Objections to Luther Examined

IN our previous article on “Luther and Germany,” we touched very slightly on some of the objections that have been recently brought against Luther and his reformation, and made no reference at all to other objections. We thus feel that it may not be unprofitable to go further into the matter, so that our readers may have a well-balanced view of the whole case. We admitted last month that Luther, being newly out of Rome’s darkness, was not perfect in idea or practice. His most ardent Protestant admirers have always recognised that he retained errors in doctrine and practice—some of which errors his present detractors may not regard as such at all—but, with all his errors and mistakes granted, the real friends of Luther and the Reformation utterly reject the distorted conclusions which present critics draw from some of his mistakes. The fact is, that writers of Romish bias bring forward as objections certain things which are no objections at all to Luther or his principles, but rather commendations of both. A wise discrimination is needed. It is our intention at present to notice, first, the points which critics in the recent newspaper controversy (Scotsman and Glasgow Herald) brought forward as objections to Luther and his reformation; secondly, to call attention to certain errors of the Reformer’s (not previously mentioned) which sound Protestants, and admirers of his work have recognised; and, thirdly, to make some general remarks on the whole subject.

I.—Let us observe recent objections to Luther and his reformation—

1. The first of these objections is that he broke up “the splendid unity” of the Church which acknowledged the Pope of Rome as its head. The best answer we can give to this is that no real unity worth the name existed in the Romish Church of Luther’s day, or, for that matter, has existed in it any day since. Rome’s “splendid unity” has only a reality in the imagination of those who are deluded enough to entertain the idea. The so-called “one holy Catholic Church” has been and still is a conglomeration of contending Orders, Jesuits, Benedictines, Augustinians, and so forth, held together by the iron chain of the Pope’s supremacy. To find fault with Luther for breaking-up Rome’s unity is equivalent to blaming the emancipator for setting free the slaves, or, to change the figure, condemning the surgeon for inserting the lance in a diseased body with a whole skin, in order to remove the poisonous matter that affected it. Luther was one of God’s instruments for gathering His true witnesses and people out of a house of bondage and corruption into one truly united Christian Church.

2. The second objection we may notice is that Luther dishonourably broke his vow of celibacy as a monk when he married a wife after he left the Church of Rome, and that Catherine von Bora, who married him, was also guilty of similar dishonourable conduct, as she was previously a nun in the Roman Church. A more absurd and ridiculous objection it is hardly possible to allege. Luther and his wife had completely renounced the so-called Church, with all the false and unscriptural vows that they had undertaken within its pale, and it would have been utterly wrong and inconsistent on their part if they had not thrown over the erroneous vows of celibacy along with the rest. True, they were not absolutely bound to marry, but they took the right, consistent way of asserting their claim to Christian liberty by carrying it into actual practice. If Luther and Catherine von Bora had married while in the Church of Rome without having formally repudiated their vows, something might be said as to dishonourableness; but, when they took the step referred to as consistent Protestants, it is sheer perversity for anyone to declare that the Reformation was founded on falsehood and dishonour. The Duke of Argyll has actually insinuated that theirs was no marriage at all in the circumstances—an insinuation that one would have supposed only an out-and-out Papist was capable of. Are we to consider that unscriptural vows are equally binding with Scriptural ones? If a man vows to murder another, is he bound to carry that out, even when he comes to see it to be wrong? The idea is monstrous in the extreme, and so is the idea that a witnessing Protestant is bound by any of the false vows which he was under in the Roman Church, after he renounced her and all her evil doctrines and practices.

3. A third objection that has been recently brought out is the attitude that Luther took up in the matter of the peasants’ war against the princes of Germany, and the strong language he used against the peasants. The facts in this case appear to be that Luther at first was in sympathy with the peasants in their grievances, and recommended them to seek redress by peaceful measures, but when he found that they were bent upon great violence, he condemned their proceedings and urged that they should be put down by the sword. To all appearance he was too severe in this matter, and spoke too strongly, but this is not a point to be too dogmatic about. The milk and water charity of modern times to rebels and evil-doers has little in common with genuine Christian love. If Luther erred on the side of severity in this case, it was a feature of the times in which he lived, and the upholders of the Church of Rome (with her Inquisitions, etc.), are the last persons in the world who should take up the subject.

4. Another objection that has been referred to in the late controversy is the part Luther took in connection with the second and bigamous marriage of Philip, Landgrave of Hesse. This ruler’s first marriage was an unhappy one; he desired to enter upon another, while the first wife was alive, and her consent having been given, Luther and Melanchthon, with their eye on the Old Testament, consented to a private union with another. This (as Dr. C. A. Salmond says) was “Luther’s one departure from the faith of perfect honesty,” but “an incident utterly alien from Luther’s essential character and habitual conduct. The modern German mendacity (falsehood) can, as little as Prussian brutality in the present War, claim a model or excuse in Luther’s example. The Reformers, though both upright and humane, were not, of course, impeccable, but fallible men.” In fact, it is safe to affirm that, considering the atmosphere of impurity and dishonesty in which they previously lived in the Roman Church, we cannot but see the wondrous grace and power of God displayed in the general nobility and purity of their character and lives, when they emerged into the light of the Gospel.

II.—Let us now notice briefly some of Luther’s errors, not already mentioned, which sound Protestants and admirers of his reforming work have always recognised.

i. There is his error about the Epistle of James. At the beginning of his career, he spoke of it as an “epistle of straw.” This view did not spring from any unbelieving or higher critical theory of the authorship of the Holy Scriptures. The books Luther received as the Holy Scriptures, he esteemed as entirely of divine authorship, inspired and infallible throughout, not a mixture of truth and error. But owing to his conflicts of mind on the subject of Justification by faith in Christ’s righteousness, and his failing to recognise James’s point of view, he could not harmonise the statements of James with those of Paul, which had been applied to him with special power by God’s Holy Spirit, and so he fell into the error referred to. But afterwards we are glad to know Luther came to see his error, and to recognise the Epistle of James as a valuable portion of God’s Word—not contradicting the truth of justification in God’s sight by faith in Christ’s meritorious righteousness, but insisting that real justifying faith is not a dead notional exercise, but a living grace bringing forth the fruits of righteousness to the glory of God. Modern German infidelity is not a fruit of Luther’s teaching, but a departure from it.

1. A second error was that of Consubstantiation. He renounced the monstrous dogma of Rome that the bread and wine in the Communion are changed into the actual body and blood, bones and nerves, soul and divinity of the Redeemer, whenever the priest pronounces the words, “This is my body.” But he retained the idea that in some mysterious way the actual body and blood of Christ are “in, with and under” the elements, when set apart at Communion. The bread remains bread, and the wine remains wine, but somehow the body of Christ is there. Luther’s famous conference with Zwingli on this subject is well known. He insisted that the words, “This is my body,” taught this doctrine, and no arguments or tears could move him. To the unprejudiced understanding, “This is my body” simply means “This represents my body.” Christ is spiritually, not really present, to and with His believing people in the ordinance. The doctrine of “the Real Presence” is a stepping-stone back to Rome in the present day. It is matter of thankfulness that Luther modified his opinion on this point also, before he died.

2. Luther had also a deficient view of the observance of the Lord’s Day. On this point we cannot write very fully at present. Suffice it to say meantime that more than one of the Reformers fell into some laxity on this important matter, no doubt partly as the consequence of a revolt from the ceremonial observance of many “days” by the false Church which they had left. Here again we have another illustration of human liability to err.

III.—As to general remarks on the subject,

we have to state, first, that while we cannot but regret Luther’s errors and mistakes, we are bound to assert that the grand qualities which, by the grace of God, adorned his character, and the noble steps he took in the proclamation and defence of the fundamental truths of the glorious Gospel, largely counterbalanced the things that were defective. Whole volumes might be, and have been, written on what was truly excellent in his character, life and work.

Then, secondly, we repeat what has been declared already, that it is utterly wrong to attribute modern German infidelity and materialism, with the terrible things of this present War, to Luther’s Protestant teaching. We do not deny for a moment that his defective views and practice in certain points did impair the vitality and purity of the Reformation under his hand. Wiclif, Calvin, and John Knox came out more thoroughly in all respects from the Roman communion, and the spiritual results were, on the whole, more beneficial and lasting. But the Germany of to-day is a practical witness to the grave consequences of apostasy from the great and precious truths of the Gospel which Martin Luther laboured with all his mind and heart to disseminate among his fellow-men.

Our third and last remark is that Protestants and others must remember that the Reformation was the work of God and not of men. He was pleased to use men as instruments, but He calls us not to follow any man except in the measure in which he followed Christ. What we have to do with, above everything else, is God’s Word, God’s Gospel, and God’s Worship. We must not identify these with any mere man whatsoever. Protestants are in danger of the very errors of the Papists if they do not rise higher in their thoughts of divine things than saints and servants of the Most High. God in Christ alone is the fountain and spring of all truth and blessing, and if we are to be truly right for time and eternity, He must be “all and in all” to us.