5384 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 1530.
NOTES. LUTHER’S VIEWS ON THE CHURCH FATHERS.
WALCH, XXII. 2050-2065. ERLANGEN ed. LXII. 97 sqq. (Tischreden). BINDSEIL: Mart. Lutheri Colloquia (1863), 3 vols.
In this connection it may be interesting to collect from his writings and Table Talk some of Luther’s characteristic judgments of the church fathers whose works began to be more generally known and studied through the editions of Erasmus.
Luther had no idea of a golden age of virgin purity of the church. He knew that even among the apostles there was a Judas, and that errors and corruptions crept into the Galatian, Corinthian, and other congregations, as is manifest from the censures, warnings, and exhortations of the Epistles of the New Testament. Much less could he expect perfection in any postapostolic age. His view of the absolute supremacy of the Word of God over all the words of men, even the best and holiest, led him to a critical and discriminating estimate of the fathers and schoolmen. Besides, he felt the difference between the patristic and the Protestant theology. The Continental Reformers generally thought much less of the fathers than the Anglican divines.
“The fathers,’ says Luther, ‘have written many things that are pious and useful (multa pia et salutaria), but they must be read with discrimination, and judged by the Scriptures.’’ ‘‘ The dear fathers lived better than they wrote; we write better than we live.’”’ (Melius vixerunt quam seripserunt: nos Deo juvante melius scribimus quam vivimus. Bindseil, l. c. III. 140; Erl. ed., LXII. 103.) He placed their writings far below the Scriptures; and the more he progressed in the study of both, the more he was impressed with the difference (Erl. ed., LXII. 107). To reform the church by the fathers is impossible; it can only be done by the Word of God (XXY. 231). They were poor interpreters, in part on account of their ignorance of Hebrew and Greek (XXII. 185). All the fathers have erred in the faith. Nevertheless, they are to be held in veneration for their testimony to the Christian faith (propter testimonium fidei omnes sunt venerandi. Er]. ed. LXII. 98).
Of all the fathers he learned most from Augustin. For him he had the profoundest respect, and him he quotes more frequently than all others combined. He regards him as one of the four pillars of the church (the claims of Ambrose, Jerome, and Gregory, he disputed), .as the best commentator, and the patron of theologians. “Ὃ Latina nostra ecclesia nullum habuit prestantiorem doctorem quam Augustinum”’ (Bindseil, I. 456). ‘‘ He pleased and pleases me better than all other doctors; he was a great teacher, and worthy of all praise’’ (III. 147). The Pelagians stirred him up to his best books, in which he treats of free-will, faith, and original sin. He first
§ 85. ENLARGED CONCEPTION OF THE CHURCH. 535
distinguished it from actual transgression. He is the only one among the fathers who had a worthy view of matrimony. The papists pervert his famous word: “1 would not believe the gospel if the Catholic Church did not move me thereto,’’? which was said against the Manichzans in this sense: Ye are heretics, I do not believe you; I go with the church, the bride of Christ, which cannot err (Erl. ed., XXX. 394 sq.). Augustin did more than all the bishops and popes who cannot hold a candle to him (XX XI. 358 sq.), and more than all the councils (X XV. 341). If he lived now, he would side with us, but Jerome would condemn us (Bindseil, III. 149). Yet with all his sympathy, Luther could not find his ‘‘ sola fide.’? Augustin, he says, has sometimes erred, and is not to be trusted. ‘* Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other fathers.’’ ‘‘ When the door was opened to me for the understanding of Paul, I was done with Augustin” (da war es aus mit ihm. ἘΠ]. ed., LXII. 119).
Next to Augustin he seems to have esteemed Hilary on account of his work on the Trinity. ‘* Hilarius,’’ he says, ‘‘inter omnes patres luctator Suit strenuissimus adversus hereticos, cui neque Augustinus conferri potest ”’ (Bindseil, III. 138). Ambrose he calls ‘‘a pious, God-fearing, and brave iman,’’ and refers to his bold stand against the Emperor Theodosius. But his six books on Genesis are very thin, and his hymns have not much matter, though his (?) ‘*‘ Rex Christe, factor omnium,”’ is ‘‘ optimus hymnus.’’ He praises Prudentius for his poetry. Tertullian, whom he once calls the oldest of the fathers (though he lived after 200), was ‘‘ durus et superstitiosus.”’ Of Cyprian he speaks favorably. As to Jerome, he had to admit that he was the greatest Bible translator, and will not be surpassed in this line (Erl. ed. LXII. 462). But he positively hated him on account of his monkery, and says: ‘‘ He ought not to be counted among the doctors of the church; for he was a heretic, although I believe that he was saved by faith in Christ. I know no one of the fathers, to whom I am so hostile as to him. He writes only about fasting, virginity, and such things”’ (LXII. 119 sq.). He was tormented by carnal temptations, and loved Eustochium so as to create scandal. He speaks impiously of marriage. His commentaries on Matthew, Galatians, and Titus are very thin. Luther had no more respect for Pope Gregory I. He is the author of the fables of purgatory and masses for souls; he knew little of Christ and his gospel, and was entirely too superstitious. The Devil deceived him, and made him believe in appearances of spirits from purgatory. ‘* His sermons are not worth a copper”’ (Erl. ed., LI. 482; 1.11. 187; LX. 189, 405; XXVIII. 98 sqq.; Bindseil, III. 140, 228). But he praises beyond its merits his hymn Rex Christe, which he wrongly ascribes to Ambrose (Bindseil, III. 149 ; comp. Daniel, Thesaurus Hymnol., vol. I. 180 sq.).
With the Greek fathers, Luther was less familiar. He barely mentions Ignatius, [renzeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius. He praises Athanasius as the greatest teacher of the Oriental Church, although he was nothing extra (obwohl er nichts sonderliches war). He could not agree with