History of the Reformation, vol. 1

Chapter 11

Return to Wittenberg—Theses—Free Will—Nature of Man—Rationalism—Proposal to the University of Erfurth—Eck—Urban Regius—Luther’s Modesty—Effect of the Theses

Luther returned zealously to work. He was preparing six or seven young theologians who were shortly to undergo an examination for a license to teach. What rejoiced him most of all was, that their promotion would tend to the discredit of Aristotle. “I could desire to multiply the number of his enemies as soon as possible,” said he. With this intent he published certain theses about that time which merit our attention. HRSCV1 82.2

Free-will was the great subject treated of. He had already touched upon it in the Feldkirchen theses; he now went deeper into the question. There had been from the very commencement of Christianity, a struggle more or less keen between the two doctrines of man’s liberty and his enslavement. Some schoolmen had taught, like Pelagius and other doctors, that man possessed of himself the liberty or the power of loving God and or performing good works. Luther denied this liberty; not to deprive man of it, but in order that he might obtain it. The struggle in this great question is not therefore, as is generally said, between liberty and slavery: it is between a liberty proceeding from man, and one that comes from God. Those who style themselves the partisans of liberty say to man: “Thou hast the power of performing good works; thou hast no need of greater liberty.” The others, who are called the partisans of servitude, say on the contrary: “True liberty is what thou needest, and God offers it thee in his Gospel.” On the one side, they speak of liberty to perpetuate slavery; on the other, they speak of slavery to give liberty. Such was the contest in the times of St. Paul, of St. Augustine, and of Luther. Those who say, “Change nothing,” are the champions of slavery: the others who say, “Let your fetters fall off,” are the champions of liberty. HRSCV1 82.3

But we should deceive ourselves were we to sum up all the Reformation in that particular question. It is one of the numerous doctrines maintained by the Wittenberg doctor, and that is all. It would be indulging in a strange delusion to pretend that the Reformation was a fatalism,—an opposition to liberty. It was a noble emancipation of the human mind. Snapping the numerous bonds with which the hierarchy had bound men’s minds,—restoring the ideas of liberty, of right, of free examination, it set free its own age, ourselves, and the remotest posterity. But let it not be said that the Reformation delivered man from every human despotism, but made him a slave by proclaiming the sovereignty of Grace. It desired, no doubt, to lead back the human will, to confound it with and render it entirely subject to the Divine will; but what kind of philosophy is that which does not know that an entire conformity with the will of God is the sole, supreme, and perfect liberty; and that man will be really free, only when sovereign righteousness and eternal truth alone have dominion over him? HRSCV1 82.4

The following are some of the ninety-nine propositions that Luther put forth in the Church against the Pelagian rationalism of the scholastic theology: HRSCV1 82.5

“It is true that man, who has become a corrupt tree, can will or do naught but evil. HRSCV1 82.6

“It is false that the will, left to itself, can do good as well as evil; for it is not free, but in bondage. HRSCV1 82.7

“It is not in the power of man’s will to choose or reject whatever is offered to it. HRSCV1 82.8

“Man cannot of his own nature will God to be God. He would prefer to be God himself, and that God were not God. HRSCV1 82.9

“The excellent, infallible, and sole preparation for grace, is the eternal election and predestination of God. HRSCV1 82.10

“It is false to say that if man does all that he can, he removes the obstacles to grace. HRSCV1 82.11

“In a word, nature possesses neither a pure reason nor a good will. HRSCV1 82.12

“On the side of man there is nothing that goes before grace, unless it be impotency and even rebellion. HRSCV1 82.13

“There is no moral virtue without pride or without sorrow, that is to say, without sin. HRSCV1 83.1

“From beginning to end, we are not masters of our actions, but their slaves. HRSCV1 83.2

“We do not become righteous by doing what is righteous; but having become righteous, we do what is righteous. HRSCV1 83.3

“He who says that a divine, who is not a logician, is a heretic and an empiric, maintains an empirical and heretical proposition. HRSCV1 83.4

“There is no form of reasoning (of syllogism) that holds with the things of God. HRSCV1 83.5

“If the form of the syllogism could be applied to Divine things, we should have knowledge and not belief of the article of the Holy Trinity. HRSCV1 83.6

“In a word, Aristotle is to divinity, as darkness to light.” HRSCV1 83.7

“Man is a greater enemy to the grace of God than he is to the law itself. HRSCV1 83.8

“He who is without God’s grace sins continually, even should he neither rob, murder, nor commit adultery. HRSCV1 83.9

“He sins, in that he does not fulfil the law spiritually. HRSCV1 83.10

“Not to kill, not to commit adultery, externally only and with regard to the actions, is the righteousness of hypocrites. HRSCV1 83.11

“The law of God and the will of man are two adversaries, that without the grace of God can never be reconciled. HRSCV1 83.12

“What the law commands, the will never wished, unless through fear or love it puts on the appearance of willing. HRSCV1 83.13

“The law is the task-master of the will, who is not overcome but by the Child that is born unto us. (Isaiah 9:6.) HRSCV1 83.14

“The law makes sin abound, for it exasperates and repels the will. HRSCV1 83.15

“But the grace of God makes righteousness abound through Jesus Christ, who causes us to love the law. HRSCV1 83.16

“Every work of the law appears good outwardly, but inwardly it is sin. HRSCV1 83.17

“The will, when it turns towards the law without the grace of God, does so in its own interest alone. HRSCV1 83.18

“Cursed are all those who perform the works of the law. HRSCV1 83.19

“Blessed are all those who perform the works of God’s grace. HRSCV1 83.20

“The law which is good, and in which we have life, is the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost. (Romans 5:5.) HRSCV1 83.21

“Grace is not given in order that the work may be done more frequently and more easily, but because without grace there can be no work of love. HRSCV1 83.22

“To love God is to hate oneself and to know nothing out of God.” HRSCV1 83.23

Thus Luther ascribes to God all the good that man can do. There is no question of repairing, of patching up, if we may use the expression, man’s will: an entirely new one must be given him. God only has been able to say this, because God alone can accomplish it. This is one of the greatest and most important truths that the human mind can conceive. HRSCV1 83.24

But while Luther proclaimed the powerlessness of man, he did not fall into the other extreme. He says in the eighth thesis: “It does not hence follow that the will is naturally depraved; that is to say, that its nature is that of evil itself, as the Manichees have taught.” Originally man’s nature was essentially good: it has turned away from the good, which is God, and inclined towards evil. Yet its holy and glorious origin still remains; and it is capable, by the power of God, of recovering this origin. It is the business of Christianity to restore it to him. It is true that the Gospel displays man in a state of humiliation and impotency, but between the two glories and two grandeurs: a past glory from which he has been precipitated, and a future glory to which he is called. There lies the truth: man is aware of it, and if he reflects ever so little, he easily discovers that all which is told him of his present purity, power, and glory is but a fiction with which to lull and sooth his pride. HRSCV1 83.25

Luther in his theses protested not only against the pretended goodness of man’s will, but still more against the pretended light of his understanding in respect to Divine things. In truth, scholasticism had exalted his reason as well as his will. This theology, as some of its doctors have represented it, was at bottom nothing but a kind of rationalism. This is indicated by the propositions we have cited. One might fancy them directed against the rationalism of our days. In the theses that were the signal of the Reformation, Luther censured the Church and the popular superstitions which had added indulgences, purgatory, and so many other abuses to the Gospel. In those we have just quoted, he assailed the schools and rationalism, which had taken away from that very Gospel the doctrine of the sovereignty of God, of his revelation, and of his grace. The Reformation attacked rationalism before it turned against superstition. It proclaimed the rights of God, before it cut off the excrescences of man. It was positive before it became negative. This has not been sufficiently observed; an yet if we do not notice it, we cannot justly appreciate that religious revolution and its true nature. HRSCV1 83.26

However this may be, the truths that Luther had just enunciated with so much energy were very novel. It would have been an easy matter to support these propositions at Wittenberg; for there his influence predominated. But it might have been said that he had chosen a field where he knew that no combatant would dare appear. By offering battle in another university, he would give them greater publicity; and it was by publicity that the Reformation was effected. He turned his eyes to Erfurth, whose theologians had shown themselves so irritated against him. HRSCV1 83.27

He therefore transmitted these propositions to John Lange, prior of Erfurth, and wrote to him: “My suspense as to your decision upon these paradoxes is great, extreme, too great perhaps, and full of anxiety. I strongly suspect that your theologians will consider as paradoxical, and even as kakodoxical, what is in my opinion very orthodox. Pray inform me, as soon as possible, of your sentiments upon them. Have the goodness to declare to the faculty of theology, and to all, that I am prepared to visit you, and to maintain these propositions publicly, either in the university or in the monastery.” It does not appear that Luther’s challenge was accepted. The monks of Erfurth were contented to let him know that these propositions had greatly displeased them. HRSCV1 84.1

But he desired to send them also into another quarter of Germany. For this purpose he turned his eyes on an individual who plays a great part in the history of the Reformation, and whom we must learn to know. HRSCV1 84.2

A distinguished professor, by name John Meyer, was then teaching at the university of Ingolstadt in Bavaria. He was born at Eck, a village in Swabia, and was commonly styled Doctor Eck. He was a friend of Luther, who esteemed his talents and his information. He was full of intelligence, had read much, and possessed an excellent memory. He united learning with eloquence. His gestures and his voice expressed the vivacity of his genius. Eck, as regards talent, was in the south of Germany what Luther was in the north. They were the two most remarkable theologians of that epoch, although having very different tendencies. Ingolstadt was almost the rival of Wittenberg. The reputation of these two doctors attracted from every quarter, to the universities where they taught, a crowd of students eager to listen to their teaching. Their personal qualities, not less than their learning, endeared them to their disciples. The character of Dr. Eck had been attacked; but one trait of his life will show that, at this period at least, his heart was not closed against generous impulses. HRSCV1 84.3

Among the students whom his reputation had attracted to Ingolstadt, was a young man named Urban Regius, born on the shores of an Alpine lake. He had studied first at the university of Friburg in Brisgau. On his arrival at Ingolstadt, Urban followed the philosophical courses, and gained the professor’s favor. Compelled to provide for his own wants, he was obliged to undertake the charge of some young noblemen. He had not only to watch over their conduct and their studies, but even to provide with his own money the books and clothing that they stood in need of. These youths dressed with elegance, and were fond of good living. Regius, in his embarrassed condition, entreated the parents to withdraw their sons.—“Take courage,” was their reply. His debts increased; his creditors became pressing: he knew not what to do. The emperor was at that time collecting an army against the Turks. Recruiting parties arrived at Ingolstadt, and in his despair Urban enlisted. Dressed in his military uniform, he appeared in the ranks at their final review previous to leaving the town. At that moment Dr. Eck came into the square with several of his colleagues. To his great surprise he recognized his pupil among the recruits. “Urban Regius!” said he, fixing on him a piercing glance. “Here!” replied the young soldier. “Pray, what is the cause of this change?” The young man told his story. “I will take the matter upon myself,” replied Eck, who then took away his halberd, and bought him off. The parents, threatened by the doctor with their prince’s displeasure, sent the money necessary to pay their children’s expenses. Urban Regius was saved, and became somewhat later one of the bulwarks of the Reformation. HRSCV1 84.4

It was through Dr. Eck that Luther thought of making his propositions on Pelagianism and scholastic rationalism known in the south of the empire. He did not, however, send them direct to the Ingolstadt professor, but forwarded them to a common friend, the excellent Christopher Scheurl, secretary to the city of Nuremberg, begging him to transmit them to Eck at Ingolstadt, which was not far from Nuremberg. “I forward you,” said he, “my propositions, which are altogether paradoxical, and even kakistodoxical, as it would appear to many. Communicate them to our dear Eck, that most learned and ingenious man, in order that I may see and hear what he thinks of them.” It was thus Luther spoke at that time of Dr. Eck: such was the friendship that united them. It was not Luther that broke if off. HRSCV1 84.5

But it was not on this field that the battle was to be fought. These propositions turned on doctrines of perhaps greater importance than those which two months later set the Church in flames; and yet, in despite of Luther’s challenges, they passed unnoticed. At most, they were read within the walls of the schools, and created no sensation beyond them. It was because they were only university propositions, or theological doctrines; while the theses which followed had reference to an evil that had grown up among the people, and which was then breaking bounds on every side throughout Germany. So long as Luther was content to revive forgotten doctrines, men were silent; but when he pointed out abuses that injured all the world, everybody listened. HRSCV1 84.6

And yet in neither case did Luther propose more than to excite one of those theological discussions so frequent in the universities. This was the circle to which his thoughts were restricted. He had no idea of becoming a reformer. He was humble, and his humility bordered on distrust and anxiety. “Considering my ignorance,” said he, “I deserve only to be hidden in some corner, without being known to any one under the sun.” But a mighty hand drew him from this corner in which he would have desired to remain unknown to the world. A circumstance, independent of Luther’s will, threw him into the field of battle, and the war began. It is this providential circumstance which the course of events now calls upon us to relate. HRSCV1 85.1