Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

ters as are of common understanding. If a man sing of a deer, so shall he be drawn, it may be, to go forth and slay a deer, or even a moose. And if he sing of his casting-stones, it may be that he become more apt in the use thereof. And if he sing of his cave, it may be that he shall defend it more stoutly when Gurr teareth at the boulders. But it is a vain thing to make songs of the stars, that seem scornful even of me; or of the moon, which is never two nights the same; or of the day, which goeth about its business and will not linger though one pierce a she-babe with a flint. But as for me, I would have none of these songs. For if I sing of such in the council, how shall I keep my wits? And if I think thereof, when at the chase, it may be that I babble it forth, and the meat hear and escape. And ere it be time to eat, I do give my mind solely to the care of my hunting-gear. And if one sing when eating, he may fall short of his just portion. And when one hath eaten, doth not he go straightway to sleep? So where shall men find a space for singing? But do ye as ye will: as for me, I will have none of these songs and stars.

if, remembering these wild words of Oan, they do sing them to themselves, or teach them to the young ones, they shall be beaten with brambles. Cause swiftly that the wife of Ok cease from her wailing, and bring hither the horses that were slain yesterday, that I may apportion them. Had Oan wisdom, he might have eaten thereof; and had a mammoth fallen into our pit, he might have feasted many days. But Oan was a fool!

Be it also known to all the women that

THE END

Oan was a fool!

Un:

All the Tribe:

Oan was a fool!

[graphic]

MARTIN LUTHER AND
AND HIS WORK

THE

SEVENTH PAPER: THE FINAL BREAK WITH ROME

BY ARTHUR C. MCGIFFERT

Professor of Church History in Union Theological Seminary, New York

re

HE most notable fruit of Luther's awakened interest in national form was his famous address "To the German Nobility," published in August, 1520. In the dedicatory letter to his colleague Amsdorf he says:

The time for silence is past and the time to speak is come, as the preacher Solomon says. In conformity with our resolve I have put together a few points concerning the reformation of the Christian estate in order

to lay them before the Christian nobility of Germany in case it may please God to help His church by means of the laity, since the clergy whom this task rather befitted have grown quite careless. I send it all to your worship to judge, and to amend where needed. I am well aware that I shall not escape the reproach of taking far too much upon me in presuming, despised and insignificant man as I am, to address such high estates on such weighty subjects, as if there were no one in the world but Dr. Luther to have a care for Christianity and to give advice to such wise people. I offer no excuse. Let who will blame me. Perhaps I still owe God and the world another folly. This debt I have now resolved honestly to discharge, if I can, and to be court fool for once. If I fail, I have at least one advantage, that no one need buy me a cap or shave my poll. But it remains to be seen which shall hang the bells on the other. I must fulfil the proverb "When anything is to be done in the world a monk must be in it were it only as a painted figure."

256

I beg you to excuse me to the moderately favor and grace of the overwise. Often I wise for I know not how to deserve the have sought it with much labor, but henceforth will neither have nor care for it. God help us to seek not our glory but His alone.

The work itself was a ringing appeal to the German Emperor, princes, and noGermany, religious, ethical, social, and ecobility to take in hand the reformation of hierarchy that the civil power had no jurisnomic. Because of the claim of pope and diction in the matter, and no one but they could reform the church, a terrific onslaught was made upon them. The current criticisms of the avarice and extortion of the Curia and the current impatience at its spoliation of Germany were given pasder," he exclaimed, "why princes, noblesionate expression. "Do we still wonmen, cities, convents, land, and people grow poor? We should rather wonder noble princes and lords, how long will that we have anything left to eat." "Oh, you suffer your land and your people to be the prey of these ravening wolves?"

The incompatibility between the spiritual office and temporal power of the pope was also depicted in vivid fashion:

How can the government of the empire consist with preaching, prayer, study, and the care of the poor? These are the true employments of the pope. Christ imposed them with such insistence that he forbade to take either coat or scrip, for he that has

to govern a single house can hardly perform these duties. Yet the pope wishes to rule an empire and remain pope.

Luther conceded that the bishop of Rome should still be the spiritual head of Christendom whom all should honor and obey in spiritual things so long as he was true to Christ. But he would have his temporal power brought altogether to an end and would deprive him of all administrative authority over the church in Germany. The management of its affairs, the appointment and deposition of its officials, the trial of ecclesiastical cases, the granting of dispensations and the like, he would put into the hands of the German ecclesiastical authorities presided over by the primate of Germany, the Archbishop of Mayence. The new national feeling, growing rapidly in Luther's day, here found utterance. In religion, as in everything else, the nation should, he thought, manage its own affairs and live its own life.

But freedom from a foreign yoke was not, in his opinion, all that Germany needed. The false claims of the clergy must be exposed and their usurped power taken from them. They possessed no prerogatives not belonging of right to all Christians. They were only ministers appointed to serve in religious things, and were subject to the people, not lords over them. Civil rulers "ordained of God for the punishment of the bad and protection of the good" were supreme in their own lands and the clergy were as completely under their jurisdiction as anybody else. If the existing ecclesiastical authorities failed to do their duty and left the church unreformed, the civil rulers must take the matter in hand and force a reformation in spite of hierarchy and pope. Liberty from the domination of the spiritual power, from dependence upon its offices and from dread of its penalties, was one of the watchwords of the book. In it was wrapped up the promise of a new age.

No less important was Luther's declaration of freedom from bondage to exclusively religious duties. Perhaps the most extraordinary thing about the book is its complete break with what may be called the monastic ideal of life. As in his important "Sermon on Good Works,' published some months before, Luther

complained of the over-emphasis of religion. It sounds strange enough to hear a monk insisting that such common human virtues as find play in the ordinary relationships of life are far more important than any religious exercises. This difference in the estimate of life was more decisive than any difference of doctrine between Luther and the Roman Church, at this or any subsequent time. It was prophetic of a new world.

The address to the German nobility was not simply an appeal for reformation and an attack upon the forces that hindered it, but also a program of reform on a large scale. All sorts of evils were dealt with, and the range of topics was very wide. Amazement has often been expressed that a monk should possess so extensive a knowledge of men and things. The amazement is misplaced. Luther had long been a public man in touch with the movements of the day and in correspondence with leaders of thought in many parts of Germany and abroad. It would have been surprising had he not known what men were thinking and talking about. As a matter of fact he said little that was new. More than any other of his important works the address to the nobility reflected the ideas of his contemporaries. Not Hutten alone, but many besides, had attacked the evils of the day, religious, ecclesiastical, social, and economic, as severely and as intelligently as he. And so far as his constructive program went it was as vague and unpractical as any of theirs. There was much homely good sense in his proposals of reform-the abolishment of the mendicant orders, the reduction of festivals and holidays, the abandonment of enforced clerical celibacy, the improvement of schools and universities, the regulation of beggary, and the like but some of his suggestions were quite impracticable and revealed a vast ignorance particularly of economics and politics.

He wanted to put a bridle on the Fuggers, the great money-lenders of the day. "How is it possible," he exclaimed, "that in a single man's lifetime such great and kingly wealth can be collected together if all be done rightly and according to God's will? I am not skilled in accounts, but I do not understand how a hundred guilders can gain twenty in a year or how

one can gain another, and that not from the soil or cattle, where success depends not on the wit of men but on the blessing of God."

In this he was only giving voice to the common and oft-expressed sentiment of the knights and nobles, the rural magnates of the age, whose prosperity and prestige were threatened by the extension of trade and the growth of cities. Like them, he was opposed to commerce and in favor of agriculture, and he supported his position as he always did by appealing to the Bible. Thus he said: "This I know well, it were much more godly to increase agriculture and lessen commerce, and they do best who, according to the Scriptures, till the ground to get their living. As is said to all of us in Adam, 'Cursed be the earth. When thou workest in it it shall bring forth thistles and thorns to thee, and in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." "

The greatest misfortune of the Germans he believed was the growing custom of mortgaging their property. He said of it:

But for this many a man would have to leave unbought his silk, velvet, jewelry, spices, and all sorts of luxuries. The system has not been in force more than a hundred years and has already brought poverty, misery, and destruction on almost all princes, foundations, cities, nobles, and heirs. If it continue for another hundred years Germany will be left without a farthing, and we shall be reduced to eating one another. The devil invented this system and the pope has done injury to the whole world by sanctioning it.

The reigning extravagance in food and dress likewise troubled him, and he wished to see it controlled by legislation. At the same time he thought the nation could do without its elaborate system of laws and could best be governed by wise rulers using only the Bible as their guide.

Naïve enough much of this sounds, but it is only what we might expect. Luther's training and experience had not fitted him to play the rôle of a statesman or economist and he showed his limitations very clearly. Society he rightly saw was all too little governed by Christian principles, but like many another he fondly imagined all would be mended if the more primitive

conditions of an earlier day were restored. At the same time he had one merit not shared by all venturing into unfamiliar fields. He recognized his own ignorance. "I know," he wrote, "that I have sung a lofty strain, that I have proposed many things that will be thought impossible and attacked many points too sharply. But what was I to do? I was bound to say it. If I had the power, this is what I should do." Thus he closes his discussion, and the words from such a man are very significant. Ordinarily he was sure enough of himself and let it be known to everybody. Evidently his confidence was not mere self-conceit, the fond persuasion that he was always right. It was a confidence felt only in his native sphere and justified by his long and hard experience therein.

The address to the nobility produced a tremendous sensation and had an enormous sale. Most of its ideas had been expressed many times before, but Luther had his own inimitable way of putting things, and the very fact that it was he who said them meant a great deal for the circulation of the book. Men were already listening eagerly to all he had to say, and his venture into the field of national reform met with a wide and instant response. It is not recorded that the work brought him reputation as a statesman and led princes to seek his counsel in political affairs, but it did show them that he was a power to be reckoned with, and it gave new standing to the cause of national independence and regeneration.

At the end of the address to the nobility Luther remarked: "I know still another song concerning Rome. If they wish to hear it I will sing it and will pitch it high. Do you understand, dear Rome, what I mean?”

This new work appeared a few weeks later under the title "The Babylonish Captivity of the Church." It dealt with the traditional sacramental system, representing it as a bondage from which Christendom must be freed if the needed reformation were to come. Unlike the former work, it was written in Latin, as befitted a theological discussion, and appealed primarily to theologians instead of the general public. Doctrinally it was far and away the most radical book Luther had

« AnkstesnisTęsti »