The German Reformation From The Diet Of Augsburg To The Death Of Luther (1530-1546)

The German Reformation From The Diet Of Augsburg To The Death Of Luther (1530-1546)

Charles V. did not find the means of effecting the religious subjugation of the Protestants which he had threatened at the close of the Diet of Augsburg. The precarious nature of his relations with France, and the invasions of the Turks, who at this time, under their ambitious leader Soliman II., boldly aspired to the conquest of Europe, compelled Charles to a show of indulgence toward the heretics. Moreover,the Protestant states evinced a disposition to resist, if need be, by force of arms. In the closing days of the year 1530 they laid the foundation of the so-called Smalcald League, and the next year confirmed it by definitely pledging mutual defence in the enjoyment of their faith. Hence Charles assented to the peace of Nuremberg in 1532, which provided that religious affairs should remain unchanged till they could be settled lay a diet or council. The Emperor, as heretofore, was anxious for a general council, and in 1533 he persuaded the Pope to make a move in that direction. However, such a council as the Pope planned involved, in the view of the Protestants, their condemnation beforehand, and they declined participation. The council which finally was convened, that of Trent in 1545, was no joint assembly for the settlement of doctrinal disputes, such as Charles had designed, but a thoroughly Romish affair.

For the fifteen or sixteen years following the Diet of Augsburg, the relation of Charles V, to the Protestants of Germany was that of political manœuvring; the Emperor being held back, by the difficulties of his position, from any decisive steps toward repression. The Reformation cause, during this time, was continually adding to its allies. By 1540, it counted nearly the whole of Northern Germany on its side.

Some noteworthy stumbling-blocks, however, were thrown in the way of this general progress. Such was the Anabaptist fanaticism which raged in Münster. The Reformation had made considerable progress in Münster by the year 1533, under the leadership of the preacher Bernhard Rottmann; and the bishop had found it necessary to grant tolerance to the growing party of its adherents. There was a fair prospect that the whole city would be won to the Protestant cause. But at this juncture the Anabaptist distemper made its appearance. Rottmann himself caught the infection, and the city became a chosen resort for the extremists of the Anabaptist sect. Such in particular were John Mathys from Harlem and John Bockelson from Leyden, who played the rô1e of prophets or theocratic leaders. Adherents being rapidly won, the violent sectaries usurped the government, and in 1534 banished from the city all who were counted unbelievers. One excess led to another. Works of art perished before an indiscriminate iconoclasm. The principles of the wildest communism were adopted. Polygamy was declared lawful. John of Leyden, who finally added the dignity of king to that of prophet, took sixteen wives. Every thing was managed in the name of pretended revelations from heaven. A reign of terror prevailed, and it was instant death to disagree with the fanatical chief, or his principal agent, the sword-bearer Knipperdolling. But this mad revel was soon brought to an end. In 1535 the bishop and his allies, among whom were numbered some of the Protestant states, succeeded in overpowering the fanatics. A re-action to Romanism naturally followed; Protestantism was utterly ruined in Münster.

1 Ranke III. 356-405; Hase, Neue Propheten.

Another stumbling-block was the bigamy of Philip of Hesse. He was united with a wife whom political considerations rather than personal preference had brought to him. The dissatisfaction not unnaturally springing from lack of affinity was aggravated by bodily disorders and an unhappy propensity of his spouse. Philip, consequently, as a man of vigorous sensual physique, had experienced special temptation. Taking up with the lax code shamefully common in those days among princes, he had been guilty of great matrimonial infidelity. He was not a man of so little conscience as not to be seriously troubled over his misdemeanors, and for a long time had counted himself unworthy to receive the communion. Still, he had not the moral strength or resolution to stop his indulgence. In this strait he resorted to an expedient which, without increasing the sin of his conduct, increased the scandal of it beyond measure. As a way of satisfying at once his appetite and his conscience, he made choice of bigamy. Thinking it unjust to divorce his wife, who had borne him a large family of children, he concluded that, inasmuch as he could find no Divine ordinance on record against a plurality of wives, the best course would be to take a second wife, with the consent of the first. To obtain a fitting sanction for his project, he sent Bucer (who, with all his amiable traits, possessed an excessive aptitude for diplomacy and compromise) to confer with Luther and Melanchthon. These theologians were greatly disturbed by the proposition. Nevertheless, in consideration of the representations which were made to them, they were induced to give a kind of half consent. In their reply they stated that the sentence spoken at the creation, as also the words of Christ, plainly indicate that the proper idea of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. This must remain the law. They added, however, that there might be dispensations from this law in cases of extraordinary and pressing need. That Philip's was a case of this kind, they did not undertake positively to affirm, but contented themselves with the direction, that, if the Landgrave were resolved to contract a second marriage, it must be a secret one. I Epist. mdcccciv., mdccccv.

Why the stipulation of secrecy? Because, as Luther explains elsewhere, the case was not to be made a precedent; and, moreover, an open marriage would imply a dispensation from the law of the realm which they had no power to give. They were acting simply as confessors, or spiritual advisers, and as such allowed that it might be safer for his soul, and less objectionable in the sight of God, for Philip to take an additional wife than to continue in adulterous license. 2 Epist. mmdxvi., mmdxli.

That Luther and Melanchthon made the concession that they did, was undoubtedly an enormous mistake. That they were guilty of moral obliquity, is not so clear. Certainly they cannot be charged with inventing a theory to meet a case. Earlier expressions of theirs indicate a belief that under certain extraordinary conditions a dispensation from the law of monogamy might legitimately be granted. 3 Epist. dlxxii., mccccx. See also J. C. Hare, Vindication of Luther. Melanchthon, as Hare testifies, had taken the same ground which appears in Luther's epistles. Nor would it seem that they were altogether alone in this. There is evidence that some contemporary Romanists conceived that a dispensation for a plural marriage was not strictly out of question. 4 Köstlin, II. 485, 676; D' Aubigné, Book XX., chap. v. One may surmise, indeed, that the Wittenberg divines were moved by a spirit of unworthy compliance in dealing with the proposition of the Landgrave, and were not perfectly settled in the conviction that there was such an exigency with him as constituted adequate ground for a dispensation, This is possible, but it is not proved. All that can be said is, that Melanchthon was undoubtedly a man of more than average conscientiousness, and that few men have lived who were less inclined than Luther to take counsel with mere expediency where any principle was concerned.

The bigamous marriage took place in 1540, and the scandal was not long in following. Deplorable as was the affair, it was not without some compensations. Luther and his associates were sufficiently instructed by this one experience, and thereafter were more than content to allow the law of monogamy to stand in unqualified force. If a second compensation were to be noted, it might be found in the revelation that was called forth of Luther's staunchness and strength, in the hardihood with which he bore the opprobrium, and in the might with which he lifted up Melanchthon from the very gates of death.

Before this interval of negotiation and political finesse had merged into the stern ordeal of battle, Luther passed away (Feb. 18, 1546). His departure, so far as his personal fortunes were concerned, was in peace and unshaken faith. Among his last words was the thrice-repeated sentence: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. Thou hast redeemed me, Thou faithful God." So ended a stormy life; so passed away one of the great men of history. He had indeed his faults and weaknesses, too prominent to be concealed. His nature was too vehement for evenness and consistency. Some of his eminent virtues bordered close upon vices. His zeal for the faith ran, at times, into unseemly passion; his steadfastness to his conviction, into apparent willfulness and stubbornness; his hatred of shams, into disdain and abuse. But with all these detracting features, Luther exhibited that which must ever command admiration. We see in him a marked individuality, an heroic temper, a consummate genius, a deeply religious spirit, a peculiarly faithful embodiment of strong national traits. As David was the man of Israel, so Luther was the man of Germany. As David embodied the chivalry, the patriotism, the lyric talent, the domestic affection, and the religious ardor of Israel, so Luther embodied the leading features of the German mind and heart. His words thrilled the men of his time, and to-day are in large part fresh and living. To soberness and mirth he alike paid tribute. Few have shown so fully the gift of easy transition from seriousness to pleasantry. A many-sided, rich, and powerful nature was that of Luther. Says one who has never accepted Protestantism: "It was Luther's overpowering greatness of mind, and marvelous many-sidedness, which made him to be the man of his time and of his people; and it is correct to say that there never has been a German who has so intuitively understood his people, and in turn has been by the nation so perfectly comprehended, I might say absorbed by it, as this Augustinian monk at Wittenberg. Heart and mind of the Germans were in his hand like the lyre in the hand of the musician. Moreover, he has given to his people more than any other man in Christian ages has ever given to a people, language, manual for popular instruction, Bible, hymns of worship; and every thing which his opponents in their turn had to offer or to place in comparison with these, showed itself tame and powerless and colorless by the side of his sweeping eloquence. They stammered: he spoke with the tongue of an orator; it is he only who has stamped the imperishable seal of his own soul alike upon the German language and upon the German mind; and even those Germans who abhorred him as the powerful heretic and seducer of the nation cannot escape; they must discourse with his words, they must think with his thoughts." 1 Döllinger; quoted by G. P. Fisher, History of the Reformation.

Luther And The German Reformation From The Diet of Worms To The Close Of the Diet Of Augsburg (1521-1530)

Luther And The German Reformation From The Diet of Worms To The Close Of the Diet Of Augsburg (1521-1530)

The vigorous rhetoric which was distributed throughout Germany in the Edict of Worms was not followed by a corresponding vigor in action. The Emperor gave very little attention to the execution of the edict, being engrossed in a great struggle for the ascendancy in Italy against the French king and his allies. For nearly nine years together he was absent from Germany. During this time, the cause which he had put under the ban made continued progress. There were efforts, indeed, in various quarters, to carry through the order for repression; and the Reformation was honored with a list of martyrs. Severities were especially frequent after the year 1526. On one occasion, in Bavaria, nine were sentenced to the flames; and in another instance, twenty-nine were condemned to death by drowning. Still, in Germany at large,the interval between the Diet of Worms and the Diet of Augsburg was a time of opportunity for the Reformation.

As respects Luther himself, there was no abatement of the enormous energy and industry which he had exhibited in the preceding years. Even during his retirement in the Wartburg castle, which continued nearly a year, he still wrought with vigor, and discharged in no small measure the demands of leadership. He felt himself, indeed, to be at a disadvantage. He chafed under his enforced isolation, insomuch that he purposed at times to break away from it on his own responsibility. Ill health aggravated his mental disquiet. The consequence was, that, with his keen sensibility for the supernatural, he experienced what he considered to be satanic buffetings. History, it is true, is compelled to speak with doubt about his famous ink-bottle salute to the devil. But we have his own statement respecting the severity of his mental conflicts. 1 Epist. cccxliii: Sed mille credas me Satanibus objectum in hac otiosa solitudine. Tanto est facilius adversus incarnatum Diabolum, id est adversus homines, quam adversus spiritualia nequitiæ in cœlestibus pugnare. Through these perturbations, however, he continued to maintain a good hope for his cause. The words which he addressed to Sickingen find more than one echo in his writings at this time. "I have seen," he said, "a presumptuous smoke-cloud attempt to extinguish the sun; but the smoke passed away, the sun still shines." 2 Epist. cccxxiii. Thus abortive, he judged, would be all attempts to extinguish the gospel.

At the Wartburg, Luther made several additions to the list of his polemical treatises. By far the most important task, however, which occupied his leisure, was the translation of the Bible. The first draught of the New Testament was produced here. The work of translation was continued at Wittenberg, until at length, in 1534, the complete Lutheran Bible was given to the public. The enterprise may well be regarded as marking an epoch in the national history. It is true that other translations into the vernacular had preceded this of Luther. But none of them had any thing like the same adaptation to the people; none of them were such homelike produces to the German mind; none so brought out the riches of the German tongue; none were so true at once to the German and to the original; for, while it was a maxim with Luther that a translation must express the sense of the original, it was equally a maxim with him, that it must express that sense in the national idiom. Some of the conditions of a perfect translation were no doubt wanting. Luther and his colleagues did not have as complete a mastery of the original tongues of the Bible, especially the Hebrew, as was desirable. But a very fair degree of scholarship and great pains-taking were brought to the work. 1 There is evidence of the fact that Luther sometimes re-wrote a passage as many as fifteen times. Moreover, conditions were met which are beyond the reach of mere scholarship. "In order," says Häusser, "faithfully to reproduce the patriarchal simplicity, the homely and childlike character, of the Old and New Testaments, to imitate the poetic strains of the prophets and the Psalms, and again the popular straightforwardness of the Gospels, requires a vein of congeniality --the spiritual affinity of a mind which has preserved the simple and honest originality of an unsophisticated people. This cannot be acquired by all the learning in the world, though it may easily be unlearned in the world and among books. It was precisely these qualifications which Luther possessed. A genuine son of his own people, gifted with all the wealth and depth of the German mind, he could enter into that age of simple national faith; he made its spirit and language his own, and thus acquired the power of translating into German the religious-poetic and poetic-religious mode of expression." It is scarcely necessary to add, that the copies of the new German Bible, issued as fast as the hard-worked presses could supply them, became powerful instruments for the spread of evangelical truth.

A pressing occasion called Luther from the castle. As false elements attached themselves to early Christianity, so also to the Reformation movement. A party arose in which there prevailed an intemperate spirit of innovation. They have commonly been called Anabaptists, though this term indicates only one feature of their teaching and practice, namely, their rejection of infant-baptism, and treatment of it as a nullity where already administered. They resembled to a considerable extent the Montanists of the early centuries. In other words, they were ultra spiritualists. They disparaged outward forms, exalted the inspirations of the Spirit above the written Word, and boasted, like the early sectaries, of prophets to whom the Lord was supposed to make direct communications of His will. Many grades, no doubt, were found among these enthusiasts, but the extremists of the class were downright fanatics. Zwickau was the first prolific source of the new order of prophets. Thomas Münzer was a leading spirit. A degree of notoriety was also attained by Nicholas Storch, Marcus Thomæ, Marcus Stübner, and Martin Cellarius. Visions and prophesyings entered plentifully into their programme. They looked for a religious revolution reaching quite beyond any thing which Luther had accomplished. They predicted a complete overturning of the existing order in Germany, and the speedy destruction of the ungodly. A few years, they said, would bring in the end of the world. With all the rest they cherished a fanciful mysticism, teaching that the Christian should rise into union with God until he reaches a state of complete quiescence and passivity.

Expelled from Zwickau, the new prophets carried their views to other quarters. Münzer proceeded in the first instance into Bohemia. Storch and Stübner made their way to Wittenberg. Here, in the absence of Luther, a means of attachment had been provided for them. A party, at the head of which were Carlstadt and a former member of the Augustinian cloister by the name of Zwilling, had become somewhat infected with the iconoclastic distemper. Impatient of delay, and careless of the prejudices of others, they wished to carry through sweeping reforms at a stroke. At the same time, an exaggerated stress upon the common priesthood of believers and the enlightening agency of the Holy Spirit led them to speak in slighting terms of the claims of learning. Thus the Zwickau prophets found ready allies, and matters at Wittenberg assumed a phase which gave serious trouble and apprehension to sober minds.

It needed a man like Luther to meet these violent enthusiasts, and Luther was ready for the task. He was troubled by no hesitating judgment as to the merits of their cause. In their overweening confidence, their easy-going familiarity with God, and their boasted superiority to the requirements of scholarly industry, he saw clear tokens of fanaticism. It was his opinion that they ought at once to be put under restraint, not, indeed, through any appeal to force, but through such a presentation of scriptural truth as should expose the unsoundness of their position. He resolved, therefore, to proceed to the theatre of the agitation. The will of his sovereign, he knew, would detain him at the Wartburg in the interest of his personal safety. But he exhorted Frederic to have no concern for his protection. "Be it known to your highness," he wrote, "that I am going to Wittenberg under a far higher protection than that of electors." 1 Epist. ccclxii. As bearing on the trouble at Wittenberg, see also Epist. ccclvi., ccclviii., ccclxi., coclxiv., ccclxvii., ccclxxi., ccclxxxi.

Once upon the field of the disturbance, Luther made himself master of the situation. For several days in succession he delivered discourses which are universally allowed to have been masterpieces of popular addresses. He urged the claims of charity, the duty of respecting the consciences of the weak, the necessity of distinguishing between the essential and the optional, and of overturning wrong views by the power of the Word before making haste to overturn outward rites and customs. In all this Luther was acting a consistent part. Notwithstanding the polemical violence which he sometimes employed against those whom he regarded as the enemies of the gospel, in dealing with customs and institutions he proceeded in general as the conservative reformer.

Wittenberg was won back to Luther, and the Zwickau enthusiasts found it advisable to seek other fields. Two or three years later the most daring and ambitious of the class obtained a grand opportunity in the peasant revolt.

As already indicated, the fundamental cause of the revolt was the intolerable burdens which were imposed upon the peasants, though an immediate stimulus was no doubt derived from the religious agitations of the time. The insurrection reached formidable dimensions, spreading from the region of the Upper Rhine through Swabia and Franconia, and extending into Thuringia and Saxony. As the uprising grew in strength, so also the demands of its partisans were augmented. The first manifesto which the peasants put forth, expressed in twelve articles, was by no means extravagant. Liberty to have preachers who should proclaim the pure gospel, and release from various forms of oppression and deprivation, were the sum of their requirements. But later more exacting demands were made. In some quarters the revolt was aggravated into a levelling project, and plunder, arson, and bloodshed attended its course. This was especially the programme in Thuringia, where Thomas Münzer took the leadership. Assuming to speak by the authority of God, Münzer exhorted the excited multitudes to proceed forward in a war of extermination until a11 dignitaries should be brought low. "Show no pity!" he exclaimed. "Regard not the woe of the ungodly!" But neither Münzer nor those addressed had long to think upon a scheme of vengeance. The sword descended upon their own necks. The undisciplined ranks of the insurgents were not able to withstand the well-appointed armies which at length took the field. A bloody atonement was rendered for the uprising. The peasants were cut down by the thousand and the ten thousand, and the discomfited survivors turned sadly back to their old burdens.

As for Luther, he naturally sympathized with the peasants in their grievances, and before the outbreak had rebuked the nobles in very plain terms for their oppressions. But he had no faith in appeals to the sword, and looked upon insurrectionary violence as a thing to be profoundly abhorred. Therefore, as the tumult of the revolt began to threaten the overthrow of all civil order, he counseled the putting of it down at any cost. He considered the slaughter which befell the peasants as in large part a righteous judgment. At the same time, he did not approve the rigor with which they were treated after their defeat, and warned those who disregarded the claims of mercy, that their hardness might be expected to bring on a repetition of the ordeal already suffered. 1 Epist. dccxxv., dccxxvii, mmccclxix.

Between the ferment at Wittenberg, and the close of the peasant revolt, occasion for some noted personal encounters had fallen in the way of Luther. The first of these was with a royal antagonist. Henry VIII. of England, who had great confidence in his ability to win trophies in the theological field, attempted a reply to Luther's "Babylonish Captivity," and published a defence of the seven sacraments. He was not without his reward. To say nothing of the fulsome laudations which flatterers lavished upon him, and which might lead him to think that he had written at the special dictation of the Holy Spirit, the Pope conferred upon him the honorable title, Defender of the Faith. The honor, however, was dearly bought; for the Saxon Reformer was held back by no awe of royalty, and scourged his Majesty as unmercifully as he would have the most plebeian opponent whose full-blown pride needed to be punctured. On the score of justice no complaint call be made against Luther for his small show of respect against his antagonist; for the treatise of Henry VIII., besides being no real reply to Luther from his standpoint, inasmuch as it was mainly occupied with traditional trumpery, was scurrilous and contemptuous to the last degree. On the score of policy the violent and disrespectful tone of Luther was more questionable. To be sure, it may have helped the King in forming his decision to fulfill the office of Defender of the Faith by other means than the pen; but, on the other hand, it diverted attention from the merits of the argument, and produced alienation in minds that might better have been conciliated. The choice of such a style appears to have been with Luther not merely a result of ebullition of feeling, but also of the deliberate conclusion that it was for the interest of his cause to show that the royal mantle could not protect the vilifier, and the champion of error. 1 Epist. ccccxii., ccccxxviii.

The answer to Henry VIII., which was written in 1522, naturally brought an increased pressure to bear upon Erasmus, from the English king and nobility, who wished him to enter the lists against Luther. No doubt their persuasions, and the value which he set upon their friendship, were one motive with the great humanist for giving open expression to his disagreement with the Reformer. As previously intimated, Erasmus chose the subject of free will as the ground of contention, and argued in favor of human ability. Luther replied in the treatise De Servo Arbitrio (1525). He published here in most undisguised form the strong views respecting Divine sovereignty and grace, which he not unnaturally embraced in the fervor of his reaction from Roman legalism. To all except ultra Augustinians, the De Servo Arbitrio must appear among the least acceptable of Luther's theological writings. It ceased early to represent the position of the great body of the Lutherans.

The year which marked the crisis of the peasant revolt and the reply to Erasmus was not so full of engagements for Luther, but that he found time to attend to a very important private matter. In 1525 he married Catharine von Bora, a nun who had abandoned the
cloister. 2 Luther seems not to have contemplated marriage till shortly before. Near the close of the preceding year he wrote: "So long as my sentiments continue to be what they have been and still me, I shall not take a wife: not because I am insensible to the charms of the sex, for I am neither wood nor stone; but my mind is diverted from the consideration of marriage since I daily expect death and the well-earned punishment of the heretic" (Epist. dcxxxvii.). A wish to defy his enemies and to place a seal upon his principles, 1 Epist. dccxv., dccxvi. as well as the attractions of the marriage state, led to this step. As a matter of course, calumnies were heaped upon him. Some quoted the prophecy that Antichrist was to be born of a monk and a nun. Erasmus, though he did not hesitate to jest over the marrying propensities of the Reformers, replied to this, "If the prophecy is true, how many thousands of Antichrists does the world already contain?" 2 Erasmus, Epist. dccci. In view of the result, the intemperate criticism wears the appearance of profane levity. The home of Luther was a scene of sacred companionship, and a nursery of piety. His daughter Magdalene lived and died as a saintly child, and his three sons were men of such exemplary lives that even the ready tongue of slander has not attempted to asperse them.

The history of German Protestantism, in the four or five years preceding the Diet of Augsburg, was marked in particular by two important events, the organization of national churches, and the project of an alliance among the Protestant powers for their mutual defence.

In Saxony the first definite organization of a Protestant communion took place between 1527 and 1529. In default of bishops friendly to the Reformation, the initiative fell to the prince. By his appointment a commission was constituted, which was directed to visit the churches, correct abuses, examine the provisions for ministerial support, and instruct religious teachers in their duty. To provide for a measure of continued oversight, the prince nominated members of the clergy in different sections to act as superintendents, and devolved upon them a part of the functions which had formerly pertained to the bishops. The visitation, for which Melanchthon drew up the plan in 1527, was executed in the two following years. The result in one respect was rather chilling to the mind of Luther. It revealed such an amount of ignorance among the people as to cast doubt upon their fitness to have a principal share in the control of their ecclesiastical affairs. Thus the merits of a democratic type of church government received but moderate consideration. It was at this time, and under the impulse of the discoveries made respecting the need of religious instruction, that Luther prepared his catechisms. 1 In January, 1529, Luther writes: Modo in parando catechismo pro rudibus paganis versor (Epist. mlxvi.). In Hesse the organization of the Church was conducted according to the Saxon model, though at an earlier date (1526) the plan was discussed which was carried out among the French Protestants, and still prevails in the United States, the plan of a Church composed simply of believers voluntarily associated together, instead of an establishment holding relation to the population at large. 2 Ranke, II. 306, 307. An organization hardly second, in its ultimate bearing on the interests of Protestantism, to any consummated in this era, was that which was effected in Prussia. The Reformation early penetrated into this region, and gained numerous adherents in the Teutonic Order. The bishops here also embraced the Reformation. As, therefore, in 1525 the Teutonic Order was secularized, and the Grand Master Albert was acknowledged in the character of temporal ruler, nothing stood in the way of a Protestant régime in Prussia. In this régime the bishops retained very largely the spiritual functions which had pertained to their office previously.

In the year 1526, the cause of the Reformation in Germany appeared to be exposed to special danger. News came that Charles V., having conquered the French king, was now ready to undertake in earnest the suppression of heresy. The peril indeed was not as imminent as it seemed to be; for the Pope had no inclination to let Charles enjoy the fruits of his victory, and prepared for him a fresh conflict by releasing the French king from the engagements which he had made at the peace of Madrid. The Protestants, however, were led seriously to consider their means of defence. The result was the Torgau league, which included the elector of Saxony, Philip of Hesse, several less important princes, and the city of Magdeburg. The resolute front presented by the evangelical princes at the Diet of Spires in 1526 prevented the passage of measures adverse to their cause. In fact, this Diet really established the territorial principle which lay at the basis of the ecclesiastical organizations described above, -the principle that each state (for the time being) should manage church affairs within its limits according to its own discretion. But this concession in its full import was not long allowed. At the Diet of Spires in 1529 the Roman Catholic party was in the ascendant, and passed measures decidedly adverse to the progress of Reformation. The protest issued upon this occasion by the evangelical party fixed upon them the name of Protestants. Efforts were made immediately after the close of this Diet, to consummate an alliance with the Swiss, and thus to prepare for effective resistance in case of attack. This called up the doctrinal differences between Luther and Zwingli, the principal of which lay in Luther's affirmation and Zwingli's denial of the real bodily presence of Christ in the eucharist. Luther was in general extremely averse to warlike leagues in connection with religion. 1 Epist. mciv., mclxx., mcxci. "Luther," says Ranke, "was, of all men who have stood at the head of a movement world-wide in its significance, the one perhaps who was least inclined to have any thing to do with force and war " (III. 30). Least of all would he consent to an alliance with the Swiss errorists, as he deemed them. An unfortunate association of the Swiss leaders with the Anabaptist enthusiasts was early formed in his mind, and he never learned to rate them at their worth. A discussion which he held with Zwingli and Œcolampadius at Marburg in 1529 failed to bring about any substantial agreement. The Reformation, therefore, parted into two streams near its fountain-head.

In June of the year 1530, the German Diet assembled at Augsburg. Thither came Charles V., fresh from the repeated victories which had crowned his arms. It was understood that he had resumed cordial relations with the Pope, and that this reconciliation meant a determined effort to extirpate heresy. It was with considerable trepidation, therefore, that the Protestant princes concluded to respond to his summons. They came, however, and with the fixed determination to sacrifice every thing sooner than the cause of evangelical truth. Charles met them in a rather lordly temper at first, but he soon concluded that it was best to make a fair use of the policy of conciliation. A respectful hearing was accordingly given to the claims of the Reformation party.

Before the arrival of the Emperor, the Protestants had concluded that their cause would be best served by "formal confession of faith. The task of preparing such was executed by Melanchthon. His genius seems to have been well suited to the special exigency. A confession free from all partisan rancor, moderate in tone, but still clear and positive in its statement of the evangelical faith, was demanded, for the best effect upon the Diet. And such was the Augsburg Confession as it came from the hands of Melanchthon, and was read before the assembled dignitaries (June 26, 1530). It consisted of a preface and two parts. The first part contained twenty-one articles of faith. The second part contained seven articles relative to abuses in the Church, under which were included he withholding of the cup from the laity, enforced celibacy, private masses and connected abuses, requirement of specific confession, distinctions of meats, exaggerated stress upon monastic vows, and unwarranted assumption of ecclesiastical power.

1 The confession was signed by John, Elector of Saxony, who had succeeded Frederic in 1525; by the Margrave George of Brandenburg; by Philip of Hesse; Duke Ernest of Lunenberg; Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt; and the cities of Nüremberg and Reutlingen.

The effect produced by the reading of the confession was decidedly favorable to the Protestants. Gross prejudices and misconceptions were removed from the minds of many who had been taught to regard the Protestants as wild fanatics. So strong a Roman Catholic as the Duke of Bavaria confessed that the doctrines of the Lutherans were not so utterly crude as had been represented. Reproaching Dr. Eck for the false impressions he had given, he asked him if he could refute by sound reasonings the Lutheran confession. Even the proud and pretentious controversialist had the honesty to reply, that, while he could refute the confession from the fathers and the councils, he could not from the Scriptures. "I understand," quickly replied the Duke: "the Lutherans, according to you, are in Scripture, and we are outside." 1 Luther in his Tischreden (No. 26) tells quite as good a story of Archbishop Albert. While at this Diet, he was observed, on a certain occasion, by one of his councilors, to be reading the Bible. "Most gracious Elector and Lord," said the councilor, "what does your Highness make of this book?" -- "I know not," replied the archbishop "what kind of a book it is, for all that it contains is against our side."

To offset the prestige thus gained by the Protestants, the Romanists appointed a commission to prepare a refutation. This was read before the Diet, and the Emperor affected to consider it a sufficient answer to the teachings of the Reformers. His actions, however, agreed ill with the confidence expressed; for the Protestants were not allowed a single copy of the refutation for their more perfect consideration, except under very obnoxious conditions. The unexpected courage and resolution of the Reformation party led, at length, to attempts at an adjustment of creeds. Conferences were held; both parties made concessions. On the side of the Protestants, Melanchthon showed himself especially anxious for an agreement, and, in the view of many, yielded too much. But these attempts were artificial, and, as was natural, miscarried. The Diet closed with a threat of war hung over the Protestants. They were allowed till the 15th of the next April, to reconcile themselves with the Church. During this time they were to avoid all innovations, print nothing on questions of faith, and attempt to convert no one to their beliefs.

The total result was favorable to the Protestant cause. "The Diet of Augsburg," says D'Aubigné, "destined to crush the Reformation, was what strengthened it forever. It has been usual to consider the Peace of Augsburg (1555) as the period when the Reform was definitely established. That is the date of legal Protestantism; evangelical Christianity has another, -the autumn of 1530. In 1555 was the victory of the sword and of diplomacy; in 1530 was that of the Word of God and of faith; and this latter victory is, in our eyes, the truest and the surest." Book xiv., chap. xii.

Luther From The Opening Of The Leipzig Disputation To The Close Of The Diet Of Worms

Luther From The Opening Of The Leipzig Disputation To The Close Of The Diet Of Worms

This was the crisis epoch in the life of Luther. Within the brief interval of less than two years, he traveled out of sight of Roman sovereignty, and started no small part of Europe on the road to like emancipation. Another life, showing greater fruitfulness in word and deed in the same space of time, cannot easily be found since the foundation era of Christianity.

The truce entered into with Miltitz was understood to be a temporary expedient. It imposed obligation only while the case of Luther was waiting decision from the stipulated tribunal. In fact, it was ended before any hearing had been arranged. The adversaries of Luther were not disposed to keep quiet. Doctor Eck, supremely confident of his controversial superiority, would rest short of nothing but a contest with the chief agitator. He published, therefore, a set of theses, ostensibly in preparation for a disputation with Carlstadt, but really directed against the principal doctrines of Luther. This was regarded by Luther as a challenge which needed to be answered. The result was the disputation held at Leipzig, June 27-July 16, 1519, under the auspices of Duke George of Saxony.

The disputation opened between Carlstadt and Eck on free will, and was continued between Luther and Eck on the primacy of the Pope, purgatory, penance, and indulgences. The principal significance and interest centered in the discussion of the primacy. Luther contended that the Pope's primacy is simply de jure humano, or based on the consent of Christians, and cannot claim any divine right. He argued, as Wycliffe had done before, that the need of a head over the Church does not imply any divinely appointed ecclesiastical monarch, since the monarchical ideal is adequately realized in the fact that Christ is the perpetual Head of the Church. He referred to the council of Nicæa and to North African synods as plainly implying by their decisions that they recognized no universal headship in the Roman bishop. Cyprian's representation respecting sacerdotal unity proceeding from Rome, he contended, could apply only to the West; and as the Roman Church owed its origin to that in Jerusalem, the mother of all churches, the figure of Cyprian, if it proves ally thing about headship, would direct to the conclusion that the supremacy over all churches belongs to Jerusalem. Certain passages of Jerome were also quoted as clearly indicating that the papal monarchy was no part of the primitive constitution of the Church. The Eastern Christians, Luther claimed, had repudiated such monarchy for fourteen hundred years. If, then, it is of divine right, they must be counted heretics and outside the pale of salvation,--a most abhorrent conclusion. "I hold it to be certain," said Luther, "that neither the Roman pontiff nor all of his flatterers are able to cast out of heaven so great a number of saints, who have never been subject to his authority.... If they are heretics because they did not recognize the Roman pontiff, I will accuse my opponent of being a heretic, who dares to assert that so many saints held in honor throughout the universal Church are damned."

But while Luther gave place to historical considerations, he laid the main stress upon the evidence of the Scriptures. Augustine and all the fathers put together, he declared, could not bind his judgment counter to the teaching of God's Word. He complained of Eck, that he merely skimmed over the surface of Scripture, or rather fled from it as the devil flees from the cross. In the Acts of the Apostles, he said, we have the clearest proof that Peter had no authority over the other apostles; while the exegesis which affects to find in Matt. xvi. 18, John xxi. 15-17, or Luke xxii. 32, a foundation for the papal supremacy, is far-fetched and counter to the tenor of the New Testament.

The most important result of the disputation was the incentive which it gave Luther to cut loose from the whole system of pretentious infallibility. He had, indeed, previously reached the conclusion, -- as appears from his reply to Prierias,--that it was possible for a council to err. But as yet he had not ventured to take exception to any specific decision of a general council. This was first brought about at the Leipzig disputation, under pressure of Eck's assertion, that, in denying the divine right of the Pope, Luther was making himself a patron of the Hussite heresy, and was contending for a proposition which the council of Constance had expressly condemned. At first Luther took umbrage at being associated with Huss; his mind not yet being fully disabused of the prejudice against the Bohemian martyr, which a century of industrious vilification had ingrained into the minds of the Germans generally. But on reflection he declared, of his own accord, that several of the sentences of Huss, condemned by the council of Constance, were most Christian and evangelical. This naturally produced no small stir among the auditors. Eck, in a letter to Hochstraten, says that many who had been favorable to Luther were terrified by this daring error, and ceased to give him countenance. To have brought his opponent to this confession, was, no doubt, a formal victory for Eck, for it enabled him to brand him in the eyes of Roman Catholics generally as a manifest heretic. But what was a formal victory for Eck was a real advantage to Luther and his cause. By assisting him to a clearer apprehension of truth, it only increased the momentum with which he was preparing to assail the ramparts of papal and hierarchical sovereignty. Luther gives an account of the disputation in Epist. cxlvii., cxlix., cli.

Shortly after the Leipzig disputation, Luther took occasion to reiterate, in more emphatic terms, the position which he had there taken. In the early part of 1520, a perusal of Valla's treatise on the fictitious donation of Constantine intensified his conviction that the papal dominion was built upon falsehood. 2 Epist. cciv. Near the same time he confessed that a better acquaintance with the writings of Huss had assured him that he himself, as well as Paul and Augustine, were genuine Hussites, and had brought home to him the terrible fact that along with Huss evangelical truth had been condemned and burned. 3 Epist. ccviii.

In the latter half of the year 1520 three writings of special importance came from the pen of Luther. The first of these was his "Address to his Imperial Majesty and the Nobles of the German Nation." It was a powerful oration; a trumpet-call to the German people to lay hold upon the work of reforming the Church. In this arduous task, said Luther, wherein the contest must be waged not with men but with the magnates of hell, no carnal weapons will avail. The labor must be undertaken in humble reliance upon God, and with minds intent upon the good of a suffering Christendom rather than upon requiting evil men for their misdeeds. In essaying the reform, three walls must be broken through, which hitherto have been interposed against all efforts to heal corruptions and abuses. The first wall is the assumption that the laity are only a passive element in the Church; that the management of spiritual affairs belongs to the clergy, who constitute the spiritual order, having been sealed with an indelible character, and being endowed with special prerogatives and immunities which place them in wide contrast with other men. The way to break down the wall is to discard these fables. The truth is, all Christians belong to the spiritual order. All are introduced by baptism to the priestly rank. Necessary order, indeed, forbids that all should discharge ministerial functions. But the distinction between priest and layman is only official; the priest is but the representative of the body of believers. To induct one into the priestly office, nothing beyond the will of the congregation is absolutely necessary. A company of laymen, accidentally isolated from all fellow-Christians, would be entirely competent to empower one of their number to administer the sacraments, and to perform every priestly function. As the official is the only distinction, when that is canceled no dividing line remains. A deposed priest is only a peasant or citizen. Away, then, with this wall of separation! Away with the fiction, worthy of the chief devil himself, that a Pope must be left to pursue his own course unchallenged though he leads souls to perdition by the wholesale ! The second wall is the claim that it is the sole prerogative of the Pope to interpret Scripture. This, too, must be brought down by resolute repudiation of unfounded assumption. The claim is contradicted by the common priesthood of believers, by Paul's teaching respecting the free distribution of spiritual gifts, and by the facts of history which convict the popes of having many times fallen into error. To found the infallibility of the Pope on Christ's prayer for Peter, that his faith might not fail, is in no wise allowable; since not a few of the popes have been sadly destitute of faith, and, moreover, Christ prayed for all Christians as well as for Peter. A breach having been made through the first two walls, little trouble will be found with the third, which is built up by the pretence that the Pope alone can call a council. As this is without warrant in Scripture, and is contradicted by the early history of the Church, Christians have no need to sit with folded hands, in the presence of deadly evil, awaiting the motion of the Roman pontiff. Nor should they pause in their reformatory efforts through awe of the papal thunders, but despise them as the utterances of a frantic mortal.

The remainder of the address was largely occupied with a detailed list of the reforms which should be undertaken by the proposed council. Altogether it was an appeal supremely adapted to the national sentiments, and fitted to stir to their depths the hearts of the more liberal and thoughtful among the German people. As has been well said, "All the Teuton rage against Rome, pent up for centuries, is here set free." 1 Peter Bayne, Life and Work of Martin Luther. It is needless to add that a rapid circulation was given to the address, four thousand copies having been sent out in the space of a few weeks. 2 Luther, Epist. ccl.

A second writing, entitled the "Babylonish Captivity of the Church," followed the above after an interval of about two months. It is a critique of the Romish doctrine of the sacraments as it had been elaborated in the scholastic theology. In place of the traditional list of seven sacraments, Luther finds warrant for only three, the eucharist, baptism, and penance. In connection with the first, he denounces energetically the robbery practised against the laity in the withholding of the cup; declares transubstantiation a mere speculative subtlety, which no one is bound to accept and which may rationally and scripturally be rejected; denies that the mass is to be accounted either a meritorious work or a sacrifice to God, and claims that the essential verity in it is a promise of grace to be grasped by faith. Respecting baptism, he emphasizes the idea that its virtue, which is conditioned upon faith, is not spent by the first act of sin, so that one must look to another rite which may serve as a plank for the shipwrecked. Rather, the grace offered in baptism stands continually available to him who returns to it in penitence and faith. As regards confession and absolution, Luther allows that they may subserve a good purpose. He denies, however, that absolution is an exclusive prerogative of the priest, and complains, that, in practice, confession is made a means of tyranny, while the satisfactions imposed have been aggravated into an ungodly and homicidal regime. The tone of the work is one of great boldness, rising at times into a ringing defiance. One or two extracts will illustrate: "Since the bishop of Rome has ceased to be a bishop, and has become a tyrant, I fear absolutely none of his decrees, since I know that neither he nor even a general council has power to establish new articles of faith." "I for my part will set free my own mind, and deliver my conscience, by declaring aloud to the Pope and to all papists, that unless they shall throw aside ah their laws and traditions, and restore liberty to the churches of Christ, and cause that liberty to be taught, they are guilty of the death of all the souls which are perishing in this wretched bondage, and that the papacy is in truth nothing else than the kingdom of Babylon and of very Antichrist."

The third writing was a brief treatise on "Christian Liberty." It sustains the double thesis: "A Christian man is the most free lord of all, and subject to none; a Christian man is the most dutiful servant of all, and subject to all." The discussion which is appended is largely occupied with the office of faith, which is declared to be the medium of liberty, as it is the medium of justification. Faith grasps the vivific word of Christ, joins the soul to Christ as the bride to the bridegroom, and so brings into it a principle of life which can never be attained on the basis of works. This, however, involves no rejection or disparagement of works. He whose soul has been purified through faith and filled with the love of God will desire that all his members should be purified and made subservient to the love and glory of God. Thus, works must follow in the train of faith. "These works, nevertheless, are not that which justifies the individual in the sight of God; but he performs them freely from love towards God's service, looking to no other end than the Divine pleasure." That this writing should have been addressed to Pope Leo, would be a strange fact, were not the explanation at hand, that this was no result of Luther's inclination, but simply the fulfillment of a promise which he had given to Miltitz.

Before Luther had given his "Babylonish Captivity" to the public, mutterings from Rome had reached his ear. Indeed, it was known that the industrious malice of Eck had at last been rewarded, and that he had brought back to Germany a papal fulmination against Luther. After being published in several other places, a copy of the bull at length reached Wittenberg (Oct. 3). It condemned forty-one propositions of Luther, adjudged to the flames all writings of his containing these propositions, and declared him exposed to all the penalties due to an obstinate heretic unless he should recant within sixty days.

The following were among the condemned propositions:--
1. Hæretica sententia est, sed usitata: Sacramenta novæ legis justificantem gratiam illis dare, qui non ponunt obicem.

5. Tres esse partes pœnitentiæ, contritionem, confeseionem, et satisfactionem, non set fundatum in Scriptura, nec in antiquis sanctis Christianis Doctoribus.

7. Verissimum eat proverbium, et omnium doctrina de contritionibus hucusque data præstantius: de cetero non facere, summa pœsnitentia, optima pœnitentia nova vita.

8. Nullo modo præsumas confiteri peccata venalia, sed nec omnia mortalia, quia impossibile est, ut omnia mortalia cognoscas. Unde in primitiva ecclesia solum manifesta mortalia confitebantur.

33. Hæreticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritus. (To burn heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit.)

In relation to this last proposition, three things should be noticed: (1) The proposition could not have been condemned as being merely ill-sounding for a more plain and moderate denial of the propriety of burning heretics cannot be imagined. It must have been condemned as false and heretical. (2) The bull of Leo X. being formally issued in condemnation of errors, and solemnly binding every Roman Catholic to reject and to contend against those errors, must be regarded as an ex cathedra document. (3) Therefore, in virtue of the dogma of papal infallibility, every Roman Catholic is bound to believe in the propriety of burning heretics.

Luther's teaching on this subject makes an interesting contrast. Commenting on Leo's condemnation of the thirty-third proposition, he says: "Christ delivered no weapons into the hands of the apostles, nor did He impose any other punishment than that one who refuses to bear the Church should be regarded as a heathen. And the apostle (Tit. iii.) teaches respecting an heretical man, that he is to be avoided, not that he should be slain with sword and fire. When the disciples (Luke ix.) wished to call down fire from heaven, and to destroy a city, Christ restrained them, saying, 'Ye know not what spirit ye are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives, but to save.' This is what I have said and do say, on the authority of Christ, namely, that those who assail men with fire are not men of good spirit. Of what spirit, then, are they7 Of the evil spirit, who from the beginning was a murderer. Christ has not willed that men should be brought to faith by force and fire. Wherefore he gave the sword of the Spirit, that with this they who are the sons of the Spirit might enter the contest." (Assertio Omn. Artic. per Bullam Leo X, damnat.)

As the correspondence of Luther shows, 1 Epist. cclviii., cclix. it was with little trepidation that he awaited the stroke from Rome. When it came, his response was a defiance, such was the character of the appeal which he made to a general council. The very fact of the appeal was itself an open defiance, in as much as the bull of Leo had declared, on the basis of constitutions promulgated by Pius II, and Julius II., that those who appeal from pope to council expose themselves to the penalties of heresy. Still more in its tone and content was the appeal a defiance. "I appeal," said Luther, "from the Pope, first, as an unjust, rash, and tyrannical judge, who condemns me without a hearing, and without giving any reasons for his judgment; secondly, as a heretic and an apostate, misled, hardened, and condemned by the Holy Scriptures, who commands me to deny that Catholic faith is necessary in the use of the sacraments; thirdly, as an enemy, an adversary, an antichrist, and an oppressor of Holy Scripture, who dares to set his own words in opposition to the Word of God; fourthly, as a blasphemer, a proud contemner of the holy Church, and of a legitimate council, who maintains that a council is nothing of itself."

Next, adding boldness of action to boldness of speech, Luther publicly burned the papal bull, together with copies of the papal decrees and some other writings,in Wittenberg. This seal upon an everlasting divorce from the papacy was given Dec. 10, 1520.

A few months later, a demand for still greater courage than that exhibited in the burning of the bull was placed upon Luther. In January, 1521, the Diet of the German Empire, presided over by Charles V., assembled at Worms. The case of Luther was one of the principal matters for settlement. At length it was concluded to summon the Reformer himself to answer before the august tribunal. A safe-conduct accompanied the summons. Some of Luther's friends sought to dissuade him from the journey, and pointed to the fate of Huss, who was burned at Constance in violation of the safe-conduct which the Emperor Sigismund had given. But Luther's determination was unalterably taken. Several months before he received the summons, he had written to Spalatin, the chaplain of the Elector Frederic, "If I shall be called, I will respond as far as in me lies, and will be carried there sick if I cannot go in health. Nor, if the Emperor calls me, am I permitted to doubt that I am called by God. If they shall use violence, --and it is very probable that they will,--the cause must be commended to the Lord. He still lives and reigns who preserved the three young men in the furnace of the Babylonish king. If He wills not to save me, my life is of small consequence. The question of hazard or safety is not to be entertained; let us rather take heed lest we leave the gospel which we have embraced to be the sport of the wicked, and give our adversaries occasion boastfully to insiluate against us that we dare not confess what we have taught, and fear to shed our blood in its behalf. It is not for me to decide whether my life or my death will best serve the gospel and the public weal." 1 Epist. cclxxvii. After receiving the summons he wrote, "Let God's will be done. I will commit my spirit to Christ, that while living I may contemn these ministers of Satan, and dying may overcome them.....They are laboring at Worms to bring me to a recantation of many articles. But this shall be my recantation: I said formerly that the Pope is the vicar of Christ. This I recall, and now say the Pope is the adversary of Christ, and the apostle of the devil." 2 Epist, cccv. Encountering on his journey the prediction that he was going to the fate of Huss, Luther responded, "Though they should kindle a fire all the way from Wittenberg to Worms, the flames of which should reach to heaven, I would still appear before them in the name of the Lord, I would enter the jaws of this behemoth, confessing the Lord Jesus Christ." As he approached Worms, a messenger of Spalatin met him with the advice that he should not enter the city. The answer was the memorable saying: "Even though there should be as many devils in Worms as tiles on the housetops, still mould I enter it."

Before the Diet, into whose presence Luther was ushered the 17th of April, 1521, he showed that his strong utterances had not been empty braggadocio. Copies of the various books which he had published were spread before him in the hall of the Diet, and he was asked two questions with reference to them: whether he would acknowledge them as his own, and whether he would recant their contents. Luther responded to the first question in the affirmative, and with respect to the second asked, in consideration of the gravity of the subject, a little time for consideration. He was granted until the next day to prepare his reply. He then responded that in some of his writings he may have used an unseemly acrimony of language, but as to the essential contents of his works he could not recant unless he were proved to be in the wrong. "I am," he pleaded, "but a mere man, and not God; I shall therefore defend myself as Christ did, who said, 'If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil.' How much more should I, who am but dust and ashes, and who may so easily go astray, desire every man to state his objections to my doctrine! For this reason, by the mercy of God I conjure you, most serene Emperor, and you, most illustrious electors and princes, and all men of every degree, to prove from the writings of the prophets and apostles that I have erred. As soon as I am convinced of this, I will retract every error, and will be the first to lay hold of my books, and throw them into the fire." Being pressed again for a specific answer to the demand to retract, Luther gave this unequivocal reply: "I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or to the councils, because it is clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless, therefore, I am convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by clear reasoning, unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted, and unless my conscience is thus bound by the Word of God, I can not and will not retract; for it is unsafe and injurious to act against one's conscience. Here I stand, I can do no other: may God help me! Amen."

One of the sublimest scenes in history! No battle ever fought or won has been worth more to the cause of human liberty than this act of the peasant's son in asserting the claims of conscience before the dignitaries of Church and empire.

Various negotiations followed from the imperial and papal party, but diplomacy and threats alike failed to shake the Reformer's resolution. Some Romish advisers urged the Emperor to violate the safe-conduct, and send the arch-heretic to the flames. That Charles did not yield to this pressure, is somewhat to his praise; but his fidelity in this instance was quite offset by his subsequent declarations of regret that he had not violated his pledge and put the offending monk out of the way. 1 See Prescott's continuation of Robertson's Charles V., vol. iii. p. 482. At length, after the departure of Luther and of several of the princes favorable to his cause, the papal legate Aleander, who had strained every nerve to secure the condemnation of the great agitator, had the joy of seeing his machinations successful. Charles V. affixed his signature to a decree as strong and decisive as could be wished. After describing Luther as being guilty of inciting to schism, war, murder, the utter ruin of the Christian faith, and, indeed, as being Satan himself in a monk's frock, the decree continued: "For this reason, under pain of incurring the penalties due to the crime of high treason, we forbid you to harbor the said Luther after the appointed time shall be expired, to conceal him, to give him food or drink, or to furnish him, by word or by deed, publicly or secretly, with any kind of succor whatsoever. We enjoin you, moreover, to seize him, or cause him to be seized, wherever you may find him, to bring him before us without any delay, or to keep him in safe custody until you have learned from us in what manner you are to act towards him, and have received the reward due to your labors in so holy a work. As for his adherents, you will apprehend them, confine them, and confiscate their property. His writings you will burn, or utterly destroy in any other manner." 2 For the complete edict of Worms, see Walch, Luther's Schriften xv. 2264-2279. We have quoted from the smooth and sufficiently accurate rendering by D' Aubigné.

So ended the Diet of Worms. The Emperor and the papal zealots thought, by destroying the brave monk, to destroy the Reformation. Even had Providence placed Luther in the hands of his adversaries, their purpose would not have been accomplished. His heroism had touched ten thousand hearts. The movement had well-nigh ceased to need his advocacy. Henceforth he must appear as one among many champions of the gospel. But Providence did not design that even upon his person should the edict be fulfilled. As Luther was skirting the Thuringian forests on his return from Worms, a troop of horsemen, disguised by masks, fell upon him, scattered his attendants, carried him into the forest, and after numerous windings, in order to obscure their trail, placed him in the Wartburg castle. This friendly violence was to save him from the present storm, and give him leisure for laying still deeper the foundations of the Reformation.

Luther Till The Leipzig Disputation

Luther Till The Leipzig Disputation

THE Reformation exhibits a remarkable combination of culture with popular elements. The leaders were learned men, but, at the same time, from the people, and well able to sympathize with their needs and modes of thought. Melanchthon came from the shop of an armorer, Zwingli from the hut of an Alpine shepherd, Luther from a miner's cottage.

Luther was born in 1483 at Eisleben. Mansfeldt, however, seemed to him more like a native town, since his parents, John and Margaret, moved thither before he was six months old. His home education was after a virtuous but stringent pattern. His father was positive in his convictions, and accepted fully the current ideas about the use of the rod.

In his fourteenth year, Luther was sent to the Franciscan school at Magdeburg. Owing, perhaps, to the difficulty of supporting himself here, he soon went to Eisenach, where he had relatives. The hope of resistance from these appears not to have been realized; and poverty compelled him, with others, to sing from door to door for his bread. At length the wife of Conrad Cotta fulfilled the part of the good Shunammite, and Luther found a comfortable home for the remainder of his four-years stay.

In his eighteenth year, Luther proceeded to the University of Erfurt. The choice of this university was dictated by its moderate distance from the family seat, and still more by its reputation at that time in the learned world. It is said to have quite outshone the other universities of Germany, insomuch that it became a current saying, that he who would rightly study must turn his steps toward Erfurt.

The course of study to which Luther was introduced at the university was very largely such as had been embraced in the old scholastic curriculum. The special type of scholasticism which prevailed was the nominalistic system to which the German teachers had been inclined since the days of Occam. But scholasticism did not command the entire field. A few years before the arrival of Luther, humanism had found its exponents at Erfurt, and lectures on the classics had become a part of the instruction. At this date there was no open hostility between the old and the new learning; each rendered to the other tokens of cordial respect. It was not till after Luther's student days, that the natural bent of humanism to a disparaging estimate of scholastic studies began to make itself manifest at Erfurt. Luther, while he gave the greater share of his attention to the scholastic branches,-to logic, dialectics, physics, and rhetoric,--did not neglect the opportunity to acquaint himself with the Latin classics. Throughout his course he addressed himself with interest and fidelity to his studies; and we find him advancing from a medium rank to a place among the foremost. In 1505 he took the degree of master of arts, the degree of bachelor having been taken three years previously. He now stood in excellent repute at the university, and those best acquainted with his talents prophesied for him an eminent career. The wish of his father had directed him to the profession of the law. Luther himself, in all probability, entertained some eager hopes respecting the course of honor reaching on before him.

But suddenly he turns away from his opening prospects, and buries himself in the Augustinian cloister at Erfurt. His friends use every persuasion to induce him to change his decision, but to no purpose. Fresh from the honors of the university, he carries the sack about the streets of Erfurt, and begs bread for his brotherhood. The explanation most ready to hand is the deep religious impression made upon his mind by the sudden death of his bosom friend Alexis, and by his own narrow escape from death by lightning. But those who believe in the Reformation will claim a deeper explanation, and will say that Divine Providence sent Luther through the legal, monastic régime of the cloister, that he might be the more perfectly prepared to serve as the evangelical reformer; that he needed the Pauline experience of enslavement to law, in order to become the herald of the Pauline doctrine of grace.

The same earnestness of purpose which sent Luther into the cloister made him unsparing of himself in the ascetic life. He was too honest to apply and hypocritical salve to his conscience. He knew his need of personal salvation, and would not rest without some satisfactory assurance. No item in the round of cloistral duties was neglected by him. He kept the vigils faithfully; prayed unremittingly; persecuted his body without pity, sometimes abstaining from food for three days together. But the more he struggled, the deeper he sank toward despair. Even his diligent reading of the Bible, with which he first made acquaintance in the cloister, 1 He was twenty years old before he saw a complete Bible. While at the university, he chanced upon a copy, and glanced over its pages. seems to have afforded but scanty relief. His mind was so occupied with the image of law and judgment, that he could gain no effectual vision of the Divine compassion. In the crucified Redeemer he saw rather a testimonial to his own guilt than a pledge of mercy; and the sight, as he says, smote through him like a terrifying flash. The anguish of his soul at times was terrible, and his body well-nigh sank under the double pressure of his extreme abstinence and his mental torture.

Having had sufficient experience of the bitterness and impotence of the legal method of salvation, Luther at length was directed to the method of Divine grace. The words of an aged monk, urging upon him the duty of hoping in the Divine forgiveness, afforded not a little comfort. 2 Luther thankfully records this service in his Tischreden, ll35, Deutsche Schriften, Frankfurt a M. und Erlangen, 1854. Of still greater avail were the wise and friendly counsels of Staupitz, vicar-general of the Augustines in Germany. He was a man whose own experience had led him into the secrets of grace. He lacked, indeed, the courage to attempt a thorough evangelical reform of the Church, but he had no mean understanding of evangelical principles. If he refused, afterwards, to follow Luther to the end of his reformatory work, it was not because the idea of justification by faith did not commend itself to his mind and heart. Finding Luther exhausted and well-nigh hopeless, Staupitz endeavored to direct his attention away from self and toward Christ, and exhorted him to cease from his self-torture, and to cast himself into the arms of the Redeemer. This greatly helped the care-worn and despairing ascetic. He began to see the loving-kindness of God in Jesus Christ, and the gospel became to him in truth a message of glad tidings.

Luther was now essentially converted in heart, but he was far from being thoroughly converted in head. New experiences must come, and fierce storms of opposition must break upon him, before the deeply rooted superstitions of the Romish system can be eradicated from his mind.

It would appear that Luther's spiritual struggles in the cloister did not prevent an industrious application to study. He gained here, in fact, a minute knowledge of the scholastic theology, especially as embodied in the works of the distinguished champions of nominalism. He became well versed in the writings of Occam, Biel, Peter d'Ailly, and John Gerson. Melanchthon reports that he could repeat Biel almost word for word. He also read considerably in Bonaventura, either at this time, or shortly after leaving the Erfurt cloister. With Augustine, who afterwards completely overshadowed in his estimate the scholastic authors, he made as yet only a partial acquaintance. 1 Such is the conclusion of Köstlin, Martin Luther, sein Leben und seine Schriften.

Luther thus won in the cloister a reputation for learning, as well as for religious earnestness. Even opponents have taken pains to say as much. Maimbourg and others have confessed that he fairly earned the distinction of being an eminently gifted and learned man.1 Histoire du Lutheranisme, Liv. I. It was but natural, therefore, that those in quest of a competent teacher should direct their attention to this diligent and scholarly monk. So Luther, after spending three years in the cloister, was summoned to the University of Wittenberg, which had been founded shortly before by the Elector Frederic. The call came in 1508, through the recommendation of Staupitz, who understood better than any other contemporary the material that was in Luther. Wittenberg was henceforth the home of Luther, as it was the throne of the German Reformation. 2 It would appear, however, that a year or two after going to Wittenberg, Luther was transferred for a brief interval to the University of Erfurt.

In reviewing the nine years which intervened between the call to Wittenberg and the inauguration of Luther's public conflict, we may properly notice his professional duties at the university, his preaching, the engagements which he undertook in behalf of his order, and the line of private study which was especially efficient in shaping his theological thinking.

Luther's department of instruction was at first the philosophical, in which it was his task to lecture upon the physics and dialectics of Aristotle. It would appear that this assignment of work was not altogether to his mind. In 1509 he wrote to his friend Braun, "If you desire to know my state, I am well, by the grace of God, except that the study is hard, more especially in philosophy, which I would most gladly exchange from the start for theology,--for that theology, I mean, which is the kernel of the nut, the core of the wheat, and the marrow of the bones." He admonishes himself, however, to cultivate patience, since he adds, "But God is God; man often, yea perpetually, errs in judgment. He is our God, and will direct us in kindness forever." 1 Epist. ii. It was upwards of three years after this letter was written, when Luther was awarded the more congenial office to which he refers. Toward the end of the year 1512 he received the degree of doctor of divinity, and shortly thereafter began to lecture on the Bible.

Alongside the duties of the professor went those of the preacher. Beginning with great diffidence and reluctance, first in the cloister, and then in the city church, Luther found a growing confidence and joy in the opportunities of the pulpit. Ere long, large audiences paid him the tribute of eager attention. That he possessed, in no small degree, the inborn traits of the orator, is indicated by the descriptions of opponents no less than by the testimony of friends. "Endowed," says Florimond de Raemond, "with a ready and lively genius, with a good memory, and employing his mother tongue with wonderful facility, speaking from the pulpit as if he were agitated by some violent emotion, suiting the action to his words, he affected his hearers' minds in a surprising manner, and carried them like a torrent wherever he pleased. So much strength, grace, and eloquence are rarely found in these children of the North." 2 Quoted by D' Aubigné, Bk. II. chap, v. Says Bossuet:"He had a lively and impetuous eloquence that charmed and led away the people." 1 Histoire des Variations des Églises Protestantes, I. § €.

In 1510 or 1511, Luther was sent on the affairs of his order to Rome. This was a welcome mission. To see the central seat of Christendom was an ardent desire of his heart. As he came in sight of the city he fell on his knees, and exclaimed, "Hail, holy Rome! "But he found any thing but a holy city. The worldly, ambitious, warlike Julius II. was upon the papal throne, --a man so absorbed in his temporal projects, that be is said to have reviled God as a patron of Frenchmen, when he heard of the victory of the French over his own troops. 2 Luther, Tischreden, 1651. Some of the priests in Rome carried religious indifference to the point of levity and mockery. As Luther was celebrating mass on one occasion, the priests at a neighboring altar, who had rattled through the ceremonial post-haste, ridiculed him for his devout slowness. "Haste! haste!" said they, "send our Lady back her Son." On another occasion, as he sat at table, he heard some persons, connected with the Roman court, reciting, with an emphatic display of merriment, the outrageous trick which certain priests had played upon the people. Instead of using the ordinary words for the consecration of the elements, they had repeated this mockery of the mystery which every Roman Catholic is taught to connect with the eucharist: panis es, et panis manebis; vinum es, et vinum manebis. All these things had their effect upon Luther. If they did not arouse him at once to an attack, they remained in his memory as materials for future thunderbolts.

It was during this visit that Luther is said to have attempted the ascent of Pilate's Staircase on his knees, and to have deserted the half-finished task as the words of Holy Writ, "The just shall live by faith," came with overwhelming force to his mind. Luther's son Paul reported the event as having been narrated by his father. The incident, however, bespeaks a sudden inspiration on the part of Luther, rather than a thorough and intelligent grasp of the scriptural maxim. Certainly his zealous improvement of his opportunity to perform mass, his wish, according to his own confession, that his parents were dead and in purgatory, that he might purchase their release by this means, does not indicate an understanding of the full bearings of the doctrine of justification by faith. The dawning light needed a little more time to reach the brightness of the full day. The real sentiments of Luther, on his departure from Rome, are probably expressed with entire correctness by the words of Dorner: "Luther returned home with his enthusiasm for Rome cooled down, still without being conscious to himself of inward disaffection toward her, or of departure from the ways of the Church."

A second engagement of Luther in behalf of his order, if less fruitful than the foregoing, was still in the line of preparation for his future work. In 1516, as vicar under Staupitz, he undertook a visitation of the Augustinian cloisters in the neighboring districts of Germany. The fulfillment of this task gave him a larger insight into the state of the monasteries than his previous experience had afforded, and also made him acquainted with men who afterwards supported his movement. The Augustines supplied no mean contingent to the cause of the Reformation.

While his lectures in the university, and his addresses from the pulpit, gave Luther occasion for a diligent study of the Scriptures, he was at the same time an industrious student of Augustine. The writings of the illustrious father were food to his mind, as providing the same solution for spiritual struggles which his own experience had approved, and rendering exalted tribute to Divine grace. He found great enjoyment also in the writings of Tauler. In 1516 he made mention of them in terms of warm commendation. 1 Epist. xxv. About the same time, he expressed a kindred appreciation for that product of fourteenth-century mysticism which bears the name of the "German theology." What attracted Luther both in Tauler, and in the theologia Germanica, was the pervasive tone of heart piety, the stress upon the central demands of spiritual life, the inward life of faith and Divine communion. Of their speculative views, which run so dangerously near to the verge of the Neo-Platonic pantheism, he probably took no special note. Certainly he had no affinity with such views. A metaphysical union with Deity which obscures the distinctness of human personality, or stands in the way of a thoroughly ethical relation with God, was no part of Luther's system of thought. Fanciful schemes of mysticism had no place in his appreciation. He learned to regard even Bonaventura's method for the consummation of Divine union as artificial and profitless. 2 Tischreden, 8.

Distinct indications that Luther improved the tuition of these years to strengthen and to clarify the elements of evangelical faith in his mind, are not wanting. Letters written in 1516 and 1517 show a radical dissatisfaction with Aristotle and the scholastics, and a strong inclination to a more biblical type of theology. 1 Epist. viii., xxxiv., Johanni Lango. In very explicit terms he declares, at this time, the futility of mere legal efforts at personal reformation. Writing to a brother of his order, he says, "In our age the temptation to presumption is kindled in many, and in those especially who strive with all their powers to be righteous and good; ignorant of the righteousness of God, which in Christ is given to us most bountifully and gratuitously, they seek to perfect themselves in right-doing, until at length they shall have confidence to stand in the presence of God, clad, as it were, in the ornaments of their virtues and merits,--a thing which is impossible." 2 Epist. ix., Georgio Spenlein. Again, in connection with a criticism of Erasmus, already cited, he writes, "Not as Aristotle thinks, are we made righteous by doing righteous acts, except in mere semblance; but as a result of becoming and being righteous, we do righteous acts. First the person must be changed, then the works. First Abel is acceptable, then his offerings." 3 Epist. xxii.

In a mind less honest and resolute than that of Luther, these evangelical sentiments would not necessarily have occasioned any collision with the existing ecclesiastical system. Luther himself held them without thought of such a collision. While he was free to declare that the clergy were guilty of a shameful and ruinous neglect as respects bringing the Word of God to the people, he had no notion of thrusting himself forward in a work of general reform. It was not till his own domain was invaded, that he raised his voice in a protest which in any wise seriously challenged the traditions and customs of the Church.

The source and nature of this invasion are well known. For several centuries, especially since the inauguration of the crusades, the trade in indulgences had been practised on a large scale. Popes in need of money used this as an efficient device for filling their coffers. Leo X. claimed that money was needed for an enterprise which ought to enlist the sympathies of Christendom, the building of the great Cathedral of St. Peter's. An appeal was accordingly sent out in the shape of a great stock of indulgences, the buying of which might at once benefit the soul of the purchaser and the Pope's treasury. The enterprise in itself was one to which the loyal sons of the Church could readily award a friendly interest. But there were causes for doubt, even apart from the debauching effect of the special method of soliciting contributions which was chosen. Many suspected that the proceeds of the indulgences, instead of being devoted to the honor of God or of St.. Peter, would go to the Pope's house, and be employed for the worldly promotion of his own family; and, undoubtedly, there were adequate grounds for their apprehensions. 1 There may be no definite proof that the receipts from indulgences were thus diverted; but it is established that the tithes which the Lateran Council, in March, 1517, authorized the Pope to collect for the purpose of making war against the Turks, were treated as private funds. Says Ranke, "There lies before us a receipt from Lorenzo, the Pope's nephew, for a hundred thousand lirer made out to the King of France. Therein it is expressly stipulated that the sum should be made good to the King out of the tithes which the council had conceded to the Pope for a campaign against the Turks. That was just the same as though the Pope had given the money to his nephew; yea, it may he regarded as even worse: he gave it to him before it had been acquired." (Zeitalter der Reformation, I. 205.) Hence, states which were in a condition to do so, opposed the papal scheme for lightening the purses of their people. Among those least prepared to make resistance was Germany, owing to her political complexity, and the need which the Emperor felt at that time of keeping on good terms with the Pope. Preparations were thus made for a large harvest. For the more perfect execution of the indulgence project, Germany (with Switzerland included) was divided into three districts. Over one of these presided the Elector Albert, archbishop of Mayence, who had a special interest in the sale of the Pope's merchandise, since he expected to use one-half of the proceeds in making up the sum of thirty thousand gulden, which, in virtue of the scheme of pontifical robbery then in vogue, he owed the Pope for his pallium. In the service of Albert was the Dominican John Tetzel, from Leipzig,--a man of scandalous life, but famous for some time as a successful vender of indulgence wares.

This Tetzel drove his trade after a wonderful manner. Some reports of his harangues will give the best idea of his method.

"Reflect, then," said he, "that for every mortal sin you must, after confession and contrition, do penance for seven years, either in this life or in purgatory; now, how many mortal sins are there not committed in a day, how many in a week, how many in a month, how many in a year, how many in a whole life ! These sins are almost infinite, and they entail an infinite penalty in the fires of purgatory. And now, by means of these letters of indulgence, you can once in your life, in every case except four, which are reserved for the Apostolic See, have full remission of all penalties thus far due, and like remission at any later point in your life, when you are pleased to confess, and afterwards, in the article of death, plenary indulgence for all penalties and sins." 1 Löscher, Reformations-Acta, i. 418, 419.

"Why stand ye idle? Do you not hear the voice of your parents and other departed friends calling to you, and saying, 'Take pity upon us! We are suffering horrible punishments and torments, from which you can deliver us by a trifling alms, and you will not"? 2 Ibid., i. 416, 447.

"At the very instant that the money rattles at the bottom of the chest, the soul is liberated from purgatory, and flies to heaven. 3 Ibid., i. 397, 421.

"O hard and careless people! With twelve greats you can deliver a father from purgatory, and you are ungrateful enough not to save him! I declare to you, though you should have but a single coat, you ought to strip it off and sell it, in order to obtain so great a grace." 4 Ibid., i. 420, 421; Chemnitz, Examen Decret. Concil. Trid., Pars iv., chap. xvii.

Thus Tetzel made out that money is well-nigh omnipotent to remove every dreaded consequence of sin, whether in this life or in that to come. To be sure, for personal sins of the purchasers, confession and contrition were expected in addition to the payment of money. But what weight would be given to these demands by the deluded people, when the indulgence-hawkers were proclaiming that a few greats were able to secure an open way to heaven? And aside from the pardon of personal sins, the blessings held forth were made purely a matter of merchandise. Three of the graces sold in behalf of St. Peter's were to be enjoyed upon the simple condition of paying the stipulated price. These graces were: (1) the privilege, confirmed by a written certificate, of choosing a confessor according to one's preference, who should absolve from sins and penalties, and allow any vows which had been undertaken to be exchanged for other forms of good works; (2) participation in the treasures of the universal Church, in its prayers, pilgrimages, and various orders of meritorious works; (3) release of souls in purgatory.

Tetzel even went so far as to grant indulgences for sins that had not yet been committed. A Saxon nobleman took advantage of this, fell upon the train of Tetzel, and carried off his money-box. Tetzel made a loud outcry. The nobleman was brought to trial, but, upon showing his indulgence paper, was declared acquitted by Duke George.

In 1517 Tetzel came into the neighborhood of Wittenberg. Luther found that the consciences of many of his dock were being debauched. When coming to the confessional, instead of expressing any repentance for their sins or any purpose of amendment, they simply showed their indulgence papers, and expected absolution in their virtue. Luther was greatly stirred at this mockery of the claims of true repentance. The result was the ninety-five theses whose publication may be regarded as the beginning of the Reformation. These were posted on the door of the church in Wittenberg, Oct. 31, 1517.

The following were the most important of the teachings contained in the theses: Genuine repentance is the chief condition of the remission of sins. This repentance should express itself in outward works. The works acceptable to God are works of charity, benevolence, and righteous living; whoever neglects these, and depends upon the purchase of indulgences, incurs the Divine anger. The purchase of indulgences is purely a matter of free choice, and ranks at best as only an inferior kind of good work. Without the use of these means, the Christian who truly repents may enjoy a full remission, both of the penalty and of the guilt of sin. The hope that the mere buying of indulgences can secure one's own salvation, or the release of souls from purgatory, is an empty and lying hope. Even a Pope cannot remit any condemnation. He is only authorized to declare and confirm the remission of God, except where he acts as ecclesiastical magistrate, and pardons the violation of Church laws, just as a civil ruler may pardon the violation of civil laws. But the Church ought to impose penance only on the living, and in this matter have no regard to the dead; from which it would follow, that the pardoning power of the Popes ought not to be asserted with respect to the dead. The indulgences of the Pope should be treated with respect, but the people should be taught not to place any false confidence in them. The Pope himself has no thought of putting them on a level with works of mercy, and he would rather that St. Peter's should be reduced to ashes than be built up by such extortions as are practised by the preachers of indulgences.

In publishing these propositions, Luther considered that he was defending, not attacking, the Roman Catholic faith. While he may have had some misgivings respecting the disposition of the Pope, he felt that he was really standing up for his dignity, against those who, by their practices, were dishonoring him. But he had gone farther than he was aware. In emphasizing the adequacy of genuine repentance to secure remission, in affirming that the papal office in connection with the pardon of sins is simply declarative, he was, in reality, dealing a blow at the corner-stone of priestly mediation as arrogated by the Romish hierarchy.

The theses were too acceptable to the wide-spread disgust at the abuse of indulgences, not to find rapid circulation. Within a month they had been spread over the greater part of Christendom. Among opposers, murmurs against stirring up strife were more frequent than attempts at refutation. Nevertheless, some attempts of the kind were made. The general cast of these was such as could only aggravate the spirit of opposition in Luther. They were mere echoes of the scholastic theology in its most commercial and papistical aspects. This was decidedly the character of the theses which Tetzel, or his ally Conrad Wimpina under the name of Tetzel,1 Luther says respecting the authorship, Dr. Conradus Wimpina ab omnibus clamatur autor illarum positionum: et certum habeo ita esse (Epist. lviii.). put forth as a counterpoise to the pregnant sentences of Luther. Some of the most obnoxious features in the whole plague of indulgences are baldly asserted in these theses, while the Pope is exalted as an irresponsible autocrat. "Christians should be taught," it is said, "that in governing right the Pope is superior to the whole Church and the council, and that his statutes should be humbly obeyed. Christians should be taught that the Pope alone has the right of deciding questions of faith; that he alone, and no one beside him, has authority to interpret the Holy Scriptures according to his own views, and to approve or to condemn all the sayings and works of other men." 1 Löscher, i 518. Another reply, savoring quite as little of discretion or moderation, came from the Dominican Sylvester Prierias in Rome, a man who had previously given signal proof of his disposition by throwing the weight of his protest against the acquittal of Reuchlin. In connection with the subject of indulgences, he attacked the very thesis of Luther which it might be supposed that any one interested in the honor of the Church would gladly have left unchallenged. "The preacher," he says, "who teaches that a soul detained in purgatory escapes on the instant in which that is accomplished, in virtue of which full grace is given, let that thing be, if you please, the casting of gold into the dish (of the indulgence-hawker), preaches not a human fiction, but a pure Catholic truth." Respecting the Pope, he takes the ground that he is virtually the whole Church, and adds this declaration: "Whoever does not rest on the doctrine of the Roman Church and the Roman Pontiff, as the infallible rule of faith from which even Holy Scripture derives its strength and authority, is a heretic." 2 Löscher, ii. 14, 15. It may inspire a grain of charity for the violent language which Luther came to employ, when it is observed that he was himself first assailed with opprobrium and abuse. Prierias, in the dialogue from which quotation has just been made, sets out the Wittenberg theologian in the most virulent and contemptuous phrases. 1 Luther appears quite urbane, in consideration of his provocation, when he writes to Prierias respecting his treatise, "dialogus ille tuus satis superciliosus, et plane totus Italicus et Thomisticus" (Epist. 1xxvii.). A third reply came from a man possessing much better talents than Tetzel or Prierias, though bound scarcely less than they by the cords of the scholastic theology,--from John Meyer of the University of Ingolstadt, commonly known from the place of his birth as Dr. Eck. The strictures which he wrote on Luther's theses were the prelude to the energetic crusade which he undertook against the Reformer.

Meanwhile Leo X. was less concerned for himself than his partisans appeared to be for him. "It is a mere monkish squabble," said he. "A drunken German has written these theses: when he has become sober, he will talk very differently." These words are characteristic of Leo X.; a man too indifferent in religion to be very zealous or bigoted, more interested in art, literature, and worldly success, than in upholding a purely ecclesiastical dominion. A Roman Catholic writer thus describes him: Standing between Charles V. and Francis I., "Lee X. showed not so much a wavering as a shrewdly calculating temper, in that he continually bestowed his favor upon the momentary victor. Herein he declined to observe the words of Ægidius of Viterbo, and showed himself more concerned about a piece of land than about the real welfare of the Church. In his neighborhood he used the greatest liberality in behalf of the arts and sciences, and patronized them not merely out of vanity, but from understanding and conviction, whereby he was able to restore a living image of the Augustan age. But of the blessing and power of Christianity he seems to have had less experience. This explains his dealing with Luther, in many respects so destitute of resolution. In the degree in which he failed to make religion the highest concern of life, he was unable to conceive that another in the face of deadly peril would hazard so much in its behalf. Hence his splendid pontificate worked to the detriment of the Church, especially since his excessive expenditures gave rise to troublesome religious strife, and also impaired the standing of his successor at Rome, who cherished the noblest designs." 1 Alzog, Kirchengeschichte, § 304.

War, therefore, was not at once declared against Luther by the Pope. Luther on his part had no desire to precipitate such. In a letter to Leo (May 30, 1518), he declared the honest and pure motives by which he had been guided, and expressed himself as willing to submit to the papal decision. He used terms as humble as could well be asked from any subject of Rome: "Wherefore, most blessed father, prostrate I present myself at thy feet, with all that I am and all that I possess. Make alive, destroy, establish, revoke, approve, or condemn, as it may please thee. Thy voice will I acknowledge as the voice of Christ, who presides and speaks in thee. If I have deserved death, I will not refuse to die." 1 Epist. lxviii.

There is no reason to impugn the sincerity of Luther in making this humble submission. At the same time, we are compelled to think that it was not based upon a full understanding of his own heart. His principles had a deeper hold upon his nature than he himself was aware of; and it is probable that if Leo had commanded a positive repudiation of these the next day after the letter was written, Luther would have found it impossible to comply. That a man in process of transition, making his own way into a new theological world, should not clearly apprehend his own position at every point, is no marvel.

A test of the hold which his principles had upon his heart was not long delayed for Luther. The Pope soon yielded to the clamors of monks and theologians, and assumed a more positive attitude. A commission was nominated and empowered to try Luther in Rome. On the 7th of August, 1518, he received a summons to appear before this commission within sixty days. At the intercession of his friends, and especially of the Elector Frederic, the case was allowed to be heard upon German soil, and Luther was summoned before the legate Cajetan in Augsburg.

The legate addressed Luther in sufficiently polite phrase, but still as a man who had no cause to plead, and whose one duty was to recant. Being requested to name the teachings which he regarded as heretical, Cajetan cited two; namely, the denial that the treasure of indulgences is identical with the merits of Christ, and the declaration that one who comes to the sacrament must exercise faith relative to the grace therein offered. Retraction of the former teaching, as being directly in the face of a decision of Pope Clement VI., was especially insisted upon. Luther, in reply, endeavored to show that the Scriptures sustained his view. As respects the declaration of Clement VI., he did not hesitate to affirm that in the sense attributed to it by the legate, it appeared to contradict God's Word. A veritable contradiction of this kind, he said, was quite possible, since a pope is not altogether secure from errors. At the same time, he did not choose directly to challenge the papal declaration, and suggested that it might be understood in a different sense from the one advocated by the champions of indulgences. In relation to the second of the views pronounced erroneous, he declared that unless he were proffered new light which should enable him to gain a different understanding of the Scriptures, as also of confirmatory passages in Augustine and Bernard, he could not retract. "So long as these authorities stand, I cannot do otherwise, and only know that it behooves one to obey God rather than man." 1 Epist. lxxxiv. A threat of the ban was the legate's response to Luther's refusal to comply with his demands. The personal interview closed with the ill-tempered words: "Hence, and return not again until you are ready to recant." 2 Luther, Epist. lxxxiii. Cajetan had evidently had all the disputation that he wanted with the powerful monk, and had learned to his heart's content that here was a subject which the hand of arbitrary authority could not easily mould. The words which Myconius reports him to have said to Staupitz are entirely credible. The latter was asked to use his influence to convince Luther of his errors. Staupitz answered that he was not adequate to the task, and suggested that the talents of the legate were best suited to such an undertaking. To this Cajetan replied: "I wish to have nothing more to say to the beast, for he has deep eyes and wonderful speculations in his head." Luther, on his part, gave this concise estimate of Cajetan: "He is, perhaps, an eminent Thomist, but an unclear, obscure, ill-informed theologian and Christian; and therefore no more fitted to understand and judge matters in this domain than an ass is to play the harp!" 1 Epist. lxxxv. An agreement was, under the conditions, next to impossible, Luther, however, thought it best, before finishing with the legate, to render a species of peace-offering. Accordingly, in a letter which he wrote to him, while declining to recant, he expressed regret for any indiscreet and violent language which he might have employed, and agreed to keep silent on the subject of indulgences, provided restraint should be put upon the opposing party. 2 Epist. lxxxvi. No notice was taken of this communication. Luther shortly afterwards left Augsburg, glad to escape in safety from a place to which, as he himself has testified, he had journeyed with many a foreboding of the martyr's fate. 3 For Luther's own account of his interview with Cajetan, see Epist. lxxxiii., lxxxiv., lxxxv., xcv.

The next move on the part of Rome was the publishing of a bull, which, indeed, did not mention Luther by name, but was aimed against his opinions, and asserted the doctrine of indulgences precisely in the points attacked. Luther, however, had anticipated the issue thus raised, by appealing from the Pope to a general council (Nov. 28, 1518).

To rise above the decisions both of popes and councils, and appeal to the binding authority of the Scriptures, was no inconsiderable advance beyond the position then held by Luther. But events were urging on toward this result. To be sure, the adroitness of the new legate, Miltitz, delayed their course a little. He resolved to try the power of kindness and flattery. He blamed Tetzel much more than Luther, and summoned the former to answer for his misdeeds. These tactics were not without their reward. Luther doubtless had no great confidence that a sincere heart was back of the rather excessive friendliness which Miltitz professed. 1 Epist.cxv. Still, before he had fully resolved on the desperate venture of throwing off allegiance to the old Church, he could not well be averse to a friendly negotiation. accordingly, he agreed to keep silence on the matters in dispute, provided his adversaries would do the same, and to await the decision of his case at the hands of some German bishop. But Providence seemed not to favor this truce. That a Divine hand urged on to the conflict, was the verdict of the Reformer himself; and not many weeks after his conference with the papal commissioner, he wrote to Staupitz: "God snatches me away, pushes me forward, rather than leads me. I am not master of myself. I wish to live in quiet, and I am hurried into the midst of tumults." 2 cxxiii