In the process of drafting a visitation order and a church ordinance for Nuremberg and the neighbouring margraviate of Brandenburg-Ansbach the theologians of Ansbach and Nuremberg often looked to distinguished Lutheran theologians - such as Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, or Johannes Brenz - for advice. Once they had finished a final draft of the church ordinance it was sent to Wittenberg (17 July 1532) where it was examined by Luther and his Wittenberg followers. The ‘Letter from Wittenberg’ is the response of the Wittenberg theologians (listed below) to the document which ultimately became the 1533 Brandenburg-Nuremberg Church Ordinance.
Luther welcomed the effort, though he did have some things to say about the points of dispute brought to his attention by the Nuremberg theologians. His discussion of the ban and the dry mass touched upon these issues. The ban was the right to exclude a member of the parish from the Lord’s Supper. The Nuremberg Council was reluctant to give the clergy too much power of discipline, and thus the ban became an issue of some contention. Similarly, the Council was reluctant to abolish the dry masses (private masses, masses without communicants) in the city, though ultimately it had to give way. Both of these issues were much more matters of concern for the Council than they were for the Brandenbug margrave. The ‘Letter from Wittenberg’ thus addresses the problems and issues central to the Reformation in Nuremberg.
To the Noble, Honorable and Brave, Respectable, Distinguished, and Prudent Margravial Viceroys and Councilors, and to the Mayors and the Council of the City of Nürnberg, our Dear Sirs and Friends
God's grace and peace in Christ! Noble, Honorable, Brave, Respectable, Distinguished, Wise, and especially Gracious Sirs and Friends!
We have carefully read through the church ordinance and the institution of a visitation which was sent to us and which is to be unanimously and uniformly introduced and instituted throughout the territory of the serene, noble sovereign and lord, Sir George, margrave in Brandenburg, and also in the territory which is subject to Your Honors, the lords of Nürnberg, in order to avoid diversity both in teachings and also in certain external ceremonies. We have studied this document carefully, and as much as was possible at this time have scrutinized it. We have come to the conclusion that in its core it does not conflict with God’s Word, and that it agrees with our visitation ordinance. Therefore we are highly pleased with it. Attached, however, you will find our opinion on certain articles which in part you too, have specially marked, as, for instance, concerning the ban, how it is to be used and practiced, and certain other points. As understanding people, you certainly will know how to consider and judge this material with a Christian mind, according to opportunity and necessity, so that especially pure teaching and preaching are preserved, and that nevertheless, for the sake of unity and good order, Christian ceremonies might also be conducted without abuse. For even though events occur everywhere so rapidly in our days that church ordinances cannot be drawn up and instituted everywhere as quickly as necessary, nevertheless in order to maintain pure teaching, and also external Christian discipline and behavior, and to prevent much wrong from occurring, one must daily improve on the situation until the Almighty grants more peace and unity both in ecclesiastical and secular governments. If there is any way in which we are able to be of service to you in such or similar Christian undertakings, we shall be ready to do it, according to the best of our abilities.
Written at Wittenberg, August 1, 1532
DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER
JUSTUS JONAS, DOCTOR
JOHN BUGENHAGEN POMER
PHILIP MELANCHTHON
Concerning the Ban
1. At present we have instituted no other ban than that those who live in public sins and do not desist are not admitted to the sacrament of Christ's body and blood. This can be accomplished because no one among us receives the holy sacrament unless he has first been examined by the pastor or deacon. Further, we do not see how at this time another ban could be introduced, for many matters occur for which a preliminary investigation would be necessary. We are unable to see how at this time such a procedure of investigation could be instituted and organized, since secular government does not wish to be bothered with such an investigation. Therefore we are content to withhold the holy sacrament from those who live and remain in public sins, even though the world is now so crude and beastly as to be in no hurry at all for the sacrament and church, so that this exclusion from the Lord's Supper might not be considered to be a punishment. If someone excommunicates himself in this way, be content; when even secular authority is ready to permit the existence of public vices [what are we to do?] Nevertheless, in their sermons the preachers ought to censure such pagan ways and behavior by reciting the divine threats in all seriousness; at the same time they ought to admonish the authorities to check such pagan ways.
If discipline would again be restored by instituting examination prior to communion, as certainly would be very useful and good, then one could more easily come to the point where one could institute a system of ecclesiastical discipline which would hold parents responsible for urging their children and members of their household to go to the sacrament and to church, [and] for preventing the young people from falling into such pagan contempt of the sacraments and of all divine matters.
If the public ban is also instituted, then, of course, the secular authority has to enforce an order for ostracizing the person who has been banned, if the public ban is to do any good at all; at the present this might cause many wrongs, especially in the large cities and territories. But our type of ban, by which someone is excluded in private from the sacrament, has no impact on citizenship and business dealing. In spite of this action, a Christian may work and have other civic dealings with the person who is banned, as one would have dealings with a pagan, but in such a way that he makes clear to the one who is banned and to others that he does not approve of, nor is pleased with, the ungodly and censurable teachings and actions [which caused the ban].
On the Dry Mass
2. Concerning the mass which is to be celebrated without [giving] the sacrament, we are very much pleased with Brenz’s judgment; we, too, are of the opinion that one is not to conduct this spectacle of the dry mass. For what else would this be than a public and powerful confirmation of the papal private masses, a confirmation by which people would he incited to think more highly of the papal private masses and to run to them more than previously? If people became accustomed to thinking anything at all of this dry mass, then they would consider the papal private mass to be even more important and sacred, while one obviously knows that the papal private mass is an abomination, and a wrong service of God.
[Miscellaneous Items]
3. Concerning the reserving of the sacrament in the ciborium, we think that even though it might still be the custom to reserve the sacrament and lock it up, this custom ought to be abolished; for sacrament and Word ought to be together. We know, of course, that this sacrament has been instituted for the purpose of being used and not for the purpose of making a special worship of God with [one] piece of the sacrament apart from the usage of the sacrament and the Word.
[4.] On the fifty-seventh folio the following is written concerning secular governmental authority which abuses its office: Whoever conducts himself in the exercise of secular authority and its power in such a way that one has to be afraid of him, even if one is doing what is right, is in God's eyes no governmental authority, etc. It is our opinion that it would be better to omit this paragraph in order to avoid offense and a difficult disputation. Even though Holy Scripture and secular law teach how to deal with an unjust ruler, nevertheless an evil governmental authority still remains governmental authority, as every understanding person knows. For if in God’s eyes an evil governmental authority should be no governmental authority, then the subjects would be free of all obligations, etc. Even if one intends to bring said words into a tolerably clear meaning by means of a commentary and explanation, it is nevertheless better to avoid such a disputation by omitting said paragraph, which after all is unnecessary here.
[5.] On the sixtieth folio the verse of Acts 13 [:38 f.] is interpreted [as follows]: Christ has abolished the law in those portions which do not justify. These words sound as if there is a portion of the law which [if observed] would justify, just as our opponents, too, teach that we are justified because of morally good deeds. But we are now teaching - and this is the truth - that we are definitely acceptable to God only by mercy, when we trust in such mercy as promised in Christ, and not because of our works or virtues, whatever their name may be. Therefore we are of the opinion that that paragraph, too, ought to be omitted. [For] Paul speaks in a Hebrew sense and in a universal context that all things in the law could not have justified us; this includes also those portions of the law which deal with morals. Why should one then change this into a context of particulars?
[6.] It also seems as if this visitation ordinance has not been put together by one person and at one time; in addition, there are many corrections in it, and certain paragraphs have been repeated often, as, for instance, is the case with the material on confession. If one were to entrust this document to one man, for instance to Mr. Osiander, he might put it into another [and better] form, etc.
DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER
JUSTUS JONAS, DOCTOR
JOHN BUGENHAGEN POMER
PHILIP MELANCTHON
Back to Top of Document
Return to Nuremberg case-study
