Notes on Reformation, Martin Luther, and “Wittenberg Altarpiece”
Reformation and Martin Luther
The 15th and 16th century mark the end of a historical era known today as the Middle Ages. Both centuries also pertain to the transitional era in the history of Christianity, which manifested itself in the dawn of the Reformation through the works of the reformers. Even so, Thomas Fuller’s adage that, “It is always darkest just before the Day dawneth,” seemingly applies to the movement as well.[1] It is just that these darkest hours were filled with burning fire, the same flames that burned alive a certain Bohemian preacher on July 6, 1415.[2]
That preacher is none other than Jan Hus.[3] He was sentenced to death by King Sigismund in accordance with the decree of the Council of Constance (c. 1414–18). The council declared Hus as a heretic based on two accusations. First, he has propagated a false belief of the doctrine of transubstantiation and the Eucharist. Specifically, Hus supported the doctrine of sub utraque specie, which argues for the administration of Eucharist under both forms — the host and the chalice (wine)— to the laity. Second, Hus has attempted a denunciation against the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. One of his inspirations in attempting such resistance was John Wycliffe, an English theologian famous for distinguishing the institutional church from the “true” church, which is composed of people who are faithful to God.
Hus’s death served as a catalyst for the reformation of Bohemian Church and the starting point of the Reformation as a whole.[4] After his death, Bohemian Church embraced the chalice as a symbol of her resistance against the authorities of the Holy Roman Empire, a movement known today as the Hussite Revolution. Moreover, the Bohemian Church expanded Hus’s teachings by extensively using vernacular (Czech) in her worship and administering the Eucharist to all who have received the baptism, including infants. While the revolution was taking place, some groups that attempted a more radical reformation also appeared in the Bohemian Church. The Taborites and the Jednota Bratrská, for example, renounced liturgical practices which were widely regarded as traditional at the time in favor of what they considered as biblical rites. In turn, these groups inspired some reformers that are still famous to this day, namely Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus.[5]
Luther’s Reformation began when he nailed his infamous Ninety-five Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church in 1517.[6] By doing this, Luther hoped to debate the theological validity of the distribution of the letters of indulgence in order to uphold papal credibility. However, the Roman Catholic Church interpreted Luther’s action as an attack on papal authority. This aggressive reaction opened a series of confrontations between Luther and the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, which occurred from 1519 and peaked in the imperial Diet of Worms on 1521. In front of the diet, Luther stated his loyalty to the Scripture and the conscience of the faithful, which according to him were pressured by the tyranny of the Pope. The implication of such statement was a ban on the propagation of Luther’s “heretical” ideas in the city of Wittenberg, famously known as the Edict of Worms. The same edict was then rejected by Elector Frederick and his advisors.
The conflict with the Roman Catholic Church instilled in Luther a great ambition.[7] Not long after the Diet of Worms, Luther aspired to re-form Germany as a whole, liberating it from papal influence. He then formulated this aspiration into an eschatological theology of mission, which termed the Pope as the antichrist and pushed his colleagues to “Christianize” Germany as soon as possible. Such “Christianization” includes some significant transformations in theology and piety, such as: rejection of the conception of mass as sacrifice,[8] rejection of monasticism, utilization of vernacular and folk songs in worship, rejection of transubstantiation while upholding the doctrine of real presence, emphasis on the remission of sins in the rite of confession, and emphasis on the authority of the Scripture as the Word of God.
Erasmus stood in contrast to Luther.[9] Despite his current status as a reformer, Erasmus never intended to leave the Roman Catholic Church, for he believed that every doctrine of the church is historically contingent.[10] Instead, he strived to reform the Roman Catholic Church from her insides by the means of his philological works. One of such works is his translation of the New Testament, Novum Instrumentum. In this work, Erasmus not only provides the whole New Testament in Greek and Latin, but also gave expositions (or Annotations) on its verses. It was through these expositions that Erasmus criticized the erroneous practices of the Roman Catholic Church, such as: violation on the rule of celibacy, multiplication of ecclesial law, abuse of papal authority, prohibition to consume certain foods, tendency to repeat small prayers without end, and the utilization of music that privileges sound over intelligibility.
Interestingly, Erasmus’s works were more influential in the Polish Church rather than the Roman Catholic Church.[11] From 1520 to 1536, Erasmus became the face of reform in Poland. His philological expositions not only helped the Polish Church to actively participate in the conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and Luther’s followers, but also served as an impetus for the development of humanism among Polish primates, such as Jan Łaski and Andrzej Krzycki. Furthermore, Erasmus succeeded in engraving his name among the residents of the University of Kraków, which can be considered as one of the hubs of humanism at the time. Consequently, many printing industries in Kraków were willing to publish Erasmus’s works, and such condition contributed to his influence in the Western world. Ironically, however, this influence also exposed Erasmus to the critiques of Luther’s followers and Roman Catholic Church’s representatives towards the end of his life.
The Roman Catholic Church herself did not stay silent in the face of the Reformation pioneered by Hus and Luther.[12] From 1545 to 1563, the Roman Catholic Church held the Council of Trent, which were attended by 21 bishops, 4 archbishops, a cardinal, 3 papal legates, and 5 generals of religious orders. The Council of Trent effectively published three decrees, each showcasing the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the Eucharist, sub utraque specie, and the mass. In the first decree, the Roman Catholic Church defended transubstantiation and real presence, which emphasize the substantial presence of Christ in the consecrated host. In the second decree, the Roman Catholic Church rejected sub utraque specie under the reason that the church has the authority to change the form of sacramental celebration as long as its essence remains unchanged. In the third decree, the Roman Catholic Church defended the conception of mass as sacrifice and ordered the bishops to explain the meaning of this conception to the laity while the mass is taking place.
Martin Luther and the “Wittenberg Altarpiece”
Luther’s theology emphasizes how the works of Christ are mediated through the preaching of the Word of God and the administration of the sacraments in the church.[13] This seemingly simple theology is influenced by at least three notions, i.e., Augustinianism, nominalism, and the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of the sacraments. The Scripture and Augustine’s works formed the foundation of Luther’s theology. His rejection of nominalism oriented his emphasis on faith and the authority of Scripture. Last, but not least, Luther’s encounter with the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of the sacraments completed his theology. He reduced the amount of admitted sacraments into 2.5 (the Eucharist, baptism, and confession), radicalized the doctrine of real presence, adopted the doctrine of sub utraque specie, encouraged the involvement of laity in worship, rejected the conception of mass as sacrifice, and emphasized the role of grace in the act of confession.
Aside from printed media (e.g., Formula Missae, Deutsche Messe, and On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church), Luther’s theology was also spread through various forms of painting.[14] One particular painting which represents Luther’s theology in general is the “Altarpiece of the Wittenberg City Church” (hereafter: “Wittenberg Altarpiece”). This painting was done by Lucas Cranach the Elder and Younger (hereafter: Cranach), two figures who dominated North Germany’s painting industry throughout the 16th century. After it was finished in 1547, exactly a year after Luther’s death, the council of Wittenberg placed Cranach’s painting on the altar of Wittenberg City Church as a tribute for the reformer.
The “Wittenberg Altarpiece” preserves the triptych format prevalent in Medieval Roman Catholic Church.[15] Each of the three paintings, as seen in Figure 3, represents the sacraments that Luther admitted: baptism (left), confession (right), and the Eucharist (middle). These paintings also contain three important figures of Luther’s Reformation and the Wittenberg City Church, namely Philipp Melanchthon (left), Johannes Bugenhagen (right), and Luther himself in his lay persona, Junker Jörg (middle).[16] The painting on the left and right depict the Wittenberg City Church as its background, whereas the one in the middle depict the last supper of Jesus Christ and his disciples. In the bottom part of the painting (predella), one can see the figure of Luther preaching in front of the congregation of Wittenberg while pointing to Jesus Christ, who seems to be alive as he is hanged on the cross.
Even though it was painted in the same format, “Wittenberg Altarpiece” contains details that run counter to the paintings shown in the Roman Catholic Church.[17] Whereas paintings such as “Miracle of the Eucharist” by Il Sassetta[18] (Fig. 4) and “Altarpiece of the Seven Sacraments” by Rogier van der Weyden (Fig. 5) accentuate the role of the clergy in the administration of the sacraments, “Wittenberg Altarpiece” highlights the involvement of the laity. In fact, it even depicts one of the important figures of the church as a layperson. Moreover, the middle part of the “Wittenberg Altarpiece” shows the figure of Jörg receiving a chalice from a certain minister, whereas the “Miracle of the Eucharist” and “Altarpiece of the Seven Sacraments” show no chalice whatsoever. These details depict Luther’s reception of sub utraque specie, a doctrine that was already popular in Bohemia ±100 years before his Reformation took place.
Further analysis on these paintings also indicates Luther’s rejection of the doctrine of transubstantiation.[19] In the “Miracle of the Eucharist,” one can see the figure of a cleric touching a Carmelite friar with a bleeding host, whereas the middle part of the “Altarpiece of the Seven Sacraments” depicts the figure of a cleric consecrating a host with his back facing the congregation. The Carmelite friar depicted in “Miracle of the Eucharist” seems to be ill or possessed by the devil, whereas the “Altarpiece of the Seven Sacrament” shows a realistic figure of the crucified Jesus Christ in the middle of the church, complete with the presence of the traditional mourners. These details, which do not appear in “Wittenberg Altarpiece” at all, emphasize the belief of the Roman Catholic Church that by uttering the formula of the consecration, Hoc est corpus meum (“This is my body”), a cleric can change the substance of a host into the body of Christ, thus making him truly present in the midst of the world. Even though it appears to be unchanged, the host that goes through this process contains the power of Christ, which is capable to heal any kind of disease and repel evil spirits. On the contrary, the middle part of the “Wittenberg Altarpiece” emphasizes remembrance of the last supper of Jesus Christ and his disciples. Such emphasis is in line with Luther’s instruction: “Whoever here has a wish to place panels on the altar, he should let the Last Supper be painted with these two verses, ‘The forgiving and merciful Lord instituted a remembrance of his miracle’.”[20]
Interestingly, Luther’s rejection of transubstantiation did not prevent Cranach from painting the figure of the crucified Jesus Christ in the “Wittenberg Altarpiece.”[21] Instead of putting it in the middle, however, Cranach put it in the bottom part of the painting, precisely in the midst of Luther who seemingly preaches in front of the congregation of Wittenberg. This detail not only indicates that Luther upheld the real presence while simultaneously rejected transubstantiation, but also shows that such rejection in turn radicalizes the real presence. For transubstantiation implicitly delimits the presence of Christ as a mere substance, thus his presence depends on the consecration done by the cleric. By rejecting transubstantiation, Luther indirectly restored the ubiquity of Christ that he can be present among the congregation even without consecration.
Aside from indicating his acceptance of real presence, the figure of Jesus Christ shown in the bottom part of the “Wittenberg Altarpiece” also represents Luther’s emphasis on the authority of Scripture as the Word of God.[22] Furthermore, the aforementioned detail emphasizes Luther’s belief on the congruence between the Scripture and his theology as a whole, so that the rejection of his theology also counts as a rejection of the Word of God itself. With such belief, one can see why Luther named those who side against him as the antichrist (e.g., the Pope, the Roman Catholic Church) and fanatics inspired by the devil (e.g., Huldrych Zwingli, Bodenstein von Karlstadt). The in-group/out-group paradigm is strong throughout Luther’s theological construction, and the bottom part of the “Wittenberg Altarpiece” implicitly depicts such paradigm.
The left part of the “Wittenberg Altarpiece” depicts the administration of baptism.[23] In it, one can see the figure of Melanchthon baptizing an infant. Melanchthon himself was famous for vehemently rejecting Anabaptism, one of the streams of Reformation which renounces infant baptism under the argument that an infant is incapable of stating his/her faith. In a similar fashion to Luther, Melanchthon believed that baptism provides faith to the person who receives it. Both Melanchthon and Luther also believed that the Word of God, when uttered, has the power to move the hearts of Man, including those who are godless. In turn, these beliefs underlie the reformers’ rejection of doctrines that posit faith (Anabaptism) or good actions (Roman Catholic Church) as a requirement which precedes or follows the baptism.
The right part of the “Wittenberg Altarpiece” depicts the administration of confession.[24] In it, one can see the figure of Bugenhagen absolving a layperson on his left while simultaneously banning another layperson on his right. The latter seems to be banished by Bugenhagen with his hands bound to each other. He represents certain sinners who were not permitted by the church to participate in the Eucharist, such as Hans von Metsch, Wittenberg’s bailiff who were punished for threatening local authorities in 1538. In an implicit manner, this part of the painting shows that Luther posited confession as a prerequisite for participating in the Eucharist. Historical records also note that in 1547, the Wittenberg City Church established personal confession to the church ministers as a condition for attending the aforementioned sacrament.
[1] Bookbrowse, “Bookbrowse’s Favorite Quotes,” accessed October 4, 2022, https://www.bookbrowse.com/quotes/detail/index.cfm/quote_number/356/it-is-always-darkest-just-before-the-day-dawneth.
[2] Philip N. Haberkern, Patron Saint and Prophet: Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Revolution (Madison Avenue, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016), 1.
[3] David R. Holeton, “The Bohemian Brethren,” in The Oxford History of Christian Worship, ed. Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen Tucker (Madison Avenue, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 525; Haberkern, Patron Saint and Prophet: Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Revolution, 1, 8–10.
[4] Holeton, “The Bohemian Brethren,” 526–527; Scott Hendrix, “Martin Luther, Reformer,” in The Cambridge History of Christianity, Vol. 6: Reform and Expansion 1500–1660, ed. R. Po-Chia Hsia (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 13.
[5] Luther often identified himself as Jan Hus the second, whereas Erasmus adopted and popularized the confirmation rite of the Jednota Bratrská in some of his works. See Holeton, “The Bohemian Brethren,” 526–527; Hendrix, “Martin Luther, Reformer,” 13.
[6] Hendrix, “Martin Luther, Reformer,” 3–4, 12–13.
[7] Ibid., 10, 14–19.
[8] This conception states that the mass contains Christ’s divine sacrifice on the cross in an unbloody manner. See Nathan D. Mitchell, “Reforms, Protestant and Catholic,” in The Oxford History of Christian Worship, ed. Geoffrey Wainwright and Karen Tucker (Madison Avenue, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 563.
[9] Howard Louthan, “A Model for Christendom? Erasmus, Poland, and the Reformation,” Church History 83, no. 1 (March 7, 2014): 29, https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0009640713001662/type/journal_article; Hilmar M. Pabel, “The Impetus for Reform in Erasmus of Rotterdam’s New Testament,” Erasmus Studies 38, no. 1 (March 29, 2018): 26–31, 37–38, 40–41, https://brill.com/view/journals/eras/38/1/article-p25_4.xml.
[10] In other words, Erasmus believed that the doctrinal errors of the Roman Catholic Church were caused by situational demands. It was this belief that underlies his tolerance to the Roman Catholic Church. See Louthan, “A Model for Christendom? Erasmus, Poland, and the Reformation,” 29–30.
[11] Ibid., 19–31.
[12] Mitchell, “Reforms, Protestant and Catholic,” 559–563.
[13] Ibid., 532–538; Hendrix, “Martin Luther, Reformer,” 6–8, 11–12, 18.
[14] Joseph L. Koerner, The Reformation of the Image (London: Reaktion Book, 2004), 75–78; Bonnie Noble, “The Wittenberg Altarpiece and the Image of Identity,” Reformation 11, no. 1 (June 21, 2006): 89, 92–93, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1558/refm.v11.79.
[15] Koerner, The Reformation of the Image, 69, 72; Noble, “The Wittenberg Altarpiece and the Image of Identity,” 80–83, 91, 101–102, 104; Birgit Ulrike Münch, “The Art of the Liturgy: The Lutheran Tradition,” in A Companion to the Eucharist in the Reformation, ed. Lee Palmer Wandel (Leiden & Boston: Brill, 2014), 410–411.
[16] Luther delivered ±100 sermons annually throughout his career as the preacher of Wittenberg City Church, which spans 35 years. He produced catechisms, order of worship, and collection of hymns which were used extensively outside of Saxony. Melanchthon assumed the position of teacher and minister of Wittenberg City Church until 1560. Throughout his career, he formulated guidelines for teaching, organization, and pastoral practice. Bugenhagen was the pastor of Wittenberg City Church and preached there until 1558. Jörg was Luther’s lay persona, which he assumed after his unofficial return from exile in Wartburg Castle. Cranach gained Luther’s permission to paint him as Jörg in 1521. See Koerner, The Reformation of the Image, 74–75, 77; Hendrix, “Martin Luther, Reformer,” 8, 10–11.
[17] Koerner, The Reformation of the Image, 73–74; Noble, “The Wittenberg Altarpiece and the Image of Identity,” 87, 91, 96–97, 100–101, 104; Mitchell, “Reforms, Protestant and Catholic,” 516–517; Münch, “The Art of the Liturgy: The Lutheran Tradition,” 399, 410–411, 415.
[18] He is also known by another name: Stefano di Giovanni. See Mitchell, “Reforms, Protestant and Catholic,” 516.
[19] Noble, “The Wittenberg Altarpiece and the Image of Identity,” 99–101; Mitchell, “Reforms, Protestant and Catholic,” 517; Münch, “The Art of the Liturgy: The Lutheran Tradition,” 406.
[20] Münch, “The Art of the Liturgy: The Lutheran Tradition,” 409.
[21] Koerner, The Reformation of the Image, 74; Noble, “The Wittenberg Altarpiece and the Image of Identity,” 111–112; Münch, “The Art of the Liturgy: The Lutheran Tradition,” 415.
[22] Noble, “The Wittenberg Altarpiece and the Image of Identity,” 108–112; Hendrix, “Martin Luther, Reformer,” 14–15.
[23] Noble, “The Wittenberg Altarpiece and the Image of Identity,” 113–114.
[24] Koerner, The Reformation of the Image, 329, 334.
