The Question of Reception
This was what was presented and why it might have appealed to the laity (and sympathetic clergy). Was it, however, the message received? One measure of reception is the degree to which this message was picked up and repeated by other publicists. Unfortunately in this regard, it is difficult to measure the influence of these early treatises apart from the effect of the great vernacular polemics of late 1520 since most of the few treatises published in Strasbourg in 1520 or early 1521 that either characterized Luther or his teachings came after, and even in response to, the great polemics of the last quarter of the year. Still, a brief survey is not out of place.
Ulrich von Hutten published a number of treatises in Strasbourg in the early years of the Reformation.[56] Three of them appeared in late 1520.[57] In these three treatises, Hutten ferociously attacked the Roman papacy, the clergy, and various abuses within the church, and in two of the three Hutten made brief mention of Luther. In the Complaint and Warning Against the Excessive Unchristian Power of the Pope at Rome and the Unspiritual Clergy , Hutten mentioned Luther only once explicitly, in a marginal note that likened the treatment afforded both himself and Luther with that meted out to Jan Hus.[58] The treatise itself was an anticlerical, antipapal poem or song that accused clergy of everything from gluttony to sexual misconduct, attacked ecclesiastical practices such as indulgences and dispensations, and advocated a nationalistic attack on the papacy. In his short treatise Indication of How the Roman Bishop or Pope Has Acted Against the German Emperor , Hutten excerpted various accounts of papal betrayal of the German emperor and warned the emperor to take heed of how his predecessors had been treated and not to expect any better from the current pope. Luther was mentioned only once, on the last page, when Hutten claimed that his and Luther's writings had to be acknowledged to benefit and honor the emperor and the whole German nation.[59]
As these brief summaries indicate, Hutten's writings do not help us much with understanding how Luther's writings may have been
understood by his Strasbourg readers. At the very least, we can reasonably infer that Hutten himself understood Luther to be an ally in his fight against Rome and against clerical abuses. But since Luther was mentioned only twice in these treatises, once in a marginal note in Complaint and Warning and again in the concluding remarks of Indication , it is difficult to demonstrate that other readers would have made the same identification
On the other end of the spectrum from Hutten, the Franciscan and satirist Thomas Murner of Strasbourg published five polemical works against Luther in the waning months of 1520 and early 1521.[60] But since all of these treatises by Murner responded to polemical works published by Luther after midyear, they cannot really be used to determine how Luther may have been understood in Strasbourg through mid-1520. Still, it is worth mentioning that Murner did single out for extensive criticism many of the reforms that we have characterized as dignifying the spiritual status of the laity at the expense of the clergy.[61] I shall have considerably more to say about Murner in the next chapter.
Slightly more useful for our purposes is Laux Gemigger's To the Praise of Luther and to the Honor of All Christendom .[62] Published in two editions towards the end of 1520 or early in 1521,[63] this verse treatise praised Luther as "a light of Christendom" chosen by God "to tell us your divine word." Unfortunately for our purposes, it was never very specific about what Luther had accomplished except to speak the "divine truth,"[64] reveal the papal and clerical rascality, teach "good morals," and question indulgences.[65] At one point, however, 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 additions." Luther had also explained "God's word and increased faith in Christ." Luther had driven out the "evil spirit" (the origin of vices, which taught human laws rather than God's Word), established different clerical "sects," and attributed unwarranted power to indulgences in order to deceive people out of their money. "For this reason 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 fully spoiled and that the Roman tyranny be recognized, that they should have no kingdom here on earth.[66]
Readers might have inferred from Gemigger's attacks that Luther had also criticized noble families for making monks and nuns of their
children and had raised questions about the accumulation of property in noble hands through this action,[67] had attacked the ban, and had challenged clerical greed. "It is the penny's shine," Gemigger explained at one point, "that accounts for the treatment of the pious Luther, who is unjustly and improperly treated because he reveals to us the Roman rascality as well as their great heresy."[68] They even sought Luther's life. "He who now dares to tell the truth must turn himself over to death," Gemigger claimed, explaining, "If speaking kindly makes good friends, then saying the truth makes great enemies. It is because Luther has proclaimed to us the divine truth that people are so hostile towards him."[69] On several occasions Gemigger labeled the papacy the Antichrist and suggested that the clergy needed to be reformed with "cold steel."[70] Gemigger also identified Hutten and Sickingen as supporters both of Luther and of the truth.[71]
The strongest evidence in the early Strasbourg press that at least one lay person received Luther's message much as I have summarized it comes from an anonymous work by the Nuremberg city secretary, Lazarus Spengler.[72] He was the anonymous author of Why Dr. Martin Luther's Teaching Should Not Be Rejected As Unchristian But Rather Be Regarded As Christian , with which this chapter began. First published in late 1519 in Augsburg,[73] this defense was reprinted in Strasbourg in October, 1520, in a collection of Luther's works in German.[74] In the work Spengler enumerated six basic reasons for this conclusion that Luther was "a special, consoling, well-grounded advocate of the holy faith and propagator of holy, evangelical, Christian teaching."[75]
First, Luther's teaching and sermons were Christian and wholesome as well as consistent with Christian order and reason because they were based on the Holy Gospel, the prophets, and St. Paul.[76] Second, Spengler would let each reasonable, pious person determine whether Luther's teaching was consistent with Christian order and reason. For himself, Spengler remarked, "No teaching or preaching has seemed more straightforwardly reasonable, and I also cannot conceive of anything that would more closely match my understanding of Christian order as Luther's and his followers' teaching and instruction."[77] Spengler claimed not to be alone in this opinion. "Up to this point," he remarked, "I have also often heard from many excellent highly learned people of the spiritual and worldly estates that they were thankful to God that they lived to see the day when they could hear Doctor Luther and his teaching."[78] Third, Luther's doctrine, teaching, and instruction
promoted Christ and salvation rather than Luther's own advantage. The indulgence preachers did just the opposite.[79] Fourth, any reasonable and truthful person who had heard Luther or his followers had to acknowledge that his troubled conscience had been relieved of many scruples and doubtful errors.[80] Fifth, since Luther was a monk, preacher, and doctor and required by his office not to keep silent about Christian teachings but rather to venture even his life on their advocacy, it was proper, appropriate, and necessary for Luther to speak out against indulgences and other errors and scandals of Christendom once he became aware of them.[81] Sixth, and finally, Luther had to the best of his ability and in accordance with his conscience, based his teaching on the gospel set forth in Holy Scripture. He was willing, however, to be better instructed by German or French universities on the basis of the truth, or by papal judgment, or by the church.[82]
It is under points two and four that Spengler asked a number of rhetorical questions that should be of interest to us. Under point two he asked with some heat whether it was not the case that "fairy tale preachers" had disquieted the consciences of "many simply unlearned people," directing them "to rely more on their works than on the grace and love of God." Hadn't these preachers urged people to rely more on external ceremonies such as rosaries, the praying of psalms, pilgrimages, fasting, the lighting of candles, reliance on holy water, and other external works than on faith, more on law than on grace, more on the flesh than on the spirit? "Hadn't these same teachers," Spengler asked, "caused us countless scruples in our hearts simply with the wide-ranging, clumsy institution of confession?"[83]
This led into a sharp criticism of indulgences. Hadn't these teachers, Spengler asked, elevated the indulgence and its utility above grace and the treasure of faith and the blood of Christ? Hadn't they turned indulgences and all the sacraments into a business? In addition, Spengler was ashamed to report, these teachers had sold for money souls in heaven and misled "poor ignorant people" into believing unquestionably that, thanks to the sole power of indulgences, they were freed from their sins and thereby delivered unto salvation.[84]
Hadn't these same preachers put forward so many ecclesiastical laws that they had thereby completely tossed out the commands of Christ? Spengler continued with his rhetorical questions. Wasn't a person who ate meat on Friday considered more reprehensible than an adulterer or blasphemer of God? Spengler added to this indictment the misuse of the ecclesiastical ban.[85] "In my opinion," he concluded,
"Luther has cleaned up these scruples and errors by means of well-grounded Christian references to holy divine scripture so that every reasonable person can easily understand. For this reason, we should more properly commend, thank, and praise him for [what he has done] than to denounce him as a heretic and enemy of the church. And yet except for some shadow boxing nothing solid, based in Holy Scripture, has been offered against [Luther's arguments]." But Luther's opponents tried to use force rather than reasoned arguments to combat him.[86]
Under point four Spengler asked whether "our preachers" had not sought to ensnare consciences by multiplying sins and by offering a false reassurance through indulgences. "In this manner the human being is made more anxious than comforted, more led into doubt than refreshed, more led into excessive fear than into love and trust of God, despite the fact that according to the holy gospel the yoke and way to salvation is completely sweet and wholesome and is to be achieved more through an orderly well-founded trust in God than in these deceptive sermons."[87]
This treatise presented Luther as an opponent of those who advocated external works over an inward trust and reliance on God's grace revealed in Christ. Luther came off, above all, as a critic of indulgences. His criticism was based, Spengler claimed, solely on Scripture. Luther's concern was to reassure consciences troubled by those who advocated external works, a burdensome form of confession, and indulgences for both the living and dead. Luther's opponents responded to Luther with force, Spengler claimed, rather than with reasoned arguments grounded in Scripture.