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.