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.