4. Attack upon the “Self-righteous”
In 1516 Luther presided at Bernhardi’s Disputation, “De viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia.” (Above, vol. i., p. 310 f.) In the letter to Lang about it he says that Bernhardi had held the debate “motus oblatratorum lectionum mearum garritu.” Some opinions therein put forward had much scandalised the adherents of Gabriel Biel (“cum et mei [Gabrielistæ] vehementer hucusque mirentur”), but, at any rate, the Disputation had served its purpose (“ad obstruendum ora garrientium vel ad audiendum iudicium aliorum”). He goes on to speak of the offence his denial of the authenticity of the tract “De vera et falsa pænitentia”—hitherto ascribed to St. Augustine—had given at Wittenberg (“sane gravius offendi omnes”). Mathesius (above, vol. i., p. 304) also alludes to the opposition he encountered about this time among his brethren. At any rate a few months later Luther could triumphantly tell Lang:
“Theologia nostra et S. Augustinus prospere procedunt et regnant in nostra universitate, Deo operante.… Mire fastidiuntur lectiones sententiariæ, nec est ut quis sibi auditores sperare possit, nisi theologiam hanc … velit profiteri.”
Before this, the young Professor (at Christmas, 1515) had told his hearers, that, just as the Prophets, wise men and scribes had been persecuted, so he was being persecuted now:
“Sed state firmiter, neque moveatur ullus contradictionibus; sic enim oportet fieri. Prophetæ, Sapientes, Scribæ, dum mittuntur ad iustos, sanctos, pios, non recipiuntur ab ipsis sed occiduntur.”
The supposed “saints” he goes on to describe in their true character. What they were bent on persecuting was really Grace, viz. what he preaches under the figure of “Christ our mother-hen”:
“Superbi semper contra iustitiam Dei pugnant et stultitiam æstimant, quæ sapientia [sic] eis mittitur; similiter veritas eis mendacium videtur. Imo persequuntur et occidunt eos, qui veritatem dicunt. Sic enim et ego semper prædico de Christo, gallina nostra. Efficitur mihi errans et falsum dictum: ‘Vult Dominus esse gallina nostra ad salutem, sed nos nolumus’.… Nolunt audire, quod iustitiæ eorum peccata sint, quæ gallina egeant, imo quod peius est, versi in vultures etiam ipsi alios a gallina rapere nituntur et persequuntur reliquos pullos.… Sicut Iudæi … iustitiam statuentes quod sibi placuit, ita isti hoc gratiam vocant quod ipsi somniant.” (Weim. ed., 1, p. 31.)
A few pages further on, the new Lutheran teaching on Grace is clearly seen in its process of growth:
“Ecce impossibilis est lex propter carnem; verumtamen Christus impletionem suam nobis impertit, dum se ipsum gallinam nobis exhibet, ut sub alas eius confugiamus et per eius impletionem nos quoque legem impleamus. O dulcis gallina, o beatos pullos huius gallinæ!” (P. 35.)
To the “vultures,” i.e. his opponents, he returns again in the same lectures. They build only on their “sapientia carnis” when they set out to gain what they consider to be virtue and the gifts of grace. (Weim. ed., 1, pp. 61, 62, 70.)
“In his maxime pereunt [peccant?] hæretici et superbi, dum ea pertinaciter diligunt, quasi ideo Deum diligant, quia hæc diligunt. Inde enim zelant et furiunt, ubi reprehenduntur in istis, et defendunt se ac zelum Dei sine scientia exercent.… Quantumlibet sapiant et bene vivant, recte adhuc de sapientia carnis vivere dicendi sunt.… Servi [superbi?] sine timore et occultissime superbi.… Talis est stultitia hypocritarum de virtutibus et gratiis Dei, præsumentium se esse integros et iustos.”
A trace of the antagonism within the Order is also found in the notes of the sermons preached in the summer of 1516. On July 6, Luther speaks of the greatest plague now rampant in the Church:
“Prosequimur, quæ incepimus, nam singularem illi tractatum quærunt, cum non sit hodie pestis maior per ecclesiam ista peste hominum, qui dicunt, ‘bonum oportet facere,’ nescire volentes, quid sit bonum vel malum. Sunt enim inimici crucis Christi i.e. bonorum Dei.”
As we know, his theology was professedly the “theology of the cross.” As for his foes, lay, clerical or monastic, their outward works were but the lamb-skins concealing the wolves beneath:
“Ad alia vocati, quam quæ ipsi elegerunt, difficiles imo rebelles sunt et contrarii, impatientes, [inclinati] detrahere ac iudicare, alios negligere, contentiosi, opiniosæ cervicis, indomiti sensus, ideo non pacifici, brevianimes, immansueti, duri, crudi. Hæc vitia et opera interioris hominis ovina veste contegunt, i.e. actionibus, oblationibus, gestu, ceremoniis corporalibus, ita ut et sibi et aliis simplicibus boni et iusti videantur.”
On July 27 he speaks of the “darts” which the foes let fly from their ambush at those who are right of heart.
“Hæc ideo iam commemoro, quia iam accedo ad subtiliores homines et invisibiles transgressores præcepti Dei et in abscondito peccantes et sagittantes eos qui recte sint corde.”
In another sermon preached on the same day, speaking of the Pharisee and the Publican, he says:
“Credo quod pauci timeant se pharisæo similes esse quem odiunt; sed ego scio, quod plures ei similes sint.… Non præsumamus securi, quod publicano similes simus.”
In this sentence, and elsewhere, stress should not be laid on the use of the first person plural, as it is merely a rhetorical embellishment. The Pharisee is the self-righteous man; he bears “idolum iustitiæ suæ in corde statutum”; he refuses to be accounted a sinner, hence:
“incurrit in Christum, qui omnes peccatores suscepit in se. Et ideo Christus iudicatur, accusatur, mordetur, quandocunque peccator quicunque accusatur, etc. Qui autem Christum iudicat, suum iudicem iudicat, Deum violenter negat. Vide quo perveniat furens et insipiens superbia.”
This indeed, in itself, is all capable of a perfectly orthodox interpretation, not, however, if we take it in conjunction with all the circumstances. On Aug. 3, the preacher again inveighs against the “sensuales iustitiarii,” who hang on their works and observances: This is to remain
“… pueri abecedarii in isto statu; sed heu quam plurimi hodie in illis indurantur, quia hæc putant esse seria, et magna ea æstimant. [Tamen] qui Spiritu Dei aguntur, ubi didicerint exterioris hominis disciplinas, non eas multum curant nisi ut præludium.”
True piety on the other hand consisted in allowing oneself to be ridden by God. The man of God
“vadit quocumque eum Dominus suus equitat; nunquam scit quo vadat, plus agitur quam agit, semper it et quomodocunque per aquam, per lutum, per imbrem, per nivem, ventum, etc. Tales sunt homines Dei, qui Spiritu Dei aguntur.”
The “holy-by-works” soil themselves with the seven deadly sins of the spirit. Hence, let us not befoul ourselves by making a rock of the “opera iustitiæ.” Let us leave that sort of thing to beginners to whom indeed we may teach
“multis bonis operibus exercere et a malis abstinere secundum sensibilem hominem, ut sunt [sic] ieiunare, vigilare, orare, laborare, misereri, servire, obsequi, etc.”
These words must have been addressed to men with some theological training, for, in this discourse, Luther dilates at some length on a text of Alexander of Hales; doubtless those present were members of his Order; but what then must we think of the teacher who thus proclaims a freedom from all the observances and traditional rules by which his fellow-monks were bound? Luther’s point of view was one, which, if adopted, spelt the end not only of the Observantines but even of Conventualism. Hence it is no wonder that it caused murmuring.