Luther was to appear at 4:00pm on April 18, again at the bishop’s residence, but it ended up beginning at 6:00pm and in a larger hall, before even more dignitaries. Luther’s “tremor” at his first appearance provided this unique opportunity: He got to address the diet in plenary session.[1] By all appearances, Luther was a changed man on that second day. No longer awed by the setting, he spoke with more boldness. He began with an apology for his appearance the previous day, explaining that monks who live in seclusion have no experience addressing dignitaries in court. He then addressed the recantation question, explaining that it could not be simply answered, because he had written different kinds of books. Three kinds, to be exact. The first addressed matters of Christian piety and morals. Even those who opposed some of his teachings recognized that those books were helpful. To retract those books would be to deny the truths of Scripture and the universal teaching of the Christian church, and Luther could not do that. In the second kind of book, he wrote against the papacy, whose false teachings contradicted the gospel and “tortured” the consciences of God’s people. In addition, the papacy had unfairly taken property and wealth from the German nation, without consideration of their needs. To retract the books of this second kind would be to express support for their wickedness and to encourage its continuance. In the third type he had written against individuals who supported the Roman church’s teaching and practice. He admitted that he had occasionally spoken more strongly than he should have, considering his calling as a teacher in the church. At the same time, he wrote the way he did because of his concern for the gospel of Christ, to which conditions were being added. To recant this third type would be to encourage the oppression of God’s people to continue. If, however, he could be shown from the Scriptures where he had taught falsely, he would recant and would be the first to throw the books into the fire.[2]
Luther then addressed the warning he had received, that he was disrupting the unity of the church by his teaching. He viewed the dissension differently than they, considering it natural and necessary wherever the Word of God is faithfully proclaimed. In fact, he said, to “see dissension arise because of the Word of God is to me clearly the most joyful aspect of all in these matters,”[3] because Jesus himself said that he had not come to bring peace, but a sword. The peace and unity that please God come from believing and confessing what the Lord says in his Word, not by teaching contrary to it. Allowing some false teaching for the sake of outward peace invariably leads to other evils.
Though he had been told that there would be no debate, Luther tried to draw the emperor’s representative into a discussion by the distinction he made between his books. Mission unaccomplished! Von der Ecken refused to discuss it. He rather went on the attack, accusing Luther of not making a clear enough distinction about his second kind of book, in which he had addressed papal tyranny. The books Luther had written in response to Exsurge Domine were “far more abominable and execrable than those written earlier, and deserve to be condemned.”[4] If Luther wanted his writings to be preserved, then he should remove the false teachings included in them. Otherwise, even that which he believed to be sound teaching would be burned up and all memory of him blotted out. Von der Ecken then sought to put Luther in his place: “Do not, I entreat you, Martin, do not claim for yourself that you, I say, that you are the one and only man who has knowledge of the Bible, who has the true understanding of holy Scripture…. Do not regard yourself as wiser than all others.”[5]
[1]. Bainton, 183.
[2]. This is a summary of what can be found in LW 32:109–13, which provides a transcript of Luther’s statement.
[3]. LW 32:111.
[4]. LW 32:127.
[5]. LW 32:129.