Chapter Four—
Luther's Earliest Supporters in the Strasbourg Press
In his path-breaking study For the Sake of Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation , Robert Scribner examined the ways Luther was depicted in woodcuts and engravings during the early years of the Reformation movement.[1] He showed that with slight variations the three recurring signs in all pictorial depictions of Luther were monk, doctor, and man of the Bible. To these central signs were added other signs such as a dove, which symbolized the Holy Spirit and suggested that Luther had been enlightened or inspired by God, and the nimbus of sainthood, which suggested that Luther had saintly qualities or could be considered to be like a Father of the church or both.[2]
As it happens, all of these signs were deployed on the title page of a Latin account of Luther's appearance before the Diet of Worms, issued by the Strasbourg press of Johann Schott (see plate 1).[3] The woodcut presented Luther as a monk (monastic habit), doctor (doctoral beret), and man of the Bible (held in his hands) who was inspired by God (the dove of the Holy Spirit and the nimbus of a saint). The woodcut was reused in 1522 when Schott issued a German translation of the same account.[4]
This constellation of visual signs constituted the skeleton of Luther's public persona among at least some of his supporters. But it left undisclosed the specific content of each sign. What did the doctor teach? What did being a man of the Bible entail? In what way was he inspired by God and to what purpose? In what did his sanctity con-
Plate 1.
Luther as Monk, Doctor, Man of the Bible, and Saint. Woodcut to ACTA
ET RES GESTAE, D. MARTINI LVTHERi, in Comitijs Principu Vuormaciae
(Strasbourg: Johann Schott, 1521).
sist? Answers to these questions must draw on social expectations and stereotypes, and Luther's own actions and the reactions of others. The other Reformation publicists who were published in Strasbourg through 1522 may help us to see how this worked.[5]
Monk, Doctor, and Man of the Bible
The relevant authors who published in Strasbourg were all aware that Luther was an Augustinian friar, but the sign of Luther as monk was probably the least developed in the text of the Strasbourg pamphlet literature. It may, of course, underlie the frequent comments on Luther's piety. For example, the character Karsthans (a stereotypical hoe-carrying peasant) in the treatise of the same name remarked that he had heard much good said of Luther, that he was "a pious Christian man."[6] Similarly, in A Beautiful Dialogue and Conversation Between a Pastor and a Mayor Concerning the Evil Condition of the Clergy and the Evil Dealings of the Worldly , probably written by the Dominican and future reformer of Strasbourg Martin Bucer, one character spoke of "the pious Luther" and another characterized him as "pious and right."[7] Such comments may have been inspired by Luther's monastic vocation, but they may just as well be linked to other signs such as "man of the Bible" and "inspired saint."
Luther's learning attracted considerably more attention than his monastic status, which is hardly surprising when one considers that many of the authors of this early pamphlet literature in defense of Luther were themselves humanists who greatly prized learning, both Luther's and their own. In Karsthans , Karsthans' son reported that the Dominican "Master of Heretics," Jakob von Hoogstraten (1454–1527), thought it a bad idea to dispute with Luther and his adherents because they were "too learned."[8] This was, of course, a tie-in to the earlier Reuchlin controversy, when a group of prominent humanists took on Jakob von Hochstraten and the other Dominicans who were attacking Johannes Reuchlin (1455–1522) for his defense of Jewish literature. In A Beautiful Dialogue , the priest said that he had heard that all the learned were on Luther's side.[9] Finally, in Declaration of the Celebrated University of Erfurt In Defense and Protection of, and Administration of Justice Concerning, the Christian Servant of God and Teacher, Doctor Martin Luther ,[10] the translator Wolfgang Rüßen, in his letter of dedication described this formal document as showing that the University of Erfurt had concluded "that the writings of Martin
Luther are just and Christian,"[11] and he termed Luther "an incisive and precise theologian," an "Evangelical teacher," and an "innocent revealer of truth."[12]
The one theological issue that all Luther's defenders agreed on, and uniformly approved, was that Luther based his teachings on Scripture alone. Luther's image as a "man of the Bible" was ground on this insistence. In Concerning the Conformed-to-Christ and Properly Grounded Teaching of Doctor Martin Luther , the Augustinian Michael Stifel (1486/87–1567) announced in the title, for example, his conviction that Luther's teaching was conformed to Christ and properly based on Scripture alone. He concluded his verse pamphlet with the ringing challenge,
The truth is revealed
[And] in no way divided
If Luther is a heretic
Then who on earth writes properly?
If then the Scripture is false, incorrect,
Then that confirms the screams of its enemy.
But the Scripture is true, constant, firm
Made lustrous by Christ himself.
In comparison to which all human trifles are lies
Without Scripture, sent by the devil.
'Scripture, Scripture!' cries Luther publicly
And risks his head, neck, and skin on it.
Do you wish to silence Luther? Give him Scripture,
Otherwise your teaching is pure poison.[13]
In Karsthans , the character "Murnar" admitted that he had hoped by the use of sneering words not to be defeated by Luther in disputation, but Luther wanted to evaluate everything according to the gospel and the letters of Paul, which "Murnar" had not much studied.[14] A bit later "Karsthans" expressed the opinion that Luther was a "thousand times more skilled telling the common, natural meaning of Scripture than Murner."[15] The author of A Beautiful Dialogue grounded his whole argument on the insistence that Scripture was the sole judge of right belief. One of his characters stated at the outset that Luther "grounds all his writings in right faith and out of the holy gospel and out of Saint Paul's teaching and leads us out of many entanglements into which the clergy has for a long time gotten us on account of money and goods."[16] In A Pleasant Christian and Godly Reminder , the nobleman Hartmuth von Cronberg insisted that Luther's position was clearly based in Scripture while the pope had no Scripture with
which to refute Luther. Even he, a layman and one of those of little understanding, could prove this on the basis of Scripture.[17] In the anonymous A Pleasant Argument, Conversation, Question and Answer of Three Persons, Namely a Curialist, a Nobleman, and a Burgher ,[18] the curialist in the dialogue, of all characters, repeatedly insisted that Luther's teachings were grounded firmly in Scripture.[19] Luther always wished the argument to be based on Scripture and proved his positions with Scripture.[20] In his Against Murnar's Song , Michael Stifel wrote that Luther insisted vehemently that one abide by Christ's words and understand them the way they were spoken.[21] And he summed up the conviction of all these authors when he wrote, "Luther speaks well when he says that one should judge all books according to the Scripture, [to determine] whether they are right or not."[22]
The Christian Angel
Several of the publicists depicted Luther in largely mundane categories, but the hovering dove and glowing nimbus also had their verbal equivalents in some of the publications. For example, in his A Pleasant Christian and Godly Reminder and Warning To the Imperial Majesty, Sent By One of His Imperial Majesty's Poor Knights and Obedient Servants , Hartmuth von Cronberg spoke with some moderation of "the true servant of God, Doctor Luther" and characterized Luther as one who had led thousands of people to the true spring, Christ Jesus.[23] But in his Rejection of the Alleged Dishonor Attributed By Many To the Pious and Christian Father, Doctor Martin Luther of the Augustinian Order, In That He Called Our Father the Pope a Vicar of the Devil and Antichrist ,[24] Cronberg went on to say that there had "undoubtedly not been a truer more Christian teacher living in a thousand or more years than this doctor Luther."[25] In his To the Praise of Luther and To the Honor of the Whole of Christendom ,[26] the student Laux Gemigger thanked God for bestowing his grace "upon us poor sinners" and sending into the world "the well-born doctor Martin Luther, whom you have chosen as a light of Christendom" to tell of God's divine word and reveal the state of the present world, much to the displeasure of the pope and his supporters who desired to pervert the world, "which the pious Luther will never permit."[27] Escalating the rhetoric even further, the oft reprinted Passion of Doctor Martin Luther , written by "Marcellus," called Luther a "preacher of truth"
and "doctor of the writings of St. Paul,"[28] but the treatise as a whole described Luther's appearance at Worms in a narrative modeled explicitly on Christ's passion—with Luther taking the role of Christ!
While this last comparison was obviously extreme, in his Concerning the Conformed-to-Christ and Properly Grounded Teaching of Doctor Martin Luther, An Extremely Beautiful and Artful Song Along with Its Exegesis ,[29] Michael Stifel claimed with all evident sincerity that Luther was the angel of the apocalypse come to reveal the Antichrist. The signs laid down in the Bible concerning the last times led Stifel to conclude with Luther that the time was near for the persecution of the Antichrist against the truth of God. "I believe," he wrote of Luther, "that this man is sent to us by God, ordained and raised up in the fervor of the spirit of Elias."[30] With direct reference to the angel of Revelation, he explained that "the undertaking and purpose of this pamphlet is to certify and prove the teaching of the Christian angel, Martin Luther, and [to show] how his writings flow directly from the ground of the holy gospel, Paul, and the teachers of the Holy Scriptures [that were] sent and certified by God."[31] In explaining how he could make this bold claim, Stifel also made a pun on Luther's name that was frequently used by these early authors. "Yes, even now I wish to name this angel," Stifel wrote, "He is called Martin Luther. And [his teaching] is also so clear or pure [luter ], that I believe that he has this name as a sign for us of God's order." Stifel went on to explain that his readers should not be bothered that an angel or spirit did not have flesh and bone, yet Martin Luther had flesh and bone as a human being. "For one finds in the Holy Scripture that holy men who teach the way of God are called angels." After giving several examples from Scripture, Stifel concluded, "An angel is also called a messenger of God, which without doubt Luther is, proclaiming the word of God so clear [luter ] and purely."[32] Other treatises also played on Luther's name and the German word for pure or clear to associate Luther with the preaching of the pure gospel.[33]
In only one of these treatises, the anonymous A Pleasant Argument , was Luther himself criticized even as his teaching was being affirmed. This treatise showed a remarkably clear grasp of Luther's central concerns, but the anonymous author reacted badly to the more extreme claims made by Luther's supporters. The curialist in this dialogue, who most likely represents the author's own point of view, commented at the outset that the Germans honored "their idol Luther" as
if he were God rather than just a saintly man.[34] He reported that he had heard it said in Rome that, although Luther touched on the fundamental issues, he did not do so out of love of God but out of jealousy. This jealousy was revealed in his books, in which he said that if the Romanists had not written against him, he would not have written against the papacy. From this admission, those at Rome wished to argue that he was provoked not by the love of God but by human writings directed against him. They concluded that it was pride that motivated Luther and made him want to be prominent in the university and teach something new. Their judgment, the curialist went on, was sustained by the sharp, abusive, slanderous, and foolish words that Luther employed in his writings.
Interestingly, the curialist was willing to ignore these considerations as long as Luther's teachings continued to be scriptural. "All that I let be as it may be," he wrote, concluding this recitation of the Roman view. "Whether Luther writes out of God or out of the spiritual deceit of the devil, his teaching pleases me very much. And since [he] does not deal with these matters contrary to the Scriptures, I will continue to be pleased with them."[35]
This is an instructive example of how expectations and experience could clash, making it difficult to settle on a coherent public persona. On the one hand, the author standing behind the curialist regarded Luther as a "saintly man" who thus far had taught in accordance with the Scriptures. But he was put off by Luther's supporters' characterizations of him, and he harbored serious questions about Luther's motivations. He was also offended by Luther's violent and abusive language and by what he saw as Luther's willingness to use force to bring about reforms.[36] This abusive vehemence, questionable motivation, and willingness to use force all accord poorly with the socially defined role of the "saint" or "man of the Bible." Most of the defenders either shrugged this dissonance off or did not even make mention of it. But in A Pleasant Argument the conflicting attributes are held in fascinating tension. Given the normal course of psychological dynamics, it is highly unlikely that many of Luther's supporters would have maintained this tension very long. The tension was eventually resolved either by going wholly over to Luther's side and finding rationalizations for his angry temperament or by returning to Catholicism in the conviction that Luther's aggressive temperament disclosed his true subversive nature.
The Papal Antichrist
Culturally determined expectations or stereotypes were at work in most of these pamphlets. When Stifel said that he believed Luther was "sent to us by God, ordained and raised up in the fervor of the spirit of Elias,"[37] he was tapping into the popular legend that Elias and Enoch were the two prophets sent by God to reveal the Antichrist.[38] Stifel also likened Luther to the angel of the apocalypse, another role associated with the fight against the Antichrist.[39] Here is the predominate source of the nimbus and hovering dove. Luther was more than a monk, doctor, or even man of the Bible. He was God's specially chosen instrument to combat the papal Antichrist.
Chapter 2 argued that readers of Luther's works printed in Strasbourg would have seen Luther as a learned doctor and engaged pastor who based his teachings solely on Scripture and whose appeal to the laity (and sympathetic clergy) was that his message enriched and dignified the laity's religious status. Chapter 3 explored how in the fall of 1520 Luther's public persona gained new dimensions with his published attacks on the institutional church, especially the papacy. With the treatises of the late fall Luther had presented himself as an impassioned critic of clerical fraud and papal tyranny. He had even suggested that the papacy might be the Antichrist spoken of in Scripture.
Most of the pamphlets published in Strasbourg accepted Luther's drastic depiction of the papacy.[40] In the very title of one of his treatises, for example, the nobleman Hartmuth von Cronberg defended Luther against the charge that he went too far in calling the pope a vicar of the devil and Antichrist (Rejection of the Alleged Dishonor Attributed By Many to the Pious, Highly Learned and Christian Father, Doctor Martin Luther of the Augustinian Order, In That He Called Our Father the Pope a Vicar of the Devil and Antichrist )[41] Cronberg considered Luther's charge to be the irrefutable truth.[42] The pope and his supporters, by relying on human wisdom rather than the two great commandments to love God and neighbor, were taking a "devilish and most dangerous way" and misleading countless people from the true way of Christ into the path to hell.[43] In another treatise, A Pleasant Christian and Godly Admonition and Warning addressed to Emperor Charles V, Cronberg rather improbably urged the emperor to lead the pope out of brotherly love to the "divine spring" by showing the pope "on the basis of the Holy Scripture that he truly is a vicar of the devil and Antichrist, that truly the papal law is thought up by
human minds without any proper basis, and that such things are nothing less than a stinking piss [pffitz ?] of the devil." People had been "wickedly misled" into "our own self-conceived devilish way" and thereby hindered "from coming to the wholesome spring, which, by the great grace of God, has been so truly and clearly expressed by the teaching of doctor Luther so that anyone who has eyes and ears clearly sees and hears the same."[44] In Marcellus's Passion of Doctor Martin Luther , Luther was challenged with having taught that the Council of Constance had erred and that the papacy was the Antichrist. Luther replied, "You have said it. Nevertheless I say to you, I can prove it with divine Scripture [as well as] that which I have written in books. And unless I am overcome with divine Scripture, I will not recant or speak against my books."[45]
The grounds given for Luther's opposition to the pope varied from treatise to treatise. Cronberg saw Luther's opposition coming from the pope's imposition of human laws rather than the divine law expressed in the two great commandments. In Karsthans , the objection arose in relation to the scriptural basis for papal authority.[46] This line of argument was continued in New Karsthans .[47] The treatise also defined "Antichrist" as one who was "against Christ" [gegen-Christ oder Wider-Christ ] and explained that "there has never been, and there may never be, a greater Antichrist than the pope at Rome, who completely perverts the gospel and positions himself against Christ in all things."[48]
Several authors took issue with various claims that the pope either could not err or if he erred, could not be corrected by anyone but God. Here they were echoing Luther's arguments, especially in his To the Christian Nobility .[49] For example, Karsthans in the pamphlet Karsthans criticized Murner's claim that no one might punish or judge the pope unless the pope erred publicly in matters of faith. Citing Luther, Karsthans sarcastically observed that as far as the pope's defenders were concerned, unless the pope worshipped the golden calf nothing he did would be considered an error of faith.[50]
Others, for example the anonymous author of A Beautiful Dialogue , were seriously upset by the claim that it was the clergy, at least in the first instance, who made up the church. In this Dialogue the "priest" charged that what Luther wrote was against the Christian church and against ecclesiastical law. The character of the mayor asked, "Who is the Christian church?" The priest replied, "Haven't you often heard it from me in the sermon?" The Christian church was
"the pope and his cardinals, all the bishops and prelates." This the mayor could not believe. He had heard it said that the pope himself had established the ecclesiastical ("spiritual") law and that he might make the law to be whatever he wished. The mayor was concerned that there was little of "God's law" in the ecclesiastical law that he had heard at home from his student. For if the Christian church consisted only of the pope and his adherents, "then we poor Christians have lost the game." If the pope and his people could also not err or sin and yet little good could be said about him, what good should the mayor think of him? "Have you not heard what Doctor Martin Luther has written about them all," the mayor asked, "what a great, wicked thing they do at Rome with buying and selling benefices, with exchanging, changing, [and] despoiling [benefices] and not being in residence nor serving and many other things, how they also eat meat during periods of fasting and all times and forbid us all sorts of things, and how they are up to their ears in shameful matters? In addition, all their affairs are aimed at extracting piles of money from us."[51] In this one example we see the full range of the attack, from theological considerations to anger over abuse and fiscal extortion. Luther, as this example also illustrates, was the cited authority on papal tyranny and abuse.
Most of Luther's defenders had been convinced by Luther that the papacy was in fact the Antichrist. This accomplishment put Luther in a special position within sacred history and legend. He was spoken of in biblical terms, taking on the attributes of the prophesied opponents of the Antichrist. He was not just any monk, doctor, or man of the Bible, however learned. Fitted to the role of revealer of the papal Antichrist, he possessed an authority and inspired a deference that no other man of his age could claim, at least in the religious realm. No wonder the other publicists rallied to his side to attack the papal tyranny.
The Dynamics of Polarization
In the fall of 1520 Luther's public persona was challenged by the anonymous counterattacks of the Franciscan Thomas Murner. If Luther presented himself as an impassioned critic, Murner depicted him as a dangerous rebel seeking to overthrow all legitimate authority through a seductive appeal to "simple Christians." For the most part, however, Luther's supporters had been convinced by Luther that his criticism
was more than warranted. The battle had taken on apocalyptic proportions, and in the war between light and darkness the supporters of darkness deserved all the abuse that could be heaped upon them. The dynamics of polarization were at work. The polemical and psychological pressures all drove Luther's supporters to maximize Luther's virtues as their leader against the Antichrist, to minimize or discount his vices, and to see nothing but self-seeking and wickedness among their opponents.
Thomas Murner was mercilessly satirized in treatises such as Karsthans , and his name was invariably changed to "Murnar" to play on the German word Narr , "fool."[52] He was also likened to a cat, just as Emser was depicted as a goat, Eck as a pig, and popes and clergy in general as ravening wolves. In the Declaration of the University of Erfurt, the translator, Wolfgang Rüßen, called the bull excommunicating Luther "the trumped-up Eckian bull" and labeled it "heretical and unjust."[53] Eck and the other sponsors of the bull were called "ungodfearing" and "hypocrites" doing the work of the devil, and the bull of excommunication was termed the "tyrannical and more than devilish papal ban."[54]
Several of the treatises emphasized Luther's learning and the learning of his supporters and characterized his opponents as ignorant and unlearned. For example, in A Good Coarse German Dialogue , there was an exchange between the characters Peter and Hans. Peter said that he could tell that Hans thought "there is no one wiser than Luther and those who protect him and his undertaking." But Peter would not be swayed, for the "great lords, which are the cardinals and bishops" were not well disposed toward Luther. "So say the canons at the chapters, for one, and various other clergy and several learned people besides, how he is a wicked, perverted monk." It was no wonder that he had misled the whole world since, by all reports, he had in his books "so wickedly attacked the pious man, the pope." The character Hans found this funny, suggesting that these friends of Peter should have been absolved for slander. Rebutting Peter's charges, Hans insisted, one found "many pious people" among Luther's supporters, and the most learned members of the chapters and cloisters were "well disposed towards him and highly praise his teaching."[55]
In A Beautiful Dialogue the priest who by pamphlet's end was brought around to Luther's side said that he wished henceforth "to agree with the pious Luther and have nothing more to do with these
blatherers," Luther's opponents. Instead, he wished in future "to rely entirely on his teaching and lead you as a true pastor. For I hear," he continued,
[that] there are in fact many learned people on his side, especially Doctor Erasmus [of] Rotterdam, a strong cornerstone of the Scripture, the same [is true of] Doctor Andreas Karlstadt, a crown of the Holy Scripture, also Oecolampadius and still many more. For I understand [that] these highly learned men are well practiced in the true kernel of the good books—Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and perhaps Chaldean—out of all that has appeared in recent years. [In this] lies, as I hear, the true treasure of the Holy Scripture.[56]
So Luther and his supporters were all learned men. It was only "the unlearned and the greedy," as A Good Coarse German Dialogue put it, "who are his enemies and those who are involved with Roman business and those who nourish themselves with deluded judicial quarrels [verplentem haderwerck¶recht ]. But those who promote justice and love listen to him gladly."[57]
While Eck and his supporters were "the unlearned and the greedy," Luther was not only learned but motivated solely by Christian zeal. In the anonymous A Good Coarse German Dialog Between Two Good Journeyman , the character Hans insisted that Luther had done nothing for money, regardless of what the character Peter had heard. "He has not in fact retained a penny." Hans said, "He also does not seek worldly honor. He could have had a bishopric and a great prelacy but he did not wish it. How can he be accused of pouring out poison [when in fact he has been] with great effort championing the proper teaching of God day and night?"[58] This report of an attempted bribe appeared elsewhere. The anonymous author of A Beautiful Dialogue had the mayor insist to the priest that Luther "is pious and right [and] does nothing for money. In fact the pope had wanted to give him a bishopric so that he would no longer write against him. Luther would not do this for he would rather be poor than abandon God's truth."[59] By way of contrast, among other harsh accusations, the Declaration of the University of Erfurt suggested that Eck and his supporters were in the pay of the Roman bishop.[60]
Luther's supporters generally agreed that Luther had been set upon because he threatened clerical income. The student Laux Gemigger stated that God had sent Luther to reveal the current state of the world, which greatly displeased the pope and his supporters. It was "the penny's shine" that prompted the injustice done to Luther "be-
cause he tells us about Roman rascality and also their great heresy."[61] A touch of xenophobia could also creep into the explanation. For example, in Karsthans the character Luther, when asked by Karsthans what brought him to do what he was doing, answered that it was the simplicity of the German people who were of such little understanding that they did not question what was presented to them and were thus deceived and made fun of by foreigners.[62]
As these several examples illustrate, popular stereotypes were working to enhance Luther's status and demean the status of his opponents. In the natural polarization of polemical characterization, Luther took on all the attributes of goodness and virtue and his opponents, the attributes of evil and vice. So Luther's selfless concern for Christianity is juxtaposed with papal hirelings like Eck or greedy clerics, who fleeced Christ's sheep or tore into them like ravening wolves. He and his supporters were learned, his opponents ridiculous and ignorant. And so on.
These Strasbourg publications also made much of the contrast between Luther's alleged willingness to be instructed and the alleged unwillingness of his opponents to give him a hearing or overcome him with Scripture, for the contrast fit perfectly into their authors' view of Luther and the struggle in which they were all engaged. In Karsthans , for example, Karsthans' son reported that the Dominican "Master of Heretics," Jakob von Hochstraten, had said that "it is not good or certain to dispute with such people or to give them a hearing or to follow the law [in dealing with them] because they are too learned and have often disgraced the master of heretics."[63]
This was a message of several of the treatises: Luther had risked his teachings through public disputations and hearings and had not been overcome. Michael Stifel said that Luther had appeared among his enemies three times now and requested a discussion of his teachings at Augsburg, Leipzig, and Worms. Those who took up the challenge were disgraced; the rest avoided disputing. It was a scandal, Stifel wrote, that members of the universities called Luther a heretic and yet not one of them would come forward to dispute with Luther.[64] In A Beautiful Dialogue it was reported that Doctor Eck of Ingolstadt disputed with Luther at Leipzig and "carried away a great sow," the traditional prize for last place in horse racing.[65] In Karsthans the student reported that Eck had gained neither much honor nor victory in his disputation with Luther.[66] Hartmuth von Cronberg spread the blame even further. "One says that the wise do not commit small follies," he
wrote in his Rejection of the Alleged Dishonor . "This may also happen to our geniuses [hochwysen ] who acted so childishly at the last imperial diet in the matter of doctor Luther, for there has undoubtedly not been a truer more Christian teacher living in a thousand or more years than this doctor Luther."[67] Cronberg went on to say of Luther at Worms that "this doctor rejoiced that he was honored by God in being condemned and banned by men for the sake of the truth. He would much prefer to suffer death and all the horrors of the pope than to keep silent concerning the truth, and in that fashion he shows forth [his] great Christian brotherly love towards the pope and all human beings."[68]
The anonymous author of A Pleasant Argument summarized well a point made by several of the pamphleteers. The nobleman in the dialogue asked the curialist why they had not appointed "learned people" to refute Luther "with divine Scripture" and "show him his error," for Luther "wishes nothing else and has offered gladly to be corrected and to give up if he is overcome with Scripture." If this were done, the curialist and his people "would receive great praise" and secure the allegiance of the laity "so that we would believe and persevere more strongly than ever. But when we see that you do not wish to do this but only wish to proceed against him with force you arouse in us a suspicion that you have not shown us thus far the right way to eternal life but rather are misleading us."[69]
The other side of the claim that Luther was willing to be instructed was that it was his opponents who had refused to enter into proper measured debate on the basis of Scripture. Instead, they had started the public battle in the press and then, unable to overcome Luther's arguments, had resorted to force. The burgher of A Pleasant Argument became upset with the curialist's criticism of Luther's polemics. While he agreed that some of the pamphlets used "improper ridicule and insulting words" that were inappropriate for "Christian people or doctors" to use, he asked, "But who started this in the first place? Indeed, you Romans! For when Luther first wrote against you in Latin and warned you in a friendly fashion, you would not tolerate any criticism from him. Instead you insulted him so badly [by calling him] a heretic and [attacked him] with such inappropriate treatises that you gave him great cause to write in German."[70] Michael Stifel in his Against Doctor Murnar's[71]False Made-Up Song Concerning the Downfall of Christian Faith[72] essentially agreed with the burgher's remark. To Murner's charge that Luther had awakened rebellion in the land, Stifel
replied that it was widely known that Luther had written that he had often wished to withdraw from the public battle but that his opponents had not allowed this. Instead, they had attacked him with their "insane bacchanalian writings" so that "no pious Christian could have tolerated such sacrilegious falsifying of the holy word of God" that his opponents had practiced. The conflict had been forced by the opponents. "Murnar" called it rebellion, but he needed to know that Christ and Paul had undertaken the same "rebellion."[73] In the introduction to Karsthans , the author also claimed that it was Murner who had replied in German to Luther's Latin publications.[74]
Several of these treatises expressed the conviction that Luther's opponents were applying brute force, book burning and the like, because they were unable to defeat Luther in debate or refute his claims with Scripture. In Marcellus's Passion of Doctor Martin Luther , it was Luther's books that were burned at Worms rather than Luther himself. Hutten's books were burned to the right of Luther's, Karlstadt's to the left. And following the passion narrative, Marcellus claimed that a portrait of Luther was also consigned to the flames. Over it stood the words "This is Martin Luther, Doctor of divine truth." The portrait would not burn, however, until covered in pitch.[75] Perhaps less fanciful was the account in Karsthans that in Mainz in 1520 the papal legate, Aleander, had attempted to arrange that Luther's books be publicly burned. "When everyone was assembled on the square and was awaiting the event," the pamphlet reported, "the executioner asked whether a legal judgement had been given that the books should be burned. When no one could attest to this, the lowly man did not want to execute the judgment and went away. O what great shame and disgrace was thereby shown the legate!"[76] The author of New Karsthans had Karsthans report that the emperor was a good papist and accordingly had had Luther's books burned and "placed under the ban with a ferocious, sharp mandate"—the Edict of Worms. Karsthans said that Hutten was being persecuted as well.[77]
Luther was willing to enter into debate on the basis of Scripture; his opponents refused. He had sought to resolve their disagreements peacefully and quietly; his opponents had taken to the press and smeared his name and lied about his teachings. He had been forced to respond to defend the truth and expose error. He had courageously testified to his faith in Leipzig, Augsburg, and now Worms. But instead of offering him the instruction he requested, his opponents resorted to force, condemning him with an unjust ban and burning his
books. But just as his picture failed to catch fire, he too, like Christ, would rise up to continue to testify to the truth. These were the stereotypical characteristics of a humble yet learned man of God.
Luther's Message
If there was a consensus in these pamphlets that Luther insisted on Scripture alone, there the theological consensus largely ended. To the extent that readers in Strasbourg and its environs might be interested in the detail and grounding of Luther's position, they would discover real variety in this literature. To Put this another way, the authors of these pamphlets did not themselves agree on what Luther taught or, at the very least, chose to emphasize in their own publications—in their own "re-presentations" of Luther's position—significantly different points. The general agreement on Luther's public persona could stretch to fit a variety of specifics, yet each of these authors thought he was supporting Luther and furthering his theological and reform program.
Some of the Strasbourg pamphlets treated Luther's theological concerns only in passing and in vague terms. Marcellus's Passion of Dr. Martin Luther , for example, mentioned only that Luther was a teacher of truth, that he proved his teaching from Holy Scripture, and that he would not recant unless he was shown on the basis of Scripture that he had erred. Of course, the whole Passion informed its readers that Luther was at odds with the leadership of the church. Other treatises dealt at length and in detail with the full range of Luther's program. The most remarkable treatise in this group is the anonymous A Pleasant Argument , which combined an uncommon familiarity with Luther's positions with a judicious wait-and-see attitude towards Luther himself. Challenged by the curialist in the dialogue, for example, the nobleman listed the things that Luther had taught the laity. The noble's list is quite comprehensive and so worth quoting at length. He had learned from Luther, he said,
first, that I should not spend so much on indulgences and he shows me that I cannot purchase grace with money since no one can give grace except God. Item, that it would be better with fewer prelates and bishops; that the pope is nothing more than another bishop. Item, that the curialists are rogues involved in fraud—the trickery of simony regarding benefices with absenteeism and reservations has become so flagrant that the village priests have learned [how to do it] and laity can now purchase benefices for their children and friends [frainden ?] only one may not call it a purchase. Item,
Luther teaches me further that I need not, as was previously the case, confess all the particulars of [my] sins to the priest—it is sufficient that I confess properly to God and briefly to the priest. Item, that when I stand before the mass and the priest elevates the Sacrament, it is sufficient for [the forgiveness of] all my sins to hope with great seriousness and to believe firmly as God has exhorted us [to do] for he must forgive me as he has promised. Item, he teaches me [that] there are no more than three sacraments. Item, he teaches me that the laity are as much clergy [pfaffen ] as the priests [priester ] and he well establishes this for me from the Bible. Item, he teaches me [that] it is not necessary to sacrifice or do pilgrimages for it is futile to dash off to foreign churches from one's own parish where God also acts and [that] the clergy have thought this up on account of their greed. Item, he teaches me that I no longer need to inquire after [the extent of my] contrition for my sins, as our clergy had heretofore preached. Item, he also teaches me that when we are baptized we are nonetheless still in sin, [that is,] the taste or dregs of original sin are left. That is what Luther has taught me and much more.[78]
Luther, one may speculate, would have been pleased by this list. But such detailed knowledge of Luther's teachings was the exception rather than the rule for these early years.
Some of Luther's distinctive teachings were "re-presented" by only a minority of these authors. Perhaps the most interesting of these other, distinctive teachings was Luther's position on the priesthood of all baptized Christians.[79] We have seen how vehemently Murner objected to this teaching. What did the Evangelical publicists think of it? Karsthans in the pamphlet Karsthans attacked Murner for his criticism of Luther's use of Scripture to show that all Christians are priests. Karsthans found Luther's scriptural proof convincing.[80]
The anonymous author of A Pleasant Argument explained Luther's position carefully, answering various objections and trying in the process to reconcile much of Luther's position with traditional teaching. The curialist explained how through faith and baptism Christians were incorporated into Christ and Christ shared all that he had with them. Christ was the true high priest, interceding with the Father and offering himself for them. "But since now a lay person can believe, pray, and sacrifice as well as a priest," the curialist explained, "thus he is also just as much spiritually a priest before God as a learned person. Conversely, a consecrated priest and also a lay person are equal spiritually or internally to a king, prince, and temporal lord because God has subject everyone to his faith."[81] "But if we wish to speak of the external priesthood, regarding only the external work, clothing, and tonsure," the curialist continued, "we must speak differently about this since, in fact, Doctor Luther does not say that the laity are priests but
rather the priests are appointed ministers or servants of the laity or of the Christian church, that is, of all people who believe in Christ." These appointed ministers are "servants in that they should pray, sacrifice, sing, read, and distribute the sacrament." So in respect to the office of the priesthood, there was a great distinction between laity and priests. The laity also did not have the right at their own pleasure to appoint or remove these same servants "as now the ignorant laity say and contend."[82] "All this," he asserted, "is also Doctor Luther's basic opinion, especially in his pamphlet that he wrote to the pope concerning Christian freedom."[83]
But A Pleasant Argument was the exception rather than the rule. What is the significance of the fact that most of the treatises published in support of Luther in 1521–1522 have so little to say about the specifics of Luther's theology? There was consensus on only three points: first, on the principle of Scripture alone and, second, that the papacy was a tyranny and needed reform if not to be abolished outright. The third point that found rather broad re-presentation was that "human" law had no place in religious matters. We examine this in the next section, since it illustrates rather dramatically the theological variation encompassed by Luther's one public persona. But these findings raise an intriguing question. Could it be that it was just these two powerful principles—Scripture alone and the rejection of "human" laws in religion—and the general attack on the papacy and clerical exploitation—anticlericalism, perhaps—that accounted for much of the support Luther received in the early years and not, or rather not yet, the many specific theological positions that we associate with Lutheranism? The works of these early publicists suggest that this may be the case.
Human Law and Divine
The variety in the representations of Luther's position is nowhere more apparent—and more significant for our approach to Luther's influence and image in these crucial early years—than in the treatment of law and works, for on this issue the Strasbourg publications offer a seemingly contradictory reading of Luther's position.[84] At the heart of Luther's understanding of law and works lies the paradoxical notion of Christian freedom. This is best expressed in Luther's remarkable "best seller," On the Freedom of a Christian . Although Luther himself prepared both a Latin and a German version, the Strasbourg printers
chose only to reprint the German version. Two editions appeared in 1520, another in 1521, another in 1522, and the last Strasbourg printing in 1524.[85] So Strasbourg readers had ample opportunity to read this important treatise.
Luther began with the paradox itself: "A Christian is a free lord over all things, subject to no one. A Christian is a subservient servant of all, subject to all."[86] One half of the paradox meant, Luther said, "that a Christian has enough with faith [and] needs no works to make him pious; [and] if he no longer has need of works, then he is certainly unshackled [empunden , "set free"] from all commands and laws; [and] if he is unshackled, he is free indeed."[87] It is this paradoxical freedom from the law and submission to the law that many of our authors failed to understand or accept even as they wrote in support of Luther and his program. Luther explained this freedom clearly. "One should know," Luther wrote,
that the complete Holy Scripture is divided into two words, which are commandment or law of God, and promise or pledge. The commandments teach and prescribe for us various good works, but they are not thereby accomplished. They indeed point the direction, but they do not help [with accomplishment]. They teach what one should do but give no strength for the doing. Therefore they are only established so that the human being can see from them his inability to do the good and learn to doubt himself.[88]
That was the function of the law, to humble a person and reveal the human incapacity to fulfill the law. "Then comes the other word," Luther explained,
the divine promise and pledge. And [it] says, if you wish to fulfill all the commandments [and] be freed from your evil desires and sin as the commandments compel and demand, look at this! Believe in Christ, in what I [Christ] promised you, all grace, righteousness, peace, and freedom. If you believe, then you have [it]. If you do not believe, then you do not have it. For it is impossible for you [to achieve this] with all the works of the commandments, which are numerous but are of no use. But you will easily and quickly [achieve] it through faith.
Therefore the promise of God gave what the commandments required, and accomplished what the commandments commanded. Everything belonged to God—commandment and fulfillment. "He alone commands; he alone also fulfills."[89]
Luther went on to explain that once freed from the law by grace through faith, Christians voluntarily subjected themselves to the law for the sake of the neighbor and undertook service to others, not for
any reward that such service might be thought to merit, but out of spontaneous love in obedience to God. At the same time that Luther taught the voluntary submission to the law, he also concluded that a wide range of clerically imposed "human" laws were not just unnecessary and fraudulent, fabricated in order to enrich the clergy, but positively sinful since they motivated people to trust in their own efforts rather than to accept God's free gift of forgiveness.
Significantly, many of our authors adopted Luther's insistence that Scripture should be the sole authority and his concomitant rejection of "man-made" laws that conflicted with Scripture, but they did not share his understanding of the inability of human beings to fulfill the law, even the divine law. Instead, they rejected "man-made laws" but insisted on the fulfillment of "divine law." For example, the author of New Karsthans severely criticized the clergy because they did not live according to the pattern set by the early church or in accordance with the teachings of Christ; that is, they did not conform to Scripture. Papal law was contrasted with Christ's commands. For example, the character Karsthans responded to a recitation of 1 Timothy 4:1–4 with the comment, "These words are against the papal law, in which, as I hear and the clergy preach, it is forbidden to eat meat, eggs, and milk on fast days and [it is stated] that clergy should not have wives." The character Sickingen agreed that the words of 1 Timothy 4 were indeed opposed to the papal law. Unfortunately, however, "it has come to the point where more attention is now paid to what the pope institutes than to what Christ himself says with his own mouth and [what] the apostles have said and written. And the pope is served with greater fear than God Himself." That was what the clergy believed and taught, Sickingen asserted, and they thereby perverted "the legitimate Holy Scripture with their human, indeed devilish decretals."[90] At another point Sickingen observed that, although the papal law was illegitimate and should be rejected, it was given precedence over the commands of God. Christ himself had excoriated the Jews for just such a practice of violating God's commandments for the sake of human laws.[91] Further on Sickingen deplored the fact that the papal law was considered to be completely firm and constant while the gospel and Christ's teaching was given little respect. One could see this in the widespread opinion, he remarked, that to eat meat on Friday was an "unchristian, evil thing," although this was not God's prohibition but rather the pope's.[92]
This attack is strongly reminiscent of Erasmus's insistence on a simple, scripturally based Christianity. This impression is reinforced
by a prototypically Erasmian attack in New Karsthans on external ceremonies. They were unnecessary, the author observed. Christians should rather serve God spiritually and confine their external activity to good works.[93] The author of New Karsthans was still operating with traditional categories, although in a humanist vein. His objection was not to a reliance on law per se but only to a reliance on false, man-made laws and especially ecclesiastical law. In fact, he sought above all to champion "divine law and commandments," which he equated with God's "wholesome faith."[94] Tradition or custom was rejected in favor of the teachings of Christ and the apostles.[95] Christ was a teacher and example to the clergy.[96] Divine law was not to be sullied by human additions; but the role of the divine law was viewed in completely positive terms. The problem was the burden of ecclesiastical law, not law generally. God was implored to rescue them from the "papal oppression and the wantonness of the clergy, who with their arrogant, irritating life have scandalously suppressed your divine word and sacrilegiously taken from us the wholesome food for souls [and who] have laid upon us an unbearable burden in the place of your light yoke."[97] This "light yoke" was the teaching and example of Christ, the "divine law." It is crucial to note that the author did not offer his readers Luther's condemnation of all works done in anticipation of reward. More importantly, he did not offer the word of promise as the answer to the challenge of the law, even (or perhaps especially) the challenge of "divine law."
Other treatises also took this more "humanistic" than "Lutheran" approach to law and works. The author of A Beautiful Dialogue , who may be the same person as the presumed author of New Karsthans , namely Martin Bucer, used Scripture to criticize the clergy and the institutional church, for Scripture was seen as the source of divine law, which took precedence over all human laws of the church. When he stated that Luther "grounds all his writings in right faith and out of the holy gospel and out of Saint Paul's teaching and leads us out of many entanglements into which the clergy has for a long time gotten us on account of money and goods,"[98] the clerical entanglements that he had in mind was the ecclesiastical law, concerning which he remarked, "I am concerned [that] there is little in it of God's law."[99] On this basis he proceeded to criticize the clergy and many clerical practices.
The student Laux Gemigger suggested that Luther had taught "Christ's teaching," namely, "how we have turned from good to evil," and had laid out the "teaching of the evangelists . . . without addi-
tions." The additions were, of course, human laws. Luther was "sent by God to teach us God's word and good morals and to drive out the Antichrist here on earth, also to see to it that God's word not be completely spoiled and that the Roman tyranny be recognized, that they should have no kingdom here on earth."[100]
While New Karsthans, A Beautiful Dialogue , and Laux Gemigger's To the Praise of Luther did not even mention salvation by faith alone, Hartmuth von Cronberg's Rejection did attempt to explain the relation between salvation by faith alone and good works. Luther had given everyone the power to become a child of God and an inheritor of his eternal kingdom, Cronberg began, because
he who believes that is assured and his God will lead him and keep him on his way. There may be no doubt: no one who believes in Christ rightly may be ungrateful for such magnificent grace. For this reason we wish to be thankful to our Lord Christ for the magnificent grace that he has shown to us his unworthy creatures. Therefore we must be attentive to the works that please the Lord God the most and on which the whole Christian foundation stands. That is to love God with all the strength of body, mind, and soul and [to love] the neighbor as our selves.[101]
But as this excerpt shows, Cronberg was still operating largely with a contrast between the divine law of love and human laws. Cronberg set the two great commandments taught by Christ against the ecclesiastical laws of the pope. If the pope could be led from "human wisdom" to the "true wisdom," "the divine Christian wisdom," he would virtuously desist from "all unchristian laws." All self-seeking would be transformed into "the most sweet brotherly love" based on the love of God and neighbor. Justice would be instilled into human hearts and consciences, and there would be less reliance on juridical books because "Christian brotherly love cannot tolerate the interminable legal dealing [Juristery ]."[102] God, for Cronberg, "does not regard the multiplication of external works of pageantry or longer prayers. He wishes that [one] have a good heart. This is what is truly called seeking the kingdom of God."[103]
If in their defense of Luther Cronberg, Gemigger, and the author or authors of New Karsthans and A Beautiful Dialogue viewed the contest largely in terms of "divine law" or Scripture versus "human law," Michael Stifel and the anonymous author of A Pleasant Argument read and represented Luther differently. For them, as for Luther himself, the law disclosed human unworthiness and drove one to God's unmerited gift of forgiveness. "See now, dear man," Stifel wrote, "thus
Luther teaches us to fear God through His law so that we can in no way by our own efforts fulfill the law without His grace." Fear induced humility and a great desire "to run after the grace of God." "But observe what clumsiness is in our doctors," Stifel exclaimed. They raised the cry that Luther "disparages God, the wicked heretic! He says that God demands more from us than we are able. If that were the case, God would be unjust for condemning us on account of that which was beyond our power." "O blindness!" Stifel replied, "Take notice, dear lay person, dear peasant, how these big cheeses understand nothing about either the law of God or His grace!"[104]
Stifel went on to state that Luther taught that the Christian was not bound to do good works but, in the freedom of faith, did good works joyfully. Christian freedom "joyfully fulfills the law." For this reason, Stifel explained, Luther said of the righteous man in Psalm 1 that he was not bound to any work nor to any time. Rather he freely did what the law required. "That is truly the correct teaching of the spirit of freedom," Stifel insisted, citing 1 John 2 and 2 Corinthians 3. There was freedom where there was the spirit of the lord. "From this it follows that a work done in the conviction that it is necessary . . . is a work contrary to Christian freedom. It is a work of presumption. It goes against the Holy Spirit."[105]
To be sure, Stifel explained, Luther was criticized by his enemies because he taught that good works outside of grace were sins, but for Stifel salvation itself hung on this point. "Everything that occurs before grace is sin and nothing good because it is mere human work which God does not reward other than by appearance." Stifel explained that just as such works had an appearance of goodness, God gave for them temporal reward, that is, an appearance of a reward. "But in truth it is more a punishment," he said, "since the human being misuses it as all other things before he is in grace." But now that Luther had taught such things, his enemies cried against him "as the Jews did against Christ." The Jews said that Christ could not be sent from God because he broke the Sabbath. In the same way, Luther's opponents said that Luther could not be a messenger from God because he rejected praying, fasting, the giving of alms, and so on. He was a heretic. "God willing," concluded Stifel, "may I die on account of the confession of such a heresy, namely, on account of the honor of God and His Grace."[106] Stifel seemed relatively unconcerned about the confusion and outrage that was occasioned by this rejection of works apart from grace.
Not so the author of A Pleasant Argument . He took some pains to lay out his understanding of Luther's position and to protect it from misunderstanding. In the dialogue, the nobleman challenged the curialist. "Doctor Luther teaches that one may not do good works because one may not earn heaven though good works. Also, that one can do no good work without sin. If this is the case, why are you always talking about good works?"[107] The curialist replied that the nobleman had not understood Luther and was doing him an injustice. Luther never forbade people to do good works. "If you wish to read him, you must understand him correctly for Luther is never against the Gospel and Paul, who teach us that we should do good works."[108] When challenged by the burgher to make sense of this, the curialist urged the burgher and nobleman to read Luther's Instruction Concerning Several Articles That Were Attributed To Him By His Opponents . "There you will find that he thinks a great deal of good works and although it is indeed true that one cannot come to salvation through works, nevertheless works are necessary for salvation, for Christ has commanded us to work in his vineyard."[109] The curialist then went on to explain Luther's position as he understood it. Luther's opinion was that "external works such as fasting, going to church, giving alms, doing pilgrimage, endowing masses and benefices" were insufficient in themselves for salvation. The human being was unable to become holy through such things, however many of them he did. "This must be understood," the curialist said, "for good works do not make the human being justified (because a wicked, lost person can also do good works)." If the human being wished to be saved, he had to be just beforehand. This could not happen through works but only through God's grace, which relieved the human being. "And it is indeed a false delusion," the curialist said, "when one takes it upon oneself to earn God's favor and grace through one's good works, for the grace of God comes solely from the free inspiration of God without our merit but rather out of His mercy."[110] The curialist went on to say that once we had grace, that grace worked in us so that we did good works. So people did Luther an injustice when they said that he rejected fasting, confessing, alms giving, and the like.
Variety and Reception
We see in these writings some significant variety in the ways in which different authors read and re-presented Martin Luther and his writ-
ings. These authors all wrote in support of Luther and his teachings, as they each understood it. Underlying this support was both consensus and divergence.
The authors agreed among themselves on a few crucial items about Luther's character and his message. They all saw Luther as a learned doctor and an engaged pastor dedicated to teaching "Christian truth." They also agreed that Luther's teachings set him in conflict with the institutional church and especially the papacy. Most important of all, these authors agreed that Luther insisted that "Christian truth" could be establish only on the basis of "Scripture alone." The historian and bibliographer Hans-Joachim Köhler has examined a representative sample of 356 pamphlets that closely resembled the major characteristics of the larger universe of approximately 10,000 pamphlets published between 1500 and 1530. He found that nearly all the pamphlets dealt in one way or another with the issues of theology and the church. "Only six of the 285 German pamphlets in our sample," Köhler remarks, "do not touch upon theological topics—and likewise only three of the 71 Latin texts."[111] Of the five major thematic groupings Köhler constructed—theology and the church, the economy, politics and law, learning and education, and society and culture—theology and the church was the most popular topic, found in 98 percent of the pamphlets. Issues of the economy were least popular, found in only 43 percent of the pamphlets.
Köhler's results go beyond these gross categories to identify the most important subtopics within this pamphlet literature. Once again, it was a religious issue, or to be more precise, a Reformation issue, that dominated these publications. The one issue that excelled all others, the one issue that received the greatest attention, was the principle of sola scriptura , Scripture alone. In other words, two-thirds of the pamphlets, both Catholic and Evangelical, dealt in one way or another with the claim that Scripture should be the sole source of faith. In the period 1520 to 1526, this Reformation topic was dealt with by more than 70 percent of the authors.[112] Perhaps not surprisingly, then, this was also the one issue on which all these defenders of Luther agreed.
If our authors agreed on Luther's vocation as a teacher and on his insistence on Scripture alone, they disagreed (without probably being aware of the disagreement) on his larger role and on the crucial conclusions he drew from Scripture alone. Some of our authors still presented Luther as primarily a teacher and theologian seeking to reform
the institutional church. He was a highly learned theologian and a trenchant (and perhaps excessively vociferous) critic of abuses within the church. But others saw Luther in a larger, possibly apocalyptic role. To view Luther as a special instrument of God—as an "Elias" or "Christian angel," as Stifel did—invested his message with special authority. We see in this public persona the beginnings of Luther's peculiar personal authority among his followers.
When we turn from Luther's person to his message, only a minority of these authors picked up on some issues of central interest to Luther himself, such as the priesthood of all baptized Christians.[113] In fact, the majority of Luther's defenders published in Strasbourg were still reading Luther within a context strongly shaped by humanistic and specifically Erasmian concerns. This context inclined these authors to assimilate Luther's scripturally based criticism of human laws to the Erasmian attack on the "superstitions" of external observance that lacked spiritual grounding. For a time—a crucial time for the fledgling Reformation movement—Luther was read and re-presented in these Erasmian terms. In took time for these authors to realize that more was at stake, that Luther's radical understanding of commandment and promise was corrosive not only of "man-made laws" but of reliance on law in any form in the process of salvation.