the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...
the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ... the mystical theology of valentin weigel - DataSpace at Princeton ...
distinguishing between Law and Gospel is the most important task of a preacher, which he explains by a spatial metaphor, imagining the Gospel in Heaven and the Law on Earth (“ut Evangelium ponas in coelo, legem in terra”). 690 Indeed, Heaven and Earth are not far enough apart to express the radical difference between the two, and it would be better if we could put even more distance between the two (“atque utinam adhuc longius eas discernere possemus”). 691 This distinguishing is not a static operation of the mind, however, and the rather dry words conceal the two-act drama of the sinner undergoing justification. First, the sinner is accused by the Law of failing to fulfill it—and no matter how pious that person might be, she still falls infinitely short of being able to satisfy God’s demands, since sin has corrupted every part and faculty of human nature, body, reason and soul. The Law has done its work when the sinner reaches the point of total despair, recognizing that he has no moral resources to draw upon whatsoever and so must continue to fail and fail again to do God’s will. And yet, the Law is divine and so must be fulfilled, which means that somebody else will have to do the work instead. When things can get no blacker, the sun and the great light of the Gospel and of grace shine in the day: Christ, who is perfect, can satisfy the demands of the Law. 692 Truly believing this (that Christ will do everything and that we will do nothing) is what allows the despairing sinner to ascend, leaving the donkey with his burdens on Earth. 693 The Pope, writes Luther, has failed to properly distinguish the two by turning the Gospel into mere laws, hoc est in corde et conscientia ista duo bene distinguat.” WA40.1.II, 209:16-19. “Qui igitur bene novit discernere Evangelium a lege, is gratias agat Deo et sciat se esse Theologum.” WA40.1.II, 207:17-18. 690 Ibid, 19-20. 691 Ibid, 23-24. 692 “Sic luceat [27] sol ille et immensa lux Evangelii et gratiae in die.” WA40.1.II, 207:26-27. 693 “Sic asinus manet in valle, conscientia autem ascendit cum Isaac in montem.” WA40.1.II, 208:11-12. 252
and ceremonial ones at that. 694 That is, instead of allowing the Gospel to be a relief from the strictures of the Law, the Gospel becomes a new set of laws (acts of penance, pilgrimages, relics, fasts, set prayers, obligatory confession, monastic vows etc.) that are as burdensome as the old ones (dietary restrictions, keeping the Sabbath, strictures on dress etc.). Failing to practice orthotomia, then, means failing to distinguish between Law and Gospel, and that is precisely what the Layman intended to do. Weigel concluded from reading Dionysius that the nameless God can and must be called by all names: God is One, and as such God’s Law must be the same as God’s Gospel. Moreover, Weigel’s Neoplatonic concept of creation means that man must have God within him if he is to exist at all. Therefore, blessedness consists not in receiving something extraneous (God’s grace flooding in like sunlight, as in Luther’s words above) but in achieving the right orientation towards what one already has. Or more precisely, since Weigel does still speak of receiving God’s grace, if God were not already within man, then the grace man received would be ineffective, having nothing to act upon. We are now in a better position to understand why Weigel described his Layman as a Zuhörer. What distinguishes the Preacher from the Layman is not holding a particular office or not, it is whether one believes that speaking rather than listening will bring about salvation. When the Preacher practices orthotomia by preaching the distinction between Law and Gospel, Weigel argues (through the Layman) that it is not his words that will make the difference in calling the sinner back to God. 695 Though of 694 “Papa autem non solum miscuit legem cum Evangelio, sed meras leges et eas tantum ceremoniales ex Evangelio fecit.” WA40.1.II, 209:12-14. 695 Though of course, as discussed in Chapter 2, Weigel does not rule out the possibility that one might be moved to faith by a sermon or by the sacraments, he departs significantly from Luther in asserting that they 253
- Page 205 and 206: growing body of evidence suggesting
- Page 207 and 208: Weigel concludes that, precisely be
- Page 209 and 210: apart, he suggested that true Chris
- Page 211 and 212: and so did not dwell on the fact th
- Page 213 and 214: Names, as the title suggests, is ba
- Page 215 and 216: animals, through plants and non-liv
- Page 217 and 218: of being.” 580 As we will see lat
- Page 219 and 220: (“God is a rock”) or even a neg
- Page 221 and 222: This is admittedly a nonsensical as
- Page 223 and 224: compositions, most likely dating to
- Page 225 and 226: Dionysius to show that, just as God
- Page 227 and 228: efer to Greek and Hebrew, the bibli
- Page 229 and 230: argues that there cannot be more th
- Page 231 and 232: dicitur una.” 616 The stress that
- Page 233 and 234: Weigel suggests will allow the soul
- Page 235 and 236: saving sacraments by means of which
- Page 237 and 238: Melanchthon’s Defence of the Augs
- Page 239 and 240: alternative—namely prayer. 643 We
- Page 241 and 242: Dionysius writes that the summit of
- Page 243 and 244: leibet er illimitatus.” 658 Weige
- Page 245 and 246: work, Weigel had written explicitly
- Page 247 and 248: Luther did not ever use the exact p
- Page 249 and 250: as opposed to an office-holder, an
- Page 251 and 252: writing. By calling his Layman der
- Page 253 and 254: Others are loyal to mere men (the P
- Page 255: zuerzeigen einen rechtschaffen vnd
- Page 259 and 260: himself returning gloriously from H
- Page 261 and 262: all being. In relinquishing any cre
- Page 263 and 264: improve appearances but, because it
- Page 265 and 266: than resolve it, because the proble
- Page 267 and 268: parcels God, who by rights is supre
- Page 269 and 270: Appendix • The Works of Valentin
- Page 271 and 272: BIBLIOGRAPHY Abad, J. M. (1999). Th
- Page 273 and 274: Chenu O.P., M.-D. (1968). In M.-D.
- Page 275 and 276: Eckhart, M. (1993). Werke I (Vol. 1
- Page 277 and 278: Israel, A. (1888). M. Valentin Weig
- Page 279 and 280: MacCulloch, D. (2010). Christianity
- Page 281 and 282: Payne, R. J. (Ed.). (1981). Meister
- Page 283 and 284: Schindling, A., & Ziegler, W. (1990
- Page 285 and 286: Verkamp, B. J. (1975). The Limits u
and ceremonial ones <strong>at</strong> th<strong>at</strong>. 694 Th<strong>at</strong> is, instead <strong>of</strong> allowing <strong>the</strong> Gospel to be a relief from<br />
<strong>the</strong> strictures <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Law, <strong>the</strong> Gospel becomes a new set <strong>of</strong> laws (acts <strong>of</strong> penance,<br />
pilgrimages, relics, fasts, set prayers, oblig<strong>at</strong>ory confession, monastic vows etc.) th<strong>at</strong> are<br />
as burdensome as <strong>the</strong> old ones (dietary restrictions, keeping <strong>the</strong> Sabb<strong>at</strong>h, strictures on<br />
dress etc.).<br />
Failing to practice orthotomia, <strong>the</strong>n, means failing to distinguish between Law<br />
and Gospel, and th<strong>at</strong> is precisely wh<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> Layman intended to do. Weigel concluded<br />
from reading Dionysius th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> nameless God can and must be called by all names: God<br />
is One, and as such God’s Law must be <strong>the</strong> same as God’s Gospel. Moreover, Weigel’s<br />
Neopl<strong>at</strong>onic concept <strong>of</strong> cre<strong>at</strong>ion means th<strong>at</strong> man must have God within him if he is to<br />
exist <strong>at</strong> all. Therefore, blessedness consists not in receiving something extraneous (God’s<br />
grace flooding in like sunlight, as in Lu<strong>the</strong>r’s words above) but in achieving <strong>the</strong> right<br />
orient<strong>at</strong>ion towards wh<strong>at</strong> one already has. Or more precisely, since Weigel does still<br />
speak <strong>of</strong> receiving God’s grace, if God were not already within man, <strong>the</strong>n <strong>the</strong> grace man<br />
received would be ineffective, having nothing to act upon.<br />
We are now in a better position to understand why Weigel described his Layman<br />
as a Zuhörer. Wh<strong>at</strong> distinguishes <strong>the</strong> Preacher from <strong>the</strong> Layman is not holding a<br />
particular <strong>of</strong>fice or not, it is whe<strong>the</strong>r one believes th<strong>at</strong> speaking ra<strong>the</strong>r than listening will<br />
bring about salv<strong>at</strong>ion. When <strong>the</strong> Preacher practices orthotomia by preaching <strong>the</strong><br />
distinction between Law and Gospel, Weigel argues (through <strong>the</strong> Layman) th<strong>at</strong> it is not<br />
his words th<strong>at</strong> will make <strong>the</strong> difference in calling <strong>the</strong> sinner back to God. 695 Though <strong>of</strong><br />
694 “Papa autem non solum miscuit legem cum Evangelio, sed meras leges et eas tantum ceremoniales ex<br />
Evangelio fecit.” WA40.1.II, 209:12-14.<br />
695 Though <strong>of</strong> course, as discussed in Chapter 2, Weigel does not rule out <strong>the</strong> possibility th<strong>at</strong> one might be<br />
moved to faith by a sermon or by <strong>the</strong> sacraments, he departs significantly from Lu<strong>the</strong>r in asserting th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong>y<br />
253
Change language