The Final Divide

On January 22^nd, 1521, the new Emperor Charles V opened his first Imperial Diet at Worms.  As King of Spain, he had had domestic matters to attend to between the time of his election (June, 1519) and his coronation (October), but now the Lutheran heresy was to come before him at Worms.

The Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther; translation and introduction by J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston

Aleander, armed with the Papal Bull of excommunication, was hoping for condemnation without a trial.  Charles, knowing that there was strong support for Luther in Germany, understood that there would be bloodshed if Luther was condemned without a hearing.

Luther arrived under an Imperial safe-conduct.  He was shown his books and asked to recant them all; he asked for a day to consider.  The following day he attempted to make a distinction between his various works and to secure a debate from Scripture on them.  This request was refused – he was ordered to recant.  Luther could not do so unless convinced from Scripture or plain reason. 

Luther left Worms, still under safe-conduct.  On the return to Wittenberg he disappeared.  Rumors of his death spread; instead, he was in hiding in one of Frederick’s castles in Wartburg – spending several months in disguise.  He would spend the time studying and thinking, all the while his hatred of the Roman doctrine would increase.

Aleander was the sworn enemy of Erasmus – calling Erasmus the great cornerstone of the Lutheran heresy; he worked to drag Erasmus into the matter.  Erasmus feared that Luther’s burning was at hand.  Yet both Luther and Erasmus came to understand that confrontation between the two of them was inevitable.

Erasmus preferred peace; Luther preferred the cross (as he saw it).  Erasmus was not ignorant of the dilemma: he rightly saw that virtually any solution to the crisis would be a bad one.  As much as Luther would flee from moderation, Erasmus saw that the Church would do the same.

Meanwhile Erasmus moved to Basel, hoping to avoid the confrontation.  The new Pope, Adrian VI, was an old school friend of Erasmus.  The Pope urged Erasmus to come to Rome and write against Luther; Erasmus politely refused.  However, he did counsel moderation and urged Adrian to attempt real reform.  Even through 1522, Erasmus urged caution and moderation, urging against the burning of Luther’s books and against heated, polemical writing.  A counsel of serious and dispassionate scholars should be established to decide what to do.

Then in 1523, the king of England would urge Erasmus to write against Luther; the walls were closing in on Erasmus to take sides.  The first martyrs of the Reformation had died at Brussels.  Erasmus never ceased to deplore the situation, writing “What Luther wrote of the tyranny, avarice, and iniquity of the Roman curia – would that it were false!”

Erasmus would show the evils of Rome, yet would not write of the good – at least according to Luther.  By the end of the year, Erasmus decides he must write something on free-will, but does not want it published until he leaves Germany.  In 1524, Luther suggests to Erasmus that neither should write against the other, counseling Erasmus to remain a spectator to the tragedy. 

Erasmus would reply with bitterness.  Satan might delude Luther’s mind, with broken friendships and bloodshed the result.  In September 1524, his book on free will was published – a result, no doubt, of the constant pressure on Erasmus by both friends and enemies to take a stand.

The Pope, the Emperor, and Henry VIII all praised the work.  Melanchthon noted that there remained many points of agreement between Erasmus and Luther.  Erasmus would go on to write that he saw Luther as one in a long line that God used to chastise the chosen people for their own good. 

Luther would respond to Erasmus’s book on free will.  He would write On the Enslaved Will – four times the length of Erasmus’s work, strongly controversial in tone and considerably blunter than Erasmus had been.  Luther wrote to Erasmus to explain his tone (it was nasty); Erasmus would reply in a terse, bitter letter in April 1526.

Erasmus sees Luther as a destroyer of civil, religious and cultural harmony and order.  In later years, Erasmus would cool, noting that freedom of the will is a thorny issue which profits little to debate:

‘…let us leave it to professed theologians.  But we can agree that man of his own power can do nothing and is wholly dependent on the mercy of God; that faith is of great value, a gift of the Holy Spirit, though we may have differences of opinion as to the precise mode of its operation’

Luther saw Erasmus as an enemy of God, an Epicurean and a serpent.  And he was not afraid to say so.  And we know the rest of the history.

Conclusion

The authors close the introduction with an expansion of just what Luther meant by free will.  It had nothing to do with the daily choices people make – although many would paint Luther with this brush. 

It was man’s total inability to save himself, and the sovereignty of Divine grace in his salvation, that Luther was affirming when he denied ‘free-will’…The ‘free-will’ in question was ‘free-will’ in relation to God and the things of God. …The whole work of man’s salvation, first to last, is God’s; and all the glory for it must be God’s also.

While I have my own thoughts on the matter, I will keep these to myself.  As you know, for purposes of this blog such things are secondary.  The important matter here was that Christendom – with all of the good and not-so-good that came with it – was to be fractured, leading to war and, ultimately, the Enlightenment.  Neither a good outcome for liberty.

Erasmus offered an approach that, if followed early on and before Luther became so hard-headed, could have led to some proper end – proper reforms in Church practices and a proper hearing for the theological questions.  Unfortunately, too many people stood against such a path.

Epilogue

After the introduction comes the translation of Luther’s work – his reply to Erasmus.  I could only read a few pages – not that I was planning to write on any of it.  Luther is nasty – truly nasty:

…your book…struck me as so worthless and poor…

…what kept me from rushing in with an answer to you was…simply disgust, disinclination, and distaste – which, if I may say so, express my judgement of your Diatribe.

Luther ends his introduction by hoping that one day he and Erasmus can again meet as loving brothers.  His tone and arrogance ensured that this could never be the case.

Sympathy and Confrontation

The Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther; translation and introduction by J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston

From 1517 onwards, the relationship of Luther and Erasmus mattered to men of letters, theologians, and princes.  Erasmus was not a fan of dogmatic theology; Luther was, if nothing else, a dogmatic theologian.  Yet Erasmus, like Luther, noted the corruption in the Church – offering mocking attacks.  He was, like Luther, a proponent of reform; unlike Luther, Erasmus carried his crusade strictly within the bounds of the official Church.

Where Luther saw Augustine as the greatest exegetical writer and Jerome “a poor second,” Erasmus would reverse the order.  Their views on works-righteousness differed, yet despite these differences, the two men shared a cordial relationship…for a time.  Luther would write of a dialogue of Erasmus which he had just read:

“It is so agreeably, learnedly and wittily put together, that is, so thoroughly Erasmian in fact, that it compels one to smile and jest on the subject of the faults and misfortunes of the church of Christ, which, however, it is every Christian’s duty to deplore before God in deepest grief.”

In this single sentence one finds both the sympathy and coming confrontation between these two men.  Both men took the issues as important.  Erasmus, seemingly, would poke fun as the means to promote examination and change; Luther would come to poke with something much more pointed.

In general [Erasmus] affirms that Luther has done and said much that is good, but that his rough manner will lose him many friends.

Erasmus notes the good that Luther has done to get many to examine again the church fathers for themselves.  He notes that Luther’s views were approved by some of the best men: “…it is the plague of Christendom.”  However, as to specific doctrinal issues raised by Luther, Erasmus remains vague. 

Many who would be described as Lutheran elite were also close friends and admirers of Erasmus.  During 1519, the rapprochement between Luther and Erasmus would be as close as it could ever be.  To many, the two were seen as going arm in arm – Erasmus the father of Luther’s heresy, both in need of conversion.

Luther would be used as a stick with which to beat Erasmus.  This was used as a tactic to get Erasmus to take a stand in favor of the Church and against Luther.  It was a desire of Erasmus’s friends as much as of his enemies.  Erasmus saw the progression of the wider discussion, knowing that it would devolve into a clash – passionate disputation, heresy trials, and persecution and hatred would follow.  Erasmus hated all such things.

Erasmus could not side with Luther against the Pope; the Pope’s favor and protection were invaluable to him – with the Pope’s favor, he could pretty much say and do as he liked, but openly supporting Luther would be a bridge too far.  Erasmus noted that all the best men read Luther’s books.  He would take a position supportive of Luther’s desire for a far debate, yet stopping short of support for Luther’s doctrines:

But everyone knows, continued Erasmus, that Luther’s life is pure, free from ambition and covetousness; so where is the Christian mercy of those who shout for his blood?  Luther is willing to discuss and be proved wrong if his opponents can produce satisfactory evidence to refute his views.

Erasmus would caution Luther to show restraint: do not attack the Pope or princes directly, but attack practices and abuses of power.  In other words, don’t make it personal.  He counsels coolness, courtesy, and moderation. 

The letter does Erasmus credit in many ways, but it shows that he had not yet fully grasped the issues at stake.

But why would he?  Erasmus was not a theologian.  He was, on the one hand, calling for Luther to be offered an open and fair disputation, while on the other cautioning Luther to remain courteous.  It seems a perfectly appropriate – and Christian – position for one who is not trained theologically.

This was insufficient for both his friends and enemies alike.  Given Erasmus’s position in Europe generally, and with the Pope specifically, many would push him to confront Luther directly.

In June and July 1519, Luther and others from Wittenberg would dispute with Eck at Leipzig.  Johann Maier von Eck was among Martin Luther's most important interlocutors and theological opponents.  Carlstadt would debate Eck on the freedom of the will; Luther would debate Eck on the primacy of the Pope.  Luther was sure that this was a false doctrine.

He was taking positions similar to some who came before him: Wycliffe, the Waldensians, and particularly John Hus the Bohemian reformer, burned at Constance.  There was now sufficient evidence to declare Luther a heretic.

Erasmus was now forced to make a statement:

I do not know him; I have only had time to glance at his books; I have advised him to be moderate; I am neither his patron nor his accuser; certain theologians can only shriek heretic and never indicate where Luther is wrong.

One still sees in this a fair-minded approach advised by Erasmus – debate Luther properly!  There are things that Luther maintains – things labeled heresy by some – that are to be found in Augustine and Bernard.  These cannot merely be brushed to the side.  Erasmus would continue to place the burden on both sides: Luther must be moderate, but the theologians must debate Luther honestly and openly with a fair hearing.  It is a reasonable protest.  Neither side would take his words to heart.

Standing at the Crossroads

The Bondage of the Will, by Martin Luther; translation and introduction by J. I. Packer & O. R. Johnston

I will state up front: this post will not be an examination of Luther’s theology and his response to Erasmus beyond that which is necessary to set the stage for the confrontation.  It will be an examination of their relationship, interactions, the roles they played in regard to each other and in what became the Protestant Reformation.  The post will be based on material from the introduction of the book.

There is no way to overstate the importance of the Reformation to the history of Western Civilization and to the trajectory of liberty in the West – in both positive and negative ways.  Where these two men intersected, therefore, is right at the philosophical and theological crossroads of one of the most important intersections in Western history.

Just for completeness, an introduction of the two main characters:

Martin Luther, (10 November 1483 – 18 February 1546) was a German professor of theology, composer, priest, monk, and a seminal figure in the Protestant Reformation.

Luther came to reject many teachings of the Catholic Church ranging from the practice of indulgences to the method of salvation.

Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (28 October 1466 – 12 July 1536), known as Erasmus or Erasmus of Rotterdam, was a Dutch philosopher and Christian humanist who is widely considered to have been one of the greatest scholars of the northern Renaissance.

Erasmus was also critical of abuses in the Church, calling for reform – albeit remaining committed to reform within the Church and not in opposition to it.

I must mention, if it isn’t obvious: the writers of this introduction are inherently sympathetic with Luther.  There is a new book out about Erasmus and Luther, Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind.  At some point I will get my hands on this in hopes of a balanced treatment of the subject – not that the portrayal by Packer and Johnston are wrong (to my understanding); it is just that their sympathy must be noted. 

The introduction begins with a look at Erasmus – up to 1517, at the point where Luther may have taken hammer to nail:

Erasmus was…a man of unsurpassed learning.  No man in Europe could rival him in reading and writing the classical tongues.

Erasmus was no theologian; he also was not fond of the scholastics – Aquinas and Scotus; in them he saw barren intellectualism and spiritual poverty.

The New Testament of Erasmus was the first and perhaps the greatest step in the story of Biblical textual criticism. …For the first time the laity were able to see, side by side, the Christianity which converted the world, and the Christianity of a Church with a Borgia Pope, cardinal, princes, ecclesiastical courts and a mythology of lies.

Needless to say, Erasmus made some enemies:

The clergy were more or less antagonized en bloc.  Monks and friars protested in all quarters and began plotting the downfall of Erasmus.  Universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, proscribed all of his writings.

But all was not lost:

His reputation was high in learned circles, the Pope (to whom the Novum Instrumentum was dedicated) was on his side, and the political powers of the Empire, France, and England were favourable to him.

The Pope wished that Erasmus would lead the Bishops in a peaceful crusade to correct abuses and the reading of the Scriptures.  We might never had heard of Luther if this was carried out.  But vested interests (lust for money, pleasure, and power) had too great a hold on the system.  Call it the Catholic deep state.

Now on to Luther, again up to 1517.  He was often less than cheerful company.  A bright student, he angered his father when he abandoned his law studies and became a monk.  His soul was continuously troubled: had he prayed and fasted enough?  His theological studies didn’t help when he ran into Occam, who taught that…

…man could, of his own free will unaided by grace, choose to do what was morally good and avoid what was morally evil, follow and enjoy the Divine commands and ‘of his own natural powers love God above all things.’

Obviously, ideas that did not sit well with Luther’s tormented soul.  It didn’t help when Luther travelled to Rome: where Erasmus saw learning and culture, Luther saw a monstrous organization steeped in extravagance and decadence.  Luther would thereafter study for his Doctor’s degree and finally assumed the chair of Theology and the new University of Wittenberg.

Something must be said about Luther’s theological views in order to set the stage for the battle to come – the battle with the Church and the battle with Erasmus.  During this time, he came to conclude his strong view on righteousness by faith received solely by grace, not works.  Man has no free will in moving toward righteousness.  As he was, at this time, also a preacher every Sunday, these views informed his preaching:

He knew eternity was in the balance every time he preached to his sturdy Saxon audience.

This preaching included three sermons in 1516 against indulgences.  Bonaventura and Aquinas incorporated indulgences in their theological systems; the Council of Trent would further confirm these after the Reformation.  Luther viewed forgiveness depending solely on true interior contrition.

The differences reached a tipping point when Pope Leo X needed money to complete St. Peter’s in Rome.  All who contributed would enjoy perfect remission of all sins.  On October 31, 1517, Luther decided that his grievances should be publicly aired.  On that day he sent his Ninety-Five Theses to Albert of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz; he may have also nailed these to the church door.

Luther was asking for theological disputation and correction of abuses; instead, his work spread like wildfire.

But students copied the theses, translated them and took them to printers.  Within two weeks they were known all over Germany, and throughout Europe in as many months.

Conclusion

The stage is set for one of the most pivotal moments in Western history.