Chapter Six—
Contested Authority in the Strasbourg Press
One of the greater ironies of the early Reformation is that within months of having published a series of blistering attacks on Luther and his teachings on the Lord's Supper, Luther's onetime professorial colleague and fellow reformer, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, and his family sought and received sanctuary in Luther's own house. Expelled from Electoral Saxony the previous year, Karlstadt had been unable to find a secure refuge, and in the months leading up to his return he had been harried from place to place by the Peasants' War. Luther could provide temporary asylum, but the Saxon princes had to be persuaded to lift their order of expulsion. As their price for his remaining in Electoral Saxony, Karlstadt had to issue an Explanation of How Karlstadt Regards and Wishes His Teaching On the Highly Revered Sacrament and Other Matters To Be Regarded , for which Luther provided a foreword.[1]
In the late summer of 1525 this forced recantation arrived in Strasbourg and was quickly reprinted by the presses of Johann Prüß and Johann Knobloch. Both printings started with Luther's uncompromising foreword, which put his own harsh interpretation on Karlstadt's Explanation . Accompanying the Prüß edition, however, was a concluding Admonition to Peace regarding the Indicated Matter , that is, the quarrel over the Lord's Supper. Its anonymous author—we now know that it was the Strasbourg humanist and reformer Wolfgang Capito—attempted to put an interpretation quite different from Luther's on this document's significance.[2] It is in the odd juxtaposition
of these three writings—Luther's foreword, Karlstadt's Explanation , and Capito's Admonition —that we can see with particular clarity the propagandistic challenge posed by the division in the Evangelical ranks occasioned by the controversy over the Lord's Supper.
It is hard to know what readers in the Strasbourg region would have made of Karlstadt's Explanation all by itself. It is unlikely that they would have known it was a forced recantation, and as a result they might well have been puzzled by Karlstadt's carefully hedged statement. The challenge for Karlstadt was stark. How could he recant, as the princes required, without recanting? Or rather, how could he back down honorably when he remained unconvinced of any error (or more strongly put, when he remained convinced that his position was "good, right, true, godly, and wholesome")?
The challenge for Luther, if we can speak of a challenge, since he enjoyed the upper hand as well as the first word in this publication, was to deny that a reconciliation had occurred on anything but his own terms. He sought in his foreword to have the reader interpret the Explanation as a vindication of his own understanding of the dispute over the Supper and its import.
For Capito and his fellow Strasbourg reformers, the challenge ran rather in a different direction. Catholics were claiming that the rupture between Luther and Karlstadt proved that the Evangelicals were not of the true church since the Holy Spirit did not produce division. Accordingly, Strasbourg publicists, theologically speaking, had to reassure their own supporters that the Holy Spirit did remain with the Evangelicals, despite this quarrel. Had they simply agreed with Luther's position, this would have been relatively easy. They could have said that Karlstadt had fallen away from the truth. But as it happened, even as the Strasbourg publicists disagreed with Karlstadt's scriptural arguments and deplored his invective, they were inclined to agree with Karlstadt's conclusions or rather with the more convincing reformulations by Huldrych Zwingli, the leading reformer in Zurich, and Johann Oecolampadius, the humanist-reformer in Basel, both of whom had recently offered their own thinking on the matter.[3]
At the same time, the Strasbourg reformers wanted to remain on good terms with Martin Luther. They seemed sincerely to believe that Luther was a specially chosen instrument of God who had revealed the papal Antichrist and had begun the restoration of the true gospel. Accordingly, there were powerful psychological reasons to deny that they in fact were in disagreement with him, at least over anything cru-
cial. Luther's extraordinary authority also posed tactical challenges to any Evangelical publicists who chose to disagree with him. How were they going to get a hearing from those convinced that Luther spoke as a contemporary prophet, chosen by God to reveal the papal Antichrist and restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ? For the Strasbourgeois, this intra-Evangelical quarrel was fraught with the very real risk that Luther's authority would prevail.
Both Luther and Capito attempted, therefore, in the jargon of modern media campaigns, to put their own "spin" on Karlstadt's Explanation . And of course Karlstadt attempted to put his own interpretation on his recantation. It is these conflicting attempts at "spin control" that makes this joint publication so revealing.
Karlstadt began his Explanation saying that he had learned that some readers treated his books on the Lord's Supper as if they contained proven, divine teaching and as if it were certain that the body of Christ could not be bodily in the sacrament. This was a misreading of his works, Karlstadt insisted, since he never claimed certainty and in fact was personally unsure. He had asked in his writings to be instructed if he erred. To be sure, he also knew of no Scripture that compelled him to accept the traditional understanding, that the body of Christ must be bodily in the host.[4] He had written according to the best of his abilities and understanding, but he conceded that many others might well have been given by God greater perception and understanding of Scripture than he. The readers of his books should have considered this and not held anything to be proven and godly without first assuring themselves from Holy Scripture. Until this was done, his readers should consider his teachings as no more than opinion.[5]
This led Karlstadt into an extended attack on the majority of people who paid little attention to what was grounded in the Holy Scriptures but instead extolled people, and who had no other basis for their belief than this or that person had written or taught it.[6] Yet what flesh and blood revealed was satanic and not divine, misleading and not true, to be despised and not to be praised. "Hence it follows," Karlstadt wrote, "that there is nothing good nor can there be anything godly which the flesh and blood of Karlstadt has hit upon, understands, presents, or teaches."[7] Readers should beware in reading his books that they did not mistake something of Karlstadt's for God's. It was repugnant to him, Karlstadt explained, that some people encountered a particular person and adhered to him. "But if you boast
according to persons, be they Zwingli or Karlstadt, you will gain nothing, as has just been said, and put yourself in danger, as I have just warned you."[8] Moreover, people should realize that many saints had believed in the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament. If one was counting persons, the other side actually had a better case of it.
Karlstadt chose to put the onus of discerning the truth on the readers themselves. "Not only in this article on the highly revered Sacrament," Karlstadt wrote, "but in all matters on which I have written, on the Mass, on idols, and on other articles, I wish the following: no one should think that my teaching is good, right, true, godly, or wholesome, unless he is certain of this on the basis of the wholesome Word of God, for I wish my writing to be judged according to and on the basis of God's Word."[9] Yet many did not separate the "pearls" from the "manure" in his writings. Why? Because they sought novelties and curiosities.[10] In saying this, Karlstadt did not want to discourage the reading of Christian authors or the possibility of Christian revelation. "That which is good and godly is wholesome and true and to be accepted wherever one finds it, be he old or young, man or child, of high or low estate. Also that which is godly in my books I do not recant, nor shall anyone force me to contradict divine truth."[11]
Obviously, this "recantation" was strictly qualified. Karlstadt rejected what did not comport with Scripture and urged his readers to test his writings against Scripture. He characterized his position as "uncertain," but he also stated that he himself continued to be convinced by his reading of Scripture and unconvinced by the opposing position. He strongly criticized those who relied on personal reputation rather than on Scripture, and while he named himself and Zwingli as persons of authority whose writings should be checked against Scripture, this attack on "personal authority" could just as well apply to Luther. His was a "recantation" that recanted very little.
Luther, not surprisingly, put his own construction on Karlstadt's "recantation." In his foreword to the Explanation , he interpreted Karlstadt's concessions as not merely an admission that his teachings should not be considered as certain, but as proof that they were false. True instruction by the Holy Spirit produces two virtues, Luther explained: a person so instructed is certain and sure of his position, and he will confess this position "courageously, freely, and confidently" in the face of death and the devil. Since Karlstadt, Zwingli, and others of their persuasion spoke on this matter of the Lord's Supper in terms of opinions and questions, Luther concluded that they certainly did not
have the Holy Spirit and therefore spoke from human fancy. Nevertheless, because of Karlstadt's admission of uncertainty Luther could still harbor hope for him and others of his ilk. "We who are certain in this matter have the responsibility," he wrote, "to help such wavering and questioning hearts, to reach out a hand in such dangerous matters, to listen in a friendly fashion to their questions and searchings, reasons and considerations, and to refute with the Scriptures and help them out [of their error]."[12]
If Luther's foreword served to put his particular interpretation on Karlstadt's Explanation , Capito's anonymous Admonition to Peace attempted to put quite a different interpretation not only on Karlstadt's Explanation but also on Luther's foreword and the Supper dispute in general. He had the difficult task of acknowledging Luther's authority while disallowing it, of minimizing the significance of the dispute while respectfully disagreeing with Luther on the substance, of reassuring his readers that they were one with Luther on what really mattered, while potentially disturbing them with the claim that on this point, at least, Luther was in error.
Capito's Admonition began with a striking (and given the content of the preceding foreword and Explanation , a rather surprising) declaration: "Rejoice, Christian reader, and say thanks to God our Father through our savior Jesus Christ, Dr. M. Luther and Andreas Karlstadt are again one." Since divisions were caused by the flesh (1 Corinthians 3), "truly we should receive with all thankfulness this their unification after such division as a special gift of God and a holy fruit of the Spirit, and we should heartily rejoice in it." And he warned his readers not to "do as some who wish first to dispute a great deal about this pamphlet, [to argue] that this and that [in this pamphlet] is inconsistent with what was read before in both Dr. Luther's and Karlstadt's books."[13] Rather, they should be content with God's gift of this reconciliation.
Capito proceeded to depict the dispute as a product of human weakness. "The ancient holy martyrs and otherwise highly gifted fathers have often shown themselves to be human, how should we expect better in our own times?" We should seek no more of Peter, Paul, or Apollo than that they be true and that they present to us the word of the Lord and not their own opinion. "Therefore we should let fall all respect for persons and hold ourselves to the Scripture alone and through it test and align all things as Dr. Luther himself has so often admonished with complete earnestness."[14] Drawing on passages of
Scripture, Capito urged at some length that his readers could only find unity in following the Word of God, not by respecting people. This was true also in the matter of the Lord's Supper. Unity will come, Capito maintained, "if we allow the good opinion of all men to fall away and seek the correct understanding solely within Scripture." No one should say that this or that person "has not erred in great [matters], [so] he will also not err in this matter, [therefore] I wish to be of his party." Peter, Capito reminded his readers, had not erred in great matters and had freely acknowledged Christ before the high priests in Jerusalem, and had suffered imprisonment and flogging on this account. But in Antioch he erred in a much lesser matter "so that Paul had to chastise him publicly." There was no one, then, who had not shown at some time that he was a human being. "Since God protects His own from erring in the chief matters," he concluded, "is it any wonder that they show themselves to be human beings in lesser matters?"[15] As Capito's subsequent discussion of the issues in question indicates, this admonition was meant more to disabuse people of inordinate deference to Luther than to Karlstadt.
In his discussion of the issues, Capito came down firmly on the side of a spiritual understanding of Christ's presence in the Supper and rejected Luther's insistence on the real presence. At times he seemed clearly to be attacking the Catholic notion of transubstantiation;[16] at most points, however, he seems to have in mind Luther's insistence on the real presence. He was careful, however, not to attack Luther by name. On the contrary, Capito even called on Luther's support for his position. To be sure, Luther had written against Karlstadt and the Waldensians, Capito said. But Luther had also zealously promoted the memory of, and faith in, the death of Christ and had often advocated a spiritual eating. "Though to be sure he is harsh in the books [just] mentioned," Capito observed, "you should remember that he too must show himself to be a human being." Now such weaknesses were much less important in such "accidental matters" than in a "great matter." "You must be faithful to Christ, not to Luther," Capito instructed his readers, "You must pay attention to the word of the Lord, not Luther's or any other word as Dr. Luther himself assiduously teaches you. And therefore you have had after the apostles no author who has not often erred."[17]
Yet even so, Luther and Karlstadt were once more reconciled despite the disagreement on what Capito concluded was a subsidiary and not faith-dividing point. But if a reader believed that the Lord gave
his body to eat bodily in the Supper, a misunderstanding as Capito saw it, Capito nevertheless urged them to "do as Dr. Luther."
Do not divide on that account the love and brotherhood with those who nevertheless believe all things with you, although they indeed in this point believe otherwise. In such fashion Luther treats the Waldensians, and now also Dr. Karlstadt who writes in his pamphlet that he still cannot understand his opinion as other than demonstrable, good, right, godly, and wholesome. Still Dr. Luther takes delight in his explanation, which he would not do if Karlstadt were a heretic on account of this opinion or was in error on a necessary part of the faith.[18]
If this conclusion was not amazing enough, Capito went on to stigmatize as "un-Lutheran" those who attacked Zwingli and Oecolampadius on this matter!
If, then, Dr. Luther is willing to maintain Christian unity with those who do not believe that Christ is bodily in the bread, indeed [with] those who regard it as good, right, godly, and wholesome not to believe, how un-Lutheran then are those who decry as the greatest masters of error Zwingli and Oecolampadius, two so faithful servants of Christ who certainly work no less for the honor of Christ [than Karlstadt and the Waldensians do], and otherwise belittle them in every way and attempt to destroy them?[19]
Although there would always be disagreements in the interpretation of Scripture, as long as they were united in the chief issues, why should disagreement matter on external things that were in themselves not necessary for salvation?[20] "Without love we are nothing," Capito asserted, "without faith in the fleshly presence of Christ in the bread, we may be Christians and Dr. Luther's friend."[21]
In the closing pages of his Admonition , Capito offered a "Caution Regarding Several Points in Dr. Luther's Letter and Karlstadt's Explanation." Here he subjected Luther's foreword to his own particular reading. For example, he took Luther's statement on how dangerous it was to waver over articles of faith and effectively argued that Luther was not serious on this point. "In this regard," Capito wrote, "you should pay no attention to the fact that Luther regards the presence of the body of Christ in the bread to be an article of faith, which is to be believed as necessary for salvation, for otherwise he could not accept as a brother or friend Dr. Karlstadt, who regards as good, right, godly, and wholesome just the opposite view, for the Christian should turn away from such."[22]
To Luther's assertion that true instruction by the Holy Spirit produced the virtues of certainty and courage in confession even in the
face of death or the devil, Capito explained that this should be understood only in regard to the chief issues of the faith. In other lesser points, such as the dispute over the real presence, the Holy Spirit often allows only gradual comprehension. Capito cited as an example errors in Luther's earlier writings that he abandoned only over time. Capito also argued that the Holy Spirit encouraged both a courageous and a humble confession of faith, whichever was best at the time. Luther, too, had first confessed the faith with humble pleas thus better to encourage its acceptance. Bold proclamation did not make a teaching true, nor did questioning presentation make a teaching false. Both must be tested against Scripture.[23]
Capito took issue with Luther's conclusion that Karlstadt's, Zwingli's, and other's uncertainty proved that they did not possess the Spirit. To begin with, he stated, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and others were not uncertain on this point, although they did not announce their position with such defiance and bravado, having learned from Paul to handle God's word with fear and trembling. Were this principle of Luther's in fact valid, then it would prove that he himself had not originally possessed the Spirit, for although he had written "nothing but the certain Gospel of Jesus Christ," he had at the beginning deferred far more to the pope and "the worst enemies of the truth" than he should have. He had said that he was writing only to inquire into the truth. Although he was "greater in the exegesis of Scripture than anyone we have had in many hundreds of years," he, too, had displayed more deference towards the world and his own weaknesses than perhaps he should have. Truly, Capito concluded, Luther had revealed his humanity in this argument, as in many other places.[24]
Capito closed with the observation that there would always be divisions in the church and disagreements about teachings, so that his readers should not be distressed by such divisions "in our times." Rather they should rejoice that they have the true gospel, learn from this dispute that human beings will be human beings, and commit themselves to Christ alone.[25]
Luther's Charismatic Authority
To understand Capito's labored attempt to depict Luther as just another human being (while still admitting that he was "greater in the exegesis of Scripture that anyone we have had in many hundreds of years"), it is necessary to recall the authority that Luther had acquired
over the last several years and the role it was playing in this dispute over the Supper. For some years the Evangelical press had been portraying him as anything but just another human being.
Chapter 4 explored the public persona that Luther had acquired by 1521–1522. In visual terms, woodcuts such the one that graced two editions of Luther's speech at the Diet of Worms 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).[26] The Strasbourg publicists had given additional content to these signs, describing Luther as everything from a "preacher of truth"[27] to a "light of Christendom," whom God had chosen and sent into the world "to tell us your divine word,"[28] or even a "Christian Angel" sent "to us by God, ordained and raised up in the fervor of the spirit of Elisha."[29] He had been cheered for his attack on the papacy, an attack that for many had apocalyptic overtones, and warmly seconded for his insistence on Scripture alone. His anger and abusiveness had given some people pause, but most of his supporters thought it justified by the enormity of the papal tyranny that he was fighting. His defiant speech at Worms had only confirmed the laudatory picture of him propagated by his supporters.
By the beginnings of the Sacramentarian controversy in 1524–1525 Luther's authority, if anything, had grown. For the past five years his publications had flooded the German-speaking lands in an ever rising tide. In Strasbourg itself well over 150 printings of works by Luther had appeared by the end of 1523.[30] People were purchasing Luther, reading Luther, and purchasing him again. No other author came within publishing even a tenth of Luther's volume. This by itself conveyed massive authority, or rather manifested the authority that alone could account for the demand that such massive printings and reprintings reflected.
To be sure, Luther himself and his fellow publicists pointed insistently to Scripture alone as the sole authority for deciding questions of Christian truth. But Luther had convinced large numbers of people—or at least crucial numbers of significant people, namely, other Evangelical publicists—that his interpretation of Scripture was the "right, true, and godly" reading. As if to bolster this authority as an exegete, Luther had issued his own translation of Scripture along with incisive prefaces and glosses, a translation, as we have seen, that quickly swept the field, coming by 1524 to be cited by almost three-quarters of the other publicists who were explicating Scripture.[31] Even
in an argument about the right understanding of "Scripture alone," Martin Luther enjoyed unparalleled authority.
Once Luther's special authority was established, it was only a matter of time before it itself would become an issue even within the Evangelical ranks. With the outbreak of the inter-Evangelical controversy over the presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper, Luther faced novel tactical challenges to the propagation of his understanding of the Gospel. As I have argued at length,[32] it had not been difficult in controversies with Catholics to get the public to see that there were fundamental differences between the Catholic and Evangelical understanding of the Christian message. Since each side based its arguments on different authorities, the reasons for the disagreements were apparent, and each was certain that he was right and his opponent wrong. The various members of the Reformation movement, however, were generally in agreement on the central principles that differentiated their beliefs from Catholicism, and most of them accepted the Scripture as the only authority and source of doctrine. Yet despite their common use of Scripture as the sole basis for their position, each side was, ultimately, unable to convince the other of its error. As we saw in the last chapter, whatever the cogency of the theological principle that Scripture interprets itself, in practice at least among sinful human beings, the "right" understanding of Scripture was not always easily determined. Luther faced the difficult task of convincing people that in this appeal to a common authority, Scripture, his reading was correct. To complicate this task, Luther had to convince his readers that the disagreement was of such significance that it outweighed the widespread perceived agreement on most of the rest of the Evangelical agenda.
Given the confusion that the debate engendered within the Evangelical ranks, Luther had to find a way to help those who were bewildered to see that the disagreement was significant and real, and to make it as likely as possible that they would choose to support his side of the controversy. He could of course rely on whatever force his scriptural and theological arguments carried, and the great bulk of his treatises are devoted to the exegesis of Scripture and debate over theology. But in the confusing context of so internecine a quarrel, this alone was not enough. Luther also needed to sharpen the differences between himself and his Evangelical opponents to make the choice even clearer. He did this by maligning his opponents and thus raising doubts about the validity of doctrine espoused by such evil men. He
also delicately claimed special authority for himself, and on this basis attempted to get those who were unsure or who did not fully understand the disagreement or its significance to accept his position.
Before the "reconciliation" announced in Karlstadt's Explanation , Luther had issued three blistering attacks on Karlstadt: Letter to the Christians at Strasbourg Regarding the Fanatic Spirit , and parts one and two of Against the Heavenly Prophets . These attacks drew heavily on biblical images and models that would be widely recognized by Luther's readers. For example, in his Letter , he began with a warning that the true gospel was always attacked, persecuted, and tested "from both sides": "Christ must have not only Caiaphas among his enemies, but also Judas among his friends."[33] In this case it was clear that the Judas was Dr. Karlstadt. In his opening lines to the first part of Against the Heavenly Prophets , Luther wrote, "Doctor Karlstadt has fallen away from us, [and] has in addition become our worst enemy." And he quickly added, "May Christ grant that we be not afraid and may he give us his mind and courage, that we may not err or despair before the Satan who here purports to rectify the Sacrament but has something quite different in mind, namely, with cunning interpretation of the Scripture to spoil the whole teaching of the gospel, which he has thus far been unable to silence with force."[34] This identification of Karlstadt with Satan runs throughout the treatise, allowing Luther to attack not only Karlstadt's argument but Karlstadt himself.
In fact, the treatise was directed, as its title suggests, at all fanatics and "heavenly prophets," not just Karlstadt. Although much of the treatise dealt directly with Karlstadt, it was actually Karlstadt's spirit , which Luther maintained was the same spirit driving Thomas Müntzer, the Zwickau prophets (three men who had visited Luther in 1522, claiming direct inspiration from the Holy Spirit), and the other "heavenly prophets," that bore the brunt of Luther's attack. And Karlstadt was faulted not only for what he had allegedly done but also for what his spirit was allegedly capable of doing, given the opportunity. This "tactic" entailed among other things Luther's charge that Karlstadt was impelled by the "Allstedt spirit," that is, by the same "rebellious, murderous, seditious" spirit that drove Thomas Müntzer and had led to violence in Allstedt and elsewhere. Karlstadt was subsumed under the biblical image of the false prophet. Luther went on at some length to explain and justify this accusation.[35]
Not only did Luther attempt to discredit Karlstadt by identifying him with the biblical false prophets, motivated by the spirit of Satan,
he also attempted in a careful way to bolster his own authority as a trustworthy exegete of Scripture and even instrument of God. In his Letter to the Christians at Strasbourg , he prefaced his discussion of Karlstadt's contentions with a caveat and an appeal to his personal authority:
Now my most dear friends, I am not your preacher. No one is obliged to believe me. Each one is responsible for himself. I can warn everyone, I can restrain no one. I hope, too, that you have come thus far to know me through my writings to be one who has dealt so clearly and assuredly with the gospel, the grace of Christ, the law, faith, love, the cross, human law, [and] what one should think of the pope, the monastic estate, and masses, and all the chief matters that a Christian needs to know, so that I am beyond reproach in this regard. And [I hope that it] cannot indeed be denied that I have been an unworthy instrument of God, through whom He has helped many souls.[36]
He advised the Strasbourgeois to hold to the single question: what made a person a Christian? All else was of minor importance, concerned with mere external matters. Those who were unable to take this advice should go slowly and wait for what Luther or others would have to say. "I have thus far dealt rightly and properly with the main points [of faith]," he contended, adding that anyone who claimed otherwise could not be a good spirit. "I hope," he said, "[that] I would not spoil even the external matters on which these prophets devote all their energy."[37]
Luther carefully qualified this appeal to authority with an admonition that accorded fully with his public persona as a "man of the Bible." But all this trading of accusations, Luther maintained, was the devil's trick, diverting men from the proper study of the gospel. They should ask their "Evangelists" to point them "away from Luther and Karlstadt" and towards Christ but not, as Karlstadt did, only to his work, where Christ was an example, which was the least important aspect of Christ and made him comparable to other saints. Rather they should ask to be pointed towards Christ as God's gift or, as Paul said, as "the power, wisdom, righteousness, redemption, and sanctification of God, given to us."[38] Luther had offered similar advice in the past. So long as the debate was with Catholics, this humble appeal to Scriptures served him well. But in this internecine debate over the Supper, Scripture alone proved insufficient to settle the dispute. Other participants would point to such comments in an attempt to minimize Luther's authority in the dispute. And Luther himself would find it
necessary to supplement his scriptural arguments with increasing appeals to his own special authority.
The Evangelical Challenge to Luther's Authority
The approaches taken by Karlstadt and Capito illustrate two ways that Evangelical publicists could respond to Luther in the press. Before the Peasants' War had forced him to sue for peace, Karlstadt had seen no need to defer to Luther or to pull his punches. On the contrary, he felt that he had been dealt with shabbily by Luther and wanted the whole world to recognize the hypocrisy and danger in Luther's position. In the fall of 1524, following his expulsion from Saxony, Karlstadt had arranged to have seven treatises published in Basel that attacked both Luther's understanding of the Supper and Luther himself.[39] Johann Schwan's press in Strasbourg subsequently reprinted one of Karlstadt's controversial writings on the Mass and Prüb 's establishment another three (as well as a fourth treatise comprising a short statement of faith).[40]
Perhaps as serious as the substance of Karlstadt's attacks on the Catholic and Lutheran understanding of the Supper is his designation of Luther and his fellow supporters as "new papists," for this designation suggested rather forcefully that Luther was continuing the papal oppression, only in a new way.
All Karlstadt's pamphlets contained disparaging references to "papists," "new papists," and "sophists," the later two epithets used by Karlstadt for Luther and his supporters. He made this designation explicit on several occasions. For example, two of the four Strasbourg reprints even announce in their titles that they were directed against the "new papists." A Beautiful, Brief, and Christian Instruction Concerning the Correct (Against the Old and New Papist) Mass was reprinted in Strasbourg in 1524,[41] and his Exegesis of These Words of Christ: This is My Body, Which Will Be Given For You. This is My Blood, Which Will be Poured Out For You. Luke 22. Against the One-Fold [Simple] and Two-Fold Papists Who Use Such Words For the Demolition of Christ's Cross[ 42] appeared in 1525.[43]
In his Instruction Karlstadt indirectly explained that the term "new papist" fit the Lutherans because they continued a "papistical" understanding of the Lord's Supper. The "new papists" were those who "said and wrote and preached that Christ is no sacrifice and neverthe-
less carried the word 'Mass' on their lips and called the Lord's Supper a 'Mass.'" This was like saying a person was a pious man and yet calling him a thief or robber, for the word "Mass" meant in Hebrew "a free will sacrifice."[44] "Dr. Martinus" and the "Bishop of Zwickau" [Nicholaus Hausmann], Karlstadt asserted, erred in this regard.[45] He also claimed that whatever they wrote or said to the contrary, the "new papists" in the act of elevating the bread and the cup testified that they thought Christ to be a sacrifice, for that was what elevation meant. All of Wittenberg erred in this fashion, whatever they said they intended by the act. "Thus I say, if they are allowed to elevate the Sacrament, we may speak or write of them that they sacrifice Christ because God dedicated and alloted elevation for sacrificing."[46]
Karlstadt launched his most serious explicit attack on Luther in his Exegesis . In the course of his critique of the "old and new papists," Karlstadt labeled his Evangelical opponents "sophists,"[47] "blind guides" and "dizzy spirits" [schwimmel geister ],[48] "two-fold new papists,"[49] and "double papists,"[50] among other titles of opprobrium. And if there was any doubt to whom these titles referred, Karlstadt's concluding paragraphs removed it. He urged his readers to guard themselves against the "papistic sacraments and idols." They should follow the truth that had been revealed and borne fruit despite the "new sophistic papists' prohibition." "If, however, you were to follow him," he said, obviously referring to Luther, "then God would also allow you to remain stuck in the error in which the sharp sophist is stuck in up to over his ears. And it is possible that you, as he, would remain in your old life and error and would assert that one should judge you only according to your teaching (about which he will suffer no judge in order that he remain learned) and not according to your works." "I fear that he is the Antichrist's late-born [nachgeborner ] friend," he wrote, "who has scattered precious silver and gold (that is, many good and unreproachable teachings)." Having thus acquired a good reputation for sound doctrine, he "as the devil" sought to lead them "out onto the slippery slope" so that they would now knowingly "hold with the idols and sacraments" and do "all sorts of wicked deeds," things that they had done before out of ignorance and blindness.[51]
Returning to the sore point that Luther's acts belied his words, Karlstadt accused him of treacherously arranging for Karlstadt's banishment without a hearing or an opportunity for debate. "His teaching is that one should overcome those who disagree [wider-
sprecher ] with wholesome words," Karlstadt wrote. "His work, however, is to chase people from the land without a hearing and without demonstrating their error [die vnuerhorte[*]vñ vnüberwundten aubden landen veriage[*] ]." "I had hoped," Karlstadt continued, "that the truth would be revealed without any words of abuse, and he would dispute with me or allow me to write against him without my destruction, which he had offered me with a confirming handshake and promise." But then Luther had stabbed him in the back, forcing his banishment. Those who wished to could sit around and listen "to how the cocky, slippery, and beautiful sophist," whom Karlstadt parenthetically labeled "the malicious assassin [murckler = meuchler? ] of the Scripture," "would make his [Eucharistic] host into a food of life and spring of Christian grace." For his part, Karlstadt urged the "god fearing" to avoid the mistake of believing either "D. M. L."—these initials were the only direct identification of who the "sophist" and "new papist" was—or himself. Rather they should inquire after the truth and find out for themselves "which of us is teaching divine truth or not."[52]
This personal invective had a theological meaning. To suggest that Luther was a "new papist," a "malicious assassin of Scripture," a "sophist," and perhaps even the "late-born friend of the Antichrist," was to go beyond simple name-calling and to suggest that Luther's teaching on the Supper was a damnable error and a threat to Christendom. The label "new papist" tapped into the common vocabulary of popular anti-Roman and anticlerical feeling that Luther himself had helped create. By labeling Luther a "new papist," Karlstadt was suggesting to his readers that Luther himself was a defender of clerical abuse, a tyrant in his own right, and perhaps even an associate of the Antichrist, attempting to oppress the laity of the German nation and seduce them into damnable error. This was an argument that had considerable potential appeal to anticlerical sentiment, as the course of the Peasants' War was to show.
As we have seen, Wolfgang Capito took a much less frontal approach to challenging Luther's authority. In both his Admonition to Peace , the afterword to Karlstadt's Explanation , and in his earlier What One Should Think and Say About the Schism Between Martin Luther and Andreas Karlstadt (1524),[53] Capito attempted to walk a fine line, deferring to Luther on the one hand, and pointing out on the other hand that Luther, too, was human and could err, at least on matters of lesser importance. For example, in What One Should Think and Say , Capito warned his readers that people were by nature in-
clined to value men for divine gifts when they should praise God alone for such gifts. This error caused much harm. To avoid this pitfall Paul and Barnabas, when acclaimed as gods in Lystra, bravely resisted and attributed all honor to God. Similarly, Luther warned resolutely "that one not dirty the Gospel with his name," and he was displeased "that some wish to make a sect out of his name and call themselves Lutheran, for he teaches nothing on his own but [only] reports the content of Scripture." Capito added that in his opinion Luther had, to be sure, interpreted Scripture "better and more skillfully than has been done by anyone in several hundred years." "It happens as a result," Capito observed, "that some people put too much [trust] in him and are more astonished with Luther than with God Himself, from whom such gifts come and were given for the good of the Christian community." God had now removed this delusion and shown us, he said, that we did not yet have sufficient faith. That was why, Capito explained, we have gone astray or become faint-hearted on account of a sudden quarrel and schism.[54]
There is mixed up in this matter all sorts of foolish things [Ungerathenes ]. In this way the Lord God wishes to inform and instruct you laity how dangerous it is to think more highly of human beings than the Scripture commands, and [it] lets you see that some error will be found in all human beings so that honor remains God's alone. Nevertheless, dear friends, you should not out of heat judge one side [or the other]. Remember that Paul and Barnabas also had a falling out and yet they were both upright apostles.
Capito reminded his readers that they were not commanded to judge persons but rather to check the teaching against sufficient Scripture. "The foundation yet remains; God knows His own."[55]
To take the hard edge off this criticism, Capito attempted in both treatises to minimize the significance of the dispute. In his 1524 treatise, for example, he took pains first to outline the broad agreement among Evangelicals on the "central message of salvation"[56] —that we rely for our salvation on grace and not works—and on a wide range of criticisms of the papal church and its practices, especially regarding the Mass.[57] With surprising nonchalance Capito acknowledged that there was a "misunderstanding" [Mibverstand ] on whether the word "this" in "this is my body" referred to the body or the bread.[58] "But, dear Friends," he continued, "notice the central point concerning faith and love and consider that Christ is inward and invisible and that he
is bound to no external thing, be it a sign or something else, and consider the use of the Lord's Supper, namely the contemplation and remembrance of Christ for the renewal of our hope, through which we are unified in God together with all believers in Christ." That was the reason why the Lord had established the Supper. To inquire further was superfluous. "We should fend off the foolish questions, etc."[59] Hidden under the "etc." was, of course, a wealth of questions that would ultimately split the Evangelical ranks asunder. On the matter of baptism Capito announced almost as casually that "we do not ask ourselves at what time and what age one should baptize children since God grants his grace and gifts supernaturally, and the Lord healed the paralytic on the basis of the faith of those who carried him. Where we have no clear word, we abstain from inquiry; if something further is necessary, God will certainly reveal it."[60] With these few words he disposed of another weighty topic, one that would eventually separate the Anabaptists from the Evangelical ranks.
In seeking to minimize the significance of the dispute, Capito may have been doing several things simultaneously. He was certainly replying to Catholic accusations that the dispute demonstrated the Evangelicals lacked the Holy Spirit. "There is great glee and shouting for joy among the godless, dear pious burghers and Christians," he began his 1524 treatise. "They anticipate victory against the truth because Martin Luther and Andreas Karlstadt are divided on the matter. They say among themselves, 'Every kingdom divided against itself becomes a desert, and house falls on house.'"[61] The Catholic "liars" were even falsely claiming that "we handle the Evangelical matter wrongly and Luther himself already is writing against us."[62] This was no small matter given the reputation Luther enjoyed in the Strasbourg press and, presumably, among Strasbourg Evangelicals.
He may also have been trying to reassure readers who were distressed by the thought that their pastors might be at odds with God's chosen instrument, Martin Luther. He warned his readers not to be influenced by division concerning external things, even if "highly famous men" make much of them, for they did no damage to faith and could bring no offense where one was built on Christ.[63] "If a person is distressed and made anxious," Capito stated, "when he hears that the scholars are questioning themselves concerning sacraments, images, and other external matters, this is a sign that this person does not understand Christ properly." The kingdom of God was internal and
was disclosed in the Scripture with sufficient clarity that it could not be hidden from common understanding. "Whatever requires great skill and experience has nothing to do with actual salvation."[64]
Finally, Capito may have been expressing his own sincere conviction. As he remarked, "Without love we are nothing, [but] without faith in the fleshly presence of Christ in the bread, we may be Christians and Dr. Luther's friend."[65] One could argue that this position was disingenuous, that the Strasbourg preachers understood perfectly well what was at stake, and that their claims were feeble attempts to paper over real differences. Certainly a modern historian who reads Capito's Admonition might be excused if he or she concluded that Capito has played fast and loose with Luther's foreword and with the issues that divided the two parties. But is this the most reasonable conclusion? Could not this insistence, repeated over and over again by Capito, Bucer, and their colleagues, that the quarrel was over words, and that the issue should not divide true Christians, reflect actual conviction? And if so, would this conviction not influence both how they understood and how they then re-presented Luther's writings on the Supper?
Convinced that the issue of the real presence was of secondary importance and should not separate true believers from "false brethren," Capito attempted as best he could to induce his readers to read Luther's works as he himself in fact did. This misreading became increasingly difficult with time and with Luther's own repeated insistence that the dispute did matter and was crucial for separating true Christians from false. But at least in the early years of the public debate, Capito's position was not implausible. Driven by theological conviction, an irenic temperament, and a heartfelt desire to remain in communion with that "instrument of God," Martin Luther, Capito and his Strasbourg colleagues may have held on as long as possibe to this seductively congenial reading.