. Obesity may be due to disease. A man may even eat\nlittle and wax stout if what he eats turns into adipose rather than into\nmuscular tissue. As for gout, it is the result of uric acid diathesis.\nNow uric acid diathesis may be, and very often is, caused by high\nliving, but often, too, it is due to quite different causes. Just as in\nthe case of Bright's disease. I do not deny that Luther drank freely\nboth beer and wine. So did everybody else. People drank beer as we do\ncoffee. . . . Moreover, in the sixteenth century alcoholic beverages\nwere prescribed for the maladies from which Luther suffered much--kidneys\nand nervous trouble. We now know that in such cases alcohol proves a\nvery poison; but this Luther could not know. But intemperate . . . in\nhis use of strong drink Luther was not. Neither was he a glutton. Before\nhe married, he ate very irregularly, and often completely forgot his\nmeals. When he could not get meat and wine, he contented himself with\nbread and water. . . . Melanchthon tells us that Luther loved the coarse\nfood as he did the coarse speech of the peasantry, and even of that food\nate little, so little that Melanchthon marveled how Luther could\nmaintain strength upon such a diet.--It is further a noteworthy fact\nthat, when we read the sermons of the day, we find nobody who so\nfrequently and so earnestly attacks the prevailing vice of drunkenness\nas does Luther. Now, whatever Luther may or may not have been, hypocrite\nhe was not. Had he himself been intemperate, he would not have preached\nagainst it in such a manner. Furthermore, Luther was under constant\nespionage. His every move was noted. People knew how many patches there\nwere on his undergarments. Think you, think you for a moment, that the\nWittenbergians would have listened meekly to Luther's repeated assaults\nupon the wide-spread sin of intemperance, had they known him for a\nconfirmed tippler? It is too absurd.--But the best evidence for the\ndefense comes from a mute witness--Luther's industry. He wrote more than\nfour hundred books, brochures, sermons, and so forth, filling more than\none hundred volumes of the Erlangen edition. There are extant more than\nthree thousand of his letters, which represent only a small proportion\nof all that he wrote. Thus we know, for example, that one evening in\n1544 Luther wrote ten letters, of which only two have been preserved. He\nwas, furthermore, in frequent conference with leaders in both Church and\nState. He preached on Sundays and lectured on week-days. Now, a man may,\nit is true, perform a considerable amount of manual labor even after\novereating and overdrinking, but every physician will admit the\ncorrectness of my assertion, it is a physiological impossibility that a\nman could habitually overindulge in food or liquor, or both, and still\nget over the enormous amount of intellectual work that Luther performed\nday to day\" (Boehmer, _The Man Luther,_ p. 16 f.)\n\nMost shameless have been the charges of lewdness and immorality against\nLuther. His relation to Frau Cotta has been represented as impure. Think\nof it, a boy of sixteen to eighteen thus related to an honorable\nhousewife! Illegitimate children have been foisted upon him. A humorous\nremark about his intention to marry and being unable to choose between\nseveral eligible parties has been twisted into an immoral meaning. The\nfact that he gave shelter overnight to a number of escaped nuns, when he\nwas already a married man, has been meaningly referred to. Boehmer has\nexhaustively gone into these charges, examining without flinching every\nasserted fact cited in evidence of Luther's moral corruptness, and has\nshown the purity of Luther as being above reproach. Not one of the\nsexual vagaries imputed to Luther rests on a basis of fact. (Boehmer,\n_Luther in Light of Recent Research,_ pp. 215-223.)\n\nWhen the modern reader meets with a general charge of badness, or even\nwith the assertion of some specific form of badness, in Luther, he\nshould inquire at once to what particular incident in Luther's life\nreference is made. These charges have all been examined and the evidence\nsifted, and that by impartial investigators. Protestants have taken the\nlead in this work and have not glossed anything over. Boehmer's able\ntreatise has been translated into English. Walther's _Fuer Luther wider\nRom_ will, no doubt, be given the public in an English edition soon.\nWorks like these have long blasted the claim of Catholics that\nProtestants are afraid to have the truth told about Luther. They only\ndemand that the _truth_ be told.\n\n\n4. Luther's Task.\n\nOne blemish in the character of Luther that is often cited with\ncondemnation even by Protestants deserves to be examined separately. It\nis Luther's violence in controversy, his coarse language, his angry\nmoods. All will agree that violence and coarse speech must not be\ncountenanced in Christians, least of all in teachers of Christianity. In\nthe writings of Luther there occur terms, phrases, passages that sound\nrepulsive. The strongest admirer of Luther will have moments when he\nwishes certain things could have been said differently. Luther's\nlanguage cannot be repeated in our times. Some who have tried to do that\nin all sincerity have found to their dismay that they were wholly\nmisunderstood. What Jove may do any ox may not do, says an old Latin\nproverb.\n\nShall we, then, admit Luther's fault and proceed to apologize for him\nand find plausible reasons for extenuating his indiscretions in speech\nand his temperamental faults? We shall do neither. We shall let this\n\"foul-mouthed,\" coarse Luther stand before the bar of public opinion\njust as he is. His way cannot be our way, but ultimately none of us will\nbe his final judges. The character of the duties which Luther was sent\nto perform must be his justification.\n\nIt is true, indeed, that the manners of the age of Luther were generally\nrough. Even in polite society language was freely used that would make\nus gasp. Coarse terms evidently were not felt to be such. In their\npolemical writings the learned men of the age seem to exhaust a\nzoological park in their frantic search for striking epithets to hurl at\ntheir opponent. It was an age of strong feeling and sturdy diction. It\nis also true that Luther was a man of the people. With a sort of homely\npride he used to declare: \"I am a peasant's son; all my forbears were\npeasants.\" But all this does not sufficiently explain Luther's\n\"coarseness.\"\n\nMost people that criticize Luther for his strong speech have read little\nelse of Luther. They are not aware that in the, great mass of his\nwritings there is but a small proportion of matter that would nowadays\nbe declared objectionable. Luther speaks through many pages, yea,\nthrough whole books, with perfect calmness. It is interesting to observe\nhow he develops a thought, illustrates a point by an episode from\nhistory or from every-day life, urges a lesson with a lively\nexhortation. He is pleasant, gentle, serious, compassionate, artlessly\neloquent, and, withal, perfectly pure in all he says. When Luther\nbecomes \"coarse,\" there is a reason. One must have read much in Luther,\none should have read all of Luther, and his \"billingsgate\" will assume a\ndifferent meaning. If there is madness in his reckless speech, there is\nmethod in it. One must try and understand Luther's objective and\npurpose.\n\nLuther had a very coarse subject to deal with, and Luther believed that\na spade is best called a spade. Luther never struck at wickedness with\nthe straw of a fine circumlocution. He believed that he had the right,\nyea, the duty, to call coarse things by coarse names; for the Bible does\nthe same. Luther has called the gentlemen at the Pope's court in his day\nsome very descriptive names. He did not merely insinuate that the\ncardinals of his day were no angels, but said outright what they were.\nHe did not feebly question the holiness of His Holiness, but he called\nsome of the Popes monsters of iniquity and reprobates. We shall show\nanon that in that age there lived men who spoke of the same matters as\nLuther, who told tales and used expressions that would render their\nwritings unmailable to-day.\n\nThe great men of any age are products of that age. Man is as much the\ncreature of circumstances as circumstances are the creatures of men--\nDisraeli to the contrary notwithstanding. While men may create\nsituations, they may also be made to fit into a situation. Men have\nbecome great for this very reason that they understand the spirit of\ntheir age and were able to respond to its call. Back of both men and\ncircumstances, however, stands sovereign Providence, shaping our ends,\nrough-hew them how we will.\n\nNo character-study is just that fails to take into consideration the\nforce of circumstances under which the subject of the study has acted at\na given moment in his life. In the case of Luther there is a more than\nordinary necessity for adopting this equitable method; for Luther has\ndeclared hundreds of times that his stirring utterances and incisive\ndeeds were not the result of long premeditation, or the sudden outbursts\nof uncontrolled passion,--though neither he nor we would have any\ninterest in denying that he could be angry and did become angry,--but\nthe answer to crying needs of the times. This answer was on many a\nsignal occasion wrung from Luther after much wrestling with God in\nprayer. He was moved to action by the heroism of that faith which had\nbeen kindled in him. He acted in harmony with the particular issue with\nwhich he was called upon to deal. Deep compassion at the sight of his\nsuffering fellow-men put strong language on his lips. Between  the\npleading of friends and the storming of enemies he had no choice but to\nact as he did. Luther often seems unconscious of the greatness of his\nacts: he speaks of them as \"his poor way of doing things,\" and invites\nothers to improve what he has attempted. We fear that many in our day\nfail to see the greatness of the achievement while they stricture the\nmanner of achieving it.\n\nFew men have so utterly lived for a cause, in a cause, and with a cause\nas Luther. It is the heart of an entire people that cries out through\nLuther; it is the soul of outraged Christianity that moans in anguish,\nand speaks with the majesty of righteous anger through Luther. An age of\nunparalleled ferment that had begun long before Luther has reached its\nculminating point, and lifts up its strident voice of long-restrained\nexpostulation through Luther. Remove the conditions under which Luther\nhad to live and labor, and the Luther whom men bless or curse becomes an\nimpossibility.\n\nIn Luther's life-work there is discernible the influence not only of\ngood men, such as the scholarly Melanchthon, the faithful Jonas, the\nfirm and kind Saxon electors, the eager Amsdorf, the alert Link, but\nalso of evil men like the blunt Tetzel, the wily Prierias, and the horde\nof ignorant monks which the monasteries and chancelleries of Rome let\nloose upon one man. The course which Luther had to pursue was shaped for\nhim by others. We do not mean to suggest that Luther in his polemical\nwritings employed the cheap method of replying to the coarse language\nadopted by his opponents in similar language; but it is fair to him that\nthis fact be recorded. Some people remember very well that Luther\naddressed the Pope \"Most hellish father!\" and are horrified, but they\nforget that the Pope had been extremely lurid in the appellatives which\nhe applied to Luther. \"Child of Belial,\" \"son of perdition,\" were some\nof the endearing terms with which Luther was to be assured of the loving\ninterest the Holy Father took in him. That Luther called Henry VIII \"a\ndamnable and rotten worm\" seems to be well remembered, but that the\nBritish king had called Luther \"a wolf of hell\" is forgotten. It goes\nwithout saying that the contact with such opponents did for Luther what\nit does for every person who is not made of granite and cast iron: it\nroused his temper. It should not have been permitted to do that, we say.\nAssuredly. Luther thinks so too, but with a reservation, as we shall\nlearn.\n\nThe \"imperious spirit\" and \"violent measures\" charged against Luther a\ncareful reader of history will rather find on the side of Luther's\nopponents. They plainly relied on the power of Rome to crush Luther by\nbrute force. What respect could a plain, honest man like Luther conceive\nfor men like Cajetanus, Eck, and Hoogstraten, who were first sent by the\nVatican to negotiate his surrender? For publishing simple Bible-truth\nthe cardinal at Augsburg roared and bellowed at him, \"Recant! Recant!\"\nEven at this early stage of the affair matters assumed such an ominous\naspect that Luther's friends urged him to quietly leave the city. They\ndid not trust the amicable gentleman from the polished circle of the\nPope's immediate counselors. At Leipzig, Eck had been driven into the\ncorner by Luther's unanswerable arguments from Scripture; then he turned\nto abuse and called Luther a Bohemian and a Hussite, and finally left\nthe hall with the air of a victor to celebrate his achievement in the\ntaverns and brothels of the city, where he found his customary delights\nlearned from his masters at Rome. Can any language of contempt in which\nLuther afterwards spoke of this doughty champion of Rome be too strong?\nAmong the attendants at the Leipzig Debate was Hoogstraten. This\ngentleman followed the elevating profession of torturing and burning\nheretics in Germany,--the territory especially assigned to him. It\nlooked as if he had come to Leipzig to follow up Eck's verbal thunder\nwith the inquisitorial lightning, and make of Luther actually another\nHus. When he found that he would not have an opportunity for plying his\nhideous trade this time, he ventured into territory where he was a\nstranger: he attempted a theological argument with Luther. He asserted\nthat by denying the primacy of the Pope, Luther had contradicted the\nScriptures and defied the Council of Nice, and must be suppressed.\nLuther called him an unsophisticated ass and a bloodthirsty enemy of the\ntruth. Certainly, that does not sound nice, but such things happen, as a\nrule, when fools rush in where angels fear to tread.\n\nWhat was the papal bull of excommunication against Luther, with its list\nof most opprobrious terms, but an unwarranted provocation of Luther, who\nhad a right to expect different treatment from the foremost teacher of\nChristianity to whom he had entrusted his just grievance as a dutiful\nson of the Church? Thus we might go on for pages citing instances of\nreckless attack upon Luther, often by most unworthy persons, that drew\nfrom Luther a reply such as his assailants deserved.\n\nIt is a gratuitous criticism to say that Christians must not revile when\nthey are reviled. Those who think that Luther did not know this rule of\nthe Christian religion, or did not apply it to himself, do not know the\nfull story of his life. He certainly did wrestle with the flesh and\nblood in himself. He sighed for peace, but the moment he seemed to\nbecome conciliatory and pacific, his enemies set up a shout that he was\nvanquished. It seemed that they could not be made to comprehend the\nissues confronting them unless they were blown in upon them on the wings\nof a hurricane. As early as 1520 Luther replies to an anxious letter of\nSpalatin, who thought that Luther had used too strong language against\nthe Bishop of Meissen, as follows: \"Good God! how excited you are, my\nSpalatin! You seem even more stirred up than I and the others. Do you\nnot see that my patience in not replying to Emser's and Eck's five or\nsix wagonloads of curses is the sole reason why the framers of this\ndocument have dared to attack me with such silly and ridiculous\nnonsense? For you know how little I cared that my sermon at Leipzig was\ncondemned and suppressed by a public edict; how I despised suspicion,\ninfamy, injury, hatred. Must these audacious persons even be permitted\nto add to these follies scandalous pamphlets crammed full of falsehoods\nand blasphemies against Gospel-truth? Do you forbid even to bark at\nthese wolves? The Lord is my witness how I restrained myself lest I\nshould not treat with reverence this accursed and most impotent document\nissued in the bishop's name. Otherwise I should have said things those\nheads ought to hear, and I will yet, when they acknowledge their\nauthorship by beginning to defend themselves. I beg, if you think\nrightly of the Gospel, do not imagine its cause can be accomplished\nwithout tumult, scandal, and sedition. Out of the sword you cannot make\na feather, nor out of war, peace. The Word of God is a sword, war, ruin,\ndestruction, poison, and, as Amos says, it meets the children of Ephraim\nlike a bear in the way and a lioness in the woods.--I cannot deny that I\nhave been more vehement than is seemly. But since they knew this, they\nought not to have stirred up the dog. How difficult it is to temper\none's passions and one's pen you can judge even from your own case. This\nis the reason I have always disliked to engage in public controversy;\nbut the more I dislike it, the more I am involved against my will, and\nthat only by the most atrocious slanders brought against me and the Word\nof God. If I were not carried away thereby either in temper or pen, even\na heart of stone would be moved by the indignity of the thing to take up\narms; and how much more I, who am both passionate and possessed of a pen\nnot altogether blunt! By these monstrosities I am driven beyond modesty\nand decorum. At the same time, I wonder where this new religion came\nfrom, that whatever you say against an adversary is slander. What do you\nthink of Christ? Was He a slanderer when He called the Jews an\nadulterous and perverse generation, the offspring of vipers, hypocrites,\nsons of the devil? And what about Paul when he used the words dogs, vain\nbabblers, seducers, ignorant, and in Acts 13 so inveighed against a\nfalse prophet that he seems almost insane: `Oh, thou full of deceit and\nof all craft, thou son of the devil, enemy of the truth'? Why did he not\ngently flatter him, that he might convert him, rather than thunder in\nsuch a way? It is not possible, if acquainted with the truth, to be\npatient with inflexible and ungovernable enemies of the truth. But\nenough of this nonsense. I see that everybody wishes I were gentle,\nespecially my enemies, who show themselves least so of all. If I am too\nlittle gentle, I am at least simple and open, and therein, as I believe,\nsurpass them, for they dispute only in a deceitful fashion.\" (19, 482 f.\nTranslation by McGiffert.)\n\nNobody should make Luther any better than he makes himself. Still, the\nquestion is pertinent whether violent polemics can ever be engaged in by\nChristians with a good conscience. Luther has asserted that, while he\nhurled his terrible denunciations against the adversaries of the truth,\nhis heart was disposed to friendship and peace with them. (16, 1718 f.)\nIs a state of mind like this altogether inconceivable, viz., that a\nperson can curse another for a certain act and at the same time love\nhim? We think not. In his day this boisterous, turbulent Luther was\nunderstood, trusted, and loved by the people. After the publication of\nthe Theses against Tetzel \"the hearts of men in all parts of the land\nturned toward him, and his heart turned toward them. For the religious\nprinciples underlying the theses they cared little, for the arguments\nsustaining them still less. They saw only that here was a man, muzzled\nby none of the prudential considerations closing the mouths of many in\nhigh places, who dared to speak his mind plainly and emphatically, and\nwas able to speak it intelligently and with effect upon a great and\ngrowing evil deplored by multitudes. It is such a man the people love\nand such a man they trust.\" (McGiffert, _Luther,_ p. 98 f.)\n\nMcGiffert has the right perception of the Luther of 1517-1519 when he\ndescribes him as \"the awakening reformer,\" thus: \"He had the true\nreformer's conscience--the sense of responsibility for others as well as\nfor himself, and the true reformer's vision of the better things that\nought to be. He was never a mere faultfinder, but he was endowed with\nthe gifts of imagination and sympathy, leading him to feel himself a\npart of every situation he was placed in, and with the irrepressible\nimpulse to action driving him to take upon himself the burden of it. In\nany crowd of bystanders he would have been first to go to the rescue\nwhere need was, and quickest to see the need not obvious to all. The\naloofness of the mere observer was not his; he was too completely one\nwith all he saw to stand apart and let it go its way alone. Fearful and\ndistrustful of himself he long was, but his timidity was only the\nnatural shrinking before new and untried duties of a soul that saw more\nclearly and felt more keenly than most. The imperative demands\ninevitably made upon him by every situation led him instinctively to\ndread putting himself where he could not help responding to the call of\nunfamiliar tasks; but once there, the summons was irresistible, and he\nthrew himself into the new responsibilities with a forgetfulness of self\npossible only to him who has denied its claims, and with a fearlessness\npossible only to him who has conquered fear. He might interpret his\nconfidence as trust in God, won by the path of a complete contempt of\nhis own powers; but however understood, it gave him an independence and\na disregard of consequences which made his conscience and his vision\neffective for reform.\"\n\nMcGiffert suggests a comparison of Luther with, let us say, Erasmus. Had\nhe been a humanist, he would have laughed the whole thing [Tetzel's\nselling of indulgences] to scorn as an exploded superstition beneath the\ncontempt of an intelligent man; had he been a scholastic theologian, he\nwould have sat in his study and drawn fine distinctions to justify the\ntraffic without bothering himself about its influence upon the lives of\nthe vulgar populace. But he was neither humanist nor schoolman. He had a\nconscience which made indifference impossible, and a simplicity and\ndirectness of vision which compelled him to brush aside all equivocation\nand go straight to the heart of things. With it all he was at once a\ndevout and believing son of the Church, and a practical preacher\nprofoundly concerned for the spiritual and moral welfare of the common\npeople.\" (p. 66f. 87.) Had Luther considered his personal interests as\nErasmus did, he would not have become the Luther that we know. Erasmus\nin his day was regarded as the wisest of men; Luther in his own view,\nlike Paul, frequently had to make a fool of himself in order to achieve\nhis purpose. For instance, when he wrote against the dullards at the\nUniversity of Louvain, against the sacrilegious coterie at Rome that was\nrunning the Church and the world pretty much as they pleased, or against\nthe brutal \"Hans Wurst\" (Duke Henry of Brunswick). Erasmus and his\nschool of gentle reformers always counseled a slackening of the pace and\nthe use of the soft pedal. Where is Erasmus to-day in the world's\nvaluation? Even Rome, in whose bosom he nestled, and who fondled him for\na season, has cast him aside as worthless. Luther lives yet, to the\ndelight not only of Coleridge, but of millions of the world's best men,\nwho, with the British divine, regard him this very hour as \"a purifying\nand preserving spirit to Christianity at large.\"\n\nLuther was conscious of the difference in the method of warfare between\nhimself and his colaborer Melanchthon. He says: \"I am rough, boisterous,\nstormy, and altogether warlike. I am born to fight against innumerable\nmonsters and devils. I must remove stumps and stones, cut away thistles\nand thorns, and clear wild forests; but Master Philip comes along softly\nand gently, sowing and watering with joy, according to the gifts which\nGod has abundantly bestowed upon him,\" (14, 176.)\n\nDr. Tholuck, writing on \"Luther's rashness,\" says: \"What would have\nbecome of the Church if the Lord's servants and prophets had at all\ntimes done nothing else than spread salves upon sores and walk softly?\"\nHe introduces Luther in his own defense: \"On one occasion, when asked by\nthe Marquis Joachim I why he wrote against the princes, he returned the\nbeautiful answer: 'When God intends to fertilize the ground, He must\nneeds send first of all a good thunderstorm, and afterwards slow and\ngentle rain, and thus make it thoroughly productive.' Elsewhere he says:\n'A willow-branch may be cut with a knife and bent with a finger, but for\na great and gnarled oak we must use an ax and a wedge'; and again: 'If\nmy teeth had been less sharp, the Pope would have been more voracious.'\n'Of what use is salt,' he exclaims in another passage, 'if it do not\nbite the tongue? or the blade of a sword unless it be sharp enough to\ncut? Does not the prophet say, \"Cursed be he that doeth the work of the\nLord deceitfully, and keepeth back his sword from blood\"?'\"\n\nOne reflection suggests itself in this connection that goes far to\nexonerate Luther: the language which the Bible employs against heretics\nand ungodly men. It calls them dogs, Ps. 22, 20; 59, 6; Is. 56, 10;\nMatt. 7, 6; Phil. 3, 2; Rev. 22, 15; swine, Matt. 7, 6; boars and wild\nbeasts, Ps. 80, 13; dromedaries and asses, Jer. 2, 23f.; bullocks, Jer.\n31, 18; bellowing bulls, Jer. 50, 11; viper's brood, Matt. 3, 7; foxes,\nCant. 2, 5; Luke 13, 32; serpents, Matt. 23, 33; sons of Belial, 1 Sam.\n2, 12; children of the devil, Acts 13, 10; Satan's synagog, Rev. 2, 9.\nAs regards its language, the Bible, too, agrees with the conditions of\nthe times in which it was written. When God, to express His righteous\nanger, addresses the ungodly in such terms of utter contempt, He teaches\nus how to regard them and, on occasion, to speak of them. This \"coarse\"\nLuther is not more vehement and repulsive in his speech than the holy\nWord of God.\n\nWe remarked before that we would not apologize for Luther's rashness and\ncoarse speech. Luther's acts are self-vindicating; they will approve\nthemselves to the discriminating judgment of every reader of history. We\ncan appreciate this sentiment of McGiffert : \"As well apologize for the\nfury of the wind as for the vehemence of Martin Luther.\" The Psalmist\ncalls upon the forces of nature: \"Praise the Lord, fire, and hail; snow\nand vapors; stormy wind fulfilling His word.\" (Ps. 148, 7. 8.) God has a\nmission that our philosophy does not fathom for the mad hurry and\ndestruction of the whirlwind. How silly it would be to criticize a\ncyclone because it is not a zephyr! We can imagine a scene like this:\nThe battle of Gettysburg is in progress and a gentle lady is permitted\nto see it from a distance by a grim, warlike guide, and the following\nconversation ensues:\n\n\"Why, they are shooting at each other! Did you see that naughty man stab\nthe pretty soldier right through his uniform?\"\n\n\"Yes, madam, that is what he is there for.\"\n\n\"But is it not horrid?\"\n\n\"Yes, madam, it is perfectly horrid. It is hell.\"\n\n\"But what are they doing this beastly work for?\"\n\n\"Madam, they are fighting for a principle that is to keep this country a\nunited republic.\"\n\n\"Can anything be more horrid?--I mean, not the principle, but this awful\nbutchery.\"\n\n\"Yes, madam, there is something more horrid than that.\"\n\n\"What is it?\"\n\n\"If there would be no one to fight for that principle.\"\n\nWar is never a pleasant affair. When men are forced to fight for what is\ndearer to them than life, they will strike hard and deep. It is silly to\nexpect a soldier to walk up to his enemy with a fly brush and shoo him\naway, or to stop and consider what posterity would probably regard as\nthe least objectionable way for dispatching an enemy. Luther was called\nto be a warrior; he had to use warriors' methods. Any general in a\nbloody campaign can be criticized for violence with as much reason as is\nshown by some critics of Luther.\n\n\n5. The Popes in Luther's Time.\n\nTo judge intelligently the activity of Luther it is necessary to\nunderstand the state of the Church in his day and the character of the\nchief bishops of the Church. When reading modern censures of Luther's\nattacks upon the papacy, one wonders why nothing is said about the thing\nthat Luther attacked. Catholic critics of Luther surely must know what\npapal filth lies accumulated in the _Commentarii di Marino Sanuto,_ in\nAlegretto Alegretti's _Diari Sanesi,_ in the _Relazione di Polo\nCapello,_ in the _Diario de Sebastiano di Branca de Tilini,_ in the\n_Successo di la Morte di Papa Alessandro,_ in Tommaso Inghirami's _Fea,\nNotizie Intorno Rafaele Sanzio da Urbino,_ and others. Ranke worked with\nthese authorities when he wrote his _History of the Popes_. What about\nthe authorities which Gieseler cites in his _Ecclesiastical History_--\nMuratori, Fabronius, Machiavelli, Sabellicus, Raynaldus, Eccardus,\nBurchardus, etc.? A compassionate age has relegated the exact account of\nthe moral state of the papacy in Luther's days to learned works, and\neven in these they are given mostly in Latin footnotes. In the language\nof Augustus Birrell, they are \"too coarse.\"\n\nLuther's life (1483-1546) falls into the administration of nine Popes:\nSixtus IV, 1471-1484; Innocent VIII, 1484-1492; Alexander VI, 1492-1503;\nPius III, 26 days in 1503; Julius II, 1503-1513; Leo X, 1513-1521;\nHadrian VI, 1522-1523; Clement VII, 1523-1534; Paul III, 1534-1549.\n\nSpeaking of this series of Popes, the historian Gieseler says: \"The\nsuccession of Popes which now follows proves the degeneracy of the\ncardinals (from among whom the Pope is chosen) as to all discipline and\nsense of shame: they were distinguished for nothing but undisguised\nmeanness and wickedness; they were reprobates.\"\n\nOf Sixtus IV he says: \"His chief motive was the small ambition to raise\nhis family from their low estate to the highest rank.\" Infamous\ntransactions which resulted in the murder of Julian de Medici while at\nhigh mass in church and the hanging of the archbishop of Pisa from a\nwindow of the town hall by the exasperated people, wars, conspiracies,\nalliances, annulments of alliances, in short, all the acts that fill up\nthe turbulent life of a crafty and grasping politician, are recorded for\nhis administration. He did not scruple to employ the authority of his\nexalted office for the furtherance of his political schemes. Thus he\nexcommunicated Venice and formed a warlike alliance against the city.\nBut the Venetians regarded his religious thunderbolts as little as his\nphysical prowess. \"Vexation at this hastened the death of the Pope, who\nwas hated as much as he was despised.\"\n\nRanke, on the authority of Alegretti, relates of Pope Sixtus IV: \"The\nColonna family, opponents of the Pope's nephew Riario, was persecuted by\nhim with the most savage ferocity. He seized on their domain of Marino,\nand causing the prothonotary Colonna to be attacked in his own house,\ntook him prisoner, and put him to death. The mother of Colonna came to\nSt. Celso, in Banchi, where the corpse lay, and lifting the severed head\nby its hair, she exclaimed: 'Behold the head of my son. Such is the\ntruth of the Pope. He promised that my son should be set at liberty if\nMarino were delivered into his hands. He is possessed of Marino, and,\nbehold, we have my son--but dead. Thus does the Pope keep his word.'\"\n\nHis successor, Innocent VIII, \"in defiance of the conditions of his\nelection, sought with a still more profligate vileness to exalt and\nenrich his seven illegitimate children.\" He had been elected on the\ncondition that he would make only one blood relative a cardinal, and\nthat certain other benefices of the Church should not be given to any\none related to him. The people called him Nocens (the Guilty One, or the\nHarmful One) instead of Innocent, and immortalized the prolific\npaternity of this saintly celibate in the following epigram:\n\n     Octo Nocens genuit pueros totidemque puellas,\n     Hunc merito poterit dicere Roma patrem,\n\nthat is,\n\n     Nocens begat eight boys and an equal number of maidens;\n     Rightly, then, Rome will be able to call this gentleman father.\n\n\"He carried on two wars with Ferdinand, king of Naples, until the year\n1492, and brought forward Renatus, duke of Lorraine, as pretender to his\ncrown. True, he proceeded, as his predecessors had done, to encourage\nprinces and people to undertake expeditions against the Turks; but when\nDschem, the brother and rival of the Turkish Sultan Bajazet, was\ndelivered over to him at the head of an army against the Turks, he chose\nrather to detain him in prison on consideration of an annual tribute\nfrom the Turkish Sultan.\" The story how the Pope got possession of the\nTurkish prince and refused 200,000 ducats ransom for him because he had\nreceived an offer of 600,000 from another party, reads like a story of\nprofessional brigandage.\n\nAlexander VI, \"the most depraved of all the Popes, likewise recognized\nno loftier aim than to heap honors and possessions upon his five\nillegitimate children, and among them especially his favorite, Caesar\nBorgia.\" The nuptials celebrated for the Pope's daughter Lucretia--who,\nby the way, was a _divorcee_--were \"by no means peculiarly decorous.\"\nThe Latin chronicler who has related them reports in this connection\nthat the moral state of the clergy at Rome was indescribably low. The\nexample of the Popes had set the pace for the rest. From the highest to\nthe lowest each priest had his concubine as a substitute for married\nlife (_\"concubinas in figura matrimonii\"_), and that, quite openly. The\ngood chronicler remarks: \"If God does not provide a restraint, this\ncorruption will pass on to the monks and the religious orders; however,\nthe monasteries of the city are nearly all become brothels already, and\nno one raises his voice against it.\" Wading through the mephitic\nrottenness of these ancient chronicles, one is seized with nausea.\n\nHoly things, religious privileges, had become merchandise with which the\nPopes trafficked. The chronicler Burchardus relates: \"In those days the\nfollowing couplet was sung in nearly the whole Christian world:\n\n     \"Vendit Alexander claves, Altaria, Christum,\n     Emerat ista prius, vendere juste potest.\"\n\nThe meaning of this satire is: Alexander sells the power of the keys of\nheaven, the right to officiate at the altar, yea, Christ Himself; he had\nfirst bought these things himself, therefore he has a right to sell them\nagain. Unblushing perfidy was practised by this Pope in his dealings\nwith kings who were his religious subjects. In a quarrel with Charles\nVIII of France he threatened the king with excommunication, and sought\naid from the Turkish Sultan. \"However, when Charles appeared in Rome,\nthe Pope went over to his side immediately, and delivered up to him\nPrince Dschem; but he took care to have him poisoned immediately, that\nhe might not lose the price set upon his head by the Sultan.\" Thus he\nconciliated the French monarch and filled his purse by one and the same\nact. \"By traffic in benefices, sale of indulgences, exercise of the\nright of spoils, and taxes for the Turkish war, as well as by the murder\nof rich or troublesome persons, Alexander was seeking to scrape together\nas much money as possible to support the wanton luxury and shameful\nlicentiousness of his court, and provide treasures for his children.\" In\ntheir correspondence men who had dealings with him would refer to him in\nsuch terms as these: \"That monstrous head--that infamous beast!\" (\"_Hoc\nmonstruoso capite--hac infami belua!\"_)\n\n\"At length the poison which the Pope had meant for a rich cardinal, in\norder to make himself master of his wealth, brought upon himself\nwell-deserved death.\" The Pope's butler had been bribed and exchanged\nthe poison-cup intended for the Pope's victim for the Pope's cup, and\nthe Pope took his own medicine.\n\nOn the basis of Alegretti's notes, Ranke has drawn a fine pen-picture of\nthe reign of terror which Caesar Borgia, the favorite son of Alexander\nVI, inaugurated at Rome. \"With no relative or favorite would Caesar\nBorgia endure the participation of his power. His own brother stood in\nhis way: Caesar caused him to be murdered and thrown into the Tiber. His\nbrother-in-law was assailed and stabbed, by his orders, on the steps of\nhis palace. The wounded man was nursed by his wife and sister, the\nlatter preparing his food with her own hands, to secure him from poison;\nthe Pope set a guard upon the house to protect his son-in-law from his\nson. Caesar laughed these precautions to scorn. 'What cannot be done at\nnoonday,' said he, 'may be brought about in the evening.' When the\nprince was on the point of recovery, he burst into his chamber, drove\nout the wife and sister, called in the common executioner, and caused\nhis unfortunate brother-in-law to be strangled. Toward his father, whose\nlife and station he valued only as a means to his own aggrandizement, he\ndisplayed not the slightest respect or feeling. He slew Peroto,\nAlexander's favorite, while the unhappy man clung to his patron for\nprotection, and was wrapped within the pontifical mantle. The blood of\nthe favorite flowed over the face of the Pope.--For a certain time the\ncity of the apostles and the whole state of the Church were in the hands\nof Caesar Borgia. . . . How did Rome tremble at his name! Caesar\nrequired gold, and possessed enemies. Every night were the corpses of\nmurdered men found in the streets, yet none dared move; for who but\nmight fear that his turn would be next? Those whom violence could not\nreach were taken off by poison. There was but one place on earth where\nsuch deeds were possible--that, namely, where unlimited temporal power\nwas united to the highest spiritual authority, where the laws, civil and\necclesiastical, were held in one and the same hand.\"\n\nPope Julius, who came into power after the twenty-six days' reign of\nPius III, was a warlike man. \"He engaged in the boldest operations,\nrisking all to obtain all. He took the field in person, and having\nstormed Mirandola, he pressed into the city across the frozen ditches\nand through the breach; the most disastrous reverses could not shake his\npurpose, but rather seemed to waken new resources in him.\" \"He wrested\nPerugia and Bologna from their lords. As the powerful state of Venice\nrefused to surrender her conquests, he resolved at length, albeit\nunwillingly, to avail himself of foreign aid; he joined the League of\nCambrai, concluded between France and the Emperor, and assisted with\nspiritual and temporal weapons to subdue the republic. Venice, now hard\npressed, yielded to the Pope, in order to divide this overwhelming\nalliance. Julius, already alarmed at the progress of the French in\nItaly, readily granted his forgiveness, and now commenced hostilities\nagainst the French and their ally, Alphonso, Duke of Ferrara. He\ndeclared that the king of France had forfeited his claim on Naples, and\ninvested Ferdinand the Catholic with the solo dominion of his realm. He\nissued a sentence of condemnation against the Duke of Ferrara. Lewis XII\nstrove in vain to alarm him by the National Council of Tours,--Germany,\nby severe gravamina (complaints of national grievances against the Papal\nSee), and by the threat of the Pragmatic Sanction (an imperial order to\nconfirm the decrees of such reform councils as that of Basel). Not even\na General Council, summoned at Pisa by the two monarchs for the first of\nSeptember, 1511, with the dread phantom of a reform of the Church, could\nbend the violent Pope.\" The Council of Pisa the Pope neutralized by\nconvening a Lateran Council, which at the Pope's bidding hurled its\nthundering manifestos in the name of the Almighty against the Pope's\nenemies. He died while this conflict was raging. Luther was in Rome\nwhile the Pope was engaged as just related.\n\nWhat elements of appalling greed and levity had entered the holiest\ntransactions of the Church can be seen from the following summing up of\nthe situation daring Luther's time: \"A large amount of worldly power was\nat this time conferred in most instances, together with the bishoprics;\nthey were held more or less as sinecures according to the degree of\ninfluence or court favor possessed by the recipient or his family. The\nRoman Curia thought only of how it might best derive advantage from the\nvacancies and presentations; Alexander extorted double annates or\nfirst-fruits, and levied double, nay, triple tithes; there remained few\nthings that had not become matter of purchase. The taxes of the papal\nchancery rose higher from day to day, and the comptroller, whose duty it\nwas to prevent all abuses in that department, most commonly referred the\nrevision of the imposts to those very men who had fixed their amounts.\nFor every indulgence obtained from the datary's office, a stipulated sum\nwas paid; nearly all the disputes occurring at this period between the\nstates of Europe and the Roman Court arose out of these exactions, which\nthe Curia sought by every possible means to increase, while the people\nof all countries as zealously strove to restrain them.\n\n\"Principles such as these necessarily acted on all ranks affected by the\nsystem based on them, from the highest to the lowest. Many ecclesiastics\nwere found ready to renounce their bishoprics; but they retained the\ngreater part of the revenues, and not unfrequently the presentation of\nthe benefices dependent on them also. Even the laws forbidding the son\nof a clergyman (!) to procure induction to the living of his father, and\nenacting that no ecclesiastic should dispose of his office by will (!),\nwere continually evaded; for as all could obtain permission to appoint\nwhomsoever he might choose as his coadjutor, provided he were liberal of\nhis money, so the benefices of the Church became in a manner hereditary.\n\n\"It followed of necessity that the performance of ecclesiastical duties\nwas grievously neglected. . . . In all places incompetent persons were\nintrusted with the performance of clerical duties; they were appointed\nwithout scrutiny or selection. The incumbents of benefices were\nprincipally interested in finding substitutes at the lowest possible\ncost; thus the mendicant friars were frequently chosen as particularly\nsuitable in this respect. These men occupied the bishoprics under the\ntitle (previously unheard of in that sense) of suffragans; the cures\nthey held in the capacity of vicars.\" (!)\n\nIn order not to extend this review too long, we shall refer only to one\nother Pope, Leo X. It was in the main a prosperous reign that was\ninaugurated by Leo X. A treaty was concluded with France, which had\ninvaded Italy. By a diplomatic maneuver the Pragmatic Sanction was\nannulled, and the Lateran Council was ordered to pronounce its\ndeath-warrant. France was humbled. \"All resistance was vain against the\nalliance of the highest spiritual with the highest temporal power. Now,\nat last, the papacy seemed once more to have quelled the hostile spirit\nwhich had grown up at Constance and Basel (two church councils which\ntried to reform the papacy, but failed), and found its stronghold in\nFrance, and at this very time it was near its most grievous fall.\" Two\nyears later Luther, not fathoming as yet the depths of iniquity which he\nwas beginning to lay bare, published his Ninety-Five Theses.\n\nLeo X is the Pope that excommunicated Luther. Ranke describes the\nclosing hours of his life. The Pope had been extremely successful in his\npolitical schemes. \"Parma and Placentia were recovered, the French were\ncompelled to withdraw, and the Pope might safely calculate on exercising\ngreat influence over the new sovereign of Milan. It was a crisis of\ninfinite moment: a new state of things had arisen in politics--a great\nmovement had commenced in the Church. The aspect of affairs permitted\nLeo to flatter himself that he should retain the power of directing the\nfirst, and he had succeeded in repressing the second.\" (This refers to\nLuther's protest; the Pope was, of course, mistaken in the view that he\nhad put a stop to Luther's movement by excommunicating him.) \"He was\nstill young enough to indulge the anticipation of fully profiting by the\nresults of this auspicious moment. Strange and delusive destiny of man!\nThe Pope was at his villa of Malliana when he received intelligence that\nhis party had triumphantly entered Milan; he abandoned himself to the\nexultation arising naturally from the successful completion of an\nimportant enterprise, and looked cheerfully on at the festivities his\npeople were preparing on the occasion. He paced backward and forward\ntill deep in the night, between the window and the blazing hearth--it\nwas the month of November. Somewhat exhausted, but still in high\nspirits, he arrived at Rome, and the rejoicings there celebrated for his\ntriumph were not yet concluded, when he was attacked by a mortal\ndisease. 'Pray for me,' said he to his servants, 'that I may yet make\nyou all happy.' We see that he loved life, but his hour was come, he had\nnot time to receive the sacrament nor extreme unction. So suddenly, so\nprematurely, and surrounded by hopes so bright! he died-'as the poppy\nfadeth.'\" In the record of Sanuto, who is witness for these events,\nthere is a \"Lettera di Hieronymo Bon a suo barba, a di 5 Dec.\" which\ncontains the following: \"It is not certainly known whether the Pope died\nof poison or not. He was opened. Master Fernando judged that he was\npoisoned, others thought not. Of this last opinion is Master Severino,\nwho saw him opened, and says he was not poisoned.\" (Ranke, I, 34 ff.;\nGieseler, III, 290 ff., at random.)\n\nOut of such conditions grew Luther's work. But on these conditions\nCatholic critics of Luther maintain a discreet--shall we not say, a\nguilty?--silence. Few Catholic laymen to whom the horrors of Luther's\nlife are painted with repulsive effect know the horrors which Luther\nfaced. They are only told that Luther attacked \"Holy Mother.\" They are\nnot told that \"Holy Mother\" had become the harlot of the ages.\n\n\n6. Luther's Birth and Parentage.\n\nCatholic writers make thorough work in explaining the reasons for\nLuther's \"defection\" from Rome. They apply to Luther's stubborn\nresistance the law of heredity: Luther's wildness was congenital. Some\nhave declared him the illegitimate child of a Bohemian heretic, others,\nthe oaf of a witch, still others, a changeling of Beelzebub, etc.\n\nMany of these writers, giving themselves the airs of painstaking\ninvestigators who have made careful research, repeat the tale of\nBarbour, viz., that Luther was born in the day-and-night room of an inn\nat Eisleben. If this is so, Luther's mother must have been a traveler on\nthe day of her first confinement. If this were so, the fact could, of\ncourse, be easily explained without dishonor to Luther's mother: she\nmerely miscalculated the date of the birth of her first-born,--not an\nunusual occurrence. Carlyle believed this story, but gave it an almost\ntoo honorable turn, by likening the inn at Eisenach to the inn at\nBethlehem.\n\nBut this story of Luther's birth in a bar-room is not history; it\nbelongs in the realm of mythology. Nobody knows  to-day the house where\nLuther was born. Preserved Smith, his latest American biographer, says\nthere is a house shown at Eisleben as Luther's birthplace, but it is\n\"not well authenticated.\" (p. 2.) There is a bar and a restaurant in\nthis particular building _now,_ for the accommodation of foreign\nvisitors. It is possible that in this mythical birthplace of Luther you\ncan get a stein of foaming \"monk's brew\" or a \"benedictine\" from the\nmonastery at Fecamp, or a \"chartreuse\" from Tarragona, distilled\naccording to the secret formula of the holy fathers of La Grande\nChartreuse. If you sip a sufficient quantity of these persuasive\nliquors, you will find it possible to believe most anything. And the\nblessing of the holy fathers who have prepared the beverages for your\nrepast will be given you gratis in addition to their liquors.\n\nThe journey of Luther's mother to Eisleben which compelled her to put up\nat an inn is, likewise, imaginary. Melanchthon, Luther's associate\nduring the greater part of the Reformer's life, investigated the matter\nand states that Luther was born at his parents' home in Eisenach during\ntheir temporary sojourn in that city, prior to their removal to Mansfeld.\n\nThese stories about the place and manner of Luther's birth originated in\nthe seventeenth century. They were unknown in Luther's time. Generations\nafter a great man has died gossip becomes busy and begins to relate\nremarkable incidents of his life. Lincoln did not say or do one half of\nthe interesting things related about him. He has been drawn into that\nmagical circle where myths are formed, because his great name will\narouse interest in the wildest tale. That is what has happened to\nLuther. These \"myths\" are an unconscious tribute to his greatness. One\nmight let them pass as such and smile at them.\n\nBut the Catholic version of Luther's birth is needed by their writers as\na corollary to another \"fact\" which they have discovered about Luther's\nfather Hans. Hans Luther, so their story runs, was a fugitive from\njustice at the time of his Martin's birth. In a fit of anger he had\nassaulted or slain a man in his native village of Moehra, and abandoning\nhis small landholdings, he fled with his wife, who was in an advanced\nstage of pregnancy. Color is lent to this story by the discovery that\nthe Luthers at Moehra were generally violent folk. Research in the\nofficial court-dockets at Salzungen, the seat of the judicial district\nto which Moehra belonged, shows that brawls were frequent in that\nvillage, and some Luthers were involved in them. Now follows the\nCatholic deduction, plausible, reasonable, appealing, just like the\n\"assumption\" of Mary: \"Out of the gnarly wood of this relationship,\nconsisting mostly of powerful, pugnacious farmers, assertive of their\nrights, Luther's father grew.\"\n\nThis story was started in Luther's lifetime. George Wicel, who had\nfallen away from the evangelical faith, accused Luther of having a\nhomicide for a father. In 1565, he published the story under a false\nname at Paris, but gave no details. In Moehra nothing was known of the\nmatter until the first quarter of the twentieth century. This\ncircumstance alone is damaging to the whole story. Luther was during his\nlifetime exposed to scrutiny of his most private affairs as no other\nman. If Wicel's tale could have been authenticated, we may rest assured\nthat would have been done at the time.\n\nIn the eighteenth century a mining official in Thuringia by the name of\nMichaelis told the story of Hans Luther's homicide with the necessary\ndetail to make it appear real. Observe, this was 220 years after the\nalleged event. It had been this way: Hans Luther had quarreled with a\nperson who was plowing his field, and had accidentally slain the man\nwith the bridle, or halter, of his horse. Several Protestant writers now\nbegan to express belief in the story. Travelers came to Moehra for the\nexpress purpose of investigating the matter, _e.g.,_ Mr. Mayhew of the\n_London Punch_. Behold, the story had assumed definite shape through\nbeing kept alive a hundred years: the accommodating citizens of Moehra\nwere now able to point out to the inquiring Englishman the very meadow\nwhere the homicide had taken place. It takes an Englishman on the\naverage two years and four months to see the point of a joke. By this\ntime, we doubt not, it will be possible to exhibit to any confiding\ndunce the very horse-bridle with which Hans Luther committed\nmanslaughter, also the actual hole which he knocked into the head of his\nvictim, beautifully surrounded by a border of blue and green, which are\nthe colors which the bruise assumed six hours after the infliction. The\nborder may not be genuine, but we dare any Catholic investigator to\ndisprove the genuineness of the hole.\n\nWriters belonging to a church that is rich in legends of the saints and\nin relics ought to know how a tale like Wicel's can assume\nrespectability and credibility in the course of time. It is not any more\ndifficult to account for these tales about Hans Luther's homicide than\nfor the existence in our late day of the rope with which Judas hanged\nhimself, or the tears which Peter wept in the night of the betrayal, or\nthe splinters from the cross of the Lord, or the feathers from the wings\nof the angel Gabriel, and sundry other marvels which are exhibited in\nCatholic churches for the veneration of the faithful.\n\nNo historian that has a reputation as a scholar to lose to-day credits\nthe story of Hans Luther's homicide. It is improbable on its face. The\nsmall landholdings of Hans at Moehra are not real, but irreal estate.\nNobody has found the title for them. There is, however, a very good\nreason why Hans should want to leave Moehra. He was, according to all\nthat is known of his father's family, the oldest son. According to the\nold Thuringian law the home place and appurtenances of a peasant\nfreeholder passed to the youngest son. McGiffert regards the custom as\n\"admirably careful of those most needing care.\" (p. 4.) Luther's father,\non coming of age, was by this law compelled to go and seek his fortune\nelsewhere, because opportunity for rising to independence there was none\nfor him at Moehra.\n\nIf Hans was a fugitive from justice, he was certainly unwise in not\nfleeing far enough. For at Eisenach, whither he went, he was still under\nthe same Saxon jurisdiction as at Moehra. He seems to have had no fear\nof abiding under the sovereignty which he is claimed to have offended.\nThis observation has led one of the most exact and painstaking of modern\nbiographers of Luther, Koestlin, to say that the homicide story, if it\nrests on any basis of fact, must either refer to a different Luther, or\nif to Hans, the incident cannot have been a homicide. It should be\nremembered that there is no authentic record which in any way\nincriminates Hans Luther.\n\nLastly, this homicide Hans Luther, eight years after coming to Mansfeld,\nis elected by his fellow-townsmen one of the \"Vierherren,\" or aldermen,\nof the town. Only most trusted and well-reputed persons were given such\nan office. A homicide would not have been allowed to settle at Mansfeld,\nmuch less to govern the town. Any rogue in the town that he had to\ndiscipline in his time of office would have thrown his bloody record up\nto him.\n\nA Catholic writer says: \"The wild passion of anger was an unextinguished\nand unmodified heritage transmitted congenitally to the whole Luther\nfamily, and this to such an extent that the Lutherzorn (Luther rage) has\nattained the currency of a German colloquialism.\" Mr. Mayhew thinks that\n\"Martin was a veritable chip of the hard old block,\" the \"high-mettled\nfoal cast by a fiery blood-horse.\" Catholic writers cite Mr. Mayhew as a\ndistinguished Protestant. If you have not heard of him before, look him\nup in _Who is Who?_ most anywhere.\n\nAll this, however, is a desperate attempt to find proof against an\nassumed criminal by circumstantial evidence. No direct evidence has ever\nbeen available to implicate Luther's father in a village brawl. As to\nthe Lutherzorn, Luther has in scores of places explained the real reason\nof it: Luther did not inherit, but Rome roused it. This Lutherzorn may\narise in any person that is not remotely related to the Luthers after\nreading Catholic biographies of Martin Luther.\n\n\n7. Luther's Great Mistake.\n\nCatholic writers contend that Luther made a mistake when he became monk.\nProtestants share this view, but put the emphasis in the sentence:\nLuther became a monk, at a different place. In the Protestant view the\nmistake is this, that Luther became a _monk,_ in the Catholic view, it\nis this, that _Luther_ became a monk. Protestants regard monasticism\nlargely as a perversion of the laws of nature and of Christian morals.\nIn an institution of this kind Luther could not find the relief he\nsought. His mistake was that he sought it there. Catholics view monkery\nas the highest ideal of the Christian life, and blame Luther for\nentering this mode of life when he was altogether unfit for it. They\nregard Luther as guilty of sacrilege far seeking admission into the\norder of Augustinian friars. When he was permitted to turn monk, that\nwhich is holy was given unto a dog, and pearls were cast before a swine.\n\nCatholics argue that Luther's cheerless boyhood, the poverty of his\nparents, the hard work and close economy that was the order in the home\nat Mansfeld, the harsh and cruel treatment which Luther received from\nparents that were given to \"fits of uncontrollable rage\" induced in\nLuther a morose, sullen spirit. He became brooding and stubborn when yet\na child. He was a most unruly boy at school. His character was not\nimproved when he was sent abroad for his education and had to sing for\nhis bread or beg in the streets. His rebellious spirit found nourishment\nin these humiliations. Owing to his melancholy temperament and gloomy\nfits, he made no friends. He felt himself misunderstood everywhere. Even\nthe little season of sunshine that came into his young life at the Cotta\nhome in Eisenach did not cure him of the morbid feeling that nobody\nappreciated him. He began to loathe the studies which he was pursuing in\naccordance with the wish of his father. To certain occurrences, like the\nslaying of a fellow-student, an accident with which he met on a vacation\ntrip, and a sudden thunderstorm, he gave an ominous interpretation which\ndeepened his despondency. At last he determined, \"inconsiderately and\nprecipitately,\" to enter a cloister. His friends \"instinctively felt he\nwas not qualified or fitted for the sublime vocation to which he\naspired, and they accordingly used all their powers to dissuade him from\nthe course he had chosen. All their efforts were fruitless, and from the\ngayety and frolic of the banquet\" which he had given his fellow-students\nas a farewell party \"he went to the monastery.\" He was so reckless that\nhe took this step even without the consent of his parents. \"He knew\nlittle about the ways of God, and was not well informed of the gravity\nand responsibilities of the step he was taking.\" \"He was not called by\nGod to conventual life; . . . he was driven by despair, rather than the\nlove of higher perfection, into a religious career.\" Catholics feel so\nsure that they have a case against Luther that in all seriousness they\nask Protestants the question: Did he act honestly when he knelt before\nthe prior asking to be received into the order?\n\nLuther has later in life given various reasons for entering the\nmonastery. His case was not simple, but complex. One reason, however,\nwhich he has assigned is the severe bringing up which he had at his\nhome. Hausrath is satisfied with this one reason, and many Catholic\nwriters adopt his view. But this remark of Luther is evidently\nmisapplied if it is made to mean that Luther sought ease, comfort,\nleniency in the cloister as a relief from the hard life which he had\nbeen leading. Luther had grasped the fundamental idea in monkery quite\nwell: flight from the secular life as a means to become exceptionally\nholy. He sought quiet for meditation and devotion, but no physical ease\nand earthly comforts. He knew of the rigors of cloister-life. He\nwillingly bowed to \"the gentle yoke of Christ\"--thus ran the monkish\nritual--which the life of an eremite among eremites was to impose on\nhim. His hard life in the days of his boyhood and youth had been an\nunconscious preparation for this life. He had been strictly trained to\nfear God and keep His commandments. The holy life of the saints had been\nheld up to him as far back as he could remember as the marvel of\nChristian perfection. Home and Church had cooperated in deepening the\nimpressions of the sanctity of the monkish life in him. When he saw the\nemaciated Duke of Anhalt in monk's garb with his beggar's wallet on his\nback tottering through the streets of Magdeburg, and everybody held his\nbreath at this magnificent spectacle of advanced Christianity, and then\nbroke forth in profuse eulogies of the princely pilgrim to the glories\nof monkish sainthood, that left an indelible impression on the\nfifteen-year-old boy. When he observed the Carthusians at Eisenach,\nweary and wan with many a vigil, somber and taciturn, toiling up the\nrugged steps to a heaven beyond the common heaven; when he talked with\nthe young priests at the towns where he studied, and all praised the\nlife of a monk to this young seeker after perfect righteousness; when in\ncloister-ridden Erfurt he observed that the monks were outwardly, at\nleast, treated with peculiar reverence, can any one wonder that in a\nmind longing for peace with God the resolve silently ripened into the\nact: I will be a monk?\n\nWe, too, would call this an act of despair. We would say with Luther:\nDespair makes monks. But the despair which we mean, and which Luther\nmeant, is genuine spiritual despair. What Catholics call Luther's\ndespair is really desperation, a reckless, dare-devil plunging of a\ncriminal into a splendid Catholic sanctuary. That Luther's act decidedly\nwas not. By Rome's own teaching Luther belonged in the cloister. That\nmode of life was originally designed to meet the needs of just such\nminds as his. His entering the monastery was the logical sequence of his\nprevious Catholic tutelage. Rome has this monk on its conscience, and a\ngood many more besides.\n\nAs piety went in those days, Luther had been raised a pious young man.\nHe was morally clean. He was a consistent, yea, a scrupulous member of\nhis Church, regular in his daily devotions, reverencing every ordinance\nof the Church. Also during his student years he kept himself unspotted\nfrom the moral contaminations of the academic life. He abhorred the\nstudents who were devoted to King Gambrinus and Knight Tannhaeuser. He\nloathed the taverns and brothels of Erfurt. The Cotta home was no\n_Bierstube_ in his day. The banquet-hall where he met his friends the\nevening before he entered the cloister was no banquet-hall in the modern\nsense of the term. That he played the lute at this farewell party, and\nthat there were some \"honorable maidens\" present, is nowadays related\nwith a wink of the eye by Catholics. But there was nothing wrong in all\nthe proceedings of that evening. It was indeed an honorable gathering.\nLuther was never a prudish man or fanatic. He loved the decent joys and\npleasures of life. Luther gathered his friends about him to take a\ndecent leave of them. He did not run away from them secretly, as many\nmonks have done. He opened up his mind to them at this last meeting. The\nconversation that ensued was a test of the strength of the convictions\nhe had formed. His was an introspective nature. He had wrestled daily\nwith the sin that ever besets us. He knew that with all his conventional\nreligiousness he could not pass muster before God. Over his wash-basin\nhe was overheard moaning: \"The more we wash, the more unclean we\nbecome.\" He felt like Paul when he groaned: \"O wretched man that I am,\nwho shall deliver me from the body of this death?\" (Rom. 7, 24.) He was\nsorrowing for his poor soul. He was hungering and thirsting for\nrighteousness. \"When will I ever attain to that state of mind that I am\nsure God is pleased with me?\" he mused distractedly. What he could not\nfind while engaged in his secular pursuits, that, he was told, the\ncloister could give him. To obtain that he entered the monastery. If\never Rome had an honest applicant for monkery, Luther is that man.\n\nNor did he act precipitately. As shown, the thought of this act had been\nquietly forming in him for years. When he made his rash vow to St. Anna,\nhe still allowed two weeks to pass before he put his resolution into\naction. Try and picture to yourself his state of mind during those\nfourteen days! Moving about in his customary surroundings, he was daily\nprobing the correctness of his contemplated change of life. He fought a\nsoul-battle in those days, and the remembrance of his father made that\nbattle none the easier. From the Catholic standpoint Luther deserves an\naureole for that struggle. After entering the cloister, he was still at\nliberty for a year and a half to retrace his fatal step. But his first\nimpressions were favorable; monkery really seemed to bring him heart's\nease and peace, and there was no one to disabuse his mind of the\ndelusion. After nearly two years in the monastery, while sitting with\nhis father at the cloister board on the event of his ordination to the\npriesthood, he declares to his father that he enjoys the quiet,\ncontemplative life that he has chosen. Surely, he made a mistake by\nbecoming monk, but Catholics cannot fault him for that mistake. If the\nlife of monks and nuns is really what they claim that it is: the highest\nand most perfect form of Christianity, they should consistently give any\nperson credit for making the effort to lead that life. In fact, they\nought all to turn monks and nuns to honor their own principles.\n\n\n8. Luther's Failure as a Monk.\n\nMonasticism is a pagan shoot grafted on a Christian tree. At its base\nlies the heathenish notion that sin can be extirpated by severe\nonslaughts upon the body and the physical life. It has existed in\nBuddhism before some Christians adopted it. In the early days of\nChristianity it was proclaimed as superior wisdom by the Platonic\nphilosophers. Like many a lie it has been decked out with Bible-texts to\ngive it respectability, and to soothe disquieted consciences. The\nScripture-sayings regarding fasting, sexual continence, chastity,\ncrucifying the flesh, etc., are made to stand sponsor for this bastard\noffspring of the brain of Christian mystics.\n\nWith excellent discrimination Mosheim has traced the origin of\nmonasticism to the early Christian fathers. The earliest impulses to\nmonasticism are contained in such writings as the Epistle to Zenas,\nfound among the writings of Justinus, the tracts of Clement of\nAlexandria on Calumny, Patience, Continence, and other virtues, the\ntracts of Tertullian on practical duties, such as Chastity, Flight from\nPersecution, Fasting, Theatrical Exhibitions, the Dress of Females,\nPrayer, etc. These writings \"would be perused with greater profit, were\nit not for the gloomy and morose spirit which they everywhere breathe. .\n. . In what estimation they ought to be held, the learned are not\nagreed. Some hold them to be the very best guides to true piety and a\nholy life; others, on the contrary, think their precepts were the worst\npossible, and that the cause of practical religion could not be\ncommitted to worse hands. . . . To us it appears that their writings\ncontain many things excellent, well considered, and well calculated to\nkindle pious emotions; but also many things unduly rigorous, and derived\nfrom the Stoic and Academic philosophy; many things vague and\nindeterminate; and many things positively false, and inconsistent with\nthe precepts of Christ. If one deserves the title of a bad master in\nmorals who has no just ideas of the proper boundaries and limitations of\nChristian duties, nor clear and distinct conceptions of the different\nvirtues and vices, nor a perception of those general principles to which\nrecurrence should be had in all discussions respecting Christian virtue,\nand therefore very often talks at random, and blunders in expounding the\ndivine laws; though he may say many excellent things, and excite in us\nconsiderable emotion; then I can readily admit that in strict truth this\ntitle belongs to many of the Fathers. . . . They admitted, with good\nintentions no doubt, yet most inconsiderately, a great error in regard\nto morals, and pernicious to Christianity; an error which, through all\nsucceeding ages to our times, has produced an infinity of mistakes and\nevils of various kinds. Jesus, our Savior, prescribed one and the same\nrule of life or duty to all His disciples. But the Christian doctors,\neither by too great a desire of imitating the nations among whom they\nlived, or from a natural propensity to austerity and gloom, (a disease\nthat many labor under in Syria, Egypt, and other provinces of the East,)\nwere induced to maintain that Christ had prescribed a twofold rule of\nholiness and virtue; the one ordinary, the other extraordinary; the one\nlower, the other higher; the one for men of business, the other for\npersons of leisure, and such as desired higher glory in the future\nworld. They therefore early divided all that had been taught them either\nin books or by tradition, respecting a Christian life and morals, into\nPrecepts and Counsels. They gave the name Precepts to those laws which\nwere universally obligatory, or were enacted for all men of all\ndescriptions; but the Counsels pertained solely to those who aspire\nafter superior holiness and a closer union with God. There soon arose,\ntherefore, a class of persons who professed to strive after that\nextraordinary and more eminent holiness, and who, of course, resolved to\nobey the Counsels of Christ, that they might have intimate communion\nwith God in this life, and might, on leaving the body, rise without\nimpediment or difficulty to the celestial world. They supposed many\nthings were forbidden to them which were allowed to other Christians,\nsuch as wine, flesh, matrimony, and worldly business. They thought they\nmust emaciate their bodies with watching, fasting, toil, and hunger.\nThey considered it a blessed thing to retire to desert places, and by\nsevere meditation to abstract their minds from all external objects, and\nwhatever delights the senses. Both men and women imposed these severe\nrestraints on themselves, with good intentions, I suppose, but setting a\nbad example, and greatly to the injury of the cause of Christianity.\nThey were, of course, denominated Ascetics, Zealous Ones, Elect, and\nalso Philosophers; and they were distinguished from other Christians,\nnot only by a different appellation, but by peculiarities of dress and\ndemeanor. Those who embraced this austere mode of life lived indeed only\nfor themselves, but they did not withdraw themselves altogether from the\nsociety and converse of men. But in process of time, persons of this\ndescription at first retired into deserts, and afterwards formed\nthemselves into associations, after the manner of the Essenes and\nTherapeutae.\n\n\"The causes of this institution are at hand. First, the Christians did\nnot like to appear inferior to the Greeks, the Romans, and the other\npeople among whom there were many philosophers and sages, who were\ndistinguished from the vulgar by their dress and their whole mode of\nlife, and who were held in high honor. Now among these philosophers (as\nis well known) none better pleased the Christians than the Platonists\nand Pythagoreans, who are known to have recommended two modes of living,\nthe one for philosophers who wished to excel others in virtue, and the\nother for people engaged in the common affairs of life. The Platonists\nprescribed the following rule for philosophers: The mind of a wise man\nmust be withdrawn, as far as possible, from the contagious influence of\nthe body. And as the oppressive load of the body and social intercourse\nare most adverse to this design, therefore all sensual gratifications\nare to be avoided; the body is to be sustained, or rather mortified,\nwith coarse and slender fare; solitude is to be sought for; and the mind\nis to be self-collected and absorbed in contemplation, so as to be\ndetached as much as possible from the body. Whoever lives in this manner\nshall in the present life have converse with God, and, when freed from\nthe load of the body, shall ascend without delay to the celestial\nmansions, and shall not need, like the souls of other men, to undergo a\npurgation. The grounds of this system lay in the peculiar sentiments\nentertained by this sect of philosophers and by their friends,\nrespecting the soul, demons, matter, and the universe. And as these\nsentiments were embraced by the Christian philosophers, the necessary\nconsequences of them were, of course, to be adopted also.\n\n\"What is here stated will excite less surprise if it be remembered that\nEgypt was the land where this mode of life had its origin. For that\ncountry, from some law of nature, has always produced a greater number\nof gloomy and hypochondriac or melancholy persons than any other; and it\nstill does so. Here it was long before the Savior's birth, not only the\nEssenes and Therapeutae--those Jewish sects, composed of persons with a\nmorbid melancholy, or rather partially deranged--had their chief\nresidence; but many others also, that they might better please the gods,\nwithdrew themselves as by the instinct of nature from commerce with men\nand with all pleasures of life. From Egypt this mode of life passed into\nSyria and the neighboring countries, which in like manner always\nabounded with unsociable and austere individuals: and from the East it\nwas at last introduced among the nations of Europe. Hence the numerous\nmaladies which still deform the Christian world; hence the celibacy of\nthe clergy; hence the numerous herds of monks; hence the two species of\nlife, the theoretical and mystical.\" (_Eccles. Hist.,_ I, 128 f.)\n\nOne may well feel pity for the original monks. Their zeal was heroic,\nbut it was spent upon an issue that is in its very root and core a\nhaughty presumption and a lie. Exhaust all the Scripture-texts which\nspeak of indwelling sin, of the lust that rages in our members, of the\nduty to keep the body under by fasting and vigilance, and there will not\nbe found enough Bible to cover the nakedness of the monastic principle.\nIts fundamental thought of a select type of piety to be attained by\nspectacular efforts at self-mortification flies in the face of the\ndoctrine that we are rid of sin and sanctified by divine grace alone.\nMonkish holiness is a slander of the Redeemer's all-sufficient sacrifice\nfor sin and of the work of the Holy Spirit. It started in paganism, and\nwants to drag Christianity back into paganism.\n\nBut monasticism in Luther's day was no longer of the sort which one may\nview with a pathetic interest. The old monastic ideals had been largely\nabandoned. Instead of crucifying the flesh, the monks were nursing and\nfondling carnal-mindedness. The cloisters had become cesspools of\ncorruption. Because the reputation of monks was utterly bad, and monks\nwere publicly scorned and derided, Luther's friends tried to dissuade\nhim from entering the cloister. That was the reason, too, why Luther's\nfather was so deeply shocked when he heard of what his Martin had done,\nand Luther had to assure his father that he had not gone into the herd\nof monks to seek what people believed men sought in that profligate\ncompany. For that reason, too, he had chosen the Augustinian order,\nbecause a strong reform movement had been started in that order, and its\nreputation was better than that of the other orders. Luther meant to be\na monk of the original type.\n\nSince the days of Alexander of Hales, Albert the Great, and Thomas\nAquinas the Roman Church teaches that there is in the Church a treasury\nof supererogatory works, that is, of good works which Christ and the\nsaints have performed in excess of what is ordinarily demanded of every\nman in the way of upright living. We shall meet with this idea again in\nanother connection. It flows from the monastic principles. Monks must\nhave not only enough sanctity for their own needs, but to spare. Of this\nsuperfluous sanctity they may make an assignment in favor of others. Do\nnot smile incredulously; monks actually make such assignments. Luther\nmay not have thought of this when he entered the cloister, but he\nrejoiced in this scheme of substitutive sanctity later. He thought he\nhad found in monkery a gold-mine of holiness that would be sufficient\nnot only for himself, but also for his parents. While at Rome some years\nlater, he was in a way sorry that his father and mother were not already\nin purgatory. He had such a fine chance there to accumulate\nsupererogatory good works which he might have transferred to them to\nshorten their agonies, or release them entirely.\n\nIn order to make a successful monk, one must be either a Pharisee or an\nepicurean. The Pharisee takes an inventory of the works named in the Law\nof God, and sets out to perform these in an external, mechanical manner.\nHe adds a few works of his own invention for good measure. Every work\nperformed counts; it constitutes merit. On the basis of his two pecks\nand a half of merit the Pharisee now begins to drive a bargain with God:\nfor so much merit he claims so much distinction and glory. He figures it\nall out to God, so that God shall not make a mistake at the time of the\nsettlement: I have not been this, nor that, nor the other thing; I have\ndone this, and that, and some more. Consequently . . . ! The epicurean\nis a jolly fatalist. Whatever is to happen will happen. Why worry? Go\nalong at an even pace; eat, drink, be merry, but for Heaven's sake do\nnot take a serious or tragical view of anything! Take things as they\nare; if you can improve them, well and good; if not, let it pass; forget\nit; eat a good meal and go to sleep.\n\nLuther was never an epicurean. The seriousness of life had confronted\nhim at a very early date. The sense of duty was highly developed in him\nfrom early youth. In all that he did he felt himself as a being that is\nresponsible to his Maker and Judge. Easy-going indifference and ready\nself-pity were not in his character. For this Luther is now faulted by\nCatholics. It is said he extended the rigors of monasticism beyond the\nbounds of reasonableness. He was too severe with himself. He outraged\nhuman nature. Quite correct; but is not monasticism by itself an\noutrage upon human nature? Luther had endured the monastery for the very\npurpose of enduring hardness. He did not flinch when the battle into\nwhich he had gone commenced in earnest. Luther is said to have been\ntardy and neglectful in the observance of the rules of the order.\nSometimes he would omit the canonical hours, that is, the stated\nprayers, or some form of prescribed devotion, and then he would endeavor\nto make up for the loss by redoubled effort, which overtaxed his\nphysical strength. Quite true. It is not such a rare occurrence that a\nmonk forgets the one or the other of the minutiae of the daily monkish\nroutine. The regulations of his orders extended to such things as the\nposture which he must assume while standing, while sitting, while\nkneeling; the movement of his arms, of his hands; how to approach, how\nto move in front of the altar, how to leave it, etc. When his mind was\nengrossed with the study of the Bible or some commentary of a Church\nFather, it was easy for Luther to forget parts of the program which he\nwas to carry out. Whenever this happened, was it not his duty to\nendeavor to repair the damage? Were not penances imposed on him in the\nconfessional for every default? Luther is said to have been led into\nstill deeper gloom by his study of the doctrine of predestination. True,\nbut even this study did not lead Luther off into fatalism. It terrified\nhim, because he studied that profound doctrine without a true perception\nof divine grace and the meaning of the Redeemer's work. However, this\nstudy did not at any time permanently affect his vigorous striving after\nholiness.\n\nWhen Catholics explain Luther's failure as a monk by such assertions,\nthey involve themselves in self-contradiction. By their own principles\nmonkery is not a natural life; yet, when a monk fails in his monkery,\nthey fault him for not being natural. First, they tell the applicant\nthat he must not be what he is, and afterwards they blame him for\nwanting to be what they told him to be, and what he finds he cannot be.\nIf this is not adding insult to injury, what is? Francis of Assisi\nbecame a great saint by that very inhuman treatment of himself for which\nLuther is censured. But then Francis of Assisi did not quit his order\nand did not attack the Pope.\n\nThe other reason why Luther failed is, because he could not make a\nPharisee of himself, which is only another name for hypocrite. The Law\nof God had such a terrible meaning to him because he applied it as the\nLawgiver wants it applied, to his whole inner life, to the heart, the\nsoul, the mind, and all his powers of intellect and will. It is\ncomparatively easy to make the members of the body go through certain\nexternal performances, but to make the mind obey is a different\nproposition. The discovery which disheartened Luther was, that while he\nwas outwardly leading the life of a blameless monk, his inward life was\nnot improved. Sin was ever present with him, as it is with every human\nbeing. He felt the terrible smitings of the accusing conscience because\nhe was keenly alive to the real demands of God's Law. The holy Law of\nGod wrought its will upon him to the fullest extent: it roused him to\nanger with the God who had given this Law to man; it led him into\nblasphemous thoughts, so that he recoiled with horror from himself. Does\nthe true Law of God, when properly applied, ever have any other effect\nupon natural man? Paul says: \"It worketh wrath\" (Rom. 4, 15), namely,\nwrath in man against God. It drives man to despair. That is its\nlegitimate function: No person has touched the essence of the Law who\nhas not passed through these awful experiences. Nor did any man ever\nflee from the Law and run to Christ for shelter but for these\nunendurable terrors which the Law begets. That was Luther's whole\ntrouble, and that is why he failed as a monk: he had started out to\nbecome a saint, and he did not even succeed in making a Pharisee of\nhimself. If Rome has produced a monk that succeeded better than Luther,\nhe ought to be exhibited and examined. He will be found either an angel\nor a brazen fraud. He will not be a true man.\n\n\n9. Professor Luther, D. D.\n\nCatholic writers greedily grab every opportunity to belittle Luther's\nscholarship. Incentives to study at home, they say, he received none.\nHis common school education was wretched. During his high school studies\nhe was favored with good teachers, but hampered by his home-bred\nroughness and uncouthness and his poverty. He applied himself diligently\nto his studies, but gave no sign of being a genius. At the University of\nErfurt, too, he was studious, but he seems to have made no great\nimpression on the University. \"He paid little attention to grammatical\ndetails, and never attained to Ciceronian purity and elegance in speech\nand writing.\" When he made his A. B:, he ranked thirteenth in a class of\nfifty-seven. He did a little better in his effort for the title of A.\nM., when he came out second among seventeen candidates. But Melanchthon\nis declared entirely wrong when he relates that Luther was the wonder of\nthe University. His theological studies preparatory to his entering the\npriesthood were very hasty and superficial. Still less prepared was he\nfor the work of a professor. His duties in the cloister left him little\ntime for learned studies. Yet he went to \"bibulous Wittenberg,\" to a\nlittle five-year-old university, and lectured \"as best he could.\" By the\nway, our Catholic friends seem to forget that \"bibulous\" Wittenberg was\na good old Catholic town at the time. All things considered, Luther's\nadvancement was all too rapid; it was not justified by his preparatory\nstudies, which had been \"anything but deep, solid, systematic.\" \"The\ntheological culture he received was not on a par with that required now\nby the average seminarian, let alone a Doctor of Divinity.\" He accepted\nthe title of D. D. very reluctantly, being conscious that he did not\ndeserve it. A feeling of the insufficiency of his education tormented\nhim all through life. \"It cannot be denied that he was industrious,\nself-reliant, ambitious, but withal, he was not a methodically trained\nman. At bottom, he was neither a philosopher nor a theologian, and at no\ntime of his life, despite his efforts to acquire knowledge, did he show\nhimself more than superficially equipped to grapple with serious and\ndifficult philosophical and religious problems. His study never rose to\nbrilliancy.\" Thus runs the Catholic account of Professor and Doctor\nLuther.\n\nWe have not quoted the worst Catholic estimates of Luther's scholarship.\nHe has also been called a dunce, an ignoramus, a barbarian. Again it\nseems to escape the Catholics that this ill-trained, insufficient,\nhalf-baked Doctor of Divinity is a product of their own educational art.\nWhatever advancement he received in those days was actually forced upon\nhim by Catholics. All his academic and ecclesiastical honors came from\nCatholic sources, came to him, moreover, as a good Catholic. Also that\nhighest and noblest distinction which made him a duly called and\naccredited expounder of the Holy Scriptures. If there is fault to be\nfound with anything in this matter, it lies with the Catholic method and\nprocess of making a young man within the space of ten years a Bachelor\nof Arts, a Master of Arts, a priest, a professor, and a Doctor of Sacred\nTheology; it does not lie with the innocent subject to whom this presto!\nchange! process was applied.\n\nBut does this estimate of Luther square with the facts in the case? For\na dunce or a mediocre scholar Luther has been a fair success. His little\nability and scanty preparation makes his achievements all the more\nremarkable. The most brilliant minds of the race, for whom the home, the\nChurch and the State, religion, science and art, had done their best,\nhave accomplished immeasurably less than this poor and mostly\nself-taught country boy. God give His Church many more such dunces!\n\nThe net results of Luther's learning are open to inspection by the world\nin his numerous works. Able scholars of most recent times have looked\ninto Luther's writings with a view of determining how much learned\nknowledge he had actually acquired, even before he began his reformatory\nwork, They have found that Luther was \"very well versed in the favorite\nLatin authors of the day: Vergil, Terence, Ovid, Aesop, Cicero, Livy,\nSeneca, Horace, Catullus, Juvenal, Silius, Statius, Lucan, Suetonius,\nSallust, Quintilian, Varro, Pomponius Mela, the two Plinies, and the\n_Germania_ of Tacitus.\" He possessed a creditable amount of knowledge of\nGeneral History and Church History. He had made a profound study of the\nleading philosophers and scholastic theologians of the Middle Ages:\nThomas of Aquinas, Peter Lombard, Bernard of Clairvaux, Duns Scotus,\nOccam, Gregory of Rimini, Pierre d'Ailly, Gerson, and Biel. Two of these\nhe knew almost by heart. He had studied the ancient Church Fathers:\nIrenaeus, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Hilary, Ambrose, Gregory of\nNanzianzen, Jerome, and such later theologians as Cassiodorus, Gregory\nthe Great, and Anselm of Canterbury; Tauler, Lefevre, Erasmus, and Pico\ndella Mirandola. \"He was quite at home in the exegetical Middle Ages, in\nthe Canon Law, in Aristotle and Porphyry.\" \"He was one of the first\nGerman professors to learn Greek and Hebrew.\" Moreover, Luther\npossessed, besides knowledge, those indispensable requisites in a good\nprofessor: \"the faculty of plain, clear, correct, and independent\nthought, resourcefulness, acumen\" (Boehmer, p. 179 f.). He had the\ncourage to tell the Church that it was a shame, that a heathen\nphilosopher, Aristotle, should formulate the doctrines which Christians\nare to believe and their pastors are to teach. He threw this heathen,\nwho had for ages dominated Christian teaching, out of his lecture-room,\nand took his students straight to the pure fountain of religious truth,\nthe Word of God. He publicly burned the Canon Law by which the Roman\nChurch had forged chains for the consciences of men, and which she\nupholds to this day. His lecture-room became crowded with eager and\nenthusiastic students, and the stripling university planted on the edge\nof civilization in the sands along the Elbe became for a while the\nreligious and theological hub of the world. The students who gathered\nabout Luther knew that they had a real professor in him. The world of\nhis day came to this fledgling doctor with the weightiest questions, and\nreceived answers that satisfied. That part of the intelligent world of\nto-day which has read and studied Luther endorses the verdict of\nLuther's contemporaries as regards his ample learning and proficiency as\na teacher.\n\nMore learned men, indeed, than Luther there have been. Some of these\nhave also made attempts to introduce needed reforms in the corrupt Roman\nChurch. Rome met their learned and labored arguments with the consummate\nskill of a past master in sophistry. Those learned efforts came to\nnaught. Rome will never be reformed by human learning and scholarship.\nScholars are rarely men of action. It is because Professor Luther taught\n_and acted_ that Rome hates him. He would have been permitted to lecture\nin peace whatever he wished--others in the universities were doing that\nat the time--if he had only been careful not to do anything, at least\nnot publicly, against the authority of the Church. That was the\nunpardonable blunder of Luther that he wanted to live as he believed,\nand that he taught others to do the same. For this reason he is a\ndullard, an ignoramus, a poor scholar, a poor writer, in a word, an\ninferior person from a literary and scholarly point of view.\n\nIn Numbers (chap. 22) there is a story told of the prophet Balaam, who\nwent out on a wicked mission for which a great reward had been promised\nhim. He rode along cheerfully, feasting his avaricious heart on the\ngreat hoard he would bring back, when suddenly the ass that bore him\nbalked. The prophet began to beat the animal, but it did not budge an\ninch. All at once this dunce of an ass which had never been put through\na spelling-book began to talk and remonstrated with the prophet: \"Am I\nnot thine ass? What have I done unto thee that thou hast smitten me?\" To\nhis amazement the prophet was able to understand the ass quite well.\nThis dumb brute made its meaning plain to a learned man. It was an\nintolerable outrage that an ass should lecture a doctor, and balk him in\nhis designs. Luther is that ass. Rome rode him, and he patiently bore\nhis wicked master until the angel of the Lord stopped him and he would\ngo no further. The only difference is that Balaam had his eyes opened,\nleft off beating his ass, and felt sorry for what he had done. Rome's\neyes have not been opened for four hundred years. It is still beating\nthe poor ass. It does not see the Lord who has blocked her path and\nsaid, You shall go no further!\n\nIn 2 Kings, chap. 5, there is another story told of the Syrian captain\nNaaman, who came to be healed of his leprosy by the prophet Elijah. With\nhis splendid suite the great statesman drove up in grand style to the\nprophet's cottage. He expected that the holy man would come out to meet\nhim, and very deferentially engage to do the great lord's bidding. The\nprophet did not even come out of his hut, but sent Naaman word to go and\nwash seven times in Jordan and he would be cleansed. Now Naaman flew\ninto a rage, because the prophet had, in the first place, not even\ndeigned to speak to him, and, secondly, had ordered a ridiculously\ncommonplace cure for him. He stormed that he would do no such thing as\nwash in that old Jordan River. He had better waters at home. Let the\nprophet keep his old Jordan for such as he was. And he rode off in great\ndudgeon. Rome is the leprous gentleman, and Luther is the man of God who\ntold her how to become clean. The only difference is this: Naaman\nlistened to wise counsel, and finally did what he had been told to do,\nand was cleansed. Rome disdains to this day to listen to the ill-bred\nson of a peasant, the theological upstart Luther, and remains as filthy\nas she has been.\n\n\n10. Luther's \"Discovery\" of the Bible.\n\nSince Luther's study of the Bible has been referred to several times in\nthese pages, it is time that the righteousness of a certain indignation\nbe examined which Catholic writers display. They pretend to be\nscandalized by the tale that in Luther's time the Bible was such a rare\nbook that it was practically unknown. With the air of outraged innocence\nsome of them rise to protest against the stupid myth that Luther\n\"discovered\" the Bible. They claim that their Church had been so eager\nto spread the Bible, and had published editions of the Bible in such\nrapid succession, that in Luther's age Christian Europe was full of\nBibles. Moreover, that age, they tell us, was an age of intense\nBible-study. Not only the theologians, but also the laymen, not only the\nwealthy and highly educated, but also the common people, had unhindered\naccess to the Bible. The historical data for Rome's alleged zeal in\nbehalf of the Bible these Catholic writers gather largely from\nProtestant authors. For greater effect they propose to buttress, with\nthe fruits of the laborious research of Protestants, their charge that\nLuther's ignorance of the Bible was self-inflicted and really\ninexcusable.\n\nWhat are the facts in the case? The whole account which we possess of\nLuther's \"discovery\" of the Bible is contained in Luther's Table Talk.\n(22, 897.) This is a book which Luther did not personally compose nor\nedit. It is a collection of sayings which his guests noted down while at\nmeat with Luther, or afterwards from memory. From a casual remark during\na meal Mathesius obtained the information which he published in his\nbiography of Luther, _viz.,_ that, when twenty-two years old, Luther one\nday had found the Bible in a library at Erfurt.\n\nNow, we do not wish to question the general credibility of the Table\nTalk, nor the authenticity of this particular remark of Luther about his\nstumbling upon the Bible by accident. But it is certainly germane to our\nsubject to strip the incident of the dramatic features with which\nCatholic writers claim that most Protestants still surround the event.\nDid Luther say, and did Mathesius report, that up to the year 1505 he\nhad not known of the Bible? Not at all. He merely stated that up to that\ntime he had not seen _a complete copy of the Bible_. Luther himself has\ntold scores of times that when a schoolboy at Mansfeld, and later at\nMagdeburg and Eisenach where he studied, he had heard portions of the\nGospels and Epistles read during the regular service at church. Some\npassages he had learned by heart. Luther's guests would have laughed at\nhim if he had claimed such a \"discovery\" of the Bible as Catholic\nwriters--and some of their Protestant authorities--think that Mathesius\nhas claimed for him and modern Protestants still credit him with.\n\nWhat Luther did relate we are prepared to show was not, and could not\nbe, an unusual occurrence in those days. \"Even in the University of\nParis, which was considered the mother and queen of all the rest, not a\nman could be found, when Luther arose, competent to dispute with him out\nof the Scriptures. This was not strange. Many of the doctors of theology\nin those times had never read the Bible. Carolostadt expressly tells us\nthis was the case with himself. Whenever one freely read the Bible, he\nwas cried out against, as one making innovations, as a heretic, and\nexposing Christianity to great danger by making the New Testament known.\nMany of the monks regarded the Bible as a book which abounded in\nnumerous error.\" (Mosheim, III, 15.) The spiritual atmosphere in which\nLuther and all Christians of his time were brought up was unfavorable to\nreal Bible-study.\n\nBut before we exhibit the true attitude of Rome toward the Bible, it\nwill be necessary to examine the Catholic claim regarding the extensive\ndissemination and the intensive study of the Bible among the people in\nand before Luther's times. Before the age of printing one cannot speak,\nof course, of \"editions\" of the Bible. The earliest date for the\npublication of a printed edition of the Bible is probably 1460--\ntwenty-three years before Luther's birth. That was an event fully as\nmomentous as the opening of the transatlantic cable in our time. Before\nprinting had been invented, the Bible was multiplied by being copied.\nThat was a slow process. Even when a number of copyists wrote at the\nsame time to dictation, it was a tedious process, requiring much time,\nand not very many would join in such a cooperative effort of Bible\nproduction. Besides, few men in those early ages were qualified for this\nwork. A certain degree of literary proficiency was required for the\ntask. The centuries during which the papacy rose to the zenith of its\npower are notorious for the illiteracy of the masses. It was considered\na remarkable achievement even for a nobleman to be able to scribble his\nname. Among those who possessed the ability few had the inclination and\npersistency necessary for the effort to transcribe the Bible. The\ncloisters of those days were the chief seats of learning and centers of\nlower education, but even these asylums of piety sheltered many an\nignorant monk and others who were afflicted with the proverbial monks'\nmalady--laziness. It is to the credit of the pious members of the Roman\nChurch in that unhappy age that they manifested such a laudable interest\nin the Bible. The achievement of copying the entire Bible with one's own\nhand in that age is so great that it palliates some of the glaring evils\nof the inhuman system of monasticism. But if every monk in every\ncloister, every priest in every Catholic parish, every professor in\nevery Catholic university, could have produced twenty copies of the\nBible during his lifetime, how little would have been accomplished to\nmake the Bible available for the millions of men then living!\n\nReading is the correlate of writing. The person who cannot write, as a\nrule, cannot read. For this reason the Bible must have remained a sealed\nbook to many who had ample opportunity to become acquainted with it. The\nwide diffusion of Bible knowledge which Catholic writers would lead us\nto believe always existed in the Roman Church is subject to question. It\nis true that in the first centuries of the Christian era there was a\ngreat hunger and thirst for the Word of God. But that was before the\nRoman Church came into existence. For it is a reckless assumption that\nthe papacy is an original institution in the Church of Christ, and that\nRoman Catholicism and Christianity are identical. It is also true that\nin the early days of the Reformation the people manifested a great\ndesire for the Word of God. It was as new to them as it had been to\nLuther. They would crowd around a person who was able to read, and would\nlisten for hours. At St. Paul's in London public reading of the Bible\nbecame a regular custom. But between the early days of Christianity and\nthe beginning of the Reformation lies a period which. is known as the\nDark Ages. No amount of oratory will turn that age into a Bright Age.\n\"From the seventh to the eleventh century books were so scarce that\noften not one could be found in an entire city, and even rich\nmonasteries possessed only a single text-book.\" (_Universal Encycl.,_\n2, 96.) These conditions were not greatly improved until printing was\ninvented. Luther had to do with people who were emerging from the sad\nconditions of that age, the effects of which were still visible\ncenturies after. He writes: \"The deplorable destitution which I recently\nobserved, during a visitation of the churches, has impelled and\nconstrained me to prepare this Catechism, or Christian Doctrine, in such\na small and simple form. Alas, what manifold misery I beheld! The common\npeople, especially in the villages, know nothing at all of Christian\ndoctrine; and many pastors are quite unfit and incompetent to teach. Yet\nall are called Christians, have been baptized, and enjoy the use of the\nSacraments, although they know neither the Lord's Prayer, nor the Creed,\nnor the Ten Commandments, and live like the poor brutes and irrational\nswine.\" (Preface to the Small Catechism.) Remember, these people lived\nin that age when Luther was born and grew up, which Catholic writers\npicture to us as a Bible-knowing and Bible-loving age.\n\nThe invention of printing wrought a mighty change in this respect. This\nglorious art became hallowed from the beginning by being harnessed for\nservice to the Bible. But even this invention did not at once remove the\nprevailing ignorance. We must not transfer modern conditions to the\nfifteenth century. In 1906, one of the many Protestant Bible Societies\nreported that it had disposed in one year of nearly 80,000,000 Bibles\nand parts of the Bible in many languages. The Bible is perhaps the\ncheapest book of modern times. It was not so in the days of Gutenberg,\nFroschauer, Luft, and the Claxtons. Even after printing had been\ninvented, Bibles sold at prices that would be considered prohibitive in\nour day. When the Duke of Anhalt ordered three copies of the Bible\nprinted on parchment, he was told that for each copy he must furnish 340\ncalf-skins, and the expense would be sixty gulden. (Luther's Works, 21b,\n2378.) But even the low-priced editions of the Bible, printed on common\npaper (which was not introduced into Europe until the thirteenth\ncentury), cost a sum of money which a poor man would consider a fortune,\nand which even the well-to-do would hesitate to spend in days when money\nwas scarce and its purchasing power was considerably different from what\nit is to-day. At a period not so very remote from the present a Bible\nwas considered a valuable chattel of which a person would dispose by a\nspecial codicil in his will. For generations Bibles would thus be handed\ndown from father to son, not only because of the sacred memories that\nattached to them as heirlooms, but also because of their actual value in\nmoney.\n\nEverything considered, then, we hold the argument that the Bible was a\nwidely diffused book in the days before Luther to be historically\nuntrue, because it implies physical impossibilities. With the\nmagnificent printing and publishing facilities of our times, how many\npersons are still without the Bible? How many parishioners in all the\nCatholic churches of this country to-day own a Bible? The modern Bible\nsocieties are putting forth an energy in spreading the Bible that is\nunparalleled in history. Still their annual reports leave the impression\nthat all they accomplish is as a drop in the bucket over and against the\nenormous Bible-need still unsupplied. Catholic writers paint the\nBible-knowledge of the age before Luther in such exceedingly bright\ncolors that one is led to believe that age surpassed ours. They\novershoot their aim. Nobody finds fault with the Roman Church for not\nhaving invented the printing-press. All would rather be inclined to\nexcuse her little achievement in spreading the Bible during the Middle\nAges on the ground of the poor facilities at her command. Every\nintelligent and fair person will accord the Roman Church every moiety of\ncredit for the amount of Bible-knowledge which she did convey to the\npeople. We heartily join Luther in his belief that even in the darkest\ndays of the papacy men were still saved in the Roman Church, because\nthey clung in their dying hour to simple texts of the Scriptures which\nthey had learned from their priests. (22, 577.) But no one must try and\nmake us believe that the Roman Church before Luther performed marvels in\nspreading the Bible. She never exhausted even the poor facilities at her\ncommand.\n\nFar from wondering, then, that Luther had not seen the complete Bible\nuntil his twenty-second year, we regard this as quite natural in view of\nhis lowly extraction, and we consider the censure which superficial\nProtestant writers have applied to Luther because of his early ignorance\nof the Bible as uncommonly meretricious. When we bear in mind the known\ncharacter of the Popes in Luther's days, we doubt whether even they had\nread the entire Bible. Luther's \"discovery\" of the Bible, however is not\nregarded by Protestants as a discovery such as Columbus made when he\nfound the American continent. Luther knew of the existence of the Bible\nand could cite sayings of the Bible at the time when he found the bulky\nvolume in the library that made such a profound impression upon him.\n\nAnd yet his find was a true discovery. Luther discovered that his Church\nhad not told him many important and beautiful things that are in the\nBible. He became so absorbed with the novel contents of this wonderful\nbook that the desire was wrung from his: heart: Oh, that I could possess\nthis book! But this enthusiastic wish at once became clouded by another\ndiscovery which he made while poring over the precious revelation of the\nvery heart of Jesus: his Church had told him things differently from\nwhat he found them stated in the Bible. He was shocked when he\ndiscovered that in his heart a new faith was springing up which had come\nto him out of the Bible,--a faith which contradicted the avowed faith of\nthe Roman Church. Poor Luther! He had for the first time come under the\ninfluence of that Word which is quick and powerful, and sharper than any\ntwo-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and\nspirit, and of the joints and marrow (Hebr. 4, 12), and he did not know\nit. Some of the noblest minds in the ages before him have had to pass\nthrough the same experience. With the implicit trust which at that time\nlie reposed in the Roman Church, Luther suppressed his \"heretical\"\nthoughts. He said: \"Perhaps I am in error. Dare I believe myself so\nsmart as to know better than the Church?\" (Hausrath, 1, 18.) Yes, Luther\nhad really discovered the Bible, namely, the Bible which the Roman\nChurch never has been, and never will be, willing to let the people see\nwhile she remains what she is to-day. This \"discovery\"-tale which so\noffends Catholic writers could be verified in our day. Let Catholic\nwriters put into the hands of every Catholic of America the true,\ngenuine, unadulterated Word of God, without any glosses and comment, and\nlet them watch what is going to happen. There will be astonishing\n\"discoveries\" made by the readers, and those discoveries will be no\nfabrications.\n\n\n11. Rome and the Bible.\n\nCatholic writers claim for the Roman Church the distinction which at one\ntime belonged to the Hebrews, that of being the keepers of the oracles\nof God. They claim that to the jealous vigilance of the Roman Church\nover the sacred writings of Christianity the world to-day owes the\nBible. The pagan emperors of Rome would have destroyed the Bible in the\npersecutions which they set on foot against the early Christians, if the\nfaithful martyrs had not refused to surrender their sacred writings.\nAgain, the Roman Church is represented as the faithful custodian of the\nBible during the political and social upheaval that wrecked the Roman\nEmpire when the barbarian peoples of the North overran Rome and Greece.\nOnly through the care of the Roman Church the Bible is said to have been\nsaved from destruction in the general confusion.\n\nThe reasoning of Catholics on this matter is specious. In the first\nplace, the early Christian martyrs were not Roman Catholics. The claim\nof the Roman Church that the papacy starts with Peter is a myth. In the\nsecond place, much patient labor has been expended in the last centuries\nto collate existing manuscripts of the Bible for the purpose of removing\nerrors that had crept into the text and making the original text of the\nBible as accurate as it is possible to make it. In these labors mostly\nProtestants were engaged. Fell, Mill, Kuster, Bengel, Wetzstein,\nGriesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort, have\nthrough three centuries of untiring research cooperated in placing\nbefore the world the authentic text of the Bible.\n\nTo-day we have not a single one of the autograph manuscripts of the\nGospels and Epistles of the New Testament. If the Roman Church existed\nin the days when Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, and James\nwrote, and if she exercised such scrupulous care over the Bible, why has\nshe not preserved a single one of these invaluable documents? We suggest\nthis thought only in view of the unfounded Catholic boast; we do not\ncharge the Catholic Church with a crime for having permitted the\nautographs of our Bible to become lost, we only hold that the Catholic\nChurch is not entitled to the eulogies which her writers bestow upon\nher.\n\nEven the condition of the copies that were made from the autograph\nwritings of the apostles does not speak well for the care which the\nRoman Church took of the Bible, assuming, of course, that she existed in\nthose early centuries. \"It is evident that the original purity (of the\nNew Testament text) was early lost. . . . Irenaeus (in the second\ncentury) alludes to the differences between the copies. . . . Origen,\nearly in the third century, expressly declares that matters were growing\nworse. . . . From the fourth century onward we have the manuscript text\nof each century, the writings of the Fathers, and the various Oriental\nand Occidental versions, all testifying to varieties of readings.\"\n(_New Schaff-Herzog Encycl.,_ II, 102.) Our sole purpose in calling\nattention to this fact, which every scholar to-day knows, is, to bring\nthe fervor of Catholic admiration for the Bible-protecting and\nBible-preserving Church of Rome somewhat within the bounds of reason. We\ndo not charge the Roman Church with having corrupted the text, but if\nthe claim of Catholics as to the age of their Church is correct, every\ncorruption in the copies that were made from the original documents\noccurred while she was exercising her remarkable custodianship over the\nBible. That officials of the Church, especially as we approach the\nMiddle Ages, had something to do with corrupting the sacred text is the\nbelief of the authority just quoted. \"The early Church,\" he says, \"did\nnot know anything of that anxious clinging to the letter which\ncharacterizes the scientific rigor and the piety of modern times, and\ntherefore was not bent upon preserving the exact words. Moreover, the\nfirst copies were made rather for private than for public use.\" Not a\nfew were found in sarcophagi; they had been buried with their owners.\n\"Copyists were careless, often wrote from dictation, and were liable to\nmisunderstand. Attempted improvements of the text in grammar and style;\nefforts to harmonize the quotations in the New Testament with the Greek\nof the Septuagint, but especially to harmonize the Gospels; the writing\nout of abbreviations; incorporation of marginal notes in the text; the\nembellishing of the Gospel narratives with stories drawn from\nnon-apostolic, though trustworthy, sources,--it is to these that we must\nattribute the very numerous 'readings' or textual variations. It is true\nthat the copyists were sometimes learned men; but their zeal in making\ncorrections may have obscured the true text as much as the ignorance of\nthe unlearned. The copies, indeed, came under the eye of an official\nreviser, but he may have sometimes exceeded his functions, and done more\nharm than good by his changes.\"\n\nAll this happened while the Roman Church, according to Catholic writers,\nwas keeper of the Bible. The honor which these writers assert for their\nChurch is spurious. If there is any class of men for whom the glory must\nbe vindicated of having given to the world the pure Word of God in a\nreliable text, it is the band of textual, or lower, critics who have\ngathered and collated all existing manuscripts of the Bible. What an\nimmense amount of painstaking labor this necessitated the reader can\nguess from the fact that for the New Testament alone about 3,000\nmanuscripts had to be examined word for word and letter for letter. The\nmen who undertook this gigantic task, arid who are always on the watch\nfor new finds, do not belong in the Roman fold, and did not receive the\nincentive for their work from the Roman Church. This work started soon\nafter the Reformation, and the intense interest aroused in God's Word by\nthat movement is the true cause of it. The Protestant Church, not the\nChurch of Rome, has given back to the world the pure Word of God in more\nthan one sense.\n\nThe official Bible of the Roman Church to-day is the Latin Vulgate. This\nBible, which is a revision by Jerome and others of many variant Latin\ntexts in use towards the end of the fourth century, has been elevated to\nthe dignity of the inspired text. The original purpose was good: it was\nto remove the confusion of many conflicting texts and to establish\nuniformity in quoting the Bible. The errors of the Vulgate are many, but\nwhile it was understood that the Vulgate was merely a translation, the\nerrors could be corrected from the original sources. Little, however,\nwas done in this respect before the Reformation, and since then the\nRoman Church has become rigid and petrified in its adherence to this\nLatin Bible. In its fourth session (April 8, 1546) the Council of Trent\ndecreed that \"of all Latin editions the old and vulgate edition be held\nas authoritative in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and\nexpositions; and that no one is to dare or presume under any pretext to\nreject it.\" \"The meaning of this decree,\" says Hodge, \"is a matter of\ndispute among Romanists themselves. Some of the more modern and liberal\nof their theologians say that the council simply intended to determine\nwhich among several Latin versions was to be used in the service of the\nChurch. They contend that it was not meant to forbid appeal to the\noriginal Scriptures, or to place the Vulgate on a par with them in\nauthority. The earlier and stricter Romanists take the ground that the\nSynod did intend to forbid an appeal to the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures,\nand to make the Vulgate the ultimate authority. The language of the\ncouncil seems to favor this interpretation.\" We might add, the practise\nof Romanists, too. At the debate in Leipzig Eck contended that the Latin\nVulgate was inspired by the Holy Ghost. (Koestlin, I, 455.)\n\nWhatever knowledge of Scripture the people in the Middle Ages possessed\nwas confined to those who could read Latin. Catholic writers claim this\nwas at that time the universal language of Europe, but they wisely add:\n\"among the educated.\" One of them says: \"Those who could read Latin\ncould read the Bible, and those who could not read Latin could not read\nanything.\" Exactly. And now, to prove the wide diffusion of\nBible-knowledge in their Church before Luther, these Catholic writers\nshould give us some exact data as to the extent of the Latin scholarship\nin that age. Fact is, the Latin tongue acted as a lock upon the\nScriptures to the common people. Hence arose the desire to have the\nBible translated into the vernacular of various European countries.\n\nThis desire Rome sought to suppress with brutal rigor. The bloody\npersecutions of the Waldensians in France, which almost resulted in the\nextirpation of these peaceful mountain people, of the followers of\nWyclif in England, whose remains Rome had exhumed after his death and\nburned, of the Hussites in Bohemia, were all aimed at translations of\nthe Bible into the languages which the common people understood.\n\nIn July, 1199, Pope Innocent III issued a breve, occasioned by the\nreport that parts of the Bible were found in French translation in the\ndiocese of Metz. The breve praises in a general way the zeal for\nBible-study, but applies to all who are not officially appointed to\nengage in such study the prohibition in Ex. 19, 12. 13, not to touch the\nholy mountain of the Law.\n\nDuring the reign of his successor, Honorius III, in 1220, laymen in\nGermany were forbidden to read the Bible.\n\nUnder Gregory IX the same prohibition was issued, in 1229, to laymen in\nGreat Britain.\n\nIn the same year the crusades against the Albigenses were concluded, and\nthe Council of Toulouse issued a severe order, making it a grave offense\nfor a layman to possess a Bible.\n\nIn 1234, the Synod of Tarragona demanded the immediate surrender of all\ntranslations of the Bible for the purpose of having them burned.\n\nIn 1246, the Synod of Baziers issued a prohibition forbidding laymen to\npossess any theological books whatsoever, and even enjoining the clergy\nfrom owning any theological books written in the vernacular.\n\nEleven years after Luther's death, in 1557, Pope Paul IV published the\nRoman Index of Forbidden Books, and, with certain exceptions, prohibited\nlaymen from reading the Bible.\n\nNot until the reign of King Edward VI was the \"Act inhibiting the\nreading of the Old and New Testament in English tongue, and the\nprinting, selling, giving, or delivering of any such other books or\nwritings as are therein mentioned and condemned\" (namely, in 34 Hen.\nVIII. Cap. 1) abrogated.\n\nThe Council of Trent ordered all Catholic publishers to see to it that\ntheir editions have the approval of the respective bishop.\n\nNot until February 28, 1759, did Pope Clement XIII give permission to\ntranslate the Bible _into all the languages of the Catholic states_.\n\nNot until November 17, 1893, did Pope Leo XIII issue an encyclical\nenjoining upon Catholics the study of the Bible, always, however, _in\neditions approved by the Roman Church_. (Kurtz, _Kirchengesch_. II, 2,\n94. 217; _Univers. Encycl_., under title \"Bible\"; Peter Heylyn,\n_Ecclesia Restaurata_ I, 99; Denzinger, _Enchiridion,_ 1429. 1439. 1567.\n1607.)\n\nCatholic writers seek to make a great impression in favor of their\nChurch by enumerating, on the authority of Protestant scholars, the\nnumber of German translations of the Bible that are known to have been\nin existence before Luther. But they omit to inform the public that not\na single one of those translations obtained the approbation of a bishop.\nOne cannot view but with a pathetic interest these sacred relies of an\nage that was hungering for the Word of God. The origin of these early\nGerman Bibles has been traced by scholars to Wycliffite and Hussite\ninfluences, which Rome never stamped out, though her inquisitors tried\ntheir best to do so. The earliest of these Bibles do not state the place\nnor the year of publication. Can the reader guess why? They were not\npublished at the seat of the German Archbishop, Mainz, but most of them\nat the free imperial city of Augsburg. Can the reader suggest a reason?\nMany of them are printed in abnormally small sizes, facilitating quick\nconcealment. Can the reader imagine a cause for this phenomenon? In\nthese old German Bibles particular texts are emphasized, for example,\nRom. 8, 18; 1 Cor. 4, 9; 2 Cor. 4, 8 ; 11, 23; 1 Pet. 2, 19; 4, 16; 5,\n9; Acts 5, 18. 41; 8, 1; 12, 4; 14, 19. If the reader will take the\ntrouble to look up these texts, he will find that they warn Christians\nto be prepared to be persecuted for their faith. Has the reader ever\nheard of such an officer of the Roman Church as the inquisitor, one of\nwhose duties it was to hunt for Bibles among the people? In places these\nold German Bibles contain significant marginal glosses, for example, at\n1 Tim. 2, 5 one of them has this gloss: \"_Ain_ mitler Christus, ach\nmerk!\" that is: _One_ mediator, Christ--note this well!\n\nIn 1486, Archbishop Berchtold of Mainz, Primate of Germany, issued an\nedict, full of impassioned malice against German translations of the\nBible, and against laymen who sought edification from them. He says that\n\"no prudent person will deny that there is need of many supplements and\nexplanations from other writings\" than the Bible, to the end, namely,\nthat a person may construe from the German Bibles the true Catholic\nfaith. Fact is, that faith is not in the Bible. This happened three\nyears after the birth of Luther. (Kurtz, II, 2, 304.)\n\nInstead of finding fault, then, with Luther's ignorance of the Bible\nprior to 1505, we feel surprised that the young man knew as much of the\nBible as he did. He must in this respect have surpassed many in his age.\n\nThe Roman Church does not permit her laymen to read a Bible that she has\nnot published with annotations. \"Believing herself to be the divinely\nappointed custodian and interpreter of Holy Writ,\" says a writer in the\n_Catholic Encyclopedia_ (II, 545), \"she cannot, without turning traitor\nto herself, approve the distribution of Scripture 'without note or\ncomment.'\" For this reason the Roman Church has cursed the Bible\nsocieties which early in the eighteenth century began to be formed in\nProtestant Churches, and aimed at supplying the poor with cheap Bibles.\nIn 1816, Pope Pius VII anathematized all Bible societies, declaring them\n\"a pest of Christianity,\" and renewed the prohibition which his\npredecessors had issued against translations of the Bible. (Kurtz, II,\n2, 94.) Leo XII, on May 5, 1824, in the encyclical _Ubi Primum,_ said:\n\"Ye are aware, venerable brethren, that a certain Bible society is\nimpudently spreading throughout the world, which, despising the\ntraditions of the holy Fathers and the decree of the Council of Trent,\nis endeavoring to translate, or rather to pervert, the Scriptures into\nthe vernacular of all nations. . . . It is to be feared that by false\ninterpretation the Gospel of Christ will become the gospel of men, or,\nstill worse, the gospel of the devil.\" Pius IX, on November 9, 1846, in\nthe encyclical _Qui Pluribus,_ said: \"These crafty Bible societies,\nwhich renew the ancient guile of heretics, cease not to thrust their\nBible upon all men, even the unlearned--their Bibles, which have been\ntranslated against the laws of the Church and after certain false\nexplanations of the text. Thus the divine traditions, the teaching of\nthe fathers, and the authority of the Catholic Church are rejected, and\nevery one in his own way interprets the words of the Lord, and distorts\ntheir meaning, thereby falling into miserable error.\" (_Cath. Encycl_.\nII, 545.) The writer whom we have just quoted says: \"The fundamental\nfallacy of private interpretation of the Scriptures is presupposed by\nthe Bible societies.\" These papal pronunciamentos arc directed chiefly\nagainst the Canstein Bibelgesellschaft and her later sisters, such as\nthe Berliner Bibelgesellschaft, and against the British and American\nBible Societies.\n\nThe face of the Roman Church is sternly set against the plain text of\nthe Scriptures. To defeat the meaning of the original text, she not only\nmutilates the text and adds glosses which twist the meaning of the text\ninto an altogether different meaning, but she declares that the Bible is\nnot the only source from which men must obtain revealed truth. Alongside\nof the Bible she places an unwritten word of God, her so-called\ntraditions. These, she claims, are divine revelations which were handed\ndown orally from generation to generation. The early fathers and the\ncouncils of the Church referred to them in defining the true doctrine\nand prescribing the correct practise of the Church. Nobody has collected\nthese traditions, and nobody will. But to what extent the Roman Church\noperates with them, is well known.\n\nSpeaking of learned Bible-study in the Middle Ages, Mosheim says:\n\"Nearly all the theologians were _Positivi_ and _Sententiarii_ [that is,\nthey taught what the Church ordered to be taught], who deemed it a great\nachievement, both in speculative and practical theology, either to\noverwhelm the subject with a torrent of quotations from the fathers, or\nto anatomize it according to the laws of dialectics [that is, the laws\nof reasoning, logic]. And whenever they had occasion to speak of the\nmeaning of any text, they appealed invariably to what was called the\n_Glossa Ordinaria_ [that is, the official explanation], and the phrase\n_Glossa dicit_ (the Gloss says), was as common and decisive on their\nlips as anciently the phrase _Ipse dixit_ (he, viz., the teacher, has\nsaid) in the Pythagorean school.\" (III, 15.)\n\nIn his controversies with the theologians of Rome, Luther found that\nthey were constantly wriggling out of the plain text of the Bible and\nrunning for shelter to the traditions, to the fathers, to the decrees of\ncouncils of the Church.\n\nAt the Council of Trent some one rose to inquire whether all the\ntraditions recognized as genuine by the Church could not be named; he\nwas told that he was out of order. (Pallavivini, VI, 11, 9; 18, 7.) Hase\nhas invited the Roman Church to say whether all the traditions are now\nknown. He has not been answered. (_Protest. Polem_., p. 83.) If\nRomanists answer: Yes, the reasonable request will be made of them to\npublish those traditions once for all time, in order that men may know\nall that God is supposed to have really said to men that is not in the\nBible. If they answer: No, the conclusion is inevitable that the\nChristian faith is an uncertain thing. Any tradition may bob up that\nupsets a part of the Creed.\n\nAdd to this the dogma of papal infallibility, promulgated July 18, 1870,\nwhich asserts for the Pope \"the entire plenitude  of supreme power\" to\ndetermine the faith and morals of Christians, and we have reached a\npoint where it becomes plain to any thoughtful person that the Bible is,\nfrom the Catholic view-point, not at all such a necessary book as men\nhave believed. Nor can the faith of a Romanist be a fixed and stable\nquantity. Any papal deliverance may bring about a change, and the\nconscientious Catholic must study the news from the Vatican with the\nsame vital interest as the merchant studies the market reports in his\nmorning paper, and a very pertinent question that he may ask his wife\nover his coffee at the breakfast table would be, \"Wife, what do we\nbelieve to-day?\"\n\n\n12. Luther's Visit at Rome.\n\nCatholic writers ask the world not to believe Luther's tales about the\ncity of Rome. Luther, they say, came to Rome as a callow rustic comes to\na metropolis. To the wily Italians he was German Innocence Abroad; they\nhoaxed him by telling him absurd tales about the Popes, the priests, the\nwonders of the city, etc., and the credulous monk believed all they told\nhim. He left Rome with his faith in the Church unimpaired. Later in\nlife, after his \"defection\" from Rome, he told as true facts and as\nreminiscences of his visit at the Holy City many of the false stories\nwhich had been palmed off on him. This is said to have given rise to the\nprevailing Protestant view that during his visit at Rome Luther's eyes\nwere opened to the corruption of the Roman Church and his resolution\nformed to overthrow that Church. Luther himself is said to be\nresponsible for this false view. He fostered it by his tales of what he\nhad seen and heard at Rome with disgust and horror. His horrid\nimpressions are declared pure fiction, and simply serve to show how\nlittle the man can be trusted in anything he states.\n\nTo leave a way open for a decent retreat, Catholics also point to a\ndifference in temperament between the phlegmatic Luther coming from a\nnorthern clime, which through its atmospheric rigors begets somber\nreflections and gloomy thoughts, and the airy, fairy Italians, who revel\nin sunshine, flowers, and fruits, drink fiery wines, and naturally grow\nup into a freedom of manners and lack of restraint that is\ncharacteristic of people living in southern climes. All of which means--\nif it means anything serious--that the Ten Commandments are subject to\nrevision according to the geographic latitude in which a person happens\nto be. When your austere gentleman, raised among the fens and bogs of\nthe Frisian coast, sees something in a grove in Sicily which he\ndenounces as wicked, you must tell him that there is nothing wrong in\nwhat he has seen. He has only omitted to adjust his temperament to the\nlocality. If you follow out this line of thought to the end, you will\ncome to a point where you strike hands with Rudyard Kipling, who has\nsung enthusiastically about a certain locality beyond Aden where the Ten\nCommandments do not exist. And to think that this plea is made by people\nwho have charged Luther with having put the Ten Commandments out of\ncommission for himself and others! Italians, lovers of freedom and\nunrestraint, were the first to fill the world with tales about the moral\nbesottedness of Luther! This goes to show that in any application of the\nTen Commandments it matters very much who does the applying.\n\nWe have in a previous chapter briefly reviewed the Popes that were\ncontemporaries of Luther. Their character was stamped on the life of the\nHoly City: The Popes and their following gave Rome its moral, or\nimmoral, face. The chroniclers of those days have described the existing\nconditions. Luther need not have said one word about what wicked things\nhe had seen and heard at Rome, either ten years, or twenty years, or\nthirty years after he had been there, and the world would still know the\nrecord of the residence of the Popes. Luther really saw very little of\nwhat he might have seen, and it is probable that he has told less. But\nwhat he did see and hear are facts. He did not grasp their full meaning\nnor see their true bearing at the time. The real import of his Roman\nexperiences dawned on him at a later period. He spoke as a man of things\nthat he had seen as a child. But that does not alter the facts.\n\nLuther was shocked at the levity of Italian monks who were babbling\nfaulty Latin prayers which they did not understand and remarked laughing\nto him: \"Never mind; the Holy Ghost understands us, and the devil flees\napace.\"\n\nLuther's confidence in the boasted unity of the Roman Church was\nsomewhat shaken when he discovered that he could not read mass in any\nchurch in the territory at Milan, because there the Ambrosian form of\nservice was prescribed while he had been trained to the Gregorian.\n\nLuther shook his head at the freedom of certain public manners of the\nItalians which reminded him of dogs and of what he had read about\nKerkyra.\n\nLuther heard of a Lenten collation, probably at the abbey of San\nBenedetto de Larione, where the word \"fast\" had to be spelled with an\n_e_ as the second letter.\n\nThe loquaciousness, spicy talk, blasphemy, dishonesty, treachery,\nquarrelsomeness, and deadly animosities of the Italians, Luther regards\nas strange, considering that they live so near to the Holy City.\n\nHe wondered why the Italians do not permit their women to go out of\ntheir houses except deeply veiled.\n\nHe finds that the Italians show no respect for their beautiful churches\nand the divine service conducted in them. Even on great festivals the\nmagnificent cathedrals are almost empty, the worshipers are chatting\nwith one another while the service is in progress. Even quarrels are\nsettled at these holy places, sometimes with the knife. When there is a\nburial, they hurry the corpse to the grave, not even the relatives being\nin attendance.\n\nHe is grieved at the irreligious manner in which the priests at Rome\nread mass. They hurry through the performance with incredible rapidity.\nThey crowd each other away from the altar in their haste to get their\nperformance finished. \"Hurry, hurry! Begone! Come away!\" he hears them\ncalling to one-another. Sometimes two priests are reading mass at one\naltar at the same time. They had finished the whole mass before Luther\nhad reached the Gospel in the service of the mass. And then they would\nreceive money from the bystanders who had come in and had watched them.\nIn a half hour a priest could get a handful of silver. Luther refused\nsuch gifts.\n\nLuther heard few preachers at Rome, and those that he heard he did not\nlike. They were very lively in the delivery of their sermons, they would\nrun to and fro in their pulpit, bend far over toward the audience, utter\nviolent cries, change their voice suddenly, and gesticulate like madmen.\n\nLuther saw Pope Julius from a distance several times. He thought it\nqueer that a healthy and strong man like the Pope should have himself\ncarried to church in a litter instead of walking thither, and that such\nshow should be made of his going there and a procession should be formed\nto accompany him. He saw the Pope sit at the altar and hold out his foot\nto be kissed by people. He saw the Pope take communion. He did not\nkneel like other communicants, but sat on his magnificent throne; a\ncardinal priest handed him the chalice, and he sipped the wine through a\nsilver tube.\n\nHowever, these and other things did not at the time shake Luther's\nbelief in the Catholic Church. He came to Rome and left Rome a devout\nCatholic. Staupitz, the vicar of his order, had really gratified him in\npermitting him to go to Rome as the traveling companion of another monk.\nLuther had expressed the wish to make a general confession at Rome. With\nthis thought on his mind he started out, and he treated the whole\njourney as a pilgrimage. After the manner of pious monks the two\ncompanions walked one behind the other, reciting prayers and litanies.\nWhether his general confession and his first mass at Rome, probably at\nSanta Maria del Popolo, gave him that sense of spiritual satisfaction\nwhich he craved, he has not told us. When he had come in sight of the\ncity, he had fallen on his face like the crusaders in sight of\nJerusalem, and had fervently blessed that moment. Now he ran through the\nseven stations of Rome, read masses wherever he could, gathered an\nabundance of indulgences by going through prescribed forms of worship at\nmany shrines, listened to miracle-tales, knelt before the veil of St.\nVeronica near the Golden Gate at San Giovanni and before the bronze\nstatue of St. Peter in the chapel of St. Martin, where a crucifix had of\nits own accord raised itself up and become transfixed in the dome, saw\nthe rope with which Judas hanged himself fastened to the altar of the\nApostles Simon and Judas at St. Peter's, the stone in the chapel of St.\nPetronella on which the penitential tears of Peter had fallen, cutting a\ngroove in it two fingers wide, had the guide show him the Pope's crown,\nthe tiara, which, he thought, cost more money than all the princes of\nGermany possessed, was perplexed at finding the heads and bodies of\nPeter and Paul assigned to different places, at the Lateran Church and\nat San Paolo Fuori, mounted the Scala Santa--Pilate's staircase--on his\nknees, passed with awe the relief picture in one of the streets which\nthe popular legend declared to be that of the female Pope Johanna and\nher child, saw the ancient pagan deities of Rome depicted in Santa Maria\ndella Rotonda, the old Pantheon, stared at the head of John the Baptist\nin San Silvestro in Capite, tried, but failed to read the famous\nSaturday mass at San Giovanni, the oldest and greatest sanctuary of\nChristianity, rested from a fatiguing tour through the Lateran in Santa\nCroce in Gerusalemme, where Pope Sylvester II, the Faustus of the\nItalians, was carried away by the devils, went through the catacombs\nwith its 6 martyred Popes and 176,000 other martyrs, etc., etc.\n\nLooking back to this visit later, Luther remarked, \"I believed\neverything\" Just what official Rome expected every devout pilgrim to do,\njust what it expects them to do to-day. And these Romanists want to\npoint the finger of ridicule at the simpleton, the easy dupe, the holy\nfool Luther! Does Rome perhaps think the same of all the pious pilgrims\nthat annually crowd Rome? Luther heard himself called \"un buon\nChristiano\" at Rome and discovered that that meant as much as \"an\negregious ass.\" But he considered that a part of Italian wickedness. The\nChurch, he was sure, approved of all that he did, in fact, had taught\nhim to do all that. It required ten years or more to disabuse his mind\nof the frauds that had been practised on him, and then he declared that\nhe would not take 100,000 gulden not to have seen with his own eyes how\nscandalously the Popes were hoodwinking Christians. If it were not for\nhis visit at Rome, he says, he might fear that he was slandering the\nPopes in what he wrote about them.\n\nWhile Luther's visit at Rome, then, brought about no spiritual change in\nhim, it helped to give him a good conscience afterwards when his\nconflict with Rome had begun.\n\n\n13. Pastor Luther.\n\nLuther's famous protest against the sale of indulgences, published\nOctober 31, 1517, in the form of ninety-five theses, is represented by\nCatholic writers as an outburst of Luther's violent temper and an\nassault upon the Catholic Church that he had long premeditated. By this\ntime, it is said, Luther had become known to his colleagues as a\nquarrelsome man, loving disputations and jealous of victory in a debate.\nHis methods of teaching at the university were novel, in defiance of the\nsettled customs of the Church. His dangerous innovations caused the\nsuspicion to spring up that he was plotting rebellion against the\nauthority of the Church. The arrival of the indulgence-hawker Tetzel in\nthe neighborhood of Wittenberg gave him the long-looked-for occasion to\nstrike a blow at the sacred teachings of the Church which he had\nsolemnly promised to support and defend against all heretics, and from\nwhose teachings he had already apostatized in his heart.\n\nThe fact is that Luther was so little conscious of an intention to stir\nup strife for his Church that he was probably the most surprised man in\nGermany when he observed the excitement which his Theses were causing.\nThe method he had chosen for voicing his opinion had no revolutionary\nelement in it. It was an invitation to the learned doctors to debate\nwith him the doctrinal grounds for the sale of indulgences. Catholic\nwriters point to the fact that Luther declared at a later time that he\ndid not know what an indulgence was when he attacked Tetzel. They seek\nto prove from this remark of Luther that it was not conscientious\nscruples, but the desire to cause trouble in the Church that prompted\nLuther to his action. They do not see that this remark speaks volumes\nfor Luther. By his Theses he meant to get at the truth of the teaching\nconcerning indulgences. His Theses were written in Latin, not in the\npeople's language. Others translated them into German and scattered them\nbroadcast throughout Germany. The Theses are no labored effort to set\nup, by skilful, logical argument and in carefully chosen terms, a new\ndogma in oppositon [tr. note: sic] to the teaching of the Church, but\nthey are exceptions hurriedly thrown on paper, like the notes jotted\ndown by a speaker to guide him in a discussion of his subject. Last, not\nleast, the Theses, while contradicting the prevailing practise of\nselling indulgences, breathe loyalty to the Catholic Church. From our\nmodern standpoint Luther appears in the Theses as half Protestant, or\nevangelical, half Roman Catholic. In his own view he was altogether\nCatholic. His Theses were merely a call: Let there be light! Let our\nconsciences be duly instructed!\n\nWe still have a letter which Luther wrote to Pope Leo X about six months\nafter he had published the Theses. This letter shows in what an orderly\nand quiet way Luther proceeded in his attack upon the traffic in\nindulgences, and how much he believed himself in accord with the Pope\nand the Church. We shall quote a few statements from this letter: \"In\nthese latter days a jubilee of papal indulgences began to be preached,\nand the preachers, thinking everything allowed them under the protection\nof your name, dared to teach impiety and heresy openly, to the grave\nscandal and mockery of ecclesiastical powers, totally disregarding the\nprovisions of the Canon Law about the misconduct of officials. . . .\nThey met with great success, the people were sucked dry on false\npretenses, . . . but the oppressors lived on the fat and sweetness of\nthe land. They avoided scandals only by the terror of your name, the\nthreat of the stake, and the brand of heresy, . . . if, indeed, this can\nbe called avoiding scandals and not rather exciting schisms and revolt\nby crass tyranny. . . .\n\n\"I privately warned some of the dignitaries of the Church. By some the\nadmonition was well received, by others ridiculed, by others treated in\nvarious ways, for the terror of your name and the dread of censure are\nstrong. At length, when I could do nothing else, I determined to stop\ntheir mad career if only for a moment; I resolved to call their\nassertions in question. So I published some propositions for debate,\ninviting only the more learned to discuss them with me, as ought to be\nplain to my opponents from the preface to my Theses. [This was, by the\nway, a common practise in those days among the learned professors at\nuniversities.] Yet this is the flame with which they seek to set the\nworld on fire! . . .\" (15, 401; transl. by Preserved Smith.)\n\nLuther's publication of the Theses was the act of a conscientious\nChristian pastor. Being a priest, Luther had to hear confession. Through\nthe confessional he learned how the common people viewed the\nindulgences: they actually believed that by buying indulgences they were\nfreed from all the guilt and punishment of their sins. Absolution became\na plain business transaction: you pay your money and you take your\ngoods. Luther wrote this to his archbishop the same day on which he\npublished his Theses. \"Papal indulgences,\" he says in the letter to\nAlbert, Archbishop of Mayence and Primate of Germany, \"for the building\nof St. Peter's are hawked about under your illustrious sanction. I do\nnot now accuse the sermons of the preachers who advertise them, for I\nhave not seen the same, but I regret that the people have conceived\nabout them the most erroneous ideas. Forsooth, these unhappy souls\nbelieve that, if they buy letters of pardon, they are sure of their\nsalvation; likewise, that souls fly out of purgatory as soon as money is\ncast into the chest; in short, that the, grace conferred is so great\nthat there is no sin whatever which cannot be absolved thereby, even if,\nas they say, taking an impossible example, a man should violate the\nmother of God. They also believe that indulgences free them from all\npenalty and guilt.\" (15, 391; transl. by Preserved Smith, p. 42.)\n\nLuther had preached against the popular belief in indulgences,\npilgrimages to shrines of the saints and their relics, for two years\nbefore he published his Theses. He was confident that the Church could\nnot countenance this belief. Forgiveness of sins is to the penitent in\nheart who are sorry for their sins, and their sins are forgiven for\nChrist's sake, who atoned for them, and in whom we have the forgiveness\nof sin by the redemption through His blood. This is the Scriptural\ndoctrine of penitence,--that sorrowful, contrite, and believing attitude\nof the heart which is the characteristic of true Christians throughout\ntheir lives. Through penitence we become absolved in the sight of God\nfrom all guilt and punishment of our sins, and the minister, by\nannouncing this fact, is to convey to the penitent the assurance that\nhis sins have been forgiven. Whatever penances or pious exercises the\nChurch may impose an sinners who have confessed their sins can only be\nimposed as a wholesome disciplinary measure and as aids to the needed\nreformation of life. These penances, since they originate in the choice\nof the Church, may also be remitted by the Church, and for these\npenances the Church may accept a commutation in money, which payment,\nhowever, cannot supersede the paramount duty of the penitent to amend\nhis sinful conduct. Such were Luther's views in brief outline at the\ntime he published his Theses. If we are to take modern Catholic critics\nof Luther seriously, that has also been the teaching of their Church on\nthe subject of indulgences. They claim that the good intentions of the\nPopes were grossly misinterpreted and the system of indulgences was put\nto uses for which it was never intended. If that is the case, why do\nthey attack Luther for his attempt to have the abuses corrected?\nAccording to their own presentation of the true teaching of the Church\non the subject of indulgences, Luther was the most dutiful son of the\nChurch in his day in what he did on All Souls' Eve, 1517.\n\nBut the Roman teaching on indulgences is not such an innocent affair as\nCatholics would have us believe. The practise of substituting for\npenances some good work or contribution to a pious purpose had arisen in\nthe Church at a very early time. \"This,\" says Preserved Smith, who has\nwell condensed the history of indulgences, \"was the seed of indulgence\nwhich would never have grown to its later enormous proportions had it\nnot been for the crusades. Mohammed promised his followers paradise if\nthey fell in battle against unbelievers, but Christian warriors were at\nfirst without this comforting assurance. Their faith was not long left\nin doubt, however, for as early as 855 Leo IV promised heaven to the\nFranks who died fighting against the Moslems. A quarter of a century\nlater John VIII proclaimed absolution for all sins and remission of all\npenalties to soldiers in the holy war, and from this time on the\n'crusade indulgence' became a regular means of recruiting, used, for\nexample, by Leo IX in 1052 and by Urban II in 1095. By this time the\npractise had grown up of regarding an indulgence as a remission not only\nof penance, but of the pains of purgatory. The means which had proved\nsuccessful in getting soldiers for the crusade were first used in 1145\nor 1146 to get money for the same end, pardon being assured to those who\ngave enough to fit out one soldier on the same terms as if they had gone\nthemselves.\n\n\"When the crusades ceased, in the thirteenth century, indulgences did\nnot fall into desuetude. At the jubilee of Pope Boniface VIII, in 1300,\na plenary indulgence was granted to all who made a pilgrimage to Rome.\nThe Pope reaped such an enormous harvest from the gifts of these\npilgrims that he saw fit to employ similar means at frequent intervals,\nand soon extended the same privileges as were granted to pilgrims to all\nwho contributed for some pious purpose at their own homes. Agents were\nsent out to sell these pardons, and were given power to confess and\nabsolve, so that in 1393 Boniface IX was able to announce complete\nremission of both guilt and penalty to the purchasers of his letters.\n\n\"Having assumed the right to free living men from future punishment, it\nwas but a step for the Popes to proclaim that they had the power to\ndeliver the souls of the dead from purgatory. The existence of this\npower was an open question until decided by Calixtus III in 1457, but\nfull use of the faculty was not made until twenty years later, after\nwhich it became of all branches of the indulgence trade the most\nprofitable.\"\n\nThe reader will note that the indulgence trade in its latest form had\nnot become a general thing until about six years before Luther's birth.\nIt was a comparatively new thing that Luther attacked. In our remarks on\nmonasticism in a previous chapter we alluded to the Roman teaching\nconcerning the Treasure of the Merits of the Saints, or the Treasure of\nthe Church. This teaching greatly fructified the theory of indulgences.\nIt has never been shown, and never will be, how this Treasure\noriginates. In the work of our Redeemer there was nothing superabundant\nthat the Scriptures name. He fulfilled the entire Law for man, and His\nmerits are of inestimable value. But they were all needed for the work\nof satisfying divine justice. Moreover, all these merits of Christ are\nfreely given to each and every believer and cancel all his guilt,\naccording to the statement of Paul: \"Christ is the end of the Law for\nrighteousness to every one that believeth.\" As regards the merits of the\nsaints, which they accumulated by doing good works in excess of what\nthey were required to do, this is a purely imaginary asset of the papal\nbank of Rome. Every man, with all that he is and has and is able to do,\nowes himself wholly to God. At the best he can only do his duty. There\nis no chance for doing good works in excess of duty. If he were really\nto do all, he would only do what it was his duty to do, Luke 17, 10, and\nwould be told to regard himself, even in that most favorable case, as an\nunprofitable servant.\n\nBut supposing there were superabundant merits, supererogatory works of\nChrist and the saints, who has determined their quantity? Who takes the\ninventory of this stock of the papal bank of Rome? Is he the same party\nwho determines the length of a person's stay in purgatory and can tell\nhow much he has been in arrears in the matter of goodness and\nvirtuousness, and how much cash will purchase his release? How is this\nintelligence conveyed to purgatory that Mr. So-and-so is free to proceed\nto heaven? A multitude of such questions arising in all thinking minds\nthat want to arrive at rock bottom facts in so serious a matter always\nbaffle the theologians of Rome. They owe the world an answer on these\nquestions for four hundred years. Is the world doing Rome an injustice\nwhen it regards the sale of indulgences a pure confidence game in holy\ndisguise, the offer of a fictitious value for good cash, the boldest and\nbaldest gold-bricking that mankind has heen [tr. note: sic] subjected\nto?\n\nThe sale of indulgences which was started in Luther's days was a\nparticularly offensive enterprise. \"It was not so much the theory of the\nChurch that excited Luther's indignation as it was the practises of some\nof her agents. They encouraged the common man to believe that the\npurchase of a papal pardon would assure him impunity without any real\nrepentance on his part. Moreover, whatever the theoretical worth of\nindulgences, the motive of their sale was notoriously the greed of\nunscrupulous ecclesiastics. The 'holy trade' as it was called had become\nso thoroughly commercialized by 1500 that a banking house, the Fuggers\nof Augsburg, were the direct agents of the Curia in Germany. In return\nfor their services in forwarding the Pope's bulls, and in hiring\nsellers of pardons, this wealthy house made a secret agreement in 1507\nby which it received one-third of the total profits of the trade, and in\n1514 formally took over the whole management of the business in return\nfor the modest commission of one-half the net receipts. Naturally not a\nword was said by the preachers to the people as to the destination of so\nlarge a portion of their money, but enough was known to make many men\nregard indulgences as an open scandal.\n\n\"The history of the particular trade attacked by Luther is one of\nspecial infamy. Albert of Brandenburg, a prince of the enterprising\nhouse of Hohenzollern, was bred to the Church and rapidly rose by\npolitical influence to the highest ecclesiastical position in Germany.\nIn 1513, he was elected, at the age of twenty-three, Archbishop of\nMagdeburg and administrator of the bishopric of Halberstadt,--an\nuncanonical accumulation of sees confirmed by the Pope in return for a\nlarge payment. Hardly had Albert paid this before he was elected\nArchbishop and Elector of Mayence and Primate of Germany (March 9,\n1514). As he was not yet of canonical age to possess even one bishopric,\nnot to mention three of the greatest in the empire, the Pope refused to\nconfirm his nomination except for an enormous sum. The Curia at first\ndemanded twelve thousand ducats for the twelve apostles. Albert offered\nseven for the seven deadly sins. The average between apostles and sins\nwas struck at ten thousand ducats, or fifty thousand dollars, a sum\nequal in purchasing power to near a million to-day. Albert borrowed\nthis, too, from the Fuggers, and was accordingly confirmed on August 15,\n1514.\n\n\"In order to allow the new prelate to recoup himself, Leo obligingly\ndeclared an indulgence for the benefit of St. Peter's Church, to run\neight years from March 31, 1515. By this transaction, one of the most\ndisgraceful in the history of the papacy, as well as in that of the\nhouse of Brandenburg, the Curia made a vast sum. Albert did not come off\nso well. First, a number of princes, including the rulers of both\nSaxonies, forbade the trade in their dominions, and the profits of what\nremained were deeply cut by the unexpected attack of a young monk.\"\n(Preserved Smith, p. 86 ff.)\n\nLuther had ample reason to dread the demoralizing effect of the\nindulgence-venders' activity upon the common people. In the sermons of\nTetzel the church where he happened to do business was raised to equal\ndignity with St. Peter's at Rome. Instead of confessing to an ordinary\npriest, he told the masses they had now the rare privilege of confessing\nto an Apostolical Vicar, specially detailed for this work. With\nconsummate skill he worked on the tender feelings of parents, of\nmothers, who were mourning the loss of children, or of children who had\nlost their parents. He impersonated the departed in their agonies in\npurgatory, he made the people hear the pitiful moaning of the victims in\nthe purgatorial fires, and transmitted their heartrending appeals for\nspeedy help to the living. He clinched the argument by playing on the\npeople's covetousness: for the fourth part of a gulden they could\ntransfer a suffering soul safely to the home of the eternal paradise.\nHad they ever had a greater bargain offered to them? Never would they\nhave this indispensable means of salvation brought within easier reach.\nNow was the time, now or never! \"0 ye murderers, ye usurers, ye robbers,\nye slaves of vice,\" he cried out, \"now is the time for you to hear the\nvoice of God, who does not desire the death of the sinner, but would\nhave the sinner repent and live. Turn, then, O Jerusalem, to the Lord,\nthy God!\" He declared that the red cross of the indulgence-venders, with\nthe papal arms, raised in a church, possessed the same virtue as the\ncross of Christ. If Peter were present in person, he would not possess\ngreater authority, nor could he dispense grace more effectually than he.\nYea, he would not trade his glory as an indulgence-seller with Peter's\nglory; for he had saved more souls by selling the indulgences than Peter\nby preaching. Every time a coin clinked in his money chest a liberated\nsoul was soaring to heaven.\n\nCatholic writers declare that the people were told that they must repent\nin order to obtain forgiveness. So they were, in the manner aforestated.\nRepenting meant buying a letter of pardon from the Pope. That is the\nreason why Luther worded the first two of his Ninety-five Theses as he\ndid: \"Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: _Poenitentiam agite!_\nmeant that the whole life of the faithful should be repentance. And\nthese words cannot refer to penance--that is, confession and\nsatisfaction.\" The Latin phrase \"poenitentiam agere\" has a double\nmeaning: it may mean \"repent\" and \"do penance.\" Our Lord used the phrase\nin the first, the indulgence-sellers in the second sense. Since the\npeople had been raised in the belief that the Church had the authority\nfrom God to impose church fines on them for their trespasses, by which\nthey were to remove the temporal punishment of their sins, this was\ncalled \"doing penance,\"--they were actually led to believe that the\nwere obeying a command of Christ in buying a letter of indulgence. And\nnot only did the people believe that they were purchasing release from\ntemporal punishment, but from the guilt of sin and all its effects. The\ncommon man from the fields and the streets did not make the fine\ndistinction of the hair-splitting theologians: his bargain meant to him\nthat hell was closed and heaven open for him.\n\nAnother favorite defense of modern Catholic writers is, that the money\npaid for an indulgence was not meant to purchase anything, but was to be\nviewed as a thank-offering which the grateful hearts of the pardoned\nprompted them to make to the Church who had brought them the pardon\nfree, gratis, and for nothing. This is Cardinal Gibbons's argument. He\npoints triumphantly to the fact that the letters of indulgence were\nnever handed the applicants at the same desk at which the\n\"thank-offerings\" were received. He does not say which desk the\napplicant approached first. But, supposing he obtained the letter first\nand then, with a heart bounding with joy and gratitude, hurried to the\nother desk, we have an interesting psychological problem confronting us.\nThe two acts, the delivery of the letter of indulgence and the\nsurrendering of the thank-offering, we are told, are independent the one\nof the other. Both are free acts, the one the free forgiveness of the\nChurch, the other the free giving of the pardoned. The Church's grant of\npardon has nothing to do with the payment of indulgence-money, and the\nindulgence-money is not related to the letter of indulgence. Now, then,\nthe purchaser of an indulgence performs this remarkable feat: when he\nstands at the desk where the letter is handed to him, he does not think\nof any cost that he incurs. He views the letter as a pure gift. Then,\nobeying a sudden impulse of gratitude, he turns to the other desk and\nhands the official some money. He manages to think that he is not paying\nfor anything, that would be utterly improper. How could a person pay for\na donation, especially such a donation of spiritual and heavenly\ntreasures? One disturbing element, however, remains: the amount of the\nthank-offering was fixed beforehand for particular sins, probably to\nregulate the recipient's gratitude and make it adequate. The writer has\nresolved to test the psychology of this process on himself the next time\nthe Boston Symphony Company comes to town. He will try and think of the\ngreat singers as true benefactors of mankind, who go about the country\nbestowing favors on the public, and when he comes to the ticket-window\nhe will merely make a thank-offering for the pleasure he is receiving.\nThe scheme ought to work as well in this instance as in the other.\n\n\n14. The Case of Luther's Friend Myconius.\n\nThere is a remarkable instance recorded in the annals of the Reformation\nwhich strikingly illustrates the operations of the indulgence-venders.\nThis record deserves not to be forgotten. Gustav Freitag, the famous\nwriter of German history, has embodied it in his sketch \"Doktor Luther.\"\n\nFrederic Mecum, in Latin Myconius, had become a monk in the Franciscan\norder. He had had an experience with Tetzel which caused him to turn to\nLuther with joy and wonder when the latter had published his Theses. Few\nof the writings of Myconius, who afterwards became the evangelical\npastor of the city of Gotha, have been preserved. In the ducal library\nat Gotha Freitag found [tr. note: sic] an account in Latin of the\nincident to which we have referred. It is as follows: \"John Tetzel, of\nPirna in Meissen, a Dominican friar, was a powerful peddler of\nindulgences or the remission of sins by the Roman Pope. He tarried with\nthis purpose of his for two years in the city of Annaberg, new at that\ntime, and deceived the people so much that they all believed there was\nno other way of obtaining the forgiveness of sins and eternal life\nexcept to make amends with our works; concerning this making of amends,\nhowever, he said that it was impossible. But a single way was still\nleft, that is, if we purchased the same for money from the Roman Pope,\nbought for ourselves, therefore, the Pope's indulgence, which he called\nthe forgiveness of sins and a certain entrance into eternal life. Here I\nmight tell wonders upon wonders and incredible things, what kind of\nsermons I heard Tetzel preach these two years in Annaberg, for I heard\nhim preach quite diligently, and he preached every day; I could repeat\nhis sermons to others, too, with all the gestures and intonations; not\nthat I made him an object of ridicule, but I was entirely in earnest.\nFor I considered everything as oracles and divine words, which one had\nto believe, and what came from the Pope I regarded as if coming from\nChrist Himself.\n\n\"Finally, at Pentecost, in the year of our Lord 1510, he threatened he\nwould lay down the red cross and lock the door of heaven and put out the\nsun, and it would never again come about that the forgiveness of sins\nand eternal life could be obtained for so little money. Yes, he said, it\nwas not to be expected that such charitableness of the Pope should come\nhither again as long as the world would stand. He also exhorted that\nevery one should attend well to the salvation of his own soul and to\nthat of his deceased and living friends. For now was at hand, according\nto him, the day of his salvation and the accepted time. And he said:\n'Let no one under any condition neglect his own salvation; for if you do\nnot have the Pope's letters, you cannot be absolved and delivered by any\nhuman being from many sins and \"reserved cases\"' (that is, cases with\nwhich an ordinary priest was not qualified to deal). On the doors and\nwalls of the church printed letters were publicly posted in which it was\nordered that one should henceforth not sell the letters of indulgence\nand the full power at the close as dear as in the beginning, in order to\ngive the German people a sign of gratitude for their devotion; and at\nthe end of the letter at the foot was written in addition, _'Pauperibus\ndentur gratis,'_ to the needy the letters of indulgence are to be given\nfor nothing, without money, for the sake of God.\n\n\"Then I began to deal with the deputies of this indulgence-peddler; but,\nin truth, I was impelled and urged to do so by the Holy Ghost, although\nI myself did not understand at the time what I was doing.\n\n\"My dear father had taught me in my childhood the Ten Commandments, the\nLord's Prayer, and the Christian Creed, and compelled me always to pray.\nFor, he said, we had everything from God alone, gratis, for nothing, and\nHe would also govern and lead us if we prayed with diligence. Of the\nindulgences and Roman remission of sins he said that they were only\nsnares with which one tricked the simple out of their money and took it\nfrom their purses, that the forgiveness of sins and eternal life could\ncertainly not be purchased and acquired with money. But the priests or\npreachers became angry and enraged when one said such things. Because I\nheard then nothing else in the sermons every day but the greatest praise\nof the remission of sins, I was filled with doubt as to whom I was to\nbelieve more, my father or the priests as teachers of the Church. I was\nin doubt, but still I believed the priests more than the instruction of\nmy father. But one thing I did not grant, that the forgiveness of sins\ncould not be acquired unless it was purchased with money, above all by\nthe poor. On this account I was wonderfully well pleased with the little\nclause at the end of the Pope's letter, _'Pauperibus gratis dentur\npropter Deum.'_\n\n\"And as they, in three days, intended to lay down the cross with special\nmagnificence and cut off the steps and ladders to heaven, I was impelled\nby my spirit to go to the commissioners and ask for the letters of the\nforgiveness of sins 'out of mercy for the poor.' I declared also that I\nwas a sinner and poor and in need of the forgiveness of sins, which was\ngranted through divine grace. On the second day, around evening, I\nentered Hans Pflock's house where Tetzel was assembled with the\nfather-confessors and crowds of priests, and I addressed them in Latin\nand requested that they might allow me, poor man, to ask, according to\nthe command in the Pope's letter, for the absolution of all my sins for\nnothing and for the sake of God, _'etiam nullo casu reservato,'_ without\nreserving a single case, and in regard to the same they should give me\nthe Pope's _'literas testimoniales,'_ or written testimony. Then the\npriests were astonished at my Latin speech, for that was a rare thing at\nthis time, especially in the case of young boys; and they soon went out\nof the room into the small chamber which I was alongside, to the\ncommissioner Tetzel. They made my desire known to him, and also asked in\nmy behalf that he might give me the letters of indulgence for nothing.\nFinally, after long counsel, they returned and brought this answer:\n_'Dear son, we have put your petition before the commissioner with all\ndiligence, and he confesses that he would gladly grant your request, but\nthat he could not; and although he might wish to do so, the concession\nwould nevertheless be naught and ineffective. For he declared unto us\nthat it was clearly written in the Pope's letter that those would\ncertainly share in the exceeding generous indulgences and treasures of\nthe Church and the merits of Christ _qui porrigerent manum adjutricem,_\nwho offered a helping hand; that is, those who would give money.' And\nall that they told me in German, for there was not one among them who\ncould have spoken three Latin words correctly with any one.\n\n\"In return, however, I entreated anew, and proved from the Pope's letter\nwhich had been posted that the Holy Father, the Pope, had commanded that\nsuch letters should be given to the poor for nothing, for the sake of\nthe Lord; and especially because there had also been written there _'ad\nmandatum domini Papae proprium,'_ that is, at the Pope's own command.\n\n\"Then they went in again and asked the proud, haughty friar, that he\nmight kindly grant my request and let me go from him with the letter of\nindulgence, since I was a clever and fluently-speaking young man and\nworthy of having something exceptional granted me. But they came out\nagain and brought again the answer, _'de manu auxiliatrice,' concerning\nthe helping hand, which alone was fit for the holy indulgence. I,\nhowever, remained firm and said that they were doing me, a poor man, an\ninjustice; the one whom both God and the Pope were unwilling to shut out\nof divine grace was rejected by them for some few pennies which I did\nnot have. Then a contention arose that I should at least give something\nsmall, in order that the helping-hand might not be lacking, that I\nshould only give a groschen; I said, 'I do not have it, I am poor.' At\nlast it came to the point where I was to give six pfennigs; then I\nanswered again that I did not have a single pfennig. They tried to\nconsole me and spoke with one another. Finally I heard that they were\nworried about two things, in the first place, that I should in no case\nbe allowed to go without a letter of indulgence, for this might be a\nplan devised by others, and that some bad affair might hereafter result\nfrom it, since it was clear in the Pope's letter that it should be given\nto the poor for nothing. Again, however, something would nevertheless\nhave to be taken from me in order that the others might not hear that\nthe letters of indulgence were being given out for nothing; for the\nwhole pack of pupils and beggars would then come running, and each one\nwould want the same for nothing. They should not have found it necessary\nto be worried about that, for the poor beggars were looking more for\ntheir blessed bread to drive away their hunger.\n\n\"After they had held their deliberation, they came again to me and one\ngave me six pfennigs that I should give them to the commissioner.\nThrough this contribution I, too, should become, according to them, a\nbuilder of the Church of St. Peter, at Rome, likewise a slayer of the\nTurk, and should furthermore share in the grace of Christ and the\nindulgences. But then I said frankly, impelled by the Spirit, if I\nwished to buy indulgences and the remission of sins for money, I could\nin all likelihood sell a book and buy them for my own money. I wanted\nthem, however, for nothing, as gifts, for the sake of God, or they would\nhave to give an account before God for having neglected and trifled away\nmy soul's salvation on account of six pfennigs, since, as they knew,\nboth God and the Pope wished that my soul should share in the\nforgiveness of all my sins for nothing, through grace. This I said, and\nyet, in truth, I did not know how matters stood with the letters of\nindulgence.\n\n\"At last, after a long conversation, the priests asked me by whom I had\nbeen sent to them, and who had instructed me to carry on such dealings\nwith them. Then I told them the pure, simple truth, as it was, that I\nhad not been exhorted or urged by any one at all or brought to it by any\nadvisers, but that I had made such a request alone, without counsel of\nany man, only with the confidence and trust in the gracious forgiveness\nof sins which is given for nothing; and that I had never spoken or had\ndealings with such great people during all my life. For I was by nature\ntimid, and if I had not been forced by my great thirst for God's grace,\nI should not have undertaken anything so great and mixed with such\npeople and requested anything like that of them. Then the letters of\nindulgence were again promised me, but yet in such a way that I should\nbuy them for six pfennigs which were to be given to me, as far as I was\nconcerned, for nothing. I, however, continued to insist that the letters\nof indulgence should be given to me for nothing by him who had the power\nto give them; if not, I should commend and refer the matter to God. And\nso I was dismissed by them.\n\n\"The holy thieves, notwithstanding, became sad in consequence of these\ndealings; I, however, was partly downcast that I had received no letter\nof indulgence, partly I rejoiced, too, that there was, in spite of all,\nstill One in heaven who was willing to forgive the penitent sinner his\nsins without money and loan, according to the words that I had often\nsung in church: 'As true as I live, says the Lord, I desire not the\ndeath of the sinner, but that he be converted and live.' Oh, dear Lord\nand God, Thou knowest that I am not lying in this matter, or inventing\nanything about myself.\n\n\"While doing this, I was so moved that I, on returning to my inn, almost\ngushed forth and melted to tears. Thus I came to my inn, went to my\nroom, and took the cross which always lay upon the little table in my\nstudy-room, placed it upon the bench, and fell down upon the floor\nbefore it. I cannot describe it here, but at that time I was able to\nfeel the spirit of prayer and divine grace which Thou, my Lord and God,\npouredst out over me. The essential import of the same, however, was\nthis: I asked that Thou, dear God, mightst be willing to be my Father,\nthat Thou mightst be willing to forgive me for my sins, that I submitted\nmyself wholly to Thee, that Thou mightst make of me now whatsoever\npleased Thee, and because the priests did not wish to be gracious to me\nwithout money, that Thou mightst be willing to be my gracious God and\nFather.\n\n\"Then I felt that my whole heart was changed. I was disgusted with\neverything in this world, and it seemed to me that I had quite enough of\nthis life. One thing only did I desire, that is, to live for God, that I\nmight be pleasing to Him. But who was there at that time who would have\ntaught me how I had to go about it? For the word, life, and light of\nmankind was buried throughout the whole world in the deepest darkness of\nhuman ordinances and of the quite foolish good works. Of Christ there\nwas complete silence, nothing was known about Him, or, if mention was\nmade of Him, He was represented unto us as a dreadful, fearful Judge,\nwhom scarcely His mother and all the saints in heaven could reconcile\nand make merciful with bloody tears; and yet it was done in such a way\nthat He, Christ, thrust the human being who did penance into the pains\nof purgatory seven years for each capital sin. It was claimed that the\npain of purgatory differed from the pain of hell in nothing except that\nit was not to last forever. The Holy Ghost, however, now brought me the\nhope that God would be merciful unto me.\n\n\"And now I began to take counsel a few days with myself as to how I\nmight take up some other vocation in life. For I saw the sin of the\nworld and of the whole human race; I saw my manifold sin, which was very\ngreat. I had also heard something of the secret holiness and the pure,\ninnocent life of the monks, how they served God day and night, were\nseparated from all the wicked life of the world, and lived very sober,\npious, and virtuous lives, read masses, sang psalms, fasted, and prayed\nat all times. I had also seen this sham life, but I did not know and\nunderstand that it was the greatest idolatry and hypocrisy.\n\n\"Thereupon I made my decision known to the preceptor, Master Andreas\nStaffelstein, who was the chief regent of the school; he advised me\nstraightway to enter the Franciscan cloister, the rebuilding of which\nhad been begun at that time. And in order that I might not become\ndifferently minded in consequence of long delay, he straightway went\nwith me himself to the monks, praised my intellect and ability, declared\nin terms of praise that he bad considered me the only one among his\npupils of whom he was entirely confident that I should become a very\ndevout man.\n\n\"I wished, however, first to announce my intention to my parents, too,\nand hear their ideas about the matter, since I was a lone son and heir\nof my parents. The monks, however, taught me from St. Jerome that I\nshould drop father and mother, and not take them into consideration, and\nrun to the cross of Christ. They quoted, too, the words of Christ, 'No\none who lays hands to the plow and looks back is fit for the kingdom of\nGod.' All of this was bound to impel and enjoin me to become a monk. I\nwill not speak here of many ropes and fetters with which they bound and\ntied my conscience. For they said that I could never become blessed if I\ndid not soon accept and use the grace offered by God. Thereupon I, who\nwould rather have been willing to die than be without the grace of God\nand eternal life, straightway promised and engaged to come into the\ncloister again in three days and begin the year of probation, as they\ncalled it, in the cloister; that is, I wanted to become a pious, devout,\nand God-fearing monk.\n\n\"In the year of Christ 1510, the 14th of July, at two o'clock in the\nafternoon, I entered the cloister, accompanied by my preceptor, some few\nof my school-comrades, and some very devout matrons, to whom I had in\npart made known the reason why I was entering the spiritual order. And\nso I blessed my companions to the cloister, all of whom, amid tears,\nwished me God's grace and blessing. And thus I entered the cloister.\nDear God, Thou knowest that this is all true. I did not seek idleness or\nprovision for my stomach, nor the appearance of great holiness, but I\nwished to be pleasing unto Thee--Thee I wished to serve.\n\n\"Thus I at that time groped about in very great darkness\" (p. 38 ff.)*\n     *This account is published by the courtesy of the Lutheran\nPublication Society of Philadelphia; it is taken from their publication\n_Doctor Luther,_ by Gustav Freitag.\n\nFew Christians can read this old record without pity stirring in them.\nThe man of whom Myconius tells all this, Tetzel, has been recently\nrepresented to the American public as a theologian far superior to\nLuther, calm, considerate, kind, and of his actions the public has been\nadvised that they were so utterly correct that the Roman Catholic Church\nof to-day does not hesitate one moment to do what Tetzel did. So mote it\nbe! We admire the writer's honesty, and blush for his brazen boldness.\n\n\n15. Luther's Faith without Works.\n\nOut of Luther's opposition to the sale of indulgences there grew in the\ncourse of time one of the fundamental principles of Protestantism:\ncomplete, universal, and free salvation of sinners by grace through\nfaith in Jesus Christ. In the controversies which started immediately\nafter the publication of the Ninety-five Theses, Luther was led step by\nstep to a greater clearness in his view of sin and grace, faith and\nworks, human reason and the divine revelation. Not yet realizing the\nfull import of his act, Luther had in the Theses made that article of\nthe Christian faith with which the Church either stands or falls the\nissue of his lifelong conflict with Rome--the article of the\njustification of a sinner before God. It is, therefore, convenient to\nreview the misrepresentations which Luther has suffered from Catholic\nwriters because of his teaching on the subject of justification at this\nearly stage in our review, though in doing so a great many things will\nhave to be anticipated.\n\nCatholic writers charge Luther with having perverted the meaning of\njustifying faith. Luther held that justifying faith is essentially the\nassurance that since Christ lived on earth as a man, labored, suffered,\ndied, and rose again in the place of sinners, the world _en masse_ and\nevery individual sinner are without guilt in the estimation of God. \"God\nwas in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their\ntrespasses unto them.\" (2 Cor. 5, 19.) To this reconciliation the sinner\nhas contributed nothing. It has been accomplished without him. He cannot\nadd anything to it. God only asks the sinner to believe in his salvation\nas finished by Jesus Christ. To believe this fact does not mean to\nperform a work of merit in consideration of which God is willing to\nbestow salvation on the believer, but it means to accept the work of\nChrist as performed in our place, to rejoice therein, and to repose a\nsure confidence in this salvation in defiance of the accusations of our\nown conscience, the incriminations which the broken Law of God hurls at\nus, and the terrors of the final judgment. The believer regards himself\nas righteous before God not because of any good work that he has done,\nbut because of the work which Christ has performed in his place. The\nbeliever holds that, when God, by raising Christ from the dead, accepted\nHis work as a sufficient atonement for men's guilt and an adequate\nfulfilment of the divine Law, He accepted each and every sinner. The\nbeliever is certain that through the work of his Great Brother, Christ,\nhe has been restored to a child relationship with God and enjoys child's\nprivileges with his Father in heaven. The idea that he himself has done\nanything to bring about this blessed state of affairs is utterly foreign\nto this faith in Christ.\n\nCatholic writers assert that the doctrine which we have just outlined is\nnot Scriptural, but represents the grossest perversion of Scripture.\nThey say this doctrine originated in \"the erratic brain of Luther.\"\nLuther \"was not an exact thinker, and being unable to analyze an idea\ninto its constituents, as is necessary for one who will apprehend it\ncorrectly, he failed to grasp questions which by the general mass of the\npeople were thoroughly and correctly understood. . . . He allowed\nhimself to cultivate an unnecessary antipathy to so-called 'holiness by\nworks,' and this attitude, combined with his tendency to look at the\nworst side of things, and his knowledge of some real abuses then\nprevalent in the practise of works, doubtless contributed to develop his\ndislike for good works in general, and led him by degrees to strike at\nthe very roots of the Catholic system of sacraments and grace, of\npenance and satisfaction, in fact, all the instruments or means\ninstituted by God both for conferring and increasing His saving\nrelationship with man.\" Luther's teaching on justification is said to be\nthe inevitable reverse of his former self-exaltation. Abandoning the\nindispensable virtue of humility, he had become a prey to spiritual\npride, and had entered the monastery to achieve perfect righteousness by\nhis own works. He had disregarded the wise counsels of his brethren, who\nhad warned him not to depend too much on his own powers, but seek the\naid of God. Then failing to make himself perfect, he had run to the\nother extreme and declared that there was nothing good in man at all,\nand that man could not of himself perform any worthy action. Finally he\nhad hit upon the idea that justification means, \"not an infusion of\njustice into the heart of the person justified, but a mere external\nimputation of it.\" Faith, in Luther's view, thus becomes an assurance\nthat this imputation has taken place, and man accordingly need not give\nhimself any more trouble about his salvation.\n\nThis teaching, Catholic writers contend, subverts the prominent teaching\nof the Scriptures that man must obey God and keep His commandments, that\nhe must be perfect, even as his Father in heaven is perfect, that he\nmust follow in the footsteps of Jesus who said: \"I am not come to\ndestroy the Law, but to fulfil it.\" Furthermore, this teaching is said\nto dehumanize man and make out of him a stock and a stone, utterly unfit\nfor any spiritual effort. God, they say, constituted man a rational\nbeing and imposed certain precepts on him which he was free to keep or\nviolate as he might choose unto eternal happiness or eternal misery. The\nsin which all inherit from Adam has weakened the powers of man to do\ngood, but it has not entirely abolished them. There is still something\ngood in man by nature, and if he wants to please God and obtain His aid\nin his good endeavors, he must at least do as much as is still in his\npower to do, and believe that God for Jesus' sake will assist him to\nbecome perfect, if not in this life, then, at any rate, in the life to\ncome. He cannot avoid sin altogether, but he can avoid sin to a certain\nextent; he can at least lead an outwardly decent life. That is worth\nsomething, that is \"meritorious.\" He may not feel a very deep contrition\nover his wrong-doings, but he can feel at least an attrition, that is, a\nlittle sorrow, or he can wish that he might feel sorry. That is worth\nsomething; that is \"meritorious.\" He cannot love God with all his heart\nand all his soul, and all his strength, but he can love Him some. That\nis worth something; that is \"meritorious.\" Accordingly, when the rich\nyoung man asked the Lord what he must do to gain heaven, the  Lord did\nnot say, \"Believe in Me, Accept Me for your personal Savior, Have faith\nin Me,\" but He said: \"If thou wilt enter into life, keep the\ncommandments.\" Paul, likewise teaches that faith and love must cooperate\nin man, for \"faith worketh by love.\" Therefore, \"faith in love and love\nin faith justify,\" but not faith alone. Faith without works is dead and\ncannot justify. A live faith is a faith that has works to show as its\ncredentials that it is real faith. Hence, faith alone does not justify,\nbut faith and works. Love is the fulfilment of the Law; faith works by\nlove, hence, by the fulfilment of the Law. Therefore, faith alone does\nnot justify, but faith plus the fulfilment of the Law. In endless\nvariations Catholic writers thus seek to upset with Scripture Luther's\nteaching that man is justified by faith in Christ alone, and that all\nthe righteousness which a sinner can present before God without fear\nthat it will be rejected is a borrowed righteousness, not his own\nwork-righteousness.\n\nWe might express a just surprise that Catholics should be offended at\nthe doctrine that the righteousness of Christ is imputed, that is,\nreckoned or counted, to the sinner as his own. For, does not their\nsystem of indulgences rest on a theory of imputation? Do they not, by\nselling from the Treasure of the Church the superabundant merits of\nChrist and the saints to the sinner who has not a sufficient amount of\nthem, make those merits the sinner's own by just such a process of\nimputation? They surely cannot infuse those merits into the sinner. But\nCatholics probably object to the Protestant imputation-teaching because\nthat is too cheap and easy, and because Protestant success has spoiled a\nlucrative Catholic imputation-business.--This in passing. Let the Bible\ndecided [tr. note: sic] whether Luther was right in teaching\njustification by faith alone, by faith without works.\n\nWhat does the Bible say about the condition of natural man after the\nfall? It says: \"That which is born of the flesh is flesh,\" that is,\ncorrupt (John 3, 6); \"The imagination of man's heart is evil from his\nyouth\" (Gen. 8, 21); \"They are all gone aside, they are altogether\nbecome filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one\" (Ps. 14, 3);\n\"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one\" (Job 14, 4);\n\"There is here no difference; for all have sinned and come short of the\nglory of God (Rom. 3, 22. 23).\n\nWhat does the Bible say about the powers of natural man after the fall\nin reference to spiritual matters? It says: \"The natural man receiveth\nnot the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him;\nneither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned\" (1\nCor. 2, 14); \"Ye were dead in trespasses and sins\" (Eph. 2, 1); \"The\ncarnal mind,\" that is, the mind of flesh, the natural mind of man, \"is\nenmity against God\" (Rom. 8, 7); \"Without Me\"--Jesus is the Speaker--\"ye\ncan do nothing\" John 15, 5).\n\nWhat does the Bible say about the value of man's works of righteousness\nperformed by his natural powers? It says: \"We are all as an unclean\nthing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags\" (Is. 64, 6); \"A\ncorrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit\" (Matt. 7, 17).\n\nWhat does the Bible say about man's ability to fulfil the Law of God? It\nsays: \"Cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to do\nthem\" (Deut. 27, 26) ; \"Whosoever shall keep the whole Law, and yet\noffend in one point, he is guilty of all\" (Jas. 2, 10) ; \"What the Law\ncould not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His\nown Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in\nthe flesh\" (Rom. 8, 38); \"The Law worketh wrath,\" that is, by convincing\nman that he has not fulfilled it and never will fulfil it, it rouses\nman's anger against God who has laid this unattainable Law upon him\n(Rom. 4, 15).\n\nWhat does the Bible say about the relation of Christ to the Law and to\nsin? It says: \"God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the\nLaw, that He might redeem them that were under the Law\" (Gal. 4, 4);\n\"Christ is the end of the Law 'for righteousness to every one that\nbelieveth\" (Rom. 10, 4); \"God hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no\nsin, that we might be made the righteous of God in Him\" (2 Cor. 5, 21);\n\"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law; being made a curse\nfor us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree\"\n(Gal. 3, 13).\n\nWhat does the Bible say about faith without works as a means of\njustification? It says: \"We conclude that a man is justified by faith,\nwithout the deeds of the Law\" (Rom. 3, 28); \"To him that worketh not,\nbut believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted\nfor righteousness\" (Rom. 4, 5); \"I rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no\nconfidence in the flesh, though I might also have confidence in the\nflesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in\nthe flesh, I more: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel,\nof the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the Law,\na Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the Church; touching the\nrighteousness which is in the Law, blameless. [The speaker is the\napostle Paul.] But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for\nChrist. Yea, doubtless; and I count all things but loss for the\nexcellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I have\nsuffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may\nwin Christ and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which\nis of the Law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the\nrighteousness which is of God by faith\" (Phil. 3, 3-9) ; \"If by grace,\nthen is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it\nbe of works, then is it no more grace; otherwise work is no more work\"\n(Rom. 11, 6). (The Catholic Bible omits the last half of this text.)\n\nWhat does the Bible say about faith being assurance of pardon and\neverlasting life? It says: \"If God be for us, who can be against us? He\nthat spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall\nHe not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything\nto the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that\ncondemneth? It is Christ that died, yea, rather, that is risen again,\nwho is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for\nus. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or\ndistress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?\nNay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that\nloved us. For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels,\nnor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,\nnor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate\nus from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, our Lord\" (Rom. 8,\n31-39); \"I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able\nto keep that which I have committed unto Him against that day\" (2 Tim.\n1, 12).\n\nHere we rest our case. If Luther was wrong in teaching the justification\nof the sinner by faith, without the deeds of the Law, then Paul was\nwrong, Jesus Christ was wrong, the apostles and prophets were wrong, the\nwhole Bible is wrong. Catholics must square themselves to these texts\nbefore they dare to open their mouths against Luther. If Luther was a\nheretic, the Lord Jesus made him one, and He is making a heretic of\nevery reader of the texts aforecited. Rome will have to answer to Him.\n\nBut what about the answer of the Lord to the rich young man? What about\nthe commandment to be perfect? Does not the doctrine of justification by\nfaith alone, without the deeds of the Law, abolish the holy and good Law\nof God? Not at all. When Paul expounds to the Galatians the doctrine of\njustification by faith as compared with justification by works, he\narrays the Law against the Gospel, and raises this question: \"Is the\nLaw, then, against the promises of God?\" His answer reveals the whole\ndifficulty that attends every effort to obtain righteousness by\nfulfilling the Law, he says: \"God forbid: for if there had been a law\ngiven which could have given life, verily, righteousness should have\nbeen by the Law.\" (Gal. 3, 21.) Christ expressed the same truth when He\nsaid to the lawyer: \"Do this, and thou shalt live.\" (Luke 10, 28.) The\nreason why the Law makes no person righteous is not because it is not a\nsufficient rule or norm of good works by which men could earn eternal\nlife, but because it does not furnish man any ability to achieve that\nrighteousness which it demands. No law does that. The law only creates\nduties, and insists on their fulfilment under threat of punishment. It\nis not the function of the law to make doers of the law. Originally the\nLaw was issued to men who were able to fulfil it, because they were\ncreated after the image of God, in perfect holiness and righteousness.\nThat they lost this concreate [tr. note: sic] ability through the fall is\nno reason why God should change or abrogate His Law. He purposes to help\nthem in another way, by sending them His Son for a Redeemer, who fulfils\nthe Law in their stead. But this wonderful plan of God for the rescue of\nlost man is not appreciated by any one who still believes, as the\nCatholics do, that he has some good powers in him left which he can\ndevelop with the help of God to such an extent that he can make himself\nrighteous. To such a person Jesus says to-day as He said to the rich\nyoung man: \"Keep the commandments!\" That means, since you believe in\nyour ability, proceed to employ it. Your reward is sure, provided only\nyou do what the Law demands. But just as surely the curse of God rests\non you if you do not do it. When you have become convinced that it is\nimpossible to fulfil the Law, you may ask a different question, a\nquestion which the knowledge of your spiritual disability has wrested\nfrom you as it did from the jailer at Philippi: \"What must I do to be\nsaved?\" and you will not receive the answer: \"Keep the commandments!\"\nbut: \"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,\" (Acts\n16, 29. 30.) Not a word will be said any more about anything that you\nmust do. You will be told: All that you ought to have done has been\naccomplished by One who died with the exclamation: \"It is finished!\"\n(John 19, 30), and who now sends His messengers abroad inviting men to\nHis free salvation: \"Come, for all things are now ready!\" (Luke 14, 17.)\n\"Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath\nno money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without\nmoney and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is\nnot bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? Hearken\ndiligently unto Me, and eat ye that which is good\" (Is. 55, 1. 2.) When\nyou have wearied yourself to death by your efforts to achieve\nrighteousness, as Paul did when he was still the Pharisee Saul of\nTarsus, as Luther did while he was still in the bondage of popery, when\nyou have become hot in your confused and despairing mind against God and\nthe Law, which you cannot fulfil, you will appreciate the voice that\ncalls to you as it has called to millions before you: \"Come unto Me, all\nye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.\" (Matt. 11,\n28.) And if you are wise, then, with the wisdom which the Spirit gives\nthe children of God, you will not delay a minute, but come rejoicing\nthat you need not get salvation by works, and will sing:\n\n     Just as I am, without one plea\n     But that Thy blood was shed for me,\n     And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,\n     O Lamb of God, I come, I come!\n\nRome has cursed Luther for teaching justification by faith, without the\ndeeds of the Law. The principles which he had timidly uttered in the\nTheses led to bolder declarations later, when the full light of the\nblessed Gospel had come to him. It brought him the curse of the Pope in\nthe bull _Exsurge, Domine!_ of June 15, 1520. The following estimate by\na recent Catholic writer is a fair sample of the sentiments cherished by\nofficial Rome for Luther: \"From out the vast number whom the enemy of\nman raised up to invent heresies, which, St. Cyprian says, 'destroy\nfaith and divide unity,' not one, or all together, ever equaled or\nsurpassed Martin Luther in the wide range of his errors, the ferocity\nwith which he promulgated them, and the harm he did in leading souls\naway from the Church, the fountain of everlasting truth. The heresies of\nSabellius, Arius, Pelagius, and other rebellious men were insignificant\nas compared with those Luther formulated and proclaimed four hundred\nyears ago, and which, unfortunately, have ever since done service\nagainst the Church of the living God. In Luther most, if not all, former\nheresies meet, and reach their climax. To enumerate fully all the\nwicked, false, and perverse teachings of the arch-heretic would require\na volume many times larger than the Bible, and every one of the lies and\nfalsehoods that have been used against the Catholic Church may be traced\nback to him as to their original formulator.\" The cause for this\nundisguised hatred of Luther is chiefly Luther's teaching of\njustification by faith, without works. In its Sixth Session the Council\nof Trent condemned the following doctrines:\n\n_On Free Will:_ Canon IV: \"If any one says that the free will of man,\nwhen moved and stirred by God, cannot, by giving assent, cooperate with\nGod, who is stirring and calling man, so that he disposes and prepares\nhimself for obtaining the grace of justification, or that he cannot\ndissent if he wills, but, like some inanimate thing, does absolutely\nnothing and is purely passive,--let him be accursed.\"\n\n_On Justification:_ Canon IX: \"If any one says that the ungodly are\njustified by faith alone, in the sense that nothing else is required on\ntheir part that might cooperate to the end of obtaining the grace of\njustification, and that it is in no wise necessary that they be prepared\nand disposed (for this grace) by a movement of the will,--let him be\naccursed.\"\n\nCanon XI: \"If any one says that man is justified either by the\nimputation of the righteousness of Christ alone or by the remission of\nhis sins alone, without grace and love being diffused through his heart\nby the Holy Spirit and inhering therein, or that the grace whereby we\nare justified is merely the good will of God,--let him be accursed.\"\n\nCanon XII: \"If any one says that justifying faith is nothing else than\ntrust in the divine mercy which forgives sins for Christ's sake, or that\nit is this trust alone by which we are justified,--let him be accursed.\"\n\nCanon XXIV: \"If any one says that righteousness, after having been\nreceived, is not conserved nor augmented before God by good works, but\nthat these works are merely the fruits or signs of the justification\nwhich one has obtained, and that they are not a reason why justification\nis increased,--let him be accursed.\"\n\nIt is a well-known characteristic of the decrees of the Council of Trent\nthat truth and error appear skilfully interwoven in them. They are like\na double motion that is offered in a deliberative body: they contain\nthings which one must affirm, and other things which one must negative.\nThey cannot be voted on--many of them--except after a division of the\nquestion. They contain \"riders\" like those in a bill that comes before a\nlegislative body: in order to pass the bill at all, the \"rider\" must be\npassed along with the bill. But enough crops out in these decrees to\nshow that the Catholic Church is not willing to let the merits of Christ\nbe regarded as the only thing that justifies the sinner. He must\ncooperate with the Holy Spirit to the end of being justified. He must\nprepare and dispose himself for receiving justifying grace, and this\ngrace is infused into him, and manifests itself in holy movements of the\nheart and by good works, in acts of love. The Roman Catholic Christian\nis taught to believe that he is justified partly by what Christ has\ndone, partly by what he himself is doing. He cannot subscribe to Paul's\nstatement: \"By grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of\nyourselves: it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should\nboast.\" (Eph. 2, 8. 9.) Nor is his justification ever complete, because\nhis love is never perfect. It must be increased even after his death.\nThe Roman purgatory contains sinners whom God had justified as far as He\ncould, the sinners remaining in arrears with their, part of the\ncontract. Accordingly, the sinner can never have the assurance that he\nwill enter heaven. It would be presumptuous for him to think so. He must\nlive on and work on at his poor dying rate, and hope for the best.\n\nThis teaching of the Church of Rome subverts Christianity. It strikes at\nthe root of the faith that saves. It is a relapse into paganism and an\naffront offered to the Savior. It borrows the language of Scripture to\nexpress the most hideous error. By this teaching Rome does not drive men\ninto purgatory,--which does not exist,--but into hell. It is only by a\nmiracle of divine grace that sinners are saved where such teaching\nprevails: they must forget what is told them about the necessity of\ntheir own works and cling only to the Redeemer, and must thus\npractically repudiate the teaching of their Church. Some do this, and\nescape the pernicious consequences of the error of their Church. All of\nthem will rise up in the Judgment to accuse their teachers of a heresy\nthe worst imaginable.\n\nRome has, indeed, assailed \"the article with which the Church either\nstands or falls.\" All its other errors, crass, grotesque, and repulsive\nthough they are, are mere child's play in comparison with this damning\nand destructive error of justification by works. Luther rightly\nestimated the virulence of this abysmal heresy when he said that those\nwho attacked his teaching of justification by grace through faith alone\nwere aiming at his throat. Rome's teaching on justification is an\nattempt to strike at the vitals of Christian faith and life. It sinks\nthe dagger into the heart of Christianity.\n\n\n16. The Fatalist Luther.\n\nCatholic writers have discovered a fatalistic tendency in Luther's\nteaching of justification by faith without works. They declare that\nLuther's theory of the utter depravity of man by reason of inherited sin\nand his incapacity to perform any work that can be accounted good in the\nsight of God kills every ambition to virtuous living in man. They argue\nthat when you tell a person that he is not capable to do good, he is apt\nto believe you and make no effort to perform a good deed. The situation\nbecomes still worse when the divine predestination is introduced at this\npoint, as has been done, they say, by Luther. If God has determined all\nthings beforehand by a sovereign decree, if there really is no such\nthing as human choice, and all things occur according to a foreordained\nplan, man no longer has any responsibility. He is reduced to an\nautomaton. Free will is denied him; he cannot elect by voluntary choice\nto engage in any God-pleasing action; for he is told that his natural\nreason is blinded by sin and his understanding darkened, rendering it\nimpossible for him to discern good and evil, and leading him constantly\ninto errors of judgment on what is right or wrong, while he is made to\nbelieve that his will is enslaved by evil lusts and passions, ever prone\nto wickedness and averse to godliness. As a consequence, it is claimed,\nman must necessarily become morally indifferent: he will not fight\nagainst sin nor follow after righteousness, because he has become\nconvinced that it is useless for him to make any effort either in the\none direction or in the other. The doctrine of man's natural depravity\nand the divine foreordination of all things, it is held, must drive man\neither to despair, insanity, and suicide, or land him hopelessly in\nfatalism: he will simply continue his physical life in a mechanical way,\nlike a brute or a plant; he merely vegetates.\n\nThese fatal tendencies which are charged against Luther are refuted by\nno one more effectually than by Luther himself. As regards the doctrine\nof original sin and man's natural depravity, Luther preached that with\napostolic force and precision. That doctrine is a Bible-doctrine. No\nperson has read his Bible aright, no expounder of Scripture has begun to\nexplain the divine plan of salvation for sinners, if he has failed to\nfind this teaching in the Bible. This doctrine is, indeed, extremely\nhumiliating to the pride of man; it opens up appalling views of the\nmisery of the human race under sin. We can understand why men would want\nto get away from this doctrine. But no one confers any benefit on men by\nminimizing the importance of the Bible-teaching, or by weakening the\nstatements of Scripture regarding this matter. Any teaching which admits\nthe least good quality in man by which he can prepare or dispose himself\nso as to induce God to view him with favor is a contradiction of the\npassages of Scripture which were cited in a previous chapter, and works\na delusion upon men that will prove just as fatal as when a physician\nwithholds from his patient the full knowledge of his critical condition.\nYea, it is worse; for a physician who is not frank and sincere to his\npatient may deprive the latter of his physical life, but the\nteacher of God's Word who instils in men false notions of their moral\nand spiritual power robs them of life eternal.\n\nLuther avoided this error. He led men to a true estimate of themselves\nas they are by nature. But over and against the fell power of sin he\nmagnified the greater power of divine grace. \"Where sin abounded, grace\nhath much more abounded\" (Rom. 5, 20),--along this line Luther found the\nsolution for the awful difficulty which confronts every man when he\nstudies the Bible-doctrine of original sin, and when he discovers,\nmoreover, that this Bible-doctrine is borne out fully by his own\nexperience. Just for this reason, because man can do nothing to restore\nhimself to the divine favor, God by His grace proposes to do all, and\nhas sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to do all, and, last\nnot least, publishes the fact that all has been done in the Gospel of\nthe forgiveness of sin by grace through faith in Christ. Luther has\ntaught men to confess: \"I believe that I cannot by my own reason or\nstrength believe in Jesus Christ or come to Him,\" but he taught them\nalso to follow up this true confession with the other: \"The Holy Ghost\nhas called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified\nand kept me in the true faith.\"\n\nThe Gospel is called in the Scriptures \"the Word of Life,\" not only\nbecause it speaks of the life everlasting which God has prepared for His\nchildren, but also because it gives life. It approaches man, dead in\ntrespasses and sins, and quickens him into new life. It removes from the\nmind of man its natural blindness and from the will of man its innate\nimpotency. It regenerates all the dead powers of the soul, and makes man\nwalk in newness of life. The difficulty which original sin has created\nis not greater than the means and instruments which God has provided for\ncoping with it. \"God hath concluded all in unbelief, that He might have\nmercy on all.\" (Rom. 11, 32.)\n\nThis is the only true salvation, every other is fictitious. It teaches\nman both to face the fearful odds against him because of his corruption,\nand to relish all the more the points in his favor by reason of God's\nredeeming and regenerating grace. It starts its work with crushing man's\npride and self-confidence utterly, and hurling him into the abyss of\ndespair, but it lifts him out of despair with a mighty power that breaks\nthe power of evil in him. This change is brought about in such a gentle,\ntender way that the sinner has no sensation of being coerced into the\nnew life by some farce which he cannot resist. It wins him over to God\nand his Christ in spite of his resistance, and makes out of his\nunwilling heart a willing one, which gladly coincides with the leadings\nof grace.\n\nThe Roman scheme of salvation might be called the ostrich method: it\nteaches men the foolish strategy of the bird of the desert, which hides\nits head in the sand when it sees an enemy approaching, and then\nimagines the enemy does not exist. Original sin may be disputed out of\nthe Bible by a false interpretation, but it is not thereby ruled out of\nexistence. When face to face with his God--if no sooner, then in the\nhour of death--every man feels that he is utterly corrupt and worthless,\nand he will curse any teacher that caused him to believe otherwise. Free\nwill is not created by assertions. Let the apostles of free will only\ntry, and they will find out that their freedom is nil. Catholics\ndenounce Luther for having declared the free will of man to be nothing\nthan a word without substance: we hear the sound when the word is\npronounced, and grasp its grammatical meaning, but we do not realize it\nin ourselves. Every person, however, who has truly come to know himself\nwill side with Luther, or rather with the Bible. Furthermore, to the\nsame extent to which the Roman view exalts man's natural powers for\ngood, it lowers and limits the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and\nbegets a false confidence and security that is rudely shaken when the\nfirst slip and fall occurs in the person's Christian life. He has never\nreally laid hold of the grace of God, because he has not been taught to\ntrust only to the grace of God to lead and preserve him in the way of\nlife. He will begin to distrust the Gospel as a very inefficient\ninstrument, and this will lead him to become indifferent to it, and\nfinally fall away from it entirely. A real danger of apostasy and\ndespair exists wherever the Roman dogma of man's natural free will is\nproclaimed.\n\nIt is, however, doing Luther a flagrant injustice when he is made to\ndeny that man has no longer any natural reason and will in the secular\naffairs of this life. Luther used to divide the entire life of man into\ntwo hemispheres, the upper embracing man's relation to God, holy things,\nthe interests of the soul here and hereafter, and the lower, embracing\nthe purely human, temporal, and secular interests of man. It is only in\nthe higher hemisphere that Luther denies the existence of free will.\nThroughout his writings Luther asserts the existence, the actual\noperation, and the necessity of human free will, though sadly weakened\nby sin, in the affairs of this present life. It will be sufficient to\ncite as evidence the Augsburg Confession which was drawn up with\nLuther's aid and submitted to Emperor Charles V in 1530 as the joint\nbelief of Luther and his followers. \"Of the Freedom of the Will,\" say\nthe Protestant confessors, \"they teach that man's will has some liberty\nfor the attainment of civil righteousness and for the choice of things\nsubject to reason. Nevertheless, it has not power, without the Holy\nGhost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual\nrighteousness, since the natural man receiveth not the things of the\nSpirit of God (1 Cor. 2, 14); but this righteousness is wrought in the\nheart when the Holy Ghost is received through the Word. These things are\nsaid in as many words by Augustine in his _Hypognosticon_ (Book III):\n'We grant that all men have a certain freedom of will in judging\naccording to natural reason; not such freedom, however, whereby it is\ncapable, without God, either to begin, much less to complete aught in\nthings pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good\nor evil. \"Good\" I call those works which spring from the good in Nature,\nthat is, to have a will to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have\na friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry, to keep cattle,\nto learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good pertains to this life,\nnone of which things are without dependence on the providence of God;\nyea, of Him and through Him they are and have their beginning. \"Evil\" I\ncall such things as, to have a will to worship an idol, to commit\nmurder,' etc.\" (Art. 18.)\n\nLuther has always held that there is a natural intelligence and wisdom,\na natural will-power and energy which men employ in their daily\noccupations, their trades and professions, their trade and commerce,\ntheir literature and art, their culture and refinement, yea, that there\nis also a natural knowledge of God even among the Gentiles, who yet\n\"know not God,\" and a seeming performance of the things which God has\ncommanded. But these natural abilities do not reach into the higher\nhemisphere; they cannot pass muster at the bar of divine justice. They\ndo not spring from right motives, nor do they aim at right ends; they\nare determined by man's self-interest. They come short of that glory\nwhich God ought to receive from worshipers in spirit and in truth (Rom.\n3, 23; John 4, 23); they are evil in as far as they are the corrupt\nfruits of corrupt trees. In condemning the moral quality of these\nnatural works of civil righteousness, Luther has said no more than\nChrist and His apostles have said.\n\nLuther taught the Bible-doctrine that there is in God a hidden will\nwhich He has reserved to His majesty (Dent. 29); that His judgments are\nunsearchable and His ways past finding out (Rom. 11, 33); that not even\na sparrow falls to the ground without His will, and that the very hairs\nof our head are numbered (Matt. 10, 29. 30); that no evil can occur\nanywhere without His permission (Amos 3, 6; Is. 45, 7). To deny these\ntruths is to reject the Bible and to destroy the sovereign omniscience\nand omnipotence of God. Those who attack Luther for believing that also\nthe evil in this world is related to God will have to change their bill\nof indictment: their charge is really directed against Scripture. Luther\nhas, however, warned men not to attempt a study of this secret will of\nGod, for the plain reason that it is secret, and it would be blasphemous\npresumption to try and find it out. All our dealings with God must be on\nthe basis of His revealed will. If we only will study that, we will be\nfully occupied our whole life.\n\nAs regards the Scriptural doctrine of predestination, that those who\nultimately attain to the life everlasting have been chosen to that end,\nLuther has warned men not to study this doctrine outside of Christ and\nthe Gospel. God has told His children for their comfort amid the\nvicissitudes of this life that He has secured their eternal happiness\nagainst all dangers, but He has not asked them, nor does He permit them,\nto find out _a priori_ whether this or that person is elect. Jesus\nChrist is the Book of Life in which the elect are to find their names\nrecorded, and in the general way of salvation through repentance, faith,\nand sanctification of life they are to be led to the heritage of the\nsaints in light. In his summary of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh\nchapters of Romans, Luther states that by His eternal election God has\ntaken our salvation entirely out of our hands and placed it in His own\nhands. \"And this is most highly necessary. For we are so feeble and\nfickle that, if salvation depended upon us, not a person would be saved;\nthe devil would overcome them all. But since God is reliable and His\nelection cannot fail or be thwarted by any one, we still have hope over\nand against sin. But at this point a limit must be fixed for the\npresumptuous spirits who soar too high. They lead their reason first to\nthis subject, they start at the pinnacle, they want to explore first the\nabyss of the divine election, and wrestle vainly with the question\nwhether they are elect. These people bring about their own overthrow:\nthey are either driven to despair or become reckless.--Follow the order\nof this Epistle: First, occupy yourself with Christ and the Gospel, in\norder that you may learn to know your sin and His grace; next, begin to\nwrestle with your sin, as chapters 1-8 teach you to do. Then, after you\nhave reached the doctrine concerning crosses and tribulations in the\neighth chapter, you will rightly learn the doctrine of election in\nchapters 9-11, because you will realize what a comfort this doctrine\ncontains. For the doctrine of election can be studied without injury and\nsecret anger against God only by those who have passed through\nsuffering, crosses, and anguish of death. Accordingly, the old Adam in\nyou must be dead before you can bear this subject and drink this strong\nwine. See that you do not drink wine while you are still a babe. There\nis a proper time, age, and manner for propounding the various doctrines\nof God to men.\" What is there fatalistic about this?\n\n\n17. Luther a Teacher of Lawlessness.\n\nLuther's teaching on the forgiveness of sin is sternly rebuked by\nCatholic writers because of its immoral tendencies. They say, when the\nforgiveness of sins is made as easy as Luther makes it, the people will\ncease being afraid if sinning.\n\nThe danger of the Gospel of the gracious forgiveness of sins being\nmisapplied has always existed in the Church. Every student of church\nhistory knows this. Catholic writers know this. Paul wrestled with this\npractical perversion of the loving intentions of our heavenly Father in\nhis day. After declaring to the Romans: \"Where sin abounded, grace did\nmuch more abound,\" he raises the question: \"What shall we say then?\nShall we continue in sin that grace may abound?\" He returns this\nhorrified answer: \"God forbid! How shall we, that are dead to sin, live\nany longer therein?\" (Rom. 5, 20-6, 2.) Actually there were people in\nthe apostle's days who drew from his evangelical teaching this\npernicious inference, that by sinning they gave the forgiving grace of\nGod a larger opportunity to exert itself, hence, that they were\nglorifying grace by committing more sin. This meant putting a premium on\nsinning. For God's sake, how can you conceive a thought like that? the\napostle exclaims. He repudiates the idea as blasphemous, which it is. To\nsin in the assurance that sin will be forgiven is not honoring, but\ndishonoring God and His grace; it is not exalting, but traducing faith;\nit is not Christian, but devilish. Summarizing the contents of Romans,\nchapter 5, Luther says: \"In the fifth chapter Paul comes to speak of the\nfruits and works of faith, such as peace, joy, love of God and all men,\nand in addition to these, security, boldness, cheerfulness, courage and\nhope amid tribulations and suffering. All these effects follow where\nthere is genuine faith, because of the superabundant blessing which God\nhas conferred upon us in Christ by causing Him to die for us before we\ncould pray that He might do this, yea, while we were yet His enemies.\nAccordingly, we conclude that faith justifies without works of any kind,\nand yet it does not follow that we must not do any good works. Genuine\ngood works cannot fail to flow from faith,--works of which the\nself-righteous know nothing, and in the place of which they invent their\nown works, in which there is neither peace, joy, security, love, hope,\nboldness, nor any other of the characteristics of a genuine Christian\nwork and faith.\" In his Preface to Romans, Luther meets a somewhat\ndifferent objection to faith: Christians, after they have begun to\nbelieve, still discover sin in themselves, and on account of this\nimagine that faith alone cannot save them. There must be something done\nin addition to believing to insure their salvation. In replying to this\nscruple, Luther has given a classical description of the quality and\npower of faith. This description serves to blast the Catholic charge\nthat Luther's easy way of justifying the sinner leads to increased\nsinning. Luther says: \"Faith is not the human notion and dream which\nsome regard as faith. When they observe that no improvement of life nor\nany good works flow from faith even where people hear and talk much\nabout faith, they fall into this error that they declare: faith is not\nsufficient, you must do works if you wish to become godly and be saved.\nThe reason is, these people, when they hear the Gospel, hurriedly\nformulate by their own powers a thought in their heart which asserts: I\nbelieve. This thought they regard as genuine faith. However, as their\nfaith is but a human figment and idea that never reaches the bottom of\nthe heart, it is inert and effects no improvement. Genuine faith,\nhowever, is a divine work in us by which we are changed and born anew of\nGod. (John 1, 13.) It slays the old Adam, and makes us entirely new men\nin our heart, mind, ideas,  and all our powers. It brings us the Holy\nSpirit. Oh, this faith is a lively, active, busy, mighty thing! It is\nimpossible for faith not to be active without ceasing. Faith does not\nask whether good works are to be done, but before the question has been\nasked, it has accomplished good works; yea, it is always engaged in\ndoing good works. Whoever does not do such good works is void of faith;\nhe gropes and mopes about, looking for faith and good works, but knows\nneither what faith nor what good works are, though he may prate and\nbabble ever so much about faith and good works.\"\n\nThere has never been a time when the Gospel and the grace of God have\nnot been wrested to wicked purposes by insincere men, hypocrites, and\nbold spirits. For this reason God has instructed Christians: \"Give not\nthat which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before\nswine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend\nyou.\" (Matt. 7, 6.) The danger of misapplied grace is a present-day\ndanger in every evangelical community. Earnest Christian ministers and\nlaymen strive with this misapplication wherever they discover it. Can\nthey do any more?\n\nRome will say: Why do you not do as we do in our Church? We do not\npreach the Gospel in such a reckless fashion, we make men work for their\nsalvation. Rome would abolish or considerably limit the preaching of\nfree and abundant grace to the sinner. We recoil from this suggestion\nbecause it makes the entire work of Christ of none effect, and wipes out\nthe grandest portions of our Bible. If every abuse of something that is\ngood must be stopped by abolishing the proper use, then let us give up\neating because some make gluttons of themselves; drinking, because some\nare drunkards; wearing clothes, because there is much vanity in dresses;\nmarriage, because some marriages are shamefully conducted, etc., etc.\n\nThe Roman Church does not operate on evangelical principles. Does it\nsucceed better in cultivating true holiness among its members by its\nsystem of penances and its teaching of the meritoriousness of men's acts\nof piety? Catholics say to us sneeringly: It is easy to have faith; it\nis very convenient, when you wish to indulge, or have indulged, some\npassion, to remember that there is grace for forgiveness. But is any\ngreat difficulty connected with going through a penance that the priest\nhas imposed, buying a wax candle, reciting sixteen Paternosters and ten\nAve Marias, and then sitting down and saying to yourself: \"Good boy!\nyou've done it, you have squared your account again with the Almighty\"?\nWhat sanctifying virtue lies in abstaining from beefsteak on Friday?\nRome nowhere has improved men by her mechanical piety. What she has\naccomplished was made possible by the fear of purgatorial torments, by\nslavish dread of her mysterious powers, by ambition and bigotry. We\nwould not exchange our abused treasures for her system of workmongery.\n\nBut the Catholic charge of tendencies to lawlessness that are said to be\ncontained in. Luther's teaching of faith without works are more serious.\nLuther is cited by them as declaring that one may commit innumerable\nsins, and they will not harm one as long as one keeps on believing in\nthe grace of forgiveness. It is true, Luther has spoken words to this\neffect, and that, on quite a number of occasions. Worse\nthan that, what Luther has said is actually true. As a matter of fact,\nno sin can deprive the believer of salvation. There is only one sin that\nultimately damns, final impenitence and unbelief, by which is understood\nthe rejection of the atonement which Christ offered for the sins of the\nworld. That atonement is actually the full satisfaction rendered to our\nJudge for all the sins which we have done, are doing, and will be doing\ntill the end of our lives. For the person that dies a perfect saint,\nsinless and impeccable, is still to be born. The comfort that I derive\nfrom my Redeemer to-day will be my comfort to-morrow, that will be my\nonly prop and stay in my dying hour. I shall need Him every hour. This\nis a perfectly Christian thought. St. John writes: \"My little children,\nthese things write I unto you that ye sin not. And if any man sin,\"--\nmark this well: \"If any man sin,\" though he ought not to sin,--what does\nthe apostle say to him? He does not say: Then you are damned! or: It\nwill require so many fasts, masses, and candles to restore you! but this\nis what he says: \"If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father,\nJesus Christ the Righteous; and He is the propitiation for our sins, and\nnot for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.\" (1 John\n2, 1. 2.) John, then, must be included in the Catholic indictment of\nLuther. Luther would not have been a preacher of the genuine and full\nGospel if he had not declared the impossibility of any sin or any number\nof sins depriving a believer of salvation.\n\nBut if the Catholics mean to say that Luther's evangelical declaration\nmeans that no believer can fall from grace by sinning, that he may sin\nand remain in a state of grace,--that is simply slander. Luther holds,\nindeed, that a person does not cease to be a Christian by every slip and\nfault, but he insists that no dereliction of duty, no deviation from the\nrule of godly living can be treated with indifference. It must be\nrepented of, God's forgiveness must be sought, and only in this way will\nthe Holy Spirit again be bestowed on the sinner. God may bear awhile\nwith a Christian who has fallen into sin, but the backslider has no\npleasant time with his God while he stays a backslider. This being a\nquestion of every-day, practical Christianity, Luther frequently touches\nthis subject in his sermons, both in the Church Postil, the House\nPostil, and in his occasional sermons. Luther's Catholic critics could\ndisabuse their mind about the tendencies to lawlessness in Luther's\nteaching if they would look up references such as these: 9, 730. 1456\nf.; 11, 1790; 12, 448. 433; 13, 394; 6, 294. 1604. In one of these\nreferences (9, 1456) Luther comments on 1 John 3, 6: \"Whosoever abideth\nin Him sinneth not; whosoever sinneth  hath not seen Him, neither known\nHim,\" as follows: \"'Seeing' and 'knowing' in the phraseology of John is\nas much as believing. `That every one which seeth the Son, and believeth\non Him, may have everlasting life' (John 6, 40). 'This is life eternal,\nthat they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou\nhast sent.' Accordingly, he that sins does not believe in Him; for faith\nand sin cannot coexist. We may fall, but we may not cling to sin. The\nkingdom of Christ is a kingdom of righteousness, not of sin.\" In the\nSmalcald Articles Luther says: \"But if certain sectarists would arise,\nsome of whom are perhaps already present, and in the time of the\ninsurrection of the peasants came to my view, holding that all those who\nhave once received the Spirit or the forgiveness of sins, or have become\nbelievers, even though they would afterwards sin, would still remain in\nthe faith, and sin would not injure them, and cry thus: 'Do whatever you\nplease; if you believe, it is all nothing; faith blots out all sins,'\netc. They say, besides, that if any one sins after he has received faith\nand the Spirit, he never truly had the Spirit and faith. I have seen and\nheard of many men so insane, and I fear that such a devil is still\nremaining in some. If, therefore, I say, such persons would hereafter\nalso arise, it is necessary to know and teach that if saints who still\nhave and feel original sin, and also daily repent and strive with it,\nfall in some way into manifest sins, as David into adultery, murder, and\nblasphemy, they cast out faith and the Holy Ghost. For the Holy Ghost\ndoes not permit sin to have dominion, to gain the upper hand so as to be\ncompleted, but represses and restrains it so that it must not do what it\nwishes. But if it do what it wishes, the Holy Ghost and faith are not\nthere present. For St. John says (1. Ep. 3, 9): 'Whosoever is born of\nGod doth not commit sin, . . . and he cannot sin.' And yet that is also\nthe truth which the same St. John says (1. Ep. 1, 8): 'If we say that we\nhave no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.'\" (Part\nIII, Art. 3, Sec.Sec. 42-45; p. 329.) The Lutheran Church has received this\nstatement of Luther into her confessional writings. This is the Luther\nof whom a modern Catholic critic says: \"This thought of the\nall-forgiving nature of faith so dominated his mind that it excluded the\nnotion of contrition, penance, good works, or effort on the part of the\nbeliever, and thus his teaching destroyed root and branch the whole idea\nof human culpability and responsibility for the breaking of the\nCommandments.\"\n\nIt is amazing boldness in Catholics to prefer this charge against\nLuther, when they themselves teach a worse doctrine than they impute to\nLuther. The Council of Trent in its Sixth Session, Canon 15, also in its\nSixteenth Session, Canon 15, Coster in his Enchiridion, in the chapter\non Faith, p. 178, Bellarminus on Justification, chapter 15, declare it\nto be Catholic teaching that the believer cannot lose his faith by any,\neven the worst, sin he may commit. They speak of believing fornicators,\nbelieving adulterers, believing thieves, believing misers, believing\ndrunkards, believing slanderers, etc. The very teaching which Catholics\nfalsely ascribe to Luther is an accepted dogma of their own Church.\nTheir charge against Luther is, at best, the trick of crying, \"Hold\nthief!\" to divert attention from themselves.\n\nBut did not Luther in the plainest terms advise his friends Weller and\nMelanchthon to practise immoralities as a means for overcoming their\ndespondency? Is he not reported in his Table Talk to have said that\nlooking at a pretty woman or taking a hearty drink would dispel gloomy\nthoughts? that one should sin to spite the devil? Yes; and now that\nthese matters are paraded in public, it is best that the public be given\na complete account of what Luther wrote to Weller and Melanchthon. There\nare three letters extant written to Weller during Luther's exile at\nCastle Coburg while the Diet of Augsburg was in progress. On June 19,\n1530, Luther writes: \"Grace and peace in Christ! I have received two\nletters from you, my dear Jerome [this was Weller's first name], both of\nwhich truly delighted me; the second, however, was more than delightful\nbecause in that you write concerning my son Johnny, stating that you are\nhis teacher, and that he is an active and diligent pupil. If I could, I\nwould like to show you some favor in return; Christ will recompense you\nfor what I am too little able to do. Magister Veit has, moreover,\ninformed me that you are at times afflicted with the spirit of\ndespondency. This affliction is most harmful to young people, as\nScripture says: 'A broken spirit drieth the bones' (Prov. 17, 22). The\nHoly Spirit everywhere forbids such melancholy, as, for instance, in\nEccles. 11., 9: 'Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth, and let thy heart\ncheer thee in the days of thy youth,' and in the verse immediately\nfollowing: 'Remove sorrow from thy heart, and put away evil from thy\nflesh.' Ecclesiasticus, likewise, says, chap. 30, 22-25: 'The gladness\nof the heart is the life of man, and the joyfulness of a man prolongeth\nhis days. Love thine own soul, and comfort thy heart, remove sorrow far\nfrom the; for sorrow hath killed many, and there is no profit therein.\nEnvy and wrath shorten the life, and carefulness bringeth age before the\ntime. A cheerful and good heart will have a care of his meat and diet.'\nMoreover, Paul says 2 Cor. 7, 10: 'The sorrow of the world worketh\ndeath.' Above all, therefore, you must firmly cling to this thought,\nthat these evil and melancholy thoughts are not of God, but of the\ndevil; for God is not a God of melancholy, but a God of comfort and\ngladness, as Christ Himself says: 'God is not the God of the dead, but\nof the living' (Matt. 22, 32). What else does living mean than to be\nglad in the Lord? Accordingly, become used to different thoughts, in\norder to drive away these evil thoughts, and say: The Lord has not sent\nyou. This chiding which you experience is not of Him who has called you.\nIn the beginning the struggle is grievous, but by practise it becomes\nmore easy. You are not the only one who has to endure such thoughts, all\nthe saints were afflicted by them, but they fought against them and\nconquered. Therefore, do not yield to these evils, but meet them\nbravely. The greatest task in this struggle is not to regard these\nthoughts, not to explore them, not to pursue the matters suggested, but\ndespise them like the hissing of a goose and pass them by. The person\nthat has learned to do this will conquer; whoever has not learned it\nwill be conquered. For to muse upon these thoughts and debate with them\nmeans to stimulate them and make them stronger. Take the people of\nIsrael as an example: they overcame the serpents, not by looking at them\nand wrestling with them, but by turning their eyes away from them and\nlooking in a different direction, namely, at the brazen serpent, and\nthey conquered. In this struggle that is the right and sure way of\nwinning the victory. A person afflicted with such thoughts said to a\ncertain wise man: What evil thoughts come into my mind! He received the\nanswer: Well, let them pass out again. That remark taught the person a\nfine lesson. Another answered the same question thus: You cannot keep\nthe birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from\nbuilding their nests in your hair. Accordingly, you will do the correct\nthing when you are merry and engage in some pleasant pastime with some\none, and not scruple afterwards over having done so. For God is not\npleased with sadness, for which there is no reason. The sorrow over our\nsins is brief and at the same time is made pleasant to us by the promise\nof grace and the forgiveness of sins. But the other sorrow is of the\ndevil and without promise; it is sheer worry over useless and impossible\nthings which concern God. I shall have more to say to you when I return.\nMeanwhile give my greetings to your brother; I began writing to him, but\nthe messenger who is to take this letter along is in a hurry. I shall\nwrite to him later, also to Schneidewein and others. I commend your\npupil to you. May the Spirit of Christ comfort and gladden your heart!\nAmen.' (21a, 1487 ff.)\n\nThe second letter to Weller was presumably written some time in July. It\nreads as follows: \"Grace and peace in Christ. My dearest Jerome, you\nmust firmly believe that your affliction is of the devil, and that you\nare plagued in this manner because you believe in Christ. For you see\nthat the most wrathful enemies of the Gospel, as, for instance, Eck,\nZwingli, and others, are suffered to be at ease and happy. All of us who\nare Christians must have the devil for our adversary and enemy, as Peter\nsays: 'Your adversary, the devil, goeth about,' etc., 1 Pet. 5, 8.\nDearest Jerome, you must rejoice over these onslaughts of the devil,\nbecause they are a sure sign that you have a gracious and merciful God.\nYou will say: This affliction is more grievous than I can bear; you fear\nthat you will be overcome and vanquished, so that you are driven to\nblasphemy and despair. I know these tricks of Satan: if he cannot\novercome the person whom he afflicts at the first onset, he seeks to\nexhaust and weaken him by incessantly attacking him, in order that the\nperson may succumb and acknowledge himself beaten. Accordingly, whenever\nthis affliction befalls you, beware lest you enter into an argument with\nthe devil, or muse upon these death-dealing thoughts. For this means\nnothing else than to yield to the devil and succumb to him. You must\nrather take pains to treat these thoughts which the devil instils in you\nwith the severest contempt. In afflictions and conflicts of this kind\ncontempt is the best and easiest way for overcoming the devil. Make up\nyour mind to laugh at your adversary, and find some one whom you can\nengage in a conversation. You must by all means avoid being alone, for\nthen the devil will make his strongest effort to catch you; he lies in\nwait for you when you are alone. In a case like this the devil is\novercome by scorning and despising him, not by opposing him and arguing\nwith him. My dear Jerome, you must engage in merry talk and games with\nmy wife and the rest, so as to defeat these devilish thoughts, and you\nmust be intent on being cheerful. This affliction is more necessary to\nyou than food and drink. I shall relate to you what happened to me when\nI was about your age. When I entered the cloister, it happened that at\nfirst I always walked about sad and melancholy, and could not shake off\nmy sadness. Accordingly, I sought counsel and confessed to Dr. Staupitz,\n--I am glad to mention this man's name. I opened my heart to him,\ntelling him with what horrid and terrible thoughts I was being visited.\nHe said in reply: Martin, you do not know how useful and necessary this\naffliction is to you; for God does not exercise you thus without a\npurpose. You will see that He will employ you as His servant to\naccomplish great things by you. This came true. For I became a great\ndoctor--I may justly say this of myself--; but at the time when I was\nsuffering these afflictions I would never have believed that this could\ncome to pass. No doubt, that is what is going to happen to you: you will\nbecome a great man. In the mean time be careful to keep a brave and\nstout heart, and impress on your mind this thought that such remarks\nwhich fall from the lips chiefly of learned and great men contain a\nprediction and prophecy. I remember well how a certain party whom I was\ncomforting for the loss of his son said to me: Martin, you will see, you\nwill become a great man. I often remembered this remark, for, as I said,\nsuch remarks contain a prediction and a prophecy. Therefore, be cheerful\nand brave, and cast these exceedingly terrifying thoughts entirely from\nyou. Whenever the devil worries you with these thoughts, seek the\ncompany of men at once, or drink somewhat more liberally, jest and play\nsome jolly prank, or do anything exhilarating. Occasionally a person\nmust drink somewhat more liberally, engage in plays, and jests, or even\ncommit some little sin from hatred and contempt of the devil, so as to\nleave him no room for raising scruples in our conscience about the most\ntrifling matters. For when we are overanxious and careful for fear that\nwe may be doing wrong in any matter, we shall be conquered. Accordingly,\nif the devil should say to you: By all means, do not drink! you must\ntell him: Just because you forbid it, I shall drink, and that,\nliberally. In this manner you must always do the contrary of what Satan\nforbids. When I drink my wine unmixed, prattle with the greatest\nunconcern, eat more frequently, do you think that I have any other\nreason for doing these things than to scorn and spite the devil who has\nattempted to spite and scorn me? Would God I could commit some real\nbrave sin to ridicule the devil, that he might see that I acknowledge no\nsin and am not conscious of having committed any. We must put the whole\nlaw entirely out of our eyes and hearts,--we, I say, whom the devil thus\nassails and torments. Whenever the devil charges us with our sins and\npronounces us guilty of death and hell, we ought to say to him: I admit\nthat I deserve death and hell; what, then, will happen to me? Why, you\nwill be eternally damned! By no means; for I know One who has suffered\nand made satisfaction for me. His name is Jesus Christ, the Son of God.\nWhere He abides, there will I also abide.\" (21a, 1532 ff.)\n\nThe third letter to Weller is dated August 15th. It reads as follows:\n\"Grace and peace in Christ. I have forgotten, my dear Jerome, what I\nwrote you in my former letter concerning the spirit of melancholy, and I\nmay now be writing you the same things and harping on the same string.\nNevertheless, I shall repeat what I said, because we all share each\nother's afflictions, and as I am suffering in your behalf, so you, no\ndoubt, are suffering in mine. It is one and the same adversary that\nhates and persecutes every individual brother of Christ. Moreover, we\nare one body, and in this body one member suffers for every other\nmember, and that, for the sole reason that we worship Christ. Thus it\nhappens that one is forced to bear the other's burden. See, then, that\nyou learn to despise your adversary. For you have not sufficiently\nlearned to understand this spirit, who is an enemy to spiritual\ngladness. You may rest assured that you are not the only one who bears\nthis cross and are not suffering alone. We are all bearing it with you\nand are suffering with you. God, who commanded: 'Thou shalt not kill,'\ncertainly declares by this commandment that He is opposed to these\nmelancholy and death-bringing thoughts, and that He, on the contrary,\nwould have us cherish lively and exceedingly cheerful thoughts. So the\nPsalmist declares, saying: 'In His favor is life,' Ps. 30, 5 [Luther\nunderstands this to mean: He favors life] and in Ezekiel God says: 'I\nhave no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn\nfrom his way and live' (chap. 33, 11). On the other hand, etc. Now,\nthen, since it is certain that such melancholy is displeasing to God, we\nhave this reliable comfort that if this demon cannot be entirely removed\nfrom us, divine strength will be supplied to us, so that we may not feel\nthe affliction so much. I know that it is not in our power to remove\nthese thoughts at our option, but I also know that they shall not gain\nthe upper hand; for we are told: 'He shall not suffer the righteous to\nbe moved,' if we only learn to cast our burden upon Him. The Lord Jesus,\nthe mighty Warrior and unconquerable Victor, will be your aid. Amen.\"\n(21a, 1543 f.)\n\nThese three letters constitute the whole evidence for the Catholic\ncharge against Luther that he offered advice to Weller that is immoral\nand demoralizing. The indictment culminates in these three distinct\npoints: Luther advises Weller 1. to drink freely and be frivolous; 2. to\ncommit sin to spite the devil; 3. to have no regard for the Ten\nCommandments. Since we shall take up the last point in a separate\nchapter, we limit our remarks to the first two points.\n\nWhen Luther advises Weller to drink somewhat more liberally, that does\nnot mean that Luther advises Weller to get drunk. This, however, is\nexactly what Luther is made to say by his Catholic critics. They make no\neffort to understand the situation as it confronted Luther, but pounce\nupon a remark that can easily be understood to convey an offensive\nmeaning. Neither does what Luther says about his own drinking mean that\nhe ever got drunk. We have spoken of this matter in a previous chapter,\nand do not wish to repeat. Luther's remarks about jesting, merry plays,\nand jolly pranks in which he would have Weller engage are likewise\nvitiated by the Catholic insinuation that he advises indecent\nfrivolities, yea, immoralities. Why, all the merriment which he urges\nupon Weller is to take place in Luther's home and family circle, in the\npresence of Luther's wife and children, in the presence of Weller's\nlittle pupil Hans, who at that time was about four years old. The\nfriends of the family members of the Faculty at the University,\nministers, students who either stayed at Luther's home, like Weller, or\nfrequently visited there, are also included in this circle whose company\nWeller is urged to seek. Imagine a young man coming into this circle\ndrunk, or half drunk, and disporting himself hilariously before the\ncompany! We believe that not even all Catholics can be made to believe\nthe insinuations of their writers against Luther when all the facts in\nthe case are presented to them.\n\nLet us, moreover, remind ourselves once more that, to measure the social\nproprieties of the sixteenth century by modern standards, is unfair. A\ndegree of culture in regard to manners and speech can be reached by very\nrefined people that grows away from naturalness. The old Latin saying:\n_Naturalia non sunt turpia_ (We need not feel ashamed of our natural\nacts), will never lose its force. There are expressions in Luther's\nwritings--and in the Bible--that nowadays are considered unchaste, but\nare in themselves chaste and pure. Even the extremest naturalness that\nspeaks with brutal frankness about certain matters is a better criterion\nof moral purity than the supersensitive prudishness that squirms and\nblushes, or pretends to blush, at the remotest reference to such\nmatters. It all depends on the thoughts which the heart connects with\nthe words which the mouth utters. This applies also to the manner in\nwhich former centuries have spoken about drinking. We sometimes begin to\nmove uneasily, as if something Pecksniffian had come into our presence,\nwhen we behold the twentieth century sitting in judgment on the manners\nand morals of the sixteenth century.\n\nIn Luther's remarks about sinning to spite the devil we have always\nheard an echo from his life at the cloister. One's judgment about the\nmonastic life is somewhat mitigated when one hears how Dr. Staupitz and\nthe brethren in the convent at Erfurt would occasionally speak to Luther\nabout the latter's sins. Staupitz called them \"Puppensuenden.\" It is not\neasy to render this term by a short and apt English term; \"peccadillo\"\nwould come near the meaning. A child playing with a doll will treat it\nas if it were a human being, will dress it, talk to it, and pretend to\nreceive answers from it, etc. That is the way, good Catholics were\ntelling Luther, he was treating his sins. His sins were no real sins, or\nhe had magnified their sinfulness out of all proportion. This same\nadvice Luther hands on to another who was becoming a hypochondriac as he\nhad been. When the mind is in a morbid state it imagines faults, errors,\nsins, where there are none. The melancholy person in his self-scrutiny\nbecomes an intolerant tyrant to himself. He will flay his poor soul for\ntrifles as if they were the blackest crimes: In such moments the devil\nis very busy about the victim of gloom and despair. Luther has diagnosed\nthe case of Weller with the skill of a nervous specialist. He counsels\nWeller not to judge himself according to the devil's prompting, and, in\norder to break Satan's thrall over him, to wrench himself free from his\nfalse notions of what is sinful. In offering this advice, Luther uses\nsuch expressions as: \"Sin, commit sin,\" but the whole context shows that\nhe advises Weller to do that which is in itself not sinful, but looks\nlike sin to Weller in his present condition. When Luther declares he\nwould like to commit a real brave sin himself as a taunt to the devil,\nhe adds: \"Would that I could!\" That means, that, as a matter of fact, he\ncould not do it and did not do it, because it was wrong. What bold\nimmoral act did Weller commit in consequence of Luther's advice? What\nimmoralities are there in Luther's own life? Luther's letters did not\nconvey the meaning to his morbid young friend that Catholic writers\nthink and claim they did.\n\nLuther's advice to Melanchthon which is so revolting to Catholics that\nthey have made it the slogan in their campaign against Luther refers to\na state of affairs that is identical with what we noted in our review of\nthe correspondence with Weller. It is contained in a letter which Luther\nwrote August 1, 1521, while he was an exile in the Wartburg. He says to\nhis despondent friend and colleague at the University of Wittenberg: \"If\nyou are a preacher of grace, do not preach a fictitious, but the true\ngrace. If grace is of the true sort, you will also have to bear true,\nnot fictitious, sins. God does not save those who only acknowledge\nthemselves sinners in a feigned manner. Be a sinner, then, and sin\nbravely, but believe more bravely still and rejoice in Christ, who is\nthe Victor over sin, death, and the world. We must sin as long as we are\nin this world; the present life is not an abode of righteousness;\nhowever, we look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth\nrighteousness, says Peter (2. Ep. 3, 13). We are satisfied, by the\nrichness of God's glory, to have come to the knowledge of the Lamb that\ntaketh away the sins of the world. No sin shall wrest us from Him, were\nwe even in one day to commit fornication and manslaughter a thousand\ntimes. Do you think the price paltry and the payment small that has been\nmade for us by this great Lamb?\" (15, 2589.)\n\n\"Be a sinner, and sin bravely, but believe more bravely still\"--this is\nthe _chef d'oeuvre_ of the muck-rakers in Luther's life. The reader has\nthe entire passage which contains the outrageous statement of Luther\nbefore him, and will be able to judge the connection in which the words\noccur. What caused Luther to write those words? Did Melanchthon\ncontemplate some crime which he was too timid to perpetrate? According\nto the horrified expressions of Catholics that must have been the\nsituation. Luther, in their view, says to Melanchthon: Philip, you are a\nsimpleton. Why scruple about a sin? You are still confined in the\ntrammels of very narrow-minded moral views. You must get rid of them.\nHave the courage to be wicked, Make a hero of yourself by executing some\nbold piece of iniquity. Be an \"Uebermensch.\" Sin with brazen unconcern;\nbe a fornicator, a murderer, a liar, a thief, defy every moral statute,\n--only do not forget to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. His grace is\nintended, not for hesitating, craven sinners, but for audacious,\nspirited, high-minded criminals.\n\nThis, we are asked to believe, is the sentiment of the same Luther who\nin his correspondence with Weller declares that he could not if he would\ncommit a brave sin to spite the devil. Can the reader induce himself to\nbelieve that Luther advised Melanchthon to do what he himself knew was a\nmoral impossibility to himself because of his relation to God? And again\nwe put the question which we put in connection with the Weller letters:\nWhat brave sin did Melanchthon actually commit upon being thus advised\nby Luther?\n\nOne glance at the context, a calm reflection upon the tenor of this\nentire passage in the letter to Melanchthon, suffices to convince every\nunbiased reader that Luther is concerned about Melanchthon as he was\nabout Weller: he fears his young colleague is becoming a prey to morbid\nself-incrimination. It is again a case of \"Puppensuenden\" being expanded\ntill they seem ethical monstrosities. But, as the opening words of the\nparagraph show, Luther had another purpose in writing to Melanchthon as\nhe did. Melanchthon was a public preacher and expounder of the doctrine\nof evangelical grace. He must not preach that doctrine mincingly,\nhaltingly. Is that possible? Indeed, it is. Just as there are preachers\nafraid to preach the divine Law and to tell men that they are under the\ncurse of God and merit damnation, so there are preachers afraid,\nactually afraid, to preach the full Gospel, without any limiting clauses\nand provisos. Just as there are teachers of Christianity who promptly\nput on the soft pedal when they reach the critical point in their public\ndeliverances where they must reprove sin, and who hate intensive\npreaching of the Ten Commandments, so there are evangelical teachers who\ndole out Gospel grace in dribbles and homeopathic doses, as if it were\nthe most virulent poison, of which the sinner must not be given too\nmuch. Luther tells Melanchthon: If you are afraid to draw every stop in\nthe organ when you play the tune of Love Divine, All Love Excelling, you\nhad better quit the organ. There are some sinners in this world that\nwill not understand your faint evangelical whispers; they need to have\nthe truth that Christ forgives their sins, all their sins,--their worst\nsins, blown into them with all the trumpets that made the walls of\nJericho fall. If Melanchthon did not require a strong faith in the\nforgiving grace of God for himself, he needed it as a teacher of that\ngrace to others; he must, therefore, familiarize himself with the\nimmensity and power of that grace.\n\nIn conclusion, it should be noted that the Catholic writers who express\ntheir extreme disgust at the immoral principles of Luther belong to a\nChurch whose theologians have made very questionable distinctions\nbetween venial sins and others. Papal dispensations and decisions of\nCatholic casuists, especially in the order of the Jesuits, have startled\nthe world by their moral perverseness. Yea, the very principles of\nprobabilism and mental reservation which the Jesuits have espoused are\nantiethical. In accordance with the principle last named, \"when\nimportant interests are at stake, a negative or modifying clause may\nremain unuttered which would completely reverse the statement actually\nmade. This principle justified unlimited lying when one's interest or\nconvenience seemed to require it. Where the same word or phrase has\nmore than one sense, it may be employed in an unusual sense with the\nexpectation that it will be understood in the usual. [This is called\n\"amphibology\" by them.] Such evasions may be used under oath in a civil\ncourt. Equally destructive of good morals was the teaching of many\nJesuit casuists that moral obligation may be evaded by directing the\nintention when committing an immoral act to an end worthy in itself; as\nin murder, to the vindication of one's honor; in theft, to the supplying\nof one's needs or those of the poor; in fornication or adultery, to the\nmaintenance of one's health or comfort. Nothing did more to bring upon\nthe society the fear and distrust of the nations and of individuals than\nthe justification and recommendation by several of their writers of the\nassassination of tyrants, the term 'tyrant' being made to include all\npersons in authority who oppose the work of the papal church or order.\nThe question has been much discussed, Jesuits always taking the negative\nside, whether the Jesuits have taught that 'the end justifies the\nmeans.' It may not be possible to find this maxim in these precise words\nin Jesuit writings; but that they have always taught that for the\n'greater glory of God,' identified by them with the extension of Roman\nCatholic (Jesuit) influence, the principles of ordinary morality may be\nset aside, seems certain. The doctrine of philosophical sin, in\naccordance with which actual attention to the sinfulness of an act when\nit is being committed is requisite to its sinfulness for the person\ncommitting it, was widely advocated by members of the society. The\nrepudiation of some of the most scandalous maxims of Jesuit writers by\nlater writers, or the placing of books containing scandalous maxims on\nthe Index, does not relieve the society or the Roman Catholic Church\nfrom responsibility, as such books must have received authoritative\napproval before publication, and the censuring of them does not\nnecessarily involve an adverse attitude toward the teaching itself, but\nway be a more measure of expediency.\" (A. H. Newman, in _New\nSchaff-Herzog Encycl.,_ 6, 146.)\n\n\n18. Luther, Repudiates the Ten Commandments?\n\nIn Luther's correspondence with Weller there occurs a remark to the\neffect that Weller must put the Decalog out of his mind. Similar\nstatements occur in great number throughout Luther's writings. In some\nof these statements Luther speaks in terms of deep scorn and contempt of\nthe Law, and considers it the greatest affront that can be offered\nChristians to place them under the Law of Moses. He declares that Moses\nmust be regarded by Christians as if he were a heretic, excommunicated\nby the Church, and assigns him to the gallows. Some of the strongest\ninvectives of this kind are found in his exposition of the Epistle to\nthe Galatians. These stern utterances of Luther against the Law serve\nthe Catholics as the basis for their charge that Luther is the most\ndestructive spirit that has arisen within the Church. He is said to have\ndestroyed the only perfect norm of right and wrong by his violent\nonslaughts on Moses. Once the commandments of God are abrogated, the\nfeeling of duty and responsibility, they argue, is plucked from the\nhearts of men, and license and vice rush in upon the world with the\nforce of a springtide.\n\nThe reader will remember what has been said in a previous chapter about\nLuther's labors to expound and apply the divine Law, also about the\nintimate and loving relation which he maintained to the Ten Commandments\nto the end of his life. Luther has spoken of Moses as a teacher of true\nholiness in terms of unbounded admiration and praise. Ho declares the\nwritings of Moses the principal part of our Bible, because all the\nprophets and apostles have drawn their teaching from Moses and\nhave expanded the teaching of Moses. Christ Himself has appealed to\nMoses as an authority in matters of religion. The greatest distinction\nof Moses in Luther's view is that he has prophesied concerning Christ,\nand by revealing the people's sin through the teaching of the Law has\nmade them see and feel the necessity of a redemption through the\nMediator. However, also the laws of Moses are exceedingly fine, Luther\nthinks. The Ten Commandments are essentially the natural moral law\nimplanted in the hearts of man. But also his forensic laws, his civil\nstatutes, his ecclesiastical ordinances, his regulations regarding the\nhygiene, and the public order that must be maintained in a great\ncommonwealth, are wise and salutary. The Catholics are forced to admit\nthat alongside of the open contempt which Luther occasionally voices for\nMoses and the Mosaic righteousness inculcated by the Law there runs a\ncordial esteem of the great prophet. Luther regards the Law of Moses as\ndivine; it is to him just as much the Word of God as any other portion\nof the Scriptures. To save their faces in a debate they must concede\nthis point, but they charge Luther with being a most disorderly\nreasoner, driven about in his public utterances by momentary impulses:\nHe will set up a rule to-day which he knocks down to-morrow. He will\ncite the same Principle for or against a matter. He is so erratic that\nhe can be adduced as authority by both sides to a controversy. The\nCatholic may succeed with certain people in getting rid of Luther on the\nclaim that his is a confused mind, and that in weighty affairs he adopts\nthe policy of the opportunist. Most men will demand a better explanation\nof the seeming self-contradiction in Luther's attitude toward the divine\nLaw.\n\nThere is only one connection in which Luther speaks disparagingly of the\nLaw, and we shall show that what he says is no real disparagement, but\nthe correct Scriptural valuation of the Law. Luther holds that the Ten\nCommandments do not save any person nor contribute the least part to his\nsalvation. They must be entirely left out of account when such questions\nare to be answered as these: How do I obtain a gracious God? How is my\nsin to be forgiven? How do I obtain a good conscience? How can I come to\nI live righteously? How can I hope to die calmly, in the confidence that\nI am going to heaven? On such occasions Luther says: Turn your eyes away\nfrom Moses and his Law; he cannot help you; you apply at the wrong\noffice when you come to him for rest for your soul here and hereafter.\nHe gives you no comfort, and he cannot, because it is not his function\nto do so. It is Another's business to do that. Him you grossly dishonor\nand traduce when you refuse to come to Him for what He alone can give,\nand when you go to some one who does not give you what you need, though\nyou pretend that you get it from this other. A proper relation to God is\nestablished for us only by Jesus Christ. He is the exclusive Mediator\nappointed by God for His dealing with man and for man in his dealings\nwith God. There is salvation in none other; nor can our hope of heaven\nbe placed on any other foundation than that which God laid when He\nappointed Christ our Redeemer (Acts 4, 12; 1 Cor. 3, 11).\n\nThis is Bible-doctrine. \"The Law was given by Moses, but grace and truth\ncame by Jesus Christ,\" says John (chap. 1, 17). Here the two fundamental\nteachings of the Scriptures are strictly set apart the one from the\nother. They have much in common: they have the same holy Author, God;\ntheir contents are holy; they serve holy ends.  But they are differently\nrelated to sinful man: the Law tells man what he must do, the Gospel,\nwhat Christ has done for him; the Law issues demands, the Gospel,\ngratuitous offers; the Law holds out rewards for merits or severe\npenalties, the Gospel, free and unconditioned gifts; the Law terrifies,\nthe Gospel cheers the sinner; the Law turns the sinner against God by\nproving to him his incapacity to practise it, the Gospel draws the\nsinner to God and makes him a willing servant of God.\n\nPaul demands of the Christian minister that he \"rightly divide the Word\nof Truth\" (2 Tim. 2, 15). To preach the Bible-doctrine of salvation\naright and with salutary effect, the Law and the Gospel must be kept\napart as far as East is from the West. The Law is truth, but, it is not\nthe truth that saves, because it knows of no grace for the breakers of\nthe Law. The Gospel teaches holiness and righteousness, however, not\nsuch as the sinner achieves by his own effort, but such as has been\nachieved for the sinner by his Substitute, Jesus Christ. The Gospel is\nnot for men who imagine that they can do the commandments of God; Jesus\nChrist says: \"I came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to\nrepentance\" (Matt. 9, 13). On the other hand, the Law is not for sinners\nwho know themselves saved. \"The Law is not made for a righteous man\" (1\nTim. 1, 9). Christians employ the Law for the regulation of their lives,\nas a pattern and index of holy works which are pleasing to God and as a\ndeterrent from evil works, but they do not seek their salvation, neither\nwholly nor in part, in the Law, nor do they look to the Law for strength\nto do the will of God. Moreover Christians, while they are still in the\nflesh, apply the Law to the old Adam in themselves; they bruise the\nflesh with its deceitful lusts with the scourge of Moses, and thus they\nare in a sense under the Law, and can never be without the Law while\nthey live. But in another sense they are not under the Law: all their\nlife is determined by divine grace; their faith, their hope, their\ncharity, is entirely from the Gospel, and the new man in them\nacknowledges no master except Jesus Christ, who is all in all to them\n(Eph. 1, 23).\n\nWhen Luther directed men for their salvation away from the Law, he did\nwhat Christ Himself had done when He called to the multitudes: \"Come\nunto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you\nrest\" (Matt. 11, 28). The people to whom these words were addressed had\nthe Law of Moses and wearied themselves with its fulfilment, such as it\nwas under the direction of teachers and guides who had misinterpreted\nand were misapplying that Law continually. Even in that false view of\nthe Law which they had been taught, and which did not at all exhaust its\nmeaning, there was no ease of conscience, no assurance of divine favor,\nno rest for their souls. Christ with His gracious summons told them, in\neffect: You must forget the Law and the ordinances of your elders and\nyour miserable works of legal service. You must turn your back upon\nMoses. In Me, only in Me, is your help.\n\nMoses himself never conceived his mission to be what the Catholics\ndeclare it to be by their doctrine of salvation by faith plus works.\nMoses directed his people to the greater Prophet who was to come in the\nfuture, and told them: \"Unto Him shall ye hearken\" (Deut. 18, 15). Jesus\nwas pointed out to the world as that Prophet of whom Moses had spoken,\nwhen the Father at the baptism and the transfiguration of Christ\nrepeated from heaven the warning cry of Israel's greatest teacher under\nthe old dispensation (Matt. 3, 17; 17, 5).\n\nBut was it necessary, in speaking of the inability of the Law to save\nmen, to use such strong and contemptuous terms as Luther has used? Yes.\nThe Catholics do not seen to know in what strong terms the Bible has\nrejected the Law as a means of salvation. Paul denounces the Galatians\nagain and again as \"foolish,\" \"bewitched,\" and bastards of a bondwoman,\nbecause they think they will be saved by their works done according to\nthe Law (chap. 3, 1. 3; 4, 21 ff.). He calls them godless infidels,\nslaves, silly children still in their nonage, because they imagine that\nthey become acceptable to God by their own righteousness (chap. 4, 9; 3,\n23 ff.). Yea, he reprobates their legal service when he says: \"As many\nas are of the works of the Law are under the curse\" (chap. 3, 10). How\ncontemptuous does it not sound to hear him call the legal ordinances\nwhich the Galatians were observing \"beggarly elements\" (chap. 4, 9), and\nthe law a \"schoolmaster\" (chap. 3, 24), that is, a tutor fit only for\nlittle abecedarians who cannot be treated as full-grown persons that are\nable to make a right use of their privileges as children and heirs of\nGod. Why do not the Catholics turn up their nose at Paul, as they do at\nLuther, when Paul calls all his legal righteousness \"dung\" (Phil. 2, 8),\nor when he speaks slightingly of the observance on which the Colossians\nprided themselves as \"rudiments of the world\" (Col. 2, 20)? Why does he\ncall the Law \"the handwriting of ordinances that has been blotted out\"\n(Col. 2, 14) but to declare to the Colossians that they are to fear the\nLaw as little as a debtor fears a canceled note that had been drawn\nagainst him? What was it that Paul rebuked Peter for when he told him\nthat he was building again the things which they both had destroyed\n(Gal. 2, 18)? Mark you, he says, \"destroyed.\" Why, it was this very\nthing for which Luther is faulted by Rome, the Law as an instrument for\nobtaining righteousness before God. Could a person renounce the Law in\nmore determined, one might almost say, ruthless fashion, than by saying:\n\"I am dead to the Law, that I might live unto God\"? Paul is the person\nwho thus speaks of the Law (Gal. 2, 19). The Catholics have again taken\nhold of the wrong man when they assail Luther for repudiating the Law of\nGod; they must start higher up; they will find the real culprit whom\nthey are trying to prosecute among the holy apostles. Yea, even the\napostles will decline the honor of being the original criminals, they\nwill pass the charges preferred against them higher up still; for what\ncontemptuous terms were used by them in speaking of the Law were\ninspired terms which they received from God the Holy Ghost. That\ncontempt for the Law which Luther voices under very particular\ncircumstances Luther has learned from his Bible and under the guidance\nof the Holy Ghost.\n\nThat contempt is a mark of every evangelical preacher to-day. If\nministers of the Gospel to-day do not denounce the Law when falsely\napplied, they betray a sacred trust and become traitors to Christ and\nthe Church. For every one who teaches men to seek their salvation in any\nmanner and to any degree in their own works serves not Christ, but\nAntichrist. This is such a fearful calamity that no terms should be\nregarded as too scathing in which to rebuke legalistic tendencies. These\ntendencies are the bane and blight of Christianity; if they are not\nrooted out, Christianity will perish from off the face of the earth.\nWorkmongers are missionaries of the father of lies and the murderer from\nthe beginning: so far as in them lies, they slay the souls of men by\ntheir false teaching of the Law.\n\nHowever, Luther reveals another attitude toward the Law. At three\ndistinct times in his public career he had to do with people who had\nassumed a hostile attitude to the Law of God. If the contention of\nLuther's Catholic critics were true, Luther ought to have hailed these\noccasions with delight and made common cause with the repudiators of the\nLaw. While he was at the Wartburg, a disturbance broke out at\nWittenberg. Under the leadership of Carlstadt, a professor at the\nUniversity, men broke into the churches and smashed images. Church\nordinances of age-long standing were to be abrogated, the cloisters were\nto be thrown open, and a new order of things was to be inaugurated by\nviolence. Against the will of the Elector of Saxony, who had afforded\nLuther an asylum in his castle, Luther, at the risk of his life, came\nout of his seclusion, boldly went to Wittenberg, and preached a series\nof sermons by which he quelled the riotous uprising. Even before his\nreturn to Wittenberg he had published a treatise in which he warned\nChristians to avoid tumult and violent proceedings. The eight sermons\nwhich he preached to the excited people of Wittenberg are an invaluable\nevidence that Luther meant to proceed in the way of order. The mass and\nthe confessional would have been abolished at that time, had it not been\nfor Luther's interference. He made some lifelong enemies by insisting\nthat the reformatory movement must be conservative. He held that before\nmen's consciences had been liberated by the teaching of Christ, they\nwere not qualified for exercising true Christian liberty, and their\nviolent proceedings were nothing but carnal license. Everybody knows how\ndeeply Luther himself was interested in the abolition of the idolatrous\nMass and the spiritual peonage which Rome had created for men by means\nof the confessional. Only a person who puts principles above policies\ncould have acted as Luther did in those turbulent days. He wanted for\nhis followers, not wanton rebels and frenzied enthusiasts, but men who\nrespect the Word of Cod, discreet and gentle men whose weapons of\nwarfare were not carnal. A man who is so cautious as not to approve the\nputting down of acknowledged evils because he is convinced that the\nattempt is premature and exceeds the limits of propriety, will not lend\nhis hand to abolishing the divine norm of right, the holy commandments\nof God.\n\nThe second occasion on which Luther in a most impressive manner showed\nhis profound regard for the maintenance of human and divine laws was\nduring the bloody uprising of the peasants. While thoroughly in sympathy\nwith the rebellious peasants in their righteous grievances against their\nsecular and spiritual oppressors, the barons and the bishops, and\npleading the peasants' cause in its just demands before their lords, he\nunflinchingly rebuked their extreme demands and their still extremer\nactions. If by his preaching of the Gospel Luther had been the\ninstigator of the peasants' uprising, what a brazen hypocrite he must\nhave been in denouncing acts which he must have acknowledged to be\nfruits of his teaching! Among the noblemen of Germany Luther counted not\na few frank admirers and staunch supporters of his reformatory work.\nTheir influence was of the highest value to him in those critical days\nwhen his own life was not safe. Yet he rebuked the sins of the high and\nmighty, their avarice and insolence, which had brought on this terrible\ndisturbance. In his writings dealing with this sad conflict Luther\nimpresses one like one of the ancient prophets who stand like a rock\namid the raging billows of popular passions and with even-handed justice\ndeliver the oracles of God to high and low, calling upon all to bow\nbefore the supreme will of the righteous Lawgiver. Would the great lords\nof the land have meekly taken Luther's rebuke if they had been able to\ncharge Luther with being an accessory to the peasants' crimes?\n\nThe third occasion on which Luther's innocence of the charges of\nRomanists that he was an instigator of lawlessness was most effectually\nvindicated was the Antinomian controversy. This episode, more than any\nother, embittered the life of the aging Reformer. The Antinomians drew\nfrom the evangelical teachings those disastrous consequences which the\nCatholics impute to Luther: they claimed that the Law is not in any way\napplicable to Christians. They insisted that the Ten Commandments must\nnot be preached to Christians at all. Christians, they claimed,\ndetermine in the exercise of their sovereign liberty what they may or\nmay not do. Being under grace, they are superior to the Law and a law\nunto themselves. At first Luther had been inclined to treat this error\nmildly, because it seemed incredible to him that enlightened children of\nGod could so fatally misread the teaching of God's Word. He thought the\nAntinomians were either misunderstood by people who had no conception of\nthe Gospel and of evangelical liberty, or they were grossly slandered by\npersons ill-disposed to them because of their successful preaching of\nthe Gospel. When their error had been established beyond a doubt, he did\nnot hesitate a moment to attack it. In sermons and public disputations,\nbefore the common people of Wittenberg and the learned doctors and the\nstudents of the University, he defended the holy Law of God as the norm\nof right conduct and the mirror showing up the sinfulness of man also\nfor Christians, and he insisted that those who had fallen into this\nerror must publicly recant. It was due to Luther's unrelenting\nopposition that Agricola, one of the leaders of the Antinomians and at\none time a dear friend of Luther, withdrew his false teaching and\noffered apologies in a published discourse. To his guests Luther in\nthose days remarked at the table: \"Satan, like a furious harlot, rages\nin the Antinomians, as Melanchthon writes from Frankfort. The devil will\ndo much harm through them and cause infinite and vexatious evils. If\nthey carry their lawless principles into the State as well as the\nChurch, the magistrate will say: I am a Christian, therefore the law\ndoes not pertain to me. Even a Christian hangman would repudiate the\nlaw. If they teach only free grace, infinite license will follow, and\nall discipline will be at an end.\" (Preserved Smith, p. 283.) Luther\nheld that forbidding the preaching of the Law meant to prohibit\npreaching God's truth (20, 1635), and to abrogate the Law he regarded as\ntantamount to abrogating the Gospel (22, 1029).\n\nFar from repudiating the Ten Commandments, then, Luther, by insisting on\na distinction between Law and Gospel, and assigning to each a separate\nsphere of operation in the lives of Christians, has done more than any\nother teacher in the Church since the days of Paul to impress men with a\nsincere respect of the Law, and to honor it by obedience to its\nprecepts.\n\n\n19. Luther's Invisible Church.\n\nIn his Theses against the sale of indulgences, especially in the first\ntwo, Luther had uttered a thought which led to a new conception of the\nChurch. He had declared that Christian life does not consist in the\nperformance of certain works of piety, such as going to confession,\nperforming the penances imposed by priests, hearing Mass, etc.,--all of\nwhich are external, visible acts,--but in a continuous penitential\nrelation of the heart to God. The Christian, conscious of his innate\ncorruption and his daily sinning, faces God at all times in the attitude\nof a humble suitor for mercy. The posture of the publican is the typical\nattitude of the Christian. He recognizes no merit in himself, he pleads\nno worthiness which would give him a just claim upon God's favor. His\nsingle hope and sole reliance is in the merit and atoning work of his\nSavior Jesus Christ. The Christian's penitence embraces as a constituent\nelement faith in the forgiveness of sin for Christ's sake. In the\nstrength of his faith the Christian begins to wrestle with the sin which\nis still indwelling in him and which besets him from without. The agony\nof the Redeemer which he places before his eyes at all times proves a\ndeterrent from sin, and the holy example of Jesus, who ran with\nrejoicing the way of the commandments of God, becomes an inspiring\nexample to him: actuated by gratitude for the love of the Son of God who\ngave Himself for him and reclaimed him from certain perdition, he begins\nto reproduce the life of Jesus in his own conversation. His whole life\nis determined by his relation to Jesus: his thoughts, affections, words,\nand deeds are a reflex of the life of his Lord. For him to live is\nChrist (Phil. 1, 21). All his acts become expressions of his faith. He\nsays with Paul: \"I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the\nlife which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of\nGod, who loved me, and gave Himself for me\" (Gal. 2, 20).\n\nDuring the discussions which followed the publication of the Theses,\nespecially during the Leipzig Debate with Eck in 1519, this thought of\nLuther was expanded, and applied to the idea of the Church.\nChristianity, in Luther's teaching, came to be set forth as something\nvastly different from the external and mechanical religiousness which\nhad been accepted as Christianity by Rome. Christianity meant a new\nlife, swayed by new motives, governed by new principles. It was seen to\nbe entirely inward, an affair of the heart and soul and mind, and,\nulteriorly, an affair of the body and the natural life. The religion of\nRome, with its constant emphasis on works of men's piety and the merit\nresulting therefrom, had become thoroughgoing externalism. So many\nprayers recited, so many altars visited, so many offerings made, meant\nso many merits achieved. The scheme worked out with mathematical\nprecision. Devout Catholics might well keep a ledger of their devotional\nacts, as Gustav Freitag in his _Ancestors_ represents Marcus Koenig as\nhaving done.\n\nIn the Catholic view the Church is a visible society, an ecclesiastical\norganization with a supreme officer at the head, and a host of\nsubordinate officers who receive their orders from him, and lastly, a\nlay membership that acknowledges the rule of this organization. The\nChurch in this view is a religious commonwealth, only in form and\noperation differing from secular commonwealths. Cardinal Gibbons calls\nit \"the Christian Republic.\" In Luther's view the Church is, first of\nall, an invisible society, known to God, the Searcher of hearts, alone.\nThe Church of Christ is the sum-total of believers scattered through the\nwhole world and existing in all ages. To this Church we refer when we\nprofess in the Apostles' Creed: \"I believe one holy, Christian Church,\nthe communion of saints.\" This is the Church, the real Church, the\nChurch which God acknowledges as the spiritual body of Christ, who is\nthe Head of the Church, and with which He maintains the most intimate\nand tender relations.\n\nThis invisible Church exists within the visible societies of organized\nChristianity, in the local Christian congregations. Christian faith is\nnever independent of the means which God has appointed for producing\nfaith, the Gospel and the Sacraments. \"Faith cometh by hearing, and\nhearing by the Word of God\" (Rom. 10, 17). This faith-creating word of\nevangelical grace is an audible and visible matter. Its presence in any\nlocality is cognizable by the senses. It becomes attached, moreover, by\nChrist's ordaining, to certain visible elements, as the water in Baptism\nand the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Hence these two Christian\nordinances--the only two for which a divine word of command and promise,\nhence, a divine institution can be shown--also become related to faith,\nto its origin and preservation. For of Baptism our Lord says: \"Except a\nman be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of\nGod\" (John 3, 5). To be \"born again,\" or to become a child of God,\naccording to John 1, 12, is the same as \"to believe.\" Accordingly, Paul\nsays: \"Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as\nmany of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ\" (Gal.\n3, 26. 27). Of the Sacrament our Lord says: \"This is the blood of the\ncovenant which is shed for many for the remission of sins\" (Matt. 26,\n28); and His apostle declares that communicants, \"as often as they eat\nof this bread and drink of this cup, do show the Lord's death till He\ncome\" (1 Cor. 11, 26).\n\nThe Gospel and the Sacraments, now, become the marks of the Church, the\nunfailing criteria of its existence in any place. For, according to the\ndeclaration of God, they are never entirely without result, though many\nto whom they are brought resist the gracious operation of the Spirit\nthrough these means. By Isaiah God has said: \"As the rain cometh down,\nand the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the\nearth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the\nsower and bread to the eater: so shall My Word be that goeth forth out\nof My mouth: it shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish\nthat which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent\nit\" (Is. 55, 10. 11).\n\nAmong the people who in a given locality rally around the Word and the\nSacraments and profess allegiance to them, there is the Church, because\nthere is the power of God unto salvation, the faith-producing and\nfaith-sustaining Gospel of Jesus Christ. Those who embrace what the\nGospel offers with a lively faith, and in the power of their faith\nproceed to lead holy lives in accordance with the teaching of God's\nWord, are the members of the true Church of God, the kingdom of Christ.\nThose who adhere only externally to these institutions are merely\nnominal members. They may at heart be hypocrites and secret blasphemers.\n\nCatholic writers charge Luther with having set up this teaching, partly\nto spite the Pope whom he hated, partly to gratify his vainglorious\naspirations to become famous. He had at one time held the Catholic dogma\nthat the Church is the visible society of men who profess allegiance to\nthe Bishop of Rome and accept his overlordship in matters of their\nreligion. But through neglect of his religious duties and the failure to\nbridle his imperious temper he had by degrees begun to revolt from the\nteaching of the Catholic Church, until he publicly renounced the Church\nthat had existed in all the ages before him, and set up his own Church.\nBy forsaking the communion of the Roman church organization he severed\nhis soul from Christ and became an apostate. For, according to Catholic\nbelief, Christ founded the Church to be a visible organization with a\nvisible head, the Pope, and plainly and palpably \"governing\" men.\n\nEverybody who has read the records of Luther's work knows that no\nthought was more foreign to his mind than that of founding a new church.\nHe believed himself in hearty accord with the Catholic Church and the\nPope when he published his Theses. He did not wantonly leave the Church,\nbut was driven from it by most ruthless measures. It was while he was\ndefending the principles which he had first uttered against Tetzel that\nhis eyes were opened to the appalling defection which had occurred in\nthe Catholic Church from every true conception of what the Church really\nis. His appeals to the Word of God were answered by appeals to the\nChurch, the councils of the Church, the Pope. In his unsophisticated\nmind Luther held that Church, councils, and Pope are all subject to\nChrist, the Head of the Church. They cannot teach and decree anything\nbut what Christ has taught and ordained. It is only by abiding in the\nwords of Christ that men become and remain the true disciples of Christ,\nhence, His Church (John 8, 31). Now, he was told that Christ had erected\nthe visible organization of the Catholic Church with the Pope at its\nhead into the Church, and had handed over all authority to this society,\nwith the understanding that there can be no appeal from this body to\nChrist Himself. Salvation is only by submitting to the rule of this\nsociety, adopting its ways, following its precepts. From this teaching\nLuther recoiled with horror, and rightly so.\n\nAt one time God had erected a theocracy on earth, a Church which was a\nvisible society, and for which He had made special laws and ordinances.\nThe Church of the Old Covenant is the only visible Church which God\ncreated. But even in this Church He declared that external compliance\nwith its ways did not constitute any one a true member of His Church. He\ntold the Jews by Isaiah: \"To this man will I look, even to him that is\npoor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My Word. He that killeth\nan ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut\noff a dog's neck; he that offereth an oblation as if he offered swine's\nblood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol\" (chap. 66, 2.\n8). Here God abominates the mere external performance of acts of worship\nas an outrage and a crime that is perpetrated against His holy name.\nRepeating a saying of this same prophet, our Lord said to the members of\nthe Jewish Church in His day: \"Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy\nof you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto Me with their mouth, and\nhonoreth Me with their lips; but their heart is far from Me. But in vain\ndo they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men\"\n(Matt. 15, 7-9). The Pharisees in the days of Christ are the true\nancestors of Catholics in their belief that the Church is a great,\npowerful, visible organization in this world, subject to the supreme\nwill of a visible ruler, and capable of being employed in great worldly\nenterprises like a political machine. The Pharisees were always looking\nfor the establishment of a mighty church organization which would\ndominate the world. They expected the Messiah to inaugurate a Church of\nthis kind. With this ambitious thought in their heart they approached\nChrist on a certain occasion and asked Him \"when the kingdom of God\nshould come. He answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not\nwith observation; neither shall they say, Lo, here! or, Lo, there! for,\nbehold, the kingdom of God is within you\" (Luke 17, 20. 21). To the same\neffect Paul declares \"He is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is\nthat circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which\nis one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit,\nand not in the letter\" (Rom. 2, 28. 29). And to a young pastor whom he\nhad trained for work in the Church, he describes the Church as follows:\n\"The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth\nthem that are His. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ\ndepart from iniquity\" (2 Tim. 2, 19).\n\nBy making the Gospel the mark of the Church and faith the Gospel the\nbadge of membership in the Church Luther has rendered an incalculable\nservice to Christianity. This view of the Church shows the immense\nimportance of a live, intelligent, and active personal faith. It puts a\nban on religious indifference and mechanical worship. It destroys\nformalism, ceremonialism, Pharisaism in the affairs of religion. Justly\nLuther has ridiculed the implicit, or blind, faith of Catholics, when he\nwrites: \"The papists say that they believe what the Church believes,\njust as it is being related of the Poles that they say: I believe what\nmy king believes. Indeed! Could there be a better faith than this, a\nfaith less free from worry and anxiety? They tell a story about a doctor\nmeeting a collier on a bridge in Prague and condescendingly asking the\npoor layman, 'My dear man, what do you believe?' The collier replied,\n'Whatever the Church believes.' The doctor: 'Well, what does the Church\nbelieve?' The collier: 'What I believe.' Some time later the doctor was\nabout to die. In his last moments he was so fiercely assailed by the\ndevil that he could not maintain his ground nor find rest until he said,\n'I believe what the collier believes.' A similar story is being told of\nthe great [Catholic theologian] Thomas Aquinas, viz., that in his last\nmoments he was driven into a corner by the devil, and finally declared,\n'I believe what is written in this Book.' He had the Bible in his arms\nwhile he spoke these words. God grant that not much of such faith be\nfound among us! For if these people did not believe in a different\nmanner, both the doctor and the collier have been landed in the abyss of\nhell by their faith.\" (17, 2013.)\n\nLuther's teaching regarding the Church leads to a proper valuation of\nthe means of grace. Only through the evangelical Word and the\nevangelical ordinances is the Church planted, watered, and sustained. It\nis, therefore, necessary that the world be supplied in abundance with\nthe Word through the missionary operations of Christians, and that the\nChristians themselves have the Word dwell among them richly (Col. 3,\n16).  \"He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much\nfruit; for without Me ye can do nothing,\" says the Head of the Church to\nHis disciples (John 15, 5); and in His last prayer He pleads with the\nFather in their behalf: \"Sanctify them through Thy truth: Thy Word is\ntruth\" (John 17, 17). For the same reason it is necessary that the Word\nand Sacraments be preserved in their Scriptural purity, that any\ndeviation from the clear teaching of the Bible be resisted, and\northodoxy be maintained. Errors in doctrine are like tares in a\nwheat-field: they are useless in themselves, and they hinder the growth\nof good plants. Error saves no one, but some are still saved in spite of\nerror by clinging to the truth which is offered them along with the\nerror. Luther believed that this happened even in the error-ridden\nCatholic Church.\n\nLuther's teaching regarding the Church enables us, furthermore, to form\na right estimate of the ministry in the Church. Christ wants all\nbelievers to be proclaimers of His truth and grace. The apostle whom\nCatholics regard as the first Pope says to all Christians: \"Ye are a\nchosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar\npeople, that ye should show forth the praises of Him who hath called you\nout of darkness into His marvelous light\" (1 Pet. 2, 9). To the local\ncongregation of believers, which is to deal with an offending brother,\neven to the extent of putting him out of the church, Christ says: \"If he\nneglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a\npublican. Verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth\nshall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall\nbe loosed in heaven.\" There is nothing that God denies even to the\nsmallest company of believers while they are engaged in the discharge of\ntheir rights and duties as members of the Church; for Christ adds:\n\"Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as\ntouching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of My\nFather which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together\nin My name, there am I in the midst of them\" (Matt. 18, 17-20). All\nrights and duties of the Church are common to all members. All have the\nright to preach, to administer the Sacraments, etc. Over and above this,\nhowever, Christ has instituted also a personal ministry, men who can be\n\"sent\" even as He was sent by the Father (John 20, 21; comp. Rom. 10,\n15: \"How shall they preach, except they be sent?\"); men who are to\ndevote themselves exclusively to the reading of the Word (1 Tim. 4, 13),\nto teaching and guiding their fellow-believers in the way of divine\ntruth (see the Epistles to Timothy and Titus). But the ministry in the\nChurch does not represent a higher grade of Christianity,--the laymen\nrepresenting the lower,--but the ministry is a service ordained for the\n\"perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ,\" viz.,\nHis Church (Eph. 4, 11. 12; 1, 23). _Minister_ is derived from _minus,_\n\"less,\" not from _magis_--from which we have _Magister_--meaning \"more.\"\nThe ministry of the Church of the New Testament is not a hierarchy,\nendowed with special privileges and powers by the Lord, but a body of\nhumble workmen who serve their fellow-men and fellow-Christians in the\nspirit of Christ, who said: \"The Son of Man came not to be ministered\nunto, but to minister and to give His life a ransom for many\" (Matt. 20,\n28). Ministers merely exercise in public the common rights of all\nbelievers and are the believers' representatives in all their official\nacts. So Paul viewed the absolution which he pronounced upon the\npenitent member of the Corinthian congregation (2 Cor. 2, 10). When the\nCorinthians had begun to exalt their preachers unduly, he told them that\nthey were \"carnal.\" \"Who is Paul,\" he exclaims, \"and who is Apollos, but\nministers by whom ye believed? . . . Let no man glory in men. For all\nthings are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or\nlife, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours\" (1\nCor. 3, 4. 5. 20. 21). And Peter, the original Pope in the Catholics'\nbelief, says: \"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an\nelder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of\nthe glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among\nyou, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly, not\nfor filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's\nheritage, but being ensamples to the flock\" (1 Pet. 5, 1-3).\n\nLastly, Luther's teaching regarding the Church affords a wealth of\ncomfort and sound direction in view of the divided condition of the\nvisible Church. Through the ignorance and malice of men and through the\nwily activity of Satan, who creates divisions and offenses contrary to\nthe doctrine of Christ, and is busy sowing tares among the wheat, there\nhave arisen many church organizations, known by party names, differing\nfrom one another in their creedal statements, and warring upon each\nother. This is a sad spectacle to contemplate, and grieves Christian\nhearts sorely. But these divisions in the external and visible\norganizations do not touch the body of Christ, the communion of saints,\nthe one holy Christian Church. In all ages and places the true believers\nin Christ are a unit. Among those who by faith have \"put on the new man,\nwhich is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him,\nthere is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision,\nbarbarian, Scythian, bond, nor free; but Christ is all, and in all\"\n(Col. 3, 10. 11). This is the true Catholic, that is, universal, Church.\nThe visible society which has usurped this name never was, nor is\nto-day, the universal Church. Before Protestantism arose, there was the\nEastern Church, which has maintained a separate organization. This holy\nChristian Church is indestructible, because the Word of Christ, which is\nits bond, shall never pass away, and Christ rules even in the midst of\nHis enemies. Visible church organizations are valuable only in as far as\nthey shelter, and are nurseries of, the invisible Church. Luther never\nconceived the idea of founding a visible organization more powerful than\nthe Catholic; he did not mean to pit one ecclesiastical body of men\nagainst another. His single aim was to restore the purity of teaching\nand the right administration of the Sacraments in accordance with the\nScriptures. That his followers were named after him, we have shown not\nto be Luther's fault: Luther did not form a Church, but reformed the\nChurch; he did not establish a new creed, but reestablished the old. The\nvisible society of Lutherans to-day does not regard itself as the\nalone-saving Church, or as immune from error, or as infallible, but it\ndoes claim to be the Church of the pure Word and Sacraments. It knows\nthat it is one in faith with all the children of God throughout the\nworld and in all ages.\n\n\n20. Luther on the God-Given Supremacy of the Pope.\n\nIn the opinion of Catholics Luther's greatest offense is what he has\ndone to their Pope. This is Luther's unpardonable sin. Luther has done\ntwo things to the Pope: he has denied that the Pope exists by divine\nright, and he has in the most scurrilous manner spoken and written about\nthe Pope and made his vaunted dignity the butt of universal ridicule.\nThe indictment is true, but when the facts are stated, it will be seen\nto recoil on the heads of those who have drawn it.\n\nLuther denies that Matt. 16, 18. 19 establishes the papacy in the Church\nof Christ. He denies that this text creates a one-man power in the\nChurch, that it vests one individual with a sovereign jurisdiction over\nthe spiritual affairs of all other men, making him the sole arbiter of\ntheir faith and the exclusive dispenser of divine grace, and, last, not\nleast, that it says one word about the Pope. Luther makes, indeed, a\nclean and sweeping denial of every claim which Catholics advance for the\nGod-given supremacy of their Popes. Inasmuch as the papacy stands or\nfalls with Matt. 16, 18.19, he has put the Catholics in the worst\npredicament imaginable.\n\nCatholics believe that Peter was singled out for particular honors in\nthe Church by being declared the rock on which Christ builds His Church,\nand by being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter's supremacy\nas Primate of the World, they hold, passed over to Peter's successor and\nis perpetuated in an unbroken line of succession in the Roman Popes.\nThree questions, then, confronted Luther in the study of this text in\nMatthew. First, does the \"rock\" in Matt. 16, 18 signify Peter? The Lord\nhad addressed to all His disciples the question, \"Whom say ye that I\nam?\" Instead of all of them answering and creating a confusion, Peter,\nthe most impulsive of the apostles, speaks up and says, \"Thou art the\nChrist, the Son of the living God.\" With these words Peter expressed the\ncommon faith of all the disciples. Not one of them dissented from his\nstatement; he had voiced the joint conviction of them all. Peter was the\nspokesman, but the confession was that of the apostles. Any other\napostle might have spoken first and said the same, had he been quicker\nthan Peter. If there is any merit in Peter's confession of Christ, all\nother disciples, yea, all who confess Christ as Peter did, share that\nmerit. In replying to Peter the Lord takes all merit away from Peter by\nsaying to him: \"Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood\nhath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.\" He\naddresses Peter by the name he had borne before he became an apostle:\nSimon, son of Jonas, and tells him that if he were still what he used to\nbe before he came to Christ, he could not have made the confession which\nhe had just uttered. In his old unconverted state he would not have\nformed any higher opinion concerning Christ than the people throughout\nthe country, some of whom thought that Christ was John the Baptist risen\nfrom the dead; others, that he was Jeremias; still others, that he was\none of the ancient prophets come back to life. The deity of Jesus and\nHis mission as Christ, that is, as the Messiah, our Lord says, are\ngrasped by men only when the Father reveals these truths to them. A\nspiritual nature, a new mind such as the Spirit gives in regeneration,\nis required for such a confession. The glory of Peter's confession,\ntherefore, is the glory of every believer. To every Sunday-school child\nwhich recites Luther's explanation of the Second Article: \"I believe\nthat Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and\nalso true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord, who has redeemed\nme,\" the Lord would say the same thing as He did to Peter: My child,\nyours is an excellent confession; there is nothing fickle or undecided\nin it like in the vague and changing opinions which worldly men form\nabout Me. Thank God that He has given you the grace to know Me as I\nought to be known.\n\nBut did not the Lord proceed to declare Peter the rock on which He would\nbuild His Church? That is what Catholics believe, in spite of the fact\nthat this would be the only place in the whole Bible where a human being\nwould be represented as the foundation of the Church, while there are\nscores of passages which name quite another person as the rock that\nsupports the Church. Catholics read this text thus: \"Thou art Peter, and\n_on thee_ will I build My Church.\" That is precisely what Christ did not\nsay, and what He was most careful not to express. The words \"Peter\" and\n\"rock\" are plainly two different terms and denote two different objects.\nThat is the most natural view to take of the matter. In the original\nGreek we find two words similar in sound, but distinct in meaning for\nthe two objects to which Christ refers: Peter's name is _Petros,_ which\nis a personal noun; the word for \"rock\" is _petra,_ which is a common\nnoun. In the Greek, then, Christ's answer reads thus: \"Thou art\n_Petros,_ and on this _petra_ will I build my Church.\" Catholics claim\nthat Christ, in answering Peter, introduced a play upon words, such as a\nwitty person will indulge in: _Petros,_ the apostle's name, signifies a\nrock-man, a firm person, and from this meaning it is an easy step to\n_petra,_ which is plain rock or stone. If this interpretation is\nadmitted, the expression \"upon thee\" may be substituted for the\nexpression \"on this rock.\" Yet not altogether. By adopting the peculiar\nphraseology \"upon this rock\" in the place of \"upon thee,\" Christ avoids\nreferring to the individual Peter, to the person known as Peter, and\nrefers rather to a characteristic in him, namely, his firmness and\nboldness in confessing Christ. This every careful interpreter of this\ntext will admit. Christ could easily have said: Upon thee will I build\nMy Church, if it had been His intention to say just that. And we imagine\non such a momentous occasion Christ would have used the plainest terms,\ncontaining no figure of speech, no ambiguities whatever; for was he not\nnow introducing to the Church the distinguished person who was to\npreside over its affairs? Catholics claim that when Christ spoke these\nwords, \"upon this rock,\" He had extended His hand and was pointing to\nPeter. That would help us considerably in the interpretation of the\ntext. The trouble is only that we are not told anything about such a\ngesture of Christ, and if a gesture must be invented, it is possible to\ninvent an altogether different one, as we shall see. But if Christ, by\nsaying, \"upon this rock,\" instead of saying, \"upon thee,\" referred not\nto Peter as a person, but to a quality in Peter, namely, to his firm\nfaith, then it follows that the Church is not built on the person of\nPeter, but on a quality of Peter. This is the best that Catholics can\nobtain from the interpretation which they have attempted. But if the\nChurch is built on firm faith, there is no reason why that faith should\nbe just Peter's. Would not every firm believer in the deity and\nRedeemership of Christ become the rock on which the Church is built just\nas much as Peter? Luther declared quite correctly: \"We are all Peters if\nwe believe like Peter.\" Really, the Catholics ought to be willing to\nhelp strengthen the foundation of the Church by admitting that the rock\nwould become a stouter support if, instead of the firm faith of one man,\nthe equally firm faith of hundreds, thousands, and millions of other men\nwere added to prop up the Church. In all seriousness, it will be\nabsolutely necessary to give Peter some assistants; for we know that the\njob of holding up the Church was too big for him on at least two\noccasions. What became of the Church in the night when Peter denied the\nLord? In that night, the Catholics would have to believe, the Church was\nbuilt on a liar and blasphemer. What became of the Church in the days\nwhen Peter came to Antioch and Paul withstood him to the face because he\nwas dissembling his Christian convictions not to offend a Judaizing\nparty in the Church? (Gal. 2.) Was the Church in those days built on a\ncanting hypocrite?\n\nBut the greatest difficulty in admitting the Catholic interpretation is\nmet when one remembers those Bible-texts which name an altogether\ndifferent rock as the foundation and corner-stone of the Church. Paul\nsays that in their desert wanderings the Israelites were accompanied by\nChrist. He was their unseen Guide and Benefactor. He supported their\nfaith. \"They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them; and that\nRock was Christ\" (1 Cor. 10, 4). At the conclusion of the Sermon on the\nMount the Lord relates a parable about a wise and a foolish builder. The\nfoolish builder set up his house on sand; the wise builder built on\nrock. By the rock, however, the Lord would have us understand \"these\nsayings of Mine\" (Matt. 7, 24). Paul speaks of the Church to the\nEphesians thus: \"Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and\nprophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone\" (chap. 2,\n20). Most fatal, however, to the Catholic interpretation is the\ntestimony of Peter. Exhorting the Christians to eager study of the Word\nof the Lord, he goes on to say: \"To whom coming, as unto a living stone,\ndisallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, ye also, as\nlively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to\noffer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.\nWherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a\nchief corner-stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth on Him shall\nnot be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe He is precious, but\nunto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed,\nthe same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a\nrock of offense, even to them which stumble at the Word, being\ndisobedient\" (1 Pet. 2, 4-8). Here Peter in the plainest and strongest\nterms declares Christ to be the rock on which the Church is built. The\nscribes and Pharisees rejected Him, as had been foretold, but the common\npeople who heard Him gladly embraced His message of salvation, and\nrested their faith on what He had taught them and done for them. Peter\nevidently did not understand the text in Matthew as the Catholics\nunderstand it. Peter in his Epistle is really a heretic in what he says\nabout the rock, and if the Catholics could spare him from under the\nChurch, they ought to burn him.\n\nInstead of connecting the two parts of the statement: \"Thou art Peter,\"\nand, \"Upon this rock I will build My Church,\" as closely as Catholics\ndo, the two parts ought to be kept separate. What the Lord says to Peter\nmay be paraphrased thus: Peter, there was a time when you were merely\nSimon, Jonas's son. At that time you had thoughts and formed opinions\nabout holy matters such as your flesh and blood, your natural reason,\nsuggested to you. All that is changed now that you are a Peter, a firm\nbeliever in the revelation which the Father makes to men about Me. What\nyou have confessed is the exact truth; cling to that against all odds;\nfor upon this person whom you have confessed, as upon a rock, I will\nbuild My Church.--And now we may imagine that the Lord, while uttering\nthe words, \"upon this rock,\" pointed to Himself. The text does not say\nthat the Lord made such a gesture; we simply imagine this, but our\nimagination is not only just as good as that of the Catholics, but\nbetter, for the gesture which we assume agrees with the teachings of all\nthe Scriptures that speak of Christ's person and work.\n\nHowever, the Catholics remind us that Christ gave to Peter the keys of\nthe kingdom of heaven and made him the doorkeeper of paradise. Yes, so\nthe text reads, and with Luther we should now inquire: Was it a brass,\nor silver, or golden, or wooden key? Is the lock on the gate of heaven a\ncommon padlock, or like the cunning contrivances which are nowadays\nemployed in safety vaults? Catholics are very much offended when one\nspeaks thus of the keys of Peter. They say sarcasm is out of place in\nsuch holy matters. That is quite true; but, again with Luther, we would\nurge that the keys of which we are speaking sarcastically are not the\nkeys in Matt. 16, 10, but the keys in the Catholic imagination. And\nthese latter one can hardly treat with reverence. The Catholics must\nadmit that no real key, or anything resembling a key, was given to Peter\nby Christ. The language in this text is figurative: the words which\nfollow state the Lord's meaning in plain terms. The power of the keys is\nthe preaching of the forgiveness of sins to penitent sinners, and the\nwithholding of grace from those who do not repent. If that is admitted\nto be the meaning, we need turn only one leaf in our Bible, and read\nwhat is stated in Matt. 18, 18. There the Lord confers the same\nauthority on all the disciples which He is said in Matt. 16, 19 to have\nconferred on Peter exclusively. On this latter occasion Peter, if the\nCatholics have the right view of the keys, ought to have interposed an\nobjection and said to the Lord, What you give to the others is my\nproperty. Evidently Peter did not connect the same meaning with the\nwords of Christ about the keys as the Catholics. Christ spoke of this\nmatter once more, and in terms still plainer, at the meeting on Easter\nEve, and again addressed all the disciples. Again Peter made no\ncomplaint. (John 20.)\n\nIt should be noted , moreover, that in this entire text in Matthew the\nLord speaks in the future tense: \"I will build,\" \"I will give.\" The\nwords do not really confer a grant, but are at best a promise. It is\nnecessary now that the Catholics find a complement to this text in\nMatthew, a text which relates that Christ actually carried out later\nwhat He promised to Peter in Matt. 16, 18. 19. The Lord seems to have\nforgotten the fulfilment of His promise, and the matter seems to have\nslipped Peter's mind, too; for we are not told that he reminded the Lord\nof His promise, though he asked him on another occasion what would be\nthe reward of his discipleship. (Matt. 19, 27 ff.)\n\nLuther has, furthermore, appealed to the Catholics to prove from the\nScriptures that Peter ever exercised such an authority as they claim for\nhim. If Peter had been created the prince of the apostles or the visible\nhead of the Church, we should expect to find evidence in our Bible that\nPeter acted as a privileged person and was so regarded by the other\napostles. But we may read through the entire book of Acts and all the\napostolic epistles: they tell us very minutely how the Church was\nplanted in many lands, how it grew and spread, but there is not even a\nfaint hint that Peter was regarded as the primate, or Pope, in his day.\nWhen a certain question of doctrine was to be decided in which the\ncongregations of Paul were interested, Paul did not lay the matter\nbefore Peter to obtain his judgment on it, but referred it to a council\nof the Church. At this council many spoke, and it was not Peter's, but\nJames's speech which finally decided the matter. (Acts 15.) When Philip\nhad organized congregations in Samaria, the church at Jerusalem sent\nPeter and John to visit them. Peter did not assume control of these\nchurches by his own right, nor had Philip in the first place directed\nthe Samaritans to Peter as their head. (Acts 8, 14 ff.) We have thirteen\nletters of Paul, three of John, besides the Revelation, one of James,\nand one of Jude. The state of the Church, its affairs and development,\nare the subject-matter of all these writings, but not one of them\nreveals the popedom of Peter. Yea, Peter himself has written two\nepistles and appears utterly ignorant of the fact that the Lord had\ncreated him His vicegerent and the visible head of the Church.\n\nThe Catholic argument for the God-given supremacy of their Pope,\nhowever, becomes perfectly reckless when we bear in mind that their\nbanner text speaks only of Peter, but says nothing at all about Peter's\nsuccessors. If Peter possessed the supremacy that Catholics claim for\nhim, how and by what right did he dispose of it at his death? How did\nthis power become attached to Rome? On all these questions the Bible is\nsilent. Catholics construct a skilful argument from fragmentary and\ndoubtful historical records, which are not God's Word, to show that\nPeter chore Rome as his episcopal see, and therewith transferred his\nprimacy for all time to this place. To fabricate a dogma that is to be\nbinding on the consciences of all Christians in such a way is daring\nimpudence. The devout Catholic must close his eyes to all history if he\nis to believe that Christ really appointed a Pope. When he reads the\nhistory of the Popes, and comes to the period of the papal schism, when\nthe Church had not only one, but two visible heads, one residing at\nRome, the other at Avignon, yea, when he reads of three contestants for\npapal honors, and beholds the Church as a tricephalous monster, he must\nstop thinking.\n\nLuther regarded the papacy as the most monstrous fraud that has been\npractised on Christianity. In its gradual and persistent development and\nthe success with which it has maintained itself through all reverses, it\nimpresses one as something uncanny. It requires more than human wiliness\nto originate, foster, perfect, and support such a thoroughly unbiblical\nand antichristian institution. Luther spoke of the papal deception as\none of the signs foreboding the end of the world. He has not spoken in\ndelicate terms of the Popes. His most virulent utterances are directed\nagainst the \"Vicar of Christ\" at Rome. He traces the papacy to\ndiabolical origin. When he lays bare the shocking perversions of\nrevealed truths of which Rome has been guilty, and talks about the foul\npractises of the Popes and their courtesans, Luther's language becomes\nappalling. In a series of twenty-six cartoons Luther's friend Cranach\ndepicted the rule of Christ and Antichrist. The series was published\nunder the title \"Passional Christi und Antichristi.\" (14, 184 ff.) By\nplacing alongside of one another scenes from the life of the Lord and\nscenes from the lives of the Popes, the artist displayed very\neffectually the contrast between the true religion which the Redeemer\nhad taught men by His Word and example, and the false religiousness\nwhich was represented by the papacy. On the one side was humility, on\nthe other, pride; poverty was shown in contrast with wealth; meekness\nwas placed over and against arrogance, etc. At a glance the people saw\nthe chasm that yawned between the preaching and practise of Jesus and\nthat of His pretended representative and vicar, and they verified the\npictures showing the Pope in various attitudes from their own\nexperience. These cartoons became very popular, and have maintained\ntheir popularity till the most recent times. During the \"Kulturkampf\"\nwhich the German government under Bismarck waged against the aggressive\npolicy of the Vatican, the German painter Hofmann issued a new edition\nof the \"Passionale,\" and Emperor William I sent a copy to the Pope with\na warning letter.\n\nCatholics complain about the rudeness and nastiness of these cartoons\nand others that followed. Luther is supposed to have furnished the\nrhymes and descriptive matter which accompanied them. Lather is also\ncited as uttering most repulsive and scurrilous sentiments about the\nPope.\n\nWhat are we to say about this antipapal violence of Luther? Certainly,\nit is not a pleasant subject. We are in this instance facing essentially\nthe same situation as that which confronted us when we studied Luther's\n\"coarseness\" (chap. 5), and all that was said in that connection applies\nwith equal force to the subject now before us. One may deplore the\nnecessity of these passionate outbursts ever so much, but when all the\nevidence in the case has been gathered and the jury begins to sift the\nevidence and weigh the arguments on either side, there is at the worst a\ndrawn jury. All who have truly sounded \"the mystery of iniquity\" which\nhas been set up in the Church by the papacy will affirm Luther's\nsentiments about the Pope as true.\n\nIt is necessary, however, to point out certain facts that may be\nregarded as additional argument to what was said in chap. 5. In the\nfirst place, the cartoon is a recognized weapon in polemics. The\nstruggle of the Protestants against the Pope was not altogether a\nreligious and spiritual one; political matters were discussed together\nwith affairs of religion at every German diet in those days. The age was\nrude and largely illiterate. Many who could never have made any sense\nout of a page of printed matter, very easily understood a picture. It\nconveyed truthful information, though in a form that hurt, as cartoons\nusually do, and it roused a healthy sentiment against a very malignant\nevil in the Church and in the body politic. If the Popes would keep out\nof politics, they and their followers would enjoy more quiet nerves.\n\nIn the second place, it should be borne in mind that the claim of papal\nsupremacy is no small and innocent matter. The Popes wrested to\nthemselves the supreme spiritual and temporal power in the world. They\npretended to be the custodians of heaven, the directors of purgatory,\nand the lords of the earth. Across the history of the world in the era\nof Luther is written in all directions the one word ROME. It is Rome at\nthe altar swinging the censer, Rome in the panoply of battle storming\ntrenches and steeping her hands in gore, Rome in the councils of kings,\nRome in the halls of guilds, Rome in the booth of the trader at a\ntown-fair, Rome in the judge's seat, Rome in the professor's chair, Rome\nreceiving ambassadors from, and dispatching nuncios to, foreign courts,\nRome dictating treaties to nations and arranging the cook's _menu,_ Rome\nlabeling the huckster's cart and the vintner's crop, Rome levying a tax\nupon the nuptial bed, Rome exacting toll at the gate of heaven. Out of\nthe wreck of the imperial Rome of the Caesars has risen papal Rome. Once\nmore, though through different agents, the City of the Seven Hills is\nruling an _orbis terrarum Romanus,_ a Roman world-empire. The rule\nextends through nearly a thousand years. How deftly do cunning priests\nmanipulate every means at their command to increase their power!\nLearning, wealth, beauty, art, piety,--everything is used as an asset in\nthe ambitious game for absolute supremacy which the mitered vicegerent\nof Christ is playing against the world. Rome's ancient pontifex maximus\n--the pagan high priest of the Rome before Christ--had been a tool of\nthe consuls and the Caesars; the new pontiff makes the Caesars his\ntools. Princes kiss his feet and hold the stirrup for him as he mounts\nhis bedizened palfrey. An emperor stands barefoot in the snow of the\nPope's courtyard suing pardon for having dared to govern without the\nPope's sanction.--The forests of Germany are reverberating with the\nblows of axes which Rome's missionaries wield against Donar's Oaks. The\nsanctuaries of pagan Germany are razed. Out of the wood of idols\ncrucifixes are erected along the highways. Chapels and abbeys and\ncathedrals rise where the aurochs was hunted. Sturdy barbarians bend the\nknee at the shrines of saints. Hosts set out to see the land where the\nLord had walked and suffered, and brave all dangers and hardships to\nwrest its possession from infidel hands. But at the place where all\nthese activities center, and whence they are being fed, a shocking\nabomination is seen: Venus is worshiped, and Bacchus, and Mercurius, and\nMars, while white-robed choirs chant praises to the mother of God, and\nclouds of incense are wafted skyward. Here is a mystery--a mystery of\niniquity: the son of perdition in the temple of God! Proud, haughty\nRome, wealthy, wicked and wanton, is filling up her measure of wrath\nagainst the day of retribution.--We are now so far removed from these\nscenes that they seem unreal; in Luther's days they were decidedly real.\nRome's aggressiveness has been perceptibly checked during the last four\ncenturies; in Luther's days papal pretensions were a more formidable\nproposition.\n\nHuman arrogance may be said to have reached its limit in the papacy. The\nPope is practically a God on earth. \"Sitting in the temple of God as\nGod, he is showing himself that he is God\" (2 Thess. 2, 4). He has been\naddressed by his followers in terms of the Deity. \"When the Pope thinks,\nit is God thinking,\" wrote the papal organ of Rome, the _Civilta\nCattolica,_ in 1869. He has asserted the right to make laws for\nChristians, and to dispense with the laws of the Almighty. Although this\nseemed a superfluous proceeding, he declared himself infallible on July\n18, 1870. Under a glowering sky, as if Heaven frowned angrily at the\nPope's attempt, Plus IX had entered St. Peter's. As a \"second Moses\" he\nmounted the papal throne to read the Constitution \"Aeternus Pater,\" the\ndocument in which he made the following claims: Canon III: \"If any one\nsays that the Roman Pontiff has only authority to inspect and direct,\nbut not plenary and supreme authority of jurisdiction over the entire\nChurch, not only in matters which relate to faith and morals, but also\nin matters that belong to the discipline and government of the Church\nscattered through the whole earth; or that he has only the more eminent\npart of such authority, but not the full plenitude of this supreme\nauthority; or that this authority of his is not his ordinary authority\nwhich he holds from no intermediary, and that it does not extend over\nall churches and every single one of them, over all pastors and every\nsingle one of them, over all the faithful and every single one of them,\n--let him be accursed!\" Canon IV: \"With the approval of the Sacred\nCouncil we teach and declare it to be a dogma revealed from heaven that\nthe Roman Pontiff, when he speaks _ex cathedra,_ that is, when, in\naccordance with his supreme apostolic authority, be discharges his\noffice as Pastor and Teacher of all Christians, and defines a doctrine\nrelating to the faith or morals which is to be embraced by the entire\nChurch, he is, by divine assistance promised to him in the blessed\nPeter, vested with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer\ndesired His Church to be endowed in defining the doctrine of faith and\nmorals; and that for this reason such definitions of the Roman Pontiff\nare in their very nature, not, however, by reason of the consent of the\nChurch, unchangeable. If--which God may avert!--any one should presume\nto contradict this definition of ours,--let him be accursed!\" Amid\nflashes of lightning and peals of thunder this document was read to a\ncouncil whose membership had shrunk during seven months of deliberation\nfrom 767 to 547 attendants,--277 qualified members had never put in an\nappearance,--and of these all but two had been cowed into abject\nsubmission. When one recalls scenes like these, and remembers that\nCatholic teaching on justification attacks the very heart of\nChristianity, anything that Luther has said about the Popes appears\nmild. Such heaven-storming and God-defying arrogance deserves to be\ndragged through the mire--with apologies to the mire.\n\n\n21. Luther the Translator of the Bible.\n\nA violent attack upon Luther by Catholic writers is caused by the\nadmiration which Protestants manifest for Luther because he translated\nthe Bible into German. Catholics, of course, cannot deny that Luther did\ntranslate the Bible, and that his translation is still a cherished\ntreasure of Protestants; but in order to belittle this achievement of\nLuther, which inflicted incalculable damage on Rome, they talk about\nLuther's unfitness for the work of Bible-translation and about the\nunwarranted liberties Luther took with the Bible.\n\nThese writers claim that Luther was, in the first place, morally unfit\nto undertake the translation of the Bible. To show to what desperate\nmeans Luther's Catholic critics will resort in order to make out a case\nagainst him, we note that one of the most recent disparagers of Luther\ninforms the public that Luther's original name had been Luder. This name\nconveys the idea of \"carrion,\" \"beast,\" \"low scoundrel.\" When Luther\nbegan to translate the Bible, we are told, he changed his name into\n\"Squire George.\" Once before this, at the time of his entering the\nuniversity, Catholics note that he changed his name from Luder to\nLueder. But these changes of his name, they say, did not improve his\ncharacter. We are told that, while Luther was engaged upon the work of\nrendering the Bible into German, he was consumed with fleshly lust and\ngiven to laziness. Luther's own statements in letters to friends are\ncited to corroborate this assertion. The conclusion which we are to draw\nfrom these \"facts\" is this: Such a corrupt person could not possibly be\na proper instrument for the Holy Spirit to employ in so pious an\nundertaking as the translation of the Word of God.\n\nCatholics should be reminded that they misquote the book of\nmatriculation in which the students at Erfurt signed their names on\nentering the university. Luther's signature is not \"Lueder\" but\n\"Ludher.\" Other forms of the name \"Luder\" and \"Lueder\" occur elsewhere.\nBut in any form the name has a more honorable derivation and meaning\nthan Catholic writers are inclined to give it. It is derived from\n\"Luither,\" which means as much as \"People's Man,\" (= der Leute Herr).\nAnother well-known form of the same name is Lothar, which some, tracing\nthe derivation still further, derive from the old German Chlotachar,\nwhich means as much as \"loudly hailed among the army\" (= _hluit,_ loud,\nand _chari,_ army). Respectable scholars to-day so explain the name\nLuther.\n\nAt the Wartburg, where Luther was an exile for ten months, his name was\nchanged by the warden of the castle, Count von Berlepsch. This was done\nthe better to conceal his identity from the henchmen of Rome, who by the\nimperial edict of outlawry had been given liberty to hunt Luther and\nslay him where they found him.\n\nThe sexual condition of Luther during the years before his marriage was\nthe normal condition of any healthy young man at his age. Luther speaks\nof this matter as a person nowadays would speak about it to his\nphysician or to a close friend. The matter to which he refers is in\nitself perfectly pure: it is an appeal of nature. Do Luther's Catholic\ncritics mean to infer that Luther was the only monk, then or now, that\nfelt this call which human nature issues by the ordination of the\nCreator? Rome can inflict celibacy even on priests that look like\nstall-fed oxen, but she cannot unsex men. Mohammedans are less inhuman\nto their eunuchs. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that Luther\ncomplains of this matter as something that disturbs him. It vexed his\npure mind, and he fought against it as not many monks of his day have\ndone, by fasting, prayer, and hard work. Yes, hard work! The remarks of\nLuther about his physical condition are simply twisted from their true\nimport when Luther is represented as a victim of fleshly lust and a\nhabitual debauchee. Luther's Catholic critics fail to mention that\nduring his brief stay at the Wartburg Luther not only translated the\ngreater part of the New Testament, but also wrote about a dozen\ntreatises, some of them of considerable size, and that of his\ncorrespondence during this period about fifty letters are still\npreserved. Surely, a fairly respectable record for a lazy man!\n\nCatholic writers also declare Luther spiritually unfit for translating\nthe Bible. They say that all the time that Luther spent at the Wartburg\nhe was haunted by the devil. He would hear strange noises and see weird\nshadows flit before him. He felt that he had come under the sway of the\npowers of darkness. This, we are assured, was because he had risen in\nrebellion against the divine power of the papacy. The Holy Father whom\nhe had attacked was being avenged upon Luther by an accusing conscience.\nLuther was given a foretaste of the terrors that await the reprobate. He\nhad become an incipient demoniac. The inference which we are to draw\nfrom this delightful description is this: Could such an abandoned wretch\nas Luther was during the exile at the Wartburg be favored with the holy\ncalm and composure and the heavenly light which any person must possess\nwho sets out upon the arduous task of telling men in their own tongue\nwhat God has said to them in a foreign tongue?\n\nThere is hardly a period in Luther's life that is entirely free from\nspiritual affliction. In this respect Luther shares the common lot of\ngodly men in responsible positions in Church or State during critical\ntimes. Moreover, Luther with all Christians believed in a personal and\nincessantly active devil. Luther's devil was not the denatured\nmetaphysical and scientific devil of modern times, which meets us in the\nform of the principle of negation, or logical contradiction, or a\ndemoralizing tendency and influence, but an energetic devil, possessed\nof an intelligence and will of his own, and going about as a roaring\nlion, seeking whom he may devour. Luther accepted the teaching of the\nBible that this devil is related to men's sinning, that men can be made\nto do, and are doing, his will, and are led about by the devil like\nslaves. Luther knew that for His own reasons God permits the devil to\nafflict His children, as happened to Job and Paul. Add to this the\nreaction that must have set in after Luther had quitted the stirring\nscenes and the severe ordeals through which he had passed before the\nimperial court at Worms. In the silence and solitude of his secluded\nasylum in the Thuringian Forest the recent events in which he had been a\nprincipal actor passed in review before his mind, and he began to spell\nout many a grave and ominous meaning from them. If it is true that the\ndevil loves to find a lonely man, here was his chance.\n\nAnd if the devil ever had material interests at stake in attacking a\nparticular person, he made no mistake in assailing this isolated monk,\nMartin Luther, in his moments of brooding and depression. Lastly,\nLuther's physical condition at the Wartburg must be taken into\nconsideration. Trained to frugal habits in the cloister and habituated\nto fasts and mortification of the flesh, Luther found the new mode of\nliving which he was compelled to adopt uncongenial. He was the guest of\na prince and was treated like a nobleman. The rich and abundant food\nthat was served him was a disastrous diet for him, even though he did\nnot yield overmuch to his appetite. He complains in his letters to\nfriends during the Wartburg period about his physical distress, chiefly\nconstipation, to which he was constitutionally prone.\n\nBut after all these elements have been noted, it must be stated that the\nreports about diabolical visitations to which Luther was subject at the\nWartburg are overdrawn for a purpose by Catholics. Luther's references\nto this matter in his letters written at the time suggest only spiritual\nconflicts, but no physical contact with the devil. Reminiscences of his\nfirst exile which he relates at a much later period to the guests at his\ntable are also exaggerated. These soul-battles, far from unfitting him\nfor the work of translating the Bible, were rather a fine\ntraining-school through which God put His humble servant, and helped him\nto understand the sacred text over which he sat poring in deep\nmeditation.\n\nLastly, Catholic critics have pronounced Luther intellectually\ndisqualified for translating the Bible. His Greek scholarship, they say,\nwas poor. He had barely begun to study that language. It stands to\nreason that his translation must be very faulty. They also emphasize the\nrapidity with which Luther worked. The translation of the entire New\nTestament was completed between December 8, 1521, and September 22 the\nfollowing year. (It will be remembered that Luther had returned to\nWittenberg in the first days of March, 1522, and all through the spring\nand summer of that year was busily engaged, with the aid of friends, on\nhis German New Testament.) Finally, Catholics, in their efforts to\nbelittle Luther's works, have claimed that he plagiarized a German\ntranslation already in existence, the so-called Codex Teplensis.\n\nIt seems a mere waste of time to answer these criticisms. They remind\none of a scene in the life of Columbus: the learned Catholic divines of\nSalamanca had to their own satisfaction routed the bold navigator with\ntheir arguments that he could not possibly start out by his proposed\nroute. No doubt, some of them contended that he never made his famous\nvoyage even after his return. What profit can there be in arguing the\nimpossibility of a thing when the reality confronts you? Luther's\ntranslation is before the world; everybody who knows Greek can compare\nit with the original text. The Teplensian translation, too, can be\nlooked into. In fact, all this has been done by competent scholars, and\nLuther's translation has been pronounced a masterpiece. Not only does it\nreproduce the original text faithfully, but it speaks a good and correct\nGerman. Luther's translation of the Bible is now regarded as one of the\nclassics of German literature. It is true that the philological\nattainments of the world have increased since Luther, and that\nimprovements in his translations have been suggested, but they do not\naffect any essential teaching of the Christian religion. Bible\ncommentators to-day are still citing Luther's rendering as an authority.\nThe movement recently started in Germany to replace Luther's translation\nby a modern one deserves little consideration because it originated in\nquarters that are professedly hostile to Christianity. The things in\nLuther's German Bible which vex Catholics most are in the original Greek\ntext. Luther did not manufacture them, he merely reproduced them. It is\nthe fact that Luther made it possible for Germans to see what is really\nin the Bible that hurts. To please the Catholics, Luther should not have\ntranslated the Bible at all.\n\nThe truth of this remark is readily seen when one examines specific\nexceptions which Catholics have taken to Luther's translation. They find\nfault with Luther's translation of the angel's address to Mary: \"Du\nHoldselige,\" that is, Thou gracious one, or well-favored one. The\nCatholics demand that this term should be rendered \"full of grace,\"\nbecause in their belief Mary is really the chief dispenser of grace.\nThey complain that in Matt. 3, 2 Luther has rendered the Baptist's call:\n\"Tut Busse,\" that is, Repent, instead of, Do penance. They fault Luther\nfor translating in Acts 19, 18: \"Und verkuendigten, was sie ausgerichtet\nhatten,\" that is, They reported what they had accomplished. Catholics\nregard this text as a stronghold for their doctrine of confession,\nespecially for that part of it which makes satisfaction by works of\npenance a part of confession; they insist that the text must be\nrendered: They declared their deeds, that is, the works which they had\nperformed by order of their confessors. Catholics charge Luther with\nhaving inserted a word in Rom. 4, 15, which he translates: \"Das Gesetz\nrichtet nur Zorn an,\" that is, The law worketh only wrath, or nothing\nbut wrath. They object to the word \"only,\" because in their view man can\nby his own natural powers make himself love the Law. They set up a great\nhue and cry about another insertion in Rom. 3, 28, which Luther\ntranslates: \"So halten wir es nun, dass der Mensch gerecht werde ohne\ndes Gesetzes Werk', allein durch den Glauben,\" that is, We conclude,\ntherefore, that a man is justified without the deeds of the Law, by\nfaith alone; they object to the word \"alone,\" because in their teaching\njustification is by faith plus works. It is known that there are\ntranslations before Luther which contain the same insertion. On this\ninsertion Luther deserves to be heard himself. \"I knew full well,\" he\nsays, \"that in the Latin and Greek texts of Rom. 3, 28 the word solum\n(alone) does not occur, and there was no need of the papists teaching me\nthat. True, these four letters sola, at which the dunces stare as a cow\nat a new barn-door, are not in the text. But they do not see that they\nexpress the meaning of the text, and they must be inserted if we wish to\nclearly and forcibly translate the text. When I undertook to translate\nthe Bible into German, my aim was to speak German, not Latin or Greek.\nNow, it is a peculiarity of our German language, whenever a statement is\nmade regarding two things, one of which is affirmed while the other is\nnegatived, to add the word solum, 'alone,' to the word 'not' or 'none.'\nAs, for instance: The peasant brings only grain, and no money. Again:\nIndeed, I have no money now, but only grain. As yet I have only eaten,\nand not drunk. Have you only written, and not read what you have\nwritten? Innumerable instances of this kind are in daily usage. While\nthe Latin or the Greek language does not do this, the German has this\npeculiarity, that in all statements of this kind it adds the word 'only'\n(or 'alone'), in order to express the negation completely and clearly.\nFor, though I may say: The peasant brings grain and no money, still the\nexpression 'no money' is not as perfect and plain as when I say: The\npeasant brings grain only, and no money. Thus the word 'alone' or 'only'\nhelps the word 'no' to become a complete, clear German statement. When\nyou wish to speak German, you must not consult the letters in the Latin\nlanguage, as these dunces are doing, but you must inquire of a mother\nhow she talks to her children, of the children how they talk to each\nother on the street, of the common people on the market-place. Watch\nthem how they frame their speech, and make your translation accordingly,\nand they will understand it and know that some one is speaking German to\nthem. For instance, Christ says: _Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur._ If\nI were to follow the dunces, I would have to spell out those words and\ntranslate: 'Aus dem Ueberfluss des Herzens redet der Mund!' Tell me,\nwould that be German? What German would understand that? What sort of\nthing is 'abundance of heart (Ueberfluss des Herzens)' ? No German\nperson could explain that, unless he were to say that, possibly, the\nperson had enlargement of the heart, or too much heart. And that would\nnot be the correct meaning. 'Ueberfluss des Herzens' is not German, as\nlittle as it is German to say 'Ueberfluss des Hauses (abundance of\nhouse), Ueberfluss des Kachelofens (abundance of tile-oven), Ueberfluss\nder Bank (abundance of bench).' This is the way the mother speaks to her\nchildren and the common people to one another: 'Wes das Herz voll ist,\ndes gehet der Mund ueber.' That is the way to speak good German. That is\nwhat I have endeavored to do, but I did not succeed nor achieve my aim\nin all instances. Latin terms are an exceedingly great hindrance to one\nwho wishes to talk good German.\" (19, 974.)\n\nIn insisting on the principle that a translation must reproduce the\nexact thought of a language, that idiomatic utterances of the one\nlanguage must be replaced by similar utterances in the other, and that\nthe genius of both the language from which and the one into which the\ntranslation is made must be observed by the translator, Luther has every\nrhetoric and grammar on his side. Those who find fault with him on this\nscore deserve no better titles than those which he applied to them, all\nthe more because he knew the true reason of their faultfinding. The\nCatholic charges of Bible perversion against Luther flow, not from a\nknowledge of good grammar, but from bad theology. Luther was, of course,\nfundamentally in error according to the opinion of Catholics by not\nmaking his translation from the approved and authorized Latin Vulgate,\nthe official Catholic Bible, but from the Greek original.\n\nTo return favor for favor, we shall note a few places where Catholics\nmight bring their own Bible into better harmony with the original text.\nIn Gen. 3, 15 their translation reads: \"She shall crush thy head, and\nthou shalt lie in wait for her heel.\" This rendering has been adopted in\norder to enable them to refer this primeval prophecy of the future\nRedeemer to Mary. Gen. 4, 13 they have rendered: \"My iniquity is greater\nthan that I may deserve pardon.\" This is to favor their teaching of\njustification on the basis of merit. The rendering \"Speak not much\" for\n\"Use not vain repetitions\" in Matt. 6, 7 weakens the force of the Lord's\nwarning. In Rom. 14, 5 the Catholic Bible tells its readers: \"Let every\nman abound in his own sense,\" whatever the sense of that direction may\nbe. What the apostle really means is: \"Let every man be fully persuaded\nin his own mind.\" In Gal. 3, 24 the Catholic Bible calls the Law \"our\npedagog in Christ\"; the correct rendering is: \"our schoolmaster to bring\nus unto Christ.\" In the Catholic Bible the following remarkable event\ntakes place in Luke 16, 22: \"The rich man also died: and he was buried\nin hell.\" The pall-bearers, funeral director, and mourners at these\nobsequies deserve a double portion of our sympathy. In Acts 2, 42 we are\ntold that the disciples at Jerusalem were persevering \"in the\ncommunication of the breaking of the bread.\" The last verse in\nGalatians, chap. 4, is made to read: \"So then, brethren, we are not the\nchildren of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith\nChrist has made us free.\" The next chapter begins: \"Stand fast,\" etc.\n\nLuther has expressed opinions of certain books of the Bible which\nquestion their divine authorship. These opinions are being assiduously\ncanvassed by Catholic writers to prove that Luther accepted only such\nportions of the Bible as suited his purpose, and rejected all the rest\nas spurious. He is said to have arrogated to himself the authority to\ndeclare any book of the Scriptures inspired or not inspired, and is,\ntherefore, justly regarded as the father of the higher criticism of\nmodern times, which has taken the Bible to pieces and destroyed its\npower. But Catholic writers fail to state that the uncertainty which\nLuther occasionally manifests regarding the divine origin and\nauthenticity of certain books of the Bible is due to the confusion which\nthe Catholic Church has created by decreeing that the apocryphal books\nshall be considered on a par with the canonical writings of the Bible.\nSetting aside the verdict of the ancient Church, and even of their\nfamous church-father Jerome, the Catholic Church has by an arbitrary\ndecree ruled the following books into the Bible: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras,\nTobit, Judith, The Rest of Esther, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus\n(Sirach), Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah, The Song of the Three\nHoly Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Prayer of\nManasses, 1 and 2 Maccabees. These writings are called apocrypha because\ntheir divine origin is in doubt. Scrupulously careful to keep the\ndivinely inspired writings separate from all other writings, no matter\nhow godly their contents might seem to be, the Church of the Old\nCovenant excluded these writings from the canon, that is, from the list\nof fully accredited inspired writings. Besides, in the Catholic Bible in\nLuther's days there were apocryphal portions inserted in canonical\nwritings like Esther.\n\nIn the course of his studies Luther learned that certain writings in the\nCatholic Bible represented as Biblical were no part of the Bible. Acting\nupon the direction which the Lord gave to the Jews: \"Search the\nScriptures . . . they are they which testify of Me\" (John 5, 39), he\nconsidered this a good test of the genuineness of any portion of the\nBible, viz., that it conveyed to him knowledge of Christ and the way of\nsalvation. The Bible, he held, can speak only for, never against Christ.\nBy this principle he determined for himself the respective value of\nvarious writings in the Bible. Ecclesiastes and Jonah did not appeal to\nhim as very full of Christ. In the New Testament he seems strongly\nattracted by the Gospel of John. But there are statements in his\nwritings in which he expresses a preference for Matthew, Mark, and Luke.\nOne must understand Luther's view-point and aim on a given occasion to\ngrasp these valuations. In regard to Job he expressed the opinion that\nthe book is dramatic rather than historical: it does not relate actual\noccurrences, but rather points a moral in the form of a narrative. In\nthe New Testament the overgreat emphasis which he thought James placed\non works as against faith caused him to depreciate this Epistle and to\nquestion its apostolic authorship. Luther also knew that in the earliest\ncenturies of the Christian era the question had been raised whether\nSecond Peter, Jude, James, Revelation, really belonged in the canon.\n\nUnbiased readers will see in all these remarks of Luther nothing but the\nearnest struggle of a sincere soul to get at the real Word of God. A\nperson may express a preference for certain portions of the Bible\nwithout declaring all the rest of the Bible worthless. Doubts concerning\nthe divine character of certain, portions of the Scripture arise and are\noccasionally expressed by the best of Christians. But Luther's critical\nattitude toward certain books of the Bible is either misunderstood or\nmisrepresented when it is made to appear that Luther permanently\nrejected, or tore out of his Bible, such books as Esther, Jonah,\nEcclesiastes, Second Peter, James, Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation. Some\nCatholics go so far as to charge Luther with having rejected the\nPentateuch, the first five books in the Bible, because he speaks\nslightingly of Moses' law as a means of justification. Not only did\nLuther translate and take into his German Bible all the writings just\nnamed, but he also cites them in his doctrinal writings as proof-texts.\nIn the Index of Scripture citations which Dr. Hoppe, the editor of the\nonly complete edition of Luther's works printed in America, has added to\nthe last volume we find 11 such references to Job, 12 to Ecclesiastes, 6\nto Jonah, 48 to Second Peter, 18 to James, 6 to Jude, 61 to Hebrews, 17\nto Revelation. We have counted only such references as show that Luther\nemployed these writings as divine in his doctrinal arguments. By actual\nenumeration it would be found that he has referred to them much more\nfrequently. On Jonah, Second Peter, and Jude he wrote special\ncommentaries, and for all the books of the Bible he furnished\nilluminating summaries, in some cases, as in Revelation, the summaries\nare furnished chapter for chapter. This goes to prove that Luther had\nultimately reached very clear and settled opinions regarding the\nauthenticity and divine character of those books of the Bible which he\nis charged with having blasphemously criticized. Luther's criticism of\nthese portions of the Bible is the most respectable criticism that has\ncome to our knowledge. It shows his scrupulous care not to admit\nanything as being God's Word of the divine origin of which he was not\nfully convinced. It is Rome, not Luther, that has vitiated the Bible and\ncreated confusion in Christian minds, by admitting into the sacred\nvolume portions which do not belong there.\n\nLuther's questioning attitude towards the books of the Bible, which we\nhave named is the attitude of the early Christians. There was doubt\nexpressed in the first centuries as to the genuineness of these books,\nand it required convincing information in those days when facilities for\ncommunication were poor to secure the adoption of the books which we now\nhave in the Bible. Why do not the Catholics embrace the early Christians\nin their charge of Bible mutilation? Nor were those early Christians who\nquestioned the divine authorship of certain books about the origin of\nwhich they had no definite knowledge any less Christian than those who\nhad convincing information about them. For the former possessed in the\nwritings which they had accepted as authentic the same truths which the\nlatter had embraced.\n\nLuther voices his profound reverence for the Scriptures in innumerable\nplaces throughout his writings. \"The Holy Scriptures,\" he says, \"did not\ngrow on earth.\" (7, 2094.) Again: \"When studying the Scriptures, you\nmust reflect that it is God Himself who is speaking to you.\" (3, 21.)\nAgain: \"The Scriptures are older and possess greater authority than all\nCouncils and Fathers. Moreover, all the angels side with God and the\nScriptures. . . . If age, duration, greatness, multitude [of followers],\nholiness, are inducements to believe something, why do we believe men\nwho live but a short time rather than God, who is the Oldest, the\nGreatest, the Holiest, the Mightiest of all? Why do we not believe all\nthe angels, since a single one of them has greater authority than the\nPope? Why do we not believe the Bible, when one passage of Scripture\noutweighs all the books in the world?\" (19, 1734.) Again: \"The Bible\nalone is the true lord and master over all writings on earth. If this\nis not so, of what use is the Bible? Then let us cast it aside, and be\nsatisfied with the books and teachings of men.\" (15, 1481.) Again: \"All\nScripture is full of Christ, the Son of God and Mary. Its sole object is\nto teach us to know Him as a distinct person, and that through Him we\nmay in eternity behold the Father and the Holy Ghost, one God. The\nScriptures are ajar to him who has the Son, and in the same proportion\nas his faith in Christ increases the Scriptures become clear to him\" (3,\n1959.) How little Luther would have in common with the destructive\nhigher critics of the Bible in our day, we can gather from the following\nstatement: \"If cutting and tearing the Bible to pieces were a great art,\nwhat a famous Bible would I produce! Especially if I were to lay my hand\non the important passages, those on which the articles of our faith rest.\n. . . My position, then, is this: In view of the fact that our faith is\nsupported by Holy Writ, we must not depart from its words as they read,\nnor from the order in which they are placed. . . . Otherwise, what is to\nbecome of the Bible?\" (20, 213.)\n\n\n22. Luther a Preacher of Violence against the Hierarchy.\n\nIn his fight against papal supremacy Luther discovered that the Roman\npriesthood was the Pope's chief support. The principle of community of\ninterests had knitted both the higher and the lower clergy, the\ncardinals, archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, parish priests, monks,\netc., together into one firmly compacted society. All its members\nunderstood that they were working in a common cause, and kept in\nconstant and close rapport with one another: What concerned one\nconcerned all the rest. Each aided and abetted the other, and all strove\njointly to exalt their master, the Pope. Like a huge net the rule of\npriests was spread over mankind, and all men, with their spiritual and\nsecular interests, were caught in this net. The system was called a\nhierarchy, that is, a holy government. The priesthood and the holy\norders were the Pope's collateral. All its members derived what\nauthority they possessed from the Pope; their fortunes were bound up in\nthe Pope's. This priest-rule Luther overthrew by causing men to see the\nliberty with which Christ has made them free. Catholic critics claim\nthat by so doing Luther rebelled against an ordinance of God. We have\nshown in chapter 18 that Luther acknowledges in the Church of Christ a\nministry that exists by divine appointment. Hence the Catholic charge\nthat Luther revolted from God when he disputed the divine right of the\nhierarchy is silly.\n\nHowever, Luther is said to have \"recklessly encouraged the destruction\nof the episcopate, and openly commanded sacrilege and murder\" to mobs.\nThe appeal of Luther that the _rule_ of bishops be exterminated is\ninterpreted to mean that the bishops be exterminated. This is one of the\nmost wanton charges that could be preferred against Luther. By the\nTheses against Tetzel the attention of many prominent men in Germany was\nattracted to Luther. Princes and noblemen of the Empire had for some\ntime been studying from a secular point of view the evils which Luther\nhad begun to attack on spiritual grounds. These men understood the\ncharacter of the Roman hierarchy much better than Luther. They saw at\nonce that Luther's action would lead to serious complication that might\nultimately have to be settled with the sword. When Luther was still\ndreaming about convincing the Pope with arguments from Scripture, German\nnoblemen were preparing to defend him against physical violence. They\nknew that the hierarchy would not without a fierce struggle submit to\nany curtailment of their power. They offered Luther armed support.\nLuther recoiled with horror from this suggestion. In a letter from the\nWartburg which he wrote to his friend Spalatin who was still tarrying at\nWorms, Luther refers to one of these warlike knights as follows: \"What\nHutten has in mind you can see [from the writings of the knight which he\nenclosed]. I would not like to see men fight for the Gospel with force\nand bloodshed. I have answered that parson (_dem Menschen_) accordingly.\nBy the Word the world has been overcome, the Church has been preserved;\nby the Word it will also be restored. As to Antichrist, he began his\nrule without physical force, and will also be destroyed without physical\nforce, by the Word.\" (15, 2506.) The letter from which these words are\nquoted is dated January 16, 1522. Nine months before this date, on May\n14, when he had been on the Wartburg about ten days, Luther writes to\nthe same party: \"It is for good reasons that I have not answered your\nletter ere this: I hesitated from fear that the report recently gone out\nof my being held captive might prompt somebody to intercept my letters.\nA great many things are related about me at this place; however, the\nopinion is beginning to prevail that I was captured by friends sent for\nthis purpose from Franconia. To-morrow the safe-conduct granted me by\nthe emperor expires. I am sorry that, as you write me, there is an\nintention to apply the very severe [imperial] edict also for the purpose\nof exploring men's consciences; not on my account, but because they [the\npapists] are ill-advised in this and will bring misfortune on their own\nheads, and because they continue to load themselves with very great\nodium. Oh, what hatred will this shameless violence kindle! However,\nthey may have their way; perhaps the time of their visitation is near.\n--So far I have not heard from our people either at Wittenberg or\nelsewhere. About the time of our arrival at Eisenach the young men [the\nstudents] at Erfurt had, during the night, damaged a few priests'\ndwellings, from indignation because the dean of St. Severus Institute, a\ngreat papist, had caught Magister Draco, a gentleman who is favorably\ninclined to us, by his cassock and had publicly dragged him from the\nchoir, pretending that he had been excommunicated for having gone to\nmeet me at my arrival at Erfurt. Meanwhile people are fearing greater\ndisturbances; the magistrates are conniving, for the local priests are\nin ill repute, and it is being reported that the artisans are allying\nthemselves with the student-body. The prophetic saying seems about to\ncome true which runs: Erfurt is another Prague. [There was rioting in\nPrague in the days of Hus, whom Rome burned at the stake.]--I was told\nyesterday that a certain priest at Gotha has met with rough treatment\nbecause his people had bought certain estates (I do not know which), in\norder to increase the revenue of the church, and, under pretext of their\necclesiastical immunity, had refused to pay the incumbrances and taxes\non the same. We see that the people, as also Erasmus writes, are unable\nand unwilling any longer to bear the yoke of the Pope and the papists.\nAnd still we do not cease coercing and burdening them, although--now\nthat everything has been brought to light--we have lost our reputation\nand their good will, and our former halo of sanctity can no longer avail\nor exert the influence which it exerted formerly. Heretofore we have\nincreased hatred by violence and by violence have suppressed it;\nhowever, whether we can continue suppressing it experience will show.\"\n(15, 2510.) To Melanchthon he wrote about this time: \"I hear that at\nErfurt they are resorting to violence against the dwellings of priests.\nI am surprised that the city council permits this and connives at it,\nand that our dear friend Lang keeps silent. For although it is good that\nthose impious men who will not desist are kept in check, still this\nprocedure will bring the Gospel into disrepute, and will cause men\njustly to spurn it. I would write to Lang, but as yet I dare not. For\nsuch a display of friendliness to our cause as these people show is very\noffensive to me, because it clearly shows that we are not yet worthy\nservants in God's sight, and that Satan is mocking and laughing at our\nefforts [of reform]. Oh, how I do fear that all this is like the fig\ntree in the parable, of which the Lord, Matt. 21, predicts that it will\nmerely sprout before the Day of Judgment, but will bear no fruit. What\nwe teach is, indeed, the truth; however, it amounts to nothing if we do\nnot practise what we preach.\" (15, 1906.)\n\nDisquieting rumors of excesses that were being perpetrated by radical\nfollowers of the evangelical teaching had reached Luther also from\nWittenberg. To obtain a clear insight into the actual state of affairs,\nhe made a secret visit to his home town in the beginning of December,\n1521. Returning to his exile, he wrote his _Faithful Admonition to All\nChristians to Avoid Tumult and Rebellion._ In this treatise Luther\nreasons as follows: The papacy, with all its great institutions,\ncloisters, universities, laws and doctrines, is nothing but lies. On\nlies it was raised, by lies it is supported, with lies and frauds and\ncheats it deceives, misleads, and oppresses men. Accordingly, all that\nis necessary to overthrow its dominion is to recognize its lying\ncharacter, and to publish it and the papacy will collapse as if blown\naside by the breath of the Almighty, as Scripture says it shall happen\nto Antichrist. To start a riot against the papists would never improve\nthem, and would only cause them to vilify the cause of their opponents.\nIn times of tumult, people lose their reason and do more harm to\ninnocent people than to the guilty. Public wrongs should be redressed by\nthe magistrates, who are vested with authority for that purpose. No\nmatter how just a cause may be, it never justifies rioting. Luther\ndeclares that he will rather side with those who suffer in, than with\nthose who start, a riot. Rioting is forbidden in God's Law (Dent. 16,\n20; 32, 35). This particular rioting against the papists has been\ninstigated by the devil, in order to divert people's minds from the real\nspiritual issues of the times, and to bring the cause of the Gospel into\ndisrepute. Luther feels these tumultuous proceedings as a disgrace.\n\"People who read and understand my teaching correctly,\" he says, \"do not\nstart riots. They were not taught such things by me. If any engage in\nsuch proceedings and drag my name into it, what can I do to stop them?\nHow many things are the papists doing in the name of Christ which Christ\nnever commanded!\" Luther begs all who glory in the name of Christians to\nconduct themselves as Paul demands 2 Cor. 6, 3: \"Giving no offense in\nanything, that the ministry be not blamed.\" (10, 360 ff.) Whoever can,\nought to treat himself to the reading of this fine treatise of the\nexiled monk of Wittenberg.\n\nThe iconoclastic uprising which broke out in Wittenberg in the closing\ndays of the month of February, 1522, finally decided Luther, at the risk\nof his life, to quit his exile and to fight the devil, who was trying to\nsubvert his good doctrine by such wicked practises. The world knows that\nit was Luther who quelled the riot in his town. Luther's face was ever\nsternly set against those who wanted to wage the Lord's wars with the\ndevil's weapons. No murder or sacrilege that was committed in those days\ncan be laid at the door of Luther's teaching.\n\nThe Catholics are trying to divert attention from their own unwarranted\nand violent proceedings by charging Luther with preaching a war of\nextermination against their hierarchy. How did they treat the just\nclaims and reasonable demands of the German nation for measures that\nwere admitted to be crying needs of the times? No German diet met but a\nlong list of grievances was submitted by the suffering people. It was of\nno avail. The haughty clergy rode over the people's rights and prayers\nrough-shod. The tyrannous devices which their cunning had invented were\nexecuted with brazen impudence. How had they treated simple laymen in\nwhose possession a Bible was found? What was their inquisitorial court\nbut the anteroom to holy butchers' shambles, the legal vestibule to\nmurder that had been sanctioned by the Popes? How had they treated\nLuther? If the papal nuncio at the Diet of Worms had had his way with\nthe emperor and the princes, Luther would not have left that city alive.\nThey openly declared to the emperor that he was not obliged to keep his\nplighted word for a safe-conduct to a heretic. These people come now at\nthis late day prating about violence that they have suffered from this\nsacrilegious and bloodthirsty Luther. They themselves were the\nperpetrators of the most appalling violence against God and men: their\nwhole system rests, as Johann Gerhard in his famous _Confessio\nCatholica_ rightly asserts, on _Fraus et Vis,_ that is, Fraud and\nViolence.\n\n\n23. Luther, Anarchist and Despot All in One.\n\nExtremes met, with most disastrous effect-so Catholic writers tell us-in\nLuther's views of the political rights of men. At one time he was so\noutspoken in his condemnation of the oppression which the common people\nwere suffering from the clergy, the nobility, and their aristocratic\ngovernors that he incited them to discontent with their humble lot in\nlife, to unrest, and to open rebellion against their magistrates. At\nanother time he became the spokesman for the most pronounced absolutism\nand despotism. He turned suddenly against the very people whose cause\nhe had so signally championed, and who hailed him as their prophet and\nleader. When the poor, downtrodden people needed him most, Luther\ncowardly deserted them, and by frenzied utterances excited the nobility\nto slay the common people without mercy in the most ruthless fashion,\nand even promised the lords whom he had denounced as tyrants heaven for\nenacting the barbaric cruelties to which he was urging them. This is the\nCatholic portrayal of Luther during the Peasants' War.\n\nThe relation of the peasant uprising to Luther's preaching is grossly\nmisrepresented when the impression is created that Luther had before\nthis sad upheaval worked hand in glove with the malcontent rustics for\nthe overthrow of the government. Disturbances of this kind had been\nperiodical occurrences in Europe for many hundreds of years. The heavy\ntaxes and tithes, and the forced labor which the lords exacted from\ntheir tenants, who were little better than serfs, the galling\nrestrictions in regard to hunting, fishing, gathering wood in the\nforests which they had imposed on them, the foreign Roman law under\nwhich they tried cases in court, and, in general, their haughty and\ncontemptuous bearing toward the common people had for many generations\ncreated strained relations between the upper and the lower classes. The\nestrangement which developed into open defiance existed among the\npeasants before Luther had begun to preach. Nor can Luther's teaching be\nsaid to have fanned the slumbering embers of discontent into a huge\nflame. The liberty of a Christian man which he had proclaimed was not\nsuch liberty as the peasants demanded and wrested to themselves when the\nrevolt had reached its height. Luther had consistently taught that\nobedience to the government is a Christian duty. He had, as we have\nshown in the preceding chapter, warned with telling force against riot,\ntumult, and sedition. He had deprecated any allying of the cause of the\nGospel and of spiritual freedom with the carnal strivings of disaffected\nmen for mere temporal and secular advantages. He had reminded Christians\nthat it was their duty to suffer wrong rather than do wrong.\n\nOn the other hand, Luther had pleaded the cause of the poor before the\nlords, and had earnestly warned the nobility not to continue their\ntyranny, but conciliate their subjects by yielding to their just\ndemands. He had fearlessly pointed out to the lords what was galling in\ntheir conduct to the common, people-their pride and luxurious living,\ntheir disregard of the commonest rights of man, their despotic dealings\nwith their humble subjects, their rude behavior and exasperating conduct\ntoward the men, women, and children whom they made toil and slave for\nthem.\n\nMaintaining, thus, an honest equipoise between the two contrary forces,\nand dealing out even-handed justice to both, Luther was conscious of\nserving the true interests of either side and laboring for the common\nwelfare of all. With his implicit faith in the power of God's Word he\nwas hoping for a gradual improvement of the situation. The conflict\nwould be adjusted in a quiet and orderly manner by the truth obtaining\ngreater and greater sway over the minds of men. Luther had had no\ninkling of an impending clash between the peasants and the nobility when\nthe revolt broke out with the fury of a cyclone. Luther was shocked. He\npromptly hurried to the scene of the disturbances by request of the\nCount of Mansfeld. It speaks volumes for the integrity of Luther that\nboth sides were willing to permit him to arbitrate their differences.\nThe invitation came originally from the peasants and was addressed to\nLuther, Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, and the Elector Frederick jointly, but\nit was not acted on until Count Albert invited Luther to come to\nEisleben. The _Exhortation to Peace on the Twelve Articles of the\nPeasants_ which Luther issued, after having investigated the situation,\nrebukes the lords with considerably more sternness than the commoners,\nbut makes fair suggestions for the composition of the differences.\nBefore Luther takes up the \"Twelve Articles of the Peasants\" for\ndetailed discussion, he informs them that he considers their whole\nprocedure wrong, even if all their demands were just, because they have\nresorted to force to secure their right. A beautiful sentiment for an\nanarchist to utter, is it not? In Article I the peasants demanded\nfreedom to elect their own pastors, who were to preach the Gospel\nwithout any human additions. That this request should be embodied in the\npeasants' plea for their political rights, and that it should be made\nthe foremost demand, is highly suggestive as to the principal cause of\ntheir unrest. To this article Luther gave his unreserved endorsement.\nArticle II sought to regulate the income of priests-again a very\nsuggestive request: preachers were to receive for their sustenance no\nmore than the tithes, the remainder of the church-income was to be set\naside so as to render it unnecessary to tax the poor in war-times. On\nthis point Luther held that the tithes belong to the government, and to\nturn them over to any one else would be simple robbery. Article III\ndemanded the abolition of serfdom, however, as a test whether the\nChristianity of the lords was genuine. The peasants implied that their\npolitical liberty had been secured by Christ, and that the lords were\nwithholding it from them. This argument Luther rejected as a carnal\nperversion of the Gospel. Articles IV-X submitted these demands: The\npoor man is to be accorded the right to fish and hunt; all wooded lands\nusurped by bishops or noblemen without making payment therefor are to\nrevert to the community, and in case payment had been made, a settlement\nis to be effected by mutual agreement; burdensome exactions, services,\ntaxes, and fines are to be rescinded; court trials are to be free from\npartiality and jealousy; meadows and lands which of right belong to the\ncommunity are to be returned by their present owners. On these points\nLuther suggests that the opinions of good lawyers be obtained. Article\nXI deals with the right of heriot, or the death-tax imposed upon the\nwidow or heir of a tenant. This was approved. In the last article the\npeasants express their readiness to withdraw any or all of these\nrequests that are shown to be contrary to Scripture, and ask permission\nto substitute others for them.\n\nLuther was in a fair way of bringing about an amicable settlement of the\ndifferences. Philip of Hesse had at the same time come to a full\nagreement with the peasants in his domains, and peace seemed near, when\nthe real genius of the whole peasant movement, Muenzer, interfered.\nLuther had suspected for some time that this unscrupulous agitator was\nspreading the teaching of unbridled license under pretense of preaching\nliberty, and that the mystical piety which he was reported as\npractising, his leaning towards the reform movement, and his references\nto Luther and the \"new Gospel,\" were nothing but the angel's garment\nwhich a very wicked devil had borrowed for purposes of deception. When\nMuenzer at the head of hordes of men who through his inflammatory\nspeeches had been turned into unreasoning brutes was spreading ruin and\ndesolation along his path, wiping out in a few days the products of the\npatient labors of generations, subverting the fundamental principles of\nhonesty, justice, and morality on which the organized public life of the\ncommunity and the private life of the individual must rest, and rapidly\nchanging even the well-meaning and reasonable among the peasants into\nfrenzied madmen, Luther recognized that conciliatory measures and\narbitration would not avail with these mobs. His duty as a teacher of\nGod's Word and as a loyal subject of his government demanded prompt and\nstern action from him. However, back of the terrible mien with which\nLuther now faced the wild peasants there is a heart of love; in the\nappalling language which he now uses against men whose cause he had\nbefriended there is discernible a note of pity for the poor deluded\nwretches who thought they were rearing a paradise when they were\nbuilding bedlam. Above all, the great heart of Luther is torn with\nanguish over the shame that is now being heaped on the blessed Gospel of\nhis dear Lord. Luther did not desert the peasants, but they deserted\nhim; they were the traitors, not he.\n\nThere is a diabolical streak in the character of Thomas Muenzer. He\nparades as the People's Man, and the German people in the sixteenth\ncentury never had a worse enemy. His fluent speech and great oratory\nseemed honey to the peasants, but they were the veriest poison. He\nspoke the language of a saint, and lived the life of a profligate and a\nreprobate. It is hard to believe that his error was merely the honest\nfanaticism of a blind bigot; there is a malign element in it that\nbetrays conscious wickedness. This raving demon should be studied more\nby Catholics when they investigate the Peasants' Revolt. They have their\neyes on Luther; his every word and action are placed under the\nmicroscope. But the real culprit is treated as the hero in a tragedy. He\nwas a blind enthusiast; he mistook his aims; he selected wrong means and\nmethods for achieving his aim. He did wickedly, and we may have to curse\nhim some for decency's sake, but be deserves pity, too, for he was the\nmisguided pupil of that arch-heretic Luther. That is Catholic equity in\nestimating Luther's share in the peasant uprising. We only note in\nconclusion that Thomas Muenzer died in the arms of the alone-saving\nChurch, a penitent prodigal that had returned to the bosom of \"Holy\nMother.\" Luther did not die thus, and that makes a great deal of\ndifference.\n\nCatholics father upon Luther not only the Peasants' Revolt, but every\nrevolutionary movement which since then has occurred in Europe. The\npolitical unrest which has at various times agitated the masses in\nFrance, England, and Germany, the changes in the government which were\nbrought about in such times, are all attributed to the revolutionary\ntendencies in Luther's writings. So is the disrespect shown by citizens\nof the modern State to persons in authority, the bold and scathing\ncriticism indulged in by subjects against their government. There is\nhardly a political disturbance anywhere but what ingenious Catholics\nwill manage to connect with Luther. Read Luther, and you will inevitably\nbecome an anarchist.\n\nBut Luther is also credited with the very opposite of anarchism. When\nthe Peasants' Revolt had been put down by the lords, they began to\nstrengthen their despotic power over the people, and a worse tyranny\nresulted than had existed before. It is pointed out that absolutism, the\nclaim of kings that they are ruling by divine right and are not\nresponsible to the people, has taken firm root in all Protestant\ncountries, and that even the Protestant churches in these countries are\nmere fixtures of the State. This, too, we are asked to believe, is a\nresult of Luther's teaching. Luther is not only the spiritual\nring-leader of mobs, but also the sycophant of despots. It is\nparticularly offensive to Catholics to see Luther hailed as the champion\nof political liberty. Let us try and make up our minds about Luther's\nviews of the secular government from Luther's own words. Dr. Waring, in\nhis _Political Theories of Luther,_ has made a very serviceable\ncollection of statements of Luther on this matter.\n\n\"In his tract on Secular Authority (10, 374 ff.) Luther maintains that\nthe State exists by God's will and institution; for the Apostle Paul\nwrites: 'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is\nno power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever\ntherefore resisteth the power resiseth [tr. note: sic] the ordinance of\nGod; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation' (Rom.\n13, 1. 2). The Apostle Peter exhorts: 'Submit yourselves to every\nordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether it be to the king, as\nsupreme, or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the\npunishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well' (1\nPet. 2, 13. 14). The right of the sword has existed since the beginning\nof the world. When Cain killed his brother Abel, he was so fearful of\nbeing put to death himself that God laid a special prohibition thereupon\nthat no one should kill him, which fear he would not have had, had he\nnot seen and heard from Adam that murderers should be put to death.\nFurther, after the Flood, God repeated and confirmed it in explicit\nlanguage, when He declared: 'Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall\nhis blood be shed' (Gen. 9, 6). This law was ratified later by the law\nof Moses: 'But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay\nhim with guile, thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die'\n(Ex. 21, 14); and yet again: 'Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for\ntooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for\nwound, stripe for stripe' (Ex. 21, 23-25). Christ confirmed it also when\nHe said to Peter in the garden: 'All they that take the sword shall\nperish with the sword' (Matt. 26, 52). The words of Christ: 'But I say\nunto you, That ye resist not evil' (Matt. 5, 38. 39), 'Love your\nenemies, . . . do good to them that hate you' (Matt. 5, 44), and similar\npassages, having great weight, might seem to indicate that Christians\nunder the Gospel should not have a worldly sword; but the human race is\nto be divided into two classes, one belonging to the kingdom of God and\nthe other to the kingdom of the world. To the first class belong all\ntrue believers in Christ and under Christ, for Christ is King and Lord\nin the kingdom of God (Ps. 2, 6, and throughout the Scriptures). These\npeople need no worldly sword or law, for they have the Holy Ghost in\ntheir hearts who suffer wrong gladly and themselves do wrong to no one.\nThere is no need of quarrel or contention, of court or punishment. St.\nPaul says: 'The law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless\nand disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners' (1 Tim. 1, 9), for the\nrighteous man of himself does everything that the law demands, and more;\nbut the unrighteous do nothing right, and they therefore need the law to\nteach, constrain, and compel them to do right. A good tree requires no\ninstruction or law that it may bring forth good fruit, but its nature\ncauses it to bear fruit after its kind. Thus are all Christians so\nfashioned through the Spirit and faith that they do right naturally,\nmore than man could teach them with all laws. All those who are not\nChristians in this particular sense belong to the kingdom of the world.\nInasmuch as there are few who are true Christians in faith and life, God\nestablished, in addition to the kingdom of God, another rule-that of\ntemporal power and civil government, and gave it the sword to compel the\nwicked to be orderly. It is for this worldly estate that law is given.\nChrist rules without law, alone through the Spirit, but worldly\ngovernment protects the peace with the sword. Likewise, true Christians,\nalthough not in need of it for themselves, nevertheless render cheerful\nobedience to this government, through love for the others who need it. A\nChristian himself may wield the sword when called upon to maintain peace\namong men and to punish wrong. This authority, which is God's handmaid,\nas St. Paul says, is as necessary and good as other worldly callings.\nGod therefore instituted two regimens, or governments-the spiritual,\nwhich, through the Holy Ghost under Christ, makes Christians and pious\npeople, and the worldly or temporal, which warns the non-Christians and\nthe wicked that they must maintain external peace. We must clearly\ndistinguish between these two powers and let them remain-the one that\nmakes pious, the other that makes for external peace and protects\nagainst wickedness. Neither one is sufficient in the world without the\nother; for without the spiritual estate of Christ no one can be good\nbefore God through the worldly estate. Where civil government alone\nrules, there would be hypocrisy, though its laws were like God's\ncommandments themselves; for without the Holy Spirit in the heart none\ncan be pious, whatever good works he may perform. Where the spiritual\nestate rules over land and people, there will be unbridled wickedness\nand opportunity for all kinds of villainy, for the common world cannot\naccept or understand it.-But it may be said, If, then, Christians do not\nneed the temporal power or law, why does St. Paul say to all Christians:\n'Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers' (Rom. 13, 1)? In\nreply to this, it is to be said again that Christians among themselves\nand by and for themselves require no law or sword, for to them they are\nnot necessary or useful. But because a true Christian on earth lives for\nand serves not himself, but his neighbor, so he also, from the nature of\nhis spirit, does that which he himself does not need, but which is\nuseful and necessary to his neighbor. The sword is a great and necessary\nutility to the whole world for the maintenance of peace, the punishment\nof wrong, and the restraint of the wicked. So the Christian pays tribute\nand tax, honors civil authority, serves, assists, and does everything he\ncan do to maintain that authority with honor and fear.\" (p. 73 ff.)\n\nIn his _Appeal to the German Nobility_ (10, 266 ff.) Luther says:\n\"Forasmuch as the temporal power has been ordained by God for the\npunishment of the bad and the protection of the good, therefore we must\nlet it do its duty throughout the whole Christian body, without respect\nof persons, whether it strike Popes, bishops, priests, monks, nuns, or\nwhoever it may be. If it were sufficient reason for fettering the\ntemporal power that it is inferior among the offices of Christianity to\nthe offices of priest or confessor, to the spiritual estate,-if this\nwere so, then we ought to restrain tailors, cobblers, masons,\ncarpenters, cooks, cellarmen, peasants, and all secular workmen from\nproviding the Pope or bishops, priests and monks, with shoes, clothes,\nhouses, or victuals, or from paying them tithes. But if these laymen are\nallowed to do their work without restraint, what do the Romanist scribes\nmean by their laws? They mean that they withdraw themselves from the\noperation of temporal Christian power, simply in order that they may be\nfree to do evil, and thus fulfil what St. Peter said: 'There shall be\nfalse teachers among you, . . . and through covetousness shall they with\nfeigned words make merchandise of you' (2 Pet. 2, 1. 3). Therefore the\ntemporal Christian power must exercise its office without let or\nhindrance, without considering whom it may strike, whether Pope or\nbishop, or priest. Whoever is guilty, let him suffer for it.-Whatever\nthe ecclesiastical law has said in opposition to this is merely the\ninvention of Romanist arrogance. For this is what St. Paul says to all\nChristians: 'Let every soul' (I presume, including the Popes) 'be\nsubject unto the higher powers. . . . Do that which is good, and thou\nshalt have praise of the same, . . . for he beareth not the sword in\nvain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon\nhim that doeth evil' (Rom. 13, 1-4). Also St. Peter: 'Submit yourselves\nto every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake; . . . for so is the will\nof God' (1 Pet. 2, 13. 15). He has also foretold that men would come who\nwould despise government (2 Pet. 2), as has come to pass through\necclesiastical law.-Although the work of the temporal power relates to\nthe body, it yet belongs to the spiritual estate. Therefore it must do\nits duty without let or hindrance upon all members of the whole body, to\npunish or urge, as guilt may deserve, or need may require, without\nrespect of Pope, bishops, or priests, let them threaten or excommunicate\nas they will. That is why a guilty priest is deprived of his priesthood\nbefore being given over to the secular arm; whereas this would not be\nright if the secular powers had not authority over him already by divine\nordinance.-It is, indeed, past bearing that the spiritual law should\nesteem so highly the liberty, life, and property of the clergy, as if\nlaymen were not as good spiritual Christians, or not equally members of\nthe Church. Why should your body, life, goods, and honor be free, and\nnot mine, seeing that we are equal as Christians, and have received\nalike baptism, faith, spirit, and all things? If a priest is killed, the\ncountry is laid under an interdict; why not also if a peasant is killed?\nWhence comes this great difference among equal Christians? Simply from\nhuman laws and inventions.\" (p. 96 ff.) This citation deserves to be\nspecially pondered in view of the Catholic charge that Luther was a\ndefender of absolutism, the divine right of kings. If Rome's attitude to\nkingcraft be studied, it will be found that Rome has been the supporter\nof the most tyrannous rulers. It is well, too, to remember Rome's claim\nof a \"divine right\" of priests. Special laws of exemption and immunity,\nlaws creating special privileges for priests, are not unknown in the\nannals of the world's history. Whoever can, ought to read the entire\n_Appeal to the German Nobility;_ it will tell him many things that\nexplain the Peasants' Revolt.\n\nIn his _Severe Booklet against the Peasants_ (16, 71 ff.) Luther\nexplains the reasons for the harsh language which he uses against the\nmarauders. \"He says that the maxims dealing with mercy belong to the\nkingdom of God and among Christians, not to the kingdom of the world,\nwhich is the instrument of godly wrath upon the wicked. The instrument\nin the hand of the State is not a garland of roses or a flower of love,\nbut a naked sword. As I declared at the time, he says, so declare I yet:\nLet every one who can, as he may be able, cut, stab, choke, and strike\nthe stiff-necked, obdurate, blind, infatuated peasants; that mercy may\nbe shown towards those who are destroyed, driven away, and misled by the\npeasants; that peace and security may be had. It is better to\nmercilessly cut off one member rather than lose the entire body through\nfire or plague. Furthermore, the insurgents are notoriously faithless,\nperjured, disobedient, riotous thieves, robbers, murderers, and\nblasphemers, so that there is not one of them but has well deserved\ndeath ten times over without mercy. If my advice had been followed in\nthe very beginning, and a few lives had been taken, before the\ninsurrection assumed such large proportions, thousands of lives would\nhave been saved. The experience should make all parties involved wise.\"\n-\"If it be said,\" he continues, \"that I myself teach lawlessness, when I\nurge all who can to cut down the rioters, my booklet was not written\nagainst common evil-doers, but against seditious rioters. There is a\nmarked distinction between such a one and a murderer or robber and other\nordinary criminals; for a murderer or similar criminal lets the head and\ncivil authority itself stand, and attacks merely its members or its\nproperty. He, indeed, fears the government. Now, while the head remains,\nno individual should attack the murderer, because the head [civil\nauthority] call punish him, but should wait for the judgment and\nsentence of that authority to which God has given the sword and office.\nBut the rioter attacks the head itself, so that his offense bears no\ncomparison with that of the murderer.\" (p. 147.)\n\nUnder the restriction under which this book was written as regards\nspace, we cannot enter as we would like to upon an exhaustive\ndiscussion of Luther's political views. Luther was in this respect the\nmost enlightened European citizen of his age. He has voiced sound\nprinciples on the rights of the State and its limitations and the\nobjects for which the State exists and does not exist, on the separation\nof Church and State, on the removal of bad rulers from authority, and\nespecially on liberty. The power of the State he values because it\nsecures to each individual citizen the highest degree of liberty\npossible in this life. Those who represent Luther as a defender of\nanarchy or tyranny either do not know what they are talking about, or\nthey do it for a purpose, and deserve the contempt of all intelligent\nmen.\n\n\n24. Luther the Destroyer of Liberty of Conscience.\n\nCatholics claim that Luther's work, though ostensibly undertaken in\nbehalf of religious liberty, necessarily had to result in the very\nopposite of freedom. They point to the fact that in most countries which\naccepted the Protestant faith the Church became subservient to the\nState. These state churches of Europe, however, which in the view of\nCatholics are the product of Luther's reform movement, are to be\nregarded as only one symptom of the intolerance which characterizes the\nentire activity of Luther. He had indeed adopted the principle of\n\"private interpretation\" of the Scriptures, however, only for himself.\nHe was unwilling to accord to others the right which he claimed for\nhimself. All who dissented from his teaching were promptly attacked by\nhim, and that, in violent and scurrilous language. The Protestant party\nin the course of time became a warring camp of Ishmaelites, Luther\nfighting everybody and everybody fighting Luther. Religious intolerance\nand persecution became the prevailing policy of Protestants in their\ndealings with other Protestants. The burning of Servetus at Geneva by\nCalvin was the logical outcome of Luther's teaching. The maxim, _Cuius\nregio, eius religio,_ that is, The prince, or government, in whose\nterritory I reside determines my religion, became a Protestant tenet.\nAmerica got its first taste of religious liberty, not from the original\nProtestant settlers, but from the Catholic colonists whom Lord\nBaltimore brought to Maryland, etc., etc.\n\nThe view here propounded is in plain contravention of what the world has\nhitherto believed, and to a very large extent still believes, regarding\nLuther's attitude toward the right of the individual to choose his own\nreligion and to determine for himself matters of faith. The position\nwhich Luther occupies in his final answer before the Emperor at Worms is\ngenerally believed to state Luther's position on the question of\nreligious liberty in a nutshell. \"Unless convinced by the Word of God or\nby cogent reason\" that he was wrong, he declared at the Diet of Worms,\nhe could not and would not retract what he had written. The individual\nconscience, he maintained, cannot be bound. Each man must determine the\nmeaning of the Word for himself. And the inevitable result of this\nprinciple is individual liberty. This principle Luther maintained to the\nend of his life. His appeal to the magistrates to suppress the Peasants'\nRevolt was not a call to suppress the false teachings of the peasants,\nbut their disorderly conduct. Against their spiritual aberrations Luther\nproposed to wage war with his written and oral testimony. \"The peace and\norder of the State must be maintained against disorder, personal\nviolence, destruction of property, public immorality, and treason,\nthough they come in the guise of religion. The State must grant liberty\nof conscience, freedom of speech, and the privilege of the press. These\nare inalienable rights belonging alike to every individual, subject only\nto the limitation that they are not permitted to encroach upon the\nrights of others. The natural, the almost inevitable, consequence of the\ndeclaration and recognition of these principles was eventually the\nestablishment of modern constitutional law. It was not in consequence of\nhis teaching, but merely in spite of it, that for the next two centuries\n(in certain instances) monarchical government became more autocratic, as\nfeudalism was being transformed into civil government. . . . All through\nLuther's writings, and in his own acts as well, is to be read the right\nof the individual to think and believe in matters political, religious,\nand otherwise as he sees proper. His is the right to read the Bible, and\nany other book he may desire. He has the right to confer and counsel,\nwith others, to express and declare his views _pro_ and _con,_ in speech\nand print, so long as he abides by, and remains within, the laws of the\nland. Luther firmly believed in the liberty of the individual as to\nconscience, speech, and press. The search for truth must be\nuntrammeled.\" (Waring, _Political Theories of Luther,_ p. 235 f.)\n\nThis testimony of one who has made a careful investigation of Luther's\nwritings on the subject of liberty of conscience is, of course, not\nfirst-hand evidence; it merely shows what impressions people take away\nfrom their study of Luther. Let us hear Luther himself. In the _Appeal\nto the German Nobility_ he says: \"No one can deny that it is breaking\nGod's commandments to violate faith and a safe-conduct, even though it\nbe promised to the devil himself, much more then in the case of a\nheretic. . . . Even though John Hus were a heretic, however bad he may\nhave been, yet he was burned unjustly and in violation of God's\ncommandments, and we must not force the Bohemians to approve this, if\nwe wish ever to be at one with them. Plain truth must unite us, not\nobstinacy. It is no use to say, as they said at the time, that a\nsafe-conduct need not be kept if promised to a heretic; that is as much\nas to say, one may break God's commandments in order to keep God's\ncommandments. They were infatuated and blinded by the devil, that they\ncould not see what they said or did. God has commanded us to observe a\nsafe-conduct; and this we must do though the world should perish; much\nmore, then, where it is only a question of a heretic being set free. We\nshould overcome heretics with books, not with fire, as the old Fathers\ndid. If there were any skill in overcoming heretics with fire, the\nexecutioner would be the most learned doctor in the world; and there\nwould be no need of study, but he that could get another into his power\ncould burn him.\" (10, 332.)\n\nIn his treatise _On the Limits of Secular Authority,_ Luther says:\n\"Unbearable loss follows where the secular authority is given too much\nroom, and it is likewise not without loss where it is too restricted.\nHere it punishes too little; there it punishes too much. Although it is\nmore desirable that it offend on the side of punishing too little than\nthat it punish too severely; because it is always better to permit a\nknave to live than to put a good man to death, inasmuch as the world\nstill has and must have knaves, but has few good men.\n\n\"In the first place, it is to be noted that the two classes of the human\nrace, one of whom is in the kingdom of God under Christ, and the other\nin the kingdom of the world under civil authority, have two kinds of\nlaws; for every kingdom must have its laws and its rights, and no\nkingdom or _regime_ can stand without law, as daily experience shows.\nTemporal government has laws that do not reach farther than over person\nand property, and what is external on the earth; for God will not permit\nany one to rule over the soul of man but Himself. Therefore, where\ntemporal power presumes to give laws to the soul, it touches God's rule,\nand misleads and destroys the souls. We wish to make that so clear that\nmen may comprehend it, in order that our knights, the princes and\nbishops, may see what fools they are when seeking to force people by\ntheir laws and commandments to believe thus or so. When a man lays a\nhuman law or commandment upon the soul, that it must believe this or\nthat, as the man prescribes, it is assuredly not God's Word. . . .\nTherefore it is a thoroughly foolish thing to command a man to believe\nthe Church, the Fathers, the councils, although there is nothing on it\nfrom God's Word.\n\n\"Now tell me, how much sense does the head have that lays down a command\non a matter where it has no authority? Who would not hold as of unsound\nmind the person who would command the moon to shine when it wishes? How\nfitting would it be if the Leipzig authorities would lay down laws for\nus at Wittenberg, or we at Wittenberg for the people of Leipzig?\nMoreover, let men thereby understand that every authority should and may\nconcern itself only where it can see, know, judge, sentence, transform,\nand change; for what kind of judge is he to me who would blindly judge\nmatters he neither hears nor sees? Now tell me, how can a man see, know,\njudge, sentence, and change the heart? For that is reserved to God\nalone. A court should and must be certain when it sentences, and have\neverything in clear light. But the soul's thoughts and impulses can be\nknown to no one but God. Therefore it is futile and impossible to\ncommand or compel a man by force to believe thus or so. For that purpose\nanother grip is necessary. Force does not accomplish it. For my\nungracious lords, Pope and bishops, should be bishops and preach God's\nWord; but they leave that and have become temporal princes and rule with\nlaws that concern only person and property. They have reversed the order\nof things. Instead of ruling souls (internally) through God's Word, they\nrule (externally) castles, cities, lands, and people, and kill souls\nwith indescribable murder. The temporal lords should, in like manner,\nrule (externally) land and people; but they leave that. They can do\nnothing more than flay and shave the people, set one tax and one rent on\nanother; there let loose a bear and here a wolf; respect no right, or\nfaith, or truth, and conduct affairs so that robbers and knaves\nincrease in number; and their temporal _regime_ lies as far beneath as\nthe _regime_ of the spiritual tyrants. Faith is a matter concerning\nwhich each one is responsible for himself; for as little as one man can\ngo to heaven or hell for me, so little can he believe or not believe for\nme; and as little as he can open or close heaven or hell for me, so\nlittle can he drive me to belief or unbelief. We have the saying from\nSt. Augustine: 'No one can or should be compelled to believe.' The blind\nand miserable people do not see what a vain and impossible thing they\nundertake; for, however imperiously they command, and however hard they\ndrive, they cannot force people any farther than they follow with their\nmouth and the hand. They cannot compel the heart, though they should\nbreak it. For true is the maxim: _Gedanken sind zollfrei_. (No toll is\nlevied on thought.) When weak consciences are driven by force to lie,\ndeceive, and say otherwise than they believe in the heart, they burden\nthemselves also with a heavy sin; for all the lies and false witness\ngiven by such weak consciences rest upon him who forces them.\n\n\"Christ Himself clearly recognized and concisely stated this truth when\nHe said: 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's,\nand unto God the things that are God's' (Matt. 22, 21). Now, when\nimperial authority stretches itself over into God's kingdom and\nauthority and does not keep within its own separate jurisdiction, this\ndiscrimination between the two realms has not been made. For the soul is\nnot under authority of the emperor. He can neither teach nor guide it,\nneither kill it nor give it life, neither bind nor loose, neither judge\nnor sentence, neither hold nor let alone; which necessarily would exist\nhad he authority so to do, for they are under his jurisdiction and\npower.\n\n\"David long ago expressed it briefly: 'The heaven, even the heavens, are\nthe Lord's; but the earth hath He given to the children of men' (Ps.\n115, 16). That is to say, over what is on the earth and belongs to the\ntemporal earthly kingdom, man has power from God; but what belongs to\nheaven and to the eternal kingdom is under the Lord of heaven alone. But\nfinally, this is the meaning of Peter: 'We ought to obey God rather than\nmen' (Acts 5, 29). He here clearly marks a limit to temporal authority;\nfor were men obliged to observe everything that civil authority wished,\nthe command, 'We ought to obey God rather than men,' would have been\ngiven in vain.\n\n\"If, now, your princes or temporal lord command you to believe this or\nthat, or to dispense with certain books, say: 'I am under obligations to\nobey you with body and estate; command me within the compass of your\nauthority on earth, and I will obey you. Put if you command me as to\nbelief, and order me to put away books, I will not obey, for then you\nbecome a tyrant and overreach yourself, and command where you have\nneither right nor power.' If your goods are taken and your disobedience\nis punished, you are blessed, and you may thank God that you are worthy\nto suffer for God's Word. When a prince is in the wrong, his subjects\nare not under obligations to follow him, for no one is obliged to do\nanything against the right; but we must obey God, who desires to have\nthe right rather than men.\n\n\"But thou sayest once more: 'Yea, worldly power cannot compel to belief.\nIt is only external protection against the people being misled by false\ndoctrine. How else can heretics be kept it bay?' Answer: That is the\nbusiness of bishops, to whom the office is entrusted, and not to\nprinces. For heresy can never be kept off by force; another grip is\nwanted for that. This is another quarrel and conflict than that of the\nsword. God's Word must contend here. If that avail nothing, temporal\npower will never settle the matter, though it fill the world with blood.\nHeresy pertains to the spiritual world. You cannot cut it with iron, nor\nburn it with fire, nor drown it in water. You cannot drive the devil out\nof the heart by destroying, with sword or fire, the vessel in which he\nlives. This is like fighting a blade of straw.\" (10, 395 ff.)\n\nReferring to the Anabaptists, Luther wrote in 1528: \"It is not right,\nand I think it a great pity, that such wretched people should be so\nmiserably slain, burned, cruelly put to death; every one should be\nallowed to believe what he will. If he believe wrongly, he will have\npunishment enough in the eternal fire of hell. Why should he be tortured\nin this life, too; provided always that it be a case of mistaken belief\nonly, and that they are not also unruly and oppose themselves to the\ntemporal power?\" (17, 2188.)\n\nTo his friend Cresser he wrote: \"If the courts wish to govern the\nchurches in their own interests, God will withdraw His benediction from\nthem, and things will become worse than before. Satan still is Satan.\nUnder the Popes he made the Church meddle in politics; in our time he\nwishes to make politics meddle with the Church.\" (21b, 2911.\nTranslations by Waring.)\n\nBut why did not these excellent principles attain better results in\nLuther's own time? On this question we have no better answer than that\ngiven by Bryce: \"The remark must not be omitted in passing how much less\nthan might have been expected the religious movement did at first\nactually effect in the way of promoting either political progress or\nfreedom of conscience. The habits of centuries were not to be unlearned\nin a few years, and it was natural that ideas struggling into existence\nand activity should work erringly and imperfectly for a time.\" (_Holy\nRoman Empire_, p. 381.) This would be Luther's own answer. His work was\namong people who were just emerging from the ignorance and spiritual\nbondage in which they had been reared in the Catholic Church. They had\nto be gradually and with much patience taught, not only in regard to\ntheir rights and privileges, but also in regard to their proper and most\nefficient application. But it is not in agreement with the facts when\nthe charge is directed against Luther that he employed the authority of\nthe State for furthering the ends of the Church because he urged the\nSaxon Elector to arrange for a visitation of the demoralized churches\nin the country, and to order such improvements to be made as would be\nfound necessary (Erlangen Ed. 55, 223); also when he sought the\nElector's aid for the reform party at Naumburg at the election of a new\nbishop (17, 113). In both instances he speaks of the Elector as a\n\"Notbischof,\" that is, an emergency bishop. But his remarks must be\ncarefully studied to get his exact meaning. For he declares that the\nElector as a magistrate is under no obligation to attend to these\nmatters. They are not state business. But he is asked as a Christian to\nplace himself at the head of a laudable and necessary movement, and to\nplace his influence and ability at the disposition of the Master, just\nas a Christian laborer, craftsman, merchant, musician, painter, poet,\nauthor, consecrate their abilities to the Lord. This means that the\n\"emergency bishop\" has not the right to issue commands in the Church,\nbut he has the privilege and duty to serve. The people needed a leader,\nand who was better qualified for that than their trusted prince?\nBesides, the churches had to be protected in their secular and civil\ninterests in those days. The young Protestant faith would have been\nmercilessly extirpated by Rome, which was gathering the secular powers\naround her to fight her battles with material weapons against\nProtestants. The Protestant princes would have betrayed a trust which\ncitizens rightly repose in their government, if they had not taken steps\nto afford the Protestant churches in their domains every legal\nprotection. The protection of citizens in the exercise of their\nreligious liberty is within the sphere of the civil magistrates. The\ncitizens can appeal to the government for such protection, and when the\ngovernment in the interest of religious liberty represses elements that\nare hostile, it is not intolerant, but just. If a religion, like that of\nthe bomb-throwing anarchists and the vice-breeding Mormons, is forbidden\nto practise its faith in the land, that is not intolerance, but common\nequity.\n\nOne of the most pathetic spectacles which the student of medieval\nhistory has to contemplate is the treatment of the Jews at the hands of\nthe Christians. \"Few were the monarchs of Christendom,\" says Prof.\nWorman, \"who rose above the barbarism of the Middle Ages. By\nconsiderable pecuniary sacrifices only could the sons of Israel enjoy\ntolerance. In Italy their lot had always been most severe. Now and then\na Roman pontiff would afford them his protection, but, as a rule, they\nhave received only intolerance in that country. Down even to the time of\nthe deposition of Pius IX from the temporal power (1810) it has been the\nbarbarous custom, on the last Saturday before the Carnival, to compel\nthe Jews to proceed _en masse_ to the capitol, and ask permission of the\npontiff to reside in the city another year. At the foot of the hill the\npetition was refused them, but, after much entreaty, they were granted\nthe favor when they had reached the summit, and as their residence the\nGhetto was assigned them.\" In France a prelate condemned the Jews\nbecause the \"country people looked upon them as the only people of\nGod,\" whereupon \"all joined in a carnival of persecution, and the\nhistory of the Jews became nothing else than a successive series of\nmassacres.\" In Spain the Jews were treated more kindly by the Moors than\nby the Catholics. At first their services were valued in the crafts and\ntrades, \"but the extravagance and consequent poverty of the nobles, as\nwell as the increasing power of the priesthood, ultimately brought about\na disastrous change. The estates of the nobles and, it is also believed,\nthose attached to the cathedrals and churches, were in many cases\nmortgaged to the Jews; hence it was not difficult for 'conscience' to\nget up a persecution when goaded to its 'duty' by the pressure of want\nand shame. Gradually the Jews were deprived of the privilege of living\nwhere they pleased; their rights were diminished and their taxes\naugmented.\"\n\nTo their lowest stage of misery, however, the Jews were reduced during\none of the most holy enterprises which the papacy launched during the\nMiddle Ages--the Crusades. \"The crusading movement was inaugurated by a\nwholesale massacre and persecution first of the Jew, and afterwards of\nthe Mussulman. . . . Shut out from all opportunity for the development\nof their better qualities, the Jews were gradually reduced to a decline\nboth in character and condition. From a learned, influential, and\npowerful class of the community, we find them, after the inauguration of\nthe Crusades, sinking into miserable outcasts; the common prey of clergy\nand nobles and burghers, and existing in a state worse than slavery\nitself. The Christians deprived the Jews even of the right of holding\nreal estate; and confined them to the narrower channels of traffic.\nTheir ambition being thus fixed upon one subject, they soon mastered all\nthe degrading arts of accumulating gain; and prohibited from investing\ntheir gain in the purchase of land, they found n more profitable\nemployment of it in lending it at usurious interest to the thoughtless\nand extravagant.\" In course of time the borrowers recouped their losses\nby inaugurating raids upon the Jews. Jew-baiting, persecutions,\nexpatriations of Jewish settlers, were of frequent occurrence. Towards\nthe end of the thirteenth century 16,000 Jews were expelled from England\nand their property confiscated. In Germany \"they had to pay all manner\nof iniquitous taxes--body tax, capitation tax, trade taxes, coronation\ntax, and to present a multitude of gifts, to mollify the avarice or\nsupply the necessities of emperor, princes, and barons. It did not\nsuffice, however, to save them from the loss of their property. The\npopulace and the lower clergy also must be, satisfied; they, too, had\npassions to gratify. A wholesale slaughter of the 'enemies of\nChristianity' was inaugurated. Treves, Metz, Cologne, Mentz, Worms,\nSpires, Strassburg, and other cities were deluged with the blood of the\n'unbelievers.' The word _Hep_ (said to be the initials of _Hierosolyma\nest perdita_, Jerusalem is taken) throughout all the cities of the\nempire became the signal for massacres, and if an insensate monk sounded\nit along the streets, it threw the rabble into paroxysms of murderous\nrage. The choice of death or conversion was given to the Jews; but few\nwere found willing to purchase their life by that form of perjury.\nRather than subject their offspring to conversion and such Christian\ntraining, fathers presented their breast to the sword after putting\ntheir children to death, and wives and virgins sought refuge from the\nbrutality of the soldiers by throwing themselves into the river with\nstones fastened to their bodies.\" (_McClintock and Strong Cyclop_., 4,\n908 f.)\n\nAll this happened under the most Christian rule of the Popes. The\ncharacteristic temper of the Jew in the Middle Ages, his fierce hatred\nof Christianity, his sullen mood, his blasphemous treatment of matters\nand objects sacred to Christians, are the result of the treatment he\nreceived even from the members and high officials of the Church. Now\nhere comes Rome in our day asserting the kindness and generosity shown\nthe Jews by their Popes, because these afforded them shelter in the\nGhetto of the Holy City! How differently, they say, was this from the\ntreatment accorded the Jews by Luther. Why, these Catholic writers do\nnot tell the hundredth part of the truth about the attitude of their\nChurch to the Jews in the Middle Ages.\n\nLet this be remembered when Luther's remarks about the Jews are taken up\nfor study. He is very outspoken against them; his utterances, however,\nrelate for the most part to the false teaching and religious practises,\nto their perversion of the text and the meaning of the Scriptures, and\nto the blasphemies which they utter against God, Jesus Christ, and His\nChurch, and to the lies which they assiduously spread about the\nChristian religion. In all that Luther says against the Jews under this\nhead he is simply discharging the functions of a teacher of\nChristianity; for Scripture says that it was given also \"for reproof\"\n(2 Tim. 3, 16). No one can be a true theologian without being polemical\non occasion. In another class of his references to the Jews Luther\nrefers to their character: their arrogance and pride, their\nstiffneckedness and contumacy, their greed and avarice, which makes\ntheir presence in any land a public calamity. Though their church and\nstate has long been overthrown, and they are a people without a country,\nhomeless wanderers on the face of the earth, they still boast of being\n\"the people of God,\" and are indulging the wildest dreams about the\nreestablishment of their ancient kingdom. They are looking for a Messiah\nwho will be a secular prince, and will make them all barons living in\nbeautiful castles and receiving the tribute of the Goyim. One may reason\nand plead with them and show them that their belief contradicts their\nown Scriptures, that their Talmud is filled with palpable falsehoods,\nand that their hope is a chimera; but they turn a deaf ear to argument\nand entreaty, and turn upon you with fierce resentment at your efforts\nto show them the truth. Although they know that their habits of grasping\nand hoarding wealth, driving hard and unfair bargains, their hunting for\nsmall profits by contemptible methods like hungry dogs searching the\noffal in the alley, rouses the enmity of communities against them and\ncauses them to become a blight to all true progress, to honest trade and\nbusiness in any land where they have become firmly established, so that\nlaws must be made against them, still they blindly and passionately\ncontinue their covetous strivings. When Luther observes the corrupting\ninfluence of the Jews on the public life and morals, he declares that\nthey ought to be expelled from the country, and their synagogs ought to\nbe destroyed, that is, they have deserved this treatment. But it is a\nremarkable fact that even in these terrible denunciations of the Jews\nLuther moves on Bible ground, as any one can see that will examine his\nexposition of an imprecatory psalm, like Psalm 109 and 59. If these\nwords of God mean anything and admit of any application to an apostate\nand hardened race, the Jews are that race, and a teacher of the Bible\nhas the duty to point out this fact. But Luther has not been a\nJewbaiter; he has not incited a riot against then, nor headed a raid\nupon them, as Prof. Worman tells us that Catholic priests in the Middle\nAges occasionally would do. What Luther thought of persecuting the Jews\nfor their religion can be seen from his exposition of Psalm 14. He did\nnot believe in a general conversion of the Jews, but he held that\nindividual Jews would ever and anon be won for Christ and would be\ngrafted on the olive-tree of the true Church. \"Therefore,\" he says, \"we\nought to condemn the rage of some Christians--if they really deserve to\nbe called Christians--who think that they are doing God a service by\npersecuting the Jews in the most hateful manner, imagining all manner of\nevil about them, proudly and haughtily mocking them in their pitiful\nmisery. According to the statement in this Psalm (Ps. 14, 7) and the\nexample of the Apostle Paul in Rom. 9, 1, we ought rather to feel a\nprofound and cordial pity for them and always pray for them. . . . By\ntheir tyrannical bearing these wicked people, who are nominally\nChristians, cause not a little injury, not only to the cause of\nChristianity, but also to Christian people, and they are responsible\nfor, and sharers in, the impiety of the Jews, because by their cruel\nbearing toward them they drive them away from the Christian faith\ninstead of attracting them with all possible gentleness, patience,\npleading, and anxious concern for them. There are even some theologians\nso unreasonable as to sanction such cruelty to the Jews and to encourage\npeople to it; in their proud conceit they assert that the Jews are the\nChristians' slaves and tributary to the emperor, while in truth they are\nthemselves Christians with as much right as any one nowadays is Roman\nEmperor. Good God, who would want to join our religion, even though he\nwere of a meek and submissive mind, when he sees how spitefully and\ncruelly he is treated; and that the treatment he can expect is not only\nunchristian, but worse than bestial? If hating Jews and heretics and\nTurks makes people Christians, we insane people would indeed be the best\nChristians. But if loving Christ makes Christians, we are beyond a doubt\nworse than Jews, heretics, and Turks, because no one loves Christ less\nthan we. The rage of these people reminds me of children and fools, who,\nwhen they see a picture of a Jew on a wall, go and cut out his eyes,\npretending that they want to help the Lord Christ. Most of the preachers\nduring Lent treat of nothing else than the cruelty of the Jews towards\nthe Lord Christ, which they are continually magnifying. Thus they\nembitter believers against them, while the Gospel aims only at showing\nand exalting the love of God and Christ.\" (4, 927.)\n\nThe Catholic claim that the Maryland Colony in the days of the Calverts\nbecame the first home of true religious liberty on American soil has\nbeen so often blasted by historians that one is loath to enter upon this\nmoth-eaten claim for fear of merely repeating what others have more\nexhaustively stated. Catholics seem to forget what Bishop Perry has\ncalled attention to: \"The Maryland charter of toleration was the gift of\nan English monarch, the nominal head of Church of England, and the\ncredit of any merit in this donative is due the giver, and not the\nrecipient, of the kingly grant.\" Prof. Fisher has called attention to\nanother fact: \"Only two references to religion are to be found in the\nMaryland charter. The first gives to the proprietary patronage and\nadvowson of churches. The second empowers him to erect churches,\nchapels, and oratories, which he may cause to be consecrated according\nto the ecclesiastical laws of England. The phraseology is copied from\nthe Avalon patent (drawn up in England in 1623 for a portion of the\ncolony of Newfoundland) that was given to Sir George Calvert (first\nLord Baltimore) when he was a member of the Church of England. Yet the\nterms were such that recognition of that Church as the established form\nof religion does not prevent the proprietary and the colony from the\nexercise of full toleration toward other Christian bodies.\" (_Colonial\nEra_, p. 64.) The Maryland Colony was admittedly organized as a\nbusiness venture, and its original members were largely Protestants. It\nwas to secure the financial interests of the proprietary that tolerance\nwas shown the colonists. Prof. Fisher says: \"Any attempt to proscribe\nProtestants would have proved speedily fatal to the existence of the\ncolony. In a document which emanated partly from Baltimore himself, it\nis declared to be evident that the distinctive privileges 'usually\ngranted to ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic Church by Catholic\nprinces in their own countries could not be possibly granted hero (in\nMaryland) without great offense to the King and State of England.'\" (p.\n63.) We have not the space in this review of Catholic charges and claims\nto go into the religious history of the Maryland Colony as we should\nlike to do; otherwise we should explain the machinations of the Jesuits\nin this colony, and prove that what tolerance Maryland in its early days\nenjoyed it owed to the preponderating influence of non-Catholic forces.\n\nIt requires an unusual amount of courage for a Catholic writer at this\nlate day to parade his Church as the mother and protectress of religious\nliberty and tolerance. Any person who has but a smattering knowledge of\nthe history of the world during the last four centuries will smile at\nthis claim. The old Rome of the days of the Inquisition and the _auto da\nfes_ may seem tolerant in our days, but she is so from sheer necessity,\nnot from any voluntary and joyous choice of her own. Her intolerant\nprinciples remain the same, only she has not the power to carry them\ninto effect.\n\nOne of the Catholic bishops who was opposed to the dogma of papal\ninfallibility, Reinkens, published a book bearing the remarkable title\n_Revolution and Church_. In this book a thought is suggested which\nconnects the Roman Curia with political disturbances that occur in the\nworld. The author regards the declaration of papal infallibility as\nanother step forward in the imperialistic program of the Curia looking\ntowards world-dominion. He argues that it is in the interest of the\nVatican policies to foment trouble and breed revolutions in the\ncommonwealths of the world. \"The thoughts of the Roman Curia,\" he says,\n\"are not the thoughts of God. Inasmuch, however, as it is these latter\nthat are realized with increasing force in the history of the world, and\nthat animate the formation of every true civil and ecclesiastical\ninstitution, the Curia is gradually forced into a conflict with the\nwhole world. . . . The Curia (to carry its aims into effect) tries one\nlast means: its last attempt is to bring about a revolution. As 'the\nChurch' succeeded in digging her charter out of the ruins of the\ncommonwealths of the ancient world, so the spirits of Vaticanism hope\nagain to rebuild the palace of their dominion out of ruins.\" (p. 4.)\nAgain: \"Bishop Hefele entertains the fear that the recent elevation of\nthe Pope to power (the infallibility dogma) will soon become the primary\ndogma in the instruction of children. We regret to say that this fear\nhas proven well founded: all the governments, even the German, aid in\nthis instruction of the schoolchildren, because they retain religious\ninstruction on a confessional basis [we in America say on \"sectarian\"\nlines], hence also that prescribed by the Vatican, as obligatory, and\nthe infallibilist clergy is salaried by the State for providing this\ninstruction  The divine authority of the Pope extending over all men\ntends to disturb the minds of the children in the schools: they are\ntaught at an early age to obey the Viceregent of God in preference to\nobeying the Emperor and the State. In the higher schools this is done by\nthe clergy that is commissioned to teach in such schools.\" (p. 7.)\nAgain: \"The Roman order of the Jesuits is not only spread like a net\nover all countries, but it sinks its roots into every age, sex, estate,\nand loosens and forces apart the ligaments of civil institutions.\" (p.\n8.)\n\nLuther's views on human free will are brought forward once more to show\nthat his teaching necessarily is hostile to liberty. Luther's famous\nreply to Erasmus _On the Bondage of the Will_ is made to do yeoman's\nservice in this respect. What Luther has declared regarding the\nsovereignty of God's rulership over men, regarding the relation of God\nalso to the evil existing in this world, regarding the absence of chance\nin the affairs of men, regarding man's utter helplessness over and\nagainst the supreme will of God, is cited to prove that Luther's\nteaching leads, not to liberty, but either to recklessness or despair.\nLuther's views on \"the captive, or enslaved, will\" are declared to be\nthe most degrading and demoralizing teaching that men have been offered\nduring the last centuries. Luther's famous illustration, _viz_., that\nman is like a horse which either God or the devil rides, has prompted\nthe following remarks of one of Luther's most recent critics: \"This\nparable summarizes the whole of Luther's teaching on the vital and\nall-important subject of man's free will. . . . All who are honest and\nfearless of consequences must admit in frankest terms that Luther's\nteaching on free will, as expounded in his book, and explicitly making\nGod the author of man's evil thoughts and deeds, cannot but lend a\nmighty force to the passions and justify the grossest violations of the\nmoral law. Indeed, the enemy of souls, as Anderson remarks, 'could not\ninspire a doctrine more likely to effect his wicked designs than\nLuther's teaching oil the enslavement of the human will.'\" There is a\ndogmatic reason for this excoriation of Luther: Rome's teaching of\nrighteousness by works and human merit. The same author says, in\nimmediate connection with the foregoing: \"Likening man to a 'beast of\nburden,' does Luther not maintain that man is utterly powerless 'by\nreason of his fallen nature' to lead a godly life, and merit by the\npractise of virtue the rewards of eternal happiness? Does he not say:\n'It is written in the hearts of men that there is no freedom of will,'\nthat 'all takes place in accordance with inexorable necessity,' and\nthat, even 'were free will offered him, he should not care to have it'?\nBut does not all this contradict the Spirit of God when, speaking in the\nBook of Ecclesiasticus, He says: 'Before man is life and death, good and\nevil; that which he shall choose shall be given him'?\"\n\nWe submitted in chap. 15 the Scriptural evidence on the spiritual\ndisability of man. (The passage from Ecclesiasticus in the last\nquotation is not Scripture.) It is useless to argue with a person who\nrefuses to accept this teaching of Scripture. We can only repeat what we\nsaid before: Let the advocates of human free will proceed to do what\nthey claim they are able to do, and do it thoroughly. No one will\nbegrudge them the crown of glory when they obtain it. On the other hand,\nthey will have none but themselves to blame if they do not obtain it. In\nthe light of God's holy Word, in the light, moreover, of the experience\nof the most spiritual-minded and saintly men that have lived on earth,\nwe see in the claim of the advocates of human free will regarding the\nfulfilment of God's Law nothing but a vain boast, and a most mischievous\nattempt to be smarter than God. The theory of salvation by merit is the\nmost disastrous risk that the human heart can take. Christ has\nmercifully warned men not to take this risk. If they will not hear Him,\nthey will have to perish in their sins (John 8, 24).\n\nIn chap. 15 we also explained Luther's views on human free will in the\naffairs of this life. We only have to add a word on the subject of\ncontingency. Are Luther's Catholic, critics really so blind as not to\nsee that man even in his ordinary affairs of common every-day life is\nsubject to the inscrutable government of God? Our physical life in its\nmost trivial aspects is entirely dependent not only on the laws of\nnature, which are nothing but the order which the Creator has appointed\nfor the created universe, but also on extraordinary acts of God over\nwhich no man has control. The farmer sows his wheat and expects to reap\na crop. How? By reason of the power of germination which the Creator has\nput in the grain, and the laws which govern atmospheric changes, which\nlaws, again, the Creator governs. The farmer can do nothing to make the\nwheat grow and ripen. He is utterly dependent upon God.--A merchant\ndecides that he will make a business trip to New York. He will leave the\nnext morning on the nine o'clock train. He orders his transportation,\nand the next morning-he does not leave. \"Something happened; I had to\nchange my plans,\" he tells his friends. Ah, says our Catholic critic,\nbut was he not free to change his mind? We say: You may talk as much as\nyou wish about the person's freedom; the fact remains that the person\nwould not have changed his mind unless he had to. - Let us follow this\nmerchant a little further: He actually starts on his trip two days\nlater. He is to arrive at his destination at two o'clock in the\nafternoon of the next day, and very much depends on his arriving just at\nthat time. But he does not even get to Cincinnati. \"Something happened,\"\nhe wires to his friend. And now his human free will goes into operation\nagain: he changes his mind. - \"Man proposes, but God disposes,\" this\nbelief is ineradicably written into the consciousness of all intelligent\nmen, even of intelligent pagans, and no philosophy of free will will\nwipe it out. The wise farmer, after he has finished sowing his field,\nsays, \"God willing, I shall reap a good crop.\" The wise merchant says,\n\"God willing, I shall be in New York to-morrow.\" And God approves of\nthis wise reservation which causes the prudent to submit their most\nordinary actions to divine revision. He says in Jas. 4, 13-16: \"Go to\nnow, ye that say, To-day or to-morrow we will go into such a city, and\ncontinue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain, whereas ye know\nnot what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a\nvapor that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For\nthat ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or\nthat. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.\"\nLet Luther's Catholic critics wrestle with these and similar texts of\nScripture, with these and similar facts of daily life. Luther has\nrightly declared the sovereignty of God a mighty ax and thunderbolt that\nshatters the assertion of human free will.\n\nWe have shown that Luther is no fatalist. His warning, on the one hand,\nnot to disregard the secret will of God, and on the other, not to seek\nto find it out, is a masterpiece of wisdom. In view of the absolute\nsovereignty of God and man's absolute dependence upon it, Luther urges\nman to go to work in his chosen occupation in childlike reliance upon\nGod. He is to employ to the utmost capacity all his God-given energies\nof mind and body and work as if everything depended on his industry,\nstrength, prudence, thrift, planning, and arranging. Having done all,\nhe is to say: Dear Lord, it is all subject to Thy approval. Thou art\nMaster; do Thou boss my business. If Thou overrulest my plans, I have\nnothing to say; Thou knowest better. Not my will, but Thine, be done.\n\nThis is the whole truth in a nutshell that Luther drives home in that\npart of his reply to Erasmus which treats of contingency. If ever\nstatements garbled from the context are unfair to the author, what the\nCatholics are constantly doing in quoting Luther on the Bondage of the\nWill is one of the most glaring exhibitions of unfairness on record.\nThis treatise of Luther deserves to be studied thoroughly and\nrepeatedly, and measured against the facts of the common experience of\nall men. For a profitable study of this treatise there is, moreover,\nrequired a very humble mind, a mind that knows its sin, and is sincere\nin acknowledging its insufficiency.\n\nThe generation of Luther and the generations after him have had this\nparticular teaching of Luther before them four hundred years. What\neffect has it had on human progress in every field of secular activity\nin Protestant lands? Has it created that chaos and confusion which\nCatholics claim it must inevitably lead to? Quite the contrary has\nhappened. And now let the patrons of the theory of human free will\nmeasure their own success as recorded by history against that of\nProtestants.\n\n\n25. \"The Adam and Eve of the New Gospel of Concubinage.\"\n\nThis is the honorary title which Catholics bestow upon Martin Luther and\nCatherine von Bora, who were married June 13, 1525, during the Peasants'\nWar. Luther was forty-two years old at the time and his bride past\ntwenty-six. She had left the cloister two years before her marriage, and\nhad found employment during that time in the home of one of the citizens\nof Wittenberg. Their first child, Hans, was born June 7, 1526.\n\nThe grounds on which Catholics object to this marriage are, chiefly,\nthree. In the first place, they declare the marriage the outcome of an\nimpure relation which had existed between Luther and Catherine prior to\ntheir marriage. The marriage had virtually become a matter of necessity,\nto prevent greater scandal. Moreover, in this impure relationship Luther\nwith his lascivious and lustful mind, in which fleshly desires were\ncontinually raging, had been the prime mover. The second ground on which\nCatholics object to Luther's marriage is, because Luther held\nprofessedly low views of the virtue of chastity and the state of\nmatrimony. He had stripped matrimony of its sacramental character, and\nregarded it as a mere physical necessity and a social and civil\ncontract. Thirdly, Catholics criticize Luther's marriage because it was\nentered into by both the contracting parties in violation of a sacred\nvow: Luther had been a monk and Catherine a nun, both sworn to perpetual\ncelibacy.\n\nMoral cleanness is indelibly stamped upon hundreds of pages of Luther's\nwritings. The Sixth Commandment in its wider application to the mutual\nrelation of the sexes and the sexual condition of the individual was to\nLuther the solemn voice of God by which the holy and wise Creator guards\nand protects the fountains whence springs human life. \"Because there is\namong us,\" he says, \"such a shameful mixture and the very dregs of all\nkinds of vice and lewdness, this commandment is also directed against\nall manner of impurity, whatever it may be called; and not only is the\nexternal act forbidden, but every kind of cause, incitement, and means,\nso that the heart, the lips, and the whole body may be chaste and afford\nno opportunity, help, or persuasion for impurity. And not only this, but\nthat we may also defend, protect, and rescue wherever there is danger\nand need; and give help and counsel, so as to maintain our neighbor's\nhonor. For wherever you allow such a thing when you could prevent it, or\nconnive at it as if it did not concern you, you are as truly guilty as\nthe one perpetrating the deed. Thus it is required, in short, that every\none both live chastely himself and help his neighbor do the same.\"\n(_Large Catechism_, p. 419.) The reason why God in the Sixth Commandment\nrefers to only one form of sexual impurity Luther states correctly thus:\n\"He expressly mentions adultery, because among the Jews it was a command\nand appointment that every one must be married. Therefore also the young\nwere early married, so that the state of celibacy was held in small\nesteem, neither were public prostitution and lewdness tolerated as now.\nTherefore adultery was the most common form of unchastity among them.\"\n(_Ibid_.)\n\nIn his _Appeal to the German Nobility_ Luther says: \"Is it not a\nterrible thing that we Christians should maintain public brothels,\nthough we all vow chastity in our baptism? I well know all that can be\nsaid on this matter; that it is not peculiar to one nation, that it\nwould be difficult to demolish it, and that it is better thus than that\nvirgins, or married women, or honorable women should be dishonored. But\nshould not the spiritual and temporal powers combine to find some means\nof meeting these difficulties without any such heathen practise? If the\npeople of Israel existed without this scandal, why should not a\nChristian nation be able do so? How do so many towns and villages manage\nto exist without these houses? Why should not great cities be able to do\nso? . . . It is the duty of those in authority to see the good of their\nsubjects. But if those in authority considered how young people might be\nbrought together in marriage, the prospect of marriage would help every\nman and protect him from temptations.\" (10, 349; transl. by Waring.)\n\nThis is the Luther of whom Catholic writers say that he would not be\nconsidered qualified to sit with a modern Vice Commission.\n\nBut what about the many coarse references in Luther's writings to sexual\nmatters-references which are unprintable nowadays? Do these not show\nthat Luther was far from being even an ordinary gentleman, that he was\ndepraved in thought and vulgar nauseating, in speech whenever he\napproached the subject of marriage and sexual conditions? We have just\ncited a few of Luther's references to these matters. They are clean and\nproper. We could fill pages with them, and they would prove most\nprofitable reading in our loose, profligate, and adulterous age. Those\nother references which are also found in Luther's writings should be\nstudied in their connection. Leaving out of the account humorous\nreferences and playful remarks, which only malice can twist into a\nlascivious meaning, they are indignant and scornful expostulations with\nthe defenders and practisers of vice that flaunted its shame in the face\nof the public. Righteous anger will give a person the courage to speak\nout boldly and in no mincing words about things which otherwise nauseate\nhim. When Catholic writers cull from Luther vile and disgusting remarks\nabout sexual affairs, it should be investigated to whom Luther made\nthose remarks, and what reason he had for making them. There is another\nside to this matter, and that concerns medieval Catholicism itself. We\nhave indicated in sundry places in this review the social conditions in\nrespect of the sex relations that existed under the spiritual\nsovereignty of the Roman Church in Luther's day in the very city of\nRome, and had grown up and were being fostered by her leading men.\nLuther's references to lustfulness are paraded as evidence of the lust\nthat was consuming him; they are, in reality, evidences of the lust that\nhe knew to be raging in very prominent people with whom he had dealings.\n\nLuther's words and teaching would count for little if his personal\nconduct and his acts were in open contradiction to his chaste\nprofessions. We would simply have to set him down as a hypocrite. But so\nwould the people in Luther's own day have done. It is a poor argument to\nsay that the common people were no match for Luther in an argument. They\nwere cowed into silence, they were afraid to tell him to his face that\nhe ought to practise what he preached. Luther's work proved the\nspiritual emancipation of the common people, and one of the effects\nwhich mark his reformatory work is the intelligent layman, who forms his\nown judgment on what he hears and sees, and speaks out to his superiors.\nThe Wittenbergers in Luther's day were not a set of ninnies; the\nconstant association with the professors and students of the university,\nthe growing fame of their town, which brought many strangers to it,\nimportant civil and religious affairs on which they had to come to a\ndecision, had made many of them far-sighted and resolute men of affairs.\nLuther's home life before and after his marriage was open to public\ninspection as few homes are. The most intimate and delicate affairs had\nto be arranged before company at times. In a small town-and Wittenberg\nwas no modern metropolis-what one person knows becomes public\ninformation in a short time. Small communities have no secrets, or at\nleast find it extremely difficult to have any.\n\nBut the lewdness which Luther attacked in his writings on chastity\nexisted chiefly among persons of wealth and among the nobility. Not a\nfew of them resented Luther's invectives against their mode of life.\nThey surely did not lack the courage nor the ability to express\nthemselves in retaliation against Luther if they had known him to be\nimmoral himself while preaching morality to others. Last, not least,\nthere were the Catholic priests and dignitaries of the Roman Church\nwhose scandalous life Luther exposed. Aside from their disagreement from\nLuther in point of doctrine, personal revenge animated not a few of them\nwith the desire to find a flaw in Luther's conduct. A few reckless\nspirits among them insinuated and declared openly that Luther was\nimmoral, but the animus back of the charge was so well understood at\nthe time, and the people who were in daily and close touch with Luther\nwere so fully convinced of the purity of his life, that the charges were\ntreated with contempt.\n\nLuther's life from the age of puberty to his marriage was, indeed, a\nfight against temptations to unchastity. Is it anything else in the case\nof other men? The physical effects of adolescence, as we remarked\nbefore, are a natural and morally pure phenomenon; Luther's frank way of\nspeaking of them does not make them impure. But this physical condition\nin a growing young man or woman may become the occasion for impure acts.\nAgainst these Luther strove as every Christian strives against them who\nhas not the special grace of which our Lord speaks Matt. 19, 12, in the\nfirst part of the verse. Luther had his flesh fairly well in subjection\nto the Spirit. History has not recorded those acts of immorality which\nhis enemies insinuate or openly charge him with. The illegitimate\nchildren which are imputed to him were born in Catholic fancy. His\nconstitutional amorous propensities, too, are fiction. Though Luther\nadmits a few months prior to his marriage that he wears no armor plate\naround his heart, it is known that he had been all his life anything\nrather than a ladies' man.\n\nLuther's courtship of Catherine--if we may call it that--was almost void\nof romance. The nine nuns who had fled from the cloister at Nimpschen to\nescape \"the impurities of the life of celibacy,\" had turned to\nWittenberg in their trouble. They were not seeking new impurities, but\nrunning away from old ones. What was more natural than that they should\nseek the protection of the man whose teaching had opened the road to\nliberty for them. They did not come to Wittenberg to surrender\nthemselves to Luther, but to seek his protection, advice, and help in\nbeginning a new, natural life after the unnatural life which they had\nbeen leading. Luther responded to the call of distress. He did not\nreceive them into his own domicile in the cloister where he lived, but\nfound shelter for them with kind citizens of the town. Next, he found\nhusbands for them. In less than two years after the escape from the\ncloister all had been respectably married, except Catherine. A\nlove-affair of hers with Jerome Baumgaertner of Nuernberg had terminated\nunhappily, in spite of Luther's urging the young man. Another choice\nwhich Luther proposed to her--Dr. Glatz of Orlamuende--was declined\nperemptorily by Catherine, because, it seems, she had read the man's\ncharacter. In declining this second offer, Catherine had made complaint\nto Luther's friend Amsdorf that Luther was trying to marry her against\nher will. She appears to have been a frank and resolute woman; in her\nconversation with Amsdorf she remarked that her decision would be\naltogether different if either he or even Luther were to ask for her\nhand. This was not, as has been said, a bald invitation to either of\nthese two gentlemen, but only Catherine's energetic way of explaining\nwhat sort of a husband she would like, and why she would not take Glatz.\nAmsdorf so understood her remark and made nothing of it. By an accident\nhe came to relate it to Luther six months later, when the latter had\nwritten to him in great despondency, describing his lonely life and the\ndisorderly state of his domicile which needed very much the care of a\nwoman's hand. Then it was that Amsdorf related what Catherine had\nremarked. Luther had never thought of her in such a relation. He had\nbeen attracted, it seems, by another of the nine escaped nuns, Ave von\nSchoenfeld, but whatever affection he may have entertained for her must\nhave been a passing incident, never seriously entertained, for it must\nbe remembered that at that time Luther declared that he would live and\ndie a bachelor. Besides, Ave had now been happily married to another. At\nthis juncture the influence of another woman enters into the private\nlife of Luther. Argula von Staufen, a noblewoman who had been won over\nto the cause of the Reformation and was actively engaged in breaking\ndown the power of the hierarchy even by her pen, wrote to Luther,\nexpressing her surprise that he who had written so ably and so well on\nthe holy estate of matrimony was still single. Among the peasants, too,\nthe question was being debated whether Luther would follow up his\npreaching with the logical action. Luther was ruminating on these\nmatters when the Peasants' Revolt broke out, and with them in his mind\nwent to Mansfeld. He soon reached the conclusion that he owed it to his\nprofession as a preacher of the divine Word, to his Creator, to himself,\nand to the lonely Catherine to marry. He foresaw that the celibate\nclergy of Rome would raise a hue and cry about the act, but he\nconsidered it a noble work to offend these men, because they had by\ntheir law of celibacy offended the most holy God. He would marry to\nspite all of them, and the Pope, and the devil. This resolution was\npromptly carried out, for Luther was not in the habit of dallying long\nwith serious matters. If he had asked his timid friend Melanchthon, he\nwould most likely have been advised against his marriage. Faint-hearted\nPhilip was not the man to advise in a matter which at the time required\na heroic faith. Philip, therefore, was duly shocked when he heard about\nit. His consternation is now used by Catholics to prove that he regarded\nLuther's marriage as a wanton act prompted by lust. This is utterly\nunhistorical: Philip was only afraid of the wild talk that would now be\nstarted against all of them. On the right and duty of the clergy to\nmarry he believed with Luther.\n\nAnd now a word about the chastity of Rome, particularly that peculiar\nbrand which was inaugurated by Gregory VII for the Roman clergy and the\nreligious of both sexes, and riveted upon them by the Council of Trent-\nthe chastity of the celibate state. That the unnatural principle had\nnever worked out toward true chastity, that the robbery which it has\nperpetrated on men and women had to be compensated for by connivance at,\nand open permission of, concubinage, is a matter of current knowledge.\nLuther's advice to priests and bishops who had opened their hearts to\nhim on the state of their chastity to marry their cooks, even if they\nhad to do it secretly; rather than maintain the other relation to them,\nwas a good man's effort to meet a grave difficulty as best he could.\nThis advice is now used to show that Luther was ready to approve any\nkind of cohabitation. The very opposite is true: it was because he did\nnot approve of any kind of sexual intercourse, but because he desired to\nobtain some kind of a legal character for that relation, that he gave\nthe advice to which we have referred.\n\nBefore the assembled representatives of the Church and of the German\nnation the following statements were read in Article XXIII of the\nAugsburg Confession: \"There has been common complaint concerning the\nexamples of priests who were not chaste. For that reason, also, Pope\nPius is reported to have said that there were certain reasons why\nmarriage was taken away from priests, but that there were far weightier\nones why it ought to be given back; for so Platina writes. Since,\ntherefore, our priests were desirous to avoid these open scandals, they\nmarried wives, and taught that it was lawful for them to contract\nmatrimony. First, because Paul says (1 Cor. 7, 2): 'To avoid\nfornication, let every man have his own wife.' Also (9): 'It is better\nto marry than to burn.' Secondly, Christ says (Matt. 19, 11): 'All men\ncannot receive this saying,' where He teaches that not all men are fit\nto lead a single life; for God created man for procreation (Gen. 1, 23).\nNor is it in man's power, without a singular gift and work of God, to\nalter this creation. Therefore, those that are not fit to lead a single\nlife ought to contract matrimony. For no man's law, no vow, can annul\nthe commandment and ordinance of God. For these reasons the priests\nteach that it is lawful for them to marry wives. It is also evident that\nin the ancient Church priests were married men. For Paul says (1 Tim. 3,\n2) that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. And in Germany, four\nhundred years ago for the first time, the priests were violently\ncompelled to lead a single life, who indeed offered such resistance that\nthe Archbishop of Mayence, when about to publish the Pope's decree\nconcerning this matter, was almost killed in the tumult raised by the\nenraged priests. And so harsh was the dealing in the matter that not\nonly were marriages forbidden for the time to come, but also existing\nmarriages were torn asunder, contrary to all laws, divine and human,\ncontrary even to the canons themselves, made not only by the Popes, but\nby most celebrated councils.\n\n\"Seeing also that, as the world is aging, man's nature is gradually\ngrowing weaker, it is well to guard that no more vices steal into\nGermany. Furthermore, God ordained marriage to be a help against human\ninfirmity. The old canons themselves say that the old rigor ought now\nand then, in the latter times, to be relaxed because of the weakness of\nmen; which, it is to be devoutly wished, were also done in this matter.\nAnd it is to be expected that the churches shall at length lack pastors,\nif marriage should any longer be forbidden.\n\n\"But while the commandment of God is in force, while the custom of the\nChurch is well known, while impure celibacy causes many scandals,\nadulteries, and other crimes deserving the punishments of just\nmagistrates, yet it is a marvelous thing that in nothing is more cruelty\nexercised than against the marriage of priests. God has given\ncommandment to honor marriage. By the laws of all well-ordered\ncommonwealths, even among the heathen, marriage is most highly honored.\nBut now men, and also priests, are cruelly put to death, contrary to the\nintent of the canons, for no other cause than marriage. Paul (in 1 Tim.\n4, 3) calls that a doctrine of devils which forbids marriage. This may\nnow be readily understood when the law against marriage is maintained by\nsuch penalties.\n\n\"But as no law of man can annul the commandment of God, so neither can\nit be done by any vow. Accordingly Cyprian also advises that women who\ndo not keep the chastity they have promised should marry. His words are,\nthese (Book I, Epistle XIX): 'But if they be unwilling or unable to\npersevere, it is better for them to marry than to fall into the fire by\ntheir lusts; at least, they should give no offense to their brethren and\nsisters.' And even the canons show some leniency toward those who have\ntaken vows before the proper age, as heretofore has generally been the\ncase.\" (p. 48 f.)\n\nNot a word of dissent arose in the august assembly while these facts and\narguments were presented. The Germans had not forgotten the riotous\nproceedings and the cruel heartaches that were caused by the enforcement\nof the decrees of the Lenten Synod of 1074 under the theocratic Gregory\nVII, who wanted to set up a universal monarchy over the whole world and\nrequired an unmarried priesthood as his consecrated army. In his\nhistorical novel, _Die Letzten ihres Geschlechts_, M. Ruediger has\ngraphically described the scenes enacted throughout Germany when\nGregory's inhuman order was put into effect.\n\nSimilar statements regarding priestly celibacy are found in Art. XXVII\nof the First, and in Art. XXIX of the Second Helvetic Confession of the\nReformed. The Episcopal Church has declared itself to the same effect in\nArt. XXXII of the Thirty-nine Articles.\n\nHowever, did not Luther and Catherine both perjure themselves by\nmarrying? What about their religious vow, which had been given to God?\nAlso on this matter we might cite Luther's numerous statements and\nexpository writings, but we prefer to quote again the Augsburg\nConfession which grew out of Luther's testimony for the truth. In\nArticle XXVII the Lutheran confessors state: \"What is taught on our part\nconcerning monastic vows will be better understood if it be remembered\nwhat has been the state of the monasteries, and how many things were\ndaily done in those very monasteries, contrary to the canons. In\nAugustine's time they were free associations. Afterward, when discipline\nwas corrupted, vows were everywhere added for the purpose of restoring\ndiscipline, as in a carefully planned prison. Gradually, many other\nobservances were added besides vows. And these fetters were laid upon\nmany before the lawful age, contrary to the canons. [Catherine von Bora\nhad taken the veil at the age of sixteen.] Many also entered into this\nkind of life through ignorance, being unable to their own strength,\nthough they were of sufficient age. Being thus ensnared, they were\ncompelled to remain, even though some could have been freed by the\nprovision of the canons. And this was more the case in convents of women\nthan of monks, although more consideration should have been shown the\nweaker sex. This rigor displeased many good men before this time, who\nsaw that young men and maidens were thrown into convents for a living,\nand what unfortunate results came of this procedure, and what scandals\nwere created, what snares were cast upon consciences! They were grieved\nthat the authority of the canons in so momentous a matter was utterly\ndespised and set aside.\n\n\"To these evils was added an opinion concerning vows, which, it is well\nknown, in former times, displeased even those monks who were more\nthoughtful. They taught that vows were equal to Baptism; they taught\nthat, by this kind of life, they merited forgiveness of sins and\njustification before God. Yea, they added that the monastic life not\nonly merited righteousness before God, but even greater things, because\nit kept not only the precepts, but also the so-called 'evangelical\ncounsels.'\n\n\"Thus they made men believe that the profession of monasticism was far\nbetter than Baptism, and that the monastic life was mere meritorious\nthan that of magistrates, than the life of pastors and such like, who\nserve their calling in accordance with God's commands, without any\nman-made services. None of these things can be denied; for they appear\nin their own books. . . .\n\n\"These things we have rehearsed without odious exaggerations, to the end\nthat the doctrine of our teachers, on this point, might be better\nunderstood. First, concerning such as contract matrimony.\" Here the 27th\nArticle rehearses in the main the argument of Article XXIII.\n\n\"In the second place, why do our adversaries exaggerate the obligation\nor effect of a vow, when, at the same time, they have not a word to say\nof the nature of the vow itself, that it ought to be in a thing\npossible, free, and chosen spontaneously and deliberately? But it is not\nknown to what extent perpetual chastity is in the power of man. And how\nfew are they who have taken the vow spontaneously and deliberately!\nYoung men and maidens, before they are able to judge, are persuaded, and\nsometimes even compelled, to take the vow. Wherefore it is not fair to\ninsist so rigorously on the obligation, since it is granted by all that\nit is against the nature of a vow to take it without spontaneous and\ndeliberate action. . . .\n\n\"But although it appears that God's command concerning marriage delivers\nmany from their vows, yet our teachers introduce also another argument\nconcerning vows to show that they are void. For every service of God\nordained and chosen of men without commandment of God to merit\njustification and grace is wicked as Christ says (Matt. 15, 9): 'In vain\nthey worship Me with the commandments of men.' And Paul teaches\neverywhere that righteousness is not to be sought by our own observances\nand acts of worship devised by men, but that it comes by faith to those\nwho believe that they are received by God into grace for Christ's sake.\"\n\nThe confessors then proceed to show how spiritual pride was fostered by\nthe monkish teaching of perfection, and how by their rites and\nordinances and rules the true worship of God was obscured, and men were\nwithdrawn from useful pursuits in life to be buried in cloisters. They\nconclude: \"All these things, since they are false and empty, make vows\nnull and void.\" (p. 57 ff.)\n\nLuther never had taken his own nor other monks' vows lightly. He spoke\nand wrote to Melanchthon from the Wartburg against the mere throwing off\nof the vows on the ground that they were not binding anyway. He argued\nthe sacredness of the oath, and held that first the consciences of those\nbound by vows must be set free through the evangelical teaching; then,\nwhen they are qualified to make an intelligent choice on spiritual\ngrounds, they may discard their vows. When he married Catherine, he had\nlong become a free man in his mind. So had Catherine.\n\nLuther is charged with having entertained a purely secular view of the\nessence of marriage. It is true that Luther repudiated the Catholic view\nof the sacramental character of matrimony. By the teaching of the Roman\nChurch a legal marriage can be effected only by the ratification of the\nmarriage-promise and the blessing spoken over the couple by a\nconsecrated priest, who thus, by his official quality, imparts to the\nmarriage which he solemnizes a sacred character. In Luther's days it was\nheld that \"the Church alone properly had jurisdiction over the question\nof marriage, and the canonical laws (of the Church) included civil as\nwell as spiritual affairs. Luther repudiated these canonical laws on the\nsubject of marriage, and separated its civil from its ecclesiastical\naspect. He maintained that marriage, as the basis of all family rights,\nlies entirely within the province of the State, and mast be regulated of\nnecessity by the civil government. 'Marriage and the married state,' he\ndeclared in his _Traubuechlein_ (10, 721), 'are civil matters, in the\nmanagement of which we priests and ministers of the Church must not\nintermeddle. But when we are required, either before the church, or in\nthe church, to bless the pair, to pray over them, or even to marry them,\nthen it is our bounden duty to do so.'\" (Waring, p. 221.)\n\nIn 1906, a papal decree was published which declares any betrothal or\nmarriage entered into by a Catholic with a Catholic, or by a Catholic\nwith a non-Catholic, to be valid only on condition that either the\nbetrothal or the marriage take place in the presence or with the\nsanction of a Catholic priest  This decree is known as the _Ne Temere_\ndecree. It is called thus according to a custom prevailing in the\nCatholic Church by which the official deliverances of the Popes are\ncited by giving the initial word, or words, of such a deliverance. The\ntwo Latin terms _Ne Temere_ are a warning against reckless action, and\nthe reckless action intended is the one indicated above.\n\nWe quote a few statements from the _Ne Temere_ decree, from the work of\nDr. Leitner of Passau, which was issued in its fifth edition at\nRegensburg in 1908. Dr. Leitner is a Catholic professor at Passau and\nbears the title \"Doctor of Theology and Canon Law.\" Dr. Leitner's book\nis in German: _Die Verlobungs- und Eheschliessungsform nach dem Dekrete\nNe Temere_, which means, \"The Form of Betrothal and Marriage according\nto the _Ne Temere_ Decree.\" Throughout his book the author cites the\noriginal language of the papal deliverance. The decree reaffirms, in the\nfirst place, the decree of the Council of Trent, to this effect: \"The\nHoly Congregation declares any person who dares to enter into the estate\nof matrimony, except upon license from the parish priest or of some\nother priest of the same parish, or of the ordinary, and of two or three\nwitnesses, incapacitated for such a contract, and contracts of this kind\nare declared null and void.\" (p.9.)\n\nRegarding betrothals the decree declares: \"Only such betrothals are\nregarded as valid and efficacious, according to the law of the Church,\nas are set down in a document signed by the contracting parties and by\nthe parish priest, or the local ordinary, and by at least two\nwitnesses.\"\n\nRegarding marriage the decree hands down the following ruling: \"Only\nsuch marriages are valid as are entered into in the presence of the\nparish priest, or the local ordinary, or of a priest delegated for the\npurpose by either of these, and of two witnesses.\" Again: \"To the above\nlaw are amenable all persons baptized in the Catholic Church, also who\nhave joined the Catholic Church from errorist or schismatic societies\n(notwithstanding the fact that either former or the latter have\napostatized later) whenever they entered into betrothal or matrimony.\"\nLastly: \"The laws apply to the aforenamed Catholics whenever they enter\ninto betrothal or matrimony with non-Catholics, baptized or not, even\nwhen they have obtained a dispensation from the obstacle of a mixed\nreligion or of a disparity of cult; except the Holy See decrees\notherwise for a certain or locality.\"\n\nThe operations of this decree have been peculiar. Some countries as\nGermany and Belgium, promptly secured exemption from it. In Canada the\ndecree has caused law suits. One of them, Morin _vs_. Le Croix, was\ntried in Justice Greenshield's court at Montreal, June 21, 1912. The\njudge in his ruling said; \"No Church, be it the powerful Roman Catholic\nChurch, or the equally great and powerful Anglican Catholic Church,\npossesses any authority to overrule the civil law. Such authority as any\nChurch has (in the matter of marriages) is given it by the civil law and\nis subservient to the civil law.\"\n\nThe _Protestant Magazine_, in Vol. IV, No. 2, published a facsimile of a\nbaptismal certificate for Anna Susanna Dagonya, daughter of Stephen\nDagonya, Roman Catholic, and Mary Csoma, Reformed, who were married at\nPerth Amboy, N. J., August 4, 1909, by Rev. Louis Nannassy, Reformed.\nTheir child was born November 6, 1910, and baptized by Rev. Francis\nGross, priest of the Holy Cross Church at Perth Amboy. In writing out\nthe baptismal certificate, the priest has stated that the child is\nillegitimate, and that the parents are living in concubinage.\n\nUnder the civil laws of most states the _Ne Temere_ decree will lead to\nactions for libel. As related to the authority of the State, it is\nriotous and seditious. For the State will protect even those for whom\nthe decree is specially published in their civil rights as over against\ntheir Church. But the decree shows to what absurdities the logical\napplication of Rome's teaching on matrimony leads. Concubinage--that is\nthe name which it applies to every marriage which she has not\nsanctioned. Marriages of this kind began to be celebrated in countries\nwhich Rome had theretofore held firmly under its jurisdiction, when\nMartin Luther and Catherine von Bora were married. Accordingly, they are\nentitled to the distinction of being called the Adam and Eve of the\nnon-Catholic paradise of concubinage which pretends to be matrimony.\nEnough said.\n\n\n26. Luther an Advocate of Polygamy.\n\nDuring the debate on the abolition of polygamy Congressman Roberts of\nUtah, on January 29, 1900, made a speech in the House of Representatives\nin which he said: \"Here, in the resident portion of this city you\nerected--May 21, 1884--a magnificent statue of stern old Martin Luther,\nthe founder of Protestant Christendom. You hail him as the apostle of\nliberty and the inaugurator of a new and prosperous era of civilization\nfor mankind, but he himself sanctioned polygamy with which I am charged.\nFor me you have scorn, for him a monument.\" Taking his cue from this\nMormon speaker, one of the most recent of Luther's Catholic critics\nremarks: \"Let the wives and mothers of America ponder well the\npolygamous phase of the Reformation before they say 'Amen' to the\nunsavory and brazen laudations of the profligate opponent of Christian\nmarriage, Christian decency, and Christian propriety. Compare the\nteachings of Luther on polygamy with those of Joseph Smith, the Mormon\nprophet and visionary, and see their striking similarity. Mormonism in\nSalt Lake City, in Utah, which has brought so much disgrace to the\nAmerican people, is but a legitimate outgrowth of Luther and\nLutheranism.\" This, then, is what will have to be done: a comparison\nwill have to be instituted between the teaching of Martin Luther and\nthat of the Mormon prophet on the subject of polygamy. We may assume\nthat the teachings of the latter are universally known, and shall,\naccordingly, confine ourselves to Luther.\n\nTwo curious facts may be noted before we start our investigation of\nLuther's writings: 1. Is it not remarkable that Joseph Smith himself\ndoes not cite Luther as his authority in defense of plural marriages?\nWhat an impression would the man have made, had he known what Mr.\nRoberts and some Catholics know! 2. Charging Lutheranism, that is, the\nLutheran Church, with teaching polygamy, implies that the confessional\nwritings of the Lutheran Church contain this teaching. The person who\nwill furnish the evidence for this charge from the Book of Concord,\nwhich contains the symbolical writings of the Lutheran Church, will\nbecome famous. Mr. Roberts was not so bold as to embrace Lutheranism\namong the sponsors of his polygamous cult; he only spoke of Luther. He\nwas wise. And now, what does Luther say on the subject of polygamy? We\npass by, as unworthy of note, Luther's humorous remarks made in a spirit\nof banter to his wife, that he would marry another wife. Only ill-will\ncan find in this friendly jest an evidence of Luther's polygamous\npropensities.\n\nSerious references to this matter occur in Luther's remarks on the\npractise of polygamy among the Israelites. The Mosaic account of\nAbraham's relation to Agar, the two marriages of Jacob, the regulations\nregarding women who had become captives in war, the harems of the kings\nof Judah and Israel,--all these Biblical records, which have perplexed\nmany a student of the Bible, necessarily interested Luther as a\ntheologian and expounder of the Scriptures. Every reader of the Bible\nhas to form an opinion on these matters. Polygamous thoughts, therefore,\ndid not originate in the lustful mind of Luther, but statements on the\nsubject of polygamy were demanded of him as a religious teacher. He held\nthat the polygamous relations which the Bible notes among the\nIsraelites, even among saintly members of this people, must be explained\neither on the ground of a special dispensation of God for which we do\nnot know the reason, or they must be regarded in the same light as\nChrist regarded the divorces among the Jews of His day, namely, as\nthings which God permits among men because of their hardness of heart,\nand in order to prevent greater evils. (3, 1556.) This view determined\nLuther's attitude toward Carlstadt, after this turbulent spirit had\nquitted Wittenberg and gone to Orlamuende, where he advocated, amongst\nother things, the introduction of polygamy. Inasmuch as Carlstadt did\nnot mean to enforce his strange reforms by arms, as Muenzer and the\npeasants were doing, Luther inclined to condone his views on polygamy.\nHe evidently regards this matter as a matter of public policy, like\nprostitution, which every community and commonwealth must regulate by\nsuch statutes as can be devised, \"because of the hardness of men's\nhearts.\" Luther has frequently propounded this perfectly sound view\nregarding the life and conduct of non-Christians: since these people do\nnot acknowledge the laws of God as binding, it matters little what\npractises they adopt. All that can be done to keep the animal impulses\nin them somewhat in check is to fix certain limits by means of civil\nlaws beyond which their license may not go. For their rejection of God's\nlaws they will have to answer to their future Judge.\n\nIn a letter addressed to Joseph Levin Metzsch of December 9, 1526,\nLuther says: \"Your first question: Whether person may have more than one\nwife? I answer thus: Let unbelievers do what they please; Christian\nliberty, however, is regulated by love (charity), so that all that a\nChristian does is done to serve his fellow-man, provided only that he\ncan render such service without jeopardy and damage to his faith and\nconscience. Nowadays, however, everybody is striving for a liberty that\nprofits and pleases him, without regard for the profit and improvement\nwhich his neighbor might derive from his action. This is contrary to\nthe teaching of St. Paul, who says: 'All things are lawful unto me, but\nall things are not expedient' (1 Cor. 6, 12). Only see that your liberty\ndoes not become an occasion to the flesh. . . . Moreover, although the\npatriarchs had many wives, Christians may not follow their example,\nbecause there is no necessity for doing this, no improvement is obtained\nthereby, and, especially, there is no word of God to justify this\npractise, while great offense and trouble may come from it. Accordingly,\nI do not believe that Christians any longer have this liberty. God would\nhave to publish a command that would declare such a liberty.\" (21a, 901\nf.) To Clemens Ursinus, pastor at Bruck, Luther writes under date of\nMarch 21, 1527: \"Polygamy, which in former times was permitted to the\nJews and Gentiles, cannot be honestly approved of among Christians, and\ncannot be engaged in with a good conscience, unless in an extreme case\nof necessity, as, for instance, when one of the spouses is separated\nfrom the other by leprosy or for a similar cause. Accordingly, you may\nsay to the carnal people (with whom you have to do), if they want to be\nChristians, they must keep married fidelity and bridle their flesh, not\ngive it license. If they want to be heathen, let them do what they\nplease, at their own risk.\" (21a, 928.)\n\nIn his comment on the question of the Pharisees regarding divorce (Matt.\n19, 3-6), Luther says: \"Many divorces occur still among the Turks. If a\nwife does not yield to the husband, nor act according to his whim and\nfancy, he forthwith drives her out of the house, and takes one, two,\nthree, or four additional wives, and defends his action by appealing to\nMoses. They have taken out of Moses such things as please them and\npander to their lust. In Turkey they are very cruel to women; any woman\nthat will not submit is cast aside. They toy with their women like a dog\nwith a rag. When they are weary of one woman, they quickly put her\nbeneath the turf and take another. Moses has said nothing to justify\nthis practise. My opinion is that there is no real married life among\nthe Turks; theirs is a whorish life. It is a terrible tyranny, all the\nmore to be regretted because God does not withhold the common blessing\nfrom their intercourse: children are procreated thereby, and yet the\nmother is sent away by the husband. For this reason there is no true\nmatrimony among the Turks. In my opinion, all the Turks at the present\ntime are bastards.\" (7, 965.)\n\nAll this is plain enough and should suffice to secure Luther against the\ncharge of favoring polygamy. The seeming admission that polygamy might\nbe permissible relates to cases for which the laws of all civilized\nnations make provisions. How a Christian must conduct himself in such a\ncase must be decided on the evidence in each case. Likewise, the\nreference to the Christian's liberty from the law does not mean that the\nChristian has the potential right to polygamy, but it means that he must\nmaintain his monogamous relation from a free and willing choice to obey\nGod's commandments in the power of God's grace. Polygamy, this is the\nfirm conviction of Luther, could only be sanctioned if there were a\nplain command of God to that effect. Luther's remarks about matrimony\namong the Turks should be remembered when Catholics cite Luther's\nremarks about King Ahasuerus dismissing Vashti and summoning Esther, and\nthe right of the husband to take to himself his maid-servant when his\nwife refuses him. By all divine and human laws the matter to which\nLuther refers is a just ground for divorce, and that is all that Luther\ndeclares.\n\nBut did not Luther sanction the bigamy of Philip of Hesse? So he did.\nLuther's decision in this case must be studied in the light of all the\nevidence which we possess. Catholic theologians, before all others,\nshould be able to appreciate Luther's claim that what was said to the\nLandgrave was said to him \"in the person of Christ,\" as the counsel\nwhich a confessor gave to a burdened conscience. Catholics fail to\nmention that Luther repelled bigamous thoughts in Philip of Hesse\nfourteen years before the Landgrave took Margaret von der Saal. The\nevidence was found in the state archives at Kassel, now at Marburg, in\na fragment of a letter which Niedner published in the _Zeitschrift fuer\nhistorische Theologie_, 1852, No. 2, p. 265. The letter is dated\nNovember 28, 1526; Philip's bigamous marriage took place March 9, 1540.\nIn this letter Luther says to Philip: \"As regards the other matter, my\nfaithful warning and advice is that no man, Christians in particular,\nshould have more than one wife, not only for the reason that offense\nwould be given, and Christians must not needlessly give, but most\ndiligently avoid giving, offense, but also for the reason that we have\nno word of God regarding this matter on which we might base a belief\nthat such action would be well-pleasing to God and to Christians. Let\nheathen and Turks do what they please. Some of the ancient fathers had\nmany wives, but they were urged to this by necessity, as Abraham and\nJacob, and later many kings, who according to the law of Moses obtained\nthe wives of their friends, on the death of the latter, as an\ninheritance. The example of the fathers is not a sufficient argument to\nconvince a Christian: he must have, in addition, a divine word that\nmakes him sure, just as they had a word of that kind from God. For where\nthere was no need or cause, the ancient fathers did not have more than\none wife, as Isaac, Joseph, Moses, and many others. For this reason I\ncannot advise for, but must advise against, your intention, particularly\nsince you are a Christian, unless there were an extreme necessity, as,\nfor instance, if the wife were leprous or the husband were deprived of\nher for some other reason. On what grounds to forbid other people such\nmarriages I know not\" (21a, 900 f.) This letter effected that the\nLandgrave did not carry out his intention, but failing, nevertheless, to\nlead a chaste life, he did not commune, except once in extreme illness,\nbecause of his accusing conscience.\n\nHow Luther, fourteen years later, was induced to virtually reverse his\nopinion he has told himself in a lengthy letter to the Elector\nFrederick. This letter is Luther's best justification. It is dated June\n10, 1540, and reads: \"Most serene, high-born Elector, most gracious\nLord:--I am sorry to learn that Your Grace is importuned by the court of\nDresden about the Landgrave's business. Your Grace asks what answer to\ngive the men of Meissen. As the affair was one of the confessional, both\nMelanchthon and I were unwilling to communicate it even to Your Grace,\nfor it is right to keep confessional matters secret, both the sin\nconfessed and the counsel given, and had the Landgrave not revealed the\nmatter and the confessional counsel, there would never have been all\nthis nauseating unpleasantness.--I still say that if the matter were\nbrought before me to-day, I should not be able to give counsel different\nfrom what I did. Setting apart the fact that I know I am not as wise as\nthey think they are, I need conceal nothing, especially as it has\nalready been made known. The state of affairs is as follows: Martin\nBucer brought a letter and pointed out that, on account of certain\nfaults in the Landgrave's wife, the Landgrave was not able to keep\nhimself chaste, and that he had hitherto lived in a way which was not\ngood, but that he would like to be at one with the principal heads of\nthe Evangelic Church, and he declared solemnly before God and his\nconscience that he could not in future avoid such vices unless he were\npermitted to take another wife. We were deeply horrified at this tale\nand the offense which must follow, and we begged his Grace not to do as\nhe proposed. But we were told again that he could not abandon his\nproject, and if he could not obtain what he wanted from us, he would\ndisregard us and turn to the Emperor and Pope. To prevent this we\nhumbly begged that if his Grace would not, or, as he averred before God\nand his conscience, could not, do otherwise, yet that he could keep it a\nsecret. Though necessity compelled him, yet he could not defend his act\nbefore the world and the imperial laws; this he promised to do, and we\naccordingly agreed to help him before God and cover it up as much as\npossible with such examples as that of Abraham. This all happened as\nthough in the confessional, and no one can accuse us of having acted as\nwe did willingly or voluntarily or with pleasure or joy. It was hard\nenough for our hearts, but we could not prevent it, we thought to give\nhis conscience such counsel as we could.--I have indeed learned several\nconfessional secrets, both while I was still a papist and later, which,\nif they were revealed, I should live to deny or else publish the whole\nconfession. Such things belong not to the secular courts, nor are they\nto be published. God has here His own judgment, and must counsel souls\nin matters where no worldly law nor wisdom can help. My preceptor in the\ncloister, a fine old man, had many such affairs, and once had to say of\nthem with a sigh: 'Alas, alas! such things are so perplexed and\ndesperate that no wisdom, law, nor reason can avail; one must commend\nthem to divine goodness.' So instructed, I have, accordingly, in this\ncase also acted agreeably to divine goodness.--But had I known that the\nLandgrave had long before satisfied his desires, and could well satisfy\nthem with others, as I have now just learned that he did with her of\nEschwege, truly no angel would have induced me to give such counsel. I\ngave it only in consideration of his unavoidable necessity and weakness,\nand to put his conscience out of peril, as Bucer represented the case to\nme. Much less would I ever have advised that there should be a public\nmarriage, to which (though he told me nothing of this) a young princess\nand young countess should come, which is truly not to be borne and is\ninsufferable to the whole empire. But I understood and hoped, as long as\nhe had to go the common way with sin and shame and weakness of the\nflesh, that he would take some honorable maiden or other in secret\nmarriage, even if the relation did not have a legal look before the\nworld. My concession was on account of the great need of his\nconscience--such as happened to other great lords. In like manner I\nadvised certain priests in the Catholic lands of Duke George and the\nbishops secretly to marry their cooks.--This was my confessional counsel\nabout which I would much rather have kept silence, but it has been wrung\nfrom me, and I could do nothing but speak. But the men of Dresden speak\nas though I had taught the same for thirteen years, and yet they give us\nto understand what a friendly heart they have to us, and what great\ndesire for love and unity, just as if there were no scandal or sin in\ntheir lives, which are ten times worse before God than anything I ever\nadvised. But the world must always smugly rail at the moat in its\nneighbor's eye, and forget the beam in its own eye. If I must defend all\nI have said or done in former years, especially at the beginning, I must\nbeg the Pope to do the same, for if they defend their former acts (let\nalone their present ones), they would belong to the devil more than to\nGod.--I am not ashamed of my counsel, even if it should be published in\nall the world; but for the sake of the unpleasantness which would then\nfollow, I should prefer, if possible, to have kept it secret. Martin\nLuther, with his own hand.\" (21b, 2467; transl. by Preserved Smith.)\n\nAbout a year later a Hessian preacher, by the name of Johann Lening,\nundertook to justify the bigamy of the Landgrave. Under the pseudonym\n\"Huldricus Neobulus\" he published a \"Dialogus,\" that is, \"an amicable\nconversation between two persons on the question whether it is in\naccordance with, or contrary to, divine, natural, imperial, and\nspiritual laws for a person to have more than one wife at a time,\" etc.\nThe writer defended bigamy. In an unfinished reply to this book Luther\ntakes strong grounds against him. Referring to the author's argument\nthat bigamy was sanctioned by Moses, Luther says: \"The reference to the\nfathers of whom Moses speaks is irrelevant: Moses is dead. Granted,\nhowever, that bigamy was legal in the days of the fathers and Moses,\n--which can never be established,--still they had God's word for it that\nsuch a permission was given them. That we have not. And although it was\npermitted to the Jews and tolerated by God, while God Himself considered\nit wrong, . . . it was merely a dispensation. . . . Now, there is a\ngreat difference between a legal right and a dispensation, or something\nthat is tolerated or permitted. A legal right is not a dispensation, and\na dispensation is not a legal right; whoever does, obtains, or holds\nsomething by a dispensation does not do, obtain, or hold it by legal\nright.\" Luther then enters upon a brief discussion of the bigamous\nrelationships which were created by the Mosaic laws, and explains that\nlegislation as emergency legislation. He says: \"What need is there why\nwe should try to find all sorts of reasons to explain why the fathers\nunder Moses were permitted to have many wives? God is sovereign; He may\nabrogate, alter, mitigate a law as He pleases, for emergency's sake or\nnot. But it does not behoove us to imitate such instances, much less to\nestablish them as a right. But this Tulrich [so Luther calls the unknown\nauthor] rashly declares carnal lust free, and wants to put the world\nback to where it was before the Flood, when they took them wives, not\nlike the Jews by God's permission, or because of an emergency or for\ncharity's sake towards homeless women, as Moses directs, but, as the\ntext says, 'which they chose' (Gen. 6, 2). That is the way nowadays to\nrise to the stars. In this way we have Moses and the fathers with their\nexamples as beautiful cloaks for carnal liberty; we say with our lips\nthat we are following the examples of the fathers, but in very deed we\nact contrary to them. Lord, have mercy! If the world continues, what all\nmay we not expect to happen these times, if even now shameless fellows\nmay print what they please.\" (21b, 2691 f.)\n\nOne might go more exhaustively into the evidence, but the materials here\nsubmitted will suffice to convince most men that, while Luther's advice\nto Philip did create a bigamous relation, Luther was not a defender of\nbigamy. Every one who has had to deal with questions relating to married\nlife knows that situations arise in the matrimonial relation which\nsimply cannot be threshed out in public, and in which the honest advice\nof a pious person is invoked to find a way out of a complication. That\nwas the situation confronting Luther: what he advised was meant as an\nemergency measure to prevent something that was worse. In the same\nmanner Luther had expressed the opinion that it would have been easier\nto condone a bigamous relation in Henry VIII of England than the unjust\ndivorce which the king was seeking. As a matter of fact, however, Luther\nand his Wittenberg colleagues were grossly hoodwinked in the matter,\nboth by the Landgrave himself and, what is worse, by the Landgrave's\ncourt-preacher, Bucer. Had the true facts been known, the advice, as\nLuther clearly states, would never have been given. But we can well\nunderstand how Luther can declare that under the circumstances under\nwhich he thought he was acting he could not have given any different\nadvice. Personally, we have always resented the veiled threat in the\nLandgrave's request that he would apply to the Pope or the Emperor.\nPerhaps the remark was not understood as a threat, but as an expression\nof despair. At any rate, Philip was confident of getting from Rome what\nhe was not sure of obtaining from Luther.\n\nOught not this remark of the Landgrave caution Luther's Catholic critics\nto be very careful in what they say about the heinousness of Luther's\noffense in granting a dispensation from a moral precept? Have they\nreally no such thing as a \"dispensation\" at Rome? Has not the married\nrelationship come up for \"dispensation\" in the chancelleries of the\nVatican innumerable times? Has not one of the canonized saints of Rome,\nSt. Augustine, declared that bigamy might be permitted if a wife was\nsterile? Was not concubinage still recognized by law in the sixteenth\ncentury in Ireland? Did not King Diarmid have two legitimate wives and\ntwo concubines? And he was a Catholic. What have Catholics to say in\nrejoinder to Sir Henry Maine's assertion that the Canon Law of their\nChurch brought about numerous sexual inequalities? Or to Joseph\nMacCabe's statement that not until 1060 was there any authoritative\nmandate of the Church against polygamy, and that even after this\nprohibition there were numerous instances of concubinage and polygamic\nmarriages in Christian communities? Or to Hallam in his _Middle Ages_,\nwhere he reports concubinage in Europe? Or to Lea, who proves that this\nevil was not confined to the laity? (See Gallighan, _Women under\nPolygamy_, pp. 43. 292. 295. 303. 330. 339.)\n\nAll that has so far been said about Luther's views on the subject of\npolygamy could be most powerfully reinforced by a review of Luther's\nteaching on matrimony as a divine institution, which Luther consistently\nthroughout his writings regards as monogamous. But this is too well\nknown to require restatement, and is really outside of the scope of this\nreview, which must content itself with submitting the direct argument in\nrebuttal of the Catholic charge of Luther's advocacy of polygamy. This\npolygamous Luther, too, is a vision that is rendered possible only\nthrough spectacles of hopeless bias.\n\n\n27. Luther Announces His Death.\n\nMark Twain awoke one morning to find himself reported dead. He did not\naccept the invitation suggested in the report, but wired to his friends:\n\"Reports of my death grossly exaggerated.\" Luther was placed in a\nsimilar predicament by Catholics who were deeply interested in the\nquestion how long he was to continue to live. One day, in the early part\nof March, 1545, he was handed a printed letter in Italian which\ncontained the news of his demise under curious circumstances. He thought\nthat he ought not to withhold this interesting information from the\nworld: he had a German translation made of the document, which he\npublished with his remarks as follows:\n\n\"Copy of a Letter of the Ambassador of the Most Christian King regarding\na Horrible Sign which Occurred in the Shameful Death of Martin Luther.\n\n\"A horrible and unheard-of miracle which the blessed God has wrought in\nthe shameful death of Martin Luther, who went to hell, soul and body, as\nmay be clearly seen from a chapter of the letter of the ambassador of\nthe Most Christian King, to the praise and glory of Jesus Christ and the\nconfirmation and comfort of the faithful.\n\n_\"Copy of the Letter_.\n\n\"1. Martin Luther, having been taken ill, desired the holy Sacrament of\nthe body of our Lord Jesus Christ. He died immediately upon receiving\nit. When he saw that his sickness was very violent and he was near\ndeath, he prayed that his body might be placed on an altar and worshiped\nas Cod. But the goodness and providence of God had resolved to put an\nend to his great error and to silence him forever. Accordingly, God did\nnot omit to work this great miracle, which was very much needed, to\ncause the people to desist from the great, destructive, and ruinous\nerror which the said Luther has caused in the world. As soon as his body\nhad been placed in the grave, an awful rumbling and noise was heard, as\nif hell and the devils were collapsing. All present were seized with a\ngreat fright, terror, and fear, and when they raised their eyes to\nheaven, they plainly saw the most holy host of our Lord Jesus Christ\nwhich this unworthy man was permitted to receive unworthily. I affirm\nthat all who were present saw the most holy host visibly floating in the\nair. They took the most holy host very devoutly and with great\nreverence, and gave it a decent place in the sanctuary.\n\n\"2. When this had been done, no such tumult and hellish rumbling was\nheard any more that day. However, during the following night, at the\nplace where Martin Luther's corpse had been buried, there was heard by\neverybody in the community a much greater confusion than the first time.\nThe people arose and flocked together in great fear and terror. At\ndaybreak they went to open the grave where the wicked body of Luther had\nbeen placed. When the grave was opened, you could clearly see that there\nwas no body, neither flesh nor bone, nor any clothes. But such a\nsulphuric stench rose from the grave that all who were standing around\nthe grave turned sick. On account of this miracle many have reformed\ntheir lives by returning to the holy Christian faith, to the honor,\npraise, and glory of Jesus Christ, and to the strengthening and\nconfirmation of His holy Christian Church, which is a pillar of truth.\"\n\nLuther appended the following comment to this pious document:\n\n\"And I, Martinus Luther, D., do by these indentures acknowledge and\ntestify that I have received this angry fiction concerning my death on\nthe twenty-first day of March, and that I have read it with considerable\npleasure and joy, except the blasphemous portion of the document in\nwhich this lie is attributed to the exalted majesty of God. Otherwise I\nfelt quite tickled on my knee-cap and under my left heel at this\nevidence how cordially the devil and his minions, the Pope and the\npapists, hate me. May God turn them from the devil!\n\n\"However, if it is decreed that theirs is a sin unto death, and that my\nprayer is in vain, then may God grant that they fill up their measure\nand write nothing else but such books for their comfort and joy. Let\nthem run their course; they are on the right track; they want to have it\nso. Meanwhile I want to know how they are going to be saved, and how\nthey will atone for and revoke all their lies and blasphemies with which\nthey have filled the world.\" (21b, 3376 f.)\n\nSimilar, even more grotesque tales have been served the faithful by\nCatholic writers. The star production of this kind was published years\nago in the _Ohio-Waisenfreund_. It related that horrible and uncanny\nsigns had accompanied Luther's death. Weird shrieks and noises were\nheard, devils were flying about in the air; the heavens were shrouded in\na pall of gloom. When the funeral cortege started from Eisleben, a vast\nflock of ravens had gathered and accompanied the corpse croaking\nincessantly and uttering dismal cries all the way to Wittenberg, etc.,\netc.\n\nThese crude stories have now been censored out of existence. Catholics\nnowadays prefer to lie in a more refined and cultured manner about\nLuther's death: Luther committed suicide; he was found hanging from his\nbedpost one morning.\n\nComment is unnecessary.\n\nLuther died peacefully in the presence of friends, confessing, Christ\nand asserting his firm allegiance to the faith he had proclaimed with\nhis last breath. The probable cause of his death was a stroke of\nparalysis. Luther began to feel pains in the chest late in the afternoon\nof February 17, 1546. He bore up manfully and continued working at his\nbusiness for the Count of Mansfeld who had called him to Eisleben. After\na light evening meal he sat chatting in a cheerful mood with his\ncompanions, and retired early, as was his custom in his declining years.\nThe pains in the chest became worse, and he began to feel chilly.\nMedicaments were administered, and after a while he fell into a slumber,\nwhich lasted an hour. He awoke with increased pain and a feeling of\ngreat congestion, which caused the death-perspiration to break out. He\nwas rapidly turning cold. All this time he was praying and reciting\nportions from the Psalms and other texts. Three times in succession he\nrepeated his favorite text, John 3, 16. Gradually he became peaceful,\nand his end was so gentle that the bystanders were in doubt whether he\nhad expired or was only in a swoon. They worked with him, trying to\nrouse him, until they were convinced that he had breathed his last. The\nCatholic apothecary John Landau, who had been called in while Luther was\nthought to be in a swoon, helped to establish the fact of his death.\n\n\n28. Luther's View of His Slanderers.\n\nLuther was the subject of gross misrepresentation and vile slander\nduring his lifetime: At first he used to correct erroneous reports about\nhimself, usually in his polemical writings, later he merely noted them\nwith a brief and scornful comment, and finally ignored them altogether.\nHe relates that he had treated many slanderous publications of Eck,\nFaber, Emser, Cochlaeus, and many others with silent contempt. (18,\n1991; 14, 331.) It was a physical impossibility for him to reply to all\nthe misleading and vicious reports that were being circulated about him.\nHe was convinced that he must use his time and strength for more\nnecessary matters. His friends in many instances relieved him of the\nunpleasant task. Moreover, after he had answered those who had first\nassailed him in the beginning of his public activity, he could afford to\ndisregard many slanders, because they were mere repetitions.\n\nLuther was aware that he was probably the worst-hated man of his times.\nHe declares his belief that in the last hundred years there has not\nlived a man to whom the world was more hostile than to himself. (22,\n1660.) Persons praising him, he says, are regarded as having committed\na more grievous sin than any idolater, blasphemer, perjurer, fornicator,\nadulterer, murderer, or thief. (9, 553.) Anything that Luther has said,\nhe observes, is denounced as coming from the devil; what Duke George\n(one of his fiercest enemies), Faber, or Bucer say or do is highly\napproved, (4, 1606.) Like Elijah, he was charged with having disturbed\nIsrael: before he began preaching there was peace and quiet, now all is\nconfusion. (9, 587.) He is held responsible for the Peasants' Revolt and\nthe rise of the Sacramentarian sects. (22, 1602.) A laborer whom his\nwife had hired became drunk and committed murder; at once the rumor was\nspread that Luther kept a murderer as his servant. (21b, 2225.) What he\nwrites is represented as having been inspired by envy, pride,\nbitterness, yea, by Satan himself; those, however, who write against him\nare regarded as being inspired by the Holy Ghost. (18, 2005.) He\nobserves that beggars become rich, obtain favors from princes and kings,\nremunerative positions, honors, and bishoprics by turning against him.\n(18, 2005.) Some attribute the election of Adrian VI as Pope to Luther\n(this Pope was believed to favor reforms: he did not last long); and\nLuther expects that he is helping Dr. Schmid to become a cardinal\nbecause he is opposing him. (19, 1347.) Dunces become doctors, knaves\nbecome saints, and the most besotted characters are glorified when they\ntry their vile mouths and pens against Luther. (19, 1347.) The easiest\nway for any man to become a canonized saint even during his lifetime,\nthough he were a person of the stripe of a Nero or Caligula, is by\nhating Luther. (18, 2005.) On the cover of the pamphlet containing his\nSermon on the Sacrament Luther ordered a picture consisting of two\nmonstrances printed; this was promptly explained to mean that he had\nadopted the Bohemian errors, for Hus had administered the Lord's Supper\nin both kinds. (19, 457.) Some pretended that they could see two geese\nin this picture; the meaning was plain: one of them signified Hus (Hus\nin Bohemian means goose), the other, Luther. (19, 458.)\n\nLuther would not have been human if incidents like these had not caused\nhim pain. Occasionally he would give vent to his grief, but his manly\ncourage, too, would soon assert itself, and he would expose the\nhollowness, insincerity, and futility of the lying tales that were\nspread about him. At a public meeting in Campo Flore he was cursed,\nsentenced to death, and burned in effigy. (21a, 174.) He has read\noffensive reports about himself, and puts them down with the calm\ndeclaration: There is not a man that writes against Luther without\nhaving to resort to horrible and manifest lies. (19, 583.) He is sure\nthat he has not had an opponent who in an argument would stick to the\npoint; they all had to evade the issue. (22, 658.) Shameful falsehoods\nare canvassed about him at the court of King Ferdinand (15, 2623);\nLuther comforts himself with the reflection that others have suffered\nthe same vilification before him, for instance, Wyclif, Hus, and others\n(5, 308). Besides, he is able to understand that the real reason why\nthe papists regard him as such a perverse and untractable person is\nbecause they are utterly perverse themselves. (4, 1499.)\n\nBut his sweetest comfort is in reflecting that it is his preaching which\nhas brought his manifold afflictions upon him. Poor Luther is always\nwrong: the Sacramentarians and Anabaptists hate him worse than they hate\nthe Pope, and the Pope hates him worse than he hates other heretics,\nbecause they all fight against the Gospel which Luther preaches. (22,\n1015.) If I were to keep silent, he says, or preach as I used to do,\nconcerning indulgences, pilgrimages, adoration of the saints, purgatory,\nthe carnival of the Mass, I could easily keep the favor and friendship\nof the great. (8, 569.) But for the sake of the true doctrine and those\nwho profess it,--whom his opponents wish to suppress, Luther is willing\nto suffer hatred, persecution, calumnies, and everything else that his\nenemies may devise against him. (5, 587.) What have I done, he exclaims,\nto deserve the enmity of the Pope and his rabble, except that I have\npreached Christ? (8, 569.) He is convinced from the papists' own\nconfession that he is being persecuted for no other reason than because\nhe is preaching the Gospel. (8, 399.}\n\nKnowing the reason why he is hated, Luther glories in his tribulations.\nDuke George, he says, calls me a desperate, low-bred, perjured knave: I\nshall consider those ugly names my emeralds, rubies, and diamonds. (19,\n457.) He would fear that there must be something wrong about his\nteaching if the people whom he knows would not fight against him: if\nthese people do not condemn his doctrine, his doctrine cannot be\nacceptable to God. (10, 351.) He prefers to have them rage against him.\nTheir violence shall not disturb him greatly, because he has championed\nthe Lord's cause, and that, in all sincerity, without malice toward any\nperson. (21a, 301.) . Let the papists exhaust themselves in slanders\nagainst him: he knows he has the Scriptures on his side, and they have\nthe Scriptures against them. (5, 310.) They intend to grind Luther to\npieces, not a hair of him is to remain; he knows that they will not be\nable to harm a hair on his head. (8, 119.)\n\nThus Luther thought and spoke of his detractors and defamers. Such was\nhis comfort and his courage in the face of base calumnies and undeserved\nhatred. Those who know him best will continue to love him, and admire\nhim the more for the enemies he has made.\n\n--\n\nIf the reader of this book has had the sensation of a traveler in a\nstorm-tossed vessel, he has experienced mentally what Luther faced in\ndread reality during almost the whole of his agitated life. He had to\nweather many a squall, and storm, and hurricane. Outwardly his life\nseems a continuous hurly-burly. Yet there is in this man's heart a great\nand holy calm. The tumult of his life is all on the surface. He reminds\none of the lines in Harriet Beecher Stowe's \"Hymn\":\n\n     When winds are raging o'er the upper ocean,\n     And billows wild contend with angry roar,\n     'T is said, far down beneath the wild commotion,\n     That peaceful stillness reigneth evermore.\n\n     Far, far beneath, the noise of tempest dieth,\n     And silver waves chime ever peacefully,\n     And no rude storm, how fierce soe'er it flieth,\n     Disturbs the Sabbath of that deeper sea.\n\nWe have had glimpses of the hidden depths in Luther's mind: his thought\nreaches down to the lowest depths of human misery, and then goes deeper\nstill towards the limits of God's rescuing love and conquering grace\nwhich human mind has never reached. For these divine profundities no\nplummet will ever sound. He who could surrender himself wholly to the\nstudy of the greatness and beauty of Luther's constructive thought would\nenjoy a spiritual luxury and be drawn into that sublime and solemn peace\nof God which passes all understanding. He would behold this strenuous\nman; who has been shown mostly in his working-clothes in these pages, in\nhis holiday-attire, with that Sabbath in his heart which occurs wherever\nChrist is the loved and adored object of the thinker's contemplation.","title":"Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Revaluation","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":90766}