Melchior Lotther's request to have the first version printed in Leipzig. Luther did not chide Spalatin for releasing his earlier personal advice on confession to the public. His main concern was to create a clearer statement on confession for public consumption.
Luther dedicated the first Latin edition of A Discussion on How Confession Should Be Made to his friend Alexius Chrosner, canon of Altenburg, asking him to publish it under his own name.8 But the treatise appeared under Luther's name and without the letter of dedication to Chrosner because the printer seems to have forgotten to include the letter accompanying the manuscript.9 The following translation is based on the first revised Latin edition, entitled Confitendi Ratio, printed in WA 6, 157–169, with the letter to Alexius Chrosner. Five other Latin editions and four of Spalatin's German translations appeared in 1520. C. M. Jacobs prepared an English translation in PE 1, 73–101.
A DISCUSSION ON HOW CONFESSION SHOULD BE MADE To the Most Honorable Dr. Alexius Chrosner of Coldiz, Canon at Altenburg, from His [Friend] in Christ.
Greetings! Dr. George Spalatin,1 your colleague and our mutual friend, once exacted a letter from me in which I briefly delineated how confession should be made. For the complaint which came to me (among others) from all sides and disturbed me was that the method of confessing was extremely complicated and totally confused. Since I recognized that I was asked about something which was troublesome and intolerable to the ecclesiastical tyrants, I postponed it for some time, until I was forced to calm my friend somewhat by way of a personal and private letter. But when he shared this booklet or letter with a few others here and there—something he certainly was justified in doing without offending me—it began to be endangered and it seemed desirable to print it.
Well aware of how my friends watch every single syllable of mine, I was forced to recall the vagabond,2 to review it once again—although hurriedly, because I was occupied with other matters—and, altering and adding a few things, to forestall its publication by others. I certainly am aware that this matter should have been left to far more learned people and that it should have been held back for nine years (as they say) and reflected upon. But the die was cast and we could not do otherwise than we did. I have begun to take for granted the spirit which knows nothing of slow endeavors. Thus I ask you to allow this to appear under your name, no matter how trifling or important a matter it may be; for you, who are so like
Spalatin in almost everything, should not appear to be dissimilar in this matter. Farewell and commend me to the Lord and excuse me.
Wittenberg, April 7, 15203 A Discussion on How Confession Should Be Made In our time almost every conscience has been seduced by human teachings into a false trust in its own righteousness and works, and learning about faith and trust in God has nearly ceased. That is why it is necessary, above all, that he who confesses should not put his trust in the confession he is about to make or has made. Rather, he should put his trust in the most merciful promise of God alone, with complete faith and with the certainty that he who promised the forgiveness of sins to the person about to confess them will most faithfully fulfil his promise. For we are to glory not in making confession but in him who promised forgiveness to those who confess. That is, [we glory] not in the merit and sufficiency of our confession (for such do not exist), but in the truth and certainty of his promise, just as Psalm 25[:11] says,
"For your name's sake, O Lord, you will pardon my sin." It does not say, "For my sake, or my merit, or my name," but, "For your name's sake," etc. Therefore, the work of confession is nothing but an occasion on which God is requested to fulfil his promise—or rather, whereby we are trained to believe that we shall undoubtedly obtain the promise. Accordingly, [we say,] "Not to us, O Lord, but to your name give glory"
[Ps. 115:1], and, "Rejoice, not because we have blessed you, but because you have blessed us, as you say through Ezekiel [20:44]." Thus it will happen that he who glories will glory in the Lord; he will not praise himself, but glorify the grace of God. Thus it will come to pass that confession and splendor are the work of God (Psalm 111[:3]).
It must be demonstrated from Scripture that God has promised forgiveness (for the glory of his grace and mercy). First, Psalm 32[:5]: "I said, 'I will confess my transgressions to the Lord' and you forgave the - 17 guilt of my sin." Then, II Samuel 12[:13], from which this psalm has been taken: as soon as King David said, "I have sinned against the Lord," Nathan immediately responded, "The Lord has put away your sin; you shall not die." And Jeremiah 18[:8], "If that nation turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it." Again, I John 1[:9], "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all iniquity." And this is the true definition of the righteous man in Proverbs
18[:17]: "The righteous man is his own first accuser"; therefore, he is righteous because he accuses himself. From this it follows, "His friend (Christ) comes and examines him," that is, he will search for him and will not let him perish; he will deliver him even from the depth of hell. Thus Joshua 7[:19] calls the confession of sin the glory of God, saying to Achan, "My son, give glory to God and confess; and tell me what you have done." And St. Jerome comments on it, "The confession of sin is the praise of God."4 No wonder! For he who confesses his sins certainly speaks the truth. However, God is the truth; therefore he
[who confesses] simultaneously confesses God. Thus Manasseh, king of Judah, says in the last chapter of II Chronicles, in his most beautiful prayer (well suited for anyone about to make confession), "But you, O
Lord, according to your goodness, have promised repentance and forgiveness of sins," etc.5 Indeed, "you have promised according to your goodness" because our confession is nothing unless the promise of God stands firm; it is by his divine goodness alone that he promises forgiveness which cannot be obtained by any righteousness unless he has given the promise. Thus faith in this promise is the first and supreme necessity for whoever is about to make confession, lest he boldly presume that it is his own diligence, his own recollection, and his own powers which move God to the forgiveness of sins—when God himself has anticipated him already and is fully prepared to forgive; so it is really he who through the goodness of his sweetest promise draws out and calls forth the acceptance of forgiveness and the offering of confession.
Before someone confesses to the priest, the "vicar," he should certainly first confess to God himself, the "prince." Indeed, he should treat this matter seriously because, just as there is nothing hidden from the divine eye, so there is nothing that deceives it. That is why he should ponder, without any pretense, his intention to lead a better life and his hatred of sin. For almost nothing deceives most people who are about to make confession more than the kind of subtle and profound pretense whereby they often pretend, even to themselves, a violent hatred of sin and an intention to lead a better life. This is sufficiently proven by the miserable result that after confession they soon return to their natural way of life and, as if relieved of the great burden of confession, once again live without care, being as negligent as they are unmindful of their intention. This fact alone can sufficiently expose their most miserable fiction. That is why a man should be completely free here to state unhesitatingly to himself and within himself what he would feel and what he would do if there were no punishment, no God, no commandment, etc., and if he were to whisper these things into the ear of a certain secret friend to whom he could reveal everything about himself without being ashamed in any way. Indeed, just as he would want to speak most freely with himself about his vices, so should he speak before God who loves us much more than we love ourselves.
For if there is anyone who does not find himself seriously affected by good intention, I am not sure it is safe for him to make confession. I do know that it would be better for him to abstain from confession.
Nor should he in this case care in any way about the commandment of the church, regardless of whether it excommunicates him or does less than that. It is better not to listen to the church than to come before God at one's own peril, with a false heart. For in the latter case one sins against God, whereas in the former case one sins only against the church—if indeed one sins at all by not listening to the church. The church certainly has no right to command anything endangering the soul; such a matter is always excepted from the commandments of the church. For whatever the church itself commands it commands for God and for the salvation of the soul, assuming that a man is capable of receiving its commandment and fit to fulfil it.
If this assumption is false the commandment does not hold either, since the church cannot decree anything contrary to God's commandments, which bind the conscience.
It is certainly to be feared that many people come [to confession] because they fear the ecclesiastical commandment, although in their hearts they still like their former sinful life.
However, if a man is afraid to stay away [from confession] because he is seized by anxiety, yet feels (if he were to speak the truth) the lack of intention to lead a better life, then he should seize the one thing left and listen to the advice of the prophet who says, "Pour out your hearts before him" [Ps. 62:8]. He
- 18 should fall on his knees and plainly confess to God all the evil of his heart, and pray and wish for good intention. Indeed, who is so proud as to think that he does not need such advice, since there is no one whose intention is as good as it should be? Thus he should freely ask God for what he feels he does not find in himself, until the idea of a better life seriously and truly begins to please him and his own [life] begins to displease him. For the teachings which have been handed down and inculcated in us about how good intention is to be created should not be understood in the sense that man himself should create and work it out for himself (for such an understanding would mean death and perdition, just as it says, "O man of God, there is death in the pot!" [II Kings 4:40]—although, alas, a great many people are being tormented in this affliction because they have evidently been taught to strive after the impossible). Rather, he should in his sheer despair while pouring his heart out before God say, "O Lord God, I do not have what I should have, and I cannot do it. Grant what you command and command what you will." For this is the way St. Augustine prays in confession.6
But I want what has been said about intention to be understood with caution. For good intention should be of two kinds. The first [intention] concerns such obvious mortal sins as adultery, murder, fornication, theft, robbery, usury, slander, etc. The intention to avoid these properly belongs to sacramental confession, and it also applies before God as soon as [these sins] have been committed, according to the saying in Ecclesiasticus [21:1], "My son, have you sinned? Do so no more so that you do not add more"; and again, "Do not delay to turn to the Lord" [Ecclus. 5:7]. The second [intention] concerns all the sins called "venial"—of which more below. It is utterly useless to strive to create good intention. For if a man understands himself correctly, he will find this to be impossible, at least if he wants to live in the flesh, since this life (as Augustine says)7 cannot be lived without such things as laughter, words, thoughts, sight, sound, taste, superfluous and thoughtless touch, etc. Sometimes they are of such a nature that it is uncertain whether they are sins or temptations leading to merits. And yet, in this regard, it is amazing how a man making a confession is oppressed and burdened by the very wordy manner in which he should confess. For his intention must be certain about those things which are certain and which can be avoided in ordinary life, like the obvious mortal sins already mentioned.
Whether the secret sins of the heart—that is, those known only to God and to the man who commits them—belong to sacramental confession, is beyond my understanding. I would very much like to deny it because it can in no way be proven, either by reason or by Scripture. I have often suspected that it was all an invention either of avaricious or inquisitive prelates, or certainly of tyrannical ones, who used this method to make the people of Christ fear them. This means (in my opinion) to lay a hand on God's judgment and to violate God's court, especially if people are forced into it.
Here is where this whole sea of laws and impossible questions about "cases of sins,"8 etc., comes up, since it is impossible for a man to know when he was mortally proud, or lustful, or envious in his heart.
And how should the priest, who alone is in a position to judge mortal sins, know? How should he who does not fully know his own heart know a strange one? Thus it happens that many people confess many sins not knowing whether or not they are sins. They are driven to it by this statement of Gregory, "Pious minds should admit guilt even where there is none."9 For (so monstrous is the arrogance of popes and priests and so very haughty is the presumption of the Pharisees) they want a matter which should be brought before God to be brought before them also. Meanwhile, they do not see that if this has to be brought before man, all of life would consist of nothing but confessing; and even the confession itself would have to be confessed in another confession by the man afraid of guilt where there is no guilt, since even good works are not without guilt and Job is afraid of all his works [Job 9:28].
Therefore let someone else explain it. I am content with the fact that not all sins of the heart have to be confessed. But if some are to be confessed, I assert that it should be only those which a man himself clearly knows to have established themselves in his heart against the divine commandments; that is, not simple thoughts about a virgin or a woman, nor, on the other hand, a woman's thoughts about a young man; nor affections themselves or the ardor of mutual lust, or the inclinations toward the opposite sex, however filthy; nor, I would add, any passions of this sort. For such thoughts are frequently passions— aroused by the flesh, by the world, or by the devil—which the soul is forced to bear against its will,
- 19 sometimes for a long time, occasionally indeed for a whole day or a week, just as the apostle Paul confesses about his "thorn in the flesh" [II Cor. 12:7].
That is why the intention to avoid all these things is impossible, vain, and deceitful. Moreover, the inclinations and mutual attraction of the sexes do not stop as long as there is an opportunity; the devil never rests, and our whole nature is sin. But those who want to be without sin and who believe man to be sound are the ones who erect these crosses for us, so that we do not cease confessing (even to the priest) whatever titillates us moderately or minimally. Therefore, if these secret sins of the heart are to be confessed at all, confession should be made only about those which involve full consent to the deed. But that happens either rarely or not at all in those people who want to live a pious life, although they are constantly vexed by such affections and passions.
The class of certain hyperaudacious theologians who are virtually born to shake the whole world with false terrors after the true fear of God has been extinguished in the hearts of men belongs here. It seems quite possible that Christ spoke about them when he mentioned the terrors from heaven [Luke 21:11].
These are the ones who dared to distinguish between mortal and venial sins for us. Accordingly, when men hear that a certain sin is venial they feel safe and completely discard the fear of God (as though he counted a venial sin for nothing). Again, when they hear that the consent of the heart is a mortal sin, or if someone has not listened to the commandments of the church, or unknowingly has committed some trifling offense, then Christ no longer has any place in their heart because of the confusion created by the roaring sea and the stormy waves of a very troubled conscience.
In opposition to such [theologians] it ought to be known that a man must despair of ever being able to confess all his mortal sins, and that the doctrine propagated in the church from decretals10—according to which every Christian must make confession of all his sins once a year (so the words read)—either is a diabolical and murderous doctrine or is in dire need of a loose interpretation.
I say that one should not confess all sins, be they mortal or venial. Indeed, a man should know that after he has made every effort he still has only confessed a minor part of his sins. How does this come about? Because Scripture says, Psalm 19[:12], "Cleanse me from hidden faults, O Lord!" God alone knows these hidden faults. And again, "Create in me a clean heart, O God" [Ps. 51:10]. Even this holy prophet confesses that his heart is unclean. And the entire holy church prays, "your will be done," thus confessing that it does not do the will of God and is a sinner itself.
Furthermore, we are so far from being able to know our sins, not to mention confessing them, that even our good works are damnable and mortal if God were to judge them severely and not acknowledge them with forgiving mercy. If, therefore, all mortal sins are to be confessed, it should be done with a brief word, such as saying once, "All that I am, whatever I say, do, and speak, is mortal and damnable." This accords with Psalm 143[:2], "Enter not into judgment with your servant; for no man living is righteous before you," and also with Romans 7 [:14, 18, 19], "But I am carnal, sold under sin. I find nothing good in my flesh but the evil I do not want is what I do," etc.
The most mortal of all mortal sins, however, is not to believe one is guilty of damnable and mortal sin before God. This is the madness for which these theologians strive with their rule about the offer of good works. Moreover, they most perniciously attract the consciences of men by teaching that venial and mortal sins must be distinguished—and this must be done according to their practice. Thus we read in Augustine,11 Cyprian,12 and other church fathers that not mortal sins but "criminal" sins—that is, those of which men can be accused and convicted—should be bound and loosed.
That is why the decretal13 should understand "all sins" in terms of all those offenses of which a man is accused, either by others or by his own conscience. By conscience I do not mean a conscience cauterized by the traditions of men [I Tim. 4:2] and fashioned in the worst form; but rather a right conscience, instructed by divine commandments and knowing that much more is to be left to divine goodness alone than is to be committed to one's own efforts.
But what if the devil reproaches a man with his unconfessed sins at the point of death, as we read in many examples?14 I answer: Let these sins go along with those about which it is said, "Who can discern errors" [Ps. 19:12], and with others of which it is written, "Enter not into judgment with your servant," etc.
[Ps. 143:2]. If some contrary examples have been presented, they have been produced by either diabolical illusion or incorrect understanding. It is sufficient that you wanted to confess everything, if you had
- 20 known and had been able to. God wants his mercy to be glorified. But how? Through our righteousness?
No, through our sins and our afflictions. Scripture should be preferred to all other examples.
But to come to the matter itself: The man about to make confession (who is celebrated far and wide) should do away completely with the confusion of distinctions such as these: what [he has done] through fear dragging him down to evil or through love arousing him to evil; what [he has sinned] against the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and love, and against the four cardinal virtues; what [he has sinned] through the five senses, through the seven mortal sins, against the seven sacraments, against the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, against the eight Beatitudes, against the nine alien sins, against the twelve articles of faith;15 what silent sins, or sins crying to heaven [he has committed], or whatever else there is through which or against which sins occur. For this most hateful and tedious catalogue of distinctions is utterly useless, indeed, altogether harmful. Some have added to these evils the most troublesome business of circumstances. All this produced two results: (1) He who is about to make confession is kept so busy with these trifles that he is totally unable to care about that which is most important, namely, the desire of good intention. He is forced to put such a burden upon his memory, to fill his heart with so much business of how he should correctly express his cares and anxieties, that while he looks for forgotten sins or a way to make confession, he may in the meantime completely lose the pangs of conscience and the whole usefulness of the salutary confession. As a result, after having been absolved, he rejoices more about his final liberation from this tormenting misery of how he should make confession than about his absolution.
For he sought not so much for absolution, but rather for an end to his agonizing torment of how to make confession. Thus everything was turned upside down everywhere while we were sleeping securely. (2)
Such people are most tedious to the confessor; they pilfer his time and stand in the way of others.
That is why one should briefly examine God's commandments themselves, which undoubtedly contain all sins if understood correctly.16 But not all of them [commandments] should be included; the last two are to be completely excluded from confession. For the confession must be brief and above all a confession of those sins which hurt immediately and, as they say, "move to confession." The sacrament of confession is instituted to appease rather than perturb the conscience.
For example, regarding the commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," one should quickly say in what manner he has succumbed to lust, be it by deed, word, or consent, as though he were describing himself completely, including all his limbs and senses, in this commandment. Why then, should one uselessly bring in the five senses, mortal sins, and that ocean of distinctions? Likewise, regarding the commandment, "You shall not kill," one should quickly say by what kind of anger he had sinned, whether by hate, slander, cursing, or by the deed itself. And so on with the rest, as I have tried hard to show in my
Preceptorium17 and notes on the Decalogue.18
It should not be at all disturbing that in the decretals on penitence19 and in the fourth book of the Sentences20 this matter is treated differently. They are all filled with human inventions. No wonder, since they have taken all their materials out of a certain apocryphal and unlearned book entitled On True and False Penitence,21 which is ascribed to St. Augustine under this lying title and which is everywhere revered.
In making confession, one should be very careful to distinguish sharply between sins committed against the divine commandments and sins committed against the statutes of men. I say this because today the madness is prevalent which views with the greatest concern sins committed against papal decretals, and sins committed against God with little or indeed no concern at all.
Let me give you some examples:
You will find priests and monks who tremble as though confronted by a terrible monster if they stammer or if they repeat a syllable in the canon of the mass,22 even though this may be due to a defect of the tongue or to some kind of accident and no sin is committed. Again, there is not one [of them] who does not confess he has been distracted or has failed to read his preparatory lessons, or some other such very old-womanish trifle. There was one who, while already celebrating at the altar, summoned a priest three times to confess that something had come to his mind. Finally, I have seen many of them take these endless pranks of the devil so seriously that they almost went insane. But that they nourished hate or secret envy in their hearts, cursed before or after mass, lied with ease and engaged in slander—this did not move
- 21 them at all. Where does such perversity arise? From the traditions of "men who reject the truth" (as the Apostle says [Titus 1:14]), and because we have neglected to offer God a confession of real sins. He has given us up to our own base minds [Rom. 1:28]. Consequently, we delude ourselves with fictitious sins and deprive ourselves of the benefit of the sacrament through the very effort with which we seem to seek it most. It is this sort of people who make the neglect of canonical hours23 an almost unforgivable sin, while, in the meantime, they easily forgive fornications which are against the commandment of God, or the neglect of good will toward one's neighbor. You will find some who have such a preference for St.
Severin's24 fancy or example that they think they cannot keep the canonical hours either before or after the appointed time without sinning, even if they were prevented from keeping them at the appointed time by the most just cause—such as the necessity to serve their neighbor in his needs, which has six hundred times more merit than their extremely cold and perhaps damnable prayers. In their thoughtless mumbling of the words of the canonical hours they reach a point when they no longer see that God's commandment, in service to one's neighbor, should be preferable to the commandment of men. This sort of people includes those who think it a crime to speak or to call a boy [acolyte] during the canon of the mass, even in cases of the greatest need and danger. Finally, they make natural fasting one thing and ecclesiastical fasting another; and if someone has unexpectedly swallowed a few drops of liquid, or has taken a bit of medicine, they keep him away from the sacrament completely and declare it a sin, even the greatest of sins. I wonder where such people get the authority to establish these laws and to confuse the consciences with sins they themselves invented. Other similar cases may be judged according to these examples.
Indeed, one layman confessed that he liked to taste sweets, another that he listened to pleasantries, smelled perfumes, and touched soft things.
Let us move on to greater things! The common people are persuaded that it is heretical to eat butter or eggs on fast days. So atrociously do the laws of men rage in the church of God! And we freely delight in the people's superstition—indeed, in our tyranny—without in any way caring that God's commandments are considered a joke everywhere, as long as people fear and turn pale at our laws. No one calls an adulterer a heretic; fornication is a light sin; even schisms and discords, inspired, preserved, and increased by the authority and in the name of the church, are merits; but to eat meat on Friday is the greatest of all heresies. This is what we teach and permit to be taught to the people of Christ.
I am disgusted, nauseated, ashamed, and filled with pity because of this endless chaos of superstitions which this miserable ignorance of true theology has inflicted upon this most salutary sacrament of confession—[an ignorance] which has exercised its tyranny ever since human laws have been established.
I advise, as John Gerson25 advised several times, that a man should at times go to the altar or to the sacrament with a scruple of conscience, that is, without confessing, when he has been drinking too much, or talking, or sleeping, or has done anything else, or has not prayed a single one of the canonical hours. Do you want to know why such advice is given? Listen: it is given so that man learns to trust God's mercy more than his own confession or effort. For not enough can be done against this accursed trust in our own works. Therefore, when any occasion either of temptation or of death assails a man, and the secret sins begin to appear which could never be seen or confessed, then he should have already prepared the practice of trusting in God's mercy offered to the unworthy, according to the saying, "His heart is prepared to trust in the Lord" [Ps. 28:7]. How else should a man hope, in the face of such a mass of sins which suddenly break in at that time, if he has not learned in this life, while he still had time, to hope in the Lord with regard to even the smallest or imagined sin? If you say, "What if this means despising the sacrament and tempting God?" I answer: It is not tempting God if it is done for the glory of God; that is, if you do it not because you despise God's sacrament or tempt him—since you are prepared to confess everything—but rather so that you may accustom a troubled conscience to trust in God and not to tremble at the sound of every falling leaf. You should not doubt that everything that brings about trust in God is most pleasing to God. For this is his total glory that we trust his mercy with all our heart. However, I do not want this to happen every time; rather, I say, only at times, and then only to arouse trust in God and to destroy trust in our own confession. A person can hardly celebrate [mass] without sinning if he goes there with greater certainty because he has confessed rather than because God is merciful. This is indeed nothing but sheer ungodliness. To sum up, "Blessed are those who trust in the Lord" [Ps. 2:11]. When you hear "in the Lord" you certainly know that whoever trusts in whatever is not the Lord himself is without blessing. That - 22 is the sort of man these artists of confession produce. For what has the art of correct confession done but to destroy the art and practice of trusting, so that we have learned to confess much, but to trust not at all?
Many people are troubled about "reserved cases."26 Since I know that the laws of men should be subject to equity27 and should be applied with mildness rather than with rigor, I follow the custom and advice of those who hold that no case of secret sins should be reserved. That is why all those should be absolved whose sins are hidden, whether they are sins of the flesh, or of every kind of lust, abortion, and the like. For it should not be presumed that any pope wanted to devise so many snares and pitfalls to endanger souls with regard to secret sins. But wherever there has been a public crime, or a clear reserved case, it should certainly be brought before the appropriate authority, be it equitable or inequitable. In that case the confessor may moderate the power of the keys28 to such an extent that he does not let the man who confesses go without absolution for at least those sins which he knows are not reserved. Although I have doubts at this time and have not yet found the place for a proper discussion of the question of whether any case dealing with the remission of guilt29 can be reserved or is ever reserved, there is no doubt that the penalty can be reserved. However, others should be the judge of this. But in dealing with the remission of penalty, neither the confessor nor the man who confesses should be excessively scrupulous; I am thinking of the penalty of excommunication, or any other censure of the church—what they call their
"thunder and lightning." For since excommunication is merely penalty and not guilt and can be imposed on an innocent man or remain imposed on a man who has regained his senses, and since it is sometimes necessary to postpone satisfaction several times because of a long journey or poverty, he who confesses should nevertheless be absolved from all his sins if he so desires, and should be referred to the [appropriate] authority to be freed from the bond of excommunication and to make satisfaction. Thus, absolved in the court of God and from the guilt of conscience and from sins, he should be sent to the court of the church to be absolved from the penalty. This is what is meant when it is said that the desire [to render] satisfaction30 is sufficient for the sinner who is to be absolved.
One should also consider the subject of vows, which is almost the most important question in this matter. It is much more confused than the reservation of cases and exercises its "Babylon" [Rev. 14:8] with great tyranny. If one wishes to speak freely here, "the land is not able to bear all his words," as the impious Amaziah says about Amos [Amos 7.10].
If pontiffs and preachers wanted to dissuade and deter the people from their proneness to make vows, their first and best advice would be to show them that visiting the Holy Land, Rome, Compostella,32 or other holy places, as well as fasting, praying, and doing self-chosen works are nothing when compared with the works demanded by God and the vows we have taken in baptism.33 Everyone can keep these vows in his home in dealing with his neighbors, his wife, his children, his servants, and his masters, and thus gain incomparably greater merit than he could find in selfchosen works or vows not commanded by God. The stupid opinion of the common people and the pomp of bulls brought it about that these vows of pilgrimages, fasting, prayer, and all kinds of other works were far more observed than the works of the commandments of God, which we never have enough strength to do. In my own judgment, there should be no vows at all for Christians, except those which we have taken in baptism—as appears to have been the practice in former times; and I wish that everyone understood what is required in obedience to God's commandments. For the vows of baptism seem to have been cheapened in every way because of too much custom, pomp, dispensation, and redemption of these vows. I say let us put all our strength into this task, and we shall find that we have vowed more in baptism than we shall ever be able to fulfil.
Some vows, oaths as it were, are made to men, others to God. Those made to men are valid as much and as long as the man to whom they are made desires. Therefore, as Gerson correctly thinks, one should know that oaths or vows usually taken at universities, or made to secular lords,34 are not to be regarded so highly that we should judge every violation of them to be a violation of a vow or an act of perjury. Rather, it is more equitable not to regard vows of this kind as violated unless it is done out of contempt or obstinate malice. It is different with those vows made to God.
Regarding vows made to God, I can see dispensations granted by pontiffs, But I shall never be persuaded that the one to whom such dispensation is granted is safe. For such a vow is of divine law, and neither an intermediate nor a supreme pontiff has any more power in this matter than any Christian
- 23 brother, although I know that some decretals and glosses on decretals venture to assert many things I do not believe.
This, however, I would like to believe: a vow of chastity given before puberty neither holds nor binds, because he who made the vow was ignorant of what he vowed, since he had not yet felt the stimulus of the flesh. Consequently, it is my pious opinion that such a vow is regarded as foolish and voided by God, and that, if we are concerned about the care of souls, a general edict of the church should prohibit the fathers of monasteries from receiving a young man before his twentieth, or at least before his eighteenth year, or a girl before her fifteenth or sixteenth year.
Moreover, it is exceedingly thoughtless, in the matter of ehanging and relaxing vows, to impose "a better work" (as they call it). For there is certainly no difference in works before God, who does not judge according to the magnitude or quantity of works but rather according to the good will of him who does the work, as it is written, "The Lord knows what is the mind of the Spirit" [Rom. 8:27]; and he frequently prefers the manual labor of a poor craftsman to the fasting and prayers of a priest, as was illustrated by St.
Anthony35 and a certain tanner of Alexandria.36 Who then dares to presume that he wants to change a vow into some "better work"? But this subject should have been discussed in another place, for here we undertook to treat only the rite of confession relating to God's commandments, for the sake of quieting and consoling troubled consciences.
I shall add only one more thing. Many people set dangerous traps for married couples, especially in the case of incest, as, for example, when a man has defiled the sister of his wife, or his mother-in-law, or someone else related to him with any degree of consanguinity (which can happen and, indeed, does happen!). They then deprive him of his right to demand marital duty; and yet they allow him—indeed, they force him—not to leave the bed of his wife. I ask you, what kind of monstrosity is that? What kind of new medicine against sin? What sort of satisfaction for sin? Is it not apparent that these tyrants freely impose their rule upon the infirmity of others while indulging too much in their own? Give me a legislator, no matter how penitent and chaste, who would permit such a law to be made for himself! They put dry wood on the fire and say, "Don't burn"; they put a man into the lap of a naked woman and forbid him to touch her or to know her; and they do this on their own authority, without a commandment from God.
What madness! My advice is that a confessor should beware of such tyrannical decrees or laws and confidently sentence such a sinner either to some other penance or desist totally from punishing him, relinquishing to him the rights of marriage which were given him not by man but by God. No angel in heaven, not to mention a man on earth, has the power to inflict such a penance (that is, the most glorious opportunity for continuous sinning). Therefore one should in no way heed those who want such things done; and whoever makes confession should be liberated with confidence from this scruple and danger.
But who can recount all the tyrannies with which the troubled consciences of confessing and penitent Christians are burdened—the deadly constitutions and customs with which they are daily harassed by silly manikins who bind and place on the shoulders of men very heavy and unbearable burdens which they themselves do not want to touch even with one finger? Thus this most salutary sacrament of penance has become nothing but sheer tyranny imposed by the magnates; finally, it has become a disease and a means to increase sins—so that it signifies one thing but works another thing for troubled sinners. This is the way in which the godless priestlings, uneducated in the law of God, administer the church of God, which they have filled with their own laws and dreams.
The Prayer of Manasseh, King of Judah Among the Captives in Babylon37 God of our fathers, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of their righteous posterity; you who have made heaven and earth with all their ornament; who have shackled the sea by your word of command, who have confined the deep and sealed it with your terrible and glorious name; at whom all things shudder and tremble before your power,
- 24 for your glorious splendor cannot be borne, and the wrath of your threat to sinners is irresistible; yet immeasurable and unsearchable is your promised mercy, for you are the Lord Most High, of great compassion, long-suffering, and very merciful, and repent over the evils of men.
You, O Lord, according to your great goodness have promised repentance and forgiveness.
Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner.
For the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied!
I am weighted down with many an iron fetter, so that I am rejected because of my sins, and I have no relief: for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up abominations and multiplying offenses.
And now I bend the knee for your goodness.
I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I know my transgressions.
I earnestly beseech you, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me!
Do not destroy me with my transgressions, or lay up evil for me; For, unworthy as I am, you will save me in your great mercy, and I will praise you continually all the days of my life.
For all the host of heaven sings your praise, and yours is the glory for ever. Amen.
ON THE PAPACY IN ROME AGAINST THE MOST CELEBRATED ROMANIST IN LEIPZIG Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch When Luther debated with John Eck in Leipzig, July, 1519, the chief emphasis was on Thesis 13 of the debate, concerning the authority of the pope and the jurisdiction of the church of Rome.1 While Eck asserted that papal authority was instituted by Christ and derived from God, Luther contended that the papacy was a human institution subject to the vicissitudes of history. Eck rested his case on papal decretals and conciliar decisions; Luther argued on the basis of historical research, culminating in the thesis that for eleven hundred years there was no papal authority in the church. Although Luther did not win the support of the major universities such as Paris, Louvain, Cologne, and Erfurt, many scholars did agree with him. In fact, the debate appeared far from being settled by the spring of 1520.
Early in May, 1520, the Franciscan monk Augustine Alveld2 published a Latin treatise against Luther, entitled Concerning the Apostolic See (Super apostolica sede). Commissioned by the bishop of Merseburg, Adolph von Anhalt, and encouraged by the papal chamberlain, Charles von Miltitz, Alveld announced in the subtitle his intention to prove "on the basis of the holy canon of the Bible" that the apostolic see was "a divine institution" (iure divino), a thesis "which all scholars would have to acknowledge." He dedicated the treatise to Bishop Adolph von Anhalt and signed it "priest of the regular observance [of the Franciscan Order] of the Saxon province, under the holy cross, public lecturer of the - 25 canon of the Bible in the convent of Leipzig."3 He even asked to be relieved of all liturgical duties during Lent to devote himself completely to the task of refuting Luther.
Luther regarded the treatise as irrelevant and not worth answering. "At last brother Augustine Alveld has come out with his stuff," he wrote to George Spalatin on May 5, 1520. "Truly, he is too stupid for me to lose time answering him.… Others will answer him, and I will give it as an exercise to my famulus4 to make verses and orations against this stolid ox."5
A brief glance at Alveld's treatise confirms Luther's judgment: referring to Luther as a "wolf among the sheep," "heretic," and "madman," Alveld wanted to pierce Luther with "seven swords."6 The first he called "correct reasoning" (recta ratio), arguing that the church must have a single administrative head because every human community must have one. The second he called "canonical Scripture" (canonica scriptura), using Matt. 5:17–18 and I Cor. 10:6 for his assumption that the apostolic see is prefigured as a divine institution in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament through Christ's mandate to Peter (Matt. 16:18). The third he called "true knowledge" (vera scientia), that is, the teachings of the church fathers who testify to the Petrine foundation of the apostolic see. Their testimony is further confirmed by the fourth sword, the "sacred piety" (pietas sacra) of individual popes who, in the name of God, refuted error and blasphemy. The fifth sword was "sane intellect" (sanus intellectus), by which accusations against the sacred piety of the popes were refuted, such as the charge that popes were immoral men. The sixth sword, "simple and chaste knowledge" (simplex et pudica scientia), proved that worldly environment was responsible for papal immorality rather than the popes themselves. Finally, "pure and uncorrupted knowledge" (pura et integra scientia), embodied in Alveld himself, must come to the conclusion that Rome has to be the center of Christendom.
Luther simply jotted down a few counterarguments for his famulus John Lonicer, who published his reply on May 12, 1520, under the title Against the Romanist Friar Augustine Alveld, Franciscan from Leipzig, Public Lecturer of the Canon of the Bible and Torturer of the Same.7 Printed by John Grünenberg in Wittenberg, it was a satirical commentary on Alveld's work, homing in on its stylistic and logical weaknesses. Lonicer concluded with the statement that Luther had better things to do than to argue against such an ass. Henceforth Alveld was known in Wittenberg as the "ass of Leipzig."
John Bernhardi, a young scholar and a friend of Luther at Wittenberg University, had already written a more detailed refutation of Alveld's treatise, entitled Confutation of the Inept and Impious Booklet of Friar Augustine Alveld. It was printed by Melchior Lotther in Leipzig and was for some time wrongly regarded as a work by Melanchthon.8
Alveld's superiors in Leipzig were not happy with the results of his scholarship and encouraged him to withdraw from the ensuing controversy. But Alveld wanted to continue in the role of defender of the apostolic see. He was prepared to publish a German treatise on the same subject and asked Charles von
Miltitz to secure permission from Rome for its publication.9 By the middle of May, 1520, the treatise was published under the title A Very Fruitful and Useful Booklet About the Papal See and About St. Peter;
Also About Those who Are the True Sheep of Christ whom Christ Our Lord Has Commanded to Be Under Peter's Protection and Rule, Made by Friar Augustine Alveld, of the Franciscan Order in Leipzig.10 It was written for simple laymen and was published by Melchior Lotther, who was easily impressed with pseudoscientific arguments. Using essentially the same arguments he had advanced in the Latin treatise,
Alveld used moderate language and simple words to convey the thesis that it is foolish to argue against the authority of Rome and its jurisdiction over the entire church.
Luther was infuriated when he saw the treatise. In less than two weeks (May 17–30), he wrote his reply, On the Papacy in Rome, Against the Most Celebrated Romanist in Leipzig, which Melchior Lotther printed in Wittenberg on June 26, 1520. "If he [Alveld] had not put his apelike book into German to poison poor laymen, he would have been much too insignificant for me to bother with," he declared at the end of the treatise.11 Without even mentioning Alveld's name, he used the controversy as an opportunity to teach laymen the meaning of Christianity.12 Thus originated Luther's first major treatise on the nature of the church, one of the most significant milestones in the formation of his new theology.
Luther's treatise did not end the controversy. Peter Mosellanus, noted humanist and rector of Leipzig University, asked Luther not to defame the city together with Alveld. Though Luther told him that the city deserved it, in the end he limited his attack to Alveld.13 Alveld himself wrote another inept pamphlet in response to John Lonicer's defense of Luther,14 in spite of the fact that Leipzig University had asked him