I. Early Life and Monastic Beginnings

Youth and Education

Martin Luther was born in Eisleben, Saxony, on November 10, 1483, to Hans and Margaret Luder. His childhood in Mansfeld was marked by harsh discipline from both parents and teachers[^1]. He pursued education in Magdeburg and Eisenach, famously begging for bread by singing until taken in by the charitable Cotta family[^2].

Entry into the Monastery (1505)

Luther’s decision to enter the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt was abrupt. Returning from a visit home, a violent thunderstorm near Stotternheim terrified him into vowing: „Save me, dear St. Anne, and I will become a monk‟[^6]. The sudden death of a friend may also have contributed[^7]. Despite his father’s strenuous opposition, Luther held a farewell supper on July 16, 1505, appearing outwardly cheerful, even playing the lute[^8], and entered the monastery the next day. Later reasons given varied, including „despair‟ of himself[^9] and escaping parental severity[^10]. Some reports suggest „strange fears and spectres‟ or a „dreadful apparition from heaven‟ influenced his decision[^11].

Early Monastic Life and Inner Struggles

Luther completed his novitiate and took vows probably in 1506. Initially, he found the monastic state a „peaceful and heavenly life‟[^12]. However, from the start, he was plagued by religious anxieties: fear of God’s judgment, predestination, and scrupulosity regarding sin and confession[^13]. His superiors, including the Novice-Master („a dear old man,‟[^14]) and later Johann von Staupitz, the Vicar-General, offered traditional Catholic counsel, urging trust in Christ’s merits and forgiveness[^15]. Staupitz advised him: „Look at the wounds of Christ… There you will see your predestination‟[^16].

Ordination, First Mass, and Rome Journey

Luther was ordained priest and celebrated his first Mass on May 2, 1507. He experienced profound fear („ita horrui‟) during the ceremony, feeling he spoke to God without a mediator, though the Mass text itself invoked Christ[^23]. His father attended but remained skeptical, famously questioning if the monastic call wasn’t a „delusion and a diabolical vision‟[^24], a remark Luther later claimed deeply influenced him[^25].

Wittenberg Professorate and Early Lectures

Recalled to Wittenberg, Luther became Doctor of Theology on October 18, 1512[^36], and succeeded Staupitz as Professor of Holy Scripture. His early lectures, on the Psalms (1513-16) and Romans (1515-16), already showed his characteristic eloquence, subjectivity, and vehemence[^37]. Marginal notes from this period reveal a growing assertiveness and sharp criticism of Aristotle and scholastic methods[^38]. He began to voice dissatisfaction with Church conditions, though still within a Catholic framework[^39]. His conviction of future greatness, fueled by remarks from friends and Staupitz, began to take root[^40].

II. Development of the New Theology

Precursors of Change (Before 1517)

The theological shift preceded the Indulgence controversy[^41]. Key sources for this period are Luther’s early commentaries, sermons, and letters.

The Decisive Shift: Commentary on Romans (1515-16)

This work marks the „first taking shape of Luther’s heretical views‟[^52].

• Core Ideas: Justification by extraneous righteousness (Christ’s imputed merits); sin remains after baptism (concupiscence = original sin, only covered, not removed); impossibility of fulfilling the law; denial of free-will for good („voluntas… necessario serva et captiva‟); rejection of merit and the habit of grace („cursed be the word ‚formatum charitate’‟); gloomy view of God and predestination (even to hell)[^53].
• Justification Process: Man must despair of self and works; justification comes through humility (acknowledging sinfulness) leading to God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness. This is not yet „faith alone‟ or assurance of salvation; justification remains uncertain, known only to God[^54]. His concept of passive righteousness, where God reckons works as good, keeps man „semper pavidus‟[^55].
• Influences: Reaction against Occamism’s view of man’s powers; positive influence of Occam’s acceptation theory; misinterpretation of Augustine and mystics (Tauler); intense subjectivity and self-confidence; dislike of formalism[^56].
• Subjectivism: Luther increasingly relies on personal interpretation of Scripture and inner feeling, marginalizing Church authority, though still outwardly professing loyalty[^57].

Indulgence Controversy and Early Public Conflict (1517-19)

• Tetzel and Indulgences: Legends about Tetzel’s immorality and gross errors are refuted[^58], but abuses in preaching and the questionable financial arrangements involving Archbishop Albert and Rome are acknowledged[^59]. Luther, already holding his new theology, used the Indulgence issue as a catalyst.
• 95 Theses (Oct. 31, 1517): Intended more as assertions than mere discussion points. They challenged the theological basis of indulgences (denying efficacy before God, questioning Treasury of Merits) and included sharp attacks on Papal authority and practice[^60]. Luther’s later claim that the Theses were not meant for the public is disingenuous[^61].
• Augsburg Trial (Oct. 1518): Before Cardinal Cajetan. Luther refused to retract denial of Treasury of Merits and necessity of faith for Sacraments’ efficacy. Appealed „to the Pope better instructed,‟ then fled[^62].
• Leipzig Disputation (July 1519): With Johann Eck. Luther forced to admit sympathy with some Hussite articles condemned at Constance and to deny infallibility of Councils[^63]. This marked a crucial public break with traditional authority.
• Miltitz’s Failed Mediation (1519): Underscores Luther’s growing intransigence and the envoy’s superficiality[^64].

The "Tower Experience" and Assurance of Salvation (1518-19)

This marks the second stage of Luther’s development.

• Context: Deep inner turmoil, struggles with God’s justice („Iustitia Dei‟), hatred of the punishing God[^65].
• The Discovery: While meditating on Romans i:17 („The just man liveth by faith‟) in the monastery tower/privy („in hac turri… auff diser cloaca auff dem Thorm‟), Luther claims a revelation from the Holy Spirit. He understood God’s justice not as punitive but as passive righteousness by which God justifies through faith. This brought immense relief: „I felt myself born again… the gates of Paradise‟[^66]. The precise location, while debated and obscured by later retellings (mentioning „hypocaustum‟), consistently points back to the tower privy[^67].
• Result: This experience solidified his doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fides) and introduced the crucial element of personal assurance of salvation as part of justifying faith[^68]. This discovery became central to his conviction of a divine mission.
• Analysis: The core event and its psychological importance are accepted, but Luther’s claim of being the first to interpret Rom i:17 correctly is questioned, pointing out the traditional understanding was similar[^69]. The experience is seen as the culmination of Luther’s subjective struggles and theological deviations.

III. The Great Apostasy

Widening the Breach (1520)

• Alliances: Luther cultivated support from Humanists (often misunderstanding his core theology) and revolutionary Knights (Hutten, Sickingen), though cautious about open violence[^70].
• Writings: Increasingly violent polemics („Von dem Bapstum tzu Rome,‟ replies to Prierias, Alveld). He begins identifying the Papacy with Antichrist[^71].
• Diplomacy: Ambiguous letters to Bishop Scultetus, Leo X, and Charles V, professing submission while defending his doctrines, aimed at delaying action and gaining support[^72]. The dishonesty involved is highlighted by comparing these with Luther’s private declarations of hostility[^73].
• Major Works (1520):
• „To the Christian Nobility‟: Attacks priesthood/laity distinction, Papal authority; calls for secular reform by rulers[^74].
• „On the Babylonish Captivity‟: Reduces Sacraments to three (later two), attacks Mass as sacrifice, vows, celibacy; radical implications for Church structure[^75].
• „On the Freedom of a Christian Man‟: Eloquent but deceptive presentation of sola fides, justification without works, spiritual liberty easily misinterpreted as license[^76].
• Impact: Wide appeal, attracting followers for diverse reasons—religious idealism (Dürer), reformist zeal (Pirkheimer), anti-Roman sentiment, desire for freedom[^77]. Pirkheimer later recanted, disillusioned by the moral outcomes[^78].

Excommunication and Worms (1520-21)

• Bull „Exsurge Domine‟ (June 1520): Condemns 41 propositions, threatens Luther with excommunication if unrepentant within 60 days[^79].
• Luther’s Defiance: Pamphlets against the „Bull of Antichrist,‟ public burning of the Bull and Canon Law books (Dec. 10, 1520)[^80]. He describes himself as driven by a spirit beyond his control: „Compos mei non sum‟[^81]. Luther’s duplicity in feigning publicly to doubt the Bull’s authenticity while privately acknowledging it is pointed out[^82].
• Diet of Worms (April 1521): Summoned by Emperor Charles V. Luther’s journey a triumphal progress; appearance before Diet; refuses to recant unless refuted by Scripture or reason („conscience captive to the Word of God‟)[^83]. Support from Knights and Elector Frederick crucial.
• Worms Legends: The phrase „Here I stand…‟ is dismissed as unhistorical amplification[^84]. Charges of Luther’s cowardice or excessive misconduct at Worms are refuted, though critical reports from Aleander and Contarini are noted[^85]. Luther stood not for modern freedom of conscience but for his own interpretation of Scripture against established authority[^86]. Luther’s later claim of having gone to Worms knowing his safe-conduct would be violated is shown to be false[^87].
• Outlawry: Edict of Worms (May 1521) declares Luther an outlaw; Elector Frederick arranges his „capture‟ and seclusion at the Wartburg[^88].

The Wartburg (May 1521 - March 1522)

• Inner Life: Period of intense introspection, doubts („Are you alone wise?‟), confirmed by struggles against them. Belief in bodily assaults by the devil, visions/illusions (inkpot legend arises later)[^89]. The alleged spectral visitations (black dog, noises with nuts) are documented but questioned as possibly misinterpretations or hallucinations[^90].
• Temptations: Complains of strong carnal temptations („magnis ignibus indomitæ carnis uro‟) alongside spiritual trials[^91]. He begs for prayers, feeling immersed in sin: „peccatis immergor in hac solitudine‟[^92]. His struggles over vows were particularly acute[^93].
• Key Writings:
• „On Monastic Vows‟: Attacks vows based on „evangelical freedom,‟ arguing chastity is impossible for most, vows are godless if taken for justification[^94].
• Translation of New Testament: Begun here, a work of immense popular influence[^95].
• „On the Abuse of the Mass‟: Fierce attack on Mass as sacrifice, Papacy as idolatry[^96].
• Consolidated Conviction: Solidifies belief in his divine mission; Wartburg becomes his „Patmos‟; receives „spiritual baptism‟[^97].

IV. Establishing the New System (Post-Wartburg to c. 1540s)

Luther's Religious Situation: Reaction or Consistency?

The apparent „reaction‟ in Luther after 1522 against radicalism was not a fundamental change. Luther always intended to preserve elements he deemed essential Christianity[^98]. His earlier revolutionary assertions of freedom coexisted with a strong, positive (though novel) theology[^99]. He never truly advocated a religion without dogma. The shift after 1522 involved placing greater stress on positive elements and order to combat anarchy (Anabaptists, Peasant War), but the underlying subjectivity and contradictions remained[^100]. He concealed the incompatibility by focusing on different aspects at different times[^101]. His initial individualism logically led towards dissolving fixed beliefs, a path modern followers might pursue more consistently than Luther himself[^102].

From Congregational Ideal to State Church

• Initial Reliance on Princes: Luther first appealed to secular authorities for reform („To the Christian Nobility,‟ 1520) but was disillusioned by their inaction and perceived hostility[^103].
• Congregational Ideal (c. 1523): He then developed the idea of independent congregations choosing their own pastors, inspired by apocalyptic expectations and the belief that the true Evangel was only for the few „true Christians‟[^104]. The Leisnig experiment failed due to internal dissensions[^105].
• Shift to State Control: The impracticality of the congregational model and the need for order led Luther increasingly to rely on secular rulers (Princes, councils)[^106]. The chaotic situation after the suppression of Catholic structures, particularly regarding church property and pastors’ support, made state intervention seem necessary[^107]. Luther urged the Elector to use his authority as „supreme head‟ and „principal member of the church‟ to organize visitations (1527) and enforce order[^108]. This evolved into the State Church system, with the sovereign appointing clergy and overseeing church affairs[^109].
• Secularisations: Luther accepted the confiscation of church property by rulers, arguing it was a natural consequence of the Evangel, though he urged its use for church/school support and the poor[^110]. He lamented the princes’ avarice when funds were diverted[^111]. He also advocated secularizing marriage courts, viewing marriage as an „outward, secular matter‟[^112], leading to conflict with lawyers over issues like parental consent and the validity of clerical marriage[^113].

The Question of Religious War

• Early Opposition: Initially, Luther often spoke against armed resistance for the Gospel, emphasizing suffering and obedience to authority („Von welltlicher Uberkeytt,‟ 1523)[^114]. He feared the scandal and chaos war would bring[^115].
• Vacillation and Change (1530): His position became ambiguous. While sometimes counselling patience, he also justified resistance if „actual violence‟ occurred[^116]. The turning point came after the Diet of Augsburg (1530). Influenced by the Saxon court lawyers (concerned about restitution of church property) and the Landgrave of Hesse, Luther, at Torgau (Oct. 1530), shifted ground[^117]. He now argued that resistance against the Emperor might be lawful if the Emperor acted against established laws or became a tool of the Pope (seen as the devil’s agent)[^118]. He justified this shift by claiming ignorance of secular laws previously, deferring now to the lawyers’ interpretation[^119].
• Schmalkalden League (1531): This secret shift paved the way for the League of Schmalkalden, a defensive military alliance of Protestant estates[^120]. Luther, despite earlier reservations about alliances based on human aid[^121], now supported it, seeing it as necessary defence against Catholic „murderers‟[^122]. He kept his change of view quiet, causing confusion among allies like Nuremberg who adhered to his earlier teaching[^123]. Cochlæus published Luther’s earlier anti-resistance memorandum, highlighting the contradiction[^124].
• Later Justifications: Luther later defended resistance vigorously, equating attacking the Emperor (as Pope’s agent) with fighting the Turk[^125]. He blessed Philip of Hesse’s invasion of Würtemberg (1534) despite initial disapproval, once it succeeded[^126]. He increasingly saw the conflict apocalyptically, justifying extreme measures against „idolatry‟ (Catholicism)[^127]. His 1539 disputation provided theological backing for war against the Pope („Bearwolf‟) and his defenders, including the Emperor[^128].

The Turks: External and Internal (Papists)

• Initial Opposition to Turkish War: Before 1524, Luther discouraged war against the Turks, calling it resistance to God’s scourge for sin (a condemned proposition)[^129]. He argued the Pope was a worse enemy, attacking souls, whereas the Turk only attacked bodies[^130]. This stance hampered imperial efforts[^131].
• Change of Stance (post-Mohacz): After the disaster at Mohacz (1526) and facing accusations of undermining defence, Luther changed his position. In „On the Turkish War‟ (1529) and „Heer-Predigt‟ (1529), he supported war against the Turks as murderers and disturbers of peace, waged by the Emperor in his secular capacity[^132].
• Weakened Call to Arms: However, Luther weakened his own appeal by mingling it with anti-papal polemics, apocalyptic predictions of the world’s end (Turk and Pope as final signs), and fears that a victory over the Turks might free the Emperor to attack Protestants[^133]. He rejected the idea of a religious crusade[^134]. His attitude remained complex and contradictory, reflecting his primary focus on the „internal Turk‟ (the Papacy)[^135].

Luther's Nationalism and Patriotism

• Ambivalent View of Germans: Luther praised German virtues (steadfastness, honesty) but also harshly criticized their vices (drunkenness, savagery, ingratitude for his Evangel)[^136].
• Undermining the Empire: Luther’s actions severely damaged German unity and imperial authority. His sanctioning of resistance, his attacks on the Emperor, and his fostering of princely particularism (by granting church power/property) were detrimental[^137].
• „Prophet of the Germans‟: Luther often cast himself as the spokesman for the German nation against Roman oppression, using national sentiment for his cause[^138]. This is seen as divisive, alienating Catholics who were equally German[^139].
• Cultural Impact: While acknowledging Luther’s linguistic influence[^140], negative impacts include: discouragement of trade and science (opposition to Copernicus)[^141], and the general destruction of the inherited religious and cultural patrimony[^142]. Döllinger’s later view of Luther as the „typical German‟ is noted but implicitly critiqued[^143].

V. Society, Education, and Economics

Education and Schools (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXV.3)

• Appeals for Schools: Luther made passionate appeals for schools (e.g., „An die Radherrn,‟ 1524; sermon, 1530), stressing the need to educate youth in the „Word of God‟ and provide future pastors and capable rulers[^144]. He saw education as vital for Germany, which he felt needed civilizing („German beasts‟)[^145]. He urged magistrates to establish and fund schools, even using confiscated church property[^146].
• Polemical & Religious Focus: His primary motive was religious: training ministers for his Evangel and combating the Papacy („devil-schools‟)[^147]. Learning served the Gospel; schools were „seminaria ecclesiarum‟[^148]. This contrasts with Melanchthon’s broader humanistic educational aims[^149].
• Curriculum: He emphasized languages (Latin, Greek, Hebrew) primarily for Bible study[^150]. Holy Scripture and his Catechism were central[^151]. He valued history, music, mathematics but severely criticized traditional philosophy (Aristotle) and Canon Law[^152]. His choice of classics (Terence, Plautus) is noted as morally questionable by some contemporaries (Wimpfeling)[^153]. His preference for Latin over German in schools is seen as impractical[^154].
• Limited Scope: His writings focused mainly on Latin grammar schools, not universal elementary education[^155]. His proposed school hours (1-2 daily for most) were inadequate[^156]. He did not advocate universal compulsory schooling[^157].
• Decline of Learning: The Reformation initially caused a severe decline in school and university attendance across Germany, lamented by Luther, Erasmus, and others[^158]. Causes included: loss of church patronage/foundations, parents’ focus on practical trades (utilitarianism, partly fueled by Luther’s depreciation of clerical state), fear of religious controversy infecting schools, and Luther’s own condemnation of non-„Evangelical‟ universities[^159].
• Limited Success: Despite Luther’s efforts, the revival was slow and partial, largely credited to Melanchthon. Lutheran schools often struggled, lacked breadth, and couldn’t compete with later Jesuit or Calvinist institutions[^160]. The establishment of basic parish-clerk schools was patchy and late[^161].

Poor Relief (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXV.4)

• Medieval Background: Organized charity existed through guilds, parishes, monasteries, and municipal efforts, often well-administered, viewing almsgiving as meritorious[^162]. Towns like Nuremberg and Augsburg had sophisticated poor laws before Luther[^163].
• Luther’s Efforts: He advocated organized relief, denouncing fraudulent beggars („Liber Vagatorum‟ preface) and urging care for the local poor[^164]. His early scheme involved „common funds‟ (Leisnig, Wittenberg), merging confiscated church/guild revenues for pastors, schools, and the poor[^165]. This was linked to his early ideal of a community of true believers[^166].
• Failure of Early Schemes: The Leisnig fund failed due to disputes and lack of resources[^167]. Wittenberg’s system also disappointed Luther due to widespread avarice and lack of charity, which he frequently bemoaned[^168]. The schemes suffered from mixing funds and a utopian, unworkable premise based on an ideal invisible church[^169].
• Shift to State/Bugenhagen: After 1525/26, Luther relied more on state authority. Bugenhagen organized poor relief in North German towns, often adapting existing Catholic models (Ypres, Vives)[^170]. However, state control often led to bureaucratic inefficiency and diversion of funds[^171].
• Negative Impacts: Confiscation of church property severely depleted charitable resources[^172]. Luther’s doctrine denying merit in works undermined the motivation for voluntary giving, leading to a documented decline in charity lamented by Protestant contemporaries[^173]. His views on early marriage may also have increased poverty[^174]. Harnack acknowledged Catholic charitable work revived more strongly post-Reformation than Protestant efforts[^175]. State relief only slowly developed, partly as a necessary consequence of the destruction of the old system[^176].

Worldly Callings and Economics (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXV.5)

• Luther’s Claim: He asserted he was the first to reveal the dignity of secular callings (marriage, labor, magistracy) previously despised by „monks and priestlings‟ focused on self-chosen „holiness-by-works‟[^177].
• Refutation: This claim is ahistorical. Numerous medieval theologians and popular writers (Proles, Hollen, „Wyhegertlin‟) had affirmed the value and religious significance of worldly duties performed for God’s sake[^178]. Luther merely repeated existing teaching, albeit sometimes eloquently, motivated largely by his anti-monastic polemic[^179]. The term „calling‟ (Beruf) already existed in German[^180].
• Depreciation of Classes: Despite praising callings in theory, Luther often displayed harsh pessimism towards specific classes (peasants after 1525, nobles, merchants, lawyers) when they opposed him or disappointed his expectations[^181]. His estrangement grew, isolating him[^182].
• Merchants and Commerce: Luther viewed burgeoning commerce and finance with deep suspicion, seeing them driven by avarice („Fuggererei‟) and promoting luxury[^183]. He preferred agriculture and condemned foreign trade bringing „useless‟ luxuries[^184]. His understanding of economics was limited and traditional (money sterile, value based on labor/cost), leading him to condemn trading companies outright and advocate price controls[^185]. His views were deemed impractical by contemporary merchants[^186].
• Usury and Interest: Influenced by Old Testament texts and misinterpreting Christ’s counsels as commands („Lend, hoping for nothing‟), Luther rigidly maintained the medieval prohibition against charging any interest (Zins) on loans, viewing it as sinful usury[^187]. He rejected arguments based on custom or the productive use of capital[^188]. He made exceptions only reluctantly for the very needy (widows, orphans) or, inconsistently, for church/school funds[^189]. He distinguished this from the purchase of annuities (Zinskauf) based on productive land, which he came to accept within limits (4-8%), though initially condemning it too[^190]. His stance put him increasingly at odds with economic realities and even his followers’ practice[^191].

VI. Darker Aspects: Psychology and Embellishment

Ailments and Inner Struggles (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXVI)

• Physical Sufferings: Luther endured numerous ailments: severe constipation (Wartburg); calculus (stone), recurring attacks (1526, 1537, etc.); hemorrhoids; buzzing/noises in the head (linked to dizziness, fear of apoplexy); heart trouble (palpitations, præcordial anxiety, potentially angina); fainting fits (often after intense mental stress); catarrh; nerve trouble (irritability, insomnia); possible transient syphilis; running wound in leg[^192]. He often felt weary, longing for death[^193].
• Psychological Issues:
• Fears and Terrors: From youth, subject to sudden, intense fears (terrores), e.g., entering monastery, first Mass, processions; linked by Melanchthon to religious anxieties[^194]. Describes extreme, hell-like anguish and despair („bones turned to ashes,‟ abandoned by God)[^195]. Possibly neurotic/inherited basis[^196].
• Temptations: Distinguished from physical fear, these were primarily struggles of conscience about his apostasy, doctrine, and responsibility, often recurring and intense (peaking 1527-28)[^197]. Also included temptations to despair, blasphemy, and (especially earlier) carnal desire[^198]. He attributed these to the devil („colaphi Satanae‟)[^199].
• Pseudo-Mysticism: Interpreted his struggles through a mystical lens (Tauler), seeing them as divine trials confirming his mission („Theology of the Cross‟)[^200]. Claimed experiences like the Psalmist’s, viewing suffering as proof of election[^201].
• Morbid Traits: Exhibited mood swings (depression to mania?), extreme irritability, violent anger, self-contradiction, suspicion, belief in personal revelations, and a tendency towards self-deception and paradox[^202]. Some contemporaries (Erasmus, Amerbach) questioned his sanity[^203].
• Relation between Physical and Mental: Ailments undoubtedly exacerbated mental struggles, and vice-versa. Intense temptations sometimes preceded fainting fits or head troubles[^204]. However, the „spiritual temptations‟ (remorse, doubt) had an independent character rooted in his objective situation (apostasy, contradictions)[^205].
• Medical Diagnoses: Discussed opinions range from „recurrent psychosis‟ (Hausrath, Möbius) to neurasthenia linked to gout/uric acid (Ebstein), or inherited irritability[^206]. No consensus exists, but outright insanity is generally rejected due to his sustained intellectual power. The interplay of genuine illness, psychological predisposition, theological convictions, and moral failings (pride, lack of self-control) makes definitive diagnosis extremely difficult[^207].

Later Embellishment of Early Life (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXVII)

• The Legend’s Purpose: Luther retrospectively reshaped his past, particularly his monastic years, to justify his break with Rome and illustrate the supposed misery of Catholic „holiness-by-works‟ versus his liberating Evangel[^208]. This legend solidified after 1530, possibly during the anxieties of the Coburg period[^209].
• Key Fictions:
• Martyrdom of Penance: Claims of near-fatal fasting, vigils, cold, self-scourging for 15-20 years, driven by despairing effort to appease God by works[^210].
• Exceptional Piety: Portrays himself as the most zealous, rule-observing monk who should have reached heaven by monkery if possible, yet found only despair[^211].
• Constant Misery: Depicts monastic life as relentless darkness, doubt („never knew how I stood with God‟), fear of Christ as Judge, inability to find peace in confession or sacraments[^212].
• Sudden Deliverance: Contrasts this with the supposed instant peace and paradise found through discovering justification by faith alone (Tower experience)[^213].
• Historical Contradictions:
• Early Contentment: Luther’s own early letters show periods of peace, joy in monastic life, and positive relationships with superiors/brethren[^214].
• Actual Observance: The Augustinian Rule discouraged excessive austerity; Staupitz dispensed Luther from lesser duties for study. His early Wittenberg period shows opposition to excessive strictness, not practice of it[^215]. Luther himself later taught moderation in penance[^216]. The claimed duration (15-20+ years) conflicts wildly with the timeline of his theological shift[^217].
• Catholic Doctrine: Luther caricatures Catholic teaching on works, merit, grace, confession, and Christ, ignoring the emphasis on grace, interior virtue, and Christ’s mercy[^218].
• Persistence of Struggles: His later „temptations‟ disprove the claim of finding lasting peace through his new doctrine[^219].
• Psychological Roots of Legend: Built upon distorted memories of early fervor, temporary scruples, genuine struggles with predestination, and perhaps morbid states (fear of crucifix/Judgment), all reinterpreted polemically[^220]. His exaggerated humility claims also contrast strangely with early self-confidence and harshness[^221]. His passionate, restless nature, evident from youth, was recast as zeal for misguided works[^222].
• Unreliability: Luther’s later accounts are deemed historically unreliable („second and third rate authorities‟), shaped by polemical needs, self-justification, and perhaps self-deception[^223].

VII. The Church and Religious Freedom

From Freedom to Constraint (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXVIII.1)

• Early Advocacy of Freedom: Initially, Luther championed the universal priesthood, congregational right to judge doctrine, and freedom from coercion in faith, opposing the burning of heretics[^224]. This suited his position as a challenger and his desire for the Evangel to spread by the Word alone[^225].
• Shift Towards Intolerance (Catholics): Even early on (1522), he urged suppression of Catholic worship (Mass) as „public blasphemy,‟ justifying state intervention[^226]. His followers (Spalatin) echoed this, citing Old Testament precedents against idolatry[^227]. He argued for „one kind of preaching‟ per locality, effectively outlawing Catholicism[^228]. Saxon Visitations enforced this, banishing persistent Catholics[^229]. While protesting Duke George’s persecution of Lutherans, he demanded Duke Henry suppress Catholicism in Meissen[^230]. He justified compulsion by distinguishing forced faith (impossible) from enforced attendance at sermons/catechism (for civic order/knowledge) and suppression of public blasphemy[^231]. His polemics became increasingly violent, demanding death for Pope/Cardinals and inciting action against „priestlings and monks‟[^232].
• Shift Towards Intolerance (Sectarians): Initially tolerant („Let the spirits clash,‟ 1524; Anabaptists not blasphemers, 1525)[^233], Luther’s stance hardened after 1530. Influenced by Anabaptist excesses and the threat to his own authority/doctrine, he approved their punishment[^234]. In his commentary on Ps. 82 (1530) and a memorandum co-signed with Melanchthon (1531, revised 1536), he argued authorities must punish not only sedition but also teaching against clear articles of faith (like his) or the public ministry, branding it blasphemy deserving death[^235]. He congratulated Jonas on the (false) report of Campanus’s execution[^236]. He urged Duke Albert of Prussia to expel Zwinglians for contradicting the „unanimous testimony‟ of the Church (an argument ironically applicable to himself)[^237].
• Justifications: Luther excused this intolerance by claiming his opponents acted against conscience or lacked true certainty, whereas he possessed divine assurance[^238]. He argued secular power must protect true doctrine from scandal and blasphemy[^239]. Appeals to mercy were rare and often qualified[^240].
• Consequences: Luther’s principles led to persecution and executions of Anabaptists in Saxony, even non-seditious ones[^241]. His followers (Melanchthon, Bugenhagen, Jonas, etc.) largely adopted his intolerance, sometimes exceeding him[^242]. Attempts by figures like Spengler, Philip of Hesse, or Sebastian Franck to advocate broader tolerance based on Luther’s earlier writings were largely unsuccessful against the dominant Wittenberg view[^243].

Luther as Judge (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXVIII.2)

Luther’s judgment on opposing teachers was severe, rooted in his conviction of his unique mission and certainty.

• Pride and Obstinacy: He condemned the „presumption‟ and „obstinacy‟ of all rivals (Carlstadt, Zwingli, Münzer, Agricola, Schwenckfeld), accusing them of seeking personal glory and deviating from the truth revealed through him[^244]. He saw their doctrines as devil-inspired error[^245].
• Lack of Certainty: He asserted that none of his opponents could be truly certain of their cause, unlike himself; this uncertainty disqualified their teaching[^246]. He dismissed their claims to assurance as lies or delusions[^247].
• Demand for Miracles: He challenged fanatics to prove their extraordinary mission by miracles, a test he conveniently didn’t apply to his own (merely „called‟) office, while simultaneously boasting of spiritual „miracles‟ like Melanchthon’s cure[^248].
• Personal Resentment: Jealousy that others („poaching on my preserves‟) reaped where he sowed, and annoyance that their errors discredited his Evangel, fueled his condemnations[^249]. Any praise of his opponents, like Lemnius’s epigrams for Albert of Mayence, provoked extreme fury and demands for punishment[^250].

The Church: Invisible and Visible (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXVIII.3-4)

• Initial Concept: Church-Unseen: Driven by conflict with Rome, Luther developed the idea of the true Church as the invisible „congregation of saints,‟ known only to God, united spiritually by faith in the true Gospel and right use of Sacraments, not by external hierarchy or location[^251]. This Church is an object of faith („Credo ecclesiam‟), not sight[^252]. Outward signs (Word, Sacraments) exist, but the actual membership is hidden[^253]. Wicked hypocrites are not true members[^254].
• Marks of the Church: Luther proposed new marks (Word, Baptism, Supper, Keys used publicly, Ministry called by Church, Public Prayer, Bearing the Cross/Suffering) replacing the traditional four (One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic), finding the latter inconvenient[^255]. Holiness remained central, but located in the few true believers[^256].
• Shift to Visibility: The need for order, ministry, sacraments, and combating subjectivism (fanatics) forced Luther towards a more visible conception[^257]. The „office‟ of ministry, though derived from the universal priesthood, required a call, initially from the congregation[^258]. This proved chaotic.
• State Control: Practical necessity led to reliance on the State („emergency bishop‟) to organize, appoint ministers (ordination becoming a mere call confirmed by Wittenberg or the sovereign), enforce doctrine, and provide discipline[^259]. The Church became increasingly subject to secular authority, losing its independence[^260]. Luther accepted this pragmatically but sometimes lamented the State’s encroachments and the lawyers’ interference, revealing unresolved tension[^261]. The visible Church became largely defined by adherence to specific Lutheran confessions (Schwabach, Augsburg) and state-sanctioned structures[^262]. This development stands in stark contrast to his initial spiritual, individualistic emphasis[^263].

Tactics in Controversy (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXVIII.5)

• Shifting Ground: Luther adapted his arguments about Church authority based on expediency. When useful (e.g., Erfurt preachers needing support against the Council), he emphasized the Church’s inherent spiritual authority and the congregation’s role[^264]. When facing Catholic rulers, he stressed the limits of secular power in spiritual matters („Emperor’s sword has nothing to do with faith‟)[^265]. When Protestant rulers suppressed Catholicism, he justified it by calling Catholic worship „external abomination‟ subject to state control, or argued the ruler acted as a „Christian,‟ not just a prince[^266].
• Handling Objections:
• Moral Decline: Admitted the bad fruits but blamed the devil, misuse of freedom, or argued it proved the truth by provoking Satan; turned the attack back on alleged Catholic immorality (especially clerical celibacy), using gross caricatures („whore Church,‟ „Pope-Ass‟)[^267].
• Indefectibility: Conceded the invisible Church cannot err but argued the visible (Papal) Church had fallen into error („savored of the flesh‟) for centuries by deviating from the (Lutheran) Word. Claimed remnants of truth (Baptism, Creed, etc.) survived within the „holy place of abominations,‟ allowing for salvation of some individuals[^268]. He rejected the authority of tradition and the Fathers where they conflicted with his interpretation (e.g., Augustine on Church authority)[^269].
• Bible Interpretation: Met the charge of subjectivity by claiming direct divine illumination for his understanding, particularly of key texts like Matt. xvi. 18 („Thou art Peter‟), which he interpreted non-papally (rock = Christ or faith), dismissing the traditional view with scorn and invective[^270].

VIII. End of Life and Legacy

Final Years and Flight from Wittenberg (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXIX.1-2)

• Weariness and Depression: Luther’s last years (1544-46) were marked by increasing physical ailments (stone, heart trouble, dizziness), weariness of life, and deep pessimism about the state of his Church and Germany[^271]. He longed for death and the Last Day[^272]. Annoyances multiplied: theological dissensions, lack of discipline, perceived ingratitude, friction with lawyers over marriage cases and church property, and the political threat from the Emperor and Council of Trent[^273].
• Flight from Wittenberg (July 1545): Overwhelmed by disgust with Wittenberg’s perceived immorality („Sodom‟), contempt for the Word, and governmental inaction, Luther abruptly left the town, intending never to return[^274]. He planned for Catherine to retire to her property. Entreaties from the University, town officials, and the Elector persuaded him to return after about three weeks, his mood having characteristically swung back to activity and defiance[^275].
• Last Labors: Despite failing health, he completed his Genesis commentary, preached sermons, engaged in fierce polemics (against Louvain theologians, the Papacy), worked on Bible chronology, and undertook journeys to Mansfeld to mediate a family dispute among the Counts, seeing this as a final service to his homeland[^276]. His correspondence reveals continued humor mixed with bitterness and apocalyptic urgency[^277].
• Final Cares: Worries about theological disruption after his death, the rise of reason („devil’s bride‟) undermining his doctrine, moral decay, neglect of schools, and the uncertain future of his University weighed heavily on him[^278].

Death at Eisleben (Feb. 18, 1546) (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXIX.3)

• Last Journey: Undertaken in January 1546 to arbitrate the Mansfeld Counts’ quarrel. Delayed at Halle by floods; preached vehemently against Papacy and local monks[^279]. Experienced severe weakness near Eisleben but recovered temporarily[^280].
• Final Days: Engaged in negotiations, preached four times, received communion, „ordained‟ two pastors. Evenings spent cheerfully with friends (Jonas, Cœlius), though troubled by the disputes and political threats. Saw a vision of the devil mocking him near a fountain[^281]. Wrote affectionate, reassuring letters to Catherine, joking about his health and her anxieties[^282]. Made his last written note lamenting the difficulty of truly understanding Scripture[^283].
• Death Scene: Felt chest oppression evening of Feb. 17; prayed at window. Became critically ill around 1 a.m. Feb. 18. Commended spirit to God, recited favorite texts (John iii. 16), confessed faith in Christ and his doctrine when prompted by Jonas and Cœlius. Died peacefully around 3 a.m., likely from apoplexy/heart failure[^284]. Apothecary Landau’s report confirms natural death, refuting later suicide legends[^285]. Body transported via Halle to Wittenberg, buried in Schlosskirche[^286].

Legends about Death (Vol. VI, Ch. XXXIX.4)

Baseless tales arose among Catholics: suicide by hanging (based on spurious servant’s letter circulating from c. 1606), strangulation by Catherine Bora, murder by the devil (body found distorted), corpse vanishing en route to Wittenberg or emitting foul stench[^287]. These polemical fables mirrored similar Protestant stories about the horrific deaths of Catholic opponents (Eck, Emser, Cochlæus, Bellarmine)[^288]. Luther himself had fostered this genre by recounting supposed divine judgments on his foes[^289].

Immediate Posthumous Fame (Vol. VI, Ch. XL.1)

Funeral orations (Jonas, Cœlius, Bugenhagen, Melanchthon) extolled Luther extravagantly as Prophet, Elias, Apostle, Angel of Apocalypse, God’s chosen instrument, possessor of divine revelations, whose death would herald doom for Popery[^290]. Pictures appeared with halos; medals bore titles like „Propheta Germaniæ‟; his tomb became a site of veneration[^291]. Early biographies (Mathesius, Spangenberg) canonized „St. Luther,‟ emphasizing his divine mission and struggles against the devil[^292]. The Table-Talk collections aimed to preserve his oracles[^293]. This veneration served to solidify the Lutheran movement and express anti-Catholic sentiment.

Catholic Memory and the Question of Greatness (Vol. VI, Ch. XL.2)

Catholics viewed Luther’s defiance and immense impact with awe but not admiration. His strength of will could not constitute true greatness when divorced from moral ends and legitimate means[^294]. His success was attributed largely to existing historical conditions (Church abuses, secularizing trends, princely support, popular desire for change) which he exploited, rather than purely personal genius or divine aid[^295]. His doctrines (sola fides, freedom from works/vows) were seen as inherently appealing to fallen nature, explaining their rapid spread among lax clergy and laity[^296]. His claim to a divine mission was rejected based on his flawed character (pride, anger, inconsistency, disregard for truth) and the negative fruits of his work (schism, moral decay, political turmoil)[^297]. The enduring Papacy and Catholic revival further refuted his prophecies[^298].

Struggle over Luther's Heritage (Vol. VI, Ch. XL.3)

Luther’s death was immediately followed by political disaster (Schmalkalden War, 1546-47) and intense theological fragmentation within Lutheranism[^299]. Major controversies erupted:

• Osiandric (Justification): Osiander modified Luther’s view, leading to conflict and Funk’s execution[^300].
• Majorite (Good Works): Major asserted necessity of works for salvation, condemned by strict Lutherans (Amsdorf, Flacius); Major recanted, Menius died under pressure[^301].
• Adiaphoristic (Ceremonies): Flacius violently opposed concessions to Catholic practices in the Interim, leading to bitter feuds with Wittenbergers (Melanchthon, Bugenhagen)[^302].
• Synergistic (Free Will): Pfeffinger and Strigel affirmed human cooperation, opposed by Flacius (teaching substantial sin) and Amsdorf, leading to persecutions and Flacius’s exile[^303].
• Cryptocalvinist (Supper): Secret attempts (Peucer, Craco) to introduce Calvin’s view at Wittenberg were brutally suppressed by Elector August (1574), involving imprisonment, torture, and death[^304]. These internal wars fulfilled Luther’s fears and damaged his legacy[^305].

Mutual Influence and Catholic Revival (Vol. VI, Ch. XL.4)

• Impact on Lutheranism: The example of Catholic unity (Trent) spurred Lutheran efforts towards consolidation (Formula of Concord, 1580), though internal disputes continued[^306]. Access to defined Catholic doctrine clarified theological battle lines[^307]. Lutheranism retained significant Christian heritage (Trinity, Christology, Scripture) from the old Church[^308].
• Impact on Catholicism: Luther’s revolt acted as a „strong physician,‟ purging lax elements and stimulating reform[^309]. The Council of Trent addressed abuses and defined doctrine clearly. New religious orders (Jesuits, Capuchins, etc.) fostered piety and learning[^310]. Catholic theology, apologetics, catechetics (Canisius), education (Jesuit schools), biblical/historical studies (Baronius), and missionary work experienced a revival, partly spurred by Protestant example and competition[^311]. While rejecting Luther’s core errors, the Church learned from the conflict, adapting methods to meet the age’s needs[^312].

Evolving Portraits of Luther (Vol. VI, Ch. XL.5-7)

• Orthodox Luther (16th-17th C.): Viewed Luther supernaturally as God’s Prophet, Elias, Angel of Apocalypse, miracle-worker, endowed with divine certainty; emphasized his doctrinal authority against Papacy and internal dissenters[^313].
• Pietist Luther (late 17th-18th C.): Reacted against dead orthodoxy; focused on Luther’s inner piety, spiritual struggles, universal priesthood; downplayed dogma and state church aspects; saw him as forerunner of Spener/Zinzendorf, distinguishing early ‚spiritual’ Luther from later ‚fleshly’ one[^314].
• Rationalist Luther (18th C.): Praised him as liberator from Papal „darkness‟ and champion of reason/free thought (misinterpreting his stance); valued his contribution to German language/culture; minimized or dismissed his specific theology, supernaturalism, and intolerance[^315].
• Modern Luther (19th-20th C.):
• Romantic: Ambivalent views (Werner, Novalis).
• Nationalist: Extolled as great German hero (Arndt).
• Liberal Theological: Focused on „religiousness‟ over dogma (Ritschl), or ethical impact; increasingly critical, recognizing medieval elements (Troeltsch) and contradictions[^316].
• Cultural: Portrayed as founder of modern culture (problematic view)[^317].
• Political: Seen as political hero whose success depended on princely support and national sentiment (Chamberlain)[^318].
• Objective Historical: Growing recognition (even among Protestants like Maurenbrecher, Boehmer, Stephan) of Luther’s complexity, contradictions, psychological issues, and the need to move beyond idealized myths toward a more critical, nuanced understanding based on primary sources[^319].

Footnotes

Footnotes