§ 125. Friends and Foes of Luther’s Doctrine,A.D.1522-1526.Luther’s fellow labourers in the work of the gospel increased from day to day, and so too the number of the cities in Northern and Southern Germany in which pure doctrine was preached. But Wittenberg was the heart and centre of the whole movement, the muster-ground for all who were persecuted and exiled for the sake of the gospel, the gathering point and nursery of new preachers. Among the theological opponents of Luther’s doctrine appears a crowned head, Henry VIII. of England, and also “the king of literature,” Erasmus of Rotterdam, entered the lists against him. But neither the one nor the other, to say nothing of the rude invectives of Thomas Murner, was able to shake the bold reformer and check the rapid spread of his opinions.
Luther’s fellow labourers in the work of the gospel increased from day to day, and so too the number of the cities in Northern and Southern Germany in which pure doctrine was preached. But Wittenberg was the heart and centre of the whole movement, the muster-ground for all who were persecuted and exiled for the sake of the gospel, the gathering point and nursery of new preachers. Among the theological opponents of Luther’s doctrine appears a crowned head, Henry VIII. of England, and also “the king of literature,” Erasmus of Rotterdam, entered the lists against him. But neither the one nor the other, to say nothing of the rude invectives of Thomas Murner, was able to shake the bold reformer and check the rapid spread of his opinions.
§ 125.1.Spread of Evangelical Views.—The most powerful heralds of the Reformation were the monkish orders. Cloister life had become so utterly corrupt that the more virtuous of the brethren could no longer endure it. Anxious to breathe a healthier atmosphere, evangelists inspired by a purer doctrine arose in all parts of Germany, first and most of all among the Augustinian order (§112, 6), which almost to a man went over to the Reformation and had the glory of providing its first martyr (§128, 1). The order regarded Luther’s honour as its own. Next to them came the Franciscans, prominent during the Middle Ages as a fanatical opposition (§98, 4;108, 5;112, 2), of whom many had the courage to free themselves of their shackles. From their cloisters proceeded,e.g., the two famous popular preachers, Eberlin of Günzburg and Henry of Kettenbach in Ulm, the Hamburg reformer Stephen Kempen, the fervent Lambert reformer of Hesse, Luther’s friend Myconius of Gotha, and many more. Other orders too supplied their contingent, even the Dominicans, to whom Martin Bucer, the Strassburg reformer, belonged. Blaurer of Württemberg was a Benedictine, Rhegius a Carmelite, Bugenhagen a Premonstratensian, etc. At least one of the German bishops, George Polenz of Samland, openly joined the movement, preached the gospel in Königsberg, and inspired the priests of his diocese with the same views. Other bishops, such as those of Augsburg, Basel, Bamberg, Merseburg, sympathised with the movement or at least put no hindrance in its way. But the secular clergy gave crowds of witnesses. In all the larger and even in some of the smaller towns of Germany Luther’s doctrines were preached from the pulpits with the approval of the magistrates, and where these were refused the preachers took to the market-places and fields. Where ministers were wanting, artisans and knights, wives and maidens, carried on the work.—One of the first cities which opened its gates freely to the gospel was Strassburg. Nowhere were Luther’s writings more zealously read, discussed, printed, and circulated than in that city. Shortly before Geiler of Kaisersberg (§115, 11) had prepared the soil for receiving the first seed of the Reformation. FromA.D.1518 Matthew Zell had wrought as pastor at St. Laurence in Münster. When the chapter forbade him the use of the stone pulpit erected for Geiler, the joiners’ guild soon made him a wooden pulpit, which was carried in solemn procession to Münster, and set up beside the one that had been closed against him. Zell was soon assisted by Capito, Bucer, Hedio, and others.§ 125.2.“The Sum of Holy Scripture” and its Author.—This work, called alsoDeutsche Theologie, appeared anonymously at Leyden inA.D.1523, and was confiscated in March,A.D.1524. In various Dutch editions and in French, Italian, and English translations, it was soon widely spread over Europe; but so vigorously was it suppressed, that by the middle of the century it had disappeared and was forgotten. InA.D.1877 the Waldensian Comba discovered and published an old Italian version, and Benrath translated into German inA.D.1880 an old Dutch edition ofA.D.1526, and succeeded in unravelling for the most part its interesting history. He found that it was composed in Latin, and on the entreaty of the author’s friends rendered into Dutch. This led to the discovery, in the possession of Prof. Toorenenberger of Amsterdam, of the Latin original, which had appeared anonymously at Strassburg inA.D.1527 with the title,Æconomica christiana. Benrath has also discovered the author to be Hendrik van Bommel, who was in the first half ofA.D.1520 priest and rector of a sisterhood at Utrecht, expelled inA.D.1536 from Cleves, fromA.D.1542 to 1560 evangelical teacher and preacher at Wesel, dying inA.D.1570 as pastor at Duisburg. The “Sum” is evidently influenced by those works of Luther which appeared up toA.D.1523, its thoroughly popular, edifying, and positive contents are based upon a careful study of Scripture, and it is throughout inspired by the one grand idea, that the salvation of sinful men rests solely on the grace of God in Christ appropriated by faith.§ 125.3.Henry VIII. and Erasmus.—Henry VIII. of England, as a second son, had been originally destined for the church. Hence he retained a certain predilection for theological studies and was anxious to be regarded as a learned theologian. InA.D.1522 he appeared as the champion of the Romish doctrine of the seven sacraments in opposition to Luther’s book on the “Babylonish Captivity of the Church,” treating the peasant’s son with lordly contempt. Luther paid him in the same coin, and treated his royal opponent with less consideration than he had shown to Emser and Eck. The king obtained what he desired, the papal honorary title ofDefensor fidei, but Luther’s crushing reply kept him from attempting to continue the controversy. He complained to the elector, who consoled him by reference to a general council (comp. §129, 1). The pretty tolerable relations between Erasmus and Luther now suffered a severe shock. Erasmus, indebted to the English king for many favours, was roused to great bitterness by Luther’s unmeasured severity. He had hitherto refused all calls to write against Luther. Many pulpits charged him with having a secret understanding with the heretic; others thought he was afraid of him. All this tended to drive Erasmus into open hostility to the reformer. He now diligently studied Luther’s writings, for which he obtained the pope’s permission, and seized upon a doctrine which would not oblige him to appear as defender of Romish abuses, though to gauge and estimate it in its full meaning he was quite incompetent. Luther’s life experiences, joined with the study of Paul’s epistles and Augustine’s writings, had wrought in him the conviction that man is by nature incapable of doing any good, that his will is unfree, and that he is saved without any well doing of his own by God’s free grace in Christ. With Luther, as with Augustine, this conviction found expression in the doctrine of absolute predestination. Melanchthon had also formulated the doctrine in the first edition of hisLoci communes. This fundamental doctrine of Luther was now laid hold upon by Erasmus inA.D.1524 in his treatise, Διατριβήde libra arbitrio, pronounced dangerous and unbiblical, while his own semi-Pelagianism was set over against it. After the lapse of a year, Luther replied in his treatise,De servo arbitrio, with all the power and confidence of personal, experimental conviction. Erasmus answered in hisHyperaspistes diatribes adv.Lutheri servum arbitriumofA.D.1526, in which he gave free vent to his passion, but did not advance the argument in the least. Luther therefore saw no need to continue the discussion.364§ 125.4.Thomas Murner.—The Franciscan, Thomas Murner of Strassburg, had published inA.D.1509 his “Fools’ Exorcism” and other pieces, which gave him a high place among German satirists. He spared no class, not even the clergy and the monks, took Reuchlin’s part against the men of Cologne (§120, 4), but passionately opposed Luther’s movement. His most successful satire against Luther is entitled, “On the Great Lutheran Fool as Exorcised by Dr. Murner,A.D.1522.” It does not touch upon the spiritual aspect of the Reformation, but lashes with biting wit the revolutionary, fanatical, and rhetorical extravagances which were often closely associated with it. Luther did not venture into the lists with the savagely sarcastic monk, but the humanists poured upon him a flood of scurrilous replies.§ 125.5. A notable Catholic witness on behalf of the Reformation is the “Onus ecclesiæ,” an anonymous tract ofA.D.1524, written by Bishop Berthold Pirstinger of Chiemsee. In apocalyptic phraseology it describes the corruption of the church and calls for reformation. The author however denounces Luther as a sectary and revolutionist, though he distinctly accepts his views of indulgences. He would reform the church from within. Four years after, the same divine wrote a “Tewtsche Theologey,” in which, with the exception of the doctrine of indulgence, the whole Romish system is vindicated and the corruptions of the church are ignored.
§ 125.1.Spread of Evangelical Views.—The most powerful heralds of the Reformation were the monkish orders. Cloister life had become so utterly corrupt that the more virtuous of the brethren could no longer endure it. Anxious to breathe a healthier atmosphere, evangelists inspired by a purer doctrine arose in all parts of Germany, first and most of all among the Augustinian order (§112, 6), which almost to a man went over to the Reformation and had the glory of providing its first martyr (§128, 1). The order regarded Luther’s honour as its own. Next to them came the Franciscans, prominent during the Middle Ages as a fanatical opposition (§98, 4;108, 5;112, 2), of whom many had the courage to free themselves of their shackles. From their cloisters proceeded,e.g., the two famous popular preachers, Eberlin of Günzburg and Henry of Kettenbach in Ulm, the Hamburg reformer Stephen Kempen, the fervent Lambert reformer of Hesse, Luther’s friend Myconius of Gotha, and many more. Other orders too supplied their contingent, even the Dominicans, to whom Martin Bucer, the Strassburg reformer, belonged. Blaurer of Württemberg was a Benedictine, Rhegius a Carmelite, Bugenhagen a Premonstratensian, etc. At least one of the German bishops, George Polenz of Samland, openly joined the movement, preached the gospel in Königsberg, and inspired the priests of his diocese with the same views. Other bishops, such as those of Augsburg, Basel, Bamberg, Merseburg, sympathised with the movement or at least put no hindrance in its way. But the secular clergy gave crowds of witnesses. In all the larger and even in some of the smaller towns of Germany Luther’s doctrines were preached from the pulpits with the approval of the magistrates, and where these were refused the preachers took to the market-places and fields. Where ministers were wanting, artisans and knights, wives and maidens, carried on the work.—One of the first cities which opened its gates freely to the gospel was Strassburg. Nowhere were Luther’s writings more zealously read, discussed, printed, and circulated than in that city. Shortly before Geiler of Kaisersberg (§115, 11) had prepared the soil for receiving the first seed of the Reformation. FromA.D.1518 Matthew Zell had wrought as pastor at St. Laurence in Münster. When the chapter forbade him the use of the stone pulpit erected for Geiler, the joiners’ guild soon made him a wooden pulpit, which was carried in solemn procession to Münster, and set up beside the one that had been closed against him. Zell was soon assisted by Capito, Bucer, Hedio, and others.
§ 125.2.“The Sum of Holy Scripture” and its Author.—This work, called alsoDeutsche Theologie, appeared anonymously at Leyden inA.D.1523, and was confiscated in March,A.D.1524. In various Dutch editions and in French, Italian, and English translations, it was soon widely spread over Europe; but so vigorously was it suppressed, that by the middle of the century it had disappeared and was forgotten. InA.D.1877 the Waldensian Comba discovered and published an old Italian version, and Benrath translated into German inA.D.1880 an old Dutch edition ofA.D.1526, and succeeded in unravelling for the most part its interesting history. He found that it was composed in Latin, and on the entreaty of the author’s friends rendered into Dutch. This led to the discovery, in the possession of Prof. Toorenenberger of Amsterdam, of the Latin original, which had appeared anonymously at Strassburg inA.D.1527 with the title,Æconomica christiana. Benrath has also discovered the author to be Hendrik van Bommel, who was in the first half ofA.D.1520 priest and rector of a sisterhood at Utrecht, expelled inA.D.1536 from Cleves, fromA.D.1542 to 1560 evangelical teacher and preacher at Wesel, dying inA.D.1570 as pastor at Duisburg. The “Sum” is evidently influenced by those works of Luther which appeared up toA.D.1523, its thoroughly popular, edifying, and positive contents are based upon a careful study of Scripture, and it is throughout inspired by the one grand idea, that the salvation of sinful men rests solely on the grace of God in Christ appropriated by faith.
§ 125.3.Henry VIII. and Erasmus.—Henry VIII. of England, as a second son, had been originally destined for the church. Hence he retained a certain predilection for theological studies and was anxious to be regarded as a learned theologian. InA.D.1522 he appeared as the champion of the Romish doctrine of the seven sacraments in opposition to Luther’s book on the “Babylonish Captivity of the Church,” treating the peasant’s son with lordly contempt. Luther paid him in the same coin, and treated his royal opponent with less consideration than he had shown to Emser and Eck. The king obtained what he desired, the papal honorary title ofDefensor fidei, but Luther’s crushing reply kept him from attempting to continue the controversy. He complained to the elector, who consoled him by reference to a general council (comp. §129, 1). The pretty tolerable relations between Erasmus and Luther now suffered a severe shock. Erasmus, indebted to the English king for many favours, was roused to great bitterness by Luther’s unmeasured severity. He had hitherto refused all calls to write against Luther. Many pulpits charged him with having a secret understanding with the heretic; others thought he was afraid of him. All this tended to drive Erasmus into open hostility to the reformer. He now diligently studied Luther’s writings, for which he obtained the pope’s permission, and seized upon a doctrine which would not oblige him to appear as defender of Romish abuses, though to gauge and estimate it in its full meaning he was quite incompetent. Luther’s life experiences, joined with the study of Paul’s epistles and Augustine’s writings, had wrought in him the conviction that man is by nature incapable of doing any good, that his will is unfree, and that he is saved without any well doing of his own by God’s free grace in Christ. With Luther, as with Augustine, this conviction found expression in the doctrine of absolute predestination. Melanchthon had also formulated the doctrine in the first edition of hisLoci communes. This fundamental doctrine of Luther was now laid hold upon by Erasmus inA.D.1524 in his treatise, Διατριβήde libra arbitrio, pronounced dangerous and unbiblical, while his own semi-Pelagianism was set over against it. After the lapse of a year, Luther replied in his treatise,De servo arbitrio, with all the power and confidence of personal, experimental conviction. Erasmus answered in hisHyperaspistes diatribes adv.Lutheri servum arbitriumofA.D.1526, in which he gave free vent to his passion, but did not advance the argument in the least. Luther therefore saw no need to continue the discussion.364
§ 125.4.Thomas Murner.—The Franciscan, Thomas Murner of Strassburg, had published inA.D.1509 his “Fools’ Exorcism” and other pieces, which gave him a high place among German satirists. He spared no class, not even the clergy and the monks, took Reuchlin’s part against the men of Cologne (§120, 4), but passionately opposed Luther’s movement. His most successful satire against Luther is entitled, “On the Great Lutheran Fool as Exorcised by Dr. Murner,A.D.1522.” It does not touch upon the spiritual aspect of the Reformation, but lashes with biting wit the revolutionary, fanatical, and rhetorical extravagances which were often closely associated with it. Luther did not venture into the lists with the savagely sarcastic monk, but the humanists poured upon him a flood of scurrilous replies.
§ 125.5. A notable Catholic witness on behalf of the Reformation is the “Onus ecclesiæ,” an anonymous tract ofA.D.1524, written by Bishop Berthold Pirstinger of Chiemsee. In apocalyptic phraseology it describes the corruption of the church and calls for reformation. The author however denounces Luther as a sectary and revolutionist, though he distinctly accepts his views of indulgences. He would reform the church from within. Four years after, the same divine wrote a “Tewtsche Theologey,” in which, with the exception of the doctrine of indulgence, the whole Romish system is vindicated and the corruptions of the church are ignored.