Mnin Lrt>. HISTORft THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY THE MACMILLAN COMPANY NEW YORK BOSTON CHICAGO DALLAS ATLANTA SAN FRANCISCO MACMILLAN & CO., LIMITED LONDON BOMBAY CALCUTTA MELBOURNE THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, LTD. TORONTO THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY BY HENRY C. VEDDER tl PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN CROZER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY gorfe THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 1914 V* COPYRIGHT, 1014 By THE MACMILLAN COMPANY Set up and electrotyped. Published January, 1914 TO WALTER RAUSCHENBUSCH PROPHET OF THE NEW REFORMATION THIS STORY OF AN OLDER STRUGGLE FOR LIBERTY IS INSCRIBED WITH ALL ESTEEM AND AFFECTION CONTENTS PAGE Germany in the Sixteenth Century xi PART I. FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REFORMA- TION TO THE EDICT OF WORMS, 1517-1521 CHAPTER I. The Making of Martin Luther 3 II. The Wolf in the Sheepfold 21 III. In Conflict with the Pope 53 IV. The Leipzig Disputation 81 V. The Bull of Excommunication 109 VI. The Diet of Worms 137 PART II. FROM THE EDICT OF WORMS TO THE PROTEST AT SPEYER, 1521-1529 I. The New Luther 167 II. A New Pope and an Old Grievance 194 III. Exeunt Humanists 215 IV. Reform or Revolution? 235 V. The First Diet of Speyer and the New Church Order . . .257 VI. The Second Diet of Speyer and the Protest 281 PART III. FROM THE PROTEST TO THE PEACE OF AUGS- BURG, 1529-1555 I. The Colloquy at Marburg and the Division of the Reformers . 301 II. The Augsburg Diet and the Confession 317 III. The Schmalkald War 343 IV. The Peace of Augsburg 371 vii viii CONTENTS APPENDIXES PAGE I. Luther's Theses 397 II. Tetzel's Theses on Indulgences 402 III. Luther's Appeal to a General Council 413 IV. The Decree of Worms 418 V. Against the Murdering and Robbing Bands of the Peasants . 427 VI. The Protest at Speyer 431 VII. The Peace of Augsburg 440 FOREWORD WITHIN a generation a new way of looking at all history has become common among students of the past, a recognition of the fundamental importance of the economic basis of society, and the influence of econprnic changes on all human institutions^, and movements. The economic interpretation of history has not yet been applied to the period of the Reformation, and that fact is the chief justification of this attempt to retell a story that has been so often told, yet told inadequately. That the great religious struggle of the sixteenth century was only a phase of the social revolution then going on in Europe and effecting a transforma- tion of all its institutions, that momentous economic changes were the underlying cause of political and religious movements, are ideas for which the reader will look in vain in books on the Reformation accessible to him. But these ideas are now accepted by most historical students, and in the light of them all the history of the past is undergoing a reinterpretation. The external events of the Reformation have been told before with substantial accuracy; what is now needed is illumination of the facts by the light of this new knowledge. By itself this would be a sufficient justification for the writing of a new book on this old subject. But there are other reasons. For more than a generation, Europe has been swept with lighted candle to find the smallest fragment of document, or one overlooked fact, that could shed light on the Reformation period. The result has been the accumulation of an enormous mass of material, much of it trivial and jejune mountains of chaff, to speak plainly, with here and there a kernel of precious wheat. Little, relatively, has been done in the way of comparing, sifting, unifying this mass of useful and useless information. Monographs have multiplied, it is true, until every character of the age, however little noteworthy, has his biography; and every event, however obscure, has its separate doc- umented story. Has not the time come for the telling of the larger story once more, in the light of this newly discovered body of fact? The scientific method of studying history, with its emphasis on original research, its multiplication of documents, its flood of monographs on fields more and more restricted, tends to issue in the mean and sordid collection of mere fact, and to make the writing of history, as a branch of pure literature, a lost art. The reader finds himself, in these days, con- demned to a dreary pilgrimage through a valley of dry bones. This book ix x FOREWORD frankly confesses to be inspired by the older idea of history, now unfashion- able, of furnishing the reader a logical clew to guide him through the labyrinth of accumulated fact, hi which he might otherwise wander interminably. The great masters of historical writing in the past never dreamed that fact became less trustworthy by being inter- estingly told. Founding his work on painstaking study of the sources, the author has yet tried to make a readable narrative, worth while for its own sake. Relying chiefly on the contemporary documents, he has neglected nothing hi the more recent literature that prom- ised the least assistance toward a better understanding of the facts or their more accurate determination. To boast that one has mas- tered this vast literature of detail would probably be deemed immodest, but one may fairly profess that he has devoted many studious years to this object, and is reasonably confident that he has missed little of substantial value. Faithful study has been given to the original sources, and every statement likely to be controverted, or involving important fact, has been supported by reference to authority, and the location of important quotations has been scrupulously indicated. In cases where the importance of the matter seemed to require such treatment, or where the author's translation or interpretation might be challenged, the exact words of the original have been given in the note. Special thanks are due, for the loan of valuable books, to Dr. Charles Ripley Gillett, former librarian of Union Theological Seminary, and Pro- fessor Walter Robert Betteridge, librarian of Rochester Theological Seminary. ABBREVIATIONS LDS, Luther's German Writings, Erlangen edition, 67 vols. LOL, Opera Latino, varii argumenti, supplement to Erlangen edition of Luther's Latin works, in 7 vols. Walch, the St. Louis reprint of tlje well-known Halle edition. In the few references to the Halle edition, it is distinctly cited. De Wette, Luther's Letters, edited by De Wette and Seidemann, Berlin, 7 vols. CR, Corpus Reformatorum, the standard edition of Melanchthon's works, edited by Bretschneider and Bindsell, 28 vols. ANF, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 9 vols., New York, 1886-1890. Gochlaeus, Commentaria de actis et scriptis M. Lutheri, Paris, 1565. Currie, Letters of Martin Luther, translated by Margaret A. Currie, New York, 1908. Gieseler, History of the Christian Church, translated by Henry B. Smith, New York, 1876, 5 vols. Janssen, History of the German People at the Close of the Middle Ages, English translation, St. Louis (no date), 12 vols. Jacobs, Martin Luther, "Heroes of the Reformation" series, New York, 1898. Book of Concord (referred to as "Concord"), Philadelphia, 1893, 2 vols. Kidd, Documents illustrative of the Continental Reformation, Oxford, 1911. Kostlin, Martin Luther, Sein Leben und seine Schriften, fifth ed., by Kaw- erau. Berlin, 1903, 2 vols. "Theology" appended to the name indicates "Luther's Theology," English translation by Hay, Phil- adelphia, 1879, 2 vols. Loscher, Vollstandige Reformations-Acta und Documenta, Leipzig, 1720, 3 vols. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, Florence and Venice, 1759; vols. I-XXXI; supplement, Paris, vols. XXXI-XLIII. Mag. Bull., Magnum Bullarium Romanum, ed. Cherubino, Luxemburg, 1742, 10 vols. Continuatio, Rome, 1855, 19 vols. Michelet, The Life of Luther written by himself; Hazlitt's translation in the Bohn Library. xi xii ABBREVIATIONS Ranke, History of the Popes, the well-known Bohn edition in 3 vols. Raynaldus, Continuation of the great Roman Catholic history, the Annales of Baronius, years 1333-1565, Lucae, 1750. Sarpi, History of the Council of Trent; English translation under name of Polano, London, 1676. Seckendorf, Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de Lutheranismo, Leipzig, 1694. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, New York, 1883, 7 vols. Creeds of Christendom, New York, 1877, 3 vols. Sleidan, De statu religionis et reipuhlicce Carlo V. Ccesare commentarii, references conformed to English translation by Bohun, London, 1676. Spalatin, Annales Reformationis, Leipzig, 1718. Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, by Preserved Smith, Boston, 1912. Wace and Bucheim, First Principles of the Reformation, or, the Ninety- five Theses and the three Primary Works of Dr. Martin Luther, London, 1883. ZKG, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte. INTRODUCTION GERMANY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY LUTHER taught nothing new. His doctrine was not new even in Ger- many. A generation earlier John of Wesel had attacked indulgences, and had taught justification by faith in Luther's own university, with equal boldness and superior learning. Wiclif in England, Hus in Bohemia, and Savonarola in Italy had fully realized the corruptions of the Roman Church, and denounced them with a vigor that even Luther never ex- ceeded. The characteristic doctrines of the German Reformation had been developed and proclaimed long before the Saxon reformer opened his eyes to the light of day, in terms almost identical, and quite identical in substance, with those found in his writings. It becomes, therefore, an interesting historical question, Why did Luther succeed in leading a Reformation while his predecessors failed? Some would answer, some have answered, by magnifying Luther's greatness. He has been pictured as the colossus who bestrode Europe, by his towering personality dwarf- ing all men of his age, and bringing the most wonderful things to pass by the sheer force of his character and will. The explanation is simple to naivete, too simple to be convincing. Something is no doubt to be ascribed to the personality of a man so out of the common, but more is to be ascribed to Luther's greater opportunity. The difference between him and his predecessors is less a difference of men than of times. In Germany of the sixteenth century, as compared with England of the fourteenth, or Bohemia and Italy of the fifteenth, we are to seek and find the solution of our historical conundrum. THAT series of events which we are accustomed to call the Reformation should be viewed as a continuation of that other great movement known as the Renaissance. Humanism was a purely intellectual revolt against the shackles of the scholastic philosophy and ecclesiastical authority. Nothing could be more natural, however, than that, once the liberty to think had been vindicated, the new-won freedom should be used to question whether scholasticism and ecclesiasticism had a more rightful authority over men's souls than over their minds. The spirit of intellec- tual freedom fostered by the Renaissance inevitably issued in the insur- rection of the human mind against the absolute power claimed by the xiii nv INTRODUCTION spiritual order, which we know as the Reformation. If the Renaissance was, to use Michelet's phrase, the discovery of the world and of man, the Reformation was the rediscovery of the soul and its God. Michelet's phrase is, after all, more striking than true. The spiritual significance of the Renaissance is that it was the rediscovery of the indi- vidual. Medieval society, following the ancient Roman theory that a man does not exist for himself, but for the State, allowed the smallest scope for the individual, and made the community the all in all. The corporate idea was so emphasized as to dwarf the individual till he became a cipher, which had value only when annexed to the significant figure, society. From this theory it followed that the rights of individuals were a negligible quantity, as compared with the duties owed to State and Church. The abuse of freedom of thought, for example, was considered a much greater evil than the denial of freedom of thought. The code of law and of morals limited individual action in every thinkable way; and so far were the people as a whole under the sway of such ideas that public opinion often went beyond the law in its denial of the rights of the indi- vidual. A reaction against such a state of things was the only hope of Europe to avoid such stagnation, such arrest of mental and spiritual development, as befel China about the beginning of our Christian era. While the Renaissance in Germany owed its origin to Italy, it speedily assumed a character of its own. In Italy, Humanism was superseded and almost eclipsed by Art, but in Germany Humanism easily retained its first place. The more serious and thoughtful nature of the German people, and their native tendency to metaphysics, were perhaps the chief factors in the impartation of this different trend to' the revival in that land. It was in Germany, too, that the new art originated, which so pow- erfully promoted the revival, the art of printing. The invention of movable types was the greatest single achievement in the progress of civilization, if we consider the enormous results of the invention, which are even yet only beginning to be manifest. By the year 1500 there were six presses at Mainz, where the art seems to have originated, in Ulm six, in Basel sixteen, in Augsburg twenty and in Niirnberg twenty- five. A single firm of printers, the Kobergers, had a little later twenty-- four presses, and employed a hundred men as typesetters and pressmen, and by their enterprise they are said to have become rich. From Germany the new art was extended to Italy, Spain and England; and in all these presses the first employees were men trained in their art in Germany, if not of German birth. In addition to these private establishments, many of the monasteries set up presses, some of which are maintained to this day. The monks were not so lacking in intelligence, no matter what their enemies have INTRODUCTION xv said about them, as not to perceive that the day of written manuscripts had passed; nor were they so deficient in shrewdness as to let slip the opportunity to keep themselves, for a time at least, where they had been for ages, in the leadership of the world of literature. It is not true that the Church discouraged the art of printing from the beginning; on the contrary, the Church from the beginning understood the value of the art, and strove to chain the press to her chariot wheel. Happily for the world, the effort was futile; the "press proved too powerful an agency to be controlled by the Church, and soon won its independence. All that the Church was finally able to effect was the establishment of the Index and the prohibition of heretical books. The book trade of the sixteenth century was simply the continuation of the previous trade in manuscripts. In this trade the monasteries, as the principal producers of manuscripts, had taken the lead; but there had developed a small class of shopkeepers and pedlers who bought and sold manuscripts. The rapid multiplication of cheap books greatly increased the number and activity of such traders, and soon at every fair there was a bookstall, while the pedlers who scoured the country districts carried a parcel of the new books in their packs. It was the existence of these facilities for the rapid publication and circulation of his writings when Luther began his work, that made possible the prompt reception of the ideas set forth in his Theses and early polemic treatises against the Church of Rome and the Papacy. Without the printing-press, it is hardly too much to say, the German Reformation could not have occurred. Something might have been attempted in the way of ecclesiastical reform, and might even have succeeded, but it would have been a far different affair from the historical movement, without this powerful alliance of the press. It is important to mark that in this age, and indeed for a century or two more, the trade of printer and the business of publisher were not yet differentiated. Most printers were also publishers, though they often printed books that they did not sell, the author himself taking the whole edition and effecting its distribution for himself. Frequently a patron or subscribers were obtained in advance by the author to insure the defray- ment of the cost of publication and the placing of the books in the hands of readers. No copyright in literary property was recognized. The principle seems to have obtained in the laws of all countries that by print- ing his book the author dedicated it to the public, and thereafter anybody had a right to multiply copies at his own risk and to his own sole profit. Copyright is an artificial monopoly created by specific statutes, and be- longs to a later social stage. The effect of such free trade in literature was greatly to circumscribe the profits of both author and printer, especially of the author. Erasmus, easily the first man of letters of his day, often xvi INTRODUCTION complains in his correspondence that his books were so frequently reprinted by others that he himself derived little profit from their sale, though many thousands had been sold. Under such conditions, books were relatively plentiful and cheap. It is well known that the first printed book was the Bible, an edition of the Vulgate having been sent forth from the Mainz press of Gutenburg in 1455, and by 1500 there had been nearly a hundred editions of the Latin Scriptures published in Europe, with the approval of the Church. But in Germany there was no formal disapproval of the publication of Bibles in the vernacular, though the Church seems to have done nothing actively to promote such publications, and no fewer than fifteen such editions were in circulation before Luther posted his Theses. Just what an "edition" means in this connection is not a little difficult to determine; in some cases an edition consisted of a thousand copies, but in others it was doubtless considerably less. It is safe to estimate that fully a hundred thousand copies of the German Bible were in circulation in Germany at the beginning of the Reformation. It may well be doubted if more copies of the Scriptures were in circulation in the England of Elizabeth. And this is to say nothing of portions of the Bible; and we know that there were twenty-two editions of the Psalms, and twenty-five of the Epistles before 1518. John Eck, the great antagonist of Luther, declared that he had read most of the Bible before he was ten years old. If Luther him- self, as a passage in his "Table-Talk" tells us, did not so much as know that there was a Bible, until he found one in the Erfurt Library, he must have taken great pains to keep himself in such a state of ignorance. Not- withstanding the ravages of time, and the great destruction of property that took place during the Thirty Years' War, there still remain in the collections of Europe and America nearly forty thousand copies of the Bibles of this time, all antedating the Reformation. The Renaissance hi Germany was not only attended by this new interest in literature, but by a new interest in education, such as we do not find in Italy or elsewhere. Nine of the most celebrated universities of the period were founded within a space of fifteen years: Greifswald, 1456; Basel and Freiburg, 1460; Ingolstadt and Leipzig, 1472; Trier, 1473; Tubingen and Metz, 1477; Wittenberg, 1502; Frankfort-on-Oder, 1506. Elementary schools, that should act as feeders to the universities, were established everywhere. The esteem hi which education is really held among any people may be accurately computed from the pay that is given to the teacher. In American communities the valuation of the teaching profession is measured by the fact that women teachers are paid a little more than a good cook of the same sex, but less than a stenographer or clerk; while a male teacher, if he is fortunate, may receive as much as INTRODUCTION xvii a carpenter or bricklayer, though even a college president receives a stipend less than the French chef of a rich man. We pretend, of course, to consider a man like President Eliot, of Harvard University, a more val- uable man to our country than the most skillful concocter of an omelette, but it is mere pretense. As Americans of a certain class are fond of saying, " money talks," and the money is given, not to the prince of educators but to the knight of the saucepan. But during the Renaissance period they did otherwise in Germany. Then and there the pay of masters in the schools, of professors in the universities, equaled the fees of archi- tects, or the salaries of court chamberlains; and the teacher was thus put on the economic level of the other professions, or those employments that were open to men of birth and blood. It is a duty to record also that Germany, like other countries, has suffered a sad relapse, and now treats her teachers little better than America. One of the earliest German Humanists was Nicholas of Cusa (1401- 1464). He was a prelate of the Church, and rose to the rank of Cardinal; and his career alone does much to relieve the Church of Germany from the reproach of determined and unintelligent opposition to the new learning. From 1451 to the close of his life, Cardinal Nicholas bestirred himself to reform the abuses rife in the Church, to promote the cause of sound learning, and to extend the new interest in scientific inquiry. He restored a strict discipline, preached a pure Gospel, taught letters and science, accumulated manuscripts, and first directed the attention of Germany to the importance and fruitfulness of classical studies. He was in advance of his age in many things, notably in upholding the new and unpopular doctrine of the earth's rotation on its axis, for which the Inqui- sition condemned Galileo nearly two centuries later. He also advocated that revision of the Julian calendar which was actually undertaken by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582. Hardly less influential in promoting Humanism was Jacob Wimpheling (1450-1528), often called the preceptor of Germany. He was first printer and publisher, scholar also, but above all educator. His "Guide for German Youth" (1497) and "Youth" (1500) were epoch-making writings. In these Wimpheling not only pointed out the defects of the current education, but outlined as clearly a better method. It was the first adequate discussion of education to be published in Europe and by "adequate" one means, of course, not an anticipation of the theory and practice of education as developed in these later times, but a theory abreast of the knowledge of literature, science and psychology then pos- sessed. Measured by his own times, Wimpheling was one of the strongest and most useful men that Germany has ever produced. But his courage was far inferior to his vision. When the crisis came his nerve failed. He xviii INTRODUCTION was one of the men of his age, of whom there were not a few, who were overwhelmed with anxiety for reform in the Church and scared to death when it came. When Luther first began his work, Wimpheling hailed him with joy as the coming deliverer of Germany; but as the Reformation progressed, the "divine brutality " of Luther, as Heine called it, first disgusted and then repelled him. He forgot, and too many others forgot that (to quote Heine again) "revolutions are not made with orange blossoms. " As Humanism increased in adherents and waxed in influence, there gradually developed three centers of humanistic activity, three propa- ganda, so to say, in Germany. Each of these had its distinctive character and import. The first of these was the University of Heidelberg, founded in 1386, one of the most justly famous institutions in Europe. It was hither that the youthful Melanchthon came for his degree, when refused it at Tubingen, not because of defective attainments, but because he was deemed too young for such an honor. Hither before him had come his older relative, the great scholar Reuchlin, who divides with Erasmus the honor of being the foremost Humanist of the age. Reuchlin had gained his education at the University of Paris, and after taking his Master's degree taught for brief periods in several universities. His earlier interest was in the Greek classics, and his first distinction was gained as a teacher of Greek. But about 1490 he became interested in the study of Hebrew, learning that language in the only way then open to him, from oral instruction by a Hebrew rabbi, and thereby exposing himself to those imputations of heresy that followed him persistently during the rest of his life. In 1496 the Elector Palatine persuaded him to take a chair of Hebrew at Heidelberg, where he speedily became the foremost scholar of Europe in the Hebrew language and Old Testament literature. The first Hebrew Grammar was published by him, and the way was thus opened for the study of the Old Testament in the original by Christian scholars generally. But although a great scholar, Reuchlin was a man of marked weakness of character. Irresolution was his greatest defect; he could not bring himself to decide on a course of action and then pursue it with persistence and boldness. This was well illustrated by a controversy into which he plunged with one Pfeffercorn, a convert from Judaism, who with the usual zeal of the convert proceeded to persecute his former religionists, and obtained imperial sanction for the destruction of their writings at his indiscretion. Reuchlin opposed this plan, denounced the indiscriminate burning of Jewish books, especially the Talmud, but when Pfeffercorn succeeded in raising a great storm against him, he began to temporize INTRODUCTION xix and waver, and in the end was compelled to defend himself against charges of heresy. His lack of firmness and fatal facility of self-contradiction were accompanied by an irascible temper and the vituperative vocabulary of the times; and so his writings make painful reading for one who would fain admire, if he could, a scholar whose contribution to Biblical learning was so monumental. But it is impossible to do more than pity Reuchlin, and to feel relief that he was finally vindicated from the charge of heresy, at the same time one recognizes in his own timid vacillation the chief cause of his woes. Reuchlin was the early teacher of Melanchthon, and would deserve our grateful recollection for tnat fact alone, did not a suspicion intrude itself that he managed to infuse into the younger man a good measure of that moral pusillanimity and inveterate love of compromise which was the chief defect in the character of Luther's chief coadjutor. Reuchlin, like Erasmus and Wimpheling, was not a little terrified by the Reformation when it came, and, in his later years as professor of Hebrew at Ingolstadt and Tubingen, opposed Luther and Melanchthon, after having in vain tried to induce his relative to withdraw from Wittenberg and the Reformation cause. He died in communion with the Roman Church, but not in sympathy with it. His heart was with the reformers. If he had only possessed the courage to follow his convictions, instead of listening to his fears! The second center of Humanist influence was the University of Erfurt, founded in 1378. The leader of the Erfurt group of Humanists was Con- rad Mutianus Rufus, prebendary of Gotha. He was a Neo-Platonist, rather than a Christian, a brother in spirit and method to the Italian Humanists of whom Poliziano was so eminent an example. He was at heart not only hostile to the Church of his age, but indifferent to the Christian religion; nor did he take great pains to disguise this attitude. In later times he would have been called a Deist, or possibly an Agnostic. He wrote little, not at all for publication, mostly letters to his trusted friends. He was a teacher rather than a man of letters. He compared himself to Socrates a comparison more flattering to him than to the great Athenian seeker after truth, for Mutian was rather a trifler than a seeker. He held that the Bible is full of paradoxes and riddles and metaphors. Truth is thus wrapped in mystery, and we should follow the example of Scripture and keep silence regarding the highest verities, or else present them under the cloak of fable and allegory, lest we cast our pearls before swine. Toward the Church, with its doctrines and sacraments, he was contemptuously indifferent. The mass he considered a waste of time; he rejected auricular confession as an impertinence; he called the monks "hooded monsters" and lenten fasting "fools 7 diet." By example he encouraged light jesting at all things held sacred by others. Under such xx INTRODUCTION influence many of the younger Humanists became not only openly immoral in life, but irreligious scoffers at holy things. It is customary to regard the monks of this time as mere Obscurantists, men opposed to the new learning because it was new, in their ignorance striving to repress all knowledge but the study of the Fathers. This was probably true of some monks, as of some who were not monks. There is Obscurantism at the present day; ignorant, besotted conservatism has never yet lacked representatives at any stage of the world's history. But the monks were not all opposed to learning; many were friendly to genuine enlightenment; and in the beginning of the Renaissance the monastic institutions showed marked tendencies toward taking the lead in the new movement. But the spirit of such men as Mutian was well fitted to bring the new learning under suspicion, and to furnish a plausible justifi- cation for the Obscurantists to maintain that Humanism was necessarily the foe of the Church and of religion. Another member of the Erfurt school did much to strengthen this impression. Crotus Rubianus which was the pretentious name assumed by Johann Jager (1480-1540) was twice rector of the university, and was renowned for his learning and wit, some of which fame he deserved. He was seriously lacking in moral earnestness, and opposed what he regarded as the corruptions of the Church, less because they were corruptions than because he found them inconvenient to himself. With others he wrote and published the Epistolce Obscurorum Virorum, next to the Encomium Morice of Erasmus perhaps the most famous satire of the age. It was read all over Europe with shouts of laughter, all the louder because some of the monks did not at first perceive the satire, and so gave their approval to the work as a learned defense of conservative views. The book consists of a series of letters, purporting to be written by various monks, full of barbarous Latin, ignorance, superstition, quibbling about abstruse and trivial theological questions, intolerance of the new learning, and general folly. The Obscurantists were thus held up to a scorn and ridicule more or less deserved, and the impression was sedulously conveyed to all readers that monks were invariably of this type. Luther gave the book only a faint and carefully qualified approval. Erasmus said the authors had gone too far, and what the author of the "Praise of Folly" thought was too far in the castigation of monks must be conceded to be very far indeed. Luther was much displeased by the irreligious spirit of the " Letters," though he was in no mood to defend the monks. It is rather difficult for us to understand the reason for the great popularity of the book, and particularly hard for us to comprehend why the sixteenth century thought it so funny. The humor seems to have mostly evapo- rated in these four hundred years. The jests that set all Europe in a roar INTRODUCTION xxi hardly provoke a faint smile now, which naturally suggests a query: Will our humor be better appreciated by posterity after a lapse of another four hundred years? In the twenty-fourth century will men hold their sides as they read Mark Twain? And will Punch and Puck seem funny papers to the men of that time? A notable man of this age, who must be classed with the Erfurt group by affinity rather than by residence, was Ulric von Hutten. A man of the knightly order, who was hi youth an involuntary monk, but escaped from the monastic life, and thereafter hated monks and monkery with inextinguishable hatred, he was a co-laborer with Crotus in producing the "Epistles of Obscure Men." Nothing gave him such delight as to ridicule the ignorance, stupidity and bigotry of the monks, and to expose their immorality. For this latter task his career in the world, as well as his experience in the monastery, admirably fitted him. He was himself as dissolute as the monks whom he attacked, and knew the ins and outs of the vice of his day through personal contact. When the Reformation came, Hutten gave Luther his enthusiastic support, but there was always this fundamental difference between them: Luther was a man of deep spiritual experience and intense moral earnestness; Hutten had no spiritual experience and little moral conviction. Hutten loved liberty, indeed, but by liberty he understood license to do what he pleased, and he favored reformation because he believed it would secure liberty. Luther loved the truth, and sought liberty to believe and teach the truth. The one was essentially a skeptical Humanist, the other was the religious reformer. Oil and water could mix as well as two such men, and Luther distrusted Hutten from the first. When Hutten took up the sword for the sake of the Gospel, as he announced, but really for his dying order,, Luther emphatically repudiated him and his policy. The revolt of the knights failed and Hutten fled to Switzerland, where by Zwingli's inter- cession he was given refuge. The career of this stormy petrel of reform was over; he escaped the sword only to die of disease, induced by his dissolute life, passing away at Zurich in 1523. A man of more brilliant talents never made utter shipwreck of himself and a great career for lack, of moral ballast. A special interest attaches to this Erfurt group of Humanists from the fact that they were in their glory when Luther was a student at that university, and it might be presumed that he would be powerfully in- fluenced by them. The presumption is sustained by no evidence; on the contrary, Luther is disclosed to us in his earliest writings as little affected by humanistic ideas. He is still in bondage to Aristotle and the medieval dialectic; he betrays no special acquaintance with the classics, particularly with Greek authors, and shows no enthusiasm for their study. In this xxii INTRODUCTION respect he is a violent contrast to Erasmus, and even to Zwingli, both of whom might without injustice be described as Humanists first and Christians afterwards. To Luther, from the beginning, religion was the one all-absorbing interest of life, and the Bible was the one form of lit- erature worthy of a study so intense as practically to exclude from serious attention all other forms of literature. He was not so much opposed to classical studies as indifferent to them. The Erfurt school did not have its customary influence on him; it not only did not undermine his respect for the Church, but this sentiment steadily increased in him, and until he had passed his thirtieth year there were few more devoted adherents of Rome than Luther. The third center of humanistic influence was Niirnberg. There was no university here to furnish a bond of union, but a justly celebrated coterie of scholars and artists made this one of the foremost seats of the new learning. First among these may be reckoned Johann Miiller, "the wonder of his time" (1435-1476). He was the most eminent student of mathematics and astronomy of the age, and the most famous writer on those subjects. He may be regarded as the restorer of scientific research, and by his popular lectures he did much to make generally known the results of the best scientific inquiry of his time. Miiller established the i first factory in Europe for making astronomical instruments, and built the first complete and scientifically appointed observatory. He was the first to calculate the size, distances and orbits of the planets. His accurate observations and calculations were of immense practical value to navigators, and it is not too much to say that without them the voyages of Columbus and other discoverers would have been impossible. To this comparatively unknown man, quite as much as to the daring seamen who used his results, we owe the greatest event in modern history, the discovery of a new world, with all its incalculable consequences. A more famous man in his own day, though hardly a more useful, was Willibald Pirkheimer (1470-1530), of noble family, rich, renowned as jurist, statesman, orator, historian. His wealth and the friendship of Emperor Maximilian combined to make him perhaps the most influential Humanist of Germany. He was a man of considerable learning, and of still greater power of appreciating the learning of others, so that he was well fitted to become the German Maecenas. His house was for many years the center of Humanism. He promoted the publication of learned works, especially editions of the Fathers, for which he often wrote pref- aces and introductions. He defended Reuchlin in the controversy with Pfeffercorn, and it is believed that his powerful intercession turned the tide in the great scholar's favor. He admired and supported Luther INTRODUCTION xxiii during the reformer's earlier work, but deserted the cause after the edict of Worms and from 1525 rapidly became more conservative. It is not correct to say that he returned to the Roman Church, for he had never left it, but one might say that he became once more loyal to that Church. He had been alarmed at the course that Luther was taking, for he was at bottom a conservative; but this is hardly the whole truth: he seems to have been lacking in genuine religious feeling, and possibly in moral courage also. On the whole, the most celebrated citizen of Niirnberg, and one of the greatest men of his time, was Albert "Diirer (1471-1528). Melanchthon said of him very truly that, though a great painter, this was one of the least of his accomplishments. He alone can dispute with Leonardo the palm of universal genius. He established art on scientific principles, perfecting the knowledge of linear perspective, and as a student of anat- omy was the rival of Michelangelo. He excelled in arts that it never occurred to Leonardo to attempt, engraving and etching; and if he was not the inventor of the latter art, he was at least the first to bring it to something like perfection. He discovered and practiced the method of printing engravings in two colors, and thus laid the foundation for the modern art of chromo-lithography. To crown all, the writings he has left show clearly that if he had cared to devote himself seriously to ex- pression of thought in words, he might have dethroned Erasmus and become the first man of letters of his age. Dlirer has left us a very interesting portrait of Erasmus, in the black and white in which he did his best work, and one regrets much that, notwithstanding his intimate acquaintance with Melanchthon, he seems never to have drawn or painted the great scholar's likeness. With Luther he had slight personal acquaintance, if any, but he highly respected the reformer and followed the course of the Reformation with an interest that was much more than intellectual curiosity. There is hardly any more moving passage in the literature of this period than the entry hi his journal when the news reached him that Luther had been captured by a band of robbers on his return from Worms, and had probably perished. We, who are in the secret of that dramatic episode in Luther's career, can with difficulty understand the consternation of even the best friends of the Wittenberg professor when he thus disappeared. Diirer really believed that Luther would return no more and mourned for him as for one dead. The great Niirnberg artist was a man of sincere piety, of simple nature, and he rejoiced in the work of reformation and the prospect of a purified Church. Nor does he seem later to have been frightened into forsaking the good cause, possibly because he passed from the conflicts of earth before the supreme test came to the friends of reform. xxiv INTRODUCTION One of the most influential of the NiirnbeiJ men of letters was a Humanist by courtesy only. Hans Sachs (1494-1576) was a plain man, a shoemaker, learned in the lore of the people rather than in the classics. From 1510 to 1515 he traveled about Germany, working at his trade and accumulating knowledge that he afterwards laid under tribute for his writings. For this shoemaker was the most popular poet of the age, and is said before his death to have written over five thousand poems. He first gained the ear of the people by his publication of "The Wittenberg Nightingale," in 1523, in which, as might be inferred from the title, he celebrated the work of Luther as reformer. The poem had a wide circu- lation and a profound effect the ideas of reformation were thus addressed to all classes and introduced to many people who perhaps could not have been persuaded to read a tract, still less a theological treatise. Sachs by no means confined himself to religious subjects, but took a wide range over all things that are of common interest to mankind. Like our Longfellow, he excels in the simple treatment of homely (and some would say trite) themes, and deserves to be called a household poet. After enjoying great fame in his lifetime, and in the generations immediately succeeding, Sachs fell into undeserved oblivion, from which he was rescued by Goethe, himself poet and critic enough to feel the charm of Sachs 7 simple verses. A new edition of his poems was published in 1776, and since then there have been numerous reprints and he has found many appreciative readers. Besides their naturalness, Sachs' poems are distinguished for their human feeling, their prolific invention, their wit, their descriptive powers. There was no such poet of the German people before his day; there has hardly been another since. Other native literature of this age was mostly poetry; German prose was yet to be born, but in song people found expression for their thought. Songs on secular subjects, hymns on religious, were numerous and popular. The common impression that Luther invented German hymnology is, like so many common impressions, utterly wrong. In this case, the eulo- gists of Luther, perhaps ignorantly, have done their best to create and perpetuate this false notion. Luther seized upon an institution that he found in existence, and used it with all his musical talent and religious genius to promote the Reformation. For a time he succeeded in thrusting the secular songs into the background, and made his hymns take their place among the German people. Even the Roman Catholics sang Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott, as why should they not? since the sentiment is neither Roman nor Protestant, but Christian. Such was, in brief, the intellectual state of Germany out of which the Reformation grew. It was a period of quickening into new life, the coming to self-consciousness of a great people. Hutten expressed the INTRODUCTION xxv thought of multitudes w._en he exclaimed, "Oh, what a century! Souls are waking! It is a joy to live!" l II THE sixteenth century witnessed a political revolution in Germany that may be described as the completion of a long-continued process of trans- formation of the Holy Roman Empire. The imperial theory had never been realized since the revival of the Empire under Charlemagne, but by the year 1500 theory and fact had come to be ludicrously at variance. Men continued to speak of a Holy Roman Empire, it is true, though already Voltaire's jibe was justified, and it was evidently not an empire, ^ nor Roman, nor holy. For, instead of universal dominion, the ancient theory of imperium, the so-called Empire included but a fragment of Europe; it was German, not Roman; and its whole history was a denial of everything implied in the concept "holy." Imperial institutions were, in truth, but a vague tradition of past glories, not the actual basis of law and fact on which the political life of Germany rested. Yet the glamour of the past blinded men to present fact. Even in the sixteenth century, the title of Emperor was recognized throughout Europe as entitling its pos- sessor to precedence and dignity over all other Christian rulers; but in the Empire itself, that is to say, in Germany, while there was still a degree of pride in the Emperor, there was no loyalty to him. This was partly the result of feudalism, a system under which every man was loyal to his immediate prince, and each prince was for himself. During the great interregnum, the princes acquired an independent authority that was never lost, and the partial reconstitution of the Empire under Rudolf of Habsburg, in 1273, only checked them for a time in their career of self-aggrandizement and disunion. The real power of Germany was thenceforth that of the great princely houses, and of the Emperor one could only say, Stat magni nominis umbra. Such was made the fun- damental law of the Empire, in the famous Golden Bull, which Charles IV promulgated in 1356, and by so doing fixed the imperial institution as it endured with little change to the Thirty Years' War. This bull, which is too commonly looked on as merely establishing the procedure in the election of an Emperor, is in fact the constitution of a federated monarchy, of strictly limited powers. It assures to the electoral princes an immunity of person equal to that of the Emperor himself, by making an attempt against the life of any one of them treason against the Empire. It grants to them privileges truly royal, such as the working of mines within their domains, the right to coin money, the levying of taxes, and judicial 1 O welches jahrhundert! Die Geister erwachen! Es ist eine Lust zu leben! xxvi INTRODUCTION rights over their own subjects, from which an appeal could be taken to the imperial courts only in case of a denial of justice. Thenceforth it was plain to all men that the Emperor could make good his claim to reign in Germany only as Brennus vindicated his authority in Rome, by throwing his sword into the scale. The weakness of the Emperor lay in the fact that, while these great powers and immunities were conceded to the princes, he himself had no authority to levy taxes and no imperial army. While the princes might and did have their standing armies, the imperial force was only a militia made up of levies voted by the princes from time to time, for periods and purposes strictly prescribed. The Reichstag, or Diet, kept tight hold of the purse strings, and the princes jealously guarded the power of the sword what could an Emperor so circumscribed be but a puppet? This lack of financial and military resources made it impossible for the nominal ruler to enforce even the shadow of authority that he still possessed, and the weakness of the imperial courts was a continual cause of well-founded complaint. If a suitor obtained a decision from them in his favor, it was still uncertain whether the process of the court would ever procure for him actual redress in fact, it was morally certain that his adversary, if a person of any consequence, would prove strong enough to retain the profits of his wrong-doing and defy the imperial court. This imperial impotence had culminated in the long reign of Frederick III (1440-1493), whose poverty and helplessness had made the title of Emperor almost despised. During nearly half of his reign he never ap- peared in Germany, and hardly made a pretense of interfering in its affairs, preferring to reside in Vienna, because the pears grown there were so delicious! It was the reign of King Log in very truth. His son and successor, Maximilian I, by a fortunate and romantic marriage with the richest heiress in Europe, Mary of Burgundy, became a great personage in his own right; but if the imperial dignity was, in consequence, a little more respected, the imperial power was very slightly increased. Max- imilian spent his life in a fruitless struggle to arrest the disintegration of the Empire, but the sons of Zeruiah were too strong for him, and with his failure it became manifest that nothing could be done to stay the develop- ment of a princely oligarchy as the supreme power of the Empire. The Diet was the only feature of the imperial government that pos- sessed real vitality, and it was of comparatively recent origin. In the earlier history of the Empire, down to the fall of the Hohenstaufen, we find no such body. The Golden Bull provided for an annual meeting of the electoral princes, in order to assist the Emperor in his government, but as a matter of fact meetings were held only at long intervals, as the necessities of an increasingly weak administration compelled the Emperor INTRODUCTION xxvii in emergencies to ask the princes for subsidies of both men and money. Gradually the custom became established of calling to this meeting the other nobles who had immediate sovereignty, and at length the right was recognized of all who held directly of the Emperor to attend and be con- sulted. The assembly was thus feudal in character, not representative. . The only representative feature was that latest added: some time in the fifteenth century it became customary to invite the free imperial cities to 1 send delegates, because their taxes could not be increased without their consent. For a long time these Estates met as one body, but in the reign of Fred- erick III, at the meeting held at Niirnberg in 1467, the rule was definitely established that the Estates should thenceforth meet in three colleges or orders. The first consisted of the electoral princes: three ecclesiastics, the Archbishops of Mainz, Cologne and Trier; and four secular princes, the King of Bohemia, the Duke of Saxony, the Count Palatine and the Margrave of Brandenburg. The second college was composed of the other ruling princes and nobles of the Empire, thirty-eight ecclesiastics and eighteen laymen, and certain of the more powerful knights. The third college was made up of the delegates of the free cities. These orders met together for some purposes, but deliberated and voted separately, and only measures that the first two had agreed upon were sent to the third for action. It does not appear that the vote of the third college had much weight, or was often sought, except in questions of the taxation of their own cities, in which their voice was necessarily decisive. However, the rights and proceedings of the three colleges is an obscure question; and the functions of the Diet itself were not precisely defined until the Treaty of Westphalia, in 1648. Enough to say that all of the more than three hundred separate principalities and communities that composed the Holy Roman Empire at the beginning of the sixteenth century were in some fashion represented in this body. In a word, then, while all the other countries of Europe had arrived at a fair state of political order, the Empire was still in the condition of medieval anarchy. Germany was one people; it was not one nation. The Diet was a Congress, rather than a Parliament. When after infinite labor and prolonged discussion a decision was reached, there was no adequate means of enforcing it. The so-called decrees of the body were in fact merely advice, which the various States for the most part contemp- tuously disregarded. The great need was a strong executive. The in- efficiency of the imperial courts compelled the settlement of serious diffi- culties by an appeal to arms. It was the constant complaint that Germany had no peace, and that justice could not be obtained. So far back as the day of Nicholas of Cusa this had been perceived, and that remarkable xxviii INTRODUCTION statesman suggested the sole remedy: a standing army was necessary for the enforcement of judicial decisions; and the expense of such an army should be met by a special tax levied by the Diet. But to this policy the princes could not be brought to consent, for it was contrary to their settled policy of weakening the imperial authority to strengthen their own. The great ducal houses were willing to entrust the sword of empire only to hands too weak to wield it effectively, and thus they not only maintained, but continually increased, their own independence. There was then no single state, like the Prussia of to-day, so pre-eminent in power as to constitute it the natural political center of the nation, and entitle its ruling house to claim the dignity of hereditary Emperor. The Duchy of Austria, which came nearest to this position, fell just short of the necessary pre-eminence, and was not an integral part of Germany. Hence the medieval Empire lacked precisely what modern Germany has, a strong central government. It was a Staatenbund, not a Bundesstaat, and the Emperor possessed precisely such real power within the limits of the Empire as the Diet chose to grant him, and no more. This transformation of the Empire, from a universal dominion with a single head whose will was the source of law, into the semblance of a federated monarchy of limited powers, but in reality into an oligarchy of princes with unlimited powers, was greatly promoted by the introduction of the Roman law and its remarkable extension during the latter half of the fifteenth century. The German law that had prevailed down to that age was like the English common law, an accretion of customs reaching back to a time, as Blackstone says, "whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. " Much of it was unwritten, and still more was un- codified. It was favorable to individual liberty and communal rights, and the princes found it a serious obstacle to their policy of centralizing all power in their own hands. With a singular blindness to probable results, the emperors did their utmost to promote the introduction of the Justinian Code, possibly on the theory that a Roman Empire ought to be ruled according to Roman law, more likely because they hoped by this change to increase their own prerogatives. Accordingly, lawyers trained at Bologna, and other universities where the Roman law was taught, were appointed judges in the imperial courts, and they decided causes according to the principles and precedents of Roman law, not German. The princes followed the example thus set them, and by the sixteenth century nearly the whole legal fraternity were partisans and practitioners of the Justinian Code, while the ancient German law had fallen into disuse. The study of Roman law was introduced into the chief German universities, and attracted more students than other subjects. The Church was favorable to this change, since the canon law is largely INTRODUCTION xxix derived from the Roman codes, and, on the whole, the change promised to promote the interests of ecclesiastics. Unspeakable confusion attended this new order of things in every rank of society. No man longer knew what his rights were. The rules for the tenure of property, for inheritance, for alienation, were entirely different under Roman law from those to which Germans had become accustomed by ages of undisputed usage. In particular, leases heretofore held in perpetuity were now transformed into leases for limited terms. Feudal rents in kind were altered to money rents, and in the process they were nearly always much increased. Lawsuits innumerable followed, the courts were choked with business, lawyers and notaries were busy as bees and fairly coined money only the unfortunate litigants suffered, and few pitied them. In vain did the people protest against the unlawful exactions to which they were subjected, and the lawyers and court officers who preyed upon them. Sebastian Brant, in his famous satire "The Ship of Fools," printed in 1494, thus castigates the greedy lawyers of his day, comparing them to the robber knights: "The one steals in secret, the other openly; the one exposes his body to the storm, the other hides behind his inkstand. The knight burns all before him; the lawyer finds a well-to-do peasant, and with legal documents roasts him. . . . They corrupt the law to make a living." A sermon of the period contains these bitter words: "When I warn you to beware of usurers and those who would plunder you, I warn you also to beware of advocates, who now prevail. For the last twenty or thirty years they have increased like poisonous weeds, and are worse than the usurers, for they take away not only your money but your rights and honor. They have substituted a foreign code for the national one, and questions that used to be settled in two or three days now take as many months and years. What a pity the people cannot get justice as they did before they knew these liars and deceivers whom no one wanted. " The social importance of this great change can hardly be overestimated, but a political result quite unexpected came from it also ; while all classes hoped for advantage from the introduction of the Roman law, the only class that did obtain any real advantage was the princes. On the whole, ecclesiastical authority was weakened by this new order of things, but the ruin of the imperial authority was made complete and irremediable. The princes, with much persistence and shrewdness, used the new law, in conjunction with the complete judicial rights granted them by the Golden Bull, to reduce the functions of the imperial courts to the lowest possible limit. Their own power was vastly increased and consolidated, and both Emperor and Church suffered a proportional weakening of their sovereignty. xxx INTRODUCTION III THE migrations of the Teutons resulted in a selection of the courageous, enterprising elements of the original stock to propagate their kind; and also necessitated constant fighting with opposing peoples, which bred a habit of violence and aggression. The Teuton became proud, self- reliant, individualistic. He became a social being through his intelligence rather than through his emotions. He saw the advantages of good order, rather than instinctively rejoiced in the fellowship of his kind. Society and social institutions were less necessary to him than useful. His en- vironment struggle with a stern climate, habits of drink, diseases to which he was subject made another selection: the temperate and frugal survived the reckless and drunken. -A strong, sober race, that, by virtue of mental and physical characteristics, took a foremost place in the development of Europe, were the people among whom the Reformation began. Germany was naturally a poor land, but in the sixteenth century it had become relatively rich; indeed, its wealth placed it in the foremost rank of European countries. Its agricultural resources were great; its manufactures were varied in character and in volume large; its commerce was vast, profitable and rapidly increasing. The richest mines in Europe at this time were in Saxony, in Freiberg, Marienberg, Schreckenstein, Schneeberg, Annaberg. The most important mine in Thuringia was at Mansfeld. These mines yielded principally silver and copper, with some gold. The ores were often sent to Venice to be reduced, and the product was exchanged for merchandise imported from the East. Erfurt, Leipzig, Niirnberg and Augsburg especially profited by the traffic thus built up. The mining districts produced little save their metals; their food and clothing must all be imported, besides much wood for smelting, propping up the mines, and the like. The Saxon princes drew so large revenues from these mines that they were able to tax their subjects more lightly than many other rulers, and in consequence the population and wealth of Saxony gained at the expense of other parts of the Empire. It was not merely accident that caused the Reformation to begin in Saxony, and spread thence through Germany. Until late in the fifteenth century, German social institutions were yet in the main feudal. There were still three chief classes among the people: the clergy, the nobles and the peasants. The legal basis of society re- mained in the land, and a man's social status was determined by the tenure on which he occupied his portion of land. No way of living having been yet discovered except by occupying land, the law of tenure necessarily fixed every man's legal and economic rights. The cities, to be sure, with INTRODUCTION xxxi their burgher guilds, were an exception; they were making another class, as yet with imperfect recognition and with rights in many respects ill- defined. But land had nevertheless ceased to be the only basis of wealth; it was no longer even the principal basis of wealth. The ultimate source of production it, of course, was then and must always be, but manufactures and commerce had so advanced that land had ceased to be the economic basis of society. A vast economic change was in progress; Europe was undergoing a transformation from the agricultural to the capitalistic system, and this great economic mutation was producing a portentous social fermentation. The sixteenth century was the culmination of a process of economic readjustment that had begun two centuries before, and has continued by fresh stages to our own day. That age witnessed the breaking up of feudalism and the reconstitution of society on a dif- ferent basis. Commerce became capitalized, and to some extent man- ufactures also; though the complete capitalization of industry remained to be completed after the invention of machinery at the close of the eighteenth century. The Reformation occurred in the midst of this beginning of modern capitalism. Large fortunes were already amassed or in process of amassing by individuals, by families, and by companies formed for trade those first attempts at combinations of capital on a large scale that gradually led to the modern corporation and the Trust. This growth of the artisan and merchant class in numbers and wealth had a great effect on all the social and political institutions of Europe, an effect especially marked in Germany by the rapid development of the free imperial cities. The city was the new economic unit of the changed social conditions, and economically considered, Europe was coming to consist of a system of city States. Within the cities the chief instrument by which this new order was developing was the guild, which was to the medieval artisan or merchant all that the trades union is to-day, and much mora. Many of the guilds had features that allied them to the modern Masonic order and all corresponded closely in some of their activities to the numerous benevolent orders that have sprung up in the United States and flourished like Jonah's gourd in the last half century. /The guild not only existed for the mutual protection and advancement of the members of a craft, but from a common fund help was given to needy members in sickness or temporary loss of employment. As these guilds increased in numbers and wealth, they naturally sought a share in the government of their town.) In some of the cities, like Ulm, Frankfurt and Niirnberg, the con- trolling interest remained aristocratic, and the patricians took precedence /> of the burghers, but the latter were able to make good their claim to a xxxii INTRODUCTION share of the power, and the original rule that only members of the oldest families were eligible to the Rath, or town council, had to be modified. ' In most of the towns, the guilds were the ruling powers, the council being composed of the guild masters, or the heads of the various organized crafts,/ It became absolutely necessary for the security of a town and its busi- ness that it should have a charter, vesting in it certain rights and privi- leges, and clearly specifying the duties to be performed by it. Gradually there developed a class of free cities, owing allegiance directly to the Emperor, and by him being assured of freedom from oppression by princes and great nobles. These cities had come to be very numerous in Germany, and constituted practically independent republics, so far at least as their own internal affairs were concerned. In the Rhine and Swabian district there were over a hundred of these cities, among which were: Aachen, Speyer, Worms, Frankfurt, Strassburg, Colmar, Basel, Bern, Zurich, Schaffhausen, Constance, St. Gall, Ueberlingen, Ravensberg, Kempten, Kaufbeuren, Donauworth, Boffingen, Memmingen, Augsburg, Ulm, Tottweil, Reutligen, Weil, Esslingen, Heilbronn, Wimpfen, Halle, Nord- lingen. Franconia had only half a dozen, of which Niirnberg was the chief. In Bavaria the one city of Regensburg stood practically alone, save for Augsburg. In Saxony were Liibeck, Bremen, Magdeburg, Hamburg and Gosler. In Thuringia were found Erfurt, Miihlhausen, Nordhausen. In Westphalia were Hildesheim, Minden, Osnabriick, Miinster and Diisseldorf . And alongside of these free cities were ^^considerable number that were nominally ruled by a bishop or archbishop, but nevertheless enjoyed a practical independence; not to mention a third class of cities, like Dresden and Leipzig, where the court of a prince was maintained, which nevertheless had to a considerable extent the same internal govern- ment and similar civic privileges. Holding directly of the Emperor, the free cities were far more loyal to him than the princes, and did much to keep the imperial spirit alive. The volume of German commerce controlled by these towns, at the beginning of the sixteenth century, would seem quite respectable even in these days of great enterprises. Ulm, according to Wimpheling, esti- mated its annual trade at over half a million florins, while that of Augs- burg and Ntirnberg was much greater. The most important commercial route was by way of Venice, Augsburg or Niirnberg, Strassburg and Cologne. These and other German towns were also the centers of impor- tant manufactures, and their products went to swell the volume of this trade. In 1466 there were 743 master-weavers in Augsburg; and at about the same time, 200,000 bolts of linen were woven in a single year at Ulm. Tanners, furriers and shoemakers were also flourishing guilds, and their products were famous throughout Europe. Iron and metal INTRODUCTION xxxiii workers are found in these and other towns hi greatest profusion, and the variety of product in these lines is hardly greater to-day than it was then. At the same time another influence was at work that was greatly to change the relative importance of this commercial route, and seriously affect the cities that shared in such prosperity. The search^ for new routes to India that led Columbus to the discovery of the New World was caused by the advance westward of the Turks, and their interference with the old paths of commerce with the East. By the discoveries that j followed, and the accompanying development of the art of navigation, j %/ the commercial center of Europe was transferred from Italy to the Atlantic coast, and Spain and France, and in still greater measure the Netherlands and England, profited by this change. This was in itself a great economic revolution, and its effects on the progress of the Reforma- tion are almost incalculable. But in the sixteenth century, the effects of this change were only be- ginning to be felt, and the German cities were still among the most famous in Europe. Niirnberg was not only a center of humanistic culture, >/ but as the home of art it vied with Florence, as a mart of trade with Venice. Augsburg was as much the center of European finance as London is to-day, though its banking houses and capital were later to be trans- ferred to Antwerp, and the Fuggers of Augsburg were the sixteenth- century Rothschilds. This strong house, which had come up from the humblest beginnings until it ranked with the high nobles of the Em- pire, financed emperors, princes and prelates, and held in its hands the issues of peace and war, as the great bankers of Europe do to-day. It was certain that these free towns would play a large part in the Reforma- tion drama, and we shall see that they ultimately decided its course. It would be quite within the truth to say that the success of any attempt at reform in the Empire would depend on their attitude toward it. On every hand we find in the medieval literature tributes to the wealth and luxury that Germany was attaining through this growth of capitalism and the development of her free cities. ^Eneas Sylvius (afterwards Pope Pius II) about the middle of the fifteenth century was much struck by this condition of Germany, so far surpassing the state of Italy: "The German nation takes the lead of all in wealth and power, and one can say with truth that God has favored this land beyond others. On all sides one sees cultivated plains, cornfields, vineyards, flower and vegetable gardens in town and country; everywhere grand buildings, walled cities, well-to-do farmsteads in the plains and valleys, castles on the mountain heights." Elsewhere he comes down to particulars after this fashion: "How is it that in your inns you always serve drinks in silver vessels? xxxiv INTRODUCTION Where is the woman (I do not speak of the nobility, but of the bourgeoisie) who does not glitter with gold? What profusion of gold and pearls, ornaments, reliquaries!" Even natives were sufficiently impressed by the luxury of their country to record it. Wimpheling writes: "It was not an uncommon thing to eat off gold and silver plates at the merchants' tables, as I myself did in company with eleven other guests in the city of Cologne." A not too vividly imaginative reader easily perceives the ill-concealed tone of envy that breathes through such testimonies to the wealth of the German burgher class. Trade was held in low esteem, not merely by the nobility, but by the Church and the educated class. It was rated lower than agriculture and the handicrafts by those who despised all alike, on the ground that merchants were less honest than farmers or artisans. The merchant guilds were denouncd much as the trusts are to-day. The Diet of Cologne, in 1572, passed an edict against them, in effect anticipating the Sherman law of our day, in a like vain hope of resisting an economic evolution. It was a fact that the burghers and their trade flatly antagonized much of the medieval ethics, and this explains the opposition to them. To buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dear- est, and to tax the traffic all it will bear, would have been maxims ab- horrent to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, although the commerce of the age was founded on these as yet unformulated principles. The religious and ethical teaching of that time insisted that to take advantage of the necessity of a fellow creature, whether done by buyer or seller, was contrary to justice, and such procedure was forbidden under severe penalties. This was especially true of food and clothing, and the neces- saries of life generally, which all but merchants believed should be sold for "fair" prices. The merchant believed, and so far as the laws would permit practiced, that he should receive for his goods whatever he could get for them. It is the constant complaint in the literature of the time that the suimotuary laws had broken down and no longer could be en- forced, or at least that they no longer were enforced, that greed was everywhere triumphing over justice, that the poor were being exploited to make the merchant class rich. Erasmus therefore represented the general opinion of the mercantile class when he said: "Merchants are the vilest and most contemptible of men; they carry on the most despicable of all industries, and that moreover in the meanest fashion; and though they lie, perjure themselves, steal, cheat, and in every way impose on others, they set themselves up every- where as the first of the land which, indeed, their wealth enables them to do. A merchant would not succeed in growing very rich if he applied his conscience to the question of usury and rascality." The real offense of INTRODUCTION xxxv the merchant appears to have been that he was rich, while the noble and the scholar only wished to be rich. But it was not merely as merchants that the burghers were hated and denounced; it was as bankers and lenders of money, as the capitalistic class of Germany. Wimpheling bewails the growth of capitalism in his day: "Usury is cruel and much practiced by the Jews, as well as by many Christians, who are worse than the Jews. It is impossible to dispense with the exchange of money, and the lender has the right to some profit, but usury and money-lending are the ruin of a nation. Woe the day when the reins fell into the hands of wealth, and gold began to beget ever more and more gold." We must bear in mind, in reading such words, that during this period "usury" means, not the taking of excessive interest alone, but the taking of any interest. That there was good ground for opposition to excessive interest is apparent when we read that the muni- cipality of Frankfurt once paid 52 per cent, for a loan of a thousand florins; and that interest at times went as high as 86 per cent, at Augsburg. In spite of such social prejudice the process of accumulating capital went on with great rapidity in the sixteenth century. The people were slow to perceive that conditions had changed, and that money had ac- quired a new social significance and so a revision of ethical standards was required. Lending before the sixteenth century had been mainly for unproductive consumption, for war and for extravagant expense. Lend- ing was now for use of money in business, with a prospect, almost a certainty, of profit. Usury had formerly been an exaction of that for which the borrower had received no real equivalent, from which at any rate he had derived no profit; it was now a sharing of profits between borrower and lender. As money borrowed was seen to be productive, to return a profit to the borrower, the prejudice against interest gradually disappeared, yet throughout the sixteenth century men continued to apply the ethical principles of a former age to the new conditions that they no longer fitted. The Church fully sustained the nobles and scholars in their opposition to the growing money-lending power. The canon law forbade all usury, and for ages the civil law enforced the ecclesiastical. But the increasing demands of capital for commerce broke down the civil prohibitions, which were becoming obsolete. The law could annoy the merchant, but it could no longer bind him. The Church, however, continued to denounce usury and to refuse absolution to those guilty of it, and here we find one of the prime causes of the growing hostility between the cities with their mercantile classes and the Church. The Church also favored the sump- tuary laws, by which it had been attempted to regulate extravagance and to prevent oppression, through statutes that prescribed what might be xxxvi INTRODUCTION bought and consumed by various classes and the prices at which articles might be sold. As this legislation tended to restrict trade, it was hated by the traders. The cities had therefore a powerful motive to revolt against a Church that was so hampering their growth. But this was not their whole griev- ance. The Church was the passive foe, as well as the active, of commerce in the sixteenth century. It had locked up in its great landed estates and vast buildings an immense amount of 'capital that was sorely needed in a more liquid form for the enlargement of commercial enterprises. Com- merce was beginning to feel the absolute necessity of large capital and of credit. The Church took from the people, every year and in various ways, more than all the governments of Europe; and what it thus gained was to a large degree a permanent loss, because it was invested in compara- tively nonproductive property. By thus diminishing capital and oppos- ing credit the Church was the chief obstacle in the way of the commercial and capitalistic evolution that was so rapidly progressing. This economic stimulus to revolt was none the less powerful from the circumstance that the cities were not conscious of its effect; they struck out blindly against what they felt, rather than knew, to be their chief antagonist, when the time came that a successful blow could be struck. It was natural that the cities should seek recognition in the political affairs of the Empire in some way proportioned to their social power of wealth. In this their success was not at first striking. The Golden Bull forbade the formation of confederacies within the Empire, without the consent of the Emperor and princes, nevertheless a league of the Swabian towns 1 was concluded in 1376 to resist the encroachments of Charles IV. An association of nobles was formed the same year, and in the struggle that followed the towns were badly worsted (1388) and lost some part of their privileges, which they were slow in recovering. The cities gradually obtained representation in the Reichstag, as we have seen, but beyond control of their own taxation they had little weight in that body. At the Diet of Niirnberg, in 1522, they protested that they had no real voice in affairs, since they were always overruled by the other orders, but the satisfaction of protesting was practically all that they gained. That they were already the superior force in the Empire, by virtue of their wealth, was doubtless the fact, but the extreme conservatism of Germany post- poned political recognition of this fact. This dissatisfaction of the cities with their political status was one of the most serious elements in the general condition of unrest that we discover at the beginning of the six- teenth century. 1 This should not be confused with either of the several later associations bear- ing the same name, especially the great Swabian league, formed in 1488 at Ess- iingen, by princes, nobles and towns, for the enforcement of peace and good order. INTRODUCTION xxxvii A class very seriously affected by the new social conditions were the knights, or lesser nobility. Holding their fiefs directly of the Emperor, these descendants of the officers in the early imperial armies of Charle- magne and his successors were always a turbulent lot. They were at constant feud among themselves and with the cities. They made continual war on each other for the sake of revenge, and they warred against the towns for the sake of plunder. The towns, on their part, punished the marauders as they could, and often hanged them incontinently when caught. The first Reichstag of Maximilian's reign attempted to abate these evils by sanctioning an imperial edict (1495) that forbade private war, which was little else than piracy on land, but the edict had slight effect. Nearly another century was required to make the prohibition operative, and in the meantime the knights had virtually perished. At the beginning of the Reformation private war, though illegal, flourished throughout the Empire. The poverty of the knights intensified this struggle, and by the year 1500 it was a poverty keenly felt by the larger part of the order. The class that had risen by success in war found themselves out of joint with a social order based on wealth and demanding peace as the prime condi- tion of its well-being. The claims of long descent were more and more disallowed; men were beginning to ask what the knight was doing for the society from which he demanded so much. Money was coming to be the measure of value. The old feudal society had little need of money. Rents and taxes were paid in kind, and for the rest barter served; but a crafts- man must be paid in good hard coin or he would not work; a merchant must have money counted down, or he would not part with his wares. The need of money was therefore increasingly felt by all classes in the six- teenth century, but more especially by the landed aristocracy, which had hitherto been able to supply their wants from their own estates. To this social change the knight was fiercely opposed. As compared with any other class he desired at least to be deemed Equal in strength, and rather than be less Cared not to be at all. Also the growth of wealth and luxury hi the towns had developed new wants among the nobility, which the wealthier among them were able to gratify, while the poorer struggled desperately to do the same. The knights, living in castles whose construction had sacrificed everything else to security, lacking most of what we should consider the ordinary comforts and decencies of life, saw the burghers living in houses that were in comparison sybaritic, resplendent in luxury and crowded with costly works of art. The knight's wife and daughters saw the womenfolk of the xxxviii INTRODUCTION burghers flaunting silks and velvets and jewels fit for princesses and coveted the like for themselves. It is true that medieval sumptuary laws forbade burghers to wear pearls and velvet, these being reserved for ladies of noble birth, but the prohibitions were often disregarded. And even when the laws were obeyed, the wives and daughters of burghers could wear silks and diamonds, while the noble lady but too often had to go without her pearls and velvet for lack of money to buy them. It is scarcely wonderful that neither was fully satisfied. The burgher's womenfolk resented being deprived of ornaments that they could well afford, while noble ladies felt even more keenly their deprivation of that which they could not afford, but had been taught to consider their birthright. The attempt of the knight to rival the burgher in this luxurious splendor within and this sumptuous display without attempts all the more eager and determined, because the knight looked on the burgher as his inferior and tried to despise one whom in his heart he envied only led to more speedy and hopeless impoverishment and made impending ruin a certainty. To raise money for these extravagances, many knights mortgaged their estates to the money-lending syndicates of the towns, which had become numerous and powerful, or to Jewish usurers. Of course the debts were never paid, and when the creditor foreclosed, as he was usually compelled to do in order to recover his loan, instead of blaming their own reckless improvidence and rash extravagance, the unfortunates complained bitterly of the hard-hearted wretches who presumed to insist that a noble should pay his debts like another. The very laws conspired to bring the lesser nobility to want. For, while Germany had its law of primogeniture, like other European nobilities, it was much less strict. All of a noble's chil- dren were noble, and his estates were not entailed; so that the constant multiplication of titles and the subdivision of territories and estates, by equal division among sons and to make marriage portions for daugh- ters, reduced all but a few great houses to comparative poverty and impotence. At the same time that the knights were thus doing their best to accom- plish their own downfall, there befel them a misfortune that they could have done nothing either to foresee or avert. This was a military revolu- tion, a radical change in the art of war consequent on the invention of gunpowder. Before the musket, the knight's armor of steel proved as worthless for defense as his lance and two-handed sword were for offense ; and the cannon battered down about his ears his hitherto impregnable castles, which before this new weapon were no better than cardboard houses. The social position and political weight of the knights had been won and maintained by their military prowess; throughout the middle INTRODUCTION xxxix ages the strength of armies had depended on the cavalry, 1 the body of knights panoplied in steel and invulnerable to the weapons of the foot soldier. This invincible cavalry was now being replaced on the field by infantry, composed of burghers and peasants, thoroughly trained and disciplined. The feudal militia was giving place to standing armies, largely composed of mercenaries, officered by soldiers of fortune rascally swashbucklers and cutpurses, most of them, but stout fighters. War was becoming a profession, not the occupation of a gentleman in his leisure hours. The robber knight, perched in his inaccessible rocky eyrie, levying tribute on all who traveled the roads, waging private warfare at his will, and bidding the whole world defiance, was an anachronism. He was dead, in fact, though not yet conscious of it, and his burial had become a social necessity. Lowell had the right idea when he said, But civlyzation doos git forrid Sometimes upon a powder-cart. But probably the greatest sufferers of all from the social revolution were the peasants. Up to the middle of the fifteenth century their lot had been by no means a hard one. Considerable land was then in the hands of peasant proprietors, and lay between the estates of the nobles. In addition to these freehold properties, many peasants held land on what was virtually a perpetual lease, the right descending from father to eldest son as regularly as the inheritance of a noble. The Church had also sub- let its land to peasants. Many peasants were, it is true, still adscripti glebes, that is, they could not leave their holdings without the consent of their lords, but they were free in person and their children were free. Peasants who had no holdings of their own were obliged to labor for others for stated wages, or else seek some other means of livelihood. The burghers, especially the craftsmen, were mainly recruited from the brighter and more enterprising sons of peasants. Sometimes the nobles attempted to prevent this drifting of the surplus rural population to the cities, but with little success. The peasant paid his rents in kind. As grain was the most important product, the lord was entitled to every third sheaf. The principle appears to have been that one sheaf was reckoned as the cost of production, and the surplus was equally shared between lord and farmer. A share less accurately defined was due to the lord from the increase of the flocks, herds and poultry. A "death-tax " of the best head or chattel was exacted. Personal service to the lordj was also required, but it was exactly limited, and seldom exceed&I*twelve days' labor in the year. On the whole, 1 The one exception was the English army. The battles of Grecy and Agin- court were won by the archers, who with their cloth-yard shafts were not less effective against armored knights than was the early musketry. xl INTRODUCTION therefore, the peasant was little worse off, if any, than the ordinary tenant-farmer without capital among us, who takes a farm and works it " on shares. " Besides their holdings, there were certain tracts of land, the Marks or commons, in which the peasant had his equitable rights. He could cut wood and graze his cattle there. His swine could be turned in to eat the falling acorns. These commons had come down from the ancient tribal days in Germany, when all land was held in common, and these rights were jealously defended and highly prized. In some cases, a small rental had to be paid for them, but they were never denied. The German peasantry had some pretensions to scientific agriculture, and practiced rotation of crops. Large parts of the land were devoted to the culture of the vine, and the wines of Germany were renowned and much sought after. So were its fruits, especially cherries and apples, which were grown in large quantities and are often mentioned in the literature of the period. Dairying was another profitable industry, and German cheese was even then an article of export throughout Europe. Forestry was already an art, if not a science, and there were strict rules for the felling of all sorts of trees, while reforestation was regularly practiced. The good order and cleanliness of the housekeeping is witnessed by several English travelers of the time as being far in advance of what was known hi their own country, excelled nowhere but in the Netherlands. 1 The clothing of these peasants was good, even rich, especially the one Sunday costume, which it was a point of honor for everyone to possess, and to wear also on fete days and special occasions, as is the custom to- day. The people were not only well fed but well clothed. They had an abundance of meat and other good food. Wine was drunk as freely among them as tea and coffee with us. The wages of a day laborer for a week would buy him a sheep and a pair of shoes, or a good suit of clothes. A day's wages would be the equivalent of hah 7 a bushel of rye, or three quarters of a bushel of oats, a bushel of turnips or six to seven pounds of meat. The earnings of three weeks would buy a good cow. From these samples of the purchasing power of his wages, it will be seen that the man of the fifteenth century who could bring to the labor market nothing but a strong pair of hands was about as well off as his brother among us. But a great change in the lot of the peasants was taking place as the sixteenth century opened. There had been such a sharp rise of prices as we have experienced in the United States since 1900, amounting to an increase of fifty per cent, in the average cost of living, while wages, which 1 A spirited and on the whole fairly accurate picture of the social state of Europe in the fifteenth century, including Germany, is given in the well-known historical romance of Charles Reade, "The Cloister and the Hearth." INTRODUCTION xli were then fixed by law, had remained stationary. Economists are prac- tically agreed that this rise of prices after 1500 was due to the depreciation of silver. This was not caused, however, as some writers have urged, by the importation of silver from America the great flood of American bullion came later but by increased production at home. The Fuggers and other capitalists obtained control of long-unworked silver mines, in the Tyrol and elsewhere, from 1487 onward, and exploited them to the utmost. The Fuggers are said by one in their employ to have increased their capital 13,000,000 florins in seven years; but we have no data for an estimate of the percentage of this increase that should be credited to their mining operations, though no doubt it was large. The Bohemian mines, which had been closed during theHusite wars, were reopened in 1492, and thenceforth poured out a large and steady flood of silver. Whatever the cause, the result was great distress among the peasants, and of course much dissatisfaction when they compared their want with the apparent plenty of other classes. But even worse than this was the disturbance of their status caused by the already noted introduction of the Roman law. Under this law peas- ants were excluded from the tribunals. No such class as peasants existed in the Rome of the Caesars, and there was therefore no provision for them in the law. The Justinian Code practically recognizes but two classes: nobles and slaves. With this extension of the Roman law and the practical disuse of the ancient German law of custom, the peasants were more and more reduced to the footing of slaves, to whom no redress of wrongs was possible. They were deprived of their ancient communal rights. The nobles seized upon their marks, and forbade the peasants to graze their animals there or to cut a stick of timber. Those who had held property on life leases were evicted, or compelled to exchange their holdings for short-term leases, always with increased rents. Peasants were now for- bidden to kill game, even the small animals that destroyed their crops, or to catch fish. Any peasant found off the paths or carrying a weapon was liable to be deprived of both eyes. He was not only not permitted to kill the game himself, but was even compelled to assist his lord to hunt it, either by personal service or by furnishing wagons and horses as they might be requisitioned. In endless ways, what he had good reason to regard as his immemorial rights were now constantly infringed, and that without remedy. No wonder uprisings of the peasants began to occur during the closing decades of the fifteenth century, and we shall not be surprised to meet such troubles in the course of our study of the Reformation. The Bundschuh, or laced boot of the peasant, was their standard, and it had been several times displayed, always with disorder and bloodshed, before the Refor- xlii INTRODUCTION mation began. We are thus forewarned against the error of many his- torians, who have identified with the Reformation movement this resis- tance offered by the peasants to their oppressors, and we can see in it merely the act of men driven to desperation by their wrongs. We shall not imagine that Luther, or any other religious teachers, were responsible for outbreaks that the greed and lawlessness of the ruling classes had provoked. At the same time we shall also be prepared to find that the Reformation was seriously affected by this social struggle. IV IN the Church a revolution was impending, as well as in society and the State, but the nature of that revolution could not be clearly fore- casted. The signs of the times, as seen in the current literature, have been much misread even by later students and historians, with far better opportunities to interpret them correctly. Protestants especially are prone to exaggerate the disaffection of the people with the Church, so long as it exercised only its legitimate functions, as the spiritual guide and teacher of men, as distinguished from the abuses of the ecclesiastical machine. We underrate, because we ourselves have never felt, the hold on the imagination maintained by the medieval Church through its vast and imposing unity. We underrate, because we have never fully compre- hended, the appeal made to the highest and best in man by the theory of the Roman Catholic Church. According to its teaching, Christ established the Church as the means of men's salvation, and outside of her there is no assurance of safety. Augustine might teach that we may charitably hope for the salvation of the unbaptized and of heretics, but most medieval theologians held that outside of the Church all were irretrievably lost. To this Church were committed those sacraments which, when dispensed by a duly ordained priesthood, were the channels of divine grace, and became effective as opus operatum, by their own inherent efficiency, irrespective of the faith or spiritual fitness of the recipient. By baptism men were regenerated, by confirmation they were admitted to the full privileges and duties of Christians, by penance they were freed from the penalties of sin, in the eucharist they were nourished by the very body and blood of the Christ who died for them, through extreme unction they were prepared for the inevitable end that awaits all. 1 Over this Church, entrusted with these holy mysteries, Christ had himself set Peter and his successors, and had given to them the keys of heaven 1 These sacraments were obligatory on every Christian, while matrimony and orders, though equally sacred and as truly channels of divine grace, were optional. INTRODUCTION xliii and hell, making them his vicegerents, to whom all men owe obedience as to Christ himself, in all things spiritual. And to this Church so organ- ized he had given infallibility, since he had promised by his Spirit to lead his followers into all the truth. Whatever the whole Church taught, therefore, through its ecumenical councils, was the voice of God himself, and must be fully believed and obeyed. To doubt what the Church approved was impiety, to resist its authority was to fight against God. That the Pope, as head of the Church, was also an infallible teacher, though this was widely believed and by some strenuously maintained, was as yet only reckoned to be a "pious opinion," and by some of the great doctors of the Church, notably by Thomas Aquinas, it had been questioned. To be cut off from this Church was therefore the greatest misfortune that could befall a man, for excommunication deprived him of all access to grace and left him an orphan in the world. To cut himself off from this Church, that is, to be guilty of schism, was the greatest crime that a Christian could commit. The greatest but one, it should rather be said, for the sin of sins was to deny the teaching of the Church, to become a heretic. And deliberately to teach false doctrine to others was to be as much worse than a murderer, as to kill the soul is worse than to kill the body. Schism, therefore, was punished by excommunication and the loss of civil rights, but heresy was extirpated by fire and sword, without mercy and without respite. Not even with the grave did the Church lose its hold on men, rather it tightened its grip on men through their belief in a future life. For, by its doctrine of purgatory, of the intercession of saints, of the possibility of the release of souls from torture through the intercession of the Church, so that those so favored could pass from this place of suffering at once to Paradise, the Church riveted the last and most effective link in the chain to bind men's souls into complete and abject submission. Bold indeed must be the spirit, lost to all fear of consequences in time and eternity, that could resist an authority so awful, grounded in such teaching, defended by such terrors. Not content with these spiritual resources, however, the Church had fortified her power with every worldly advantage. She was not only omnipotent but omnipresent. The hand of the Church was on every enter- prise, to guide and control it. The man of the sixteenth century could not gaze anywhere, could not turn himself around, without meeting evidences of the power of the Church. Wherever his eye fell, in town or city, her towering spires and vast piles of stone spoke eloquently of her power. Great monasteries were found in every important city, and the monks r, warmed everywhere like bees. Churchmen, or men trained by the xliv INTRODUCTION Church ; filled the courts of law and all offices of administration. A man could not make his will, buy or sell a piece of land, or make a legal con- tract, but that the necessary documents must be drawn up by an eccle- siastic, or at any rate be witnessed by a notary appointed by the Church. The universities were largely officered by Churchmen, and with few exceptions their teaching was controlled by the Church. The press was striving to break away from Church control, but as yet with imperfect success, for no book could be lawfully printed without ecclesiastical sanction. The enforcement of this law was indeed evaded, and was becoming increasingly difficult. In fact, there lay one of the chief possi- bilities of reformation. And the Church was powerful through her vast wealth. The German Church was reckoned the richest in Christendom. One third of the landed property was estimated to be in her possession, and her in- come from all sources was enormous. The great archbishoprics exceeded in revenues the incomes of the richest secular princes, and excited at once their envy and their greed. Probably these Sees would have been de- spoiled on some pretext, long before the sixteenth century, had they not been made the appanages of the princely families without spoliation. But while this policy had secured for the Church thus far the safe pos- session of its great wealth, and had promoted the ambition of a few families, it had alienated the people. One of the sources of the Roman Church's power has always been its union of a certain democratic spirit with its aristocratic form; there has been possibility of promotion of the poorest, according to the measure of his abilities. The present Pope is the son of an Italian peasant, and while many of his predecessors have come from noble families, all through the centuries there have been Pontiffs who boasted no higher lineage than Pius X. Nowhere but in Germany was it impossible for one not of noble birth to rise to high position among the secular clergy only in the monasteries could the poor look for recognition and promotion, and they were not certain of advance- ment even there, for the richest foundations became also the prey of the notulity. power of the Church through its wealth and noble connections had been greatly lessened by the frightful corruption that had come to prevail in its administration. One of the commonest evils was that of pluralities. Thus the archbishop of Mainz was at the same time archbishop of Magde- burg and bishop of Halberstadt, the archbishop of Bremen was also bishop of Verdun, and so on. It is plain to one who reads the history of medieval Germany with understanding eyes, that the real gainer in the long contest between Pope and Emperor, of which Canossa was the most dramatic episode and the Concordat of Worms the nominal conclusion, INTRODUCTION xlv was neither Emperor nor Pope, but the German nobility. They insin- uated themselves into the great ecclesiastical fiefs, and even all the canonries and valuable benefices, leaving to the poor only the lower ranks of the clergy and the poorer livings. These noble ecclesiastics had a double interest in resisting imperial authority and promoting the disinte- gration of the Empire. The effect of such usurpation by the nobility was to concentrate great revenues and great power in the hands of a small class, while the lower clergy, with stipends merely nominal, were left in an incredible state of poverty, ignorance and immorality, with little effective supervision or control. Besides this,*" the nobles had their younger sons appointed to the richest benefices while they were yet mere boys, and their example was followed by all who had any influence, until a large part of the desirable posts in the Church were nominally held by those incapable of performing their duties. These enjoyed the revenues, and from them doled out a mere pittance to inferior clergy, who were glad to do the work rather than starve. This was the case throughout Europe. John Calvin, one of the chief heroes of the Reformation, held two French benefices which his thrifty father had managed to secure for him, for which he never gave the slightest equivalent to the Church in service; and it was by their aid that he pursued his studies at the universities of Paris and Orleans. And this ornament of the Protestant faith did not resign his benefices until two years after he had rejected the doctrines of the Catholic Church and had been doing his best to propagate the evan- gelical or Protestant doctrine, one year before the publication of his " Institutes. " The ethical standards of the time may be measured by this: none of his contemporaries, Catholic or Protestant, mentions these facts to his discredit or reproaches him with any dishonor. That this possession of great sums of money, for which they made little or no pre- tense of rendering service, was a constant temptation to ecclesiastics to indulge in the luxury, drunkenness and licentiousness with which they were universally charged, is obvious. That there should have been an occasional pious prelate, in spite of such conditions is, indeed, little short of a miracle. The most eloquent pen of a modern writer could not draw such a picture of the general depravity of the Church administration as is drawn by the dry catalogue of abuses contained in the Centum Gravamina. And that document is not the rhetorical exaggeration of a Protestant polemic, but the sober and well-considered complaints of men still loyal to the Roman Church, and intending to remain loyal, who are but demanding redress of grievances that had come to be intolerable. Let everyone who would form a mental picture of what the Church was, in the sixteenth century, in the actual conduct of its affairs, from sources of unquestion- xlvi INTRODUCTION able authenticity, read that document and permit it to make its own impression. How this general attitude of the German Church affected men of the sixteenth century, we may easily infer from a tale of Boccaccio's regarding the Italian Church of the fourteenth century. It is the second novel of the first day of the "Decameron, " and it relates that a Jew who had been earnestly pressed by a Christian friend to accept the religion of Christ, insisted on making a journey to Rome to study that religion at its fountain head and hi its purity. On his return, the Christian, who knew some- thing about Rome, and feared that the last chance of the Jew's conversion had been lost, asked the latter what he thought of the Holy Father, the cardinals and the rest of the court. The Jew replied: To me it seems as if God were much kinder to them than they deserve; for if I may be allowed to judge, I must be bold to tell you that I have seen neither sanctity, devotion nor anything good in the clergy of Rome; but on the contrary, luxury, avarice, gluttony, and worse than these, if worse things can be, are so much in fashion with all sorts of people, that I should rather esteem the court of Rome to be a forge, if you will allow the expression, for diabolical operations than things divine; and for what I can perceive, your pastor, and consequently the rest, strive with their whole might and skill to overthrow the Christian religion, and to drive it off the face of the earth, even where they ought to be its chief succor and support. But as I do not see this come to pass, which they earnestly aim at on the contrary, that your religion gains strength, and becomes every day more glorious I plainly perceive the Spirit of God to be the pro- tector of it, as the most true and holy of all others. For which reason, though I continued obstinate to your exhortations, nor would suffer myself to be converted by them, now I declare to you that I will no longer defer being made a Christian. Let us go then to your church, and do you take care that I be baptized according to the manner of your holy faith. It is not too much to say that, at the opening of the sixteenth century, Germany was seething with discontent, and at the verge of an outbreak against the papacy. But it was the Papacy, rather than the Church itself, that was the object of anger and opposition. The Diets at Augs- burg, in 1500, 1510 and 1518, were occupied largely in the making of bitter complaints against papal exactions and the corruption of papal agents. The greater portion of the complaints in the Centum Gravamina were of long standing, and had been urged in public and private for several generations, with a force to which each decade gave new increment. The feeling against Rome was at fever heat when the first protest against the abuse of indulgences was uttered by Luther. Germans of all classes were ripe for revolt, longing for a champion and mouthpiece. The princes were looking about for a plausible casus belli, and were rejoiced when the INTRODUCTION xlvii trouble broke out; and while at first perhaps no one of them had any fixed design of defying the Church, and certainly not one had any serious desire for a real reform, they felt willing to tolerate or encourage any protest, as a means of forcing the Pope's hand and obtaining better terms for themselves. They were accustomed to dicker with the Pope in this way, and anticipated more than the usual profit. As the movement gathered force, the rulers saw a tempting opportunity to enrich themselves by despoiling the Church, to increase their own power at the expense of both Pope and Emperor, and this made a considerable number of them enthusiastic Protestants. Nevertheless, the power of the Church appeared irresistible, hi no danger of being seriously impaired. Could it be reasonably supposed that any human force could overturn a system so intrenched and fortified? The reply to such a question seemed to be made all the more certain by the well-known fact that there had been many revolts against the Papacy before this, and only the Husites of Bohemia had caused any real concern. They successfully defied the combined powers of Pope and Emperor for more than a generation, but they had been finally crushed, and all other attempts at rebellion had been suppressed with ease. There had been many demands within the Church for its reform in head and members, and several councils had assembled that had declared such reformation to be their purpose. But all attempts had come to nothing, and the Papacy emerged from this long contest with a stronger grip on the Church than ever and also more corrupt than ever. It seemed to the Constance fathers that no greater monster of iniquity than John XXIII could ever be seated in the papal chair, but they had not known Alexander VI. If these medieval attempts at reform are closely scanned, it becomes evident that they were half-hearted and foredoomed to failure. They aimed at only the practical or disciplinary betterment of existing evils, without striking at the root out of which the abuses grew, namely, the doctrinal system of the Roman Church. No radical reform, going to the very foundation of the evils bewailed, was really desired or by any be- lieved to be possible. There was no idea within the Church of a complete break with existing doctrine and organization, no serious attempt at a return to the apostolic norm. It was the very Constance fathers who clamored loudest for "reformation" who burned the only real reformers of their time, John Hus and Jerome of Prag. Every man who had hitherto attempted a real reform such men as Arnold of Brescia, Peter of Bruys, Waldo, Wiclif had been driven into the attitude of schismatic or heretic, sometimes both. Peaceful reform within the Church had been demon- strated to be a mere dream. It was evident that reform must be achieved, if at all, by separation from the Church and a life-and-death struggle. xlviii INTRODUCTION This conclusion is emphasized by the failure of the more spiritual movements within the Church to effect anything toward its regeneration. Monachism came nearest to a religious reformation of any organized effort in the Church. From time to time it did produce widespread re- vivals of religion, and led the way in great missionary enterprises; but monachism was founded on a pagan principle, and therefore could never recreate primitive Christianity. The mystics of the Middle Ages were the greatest unorganized reformatory force in the Church, and it did seem at times that their teachings might slowly leaven the whole lump. But the mystics had been noncombatants; they had been too content with mere toleration in the Church, and had not attempted any general reform, perhaps they were hopeless of accomplishing so grand a program. Though men like Tauler and Thomas a Kempis succeeded in stimulating the spiritual lives of thousands, and so religion pure and undefiled never became quite extinct in the Roman Church, the powers that controlled the doctrinal and institutional development of the Church were quite unaffected. A few individuals taught a pure Gospel, and here and there a single voice was raised against the abuse of indulgences, but the name of "Reformers before the Reformation" that has been given to these men describes their character, rather than measures their achievement. They reformed nothing. They hardly attempted reform. And their influence was so circumscribed that, though John of Wesel had once taught in Luther's own university of Erfurt, only a generation before his day, Luther had never heard of his predecessor or his teaching when he began his own protest against Rome. It was only after his work had progressed some years that writings of these mystics came into his hands, and he was then astonished to find how they had anticipated him. In this survey of Germany at the opening of the sixteenth century, it has become evident that many things were conspiring to produce a revolt against the Roman Church. Such a revolt would be the more formidable from the fact that the Papacy was then chiefly dependent on Germany for its revenues, since the other European nations had succeeded measur- ably in freeing themselves from papal exploitation. The princes and mer- chants, for different reasons, were very restless under this spoliation of a people of whom they would fain have been the despoilers. This was the real cause of the revolt from the Papacy that we call the Reformation an economic and political struggle at bottom, to which the religious aspect given by the initial quarrel about indulgences was merely inci- dental. The revolt would have occurred had Martin Luther never lived. For we have outgrown Carlyle's specious one-man theory of history, and no longer believe that the story of human progress is nothing more than INTRODUCTION xlix the biography of a few great men. The old notion that Luther made the Reformation is probably not held to-day by any person of average intel- ligence. At most he only led and directed a movement that was inevitable. Germany was a powder mine, ready to be exploded by a spark, and a spark was morally certain to come soon from some quarter. 1 As it fell out, Luther's theses were the spark, and nobody in all Europe, except perhaps the Pope, was more surprised than Luther himself by the violence of the resulting explosion. While, therefore, the conditions in Germany were such that some great struggle in the Church was impending, some momentous change certain to come, the character of the change and the means by which it should be brought about were not even conjectured. Every great movement is the joint product of a great opportunity and a great man, a powerful, molding personality concurring with a silent, resistless tendency. Of no movement in history is this more true than of the Reformation, and in none are the two factors more distinctly traceable. But while we can see these things clearly, from the men of the sixteenth century they were hidden. Never had the Roman Church seemed to be more solid, less in danger of formidable attack from within or from with- out. There had just been a last struggle for "reform, " and an ecumenical council, the fifth Lateran, had been summoned to give effect to this demand for the purification of the Church. As usual, the cry for reform had become fainter with every month of the council's sitting, and the body was dissolved with nothing accomplished. It was on May 16, 1517, that the council adjourned, leaving Leo X absolute monarch of the Church, with no party anywhere capable of making head against him. He had seemingly no future opposition to fear. And it was in Novem- ber of that very year that the storm broke. 1 "This falling down and perishing of abuses was already in full sweep in many parts before Luther's doctrine came; for all the world was so tired of the abuses of the clergy and so hostile to them, that it was to be feared that there would be a lamentable perdition in the German land if Luther's doctrine did not come into it, so that the people might be instructed in the faith of Christ and obedience to the authorities. For they would not endure the abuses any longer, and would have a change right off, if the clergy would not yield or stop, so that there should be no resistance. It would have been a disorderly, stormy, and perilous mutation or change (as Miinzer began it) if a steadfast doctrine had not come in between, and without doubt all religion would have fallen to pieces, and Christians become pure Epicureans." Luther to Elector John at Speyer, in 1529. De Wette. 3:439. THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY PART I FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE REFORMATION TO THE EDICT OF WORMS 1517-1521 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY CHAPTER I THE MAKING OF MARTIN LUTHER IN the initial stage of the German Reformation, Luther was the chief actor, and up to the Diet of Worms, in 1521, we have little more to do than to trace the development of his intellectual and spiritual life. He was born at Eisleben, November 10, 1483, according to his mother's rather uncertain recollection. The next day was St. Martin's day, and in honor of that saint he was named Martin at his baptism in the Petrus- kirche, where the font used is still shown. His father was named John and his mother Margaret. An attempt has been made to give them a noble origin, but Luther said to Melanchthon in after years: "I am a peasant's son. My father, my grandfather, all my ancestors, were thorough peasants. My father was a poor miner." 1 Miner he may have been and poor, but John Luther was a man of strong character, and had an honest ambition for his own and his children's advancement. To this end he and his wife cheerfully worked together, toiling and saving as best they could, and as the years went on they prospered. They were decidedly, almost sternly, pious; the home discipline was very severe; and, what is rather unusual, the mother was more ready with the rod than the father. When Martin was only six months old his parents moved to Mansfeld, and here at a very early age he was sent to school. He had no very pleasant recollections of this school, where he learned little and sometimes received as many as fifteen floggings in a single day. In 1497 he was sent to Magdeburg, where he spent only one year, and then to Eisenach. Here he remained four years in the Latin school of the parish of St. George. Schools like this were numerous in Germany there were then no fewer than four in Eisenach and they are convincing witness to the already to Melanchthon, de Wette, 4:33. Luther always spoke of both his Earents with respect and affection, but especially of his father. On the day that e heard of the latter's death he declared to Melanchthon that everything that he was or had he had received from his Creator through his beloved father. 4 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY developing intellectual life of that country. Here Luther laid the foun- dation of his subsequent learning. The teacher was a Carmelite friar named John Trebonius, of whom it is related that he always took off his cap on entering the school, in honor of boys out of whom, as he said, "God might make rulers, chancellors, doctors, magistrates." Out of one of these boys God did indeed make the greatest man of his generation. It was the custom at Eisenach, as it had been at Magdeburg, for the scholars to sing hi the streets and receive alms from the citizens. As a boy Luther had a sweet alto voice, which later became a tenor, and on one of his rounds he attracted the attention of Frau Cotta, the wife of a well-to-do citizen, who invited him into her house and fed him, and after- wards treated him as an inmate of her family. The Cottahaus is still preserved at Eisenach, the first story being now a Bierstube ("To what base uses may we return, Horatio!"), while the upper rooms are a Luther museum. The little cell in which Luther slept makes one pity the school- boys who had worse quarters. This life at Eisenach the reformer always spoke of with gratitude and pleasure, and he often called that city his "beloved town." From Eisenach Luther went to Erfurt, a larger city, even then boasting some sixty thousand inhabitants, the seat of one of the finest cathedrals in Germany, and, what is more significant, of a celebrated university, established by a bull of Clement VII hi 1379, the fifth institution of its rank to be founded in Germany. 1 It was John Luther's ambition to fit his son for the practice of law, one of the most lucrative callings of the age, and to see him the trusted adviser of the Counts of Mansfeld. As the miner increased in wealth, and rose in the esteem of his fellow towns- men until he became burgomaster of Mansfeld, his desires for the advance- ment of his son were quickened. He then saw, as many a poor man has seen since, that for a youth of strong natural' abilities the shortest way to influence and power is through halls of learning. In the lecture room, in the sharp contact of mind with mind, the accidental distinctions of wealth and birth count for little, and the young men are esteemed or despised according to their scholastic attainments. The German peasant might not hope easily to pass the line that separated him from the feudal nobility, but the way was open to him into the ranks of the aristocracy of letters. Distinction in learning was therefore hardly less coveted than distinction in arms. 1 The university of Erfurt was closed in 1816. Luther was matriculated as "Martinus Ludher ex Mansfelt," and when he took his baccalaureate degree the name is spelled Luder. In Wittenberg he was matriculated as Liider. The spelling Luther does not appear to have been definitely adopted until 1517, though in the earliest of his letters extant, under date of April 23, 1507, he signs himself "Frater Martinus Luther." After he learned Greek he sometimes signed himself "Martinus Eleutherios," but this was merely a pun. THE MAKING OF MARTIN LUTHER 5 At Erfurt the students were divided into two groups, one calling them- selves "poets, " the other "philosophers. " The former were the Human- ists, and busied themselves with the study of the Latin classics Greek was not yet a part of the regular university course, and just before Luther entered Erfurt the only teacher of Greek that the institution boasted had left. The "philosophers" preferred logic and the scholastic philosophy. Luther was not one of the "poets," that select and distinguished body who prided themselves on the Ciceronian purity of their Latin and made a serious business of writing elegant trifles. But he was not deficient in Latin; he was an appreciative reader of Vergil and Ovid and Cicero; we hardly know how much it signifies that he took with him into the mon- astery, as his only books, -his Plautus and Vergil. He apparently made no deep impression on the university, and probably but for his later distinction few or none of his fellow students would have recalled that while among them he had been a musician and a learned "philosopher/' In the numerous letters left to posterity by the aspiring Erfurt Humanists, his name is never mentioned. Melanchthon's statement that Luther's talents were the wonder of the university is hardly borne out by the official record that when he took his baccalaureate degree, at Michelmas, in 1502, he ranked only thirtieth in a list of fifty-seven candidates. That is respectable, to be sure, but one requires the vivid imagination of a eulogist to see anything of startling brilliancy in it. He did better on taking his Master's degree, at Epiphany, 1505, when he ranked second among seventeen candidates. During these years, Martin had shown no special predilection for a life of piety. It does not appear that he was in any marked degree wild or irreligious; he was probably just about the average youth. It was only toward the close of his university studies that the religious side of his nature began to assert itself. In his wanderings through the library, he found one day a Latin Bible. He had never before seen an entire Bible, and it strongly excited his interest and curiosity. He was surprised to find how big a book it was, and eagerly turned its pages and read the story of Samuel. This story is told by all the biographers of Luther, on the authority of Mathesius, one of the earliest, who for some time lived in the reformer's family and obtained many such biographical details from his teacher's own lips. The most recent writers are inclined to discredit the story as inherently incredible. They point out the facts regarding the circulation of the Bible, both Latin and vernacular, and tell us that Luther must have taken great pains to keep himself in a state of ignorance, if he knew no more about the Bible than this anecdote implies. It is not necessary to discredit the incident, however, even if it be 6 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY possible to do so; and that is difficult, in view of the fact that essentially the same thing is recorded in the Table Talk as spoken by Luther himself. 1 The real difficulty is not so much with the incident as with the inferences that have been drawn from it. Protestant writers have often seized on the occurrence as proof of the darkness of the times, of the indifference of the Roman Church to the instruction of the people in the Scriptures, and have by comparison exalted the work of the reformers in their trans- lation and circulation of the Scriptures. What the incident actually proves is merely Luther's own personal ignorance. If he did not know that the passages which he had heard read in church did not constitute the whole Bible, there were nevertheless in Germany many who did know this. His case is not singular, though possibly exceptional. A French writer, Robert Etienne, speaking of the state of things in France in the early part of the sixteenth century, represents members of the Sorbonne, the great theological school of Paris, as not knowing the relative place of the New Testament, whether it came after or before the Old. He quotes a member of the school as saying, "I was more than fifty years old before I knew anything about the New Testament." There is nothing to show that Luther's feelings of wonder and pleasure in becoming acquainted with the Bible made any lasting impression on him. His father's wish that he should become a lawyer had apparently been his own, but we may reasonably conjecture that as the time came when by entering on the preparation for his profession he should fix his occupation for life, he was first induced to consider seriously what he had all along accepted as matter of course. The most accurate information that we have about his decision to become a monk is given in a letter written to his father, in 1521, on the renunciation of his vows. He says: "It is almost sixteen years since I took the monastic vows, without your knowledge or consent. . . . I well remember telling you that I was called through a terrible apparition from heaven, so that, when face to face with death, I made the vow; and you exclaimed/ God grant it was not an appa- rition of the Evil One that startled you. '" 2 This is more satisfactory than the stories that have gathered about this turning-point in his life, most of which have their legendary character stamped plainly upon them, especially the tale of the youthful companion stricken down at his side by a bolt of lightning, and his vowing in his terror, "Help, beloved St. Anna, I will become a monk! " What is certain is, that on July 17, 1505, Luther 1 Da ich zwanzig jahre alt war, hatte ich noch keine Bibel gesehen; ich meinte, es waren keine Evangelien und Epistolen mehr, denn die in den Postellen sind. Tischreden, No. 1743; Mathesius, first sermon, p. 3. 2 Currie, p. 87. Letter dated November 21, 1521, and sent to John Luther with a copy of the reformer's treatise (De Votis Monasticis, Wittenberg, 1521). De Wette, 2:100; 6:25. THE MAKING OF MARTIN LUTHER 7 presented himself at the door of the Augustinian convent in Erfurt and asked admission as a novice. 1 Not only did John Luther question the genuineness of this call, but he had a right to feel aggrieved. 2 He had a strong sense of parental authority, and of the obligation of the fifth commandment. He saw the cherished plans of years shattered in a moment, the sacrifices and toils of both parents made valueless by the wilfulness of him for whom they had been cheerfully given. He felt that whoever else might despise and flout him, his son owed him affection, confidence and obedience. And in later years at. least, perhaps even at this fime, Luther felt that his father was right, that he himself had sinned. The fact that he went to the convent so secretly and suddenly argues an uneasy conscience; but the Church taught that in such case God must be obeyed rather than father and mother. Many and subtle are the causes that go to the molding of a human life; it is more than probable that this secret sense of having done an unworthy act, as well as the remembrance of his father's grief and indignation, made the monk's frock sit uneasily on Luther from the first. Nevertheless he supposed his decision to be irrevocable: "I never thought to come out of the convent; I was clean dead to the world, until God deemed that the time had come, and Tetzel with his indulgences drove me." Once in the monastery, Luther entered heartily into its duties. We are always prone to exaggerate everything connected with the early life of a great man; especially if he has sprung from obscurity do we magnify his humble origin and the hardships of his youth, in contrast with the splendor of his manhood. Luther's biographers have not resisted the temptation to make him everywhere and always the hero; and we are often at no little loss to know what to regard as sober fact and what to credit to an amplifying imagination. It is not rash to believe that the Augustinians were pleased to receive the young Master of Arts into their brotherhood. This would have been natural, and agrees well with what we know of the anxiety of the different orders to obtain accessions to their ranks of promising scholars. But we cannot so readily accept the account that represents these monks as manifesting the coarsest jealousy and ill- will toward the young novice; and as taking delight in humiliating him by imposing on him the most disagreeable and menial tasks. In after years Luther made no mention of the unkindness of his brother monks. He was 1 The Augustinians were a comparatively new order, having been established by a constitution of Benedict XII, May 15, 1339. Mag. Bull. I: 237 seq. 2 John Luther took a characteristic way of manifesting his displeasure with his son's conduct. He at first renounced him altogether, but friends intervened and he was half reconciled to Martin, but from that time resumed the familiar du in his speech and writing, instead of the more respectful sie which he had used since his son took his Master's degree. 8 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY probably treated just as other novices were treated naturally, the rules of the monastery were not relaxed in his favor. If we are to trust Luther's own recollections of that time, he would have had his duties made more burdensome rather than lighter. He already shows in the monastery a trait that was characteristic of him through life : he lived in the passing day, performing the tasks, bearing the burdens, using the opportunities that each hour brought or suggested. There was a time when Roman Catholic writers took the ground that Luther was unfaithful to his vows in the monastery that he was never a sincere and faithful monk. This ground they have abandoned, and the later writers admit that his monastic life was most exemplary. Janssen, the most learned and candid of Roman historians, maintains with con- siderable plausibility that Luther never had a genuine "vocation" to the monastic life, but entered on it because of an impetuous resolve and continued in the same self-willed spirit. Hence he fell a victim to an exaggerated scrupulosity of conscience and subjected himself to auster- ities not warranted by the rules of his order. Indeed, Luther tells us this himself: "I imposed on myself additional penances; I devised a special plan of discipline for myself. The seniors in my Rule objected to this irregularity, and they were right. I Was a criminal self-torturer and self- destroyer, for I imposed on myself fastings, prayers and vigils beyond my powers of endurance; I wore myself out with mortifications, which is nothing less than self-murder. " The severity of his parents toward him in his youth had bred in him a great fear of God, but no love, and so he was forever trying to appease an angry Judge by his own righteousness. "I was a most outrageous believer in self -justification, a right presump- tuous seeker of salvation through works, not trusting in God's righteous- ness, but in my own. " And so he came actually to hate God, to loathe the very sight of Christ on the cross, and his despair brought him to the verge of suicide. 1 From this long period of religious anxiety and spiritual unrest Luther came out at last with strong and definite convictions as to the way of salvation for himself and others. His experience was not essentially different from that which many earnest-minded men have passed through, both before and since his time. Many have had the same consciousness of sin, the same conceptions of the holiness of God, and like him have sought in vain to quiet the heart by fasting and prayer, by mortification of the 1 Luther's references to his monastic life in his later writings are numerous and all in the same key. See LDS, 46: 64, 73; 48: 306,317; 49: 300, 314; Com. on Gal. 1: 107. Perhaps the most characteristic utterance is this: Wahr ists, ein frommer Munch bin ich gewest, und so gestrenge meinen Orden gehalten, das ich sagen dar: ist je ein Munch gen Himmel kommen durch Muncherei, so wollt ich auch hinein kommen sein. 31: 273. THE MAKING OF MARTIN LUTHER 9 flesh and humiliation of the spirit. It is not so much with his spiritual troubles, great as they were, as with the manner in which he was relieved of them, that the world is concerned. This was largely by the help of judicious friends. Even in the monastery at Erfurt he was not the only man who had painfully groped in the darkness and after long search had found light. In his novitiate he had been placed under the care of an old monk, who was to be his mentor and guide. It was this monk who first reminded him that sin is fully remitted to those who believe in Christ. He called Luther's attention to the Apostles' Creed, and especially to the clause, "I believe in the forgiveness ^of sins." This, he said, was not merely a remission of sins generally, but of our own sins as well. It was the forgiveness of sins, as opposed to the painful expiation of them; for- giveness, not on account of our own works of satisfaction, but for the sake of Christ's atonement and intercession. This teaching of the monk was fortified by that of John von Staupitz, the vicar-general of the Augustinians for Germany. This man is the first whose name is associated with Luther's religious history. He was a man of gentleness, simplicity and religious earnestness; learned himself and a lover of learning; but that which gave him his peculiar qualification to minister to distressed souls was the fact that he had learned by his own experience, "that Jesus Christ is the Saviour even of those who are great, real sinners, and deserving of utter condemnation. " He gave his young friend a Bible. Luther had evidently found the right school; his friends were such as he needed; the phrase "The just shall live by faith" became fixed in his mind, afterwards to be better understood; he became a student of the Bible, of Augustine, and of some of the later and more evangelical schoolmen; and gradually he worked his way into the light. Luther was ordained priest on May 2, 1507. His father was prevailed upon to be present at the ceremony, which was probably held at the high altar of the cathedral. A banquet followed in the evening, after the custom of the time, and Luther tried to draw from his father some expression of approval of his course. "Father," said the young monk, "what was the reason of your objecting to my desire to become a monk? Why were you so displeased then, and it may be not reconciled yet? It is such a peaceful and godly life to live." The sturdy old man replied, "Didst thou never hear that a son must be obedient to his parents?" And then, turning to the company he continued, "And you, learned men, did you never read in the Scriptures, Thou shalt honor thy father and mother'?" "In spite of this, the most powerful word I ever heard out of a human mouth," wrote the reformer in later years, "I persevered in my own righteousness, and despised you as being only a man. . . . Had I known, I would have 10 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY suffered a thousand deaths rather than acted as I did. For my vow was not worth such deception." 1 Ordination to the priesthood was but the first step in a rapid promotion of Luther. The next year he was appointed to a professorship in the new university of Wittenberg, an institution founded in 1502 by Elector Frederick III of Saxony, surnamed by his friends the Wise, by his enemies the Fox. This new foundation was largely a matter of family pride. Ducal Saxony, at the division of territory between two sons (Albert and Ernest) of a former Saxon Duke, had Leipzig, and Electoral Saxony, too, must have its university. But though Frederick was on learning bent, he had a frugal mind; the new institution must cost the least sum possible. So he chose for its home Wittenberg, a little town of three thousand people, "on the confines of civilization," as Luther described it, mean in appearance and insignificant among German cities. It was not a very promising site for a university, in most respects, but an Augustinian cloister was situate there, part of which could be used for lecture rooms, while the brothers of the order could furnish most of the faculty, notably the faculty of theology, of which Staupitz was persuaded to become the head. It was an arrangement that did honor to the Elector's thrift. In this Augustinian convent Luther now found a home for the rest of his life, with occasional brief interruptions only. While it continued to be a con- vent, he continued to live in it as a monk; afterwards he and his family occupied it, by favor of the Elector, who finally gave it to him. The young professor, not having as yet taken his degree in theology, began his work with the nominal title of professor of philosophy; he lec- tured on the Dialectics and Physics of Aristotle, as had been done in every university in Europe for four hundred years. But it is to be borne in mind that most of the universities had been founded mainly with the view of promoting theological learning, and that a knowledge of Aristotle formed the indispensable basis of all theological training. It was not, however, philosophy but theology that really interested Luther and that he actually taught, whatever the name of his chair. His work at Witten- berg suffered only one interruption before the beginning of his work as reformer: about a year after his appointment to the faculty, he was trans- ferred for a short time to Erfurt, and then was sent to Rome on busi- ness in behalf of his order, pending in the papal court. 2 This must be 1 Letter already cited ; Currie, p. 87, etc. 2 The exact time, as well as the length of this journey, is unknown to us. We only know that it occurred between September 10, 1510, when Luther was in Erfurt, and May 8, 1512, when he was again in Wittenberg. In a tract written in 1545, Luther speaks of being in Milan in 1510, but after so long an interval he might easily make a mistake of a year in his date. He was surprised to find the Ambrosian rite practised at Milan, so that he could not celebrate. LDS 32: 424. Cf. Theodor Elze, Luther's Reiae nach Rom, Berlin, 1899; Hausrath, Martin Luther's Romfahrt, Berlin, 1894. THE MAKING OF MARTIN LUTHER 11 regarded as by all means the most significant and influential of all that befel Luther during this period of preparation. When we remember that the whole active life of this man was lived within a little bit of Germany, not larger in area than the state of Rhode Island, and that on only one other occasion in his entire life did he emerge from this seclusion into the great world and get a glimpse of men and things more than merely local and provincial, we shall be able to estimate this journey in its true, epoch- making meaning, as regards his mental and spiritual development. The journey was made hi the company of another monk, and on foot. From scattered references to his experiences in his Table Talk and later writings, we are able to reconstruct his itinerary, at least so far as to map out the general route and name the chief stopping places. He went by way of Austria, as the custom was being entertained at the monasteries, which were to be found every few miles in any direction all over Europe at those of his own order by preference, at a Franciscan or Dominican convent in the absence of his own. He is most reminiscent of Italy, and we learn accordingly that he passed by way of Padua, Bologna, Florence and Siena to Rome; and after transacting his business in that city, he returned by way of Milan and Switzerland. Years afterwards he talked with his friends of the works of the Italian painters that he saw at Flor- ence, and though he was no student of art, then or afterwards, he appears to have appreciated the significance of what he saw quite as well as the average traveler in Italy to-day. Some of the cathedrals roused in him emotions of wonder and awe, especially the great marble pile of Milan. There is no doubt that the value of this tour to Luther, as part of the culture of mind and taste, was beyond computation, more to him than a whole year at the best university of his time for the broadening of his mind, his sympathies, his knowledge even. But it was the spiritual result of this experience that was of greatest value. To it we may directly trace his ultimate emancipation from the trammels of medieval superstition, and his progress into a clearer appre- hension of the gospel teaching. At first he was full of what he supposed to be pure religious emotion. When he approached the city and obtained his first view of it, he fell on his knees and exclaimed, "Hail, holy Rome!" In the city he went from shrine to shrine, and visited all the holy places. " I too was at Rome like a dead saint, running through all the churches and crypts, believing all the lies that were told, with all their stench." He said masses in the churches at every opportunity, and lamented that his father and mother were not already dead, that he might avail himself of the indulgences everywhere offered to get them out of purgatory. A special indulgence was promised then as now to all who should ascend on their knees the Santa Scala, which tradition says was the marble staircase 12 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY in Pilate's palace, which our Lord ascended when brought before the Roman procurator. Luther duly attempted the task, but halfway up there flashed through his mind the words, "The just shall live by faith," and for the first tune he fully apprehended their meaning. He rose to his feet and walked back down the stairs and out, for the first time in his life knowing what it was to be a free man, in the Pauline sense of the word. 1 Still, we must not imagine that Luther was fully conscious of what was taking place in him. He was disturbed by what he saw and heard in Rome, but his faith in the Church and its system was not at that time seriously affected. He was receiving impressions that were to have great weight with him later, as he himself testifies: "I would not have missed seeing Rome for a hundred thousand gulden; for I might have felt some apprehension that I had done injustice to the Pope . . . but as we see, so we speak. " 2 The unbelief, levity and immorality of the priests whom he met shocked him; and all that he saw and heard convinced him that the common saying was true, "If there was a hell, Rome was built on it." Julius II, the Pope of this day, was absent from the city and Luther prob- ably did not see him, but he saw more than enough of cardinals and prel- ates who led scandalous lives. The highest dignitaries jested about the holiest things; he saw priests performing the mass in indecent haste, and perverting the very words of consecration; he saw the greed, the luxury, the venality, the ill-concealed infidelity of high and low in the Church. But yet he saw as one who does not see; 3 only later did the full significance of it come home to him. Returning to Wittenberg, Luther took the degree of Doctor of Theology and entered upon the real work of his life. He shrank from the respon- sibility of lecturing on the Scriptures, and of preaching, for with all his later self-sufficiency, he appears in his youth to have suffered from extreme diffidence of his own powers and qualifications. In after years he showed his friends a pear tree in the garden where he debated the matter with Staupitz, who wished him to take the chair that the general had hitherto held in the university and become the head of the theological faculty. Luther objected that he was too young to be a Doctor; the reply was that God needed young and vigorous Doctors. But he was sickly and the 1 This incident is first related by G. Mylius, in an exposition of Romans, pub- lished at Jena in 1595; but he says that he had it from an autograph MS. of the re- former's son, Dr. Paul Luther, who had heard his father relate the story in the year 1544. Kdstlin, 1: 98, 749. 2 Tischreden, No. 2964. This he repeated with much emphasis on several occasions. The entire account of his Italian experience is most interesting. Of the many references to them in later years, the following are the most significant: LDS, 31: 327; 40: 284. 3 Not only did Luther's visit to Rome have little immediate effect on him, but he seems to have been especially insensible to the spirit of freedom and the love of beauty in its intellectual life. He could only feel the moral poverty of the ity. See Hausrath, Martin Luther's Romfahrt, p. 33. THE MAKING OF MARTIN LUTHER 13 burden would kill him in a year. "Very well then, in God's name/' answered Staupitz, "the Lord has large affairs in hand and he needs wise men up yonder. " He was too poor, and could not pay the expenses of the new degree; the Elector had offered to pay for him. 1 Only the Holy Ghost could make a Doctor of Divinity; he need not trouble himself about that it was his duty to obey his superior, and his superior com- manded him to be a Doctor. After that there was nothing more to be said; it became to him a call from God. But this entrance on a new career brought him into perplexities and anxieties of all kinds. He afterwards said, "Had I known what I now know, not ten horses could have dragged me to it." The new degree freed Luther from all restrictions, and gave him the right to teach theology openly. Besides adding weight to his words with others, it gave him the strength that comes to every man from the con- sciousness that he has the recognized right to teach. The Doctor's oath then required all candidates to defend the truth of the Gospel, and to refrain from teaching doctrines condemned by the Church and offensive to pious ears. This oath was not to him a mere formality; in his pro- foundly serious way, he put his heart into every word of it. It made an ineradicable impression on his mind; it was his warrant and justification when he saw the strife and confusion that his teaching produced it was his oath that constrained him to speak; he could not innocently remain silent. Nearly twenty years after he received his degree he wrote, "But I, Martin Luther, am thereunto called and forced, that I must become a Doctor without my thanks, from pure obedience; then I had to take the Doctor's office, and I swear and vow by my best beloved Scriptures to preach and teach truly and purely. In such teaching the papacy fell in my way and would keep me from it." 2 Even the papacy could not be permitted to stand against his oath. Nearly all teachers who have made their mark upon the world have begun young. Those who have called them to the office of teacher have not waited until they became deeply learned in the science they were expected to teach, wisely content with general qualifications, knowing that the acquisition of special knowledge by a man of earnestness and power is only a matter of time. The young Doctor Martin was not yet, it may be, a great theologian, but he was a great teacher. He began his lectures with the Psalms, and we still possess his manuscript notes of the lectures, of no great exegetical value now, to be sure, but witnessing to his 1 As a monk, Luther had no money of his own, and his order may have had no funds that could be properly used for such a purpose. A receipt is extant in Luther's own handwriting, in which he acknowledges the Elector's generosity in his behalf. De Wette, 1: 11. 2 LDS, 39:256. 14 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY industry in the prosecution of his studies. He now began to study seri- ously the original languages 1 and texts of the Scriptures, no longer content with the Vulgate, though that of necessity continued for some time to be the basis of his actual work. Soon Luther began to lecture on the epistles, especially Romans and Galatians. 2 These writings he so explained that a new light of doctrine seemed, after a long dark night, to rise. He showed the difference between the law and the gospel, between salvation by works and salvation by faith. He recalled the minds of men to Christ, and, like another Baptist, pointed out the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. It is thus that Melanchthon describes him, 3 looking back and recalling his work after his death; and this summary of his work as a theological lec- turer is shown to be accurate by the writings that he produced during the years from 1512 to 1517. This was the busiest, and in some respects the happiest, part of Luther's life. He had no idea of winning distinction outside of his limited Wittenberg sphere. Not ambition, but a sense of daily duty, inspired him and kept him faithful to his numerous tasks. In a letter to his friend Lange, under date of October 26, 1516, he says: "I have almost continuously need of two secretaries; for I do nothing else all day long but write letters. I am preacher to the convent; I read prayers at table; I am pastor and parish minister, director of studies, the prior's vicar, inspector of the fish-ponds of Litzkau, counsel to the inns of Herz- berg at Torgau, lecturer on St. Paul, and commentator on the Psalms. " He says that he had rarely time to repeat the prescribed daily prayers, or to sing a hymn. 4 Luther could not at once free himself from traditional methods of thinking and feeling. Indeed, in many respects he never did escape from the past. All his life, to some extent at least, he followed the example of the allegorical expositors, and often gave fanciful interpretations of Scripture. But from the first his leaning was toward that which was best and most spiritual in the Church. His natural disposition, as well as his personal experience, inclined him toward the mystics. Their notions of the reality of communion with God, their yearning for a complete sub- mission to God's will, their subordination of form to spirit in worship and service all exactly corresponded with his own sense of the fitness of 1 Yet his attainments must have been very slight at this time, for so late as February 18, 1518, he confesses to his friend Lange that he cannot write the Greek characters. De Wette, 1: 34. He had, however, acquired a great knowledge of the content of Scripture and could turn to any text. Tischreden, No. 76. 2 The lectures on Galatians were published by Luther in 1519, but those on Romans remained in MS. and were long lost sight of, but were discovered and pub- lished in 1908, and have contributed much to our knowledge of the reformer's early development. 3 CR 6: 160. 4 Currie, p. 10; De Wette, 2: 41. THE MAKING OF MARTIN LUTHER 15 things. He saw in John Tauler, the great mystic preacher of Strassburg, almost a model theologian. He published (and it was his first publica- tion) the "German Theology/' 1 which he supposed to have been written by Tauler, saying of it: "I have not come across a book, next to the Scriptures and St. Austin, from which I have learned and shall learn more about God, Christ, man and all things." The book was a revelation to him. Working alone, and in comparative seclusion, he had felt that his views were singular; and it was with a kind of pleased surprise that he found they had been taught by predecessors. He sent the little book to his friend Spalatin, as a specimen of "pure, solid, ancient theology/' and he several times quotes it in his sermons of that time. ,. But while in feeling and sentiment he was a mystic, in theology Luther was a follower of Augustine. In 1516, at Wittenberg, he presided at the discussion of certain theses in which Augustine's central doctrines were defended. These theses were, in substance, taken from his own lectures. They teach the helplessness of the human will, and man's absolute dependence on the grace of God: "Man, the grace of God excluded, can by no means keep God's commandment, neither can he prepare himself for grace, either from congruity or condignity; but necessarily remains in sin." "The will of man, without grace, is not free, but is enslaved though not willingly. " The same doctrine he taught in a fragment of one of his lectures, now extant. He was an Augustinian, or, as we now say, a Calvinist. In order to understand the importance of this fact, we must bear in mind that certain theological opinions have a dominating influence. They do not stand alone, but determine the attitude of those who hold them to other associated opinions. Luther's Augustinian theology, there- fore, long before his controversy with the papacy began, separated him from that phase of the doctrine of the Church with which Augustin- ianism was incompatible. And in his day the trend of Catholic doctrine and practice was, as it long had been, away from Augustine. Some men are mystics by nature, and a man might be an Augustinian in one age as well as in another; and there is no reason why, in any age, both types of Christian doctrine might not be united in the same man. St. Bernard, in the twelfth century, furnishes an example of such com- bination; Pascal, in the seventeenth century, furnishes another. It was nothing, therefore, in his environment that made Luther either a mystic or an Augustinian. The same cannot be said of his antagonism to Aristotle and the scholastic theology. It was no mere natural antipathy that made him write letters, as he said, "full of blasphemies and curses against Aristotle and Porphyry and the sententiaries, " or that made him speak 1 A first edition, in December, 1516, was from an imperfect MS., and a more complete edition followed in 1518. 16 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY of Aristotle as "that actor, who, in his Greek mask, has deceived the Church"; or that made him say, "If Aristotle had not been flesh, I would not hesitate to say that he was the devil." 1 No one could write in that way of an ancient philosopher unless he had a personal grievance. Luther had a grievance, and he was not alone in being tired of Aristotle. There was a widespread feeling that the world had had too much of him. This feeling was symptomatic; it was such a feeling as men always have when they are beginning to shake themselves loose from old and long-reigning modes of thought. They will not only abandon them, but abandon them with contempt and indignation. How often has the world, conscious of its woes, hailed some new light as a morning star that was to usher in the longed-for day; watched it with eager eyes, and followed it with patient feet, until, at last, convinced that it is only some wanderer moving in a narrow earth orbit, men have turned away from it in the bitterness of despair. To the Middle Ages Aristotle was such a light. The explanation of Aristotle's great influence on the medieval Church is not far to seek. It is accounted for by the fact that he was and is and always is to be the great expounder of the laws of thought. It has been more than two thousand years since he wrote, and no essential point in this teaching has been impeached and no really fruitful addition to his work has been made. Now it is one of the constantly recurring illusions of men that, if they only had the right method of reasoning and investi- gation, they might ascertain and demonstrate all truth. Aristotle was supposed to have furnished that method. By analysis and synthesis, by induction and deduction, by the magic power of the syllogism, all things were to be revealed. But gradually the medieval world came to accept and apply only one part of the Aristotelian method, deduction. Starting from universally accepted principles, the theologian exercised his ingenu- ity in deducing from those principles whatever might be logically inferred from them, and these inferences were held to be demonstrated truths. Luther had been trained in this method and was thoroughly familiar with its results. From the beginning of his career as a teacher he began to break away from the influence of Aristotle, and came to repudiate the scholastic method and its results with all the energy of his intense nature, and to contend against both with the full vigor of a vocabulary peculiarly rich in terms of opprobrium. Not Aristotle, but Paul, he contended, should be the philosopher of Christians; but he meant: Paul as interpreted by Augustine. In his early monastic life he had put all his confidence in his own good deeds his austerities, his prayers, his devout reception of the sacraments now he came to believe that man has nothing at all to do in the work of salvation; all is of God's grace. Man has been so cor- letter to John Lange, February 8, 1516. De Wette, 1: 15. THE MAKING OF MARTIN LUTHER 17 rupted by sin that he has no freedom of will, and all his actions are the emanations of a corrupt nature, and therefore in God's sight are neither more nor less than sin. We are justified in the sight of God only through faith in Christ, whose atoning work is thus appropriated by us, so that his righteousness becomes ours. Luther could see no possibility of the forgiveness of sins save in this way, but through faith the possibilities of forgiveness became boundless: "We put on the garment of his righteous- ness, which covers our guilt and our condition of perpetual sinfulness, and furthermore makes up in superfluity for all human shortcomings; hence, when we believe, we need be no longer tormented in our con- sciences." 1 Luther's doctrine of justification often came perilously near to antinomianism: "Be a sinner, and sin right boldly, but believe still more boldly and rejoice in Christ, who is the vanquisher of sin. . . . From the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world| sin will not separate men, even though they should commit fornication a thousand times a day and murders as frequently." 2 Though these words admit of an explana- tion that makes them true, they might easily be taken by a careless reader as an encouragement to persevere in a life of outrageous sin, secure in the faith that justifies! And if Luther did not in these early years go to his most indefensible extremes of statement, his teaching was already con- sidered of doubtful orthodoxy and of still more doubtful propriety. In July, 1517, several months before the beginning of the controversy on indulgences, he preached at Dresden, by invitation of Duke George of Saxony, and insisted in his sermon that the mere acceptance of the merits of Christ insured salvation, and that nobody who possessed this faith need doubt his own salvation. The Duke said afterwards at table that "he would give a great deal not to have heard this sermon, which would only make the people presumptuous and mutinous. " In the nine years in which he continued his professorial work at Witten- berg, Luther was constantly gaining in the esteem of his colleagues and of the town, but he cannot be said to have made much of a reputation elsewhere, save possibly at Erfurt. At the same time he was advancing in his order, and was in a fair way to stand one day at its head. In 1515 he was made provincial vicar, and was required to superintend eleven convents. Next year he made a visitation of them, and set them in order with a mixture of kindness and firmness that won for him both respect 1 " God can not see in us any sin, though we are full of sin, . . . but he sees only the dear and precious blood of his beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, wherewith we are sprinkled. For this same blood is the golden garment of grace that we have put on, and clothed with which we appear before God, so that he will not and cannot look upon us differently than though we were his own dear Son him- self, full of justice, holiness and innocence." Walch (Halle) 8: 878. 2 Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo, qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi; peccandum est, guam diu sic sumus, etc. De Wette, 2 : 37. 18 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY and praise. In December, 1516, he issued his first original book, a little treatise on the seven penitential Psalms, of no great significance, save for the fact that it gives emphasis to his growing esteem for the Scriptures, and his increasing tendency to make their study and exposition the great work of his life. We have followed Luther to the point where he stands just at the entrance of his larger public career; his next step will implicate him in a contest in which he will have all Europe as spectators. As we look upon him, he is an earnest-minded, religious man; his learning is varied, but not profound or accurate. Circumstances, however, have led him to give special attention to the questions that will be involved in the coming controversy. They have come to him as a matter of personal experience; he has painfully thought them through and understands them. Besides, he has felt the influence of the new age; he is in revolt against old methods and authorities, and has conceived a passionate love for another author- ity, the Bible. He is prepared to be the leader of a great movement, and thousands unknown to him and to each other are ready to be led. But nothing of this appears on the surface; least of all do men suspect, or does Luther himself suspect, that he is about to burst into world-wide notori- ety. He is diligent in the duties immediately before him, but the sphere of his labors is narrow, and his acquaintances are few. His friends are, for the most part, the young men whom he met at school and the univer- sity, monks, teachers, parish priests and professors. Among them are, however, three men of mark. The first, Staupitz, we already know as Luther's superior in the Augus- tinian order, his instructor and comforter in hours of darkness, the man who had discerned his abilities and brought him forward as a teacher at Wittenberg. Staupitz is one of the most interesting personalities of the period, less known to modern readers than he deserves to be. A man of noble lineage, he entered the Augustinian order an an early age, and became head of the German province in 1503. Before this he had won recognition as a man of light and leading, and by his independent study of the Scriptures had come to the adoption of those theological views that are now identified with the name of Luther, who had small gifts for spec- ulation and derived from this source nearly his whole stock of theological ideas, standing in the same relation intellectually and spiritually to Staupitz that Hus occupies with regard to Wiclif, namely, in the place of pupil and follower. 1 His general recommended to Luther the study of the Scriptures, and later the works of Augustine, and was the main agent in developing 1 Keller, Johann von Staupitz und die Anf tinge der Reformation, Leipzig, 1888, Especially the chapter on Die Entwickclung der lutherischen Theologie und Kirche. 130-167. THE MAKING OF MARTIN LUTHER 19 those ideas of the bondage of the will, of the supreme grace of God in man's salvation, of justification through the merits of Christ appropri- ated by means of the believer's faith, quite apart from all works of the law, which formed the burden of Luther's teaching even before 1517, and continued to the end of his life to be what he understood by the Gospel. Indeed, so much more prominent was Staupitz than Luther in what may be called the evangelical circles of Germany, that many looked to him as most likely to lead in a movement for the purification of the Church. A second friend was George Burckhardt, commonly called Spalatin, a fellow student of Luther's at Erfurt, where, however, they did not become intimate. Spalatin was ordained priest in 1507, the same year as Luther, and in 1512 received an appointment in the household of Frederick the Wise, ultimately becoming the Elector's chaplain and private secretary, enjoying his complete confidence and transacting for him much of his private business. His intimacy with Luther began soon after 1512, when the Elector sent his two nephews to the university at Witten- berg, and Spalatin with them as tutor and mentor. Together the three sat for a time in Luther's lecture-room, and Spalatin became the warm friend of the young professor. Through his relations thus with the reformers at Wittenberg on the one hand, and with the Elector on the other, Spalatin was able to exercise a great influence on the progress of the Reformation, but he seems loyally to have effaced himself, and to have done his best to serve both his friends and his prince, with very marked success. The third friend was Elector Frederick himself, now in the fifty-fifth year of his age and the twenty-first of his reign, a man of common sense, probity and firmness, a prince of large wealth, and for all these reasons the most respected ruler in Germany. He was a Catholic by conviction, and in 1493 he had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, bringing back a collection of no fewer than five thousand "relics," which were duly deposited in the Castle Church at Wittenberg. His temperament was phlegmatic, and he was noted for caution and dislike of change. But he was before all things else a German, with strong national feelings, and he had a natural sense of justice and fair play. Moreover, he cherished his new university as the apple of his eye, though averse to spending overmuch money on it, and he took an honest pride in its growing fame, and in his young, brilliant, outspoken theologian. Such was Luther up to the year 1517, and such was his environment and training. He stands out before us as a devout Catholic, a faithful monk, an earnest teacher and preacher, supposing himself to be in full harmony with Church and Pope, with no slightest notion in his mind that he was a heretic, or in any danger of becoming a heretic, yet already 20 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY cherishing ideas that must inevitably have involved him in ultimate conflict with the Church. 1 The hour for a Reformation was at hand and a leader was ready. Again the fulness of the times was come, and again God sent forth a man. 1 Janssen (2: 80 seg.) very properly argues that before the indulgence question came up, Luther had often avowed doctrines of grace, justification and bondage of the will that were contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church. He quotes profusely from sermons, theses, etc., prior to November, 1517, to show that Luther was already a heretic. There is as little question that such was the fact, as there is of Luther's entire unconsciousness of his real relation to the Church. CHAPTER II THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD LUTHER had become by the year 1517 the representative of a phase of thought that had long existed in the Church. Since the days of Augus- tine, there had been two differing conceptions of the religious life, one making prominent the inward and spiritual, the other the formal and external. Indeed, the two conceptions antedate Augustine; they go back to the days of Christ, and further. They belong to no time; they are not Protestant or Catholic or Jewish; they are human. To-day these con- ceptions separate Protestant from Protestant no less than Protestant from Catholic. Sometimes one has been stronger, sometimes the other. When there has been nothing to bring them into collision they have moved on quietly side by side, giving no intimation that they were two ; but when anything has occurred to quicken or intensify them, the difference be- tween them has been clearly marked. The emphasis of these differing conceptions has always produced sharply defined parties. In the days of Luther circumstances tended greatly to emphasize them, and the conse- quence was the rise of strong, bitter, persistent antagonisms. It is the purpose of this chapter to show how these conceptions came into conflict, what new difficulties were reached during its progress, and some of the effects produced on the course of history. It is a large subject, and if one should fail to treat it adequately, one may hope at least to give some hint as to the manner in which it may be profitably studied. The antagonism began in reference to a matter of chief importance: the way in which sins may be forgiven and the soul saved. This was a question that concerned the Church's central office on earth. For, how- ever far it came short of its duty, the Church regarded itself as the repre- sentative of Christ, and the depositary of grace for the salvation of men. There were many things that the Church might do : it might help the poor, relieve physical suffering, foster learning, and art and science, and all that is included in the notion of civilization. But this was incidental, not its real business; its business was with the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Whatever did not contribute to its chief end was of minor concern; whatever made against that must give way. It was content to be judged by the manner in which it performed its one great office in the world. As to what that office was there was no dispute. Both parties believed that 21 22 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY no one could be saved (normally, at least) outside of the Church, or without its help. Both believed that by baptism one was cleansed from the stain -of original sin and introduced into the kingdom and favor of God. In the case of adults, baptism washed away all sin. But what of sins committed after baptism? Their remission was sought in the sacrament of penance. 1 It was in this sacrament of penance that the Church came nearest to the people and exercised its greatest influence over them. In its developed form, it consisted of three parts: contrition, confession, satisfaction. 2 The first implied, if it did not demand, a genuine sorrow for sin committed; the second was followed by the absolution of the priest, who, in forgiving the sin repented of and confessed, imposed the third. Satisfaction, according to Luther, who in this was expressing the common opinion, consisted of prayer, fasting and alms. 3 In this case, however, prayer was a term of wide import, including every pious movement of the mind: reading and preaching and meditation on the word of God, as well as devotion, aspiration, supplication, and those exercises of the heart that the word "prayer" usually suggests. Fasting was not merely abstinence from food; it included all afflictive works of the flesh: vigils, labors, hard- ness of living, pilgrimages, all works of humiliation and mortification. Alms stood for all works of love and compassion toward our neighbors. Following the hints that Luther gives, we might crowd into the word 41 satisfaction" all the meaning that it ever conveyed to the tenderest and most afflicted conscience. On the other hand, a man who thought lightly of his sins would think lightly of satisfaction. There was danger that while some might discipline themselves with absurd levity, others might go to the extreme of severity, and after the most fervent and long- continued prayer, the deepest humiliations, and boundless charity, would still carry an overburdened conscience. This danger was avoided by committing the whole matter of satisfaction to the judgment of the priest. He enjoined what the penitent was to do, and the advice of the priest was the command of the Church. If men came to feel that God required exactly what the priest enjoined, no more and no less, there would be nothing strange in such conclusion. The sacrament of \penance was a growth, the slow development of centuries, and there was no part of it about which there were not differ- 1 A scholarly exposition of the Catholic doctrine of penance and indulgences, from the modern Lutheran point of view, is given by Dieckhoff, DerAblassstreit, dogmengeschichtlich dargestellt, Gotha, 1886, pp. 10-25. 2 The three parts of penance, according to the scholastic theologians, were con- tritio cordis, confessio oris, satisfactio operis. 3 ^Satisfactio dividetur in orationem, jejunium, et eleemosynum, ubi oratio omnem animi motum, et actionem in se complectitus ad animam proprie attinentem, etc. Sermon de Indulgentiis, 1518. LOL. 2: 326. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 23 ing opinions. All agreed that there must be contrition, but how much or how little would suffice no one could definitely say. Some thought that not even contrition, but attrition, the simple wish to be contrite, would be enough; the wish to be contrite was rewarded with the grace of contrition, if a man put no obstacle in the way of grace. Others required the profoundest depths of sorrow. As to confession, some sup- posed that it was enough to confess to God alone; others thought that confession to a layman would suffice, while others again thought that, as penance is a sacrament, the confession must be made to a priest. 1 Some thought that only mortal sins were to be confessed; others required the confession of all sins, open, secret, mortal and venial. At first the absolution of the priest was a simple prayer that God would forgive; at last it was a positive declaration of forgiveness. Some thought that the priest only forgave the guilt of sin, others that he also remitted the penalty. In the same way there was no agreement as to the office and use of satisfaction. Everywhere and always when men thought at all about these things, they did not all think alike; but the constant tendency was to give prominence to the priest, and what the priest did. 2 Satisfaction was the particular part of penance that gave occasion for the controversy between Luther and his opponents. In no developed practice of the Church do we have a better example of how a simple and reasonable requirement may grow away from its original purpose. In the early Church, when a member was guilty of open sin, he might be formally excluded and treated as "a publican and a heathen. " But as this was believed to mean also exclusion from salvation, he was more frequently suspended from communion, with the possibility and hope of restoration, sooner or later. This restoration was to be gained by passing through several stages of humiliation. The discipline was a test of sincerity. No one would consent lightly to pass through it, and those who endured such a test might well be considered as having truly 1 "Every day, once or twice, or oftener if possible, we ought to confess our sins to God. The confession we make to the priests brings this small help to us, that having received wholesome advice from them, by obeying the most salutary requirements of penance or by our mutual progress, we wash away the stains of our sins. The confession made to God alone helps in this, that the more mind- ful we are of our sins, the more God forgets them, and the more we forget them, the more the Lord remembers them." Theodulph of Orleans (797) in Capitulary to his priests, c. 30. The confession to God secures the forgiveness of sins; that to the priest shows how the sins themselves are to be purged away. See Gieseler, 2: 106. Peter Lombard (d. 1160) taught that confession might be omitted, but, as it was a question, it would be safer to have the priest, if possible. 2 "This we may safely say and think: that God alone remits and retains sins and yet that he has given the Church the power of binding and loosing. But he looses and binds in one sense, the Church in another. For he, by himself alone remits sins, for he cleanses the soul from its inward stain, and frees it from the debt of eternal death. Such power he has not given to the priest, to whom never- theless he has given the power of binding and loosing, that is, of showing that men are bound and loosed." Peter Lombard, Sent. lib. iv. div. 8. 24 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY repented. 1 This was the first and most obvious meaning of what the Church required. But besides, by means of its discipline, it declared and emphasized its condemnation of the penitent's sin. In some cases the separation from communion was for many years; in some for life, or until life was about to close. A great sin was visited with a heavy penalty; the great penalty implied a great sin. Men shrank from what the Church condemned, and so was created a Christian public opinion. But over and above this, the humiliation, suffering and sorrow of the penitent were supposed to move God's pity, as they certainly exerted a softening and purifying influence on those who were properly exercised by them. In many ways, then, the satisfaction required by the early Church was reasonable and effective. The Church never lost sight of the fact that what it imposed by way of discipline was in its own hand; it was something that the Church had enjoined and that the Church could remit. In the case of the dying, all penitential requirements were remitted, and the dying man was received into full communion months, even years of penance, gave way to mortal sickness. Discipline was for the living, not for the dying; and the dying, in their supreme need, should have the strength and comfort that came from the sympathy of fellow-Christians and the sacra- ments of the Church. In early times penitential works came first and restoration to communion afterwards. In the later Church the order was reversed. There was a reason for this: the whole community had become Christian, and excommunication now carried with it social, political and business disabilities. As its consequences were so serious, it was resorted to only in extreme cases. There was still the feeling that confession and humiliation were due to God for sin penitential works were still re- quired but the old place for them was taken away. When the Church no longer thought it proper to separate offenders from communion, another place must be provided; and as the confessing penitent received immediate absolution, he must "do penance" afterwards. In the old times this penance the prayers, fasts, vigils, lamentations had refer- ence to readmission to the Church; but now that the penitent had con- 1 We have in Tertullian's De Pudicitia a striking description of public penance in his day: "Why do you yourself, when introducing the repentant adulterer into the Church for the purpose of melting the brotherhood by his prayers, lead him into the midst and prostrate him, all in haircloth and ashes, a compound of dis- grace and horror, before the widows, before the elders, suing for the tears of all, licking the footprints of all, clasping the knees of all" (ch. xiii). Jerome tells us of the case of Fabiola, who put away her husband and then married again, supposing that she had a right to do so. On her fault being made clear to her, "she put on sackcloth to make public confession of her error . . . stood in the ranks of penitents and exposed before bishop, presbyters and people all of whom wept when they saw her her dishevelled hair, pale features, soiled hands and unwashed neck." Ep. 77: 4. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 25 fessed and been absolved, what did these things mean? They were works of satisfaction. They had nothing to do with remission of sin; guilt and condemnation were removed by the priest's absolution. But even after the sin had been forgiven, the sinner was not yet free from some measure of suffering, the penalty of sin. The penalty must be paid in this life or in purgatory. Until it had been paid, the soul could not enter heaven. The works of satisfaction were the paying of the penalty. 1 Thus it was that, hi the gradual ujifolding of time the just and reason- able works meet for repentance became satisfaction, the third part of the sacrament of penance. But how did the Church look upon the works of satisfaction imposed by the priest? The great majority felt that some- thing was required by way of penalty for sin. What that something was, or what would be its equivalent, the priest imposed; in his judgment, so much fasting, so much in alms, would cancel the debt. He might err by excess or deficiency. In the former case, no great harm could come; it would only mean a little harder earthly life. In the latter case, the deficiency would have to be made up in purgatory. But there was yet another way of looking at works of satisfaction: the priest was thought to represent the Church, and as the Church represented Christ, what the priest imposed was what was required by divine justice. Many held this view, and others who did not fully accept it, yet thought it a great deal safer to do what the priest required. 2 With the change in the significance of penitential works there came a change in the source of the penitent's anxieties and trouble. Formerly he had pleaded for readmission into the Church; that attained, he felt sure of salvation. He now bore the burden of sin to be expiated. Just in proportion to the tenderness of his conscience he felt the insufficiency of his works of satisfaction. These works were sometimes bitter and hard to be endured, but with all his efforts he seemed to make no ad- vance. The prospect was of a whole life of hardness, and, it might be, of years and years of suffering hereafter. The light would at last dawn upon him; he would surely reach Heaven at last; but it made the heart sick to think of the long and dark and toilsome way to be traveled before the rest could come. Was there no relief from this state of anxiety; no way to be rid of the oppressive burden and the long labor? Yes, the 1 Absolution frees from punishment as well as from guilt, the punishment that condemns and wholly destroys, from which although a man is freed, he is bound to temporal punishments, since such punishment is medicinal, purifying, etc. This punishment remains to be endured in purgatory, even by those who have been freed from the punishment of hell. Thomas Aquinas, Sumrna, pt. iii, quest. 69, supplement. 2 The penance of the priest was even enforced by law. A law of Pippin (758) says, Si aliquis ista omnia contemsit, et episcopus emendare minime potuerit, regis judicio exilio condemnetur. Gieseler, 2: 54. 26 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Church found relief. As it had formerly enjoined penance, and removed it in case of threatened death, so now it might, for just cause, change it or entirely remit it. This was indulgence. The doctrine of indulgence, like that of penance, was a growth; and, as in the case of penance, indulgences were an established institution of the Church before a theory of them was elaborated. We have to go back as far as the third century, and the persecutions of Christians under Decius and Diocletian, to find the beginnings of the practice. Many members of the churches lapsed under the stress of these persecutions, denied Christ and sacrificed or delivered up the sacred writings. The problem of dealing with these lapsi became the most difficult question that the early Church had to solve. A minority held that Christ, who knows the secrets of the heart, might forgive those who truly repented of this heinous sin, as he forgave Peter; but that the Church, being unable to distinguish the truly penitent from those only pretending penitence, should not restore such sinners to communion. It was the insistence of the majority upon the forgiveness and restoration of the lapsed that led to the Novatian schism at Rome, and was the occasion also of the Donatist schism at Carthage. For the majority took the more charitable view that the lapsed members ought to be "given peace," or restored to fellowship, when they had given sufficient evidence of penitence. They were meanwhile put on much the same footing as catechumens, and Cyprian writes to his presbyters that they are to cherish and cheer these penitents "that they may not fail of the faith and God's mercy. For those shall not be forsaken by the aid and assistance of the Lord who meekly, humbly and with true penitence have persevered in good works." 1 What these "good works" were to be Cyprian leaves us in no doubt, for he elsewhere says : You must pray more eagerly and entreat; you must spend the day in grief; wear put nights in watchings and weepings; occupy all your time in wailful lamentations. After the devil's meat, you must prefer fasting; be earnest in righteous works, whereby sins may be purged; frequently apply yourself to almsgiving, whereby souls are freed from death. Let all your estate be laid out for the healing of your wound. He can mercifully pardon the repenting, the laboring, the beseeching sinner. He can regard as effectual whatever, in behalf of such as these, either martyrs have besought or priests have done. 2 We see here well established, by the year 250, the notion that the penitent's own prayers and good works will purchase the pardon of his sins from God, and hence from the Church, but that others may do some- 1 Ep. xii: 2. 2 De Lapsis, 35, 36. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 27 thing in his behalf, especially the martyrs. It was right that the Church should bestow special honor on the martyrs, and but natural that it should attribute to them special sanctity. But this led, after a time, to such errors in practice and perversions of doctrine that the more sober-minded Fathers were compelled to protest against the exaggerated and unwholesome estimate of the martyrs commonly entertained. 1 The one practice that immediately concerns us, however, seems to have provoked little protest: the custom of those awaiting martyrdom to give to those who had lapsed certificates to procure their restoration to the communion of the Church. Cyprian gives one of these certificates in what was probably the usual form: All the confessors to Father [Papse, Pope, the usual title of all bishops] Cyprian, greeting. Know that to all, concerning whom the account of what they have done since the commission of their sin has been, in your estimation satisfactory, we have granted peace [i. e., recognized them as worthy of Christian fellowship]; and we have desired that this rescript should be made known by you to the other bishops also. We bid you have peace with the holy martyrs [i. e., receive these lapsed persons into the Church, as we have received them into our personal fellowship]. Lucianus wrote this, there being present of the clergy, both an exorcist and reader. 2 Cyprian did not favor the acceptance of these certificates at their full face value, as a satisfactory equivalent for the public penance of the lapsed not even a martyr could grant absolution from sin, but God only and he rebukes the presbyters who had been too hasty in granting peace to the lapsed. 3 Still, he admits that the certificates have a certain value, since " the merits of the martyrs are of great avail with the Judge" ; and, in case any of the certificated fall ill and are about to die, they " should be remitted to the Lord with the peace promised to them by the mar- tyrs." 4 Here we see what was later called absolution in the article of death. The germ of the practice of granting indulgences we have therefore found in the acceptance of these certificates of the martyrs as a partial equivalent for the public penance of the lapsed. And what Cyprian and other Fathers taught became the fixed practice of the Church, through the canons enacted by the early councils. Five of the twenty canons of the Council of Nice (x-xiv) are devoted to this subject, and a maximum penance of ten years is prescribed for the lapsed with two years more Augustine, Serm. xiv. " Constitutions of the Holy Apostles," v. 3, 9. Ter- tullian ad Martyras, i. 4. But de Modestia, 22. Tertullian denies power of martyrs to grant absolution. 2 Ep. xvi. 8 Ep. ix. De Lapsis, 20. 4 Ep. xii, xiii. De Lapsis, 17, 18. 28 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY of only partial communion, i. e., in the prayers at the eucharistic service, but not in the oblation. The local councils of Ancyra (A. D. 314) and Laodicea (365) confirm this treatment, and so does the general Council of Chalcedon (415). But these councils are also noteworthy in that they mark the extension of the public penance from the lapsed to those guilty of other flagrant sins, like adultery these are also to be ranked with catechumens and required to undergo a penance, in some cases as long as twenty-five years. 1 They are noteworthy also in that for the first time the bishop is authorized to grant indulgence, in his discretion, i. e., to shorten the penance and admit the culprit to communion sooner than the canons allow. 2 And in any case, those about to die were not to be deprived of the viaticum. 3 The inseparable connection of indulgences and penance is, therefore, as clear historically as it is dogmatically. And such a germ was certain to find in the Catholic Church a fertile soil. As the practice and the doctrine of penance developed, indulgences would certainly grow pan passu. From the time of Leo the Great 4 public penance was rapidly transformed into private confession and such penance as the confessor might impose. To the prayers and almsgiving prescribed by the Church in Cyprian's day, pilgrimages to shrines held to be specially sacred were added as appropriate good works for the penitent. As the discipline of the Church became more strict and the penances imposed more onerous, it was natural that means of relief should be sought, but for a time the Church provided none it was too much occupied in strengthening its grip on the medieval world to adopt an expedient that, whatever else it accomplished, would loosen that grip. It is not until the time of the Crusades, therefore, that we find any marked development of indulgences. Urban II, at the Synod of Cler- mont in 1095, followed up the great sermon in which he roused Europe to one of the most momentous enterprises in its history by holding out the following inducement to all who would engage in this holy war : If anyone through devotion alone, and not for the sake of honor or gain, goes to Jerusalem to free the church of God, the journey itself shall take the place of all penance. 5 It does not appear that the earlier indulgences contemplated more than the remission of canonical penances; nothing is said of remission of sins, or of the penalties of purgatory, though belief in purgatory was well 1 Ancyra, can. xvi. Laodicea, can. ii. 2 Ancyra, can. ii, v. Chalcedon, can. xvi. 3 Nice, can. xiii. 4 Ep. 136. 5 Quicunque pro sola devotione, non pro honoris vel pecuniae adeptione ad liber- andam ecclesiam Dei Jerusalem profectus fuerit, iter illud pro omni poenitentia re- putetur. Canon ii. Mansi, 20: 816. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 29 established in the Church from the time of Gregory the Great onward (d. 604). It is possible that nothing more than remission of canonical penance was intended or implied by the bull Quantum praedecessores, of Engene III, in 1145, which marks the beginning of the second crusade: Moreover, we, with paternal care providing for your peace and the need of the Church, by the authority committed to us by God, do grant and confirm to those who, in a spirit of devotion, have undertaken to begin and complete a work and labor so holy, so extremely necessary, that remission of sins which our aforesaid predecessor Pope Urban, instituted. According to the institution of our aforesaid predecessor, and by the authority given us by the Omnipotent God and blessed Peter, prince of Apostles, we grant remission and absolution of sins, such that he who begins and finishes a journey so holy, or dies on the way, shall obtain absolution from all sins that he confesses with contrite heart, and shall obtain the reward of the eternal recompense from the Rewarder of all. 1 It must be confessed that this language is more than a little ambiguous, and lends itself without much forcing to a very broad interpretation, but probably nothing more was intended at the time to be included within the scope of this indulgence than canonical penances. This interpre- tation is borne out by the subsequent practice, which for a long time did not contemplate an increase in the supposed efficacy of indulgences, so much as an enlargement of their scope. The taking of the cross, for the recovery of the Holy Sepulcher, was supposed in the twelfth century to be a work of so great merit as well to deserve the special recognition of it by the Church. Nor did it appear to be an unreasonable notion that the power that imposed canonical penalties could also remit them. If the practice and the pretensions of the Church had stopped here, relatively little would ever have been heard about indulgences. But from the twelfth century the process of development went on with ever accelerat- ing rapidity. The next step was to regard as crusaders those who took arms in behalf of the Church against heretics, which was done by Inno- cent III, and the Fourth Lateran Council, in 1215: 1 Nos autem vestrorum quieti,* et ejusdem Ecclesiae destitutioni paterna solicitudine providenta, illis, qui tarn sanctum, tamque pernecessarium opus, et laborem dewtionis intuitu suscipere, et perficere decreverint, illam peccatorum remissionem, quam prae- fatus praedecessor noster Papa Urbanus institute, auctoritate nobis a Deo concessa, concedimus et confirmamus. Peccatorum remissionem, et absolutionem juxta praefati praedecessoris nostri institutionem, Omnipotentis Dei, et Beati Petri Apostolorum Principis, auctoritate nobis a Deo concessa talem concedimus, ut qui tarn sanctum iter devote incoeperit et perfecerit, sine ibidem mortuus fuerit, de omnibus peccatis suis de quibus corde contritp et humiliato, confessionem susceperit, absolutionem obtineat et sempiternae retributionis fructum ab omnium remuneratore percipiat. Mag. Bull., 1: 37, 6, 12. 30 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Catholics who have taken the sign of the cross and armed them- selves for the extermination of heretics, shall enjoy those indulgences and shall be rewarded with that holy privilege which is granted to those who bring aid to the holy land. 1 But this Pope and Council, while they thus enlarged the scope of indul- gences, undertook to reform abuses that had already developed. The theory underlying the early canons, seems to have been that every bishop had the power to grant indulgences valid in his own diocese, and from the tenth century it became customary to grant at the dedication of a church indulgences to all who should perform certain devotions there. These came to be unduly multiplied, and it was felt that a restriction of this power was needed to prevent scandal. Accordingly this canon was enacted: In addition to these things, since through indiscreet and super- fluous indulgences, which indeed prelates of the churches do not shrink from giving, both the keys of the church are despised and the efficacy of penance is weakened, we decree that, when a church is dedicated, indulgence shall not be granted for more than a year, whether it is dedicated by a single bishop or by many; and there- after, on the anniversary of the dedication, the conceded remission of penances enjoined shall not exceed forty days. We enjoin that those who at different times grant certificates of indulgence, for whatever causes, restrict even this number of days, since the Roman Pontiff, who possesses the fulness of power, has been accustomed to keep control of such matters. 2 From this time onward, the granting of indulgences was regarded as the special prerogative of the Pope, though episcopal indulgences still continued. At the first general council of Lyons, in 1245, a still further extension of indulgences to crusaders was declared, so as to include not only those who actually took the cross, but those who aided the crusade : 3 1 Catholici yero, qui crucis assumpto charactere ad haereticorum exterminium se accinxerint, ilia gaudent indulgentia, illoque sancto privilegio sint muniti, quod accedentibus, in terrae sanctae subsidium conceditur. Canon iii. Mansi, 22: 987. The synod of Siena, 1425, granted the same plenary indulgence to all who would take arms against the Husites. Mansi, 28: 1062. 2 62. Ad haec, quia per indiscretas et super fluas indulgentias, quas quidem Ecclesiarum Praelati facere non verentur, et claves Ecclesiae contemnunter, et poeni- tentialis satisfactio enervatur: decernimus, ut, cum dedicatur basilica non extendatur indulgentia ultra annum, sive ab uno solo, sive a pluritus Episcopis dedicetur: ac deinde in anniversario dedicationis tempore XL dies de injunctis poenitentiis indulta remissio non excedat. . . Hunc quoque dierum numerum indulgentiarum literas praecipimus moderari, qui quo quibuslibet causis aliquoties conceduntur: cum Ro- manus Pontifex, qui plenitudinem obtinet potestatis, hoc in talibus moderamen con- sueverit observare. Mansi, 22: 1050. 3 Eis autem, qui non in propriis personis illuc accesserint, sed in suis dumtaxat ex- pensis juxta facultatem et qualitatem suam viros idoneos destinaverint, et illis similiter, qui licet in alienis expensis, in propriis tamen personis accesserint, plenam suorum concedimus veniam peccatorum. Hujusmodi quoque remissionis concedimus esse par- ticipes, juxta quantitatem subsidii, et devotionis affectum, omnes qui ad subventionem ipsius terrae de bonis, suis congrue ministrabunt, aut circa praedicto consilium et auxilium impenderint apportunum. Canon 17. Mansi, 23: 628-632. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 31 To those moreover who shall not have gone thither in their own persons, but at their own expense at least according to their means and rank shall have appointed suitable men, and likewise to those who have gone in their own persons even though at the expense of others, we grant full pardon of their sins. We also grant to be partakers of this same remission, according to the amount of their aid, and the state of their devotion, all who shall suitably contribute to the aid of that land from their goods, or shall give timely counsel and aid concerning the things aforesaid. But by far the greatest enlargement of indulgences, and that which opened wide the door to the scandalous abuses of later years, was the Jubilee bull of Boniface VIII, Antiqu&rum hdbet. The opening words of this constitution approve the story that obtained general credence in the Church the Pope only confirmed and made precise what was a general tradition and rumor in Rome, that special benefits and indulgences were to be had by visiting the shrines of Peter and Paul. The influx of pilgrims had begun before the bull was issued, and Boniface did little more than take instant and shrewd advantage of a superstition that he was powerless to combat. He could and did ride on the crest of a wave that would have submerged him had he withstood it. This bull, though one of the most momentous documents in the history of the Papacy, is also one of the briefest : A credible report of old times says, that to those who visit the honorable church of the Prince of Apostles, in this city, great remis- sions of sins and indulgences are granted. We therefore, who, as becomes our office, strive after salvation, and more gladly than others look after remissions and indulgences of this kind, all and several, pronouncing them approved and accept- able, do confirm the same by Apostolic authority, and approve, and even renew, and strengthen by the protection of the present writing. Since moreover the most blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, will be the more fully honored, in that their churches in this city shall be thronged by the faithful, and the faithful themselves by the lavish- ing of spiritual services shall with better reason perceive themselves filled full in consequence of this very thronging, We, trusting in the mercy of the Omnipotent God, and in the merits and authority of his aforesaid Apostles, with the advice of our brethren and in the pleni- tude of the Apostolic power, will grant and do grant not only full and quite abundant, but the fullest pardon of all their sins, 1 to all who 1 The essential part of this document, a sentence from sec. 2, is as follows in the original: Nos de Omnipotentis DEI misericordia et eorundem Apostolorum ejus mentis et auctoritate confisi, de fratrum nostrorum consilio, et Apostolicae plenitudine potestatis, omnibus in praesenti anno millesimo trecentesimo, a festo Nativitatis Domini nostri JESU-CHRISTI praeterito proxime inchoato, et in quolibet anno centesimo secuturo, ad Basilicas ipsas accedentibus reverenter, vere poenitentibus et confessis, vel qui vere poenitebunt, et confitebuntur, in hujusmodi praesenti, et quolibet centesimo secuturo anno, non solum plenam et largiorem, imo plenissimam omnium suorum concedemus et consedimus veniam peccatorum. For the whole bull see Mag. Bull, 1: 179. 32 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY in the present year, 1300, beginning from the feast of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ just past, and in every hundredth year to come, shall reverently visit those churches, they being truly penitent and confessed, or who shall repent and confess in this present year, and in any hundredth year to come. Commending that whoso wish to be partakers of this indulgence granted by us, if Romans, they shall visit those churches at least thirty days, consecutive or separated, and at least once a day; but if they are foreigners or live without the city, they shall do the same fifteen days. Everyone, however, will merit more and obtain a more efficacious indulgence if he visits those churches more often and more devoutly. Let no man by any means impair this page of our constitution and appointment, or by a rash deed oppose it. But if anyone should presume to attempt this, let him know that he will incur the wrath of the Omnipotent God, and of his blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul. Given at Rome, at St. Peter's, Feb. 20, 1300, in the sixth year of our pontificate. 1 All the documents that we have thus far examined have been concerned with the practice of indulgences, not with the doctrine. The Church had no doctrine, in fact, and to this day has none. That is to say, while Catholic theologians have elaborated a doctrine regarding indulgences, nothing is taught about them as an article of faith, except the mere fact that the Church has the right and power to grant them, and all who deny this are anathematized as heretics by the decrees of Trent. But it is open to any Catholic who admits so much, to go on and make any further explanation of the doctrine that he pleases. A good many theologians have availed themselves of this privilege, and there is now a well-defined teaching on the subject, though it still lacks official con- firmation, save at a few points. But as we have seen that there were great differences of opinion as to the nature and purposes of works of satisfaction, so there were differ- ences as to the force and significance of indulgences. The general belief 1 Like everything else connected with indulgences, the Jubilee was abused. It was evidently the idea of Boniface VIII, as it was the tradition of his day, to limit the Jubilee to the even years of the century, 1300, 1400, etc. But so great was the stream of pilgrims that poured into Rome during the year 1300, and so great was the wealth brought to Church and people by their presence, that there was no patience to wait a hundred years for the repetition of this ex- perience. Various pious pretexts were found to make a decent veil for this greed. For example, pity was demanded for the generations that must live and die before this privilege could again be granted, unless the time were shortened. The demand of the people and the impatience of the Popes became at length too great to be resisted, and in 1350 Clement was moved to recognize a semi-centennial jubilee. Raynaldus, anno 1350, n. 2. This again proved too short an interval, and Paul II in 1470 fixed the time at every twenty-fifth year, in the bull Inffdbilis provi- dentia, Mag. Bull, 1 : 385 seq. There, for very shame, it has since been left. In- deed, the interval could hardly be made shorter if any significance were to be preserved for such a celebration and pilgrimage. Exceptional blessings must have preserved for them at least an air of being exceptional, and not the regular thing. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 33 was that the Church could relax what the Church had enjoined, but the application of this principle was by no means clear. If works of satisfac- tion were only disciplinary, and expressive of what, in the judgment of the priest, would be beneficial and helpful to the penitent, they would belong only to this life, and their remission could give relief in this world only. If the judgment of the priest corresponded with the judgment of God, and the works enjoined by the Church were also required by divine justice, their remission or relaxation was something quite considerable. This last came to be the popular opinion, but there were serious diffi- culties in the way of accepting it. The chief of these was the old belief, handed down from the first, that God alone can forgive sin and relax penalty due to sin. If these works of satisfaction were required by divine justice, and the priest in imposing them was simply declaring and enjoining what was already required by divine law, how could the Church remit them? In attempting to answer this question, the several theories of indulgence were formulated or invented. The earliest of these was the theory of intercession. In consideration of certain services or gifts, the Church would intercede with God, and He, in answer to the Church's prayers, would remit or relax or pardon. It was the plan of intercession that Gregory VI (1044) was to use when he promised certain persons who had done a service for Rome, "both for himself and his successors to celebrate mass for them three times a year in all the Roman churches, and to have them in remembrance seven times during the sacred solemnities of the mass, that the Almighty Lord, by the merits of the mother of God, and by the authority of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and by the prayers of all the saints, living and dead, would absolve them from all their sins and lead them into eternal life." 1 Sometimes, indeed, the Popes forgot that they and the Church were simple intercessors, and promised absolutely and un- conditionally. Sometimes, too, works of special merit were said to avail in themselves for the remission of sin and penalty. But the sober feel- ing of the Church required that the works should be supplemented by the prayers of the Church, which were supposed, in a certain sense at least, to command the favor of God. In this case, the power of the Pope, as head of the Church, was very great, since he might command the intercession of all the saints. Another theory, more noted, or at least exciting more opposition, was that based on the Treasure of merits. This Treasure is composed of the merits of Christ, and of the saints in excess of what was required of them. Its principal support is the doctrine of the atonement held and taught by many learned Doctors of the Church, but most prominently by , 1 D'Ach6ry, SpicUegium, 3: 398. 34 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Anselm (1109), that the death of Christ, an infinite being, was of infinite worth, not only sufficient but infinitely more than sufficient, to atone for the sins of the world. This doctrine was elaborated and applied to indulgences by Alexander of Hales (d. 1245). Christ, by the infinite worth of his person, accomplished through his sufferings a store of merit more than sufficient for the salvation of the whole world. These super- abounding merits constitute a vast Treasure, which exists objectively, and being performed for the whole Church belongs to the whole Church and may be used for relieving from penalty those who need relief. And just as there was an arithmetical, quantitative valuation of the works of Christ, so there was the same of the works of the saints: they, too, could and did accomplish more than enough for their own salvation. What became of this excess? The merits of the saints naturally belong to the Church; the Church, in a sense, had acquired them. The merits of the Christ also belong to the Church, not naturally and of her own right, but as by a certain unio mystica the Church is one with Christ, whatever is his becomes hers as well. And so, his merits and the merits of the saints belong to the Church; and this great Treasure the Church adminis- ters and controls for the benefit of its members. This it does through its authorized officers, the bishops, and especially the Pope, the chief bishop. Albertus Magnus (d. 1280) further elaborated this idea, by conjoining with the doctrine of Alexander the mysterious "power of the keys," given by Christ to Peter as head of the Church, and to his successors. This made clearer the way in which the Treasure could be lawfully dis- pensed. Such dispensation was vested in the Pope, as the successor of Peter and the holder of the keys. The merits and sufferings of Christ and the saints can thus be assigned for the benefit of those who need them, whether living or suffering in purgatory. The Church might pray, but it was with God to answer the prayer or not as he saw fit. But with the Treasure of merit at command, the Church operated on a solid basis. Provided there is such a Treasure, and provided the Church can control it, and provided the merits of Christ and the saints are actually trans- ferred by the power of the keys to the receiver of indulgences, it would be safe to have indulgences. But there is such a Treasure and the Church does control it. Thus, notwithstanding the fact that God alone can forgive sins and remit penalty, the Church can guarantee such remission, because it can offer a consideration that God is bound to respect. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), in this as in most questions of theology, contributes little or nothing to the doctrine, but sums up all that was held by his predecessors and gives it logical coherency and system. He finds the ultimate ground of indulgences in Christ; no one has supreme power in the sacrament but Christ. But Christ could remit sin apart THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 35 from any satisfaction, as he did in the case of the sinful woman (John viii). Therefore Paul also could, and the Pope is of no less power in the Church than Paul. We should believe in the validity of indulgences, because the Church universal cannot err, and the Church approves indulgences; therefore they must be valid it is heretical, impious even, to say otherwise. As to the limits within which indulgences become efficacious, Thomas says: But some say that they do not avail to absolve from liability to the penalty that is due in ..purgatory according to the judgment of God, but they avail for absolving from the obligation by which the priest binds the penitent to some penalty, or by which he is bound by canon law. But this opinion does not seem to be true. First because it is expressly contrary to the privilege given to Peter (Matt, xvi) that what he should remit on earth would be remitted in heaven. Hence, whatever validity the remission has at the bar of the Church it has the same at the bar of God. And besides, the Church, in granting indulgences of that sort would condemn rather than acquit, because she would send him to the heavier penalties of purgatory while absolving him from penalties enjoined. 1 The secret of the validity of indulgences, Thomas finds precisely where Alexander found it, and he differs from that Doctor only in stating the thought with his usual unrivaled precision and felicity: The reason why they are able to avail is the unity of the mystic body, in which many have superabounded in works of penitence beyond the measure of their own dues and have patiently borne many unjust tribulations, through which a multitude of penalties might have been expiated, if owed by them. The abundance of their merits is so great as to exceed all the penalty owed by those now living. And especially, on account of the merit of Christ, which, though it operates in the sacraments, nevertheless its efficacy is not shut up in the sacraments, but by its infinity exceeds the efficacy of the sacraments. The saints, moreover, in whom this superabundance of the works of satisfaction is found, did not perform such works for a given individual who needed remission, but for the whole Church in common. And so the aforesaid merits are the common possession of the whole Church. Those things that are the common possession of any multitude are distributed to individuals of the multitude, according to the judgment of him who is over them. Wherefore, just as anyone would obtain remission of penalty if some one satis- fied it in his behalf, it is the same thing if the satisfaction of another is distributed to him by one who has the power. As for the power to grant indulgences, Thomas holds that this is a work of such importance as to be beyond the province of a parish priest, and that only a bishop can do it. But as the "Pope has the plenti- tude of pontifical power, the power of granting indulgences to the full 1 Summa Theologiae, Supplementum tertiae partis. Quaest xxv, Art. 1. 36 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY extent rests in him, and in the bishops according to his regulation." Only one other question of importance remains to be answered: Does the efficacy of the indulgence rest on the faith of the recipient? Thomas answers this as we might expect from a doctor who felt constrained to maintain that the efficacy of the sacraments of the Church is opus opera- turn, a thuig resulting from the mere doing of the act commanded. He was led to this conclusion by the conviction that only so could the ob- jective validity of the sacraments be successfully maintained. Make the sacrament depend on faith, he argued, or the being in a state of grace, or any other subjective condition, and who can be certain that he has received any sacramental grace? Endless scruples of conscience are possible to disturb the believer. How can I be sure that I have real faith? How can I know that I am in a state of grace? But if the per- formance of the external act insures the reception of the divine grace, then we have something definite to trust. So as to indulgences : the one thing of which we need to be assured is that they are dispensed by one who had adequate authority, and for a sufficient reason. As to the latter, Thomas said, the Treasure of merits was collected for the glory of God and the good of the Church; therefore anything that promotes either constitutes a sufficient reason a contribution of money to build the church of St. Peter, for example. The bull of Clement VI, known as Unigenitus Dei filius, marks a con- siderable advance in the doctrine of indulgences. In it he adopts as his own, and approves as teacher of the whole Church on a question of faith, those ideas regarding indulgences that the doctors had elaborated. It can hardly be doubted that this document comes within the terms of the Vatican definition of papal infallibility, and hence its teaching is now a matter of faith, that every good Catholic is bound to believe. The bull says: For not with corruptible gold and silver did he redeem us, but with his own precious blood, as of a lamb without spot or blemish, who though innocent was sacrificed on the altar of the cross in our behalf, not shedding a mere drop of blood, which nevertheless on account of his union with the Word would have sufficed for the redemption of the whole human race, but profusely, as a flood is seen to pour forth, so that from the sole of his foot to his head no sound- ness was found in him. How much more then, in order that the pity of so great an effusion may be rendered neither needless, vain nor superfluous, he accumulated a treasure for the militant Church, wishing like a tender father to give a treasure to his sons, that so there might be an infinite treasure for men, and those who have employed it have been made partakers of the friendship of God I Which treasure indeed has not been laid up in a napkin, nor been buried in a field, but he has granted it to be dispensed to believers THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 37 in a wholesome manner and for pious and reasonable causes through the blessed Peter, keeper of the keys of heaven, and his successors, his vicars on earth; and to be mercifully applied to those truly pen- itent and confessed, sometimes for complete, sometimes for partial remission of the temporal punishment due for sins, both general and special, as far as they have learned with God's aid to relieve. To which store of treasure indeed the merits of the blessed God and of all the elect from the first to the last are found to furnish the basis, of whose consumption or diminution nothing at all should be feared, because of the infinite merits of Christ, so that, whatever may be drawn from it from inclination toward compassion, so much the more the store of those merits increases. 1 There was little other alteration in the practice of declaring indulgences 3 until the pontificate of Julius II, and the bull Liquet omnibus, except in one important item, the sale of indulgences for money. It is a little difficult for us to understand how a practice so shocking to the moral sense could ever have grown up in an institution like the Church, which always professed to believe and teach the ethics of Christ and the apostles, even if it glaringly failed at times to practice them. Just when and how the idea first gained general acceptance that the gift of a sum of money might be regarded as an evidence of penitence, in lieu of other good works, is uncertain. We find, however, that even in Cyprian's time almsgiving was regarded as a part of canonical penitence, but hardly as a substi- tute for it. Sorrow for sin might be shown by gifts, but peace with the Church could not be so bought. In the eighth and ninth centuries, a gift of money for alms (to be dispensed by the Church, of course) was accepted from those who were unable to keep the required fasts 2 and from this to accepting like gifts instead of prescribed penances was but a short step, involving no new principle. A gift of money was next accepted as an equivalent for bearing arms in person as a crusader, and such a gift entitled the giver to the full indulgence of the crusader. Lucius III seems to be the first Pope who authorized indulgences of this kind (1184), 3 but a movement once begun in this direction would progress rapidly. The need and greed of the medieval Pontiffs would soon suggest to them various ways in which this new principle might be turned to account in filling their ever empty coffers. 1 Raynaldus, anno 1349, n. 11. Most authorities give January 27 as the date of this bull, but as quoted by Raynaldus it is distinctly said to be "given at Avignon, xv, Kal Septembris," i. e., August 17. 2 See quotations from sources in Gieseler, 2: 196 n. G, and cf. Haddan and Stubbs, 3: 179, 180, 211, 371 scq. 3 Mansi, 23: 485. By authority of the Pope, the bishops of Normandy decreed that whosoever should give alms for the relief of Jerusalem should receive in- dulgence for penances enjoined three years, if the penance exceeded seven years, two years for a penance less than seven years. Those receiving the in- dulgence must also say the Pater Noster three times each day or night. 38 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Moreover, the legal systems of the Middle Ages were wholly favorable to the development of venality in the Church. Every offense against the feudal law might be condoned by the payment of a fine, proportioned to the gravity of the offense. In Germany especially, the old custom of Wehrgeld, or blood money by which murder was punished, not by the death of the offender, but by his payment of a sum equivalent to the dead man's value to his family was a powerful incentive in the same direction. It had come about in the civil law, therefore, that there was an elaborate scale of fines, by which every wrong to person or property might be ex- piated. Since the civil law thus accepted a money compensation in lieu of criminal proceedings, there was the less difficulty in transferring the practice to the Church. And so there was, at first, no outraging of ethical sentiments, or at any rate very little, when the Church prac- tically offered to forgive any offense and waive any penalty for a sufficient pecuniary consideration. The moral revolt came later, when higher ethical principles had been recognized in the civil law, when the effects of such practice on the administration of justice and the deadening of the spiritual life had been observed; when, above all, the shameless greed of the Church had aroused the dormant conscience of the people and provoked the indignant pro- tests of many doctors of the Church. For, as we now know, Luther was not the first to protest against both the theory and the practice of indul- gences. Wiclif in England, Hus in Bohemia, and John of Wesel, at Luther's own university of Erfurt, had attacked not merely the abuses, but the foundations of the practice. John of Wesel denied that the Scrip- tures give to anybody, even the Pope, the power to remit a penalty that God had imposed; all that can be remitted in any case is the penalty that the Church has imposed. He denied that there is any Treasure of merits from which indulgences can be dispensed, showing plainly that the Scriptures give no countenance to such a notion, nor to the idea of superabundant merit, or "merit" of any kind, thus completely demolish- ing the corner-stone of the doctrine of indulgence. Indulgences therefore are nothing else than a pious fraud practiced on believers. It is true that some years later, on a trial for heresy, he publicly recanted these and other teachings alleged to be heretical, but nothing can alter the fact that he did teach them, and that his writings were widely circulated and influential. One of the Brothers of the Common Life, John Wessel, taught against indulgences, and did not retract. These protests were, however, sporadic, and the knowledge of them was confined to the learned. How narrow on the whole their effect was may be judged from the fact that when Luther began his protest against the abuses of indulgences, he had never heard of these men or their writings. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 39 It was when the consciences of people, especially in Germany, were thus beginning to wake (1510) that the bull of Julius II, Liquet omnibus, was published. His pretext was a double one money was needed for the building of St. Peter's, and also for the repelling of the Turk. The essential paragraph is the following: And, that the salvation of souls may be looked after so much the more devoutly, as they have greater need of the prayers of others and are the less able to help themselves, by the aforesaid authority from the treasury of our mother, the Church, moved by paternal affection for the souls now in" purgatory, that have departed from this world united to Christ by love, and who while they lived de- served that indulgence of this nature should be obtained for them by intercession, desiring to relieve them as much as by God's help we are able, through divine pity and the plenitude of Apostolic power, we will and grant, that if parents, friends or other Christian believers, actuated by pity, shall give a certain alms for the work of building, in behalf of the souls who are themselves detained in purgatory for the expiation of penalties owed during the commission of our Nuncio and Agents, according to the regulation of our agents and the deputies and sub-delegates to whom they may commit their powers the same plenary indulgence will be invoked by way of intercession for those now in purgatory, for whom they have piously paid the said alms, as is already provided for the remission of penalties. Though the mutterings of discontent grew louder in Germany, the bull of Julius did not provoke any open rebellion. 1 It was reserved for his successor, Leo X, to lay the mine whose explosion rent all Europe asunder. Yet nothing could have seemed less likely to produce such an effect than the two bulls that Leo published, for he did little but repeat what Julius and Clement VI, and other predecessors had said. Never- theless there were one or two significant additions to his claims, and a very great addition to the shamelessness with which his indulgences were proclaimed and sold in Germany. As these things happened at a moment otherwise favorable for a revolt of Germany against the Papacy, the question of indulgences sufficed, and the dispute that arose was as the letting out of waters. Leo's first bull, Nos qui pontificatus, says: Trusting in the mercy of the same Omnipotent God, and in the authority of the blessed apostles, Peter and Paul, and in the word of him who is the way, the truth and the life, and who has said to us, successors in the character of his blessed Peter: "Whatsoever ye bind on earth will be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever ye loose on r The tradesman Julius cheats the credulous world: He locks up Heaven, which he possesses not. Sell what is thine, O Julius! Shameless 'tis To sell to others what thou lack'st the most. Ulric von Hutten, Epigrams, Opera, 1: 225. 40 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY earth will be loosed also in heaven"; and also in the plenitude of apostolic power given us from above, we equally grant and permit the full indulgence of all their sins and reconciliation with the Most High, and such remission as has been customarily given through our predecessors to those going to the aid of the Holy Land, and against those perfidious Turks, and such as have been granted in a jubilee year; and we decree that the souls of all those who shall set out on this expedition shall be brought by the power of the holy angels and re- main in heaven in eternal felicity. 1 The laudable purpose of these indulgences was therefore to raise money to be expended in repelling the Turks, who were about this time threatening an invasion of Europe (which did indeed happen in 1529, after many postponements). But it was shrewdly suspected that not much of the money realized would ever find its way to the designated object. The second bull was practically a repetition of that of Julius II, and is known as Postquam ad Apostolatus, and is dated September 13, 1517. 2 It promises to "those truly penitent and confessed" who have rendered aid in the building of St. Peter's church, through the nuntio or commissioners appointed, plenissimum omnium peccatorum suorum remissionem, and later plenariam omnium peccatorum indulgentiam et remissionem. These are less guarded statements than those made by his predecessors, who have carefully left the character and extent of the indulgence vague, or have limited it to the temporal penalties of sin. Now for the first time, it is boldly said that the most complete remission of all sins is given in return for the payment of money. It was, however, less the erroneous doctrines of the Church regarding indulgences that led Luther to make his famous protest of the theses, than the practical methods that were pursued in Germany. Albert of Brandenburg had been appointed Archbishop of Mainz in 1514, in his twenty-fourth year. To obtain this see, the oldest, richest and most influential in Germany, he had paid the Pope 24,000 florins for the pallium, besides the annates, or first year's income of the see, and certain other customary fees, amounting to fully as much as the pallium money. This large sum he had obtained by loan from the great Augsburg house of Fuggers, the Rothschilds of the sixteenth century. This scandalous transaction was not an unusual one, and while people may have smiled cynically at it, they were not at all shocked they were used to even worse things. But having burdened himself with a heavy debt, the youthful prelate was ready to recoup himself in any possible way, and the sooner the better. His opportunity came when Leo proclaimed the indulgence. The papal 1 Raynaldus, anno 1513, n. 3, dated iii non. Septembris. *Mag. Butt, 10: 38-42. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 41 agents, before they could begin their preaching in Germany, must obtain the approbation of its primate, and the terms on which permis- sion was granted them were: the traffic was to last eight years, during which time the preaching of all other indulgences was to be suspended; and the proceeds were to be equally divided between the Archbishop and the Pope. The German primate now issued a "summary instruction " to the preachers, of which the material paragraphs are the following: The first grace is the complete remission of all sins; and nothing greater than this grace can be named, since man, who lives in sin and is bereft of the favor of God, obtains complete remission by these means and enjoys God's favor anew; moreover, through this remis- sion of sins the punishment which one is obliged to undergo in pur- gatory on account of the affront to the Divine Majesty is all remitted, and the pains of purgatory completely blotted out. And though nothing is worthy to be exchanged for such a grace since it is a gift of God and an inestimable grace in order that Christian believers may be the more easily induced to procure it, we establish the fol- lowing rules : In the first place, everyone who is contrite in heart and with the mouth has made confession or at all events has the intention of confessing at a suitable time shall visit at least the seven churches herein indicated for this purpose, namely, those in which the papal arms are displayed, and in each church shall say five Ave Marias in honor of the five wounds of our Lord Jesus Christ, whereby our sal- vation is won, or the Miserere, which psalm is very well adapted for obtaining forgiveness of sins. Sick persons or those otherwise prevented shall visit with the same devotion and prayers as above, the seven altars which the commissioners and sub-commissioners shall have erected in the church where the cross shall be, and on which they shall hang the papal arms. Where, however, persons are found so weak that they cannot conveniently come to such a church, then shall their confessor or penitentiary cause an altar to be brought to a convenient place ap- proved by him. And where such persons visit this place and offer up their prayers near the altar or before it, they shall deserve the indul- gence as though they had visited the seven churches. To those also that lie on sick-beds, a holy picture may be sent, before which or near which they may say certain prayers, at the discretion of their confessor, and it shall happen in this place just as if they had visited the seven churches. When, however, several persons, or a woman, for a good reason demand that they be excused from visiting the said churches and altars, the penitentiaries may, after hearing the reason, substitute a larger contribution for the said visit. Respecting now the contribution to the chest, for the building of the said church of the chief apostle, the penitentiaries and confes- sors, after they have explained to those making confession the full remission and privileges, shall ask of them, How much money or 42 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY other temporal goods they would conscientiously give for the said most complete remission and privileges? and this shall be done in order that hereafter they may be brought the more easily to contrib- ute. 1 Also because the ranks and occupations of men are so manifold and diverse that we cannot consider. them individually, and impose specific rates accordingly, we have therefore concluded that the rates should be determined according to the recognized classes of persons. Kings and queens and their princes, archbishops and bishops and other great rulers, provided they seek the places where the cross is raised, or otherwise present themselves, shall pay at least five and twenty Rhenish golden guilders. Abbots and the great prelates of cathedral churches, counts, barons, and others of the higher nobility, together with their consorts, shall pay for each letter of indulgence ten such guilders. Other lesser prelates and nobles, as also the rectors of celebrated places, and others, who, either from permanent incomes or merchandise, or otherwise, enjoy a total yearly revenue of five hundred gold guilders, shall pay six such guilders. Other citizens and tradespeople, who usually have an income of two hundred guilders, shall pay three of the same. Other citizens and tradespeople, who have individual incomes and families of their own, shall pay one such guilder; those of less means, only a half. . . All others, however, are commended to the discretion of the con- fessors and penitentiaries, who should have at all times before their eyes the completion of this building, and should urge their penitents to give more, but should let no one go away without grace, since the good of Christian believers is not less to be sought than that of the building. Therefore those that have no money shall make their contribution with prayer and fasting. For the kingdom of heaven should be open to the rich no more than to the poor The third aforesaid grace is a letter of indulgence, full of the greatest, generally comforting and hitherto unheard-of powers, which will always have its force, when the eight years of our bull are at an end, since the text of the bull says: nunc et in perpetuum participes fiant, they will become partakers now and forever. . The contents of the same the preacher and confessor shall explain and exalt with all their powers. For there will be given in the letter of indulgence, to those that buy it: first, the right to choose a quali- fied confessor, even a priest of one of the mendicant orders, who may at once absolve them from all censures, even ab homine lata* with consent of the parties; secondly, from all sins, even the gravest, including those reserved for the Apostolic See, both in life and in the hour of death. . . The third principal grace is the participation in all the posses- sions of the Church universal; which consists herein, that contributors toward said building, together with their deceased relatives, who have departed this world in a state of grace, shall from now on, and 1 It will be seen that the principle avowed by modern corporations, to "tax the traffic all that it will bear," was discovered and practised by the medieval Church. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. 2 Excommunication ab homine lata was a censure pronounced against a judge, and lasted as long as he lived. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 43 for eternity, be partakers of all petitions, intercessions, alms, fast- ings, prayers, in each and every pilgrimage, even those to the Holy Land; furthermore, in the stations at Rome, in masses, in canonical hours, flagellations, and all other spiritual goods which have been, or shall be, brought forth by the universal, most holy Church mili- tant or by any of its members. Believers who purchase confessional letters become participants in all these things. Preachers and con- fessors must insist with great diligence upon this power and persuade believers not to neglect to buy these benefits and the letter of indul- gence. We also declare that, in order to obtain these two most important graces it is not necessary to make confession, or to visit the churches and altars but merely to buy the letter of indulgence. . . . The fourth most important grace is for the souls that are hi purgatory, namely, a complete remission of all sins, which remission the Pope brings to pass through his intercession, to the advantage of said souls, in this wise: that the same contribution shall be placed in the chest by a living person as one would make for himself. It is our wish, however, that our sub-commissioners should modify the regulations regarding contributions of this kind which are given for the dead, and that they should use their judgment hi all other cases, where, in their opinion, modifications are desirable. It is also not necessary that the persons who place their contributions in the chest should be contrite in heart and have orally confessed, since this grace is based simply on the state of grace in which the dead departed, and on the contribution of the living, as is evident from the text of the bull. Moreover, preachers shall exert themselves to give this grace the widest publicity, since through the same, help will surely come to departed souls, and at the same time the con- struction of the church of St. Peter will be effectively and abun- dantly promoted. 1 The papal bulls pretended that indulgences were granted for the benefit of the people, but the truth will out occasionally, even hi ecclesias- tical documents, and this Instruction is almost cynically frank in its commercialism. No reader will fail to remark how cunningly it is contrived to get a contribution large or small, but as large as possible from everybody except from those who had no money to give. So much is left to the discretion of the commissioners, too, that they might do almost anything that they pleased. It is obvious that the character of the commissioner would determine the manner in which these indul- gences would be proclaimed. An eye-witness has informed us of the pains that were taken to impress the people with the value of this grace. "When the commissary entered a town, the bull was borne before him 1 Inasmuch as this document does not give the official teaching of the Church, but only the actual practice in Germany, it has been thought sufficient to give the translation merely. The document will be found in Latin in Gerdsii, Jntro- ductio in Historiam Evangelii Seculo xvi, Vol. 1, Appendix, pp. 83-113, and m German in Walch, 15: 302-333. 44 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY on a velvet or golden cloth, and a procession was formed of all the priests, monks, the town council, schoolmaster, scholars, men, women, maidens and children, with banners and candles and song. Then they rang all bells, sounded all organs. When he came to the church, he raised a red cross in the middle of the church, and hung the Pope's banner on it. In sum, men could not have given greater welcome and honor to God himself." 1 The agent selected for Germany was John Tetzel, a native of Leipzig and a Dominican monk, a man of more than dubious character and of little learning, but possessing the two necessary qualifications for a successful indulgence-monger: a front of brass and the voice of a bull of Bashan. He had been many years engaged in the work, and had been uniformly successful in securing large sums of money. This more than atoned, in the eyes of his superiors, for any shortcomings in conduct or character. Luther calls him "a boisterous fellow," and he was soon abandoned by his employers and supporters after the trouble began, and died not long after in disgrace and neglect. x Sellers of indulgences had been prohibited some years previously (from entering Saxony, less because of any ethical objections to their trade, probably, than because the Elector hated to see so much good (German gold and silver going Romeward. Germany had long been called "the milch cow of the papacy," and it was a constant complaint ^that the Pope got more revenue from Germans than their own princes. Elector Frederick refused to relax this prohibition even for the Archbishop of Mainz, and so Tetzel was compelled to halt at Jiiterbock, a town near to the Saxon borders and only a few miles from Wittenberg. There he did a roaring trade, the echoes of which began to reach Luther in the quiet of his theological studies and pastoral duties. It is probable that he would have paid no attention to the matter, if his work as parish priest had not brought the abuse forcibly to his attention. He found that some of his people visited Jiiterbock and bought indulgences, and when they confessed showed him these documents and claimed that they were free from the penance that he wished to impose. He refused to grant absolution to holders of TetzePs indulgences, and preached against them from his pulpit. They then complained to Tetzel, who publicly denounced opponents of the indulgence as heretics, and had a fire kindled in the market-place of Jiiterbock, as he said, to burn "those who blas- phemed the most holy Pope and his most holy indulgence." 2 Luther * Myconius, Historia Reformationis, 1517-1542, ed. Cyprian, Leipzig, 1718, p. 15. Specimens of Tetzel's indulgences survive, and the following is given by the editors of Luther's Latin Works: "May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee and absolve thee by the merits of his passion. And I, by his and apostolic authority, granted and committed to me in this region, do absolve thee, first, from every sentence of excommunication, major or minor, however incurred, and then from all thy sins, by conferring on thee the fullest remission of thy sins THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 45 was greatly disturbed, not by Tetzel's threats, but because, as he said, the wolf was preying on his sheep, endangering the souls of his people, by leading them to place reliance for the forgiveness of their sins and their final salvation on these bits of purchased paper, rather than on the mercy of God and the merits of Christ. Yet what could a simple monk, an obscure professor, do to stem the flood that the leaders of the Church had let loose? As he looked at himself, Luther was conscious that he was too ignorant and inexperienced, and too lacking in influence, to make any great stir, but he would do what he could. He began by preaching to his own people the true doctrine of the for- giveness of sins, as revealed in the Scriptures. Then he wrote respectful but urgent letters to his diocesan, the bishop of Brandenburg, and to the primate of Germany, the Archbishop of Mainz, 1 begging them to inter- fere and restrain the excesses of Tetzel, whose impudence and blasphemous utterances, if they did not quite go to the extremes that the gossip of the time alleged, were at any rate a scandal. So little did he know of the world, so ignorant was he of the interest that Archbishop Albert had in the sale of indulgences, that he was painfully surprised when he found that his remonstrances were unheeded. He had supposed his superiors to be ignorant of what was going on, and needing only to be informed to stop the abuses at once. He had still one resource: he might rouse the attention of scholars to the evils that he deplored, through an academic disputation. Accordingly, he prepared ninety-five theses regarding indulgences, propositions that he offered to debate with all comers, with a view to eliciting the truth. As was the custom in the university in such cases, he nailed a copy of the theses to the doors of the Schloss- kirche, October 31, 1517. There was nothing dramatic or exceptional about the act; it was wholly ordinary and commonplace; yet the world has ever since heard in the strokes of that hammer the signal of the out- break of the Reformation struggle. The eve of All-saints day was chosen for this challenge, because this was one of the most frequented feasts, and would bring to the church a large concourse of professors, students and visitors. 2 [and] by remitting even the pains of purgatory, as far as the keys of our holy mother Church extend. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen." LOL 1: 267. Compare an earlier form of indulgence (fourteenth century) given by Collier, "Ecclesiastical History of England," 3: 178. 1 Myconius says (p. 22) that Luther also wrote to four other bishops: Meissen, Frankfurt, Zeits and Merseburg, but Luther does not himself mention them. The only letter extant is that to the Archbishop of Mainz, LOL 1: 255 seq. 2 It must not be overlooked that Luther was antagonizing not only the Pope but the Elector, in the doctrine of the theses. A special indulgence was attached to the veneration of the relics that the Elector had brought from Palestine and deposited in the Schlosskirche, to view which many would come on the following day. 46 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY We must carefully resist the temptation to read subsequent history into this incident, however, or into the theses themselves. They were interpreted as a challenge to the Pope and the whole Roman system, and they may be granted, in view of following events, to have had such a significance; but nothing is more certain than that Luther did not so regard them at the time. We do not need to appeal to his frequent assertions of his innocent, purely academic intent; 1 the theses them- selves bear on their surface the evidence of their purpose. No Protestant ever read them for the first time without being astonished at their lack of Protestantism. They are the theses of a Catholic, who believes heartily (or supposes that he does) in Church and Pope, and even in indulgences, concerned only to free the matter from current misunderstandings on the part of those untrained in theology, to correct the abuses that have grown up, and to free Church and Pope from undeserved odium. The author indignantly repudiates the notion that he is a heretic, and asserts that both he and his doctrine are uncondemned by authority in the Church, and only denounced by the ignorant. Yet, as a whole, these propositions are far more radical and thorough-going in their question- ing of papal powers, and even of the whole Catholic system, than Luther at all realized. 2 But while we must be thus careful in our interpretation, it is fair to read the theses in the light of Luther's own subsequent enlargement and explanation of them, save where there has evidently been a progress in his ideas, as is sometimes the case. Caution is therefore necessary even here, lest we give to the propositions a meaning that they did not have when Luther wrote them. And we must likewise be on our guard against an attempt to find in such a series of academic propositions a systematic and consistent doctrine of indulgences. No such character was required of them by the academic standards of the time, or is to be expected by us. Luther's was not a systematic mind; at bottom he was neither philosopher nor theologian, and at no time in his life did he show himself capable of working out a systematic and complete exposition and defense of any doctrine. We need not be astonished to find that some of the theses are not easily reconcilable with others, or if some seem flatly to contradict others. Yet, while all this is true, it by no means follows that we have an incoherent collection of contradictory propositions. Two 1 See, among other passages, LOL 2: 134, 136. 2 The Latin text of the Theses is given in Ranke's Deutsche Geschichte, 6: 83-89 from an original copy in the Royal Library at Berlin. See also LOL, 1: 285, Loscher, 1: 438 (with German in parallel column). It is cast upon the bronze doors of the Schlosskirche, the gift of King Frederick William IV, in 1858, replacing the wooden doors of Luther's day, which were burned in 1760. An English version by Wace and Bucheim is reprinted by Schaff, 6: 160, and in the "Translations and Reprints" of the University of Pennsylvania, vol. 2, no. 6, and in Appendix I of this book. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 47 ideas were still struggling within Luther's soul for the mastery: the idea of God's grace in, the forgiveness of sin, and the idea of the Church as the divinely appointed agency of man's salvation. This conflict of ideas is distinctly reflected in the theses the author is striving as best he may to reconcile them. His experience of God's grace is too recent and too vivid for him to deny it; but neither is he yet ready to give up his inherited and inbred belief in the divine authority of the Church. The theses begin with a definition that goes to the root of the questions at issue. Luther maintains that repentance, as Christ taught it, means something more than sacramental penance. It is not an act merely, but a state of mind; it is the entire life of the believer. This repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit. At one time, as he wrote Staupitz, the very word "repentance" was bitter to him; it pierced him as a sharp arrow; but when he came to understand it, no word had a sweeter sound. 1 His opponents were quick to see how radical this definition was, and made haste to assert that Christ did teach sacramental penance. What value, then, has sacramental penance? It is a test of contri- tion (12). No one can be certain of the reality of his own contrition (39), unless it seeks punishment (40); therefore, if genuine, repentance will manifest itself in mortification of the flesh. The works of the law are here put in their proper place, as the fruits of the new life, not the producing cause of it; they do not secure salvation, they merely show that one is a saved man. It is clear that Luther has no idea of denying the value, the necessity even, of sacramental penance; but he would make everything else secondary to the contrition of the heart. Having thus cleared the way, he proceeds to the question of indulgences, and at one blow sweeps away the whole system. He who is truly penitent has no need of indulgences, since God himself gives him plenary pardon (36), and any further assurance from the Pope is superfluous (87). Yet it is one of the curious inconsistences of the theses that, having thus declared indulgences to be an impertinence, and as a hope of salvation vain (52), Luther turns about and says that "Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are useful, if they do not trust in them" (49), and that "he who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed" (71). Very explicit, however, is the repudiation of the extravagant claims that have been made by some theologians as to the papal powers in the matter of indulgences, but never asserted by any Pope for himself. The Pope cannot remit the guilt (culpa) of sin, "except by declaring it remitted and approving the remission of God" (6), but such remission is by no means to be despised (38). What the Pope has the power to remit is the canoni- 1 LOL, 2: 130. 48 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY cal penalties, or those imposed by the authority of the Church (5, 6), and he means only these whenever he speaks of plenary remission (20), so that none are entitled to say in his name that all punishment due for sin is remitted by indulgences (21). But the seventh thesis seems to assert more for the ordinary priest, who confesses a penitent, than is thus allowed to the Pope, for it declares that God, in remitting guilt, subjects the penitent in all things to his vicar, the priest. This can be understood only in the light of Luther's later explanation, which was a transcript of his personal experience regarding the Church and the for- giveness of sins: Salvation begins in trouble. God first condemns, then justifies; first tears down, then builds up; first smites, then heals; first kills, then makes alive! God begins (the work is his) by bestowing the work of contrition. When this grace comes, not knowing that it is grace, the man feels that he is in the deepest condemnation. In himself he finds no peace and can find none until he flees for refuge to the power of the Church. He confesses his sin and misery to the priest and demands a solace and a remedy. The priest, relying on the power given him for having compassion, absolves him and gives peace to his conscience. This peace comes through faith; that is, the unquestioning belief of the promise of Christ to the priests, " What- soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. " The re- mission is not for the sake of the priest himself, or of his power, but for the sake of Christ's word, which cannot lie. Just so far as a man has faith in that word, he will have peace. But if anyone does not believe this word, he will never be at rest, though he should be absolved a thousand times by the Pope himself, and con- fess to the whole world. This, then, is that sweet power, for which, from the bottom of our hearts, we ought to give thanks to God, who has given such power to men, which is the unique consolation of sinners and of troubled consciences, if only they believe that the promises of Christ are true. 1 The next matter to be considered in the theses is the relation of indul- gences to the souls in purgatory. Luther is still a thorough believer in purgatory, and remained in this belief for some years after the publica- tion of the theses. He believed in the power of the living to do much, by prayers and fasts and alms, for the relief of suffering souls, but he did not believe that such relief could come by way of indulgences. The papal remission is valid only for the living (8, 10, 13), for canonical pen- ances cannot be imposed on the dead and ought not to be. As to souls in purgatory, the Pope has no more power than any bishop, or even the 1 While repentance and faith were the ground of the remission of guilt by God, Luther appears to have held that the remission was not actually completed until declared in the absolution of priest or Pope. The above is somewhat abridged from LOL, 2: 152 seq. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 49 curate of a parish he can only intercede for them, and his power of the keys cannot be supposed to extend to them (25, 26). It would seem to be implied in this that the value of such intercession would depend on the personal sanctity of the Pope, and his consequent ability to prevail with God in prayer. Officially, as Pope, he could do nothing for souls in purgatory. In particular, he cannot promise a share of the benefits of Christ and his Church, since these are a free gift of God to all believers, which needs no letters of pardon to secure it (37); nor can he dispense pardons from the Treasure of the Church, for such a Treasure is not known to exist, being "neither sufficiently named nor known among the people of Christ" (56). No fewer than ten theses (57-66) are devoted to this aspect of indulgences, of which the most radical proposition is the assertion that the only real Treasure of merits is the grace of God as made known in the Gospel (62 cf . 78) ; and the most startling thesis of all is the concluding charge that these undefined treasures of indulgences have become nothing but nets "with which they fish for the riches of men" (66). No part of the theses gave greater offense than this, but Luther said in his explanations that he wished merely to dispute these matters, and sought only to learn the truth. Yet he does not deny that these theses really expressed the opinion that he even then held, 1 and in his later exposi- tion he went into the matter at some length. "They say that the saints in this life wrought many works beyond what they owed, works of super- errogation which have not been rewarded, but are laid up in the Treasure of the Church. With these, certain worthy compensation is made by means of indulgences; and so they will have it that the saints make satis- faction for us." But Luther denied this teaching, and showed that it was clearly unscriptural. The testimonies of Scripture are clear that God rewards men beyond their deserts, and Christ has himself taught us that when we have done all, we are still unprofitable servants. He had no difficulty in showing that the Fathers confirmed Scripture Augustine, for instance, teaching that all saints need to pray, Forgive us our debts. And he ended by saying, "From which, and many other things too tedious to mention, I conclude that there are no superfluous merits of the saints which may help us in laziness. In reference to these things that I now say, I protest that I have no doubt, and I am prepared to endure fire and death for them, and I assert that everyone who thinks differently is a heretic. " 2 1 In commenting on Eck's second Obelisk, Luther says: "In that proposition as indeed in all the rest, I determine nothing; I dispute, but in my heart I believe most of them true. Yet, I am only a man, having no authority in this matter to do anything but dispute." LOL, 1: 414. LOL, 2: 258 sea. 50 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Luther was of course at once reproached as a resister of the authority of the Church and the Pope. Did not the Pope issue indulgences, and had not the Church approved them, at least by its silence, for centuries? Could Luther presume to think himself the only one _ who held the truth about these things? "I am not alone," he replied to such attacks, "the truth is with me and many others, those who have doubted and still doubt whether indulgences are of any force. The Pope is also with me; for while he grants indulgences, he has never said that they are given from a Treasure of the merits of Christ and the Church. The whole Church is also with me, for certainly the Church thinks with and as the Pope thinks. Although St. Thomas and the rest are very distinguished men, the truth is to be preferred to them. They have often been accused of making mistakes. More than this, for three hundred years universities and learned men have persistently studied Aristotle, and do not under- stand him and scatter through the whole Church error and pretended knowledge. If for so long a time and among the greatest intellects God has permitted so much of cloud and darkness to reign, why are we so secure, and why do we not rather hold all our opinions doubtful, that Christ alone may be light, righteousness, truth, wisdom, all our good?"* At the same time that Luther thus boldly questions the Pope's power to issue such indulgences as Tetzel was proclaiming, he takes special pains to show respect for what he believed to be the real papal powers, and makes it clear that he believes the abuses of which he complained to be contrary to the Pope's will (91). The Pope is opposed to all contrivances to the injury of holy charity and truth (74), is desirous that the pure Gospel should be preached (55), does not authorize or approve the exces- sive zeal of men like Tetzel (70), and if he were acquainted with their exac- tions, he would prefer that the basilica of St. Peter should rather be burnt to ashes than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep (50). Poor Luther! How little he knew what manner of man Leo X was! The thesis in which he said that the Pope desired that prayer should be made for him, more than that money should be given (48), was regarded at Rome as an exquisite joke. The whole question of Tetzel and his indulgences, like so much that was once regarded as settled, has been reopened in our day by Roman writers, who have declared that Luther was guilty of gross exaggeration and misrepresentation in his theses. In this they have been followed by some Protestant writers, whose idea of impartiality is to reserve their severest censures for members of their own party. But the great ob- stacle in the way of applying a coat of brilliant whitewash to Tetzel i LOL, 2: 266, 267. THE WOLF IN THE SHEEPFOLD 51 is the contemporary writings of his Catholic supporters. He was ac- cused of saying, Sobald der Pfennig im Kasten klingt Die Seele aus dem Fegfeuer springt. Luther refers to this and condemns it in theses 27 and 28, but Prierias took up the gauntlet and defended the saying as pure Catholic doctrine, to be accepted as literally true. 1 Luther represents indulgence-mongers as going to the extreme of declaring that even if a man had violated the mother of God, the indulgence would remove his guilt (75), and called this " madness"; but Prierias rejoined: "To assert that one who has the plenitude of power from the Pope to pardon can absolve from guilt in the case mentioned by the key of order, and from punishment by the key of jurisdiction, is not to think insanely, but rationally."" When the confidential agent of Leo X thus approved the worst extravagances attributed to Tetzel, it is evident that no modern afterthoughts can undo his act. No possible amount of apologetic disinfectants will make the name of Tetzel smell sweet again. 3 There has also been revived a theory, first advanced by Cochlaeus, to account for Luther's opposition to Tetzel and the indulgence-monger- ing, that it was at bottom nothing else than jealousy of a rival order: the real grievance being, not that indulgences were sold, but that the business had been committed to the Dominicans instead of the Augustin- ians. According to Cochlaeus, Staupitz was the instigator of the cam- paign against indulgences, but Luther, whom he had attempted to use as an instrument, outstripped and eclipsed him, because of an ardent nature. 4 Cochlaeus is so far right, that the Augustinian order had been previously concerned in proclaiming and defending indulgences. A member of Luther's own monastery at Erfurt, Johann von Paltz, in his Supplementum Coelifodinae (1502), had undertaken to expound and defend the doctrine of indulgence. He taught the doctrine in its most extreme form, setting no limits to the Pope's power to absolve from sin and release souls from purgatory. It is not likely that Luther knew anything about this book, which was published three years before he 1 LOL, 1:357. 2 Non est insanire, sed sane sentire. LOL, 1: 371. 8 The impression is general among Protestants that, since the Reformation, the Roman Church has done away with the sale of indulgences. That such is not yet the case, but that she has in modern times, where not actively opposed by Protestantism, not only preserved this abuse, but managed ingeniously to join it with an appeal to the passion for gambling so strong in many races, let this extract testify, from an advertisement in a Brazilian newspaper of 1910: "RAFFLE OF SOULS. During the last raffle of souls the following numbers . . . gained the prize, and those that have had the good luck to draw these numbers may be certain that their dead loved ones are liberated from the flames of pur- gatory." 4 Acta et Scripta Martini Luther i, pp. 3, 4. 52 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY entered the convent. But if he did not know his order's previous his- tory in connection with indulgences, Staupitz must have been better informed. Yet no one can read the letters and sermons of Luther of this early time without coming to the conclusion that he was not urged by Staupitz to compose and post his theses, or moved by any motive save that which he avowed: the good of his people and the honor of the Church. He thought to promote both, not to advance either his own fortunes or those of his order. Those who have seen in this question of indulgences only a trifling matter, which circumstances made the occasion of a formidable schism in the Church, have not apprehended its significance, any better than Luther did at the tune. He had no notion of raising a standard of revolt against Church and Pope, or of denying what he conceived to be the legitimate functions of either. But when he taught that Christ had made complete satisfaction for all sins, and that the penitent is assured of participation in those benefits by faith, he swept away the whole Roman system of works and merits, and made the *theology of Thomas Aquinas an absolute nullity. If this were true, indulgences were an impertinence, and the sale of them a public scandal. No attack on the Church, its theology and practice, could have been more formi- dable than this; and the propounder of the theses had as yet no adequate idea of what he had done. Hence it was that Luther was amazed at the consequences of his act. The theses were at once printed, though not by his permission or wish, reprinted again and again, scattered broadcast over Germany, read by many thousands of the people of all ranks, discussed, and by the vast majority welcomed with loud acclaim. It was the first great demonstra- tion of the power of the printing-press. Gutenberg had made a Luther possible, and insured that he should not be suppressed by authority without a hearing. And if Luther did not understand the significance )f his theses, Germany did. The quick and enthusiastic response of the people was not to their doctrine so much as to their practical bearing. Men everywhere were tired of the extortion of Rome, they had been exploited to the limit of their endurance and beyond, and they heard gladly the note of rebellion in the theses. They only needed an excuse to rebel against, they but demanded a champion to fight, this greedy plunderer of Italy. The instinct of the people, rather than any logical deduction from any or from all of his propositions, told them that here was a man of clear perceptions, of undaunted spirit, ready to challenge iniquity in the highest places, willing to dare all for what he believed with all his soul to be the truth in short, the very leader for whom they were longing. And the heart of Germany was given to Luther for life! CHAPTER III IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE WHEN some sufficient answer could be given to Luther's theses, the indulgence traffic was already at an end in Germany. The first attempt at a reply came from Tetzel. He .proposed to hold two disputations, both at Frankfort-on-Oder, the first "for the defense of the Catholic faith and for the honor of the apostolic see," the second simply "for the honor of the apostolic see." 1 The first theses, to the number of 106, were devoted to the explanation, reassertion and defense of indul- gences; the second series of fifty were devoted to magnifying the Pope's power. The first series rather strengthened than weakened Luther's cause, by showing that he had not misstated the case between himself and his opponents. They have been appropriately published in Luther's works as " documents for promoting the Reformation. " Tetzel complains that Luther had not truly represented his manner of preaching, that with- out having heard him the Wittenberg professor had accepted the exag- gerated reports of others. It is likely that many things were attributed to Tetzel that ought to be credited to his subordinates, that some things were misunderstood, and that some were perverted. But still, his own words stand against him. In his propositions he reaffirmed the things that Luther especially condemned: asserted that repentance taught by Christ is the same as sacramental penance; that satisfaction must be made by men, by suffering the unremitted part of the penalty of sin, either in this life or in purgatory; and many of the other things that he was charged with preaching. He taught besides, that those who had neglected salvation until their dying day, if they should feel the least contrition, might have their eternal punishment changed into temporal; and although this punishment should be very great, it could be quickly relaxed by plenary pardons, or indulgences. In other words, however great a sinner a man might have been all his life, his friends ought not to be discouraged. It was at least possible that he was in purgatory, and if in purgatory his great sufferings could be at once ended by the purchase of a papal pardon for him. In regard to the power of the Pope, Tetzel maintained the extreme papal doctrine. In this case, however, the important thing is not what he taught, but the fact that he devotes a separate discussion to the 1 For both series of Tetzel's theses, see Appendix II. 53 .54 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY position of the Pope. The special defense indicated the point that needed special defense. Luther had not directly attacked the Pope's power, but first, the current doctrine of repentance, and then the sale of indulgences as based on that doctrine. But the discussion had not even reached its second stage before it was disclosed that, as indulgences were issued by the authority of the Pope, the Pope's authority was to be questioned and defined. Luther complained that his opponents attempted to put the Pope between them and harm. So they did. They had a right so to do, for they were acting in his name. To attack them was really to attack the Pope, unless they had gone beyond their commission. Some have thought that Tetzel and the rest acted unskillfully in directing the controversy toward the Pope, and that abler men might have confined it to the one question of indulgences. A better understanding of the case shows that they had no choice; they were powerless in the grip of an overmastering and merciless logic. And so was Luther; he had called up a spirit that would not down at his bidding. For the present, at least, the battle must rage about the Pope. TetzePs disputations were not held until January, 1518; his "Posi- tions" were published before the close of the year 1517. About the same time, Sylvester Prierias, Master of the Sacred Palace, Papal Inquisi- tor, etc., published his " Dialogue against the presumptuous conclusions of Martin Luther," which he dedicated to Leo X. It might be called a dialogue, because it gave alternately a proposition from Luther and a paragraph of reply by Prierias. It is slight, hastily written and touches the questions at issue in a dainty, condescending way. Prierias was in Rome, where the Pope's power enveloped all things like an atmosphere, and he had no conception of the gravity of the situation, or of the charac- ter of the man with whom he was dealing. Copies of his book reached Wittenberg in January, 1518. Luther did not at first know how to treat it; for a time he thought no notice should be taken of it, pretending to think that it was a forgery that some obscure person, writing in the name of a high papal official, wished to provoke him to reply." 1 The Dialogue of Prierias was mainly on the power of the Pope. He, too, saw that indulgences involved the papacy, and that the question of the Pope's power came logically before the question of indulgences. He began by laying down four fundamenta, or primary principles : 1 . The Roman Church is virtually the Church universal, and the Pope is virtually 1 LOL, 1 : 341 seq. Recent investigations have shown that Prierias did not "" rush in where angels fear to tread," but had been requested by Leo to give an expert opinion on the theses. His dialogue was, therefore, a semi-official refutation of Luther's doctrine, especially those theses that related to the papal supremacy. See especially Bohmer, Luther im Lichte der neueren Forschung. Leipzig, 1906; 2nd. ed. 1910. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 55 the Roman Church. 2. The universal Church is infallible, and this includes both the infallibility of an ecumenical council and the infalli- bility of the Pope. 3 . Whoever does not rely on the teaching of the Roman Church and of the Roman Pontiff as an infallible rule of faith, from which even the Scripture draws strength and authority, is a heretic. 4. Not only what the Roman Church teaches, but also what the Church does, is to be accepted as infallible and of divine authority; its example is as potent as its word. From all this it follows that he who says the Roman Church cannot do in reference to indulgences what in fact it has already done, is a heretic. 1 Luther changed his mind and wrote a hasty but vigorous reply to the Dialogue. He, too, began with foundation principles. The first is taken from the Apostle Paul: "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good." And again, "If an angel from heaven preach to you another Gospel than that which ye have received, let him be anathema. " The second is from Augustine: "Only to those books that are called canoni- cal have I taught that this honor should be given, that I must firmly believe that no writer of them has erred. As to the rest, however strong they may be in doctrine and holiness, I do not therefore believe a thing because they have thought it true." The third is from Pope Clement VI, and forbids indulgence-sellers to promise the people anything, except it is expressly contained in their letters of instruction. Luther thought that these principles, properly understood, completely refuted Prierias and his book. 2 The fundamenta of these two opponents show that they were the repre- sentatives, not of new but of old Church parties. These parties, in the lapse of time and by change of circumstances, had advanced; sharp con- flicts had led to clearer definition and more pronounced assertion. Prier- ias, a little more precisely than earlier writers, claimed the infallibility of the Pope, as being virtually the infallibility of the Church. Luther, on the other hand, claims with more distinctness than usual the sole infallibility of the canonical Scriptures, and the right to question anything not taught in them. He does this, however, in the words of Augustine. The controversy, by an inevitable movement, freed itself from accidental concernments; what at first appeared to be only the case of indulgences was coming out nakedly as the case of the Pope. The papal cause was on the defensive, and therefore at a disadvantage. It was also thus far unfortunate in its advocates; TetzePs "Positions" 1 After laying down these fundamenta, Prierias banteringly says, Age, tune, Marline, et tuas conclusiones in medium offeras. 2 The Responsio fills about sixty pages of Luther's works. He says it was writ- ten in two days. Ecce, mi R. P. cursim et duobus diebus tibi haec reddidi quid visa sunt levicula, quae to opposuisti, ideo extempore et ut in buccam venit tibi respondi. LOL, 2: 67. 56 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY were not forceful; it might be suspected that Prierias was a simpleton. 1 A third adversary, John Eck, was a man of more importance vice-chan- cellor of the university of Ingolstadt, a doctor of theology, a celebrated disputant and author and even Luther spoke of him as a man of real earning and culture. 2 He wrote thirty " Obelisks," as he called them, against Luther's theses. As they were written early in the controversy, about the beginning of the year 1518, they treated principally the doc- trine of repentance and the character of the sufferings in purgatory; they touched lightly, hardly at all, on the question of the Pope's power. They were brief criticisms of selected propositions from the theses, free, incisive, outspoken, but there was little in them that went beyond the bounds of legitimate controversy. There were several things, however, that made them particularly worrying to Luther and his friends, chief of which was the fact that Eck had but recently become acquainted with the Wittenberg professors, and had shown a marked disposition to cul- tivate their friendship. His attack on Luther was of the nature of a surprise. Besides, Luther complained that Eck treated him ungener- ously, called him violent, a Bohemian, a heretic, seditious, rash, impu- dent; said he was inept, unlearned, a contemner of the Pope, and other things little less unpleasant. Eck was probably too harshly judged, and Luther was oversensitive. The Ingolstadt professor was anxious to avoid a break with his new friends, and explained that he had written his "Obelisks" at the instance of his diocesan, the bishop of Eichstadt, and for his use alone; that they were not printed or intended for general circulation, and he was mortified that they had gotten abroad. They had been written hastily, and, not intending them for the public, he had written them with less reserve than he would have used if he had ever expected them to be seen by Luther, whom he had no wish to injure. These things he said in a letter to Carlstadt, who, as he had heard, was preparing a reply to the "Obel- isks." He wished to avoid a controversy with the Wittenbergers and to retain their friendship, but his letter failed of its purpose Carlstadt had already replied in disputations at the university. 3 Luther replied 1 He was already growing old, and complains of faculties made sluggish by age and disease. He did not at once reply to Luther's rejoinder. It was in No- vember, 1519, that his Replica was printed at Rome. His Epitoma came later. In 1520 Luther printed it with brief notes, as he did the Replica. His first notice of Prierias was comparatively moderate in tone. He closed his Responsio by advising Prierias, if he should continue the controversy, to come better prepared: Vide ut Thomam tuum armatiorem producas in arenum. Later he used more bitter- ness. In private letters he ridiculed the mistakes of Prierias, and quoted the wits of Basel who called him the cook instead of the Master of the sacred palace magirum (magister) palatii sacri. 2 Insignis veraeque ingeniosae eruditionis, et eruditi ingenii homo. LOL, 1: 406. *Carlstadt's Condusiones and Defensio may be found in Loscher, 2: 78seq. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 57 later in his "Asterisks"; 1 and, as is not unusual in controversy, he attrib- uted to Eck offensive epithets that the latter had not used, while he used others toward Eck even more offensive than those of which he complained. The controversy, of no great importance in itself, had an important influence in determining the course of events: it called out Carlstadt, Luther's first active associate in his work against indulgences, and it produced a permanent estrangement between Eck and his oppo- nents. Both parties had just enough of controversy to make them wish for more; each had a score to settle. Eck, in particular, was restless, enterprising, unforgetting, unforgiving, and wished and watched for an opportunity to meet Luther and Carlstadt on another field. Thus the "Obelisks," a slight thing, of which he thought little and from which he expected nothing, was Eck's first step toward becoming a prominent actor in a great drama. Things had moved rapidly. In less than three months after the theses were posted Tetzel, Prierias and Eck had written replies to them, and Luther was not long silent. Not only the questions in dispute, but also the disputants themselves were brought prominently before the public. It was much that the parties could be clearly discriminated and the fundamental principles of each be understood, but in every dispute there is an interest that attaches to the disputants, quite independent of the importance of the questions involved. 2 It was of prime importance, therefore, that Luther should have the sympathy of the people; and his evident acquaintance with the subjects discussed, his bold and incisive style, his courage and earnestness, all conciliated favor. His adversaries' lack of the things that most pleased in him, put them at a disadvantage; the contempt that men had for them was carried over to the cause they advocated. Had they been abler men, or had he been less able, had they disputed better or he not so well, things might have gone differently. But this does not state the whole case. The cause was something, the personal character and skill of the disputants was something, but their manner of disputing was also something. What is proof at one time is not proof at another every age has standards of authority peculiar to itself. Luther appealed to men's moral instincts, to the older Fathers of the Church, and to the authority of Scripture; his adversaries used scholastic methods that were already discredited, quoted scholastic authorities that had already been cast down from their preeminence, and appealed to the authority of the Pope, which was itself in dispute. !LOL, 1: 406 seq. ! "Between ourselves," Goethe wrote to Knebel, "there is nothing interesting in the whole Reformation except the character of Luther; and he, moreover, is the only thing which made an actual impression on the multitude." (Quoted by Eucken, "The Problem of Life," p. 273.) This is an exaggeration, but has a large basis of truth. 58 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY They were using antiquated weapons; they were turning wheels that were out of gear. Luther belonged to the coming, his adversaries to the receding, age. It was the Dialogue of Prierias that first indicated the attitude of Leo X to Luther and his teaching. In February, 1518, he was already consider- ing what ought to be done. He wrote to Gabriel Venetus, General of the Augustinians: "I wish you would undertake, by the authority that your office gives you, to restrain Martin Luther, a monk of your order, who, as I suppose you know, is unsettling matters in Germany by teach- ing men to follow new doctrines. If you act promptly, it will be easy to extinguish the flame now just kindled. For disturbances, while small and only rising, cannot withstand vigorous measures of repression. But if you delay, and the evil gains strength, I fear that when we wish to put the fire out we cannot do it." 1 This indicates prudence and a clear understanding of what ought to be done in a given understood case ; the difficulty was to understand this particular case. Luther's work might come to naught if left alone; opposition might make matters worse; prompt, vigorous measures might be effective. Who could tell which was best? We understand the situation far better than the Pope did, but it is still difficult to say what would have been wisest. The Pope, not knowing exactly what to do, vacillated. That he did so is hardly to be reckoned against him; certainly his failure to meet and overcome the difficulties of the situation was not due to his lack of ability as a man, or his position as a ruler. His history was unique. He was perhaps the only one of the long line of Popes who from his birth was designed and educated for that high office. He was born Giovanni di Medici, December 11, 1475, and his father was the celebrated Lorenzo di Medici, the greatest of the makers of Florence. At thirteen he was made a cardinal by Innocent VIII, at seventeen he took up his residence at Rome. His own character, conduct and attainments cooperated with the powerful interest in his favor, and on the death of Julius II (February 21, 1513) he was elected Pope (March 11), when he was thirty- seven years old, taking the papal throne with the name of Leo X. He had enjoyed a long experience in the ordinary affairs of Rome and the Papacy, but this, in the long run, instead of being of service to him, was probably a disadvantage. It produced in him the habit of feeling that what had been would continue to be, and he was therefore quite unpre- pared for the coming revolution. At first he took only a personal interest in Luther's affairs; he thought Brother Martin a fine genius; and as to the controversy about indulgences, it was only a squabble among monks.2 1 Walch, 15: 427. The letter is dated February 3, 1518. 2 The words attributed to Leo X when he first heard of the controversy are: Che fra Martino aveva un bellesimo ingenio, e che coteste erano invidie fratesche. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 69- But after a while the case seemed to grow in importance, and he thought that it ought to receive attention. Accordingly, on May 5, he instructed Cardinal Thomas de Vio, usually called Cajetan, whom he sent as a legate to Germany, to take steps toward silencing Luther, or at least toward prejudicing the princes against him. On April 3, Cardinal Raphael di Rovere had written to the Elector of Saxony, commanding him not to- protect Luther's person or his books. As the dangers were arising, Luther was thinking of putting himself under the Pope's protection. Even while he was writing his "Asterisks," he had in mind a detailed explanation of his theses; and having written this, he sent it, together with a letter dated May 30, 1518, to his friend Staupitz, requesting him to convey it, in the most convenient way, to the Pope. 1 This letter to Staupitz is manly and generous. The first part recalled his obligations to the writings of his friend, and describes how it was that he came to understand and to love the true doctrine of repentance; and how, when he had learned it, the preachers of indulgences came and filled him with indignation by teaching their falsehoods; how at last he determined to call their teachings in question; and how, when they could not answer him, they pretended that he was weakening the authority of the Pope. This, he said, was why he, a diffident man, a lover of quiet, had ventured to come before the public. He wished the Pope to under- stand his cause, and, therefore, he had sent his book, that it might be a sort of advocate for him against the attacks of his enemies. But he did not wish his friend to be involved in his dangers, that he would bear alone. His conclusion is tinged with sadness, but shows no lack of cour- age; it seems to come from one who felt that the way before him was dark, and that he walked by faith, not by sight. He says: "To those threatening friends of mine I have no answer except the saying of Reuch- lin, ' He who is poor fears nothing, has nothing to lose. ' I neither have nor desire riches. My fame and honor, if I have them, my enemies are busy destroying. One thing is left: my poor, weak body, weary with trouble. If by force or treachery they should take that from me, they wo aid only make me poorer by an hour or two of life. My sweet Redeem- er and Propitiator, the Lord Jesus Christ, is enough for me: to him will I sing as long as I live. " With the letter to Staupitz was also sent a letter to the Pope, whom he addressed humbly, but with dignity and candor. "I have heard, most Luther, however, in his Table Talk gives a somewhat different version that had come to his ear: "A drunken Dutchman wrote them [the theses]; when he has slept out his sleep, and is sober again, he will then be of another mind." 1 The title is : Resolutiones Disputationum de Indulgentiarum virtute, R. P. ac sacrae iheologiae doctoris Martini Lutheri Augustaniani Vuittembergensis. Ad Leonem decimem Pontif. omnibus modis summum. Candidum et liberum lectorem opto. LOL, 2: 137. 60 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY blessed Father," so he begins, "that you have heard a very bad report of me, by which, as I learn, certain friends of mine have made my name grievously to stink with you and those about you, as if I were seeking to demolish the authority and power of the keys and of the chief Pontiff. That I am hence accused of being a heretic, an apostate, a perfidious per- son, yea, called a thousand names, or rather nicknames. Ears are horrified, eyes are stopped! But I have this source of confidence, an innocent and quiet conscience. " He then goes over somewhat the same ground as in his letter to Staupitz, except that he gives more in detail a history of his experience with the sellers of indulgences. Among us, he says, in these last days that jubilee of apostolical indulgences began to be preached and went on to such an extent that the preachers of it, think- ing that everything was lawful to them under the terror of your name, dared to teach openly the most impious and heretical things, to the gravest scandal and derision of the ecclesiastical power, as if the decretals against the abuse of indulgences were of no concern to them. He was greatly stirred. " I verily burned, " he said, "as with zeal for Christ, as it seemed to me, or if any prefer it, with youthful fire; and yet I did not see that it was my business to do anything. At last I privately appealed to some of the great ones of the Church. I was received by some in one way, by some in another, to some I seemed ridiculous, to some something else; the terror of your name, the threats of your censures, was over- powering. " When no one else would do anything, and when he could do nothing else, he proposed a disputation. This was the offense that he had committed. Contrary to his expectations his theses had gone out into all the world. Neither his own nor anyone else's had ever had such a circulation. But what could he do? He could not recall them; and they had brought him into a dangerous notoriety. He appealed to the Pope for countenance and protection. He assured him that he simply could not be so bad as he had been represented, otherwise he would not have the friendship of the Elector and other good men. He closes by saying: "Myself and all I have and am, I cast at your feet. Make alive, kill, call, recall, approve, disapprove, as pleases you. I will recognize your voice as the voice of Christ presiding and speaking in you. If I have merited death, I will not refuse to die, for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, who is blessed forever, Amen. May he preserve you eternally. " The book sent with this letter is one of the most important of Luther's early writings. It is a very reasonable, earnest apology, in the older sense of that word. It occupies about one hundred and fifty pages in his printed works. Taking up the theses one by one, sometimes with a few sentences of comment, sometimes with an elaborate argument, it IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 61 explains and defends them. On the whole it is written in good temper, only now and then breaking into a strain of indignation. It is introduced by a protestation that the author wishes to say nothing and to hold nothing except what is taught in the Holy Scriptures, in the Fathers recognized by the Roman Church, and in the canons and papal decretals. In the discussion he submits to the judgment of his superiors. And yet, in defense of Christian liberty, he claims the right to challenge the opinions of Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura, or any other scholastics or canonists. Large use has already been made of this book; it is not necessary, therefore, to do more now than say that it gives a full and satisfactory view of what Luther taught in the beginning of the contro- versy, and, incidentally, also what his opponents taught. It shows, too, that they were not far wrong in taking the theses as something more than simple questions for debate. His heart was hi them. He sent his Explanations to the Pope with a serious purpose. 1 He thought they might have some effect, and that somehow he would be safer by having them as an advocate at the Roman court. He knew the Pope as little as the Pope knew him. In this case, and once hi awhile through life, he showed great simplicity and unconsciousness of the ways of the world. It does not appear that Leo X took his Explanations into serious consideration, either in a meeting of the Cardinals or in private thought. It is certain that matters moved on, just as if Luther had made no effort to show Leo that the latter was nothing like so important a character as he took himself to be, and that a wise and pious Pope could not possibly do what at that very moment he was vigorously doing. Luther's opponents were much exasperated; the further the controversy progressed, the more evident it became that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to escape a conflict with the Church authorities. Already he was called a heretic; steps had been taken to cite him to Rome; excommunication was threatened. At ordinary times the case of one man, however great, might be of little significance. But men's minds were then plastic, ready to receive new impressions, and disposed to inquire into the reasons of things. By the slow working of mighty but recognized forces, the grasp on old things had been released; old con- ceptions had been weakened, old combinations made feeble and ready to fall to pieces. In the general loosening of things, there was an oppor- tunity for the sweeping away of what had become hurtful through having got a wrong meaning, or having done its work and lingering beyond its 1 Near the cloae of his life Luther said of this time: "In those things I verily thought that I would have the Pope as my patron; I was strongly relying on him." LOL, 1: 16. 62 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY day. There was also opportunity for bringing in new thought and making new adjustments. Luther, more than any other man, partly by his character and partly by his circumstances, was prepared to take advantage of the opportunity offered. He was so situated that in acting for himself, he was acting for his tunes. He was threatened with excommunication. How ought such a threat to affect him? How ought it to affect the world? What is excom- munication? This was a pressing question, and he answered it for him- self and for the people in a sermon that he preached in Wittenberg in July, 1518, and afterwards published. Excommunication, he said, is simply depriving the faithful of communion, and their being outside it. Communion itself is twofold, first inward and spiritual; second, external and corporeal. The spiritual communion is faith, hope and charity. Only God can give, and only God can take away, the internal communion. Ecclesiastical communion, therefore, has reference only to the external sacraments. To be excommunicated is not to be handed over to the devil; it does not deprive one of the goods, or of the common prayers, of the Church. If it is just, the external corresponds with the internal and spiritual, but does not itself interrupt the spiritual communion. That only the man can do by his sin. Excommunication was not intended to destroy internal communion. When justly inflicted, its natural effect was to restore that communion, when unjustly inflicted to increase it. The excommunication of the Church is like the chastisement of a mother, given in love and intended for good; and whether just or unjust is to be patiently borne. It can harm only when it excites to resentment and rebellion. One unjustly excommunicated has the opportunity given him of bearing it in such a way as to win the noblest merit. The fear of dying in excommunication ought not to deter him from doing right. To die in excommunication is not to be lost. To be excommunicated for righteousness' sake will rather bring a brighter crown. 1 In the sermon on excommunication, Luther was consciously preparing himself and his followers for what might be before him. He wrote to Staupitz, September, 1518, that he had preached it, and that it was very much needed by the people vehementer necessarium populo. If he could not avoid excommunication, he could easily endure it. He need not fear for himself; his friends need not fear for him. What had been one of the most terrible instruments of papal repression had lost its ter- rors. It was a lion in the way, but a chained lion. In this same way Luther prepared himself to meet the charge of heresy that was now brought against him. For hundreds of years the Church had taught and men had believed that heresy was the greatest of crimes. , 2: 306 seq. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 63 A heretic was to the Church what a leper was to the old Law, and more: he was not worthy to live. But what was a heretic? The name had been much abused. Luther had many occasions to feel this and to inquire within himself what it was to be a heretic. Shrinking from and hating the name, 1 how far could he go in opposing current beliefs without deserv- ing it? Two things were necessary for him and his cause: first, there must be occasion for making clear his thoughts of heresy to himself, and second of teaching them with emphasis to others. The occasion was furnished for the first by every attack made on him, and for both by his controversy with Hoogstraten. Hoogstraten, in a published work, had advised the Pope to use fire and sword against Luther, and so rid the world of one of the worst of men. This was said by an inquisitor of heresy; and it was as a heretic that Luther was to be burned. In his reply, he did not attempt to define heresy; it does not admit of an exact definition. The case of Hoog- straten was not a case for argument; he had not himself reasoned or ar- gued. The fool must be answered according to his folly; he must be made ridiculous. It so happened that this was not difficult to do. Hoogstra- ten had a record; he had been engaged in a controversy with the celebrated Hebrew scholar,* Reuchlin, in which he had taken the side of prescription against learning. The wits had laughed at him; the scholars felt con- tempt for him. Luther made short work of him. "Here," said he, "is Hoogstraten's argument: This is contrary to Scripture; therefore it is heretical. Very good; David's adultery was contrary to Scripture, nay, it was contrary to the Decalogue. Therefore, it was heresy. There is no sin, however slight, that is not contrary to Scripture; therefore, the whole world is nothing but pure heresy. The Church itself is not with- out sin, is heretical. We are all heretics except only Hoogstraten, who is not as other men are! " When we have made a man seem contemptible, we may easily speak contemptuously of him. Luther continues: "Who is a heretic if not you, who, according to your logic, hold premises from which the most heretical conclusion follows, that the whole Church is heretical? There- fore, I say I never saw a more pestilent heretic than Jacob Hoogstraten. Arise, then, Leo X, most gentle shepherd, and send other hunters of heretics to look after this hunter of heretics ! " 2 Hoogstraten was defeated ; but more, and far more important, Luther and his friends were put in a position in which they might laugh at and despise a charge of heresy. No one who understands anything of the power of custom or of long reigning conceptions will think that time has been wasted in indicating 1 Haereticus nunquam ero, errare disputando possum, he wrote to Spalatin August 21, 1518. De Wette, 1: 133. 2 LOL, 2: 295-297. 64 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY the process by which Luther was freeing himself and the people from the domination of the slow developments of the past. He was clearing the way, removing obstacles which remaining he could not advance. No man is so likely to find the truth as he who needs it, and Luther never thought so well about heresy and excommunication as when he was called a heretic and threatened with the censures of the Church. In after years, as the responsible leader of a great party, he saw some things obscurely or not at all, which he saw clearly when he was making his way in opposition to authority and power. He rightly urged patience under unjust excommunication; we shall see how patient he was when he was excommunicated ! He thought there ought to be freedom in reference to things not authoritatively defined; nevertheless the charge of heresy might be lightly made, even by Lutherans, after awhile. So much de- pends on the point of view! In the history of great movements, it oftens happens that some par- ticular time is marked by the conjunction of many things of importance. Sometimes it is a day, sometimes a month or year, that is so marked. Men seem to be under a lucky or unlucky star. In the early time Luther had a fateful month: it was August, 1518. Not the first thing, but cer- tainly not the least important thing, of that month was the coming of Philip Melanchthon. 1 He was born at Bretten, in Baden, February 16, 1497. His original name was Schwartzerd; it was turned into Greek by Reuchlin. His father, George Schwartzerd, was an armorer, a skillful and honored mechanic, who died when Philip was eleven years old. His mother, Barbara Reuter, was of good family and excellent character, besides being a woman of unusual sense. 2 On the father's side he was related to Reuchlin, and lived for a time in the house of Reuchlin's sister, his grandmother, and thus came under the notice and won the esteem of the great scholar. This was at Pforzheim, where he spent two years (1507- 1509) in the Latin school. He went thence to the university of Heidel- berg, and in 1511 took his Bachelor's degree. His Master's degree was refused him the next year, on account of his youth. It was given him at Tubingen, where he was an enthusiastic student, in 1514. In April, 1518, the Elector Frederick wrote to Reuchlin asking him to recommend some one to teach Greek in the university of Wittenberg. Reuchlin 1 The name is variously spelled: Melanchthon (which agrees best with the Greek) , Melancthon, and Melanthon the last being the form adopted by himself in his later years. * Melanchthon's mother is said to have been the author of the popular lines: Almsgiving beggareth not; Church-going hindereth not; To grace the ear delayeth not; Gain ill-gotten helpeth not; God's book deceiveth not. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 65 recommended Melanchthon. The 24th of July of that year he wrote to Melanchthon: "Here is a letter from the most pious prince, signed by his own hand, in which he offers you the place and promises to be gracious to you. Wherefore now I address you sincerely in the language of the true promise made to Abraham, 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee; and I will make thee a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing.' So my mind presages, so I hope, Philip, that thou wilt be my reward and solace." 1 Almost immediately Melanchthon set out for Wittenberg, leaving Tubin- gen with the regrets and good will of all. On the way he stopped at Augsburg, where the Diet was in session, and paid his respects to the Elector and to Spalatin. He met with Bavarians too, who wished him to go to Ingolstadt rather than to Wittenberg. At Niirnberg he made the acquaintance of Pirckheimer, the noted Humanist. At Leipzig he was feted and toasted, and an effort was made to detain him for the uni- versity there. August 25th, early in the morning, he entered Witten- berg. He was so young, so unimpressive in appearance, that the Witten- berg professors thought there was some mistake, and that Reuchlin could not have recommended such a mere boy to the Elector. On the 29th he delivered his first lecture. Two days afterwards Luther wrote to Spalatin: "The fourth day after his coming Melanchthon delivered a most learned and elegant lecture, so much to the delight and admira- tion of all, that we now no longer wonder why you commend him to us. We have already ceased to think of the weakness of his outward appear- ance, and rejoice in and admire the force that is in him. If we can keep him, I wish no other teacher of Greek." 2 He already began to fear that the diet at Wittenberg would not agree with the young Grecian, and that some other university would tempt him away with a larger salary. The 2d of September Melanchthon's lecture room was crowded, and all classes from highest to lowest were touched with enthusiasm for Greek. The 14th of December Luther wrote to Reuchlin: "Our Philip Melanchthon is an admirable man; yea, there is hardly any respect in which he does not surpass other men; nevertheless he is on the best and most friendly terms with me." 3 Melanchthon was twenty-one years old; Luther was already famous and fourteen years older. They had been together only a hundred days, and there had begun between them such a friendship as is rarely known among men. It was on the 7th of August that Luther received notice of his summons to Rome. He had been trusting that his letter to the Pope might ward ^R, 1: 32. De Wette, 1: 135. i *De Wette, 1: 197. 66 THE REFORMATION EN" GERMANY off the threatened blow. He was disappointed: the Pope was about to caQ him to account. Before the 7th he had been much in the thoughts rsons in the highest position. Two letters were written about day, the 6th of August. One was by the Emperor Mari- the other by the Hector of Saxony. The Emperor's letter was to the Pope. He had heard, he said, a few days before, of Luther's the Sacred Palace, Prierias, had abo called his attention to them. They gained many friends even among best qualified to judge what doctrine was injurious, and it was his duty to sflenee those who wordily contended about idle and tical questions. He fywnpbMnpH tJHEt^ in defiance of an old law, the religious doctors gave themadv^a up to scholastic reasonings t *', - __ i ___ ^f jLl_^ -JJ _ 1, _ ____ "a * M ._ _& AIL _ *^n _____ " O_ JL to toe neglect at toe 010, accnowiedgea teacnezs of toe Lnurcn. oucn a cuurae led naturally to tins present condition of things, and unless some- thing was done to prevent it, maUm would grow worse. He mentioned to the Pope that he might take steps to prevent scandal to by nan, captions, disputatious men. He himself would take ( tint whatever tie Pope should decree should be done in the Empire. The letter interprets itself. He who wrote it was now old and drawing to the dose of his long reign. 1 The Elector's letter was to the Cardinal Raphael Rovere. It was in answer to one that the Cardinal had written him several months before, about Lather, to whom he suspected the Hector of being too favorable. Frederick assures the Cardinal of his unalterable derotkm to the Cathofic He had never, even to that day, undertaken to defend Lather's as he had already shown the papal legate, both by But, as he learns, Dr. Martin had never refused, if his safety were guaranteed, to appear before just, wise and impartial judges and defend his doctrine; and if he should be taught better out of the Holy SeiipUmia, he would obediently submit. Besides, the Arch- bishop of Trier had already been spoken to about him, and Lather, no doubt, if his safety were sufficiently assured, would obediently answer the Archbishop's summons. It would grieve the Hector from his soul, if errors in the Catholic faith should spring up and exist in Ms day, and especially if they should be promoted by him. Fcuui which impfety, said he, may God pnamc me pure. 2 These letters enable us to understand the attitude of their writers 1 IXH*. 2: 349 109. * LOL, 2: 351. 352. B ftJUw Joiy 7, and was ' tetter wm wnttai t Borne April 3. from Axtgftnrg, A girt. 5. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 67 A 1 At. * Al., *I^. _ T^ ^ -"-- I 1 jLt. . --- toward toe movement tnai gomg on. i DC rjnperor attnoutea toe nse of the error to the unfaithfulness of the Church IM*!***^ and eBpedafty to the indulgoice in dialectic quibbfes. He implied that the Pope himself was not free Itvtu blame, in thai he had neglected the enforcement of 1 . ~1 1. ,_. ~1 .. *J. * M l^* _ * - * u *.- * ... ! i. j. ^_ M^ lair, ana naa not ezerasea ms ngnt to tAv4ii nonicaft ana even nuruul The Elector was peeufiarry situated. He knew Lather, his gHning and force of character, and befaered in honesty and piety. It is hard to feel that a mire is a heretic. Besides, the Elector was proud of Lother was hi? mn^ frtiliiaM 1 professor. He AM^BT frnm atitfr EmpeTOT Of Elector. There were two other notewwthy letters written in Angoet, 1518, both on the 23d of the month and both by the Pope. Onewastothe The Pope began by Mirindmg him of h to the papal see, and suggested that he ought to keep op the family reputation, That reputation was in danger: a cetlaut son of iniquity. and that he therefore feared no reproof . The Pope knew that this was frbe, and yet he thought ft proper to wain the Elector. He should not only be free from gaflt^ bat free also from auapir JOIL. The was said by way of lol-T^fflur^^* 1 He went on to say that he had heaid from many Palace," that the avid Martin Lather was ing certain impious and heretical things, awl that te had therefore ordered him to be cited to answer, and had his legate, to do what he ou^it to do. And as it the Apostofic See to know who thinks rightly and wrongjty, he and nmmndi the Elector, "for God's honor, and the Pope's and the Elector's honor, to seek and bring it about that the said Martin Luther be defivered up to the power and judgment of the Holy See, At _ f _____ g J ___ A_ _^_ .. 1 J __ * _ Tn WT, _____ ? ___ a .__ _ ji " A __ "aoai __ a __ as the aluresan legate snomoi require. ne pronmea tnat it toe Juector ihougjht there was good in Luther, after tnat net ***** been ascertained and he had been found innocent, he would be sent back with afl good SU:L .1 .:~.~:r -T"." : :. ~. : :. "-: .:.'. " r.:_ : - i .:".;. by the whole of Europe, of sincere piety and Tcnerable for age as well as character, was properly courteous, but one can hardly see in it, with lack plainness. The other letter was to Gwfinal Cretan, the papal representative m Germany. It was an official document, to the Pope's j^ - _z: . _.Al_. 1 1 in, ill M. Ti- -_^. tttm - - * - CM., -- . .^utiy s^iMioaTn it was tne oraer rar 68 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY arrest. It began by reciting his offense: He had dared to teach things contrary to what was held by the Roman Church, and also, in his rash- ness, without having consulted that Church, the mistress of faith, to publish in various parts of Germany certain Theses and also infamous little books. Wishing paternally to restrain his rashness, the Pope had commissioned Jerome, Episcopus Asculanus, to inquire into his belief and admonish him. This had been done (the 7th of August) and Luther had abused the papal kindness and published more books containing more heresy, thereby disturbing the Pope's mind no little. He would forbear no longer, but lest the disease should grow worse, he commanded the legate to have Luther brought before him as a declared heretic; and when he had him in his power he was to keep him safe until he should receive the Pope's command for him to stand in the presence of the Apos- tolic See. This was to be done with the aid of the Emperor, the courts, the universities, and so on to the end of the list. If Luther should voluntarily deliver himself up, ask pardon, and show signs of repentance, the Cardinal might benignly receive him to the unity of the holy mother Church, which never closes her heart against the returning penitent. But if he should remain perverse, and should not surrender himself, he and his followers were to be publicly declared heretics, anathematized, and Christians were to be required to avoid them under penalty of ex- communication. All persons, secular and ecclesiastical, of every order (the Emperor Maximilian excepted) were required to take the said Martin Luther and his followers and deliver them into the Cardinal's hands. If the princes or others should favor Luther, publicly or privately, or in any way receive him or give him aid, their cities, towns, lands were to be placed under interdict as long as he remained in them, and three days afterwards. Besides, there was to be exclusion from office and other civil and political disabilities, and refusal of Christian burial to those who should be disobedient; rewards and favors to those who should assist in carrying out the Pope's will. 1 Affairs in Germany, and particularly the above-summarized letters of the Emperor and Elector, probably stimulated the Pope to take such vigorous measures with Luther. The fire so recently kindled was already spreading with alarming rapidity. The meeting of the Diet at which Cajetan was present, the conference between the Emperor and the Elector of Saxony (which resulted in both writing the same day) the discussions of public matters among the princes, had helped to disclose the situation. t l LOL, 2: 354. Though this letter, of which nothing is known beyond its pub- lication by Luther in his Acta Augustana, is accepted by Pallavicini as genuine (in his "History of the Council of Trent"). Ranke has shown that there are in- superable difficulties in the way of accepting its genuineness. Kolde, however, de- fends the authenticity of the letter. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 69 The principal business of the Diet was to confer about a Turkish war; but it was felt that the relations of the Pope to Germany also required consideration. It was even suggested that the Turk was to be looked for in Italy, rather than in Hungary or the East. The Germans were moved to think of and formulate their grievances against the papal court. There was a double revelation of disaffection and hostility towards Rome and of possible sympathy and favor for Luther. The declared heretic was also getting a better understanding of things. It began to be suggested to him that he was not so entirely alone as he had thought himself to be. Of course the Pope's letters of August 23d were not seen hi Witten- berg in that month. It was some time before the letter to Cajetan was known to Luther and his friends. But the admonition of the 7th caused much anxiety. The anxiety was probably increased by the apparently inopportune publication of the reply to Prierias, and the Explanations of the Theses a few days after the coming of the summons. That publi- cation was certain to be construed as an additional offense. The Pope would not stop to think that the printing must have been ordered long before, and he would suspect Luther of contempt and defiance. This is what Luther's friends would fear; and it is what the Pope actually did. 1 The crowding together of so many things in one month indicated the coming of a crisis. The battle was ordering itself. The coming of Melanchthon, the letter of the Emperor, the letter of the Elector, the summons to Rome, the Diet at Augsburg, the conference between Emperor and Elector, the presence of the papal legate, the Pope's two letters, the publication of Luther's important little books, all contributed to the general effect. Luther himself, and his friends with him, felt that he was being pressed to the wall. Staupitz wrote him on September 14th: "I do not see that anything except the cross awaits you. Unless I am mistaken, there is a notion abroad that without the Pope's permis- sion, no one should search the Scripture to find out what Christ would have him do. I wish that you would leave Wittenberg for a time and come to me, that we may live and die together." 2 This was written from Salzburg, whither Staupitz had gone to be head of a monastery. On August 8th, the next day after receiving the summons, Luther wrote to the Elector, asking his intercession and help. The university acted later (September 25th) writing two letters in his behalf, one to Miltitz, the papal nuncio, the other to the Pope him- 1 It was probably these books that the Pope alluded to in his letter of the 23d, when he said, "It has recently come to our knowledge, moreover, that the said Martin, having abused and been emboldened by our kindness, adding to his offenses and persisting in his heresy, has published certain other propositions," etc. 'Walch, 15: 2412. 70 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY self. The one to Miltitz was to beg that he, a German, would intercede for a German in distress. The Pope had spoken of Luther as a son of perdition; his neighbors, those who knew him best, thought very differ- ently of him. They called him the most distinguished member of the university. They had known him many years, and had found him to be not only a man of varied and distinguished learning, but also of the purest morals. As he appeared to the university, so he appeared to the Elector; neither he nor they would harbor or protect a heretic. 1 What they asked was that Miltitz would bring it about that his cause might be committed to impartial judges in Germany, and heard in some safe place. They did not doubt that Miltitz, whose power and influence were great at Rome, would be able to obtain for them what they asked. The letter to the Pope was somewhat shorter. It was written at Luther's request; he wished them to testify as to his doctrine and reputa- tion, which, as he claimed, certain persons had unjustly defamed. The letter urged his bodily weakness and the dangers of the way as a reason why he should not be required to go to Rome. 2 His principal offense was that he had somewhat too freely used the right of disputation, and had disputed (not asserted) certain things too vigorously for his ad- versaries. Both letters are abundantly submissive and respectful to the Pope. 3 They were written too late, however, to have any influence on the Pope's conduct. The Elector had already acted in the case, and it had beep decided. The Pope himself no doubt saw that Luther's arrest and delivery at Rome might be attended with difficulties. There were reasons why he should be willing to gratify the wishes of the Elector of Saxony, whose help he might need at no distant day. Possibly he was not yet certain that extreme measures would be necessary. At all events, he found it convenient, in a modified way at least, to suspend the order for Luther's arrest. Instead, he was to be heard in Germany by Cajetan. His friends would have preferred a German judge, but it was something that he was not compelled to go to Rome. The meeting with Cajetan was highly important. The case was developing, but it had not yet fully developed. Luther was still a loyal son of the Church. He could say, "I protest that I reverence and follow 1 So favorably are we disposed to the Christian religion, the holy apostolic see and the Holy Roman Church, that, if it was clear to us that Doctor Martin had lapsed into foul and impious errors, we ourselves would be the first not only to give him up to the laws, but ourselves to execute them and to cast him out so far are we from wishing to favor anyone who errs from the way of evangelical truth. Letter to Miltitz, LOL, 2: 361. 2 The plea of bodily weakness is not so unreasonable when we remember that Luther had traveled on foot to Rome in 1510; and that he now thought of going in no other way. He broke down on the shorter journey to Augsburg. 3 They say to the Pope: "We are prepared in all things to obey your will and that of the Holy Catholic Church in Christ Jesus our Lord God." They sign themselves the "Rector, Masters and Doctors of the Wittenberg Academy." LOL, 2: 363, 364. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE VI the Holy Roman Church in all my words and deeds, whether present, past or future. And if I have said, or shall hereafter say, anything con- trary to or different from that Church, I wish to hold it and to have it held not said." This he actually did say to Cajetan. The question about the Pope had, indeed, been raised, but he cared little for it. His chief interest was still in the question as to the nature and office of faith. If he "could have been tolerated in his views of faith, if the issue could have been kept from changing or widening, all might have been healed. The meeting with the papal legate might close or widen the breach. It took place at Augsburg, a city famous in the history of the Reformation. Luther traveled on foot. On September 28th he reached Weimar, where he met the Elector and preached. At Niirnberg he met his friend Wencel Link, from whom he borrowed a monk's frock, in which to appear before the Cardinal. Thence he went accompanied by Link and a former pupil. When within about fifteen miles of Augsburg he was taken sick and had to travel the rest of the way in a wagon. 1 All his circumstances were in striking contrast with the importance of his mission. In great moral and religious struggles, how little really depends on the accidents of a man! How greatly a great man towers above his accidents! Luther reached Augsburg October 7th, and went at once to the Augus- tinian convent. There the friends to whom the Elector had given him letters promptly called on him. He had come trusting hi the assurances of safety that Cajetan had given the Elector, and that the Elector had given him. He expected to appear without delay before the Cardinal, and so informed the messenger of that official. His friends, more prudent, warned him not to put himself in the legate's power without the pro- tection of a safe-conduct from the Emperor. The messenger insisted that such a safe-conduct was unnecessary, and the Cardinal regarded the suspicion that it might be needed as a reflection on his honor; but, on the whole, Luther concluded to follow the advice of his friends and accordingly he waited for the safe-conduct. In the meantime he re- moved to the convent of the Carmelites, at the invitation of John Trosch, the prior, an old friend. Here he had two or three days in which to rest and think of what was before him. He had reached the city Friday; he was on the streets Sunday and many were curious to see and hear him. He says, "All wished to see the Herostratus who had kindled so great a fire. " This he said in a letter to Melanchthon, whom he exhorted to 1 In recalling his journey to Augsburg, in 1545, he wrote: " Veni igitur pedester et pauper Augustam, stipatus sumptibus et literis Principis Frederici ad senatum et quosdam bonos viros comendatitiis. Pref . to LOL, 1 : 17. Among the good men to whom Luther was commended were the imperial Councillor Peutinger, Lange- mantel, the brothers Adelman and others. Staupitz was also in Augsburg. 72 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY continue to teach the young men as he had been doing. For himself, he said, he would rather perish, and what was more, give up his delightful fellowship with Melanchthon forever, than revoke what he had well said. He thought Italy full of palpable darkness; that the Italians were ignorant of Christ and Christ's doctrines; and it was bitter to him that they should be the lords of his faith. God in wrath, he said, had given them children for rulers. 1 It had not yet been sixty days since the young Melanchthon began to teach in Wittenberg, and in a strange city, sur- rounded by watchful enemies, Luther turned to him. The safe-conduct reached Luther October 10th, and the next day, Tuesday, he appeared before Cajetan. As he had never before had au- dience of a great papal official, it was needful to instruct him how to conduct himself. Following his instructions, he prostrated himself, then on being commanded to rise, he remained on his knees until a second order, when he stood up. The Cardinal received him graciously and respectfully. 2 He did not, he said, wish to dispute with Luther, but in a kind and fatherly way to settle the whole matter. In order to this he proposed, according to the instructions of the Pope, that Luther should do three things: first, return to himself and revoke his errors; second, promise to abstain from them hi the future; and third, to do nothing thereafter to disturb the peace of the Church. Luther in reply begged to be taught wherein he had erred. This seemed so reasonable that the Cardinal, who did not wish to dispute, came near being betrayed into disputing. He mentioned two things in Luther's teachings that were objectionable. The first was thesis 58: That the merits of Christ are not the Treasure of indulgences. This was in conflict with the Extrava- gans of Clement VI, the Unigenitus, etc. The second objectionable thing was that he who approaches the sacraments or enters into judgment must have faith. This, the Cardinal thought, was a new and erroneous doctrine, inasmuch as every man would be uncertain whether in the sacraments he would receive grace or not. He seems to have thought that Luther was ignorant of the Extravagans of Clement, and that an authority that satisfied him would also satisfy Luther But Luther replied that he was acquainted with the law referred to, and others of a similar charac- lr The letter to Melanchthon is short, LOL, 2: 364; De Wette, 1:145. It is dated Angustae feria secunda post Dionysii anno M. D. xmii. Roscoe ("Life of Leo X," Bonn ed.) says queerly that this letter was written "on the eve of Luther's departure on this expedition, so hazardous to himself," that is, by implication, at Wittenberg. Luther wrote: Omnes cupiunt videre hominem tanti incendii Heros- tratum. Roscoe translated: "Every one wishes to see the man who is to be the victim of such a conflagration." 2: 98. 2 Luther said: "I was received by the most reverend Lord Cardinal legate suffi- ciently kindly, almost too reverently, for he was altogether different from the tribe of robustious hunters of the brethren." LOL, 2: 369. This is from the first report that Luther gave of the interview. Afterwards, when he found that the Cardinal was against him, he spoke differently. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 73 ter, and had duly considered them. He did not regard them as sufficient authority, for many reasons, but chiefly because they did violence to the teachings of the Scriptures, which he followed and preferred. This led the Cardinal to claim that the Pope is above a council, above the Scriptures, supreme in the Church. Luther denied this, and the issue was fairly joined. Then followed a long, confused and unsatisfactory wrangle, in which many questions were raised and none settled. At length the Cardinal was weary of the talk and it closed, Luther asking time for deliberation. 1 The next day Luther was again before the Cardinal. This time he brought with him a written protestation, in which he claimed to be faithful to the Pope, but at the same time declined to renounce his teach- ing, or to make the promise that the Cardinal had required. He could not, unheard and unrefuted, be compelled to make a recantation. "I am not to this day, " he said, "conscious of having said anything contrary to the sacred Scripture, the Church Fathers, the decretals of the Popes, or right reason." On the other hand, all his teachings appeared to him sound, true and Catholic. Nevertheless, he was a man, capable of error, and he submitted himself to the legitimate judgment and decision of the Church, and of those who were able to instruct him. He offered to give a reason for his teachings, publicly and orally, or in writing, and to sub- mit to the judgment of several universities, including the university of Paris, which was then especially distinguished. The Cardinal substan- tially repeated what he had said the day before; and the meeting closed with little advance made, except that Luther had gained permission to present in writing a discussion of the two propositions to which the Cardinal had objected. 2 On the following day, October 13th, Luther appeared before the legate for the third and last time, bringing with him a long, closely argued paper. His first object was to show why he was not willing to take the Extrava- gans of Clement VI as final authority. He had several reasons for not do- ing so. First, it contradicted the unanimous opinion of the Church; second, it wrested the Scriptures, referring to indulgences what had been said of sanctifying grace; third, the simple fa'ct that it was a papal decretal gave it no binding authority, for such decretals have sometimes been false, contrary to Scripture and to charity; and the law did not require them to 1 Petii, ut tempus daret deliberandi. LOL, 2: 37. The account following of Luther's appearance before Cajetan is based on the Acta D. Martini Lutheri Augusta. LOL, 2: 365-392. Cf. Dieckhoff, Der Ablassstreit, p. 201 seq. 2 When Luther came on the second day with the vicar-general of the Congre- gation of Observantes, and began in the presence of a notary to make his pro- testation after the manner of disputants, the Cardinal smiled; and afterwards Luther spoke of their having sufficiently disputed orally, and wished to present his case in writing, Cajetan at once replied, "My son, I have never disputed with you, and I do not wish to dispute." Luther to the Elector. LOL, 2: 407. 74 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY be held true, except when they agreed with Scripture and did not disagree with former decrees of the Fathers. 1 The Pope could not have higher authority than Peter, and Peter had erred and been reproved, and at Jerusalem his teaching was not accepted until it was supported by the approbation of James and the consent of the whole Church. Moreover, he said, how many earlier decretals have been contradicted by later. And authorities show that not only a general council, but any Christian, is above a Pope if he contends with better authority and arguments. For these reasons he could not abandon what he had learned from the Scriptures, simply because a single obscure papal decretal was opposed to him. The words of Scripture, he said, which teach that even the saints fall short in merits, are infinitely to be preferred to the words of a Pope which say that the saints do good works in excess. But, after all, he cared little about the question of the Pope's infalli- bility, or whether he should be considered above a council. It was not a thing of vital importance. It was the second question that vitally interested him. A man might be a good Christian, whatever he should think of the Extravagans of Clement, but he was nothing but a heretic if he did not have faith in the word of Christ. That faith is necessary he proved in many ways, chiefly by quotations from the Scriptures which show the power of faith. He closed the long array of proofs by bringing in the testimony, first of Augustine, and then that of Ambrose. "These and many other authorities," he said, "compel me to the opinion that I have expressed. Wherefore I humbly beg that you will deal gently with me, have pity on my conscience, and show me the light by means of which I may have a different understanding; and do not compel me to a revocation of those things that in my conscience I do not think to be other than they are. While my authorities hold, I know nothing else that I can do except obey God rather than man. " He begged the Car- dinal's intercession with the Pope, that a soul seeking only the truth and fully prepared as soon as it was better instructed, might not be cast into outer darkness. He was not so arrogant and desirous of vainglory as to be ashamed to recall what he had erroneously spoken. He wished first of all that the truth should prevail; but he did not wish to be forced against his conscience, and he had no doubt that what he had taught was according to the Scriptures. On the whole it was an awkward meeting. Neither party was in natural relations to the other. It was in one sense a trial, in another a simple colloquy. In one sense Cajetan was Luther's judge, hi another 1 Although we ought to hear the Pope's decretals as the voice of Peter . . . yet it is understood only of those quae consonae sunt sacrae scripturae et a prionbus natrum decretis non dissentunt. LOL, 2: 373. IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 75 a fatherly adviser. 1 Luther was both a declared heretic and a disputant having a right to show his opinion. This anomalous state of things showed itself in the conduct of the principal actors. As the representa- tive of the Pope, the Cardinal required a revocation; as a paternal adviser he proposed objections and offered explanations. Luther, while recogniz- ing that he was on trial, nevertheless used the tone and manner of dis- putation. He afterwards complained that the Cardinal required him to revoke. The Cardinal complained that Luther insisted on disputing. He was kind and conciliatory in manner; he was not vexed, but rather amused, at Luther's mistaking him for# party to a theological controversy. Luther evidently surprised the Cardinal's party by his knowledge and readiness. He was earnest, candid, forcible, but perfectly respectful. He acted, as he said, with much reverence, for "even true things ought to be asserted and defended with humility." As might have been expected, Luther's paper produced no impression on Cajetan. He promised to send it to Rome, but still insisted that Luther should revoke, and if he was unwilling to do so he might consider the matter ended and expect to be called no more before him. In fact Luther saw him no more. The Cardinal sought to accomplish through Luther's friends, especially Staupitz, what he had been unable to accom- plish in person, but in that too he failed. Luther waited some days in Augsburg, and wrote two letters to the Cardinal, without gaining a response. 2 The Cardinal's silence, and the report that he and Staupitz were to be arrested and imprisoned, made Luther uneasy He thought that he had done enough to show his obedience to the Elector and the Pope, and that he might at last consult his own safety. One thing more, however, he did. He wrote and posted an appeal from Cajetan to the Pope, 3 and then, in the night, by an unfrequented gate, he left the city mounted on a hard-trotting horse, and at a speed too great for his com- fort, started back to Wittenberg. He had reached Augsburg on October 7th, appeared before the Cardinal on the llth, left the city on the 20th, and reached Wittenberg the 31st, the anniversay of Thesis day. The meeting at Augsburg influenced all the parties connected with the controversy, and affected the conduct of the Elector, the Pope and Luther. It made the Elector more distinctly and positively Luther's friend. Caje- tan wrote him that he had become convinced that Luther was a danger- ous man, likely to cause trouble, and that as such he ought to be promptly condemned. It was true that Luther had asserted certain things in his Theses tentatively and for disputation, but it was also true that he had 1 Ostendi monuique paterne, disputationes et sermones ejus esse contra apostolicam doctrinam. Cajetan to Elector Frederick. LOL, 2: 406. 2 LOL, 2: 393 seq.', De Wette, 1: 162 seq. 3 LOL, 2: 397 seq. 76 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY taught some things positively and affirmatively. Some of these things were against the teachings of the Apostolic See, and some were damnable. He called upon the Elector, as he valued his conscience and his honor, to send Luther to Rome, or at least to expel him from his dominions. So far as he, the legate was concerned, he had washed his hands of the business, and referred it to Rome, where it would be attended to. In a final paragraph, or postscript, he exhorted the Elector not to believe those who said that Luther's teachings were harmless; and not to stain his own and his ancestors' glory for the sake of one little monk. 1 The Elector promptly handed the Cardinal's letter to Luther, with the request that he, too, should make a report of what happened at Augs- burg. He also wrote to the Cardinal himself. He had promised Cajetan, he said, that Luther should personally appear before him at Augsburg, and he had fulfilled his promise. He had persuaded himself that the Cardinal would also act according to his promise, and after having heard Martin dismiss him in a kind and fatherly way ; that he would not compel him to revoke without having heard and discussed his case, as Martin reported that he had done. Besides, there were many learned men in the universities and elsewhere who could never be induced to say that Luther's doctrines were unchristian and heretical. Some who had con- demned hun had done so because his teachings interfered with their present gains. If he had any reason for thinking Luther a heretic, he would not need any exhortation or admonition to prompt him to do what he ought. He was surprised that the Cardinal had attempted to influence him to send Luther to Rome, or to expel him from his terri- tories, by the threat that the Roman Curia would now take charge of the case. Luther had never been convicted of heresy. He enclosed with his own letter Luther's account of the Augsburg meeting. The Elector's letter is dated December 8, 1518. 2 The Cardinal's report to Rome, and particularly Luther's appeal, made it necessary for the Pope to speak. He did speak, in a Brief to Cardinal Cajetan, the avowed purpose of which was to remove all excuse for those who alleged ignorance as an apology for opposing the teachings of the Apostolic See. The Brief, 3 slightly abridged, runs as follows: 1 Propter unum Fraterculum. LOL, 2: 409. The Cardinal is very earnest. He says, in a postscript, Iterum atque iterum rogo, ut Dominatio vestra illustrissima non permittat se decipi a dicentibus, etc. Cajetan is reported as saying of Luther, "I do not wish to talk any more with this beast. For he has deep eyes and won- derful speculations in his head." Schaff, 6: 174. 2 All the early attempts of the Roman Church to deal with Luther were simply attempts to crush him, without trial or hearing; his case was prejudged from the be- ginning, and the Curia would listen to no defense. He had questioned the papal power, and he was to be shown what the papal power could do to him. All these plans were brought to naught by the Elector's firm letter. * For this document see LOL, 2: 428 seq., and Loscher, 2: 494 seq. The latter calls it a bull or decretal, and in this he is followed by most historians. But this IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 77 Since, after your circumspection arrived in Germany, it came to our ears that certain of the religious, even some appointed for the preaching of the word of God, by publicly preaching concerning indulgences hitherto from time immemorial customarily granted by us and the Roman pontiffs, our predecessors have imprinted errors on the hearts of many 1 . . . . We enjoin that by our authority you approve what things are deserving of praise, but that you be careful to reprobate and condemn those things that have been less well said, even by those who profess themselves willing to follow the doctrine of the Roman Church. And, lest anyone should hereafter proless ignorance of the teaching of the Roman Church about such indul- gences and their efficacy, or excuse himself on pretext of such igpo- rance, or aid himself by counterfeit protestations, but that the guilty may be convicted of notorious lying, and may be justly condemned, we proceed to show thee by these presents what the Roman Church (which the rest are bound to follow as a mother) has handed down. The Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter the key-bearer, and vicar of Jesus Christ on earth, by the power of the keys (which he is to show by lifting the burdens on the faithful of Christ, viz. the guilt and penalty due for actual sins, the guilt indeed by the mediating sacrament of penance, but the temporal penalty due according to divine justice for actual sins by the mediation of ecclesiastical indulgence) is able to grant for reasonable causes to the faithful of Christ, who in the judgment of charity are members of Christ, whether they are in this life or in purgatory, indulgences out of the superabundance of merits of Christ and the saints, and as well for the living as for the dead, granting indulgence by his Apostolic authority, can dispense the Treasure of merits of Christ and the Saints, can confer this indulgence by means of absolution or can transfer it by means of intercessory prayer (per modum suffragii). And for that reason, all, as well living as dead, who have in good faith (veraciter) obtained all indulgences of this kind, are freed from all temporal penalty due according to the divine justice for their actual sins, as much as equals the indul- gence given and obtained. And so, we decree by Apostolic authority, it must be held and preached by all, under pain of the greater ex- communication, from which those incurring it shall be absolved by no one save the Roman Pontiff, unless in the article of death. Though the language of this Brief is involved and turgid beyond the average of even papal documents, there can be little doubt as to the appears to be an error. A bull has certain peculiar and invariable criteria, chief in importance among which is that the document shall be addressed to the whole Church. But the above is a private document, a commission addressed to Caje- tan, bearing date Nov. 9, 1518. It therefore does not, in any case, whatever we call it, come under the definition of infallibility: "When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra that is, when he, using his office as pastor and teacher of all Chris- tians, in virtue of his Apostolic office defines a doctrine of faith and morals, to be held by the whole Church," his decisions are infallible "by the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter." (Schaff, "Creeds," 2: 270.) It is not correct, therefore, to say with Kostlin, that in this document the Pope lays down the doc- trine of indulgences, except as his own opinion in a private communication; nor may we say with Kurtz and Lea that he "defines" the doctrine; but Fisher is correct when he says that the Pope "asserts" the doctrine of indulgences. (Koat- lin, 124, Lea, "Indulgences," 3: 77, Fisher, "Reformation," 97.) 78 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Pope's meaning. Luther had contended that there is no Treasure of merit, which could be relied upon as a source of indulgences; the Pope asserted that there is such a Treasure and that he dispensed it. Luther had contended that the Pope could only remit the penalty that he had imposed or that had been imposed according to the canons of the Church; the Pope claimed that he could remit the penalty for actual sins, due to divine justice. Luther had urged that indulgences avail only for the living; the Pope declares that they are equally efficacious for living and dead. Luther had denied that the Pope has power to make new laws; the Pope, assumes the right to make a new law, and to declare what was to be believed about indulgences. In short, everything that Luther had condemned in his contest with the indulgence-mongers was owned and asserted by the Pope. Tetzel, Prierias, Hoogstraten, Eck, and all the restj. retired into the background, and Luther stood in the arena face to face with Leo X, who had thrust his advocates aside, and stood forth in his own behalf. Would Luther dare to attack him? He had seen at Augsburg that he had reached a point where he must abandon all or attempt more. His appeal from Cajetan to the Pope was a last resort. If that should fail, what then? He expected it to fail. At most he had only the faintest hope that it would not fail, and yet it was well that he wrote it. It put him in the strongest possible position of defense. No one would be able to misunderstand him: he was not a rebel against rightful authority; he would give the Pope all rightful honor. If it should come to the worst, and the Pope should condemn him, all the world would know exactly why- it was that he was condemned, and many would feel that the Pope was in the wrong. He acted with remarkable wisdom as well as courage. Possibly a sense of danger made him prudent and unwilling to neglect anything that might be necessary to safety; or it may be, a traditional reverence for the Pope, rudely shaken but not yet destroyed, held him back; or, it may be, he was restrained and made cautious by the influence of the Elector, a wise, just, brave man, who communicated his own moderation and sense of justice to those about him, All three of these causes may have been at work, but we may perhaps give most weight to the last. At this stage of his life and work, it was x>f great importance to him that he was asso- ciated with a good and great man, still a devout Catholic, of whom he stood in filial awe. On his way back from Augsburg he saw for the first time the Pope's letter of the 2d of August, ordering his arrest. Soon after he saw Caje- tan's letter to the Elector, stating that he had turned his case over to the Pope and advising the Elector to give him up. This meant that the plan of an investigation in Germany was abandoned. Luther no longer IN CONFLICT WITH THE POPE 79 doubted what the Pope would do; and he did not long hesitate what he should do. In the first place, he wrote an account of his interview with Cajetan, and published it, together with the Pope's brief and a note thereon, against the advice, and even command, of the Elector. Now for the first time he spoke bitterly of the Pope. In a letter to Spalatin he mentions "the apostolical, or rather diabolical Brief." 1 He thought it incredible that so monstrous a thing should have proceeded from any Pope, and especially from Leo X. " Therefore," he says, "whoever the fool was who in the Pope's name thought to frighten me with such a decree, let him know that I can see through impostures. " 2 In the Postilla that he wrote to this papal letter, he mentioned the Pope's state- ment that he had continued to publish heretical books after he had been warned, and calls it "a palpable lie" (apertum mendacium). He men- tioned too that he had been cited to Rome on the 7th of August, and required to be there in sixty days, and just sixteen days after the cita- tion (that is, the 23d of August) the order was given to the legate to arrest him. Is it, he asked, the custom of the Roman Curia on the same day to cite, admonish, condemn and declare condemned a man hi his absence and in ignorance of what was going on? 3 In all this he put the Pope at a disadvantage. In one sense the Pope had not misrepresented the case. Some of Luther's books had been actually published after the citation. They were not published, however, by the will and purpose of Luther formed after the Pope had admonished him. They were already in press before the summons came. Yet it is also true that Luther might have suppressed them, had he been so minded. It was one of those cases in which party zeal may see a grave offense where candor will see comparatively little to blame. If the Pope had been anxious to know the truth, he might have known it. On the other hand, if Luther had been disposed to judge charitably, he would not have accused the Pope of falsehood. But there was enough of truth in the accusation to dispose men to feel that Luther was not fairly judged; and this disposition was increased by the Pope's haste to bring Luther before him. He seemed to be influenced by passion and resentment. This aroused the sympathies of generous men, even though they might suspect Luther of being a heretic, and drew his friends closer to him. The head of the Church, he who ought to be the fountain and source of justice, had acted arbitrarily, harshly, unjustly; he who ought to be the friend of the oppressed had, himself become an oppressor. As the Pope had failed in his high office, there was only one recourse. 1 The letter of August 23, to Cajetan, previously summarized. 2 Dated October 31. De Wette, 1: 166. 3 For this Postilla, see LOL, 2: 358. 80 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Only a general council could help, and Luther appealed to a general coun- cil. 1 This appeal did not differ in its general form from his appeal to the Pope. It gave a vigorous, plausible statement of Luther's wrongs as they appeared to him. It complained that no account was made of his submission to the Pope, and his readiness to recant as soon as he should be convinced of error; that unheard, with no reasons given, in simple tyranny and in the plenitude of power, the Pope was seeking to force him to give up opinions that he believed to be true. In behalf of the right to learn from the Scriptures, and in opposition to the effort to force him to abandon a true, wholesome Christian faith and accept the vain, lying opinions of men, he appealed from the Pope to a future legitimate council to be held in a safe place. In making this appeal he was seeking the remedy that the Church, from the earliest times, had provided in just such cases. He was exer- cising a right that for centuries had been freely exercised. It had been little more than a hundred years since the corruptions of the Papacy had forced the Christian world to assemble in council at Constance, where three contending Popes were deposed and a new Pope was chosen in their stead. But the extreme papal party was now in power; and an appeal to a council had itself been pronounced an act of rebellion and treason. 2 Luther's appeal, therefore, the voice of one man pleading for judgment, would be in vain, unless in some way his case could be felt to be the case of a great party. Multitudes felt it to be so. It had been brought about that he stood for a policy, and that if he should fall privi- leges of the Church dear to many would fall with him. The contest between him and the Pope was the old contest that had been from the beginning, and ever shall be: the contest for private judgment and individual rights on the one hand and the centralization of power on the other. Henceforth there were two parties in Europe: the party of Luther and the party of the Pope. 1 LOL, 2: 446 aeq. This document will be found in Appendix III. 2 In the constitution Execrabilis of Pius II, January 18, 1459, Mag. Bull, I: 369; reenacted and enlarged by Julius II, in the bull Suspecte regiminis, July 1, 1609, Mag. Bull, I: 501. CHAPTER IV THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION IN less than a year after the Theses had been nailed to the church door, Luther's case had passed from the jurisdiction of universities and theo- logians to that of the Emperor and the papal court. And each step in advance had revealed more clearly the gravity and difficulty of the situa- tion. The Pope had consented to suspend the order for Luther's appear- ance at Rome, and to permit instead the meeting with Cajetan at Augs- burg. This had been done, in great part at least, in deference to the wishes of the Elector of Saxony, who had given unmistakable proofs of his friendship for Luther. As long as the Elector continued to favor him, the Pope might well hestitate to use extreme measures against him it would be awkward to attempt an arrest of the heretical monk and fail. If only the Elector could be gained, everything else would follow. It was thought worth while to make the attempt. It was the Pope's custom to give every year to one of the princes of the Church a golden rose, as a mark of his peculiar favor. This year he extended the favor to Elector Frederick, and sent it by the hand of Charles von Miltitz, who was supposed, not without reason, to be persona grata at Wittenberg. We have seen how the university there sought his good offices in favor of Luther, begging him as a German to intercede for and help a German who was in trouble. Miltitz received his commission and instruction, and everything supposed to be necessary to his under- taking, on the 4th of October, just four days after Luther's escape from Augsburg. He was to let the Elector know that he had the rose for him, but not to give it to him until he had shown a willingness to accede to the Pope's wishes. The Brief defining the papal view of indulgences was a part of the plan. It had been claimed that Luther, in opposing them, had violated no law and had been guilty of no heresy. The Brief was intended to answer and silence this claim. It took away all excuse from the Elector, and made it necessary for him to acknowledge Luther's heresy, unless indeed, he was willing to deny the finality of the Pope's authority. He was to be enticed by the rose, and impelled by the Brief. Miltitz also took with him letters from the Pope to Pfeffinger, a counsel- lor of the Elector, and Spalatin, whose influence was known, asking them to persuade the Elector to abandon Luther. 1 1 The two letters are in LOL, 2: 446-449. They are very nearly alike. In both the Pope says, "Knowing how great your favor is with the Duke, and how greatly 81 82 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Miltitz traveled slowly, stopping at one place and another, and had full opportunity to find out the temper of the Germans. His eyes were partially opened. On December 27th he reached Altenburg, and had an interview with Spalatin in his own house. Here his eyes were still further opened. Spalatin made him understand, as he had not before under- stood, the extreme provocation which Tetzel and his assistants had given Luther. He saw the first thing for him to do was to free himself (and, if possible, the Pope) from any suspicion of sympathy with the extrava- gance and indecency of the indulgence sellers. Tetzel was at Leipzig. Miltitz at once summoned him to meet him at Altenburg. Tetzel replied excusing himself; he could not leave Leipzig with safety. Martin Luther, the Augustinian, so he wrote, had so stirred up the mighty ones in Ger- many and elsewhere against him, that he was nowhere safe. 1 Miltitz could easily believe this. It accorded with what he had learned by his own observation, and strengthened impressions that he had received. It was, therefore, with a good understanding of the situation that he met Luther hi the first days of January, 1519. They met in Altenburg. This meeting was important, not so much for what it accomplished, as for what it showed to be still possible. In the last years of his life, twenty-six years after it occurred, Luther de- cribed it. After the lapse of so many years it might be easy for him to interpret what occurred hi the light of subsequent events; and to think that he understood at the time what in fact he did not understand until afterwards. But it must be said that his reminiscences are unusually trustworthy. From the very first there were sharply defined, prominent incidents, to which he had occasion frequently to recur. He often thought of them and spoke of them, and so kept them fresh in memory. In some cases it happens that his recollected impressions can be compared with letters or other records made at the time; and in such cases his memory is found to be wonderfully faithful. His meeting with Miltitz made a deep impression on him and was no doubt often in his mind. No doubt, too, he often spoke of it among his friends. According to his recollections Miltitz sought to make the most favorable impression possible. He assumed an air of easy confidence and familiarity. "0 Martin," he said, "I thought that you were some old theologian, and I see that you he esteems the wisdom and prudence of your advice, we exhort you in the Lord and paternally require you," etc. What Luther thought of Pfeffinger may be gathered in what he said in a letter to the Elector (1517): "Most gracious lord and prince, inasmuch as you formerly promised me a new garment, I now beg to put you in mind of the same. But I must ask, as I did before, that if Pfeffinger is to fulfil the promise, he do it by deed and not by soft words. 'He knows well how to spin fine words, but that never makes good cloth." De Wette, 1: 77. 1 Wann Martinus Luther, Augustiner, hat die Machtigen nicht allein schier in alien deutschen Landen, sondern auch in den Konigreichen zu Behem, Ungarn, und Polen, also wider mich erregt und bewegt, dass ich nirgent sicker bin. Loscher, 3 : 20. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 83 are yet in the prime of life. " He went on to mention proofs of Luther's popularity. He had found three men for Luther where he had found one for the Pope. He gave it as his opinion that he could not take Luther to Rome even if he had twenty-five thousand men. He laughed at the blunders of the women whose opinion he had asked of the Roman See. "The Roman See?" they said, "how can we know what kind of seats you have at Rome, whether they are wood or stone?" They did not under- stand the double meaning of Stuhl (sedes), denoting as it did both seat and the See. 1 In his old age, when Luther wrote of this meeting, he insinuates the suspicion that Miltitz was acting a part. He had that suspicion at the time. But at any rate, Miltitz had chosen the most effective way of dealing with the man against whom Rome had tried first ridicule and then authority and had failed with both. Luther's sentence was always for open war; of wiles he had small store, and for them small respect. The downright blow of Richard's two-handed sword was always his. But he was susceptible to flattery and suave persuasion, though unmoved by denunciation or threat. And so, whether the papal envoy's condescen- sion and expressed good will were genuine or feigned, he made very considerable advance. He asked Luther to consult for the things that make for peace, and promised to bring it about that the Pope would do the same. Luther readily promised to do all that he could with a safe conscience, saying at the same time that he also desired peace, that he had been forced to do what he had done, and that he was in no way to blame for it. 2 This good beginning led to an agreement which Luther promptly reported to the Elector. Both parties were to be forbidden to preach or write on the matters in dispute. Miltitz was to report to the Pope the state of things as he found them, and induce the Pope to com- mission some learned man to point out the erroneous articles in Luther's writings; and Luther, convinced of his error, was to retract it and refrain from all further attempts to weaken the honor and power of the Roman Church. Besides, he was himself to write to the Pope, confess that he had been too hot and sharp, show that he did not mean anything against the Church, but rather, as a true child of the Church, had opposed those who were bringing scandal and reproach upon it. Moreover, he was willing to publish a paper warning the people not to understand him as saying anything, in his writings to the disgrace, but rather to the honor 1 Exploraverat etiam mulierculas et virgenes in hospitiis, quidnam de sede Romano sentirent? Illae ut ignarae hujus vocabuli et sellam domesticam cogitantes responde- bant: Quid nos scire possumus, quales vos Romae habeatis sellas, ligneasne an lapideasf Preface LOL, 1: 21. 2 In a letter of February 2, 1519, he says: Mutavit violentiam in benevolentiam fallacissime simulatam. De Wette, 1: 216. 84 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY of the Church. His fault had been that he had brought out the truth with too much zeal, and perhaps unseasonably. 1 Miltitz had made an impression on him, and he seems to have thought, at intervals, that the controversy was in the way of satisfactory settle- ment. He said to the Elector that if the affair were let alone, "it would bleed itself to death." What he thought at the time he continued to think down to the close of his life. He said in 1545, that the plans of Miltitz were lightly esteemed, but in his judgment if the Archbishop of Mainz had listened to his warning in the beginning, and even afterwards, if before the Pope had condemned him unheard and raged against him with his bulls, they had followed Miltitz's advice and at once restrained the madness of Tetzel, things would not have gone to so great lengths. 2 Luther fulfilled his promise: he wrote his address to the people in February, and on March 3 he wrote the promised letter to the Pope. It is not long; there is no defiance in it; it is written with apparent sin- cerity and humility. He begins by saying, "Most blessed Father, necessity again forces me, the lowest of men, the dust of the earth, to speak to your blessedness and so great majesty." He begs the Pope graciously to incline his ears, truly the ears of Christ, to his little sheep. He laments that what he had undertaken for the honor of the Church had been misunderstood, and yet, "I can scarcely bear your wrath," said he, "and how to escape it I do not know." He had been asked to revoke the teachings of the Theses. He would readily do it, if by so doing he could accomplish what was sought by a revocation; but owing to the opposition of his enemies his writings had been too widely scattered to be recalled, and the impression they had made was too deep to be effaced. Besides, in Germany, where learning then greatly flourished, if he should wish to honor the Church, to revoke was the very last thing that he ought to do; his enforced revocation would but give occasion for still further dishonoring of the Roman Church. It was his enemies, the men whom he had withstood, who had brought injury, almost infamy, upon the Church among the Germans; and, as if that were not enough, they had accused him to the Pope as the author of their own rashness. 1 For accounts of this interview and its result, see documents in Loscher, 2: 652 seq.; Walch, 15: 690 seq.', and Luther's letters to the Elector (De Wette, 1: 209) and his friend Christopher Scheurl (#>. 212). As to his assertion that he always honored the Church, compare the conclusion of his account of the hearing before Cajetan (LOL, 2: 392): Protestor me color e et aequi Romanum ecclesiam in om- nibus, solum ttlis resisto, qui nomine ecdesiae Romanae Babyloniam nobis statuere moliuntur, etc. Cf. also Dieckhoff, Der Ablassstreit, p. 242 seq. 2 LOL, 1: 21. Miltitz was very much pleased with the turn of affairs; he em- braced Luther and shed tears. Luther wrote Spalatin that he pretended not to know that the nuncio's tears were forced, crocodile tears, in short. If we accept literally and fully what he says of himself, we must believe that he was not less an actor than Miltitz. At least, among his friends and privately he claimed the character of shrewdness and insight, at the expense of a large-hearted sincerity. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 85 He continues: "Now, most blessed Father, in the presence of God and the whole creation, I testify that I have never wished, and that I do not to this day wish, to touch in any way your power, or the power of the Roman Church. So far from it, I most gladly confess that the power of the Church is over all things, and that nothing hi heaven or earth is to be preferred before it except only Jesus Christ, the Lord of all. ... The one thing that I can do in this case, that I freely promise: that I will hereafter let alone the question of indulgences, and say nothing about it (if only my adversaries restrain their vain boasts) and that I will hereafter publish abroad such things as shall tend to enlighten men and incline them to reverence truly the Roman Church, and not to impute to it the rashness of my opponents, nor imitate toward it the roughness that I have used, or rather abused." His only purpose was that our mother, the Roman Church, might not be defiled by avarice, and the people deceived into the error of preferring indulgences to charity. As to all other things, as they were matters of indifference, he cared nothing for them. He closed with the sentence, "May Christ preserve your blessedness forever." This letter is sufficiently conciliatory, humble if we please Luther had written very differently a short time before. His change of spirit was owing partly to Miltitz, and partly, no doubt, to his natural shrinking from a conflict not yet gone beyond the point of possible retreat, the result of which no one could foresee. He had been approached on the weak side. Kindness, gentleness of manner, and a condescending familiarity, coming from a man of high position, might go far toward softening any- one, but especially one who had sprung from the humbler walks of life, and had not yet outgrown an almost superstitious reverence for nobility, whether secular or ecclesiastical. 1 He who had been aroused by opposition was well-nigh won by the friendliness, real or assumed, of the papal nuncio. What the Pope on his side might have done can never be known. Just at that time an event occurred that made it necessary for him to suspend proceedings against Luther. The Emperor, Maxi- milian I, died January 12, 1519, and the choice of his successor seemed to Leo X, and doubtless to others, a matter of greater importance than the conciliation or destruction of a refractory monk. But besides turning the Pope's attention from Luther's case to other and more pressing con- cerns, the Emperor's death brought the Elector into especial prominence. He became regent of the Empire for Northern Germany, and in his new 1 It is significant that the Elector, while perfectly friendly to Luther, and proud of him as a professor in his university, permitted him to go afoot to Augsburg, and took no pains to provide a suitable outfit for him. Later he went in a carriage to Leipzig, and in still greater state to Worms. He was still only the peasant's son at the beginning of 1519. 86 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY position more than ever held Luther's fate in his hands. In the changed circumstances, an attack on Luther was less likely to succeed, and at the same time, the Pope had less inclination and opportunity to press it. Miltitz continued his negotiations. Leaving Altenburg he went to Leipzig, and in pursuance of his plan of separating himself and the papal cause from Luther's original opponents, called Tetzel before him. A victim was needed, and the notorious preacher of indulgences was to be sacrificed. Tetzel had a double mortification: he was reproached with being the .author of all the calamities with which the Church was threat- ened, and at the same time accused of appropriating to himself some of the money that he had collected by his traffic. . He was disowned and disgraced; his spirit was broken; sickness soon came and death did not linger. His humiliation excited the pity of his former antagonist, and Luther recalled in his old age, doubtless with pleasure, that he wrote a letter of sympathy and encouragement to Tetzel, after he had been cast off by those who had used him to their own advantage. He died August 19, 1519, perchance, as Luther said, "killed by a troubled conscience and the anger of the Pope." 1 A part of the agreement with Luther was that he should submit to the judgment of some German prelate. Miltitz chose the Archbishop of Trier, and at an interview with Cajetan at Coblentz summoned Luther to appear before the Archbishop in that city. Luther did not think it safe to obey the summons, and no effort was made to force him to do so. The summons was given early in May. 2 Not long afterwards the whole matter was postponed to the next meeting of the Diet, which happened to be the famous Diet at Worms. With the Elector's increased importance, there came increased re- sponsibility; and if he needed it there came also increased moral support in the course that he was pursuing toward Luther. It was given by a letter from Erasmus. This letter was not the beginning of Erasmus's connection with Luther, but it was his first positive and effective inter- ference in his affairs. He was seventeen years older than Luther, and was then, in 1519, fifty-three years old, in the height of his literary ac- tivity and recognized as the highest representative and most efficient 1 Sed conscientia et indignations papae forte accubuit. Preface, LOL, 1: 21. In his Wider Hans Wurst, Luther says of Tetzel: "A preaching monk, by name Johannes Detzel, a boisterous fellow, whom Duke Frederick had formerly lib- erated from the sack at Innsbruck, for Maximilian had condemned him to be drowned in the Inn (you may well suppose on account of his great virtue) .... And Duke Frederick caused him to remember that, when he began to abuse the Witten- bergers; also he freely confessed it." (LDS, 26: 68.) Miltitz is also a witness against him. After the hearing at Leipzig, he wrote to Spalatin that Tetzel had been guilty not only of shameless preaching, but of embezzlement and extrava- gance, auch hat er ij kinder. Loscher, 3: 20; Walch, 15: 716. 2 Walch, 15: 724. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 87 promoter of literature in Europe. 1 Living at a time when polite learning occupied a place of eminence that it had never held before, and has never held since, his was a unique position. Dr. Samuel Johnson was not more autocrat in The Club in London than Erasmus was in the whole of Europe. No man of letters, from Cicero down, and not Cicero himself, has ever been so looked up to, consulted, applauded, followed. Young men of intellectual aspirations regarded it as the highest good fortune to meet him and to be noticed by; him; and many of them received from him a stimulus and inspiration to their whole life. He was honored and pen- sioned by nearly every sovereign in Europe, and if he did not occupy high positions in Church and State, it was because he preferred a private station and personal freedom. There was no man then living whose opinion on a question of philosophy or theology would .carry with it so great weight it would be taken, not as his opinion merely, but as the judgment of the new age of enlightenment. As Rome spoke for the whole Church, so Erasmus spoke for all scholars. He had just published, or was just about to publish, his edition of Suetonius's "Lives of the Caesars," and he had dedicated it to the Elector of Saxony. This furnished the occasion for the letter. It was not un- usual for such dedications to be paid for in gold Erasmus himself had often been paid in that way but in this case all that he asked was that the El'ector would continue to favor the better learning, then, as he said, "everywhere flourishing in our Germany." The glory that the Elector might gain in this way, Erasmus thought, was equal to that which his ancestors formerly won in war. The Elector's favor might help in two ways: first, it might give direct encouragement to the friends of learning; and second, it might check the opposition of its enemies, who lacked only the occasion for mischief. They were "haters of the muses," "tyrants of the old ignorance. " The recent publications of Luther had given the occasion they needed; they were accusing him of heresy, and pretending that the new learning was the inspirer of his heresies, and that the friends of learning were his supporters and protectors. In this they were influ- enced, not by hatred of heresy so much, as by their hatred of learning. It has been suggested that Erasmus had a motive hi saying that he did not know Luther, and that Luther did not know him; and that he could not, therefore, be suspected of favoring him from motives of friend- ship. The suggestion is uncharitable and probably unjust. There are no marks of timidity or half-heartedness in the letter. In the very next sentence he says that those who did know Luther, knew him to be a man of pure life, and as far as possible removed from all suspicion of avarice and ambition. He thought it incompatible with the gentleness that theolo- 1 Luther at this time calls him Literarum princeps, LOL, 3: 13. 88 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY gians ought to have to rage so unmercifully against the name and fame of an upright man who had given no just cause of offense. The whole drift of the letter was to impress it upon the Elector that Luther's enemies were condemning him from interested motives, from hatred of him per- sonally, and also from hatred of the new learning and free discussion, of which Luther was a representative. Erasmus concludes by saying, "While it is the duty of your highness to protect the Christian religion, it is also your duty, inasmuch as you are the guardian of justice, not to permit an innocent man, under the pretense of piety, to be given up to the impiety of others." He did not know what was thought of Luther at Rome, but where he was Luther's books were most eagerly read by all the best people, although he himself had not read them for lack of time. 1 Erasmus's letter was dated April 14, 1519. On the 14th of May the Elector replied: "I rejoice," he said, "that the Lutheran cause is not condemned by the learned, and that with you Dr. Martin's writings are most eagerly read by the best men. " He goes on to say : " By the help of God I will not permit any innocent man to be given up to the impiety of those who are seeking their own good" hi his ruin. 2 Things seemed to be going well with Luther, and hi some respects they were going well; the suspension of active measures against him brought quiet, and in the quiet his writings Were circulated and read. All this was good, and, as things turned out, only good. But in this quiet there was danger. If it had continued, the interest hi the Lutheran controversy must have waned, and after a while ecclesiastical matters would have settled down in their old channel, and what became the "Lutheran tragedy" might have turned out to be only the "Lutheran incident. " This result was favored by political conditions. As a rule, when an important matter has once thoroughly possessed the public mind, it does not give place until it has gone on to its logical conclusion the exception occurs when it is thrust aside by some rival interest. In this particular case the rival interest was furnished by the death of the Emperor and the questions connected with the choice of a successor The affairs of the Empire might have supplanted the affairs of the Church, and when Europe had once become involved in the great national con- tests that soon followed, there would have been no time or inclination to return to Luther's affairs. Luther was right: "If let alone, the thing would bleed to death"; and it seemed to be in danger of being left 1 LOL, 2: 457. Toward the close of his letter he says: Quid istic de Lutherio sen- Hunt, neacio. Certe hie video libras illius ab optimis quibusque cupidissime legi, guamquain mihi nondum vacamt evohere. Ib. 459. It was the habit of Erasmus to profess that he had not read the writings of Luther, with which, nevertheless, he shows considerable acquaintance. 2 LOL, 2: 460. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 89 alone. For the present, at least, Luther was safe. He was under the strong protection of the Elector, and the Pope was too busy to care for him his principal enemy could not disturb him, and he himself was pledged to peace. Let the peace last and the tide would ebb, the oppor- tunity would pass. But the peace did not last. There were two men who could not easily keep quiet : the one was John Eck, the other was Luther himself. Eck, it is said, provoked Luther to a renewal of the controversy, but Luther was very willing to be provoked. His promise of silence was only conditional: he was to be silent if the other side was silent. It may be that he really did not consider the promise or offer as binding; for, even while engaging to be silent, he was already preparing for a renewal of the discussion, and the train leading to it had long been laid. He and Eck had met in Augsburg in October, 1518, and it was there arranged that Eck and Garlstadt should meet and fight out their old battle. In the following January, in ostensible agreement with this plan, Eck published a schedule of the propositions that he wished to discuss. There were thirteen of them, six referring to matters between him and Carlstadt, but the remaining seven, and especially the thirteenth, were evidently aimed at Luther. The latter felt it, and early hi February published a letter to Garlstadt in which he complained of Eck's theses and begged Carlstadt to secure him the privilege of taking part in the coming dispu- tation. Eck justified his schedule: it was Luther's doctrine that he objected to, and he had no controversy with Carlstadt except as Luther's champion and defender. 1 As the two men were one in their teaching, he did not think that they ought to be separated in the disputation. His main business was with Luther, and yet he would not permit Carl- stadt to be shoved aside; he would dispute with both. His propositions against Garlstadt were no pretense, and he could point out with his finger the places where Luther taught the things that he alleged against him. 2 Of course Luther replied, answering Eck's thirteen propositions with thirteen opposing propositions. All these things took place in the first quarter of the year 1519, and during the time when Miltitz's plan for peace was getting itself tried. Luther was making his assuring address to the people, begging them to think kindly of the Roman Church and to have no thought of separating from it. At the same time he was saying to his friend Scheurl (February 20th): "God is in the midst of the gods. He knows what it is that he wishes to bring out of this tragedy. Neither Eck nor I is serving his 1 LOL, 3 : 19. Cum autem Carlstadius sit propugnator tuus, tu vero principalis existas, etc. Eck to Luther. 2 Non autem existimavi hos in disputatione separandos, qui in eandam sententiam manibus et pedibus conspirassent. Ib. 6. 90 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY own purpose in this thing. I have often said that heretofore I have been playing with the matter, now at length I shall act in earnest against the Roman Pontiff land the Roman arrogance." 1 A little later he wrote to Spalatin, March 5th, that "it was never in his heart to wish to be separated from the papal see." The 13th of March he said, "I am studying the decretals of the Popes, preparing for my disputation, and (I whisper it in your ear) I do not know whether the Pope is Antichrist or his apostle." 2 It was only ten days before that he had written his respectful, submissive letter to the Pope. What shall we think of this? It would be easy to say that Luther was acting a double part, playing fast and loose, blowing hot and cold. It would be more charitable, and probably truer, to say that his conduct was that of a strong man agitated by different motives; now reverence for long established order and duly constituted authority, now love of truth; at one time shrinking from the confusion and trouble that he saw just before him, at another conscious that he was working the work of God. One point is clear: he saw no inconsistency between utmost hatred of the Pope and most reverent obedience to him. He said, in the letter to Spalatin already quoted, " I am content that the Pope should be called and be Lord of all. What is that to me, who know that even the Turk is to be honored and endured for the sake of the power?" He would submit to the most tyrannical rule, as submitting to God, who permits, even ordains, that rule. We must interpret his conduct from his own point of view. Let us remember that few men have been subjected to such a trial as that through which he was passing; also, let us believe, if we can, that he was seeking the right way, but was not yet certain which was the right way; that his was the hesitation and vacillation of the eagle before he has finally chosen the direction of his flight. But we can hardly say that he was the docile, peace-loving, engagement-keeping man, provoked into controversy, dragged unwillingly into this disputation by Eck, which he himself afterwards claimed to be, and as has been so often assert- ed by others in his defense. J De Wette, 1: 230. * De Wette, 1: 239. In his letter of March 3 Luther says: "Ah, holy father, before God, before the whole creation, I affirm that I have never once had it in my thought to weaken or shake the authority of the holy See. I fully admit that the power of the Roman Church is superior to all things under God; neither in heaven nor on earth is there aught above it, our Lord Jesus excepted. Let no credit be given by your holiness to any who seek to represent Luther to you in any other light." (LOL, 2: 452; Michelet, 55.) In still more violent contrast is his letter to Leo, dated May 30, 1518: "Most holy father, I prostrate myself at the feet of your clemency, with all that I have and am. Bid me live or slay me, call, recall, disapprove, as it pleases you; I acknowledge in your voice thje voice of Christ speaking and presiding in you. If I am worthy of death I shall not refuse to die; for 'the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof, who is blessed forevermore, Amen.' " (LOL, 2: 132; Michelet, 34-36.) THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 91 Carlstadt suggested that the proposed meeting should take place at Erfurt or Leipzig; Eck chose Leipzig, wisely for his cause. Many thought the disputation would do more harm than good. The extreme papal party could not admit that there was now anything to be discussed; to allow the supremacy of the Pope to be called in question was almost heresy, and as to the question of indulgences that had been decided by the Pope's Brief. There was nothing to gain therefore by a disputation, and some- thing might be lost; accordingly, the bishop of Merseburg, chancellor of the university of Leipzig, and sjome of the professors, did what they could to prevent the meeting. On the other hand, it was favored by the Elector of Saxony, and also by George, Duke of Saxony. The latter, afterwards to be an earnest opponent of the new movement, and to be cordially hated by Luther, saw no harm to come of discussion, but rather good. The Elector, as from the beginning, was favorable to anything that might lead to fuller knowledge. The Duke had not con- sented that Luther should take part in the discussion, but he gave a safe conduct to Carlstadt and "those who might accompany him." This opened the way for Luther to go to Leipzig; and, once there, he might hope to be permitted to dispute. 1 In view of the interest that the disputation had awakened, and the number of persons who might wish to attend and witness it, the Duke had a large hall in the castle of Pleissenberg fitted up as the place of meeting. Whoever wished to be witness of a rare conflict, so the announce- ment ran, let him take care to be present. And indeed a most interesting discussion might well be expected. The subjects to be discussed were important, and the least known of the disputants was already widely dis- tinguished. Carlstadt, or to give his full name, Andrew Rudolf Bodenstein of Carlstadt, was a man of learning and ability. In early life we might say all his life he was ready to receive new impressions, and as he grew older his impetuosity rather increased, and continued until years of disap- pointment and not a little hardship quieted him down. He was three years older than Luther, not less learned, had been longer a professor, and was mentioned with him and Melanchthon as attracting by his fame a great concourse of students to Wittenberg. But while the two were 1 "Here Eck came to me in the tavern saying that he had heard I had given up the disputation. I replied, 'How can I dispute when I cannot get a safe con- duct from Duke George?' He said, 'If I am not allowed to dispute with you, I do not care to dispute with Carlstadt. It is on your account that I am here. What if I procure a safe conduct for you? Will you not dispute with me? ' ' Get it,' I said, 'and so it shall be.' He went away and presently a safe conduct was given me also and an opportunity made for me to dispute." Pref., LOL, 1: 19. Queen Victoria asked me, says Macaulay, about Merle D'Aubign's work, and I answered that the writer was a strong partisan and too. much of a colorist. ("Life a /id Letters," 2: 247). If the reader will take the trouble to compare the i i ;m Luther's Preface with D'Aubifrn6's translation of it, bk. v, ch. 3, of tory, he will see how just Macaulay 's criticism is, in one case at least. 92 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY mentioned together, Carlstadt was beginning to be overshadowed by his greater colleague. As one of the principals in the disputation, he had precedence among the Wittenbergers, but when in Leipzig his carriage wheel came off and he was tumbled out in the dirt, his party felt relief that the accident had not happened to Luther. It was thought to be a bad omen for Andrew. Eck already had a splendid reputation. 1 He was three years younger than his principal opponent. He had studied at Heidelberg, and took his Master's degree at Tubingen at fourteen. He further pursued his studies at Cologne and Freiburg. From 1510 he had been professor of theology in the university of Ingolstadt in Bavaria, having like Luther been previously a teacher of philosophy. He claimed for himself that he had read the whole Bible, the prophets excepted, before he was ten years old. 2 From his youth he had exercised his genius for disputing in the universities of Italy and Germany. 3 His ample learning, retentive memory, animated gestures, strong, clear voice, and bold, aggressive manner, all enhanced his skill in his art and made of him a most formidable antagonist. It was a time when the joy of disputation was like the joy of battle, and victors achieved honor only less coveted than that which lured the stainless Bayard to deeds of daring. Victory in such a con- test was almost equal to winning the Marathon race to-day, and the triumph of its champion brought nearly as much fame to a university then as the championship in football brings to an American university of our day. The men of the sixteenth century knew no better than to think that mind ought to count for more than muscle in a university; we of the wiser twentieth century have changed all that. If, then, Eck was eager for the contest with Luther, we might pardon him; if he should win, the victory would be great, and he might be victorious! Besides, we cannot say that his only motive in seeking this controversy was the hope of a personal triumph. There are so many motives that influence men: the best of us do not rise entirely above the earth, and the most worldly and ambitious of men may not be altogether earthy. Eck was 1 Myconius calls Eck a filthy (unflatig) man, and says of him, "from youth up he had followed an adulterous, unclean and drunken life." (Hist. Ref., p. 29.) This is a sample of the reckless slanders of the time. Myconius also calls Cochlseus a bad, passionate cockerel of a man (bos, zornig Gockelmannlein, ib., p. 36). This because he wrote "wicked, lying books" against Luther. We can measure the formidable character of an opponent of Luther by the epithets that Myconius uses to describe him. This temper makes the opinion of the first Lutheran historian absolutely worthless; his witness to fact is sometimes valuable. 2 During the discussion Luther insinuated that Eck was ignorant of the Scrip- tures. Eck resented it. It was the height of impudence, Cum puer nundum decennis, demptis prophetis, bibliam totam legerem. He added: "But it is nothing to the point how much a man has read." LOL, 3: 104; Seitz, 124. 3 Absit mihi gloriari, si in aliquibus Studiis vel Germaniae vel Italiae exercendi ingenii causa juvenis disputavi. Eck to Luther. LOL, 3: 7. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 93 probably a sincere, though not in some respects an extreme, Romanist; and he doubtless persuaded himself that he sought the glory of the Church and the promotion of the truth, in seeking this contest. This disputation is one of the most famous in history, and as much perhaps as anything that occurred influenced the course of subsequent events. It brought the two parties into close and sharp contact, and permits us to see what were the views of each, and by what arguments they defended them. In giving an account of it, we need not follow the speakers step by step; we have the whole case before us, and it will be enough to indicate the material points made, without reference to the particular address in which they were made. 1 Eck spoke first. Before beginning the debate he noticed Luther's statement that he had been forced into the discussion of the particular subject then before them. "The reverend father," he said, "declares that on account of his reverence for the Pope he would gladly have avoided this subject, if he had not been dragged into it by my proposition. But he will remember that my proposition would not have been necessary, if he himself had not denied that the Roman Pontiff was superior to others before the times of Pope Sylvester (A. D. 314-335). It is vain, therefore, for him to attempt to make me responsible for what he himself furnished the occasion." He continued: "Reverend father, your thirteenth prop- osition, 2 in opposition to mine, affirms that the Roman Church is superior to others only according to the worthless decretals Roman Pon- tiffs issued within the last four hundred years of approved history." Luther had added, "and the decree of the council of Nicaea, the holiest of all, " but Eck omitted these words. In opposition to this Eck said: "There is a monarchy and principate in the Church by divine right, and by the institution of Christ, and the text of Scripture and approved history is not against it. For the Church militant (which is one body, according to the teachings of St. Paul) has been made and instituted according to the image of the Church trium- 1 The account of the disputation is made from the report prepared at the time by notaries, to be submitted to the judgment of the universities of Paris and Erfurt. It is to be found in Loscher's collection, 3: 292 seq. \ in LOL, vol. 3; and a critical edition of the text, from previously unused sources was published in Leipzig, in 1903, by Otto Seitz, Der authentische Text der Leipziger Disputa- tion. References are given on the most important points discussed to both the latter authorities. 2 The thirteenth propositions of the two were as follows: Luther: "That the Roman Church is superior to all others is proved by worthless decretals of the Roman Pontiff put forth within the last four hundred years, against which are all approved histories for eleven hundred years, the text of the Holy Scripture, and the decree of the council of Nicsea, the holiest of all Councils." Eck: "We deny that the Roman Church has not been superior to the other churches before the time of Sylvester. But we have always recognized that he who held the see and faith of the blessed Peter is the successor of Peter and the vicar-general of Christ." 94 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY phant; in which there is one monarchy, all the heavenly intelligences being disposed in order, ascending to one, God. Such an arrangement Christ must have instituted on earth, for it is confessed that the Son does noth- ing except what he has seen the Father do (John V). Wherefore he is not of heaven who refuses to be subject to the head on earth, just as he is not of heaven, but of Lucifer, who will not be subject to God." All these things, said Eck, can be fully proved by that pious soul, St. Dionysius the Areopagite, in his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy, when he says, "For our hierarchy disposed in order handed down from God, has been conformed to the celestial hierarchy." 1 So also Gregory of Nazianzum hi his apologetics says, "The most holy mysteries are celebrated according to the likeness of the celestial usage, by which we have fellowship on earth with the heavenly orders. " For how monstrous it would be for the Church to be without a head, as almost all the heretics desire (as St. Cyprian intimates to Rogatian and Pupian) 2 that having weakened the head they may teach their errors and poison men's minds with impunity. And this was the principal reason (with others annexed) why the university of Paris condemned John Torriacencis for denying the primacy of the Roman Church. So also it was the error of Wiclif that the Church of Rome is not superior to others by the law of the Gospel. At this point Luther interrupted and said: "When the Doctor argues that there is certainly a universal head of the Church he does well. And if anyone has privately agreed with him to maintain the opposite, let such a one show himself; it is no business of mine. " Eck resumed: "The reverend father 3 says that it is no business of his to defend the contrary of the proposition that I was endeavoring to prove, namely, that by divine right there is a monarchy in the Church militant as hi the Church triumphant. In this I praise him, as he agrees with St. John in the Apocalypse: 'I saw the holy city descending/ etc. But coming nearer to the point, if the Church militant was not without a monarch, I would wish to know what other monarch there was or ever had been but the bishop of Rome, or what other first See but the See of Peter and his successors. For Cyprian says in his second letter to Cornelius, the Roman bishop, against the Novatians who were craftily 1 LOL, 29: 26. He afterwards quotes Bernard more fully I think it is said in a figure, that fjust as the seraphim and cherubim and the rest, angels and archangels, are under one head, God, so here also, under one head, the Pope, are primates or patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, presbyters, abbots, etc. Eck says: "Who does not know that this ecclesiastical hierarchy, according to Bernard, has been instituted by Christ, and as God in heaven is head, so the Pope is head in the Church militant?" LOL, 3: 34; Seitz, 63. 2 The letters referred to are probably 64 and 68, ANF, 5: 365, 372. Eck prob- ably used the word innuit advisedly, as Cyprian in the letters does not expressly say what he is made to say he merely intimates it. 3 Luther usually speaks of Eck as the egregius Dominus Doctor; Eck calls Luther reverendus pater. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 95 going to Rome: 'Besides these things, having appointed a bishop for themselves, they dare to cross the sea, and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter and to the chief Church whence sacerdotal unity arose.' Likewise Jerome testifies against the Lucif erians : ' The safety of the church depends on the dignity of the chief priests, to whom if a definite and preeminent power had not been given, there would have been as many schisms in the Church as there are priests.' "That Jerome means the bishop of Rome when he says 'chief priest' is clear from two of his letters to Pope Damasus, almost every word of which bears on the point, but for the sake of brevity I mention only a few: 'I talk with the successor of the fisherman and disciple of Christ.' 'Seeking no other reward but Christ, I am one with your blessedness that is, with the throne of Peter,' and lower down, 'Whoever does not gather with you scatters abroad.' From all which (Eck continues), any good Christian concludes that sacerdotal unity flows from the Roman Pontiff, and that the Roman Church has always been the chief Church, superior to all others, and that it is the Rock on which, as Jerome says, the Church is founded. Let the reverend father name another monarch of the Church in early times." Luther began his reply: "I readily confess that there is a monarchy in the Church militant. The head, however, is not a man but Christ him- self." In proof of this he went at once to the Scriptures. His first quotation was from Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians: "He must reign imt.il he hath put all enemies under his feet," and "Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father. " This, said Luther, Augustine explains as referring the kingdom of Christ to this present time, so that Christ, the head of the Church, should deliver up us, who are his kingdom. His next quotation was from the Gospel of Matthew, "Behold I am with you always, even to the end of the world." Likewise, he said, in the ninth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, Paul heard from heaven, "Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? " where, as Augustine again says, the head was speaking for the mem- bers. "Wherefore," he continued, "they are not to be listened to who thrust Christ out of the Church militant into the Church triumphant. " He then turned his attention to the authorities quoted by Eck. The first, Paul, hi the fourth chapter of Ephesians, speaks of Christ as the head of the Church, not of the Church triumphant, but of the Church militant. Also in the third chapter of First Corinthians, Paul asks "What is Apollos? What is Cephas? What is Paul? Is Christ divided?" Manifestly forbidding any other head but Christ. Eck's second author- ity, the passage from the Gospel of John, says nothing either of the Church 96 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY militant or of the Church triumphant, but in the judgment of all the learned teaches the equality of the Son with the Father. As to the quo- tation from Dionysius, that was not against him, for, said he, we do not deny that there is an ecclesiastical hierarchy; we do not dispute about this hierarchy, but the head of this monarchy. 1 It would indeed, as Eck had said, be a monstrous thing for the Church to be without a head. But the learned Doctor himself can give it no other head but Christ. "For if its head, as he calls the Roman Pontiff, being a man, dies, then the Church is without a head. But if Christ is the head in the meantime, until another Pope is elected, it is not less a monstrous thing that Christ should succeed a dead and give place to a living Pope. Eck thought this a ridiculous quibble, not worthy of the occasion. He referred to it several times. He explained that when a Pope dies, the Cardinals are in his place. But how was it, asked Luther, before there were any Cardinals? Eck did not give a satisfactory answer. Luther afterwards said, "My meaning is this: If the Church is not without a head when the Pope is dead, it would not be without a head if there were no Pope." 2 The passage from Cyprian, who blamed the heretics for weakening the head, that they might teach their own error with impunity, Luther thought not at all in Eck's favor. For Cyprian was not speaking of the Roman head, but of any head, of any episcopate. If, he said, the very learned Doctor will stand by the authority of Cyprian, we shall settle the dispute this very hour. For Cyprian, in addressing Pope Cornelius, never calls him anything but his very dear brother. And in writing of the election and ordination of bishops, which he does in many letters, he proves from the Scriptures that they belong to the people and to two or three of the neighboring bishops, just as was determined in the most holy Council of Nicaea (canon 4). Moreover, the same blessed martyr, as quoted by Augustine hi the second chapter of his book on baptism, says: "No one of us has constituted himself bishop, or by a tyrannical error has forced his colleagues to the necessity of obeying him, for every bishop is free to follow his own will, and just as he cannot judge another, so he cannot be judged by another: all of us wait the judgment of our 1 In reply to this Eck said, "Let the reverend father, I pray, read a little more attentively the unapproachable Father Bernard 'On Consideration.' " He quotes a passage from Bernard affirming the likeness of the earthly to the heavenly hierarchy: "So here under the chief Pontiff, are primates or patriarchs, arch- bishops, bishops, abbots and the rest." Bernard adds that is not to be lightly esteemed that has God as its author and takes its origin from heaven. LOL, 3 : 34. Luther says in reply, "I venerate St. Bernard, and dp not despise his opinion; but in controversy the genuine and proper sense of Scripture ought to be taken." /&. 39; Seitz, 67. * Mea ratio hoc voluit: si ecclesia non est acephala mortuo papa, nee acephala nullo papa. He adds, Transeo illud de Cardinalibus, quia omnibus notum, quando co- eperint. LOL, 3: 39; Seitz, 68. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 97 Lord Jesus Christ." I most willingly admit, as Cyprian says, that sacerdotal unity sprang from the throne of Peter, but only so far as con- cerns the Western Church. For indeed, the Roman Chureh itself sprang from Jerusalem, which is properly the mother of all the Churches. The last authority adduced by Eck was Jerome. The authority of Jerome had not been well introduced by the learned Doctor, said Luther, even if Jerome's authority were in all respects true; for the Doctor was seeking to show that the monarchical power of the Church of Rome was instituted by Christ and by divine right. This the words of Jerome do not prove. He says, "To whom, if a certain preeminent power be not given by all there will be as many schisms as there are priests." "Be given, " he says, that is, it might be done by human right, all the others faithfully consenting to it. I do not object to this. 1 If the faithful of the whole world should agree that the bishop of Rome or of Paris or of Magdeburg should be first and highest bishop, the monarchy should be granted him out of reverence for the whole Church so agreeing. But this has not been done heretofore, is not now done, and never will be done, since even down to our time the Greek Church has not consented to it, and that Church has never been considered heretical. Jerome was an important witness and Luther would make the most of him. He continued, That I have rightly given the opinion of Jerome I will prove by his letter to Evagrius, hi which he says: "Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome or Constantinople, or Regius or Alexandria, they are of the same merit and of the same priesthood. The power of riches and the weakness of poverty make them higher or lower, but all are successors of the apostles." In his commentary on the Epistle to Titus again he says: "A presbyter is the same as a bishop; and before, by the instigation of the devil, jealousies arose in religion and it was said among the people, 'I am of Paul, and I am of Cephas/ the Churches were ruled by the common advice of the presbyters. But after each one began to think that those whom he had baptized belonged to him, it was decreed in the whole world that one chosen from the presbyters should be over the rest." And having cited authorities from Scripture to sustain him, he concludes: "Therefore, just as the presbyters know that it is by the custom of the Church that they are subject to him who is placed over them, so the bishops may know that rather by custom than by ordination of the Lord they are greater than the presbyters. " Luther closed his address by quoting a canon of an African synod: 1 In reply to this quotation from Jerome, Eck said: "This I say, that it appears to me (always saving better judgment) that there was not such confusion in the primitive Church, that a bishop should not be distinguished from a presbyter. In proof of which thing, I bring forward St. Dionysius, who was older than Jerome." LOL, 3: 37; Seitz, 66. 98 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY "Let not the bishop of the first see be called the prince of the priests, or the high priest, or any such thing; but only bishop of the first see. And let not the bishop of Rome be called the universal bishop." 1 If, said he, sole authority belongs by divine right to the bishop of Rome, all these things are heretical, which it were rash to affirm. Eck's first address has been given almost entire; Luther's with slight abridgement, and in general more freely. If Luther's address seems more logical and forcible, it is because it was so. Eck was conscious of the impression that his adversary was making and began his rejoinder with an apology. "The reverend father," said he, "has descended into the arena sufficiently instructed. Your most illustrious Dominations will pardon Eck, if occupied now for a long time with other things, he has not been able to bring together so many things, so roundly and accurately, as the reverend father has now done." He added, no doubt with the proper smile and gesture, "I come to dispute, not to issue a book." Luther's quotations from Cyprian needed explanation. Especially was the fact that he familiarly addressed the Pope as his dear and dearest brother to be explained. Eck did not think it important. No one, he said, is ignorant that the apostles were brethren, and yet Peter, just as his successor Cornelius, was the head of the apostles, the apex and vertex, according to St. Dionysius. He recurred to the matter later, and thought there must be some mistake about it. "As to Cyprian's calling Cornelius brother, he said, I think it was the notion of the compiler, and not of Cyprian; for if we read the letters of the holy bishops we will find that -at times magnified and flattering modes of address were used. They call each other beatissimus, sanctissimus," etc. 2 Luther was willing to grant to Peter a primacy of honors. He said: "It is an evident mistake that he had power over the apostles. This, however, I freely confess, that Peter was first in the number of the apostles, and that a prerogative of honor is due him, but not of power: the apostles were equally chosen and received equal power. If the very learned Doctor, he added, can prove that Pe^er ever ordained any one of the apostles, yea, one of the seventy disciples, or that he ever sent forth one of them, I grant him everything and confess myself beaten. If, on the other hand, I shall prove that not all the apostles together 1 The second synod of Hippo, A. D. 393, can. 25. Hefele, "History of Coun- cils," 2: 399, Eng. ed. 2 Eck would escape a difficulty by alleging a corrupted text. He did not know, or else did not remember, that it was much after Cyprian's time before bishops began to address each other as "your holiness," "your charity," "your emi- nence." These titles were borrowed from the court of Constantino, and only became the fashion after the Church was becoming rich by the patronage of the State. Cyprian's letters are now accessible to all in an English translation (ANF, vol. 5), and anyone may satisfy himself that it was that Father's constant prac- tice to use toward the bishops of Rome the language of an equal to an equal. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 99 could send forth one apostle, let him grant me that Peter had no power over the other apostles. He offered in proof that the apostles could not ordain Matthias (Acts i), and that Paul and Barnabas could only be sent forth by the Holy Spirit (Acts xiii). Eck did not accept the challenge* He said: "He asks me to prove that Peter ordained any of the apostles, but this is not pertinent to our business. For we do not inquire who ordained one or another, but who received the primacy over others from the Lord Jesus." 1 In his first address Luther made the point that the Roman Church was not all the Church, that the Greeks had never submitted to the Pope or acknowledged the primacy. Christ had said, "On this Rock will I build my Church." He did not mean a part of the Church, but the whole; and he could not therefore have referred to the Pope, the head of the Roman Church, as the head of all the Church. The reference to the Greeks aroused Eck's indignation; he said, "I beseech the reverend father to be silent and not to insult us with Greeks and Orientals, who separat- ing from the Roman Church became at the same time exiles from the Christian faith. " Luther answered, "I rather pray Doctor Eck to spare so many thousands of saints, since up to our times the Greek Church has endured, and undoubtedly it will endure; for Christ did not receive from the Father the middle of the Roman Empire, but the whole world for a possession and an inheritance." On the second day Eck came to what he called the principal thing, being about to prove, he said, that the primacy belongs to the Roman Church by divine right, and that Peter was considered the head of the Church by Christ. Now first he noticed the famous proof-text, "Thou art Peter," where, he said, according to the ordinary interpretation, Christ grants power to Peter that he might invite us to unity; for he con- stituted Peter the prince of the apostles, that there might be for the Church one principal vicar of Christ, to whom the members might go if, perchance, they should dispute among themselves; for if there were differ- ent heads the bond of unity would be broken. As to the meaning of the passage, he quoted Augustine, Chrysostom and Cyprian, passing by men of later time, Bede, Bernard and the like. Then more in detail he quoted from certain papal decretals. Luther in reply claimed that some of Eck's authorities were on his side: Augustine particularly had taught that the Rock on which the Church was built was not Peter, but Christ. He had indeed taught differently at different times, but he was oftener with him than with Eck. "But, " he added, "even if Augus- tine and all the Fathers have understood Peter to be the Rock of founda- tion, single-handed I would oppose them with the authority of the apostle, 1 LOL, 3: 40, 45; Seitz, 68, 73. 100 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY who says, 'Other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, Jesus Christ.'" 1 Eck referred to this afterwards in a way that told strongly against Luther. Also hi the second day's discussion Eck referred to Hus and the Bohem- ians. He held firmly to the doctrine of the infallibility of a general coun- cil, and from his point of view it was much in his favor that the Council of Constance 2 had condemned Wiclif and Hus, who taught that the Pope's power was derived from the Emperor. "I ask the reverend father's pardon," said Eck, "if I hate the schismatic Bohemians, and regard them as the enemies of the Church, and if I am reminded of them in this dis- cussion. For his thesis and the things he has said here to-day to prove that the primacy of the Church is only of human origin, in my poor and weak judgment are much like the views of the Bohemians, and as the report is, they are very grateful to him. " This cut Luther to the quick. It was, he replied, an insult to him, and he promptly resented it and declared his condemnation of the Bohemians, chiefly, however, because they were schismatics. "It has never pleased me, and will never please me, that the Bohemians wickedly came to a schism, that on their own authority they separated from our unity, even if right should be on their side. For the supreme divine law is charity and unity of the Spirit. " 3 But Luther was clearly disconcerted, and not knowing what else to do, made a counter-charge against Eck that he had been unjust to the Greeks. Eck had said that in denying the Pope's authority the Greeks had excluded themselves from the Church and salvation and were heretics. To exclude so many thousand saints Luther thought was as detestable a blasphemy as could be spoken. In speaking of the Greeks his opponent had classed them all together, those of the earliest and those of the latest times, without discrimination. Eck in reply likened him to an unskilled cook, mixing incompatible things, Greek saints and Greek heretics in the same class, that he might thereby defend the errors of heretics. This still further angered Luther, who 1 Luther added, "Besides, if the Church, against which the gates of hell should not prevail, had been founded on Peter, it would have fallen (when Peter fell), at the voice of the maid that kept the door." Eck answered that Luther had not noticed that the "I will build" is in the future tense. When Peter fell Christ had not yet given the keys, he had only promised them (LOL, 3: 60, 66; Seitz, 85, 91). Luther afterwards reminded Eck that Peter had received the keys when he prevaricated and was blamed by Paul at Antioch. LOL, 3: 73; Seitz, 97. 2 Eck: "He asks me to prove that a council cannot err. I do not know whether he wishes to insinuate by this a suspicion against the Council of Constance. But this I say to the reverend Father, 'If you believe that a legitimate council errs and has erred, you are to me as a heathen and a publican.' " LOL, 3: 110; Seitz, 129. 3 The notaries add, D. Martinus petiit Eecium ne velit impingere tantam con- tumeliam, ui eum Bohemiam faceret, quia sibi semper inviti fuissent ideo quod ab imitate dissentiant. LOL, 3: 61; Seitz, 86. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION: interrupted and complained that he had spoken falsely and impudently of him. 1 Eck too, became angry and did not spare Luther. "The reverend father," he said, "glories that he speaks according to the divine law. Relying on his own understanding he flouts me because I follow the inter- pretation of the ancients. He insinuates that he will not follow Augustine and others who have said that Peter is the Rock, because their teaching is contradictory. I say in reply, how does he dare to believe that so great a Father has taught contradictory things in the same book, in the same chapter, and in the same sentence? I leave others to judge how modestly and humbly he spoke when he promised by himself alone to stand up in opposition to so many Fathers. This is indeed the true Bohemian style, to profess to understand the Scriptures better than Popes, councils, doctors and universities, and that although the Holy Spirit has never deserted the Church. Wonderful it would be if God has kept the truth concealed from so many saints and martyrs, waiting for the coming of the reverend father!" 2 Luther had been identified with the Bohemians, and was in a manner compelled to accept the situation. He had been surprised and worried, 3 but he put on a bold front: he claimed that the Bohemians had been badly treated; they had been pursued and harassed as enemies, whereas they ought to have been dealt with kindly, and the effort should have been made to conciliate and win them. Then, too, some of Hus's doctrines were most Christian and evangelical. He did not care whether Hus and Wiclif had taught that it is not necessary to salvation to believe that the Church of Rome is superior to other Churches. He knew that Gregory Nazianzen, Basil the Great, Epiphanius, and the other Greek bishops and saints had not believed it. No faithful Christian, he said, can be forced beyond the sacred Scripture. 4 In defending Hus, Luther was bring- ing reproach upon the Council of Constance that had condemned him. Eck quoted Augustine to show that to cast doubt on the infallibility of a council was to weaken the foundations of truth. Luther said that the 1 Protestor cor am vobis omnibus et publice, quod egregius D. D. hac mendaciter et impudenter de me loquitur. LOL, 3: 64; Seitz, 89. 2 Luther said, "This is not to dispute, but to stir up unfriendly feelings against me." LOL, 3: 73; Seitz, 97. 3 Later Luther became much less sensitive about being called a follower of Hus. He writes to Spalatin: Ego imprudens hucusque omnia Johannis Huss docui et tenui; docuit eadem imprudentia et Johannes Staupitz; breviter sumus omnes Hussitae ignorantes; denique Paulus et Augustinus ad verbum sunt Hussitae. Vide monstra, quaeso, in quae venimus sine duce et doctore Bohemico. February, 1520. De Wette, 1:425. 4 Nee potest fidelis Christianus cogi ultra sacram Scripturam, quae est proprie jus divinum, nisi accesserit nova et probata revelatio. Imo ex jure divino prohibemur credere nisi quod sit probatum, vel per scripturam divinam, vel per manifestam reve- lationem. LOL, 3: 62; Seitz, 87. i02 TEE REFORMATION IN GERMANY reference was unhappy, as Augustine was speaking of the infallibility of the word of God, and a council as only the creature of that word. To put a council and the word of God on the same level was a disparagement of that word, since it was conceded that a council may err. 1 This Bohemian incident was the most exciting thing in the whole dis- putation. Luther had foreseen that he might be forced into a position in which public sentiment would be turned against him. Anywhere, and with the greatest prudence, he might arouse strong resentments by deny- ing the infallibility of the Pope and council; and anywhere it would be much against him to identify him with the Bohemians. But in Leipzig such a thing was particularly exasperating. The university at Leipzig had a grievance. A little more than a hundred years before that time, Hus, then the most active spirit in Prag, had caused a division in the university there. Four nations were at that time represented in that university: Bohemians, Bavarians, Saxons and Poles; and the Bohem- ians having only one vote, could be outvoted in their own university. Hus brought it about that Bohemia should have three votes, instead of one, and the other nations one vote instead of three. The question leading to the change concerned the doctrines of Wiclif, Hus favoring and the other nations opposing them. The conclusion of the matter was that the other nations withdrew from Prag, five thousand students and teachers, and established two universities: the Bavarians the uni- versity of Ingolstadt, 2 Eck's institution, and the Saxons the university of Leipzig. The memories of that bitter controversy had scarcely been dimmed, and, besides, there was still a fresh recollection of the long and bloody Husite wars. When, therefore, Luther defended and apologized for the Bohemians, the people of Leipzig could not hear him with patience; he seemed the friend of heretics, and himself a heretic. 3 He keenly felt the hostility of the audience, and interrupted the discussion to address the people in German, and remove, if possible, their antagonism to him. The case was doubtless worse with him, because in other places, and especially in his own home, he had spoken almost entirely to friends and admirers, and this was a new experience for him. All along, but now more than ever, Eck had the advantage of a favor- 1 Luther mentioned some universally accepted doctrines taught by Hus. Eck he thought ought to allow him to believe that the Council of Constance had not really condemned these, but that they had been interpolated by some impostor! LOL, 3: 75; Seitz, 99. Later he said that councils had erred, and might err again, especially in things not pertaining to faith; and that a council had no authority for establishing new articles of faith, otherwise we would have as many articles in our creed as there are opinions of men. LOL, 3: 98; Seitz, 119. 2 Founded in 1472, the university of Ingolstadt was united to that of Munich in 1826. The old building is now a gymnasium for boys. 3 In a letter to Hoogstraten, Eck said that by defending the Bohemians, Luther alarmed many who at first favored him, and drove them from him ; quo temerario errore multos terruit et discedere fecit, qui primo ei favebant. LOL, 3: 476. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 103 ing audience. In other respects, however, he had serious difficulties to contend with. The words, "I say unto thee, Thou art Peter," etc., seemed upon their face to favor his cause; Luther had to find some other interpretation than that which first appeared. But in all other cases, Eck's proof-texts did not at once and clearly seem to be pertinent he had to interpret into them the meaning that he wished them to bear, and in this he was not always successful. He insisted much on the com- mand, "Feed my sheep"; in this he thought was conferred on Peter his office as shepherd or pastor of the whole Church. Luther's interpretation of it was far more plausible. Again, he thought the primacy given when the Lord foretold Peter's fall, and directed him after his conversion to confirm his brethren, the weaker being confirmed by the stronger, the lower by the higher. This was not so openly manifest that it would be accepted without proof, and no very satisfactory proof was found. 1 It also seemed to him proof of Peter's primacy that he was named first in the list of apostles, that he was sent to pay the tribute money for himself and the Lord (Matt. 17:27); .that he was commanded to follow Christ, not simply (as Eck interprets) in the manner of his death, but also in the order of magistracy, and that he was commanded to walk on the sea, where, according to St. Bernard, the sea means the world, and the walking on it that all the world was to be subject to Peter. 2 That all these passages mean what Eck and some of the Fathers thought them to mean would hardly occur to the uninstructed reader. While Eck's Scripture proofs needed interpretation, Luther's on the other hand generally seemed at first view to mean what Luther said they meant; and Eck's interpretations of them could not always be heard with a serious face. The very fact that so many of them taxed his ingenuity, could not but be felt against him. When reminded that St. Paul rebuked the Corinthians for making parties and exalting one apostle over another, " Very true, " he said, "but the apostle was condemn- ing personal ambition, and the passage is nothing against the primacy. " When told that Paul claimed to be the apostle to the gentiles, as Peter 1 Eck did not give proof, but authority. Luther said that there were two ways of interpreting. First, Peter, if you love me, that is if you seek your own and do all things to please your flatterers, feed my sheep, that is, be first and lord of all. This sense, he said was not in his codex. The second way was, If you love me, that is, if you deny yourself, if you lay down your life for me, if you despise all dignity and love nothing besides me (as Augustine happily expounds it), Feed my sheep, that is, teach, preach the word, exhort, pray, set a good example. For the Greek word in this place does not mean simply to rule and to feed, but sweetly and gently to care for and to do all things, that nothing may be wanting to the sheep. LOL, 3: 94, 95; Seitz, 116-118. 2 See the summing up of the 8th of July. LOL, 3: 121. "As to what St. Ber- nard says of Peter's walking on the sea, Luther saya that it has nothing to do with the primacy. I wonder that he can say this if he read Bernard, for Bernard certainly intends to prove from this that Pope Eugenuis had the primacy over the rest, and that the whole world ought to be subject to him." /&., 124; Seitz, 139-141. 104 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY was to the Jews, "True," he replied, "but Paul was there only stating a fact and was not at all denying the primacy." When told that Paul, in mentioning the officers of the Church, fails to make mention of the Pope, "True enough," says Eck, "but the fact that he says nothing about the primacy in that place does not prove that there was no pri- macy." The apostle John in describing the New Jerusalem mentions twelve foundation stones. "Very true, but he does not say that Peter was not, in another sense, the one foundation. " The Pope claimed the right to ordain bishops; if Peter was Pope he ought to have exercised that right; but there is no proof that he ordained the other apostles. In the case of Matthias, the new apostle, neither Peter nor all the apostles could choose him; he was chosen by the Lord. But Eck had no doubt that Peter ordained him and all the rest. It was a plain case; they were bishops; Christ did not ordain them, and they did not ordain themselves; therefore they must have been ordained by Peter, whom Christ had appointed universal bishop, when he said, Feed my sheep. 1 Paul men- tioned that at Jerusalem he had not yielded to Peter and James; that whatever they were, it was nothing to him, since God is no respecter of persons. This, Eck thought, was nothing against the primacy of Peter. What Paul meant was that Peter and James were men of humble origin, without learning or culture, and that God, in choosing such men to the apostleship, showed that he was not influenced by men's outward condition. Luther made some movement, perhaps smiled, when Eck said this. Eck's happy facility of conjecturing made him say that if he had the right of supposing he might suppose anything; he might suppose that the apostle John was a chancellor, probably alluding to Eck's office as vice-chancellor of his university. Eck was at a decided disadvantage in having undertaken to prove that the Pope is Pope jure divino. This was a proposition that many of his audience accepted without proof; they needed no authorities or ar- guments to convince them of it. It might seem, therefore, that the bur- den of proof was on him who would deny it; that it was Luther's business to prove that the Pope was not Pope jure divino, and that Eck took the burden that properly belonged to his opponent. But a proper under- standing of the case will convince us that Eck had no choice. The Papacy was a very old institution; for many years, centuries rather, the Pope had held the first place in the Western Church no true Catholic thought of disputing his supremacy or of inquiring how he obtained it. 1 In this the Doctors agree, that at the Supper Christ made his disciples priests in giving them power over the true body of Christ, saying, This do in remem- brance of me. And then, on the day of the Resurrection, he gave them power over the mystical body: Receive ye the Holy Spirit. But the primacy and prelacy of the whole Church he promised Peter: Feed my sheep, as Gregory, Chrysostom and other Fathers testify. LOL, 3: 83; Seitz, 106. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 105 In one of the passages of the discussion, while they were all dining at the Duke's palace, the Duke said to the disputants, "Whether the Roman bishop is Pope jure divino or jure humano, he is Pope. " l The inference was that the whole discussion was a dispute about words and of little practical importance. The Duke expressed the opinion of many who looked at the question superficially; and, in point of fact, it was only in recent times that any felt it necessary to claim for the Pope a divine right to his position. So long as he ruled according to the canons, or exercised those functions that law "or custom had assigned to him, his power was unquestioned; but when he began to claim the right to make laws, to forgive sins, to remit penalties both on earth and hi Purgatory, to dispense the spiritual treasures of the Church, to wield not an ecclesias- tical but a divine power, it was inevitable that men should ask where he got so great authority. If he ruled only by the right that the Church gave him, he was exceeding his powers. If Christ himself had not com- mitted such authority to him he was a usurper and an impostor such things as the Pope claimed could be innocently claimed only by a man who held a divine commission. The case was such that the Pope must recede from his claims, or else show that he acted by divine right. It was this state of things that forced Eck to undertake the office of affirmant rather than respondent in the discussion. 2 It was with the divine right of the Papacy as it afterwards was with the divine right of kings, and as it has been with other human conceptions: An insti- tution is created to meet some social, political or religious need; hi time its origin is forgotten; it is supposed to have been from the first, and to be part of the general constitution of things. The circumstances change so that it is no longer useful; it may even be oppressive; or it gets to itself new functions, claims new powers, and at last grows into a position of antagonism to some fundamental right or conception. Then comes a revolt, and the institution is swept away or forced back into its legiti- mate sphere and limitations. In the case of the Papacy there were two causes of revolt: first, the necessity for such an institution had almost, if not entirely, passed away; second, the necessities or ambition of the Popes had put on it a weight too great to be borne. Four days were spent in discussing the position of the Pope and the Roman Church. Other questions followed, Purgatory, penance, indul- 1 Princeps Dux Georgius prudentissime ambos nos verberans dixit: Sive hoc sit jure divino, sive humano, Romanus Pontifex est et manet summus Pontifex. LOL, 3: 241. Luther again ment^ns in his Preface what the Duke said (LOL, 1: 20), but interprets it somewhat differently. In 1545 he thought that the Duke would have approved Eck and blamed him if he had not been influenced by his argu- ments. In 1519 he remembered that the Duke had chided both, verberans. 2 In the latter part of the disputation the parties changed places: Luther af- firmed and Eck denied. 106 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY gences. But in discussing these, no new points were developed. Luther afterwards said that he himself hardly knew in what way he and Eck differed about Purgatory and penance. 1 They were nearly agreed about indulgences. Eck thought, indeed, that they ought not to be despised, but at the same time no one ought to trust in them. If, said Luther, the indulgence sellers had said this, "no one even to this day would have heard my name." And if the people had known that they were not to trust hi indulgences, the indulgence sellers would have died of starva- tion. 2 Neither party was altogether pleased with the manner of discussion. Eck did not like it that what was said had to be taken down by notaries, and that in order to do this he had to crush the impetuosity and swing of his eloquence. The Lutheran party were put to a disadvantage by not being allowed to bring in books of reference; the disputants were to trust to memory and there was no ready way to verify quotations; Luther sometimes felt that Eck did not honestly use his authorities, and both were liable to misquote. Melanchthon had in mind when he went to Leipzig an ideal discussion, in which both sides seek only truth, in which opinion is calmly compared with opinion, and in which defeat brings no humiliation and victory no glorying. Of course he was disappointed. The noise and confusion shocked him; the lack of logical pertinency surprised him, the eager desire for victory scandalized him. Luther felt very much the same way: he thought the discussion a waste of time. Eck had the favor of the university and people of Leipzig at the close, as at the beginning. He was feted and dined and in many ways honored. Luther, on the other hand, felt that he had not been generously treated, but he excepted some from the blame. In the university there were candid and earnest friends of learning, and the city council and the better class of citizens much regretted the discourtesy shown him. He heartily praised Duke George, 3 who did everything possible to make the disputa- tion profitable, and he owed nothing to the university except all honor. This last was said with qualification. He was evidently downhearted, but not without some crumbs of comfort: he did not go home altogether empty-handed; he carried with him, as he thought, some increase of fame. Eck praised his learning, and the Leipzig people, while claiming the victory for Eck, thought he would have been defeated if they had 1 Eck afterwards thus stated the case: "Doctor Martin said that he knew there is a Purgatory, but that it could not be proved from Scripture. I undertook to prove from Scripture that there is a Purgatory." LOL, 3: 491. sLOL, 3: 234, 235. 8 "Most of all is to be praised the illustrious prince Duke George, who with real princely kindness and magnificence omitted nothing to bring it about that the disputation yield good fruit, and that the pure truth should be sought rather than glory." LOL, 3: 230. This compares curiously with many of Luther's, subsequent sayings about this prince. THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION 107 not helped him! Eck, however, thought the people were good enough, but that he had contended alone. 1 He certainly had shown himself a disputant of great endurance and skill. Luther spoke of him as a man of varied and copious classic and scholastic learning, but who had scarce- ly saluted sacred learning from the threshold. In another place he less elegantly said that Eck knew about as much of theology as an ass does of music. The man at Leipzig who most pleased Luther was Melanch- thon; and when Eck, after the discussion, attacked the young teacher of Greek, Luther put strong arms of protection about him. He was not ashamed to confess that he daily gave up his own judgment hi deference to Philip's. "Not that I praise Philip/' he said, "who is a creature of God and nothing, but I venerate the work of God in him. " Melanchthon had been with Luther a year, and was twenty-two years old. Luther felt that he was overmatched at Leipzig, but such was hardly the case. He spoke to a hostile and Eck to a friendly audience that was a weight for him to carry. Several times he lost his temper and inter- rupted Eck, once with the cry, mendacium, but as a rule he kept more clearly to the point than his adversary, and his method was more orderly. Some of Eck's quotations were scarcely pertinent to the case, and when they were pertinent they would have weight only with those who attrib- uted a sort of infallibility to the old teachers with Protestants they have no weight at all. He quoted Popes in defense of the Papacy, 2 which was hardly allowable, unless the papal infallibility was taken for granted, and that was virtually the thing in dispute. We know now that some of Eck's papal decretals were not genuine; they were among the famous forged decretals of Isidore. Luther suspected some of them, because they showed ignorance unworthy of any Pope, but as yet they were not rejected. 3 In the interpretation of Scripture Luther was much superior to his antagonist. As a rule, when both quoted the same authori- ties, Luther quoted them more justly and pertinently. When the report of the discussion was printed and could be read calmly, Eck's present 1 Both disputants virtually confessed defeat. Eck says in a letter to Hoog- straat: "In many things Luther got the better of me; because first they brought books with them, in which they had notes, and which they took into the place of discussion; second, because they took notes of the discussion and conferred about them at home. And third, because there were so many of them, and he alone, with only justice on his side, stood against them." LOL, 3: 477. 2 Eck said, "It is certain that the holy Popes also wrote that they were universal bishops, as Sixtus and Victor." LOL, 3: 103. Sixtus and Victor are among the early Popes to whom the pseudo-Isidore attributed letters, forged of course. 3 Pope Anacletus is made to say that the most holy Roman Church did not obtain the primacy from the apostles but from Christ himself. He translated Cephas "head," and used the word "cardinal" as referring to the Church some centuries before it actually came to be so used which ignorance, said Luther, ought not to be attributed to so great a bishop. Eck had the indiscretion to insist that Cephas might mean "head," and to quote authority to prove it. LOL,, 3: 60, 74; Seitz, 86, 98, 108 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY victory, if it was a victory, came to be final defeat. In a little more than a year from the time of the discussion, the sentiment was so far changed in Leipzig that he could not safely appear there in public. In some respects Eck doubtless failed, but if he expected to win a lasting name for himself he was not disappointed; wherever Luther is known, Eck will be named with him. Their disputation renewed a contest that might, but for that disputation, have died out. It not only renewed it but widened it. It brought into prominence the dis- tinction between a Pope by divine commission and a Pope by human appointment, a distinction that there had been no occasion to make before, but once made was never to be forgotten. CHAPTER V THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION THE Leipzig disputation wrought a change in Luther this was one of the first and most important effects of the contest. He had been sincere in his professions of loyalty to the Pope, and had no wish to separate from the Roman Church, for in his view a schismatic was little better than a heretic. He had a clear, strong conviction that the Pope was leading men astray, and destroying the liberties of the Church; but at the same time he felt that it was his duty to submit to him, what- ever he might be or do. 1 But it came to him, as it had not come to him before, that the Greeks were Christians, and yet not subject to the Pope; that the Bohemians, too, were Christians, although they had no con- nection with the Roman Church; and that it might be the same with the Germans, or any other people. This new light, after a while, revealed to him an open and plain way, and he did not hesitate to take it in fact, there was no other way for him. If there had been no discussion, he might have gone on recognizing the Pope as head of the Church, and giving him reverence as such. "We do not at all differ, " he said, "as to the thing itself, but only as to the causes and origin of the thing. For I do not deny that the bishop of Rome is, has been and will be first; as to this I do not dispute, as to this there is no question." 2 After a while he learned better; he found out that his adversaries would not and could not recognize his Pope as any Pope at all; and that their Pope was a Pope whom he could not acknowledge. It was at Leipzig that he was taught how irreconcilable was the difference between them. He did not at once see that this difference must put him in an indepen- dent and hostile position. In his first publications after the disputation 1 "I am content that the Pope should be called lord of all. What is that to me who know that even the Turk is to be honored and endured for the sake of the power?" Luther to Spalatin, March 5, 1519. After the disputation, in his explanation of proposition 13 on the power of the Pope, he repeated in many ways his belief that the Pope, although he was not the head of the Church by divine right, was yet to be honored. It weighed much with him that the Pope was Pope by the common consent of all the faithful. To despise that common consent would be to deny Christ and contemn the Church. "Is it possible," said he, "that Christ is not among so many and so great Christians? But if Christ is there, and Christians are there, we ought to stand with Christ and Chris- tians in everything that is not contrary to the command of God." LOL, 3: 302. 2 Primum vides, lector, de re ipsa nos non admodum dissentire, sed de causis et origins rei. Nam nee ego nego Romanum pontificem esse, fuisse, fore primum, nee de hoc dispute, me hoc quaeritur. Explanation of proposition on Pope's power. LOL, 3: 299. 109 110 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY he spoke of the Pope just as he had all along been speaking of him, still deceiving himself with the notion that the dispute was only as to the man- ner of the thing, not the thing itself. But that could not last. If it were a matter of material interest, we might perhaps discover exactly when it was that he first came to a full understanding of the case; it is enough for our purpose to know that in the next year his learning was com- plete. In October, 1520, he wrote: "Willing or unwilling, I am com- pelled to become more learned day by day, having so many and so great teachers." Prierias and others had instructed him about indulgences. He had thought they might be of some use; he had found out that they were mere impositions. Afterwards, he says, Eck and Emser and their confederates began to teach him about the primacy of the Pope. "And here, that I may not appear ungrateful to so learned men, I confess that their works have profited me much. For although I had denied that the Papacy is of divine, I had admitted that it is of human, right. But I have heard and read the most subtle subtleties of those valiant soldiers, and I now know and am certain that the Papacy is the kingdom of Baby- lon, and the power of Nimrod, the mighty hunter. " A little later he says, "Unfortunately, at the time of the Leipzig disputation I had not read John Hus, otherwise I should have maintained not some but all the articles that were condemned at Constance, just as I now hold them, having read that most wise, noble, Christian book of John Hus, the like of which has not been written for four hundred years, and which has now, through the divine favor been put in print, to testify to the truth and put to open shame all those who have condemned it. "* The work here mentioned by Luther is Hus's treatise "On the Church. " But it is not the work itself so much as the fact that it had been printed, and Luther's pleasure in the fact, that is significant. His reference to it is like the note of the robin, a harbinger of spring it marks the approach of a new season. It was not the first note of that kind. At the close of the third day's dispute at Leipzig, according to the regular order, the disputants must pass to the next question on the schedule. Luther felt that he had yet more to say in reference to the Pope's power, and an- nounced that he would continue the discussion in writing. It was a very simple and natural announcement, but it had a significance that neither Luther nor his hearers fully comprehended. He meant nothing more than that he would transfer that particular case from the forum of the university to the forum of the press; he did not realize that what he was about to do in one case was soon to be done in all cases that in one of its most important functions, that of diffusing knowledge, the 1 See the opening paragraphs of Luther's treatise "On the Babylonian Cap- tivity of the Church." Wace and Bucheim, 141 seq. THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 111 university was beginning to give place to a mightier and more effective agency. There, at Leipzig, on the 6th day of July, 1519, one of the disputants virtually announced that the supremacy of the university was ended, and the reign of the printing-press was begun. It had been agreed that the report made by the notaries should be submitted to the universities of Erfurt and Paris, and that they should decide which of the disputants had the better arguments. But before the universities had had time to decide, Luther and Eck and others had already through the press appealed to the world; and from that day to this, not the learned few, but all who can read, have been the moderators and judges of all great disputes. >>. Before the coming of Luther, the press had been used in the controversy ^i of Reuchlin with the adversaries of Hebrew learning. But the affair * of Reuchlin was local and temporary, and the interest in it was confined almost entirely to the learned. It was different with the Lutheran move- ment: that was on a wider field, concerned men of all classes, touched the most vital interests, and awakened universal attention. It presented the first real opportunity of using and testing the power of the newly invented art of printing. Then came with all its popular efficacy the controversial pamphlet; and Luther, as he was among the first, was also among the greatest of pamphleteers. When he published his Theses he was surprised at the rapidity with which they found their way into all Germany it was almost as if his thoughts had been silently borne upon the winds. It was the same with his " Explanation of the Theses/' with his reply to Prierias, with Eck's "Obelisks" and his answering "Asterisks." Having early learned by experience how greatly the press increased h"is power, he made a lavish use of it; he framed his thoughts with a view to printing them, just as others framed theirs with a view to oral expression. He wrote rapidly, sometimes vehemently, always vigorously, and with a definite object in view. He cared nothing for style; he had no ambition for literary fame; he wrote for present effect; that produced, he was content his writings should be forgotten. 1 He was among the first to use the press for immediate popular effect he set the fashion, but it was immediately and enthusiastically followed. It had been the old custom to send around theses and discussions in manuscript; that custom passed out, and those who had anything to say said it in print even personal letters, if they contained anything of public interest, were almost sure to be published. 2 1 Habere enim puto theatrum meum suam horam, post me alius sequetur; si Dominus volet, ego tempori meo satis fecerim. LOL, 3: 297. 2 Bibliographers have calculated that, in the five years before the posting of the Theses, 527 books were published in Germany; in the five years following there were 3,113 books published, of which four-fifths were favorable to the Reformation, Of these, about 600 were published in Wittenberg alone. Cf. Schaff, 6: 560 seq. 112 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY The beginning of the Lutheran controversy had stimulated literary activ- ity; the renewal and widening of that controversy by the Leipzig dis- putation led to still greater zeal in publishing. Almost immediately after his return to Wittenberg, Luther wrote and published an account of what took place at Leipzig. 1 " Because," said he, "in the disputation there was rather a waste of time than a searching for truth, I wish to publish an explanation of my propositions, being sure that a better under- standing of the questions may be reached in that way than by two weeks' discussion of that kind. " This account he followed by a second and some- what enlarged edition of a treatise on the power of the Pope, which he wrote before going to Leipzig. Melanchthon also gave an account of the disputation in a letter to Oekolampadius, which was published; it was his first publication in reference to the matters in dispute, and was such a letter as we might expect the young professor to write a little stiff and overlearned, it may be, but calm, judicial and weighty. He had already vexed Eck at Leipzig by giving suggestive hints to Carlstadt and Luther; he vexed him even more by his letter. Eck replied, and Melanchthon rejoined in a tract in which he showed himself already the equal of his contemporaries in learning and judgment, and more than their equal in courtesy and moderation. 2 On Eck's side, Emser, professor at Leipzig, wrote a letter to the Bohemians, hi which he dwelt on the things that Luther had said against the Husites, and at the same time insinuated Luther's heresy in the Catholic sense. The letter was ingenious: in proportion as Luther had lost favor at Rome he had gained it in Bohemia; Emser being sure that the papists sufficiently hated him, sought to show that the Husites had no cause to love the Saxon. Luther replied at length and effectively, in a paper addressed "to the Emserian Goat" (alluding to the goat of Emser's coat of arms) and Emser rejoined "to the Bull of Wittenberg. " Eck, too, replied to Luther's account of the disputation, and Luther again to Eck. Oekolampadius also took a hand in the fray, in a letter from the "ignorant canonists," as Eck had called some of Luther's friends. 3 At this time, too, Lucas Cranach, the painter, fur- nished sketches and caricatures, for which Luther supplied explanations 1 Resolutions Lutheri super propositionibus auis Leipsiae disputatis. Pub- lished in August, 1519. LOL, 3: 225 seq. 2 Eck thus spoke of Melanchthon: "The Wittenberg grammarian, not unlearned indeed in Latin and Greek, has dared in a published letter to attack me . . . and to take upon himself the office of judge, which we assigned to the university of Paris." LOL, 3: 488. In his reply Melanchthon sufficiently asserted himself. He said in reference to the authority of the ancients, "How often, I pray you, has Jerome been mistaken! how often Augustine! how often Ambrose! And these men are not so unknown to me that I may not venture to speak thus freely of them. Yea, it is possible that I know somewhat more about them than Eck does of Aristotle." Ib. 499, 500. 3 Most of these documents, all that are of importance, are printed in Vols. 3 and 4 of Luther's Op. Lat. Var. THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 113 and notes. And so, invective, apology, explanation, sermon, satire, lampoon, cartoon in a word, all kinds of writing were used in an earnest controversy following the Leipzig disputation; and the art of printing was made to do all the kinds of work, good and bad, of which it was capable, or has since performed. At this time, when both parties were so earnestly contending, Erasmus again came to Luther's assistance. It was in a letter to the Archbishop and Elector of Mainz, even more definite and outspoken than his previous letter to Elector Frederick of Saxony. He did not intend it to be pub- lished, but it was published. Luther, he said, had dared to doubt about indulgences, but not until his adversaries had imprudently claimed too much for them. He had dared to speak too rashly of the papal power, but not until the other side had written too rashly of it. He had dared to despise the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, but not until the Domini- cans had extolled them almost above the Gospels. Going through the whole catalogue of things in which Luther had offended, he claimed that in each case the other side had provoked his opposition; and in general he represented the state of the Church to be such as to torture pious minds. Luther acknowledged the value of this letter to him, but grudg- ingly and with unworthy lamentations. 1 In thinking of the printing press of that day, it is just to recall that no one used it more worthily than Erasmus of Rotterdam. As the Leipzig disputation had driven Luther to a more advanced position, so it had confirmed Eck in his position as leader of the papal party in Germany. He and Luther had met and parted with mutual respect Eck praised Luther, and Luther praised Eck but this could not last; neither had gained a clear victory over the other, and neither was thoroughly pleased with himself and his own performance. Each was, therefore, in a position in which it was easy for him to think ill of the other; the controversy, not without a personal element from the first, grew to be bitterly personal at the last. Luther suspected Eck of mali- ciously desiring his destruction, and the part that Eck was to play went far toward justifying the suspicion. As it was with Eck and Luther, so it was with Luther and Duke George of Saxony. Even at Leipzig the Duke had not been pleased with Luther's apology for Hus. His territory joined Bohemia; he himself was descended from a Bohemian family, and he had an inherited dread of the Bohemian heretics. He thought the doctrine of the Husites, especially the doctrine that a ruler in sin lost the right to his subjects' obedience, dangerous and subversive of all government, and that to be a Husite was to be a public enemy. 1 Luther to John Lange, Jan. 26, 1520, De Wette, 1 : 396. The letter of Erasmus is in his collected works, 3: 513. 114 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Already not pleased with Luther, he was ready to break with him when- ever an occasion should offer. Luther gave the occasion in a sermon preached in November, 1519, in which he taught that it would be better if the Supper should be given to all men under both forms, in the wine as well as in the bread, the distinctively Husite practice. As soon as the Duke came to be against Luther, Luther was against the Duke; and ever afterwards spoke of him as his enemy and the enemy of all that was good. His feelings against the Duke were no doubt much embittered by the fact that the latter had advised Frederick, both neighbor and kins- man, to expel Luther from his dominions. On June 28th, while Eck and Carlstadt were disputing about pre- destination and free will at Leipzig, a new Emperor was chosen at Frank- fort. There were two prominent candidates for the imperial dignity, Francis I king of France, and Charles of Austria, recently become king of Spain. For a time Henry VIII of England was also a candidate (or rather, thought he was), but never with slightest prospect of success. Between Francis and Charles, however, it was a serious contest, and neither spared any persuasion of favor or money to win the prize. The Arch- bishop of Mainz favored Charles; his brother of Trier was the advocate of Francis. There was no view of the case that did not involve serious dangers. If Francis should be chosen, it was almost certain that the Empire would be involved in war with Spain; and in such case, the fact that Austria, one of the most considerable states of the Empire, belonged to the king of Spain, would produce an awkward complication of things. On the other hand, should Charles be elected, the likelihood was that there would be war with France. And besides the danger of war, which- ever one might be chosen, there was also an objection to both of them they were too powerful. A strong Emperor might endanger the local liberties of Germany. In ordinary circumstances this latter danger would have been conclusive against both Charles and Francis; but Europe, especially Germany, was at that time threatened by the Turks, and a strong Emperor was necessary to the public safety. It might be danger- ous to have a strong Emperor, and it would be still more dangerous not to have a strong Emperor. The Electors were influenced by both these considerations. At first their choice fell on Frederick of Saxony in his hands German liberties would be safe. Once before, hi similar circumstances, a Saxon Duke had been chosen Emperor: in the time immediately following the breaking up of the Empire of Charlemagne, when Northern and Eastern barbarians Hungarians, Northmen, and others were committing their ravages. The old Saxon, Otho, thanked the nobles for the honor but firmly declined it the Empire needed a younger and more powerful THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 115 man, he insisted, and he turned the choice away from himself to Conrad, Duke of Franconia. At the close of Conrad's reign, he might have trans- mitted the power to his infant son, but as the circumstances of Germany had not materially changed, and a strong man was still needed, Conrad, influenced alike by gratitude and patriotism, gave his influence to Henry, son of that Otho to whom he owed his power. This was Henry the Fowler of history. As if to show that German patriotism was still a living force, the noble Frederick preferred the safety of his country to the highest human honor, and declined to be Emperor. 1 The choice was again be- tween Francis and Charles. Charles was of German stock and that fact proved to be decisive; Elector Frederick made a brief address strongly favoring Charles; the Archbishop of Trier withdrew his objections to him and he was elected, nemine contradicente, as the record has it. At that time little could be known of the personal qualifications of this prince for so high and responsible an office. Having been born in the year 1500, he was only nineteen years old, and was as yet, untried. His election as Emperor made him the most powerful sovereign in Europe, and in the extent of his possessions he was probably the richest of all the German Emperors. On one side he was grandson and heir of Emperor Maximilian, who was born Duke of Austria, and by his marriage with the daughter of Charles the Bold became Duke of Burgundy and the Netherlands. On the other side he was grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella, and inherited from them Spain and Naples, claims in Italy, and the recently discovered New World. And now, by his election as Emper- or, he added Germany to his other dominions. He would have been singularly insensible to the influence of human grandeur and power if he had not felt the greatness of his position. The kings of Europe at that time were addressed as "Your Highness" or "Your Excellency"; Charles insisted on being called "Your Majesty." In this, however, he vainly sought distinction, as in a short time the old custom passed out, and the weakest and poorest king, equally with the Emperor, was styled "Your Majesty." 2 The election of Charles was an event of the highest importance. His reign lasted through the whole time when the Reformation was struggling for the right to be; and on the political side no other person is to be com- pared with him in influence. His position as Emperor made him the defender of Christendom, the Pope, and the Church of Rome; this neces- sarily brought him into close relations with the papal party, and with the Pope as its head. To restrain as far as possible his great powers, the 1 Sleidan says that agents of Charles offered Frederick a great sum of money for his refusal of the imperial crown, but Frederick refused it his vote was not for sale; he had acted for the interests of his country, not for himself. 1 Robertson's "Charles V," 1:352, ed. Prescott. 116 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Electors imposed on him certain conditions, chiefly relating to German privileges, but several having a particular bearing on Luther's affairs. Of the former kind was the requirement that he should choose a council of Germans to govern the state this was the Regency, or Reichsregi- ment, created in Maximilian's time; of the latter, that he should see to it that the Pope should not encroach upon the privileges and liberties of the Empire, and that he himself should subject no man to the ban of the Empire without a hearing. The new Emperor was in Spain. It would be some time before he could hear of his election, and a still longer time before he could take any active part in ecclesiastical matters; but, after a while, he must favor the Pope against Luther. His election was, therefore, an obvious advance toward the threatening conflict. Luther's respite had all along been felt to be nothing but a respite; and now the march of doom, halted by the death of Maximilian, was again to begin. Some thought that Luther's only safety was in flight, and it occurred to him as a possibility that he might be compelled to seek refuge in Bohemia. This, however, was a thing thought of but not approved to flee would be to give up all for which he had been contending he must in some way stand his ground. The movement had not yet acquired sufficient momentum to carry it on without his help; he must not only continue in it, but continue to stand for it and represent it; and, as his dangers became more pressing and manifest, new sources of help and encouragement were developed. One of the most embarrassing things in his situation was the burden that his protection put upon the Elector Frederick; as long as he remained at Wittenberg, his honored friend must, to some extent, bear with him the odium and danger of his course. It was a relief to him, therefore, that some other place of safety was open to him; and that there were men in Germany who, if matters should come to the worst, were ready to take his part. It was hi the beginning of 1520 that he received his first letter from Ulric von Hutten, and through him an offer of an asylum from Franz von Sickingen. The first of these was poet, satirist, soldier, reformer; a man of restless and reckless disposition, brilliant, enthusiastic, and full of enterprise. In his youth he had been forced into a monastery against his will, and had escaped full of bitterness toward the monks and monachism. His passion was for learning, and his proudest dis- tinction was that which Maximilian conferred on him, as poet laureate of Germany. He was a Humanist, a friend of the new learning and a representative man of the new age. Von Sickingen was a man of far more military and political significance; his resources were great; he was a tried and distinguished soldier, a German patriot, and at last lost his life in a vain effort, in which he and Hutten worked together, for the THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 117 unity of Germany. It is not easy to learn exactly what it was that drew these two men toward Luther. Possibly it was their strong German feeling, their hostility to the Pope as an oppressor of the Fatherland; Possibly it was sympathy for Luther in his fight against overwhelming odds it was not the part of brave men to see a brave man crushed while contending for what he believed to be a righteous cause, the cause of God and of Germany. Luther did not accept their offer, but the fact that they made it brought him nearer to the German nobles, made him feel more keenly that his cause was Germany's cause, and no doubt suggested his appeal to the German nation. This he made in the form of an "Address to the Nobility of the German Nation," published in June, 1520. 1 It was a cry for help, earnest and impassioned. The Church had fallen into a sad condition, evils were many and grievous; all peoples, but especially the people of Germany, were wronged and oppressed, and all the ordinary means of reformation and relief were denied. The Roman authorities paid no attention to appeals; threats and remonstrances did not move them; they had, as it were, surrounded themselves by three walls. By the first they excluded the secular authorities from interfering in religious matters, claiming that the spiritual is above the secular and cannot be judged by it. When they were assailed by arguments from the Scripture they reared a second wall: the doctrine that the interpretation of Scripture belongs only to the Pope. If a general council was threatened or demanded, a third wall stood in the way, namely, that only the Pope can call a general council. In order to correct the existing evils, the claims of papists must be disregarded; these walls must be broken down; and the secular rulers all Christians indeed must exercise their right to judge and condemn what is wrong in the Church. The notion that there is a dis- tinction between the spiritual and the secular is untrue as well as mis- chievous : all Christians are of the spiritual order, and there is among them no difference but that of office; by baptism we are all together conse- crated to be priests. It is equally wrong to suppose that the interpreta- tion of Scripture belongs to any special order or office; all are taught of God. The Pope cannot be looked upon as an infallible guide, for Popes have often erred; and who can help Christendom when the Pope errs, if we may not believe one who has the Scriptures on his side? Break down the distinction between secular and spiritual, give to everyone his right to interpret the Scriptures, and the rest will follow the papal defenses will be taken away. It was not the putting of class against class, the secular against the spiritual; it was the assertion that there is only one class all are spiritual. 1 For the German text of the Address, see LDS, 21: 274-360; Walch, 10: 296 aeq. English version in Wace and Bucheim, 17-92. 118 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Having asserted the right and duty of the nobility to take matters :'n hand, Luther next intimated some of the things that ought to be done. First of all, there ought to be a free general council, which would correct abuses, restrain the extravagance of Popes, reduce the number of Car- dinals and make the Popes support them. The Pope's court ought to be reduced to one-hundredth part of its present proportions, and various sources of papal revenue were to be closed. The Pope was not to be permitted to claim superiority to the Emperor, and all those customs by which princes were in the habit of doing reverence to the Pope the hold- ing of his stirrup, and such things were to be abolished. No more monasteries were to be built; all festivals were to be abolished and only Sunday retained; there ought to be no more indulgences, and fasting should be voluntary. There were several things to which we must give a little more emphasis. Thus early Luther insisted that the clergy were to be permitted to marry. Many priests were already married in fact, but not in law; they had wives and children, but not with a clear conscience. Living in violation of Church law, they had to bear reproach and a sense of shame and guilt, although, he said, they were not violating the law of God; he wished them to be relieved, by taking away the prohibition to marry. His objection was to the general law which forbade all the clergy to have wives; if a bishop, or monks, or others, should be voluntary celibates, it was their own affair, and nothing was to be said against it. In this Luther made the proper distinction. If any number of persons, influenced by peculiar notions of devotion, or by enthusiasm, or ambition, or even class dis- tinction should elect to repress or crush out their natural instincts, they might succeed in keeping themselves pure; but when the law requires all of a class to do what is difficult for a select few, the obedience to the law must in many cases be only formal. In times of religious enthusiasm, or when a sense of obligation to vows is strong, no great scandal may occur; but in seasons of religious declension, or when the authority of the Church for any cause is weakened, the law loses its binding power. It tightens or relaxes with changing circumstances, while the force that it seeks to restrain, is as constant as human nature. In every time of relaxa- tion, passion asserts itself and the law is the occasion of evil. They were then passing through such a time. Those who favored the law were shocked at violation of it, those who opposed it saw in the violations the best reasons for its abolition. It was at most only an ecclesiastical regu- lation, which had its origin and justification in circumstances that no longer existed; the good it could do was reduced to the minimum, the evil had reached its maximum. Luther, therefore, was but following the suggestions of Ms environment when he insisted on the marriage of the THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 119 clergy, and so gave to the churches that were to be erected by the new movement the parsonage and the tender associations connected with it. The next thing worthy of particular notice is, that Luther saw the cruelty and futility of persecution. He said, "If the art of convincing heretics by fire were the right one, then the executioners would be the most learned Doctors on earth." And again, "Heretics should be con- vinced by the Scriptures, and not by the sword. " It would have been well for his fame if he had never swerved from his position. He had been taught toleration by the intolerance of his enemies; unfortunately, the lesson was one that could be learned only by personal experience, and, even so, was not always well learned. His followers did not learn it at all, and the times were not ripe for its general acceptance it was to wait for the slow working of the new forces, and changed political con- ditions. A third point has reference to the Eucharist. One party held that after consecration the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper were no longer essentially bread and wine, but the very body and blood of Christ this had been the official doctrine of the Roman Church since the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). Others were now reviving an older doctrine of the Church, that the bread and wine still remained. Luther thought that this difference need cause no division, since the needful thing was to believe that Christ is really and truly and essentially present in the bread and wine. 1 There is no danger, he said, in believing that the bread is present or not present; we must tolerate many customs and ordinances that are not injurious to the faith. In this last sentence he gave utter- ance to what has been called the conservative principle of the Reformation his shrinking from the introduction of new, and from the overturning of old, customs. His was the case of a conservative by nature and tram- ing aroused and urged onward for a time into a radical policy by new and revolutionary principles. These particulars have been mentioned in order to show more clearly the direction in which Luther was advancing. In 1518, in the "Explana- tion of his Theses, " he wrote on thesis 89, "The Church needs reformation, but that reformation is not the business of one man, the Pope, nor of many Cardinals, but of the whole world. " The "Address to the German Nobility" was in line with this thought. Rightly understood it went to the bottom of things; there was more in it than Luther saw there at the 1 In these two parties we may see the Transubstantialists and the Consub- stantionists of later time. In Transubstantiation. the theory is that the sub- stance of the bread becomes the substance of the body of Christ, the accidents re- maining the same. In Consubstantiation the substance of the bread remains, and the substance of the body of Christ is superadded. In the former, there is only one substance that of the body and blood of Christ; in the latter, two substances, of the bread and of the body- 120 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY time, or it may be afterwards, or than the world has since realized. It means that every Christian, however humble in character or position, is, in his measure, a reformer, and responsible for the purity of the Church* This is the doctrine of the Address. It is in the Church what individual political responsibility is in the State, the great democratic principle asserted (and possibly perverted) in manhood suffrage. Than this, Luther taught nothing more fundamental and nothing more antagonistic to the idea of a spiritual caste, with special powers and privileges. He held that it was the duty of the German people to reform the German Church. Just four months after the publication of this address followed the " Babylonian Captivity of the Church. "* It was a discussion of the sacra- ments. The Church had long held that there were seven sacraments, namely, baptism, the eucharist, confirmation, penance, ordination, matrimony and extreme unction. These seven Luther would reduce to three, baptism, the eucharist and penance; but even these, he thought, had been greatly perverted led, as it were, into a Babylonian captivity. He mentioned first the eucharist: the Roman tyranny had mutilated it, had destroyed its integrity, by forbidding the cup to the laity. "I do not mean," he said, "that they commit sin who receive in only one kind, but that they sin, who, in mere arbitrariness, refuse both kinds to be given to those who wish it." The sin is not with the people, but with the priests. He would not advise that both kinds be taken by force, as if there were absolute necessity to have both; but he would instruct men's consciences, so that everyone might bear the Roman tyranny knowing that his lawful rights in the sacrament had been taken away from him on account of his sins. 2 He would have no one, however, justify the Roman tyranny, as if it were right to prohibit one kind to the laity. All should protest against it, and yet bear it, just as they would bear it if they were captives among the Turks, where they could not have either kind. The custom of withholding the cup from the laity was of long standing; it began in the twelfth century, or earlier, following the general accept- ance of the doctrine of transubstantiation. When it came to be thought that the bread became Christ's very body, and the wine his very blood, the bread and wine after consecration could not be touched by profane hands. The tender conscience was shocked by the thought that crumbs 1 LOL, 5: 13-118; a German translation, not by Luther, is in Walch, 19: 4 seq. English version in Wace and Bucheim, 141-245. 2 Luther regarded the evils that had come upon Church and State as chastise- ments. The Turk, the Pope, the tyranny of bishops, whatever God's people suffered, were sent or permitted on account of sins. Hence they were to be en- dured patiently, as coming from God. THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 121 of the bread might be dropped on the ground or floor, to be trodden under foot, or, it may be, devoured by animals. And then the wine, the blood of Christ, might be spilled. By putting the bread in the form of a wafer the first danger was greatly diminished, but how could they provide against the spilling of the blood by rough and eager lay communicants? The most effective way was not to offer it to them at all. It was acknowl- edged that at the original institution of the Supper, both the bread and wine were given to all, and that for centuries that custom had been continued; but it was held that, inasmuch as no one could receive the body without receiving some blood with it, whoever received the bread virtually received the blood. However, not to lose and after a while forget the original form of the sacrament, the priest was to communicate in both kinds. That is, the laity had the sacrament in its full efficacy, but in an abridged form; while the celebrating priest had it entire, in form as well as in full efficacy. The new custom spread rapidly through the Church, until nothing else was recognized, probably before the bull of Honorius III made this the law of the Church as well as custom. No serious revolt was made against the innovation, except by certain heretical or revolutionary sects, until the time of John Hus. It was while he was at Constance, a prisoner awaiting condemnation, that the people of Prag demanded the sacra- ment in both kinds. In answer to this the Council of Constance passed a decree authoritatively excluding the laity from the cup. The decree is dated June 15, 1415. The following 6th of July Hus was burned. In this we have an example of the way in which human institutions, religious or civil, are changed. There is first the coming of some new conception, changing the attitude of men to some rite or ceremony. This changed attitude suggests, seems to make necessary, some change in the form of the rite. The change is at first timidly made by the few, then by more, then by all. At first it has no expressed sanction, it is simply a custom; after a time the custom is questioned and then it is made a law. If it be an ecclesiastical custom or law, it is at first regarded as something that is, on the whole, a good and useful expedient; soon it gets to be considered a matter of supposed divine obligation, for the neglect of which men ought to be burned or States torn asunder. That this was true in the case of the exclusion of the laity from the cup, is shown by the decree of the Council of Constance. 1 The withholding of the cup was what Luther called the first captivity of the Eucharist. The second captivity was of less importance: it was 1 Adopted at Session XIII, June 15, 1415: Item ipsa sancta synodus decernit et dedarat . . . sub poena excommunicationis, ut effectualiter puniant eos contra hoc decretum excedentes, qui communicando populum sub utraque specie panis et nini exhortati fuerint et sic faciendum esse docuerint. Mansi, 27: 728. 122 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY the requirement that the faithful should believe, not only that the body of Christ is essentially and truly present in the bread and wine, but also that the bread itself is not essentially present. In other words, Luther wished the people to be free to hold either transubstantiation or consub- stantiation, while the Church authorities insisted that they should hold to transubstantiation alone. A third captivity of the Eucharist, and the worst of all, was the perversion of its meaning and uses. What its proper use is he explains. The mass he says, is properly nothing but the words of Christ, Take, eat, etc., as if he had said: "0 man, thou sinner condemned, out of the simple, gratuitous love with which I love thee, the Father of mercies so willing, I promise thee, in these words, without any merit or vow on thy part, remission of all thy sins and life eternal. And that you may most fully rely on my irrevocable promise, I will give you my body and will pour out my blood, being about to confirm the promise by my death, and to leave both my body and my blood for a sign and memorial of the promise. As oft as you shall come to the Supper, remember me, declare and praise my love and kindness to you and give thanks. " From which, said Luther, you see that nothing is needed for the people in the mass but faith, which relies firmly on the promise, believes that Christ is trustworthy in his words, and does not doubt that these great blessings have been given to it. When there is such faith, presently follows the sweetest affection of the heart, by which the soul is enlarged and strengthened, so that the man is drawn to Christ, the bountiful and free giver, and thus becomes a new man. This mass, which brought blessedness to faith, and was of no force where faith was not, he would substitute for the mass that was supposed to have virtue in itself, which might be bought and might avail for many things, a sort of spiritual merchandise. Passing from the eucharist, Luther next took up the subject of bap- tism, which the popular Church teaching had robbed of its power. Baptism, as the other sacraments, was intended as a pledge of the faith- fulness of Christ, as a guaranty that he would do whatever was promised in it. In baptism had been promised regeneration and forgiveness of sins; this promise becomes operative and efficacious to all who, in being baptized, or in afterwards recalling the fact of their baptism, believe that promise. It is not the baptism alone, or the promise alone, or the faith alone, but the baptism and the promise and the promise believed. The act of baptism occurs but once, but a man ought to be continually and always baptized by faith that is, the efficacy of the sacrament is renewed as often as we recall it, and believe the promise of Christ made in it. This blessed use of baptism, by which, the grace that we have THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 123 lost by sin is restored, had been forgotten and many other ways of remit- ting sin had been substituted for that one that Christ had instituted. Especially had the Church, following the lead of St. Jerome, put penance in the place of baptism, and men were required to seek through painful works of satisfaction pilgrimages, vows, fastings what they already had in this misunderstood and neglected sacrament. The efficacy of baptism was never lost, unless a man, in despair, should be unwilling to return to salvation; it was possible, indeed, to wander for a time away from the sign, but the sign did not on that account lose its power. And yet baptism itself justifies no one, but only faith in that word of promise to which the baptism is added. 1 C It would serve no good purpose to follow Luther through his discussion of the other alleged sacraments, which he declares to be no true sacra- ments; it has been the purpose to mention only those things that show his advance toward reformation. Let us look back over the way and note the steps in his progress. He had left behind him the doctrine of papal infallibility, and the exclusive right of Popes and councils to interpret the Scripture; he had made the point that every Christian is divinely taught, and that the duty of reforming the Church belongs to every Christian; and yet he held that the judgment of the Church ought to be sought in a general council to be called by Christian princes, as the representatives of the Christian people. He had given up the doctrine of clerical celibacy, and insisted on the right and expediency of the mar- riage of priests; he asserted the right to differ on certain speculative points about the eucharist, and he demanded the cup for the laity. His views of baptism logically excluded the sacrament of penance; and, there- fore, of the three sacraments that he was willing to allow, there actually remained baptism and the Lord's supper; and these had no other efficacy than that given them by faith. They were the Gospel in symbol, and their special value consisted in the fact that they declared more specif- ically and impressively what the preacher declared whenever he truly preached the Gospel. 2 These two treatises were speedily followed by a third, on the " Freedom of a Christian Man, " which is devoted to the exposition of this twofold 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 1 Baptismus neminem justificat, nee ulli prodest; sed fides in verbum promisionis, cui additum baptismus. 2 In his sermon on preparation for death (1519) Luther says: "In the sacra- ments, Christ, the Lord your God, speaks with you, through the priest. You ought not to feel that the work or the word which you hear is man's. For God himself promises you all things through that word, which we have spoken of Christ. And he wished the sacraments to be pledges of his fidelity," etc. LOL, 3: 465. 124 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY everyone." 1 A man becomes justified, free and a true Christian, says Luther, through the word of God. The soul can do without every- thing, except the word of God, without which none of its wants are pro- vided for. But, having the word, it is rich and wants for nothing; since that is the word of life, of truth, of light, of peace, of justification, of salvation, of joy, of liberty, of wisdom, of virtue, of grace, of glory, and of every good thing. As the soul needs the word alone for life and justi- fication, so it is justified by faith alone and not by any works. By no outward work or labor can the inward man be at all justified, made free and saved. A right faith hi Christ is an incomparable treasure, and suffices for everything. But if he has no need of works, neither has he any need of the law the law is not made for a righteous man. This is Christian liberty, not that one should be careless and lead a bad life, but that no one should need the law or works for justification and salva- tion. Faith unites the soul to Christ, as the wife to the husband, so that whatever Christ possesses the believing soul may take to itself and boast of as its own. His kingly and priestly dignities are thus imparted and communicated to every believer we are kings and the freest of all men, but also priests forever, worthy to appear before God, to pray for others and to teach one another mutually the things that are of God. But the man justified and made free by faith still remains in this mor- tal life upon earth; hence he cannot take his ease, but must do good works, out of disinterested love to the service of God. Good works do not make a good man, but a good man does good works. We do not then reject good works; nay, we embrace them and teach them hi the highest degree. Though the justified man is free from all good works, yet he ought to empty himself of this liberty, take on himself the form of a servant, be found hi fashion as a man, serve, help and in every way act toward his neighbor, as he sees that God through Christ has acted and is acting toward him. I will therefore give myself, as a sort of Christ, to my neighbor, as Christ has given himself to me. A Christian man does not live hi himself, but in Christ and his neighbor, else he is no Christian: in Christ by faith, in his neighbor by love. Many, says Luther hi conclusion, when they hear of this liberty of faith, turn it into an occasion of license they show themselves free men and Christians only by contempt and reprehension of ceremonies, of traditions, of human laws; as if they were Christians merely because they eat flesh when others fast. The Christian must walk in the middle 1 It is characteristic of Luther that he appeals, for proof of the truth of this paradox, not to Jesus, who first taught it, but to Paul, 1 Cor. 9: 19; Rom. 13: 8. He quotes profusely from the Scriptures throughout the discussion, but of sixty- five direct citations, only twelve are from the Gospels, while forty-two are from the Pauline epistles and Hebrews, and eleven are from the Old Testament. THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 125 path. We do not contemn ceremonies, but contemn the belief in works. In this treatise, 1 which has been scrupulously summarized in his very words, Luther for the first time set forth distinctly, in a writing for popular instruction, what afterwards came to be known as the formal and the material principles of the Reformation. The formal principle is the office of the Scriptures, as the supreme authority in religion and the means by which the faith of the believer is wrought. The material principle is the justification of the believer through faith in the promises of God, grounded on the merits of Christ, and not through his own good works. It is sometimes asserted that the formal principle was an afterthought on Luther's part: that he began his work as a reformer with assertion of the material principle, justification by faith, and was driven to the adoption of the formal principle in the course of his debate with Eck at Leipzig, after having vainly attempted to justify his teachings from the writings of the Fathers. But this cannot be said to be a fair deduc- tion from the facts. The explicit statement of the supreme authority of the Scriptures is found as early as the reply to Prierias, 2 and the principle is certainly implicit, though not formally asserted, in the Theses. Of all the writings that the Reformation produced, there is none that shows deeper penetration into the meaning of the Gospel than this treatise on Christian liberty none that is more tender, spiritual, edifying. It shows us a side of Luther's character that we shall too seldom see as we pursue our theme, and that we shall therefore do well frequently to recall. At his best, by virtue of his mystical tendency, he was capable of understanding the profoundest, the loftiest, the subtlest teachings of Jesus and Paul, and of setting them forth with a simplicity, clearness, em- phasis and raciness that no other writer of his generation ever approached. It is true that he was far more influenced by Paul than by Jesus, but in this case that fact is without significance, for hi this case Jesus and Paul are at one. As a summary of the fundamental principles of the Gospel, nothing in the whole range of Christian literature surpasses it. It is one of the imperishable treasures of our faith. These three treatises have been called by some "Luther's three classics," by others the " primary works" of the Reformation. They are the most important of all his writings, and set forth principles from which he never afterwards departed, save in minor details. They were written before he had formally broken with the Papacy and before he had become the recognized leader of a sect or party. They therefore indicate the trend of his freely developing thoughts, and what he taught 1 Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen. Walch, 19: 986 seq.; LDS, 27: 173 seq.; LOL, 4: 206 seq. Luther's letter to the Pope, De Wette, 1: 497. English version of both, Wace and Bucheim, 95-137. 8 It is the second of his fundamenta. LOL, 2: 7. 126 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY in them became, with no material alteration or addition, a constituent part of developed Protestantism. If there is any exception to this sweep- ing statement, it is in relation to Luther's later ideas regarding faith and the sacraments. It happened with him as it often happens with reform- ers: he early saw many things clearly in themselves, but he did not at first see clearly their relations to other things; so that he was in the end compelled to modify and reshape his new convictions, to make them fit parts of the old system that he retained. In some cases he did not see the whole truth; in other cases he saw the truth, but painfully realized that he was forced to do, not what was ideally best, but what was only best in the circumstances. In judging him at this distance, and with fuller light, we have need of caution and charity: we see the truth more clearly than he saw it, but his difficulties we see dimly, or not at all. These earlier writings of Luther, with their fervid eloquence, came from a brain and conscience fired by an elemental passion for truth and liberty of the spirit. He had yet to learn his trade as practical reformer. We shall find a great contrast, in some respects, between these writings and those of his later years, when experience had taught him wisdom, or at least caution. In his first assault on Rome, in the name of freedom and pure spirituality, and the inner uplift thus given to men, Luther began a work that promised to revolutionize the world. In his practical embodi- ment of his ideas in religious institutions he was led by the irresistible logic of events and necessity to a championship of authority and of the letter, that brought Protestantism again under the dominion of the very way of thinking from which it had sought emancipation. But for the present nothing of this appears. Luther stands in the year 1520 as the rebel against all outward authority in religion, the asserter of the utmost liberty of the individual soul in the things of the spirit, the advocate of the original principles of the Christian evangel. Most of the pre- Lutheran demands for reform were like the first step of his own : a demand for the abolition of certain abuses. But there were a few who saw deeper, and knew that the real ground of the corruptions of the Church was its perversion of the simple primitive Gospel of salvation by faith in Christ into the complicated system of sacramental grace and priestly hierarchy known as the Roman Catholic Church; and who knew, there- fore, that the only reform capable of truly reforming anything was a return to the doctrine and practice of the apostles. This was now becoming clear to Luther, and as it became clear to him he was pro- claiming it to all Germany indeed, to all Europe. But would he be any more successful in realizing this ideal than those who had preceded him? This was a question that only time could answer. While he was taking his position of decided opposition to Rome, the THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 127 papal court had already decided its course toward Luther. The "Ad- dress to the German Nobility" was published in June; on the 15th of the same month, the decree of excommunication was passed in Consistory. This result was brought about largely by the influence of Eck and Cajetan. It must have come; it could not have been much longer delayed, certainly not after the publication of the "Address," which was no uncertain declaration of war; but it was due to the representations of Eck and Caje- tan that it came when it did. They saw clearly, and made the papal court see, that further delay was useless the Pope must crush Luther or confess that he was himself in the wrong. Leo was pushed on by that calm, resistless sequence of events which we call the logic of consequences; he had gone so far that he must go farther. He is represented as repent- ing that he had ever had anything to do with the affair, that he had not left the monks to fight out their own battles and settle their own dis- putes; especially did he repent that he had issued the Brief on indulgences. 1 His repentance came too late. It was not cautious men, fearing to ad- vance, but excited partisans who impatiently blamed his hesitation, that were uttering the voice of destiny. Nothing was clearer than that the bull ought to be issued at once, but whether it would be any remedy for the evils threatening was an entirely different thing. At length the draft prepared by Cardinal Pietro Acolti was accepted and pub- lished. 2 Considerable pains were taken with the composition of this document, not only to set forth a sufficient justification for the condemnation of Luther, but to give it a strong flavor of Scripture as well as to make it a good specimen of what was reckoned elegant latinity by the Italian Humanists. The exordium, in particular, was much admired in papal circles as a fine example of sacred eloquence. It began with a quota- tion from Psalm 74:22 (from the Vulgate, of course), "Arise Lord, and judge thy cause; be mindful of thy reproaches, with which the foolish reproach thee daily, " and proceeded with a like invocation of Peter, Paul and the whole congregation of the saints. The Pope then tells how he has been distressed by the teachers of false doctrines, especially in Ger- many, for which country he and his predecessors had always entertained the highest affection, and cites forty-one propositions from the writings 1 "Leo repented himself of whatsoever he had done in these occurrences, and most of all of the Bull of indulgences sent into Germany, thinking it would have been better to let the Friars dispute among themselves, and to keep himself neutral and reverenced by both parties, than by declaring himself for one to constrain the other to alienate themselves from him." Sarpi, p. 9. 2 The original text of the bull Exsurge Domini, is printed in LOL, 2: 259, Ger- desius, Historia Reformationis, Monurnenta, 1: 129 seq.; Raynaldus, 12: 289 seq.; Schaff, 6: 233 seq. A German version by Hutten with notes and postscript, is in Walch, 15: 1427 seq.; and an English version may be found in Jacobs, Appendix. 128 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY of Luther, prohibiting any and all to teach or defend them, as "heretical or scandalous or false or offensive to pious ears or seductive to simple minds and opposed to Catholic truth." Luther's books, as containing these errors, are condemned, the faithful are forbidden to read them, and they are to be publicly burned. The Pope recounts his repeated attempts to recall Luther from his errors, and exhorts him and his followers yet to repent and return to the bosom of the Church, granting them sixty days to recant failing which, they are to be condemned as heretics and handed over to the secular arm for punishment. All ecclesiastics, es- pecially those in Germany, are commanded to announce these censures in the churches, on pain of themselves incurring like penalty; and all who should hinder the publication of the bull should be ipso facto excom- municate. Copies of the bull should be posted on the doors of the Cathe- drals of Brandenburg, Meissen and Merseburg, that Luther and his fol- lowers might not plead ignorance. The bull had been expected by all, wished for by some and dreaded by many. There had been extravagant notions of what would be the effect of it, and in Catholic circles there was general disappointment at its effect. Luther had begun his work as reformer with no idea of leaving the Roman Church, the Church of his fathers, his own Church. He did not leave the Church he was thrust out. Finding himself in this plight, his teachings rejected, himself under the ban, he could do one of two things: abandon all that he had held to be truth and abjectly sue for pardon and restoration, with a promise to remain forever silent, or accept the situation, and proceed to live his life and do his work. Of course he chose the latter. The former course would have been too base and pusil- lanimous for even Erasmus. And so, instead of closing the controversy and restoring the peace and unity of the Church, the bull proved to be the needful condition for the further development of the Lutheran revolt. The first and most obvious effect was to make it certain that the contest must go on. Luther was already committed; there was no pos- sibility of honorable or safe retreat for him; and the bull committed the Pope in the same way. Before there was controversy, there must now be collision. Before the actual experiment, no one could tell how much danger Luther would be in from his condemnation by the papal court. It had been little more than twenty years since Savonarola had been excom- municated by Alexander VI, and the end of that conflict was that the reformer was burned. It might have been inferred that a similar fate awaited the excommunicated Luther, and there was at least enough uncertainty in the case to cause him and his friends grave anxiety. Neither his friends nor his enemies were then in a condition to realize THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 129 how different the conditions were in Germany from those in Florence when the bold preacher went down in his contest with the Papacy, nor could they tell how far Europe had advanced in its movement away from medieval conceptions. A bull of excommunication had once been final, about as absolute and compelling as an imperial edict of Augustus or Tiberias. But it was now to be demonstrated that the time of such absolute supremacy had passed. The change had been brought about by the gradual working of unnoticed or unconsidered causes. In the first place, the conduct of the Popes themselves had had much to do with it. The reverence and obedience given them was due to the fact that as the head and representative of the Church a Pope spoke for Christ and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So speaking, he must speak wisely and justly. Condemnation carried with it the loss of spiritual privileges on earth and exclusion from heaven hereafter; it touched all that was dearest in the life and hopes of man; and in pro- portion to its awfulness it ought to be reluctantly and carefully spoken. To condemn thoughtlessly or from prejudice, or to accomplish political or personal or party ends, was cruelty and outrage it was to use the power of the highest and holiest in the interests of injustice and oppression. This was what the Popes had not infrequently done, and every unjust bull of excommunication was treasured up in the memory of men against the Popes and the Papacy. Some thought that Savonarola had died rather for his fidelity to truth than for heresy, and it was beginning to be believed that Hus and Jerome of Prag, notwithstanding their condemna- tion by Pope and council, were very good, sincere Christians. Even if they had taught errors, they were not errors worthy of death, and when Popes used their power for the destruction of good men, there must be something wrong about it. But even if the Popes had always acted with due consideration and from the holiest of motives, they could not have maintained their power. They had been lifted up to their place of eminence by the working of general causes, and they were being lowered by the working of forces independent of and outside themselves. Christian Europe had long been compelled to act as a unit. It had to maintain a death struggle with the enemies by which it was surrounded, barbarism and heathenism on the North and East, and Mohammedanism in the East and South. There were only two great parties, Christian and infidel. Christendom was held together by a common danger no less than by a common faith. There had been local and national jealousies and antagonisms, but they were held in abeyance by the fear of enemies from without. The one great pressing necessity among Christian peoples was unity. There was one civil head, the Emperor, and one head of the Church, the Pope; 130 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY but the especial representative of Christian unity was the Pope. When Christendom became powerful and its enemies on all sides were changed to friends or ceased to be so greatly feared, the outside pressure relaxed, the necessity for unity was diminished, and room was made for the growth of national interests and a national spirit. As unity was no longer the principal interest, the Pope lost something of his importance; and the loss was greater and more marked when, from any cause, the Pope favored one nation against another. From 1309 to 1377, the Papacy held its seat at Avignon and was under the domination of France. During part of that time England and France were at war with each other; England could not yield a cheerful obedience to a Pope controlled by the enemy. From 1378 to 1409 there were two Popes, one at Avignon and the other at Rome. The nations in sympathy with France obeyed the French Pope, those opposed to France sided with the Pope at Rome. The division was according to national affinities; and this assertion of rational spirit, occasioned by temporary conditions, was prophetic. It was an intimation that, when conditions of antagonism should be permanent, there would be a permanent weakening, and at last the utter exhaustion, of the conception of one holy Christian Empire, in spiritual subjection to the Pope as the vicar of Christ. As time went on, the necessity for unity became progressively lost, and the national spirit progressively stronger it came to be universal; it took possession even of the Papacy, which aspired to be a secular power. The Pope was the head of the Church, and also an Italian prince; and the problem to be solved was whether men could be in subjection to the Pope as the vicar of Christ and at the same time make war upon him as a national ruler. Much has been said of the growth in Europe of the secular spirit in opposition to the ecclesiastical, and of the great consequences following It. The conditions for the growth of that spirit have been indicated above. In the time of Charlemagne and Otho and the Holy Roman Empire, such a spirit would have been unnatural and ruinous it would have made the Europe and the civilization of to-day impossible. Divided and mutually hostile Christian States would have been an easy prey to fierce Moslems and fiercer Hungarians. But in the beginning of the sixteenth century, nations might indulge their national jealousies and yet survive. Accordingly, there was then a bitter national rivalry; the national spirit was intense. It was strong in England and in France, but strongest in the peoples that were brought into close relations by their connection with the Empire. The pride of blood, the desire for local self-government, especially resented any domination from without. The Italians hated the Germans, the Germans hated the Italians; and both hated the Spaniards, the great, aggressive, conquering people of the THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 131 time. The cultured Italians, shining in the light of the Renaissance, spoke contemptuously of the "stupid, drunken Germans. " The Germans retaliated with "lying, avaricious, extortionate Italians"; with all people it was the "cold, proud, domineering Spaniard." In the midst of such pronounced race jealousies, it would have been difficult for any Pope, however prudent and impartial, to command the confidence of all; national prejudices were stronger than ecclesiastical allegiance. These prejudices the national spirit and antagonism had rapidly developed since the days of Savonarola, and they were never stronger than in the first half of the sixteenth century. A strong national spirit was but one of the characteristics of the times. The widespread revolt against the reign of authority was another; this weakened the force of all established institutions. The right of men to think for themselves was emphasized, and had been pushed so far as to lead to the questioning of the foundations of Christianity itself. Every- thing must be subjected to the test of reason; the sanction of custom counted but little; was the custom itself well-grounded? Men asked, Does the Pope have authority to issue any bull of excommunication? And, if he has, was this particular bull rightly issued? There was no clear answer to the first question, and the second appealed to the judg- ment of the people. There was no tribunal universally recognized to give that judgment: some looked to the papal court, some to a general council, some would submit to neither. As, in the unsettled state of things, a papal bull must submit itself to questioning, its execution was by no means a matter of course. This is the state of things as it appears to us looking back upon it; at the time it did not seem so plain. First of all, Luther himself could not be certain as to what fate awaited him, or what course it might be best for him to pursue. Some thought that he might temporize, seek a sus- pension of the sentence, possibly a withdrawal. Charles von Miltitz came forth again as conciliator and peacemaker. In his previous nego- tiations he had not been conspicuously successful; his efforts had, at best, only postponed the catastrophe, and this chiefly by favoring circum- stances; but he was one of those men who cannot be discouraged by failure or difficulties. When everyone else saw that he was accomplish- ing little, he thought that the whole matter was about to be adjusted he was a diplomatist, and what might not be accomplished by diplomacy? Even he saw that the case had been complicated and made more diffi- cult by the bull of excommunication, but he did not despair. He was not a man of abundant or varied resources: he would try the same plans that he had already tried that is, he would induce Luther to write another letter to the Pope. The new thing that Luther was to say was, 132 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY that he had never said or done anything against Leo personally; and he was to repeat the promise that he would be silent, if the other side was silent. At the same time, the Elector Frederick was to second the move- ment, by thanking the Pope for the golden rose and otherwise showing good will. The meeting between Miltitz and Luther took place at Lich- tenberg, and the plan was agreed upon on October llth. Luther had already seen the bull, but that the letter might not seem to have been forced from him by the Pope's action, it was dated September 6th. Luther wrote to Spalatin that he had no difficulty in saying what Miltitz asked him to say, because it was true; he would write without delay. If, said he, it shall turn out as we hope, well; if otherwise, it will still be well. We scarcely know how to interpret Luther's deliberate and confidentially expressed opinions in this matter. It may help to remem- ber that it was an age of diplomacy, and that diplomacy meant decep- tion. As men used deception so habitually in dealing with their enemies, they easily used it hi dealing with friends, or even with themselves. To antedate a letter for a purpose was at least diplomatic; to make a statement to the Pope that he would understand in one way and Luther in another was also diplomatic. So far as this piece of diplomacy was concerned, it was not creditable to either the judgment or the morals of the parties engaged in it. It was not merely discreditable, it was ridiculous: there was the willingness to deceive, but not the ability. But whatever Luther in his simplicity might have been willing to do, there was no deception or ambiguity in what he actually did. 1 He wrote, in all, three letters to the Pope: two of these we have already considered, and in both he was sufficiently humble; indeed, to us who have never known the awe-inspiring influence of high rank and office, he appears almost abject in his self-abasement and humiliation. The third letter is of a different sort. It is a very remarkable letter; every- thing about it is noteworthy. The salutation makes us pause : "Martin Luther to Leo X, bishop of Rome, sends greeting in Jesus Christ." Among the monsters of the age with whom he had been making war he had been forced to think of Leo, because the notion had gotten abroad that he was making war upon the Pope personally. He had indeed been compelled to appeal from him to a general council, but he had never been so far alienated from the Pope himself as not to be able to pray God's blessing upon him. He could almost despise and triumph over his enemies who strove to frighten him by the greatness of the Pope's name. He was not prompted by fear to write; he sought to free himself from the unjust charge of attacking the Pope in person. So far from this being true, he had never spoken of the Pope except in iDe Wette, 1:497 seq.; Wace and Bucheim, 95 seq. THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 133 the highest terms. He had called him Daniel in Babylon. He was not such a simpleton as to attack a man whom everybody was praising nay, he did not even abuse those whom everyone was abusing; he was so conscious of his own sin that he could not cast the first stone. It was not the morals of men that concerned him, but their impious and hurt- ful doctrines that he spoke against. In this he followed the example of Christ and the apostles, and could not change. He justified his sharpness: of what use is salt if it does not smart, or of the sword if it does not cut? Cursed be he who does the Lord's work slightly. He said nothing against the Pope's private character. "But, " said he, "that See of yours, which is called the Roman Curia, is more corrupt than any Babylon, and neither you nor anyone else can deny it. " He had detested its impiety and been impatient that the people had been deceived by the false use that had been made of the Pope's name and of the Roman Church. He knew that the evils of Rome were too great to be corrected by one man; he did not attempt to reform it, but only to render it as little hurtful as possible. It grieved him that the Church "formerly the holiest of all had become the most licentious of robbers, the kingdom of sin, of death, of hell." In the universal corruption, the Pope was helpless. He was like a lamb among wolves, like Daniel among the lions, like Ezekiel dwelling among the scorpions; what could he, one alone, do among these monsters? What could three or four learned and holy Cardinals do? The Roman Curia was on trial, and the wrath of God was coming upon it to the end. His only feeling toward the Pope was one of pity, and sorrow that he should be Pope in such an age; he was worthy of better times. Men boasted of the Pope's glory, which was no glory at all. He wished that the Pope might lay it aside and live as a private priest on his ancestral estate. "For what, " said he, "0 Leo, dost thou do in the Curia, except that the more wicked and execrable a man is, the more he uses thy name for destroy- ing the riches and souls of men; for multiplying crime, for crushing out faith and truth, and opposing the whole Church of God. Is it not true that under the whole heavens there is nothing more corrupt, pestilential and hateful than the Roman Curia?" In making war upon it he was doing the Pope service. And yet, it was not his fault that he had attacked the corruptions of Rome; he had not thought of doing so; but Satan opened his eyes and beheld his servant, John Eck, the great adversary of Christ, and stirred him up to drag him into the arena and force upon him the discussion of the primacy of the Roman Church. He blamed Cajetan, who might have stopped the controversy and did not do it, and Eck who renewed it. He praised Miltitz, whose efforts were not supported. This Mil- 134 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY titz, now for the third time, was making an effort for peace, and there- fore, he said: "I come, most blessed father, and even prostrate beg of you, if possible, to lay your hand upon your flatterers, who are the enemies of peace which they pretend to seek, and restrain them." He could not recant; that would add to the confusion; and he could not consent that the word of God should be bound. But except these two things, he would consent to anything for peace he hated strife. This is the substance of Luther's long, bold, eloquent letter. The spirit is indicated by this summary, but we are not yet in a position to feel its significance. We must take notice more particularly of the way in which the miner's son speaks to the son of the proudest house in Italy the Augustinian monk to the head of the Church militant. He calls him "the most blessed father Leo," "excellent Leo," "my father Leo," "Leo," and, descending to the utmost familiarity, "my dear Leo," using just such terms as he might have used in addressing any bishop, or even any friend. This was not done in simple coarseness and vulgarity; it was done with a purpose. What that purpose was may be estimated by another thing: Luther twice quoted in his letter from St. Bernard's work De Consider atione, addressed to Pope Eugenius III. These two things, his mode of address and his referring to St. Bernard, taken together, indicate his conception of his relation to the Pope. It was a position of substantial equality; each was the leader of a party; they might well treat on equal terms. In mentioning St. Bernard, he could not forget the position of that great man, as the teacher and guide of Europe; and he was already beginning to feel that what Bernard was in the twelfth century he was coming to be in the sixteenth. Ber- nard had taken upon himself to instruct Eugenius how to conduct himself in his great office, and Eugenius had submitted to be instructed. In the same way, Luther, who had been providentially lifted into a place of the greatest distinction, might not deem it presumptuous to admon- ish the reigning Pope. He expressly calls himself the imitator of Bernard. 1 If we ask ourselves what Luther hoped to accomplish by his letter, we have to remember that he had already seen the bull of excommunica- tion. He could hardly expect to induce the Pope to recall the bull. Still less could he hope to bring the Pope over to his side and engage him in the work of overturning the papal see. Most likely he intended to do what he himself intimates show the world that the contest was not with the Pope as a man, but with the Pope as an official, and in particular 1 "Perhaps I may seem impudent in attempting to teach so great a person by whom all should be taught, and as your flatterers boast, from whom the thrones of judges receive their sentence; but I imitate St. Bernard in his book 'On Con- sideration,' which every Pope ought to know by heart." THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION 135 with the Roman Curia, which any Pope was able to control only in part. This letter was a secret and unacknowledged effect of the bull; it was necessary that Luther should notice it in some public, definite, positive way. It had reached him on October 6th, Eck having sent it to the university of Wittenberg, accompanied by a letter dated at Leipzig, October 3rd; it was not convenient, possible or safe to deliver it in per- son. Eck intimated that in sending it he was performing a disagreeable and unwilling service, and yet he Said, "I beg and beseech you by our Saviour, to have the bull so executed that none of the condemned articles shall be publicly held or taught by anyone under the authority of the university." If this should not be done, all privileges granted the uni- versity by the papal see would be withdrawn. Acting under the au- thority of his commission he had, he said, extended the condemnation to Carlstadt and Dolscius, as well as to Martin. The whole matter was considered by the members of the university, including Luther and the other condemned persons. It was decided that the bull was not suffi- ciently authenticated; it was not accompanied by a letter from the Pope; and the work of the university went on just as if the condemnation had never been received. Luther himself tried one of his old tricks " he professed to look upon it as a forgery, and spoke of it as "the new Eckish bulls and lies." Afterwards (November 4th) he treated it more seriously and published a tract "Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist"; and on the 17th of November he renewed his appeal to a general council. He appealed from the Pope as "a tyrannical judge, rash and unjust; as an enemy, an Antichrist, an adversary and oppressor of the Holy Scripture; and as a despiser, calumniator and blasphemer of the Holy Christian Church." In one short month he had forgotten that Leo X was a Daniel in the lion's den, an Ezekiel dwelling among the scorpions! Wittenberg was not the only place where the bull met with little response. There were three parties in Germany: the pronounced Luth- erans, the moderate middle party, and the papists the " Eckian faction, " as it was contemptuously called. The bull met with opposition, neglect or favor, just as it chanced to come into a place where anyone of these parties predominated; and in the whole affair there was room for the influence of certain incidental things, that, at particular junctures, seem to take a kind of pleasure in working for a rising and against a sinking cause. When public opinion is not decided, when the balances are vibrating, hesitating and doubtful as to which side shall go up, these come in, as if in pure arbitrariness, and tilt the trembling scale. There was no doubt as to the general trend of opinion: it was toward 136 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Luther and away from the Pope; but in the case of individuals and particular places there was a nice balancing of inclination. It was in itself a matter of little significance who should bring the bull into Ger- many; ordinarily it would make no difference; but at that particular time it was unfortunate for the Papacy that some one else was not chosen for that service. Eck was unpopular; he had made enemies by his conduct at Leipzig and afterwards, and those who hated him might easily hate the bull for his sake. His position was not enviable; he made enemies for the bull and the bull made enemies for him. Then there were some things about the bull itself that furnished occasion for crit- icism. Some thought it was not in proper form; some objected to the literary style of it; the sentences were too long and involved; in one case there were four hundred words between the nominative case and its verb! Some objected that forty-one of Luther's propositions were condemned as heretical, scandalous, offensive to hearer's ears, etc., but that no designation had been made of the class to which any one prop- osition belonged. 1 These objections had nothing whatever to do with the main question as to whether Luther was a heretic and his con- demnation just; they were trivial and captious, but when men are doubt- ful whether a thing ought to be done at all, they are overnice as to the manner of doing it; and so little a thing as the construction of a sentence in the papal bull made for Luther and against the Pope. These little things were the chaff on the surface, indicating the direction of the tide. It soon became evident that the issuing of the bull was by no means the last act in the "tragedy." Men were anxious, excited, indignant, expectant, but little was done. The bull was published with difficulty at Leipzig, where Eck thought his life was in danger. Even at Ingol- stadt its publication was delayed; at Erfurt the students tore it in pieces and cast the fragments in the river. 2 Hutten published it with bitter comments, and urged violent opposition to it. In the meantime, no one had attempted to arrest Luther; he was still teaching, preaching, writing, publishing, as vigorously as ever, even more vigorously. What- ever notions men might have of the prerogative of the Pope, they saw that without popular support he was powerless. A little while before all eyes were turned to Rome; but now the Pope had spoken; he had. exhausted his resources; nothing more was expected of him; men turned to the Emperor and the States of Germany. * These criticisms are mentioned, along with others not more important, by Sarpi, under the year 1520. 2 They made a bad pun about it: since it is a bubble (bulla) let it float. CHAPTER VI THE DIET OF WORMS IT was more than a year after his election before Charles V found it convenient to visit his new dominions. He was to meet the electors at Aachen, October 6, 1520, and be crowned king of Germany. On his very first appearance in Germany he had an opportunity to indicate something of his character. The plague was raging at Aachen and the Electors suggested that some other place should be substituted. No; the Golden Bull required that the coronation should take place at Aachen, and the law must be obeyed. 1 In our day a meeting of a Congress of the Nations could assemble at precisely the hour appointed; in that time of laborious and uncertain travel it occasioned no remark and produced no ill feeling that the meeting appointed for the 6th did not take place until the 21st of the month. On that day the Electors reached Aachen. The next day they went out to meet the Emperor, and with them a splendid escort of sixteen hundred horsemen, besides archers and lancers. The Emperor met them with two thousand horse, "all bravely clothed." The whole company, increased by the four hundred horse of the Duke of Cleves, entered the city after nightfall. It was pronounced the finest cavalcade ever seen in Germany. The ceremony of coronation was splendid and imposing; it took place in the Church of Our Lady, and might almost be described as a long act of worship. When the Emperor was seated on the throne, richly overlaid with gold, the Archbishop of Cologne, in the midst of a solemn mass, turned to him and asked him if he would keep the Catholic faith, defend the Church, administer justice and maintain the dignity of the Empire, protect widows and the fatherless and other distressed persons, and whether he would give due honor to the bishop of Rome? The last question and the first are those that particularly concern us : the Emperor was sworn to give due honor to the Pope and to keep the Catholic faith. There was given him a sword, a ring was put on his finger, he was clothed with imperial vestments; and then the archbishops of Mainz, Cologne and Trier put the crown on his head. There were masses and prayers 1 The people of Aachen opposed the change for a different reason: they had made great preparations, and they did not wish to lose their labor and the opportunity for display. The feast was prepared, the wedding must go on. 137 138 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY and music and congratulations; and the conferring of knighthood by the Emperor, and feasting and wine. 1 When all the ceremonies and feastings were ended, the Archbishop of Mainz announced that the Pope confirmed the election and commanded that henceforth Charles should be called Emperor. The Electors left the city, and about November 1st the Emperor sent out letters summoning the Diet to meet at Worms on January 6th. There were present at the coronation two representatives of the Pope. Of these Jerome Aleander was the more important, as to him, with Eck, had been committed the publication and execution of the bull of excom- munication against Luther. The Emperor was urged to execute the bull at once, but there was a difficulty: the Elector of Saxony would not consent. To him Aleander therefore addressed himself. He demanded two things: that the Elector should have Luther's books burned, and either execute Luther himself or send him a prisoner to Rome. The motive urged was that it was the duty of the Emperor and all the Electoral princes of the Empire to see the Pope's bull executed. In this Aleander was right; such was the law of the Empire, or a custom tantamount to law; and for years princes had acknowledged that duty. But as it was a very important matter, the Elector asked for time to consider. After consideration (November 4th) he answered very much as he had recently answered the Pope through his ambassador at Rome, and very much as he had answered all along. He was surprised that the Pope should demand such a service of him; he was not unmindful of the glory of his ancestors (who were always referred to as special defend- ers of the Church) and he would do his duty to the Empire and the Church. He mentioned that Eck had recently, and in his absence, given trouble to Luther and other honored men in his dominions; that he resented very much as an impertinent interference with his business. As to what Luther had done since the bull was received, he was con- veniently ignorant he did not know. He told what he had already done in the case: that Luther was still willing to be convinced; that it did not appear to the Emperor or to any magistrate that Luther's books contained heresy; that good and honored men thought them true and useful. He wished Luther to have a safe-conduct, and the whole matter to be debated lovingly and quietly. If Luther should be refuted by Scripture and solid argument, he would not countenance him. In the meantime the Pope ought not to require anything of him that he could not honorably do. He would not command Luther's books to be burned. 2 1 An elaborate account of the coronation of Charles is given by Sleidan, p. 37 seq* 'Walch, 15: 1612. THE DIET OF WORMS 139 In this whole matter the Elector ignored the bull of excommunica- tion; he treated it as if it did not exist, or as if it were of no force or significance; he required Luther to be condemned by competent, im- partial judges, who were to form their judgment according to Scripture and sound reason. On the other hand, Aleander claimed that the case had already been decided; the Pope had declared Luther a heretic, and it was injurious and rebellious to question the justice of the Pope's decision. The Emperor was rather inclined to hold with the Elector, in think- ing that the bull was not final. The Elector did not need anything to confirm him in the course that he had from the first pursued. His friendship for Luther was already reinforced by a feeling of irritation at the persistency of the Pope and the impudence of some of his party; but at such a time he could not be indifferent to the opinions of learned men. Erasmus again came to his help. When the Elector wished to know of him what he thought of Luther's case, he replied, "Luther has committed two sins: he has touched the Pope's crown and the monks' bellies. " x At the same time he gave to Spalatin some notes expressing a more serious opinion. He thought the source of the trouble was hatred of learning and the lust of power. The bull was too severe; it offended all good men and was unworthy of the Vicar of Christ. Those who had written against Luther were condemned by theologians not otherwise favorable to Luther. Luther seemed to all fair-minded men to seek what was reasonable when he offered to dispute publicly and to submit himself to impartial, unsus- pected judges. He expressed himself to the same effect in a letter which he wrote about this time to certain high officials, civil and ecclesiastical, who had asked his opinion. He, too, was on the side of the Elector he did not accept the bull as a final or suitable judgment in Luther's case. In the position of affairs, the Pope's party must make the first move. Luther's friends could remain quiet; they had nothing to do; they could wait until Luther had been fairly tried, or for a general council, to which Luther had a second time appealed, 2 and which many of both parties felt to be necessary. On the other hand, his enemies were com- pelled to act, or confess themselves defeated; the bull required some- thing to be done. Accordingly, the Pope insisted on action, and when Aleander found that he could not persuade the Elector to carry out the Pope's wishes, he undertook to have it done himself. The universities of Cologne and Louvain, that had already taken part in the controversy on the papal side, gave yet further proof of their zeal and devotion by committing all of Luther's books to the flames. The Emperor was then 1 Lutherus peccavit in duobus, nempe, quod tetigit coronam Pontificis, et ventre& monachorum. December 5, 1520. Spalatin, p. 29. 2 Walch, 15: 1602. 140 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY at Cologne. At Mainz also Luther's books were burned. There was no organized opposition to this proceeding, but the multitude was with Luther, and his cause gained there more than it lost by this action of the authorities. What was done at Cologne and Louvain and Mainz suggested what might also be done at Wittenberg. Luther had already taught that the humblest Christian had as much right to judge the Pope as the Pope had to judge him. It followed that if the Pope could condemn his writings, he might also condemn the Pope's, and the vain expedient of burning books vain in the age of the printing-press might be used by one party as well as by the other. Early on the morning of Monday, December 30th, a notice was posted at the university: All friends of evangelical truth are invited to assemble, about nine o'clock, at the church of the Holy Cross, beyond the city wall. There, according to ancient, apostolic usage, the godless books of the papal constitutions and the scholastic theology will be burned, inasmuch as the presumption of the enemies of the Gospel has ad- vanced to such a degree that they have cast the godly, evangelical books of Luther into the fire. Let all earnest students, therefore, appear at the spectacle; for it is now the time when Antichrist must be exposed. There were then nearly a thousand students at the university, and they, together with many townsmen, turned out to witness the promised spectacle. Near the church named in the notice was an open square, and during the recent visitation of the plague it had been the custom to burn there infected clothing and other articles. Here a pyre was built. Luther, dressed in the robes of a doctor of theology, solemnly placed on this pyre a number of books, including the Decretals, on which im- pudent forgeries the power of the Papacy had been built up, and the Canon Law, by which its authority was chiefly supported. A master of arts of the university came forward and lighted the fire; and when the pyre was well ablaze Luther threw into the flames the Pope's bull, saying in a loud voice, "Because thou dost trouble the holy one of the Lord, may eternal fire consume thee. " In a book that many who read these words have doubtless enjoyed, "The Schonberg-Cotta Family," after an account of this scene, it is added: "Not a word broke the silence, until the last crackle of these symbolical flames had ceased, and then gravely but joyfully we returned to our homes." But just the contrary was what really happened. Those who have seen several thousand college students in New York or Philadelphia celebrating a football victory, can imagine pretty well what was done. Doctor Luther and some of the sober citizens very THE DIET OF WORMS 141 likely returned home "gravely but joyfully," but as soon as their backs were turned the students took the occasion in hand; and students of the sixteenth century were very much like those of the twentieth. First, they gathered about the pyre and sang dirges and danced while the books were being consumed. Then it occurred to them that it was a pity to have only one bonfire, where material was so abundant; so they scoured the city for books written by Luther's opponents and finally collected a wagonful. These they brought to the square, where they were burned with all the fantastic exercises that the ingenuity of the students could suggest. So uproarious were the demonstrations, that on the following day when he delivered his university lecture, Luther felt constrained to administer a public rebuke. 1 For to him, and to all who realized the gravity of the occasion, this was no frolic, but a solemn religious ceremony, and at the same time an unmistakable declaration of war against the most formidable power then in existence. It was an announcement to the world that the Reformation could not be stopped, indeed, that it must go much farther. All that has been said, and all that remains to say, about some of the faults of Luther, is true his violence, his dogmatism, his total inability to practice self-restraint, his intolerance of any opposition: these things may be read on every page of his writings from this time on, and there have been more than hints of them in what he wrote before this date. But these are the defects of his qualities; a less bold, impetuous and self- confident nature would never have dared to withstand the apparently irresistible power of Pope and Emperor. A man of soft nature would never have become a heretic and a rebel. We can pardon a great many errors in the man who had the courage publicly to burn the Pope's bull. And at no hour in Luther's life does he appear to better advantage, never did his courage rise higher, never did he more unmistakably stand forth as the hero of the German nation, than on the day when, by this significant symbol, single-handed, he defied the powers that were gathering to crush him. It was a great day at Wittenberg greater than the actors thought. If he had failed, what Luther did that day would have seemed ridiculous, the merest bravado. But he was not to fail. By a kind of intuition he even then understood his position better than the world has since understood it; he felt that there were two great parties in the world, the heads of those parties Leo X and Luther. It has been objected that he spoke of himself as "the holy one of the Lord, " and his friends have answered that it was not himself but Christ to whom he referred. In 1 On the burning of the bull, see LOL, 5: 251 seq. A German version is in Walch, 15: 1617. Compare Luther's letter to Staupitz, January 14, 1521, De Wette, 1: 541. The spot is now marked by a large oak tree, surrounded by an iron railing. 142 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY the one case malice failed to apprehend the whole truth, and in the other friendly partiality has been a bad interpreter. 1 We may believe that he did call himself "the holy one of the Lord"; and in his position there was no presumption nor arrogance in his so doing. Leo X was accepted as the successor of the apostles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ; why might not Luther, who supposed himself to be standing for the truth, speak of himself in a peculiar sense as a servant of the Lord? Believing that he was doing the Lord's work, he might have spoken thus with the profoundest humility. He immediately 2 declared and justified what he had done. If any- one should ask why he did it, the answer was that it was his bounden duty, as a baptized Christian, as a sworn defender of the Holy Scrip- ture, as a daily preacher, to root out all unchristian doctrines. But it is instructive to notice that in the very act of overturning one pretended infallible authority, Luther sets up another. He taught the students the next day that unless they contended against the Pope, they could not be saved; that whoever took delight in the worship of popery would be eternally lost. 3 So invincible is the tendency among religious contro- versialists to hold that every important truth (or even unimportant truth) is a matter of eternal life or death. How Luther himself, and Erasmus with him, had argued earnestly against the folly and injustice of looking upon every error as heresy! After the coronation of Charles at Aachen, and especially after the burning of the Pope's bull, every step was toward Worms. The deci- sion of the Roman Curia had not settled the case as to Luther; the bull was slow in getting itself executed; very many thought it were better not executed. Men's minds were not at rest they wished for some other tribunal to which the case might be referred; in the absence of a General Council, the highest authority in the Church, they thought of the Emperor and the Diet, the highest authority in the State. But if Luther were to appear before the Diet, it was not at all clear what the Diet was to demand of him or to do with him. There was no need that judgment should be passed upon him; the Pope had already condemned him. It was not even necessary that the Diet should order his execu- i Schaff, 6: 248: "The 'Holy One' refers to Christ, as in Mark 1: 24; Acts 2: 27; not to Luther, as ignorance and malignity have interpreted the word. Luther spoke in Latin: Quia tu conturbasti Sanctum Domini, ideoque te conturbet ignis aeturnus." The reference is to Josh. 7: 25. According to Schaff Luther meant that the Bull had disturbed the Lord in disturbing Luther. This is indeed im- plied, but only as he who touches one of the Lord's saints touches Him. By what authority does Schaff write Sanctum instead of sanctumf * And also later, and more formally, in the tract, "Why the Books of the Pope and his Disciples were burned by Dr. Martin Luther," in Latin and German. LOL, 5: 257 seq. LDS, 24: 151; Walch, 15: 1619 seq. The elector, in a letter to Charles V, called it a very imprudent act. LOL, 5: 253. THE DIET OF WORMS 143 tion; the bull made it the duty of any prince to do that without any order. He might be required to retract his teachings, but that had already been done by the bull. If the Diet should undertake to hear his cause, that would be a virtual denial of the Pope's supremacy, and an acknowledgment of the justice of Luther's complaints that he had been condemned unheard. Both parties felt that for the Diet to do anything was a reflection on the Pope; and yet it was evidently necessary for the Diet to do something. The Emperor, too, felt the difficulty. He was a politician from his youth, and his conduct toward the Pope, even from the first, was affected by political considerations; but apart from these things, there was suffi- cient reason for his hesitation and vacillation. He was influenced now by one party, now by the other; or, as is most likely, now by his own independent judgment, and now by what seemed to be required of him by his position as the civil head of the Church. On November 28th, he wrote to the Elector from Oppenheim, directing him to bring Luther to Worms "in order to give him there a full hearing before learned and competent persons," and promising that no harm should come to him; in the meantime, the Elector was to require Luther to write noth- ing against the Pope. The Emperor was acting on the suggestion of the Elector, but between the time of this suggestion and the time of the Elector's receiving the letter things had been changed: Luther's books had been burned he had been treated as a condemned heretic. This offended the Elector, and he wrote the Emperor December 20th, declining to require Luther's presence at the Diet. The Emperor, too, had changed; he had begun to realize that Luther was under the papal ban, and that any place in which he might be was declared under inter- dict. Luther therefore could not be permitted to come to Worms. He might be brought to Frankfort-on-Main, or some other place, to await further orders; but not even this was to be allowed unless he re- tracted what he had said against the Papacy. If he would not retract, he was to stay at home until the Emperor should have opportunity to confer with the Elector personally. The Emperor's second letter was dated December 17th. 1 The Diet met January 28, 1521. Not long afterwards (February 10th) there came a brief from Rome making final Luther's excommunication the days of grace having passed and urging his condemnation by the Diet and Emperor. 2 But there was evident reluctance to proceed against him; something might yet be accomplished by negotiations. Glapio, the Emperor's confessor, and much in his confidence, had 1 Correspondence in Walch, 15: 1697 scq. 2 The bull, however, is dated January 4, 1521. Mag. Butt, 1: 618 scq.; Wa'ch. 15: 1704 seq. 144 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY several interviews with Brinck, the Elector's chancellor. Everything, the confessor thought, might be arranged. Some of Luther's books were excellent, and all of them might be tolerated except the book on the "Babylonian Captivity." He drew the line there; but if Luther would only deny that he had written that book it really was not like him everything else might be pardoned. Glapio had forgotten that the Pope had condemned all Luther's writings, and that the bull was issued before the "Babylonian Captivity" was published. He sought an interview with the Elector, which was declined; Brinck had no authority or will to act, and the conferences accomplished nothing. In the mean- time, strong pressure was brought to bear upon the Emperor; daily conferences were held with him, at which the Elector's friends, and es- pecially the Elector, were not present. He at last gave way and had an edict prepared against Luther. This, however, he would not con- sent to issue, without the advice and approval of the Diet. The whole case was referred to the assembled nobles; Luther's fate was in their hands; and the question was to be argued. Aleander, 1 as he had all along been, was the representative of the papal cause. He had not long completed his fortieth year, and had been learned and distinguished from his youth. His acquaintance with Hebrew suggested the accusation that he was of Jewish extraction; he knew Greek from his childhood, and Latin he used with great readiness and force. He held many offices of trust. At this time he was librarian of the Vatican, but was released from the duties of this position that he might undertake his important mission to Germany. His selection for so delicate and difficult an office indicated the reputation in which he was held, and he so acquitted himself as to justify the selection. His address before the Diet was long, eloquent, impressive somewhat weakened, however, by its bitterness and vehemence. 2 He spoke, he said, in defense of the papal throne, which was so dear to them all. He enumerated the heresies taught in Luther's works. We already know what they were. Luther was obstinate, disobedient to the Pope's summons, refused to be instructed; the Pope had condemned him, and it was the Emperor's duty to enforce the condemnation; the laity had nothing to do with such questions except to carry out the Pope's decrees; ruin would follow if Luther were not condemned; a decree from the Emperor would restore quiet, and preserve the Church and the Empire. 1 Aleander 1480-1543. For sketch of his life and writings see Roscoe, "Leo X," 2: 284 seq. 1 Erasmus and Aleander had been on good terms before the Diet at Worms. Erasmus bitterly condemned the bitterness of his speech against Luther. Roscoe, 2: 287. THE DIET OF WORMS 145 Such were some of the considerations that the nuncio urged; he gave to the Pope the old traditional position of supremacy; Rome had already spoken, and only action was needed. He sat down amid murmurs of approbation, but he had made no new points, given no fresh reasons. He left the case exactly where he found it, and, as soon as men's minds had time to cool, the same old difficulties looked them in the face. A learned Italian had presented the cause of the Pope, hardly less against the Diet than against Luther. A few days afterwards a representative German, Duke George of Saxony,, already Luther's enemy, presented the case of Germany against the Pope. There were many things of which he complained, exactions and usurpations, the growth and accumu- lation of years. What had been granted in particular emergencies for the benefit of all, the Popes had continued to collect for their own benefit; what the Germans had freely given was now exacted as a debt; and what the Popes had once given freely the Germans were now required to buy. The movement had been hi one direction only, always in favor of the Papacy. The power of the Pope to benefit Germany had greatly diminished; the cost of supporting him had greatly increased. The less he was worth the more he cost so Germany was beginning to feel. A committee of the Diet was appointed, and brought in a long list of grievances, a hundred and one in all. 1 With so many grievances against the Pope already, the Diet would hardly be in a hurry to take the Pope's part against a popular German; the condemnation of Luther, and especially the manner of the condemna- tion, was itself another grievance. The law, or at least custom, required the execution of the bull, and was against granting to a condemned heretic a new hearing before a secular tribunal. It was one of those often occurring cases in which law demands one thing and expediency or justice another. In such cases men usually resort to compromise: as nearly as possible, they neither keep nor violate the law; and this the Diet did. After a long discussion it was decided that it was not ex- pedient to enforce stringent measures against Luther before hearing him. He was bo be summoned, but there was to be no discussion with him; he was simply to be asked "whether or not he intended to insist upon the writings that he had published against our holy Christian faith." If he retracted the objectionable writings, he might be further questioned and heard, and he would be fairly dealt with. If he did not retract, the Diet would pledge itself to maintain the faith handed down by the Fathers, and the imperial edict against Luther should be issued. It was 1 Walch, 15: 1730 seq.; and cf. Gebhardt, Die Gravamina der Deutschen Nation gegen den rdmischen Hof. 2d ed. Breslau, 1895. 146 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY a virtual victory for the anti-papal party. Aleander had sought to prevent Luther's being heard and had failed. 1 In the interval between October 6, 1520, and the following March 6th, when he was summoned to Worms, Luther had an interesting ex- perience. His excommunication put him in a new position, and changed his attitude to everything about him. First of all, it released him from all those obligations that came upon him from his relation to the papal Church it freed him from hampering vows. Not less important, it incidentally freed him from certain traditional opinions that had held him, and still held him to some extent, in bondage. In the beginning of his work he had taught that God, in forgiving sin, first subjected the penitent to the priest in all things. It was the priest who absolved, and the judgment and sentence of the priest carried with it the judg- ment and sentence of God. It was this belief that gave the priest his power over the consciences of men; and that power was used against Luther. It was an easy thing to ask anyone who came to confess if he had, or had read, or approved Luther's books. If he answered affirma- tively, absolution was withheld. According to Luther's own teaching, the priest's absolution was very important; the withholding of it was a serious matter. Many might feel that they read Luther's books at the peril of their souls, and would give them up at the command of their priest. The situation was new and threatening; Luther must provide for it; he had been gradually coming into a position from which the way would seem clear. He had already taught that in the sacraments faith is the principal thing the sacraments were indeed important, and not to be despised, but faith was the life of them. He had once held that while the priest's absolution and God's absolution are not of equal importance (one being real and essential, the other only formal), they were yet inseparably joined. As he had gone on, the inward and vital had grown and the outward and formal had dwindled, until it had become only a dim and wavering line. It only needed a little help from without to force him to see that the gracious promises of the Gospel are made to the sinner himself and for himself, and not to the priest for him. The new situation furnished that help, 2 and he now taught that Christ is for every believing soul a present and sufficient priest, and gives immediate and full absolution to those who make their confession to him. This is the peculiar Protestant doctrine, that Christ and not the Church, in himself and not by the Church, is the 1 Walch, 15: 1729. 2 Speaking of the effect of the Bull, and of papal opposition generally on Luther, Sarpi says: " Martin failed not to confirm his doctrines by divers writings, and ac- cordingly as he studied he discovered more light, even passing some step further forward, and finding articles of which in the beginning he had not thought." "Hist, of Council of Trent," year 1520. THE DIET OF WORMS 147 dispenser of salvation to men. To those who hold this doctrine, the frowning and threatening, or the weeping and pitying, priest is but a shadow; his lips move, but there is no voice. In other words, the priest is no priest at all, or a priest only in the sense in which all Christians are priests. This is the doctrine that came fully to the excommunicated Luther, and with it he delivered himself and his friends from the terror of the Papacy. Before this J/ime, even with Luther, the faith that justi- fied was faith in the promise of Christ made by the priest; after this time it was distinctly faith in Christ himself, as the loving, pitying, forgiving, redeeming Lord. The development of Luther's doctrinal views brought him into closer contact with the unseen and spiritual; all intermediaries were thrust aside, and he stood face to face with God. His sense of immediate re- sponsibility to and reliance on Christ as his Lord and helper, gave him cour- age and enthusiasm. It prepared him for the part that was before him. Accordingly, when the Emperor's November letter came, ordering him to Worms, and he was asked what he would do, he answered, "If I am summoned, so far as depends on me, I will come, even if I have to be carried sick; for if the Emperor calls me, no one can doubt that the Lord calls me." 1 He was disappointed when the Emperor withdrew his order. As the Diet did not have distinct notions of what he was to do at Worms, neither did he. There was one thing he would not do: he would not retract. He was willing to die, if necessary; he hoped that the way might be opened for him to make a useful impression. His thoughts were still of a discussion or examination, before learned, pious, impartial judges. "I am," he said, "ready to answer. . . for it is not from a presumptuous spirit, or with a view to personal advantage, that I have taught the doctrine with which I am reproached; it is in obedience to my conscience and to my oath as a doctor of the Holy Scripture; it is for the glory of God and the salvation of the Christian Church, the good of the German nation; and for the extirpation of so much superstition, abuse, evil scandal, tyranny, blasphemy, impiety." 2 In writing these things he expected them to be made known to the Diet. The safe-conduct of the Emperor was sent by a special messenger, and with it similar safe-conducts from Duke George of Saxony, the Elector Frederick and Philip of Hesse, through whose territories Luther must pass. The messenger also brought with him a letter from the Emperor to Luther, "the honorable, the well beloved, the pious. " 3 The Emperor said, "Our sincere desire is that thou shouldst prepare immediately for to Spalatin, Dec. 21, 1520; De Wette, 1: 534. 2 Letter to Elector Frederick, Jan. 25, 1521; De Wette, 1: 550. 3 Ehrsamer, lieber, anddchtiger. Walch, 15: 1787. The other safe-conducts, mentioned in the text, follow directly after this in Walch. 148 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY this journey, in order that, within the space of twenty-one days fixed by our safe-conduct, thou mayest without fail be present before us. Fear neither injury nor violence. We will firmly abide by our aforesaid safe-conduct, and expect that thou wilt comply with our summons." The Emperor also said that an inquiry was to be instituted touching Luther's doctrine and books; again, as in November, he entirely ignored the Pope's bull of excommunication. It was noticed and resented that he addressed a condemned heretic in terms of honor and affection. The messenger reached Wittenberg March 24th. His arrival oc- casioned some anxiety; it brought near what had before been contem- plated from a distance. Luther was now to face in a practical way the question of going to the Diet, and for him and his friends the crisis had come. They could not but recall the similar case of John Hus, who, trusting to the safe-conduct of Emperor Sigismund, went joyously to the Council of Constance, hoping to enlighten and convince his enemies. In spite of the safe-conduct he was betrayed, imprisoned and burned. It was a case that might well linger in the memories of men. An inci- dent of the last day of Hus before the council was especially impressive: he was telling his judges that he was present of his own accord, that no power could have forced him to come, that he came freely, relying on the promised protection of the Emperor; as he said this, he looked at Sigismund their eyes met, and the Emperor blushed. A hundred years afterwards, that blush was to influence the fate of a greater than Hus. It is said that Charles V was approached, reminded that there was no obligation to keep faith with heretics, and urged to give up Luther to the Pope; the young Emperor answered that he did not wish to blush as Sigismund did. Thus the fate of Hus rendered surer the safety of Luther; a true man, wronged, betrayed, unrighteously done to death, secured for others what he could not secure for himself the protection of a sacred pledge. But who could tell beforehand that Charles was not to imitate the "false Sigismund"? Many of Luther's associates in Wittenberg endeavored to dissuade him from obeying the Emperor's mandate. Well was it for his fame and work, well was it for his cause, that he refused to heed their advice. Like many another he had need to offer the prayer, "Lord, save me from my friends I can defend myself against my enemies. " These affection- ate and well-intentioned, but faint-hearted, colleagues were advising him to take a fatal step, one that would have been more damaging to his work than all the machinations of his foes that would, in fact, have been playing his enemies' game, and bringing the Reformation in Germany to a sudden close. Luther was right: the champion of a great cause is never undone, save by himself. A crisis had been reached in the THE DIET OF WORMS 149 Reformation where a failure in moral courage in the leader would have ruined everything. If Luther lacked political training and skill in affairs to see this, he knew it intuitively. The hour had come for him to play the man, to dare the worst that could befall him, or to abandon his cause, and after all his bold words confess himself a coward and a weakling. He rose to the occasion; this proved that he had martyr- stuff within him; he showed that he was a great man, and not merely the speaker of great words. The moral stature of Luther was disclosed to all the world. The journey of Luther to Worms was more like a royal progress than the going of a condemned heretic to his doom. At Leipzig the Cup of Honor was offered him, as to a distinguished and highly esteemed guest; at Naumberg he dined at the burgomaster's table, and a priest gave him a portrait of Savonarola, with an exhortation to stand fast in the truth; at Weimar he rested a day and preached, and Duke John sent him money for the further expenses of his journey; at Erfurt Crotus Rubianus he of the Epistolce Virorum Obscurorum now rector of the university, met him at some distance from the city and escorted him with forty horsemen to his old home in the Augustinian monastery. Here he remained two days, preaching on Easter Sunday in the Augustin- ian church to a congregation that overflowed it. At Eisenach he had a violent attack of illness, but pressed on to Frankfurt, whence he wrote to Spalatin: "We are proceeding on, my dear friend, notwithstanding the physical sufferings with which Satan has afflicted me, in order to delay my progress; for you must know, all the way from Weimar to this place, I have undergone greater pain that I ever experienced before. But Christ lives, and I will go to Worms to brave the gates of hell and the powers of the air. "* Thence he went to Oppenheim, the last stage of his journey before reaching his destination. It was here that some of his friends made a final attempt to dissuade him from risking himself in the midst of foes at Worms, but he stoutly replied, "I will go to Worms, though there were as many devils as ever there were tiles. " 2 The truth is, however, that he was in far less immediate danger than he and his friends supposed. Quite apart from the invincible determina- tion of Charles to stand by his pledged word, it is doubtful if he had the 1 De Wette, 1 : 586. 2 Er mir Spalatino aus Oppenheym gin Wurrnhs schriebe: Er wolte gin Wurmbs, wenn gleich so vil Teufel drynnen weren, als ummer Zeiegel da weren. Spalatin, p. 38. This is without doubt the original form of the saying, though Luther himself repeated it afterwards with several verbal alterations. Myconius tells us that, when warned at Gotha that he would be burned as a heretic, Luther replied: "Though they should make a fire that would burn heaven high from Wittenberg to Worms, if it were necessary I would appear in the name of the Lord, and smite Behemoth in his mouth between his great teeth, and confess Christ and cause him to be chosen." Hist. Ref., p. 39. 150 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY physical power to proceed against Luther, except by some secret treach- ery. Open arrest he would scarcely have dared. Worms was filled with armed retainers of princes who were at heart friends of Luther, and a disorderly rabble who made no secret of their intention to resort to violence if any harm came to their hero. Hutten, not far away, was making dire threats of the terrible things he would do. " Would to God I could be present at the Diet, " said he (there is no apparent reason why he could not have been there); "I would make a stir! I would get up a tumult that should shake some of them!" 1 Such bluster is seldom dangerous. But though it was shrewdly suspected that Hutten's bark was worse than his bite, he appeared to have the full sympathy and countenance of Franz von Sickengen, and it was known that he ould bite. An attempt to arrest Luther at Worms would certainly have provoked a bloody riot, possibly an open revolt against the youth- ful Emperor, who was already so beset with difficulties that it behooved him to add nothing more to them by precipitate and dishonorable conduct. In treating Luther as he did, Charles showed not only a praiseworthy sense of honor, but an admirable prudence. When Luther arrived in the city he could hardly make his way to his lodging, so great was the throng curious to see him. 2 His books had been publicly burned by order of the Emperor, but on the very next day booksellers had offered new copies, and peddlers had even appeared at the gate of the palace with Luther's books for sale. From this one circumstance we may infer the state of feeling in the town, and the Emperor's impotence had he been disposed to employ force. 3 Of the Worms that Luther saw, but a single building remains to-day, the great Cathedral, whose lofty towers and twin domes are visible for many miles through the Rhine Valley. In the Thirty Years' War the town suffered greatly, and what remained of it was reduced to a heap of ashes in the wars of Louis XIV. It has been rebuilt, and to-day is a stirring, lively city, but it is another Worms than the Worms of Luther that the traveler sees now. In Luther's day there was a stately episcopal palace not far from the Cathedral, and in the great hall of this palace 1 Walch, 15: 1845 seq. Hutten, Op. 4:292. 2 See Veit Warbeck's account in a letter to Duke John of Saxony, Forstemann's Neues Urkundenbuch, p. 68. 3 Impartial observers confirm the accounts of Luther's popularity at Worms. For example, the Venetian ambassador wrote to his government: "I cannot tell you how much favor he enjoys here, which is of such a nature that, on the Em- peror's departure, I suspect that it will produce some bad effects, most especially against the prelates of Germany. In truth, had this man been prudent, had he restricted himself to his first propositions and not entangled himself in manifest errors about the faith, he would have been, I do not say favored, but adored by the whole of Germany." "Calendar of State Papers," Venetian, 376. Cf. Ale- ander's Despatch of Feb. 8, in Brieger, Aleander und Luther, p. 48. THE DIET OF WORMS 151 the meetings of the Diet were held. 1 As this was the first Diet of the new Emperor, much important business was to be transacted, and a large and brilliant gathering of electors, princes, nobles, knights, representa- tives of free cities, had come together from all Germany. It requires a little effort on our part to realize that this hearing of Luther, which is to us the chief significance of this Diet, was but an episode in its pro- ceedings, albeit an episode of unusual interest. This first Diet of the new reign, in fact, marks not only a religious but a constitutional crisis, in the Empire. In the person of Charles V the Emperor once more began to seem a great figure, but this was because of his immense hereditary possessions, greater than had ever before been united under a single European ruler since Charlemagne. From Spain he could draw soldiers whose numbers were limited only by his ability to pay them, and whose fighting qualities were unsurpassed in Europe; while from the rich Netherlands and from the mines of his colo- nies in the New World he could draw the money to equip them and keep them in the field. This was what made Charles a great prince; the Empire was his weakness, not his strength; it increased his obligations, not his resources. At Worms, Charles represented the cause of national union, the con- stitutional monarchy; the princes stood for the existing oligarchy; each was contending for the mastery, or at least for a definite advantage. There was a great opportunity for a second Charles the Great to recon- stitute the German Empire, and secure the unity in religion of the German people. Elector Frederick declined the task he was right; he was not strong enough, but in a different sense from that which he meant. The young Charles proved not to be great in this case the op- portunity did not bring forth the man. But an obstacle even more insur- mountable than lack of great abilities was in his way: his lack of under- standing of the German people, and their failure to understand him. Germany had idealized Charles, and in a burst of national feeling had impelled the electors to choose a "German" ruler. They could not have acted in a more complete misunderstanding of the facts. Charles was German only in that his grandfather was a German, but the Habsburg blood flowed in his veins twice diluted, once with the French blood of his grandmother, Mary of Burgundy, and again with the Span- ish blood of his mother, Joanna, daughter of Isabella of Castile. He used to describe himself as a Fleming, from the accident of his birth in Ghent, but the maternal strain was most prominent in his nature, and 1 We know this positively from Spalatin, who was present with Elector Frederick. Annales, p. 39. For a description of Worms before the Thirty Years' War, see "Coryat's Crudities," Vol. II. 152 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY it was a Spanish prince who met the Diet at Worms, unable to speak or understand the language of his new subjects. Though not a man of the first intellectual and moral power, Charles did not fail chiefly by reason of this defect. He was the greatest man of his age of the rulers of Europe, that is to say. At the time of his election little was known of his personality, but he was esteemed by most of those who then met him as a cipher or a simpleton. Leo X called him ce bon enfant I'empereur, with scorn and contempt. Aleander, who had seen much of him at close range, was of a different opinion. This scholar and man of the world, a shrewd judge of men, decided at his first interview with Charles that here was a prince well endowed with prudence far beyond his years one who had much more at the back of his head than he carried on his face. He never had occasion to change his opinion. 1 Before the question of Luther came before the Diet, weeks had been spent in wrangling about the constitutional question, and it was still dragging along when he reached Worms. The princes proposed a permanent imperial Council (Reichsregiment) , which should exercise the chief functions of rule, whether the Emperor were present or absent, and should therefore decide all imperial questions, domestic as well as foreign. The Emperor should not even be represented in this Council, save as his hereditary domains should elect members; but the Estates of the empire, and even the towns, should elect representatives. Under such a constitution the imperial power would have been absolutely extinguished, and Germany would have become a federated oligarchy. Charles, on his part, proposed that there should be a representative Council, indeed, but that it should sit only during his absence from Ger- many, and then under a regent appointed by himself. Of twenty mem- bers he should have power to appoint six, and while the members repre- senting the Estates should be changed quarterly his nominees should be permanent. Direction of foreign affairs was to be reserved to the Emperor himself, and his assent should be required for all domestic measures of importance. This would have made the imperial power a reality, such as no Emperor of recent times certainly had possessed. As usual, a compromise was the result of these conflicting claims. The Emperor was permitted to nominate the president of the Council and four members out of twenty-two. The Council should sit only in the Emperor's absence, but on his return should be an advisory body until a Diet was convoked. The power to transact ordinary business was conceded to the Diet in the Emperor's absence, but the decision of im- 1 Kidd, p. 81. As throwing light on the character of Charles, it may be men- tioned that his favorite motto, though he used others, was plus oultre. THE DIET OF WORMS 153 portant matters was reserved to him; while as to foreign policy a check was placed on the imperial authority by the promise of Charles to form no alliances affecting the Empire without its consent. On the whole, Charles was considerably the gainer by these prolonged debates. Much was done to strengthen the imperial Council, which during the subse- quent years of the Reformation had so prominent a part in affairs. An attempt was made also to strengthen the imperial finance, for just at this juncture the imperial treasury was at a very low ebb, and the other resources of Charles were not immediately available in proportion to his wants. It has been well for us to pause for the consideration of these matters; for they not only are indispensable for an understanding of subsequent events, but have an important bearing on the matter in hand they help to explain the comparative mildness with which Luther was treated. A strong party in the Diet, possibly a majority, were sufficiently in his favor to make it inexpedient for the Emperor to do anything to antagonize them, while his personal affairs and his dynastic position were so delicately poised. It was about noon of April 16th that Luther entered the city, 1 and the hour was fixed for his hearing the following day, at 4 P.M. On account of the crowds, he was conducted to the palace by devious back ways, and introduced into the presence of the Emperor and the Estates. No more imposing or magnificent scene could then have been found in the world than that Diet. On a throne raised upon a dais sat the Emperor, serenely beautiful in his youth, of whose political deftness and strength of will his placid face gave little token, as he listened with unmoved features to the proceedings the most powerful monarch at that moment in the world, in spite of some immediate and temporary embarrassments, and invested as Emperor with a sanctity that no other earthly ruler could claim. At his side stood his brother, the Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, who was to play an important part in the coming struggle for reform and liberty in Germany. On either side were grouped the electoral princes. First in dignity, in the absence of the King of Bohemia, was the Arch- bishop of Mainz, whose acquaintance we have already made, the primate of Germany, clad in his gorgeous robes, arch-chancellor of the Empire throughout Germany. As it was in his diocese that the Diet was held, it was his recognized privilege to stand on the Emperor's right, while i"Two thousand people accompanied him to his lodgings in the house of the Knights of St. John. In front rode the Imperial herald, then Luther with his three friends [Amsdorf, Petzensteiner, a brother Augustinian, and Swaven, a rep- resentative of the Wittenberg studentsl; then on horseback, Drs. Jerome Schurf and Justus Jonas, and an escort from Erfurt; and, in the rear, his Saxon friends." Jacobs, " Luther," p. 186. All borne out by the contemporary records. Schurf was professor of jurisprudence at Wittenberg, and a trusted adviser of the Elector and Luther. 154 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY the first place on the left was taken by the Archbishop of Cologne, arch- chancellor of the Empire for Italy. Next to the Archbishop of Mainz came the arch-steward of the Empire, Count John, of the Palatine, who bore into the Diet the imperial orb. First of the secular electors, next to the Archbishop of Cologne, was Elector Frederick, grand marshal, who bore the imperial sword before the Emperor. Him we already know very well. The other electors were the Archbishop of Trier, a just but timid man, a warm friend of Elector Frederick, who was distrusted for his moderate opinions by the nuncio, Aleander; and Margrave Joachim, of Brandenburg, yet faithful to the Church, but later to join the Lutheran movement. There were four other Margraves present, and twenty-seven Dukes, easily chief among whom stood Duke George of Saxony, staunch old German, and staunch old Catholic too. Two Landgraves are men- tioned, the one of note being Philip of Hesse, afterwards surnamed the Magnanimous, then but a youth of seventeen, later the first prince to introduce the Reformation into his domains. Among these secular princes were grouped a goodly array of prelates, in full canonicals the Archbishops of Bremen, Salzburg and Panorm, the latter a Cardinal; the bishop of Wallas, also a Cardinal, and eleven other bishops and four abbots. In all there were two hundred and six persons in at- tendance at this Diet. And this does not include a brilliant galaxy of ambassadors and honored visitors representing the principal rulers of Europe, conspicuous among them the Archbishop of Toledo, and most important of all, the two papal legates, Aleander and Carac- cioli. Into this presence was led a single, black-robed monk, whose "cares and studies had made him so thin," as a friend writes of him, "that one may count all the bones of his body." Remember that this man had never seen a court before this day, that he was a peasant by birth and breeding, and separated by that fact from his judges by a gulf whose breadth and depth we can but faintly realize. In his very blood was a hereditary reverence for rank and authority, and the effect of such an assemblage upon him was certain to be tremendous and awe-inspiring. It would flutter the pulses of any one of us, it nearly paralyzed Luther! It was one thing to write bold words, from the quiet and security of his cell at Wittenberg to lecture and denounce princes and prelates on paper; it was quite another thing to stand in the presence of these formidable persons, look them bravely in the face and speak the same bold words. Would Luther do it? Could Luther do it? At first it seemed that he could not. The marshal commanded him not to speak unless he was spoken to, and to answer promptly and truly the questions put to him. Aleander had arranged the procedure. The THE DIET OF WORMS 155 jurist Eck, 1 official of the Archbishop of Trier, then put to him, first in Latin afterwards in German, two questions: "Do you acknowledge your- self the author of the writings published in your name, which are here before me? Will you consent to retract certain of the doctrines that are contained therein?" At Schurf's suggestion the titles of the books were read, and Luther acknowledged them to be his. He was again asked, "Will you retract the doctrines therein?" The crucial moment of Luther's life had come, and he did not seem to be ready with an answer. He was plainly disconcerted by the, proceedings: this was not the ex- pected examination before impartial judges, with an opportunity to defend his views from Scripture, and a retraction to be made after he had been proved wrong by the Scriptures and by sound arguments. This was but a repetition of what he had been hearing from the beginning, of what Cajetan had said to him at Augsburg Rome's one word all along had been "retract." There had been no serious attempt to refute him, there had been no idea whatever of hearing him. In a low voice that could hardly be heard even by those near him he began his answer, but as he proceeded seemed to gain courage, The question, he said, was so serious, concerning as it did eternal salvation and the free proclamation of the divine word, that it would be rash and dangerous for him to reply until he had meditated on it in silence and retreat. -Wherefore he besought his sacred Majesty to grant him time to reply with full knowledge of the point at issue, At this answer, there was no little surprise hi the Diet, but after some deliberation it was announced that, though Luther well knew what he had been sent for, and had had ample time to prepare his reply, his Majesty of his grace would give him another twenty-four hours. The criticism was no doubt warranted, and many historians and biographers of Luther have unnecessarily puzzled themselves and their readers by concocting ingenious explanations of Luther's conduct on this occasion, as if the strange and disturbing circumstances in which he found himself were not a quite sufficient explanation. Perhaps he ought to have known what to expect, perhaps he ought to have been prepared; but the reality, when he came to face it, watf so much more awful than anything he had expected, that for the time he lost that command of his faculties which he felt to be necessary to present his cause adequately. Anybody who has ever had an attack of what we call "stage fright" will know just how Luther felt, and why he decided that he must have a chance to recover his composure and mental poise before he attempted to speak the words on which so much depended. 1 Hutten calls him einen gam ungelehrten Sophisten. Letter to Pirkheimer, Walch, 15: 1938. 156 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Luther's apparent failure to rise to the situation and do what his friends and admirers expected of him, not only surprised but dismayed them. It correspondingly encouraged Aleander and the papal party. The Emperor was not favorably impressed, and is reported to have said to his courtiers, "This man will never make a heretic of me." News of what had happened was speedily circulated through the city, and on his way to his lodgings many tried by friendly words and exhortations to renew Luther's courage, urging him to stand fast for the truth. The young Landgrave of Hesse, who had seen Luther that day for the first time, came to his lodging, and closed a conversation by saying, "Dear Doctor, if you are in the right, so may our Lord help you." On his way home, some say, but more probably the next day on his way to the palace, George von Frundsberg, a well-known mercenary captain of the time, clapped Luther on the shoulder with the encouraging words: "Little monk, little monk, now goest thou thy way to take a stand such as I, and many a commander, even in our sharpest battles, have never taken. If thou art of good intent and certain of thy affair, go in God's name and be comforted God will not forsake thee." That there had been no wavering in Luther's intent, no question as to what his answer would be, nothing more than a temporary nervous weakness, is evident from a letter that he wrote that evening from his lodgings to a friend, "But I shall not withdraw a single jot, Christ being my helper." On the 18th Luther appeared again before the Diet. Their political business had occupied the Estates, so that it was already growing dark when Luther was brought in. Again the question was put to him, but in somewhat different form from that of the previous day. "Do you wish to defend all the books that you have acknowledged as your own, or to retract any part of them?" He made his answer, first in German and then by request he repeated it in Latin. 1 He began by asking pardon if he should violate any etiquette, since he was nothing but a poor monk, unaccustomed to courts, who had never preached or written aught save for the glory of God and the honor of the Gospel. Among the books that he avowed were three classes, he went on to say. The first were written for the edification of believers, and his adversaries admitted them to be harmless, and even useful. He could not retract these. In another class of books he had attacked the Papacy and the doctrine of papists. None could deny that the papal laws had devoured as a prey this noble Germany If he should retract these books, he would 1 Many authorities say just the reverse, that he spoke first in Latin, then in German; but the text follows Luther, who could hardly be wrong on such a point, while others might easily confuse the order in their later recollections. THE DIET OF WORMS 157 but be adding to the force of the Roman tyranny, and opening, not merely the windows, but the doors, to great impiety. How could he thus strengthen the reign of iniquity? In this Luther struck skillfully and strongly the chords of German nationalism, and many hearts hi that assemblage must have responded to what he said. Finally, said he, there was another class of books, polemic, written against his adversaries who had advocated the Roman tyranny. These, he confessed, had been at times too violent, and he did not maintain that his conduct had been faultless. But the question, he said, is not concerning my conduct, but concerning the doctrine of Christ; and therefore he could not disown even these writings, for Rome would make use of such disavowal to extend her oppression. He then demanded evidence against himself and a fair trial. "I stand here," he declared, " ready, if anyone can prove me to have written falsely, to retract my errors, and to throw my books into the fire with my own hands." He had weighed well the strife that his doctrine would bring into the world, but our Lord had said, "I came not to send peace, but a sword." "Be- ware," said he, "lest if you condemn the divine word, that word send forth upon you a deluge of ills." He cited the case of Pharaoh, and the ruin he brought upon his country by seeking to reign through what he thought to be wisdom, and added, "I seek not to offer advice to your high and mighty understandings, but I owed this testimony of a loving heart to my native Germany." It was a brave speech, a strong speech, delivered with self-possession and in a clear voice that could be heard by the whole assembly a striking contrast in every way to his manner of the previous day. It was no doubt a surprise and a disappointment to the papal party, but to lovers of the Gospel truth and lovers of their country as inspiriting as the blast of a trumpet. Hardly had his words ceased when Eck rose and angrily exclaimed that Luther had not answered the question, that this was not an occasion for general discussion, but to ascertain from Luther whether he would retract his errors, which were the errors of Hus and other heretics, and had been condemned by the Council of Constance and at other times by the Church. What was wanted was a straightforward answer, non cornute, Would Luther retract or not? Luther replied with some heat: "Since your imperial Majesty and highnesses demand a simple answer, I will give you one without horns or teeth: Unless I am convinced of error by the testimony of Scripture or plain reason (for I put no faith in Popes or councils alone, which have erred and contradicted each other often) I am overcome by the Scriptures 1 1 To understand fully what Luther meant by appealing to the Scriptures one must read his later writings. For some illustrations, see Alzog's "Church His- tory," 3: 38, 39, esp. note on 39. 158 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY that I have cited and my conscience is bound the word of God. I can- not and will not retract anything, for it is neither safe nor right to act against one's conscience. Such is my profession of faith, and expect no other from me." Having given this answer hi both languages, he added "God help me, Amen." 1 Still Eck was dissatisfied, and a sharp altercation followed between him and Luther, Eck saying that Luther could not prove that councils had erred, and Luther affirming that he both could and would prove it at any time that might be assigned him. The hour being late, the Emperor cut this short and dismissed the assembly. Luther returned to his lodgings full of joy. An eye-witness says that as he reached his temporary house, he threw up his hands with a joyful gesture, crying, "I am through, I am through." Well might he rejoice. A peasant's son had stood before Caesar, an obscure German professor had lifted his voice against the theologians of the world, a poor monk had withstood the sentence of the supreme Pontiff of Christendom, and made good every bold word that he had written. In the presence of the most powerful of Church and State in Europe he had maintained the supremacy of the Scriptures as the rule of a Christian man's life, and the inviolable rights of the individual conscience against the tyranny of Popes and councils. Much depended on the speaking of those words. Luther at Worms represented the cause of Christian liberty, the progress of Christian civilization, and his recantation and submission would have been an incalculable disaster to the world. 2 Never again was he to be so heroic a figure, never so truly powerful, because never again would his voice be so truly the voice of the German people. The cumulative grievances of Germany against Rome, no less than Germany's demand for relief from spiritual despotism, found in him their mouthpiece. In the evening he held a sort of reception. A large number of the greatest nobles and prelates at the Diet came to see him and congratulate him on his bold defense. He had touched the heart of Germany by his 1 1 have followed in this account of the Worms hearing, Luther's own account, LOL, 6: 5 seq.; LDS, 64:374 seq.; Walch, 15: 1917 seq. Cf. his later account, a few days before his death, LDS, 64: 366 seq. This is, however, confirmed at every important point, and sometimes as to the very words, by a despatch of Aleander's, dated Worms, April 19. "And as Martin went out from the Imperial hall," says Aleander, "he raised his hand on high after the manner of the German soldiers, when they exult over a good blow in a tournament." Brieger, Aleander und Luther, p. 153. Cochlseus gives a briefer account of the proceedings, but virtually confirms Luther's. He says Luther closed with the words, Gott helfe mir, Amen. Commentaria, p. 34. Spalatin gives the final words as, So helf mir Gott, denn keyn Widerspruch kann ich nicht thun. Luther, however, gives the words that have become traditional: Hie stehe ich, ich kann nicht anders, Gott helfe mir, Amen. All these words were probably spoken by Luther during the hearing, but not all in a single sentence, as here combined. See Schaff, 6: 309 for a full critical dis- cussion of this question; also Kostlin, 1: 419. 2 At the inn, Mir Spalatino sagt: Wenn er tausend Kopf hett, so Wolter sie ihm ehr alle lassen abhauen, denn ein Widerspruch thun. THE DIET OF WORMS 159 speech, and many who now saw and heard him for the first time were, like Landgrave Philip, permanently won to the cause of religious reform. "The doctor's little room," writes Spalatin, "could not contain all the visitors who presented themselves. I saw among them Duke Wilhelm of Brunswick, Landgrave Philip of Hesse, Count Wilhelm of Henneberg, the Elector Frederick and many others. " Curiously enough, considering the intimate relations that had been established between them for a long time, this was the first meeting face to face of the Elector and Luther. 1 When the Diet met again the following morning, Charles read to them a very important document, written and signed by his own hand. There is no reason to doubt that it was his unassisted composition; at any rate, it represented his inmost sentiments and clearly stated what were to be the guiding principles of his reign. He said: My predecessors, the most Christian emperors of the Ger- man race, the Austrian Archdukes and Dukes of Burgundy, were until death the truest sons of the Catholic Church, defending and extending their belief to the glory of God, the propagation of the faith, the salvation of their souls. They have left behind them the holy Catholic rites, that I should live and die therein, and so until now with God's help I have lived, as becomes a Christian Emperor. What my forefathers established at Constance and other councils, it is my privilege to uphold. A single monk, led astray by private judgment, has set himself against the faith held by all Chris- tians for a thousand years and more, and impudently concludes that all Christians up to now have erred. I have therefore resolved to stake upon this cause all my dominions, my friends, my body and my blood, my life and soul. For myself and you, sprung from the holy German nation, appointed by peculiar privilege defenders of the faith, it would be a grievous disgrace, an eternal stain upon ourselves and our posterity, if in this our day, not only heresy, but its very suspicion, were due to our defect. After Luther's stiff- necked reply, I now repent that I have so long delayed proceed- ings against him and his false doctrines. I have now resolved never again, under any circumstances, to hear him. Under pro- tection of his safe-conduct he shall be escorted home, but for- bidden to preach and to seduce men with his evil doctrines and incite them to rebellion. I warn you to give witness to your opin- ion as good Christians and in accordance with your vows. 2 The reading of this document produced a great sensation; it is said that many of the princes turned as pale as death. They felt themselves to be in as great peril as Luther himself. And now the Diet had still to answer the question, What shall be done with the condemned heretic? The man without office, wielding no earthly power, from his peculiar 1 Denn ich seine Stimm mein Lebenlang nie gehtiret, noch sein Angesicht gesehen, ohne zu Wormes auf dem Reichstage. Wider Hans Wurst, LDS, 26: 67. 2 Kidd, p. 85. Armstrong, "The Emperor Charles V," 1: 70. 160 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY position was himself free, and the course of things was to be determined by his will. On the other hand, the Emperor, the master of the world, was the slave of circumstances. He did not wish to condemn Luther; he did not know how not to condemn him. If Luther should be condemned no one knew what would come of it. Many sympathized with him personally, and many more sympathized with his cause. If he should not be condemned, there was already revolution, the end of the papal power, and for this the world was not yet prepared. In their perplexity moderate men of both parties turned to the old plan of compromise there must be more conferences with Luther. The instigator of the plan of renewed negotiations was Albert, Arch- bishop of Mainz. He was a German; he saw the dangers threatening Germany, and was anxious to avoid them. Luther must be heard before some German of candor and ability, a man who would command the confidence of both parties. Such a man was the Archbishop of Trier, and he was chosen to conduct the proposed conference. It met April 24th, in the Archbishop's palace. There were present the Elector of Bran- denburg, Duke George of Saxony "and some other great men." Wehe (Vehus), a lawyer of Baden, was the spokesman. He began by telling Luther that the princes had sent for him not to dispute (always the same old formula!) but to treat with him in a friendly manner, and to admonish him privately of those things that seemed chiefly to concern him. As to councils, Wehe admitted that they had sometimes decreed different, but never contradictory, things. But granting that they had erred, still they had not fallen so low that every private man might despise and trample on their authority. Luther's books, if care were not taken, would cause great trouble. Men would interpret them ac- cording to their inclinations and desires, and what he meant for freedom they would take for license. His teaching was especially dangerous in that age, which, said Wehe, was more corrupt than any former age had been. It was true that some of Luther's books were harmless, even useful this was the case with his earlier books but those he had re- cently written contained things inconsistent with religion and piety. These might well justify the condemnation of all that he had written; his work was to be judged by its latest development, just as a tree is judged, not by its blossoms, but by its fruit. This hurtful advance in his teachings ought to startle Luther himself. "You ought," he said, "to think of both your own salvation and of that of others; and consider if it be fitting that those whom Christ by his own death had rescued from everlasting death, should by your books be seduced from the Church, and so perish." He reminded Luther that even in civil affairs nothing was better than the observance of the laws, without which no State or THE DIET OF WORMS 161 government could subsist; and if the decrees of the Fathers were to count for nothing, everything in the Church, where all things should be most settled, would be in confusion. "These noble and virtuous princes," he said, "out of the singular love and affection they bear to the public, and particularly also for your own welfare, have thought it fit to ad- monish you of these things; for, without doubt, if you obstinately persist in your opinions and yield nothing, the Emperor will banish you, and not suffer you to have any footing within the bounds of Germany. So it concerns yourself seriously to reflect on the situation." The case as thus stated was well worthy of serious consideration. It could not be denied that Luther's teachings looked toward revolution, which could not be accomplished without great trouble, how great no one could foresee. A dismemberment of the Church, an unsettling of religious, social and political relations, was a part of what was threat- ened. Nothing but the most imperative necessity the defense or the assertion of the highest and most vital human rights could justify persistence hi a course that seemed to lead to such a result. The de- struction of property, the weakening of confidence, the breaking down of moral barriers and the loosing of the worst of human passions, are not things that sober men can look forward to without a sense of dismay. And these are the things that many, among them some of Luther's friends, saw before them as the consequences of the conflict that he was bringing on. Was what he was seeking worth what it was likely to cost? There are human rights that we might consider cheap if they cost no more than the wretchedness of two or three generations of men; but we ought to be well convinced of their supreme value before we deliberately consent to pay such a price for them. , After a great revolution we forget the cost of it. Before such a revo- lution, the thoughtless, the fanatical and those possessed of the lofty spirit of devotion, make no account of it. But in estimating the conduct of men and of parties we must not neglect to consider the price that is paid, as well as the good that is gained. We are too prone to feel that those who opposed any movement that has resulted in good were influenced by selfish motives or unwise considerations. This may often be true, but we should feel a stirring of kindness toward those men who, like the Archbishop of Trier, pleaded with Luther to moderate his claims and give peace to Church and Empire. And he felt kindly toward them. "Most noble princes," he replied, "I give you hearty thanks. For so illustrious persons to vouchsafe to take this pains and trouble for so mean a man as I, is an act of extraordinary condescension." These are not ironical words, but simply true; it was an act of extraordinary con- descension. He went on and disclaimed the notion that he despised 162 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY all councils; he acknowledged that his teachings might lead astray and cause disturbances, but he did not shrink from such consequences. "I will suffer anything," he said, "yea, sooner lose my life, than forsake the clear rule of the word of God; for we must obey God rather than men. As to the scandal that is objected to me, I neither can nor ought to be accountable for it, for there is a great difference between the scandals of charity and those of faith: the first consisting in life and manners, which by all means are to be avoided; whilst the others, arising from the word of God, are not at all to be regarded; for truth and the will of our Heavenly Father ought not to be dissembled, though the whole world should be offended thereat." He was not a favorer of disorder. He taught that men must honor and obey the laws and the magistrates; he had always so taught, as could be seen from his writings. But as to ecclesiastical laws, the case was different: they came into conflict with the teachings of the word of God, and laid "the hard and intolerable yoke of human laws upon the minds and consciences of men." He knew that the Scriptures forbid our trusting our own judgment, and he would not be obstinate about anything, provided he might have leave to profess the doctrine of the Gospel. He was exhorted to submit his books to the sentence of the Emperor and his princes. His answer was that he would not decline the judgment of the Emperor and the estates of the Empire, provided they took for their guide the word of God; but said he, "unless I am thereby con- victed of error, I cannot change my opinion." He begged that the princes would intercede with the Emperor, that he might be suffered to live with a good conscience. If he could but obtain that, he would be ready to do anything. The Elector of Brandenburg said to him, "Is it your meaning, then, that you will not submit unless you be convinced by the Holy Scriptures?" Luther replied, "It is, sir or else by most evident reasons." * j With this the conference ended. It had served to develop and em- phasize Luther's position. He recognized the evils that might follow his teaching, but he could do only what he was doing. The question had narrowed itself down to this: whether men should submit to the judgment of Popes and councils as an infallible standard of truth, or to the word of God interpreted by every man for himself. Or, to state the case some- what more explicitly, Luther's contention involved two things: first, that the word of God is the sole standard of Christian truth ; and second, 1 In the second trial, before those who were friendly to him, it was doubtless harder for Luther to keep faith than in the Diet, where the consequences of what he was doing were not brought so strongly home to him. But having a second time resisted all incitements to recant, he had done all there was for him to do at Worms, and there was no occasion for his staying longer. THE DIET OF WORMS 163 that every age must be free to understand it for itself. Thus having begun with a question as to the value of papal indulgences, he had gone on; unimportant or nonessential things had been left behind; and at last he had reached the one fundamental thing that separated the two par- ties. It was a question of authority: on the one side Pope and council, on the other the word of God. The Archbishop of Trier had treated Luther with great kindness. He was a Romanist, but he was also a man of learning and candor and experience, and friendly to Luther. He was reluctant to abandon all hope of bringing about a reconciliation; he wished Luther to agree to submit to a general council. Luther professed himself willing, provided the controversy should be managed according to the rule of Holy Scrip- ture. Failing to drive him from this position, the Archbishop asked him how he thought the evils threatening could be avoided. He an- swered that it might be done by following the plan of Gamaliel, and leaving the whole matter to settle itself. This could not be, and further efforts were useless. Luther was weary and impatient of them. He said to the Archbishop: "Most gracious Lord, I cannot yield. It must happen to me as God wills. I beg your grace to obtain for me the gracious permission, of his imperial Majesty that I may go home again, for I have now been here ten days, and nothing has been accomplished." This was said the 25th of April. But Luther was wrong: a great deal had been accomplished, the results of which were to appear in later years. There was a way to settle the whole matter; or, at least, some thought there was a way, which was not tried. Luther, one obstinate, con- demned heretic, was involving the whole Empire in controversy, trouble and danger; why not put him out of the way? If the Emperor would only break his plighted troth all would be well. It was one of those times in which Satan seems to have the right and the power to bestow kingdoms. Before the Diet it was Luther who was on trial, now it was the young Emperor. It is well for him and well for mankind that he did not fail. He decided that it was better to keep faith than to have peace. 1 Charles was young, and inexperienced in the art of ruling men, and he therefore naturally and wisely deferred much to the judgment of his coun- sellors at Worms. But in this matter he took counsel solely of his own conscience and sense of honor. His healthy young instinct was wiser than the subtle advice of Aleander. 1 "Some of the assembly, approving what was done at Constance, said that faith ought not to be kept. But Lewis, count-elector Palatine, opposed himself, as unto a thing that would brand the German name with a mark of perpetual ignominy, expressing with disdain that it was intolerable that for the service of priests Germany should draw upon itself the infamy of not keeping the public faith." Sarpi, bk. i, p. 13. 164 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY There was no reason why Luther should continue longer at Worms. The Emperor gave him a safe-conduct, allowing him twenty-one days in which to reach home, and dismissed him. He was not to teach, either by word or writing, on the way. It was April 26th when he passed out of the gate and onward. As he had refused to retract or to submit him- self unconditionally to the judgment of any tribunal, the Emperor must issue a decree against him. This was done on the 26th of May, just one month after Luther's departure. 1 Luther, the Pope, the Emperor and the Diet had now all done their part. The imperial ban had been pronounced. But who was to execute it, or was it to be executed at all? The question as to Luther had first been referred to a papal legate, then to the Pope, then to the Emperor, then to the Diet at Worms. The effect of the imperial edict was to refer it to the German people. Luther's private cause had become national, European. The first act of the Lutheran tragedy was ended. 1 Despatch of Aleander of that date, Brieger, p. 224. For the full text of the Worms decree, see Appendix IV. PART II FROM THE EDICT OF WORMS TO THE PROTEST AT SPEYER 1521-1529 CHAPTER I THE NEW LUTHER BEFORE Luther left Worms, the Elector Frederick had caused it to be intimated to him that means would be devised of giving him further protection, 1 but beyond that he seems to have been unapprised. The fewer to whom the secret was confided, the better it would obviously be for all concerned, and Luther was not a silent or discreet man, as the Elector well knew. Frederick, whom Aleander in his correspondence calls "the fox of Germany," was what the Scotch term a "canny" man. He could not openly defy the imperial edict by continuing his former pro- tection of Luther, yet he was more than ever determined that the Witten- berg doctor, who had greatly pleased him by his conduct at Worms, should not suffer harm. He contrived a plan as simple as it was effective: Luther should disappear for a time; his whereabouts should not be known even to his most intimate friends; he should even be supposed to be dead; and after a while the storm might blow over. On leaving Worms, Luther took the way to Eisenach, and after going some distance he dismissed the imperial herald. At several places he preached, which can hardly be called an honorable observance on his part of the terms of his safe-conduct, though his excuse was that he had never been party to an agreement that the word of God should be bound. Still, he had accepted, and" had been glad to accept, from the Emperor a safe-conduct, the terms of which were that he should not teach by word or pen on his way home, and he kept his part of the contract less faith- fully than Charles had kept his. Moving along leisurely, attended now by only two friends, toward nightfall of the 4th of May, as he was in a lonely part of the wood near Altenstein, a band of armed horsemen suddenly appeared and surrounded the carriage. Even his friends were deceived, and supposed themselves attacked by bandits; one of them fled for his life, the other, Amsdorf , went on to Wittenberg with the news that Luther was violently dragged away by these robbers and his fate 1 Seckendorf, p. 159. This is amply confirmed by the letter that Luther wrote to Cranach from Frankfurt, April 28th: "I shall submit to being hidden away, and as yet do not know where. I would have preferred being put to death by the tyrants, especially by the furious Duke George, but was obliged to follow the advice of friends and wait my time." De Wette, 1: 588; Currie, 68. Cf. the letter to Melanchthon of May 12th, De Wette, 2: 1; Currie, 71. 167 168 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY was unknown. 1 As the days and weeks passed and nothing was heard of him, the people were filled with anxiety. Even his enemies rejoiced with trembling when they heard of this event, for things had come to such a pass that Luther dead might well be more troublesome to them than Luther living. "You have," says Alphonsus Valdesius, writing to Peter Martyr, "as some wish, the end; as I believe, not the end, but the be- ginning, of this tragedy. For I see that the minds of the Germans are much stirred up against the Roman See. Nor do I see that the imperial edict will have much weight with them, for after its publication Luther's books were everywhere sold in villages and in open places with im- punity. Hence you may easily conjecture what will be done when the Emperor leaves Germany." 2 A little later, June 26th, Erasmus writes, "The Lutheran tragedy has been acted among us: would that it had never been brought on the stage." 3 Albert Diirer, Germany's greatest artist, then at Niirnberg, passionately bewailed in his journal the condition of the Church: "0 God, is Luther dead? Who will hereafter deliver to us the Gospel so clearly? O God, how much would he have been able to write for us in ten or twenty years! all ye pious Christian men, help me to bewail this man inspired by God." 4 His enemies began to be alarmed, and one of them wrote, "We can scarcely save our lives, unless we light a candle, and seek for him until we find him." Luther has left no record of his sensations when the " bandits," with so well simulated violence, dragged him from his wagon, mounted him on a horse and spirited him away. If he for the moment supposed him- self to be a real captive, he was soon undeceived. But eight miles distant was the castle of Wartburg, formerly a residence of the ducal family of Saxony and still one of their possessions. Thither Luther was taken in the darkness and silence of the night, and there he spent the next ten months in retirement and incognito. He doffed his monk's gown 6 and assumed the garb of a country gentleman; he let his beard grow; he was known as Junker George. Luther could never be idle, and accordingly at the Wartburg he gave himself to the study of the Scriptures, 6 to numerous literary labors 1 Spalatin tells the story of Luther's "capture" and taking to the Wartburgr Annales, 50, 51. Luther himself gives a briefer account, in his letter to GerbeU November 1st, De Wette, 2: 89, Currie, 86. * Gieseler, 4: 58. Habes hujus tragoediae ut quidam volunt finem, etc. Lutheri Tragoedia peracta est apud nos, etc. Erasmus, Op. Ill : 650. For this remarkable passage of Diirer's journal in full, see Moore's "Albert Diirer," in "The Library of Art," London, 1905, p. 157 seq. * De Wette, 2:7. On his return to Wittenberg he resumed his monk's garb and did not finally lay it aside until October 9, 1524. But at the Wartburg he assumed the character of Junker so completely that he even went hunting with the Duke's retainers at the castle. Letter to Spalatin, August 15th, De Wette, 2: 41, Currie, 82. 8 To Spalatin: Ego otiosus hie et crapulosus sedeo tola die: Biblem Graecam et Hebraeam lego. De Wette, 2: 6. THE NEW LUTHER 169 and to meditation. He also carried on an active correspondence with his friends, who were promptly taken into his confidence, so far as to be informed of his safety, though the place of his residence was concealed from them. To Spalatin, who of course was in the secret, he writes from "Patmos," while to Melanchthon he dates his letters "from the region of the birds" and "from the wilderness." These letters inform us quite fully of his occupations. He wrote an exposition of the Psalms, working at this at intervals until November, when he sent an exposition of the thirty-seventh Psalm to the Wittenbergers, with a long letter. 1 During the same time he composed his treatise on monastic vows, which he sent to his father, with the letter already quoted, November 21st; and a tract of considerable length on the "Misuse of the Mass." 2 These labors were interrupted by periods of physical and spiritual depression. Luther had been accustomed to simple food and an active life; at the castle he changed to a sedentary life and richer food, with the very natural result of dyspepsia and gloom. He writes to Melanchthon: "It is now eight days that I neither write anything, nor pray, nor study, partly by reason of temptations of the flesh, partly because vexed by other cares." 3 Throughout life he was accustomed to refer whatever displeased or vexed him or seemed to hinder his work to the direct agency of the devil, in whom he believed with rather more energy than he believed in God. So now, instead of blaming his mode of life and changing it, he ascribes all his troubles to Satan. He even seems to have imagined that he had personal interviews with the devil, though the story of the inkstand and other similar tales are due to the vivid imaginings of his later admirers, rather than to anything that he has left on record. But the chief labor of this residence at the Wartburg, and one of the things of prime importance in the history of the Reformation, was the beginning of his version of the Scriptures in German. So many reckless and unfounded assertions have been made about this, by both friends and foes, that it is important to ascertain the facts accurately. As we have already seen, Luther was fully occupied with other literary tasks from a few weeks after his arrival there until late in November. In a letter to his friend Lange, dated December 18th, he announces his inten- tion to translate the New Testament into German, in terms neces- sitating the inference that the work had not yet been begun. On March 30, 1522, he writes Spalatin that he has translated the entire New Tes- tament in his Patmos, and that he and Melanchthon are now revising i De Wette, 2: 69. LOL, 6: 234 seq.; LDS, 28: 28 seq.; Walch, 19, 1068 *eq. * De Wette, 2: 22. 170 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY what he hopes will prove a worthy work. 1 This leaves little more than ten weeks for the completion of the work, for he brought a rough draft with him to Wittenberg for the criticism of Melanchthon. After re- ceiving a hasty revision, this portion of the version was hurried through the press and published September 22, 1522. This would be a rapid piece of book-making, for both author and publisher, even in these days of advanced learning, plentiful apparatus of scholarship and unlimited mechanical facilities. Considering the conditions of Luther's day, the whole affair borders on the miraculous. It would be difficult in any case to believe that a complete translation of the entire New Testament could have been made by a man of Luther's limited attainments in Greek, and with the imperfect apparatus that he possessed, in the short space of ten weeks. And, as we shall see, another task occupied a part of his attention and time during these very weeks. Any minister to-day, who has had the Greek course of a college and seminary, is a far better scholar than Luther. Let such a man, if he thinks Luther's achievement possible, attempt the accurate translation of a single chapter of the New Testament such a translation as he would be willing to print under his own name and multiply the time consumed by the two hundred and sixty chapters. He will speedily be convinced that the feat attributed to Luther is an impossible one. What then? Is the whole story false? That, too, is impossible the main facts are too well attested. The solution of an apparently insoluble contradiction is a very simple one: Luther did not make an independent translation; he never claimed that he did; none of his contemporaries made the claim for him. It is only later admirers who have made this statement to enhance his glory, just as they have unduly exaggerated the paucity of the Scriptures and the popular ignorance of them before Luther's day, for the same purpose. We now know that both these assertions are untrue to historic fact, and have misled many unwary persons into inferences far indeed from the truth. The two assertions are so intimately connected, that in showing either to be unfounded the other is also and necessarily controverted. Authorities differ concerning the number of editions of the Bible in German before Luther's version appeared, but none enumerate fewer than fourteen in High German and three in Low German. Those in High Ger- man, which are all that we need consider here, are apparently reprints of a single MS. version, of which two copies are still preserved, one in 1 De Wette, 2: 115, 123, 176. In his letter to Spalatin he asks his friend, as one who at court sees such things, for the German names of the precious stones, and their colors, as given in Rev. 21. In a letter *of May 19th he acknowledges receipt of the information, and sends Spalatin a proof of the first "signature" of the forthcoming New Testament. THE NEW LUTHER 171 a monastery at Tepl, Bohemia, the other in the library of the university at Freiburg in the Breisgau. The former, known as the Codex Teplensis r has recently been printed and is accessible to all scholars. As this MS. contains seven articles of faith that are evidently Waldensian, many have been led to attribute to this version a Waldensian origin. Others- have pointed out that no more is proved by the MS. than a Waldensian ownership of it at some time, and have asserted a Catholic origin for the version. We need not enter into this controversy, which concerns a question of technical scholarship rather than the historic effect of the version; for, whatever theory of its origin may prevail, the fact of ita frequent reprinting and wide circulation cannot be hi any wise affected. This version was certainly in the possession of Luther, and was as certainly used by him in the preparation of his version. This fact, once entirely unsuspected, and then hotly denied, has been proved to a demonstration by the "deadly parallel." It appears from a verse-by- verse comparison that this old German Bible was in fact so industriously used by Luther, that the only accurate description of Luther's version is to call it a careful revision of the older text. Just as the English Bible is the result of successive revisions, from the days of Wiclif to our own, so that our text has a demonstrable historic continuity, so the German Bible is the product of revision. This is not to detract hi the least from the glory of Luther or to diminish the value of his version it is merely to define with accuracy what he accomplished, and to distinguish his real achievement from the semi-legendary tales of Lutheran literature. 1 For the doing of this work, Luther had marked qualifications and advantages. In the first place, he had a better text than had been avail- able to former translators. The old German Bible had been translated from the Vulgate, and had followed it slavishly; Luther proposed to use the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures as the basis of his work. For the New Testament he had the second Basel edition (1519) of Eras- mus, hi which many of the misprints of the first edition had been cor- rected. He did not fail to consult the Vulgate, and sometimes followed that version, which in some passages was made from an older text than that of Erasmus. He had, in addition to a better text, a complete knowl- edge of his mother tongue and a facility in its use that no man of his generation could match. Among the many dialectical forms of German in his day, there was no recognized standard; there was, hi fact, no German language. He chose as the foundation of his work the Saxon dialect, as the familiar speech of hi? childhood and the language of the Elector's 1 Krafft, Die deutsche Bfod vor Luther, Bonn, 1883. Cf . Haupt, Die deutsche Bibel- ubersetzung der mitelalterichen Waldenser, Wiirzberg, 1885. Specimens of the two versions are given by Schaff, 6: 351 seq. See also Keller, Die Waldenser und die deutschen Bibelubersetzungen, Leipzig, 1886. 172 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY court; this he enriched with the best words of other dialects, until he had a vocabulary that for fulness and flexibility left little to be desired. He had probably never seen or even heard of Dante's De Vulgari Elo- quentia, but he unconsciously pursued the method there recommended, and practiced by the poet in the writing of the "Divine Comedy." The effect was similar in both cases: the resulting work was authoritative in fixing the literary standard of the language in which it was written. Luther's version became a German classic it became the German classic and was accepted as the type of literary German for subsequent gen- erations. Not that the German language became stereotyped and in- capable of progress, but the reading of this book by the whole nation had a formative and permanent influence on the language that no other book has ever approached. Such is the verdict of German scholars of the highest rank as authorities in literature and philology. Competent German critics declare that Luther's Bible exhibits the whole wealth, force and beauty of the German language, and it is still deservedly reckoned as the first classic of German literature. It is at once faithful to the original, 1 yet so free and idiomatic as to be virtually an original work. But beyond this literary gift, Luther had another qualification in which he was unsurpassed no man of his age had penetrated more deeply into the real spirit of the Bible. A good translation requires not only a scholar and a master of words, but as he himself said, a "truly devout, faithful, diligent, Christian, learned, experienced and practiced heart." It is only to one who approaches the Scriptures with such a heart that they yield their inmost meaning; and no man who has not the aid of the indwelling Spirit of God can make an adequate version of the Scriptures, however great his acquirements as a scholar. With all his faults and imperfections, and they were many and serious, Luther had "the vision and the faculty divine" beyond most men of his time. He had no false pride, moreover, about himself and willingly recog- nized the superiority of certain of his friends in some things. He always bowed to the greater learning of Melanchthon, and gladly submitted his MS. to Philip's critical revision, before sending it to the printer. He consulted other friends and received help from them; Sturtz, at Erfurt, gave him information about the Scripture coins and measures and their German equivalents; while Spalatin, from the jewels in the Elector's treasury, was able to furnish a correct list of names for the precious stones of the New Jerusalem. 1 While this is true in the main, occasional characteristic exceptions are to be noted. Luther's methods of handling Scripture are illustrated by his insistence upon inserting allein in Rom. 3: 28, in spite of its absence from the original, and against the earnest remonstrances of Melanchthon. THE NEW LUTHER 173 It was, however, when he began work on the Old Testament that he found outside help of the greatest value, in fact, quite indispensable. Luther knew rather less of Hebrew than of Greek, and soon found him- self quite out of his depth in Job and the prophets. He organized a Bible Club (Collegium Biblicum) of which Bugenhagen, Cruciger and Justin Jonas were the principal members, after himself and Melanch- thon. They met once a week and together compared and revised their text. Sometimes they progressed at the rate of barely a line of text to a session, so exhaustively they did their work. Luther reserved to himself the final revision, in order to make sure that the version should be in one style of idiomatic German throughout, or, as he said, that he might "make the prophets speak German" (reden Deutsch). He took endless pains to make his Bible "understanded of the people," by using the words that they used in the home, the shops, on the street. As an ex- ample of the pains he took, it is recorded that while translating the book of Leviticus he went to the butchers' shops and got the names used by the trade for every part of the carcass of a sheep, in order that all the terminology of the Jewish sacrifices might be accurately and intelligibly rendered. We are anticipating the course of events, but it will be well to record just here the remaining facts about this version. The Old Testament version was completed and the entire Bible was published in 1534, and five other editions were prepared under Luther's supervision before his death. The last of these, appearing in 1545, is regarded as the final text. In consequence of the numerous unauthorized reprints, many errors crept into the text, and in process of time some intentional changes were made, so that a critical recension finally became necessary. This was accomplished about 1700 by the Canstein Bible Institute, and that edition became the textus receptus of the German Bible, until its recent revision by a committee of distinguished German scholars. This revision is now published at the Francke Orphanage, Halle, and is rap- idly superseding the original Luther Bible; but the German Bible will always remain, as to its substance, Luther's. Concerning the circulation of this version, definite facts are hard to obtain, because no statistics were kept or gathered. The number of re- prints was almost innumerable, and none but the printers knew the number of volumes sold. The authorized printer at Wittenberg sold in forty years (1534-1574) a hundred thousand copies. After the utmost allowance is made for the circulation of the Bible in Germany before Luther, it is certain that he was the means of increasing its readers tenfold. The Bible was so cheapened and multiplied by his efforts that every German family might have a copy if it would. The Roman 174 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Church was forced to emulate Luther, and versions made by its scholars were also issued, but they were not able to displace his work, which has survived with influence unimpaired to our day, while all its rivals went long since into complete oblivion. As to its effect on contemporaries, there can be no better evidence than the reluctant testimony of a Catholic opponent, Cochlseus: "Luther's New Testament was so much multi- plied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity, as the foundation of all truth. Some committed it to memory and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months, such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel, not only with Catholic laymen, but with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." x Luther had actually brought about that state of things in Germany which Tyndale vainly aspired to produce in Eng- land. "If God spares my life," said the English translator to an ignorant priest, "ere many years I will cause the boy who driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than you do." After a while the whole Bible was as free and open to the humblest child as to the clergy. In the long cycle, circumstances opened it, as circumstances had closed it. So long as the Church worked among old populations, Greek and Latin, in the Roman Empire, there were many outside the clergy who could read, and Chrysostom and others did no idle thing when they urged the people to study the Scriptures for them- selves. But when the new peoples came in, and churches were gathered among the barbarous tribes, among whom reading was an unknown art, the reading of the Bible was confined to the clergy alone. In time the feeling grew that what the clergy alone did, the clergy alone had a right to do. And so, the Bible, which had at first been closed to the people by circumstances came to be closed to them by law. 2 With the more general diffusion of light, and especially with the rise of the printing press, the conditions of popular learning came back again and brought again the Bible for the people. And Luther's teaching had prepared the people for the Bible. They had learned to look upon it as the one in- fallible authority in matters of religion an authority that each one could 1 De Actis et Scriptis, p. 55. Cochlseus complains of Luther's translation : Contra ucterem et probatam Ecclesiae lectionem, multa immutauit, multa decerpsit, multa addidit, et in alium sensum detorsit: multas adjecit in marginibus passim glossas erroneas atque cauillosas, et in prefationibus nihil malignitis omisit, ut in partes suas traheret lectorem. ib., p. 54. * For example, the synod of Toulouse, 1229, cap. xiv, decreed: Prohibemus etiam, ne libros veteris testamenti aut nom, laid permittantur habere. Mansi, 22: 196. Many similar rules were enacted by local synods, and, though no ecumenical council approved them, the practice of the Church generally was in accord with such canons. THE NEW LUTHER 175 consult for himself. In former times the question had been as to whether reason or faith should have precedence. In the new order there was room for both faith and reason; it was the office of faith humbly to accept the word of God, it was the office of reason to interpret that word. And this office of interpretation did not belong to the learned alone; the Scriptures address themselves to the common sense of men. In the ensuing controversies, the Lutherans were far more ready in quoting the Scriptures than the Catholics, and so they generally seemed to the bystanders to have the better in the argument; their credit went up and that of the Catholics went down. Even the most learned Cath- olic theologians, because they did not know the Scriptures, seemed to the multitude to know nothing. In other respects their studies had not fitted them for the present emergency. They had neglected the lan- guages and polite learning, and that at a time when learning was the rage. The Lutherans on the other hand, through the influence of Luther, Erasmus, Zwingli, Oekolampaduus, Melanchthon and others, had given full attention to such things. When the two parties came in conflict, the difference between them at once appeared. The Lutherans quoted Greek and Hebrew, to the confusion of their opponents and to the ad- miration of all who heard them. Their evident superiority in the use of the new and popular weapons made them bold and aggressive, using at times terms of contempt and making even learned men seem contempt- ible. In the enthusiasm of learning, and in the excitement of controversy, their powers were stimulated and their zeal quickened. The Catholics were everywhere on the defensive; they were without a leader, divided and hampered by the consciousness that in many things their party was in the wrong. The Lutherans had no misgivings; they were sure that they were in the right. They were kept together by their devotion to Luther and directed by his strong spirit. Him they regarded as the one true theologian; his adversaries they reviled as ignorant, enemies of the truth, and as hating him simply because he had cut off or dimin- ished their stipends. In all this we have the explanation of the rapid spread of Luther's doctrines. But while the printers were thus coining money from the sale of the German Bible, Luther himself never received one Pfennig of profit from it. He even declined a share of the profits when it was offered him, thus furnishing an unquestionable proof of his disinterestedness. It was a case where, like Paul at Corinth, he chose not to avail himself of an un- doubted right, in order that all might see that he sought the good of his countrymen, not his own advancement, in making this version. Nothing that Luther ever did better became him than this action, or showed to better advantage the essential nobility of his nature. Surely, 176 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY if we find in him great faults, he had also great virtues, for which the world does well to hold him in high honor. It should occasion no surprise that Luther and his colleagues devoted so much time and energy to this work of translating and circulating the Scriptures. In Luther's case, hi particular, it was the natural result of his personal experience, and was also a logical necessity of his position. From the day on which he had discovered a copy of the Latin Bible in the library at Erfurt, the study of the Book of books had been his favorite occupation. He provoked the criticisms of some of his fellows in the monastery by this devotion to the Bible. When he began to teach at Wittenberg, as soon as possible he made the exposition of the Scriptures his special theme, delighting above all things in lecturing on the Psalms and the epistle to the Galatians. He loved to call himself a "Doctor of the Scriptures." In any case, therefore, the giving of the Bible hi their native tongue to the German people would have been a most congenial work to him. But as he went on, particularly after he became involved in the con- troversy regarding indulgences, the Scriptures continually assumed greater importance hi his eyes. Experience led him, and his enemies drove him, step by step, until he had no recourse and no defense but the Scriptures; and at Leipzig, in debate with Eck, he definitely took his stand on the word of God as the final authority, superior to both Popes and councils. This position he had triumphantly maintained at Worms, and by so doing he had made the issue between the authority of Scrip- ture and the authority of the Church a plain one, that the common people could perfectly understand. But if they could understand, they could not verify. Few of them had the Scriptures, and the version that some of them had was archaic and difficult to comprehend. The more Luther and his supporters appealed to Scripture, the more needful it became that the plain people should have the Bible in their hands, hi a form that they could understand. The question of the success or failure of the Reformation had practically been referred by the Edict of Worms to the German people for decision. The placing of the German Bible hi their hands at this psychological moment brought them to decide for the Reformation and not against it. Of all that Luther ever did, this was the most effective thing in making the Reformation im- mediately successful, and in insuring its permanence. But while the leader was thus in seclusion at the Wartburg another work had been produced and published that was only less influential on the course of the Reformation than the writings of Luther himself. Melanchthon had been laboring on a brief, terse statement of the new evangelical doctrines. For this undertaking he was peculiarly adapted. THE NEW LUTHER 177 He had a more philosophical mind than Luther, who never became a theologian in any strict sense of that term, and always acknowledged his friend's superiority to himself as scholar and systematic thinker. If Luther could write with incomparable force in German, Melanchthon was unquestionably his master in latinity. The new work was sent in MS. to Luther at the Wartburg, and on being received back with well- deserved warmth of commendation, it was sent to press, and toward the close of 1521 appeared the Loci Communes Rerum Theologicarum. The little book grew out of Melanchthon's exegetical lectures during the year 1520 on the Epistle to the Romans. The notes on these lectures were taken down, gathered and published without his consent. What others had done in a fragmentary and unsatisfactory way made it neces- sary for him to do something better and more satisfactory. This is the origin of his famous Loci Communes, the first Lutheran theology. It was not a systematic treatise. He began by expressing a sort of contempt for the idle speculations of the scholastic theologians on the Trinity and the Incarnation. He would confine himself to practical matters: the. knowledge of what the law requires of us ; whence we can get the strength to keep the law; whence forgiveness of sin; how the soul may be strength- ened against the devil, the flesh and the world; how the troubled conscience may be calmed. In a word, writing at a time of fierce controversy he did not undertake to discuss questions on which all parties were agreed, but to explain and enforce the peculiar phases of doctrine taught at the university of Wittenberg. There were two distinguishing things about his method: In the first place he discarded the multitudinous divisions of the schoolmen his theology was not like the theology of Peter Lombard or Thomas Aquinas, or Duns Scotus, or any of the rest. In the second place he appealed to the Scriptures, literally and rationally interpreted, as his one sufficient authority. He rarely made quotations even from the older Fathers. It was the method of the new age, applied to religious discussions; and therefore the beginning of a new kind of theology. Melanchthon's book has been caUed an exposition of the theology of the University of Wittenberg. This is just what it was: the teaching of Luther, as Melanchthon understood it, explained in a calm, clear and forceful style, to which Luther was a stranger. Melanchthon must be regarded as even more of a theological prodigy than Calvin, for the latter was within two or three months of his twenty- seventh birthday when his "Institutes" were published, while the former lacked about two months of completing his twenty-fourth year when the Loci appeared. As was the case with Calvin later, the young Witten- berg professor leaped into European fame by this one publication. Known before this to scholars, he now became known to everybody who read 178 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY the current literature of the age, for the book was not made for learned divines and great scholars alone, but for all intelligent and thoughtful people. The parallel with Calvin goes further: Melanchthon labored with loving care on his little treatise and published repeated editions of it through a long life, until he had greatly enlarged it, removed all its early crudities and made of it an almost perfect compendium of Lutheran doctrine. As such it was a theological text-book for many generations, taking the place in the Protestant Church that had so long been held by the "Sentences" of Peter Lombard in Catholic lecture- rooms. 1 The Loci were translated into many languages and circulated through- out Europe, finding equal favor among learned and unlearned, but being especially effective in winning the adhesion of the scholarly class to the Reformation. To harmonize historic continuity with the puri- fication of religion and national self-dependence was Luther's problem; to reconcile Protestantism and Humanism, evangelical religion and classical learning was the task of Melanchthon in him the humanist was never lost in the theologian. No man could reach the heart of the common people like Luther, but no man in Germany was listened to with so much respect by the learned as Melanchthon. Without him as a coadjutor, Luther would have been shorn of half his strength. The gifts of the two men fitted them admirably to complement each other. Luther was a man of tre- mendous force, but impulsive, rough, often unwise; Melanchthon's mildness, caution and charity supplied a much-needed corrective. On the other hand, Melanchthon's timidity and irresolution, and his in- grained tendency to compromise, would sometimes have led to disaster had they not been fortunately overruled by the promptness and au- dacity of Luther. The Reformation had need of the scholars no less than of the plain people, and that it won both was due to the fact that Luther and Melanchthon were coworkers so long and so heartily. With- out the scholar's pen to supplement the reformer's voice, the Reforma- tion might have failed. Luther well knew Melanchthon's value and was conscious of his friend's superiority in many ways. Whatever his faults, petty jealousy was not a weakness of the great leader, and he bore witness often to his friend's excellences of mind and heart. He urged the publication of Melanch- thon's lectures on the Epistle to the Colossians, and wrote a preface for them in which he said: "I have been born to war and fight with factions 1 Luther thought it next to Holy Scripture, and that it even deserved a place in the Canon. CR, 21: 77. Cochlseus called it "a new Alcoran," as much more hurtful than Luther's "Babylonian Captivity" as Melanchthon's style was sweeter, his genius nobler and his skill greater than Luther's. THE NEW LUTHER 179 and devils, and therefore my books are stormy and warlike. I must root out the stumps and stocks, cut away the thorns and hedges, fill up the ditches, and am the rough forester, to break a path and make things ready. But master Philip walks gently and silently, tills and plants, sows and waters with pleasure, as God has gifted him richly." A better piece of self-criticism and of generous appreciation of a fellow was never penned. But a result even more important than the translation of the New Tes- tament came from this residence at the Wartburg. This enforced retire- ment gave opportunity for Luther's work to go on without him, and for new developments to occur. It occasioned a great change in him, a change in the whole movement, and a change in his relations to it; and all these changes were of the most serious and lasting character. This Wartburg " captivity" as it is called, often thought of as an incident of no great importance in Luther's .life, was really a turning-point of the Reformation. It gave room for the expansion and new adjustment of things. Above all, it gave Luther time and seclusion in which to develop more fully his own ideas. Hitherto he had been borne along by events; henceforth he must direct events. He must decide upon a policy, instead of being a mere opportunist, for it was clear to him by this time that if he lived it must be to become the leader of a great move- ment. It was a new Luther that returned from the Wartburg to Witten- berg. Luther had begun his work as reformer with no training in public affairs, and he had no such native talent for politics as Zwingli possessed to make good his lack of experience. He had lived hi the cloister and among books, and his studies had been theological. His life had made him as unfitted for practical organization as it had admirably prepared him to be the spiritual guide of men. He lacked elementary knowledge of secular life, and so could have no insight into the needs of the German people, still less could he comprehend the weakness of the Empire and the necessity of political reconstruction. As the shrewdest and most experienced men of his generation did not appreciate the economic and social changes that were going on, we should not regard Luther's lack of vision as a fault; still, we must bear in mind that all this was hidden from him. But, like most men of little experience hi affairs, Luther's confidence in his political wisdom was always in inverse ratio to his knowledge; he was ever ready to give advice as to how the great affairs should be conducted, and equally ready with his blame when his advice was not heeded. At the Wartburg he began that course of interference with political administration and ecclesiastical organization which make his later years as a reformer so different from his earlier, and in the end 180 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY led him to the practical denial of nearly every principle that he had affirmed. The seminal idea of the Reformation, as an organized movement, is found in Luther's "Address to the Christian Nobility." In this, it will be remembered, he had strenuously maintained that all Christians are priests, and that the ecclesiastical power cannot therefore claim a su- periority over the temporal. He had called on the princes and rulers to undertake necessary reforms, and especially to prevent the further robbery of their people by the Pope, through annates and other exactions. But the principle is only suggested, not fully stated, still less worked out. That Luther was to do gradually, in the light of events. He had now progressed a stage further in his thinking; his own protection by Elector Frederick against the combined power of Pope and Emperor, made still clearer to him the method by which a reformation might be had the only method, he thought, by which reformation should be attempted* While at the Wartburg he thought out and prepared for the press a sup- plement to the "Address," which he entitled, "Warning to all Christians to Abstain from Rebellion and Sedition." His object is to maintain the principle, to which he had now come and from which he never thereafter departed, that the civil rulers had both the right and the duty to under- take the reformation of the Church, and that any other method was impracticable and dangerous. "I leave the secular authorities and no- bility to undertake the matter," he says, "since it is within the scope of their regular authority to do this, each prince and lord in his own domain." That which comes within the scope of regular authority cannot be stig- matized as rebellion. But, he complains, the princes will not perform their duty "they let it all go, one hinders another." Nevertheless, until they are ready to move, "it is the duty of the common man to quiet his mind and to say that he will abstain from desire and word, turn away from rebellion, and not undertake the matter without command of the ruler or assistance of the government." That there may be no mistaking his meaning, Luther says this again and again, with little change of words : "Therefore have regard to the rulers. So long as they undertake nothing and give no command, keep quiet with hand, mouth and heart, and under- take nothing. If you can persuade rulers to undertake and command, you may do it. If they will not, you also should not. But if you proceed, you are wrong and much worse than the other party." He makes it clear why he takes this position and gives this counsel: to do otherwise would in the end cause greater evils than those it was sought to abolish. "I hold and will always hold with the party that shuns rebellion, however much injustice it must suffer, and against that party that rebels, however just its cause. Because,there can be no rebellion without the shedding THE NEW LUTHER 181 of innocent blood and shame." This advice, after his usual manner, Luther proceeds to support by citation of numerous passages of Scripture. 1 This tract bears date January 19, 1522, which is probably the date when it was finished and sent to Wittenberg; doubtless it was not printed until some months later. Why should Luther have interrupted his labors at the Wartburg, and especially his translation of the New Testament, on which he was now busily engaged, by the composition of such a tract? No doubt this is only the normal development of his views, but even if we knew nothing of the facts we should suspect that such development had been stimulated by events in the outside world, news of which had been brought to Luther by his correspondents. Such we know to have been the fact. While he was living in quiet on his Patmos, im- portant things were doing in Wittenberg. Even with Luther away, Wittenberg with its growing aggressive uni- versity was the center, the heart, of the Reformation. New thoughts had been put into men's minds; new aspirations, new purposes had come into their hearts. The leaven must work. A town, especially a great school of learning, gets to itself a character; hardly less than a man it has a soul, a will, a purpose. Luther was absent, but the spirit that he had called up was still at Wittenberg and could not be idle. He had long preached against the mass and gone on celebrating it. Another, and a less conservative teacher, must begin the embodiment of the new teach- ing. The new leader was Gabriel Zwilling, chaplain of the Augustinian convent, a bold, zealous, eloquent man, who at first had the full con- fidence of the peopje. Melanchthon said of him (Dec. 27, 1521), "He preaches so purely, so simply, that it would be hard to find anybody to compare with him." This Gabriel came to new thoughts about the mass; that it ought to be abolished, that it was a sin to celebrate it. The members of the convent, the prior excepted, agreed with him. The prior asserted his authority, the monks rebelled; the Elector inter- fered and referred the case to the university. The university decided in favor of Gabriel and the monks, Melanchthon writing the opinion. 2 The Elector, however, opposed innovations and the mass continued for a time. This was in October, 1521. The zealous Gabriel, balked in one thing, turned to another. This i LDS, 22: 43 seq. 8 It is signed also by Jonas, Carlstadt, Schurf and Amsdorf . See the collection of documents, including the reply of the Elector, in Walch, 15: 1948 seq. The admirers of Luther have represented Carlstadt as introducing these changes because of his restless spirit and his ambition for leadership. But these documents show clearly that if he took the lead, six other professors fully sustained him; and he acted with the full authority of the town council of Wittenberg. It is indis- putable, however, that the changes were very distasteful to the Elector; and though he did not actively interfere, he did what he could to restrain the haste of the Wittenbergers to make innovations. 182 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY time his attack was on monachism itself, and as the result of his preaching thirteen monks left the monastery. It was the first fruits of the Refor- mation; the spirit of reform was fast changing into the spirit of revolu- tion. The obstinate (or brave) prior was overawed by the turbulent feeling. Students entered the chapel December 3d, and expelled the priests who were preparing to read mass. No one knew what they would do next, and disturbing rumors were circulated. The university authorities had the offending students arrested, but nothing could stop the in- coming wave. Carlstadt now took the lead. "What madness," he said, "to think that we must leave the Reformation to God alone. A new order of things is beginning. The hand of man must interfere." He announced that on the first day of the new year he would celebrate the Lord's Supper after the ancient manner and in both kinds. When opposition threatened he anticipated the time and held the service on Christmas Day. A beginning was made; opposition was silenced and Carlstadt had his way. On New Year's Day and the following Sunday and thereafter the new (or old) rite was celebrated in Witten- berg. One of the Elector's counsellors accused Carlstadt of self-seeking; he replied: "Mighty Lord, there is no form of death that can make me withdraw from Scripture. The word has come upon me with such promptitude that woe is me if I preach it not." Priests were marrying, monks were leaving their monasteries, the mass was giving place to the Lord's Supper, images were condemned and thrust out of the churches. Things were going too fast for the Elector, too fast for Luther. In his quiet retreat at the Wartburg he wrote against the mass and against monkish vows, but how great a step there is between condemning old customs in our hearts and changing them with our hands between the thought and the act! Luther did not like what had been done. He said: "They have introduced changes in the mass and images, attacked the sacrament and other things that are of no account, and have let faith and love go; just as though all the world hereabout had great understanding in these matters, which is not the fact; and so they have brought it about that many pious people have been stirred up to do what is really the devil's work. It would, indeed, be a good thing to begin such changes, if we could all together have the needful faith; and if they suited the church in such measure that no. one should take offense at them. But this can never be. We cannot all be learned as Carlstadt. Therefore we must yield to the weak; otherwise those who are strong will run far, and the weak who cannot follow them at like pace will be run down." l This he said in a letter 1 De Wette, 2: 118. It is difficult to understand how Luther persuaded himself that he had any ground of complaint; Carlstadt and others were only doing what THE NEW LUTHER 183 to the Wittenbergers in December, 1521. It was not by him, but by men of a different type, that this practical work was to be begun. There was need of Zwilling and Carlstadt. It was one of those occasions when fanatics do a real service for mankind. Strong in their own convictions, seeing only one thing, reckless of all consequences, they are brave where wise men stand appalled. With no misgiving they kindle a fire that may wrap the world in flame. But for what they did at Wittenberg, Luther's preaching and writing might have ended hi preaching and writing. Something was to be done, and they did it! But fanatics, sometimes useful in precipitating a conflict, are useless and dangerous in everything else. They can raise a storm, some one else must direct it; they may pull down, others must build up. At Witten- berg extravagance soon reached an alarming height the native fanat- icism was reinforced by fanaticism from abroad. There came from Zwickau three men who claimed to be prophets, 1 and turned the heads of many. They greatly puzzled Melanchthon, who wrote to the Elector: "Your highness knows how many and what dangerous dissensions have been stirred up at Zwickau about the word of God. And some there who have made what changes I know not have been cast into prison. Three of the authors of these commotions have fled thither, two weavers, uneducated men, the third a scholar. I have heard them. They say wonderful things of themselves: that they have been commissioned to teach by a clear voice from God; that they hold familiar converse with God; that they see into the future; briefly, that they are prophetic and apostolic men. I can hardly say how much they affect me. Many considerations make me unwilling to despise them. It is evident from many reasons that there are spirits in them, but no one save Martin can judge of them." He thought the Gospel was in danger, and wished the Elector to bring it about that Luther should see the prophets. This letter was written December 27th, and the same day Melanchthon wrote to Spalatin a letter of similar import, only emphasizing his anxiety. 2 The prophets denounced the Church as then existing; taught the in- validity of infant baptism; that nothing had been rightly carried on hi the Church, because it was under the control of evil men; that God had determined to destroy the generation then living and raise up another he had clearly taught in his "Misuse of the Mass," and avowed his own intention of doing in a letter to Melanchthon the preceding August 1st. He had distinctly avowed his purpose to seek the restoration of the eucharist in both kinds, and declared that he will never again celebrate a private mass. De Wette, 2: 36. 1 These prophets, not known except for a short time, were Nicolas Storch and Marcus Thomae, the weavers, and Marcus Stiibner, the scholar. Some say there were not two by the name of Marcus, but one Marcus Thomae Stiibner not a very important matter. Gieseler, 4: 62; Schaff, 6: 380. 2 CR, 1: 513; ci. 518, 533. The letter is given in full in Richard's "Philip Me- lanchthon," pp. 86, 87. 184 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY endued with righteousness. They boasted that they had the gift of foreknowledge and of judging secret things. 1 Sometimes revelations came to them in dreams, sometimes, rarely, in open vision. No one was to give himself to art or to literature, or study to learn; he was only to seek revelation from God, who had no need of human help. All these things are very like what was taught by the Taborites, the fanatical wing of the Husites, a hundred years before. From the sim- ilarity of doctrines some have supposed that the men from Zwickau descended from the Taborites, but of this there is no direct proof. In proc- ess of time the Taborites lost most of their extravagances, and became a quiet, uninteresting people; and besides, the spontaneous uprising of such parties was no new thing in the history of the Church. Given the same general conditions, the same general phases of doctrine appear. Few things have stood more in the way of a clear understanding of the history of the Church than the supposition that all similar phenomena must be linked together by an unbroken chain of succession. Men hold Arian views who never heard of Arius. There are ecstatic prophets who did not descend from the Montanists. If we must have an ex- planation of the rise of the Zwickau prophets, we need not look further than the unrest of the times, the rejection of all ecclesiastical develop- ments, and the attempt with the New Testament alone for a guide to organize a new primitive Christianity. Such attempts have invariably been attended by extravagances, which however are usually corrected by experience. Happy would it be if the truth that extravagant parties almost always hold should not be obscured and discredited by the folly that they mix with it! The effect produced by the preaching of the new prophets was just such as might have been expected. The people, having lost their hold on the old, were ready to take up with anything that came with a plausible face. Even the most prudent were afraid to condemn anything that might have truth in it, and especially were they unwilling to reject anything that seemed to be taught in Scripture. 2 It was hard to draw the line between that which was local and temporary in the early Church 1 Stiibner said, "Martin is right on most points, but not on all. Another will come after him with a better spirit. The Turks shall soon take possession of Germany. All priests shall be slain if they now take wives. In a short time, about five, six or seven years, there shall be such a change in the world that no ungodly or sinful men shall remain alive. Then there shall be one way, one bap- tism, one faith. The baptism of infants, as now administered, before they have reason, is no baptism." Gieseler, 4: 62. 2 Spalatin, who was present at the Elector's council when this matter was con- sidered, relates that Frederick said: "This is a most weighty and difficult affair, which I as a layman do not profess to understand. God has given to me and my brother considerable wealth, but if I could obtain a right understanding of this matter, I declare that I would rather take my staff in my hand and quit everything I possess, than knowingly resist the will of God." Walch, 15: 1978. THE NEW LUTHER 185 and that which was permanent and universal. It was harder still to mark the limits of promise or prophecy. The new prophets seemed to have some support for their views in the New Testament at least, it was difficult to show that they did not. They won many over to their party. The danger was so great that the Elector advised Amsdorf and Melanch- thon not to mix with the people. Carlstadt went entirely over. He and Zwilling and George More, masters of the boys' school, ruined that school, and the university itself was threatened. They decried all human learning. Carlstadt went about asking the citizens to interpret passages from the prophets for him the deep things were hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed unto babes! Learned men were not to be allowed to preach or to be priests; laymen and mechanics who could read were to become the teachers of the people. Of course this flood would subside, but who could resist its force or repair the damage of it? Luther had been kept informed of what was going on at Wittenberg, and could not but be anxious as to the outcome of it all. In December (1521) he made a secret visit to his friends, strengthened them and re- turned to the Wartburg, himself somewhat reassured. It was after his visit that the prophets appeared, and he did not approve Melanchthqn's doubt and timidity in dealing with them. He thought his friend ought not to have listened to them. They had done nothing and said nothing that might not have been inspired by Satan. He did not deny them prophetic gift and power. 1 Melanchthon had been troubled about infant baptism; he thought it a real question whether infants ought to be baptized; Augustine and others had disputed much about it and had not made the matter clear. The chief difficulty was whether the faith of parents would suffice for their children. The prophets said, No; and Luther himself had taught that there was no valid approach to the sacraments without faith. But now, in strengthening Melanchthon, he reaffirmed the old Augustinian doctrine that the faith of sponsors * Luther to Melanchthon, June 13, 1522: "In regard to these prophets I cannot approve of your timidity, though you are my superior both in capacity and eru- dition. In the first place, when they bear record of themselves they ought not to be implicitly believed, but their spirits should be tried, as John admonishes. You know Gamaliel's advice, but I have heard of nothing said or done by them which Satan himself could not imitate. I would have you examine whether they can produce a proof of their commission, for God never sent anyone, not even his own Son, who was not either properly called to the office, or authorized by miracles. The ancient prophets were legally appointed; and their mere assertion of being called by a divine revelation is not sufficient warrant for receiving them, since God did not even speak to Samuel but with the authority of Eli. So much for their public character. You should also examine their private spirit, whether they have experienced spiritual distresses and conflicts with death and hell, and the power of regeneration. If you hear smooth, tranquil, and what they call devout and religious raptures, though they speak of being caught up to the third heavens, do not regard them while the sign of the Son of Man is wanting, the cross, the only touchstone of Christians, and the sure discerner of spirits." De Wette, 2: 124; Michelet, 114. 186 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY suffices for infants in baptism. He wrote to Spalatin not to let the Elector persecute the fanatics. As the trouble grew, especially when Carlstadt began to make changes, when the old order began to be broken up, and violence and tumult seemed about to sweep everything away, he could no longer remain in seclusion. He must come forth and re- store order. Accordingly he left the Wartburg March 1st, without con- sulting the Elector, and on the 7th of the same month he was again in Wittenberg. 1 His first business was to allay the passion for change. This he was to do, not by force of law, but by argument, by instruction, but still more by the commanding influence of his own strong spirit. The agency he employed was preaching. For eight days, beginning with the 8th and ending with the 16th of March, he preached to the people, re- buked, exhorted, persuaded them to observe moderation. It had been nearly a year since he had left them to go to Worms. Their hearts went with him there. His . conduct before the Diet had stimulated their admiration, their love, their pride; his condemnation had excited their fear and increased their devotion; for a time uncertainty as to his fate had caused them the profoundest anxiety. The trouble and confusion of the last few months, the feeling that they knew not whither to go and that they had no one to guide them, made them think of him and wish for him as shipwrecked sailors wish for the day. And he had come ! He was with them, he was speaking to them. Never did a preacher have a greater need to speak wisely, or a people to hear honestly. And Luther preached wisely. He did not blame them for what they did, but they had done it at the wrong time and in the wrong way. They had had faith, it may be, but they had not had charity. The word of God must be permitted to do its work without the help of man. Violence was not needed. He himself had used nothing but the word of God against the Pope, and yet no one for years had done the Pope so much harm. 2 Luther also proclaimed in public for the first time the new idea of reformation that he had worked out at the Wartburg. The people of Wittenberg had done wrong to begin this work without the authority of their prince. Obedience was due to the government, and they must wait patiently until it was ready to begin the work of reform. Rebellion 1 He wrote a letter at Borna, on the way to Wittenberg, March 5th, disclaiming further protection by the Elector. De Wette, 2: 137, Currie, 98. It is a char- acteristic blunder of Froude's that he should say, "The Elector of Saxony re- called him from Wartburg (sic), as he was no longer in personal danger, to take command in reorganizing the Church." "Life and Letters of Erasmus," 313. * The eight sermons are in LDS, 28: 202 seq., and Walch, 20: 5 seq. A summary of the first five is given in Walch, 15: 1979. For Carlstadt's excuse of his conduct, see LDS, 64: 404, 408. THE NEW LUTHER 187 was one of the greatest sins of which Christian men could be guilty. They must retrace their steps; the things that had been changed must be changed back again. The mass, some few things omitted, was restored. Luther returned to the monastery and continued to be a monk. But those who chose to celebrate the Lord's Supper after Carlstadt's manner were to be permitted to do so. Even Luther could not undo all that had been done; overt acts had been committed, the power of custom had been broken, a beginning had been made. The work of Carlstadt was to remain and grow. Those who celebrated the Supper in both kinds multiplied; those who had cast off then* monastic vows did not take them up again; and others followed their example. Images, broken or unbroken, continued to disappear from the churches. The fanatics had begun the work that Luther only preached about, and it could not be stopped. The Luther that returned was not the Luther that had left Wittenberg. He was not the same in himself or in his relations to the movement of which he had been and still was the principal instigator. At Worms he was still in a sense a private person; no one was pledged to him and it was still uncertain whether his condemnation and death would not end the whole business. But he had been condemned and nothing came of it. When the first dazed feeling was over, men realized as they had not before realized that a great conflict had begun and that Luther was the leader of one party the party of reform, the party of liberty. And no one felt this more keenly than Luther himself. The persuasion had been long growing in him that he was a divinely chosen instrument. He felt it when he burned the Pope's bull; he felt it at Worms; he felt it even more at the Wartburg. That was a very noteworthy letter of his to the Archbishop of Mainz. He had heard that indulgences were to be sold at Halle by the Archbishop's authority, and he wrote a book against it that the Elector Frederick would not permit him to publish. Thereupon he wrote to the Archbishop, December 1st: Your Electoral Grace: they have now set up again the idol in Halle, which takes away from poor simple Christians their money and their souls. Your Electoral Grace perhaps thinks that I have given up my plans . . . and that my mouth has been shut by his Imperial Majesty. Your Electoral Grace will be mindful of the beginning, what a terrible fire has grown out of the small despised spark, when all the world was so sure about it, and thought that the poor beggar was immeasurably too small for the Pope, and under- took impossibilities. But God has taken up this cause; he has given the Pope and his followers enough to do; against and above all the thought of the world he has carried the matter to a point from which the Pope will hardly be able to bring it back; it will grow worse with him daily, so that the work of God herein may be more clearly 188 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY recognized. The same God lives still; let no one doubt it now; and he has the same skill to withstand a cardinal of Mainz, though four Emperors were to stand by him. He has also especial pleasure in breaking the lofty cedars, and abasing the haughty hardened Pha- raohs. But let not your Electoral Grace think that Luther is dead; he will glory freely and joyously in the God who has humbled the Pope, and begin a game with the Cardinal of Mainz that he did not expect. He demanded that the Archbishop should abolish the idol and let the married priests alone. He would wait fourteen days for a plain answer: if the answer did not come in that time the attack would be made. The Archbishop's letter in reply, dated December 21st, is not less remarkable than Luther's. He had received the letter, he said, and took it in good part, and the cause that moved Luther to write had been done away. He continues: "I will conduct and show myself, if God will, as becomes a pious Christian prince, so far as God shall give me grace, strength and understanding; for which I pray truly and will have prayer offered for me. I can do nothing of my own self and confess that I stand in need of the grace of God. I cannot deny that I am a poor sinful man, who may sin and err, and do daily sin and err." The Archbishop and the monk seem to have strangely changed places: it is the poor monk who threatens and commands, and the proud Lord who humbly obeys. 1 When Luther at this time dealt with the Elector Frederick there was the same reversal of positions, except that Frederick was not quite so compliant. The Elector did not approve the attack on the Archbishop; he was afraid that the book might endanger the public peace; he did not wish it published, and directed Spalatin so to inform Luther. Luther was furious. He had never read a more disagreeable letter in his life. " I will not put up with it," he declared; "I will rather lose you and the prince himself and every living being. If I have stood up against the Pope, why should I yield to his creature?" 2 When we remember who Luther was, and who the Elector was, and how they were related to each other that Luther at that moment was under the ban and owed his life to the Elector's care for him his language seems at least extraordinary. He had reached a point where he was no longer willing to be controlled and where he felt no need of human protection. When he thought of returning to Wittenberg the Elector was unwilling for him to do so his return would force his prince either to give him up or to banish him, or to protect him in defiance of the imperial edict. The Elector had therefore a right to be consulted as a friend, as well as obeyed as a prince. 1 Both letters are given in full in Michelet, 104-107. Originals in Walch, 19: 548-553; Luther's letter only in De Wette, 2: 112. 2 De Wette, 2: 94. THE NEW LUTHER 189 But Luther broke through all restraint; the need was imperative and he must go. He wrote to the Elector on the way: "This I know full well about myself: if matters stood so at Leipzig as at Wittenberg, I would ride thither, though for nine days it should rain only Duke Georges, and each one were ninefold more furious than this one." He did not wish the Elector to protect him: "I go to Wittenberg under far higher protection than that of the Elector. I have no intention of demanding protection from your Electoral Grace. Yea, I take it that I have more power to protect your Electoral Grace than you to protect me." On his way to Wittenberg, he stopped at the Black Boar tavern at Jena, where the room in which he ate and drank is still shown to visitors. There a young Swiss, John Kessler by name, saw him. Kessler was going on to Wittenberg ahead of him, and Luther charged him with a message to his friend Schurf. "What name shall I give?" asked Kessler. " Simply tell him," Luther replied, " ' He that is to come salutes you,' " ap- propriating to himself that descriptive phrase which had been used only of Christ. 1 It is difficult to interpret these things, unless on the hypothesis that Luther was laboring under an undue exaltation of spirit, a kind of in- toxication of faith. It is only thus that we can acquit him of ingratitude, arrogance, and presumption akin to blasphemy. If he had been all the time at Wittenberg, there is no knowing how far he would have been borne along by the influences that led some of his friends into such extravagances as they committed. Possibly he might have gone with the foremost, or at least not have known what to do. But at the Wart- burg he was out of the current, his advance was more natural, and the Wittenbergers outstripped him. The consequence was that he was put in an attitude first of resistance, then of opposition. He saw the effects of radicalism from afar, and when feeling but little the impulses by which the radicals were urged on. He was already by nature a conserva- tive, quick to see wrong principles, but slow to change old customs. He became more conservative; he saw more clearly the necessity of moving cautiously. This conservatism of the acknowledged leader of the movement was the condition of success. Had he been led astray by false enthusiasm it is certain that the whole affair would have ended in failure. But making changes slowly, as men were able to bear them, accepting what had already been done in the right direction, and look- ing to other and more important changes, he kept the confidence and sympathy of the great body of his sober and earnest-hearted followers, and won others to his cause. It was of great service to him and the 1 For a pleasing account of Luther's personality during this period, see the story of Kessler, Sabbata, 1: 145-151; tr. in Bib. Sac. for Jan- '99: 114-119- also in " Schonberg-Cotta Family," ch. 18. 190 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Reformation that he was far away from Wittenberg for a time, free from misleading influences, and not compelled to act at the crisis of change. What he did when he returned shows how necessary he was to the work he had begun. He did what he alone could do. Partly by his wise preaching, partly by the influence of his commanding per- sonality and peculiar position, he restored order. The radical leaders felt and yielded to his power. "Gabriel is changed into another man," Luther wrote; Carlstadt was overawed, and the prophets left the city the threatened danger was averted. Melanchthon thought Luther alone capable of judging the prophets, and Luther had an opportunity to judge of them. After a time they returned to Wittenberg, and he saw three of them. He calmly listened to Stiibner as he told his story. When he had finished, Luther saw that what he had said could not be refuted: reason and argument had nothing to do with the case. He replied, that these were either the vaporings of an excited imagination, or the wild hurtful suggestions of a deceiving, lying spirit. Thereupon, Cellarius, greatly excited, stamping with his feet and striking the table with his hands, and generally with violent gesticulation, cried out that Luther had dared to say such things of a divine man. Stiibner, more self-contained, said, "Luther, that you may know that I am indued with the Spirit of God, I will tell ypu the thought that is in your mind: you are half inclined to believe that my doctrine is true." Luther hastily exclaimed, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" The prophet had exactly divined his thought, as he afterwards confessed, but without convincing him that the divination was the result of inspiration, unless it was the inspiration of the Evil One. Having no more to say, Luther dismissed them, and they went out threatening and glorying. Afterwards they sent him a letter full of execrations and cursings. He was puzzled. It was easy for him to believe that the prophets were under the influence of a supernatural Power; he evidently did believe so much. The only real question in his mind was as to the nature of the Power, was it good or evil? This was after he had had time to think the matter over and fortify himself against surprises; what would he have done if he had been in Melanchthon's place, suddenly facing a new difficulty, trying pretended spirits? Possibly he would have done just as he did later, but it is well that he was not put to the test. Rid of the prophets, it was a more delicate thing to deal with Carl- stadt, so long his colleague in the university and one of his earliest helpers. The little, dark, restless, ambitious, excitable man had been in a very trying position. Luther, coming later to the university, the younger man, had not so much overshadowed him as thrust him aside. He had been first, or at least the equal of any. Now Luther was first, even the THE NEW LUTHER 191 young Melanchthon was before him. Accustomed to lead, he could not contentedly follow. He looked critically upon what Luther did and taught, blamed his hesitation, ridiculed the notion that doing nothing themselves they ought to wait for God to act. He took advantage of Lu- ther's absence to assert himself and again take the lead. In his position of acknowledged preeminence, Luther could afford to be generous, to sympathize with Carlstadt's feelings and to deal tenderly with him. In -censuring what he had done, Luther did not mention his name, but could not help wounding him. He wrote (March 30th) : " I have offended Carlstadt by annulling his ordinances, although I do not condemn his doctrine, except that he has busied himself hi merely external things, to the neglect of true Christian doctrine, that is, faith and charity. For by his unwise way of teaching he has led the people to feel that the only thing they have to do to be Christians is to communicate in both kinds, take the bread and cup in their hands, neglect confession and break images." Carlstadt could not well remain hi Wittenberg. He stayed a little time and then withdrew to a village near by, bought a farm, became a peasant among peasants. However, he soon tired of his farmer life and took up again his teaching at the university; but he was hopelessly out of sympathy with the work there, and again left, this time to become pastor at Orlamund, where he carried on his schemes of reform. There he also taught his new theory of the Lord's Supper, that the body of Christ is not literally present in the bread. In this he anticipated Zwingli and thus early began one of the many divergent lines of Protestantism. He also became, but not consistently, an opponent of infant baptism, which has led some to class him with the Anabaptists. Luther was much offended at these new innovations and teachings. 1 He followed Carlstadt to his new home and preached against him. Carlstadt offered to hold a public disputation on the questions about which they disagreed, at Wittenberg or Erfurt, and Luther consented, but nothing ever came of the agreement. At Orlamund Luther in- formed the people that neither the university nor the Elector would consent to their having Carlstadt as their pastor. The people replied that he was their pastor, that they had chosen him, and that according to Luther's own teaching a people had the right to choose their own pastor. When Carlstadt came into the room where the conference was 1 Luther says of him, in a report to Caspar Giittel, prior of the Augustinians at Eialeben, March 30, 1522, "His ambition is to set up as a new doctor on his own account, and to establish his rule and system on the ruin of my authority." This shows exactly where the shoe pinched Luther. In the light of that statement, no one can doubt that jealousy of Carlstadt actuated his entire conduct toward his older colleague, from the time of his return to Wittenberg. De Wefcte, 2: 177; Walch, 15: 2016. Cf. Tischreden, No. 283. 192 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY held, Luther ordered him to leave; Carlstadt refusing, he ordered his servant to make ready his luggage and he would leave himself he would not stay in the same room with Carlstadt. The behavior of the two men was hi striking contrast: Carlstadt was courteous, he did not forget himself or the occasion; as he was at home he insisted on enter- taining Luther, but the latter refused the invitation promptly and ab- ruptly. Luther's whole conduct was so overbearing and insulting that he aroused the indignation of the people, and he was finally glad to get out of the town without being stoned. 1 In a little while the order came for the banishment of Carlstadt and he was forced to leave a flock ten- derly attached to him. He wrote a farewell address to the people, signed tl Andrew Bodenstein, expelled by Luther, unheard and unconvicted." When the address was read the people heard it weeping. Banished from Orlamund and from Saxony, and without means of support, the unfortunate man suffered much from anxiety and much from want. 2 One of the first reformers, he was the first to feel the bitterness, not of papal, but of Lutheran intolerance. At last, in 1531, he found a home among the Swiss, and ten years more of useful life in the university of Basel. When he broke with Luther, or when Luther threw him over, he ceased to be a directing force in the new movement, and became of little historic interest. He could no longer be useful at Wittenberg; his presence there would have occasioned division, and divi- sion would have ruined all. We sympathize with his sufferings, we are indignant at Luther for his intolerant persecution of the man who had dared to differ from him, as he had himself dared to differ from the Pope, and yet we can hardly see how the result could have been otherwise. It was one of those cases where the innocent must suffer for the high crime and misdemeanor of being in advance of his contemporaries; the truth must wait; the time was not ripe. One who saw Carlstadt in his disputation with Eck at Leipzig said of him that he had the same qualities that were found in Luther, only less. He was a learned, candid, un- selfish, brave man, and an enthusiast for the new light. At the time of his death in 1541, he was professor of theology at Basel. 3 1 For the account of Luther's interview with Carlstadt, see Walch, 15: 2029 and 2039. Luther afterwards caused the reporter, Martin Reinhard, to be turned out of his living at Jena, on the ground that the record was too favorable to Carl- stadt. See also Luther to Spalatin, October 30th; Walch, 15: 2626. 2 In 1525 Carlstadt was badly off. June 26th of that year Melanchthon wrote: "Carlstadt has written here pleading letters. It will be our business lovingly to help him. His wife, I suppose, will come to the city to-morrow, for we invited her yesterday, and we will strive with the greatest faith and diligence that she may not want for anything." CR, 1: 751. 3 Barge's very thorough and scholarly biography (Andreas Bodenstein non Carl- stadt, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1905) vindicates his character from the aspersions of Luther and the Lutherans, and shows him in his true light as the most logical and scrip- tural of the Wittenberg group. THE NEW LUTHER 193 In these first weeks at Wittenberg after his return, we see Luther at his best and at his worst. His eloquence, his zeal, his capacity for leadership, were never more clearly in evidence. There was none that could match him "in sovereign sway and masterdom." But what has become of the diffident monk, who consented to leave the shelter of the cloister only at the imperious command of his general; who was so bur- dened by the sense of his ignorance that he declared himself unworthy to be a doctor of theology; who was so conscious of his spiritual weakness that he thought he could not live a year as the religious guide of the people of Wittenberg? He has utterly disappeared, and his place has been taken by a man of overweening self-sufficiency, arrogant, intolerant of advice, opposition or rivalry, a born leader of men it is true, but also quite determined henceforth to lead. He has tasted of the sweets of power, and increase of appetite had grown By what it fed on. He has drunk the new wine of popular applause, and the heady bev- erage has intoxicated, him, and given him an insatiable craving for still deeper draughts. A new Luther indeed! CHAPTER II A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GKIEVANCE LUTHER'S exigencies, in his contention with the Pope, had forced him into an apparent radicalism that was not the real voice of his nature, and could not be his permanent course. He had uttered sweeping opin- ions in favor of freedom of conscience, liberty of private judgment, the sole authority of Scripture, and the priesthood of all believers opinions that contained logical implications of which he was at the time uncon- scious, and that he rejected as soon as others, more logical than he, attempted to realize them. He was by temperament a conservative, and after he had finally broken with the Papacy and become the head of an openly schismatic party, his native conservatism at once began to assert itself. His policy at Wittenberg after his return expresses the real Luther better than much of his earlier writing. Elector Frederick had strongly opposed the return of Luther, and feared that he might be much embarrassed by this reappearance and re- newed activity. But he might have spared himself considerable anxiety; as events turned out, the Emperor and the Pope were much too busy elsewhere to devote considerable attention just then to affairs in Germany. And it may be shrewdly suspected that they preferred Luther and his conservatism to Carlstadt and his radicalism, and did not greatly desire Luther's removal from the control of affairs at that particular juncture. It is clear to us now, and was becoming clear to them then, that had Luther been put to death at Worms there would have been a much more radical revolt in Germany than anything that he desired or was ready to tolerate. Forces had been set at work that no other could control. Could Luther himself guide the spirit that he had raised? A revolution was threatened; what would that revolution' accomplish? In every country in Europe, Church and State were closely united. They were looked upon as a sort of Siamese twins, whose separation would be the death of both. The Church in each State was a part of the Church universal, a great undivided and indivisible whole, over which was the Pope as its representative and head. Its relations to the Pope were like those of the Empire to the Emperor, except that they were closer, more real, and supposed to be more vital. The new movement in the Church was following the political movement in Europe; it was in the direction of national growth, and the strengthening of the national 194 A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 195 spirit. No one thought of breaking the connection of Church and State; no one, at least, except a few who were regarded as impractical and danger- ous fanatics. It was the position of the Pope as the head of the visible Church that was threatened. It was a movement for the overthrow of' a power that had outlived its usefulness, and which, in its efforts to preserve its influence, had usurped new functions, made new exactions, and thrown itself athwart the course of a normal and necessary de/ velopment. *-^C The state of things in Germany was favorable to such a movement.! The Popes, in their dealings with the German Church, had abused their power, and had thus weakened their hold on the German people. Be- sides, they had come to be recognized as the representatives of Italian unity, and naturally their claims of tribute and tithes seemed like the laying of a tax on Germans for the benefit of Italians. This tax was paid with reluctance, often with a sense of humiliation. But what could be done? There could be no simultaneous uprising^ of all Germany against the Papacy. It so happened, however, that the friends of reform were unequally distributed. In some sections there were few; in others they were almost the entire population. This fact was important, for Germany was rather a confederation than a solid kingdom; and each State might decide for itself what position it would take toward Luther and the Pope. If, for example, the Elector of Saxony should decide to defy the Pope, he could do so; he was almost supreme in his own dominions. He might, upon occasion, resist even a decree of the Empire. The idea of imperial unity had, indeed, been growing, but the old feudal notion that no prince was bound except by his own word, still held over. A majority of the imperial Diet might be against him, but nevertheless he was his own man and might not choose to sub- mit, except to force. In that case, the States that had voted against him must make war upon him. In the first instance, then, the question of enforcing the ban against Luther was referred to the ruler of the State in which he was found. If he did not enforce it, the question might be brought before the Diet. If the Diet did not enforce it, the Emperor was to act, but he must act through the Diet. His influence in the Diet, however, was great. It was the influence of a powerful ruler, who, in virtue of his position, might reward his friends and crush his opponents. In a nearly evenly divided Diet, it was not difficult for him to command a majority; and therefore, in Germany, divided into two strong parties, one for and one against the Pope, the fate of Luther was virtually in the hands of the Emperor. But powerful as he was, such was his position in relation to other powers and to his own States, that he had to regulate his conduct by changing circumstances. In the last resort, 196 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY he alone could execute the ban, but he could do it only when he was at peace with his neighbors* He would not dare to make war upon a party in Germany while he was engaged in a foreign war; and he would not be willing to fight the Pope's battle unless the Pope was in sympathy with him; and the Pope might be against him in alliance, it may be, with his enemies. This position of the Emperor determined the development of the Lutheran movement on the political side. If we know how the Emperor was situated at any given time with reference to the Pope and other rulers, we know how he was shaping his policy toward the reform and the reformers. If he was at war with France, or with the Turks, or at outs with the Pope, Luther's party had peace. If he was at peace with other powers and .the Pope, then we know that the Lutherans were in danger. His natural position toward them was one of repression, and he was always moving against them unless there was something to hold him back. The forces that might be against the Emperor were few, and the re- lations of parties to each other are easily understood. Europe was di- vided between four great powers: first the Empire, including Spain and her dependencies belonging to the Emperor; second France, third Eng- land, fourth Italy, including the papal States. We should, perhaps, include as a fifth European power the Turks, with their seat at Con- stantinople. The principal sovereigns of Europe were men of exceptional ability. They all came to the throne young, and all reigned a long time. The eldest of them was Henry VIII (1509-1546); the next was Francis I (1515-1547); after him came Charles V (1519-1555); and then Suleiman II, head of the Ottoman Empire (1520-1566). In the great European struggle Henry VIII was probably the least important. A great figure in his own kingdom, on the Continent he appeared several times in a subordinate, never in a principal, part. He did not even hold, as he claimed to do, the balance of power between the two principal rivals. Suleiman II was always a menace, and at times exerted a directing in- fluence on the course of events. In the beginning the contest was between the Emperor and Francis I. There was only six years' difference in their ages, but at that time, when as much as at any time in history men were early distinguished, six years counted for much. Charles V at twenty-one was comparatively a novice, and Francis at twenty-seven was already a veteran. In com- paring the two at the time of the election of Emperor, the Archbishop of Trier spoke of the one as a youth, of the other as "a great com- mander," a soldier "whose valor was already known and tried." Both had been educated in reference to their station; but the French king A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 197 was a man of more culture than the Emperor; he wished to be con- sidered a patron of learning, a representative of the Renaissance. In natural qualities they were different: Charles was slow, plodding, cautious; he formed his plans with deliberation and worked them out with patient tenacity of purpose. He cared more for success than for fame, and hence only planned campaigns and trusted others to command his armies. He was more of a statesman than a soldier a characterization, however, that applies more to the beginning than to the middle and end of his career. Francis, on the other hand, was a soldier from the first; he coveted military distinction, and preferred to lead his armies in person. He knew how to plan, but he lacked steadiness and efficiency in execution he usually began well and ended badly. In the long run, Charles was nearly always successful; in the long run Francis nearly always failed. In that active, transitional period, occasion for war between two such rulers and rivals could not long be wanting if there had been no differences, they would have found or made them. But there were differences: they inherited conflicting claims, and Italy was to be the scene of much of the contest between them. The presence of contending foreign powers in Italy made the Pope's position one of delicacy and difficulty. Italy had no natural political head, no great central, national interest that might diminish or keep in check local rivalries and jealousies. State was divided against State, faction against faction. These antagonisms were fostered and intensified by foreign influence: there was a French interest, and a Spanish or Imperial interest, and this must continue as long as French and Spanish had conflicting claims in Italy. There could be no peace, much less could there be a genuine national sentiment. The Pope, as an Italian prince, might be tempted to make interest for himself or his family by favoring now one, now the other of the great rivals. He did not always successfully resist the temptation. But at times he rose above any personal motives, and as a patriot chafed at the presence of a dis- turbing influence hi his country. He could not be pleased that either Francis or Charles should have permanent possessions; and, for that reason, whichever one was successful, he might be expected after a while to favor the other. He could not be neutral: the interests of the States of the Church, of which he was ruler, were often at stake; and even if his possessions, as the greatest Italian power, had imposed on him no responsibility, he must yet take part in the struggles going on about him. He had, or seemed to have, no choice in the matter, except of the party with which he would act; and his political interests and his duties as Pope did not always coincide the Pope as Italian prince was sometimes hi opposition to the Pope as head of the Church. This 198 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY opposition of interests, the result of natural and unforeseen develop- ments, was a chief cause of the Pope's weakness. If the situation of Italy had been different, or if, as in former times, the Pope had been simply the head of the Church, the course of general history might have been different. The interference of Francis I in Italy began with his accession to the throne; to his title as King of France he added that of Duke of Milan, and immediately proceeded to make it good. The Emperor Maximilian, Ferdinand of Spain, Florence and Milan, a strong force of Swiss and finally the Pope, joined together to oppose him. On his part he had the active aid of Venice and Genoa, and of hired troops, many of them Germans. If the allies had acted together and with vigor he must have been de- feated, but as no one of them had any definite and certain interest hi the matter their movements were hesitating, slow and without concert. While they were expecting him to cross the Alps at one place he crossed at another supposed to be impassable, and entered Italy with an army the like of which for discipline and equipment that age had not seen. To meet this army only the Swiss were in position, and for a time it was not certain that they would not make a separate treaty with the French and return home without a battle. The attempts at negotiation failing left the Swiss divided, and a part of them withdrew from the field, leav- ing, however, a force of thirty-five thousand resolute men to stand between Francis and Milan. The battle was joined at Marignano, September 13, 1515, and after a stubborn conflict the Swiss were defeated and Milan became a French possession. This victory of the French made the Pope's situation alarming, since there was now no force adequate to meet Francis, and the extent of his conquests apparently depended entirely on his will. The Pope deter- mined at once to come to an understanding with him; they could be of mutual service. The King had the advantage of position, and his conditions could not be called easy: he insisted on having Parma and Piacenza, as naturally connected with Milan. In return for these pos- sessions of the Pope, he would take Florence and the Medici under his protection, and would require Milan to purchase salt from the States of the Church. In a personal interview between Francis and Leo at Bologna, it was further arranged that the Pragmatic Sanction, which for nearly a hundred years had protected the French clergy from the domination of the Pope, should be abolished. In return, the Pope con- ceded that the King should have the right to nominate to all ecclesi- astical benefices, and to decide ecclesiastical questions, some few ex- cepted, without appeal to Rome. The annates, or first year's income of every see on the appointment of a new bishop, were to go to the Pope. A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 199 Pope and King thus divided between them the rights of the French clergy. 1 The treaty thus made gave a few years of peace to Italy. Francis held possession of all that he had acquired, and Leo had leisure to patronize literature and art. It was evident, however, that the Papacy would not rest content until at least Parma and Piacenza had been regained, if in- deed it did not join in an attempt to drive the French out of Italy. The election of Charles V as Emperor suggested an alliance with him as the coming man in Europe, and a treaty was concluded between Leo and Charles May 8, 1521. It is probably more than a mere coincidence that this is the date given by the Emperor to the Edict of Worms against Luther, and the edict was no doubt prepared on that day, though not actually issued until May 26th. Leo did not live, however, to witness the success of Charles and the driving of the French out of Italy. The de- cisive defeat of Pavia was yet four years distant when Leo suddenly died, December 1, 1521, under circumstances that gave rise to a strong suspicion of poison, which is strengthened by the fact that there had been an unsuccessful attempt against his life before, for which several men in high position, among them a cardinal, were executed. 2 Another account attributes Leo's death to a cold caught in witnessing the cele- bration of the recent victory over the French. The Pope had doubted whether, as it was a victory of Christians over Christians, public re- joicings would be quite proper, and referred the case to his Master of Ceremonies, who replied that rejoicings would not be proper, unless the Pope felt that the Church had received some notable benefit from the victory. This punctilious regard to a matter of form fills out the picture of the tunes. A neglect of the highest moral considerations is fitly joined to a slavish observance of etiquette. When society is wanting in noble impulses it makes compensation by assiduous devotion to trifles. At the time of his death Leo lacked ten days of completing his forty- sixth year. He had been Pope eight years, eight months and nineteen days. Circumstances had lifted him into a position of the greatest prominence. Few men of his time are oftener in men's thoughts, few names of the distant past are oftener on men's lips. His time has been named for him; "the age of Leo X" is celebrated as the golden period of literature, of art, of music all that gives splendor to the Renaissance. 1 This Concordat, in forty-eight articles, was ratified by the fifth Lateran coun- cil in December, 1516. The full text is in Mansi, 32: 1015-1046. *Roscoe, "Leo X," 2: 69-76. The conspiracy was provoked by the injustice of the Pope. Cardinal Petrucci, who was executed, went to Rome under a safe- conduct from the Pope, which was immediately violated. One of the cardinals who was condemned and then pardoned, died shortly afterwards, suspected of being poisoned by the Pope. Two cardinals who confessed their guilt were let off with a fine of 25,000 ducats. The fact that so great an offense could be pardoned, or punished with only a fine, itself tells a tale. 200 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY It may be a question whether Leo was more helpful to learning than some of the Popes who preceded him and some who followed. Learning and art flourished before he came to the papal throne and after his death. It is enough to say that he was a great, possibly the greatest patron of learning in his time, but he was only one among many. He was himself a man of culture, speaking Latin fluently and elegantly,, knowing Greek moderately well; a student of music, both as an art and as a science; a ready and agreeable speaker; a poet in a small way; a stu- dent of literature and of history, but much better acquainted with secular than with theological learning. 1 He was fond of hawking and hunting and fishing, and when engaged in these sports sometimes scan- dalized his Master of Ceremonies by his neglect of the proprieties, es- pecially in the matter of dress. He loved cards and chess, but condemned dice. He sought to give dignity and elegance to public worship; he did not like long sermons. 2 In his expenditures, especially in his gifts, he was liberal. He loved to be amused, to laugh, and sometimes de- scended to coarse practical jokes. 3 In his political methods he was un- scrupulous, not hesitating to use deception and artifice, and even to violate his word and the public faith to accomplish his purposes. The story is told that he once said, "All ages can testify how profitable that fable of Christ has been to us and our company." It is true the story rests on a single doubtful authority, but the fact that the story was told of him and found ready credence is itself significant. But withal he was a man of ability, much above the average of Popes. That he did not realize the gravity of the contest with Luther was not wholly his fault; that he did not suppress the Lutheran movement in its early stages is still less his fault. As an Italian prince, little could be said against him; as Pope his character and conduct go far toward explaining and jus- tifying the revolt against the Papacy. He lacked scarcely any gift or accomplishment that a good secular ruler ought to have, and was almost everything that a Pope ought not to be. His sudden death, without the last rites of the Church, was held against him, even by many Catholics, as a sort of judgment on him. The cultivators of literature mourned his loss; the populace cared little for him. 1 Sarpi and Pallavicini agree that he was more learned in other things than in theology. Sarpi says, after enumerating his many virtues: "He would have been a Pope absolutely complete, if with these he had joined some knowledge of things that concern religion, and some more propension unto piety, of both which he seemed careless." Hist. Council of Trent, bk. 1, The testimony of Pallavicini is in Roscoe, 2: 383, 384. 2 In the year 1514 he ordered the Master of the Palace, on pain of excommuni- cation, to see that the sermon did not exceed half an hour; and in the month of November, 1517, being wearied with a long discourse, he directed his Master of Ceremonies to remind the Master of the Palace that the council of the Lateran should not exceed a quarter of an hour, at most." Roscoe, 2: 508. 3 Roscoe, 2: 399. A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 201 The cardinals present in the conclave found it impossible to choose one of their own number, and their choice fell on Adrian, the Cardinal Bishop of Tortosa, who chose to become Pope under his own name, and is known as Adrian VI. He was of humble birth, a native of Utrecht, who had risen solely by his own piety and worth, and at the time of his election held the highest and most responsible position at the Spanish court, being Regent in the Emperor's absence. He is supposed to have owed his election largely to the influence of Charles V, who admired and trusted him greatly. He was a learned man, of simple studious habits, deeply read in the scholastic theology, well advanced in age, conservative, of strong moral convictions but with little practical experience or wisdom. It was said of him as Cicero said of Cato that he was not a practical politician. 1 As he had not mingled much with men he was distrustful and hesitating, and had few intimates. It was said of him: "He is a man tenacious of his own and very careful what he gives, rarely or never receiving. He daily performs early mass. Whom he loves, or whether he loves anyone, no one has ever found out. He is not moved by anger nor relaxed by jokes." ;His elevation to the Papacy awakened in him no pride; on the contrary he groaned when the news was brought to him. 2 Everything conspired to make his position difficult. He was a stranger in Rome; he came having many offices to bestow; the expectations of place-hunters were high; and he was cautious in the distribution of his favors. He became unpopular; did not understand the situation; and keenly felt how sadly he and the times failed to agree. 3 The Church was corrupt; the Turks were invading Hungary and besieging Rhodes. Christendom was in danger from without, and the Lutherans were giving great trouble within. Adrian's inexperience and helplessness made him an important factor in the new movement. He was sincerely anxious to reform the abuses of the Church, but when he began to take matters in hand he found how very difficult it was. There is little doubt that he came to Rome honestly desirous to cleanse the Augean stable of the Papacy, indeed, fully determined to do so; but when he attempted to suppress useless and costly offices he found that their holders had acquired by purchase what they protested was a vested right to them, and that to abolish an office would often be to reduce to poverty one who had invested in it his entire capital. Reservations and other abuses that had provoked so great criticism were similarly hedged about; when he proposed to inter- 1 "With the very best intentions and the loftiest integrity, he sometimes injures the State; for he speaks as if he were in the republic of Plato, and not dealing with the Roman rabble." Letters to Athens, June, 90 B. C. 2 Ranke, 1 : 69. 8 76., 1: 74. He once said, "How much depends on the times in which even the best men are cast." 202 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY fere with such practices, the very princes who had protested again offered opposition, because they found their own patronage likely to be unduly circumscribed by the reform. Adrian was a scholastic theologian, a thorough believer in its methods, and from his point of view all that Luther taught seemed easy of refutation. He had himself written on indulgences, and had made the subject as simple and comprehensive as possible. He had taught that as indulgences are given in consideration of good works, and as good works are never perfectly performed by all, indulgences avail only in proportion to the completeness and sincerity with which the good works are done: a little good works, a little pardon; complete good works, complete pardon. So taught, indulgences would not encourage idleness and occasion scandal. He mentioned the matter to Cajetan, and pro- posed to issue a bull giving his views, which, he thought, would settle all dispute. Cajetan advised him not to publish such a bull; he himself had studied the subject, and had had two interviews with Luther, in which he had heard what Luther had to say. In his opinion the less said about indulgences the better. Whatever the Popes might say about them, he was convinced from a study of the Decretals "that indulgence is only an absolution from penance imposed in confession." He thought it would be better not to relax that penance, but to exact it strictly. When people should find themselves required to undergo a real penance they would see the advantage of indulgences; the golden age of the Church would return, the priest's authority would be reestablished and all would be well. The advice pleased the Pope, but the very first man to whom he mentioned it reminded him that the times were changed; that the people would not now endure the ancient discipline; that canonical punishments were out of date. The remedy indeed was suited to the disease, but the patient was too weak to bear it it would kill rather than cure. The best thing would be not to say anything at all about the matter: "This matter, in these times, requireth silence, rather than further discussion." * This opinion, too, very much struck the Pope, and passing by indul- gences for the time he turned his attention to other things. Among these the question of marriage was very important. The papal law created impediments to the marriage of persons within certain degrees of re- lationship, natural or spiritual. It was often desirable to remove these impediments, which was done by dispensations, for which, of course, payment was to be made. The marriage law might well have been relieved of some of its restrictions, and Adrian wished to give the needed relief. But to do so was, it was said, to weaken the sinews of discipline; not to do so gave the Lutherans the opportunity to say that the restrictions were kept up, because to remove them would destroy the profitable 1 Saxpi, pp. 19-21. A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 203 trade in dispensations. If, as was suggested, relief should be given to persons of quality, who most needed it, men would say that the Church in whose eyes all are equal, was legislating only for the benefit of the rich and noble. Besides, certain offices derived their revenues from this sale of dispensations; these offices had been sold, and to change the marriage laws would be to defraud the buyers. The offices might be bought back, but that would involve a great outlay of money. The case of marriage was one of many. Hurtful customs had crept in, and had become part of a great, wiqie-reaching system. To change them was beset with difficulties. The correction of any evil would inflict a wrong scarcely less than the wrong redressed. There were many reasons why the Pope should act, and many why he should not act; whatever he might do the Church would suffer, and it would suffer if he did nothing. In his perplexity he turned from one to another. He felt that the com- plaints of the Lutherans were not without cause, and he thought that something ought to be done to remove that cause; but it was dangerous to confess evils, and more dangerous to attempt to correct them. His last adviser reminded him of this, and suggested the old method of re- sorting to the help of the secular power; forcible repression had availed in the past and would be useful again. Innocent III had put down the Albigenses, and later Popes had subdued the Waldenses and the Ar- noldists by the use of sword and torture. It was August before Adrian reached Rome, seven months after his election. After reaching the city his progress had been slow; he had done nothing toward reforming abuses; he did not know where to begin, or whether he should begin at all. 1 But while he was hesitating, the current of events was moving on. In particular, the German Diet was to meet, and he must be represented in it, and have something to lay before it. At a meeting of the Consistory in the early part of November he ap- pointed Cardinal Chieregati his representative at the Diet. The legate took with him a letter to the German estates, met in "the quaint old town of Ntirnberg." The Pope complained that notwithstanding his condemnation, both by Pope and Emperor, Luther went on teaching and writing, favored not only by the meaner sort but by the nobles as well. Such toleration of error would be bad at any time, it was worse when Christendom was threatened by Turks, against whom the Pope could take no effective action because of dissensions in the Church. Luther ought not to be tolerated any longer; it was a shame for nobles to be led astray by a poor simple friar, as if he alone had understanding and wisdom. The revolt against ecclesiastical authority would be followed 1 He had a habit of hesitation, of saying conitamus, videbemus. On the other hand, he is said to have been hindered in his haste, Nimia ei nocebat diligentia. Ranke, 3:30. THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY by a throwing off of secular authority ; those who had not spared the goods of the Church would not spare the goods of princes. If ft was not pos- sible to subdue Luther and his followers by mild means, severe measures must be tried. The cases of Dathan and Abiram, and of Ananias and Sapphinu were cited. The Germans ought to imitate their ancestors in the council of Constance, who put to death John Hus and Jerome of Frag. The Pope was following the suggestions of those who had advised extreme measures. 1 It is remarkable how often the council of Constance is mentioned in the documents of this time, and how its doings seemed always to be in men's minds, Hus and Jerome were rather a living presence than shad- owy memories. They were at Leipag when Luther and Eck were disput- ing; they were at Worms when the Emperor was urged to play false; they were with Adrian at Rome when he wrote his letter; and now they were at the Diet of Nurnberg. The way in which they impressed them- setves on the memory and imagination of men reminds one of the "proph- ecy" at the time of their death, and almost makes us feel that they were endowed with a kind of prescience and saw, as others did not see, what was to come after them. Whfle Hus was in prison, helpkss in the power of his enemies, he wrote to the Bohemians: "First they prepared snares, citations and anathemas for a goose; and now they fie in wait for some of you. Although a goose, a tame animal, a domestic fowl, incapable of lofty fight, cannot break their net; yet there are other birds which, by God's word and a godly fife, mount on higji: these shall break their toils in pieces," In after time the indefinite "birds of lofty flight " were exchanged for "a swan," * and the swan was made to represent Luther, and so the prophecy was thought to have been fulfilled. Jerome's words are more definite. In closing his last address to the council he said: "It is certain that you wfll wickedly and maliciously condemn me, although you have found no fault in me. But after my death I wfll fix in your consciences trouble and remorse; and I now appeal to the omnipotent God, the high and righteous Judge, and challenge you when a hundred revolving years shall have passed away, to meet me at his bar." 3 Hus was burned Jury 6, 1415, Jerome May 30, 1416. It is at least interesting to notice how Jerome's appeal was apparently heard. It was but fittie more than a hundred years when the repeated reference to the council of Constance by Popes and others brought it before the world and compelled men to judge of its acts. The papal party A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 205 argued that Hus and Jerome were heretics, because the council had condemned them. On the other hand it was contended that the council of Constance and all other councils are fallible, because this one council condemned innocent men. The council was judged and condemned by the people, and in this case we might well say that the voice of the people was the voice of God. After Chkregati had presented the Pope's letter to the Diet, he also read his own instructions, in which again there was reference to the council of Constance and John Hus, and generally a repetition of what had been said in the letter. But there was more than thb: the Pope had directed him ingenuously to confess that now for some years there had been many abommable things in the Papal See, abuses in spiritual things, transgressions of the rommajifhupniK^ gygiy thing changed for the worse. It was not strange, he said, if the ****** had descended from the head to the members, from the Pope to the lower prelates. AH of us, he said, bishops and ecclesiastics, have declined everyone to his own way; for a long time there had been none that did good, no not one. "In this matter," added the Pope, "you shall promise, as far as we are concerned, that we will use aH diligence that this See, from which perchance the evil has proceeded, shall be reformed, so that, just as the corruption flowed down from it to all below, so also wholeness and the reformation shall come from the same source." He could not promise that all abuses would be corrected at once, for the disease was chronic; not simple but complicated; and it was necessary to proceed slowly, step by step, first dealing with the greater and more pressing evils. If they hnld seek to go too fast, reforming everything at the same time, they would throw everything into confusion. On h own responsibility tly* legate ndfod attention to the fact that monks had left their cloisters, and priests had married, to the great disgrace of refigpon. The sacrilegious marriages, he said, must be annulled; the priests most be punished and the monks reduced to obedience. The Diet was requested to give a written answer. 1 The papal nuncio failed to make the impression that he wished: the Pope s confession of sins was more easfly credited than his promise of amendment. However much he might wish to correct the evfls confessed, men knew that he was powerless to do it. Instead of being softened by his candor and good intentions, the Germans were confirmed in then- own way of thinking. They recognized how great was the danger threat- ening from the Turks, and the importance of being united against them; but they were not to blame for the religious differences among them- selves, or for not executing the edict and ban against Luther. Their f allure to do so had not been without the greatest and 'Summary in Sfcidan, pp. 58-00; text in Wakh. 15: 2125 **- 206 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY reasons. The people had long felt that they had suffered many wrongs from the Roman Court, and now they were made certain of it by Luther's writings; and any attempt to proceed against him would be regarded as making war on the truth of the Gospel and tending to promote the abuses and evils of which they complained. It would result in seditions and civil wars. There must be found, therefore, some other and better way of remedying the evils than the Pope had suggested. There could not be any real and lasting settlement of affairs until the abuses of which the Germans complained were reformed. For years they had paid annates on condition that these should be used in war against the Turks and for the defense of the Christian religion. The annates had not been used for such purposes, and yet their permanent collection was exacted. The estates wished the collection of them to cease. The Pope had asked their advice as to the best way of settling the religious disputes: they thought that he, with the concurrence of the Emperor, should call as soon as possible a free Christian council, to meet in Germany, at Mainz, Cologne, Metz, or some other convenient place. The calling of such a council ought not to be delayed more than a year; and everyone, ecclesi- astic or secular, should be permitted to speak freely in it, and without any hindrance to consult for the glory of God, the salvation of souls and the good of the Church. In the meantime they would treat with the Elector of Saxony that Luther and his friends should not write or print any more, and that the preachers throughout Germany should preach the Gospel sincerely, according to the approved doctrine of the Church, do nothing to excite tumults, avoid disputations, and leave all controversies to be settled by the council. The bishops were to appoint learned, prudent men to look after the preachers and see that they preached as they ought to preach; and that nothing new was printed until it had been submitted to the judgment of learned men. As to the married priests, the civil law inflicted no punishment on them; they might be subjected to canonical discipline. If they should be guilty of any wicked- ness the magistrate ought to correct them. This was the answer of the Estates. 1 It did not please the legate; he thought that the offences of the Papacy furnished no good reason for tolerating the scandals of the Lutherans. First execute the ban against Luther, and then the Pope would correct what was amiss at Rome. He did not complain that the princes had asked for a general council, but he did not like it that the council was to be held with the consent of the Emperor, or that the Pope was not permitted to choose freely the time and place for holding it. He wished no one to preach whose doctrine the bishop had not approved. The condemned 1 Sleidan, p. 60; fuller summary in Sarpi, pp. 24-26; text in Walch, 15: 2138 seq. A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 207 books ought to be burned; and no new books should be printed except under the Pope's regulation. To remit the married priests to the civil law and to punish them only for actual offenses was to interfere with ecclesiastical jurisdiction, "to thrust the sickle into another man's field," as the legate expressed it. The offending priests ought to be handed over to the bishops for punishment. 1 The nuncio and the Diet could not agree. As the Germans said, he thought only of the profit of the Roman Court, not at all of the necessi- ties of Germany. He expected them to do at once what the Pope re- quired, and wait the Pope's pleasure for relief from their burdens. This they were not willing to do. 2 On the contrary, they stated again and more definitely what they required of the Pope and the German bishops, and informed the nuncio that if relief was not granted them they would take "steps to free themselves form the burdens complained of, and to recover their ancient liberty." They formally stated anew their list of grievances their centum gravamina. 3 The papal court had been en- slaving the people, robbing them of their money, and appropriating the rights and duties that belonged to the civil magistrate. They also complained of the bishops. Having concluded their deliberations, they issued a recess embodying the substance of their answer to the Pope. 4 Not long after the Pope's letter, the nuncio's instructions, and the an- swer of the Diet, including the grievances, were printed; copies were sent to Rome, and others were scattered abroad, that all might know what had been done at Niirnberg. Not much progress had been made in getting the ban and edict against Luther executed. The recess of the Diet was without force; it invited neglect; it did not really require anything to be done it was rather an explanation and justification of the failure to do anything. The Diet had confessed that fear of sedition and civil war had deterred the princes from attempting to execute former laws. As the circumstances were unchanged, it was easily understood that the same cause would prevent the enforcement of the new edict. Besides, it was so indefinite in its requirements that each party might understand it to suit itself. Luther wrote to the princes that he had read it with pleasure, but that "through the craft and snares of the devil it had not the authority that it ought to have." Some of the highest quality refused to obey it, and variously construed it. He would give his interpretation of it. Some thought, he said, that to preach according to the approved teachings of the Church was to follow the authority of Aquinas and Scotus and others approved 1 Sarpi, p. 26. 2 Walch, 15: 2183 seq. 8 Sleidan, p. 63. 4 Dated May 8, 1522, text in Walch, 15: 2215 seq. 208 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY by the Pope. For his part he took it to mean that he was to be guided by Cyprian and Augustine, the older Church Fathers, and the Holy Scriptures. It was required that the bishop should appoint learned men to supervise the preaching of the priests. This could not be done be- cause the " learned men" were wanting, those under the control of the bishops having "learned nothing but sophistry." He did not object particularly to the requirement that books should be licensed before they were printed, but as he understood the law it did not refer to the printing of the Holy Scriptures. As to the married priests, he thought it hard that they should be punished according to the canon law; as that law was contrary to the Scripture it should rather be changed. However, they who would punish the marriage of priests only by canon law were much more moderate than those who required the rack, torment and death for that offense. But yet, as Luther's opponents did not obey the law, he thought that he and his friends ought to have the liberty of violating it. 1 And this seemed to be the general opinion. The Diet virtually confessed that it could do nothing: only a general council was competent to meet the requirements of the case. The Pope's candor did not help his cause; his opponents thought this one of the cases in which men make a merit of confessing sins that they have no intention to forsake; his friends excused his mistake in consideration of his good intentions and ignorance of the ways of the Papacy. Leo X, they thought, would never have been guilty of such hurt- ful simplicity in which they were no more just than to the late Pope. Some mockingly said that it would be well to have the evils corrected step by step with a hundred years between the steps! How much Adrian was prepared to do in fulfilment of his promise of reformation was not put to the proof. "The court not being worthy of such a Pope, it pleased God to call him almost as soon as he had received the report of the nuncio from Niirnberg." He died September 13, 1523, after having been in Rome less than a year, and again there were sinister rumors of poison. He was succeeded by the nephew of Leo X, Cardinal Julius di Medici, who took the name of Clement VII. In many respects the new Pope was exactly the opposite of Adrian. The ten years of his pontificate were years of development that he was powerless to arrest or direct. Though cautious, skillful, able, tireless, he was dwarfed by the difficulties of his position. Adrian had made three mistakes : he had too freely confessed the abuses of the Papacy; he had too rashly promised to reform them; and he had imprudently asked the advice of the Germans as to how he should settle matters in Germany. Clement would be guilty of no such indiscretions. 1 Summary in Sleidan, 63, 64; text in Walch, 15: 2208. A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 209 tn January, 1524, the Diet reassembled at Niirnberg. Cardinal Cam- peggio was sent as papal legate; he bore a very loving letter to Fred- erick, Duke of Saxony a letter of the same kind that the Popes had been sending the Elector for some years, full of expressions of good will and expostulations. The Pope was glad to hear of the Diet, and that the Elector was to attend it, he had great hopes that something would be done for the welfare of Christendom; he sent his legate, a "man of great virtue/* whom he begged Frederick kindly to receive and assist. At the same time he mentioned "the sincere love and affection that he bore toward Germans." l Unfortunately the Elector had left Ntirnberg before Campeggio ar- rived, and the two did not meet. The legate sent him the Pope's letter, together with one of his own, in which he regretted his ill luck in not meeting him. He had heard the report, he said, that the Elector "was a favorer of the new heresies, which report neither he nor the Pope could be persuaded to believe." From the first time he had known him he had observed many noble and excellent virtues in him, and especially that "he was devout in his religion and a most obedient son of the Catholic and Apostolic Church." He wished him to imitate the virtues of his ancestors (the old wish); warned him of the dangers of sedition; those who despised the laws of the Church would after a while contemn the magistrate. Some took delight in seeing the prelates of the Church tossed and despised, not recognizing that they themselves were in dan- ger. The Pope, as the pilot of the ship, sat aloft and foresaw the approaching storm, and sent him, his legate, to forewarn all the princes, and especially the Elector, of the danger that threatened, not so much Rome as Germany, with ruin. The legate also addressed the Diet. He had, he said, instructions to treat of two things: religion and the Turkish war. As to the first, he was surprised that so many honorable princes should suffer the religion and rites and ceremonies wherein they were bred and their fathers and forefathers had died, to be abolished and trampled under foot, at the whim and persuasion of a few men. The religious innovations, if not checked, could not but produce dreadful troubles. He had been sent to join with them in devising means to remedy the evil. He did not come to prescribe to them, or to demand anything from them, but only to assist with his advice, and apply some salve to the public sore. He then enlarged on the dangers from the Turks. 2 The politic legate, whose business it was to conciliate, could not avoid addressing the princes in a tone of condescension, so great was the force 1 Dated December 7, 1523; Walctt, 15. 2236; Campeggio'a letter, ib, 2339. 2 Summary in Sleidan, pp. 68, 69. 210 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY of habit, and so impossible was it for a great dignitary of the Church to realize that the Papacy and the papal officials were already falling from their lofty preeminence that the times were changing. The Diet heard him respectfully, thanked him for his good will toward Germany, and were glad that the Pope had sent him. So much common courtesy demanded. But the princes were evidently not in the best humor. They supposed, they said, that the Pope and Cardinals, who were acquainted with the state of affairs, had given the legate some instructions, and they wished to hear them. They themselves, the year before, had proposed a plan for settling affairs, had given it to the legate in writing, and he had promised to deliver it to his Holiness. They wished to know what the Pope had to say about it. The legate was conveniently ignorant: "As to whether or not any method for composing the difference in re- ligion had been proposed by them or delivered to the Pope and college of Cardinals, he knew nothing at all of it." He thought those who were in the country and knew its customs were the best qualified to judge how to deal with the present difficulties; but, in his opinion, the first thing to be done was to enforce the decree of the Diet of Worms. He could not tell whether the demands of the Diet had ever been sent to Rome or not. Three copies of them had been brought privately, one of which had fallen into his hands. The Pope and Cardinals could not be persuaded that the princes had written them, but thought rather that some private person had published them, in hatred of the Court at Rome; and he had no instructions with reference to them. But some of the demands reflected on the Pope and favored heresy; these he could not meddle with, but such as were grounded in justice he would con- sider. And yet, he said, the princes' demands might have been more moderately proposed. The Diet was not deceived by the legate's profession of ignorance. They saw that it was the policy of the new Pope to treat everything that had occurred at the former meeting as if it had not occurred. A com- mittee was appointed to confer with Campeggio, and he proposed a scheme of reform that was not satisfactory and was not entertained. A message came from the Emperor, complaining that the decree of Worms, which was made with their unanimous advice and consent, had been infringed, to the great prejudice of Germany; and demanding that it should be carefully observed for the future. The princes an- swered that they would observe it as far as they could, but how far and in what way they intended to observe it may be gathered from the decree of the Diet, April 18th "That with the Emperor's consent the Pope should, with all convenient speed; call a free council in some con- venient place in Germany; that, on November llth, the States should A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 211 assemble again at Speyer, to consult what should be followed until the council should begin; and that the princes, in their several provinces should appoint some pious and learned men to collect out of the books of Luther and others all disputed points, to be presented to the princes In the next Diet, that they might proceed more orderly when they should come to be examined in the council. Furthermore, that the magistrates should take special care that the Gospel was purely and soberly taught, according to the sense and interpretation of expositors approved by the Church; that no infamous libels or pictures should be published; and lastly, that those things wherewith the princes had lately charged the Court of Rome and the clergy should be treated of and discussed in the Diet of Speyer." 1 The sins of the Papacy were coming home to vex it. As Chieregati had failed in the first, so Campeggio failed in the second Diet at Nurn- berg. The Germans were more concerned to have their complaints against the Pope and his Court righted, than they were to enforce the law against Luther and his followers long accumulated evils had be- come unbearable. In all propositions from the Pope he had seemed to care only for his own interests. This the Germans resented, and insisted that he should reform abuses before they undertook to settle religious differences. The proposed meeting at Speyer was especially significant; the year before the princes had threatened to take matters into their own hands and now they were proceeding to carry that threat into execution. It was to thwart the plan of the Diet that Campeggio now directed his efforts; he would divide the Germans and array one party against the other. To this end he contrived a meeting at Regens- burg of such princes as were favorable to Rome. These were Ferdinand, the Emperor's brother, Archduke of Austria, the two Dukes of Bavaria, the bishops of Trent and Regensburg, the legate himself as Archbishop of Salzburg, and the representatives of nine other bishops. To this convention he proposed the "reformation" that the Diet had declined to accept. It consisted of thirty-seven articles in reference to the dress and conversation of the clergy, administering the sacraments gratis, and other ecclesiastical functions, banquets, those that were to take orders, avoiding traffic and public houses, and having concubines; on the number of holy days, fastings, confessing, communicating; on blasphemies, sorcerers, soothsayers, and other things of the same kind. These were, indeed, occasions of scandal and ought to have been amended or regulated, but they were not the things of which the Germans most complained. It was not the lower but the higher clergy that gave offense; the exactions of the Pope, the greed, tyranny, negligence of 1 Sleidan, p. 73; full text in Walch. 15: 2243 seq. 212 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY the bishops. In offering to correct things of minor importance, the legate gave assurance that no reformation of principal things was to be expected from him. Hence it was that the Diet was not satisfied with what was proposed. The convention at Regensburg was more com- pliant; it accepted the legate's scheme, and decided that, as the Diet had determined to execute the decree of Worms as far as possible, it should be executed in the domains of those present. The Scripture should be taught according to the interpretation of the Church; no one should preach without a license from a bishop; no alterations should be made in the sacraments or rites of worship; no one was to receive the communion without confession and absolution; all monks and nuns who had forsaken their orders, and all married clergy were to be severely punished; nothing was to be printed without the authority of the magis- trate; Luther's books were not to be published or sold; young men from their dominions who were at Wittenberg should return home or go somewhere else, under penalty of being incapable of any Church living or of teaching youth; those who had been proscribed or banished should not be permitted to remain in their territories. 1 The convention had met at Regensburg July 6, 1524. It was the first step toward the division of Germany into two definite, organized ecclesiastical parties. The action of the Catholic princes was out of line with that of the Diet, and it was not taken in good part that some of the princes should presume to legislate for all, especially as the regular national assembly had so recently spoken. But this conflict among the States themselves was of less importance, because the Emperor, who was then in Spain, disallowed the action of the Diet. He com- plained that it had condemned only some of Luther's books, while he had condemned them all; that it had decreed a general council in Germany and requested the legate to treat with the Pope concerning it, instead of applying to him, whose business it was to care for such things. He resented the calling of a national convention at Speyer, and forbade it to assemble. As the council was necessary, it should be held, but at such time and place as he should designate. In the meantime the Edict of Worms must be obeyed, and there must be no discussion of religious matters until the council was called by the Pope's orders and his. The Emperor spoke in a somewhat loftier tone than the princes were accustomed to, and they were not altogether pleased. 2 There was one thing as to which the Emperor and the Diet were agreed: the necessity of a general council. In this again we have an 1 The account of the meeting is in Walch, 15: 2263; the agreement reached ib. f 2296 seq.; the statutes of reformation proposed to the Catholic estates by Cam- peggio are given in Mansi, 32: 1079-1091 in thirty-five articles. 2 Dated Bourgos July 15, 1524; text in Walch, 15: 2268 seq. A NEW POPE AND AN OLD GRIEVANCE 213 intimation of the close relations of the beginning of the sixteenth century to the fifteenth. In the earlier time there were evils to be corrected, the Papacy was corrupt, there must be "a reformation of head and members." Nearly the same state of things existed now. A general council was then the solace and refuge of those who were grieved and oppressed by the state of the Church, and it would be so again. But now as then the Pope was afraid of a general council. Clement VII was wont to say that a council is always good when anything is to be treated of but the Pope's authority; but that being called in question, nothing was more dangerous. As in former times the Pope's strength consisted in having recourse to councils, so now the security of popedom consists in declining and avoiding them. This opinion was in perfect consistency with the claims of the Papacy; holding that the Pope is above councils, and, in a sense, above the Scripture, there was no need of a council there was nothing for a council to do. Leo X had already condemned Luther and his doctrines, and to ask that his case be referred to a council was derogatory to the authority of the Apostolic See. But besides this, Clement VII probably had reasons of his own for resisting the demands of the Germans. Jealousy of the Emperor's power may have influenced him; it may be that he feared inquisition would be made into his own history and conduct. He was of illegitimate birth; there was some doubt concerning the means by which he had risen to power; his administration had not been perfectly clean. Still, as these things are not needed to account for Clement's policy, we need not insist on them. We ought, however, to note that. the persistent and general demand for a council shows how little practical hold the doctrine of papal infallibility had on public sentiment in the Empire. It has been the object of this chapter to show the conditions, general and special, that prevented the active prosecution of Luther after his excommunication by the Pope and his condemnation at Worms. Next to the favor of the Elector of Saxony he owed his safety to the fact that he had a great party with him his teaching had appealed to the hearts and judgments of the people. Thousands of them did not regard it as a new heresy, but as the old orthodoxy. Then, Germany had long- existing and deeply-galling grievances against the Papacy. With so much in favor of Luther, and so much against the Pope, the rulers would not attempt to execute the ban at the risk of civil war. They did not prosecute Luther because they were afraid. In process of time political and ecclesiastical grievances might be forgotten or become of little influence in comparison with newly stimulated devotion to the old faith, and then the conflict would come. The meeting at Regensburg gave intimation of the rising of that devotion of the coming of a time 214 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY when loyalty to the Pope would override all other considerations. In fact, the division among the princes might have produced immediate results disastrous to Luther and to Germany, if there had not arisen new dangers which for a time thrust into the background all less vital concerns. CHAPTER III EXEUNT HUMANISTS WITH the prophets out of the way, and Carlstadt out of the way, much had been done to prepare for a simple, undivided development of things at Wittenberg, and from Wittenberg. The new movement was separating itself from every hindering alliance, not only in the narrower, but also in the wider field. In every time of the quickening of human thought and of the upspringing of new systems, many forces start together that do not belong together. In the beginning they may be serviceable to each other in overcoming a common resistance, but some will cease to work, others will be deflected, until at last only those that have a common end will move on a common line. The period immediately after the Diet of Worms was the time when Luther's work was to get itself discriminated from everything that did not belong to it, and definitely to assume its own character. We have already seen the first steps in this discriminating process; in no long time that process advanced still further. In the beginning, and for several years, Luther had no more serviceable helpers than the Humanists. He and they, in the early stages of his work, were hindered by the same cause: the domination of Aristotle and the scholastic theologians. He and they were in close sympathy as asserters of the claims of reason against a narrow and narrowing authority. But though they had a common hindrance, they had by no means a common end, and as soon as Luther began to develop clearly his purposes and ends he and his quondam allies began to separate. Of one group among the Humanists, Hutten was the representative and type. He had won national fame before Luther. He was crowned by Maximilian at Augsburg, July 12, 1517, as the greatest poet of Germany a title that he had fairly won. Until Luther's theses appeared he was pure Humanist, and in the earlier stages of the resulting contro- versy, like Leo X, he saw nothing more than a vulgar squabble of monks. But his experience hi Italy had made him patriot as well as Humanist, and he quickly saw the possibilities of the Lutheran movement as a means of promoting German liberty. Liberty meant to him first of all the Empire's independence of Rome it meant the destruction, at least the strict limitation, of the Pope's temporal power. As the breach between Luther and the Pope widened, Hutten perceived more clearly 215 216 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY the availability of Lutheranism as a political weapon to be used for the advancement of his political ideals. Though he had a good deal to say about "the Gospel" in the almost delirious letters that he wrote at the time of the Diet of Worms, it is plain that political freedom, not religious is the cause lying nearest his heart. Of the Gospel in itself, and for its own sake, there is little reason to suppose that he ever had any real appreciation. Hutten was himself a moral and physical decadent. Moreover, he belonged to a decadent class. His interest in the Reformation seems to have been wholly selfish and calculating he favored it in the interests of a political theory and of his own class. He hoped by an alliance with the reformers, against the Church on the one hand and the princes on the other, to rescue his order from impending doom and to build up a centralized government in Germany as the bulwark of her liberties. He could see better what it were well to do, than what it was possible to accomplish. The drift of things had set too strongly away from both the ends that he sought, and in the direction of princely oligarchy, for a much stronger man than he to overcome. In this enterprise he became associated with a man whose far greater strength for a time held out some hope of success. Franz von Sickingen, Knight of Ebernburg, in the district of Mainz, was born in the same year with Luther, the elder of the two by a few months. By 1521 he had gained national fame as a warrior of prowess, and the sworn foe of the territorial princes of Germany. Holding directly of the Emperor, like all others of his order, he had some show of right in claiming to be the equal of the princes in rank and authority, while his possessions and military strength perhaps entitled him to equality with some of the lesser princes, whose territories included but a few square miles. One of the first to comprehend the revolution in warfare that was going on, he had gradually assembled a force of ten thousand mercenaries, who were regularly paid, well disciplined, armed with the newest weapons and drilled in the new tactics. He was an ally whom Maximilian and Charles V were glad to have on their side, and he was therefore treated with tender consideration where a weaker man would have been forcibly suppressed. He had long been the terror of the law- abiding and peace-loving element of the Empire. A private war against the city of Worms, in 1516, had brought upon him a decree of banish- ment, but he snapped his fingers at the law and continued his career without molestation. He was probably attracted to Luther by Hutten, who had become his ally, giving his pen to the cause of the knights in return for protection and bread. At Hutten's prompting he pledged the reformer assistance and offered him harborage in his castle, in case EXEUNT HUMANISTS 217 Saxony should become too warm for him. 1 Luther was undoubtedly grateful for such an offer, at a time when he had not too many powerful friends, but he was too wise to compromise himself and his cause by a closer connection with one whose real devotion to the Gospel he had good reason to distrust. Sickingen was as little a reformer, in truth, as he was Humanist he was either, or neither, as suited his purposes a man of too little learning for the one and too little piety for the other. Sickingen and Hutten bore a double hatred to the great ecclesias- tics of the Empire, wishing their destruction alike as territorial princes and as priests. They regarded secularization and partitioning of church property as the most vital part of religious and political reform. This was the view ultimately taken by all the princes who followed the lead of Luther, but in 1522 it was a novelty. To some extent the movement of the knights to enforce this principle had the sympathy of Luther and the free cities, but it was too revolutionary a scheme to warrant them in any open demonstrations. In August, 1522, Sickingen summoned a meeting of knights, and a "Fraternal League" was organized. Their avowed programme was a mixture of economic, social and religious reform: they demanded the restoration of the ancient liberties of the Empire, with the Emperor at the head, the nobles at his side, all of equal rank, which of course involved the abolition of the territorial authority of the princes; the abolition of mercantile monopolies; the abrogation of foreign laws and foreign administrators and judges; the diminishing of monks and ecclesiastics; the enactment of laws against foreign manners; the abolition of indulgences and other taxes by which Germany was drained of money to enrich Rome. The free cities were invited to join the league, and it was confidently expected that the subjects of some of the princes would seize this occasion to rise against them and throw off the yoke. Had Sickingen gained a great initial success, there is no telling to what the movement might have grown, for it undoubtedly appealed to a vast underlying sentiment of dissatisfaction in Germany. 2 But the uprising of the knights was a failure from the first. Sickingen issued a declaration of war against the Archbishop of Trier, and in September appeared in force before the walls of the city, which he ex- pected to take by surprise and easily overcome. Immediately ordered by the imperial council to retire, he replied that he was as much the servant of the Emperor as the council; that he intended to establish 1 Hutton wrote Jan. 20, 1520, and Sickingen himself repeated his assurances of support Nov. 3d. Letters in Walch, 15: 1635-1637. 2 Strauss, Ulrich von Hutten, 2: 195 seq. See also Hutten's Beklagung der Frei- statte teutscher Nation, a good specimen of his German semidoggerel verse, Opera, 5: 383 seq.; and his Ermahnung an eine gemeine Stadt Worms, 5: 395. The latter is very pious in form, full of texts of Scripture, and proves that he was trying to give to the enterprise of Sickingen the character of a holy war. 218 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY a new and better system of law as ruler of Trier; and that he would have the Emperor's approval in his course. Possibly, had the attack proved successful, after he had established himself at Trier Charles might have accepted him as de facto ruler; but he had risked his cause on a single throw of the dice, and fortune was against him. The Arch- bishop, like many medieval prelates, proved himself a better secular warrior than spiritual; he had penetrated Sickingen's design and pre- pared himself for the attack. Instead of finding an easy prey in an unprepared town, the leader of the knights found it swarming with armed defenders, who repelled all his assaults, and he had made no preparations for a regular siege with artillery. This check was as fatal to the plans of Sickingen as it was unexpected; in his rashness he had not provided for defeat, and his retirement from Trier was the signal for all knights to desert the movement but those who had already com- promised themselves too deeply. The expected insurrections in the domains of the princes did not occur; none of the free cities joined the league. On the contrary, the ban of the Empire was now laid on Sickingen once more, and he was thus declared a public enemy. He then did the one thing necessary to insure his complete downfall, by making an inroad into the Palatinate, burning and plundering as he went. It thus became evident to the princes that they could have no lasting peace but by combining against him as the common foe and pursuing him to his destruction. Accordingly, the Archbishop of Trier, the Landgrave of Hesse and the Count Palatine formed an alliance pledged to quell this revolt of the knights and make an end of their lawless leader. On April 29, 1523, they laid siege to his castle of Landstuhl, to which he had retired, battered down the walls with artillery, and, their leader mortally wounded, the knights surrendered May 6th. Hutten escaped and made his way to Switzerland, where he died not long after in poverty, misery and f riendlessness. In his last days he managed to alienate the one friend he had left, Erasmus, and only the charity of strangers gave him refuge and support at the end. The suppression of this revolt was the signal for general measures of reprisal and repression against the knights, and marks the first stage of the great social and political changes that the Reformation power- fully promoted. Each prince eagerly seized on the excuse and oppor- tunity to subdue the neighboring knights, with whom he had long been at feud, and the result was the total ruin and practical suppression of the order. Only those escaped who made their submission to the princes and were content thenceforth to take the position, not of equals, but of subject freeholders. The first attempt to use the Reformation as a means of social reorganization not only proved a complete failure,. EXEUNT HUMANISTS 219> but issued in the distinct strengthening of the hands of the territorial princes. The system of oligarchy that had replaced the figment of imperial power in Germany, became notably solidified as the result of this vain struggle of the knights to recover their ancient position. With a fortunate prudence, Luther had kept aloof from this move- ment, and his reform was in no way compromised by the failure. It was not altogether prudence that dictated this aloofness, but conviction* He saw early in their acquaintance that these knightly supporters of the Reformation had no deep interest in the only thing that really in- terested him, the religious side of the movement he had begun. Be- sides, he was constitutionally opposed to violent methods of advancing the interests of religion. He did not believe that the Gospel could be propagated by the sword. While Hutten was writing his vehement letters at the time of the Diet of Worms, Luther writes to Spalatin: "You see what Hutten wants. I would not have the Gospel defended by violence and murder. In this sense I wrote him. By the word the world was conquered, by the word the Church was preserved, by the word she will be restored." l Thus the Reformation was freed from the first group of Humanists, who went out from the reformers because they were not of them because patriotism, as they understood the matter, was more to them than religion. But there was another group, of whom Erasmus was the head and type, who also went out, but for a different reason to them culture was more than religion. The controversy between Luther and Erasmus, therefore, must be looked on as something more than a personal quarrel, though the personal element entered into it. It was something other than the battle of two champions, one upholding the Protestant faith, the other the Catholic. It was the conflict and the final parting of two opposing tendencies that had for some time been manifesting themselves and crystallizing into parties. The time comes in an age of conflict over fundamental principles when each man must decide for himself what principle he will hold to be of paramount im- portance, and having made the choice he ranges himself accordingly. Erasmus and those for whom he spoke were Humanists to the core, and only incidentally, one might almost say accidentally, reformers. Accordingly, they found it easiest, not to say unavoidable, to cast in their lot with the old Church, the patron and promoter from the first of the new learning. Luther and those whom he represented were first of all advocates of the gospel of salvation by faith, which they con- sidered the most valuable fruit of the new learning, and they were only partially Humanists. Accordingly, they could no longer abide 1 Letter of Jan. 16, 1521. De Wette, 1: 543. 220 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY in a Church that flouted the Gospel and stigmatized as heretics those who preached it. Both leaders were at heart conservatives, and had not circumstances brought Luther into personal antagonism to the Papacy and made him a rebel of necessity, not of choice, he would never have left the old Church. Erasmus, being under no such compulsion, took the road that Luther himself would have taken had liberty of choice been allowed him. It is the custom to speak of Erasmus as timid, vacillating, double- tongued, lacking the martyr's spirit, 1 time-serving, vain, loving and seeking the praise of men nearly all of which is true, though perhaps it should not be said without some qualification, certainly not without taking some account of noble qualities in his nature. His conduct toward Luther gives no sufficient grounds for criticism, except on the assumption that he was at heart a believer in all Luther's doctrines and an approver of all Luther's methods. It is no great proof of cowardice that a man is not willing to die for a doctrine. that he does not believe; or of inconsistency for him to break with a party to which he never really belonged. Nor yet was it a great or a singular offense that Erasmus did not submit himself to Luther's leading; he had so long been a leader himself. 2 Already, as occasion has offered, the services of Erasmus to Luther have been indicated. It will not be amiss to notice more in detail the relations of these two remarkable men to each other. And it so happens that we have ample means of knowing what Luther thought of Erasmus, and what Erasmus thought of Luther. At first it is evident that Erasmus was disposed to extend to Luther that favor and patronage which he extended to so many bright, studious men of his time. Others had been flattered, pleased, stimulated, guided by his encouragement and advice, and he thought to help Luther, too. He had reached that elevation from which it was natural for him to regard others as pupils to be in- structed, rather than as equals with whom to hold conference. But this was an impossible relation between him and Luther, as he would have seen if he had had discernment enough to recognize in the reformer a spirit, if not a mind, superior to his own. He did not read Luther's books (so he often said) not because he was afraid to read them, but because he did not think it worth while, except, indeed, to know what to think of Luther. In a long letter written to Cardinal Cam- 1 A passage from a letter to Cardinal Campeggio io quoted against him: "Let others seek for martyrdom, I do not think myself worthy of that honor." But a few years later he modified this sentiment into the following: "I would gladly be a martyr for Christ, if he would give me strength, but I am not willing to be a martyr for Luther." 2 We may well recall that Reuchlin, the great Hebraist, refused to follow Luther, and Staupitz would not (or could not) go all the way with him. EXEUNT HUMANISTS 221 peggio, dated December 6, 1520, after Luther's excommunication was everywhere known, and just four days before Luther burned the bull, he says: "Of all Luther's books I have not read twelve pages; and then only by paragraphs here and there; and yet from these, rather dipped into than read, I seemed to myself to recognize rare gifts of nature and a genius admirably adapted to expound literature according to the ancient method." The impression made by his own slight examination of them was strengthened by the opinion that others had formed of Luther's writings. "I have heard," he said, still writing to Cam- peggio, "that distinguished men, men of approved doctrine and life, have congratulated themselves that they have fallen in with his books." Here then was just such a fine genius as Erasmus loved to patronize. He would rejoice to number him among his friends and admirers. He would treat him as he treated Zwingli, Jonas, Melanchthon and others. But besides the personal interest that drew Erasmus to Luther, there was a general interest arising from the attitude of the two parties, Lutheran and anti-Lutheran, toward literature. "It happened," said Erasmus, "by what chance I know not, that in the beginning those who opposed Luther were the enemies of good learning, and on that account the friends of learning were less hostile to him, because they were afraid that they might strengthen their own adversaries by taking the part of his." In fact he thought that in the first instance opposition to Luther was merely opposition to learning. He quotes with approbation what was said by John Faber: "We ought to consider the fount and source of this uproar: it is manifestly the hatred of learning, which, with malicious cunning, they are endeavoring to mix with Luther's business." l In this matter, too, "the cold and timid scholar" was influenced by a fine sense of justice and fair play. "To this extent," he said, "I favored Luther, that I was unwilling that he should be given up to the will of certain men, who on any and every pretext strove to subvert good learning; and yet I did not so favor him as not to wish him to be overcome by the testimony of Scripture to be refuted by arguments, if he deserved to be refuted. Noble natures desire to be taught, they do not endure to be put down by force. It is the part of theologians to teach, of tyrants to coerce. I so favored Luther as to wish that he be corrected and not destroyed, reclaimed and not blotted out, if in anything he erred. And all who have ever written have erred, save only the sacred Scriptures! In this way I think that to-day all upright men favor Luther, yea, even the Pope himself. Cyprian loved the books and genius of Tertullian, although he did not agree with him in all his teachings. Jerome loved the genius of Origen although he did not favor 1 Erasmus, Op. 3: 594-901. 222 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY his condemned opinions. 1 I do not wish these examples to be taken to Luther's injury. I pronounce no judgment on him either way; he has his judges. Just as my praise would not help him, so I do not wish him to be injured by it if in anything I differ from him. ... No one ad- monished him in a brotherly way; no one tried to hold him back; no one taught him; no one sought to refute him. They only shouted that a new heretic had arisen, who taught that it was not necessary to confess all mortal sins! ... A terrific bull was sent forth against him in the name of the Roman Pontiff. Copies of it were burned; there was a tumult of the people; the thing could not have been more odious. The bull was too severe in the judgment of all. It was made more severe by the additions of those who were to execute it." So Erasmus wrote to Campeggio in December, 1520. Even after the Diet of Worms his sympathies were still with Luther. "The report here is," he wrote to Jonas, "that you stood by Martin Luther at Worms. No doubt you did so, just as I should have done had I been there, that this tragedy might be so settled by moderate counsels that it would not afterwards break out again with greater injury to the world. And I wonder that this was not done, sirice the best men greatly desired that the tranquillity of the Church should be the matter of chief concern." 2 Erasmus was far more bitter against the opponents of Luther than he ever became against Luther himself. His quarrel with them was of long standing: he hated them before Luther became known, and continued to hate them to the end. Their ignorance, narrowness, and intolerance aroused in him a contemptuous scorn. He did not spare them, as they did not spare him. With them, he was the favorer of heresy; with him, they were the enemies of "good letters," which they had not learned in youth and afterwards had not time to learn. They misunderstood him, perverted his language, misrepresented him, talked against him. a It happened with them as it has too often happened with men of their kind: regarding themselves as the peculiar defenders of Christianity, they supposed that whoever was against them was against the truth, in defense of which they were not always careful to tell the truth, and were deaf to the commonest dictates of charity and justice. To his 1 In asking for Tertullian's works Cyprian was in the habit of saying, Da mihi magistrum, give me my teacher. Jerome says of Origen: "The city of Rome herself compelled the senate to go against this man, not on account of the novelty of his doctrine, not on account of his heresy, as the mad dogs (rabidi canes) now pretend, but because they could not endure the glory of his eloquence and learn- ing, and because when he was speaking all others seemed to be dumb." Mosheim,. Ch. Hist., 1: 187. * Letter to Justus Jonas, May 10, 1521. Op. 3: 639-643. 3 In a letter to Campeggio he says, "They do not fear from the sacred desk to. attack the fame of those by whose industry polite studies have been advanced, among whom they place Erasmus." EXEUNT HUMANISTS 223 sympathy with outraged learning Erasmus added a deep sense of per- sonal injury. But his interest was not with literature alone; he was keenly, sorrowfully, indignantly alive to the religious degradation of his times. After mentioning the corruptions of other ages he adds: "But I do not know that the leaders of the Church ever so eagerly and so openly yearned after the goods of this world, which Christ taught us to despise, as they do now. Scriptural studies have sunk very low; it is no better with morals; sacred literature is enslaved to human cu- pidity; the credulity of the people is turned to the gain of the few. Pious souls, to whom nothing is more precious than the glory of Christ, are groaning. This brought it about that at the beginning Luther had every- where such favor as I think had not happened to anyone for ages. As we easily believe what we greatly wish, men thought there had arisen a man who, pure from the desires of this world, could bring some remedy to so great evils. Nor indeed should I have despaired of such a result if, at the very first taste of the little books that began to come out in Luther's name, I had not feared that the affair would end in tumult and open division of the world." He condemned both the aims and the methods of the extreme papal party. He had nothing in common with them. He approved Luther's aims, he condemned his methods. It was not his business, he said, to give an opinion as to the truth of what Luther taught; but certainly the latter's manner and spirit in carrying on the controversy he did not at all approve. Therefore, he said, I admonished Luther himself and also those of his friends whose authority I thought would be of weight with him. What advice they gave him I know not; but the affair was so managed that there was danger that the evil would be doubled and intensified by remedies wrongly tried. Since the truth is itself bitter to most persons; since it is in itself seditious to overturn things established by long use, it is wiser to soften the natural difficulty of it by civility of treatment than to pile up hatred on hatred. Luther had violated all maxims of prudence. He had not imitated the gentle- ness of Christ and his apostles with their opponents ; which gentleness of teaching, which prudence in dispensing the divine word, took the world; and what no arms, no sublety of philosophy, no elegance of rhetoric, no strength or art of man could do, forced it under the yoke of Christ. Erasmus was not willing to acknowledge, as some claimed, that the disease of the age was too great to be cured by gentle remedies. God in dealing with men sometimes uses severity; but this does not give men any excuse for doing the same thing. Many men, he said, would be less evil if they were robbed of their riches, but it is not the part of a good man to rob them in order to make them better. Luther gratui- 224 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY tously magnified the differences between him and others, when it was the part of wisdom and prudence to make them seem as slight as pos- sible. It was no excuse, as some said, that he was provoked by his adversaries; he ought to have restrained himself. Some excuse him for not submitting himself to the judgment of Leo X, a very merciful Pope, or to that of the Emperor, an excellent and compassionate prince, after he had been driven by an impulse from without to write too bitterly. But why did he rather listen to those who thus advised than to other friends, men of learning and experience, who advised the opposite? Already many of his special favorers were striving to help him with ridiculous books and idle threats, as if trifles of that kind either terrify adversaries or please good men, according to whose judgment every- thing that is to have a good end must at last be decided. Their rashness had brought in an army of evils; it had put a burden of odium on good men, who in the beginning had not been unfavorable to Luther, because they hoped he would treat the matter differently or because his enemies were the same. Erasmus complains of the use that had been made of his letters. They were private and sent under seal, but notwithstanding they were immediately published. Things that he wrote long ago were brought out and perverted, and he was made to appear a friend of tumult and disorder. To speak candidly, he said, if I had foreseen that such a time would come. I either would not have written what I wrote or I should have written differently. Nothing is more hateful to me than con- spiracy, schism, faction. This whole business, whatever it is, was begun against my remonstrance and certainly with my constant condemnation of the manner of it. It is very far from my wish to be mixed up with so dangerous a faction, and I wish that they would be prudent who think that with such acts as they are using they can allure anyone to their camp. If they wished to drive off anyone who is favorable, what better means could they employ? In such a way he wrote to Jonas, whom he commended for favoring Luther at Worms. As matters progressed, the fears of Erasmus increased; his disappro- bation of Lutheran methods became more decided. He poured out his heart to Melanchthon. He said, I do not know what kind of a Church that of yours is; but there are men in it who, I fear, will turn everything upside down and compel the princes to restrain both the good and evil by force. With their mouths they are always saying "the gospel," "the word of God," "faith," "charity," "Christ," "the Spirit." Their conduct says something very different. Have we driven out our Lords and Popes and bishops, to bring in harder tyrants? Who could per- suade himself that they were actuated by the Spirit of Christ, whose EXEUNT HUMANISTS 225 conduct so differs from the doctrine of Christ? "Once the Gospel made ferocious men gentle, rapacious men considerate, turbulent men peaceful, abusive men gentle-speaking; these men are made ferocious, they seize the goods of others by fraud, they excite tumults, they speak evil of the most deserving. I see new hypocrites, new tyrants, not even a shred of the spirit of the Gospel. If I were the most ardent follower of Luther, I would hate them worse than I do hate them for the Gospel's sake, which their evil conduct brings into reproach; and for learning's sake, which they utterly destroy." 1 Melanchthon in his reply virtually confesses the justice of what Erasmus says, but he would separate the cause itself from the conduct of its advocates. " I beseech you, Erasmus," he says, "in the first place not to believe that Luther acts with those whose morals you justly blame; and in the second place, not to be less favorable to the doctrine because of the folly and rashness of certain men." There can be no doubt that Erasmus reckoned himself among those who at first were favorable to Luther. He rendered Luther's cause great and valuable service. He has told what it was that alienated him. Upon occasion he himself knew how to wield a bitter pen, but that was in his own defense, in opposition to those who had wronged him or learning. In Luther's matters he was a spectator, a judge, not a partisan. Suppose Luther had followed his advice ; had used his gentler methods? Was Erasmus right? Was Luther wrong? We may answer both these questions affirmatively, but at the same time it is probable that on Erasmus' plan the Reformation never would have gone forward; on Luther's it succeeded. It is greatly better that men should be kind and just and fair-minded and without passion in advocating truth; this is the ideal way of correcting wrongs and establishing right. But, as a rule, in order to the successful working of this plan, it must be tried in an ideal community. The other plan, involving injustice, hardship, prejudice, hatred, all evil human passions, is the usual plan of successful revolutions; it is the plan that adjusts itself to ordinary human conditions. But although it is successful, the wrong of all kinds that it permits or requires does not go unavenged the suffering of the reformed com- munity is itself a kind of expiation of the sin of the reforming methods. And by such methods, for the most part, men only clear the way for the working of other and better methods. They reach only partial results; they leave wounds that gentleness and time must heal; they cause dislocations that only patience and wisdom can right; they oc- casion sorrows for which there is no solace in this world. The body politic, like the natural body, is healed only by suffering. When the impetuous 1 Letter dated Basel, Sept. 6, 1524. Op. 3: 817-820. Melanchthon's reply is given in cols. 820, 821; also in CR, 1: 674, where it is dated September 30th (prob- ably correct) while the editor of Erasmus has made the date October 30th. 226 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY Luther has gone before, the work is not complete until the thoughtful and more cautious Erasmus has followed after. Alas for the earth if the sunshine did not follow the storm! The two men were very different in spirit and methods, but there was so much of Luther's work with which Erasmus sympathized that it was only in time and with difficulty that he could break entirely with him. He had befriended Luther with danger to himself. He taught some things tentatively and with reserve; Luther taught the same things positively and without reservation. In many quarters all the odium that attached to Luther was carried over to him. He was made responsible for doctrines that he did not hold, or that he held only with qualifications. His situation was not pleasant. All the while he sought to maintain friendly relations with both parties. He wrote to Pope Adrian VI congratulating him on bis elevation to the Papacy, and offering to make suggestions how the difficulties in Germany might be removed, with the understanding that what he should say should be known only to himself and the Pope. Adrian replied to his letter, urging him to write against Luther and asking for the promised advice. The correspondence with the Pope is interesting and honorable to Erasmus. AoMan said: "We do not omit to exhort you to use against these new heresies that most felicitous pen which is yours by the favor of God. For many reasons you ought to think that this duty has been especially reserved for you. You have great force of genius, varied learning, and readiness in writing, such as belong to few, not to say more. Besides, you have great authority and favor in those nations in which the evil arose. You ought to use these gifts in defense of the faith, and of the honor of God, by whose kindness alone they have been bestowed on you." Nothing, he thought, could be more grateful to God, or more worthy of Erasmus's genius, than such a service. Erasmus in reply wished that he had the ability that the Pope attributed to him. He would not hesitate to heal the public evils even by the sacrifice of his life. But his authority would avail nothing with those who had despised the authority of the university of Paris. Besides, he had lost credit. There had been a time when men praised him, calling him a great hero, the Prince of Letters, the Star of Germany, etc. They use different language to him now. Then, the thing to be done was very difficult. He would not dare to tell the Pope in how many places, and how deeply- the favor of Luther, and at the same time hatred of the Pope, had been fixed in the public mind. Among those who favored Luther were favorers of learning; he wished it was not so, but so it was. He had had the sweetest fellowship with all learned men; he would rather die than lose their friendship, and at the same time bring hatred on himself. And yet EXEUNT HUMANISTS 227, he would do this rather than seem factious. He had in many ways shown that he was not a favorer of Luther, and had dissuaded men from favoring him; but while he was discouraging heresy in Germany he was slandered at Rome, called a heretic, an arch-heretic, a schismatic, a liar. What, he says, can be more unhappy than my condition, striving day and night for the good of both parties and hated and wounded by both! He had his views as to what should be done. Many wished to try the virtue of severity; the result would prove that such counsel was bad. I see, he said, more danger than I could wish that the affair will end in bloody slaughter. I do not inquire what punishment may be due to heretics, but what makes for the public peace. The evil is too deep-seated, has spread too far, to be healed by cutting and burning. The example of Wiclif and others whose party was suppressed by harsh measures was not pertinent to this case; the circumstances were different. The Pope wishes to heal rather than destroy if all were like him something might be done. First the causes of the evil must be ascertained and re- moved. Then forgiveness must be granted to those who by the influence and persuasion of others have been led into error. Then the world must have hope that the burdens of which the people complained would be taken off. He thought, too, that novelties of little importance, yet creating disturbance, ought to be forbidden by the rulers and that some restriction should be placed on printing. This was the plan of Erasmus; there is nothing new in it. He wrote to Melanchthon that the Pope did not take his advice hi good part. It is of greater value to us than it was to the Pope; it confirms our knowl- edge from other sources and proves how general and how severe was the revolt, how real the difficulties of the situation were, and how consistently Erasmus opposed those who counselled violence against Luther. 1 We have seen how Erasmus wrote to representative men on either side. In his letters to Jonas and Melanchthon he mentions freely the things that displeased him in Luther and his followers; in the letters to Campeggio, a prominent agent on the papal side, he does not spare the Pope; and if he is careful, in writing to the Pope, to disclaim all con- nection with Luther, he is yet free to say that the blame is not all on Luther's side. There is little or nothing in the later letters that may not be found in the earlier. It is true, however, that as time passed on these fears increased and his hopes waned. At first, things that he had in common with Luther were more than those in which they differed; 1 The correspondence was as follows: Erasmus to Adrian, congratulation, dated Aug. 1, 1522. Op. 3: 721; Adrian's reply, Dec. 1, 1522 (735); Erasmus, brief letter, Dec. 22 (737) ; Adrian urges Erasmus to write, Jan. 23, 1523 (744) ; Erasmus replies at length, in the letter from which the above quotations and summary are taken a letter undated and incomplete (745-748). 228 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY at last the proportion was changed, and the antagonisms were in the ascendant. And this is not strange things were constantly moving; the Lutheran party was all the while becoming more radical and revo- lutionary. It every day became more apparent that there was to be a schism in the Church, and Erasmus must go with the new party or remain with the old. He had reached that time of life when men hesitate to make changes in their party connections. He had himself long been a leader, accustomed to have men defer to his opinion and judgment, and should he go with the Lutherans he must take second place and become a follower of Luther. From the first Luther had stood aloof from him, unwilling to be patronized by him, and thought that Erasmus was playing the part of protector. 1 With subtle intuition he at once understood that he and Erasmus might be friends and allies, never disciple and teacher. As time went on he despaired of an alliance, and only asked that they might not be enemies; he besought Erasmus not to write against him,, and he would not write against Erasmus; 2 but in the very letter in which he made this request he could not refrain from speaking to the great scholar in a lofty tone of compassion. No one, he said, could deny the beneficial influence of learning, or the influence of Erasmus in promoting the intelligent study of the Bible; God had bestowed on him a magnificent and peculiar gift for which thanks should be given. But, he continued, I have never desired that you should go out of your sphere and mix yourself up with my business. Although your genius and eloquence might be of great service to my cause, yet, since you have no heart for it, it would be safer for you to follow your own bent. He did not wish his friends to worry Erasmus, but permit him to spend his old age in peace; and that, he said, "in my opinion they would certainly do, if only they should take into account your weakness, and consider the greatness of the cause, which has long since gone beyond your little measure (modulum tuum)." God, he thought, had not given Erasmus the gift of fortitude. Erasmus replied that he was acting more in the interest of the Gospel than many of those who were boasting that they were its peculiar champions. "I see," he said, "that many abandoned and seditious men have arisen; I see that disci- pline and good learning are going to destruction. I see that friendships 1 In reference to Erasmus's letter to the Archbishop of Mainz in 1529, Luther wrote to John Lange: Egregie me tutatur, ita tamen ut nihil munus quam me tutari vid- eatur, sicut solet pro dexteritate sua. Jan. 16, 1520. 2 "In the meantime, this I ask of you, that, if you can do no other service, you will at least be only a spectator of our tragedy; that you will not join your forces to our adversaries; especially that you will not publish books against me, just as -I will not publish against you." Luther's letter is given in Erasmus Op. 3: 846, merely dated 1524; De Wette dates in April, 2: 498. Erasmus replied under date of April 11, 1525, an entire year later, Op. 3: 926. Meanwhile, his book had been published, September, 1524. EXEUNT HUMANISTS 229 are sundered, and I fear that bloody tumults will arise." 1 "If," he said, "you are prepared to give to every man a reason for the hope that is in you, why should you take it ill if anyone for the sake of learning should dispute with you? Perchance Erasmus writing against you would do more for the Gospel than certain fools who write for you." When the relations between them had become so strained, it was impossible that the two men should not after a time become mutually hostile. Both sides had sought the help of Erasmus, and one had an apparently good claim to his aid, since he claimed its protection and patronage. His position in the Roman Church was becoming untenable, unless he made it manifest that he had quite broken with Luther. Even his scholarship was questioned by his enemies as he writes to his friend Archbishop Warham, people in Rome were beginning to call him Erras- mus. They accused him of being the real author of the Reformation: "Erasmus laid the egg; Luther hatched it." He admitted that there was some justice in the charge, but, said he, "I laid a cock's egg; Luther has hatched a pullet of a very different breed." 2 At length he yielded to solicitation and wrote against Luther his Diatribe de Liber o Arbitrio r which was published in September, 1524. 3 Erasmus was a great scholar and man of letters, but he was not a great theologian and he had neither native gifts nor acquired skill in meta- physical discussion. He did not therefore produce a book of much value on this subject; only in its elegant latinity was it worthy of the fame of such a scholar. But it required no profound theological learning or philosophical acumen to detect the most vulnerable point in the writings of Luther prior to this time. That was undoubtedly his extreme Augus- tinianism, especially the crude statements that he had repeatedly made about the human will, in which he went far beyond Augustine, if not in actual teaching, certainly in boldness and extravagance. It was the old question, the question that Eck and Carlstadt had discussed at Leipzig, and which has so often been discussed before and since, and which always will be discussed, because it has to do with an insoluble problem which men will nevertheless forever strive to solve. "Whatever is done by us, is done, not by free will but by pure necessity." "The free will is merely passive in every act of its own that is called willing; for the will is carried along and borne forward by grace." "It is in no 1 Erasmus's mentioning the sundering of friendships will remind the reader of the celebrated case of Burke and Fox, who, after having been friends for more than twenty years, were divided by differences of opinion about the French Revo- lution. Burke's pathetic remark that "he was sacrificing his oldest friendship at an age when friendships could not be replaced," may apply to Erasmus. See ovem gallinaceum, Lutherus issimillimum. Op., 3: 840. 3 Op., 9: 1215-1247. 230 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY one's hand, whether he will think of evil or of good; but all things are from God, against whom we are able to do nothing except in so far as he permits, or himself does the deed." These are fair specimens of Luther's reckless assertions, the last of which explicitly makes God the author of men's evil thoughts and deeds. Erasmus had little difficulty in pointing out Luther's error and in showing that such a doctrine of the will is incompatible with reason, experience and the general tenor of Scripture, as well as with many specific passages. He was much less successful in his attempt to expound a better doctrine, but he set forth very fairly the moderate anti-Augus- tinian or semi-Pelagian view that prevailed among Catholic theologians of his day. He was perhaps happiest in pointing out the practical dif- ficulties of the Lutheran theory: If the will of man is not free to choose the good, who will try to live a good life? What is the meaning of God's law, if men cannot obey? How can God punish or reward those who cannot choose between good and evil, but merely do what they must? His decision between the two opposing principles was a hesitating com- promise: "In the same individual act, two causes work together, the grace of God and the will of man, grace being the principal cause and the will the secondary cause which of itself can do nothing." "I prefer," he concludes, "the opinion of those who attribute something to free will, but a great deal to grace." This is a doctrine not greatly differing, if at all, from the synergism that Melanchthon developed in his later days, after he was freed from the overmastering influence of Luther. Erasmus writes throughout in a tone of studied moderation, of ur- banity even,, with no trace of personal bitterness. Indeed, one may read between the lines that the task was an ungrateful one, undertaken only because the author felt that he could no longer with safety to him- self refuse to write something against Luther and his teaching, but was accomplishing the task in a perfunctory and half-hearted fashion. But there was nothing perfunctory or half-hearted or urbane about Luther's reply. He seems, to do him justice, to have tried hard to restrain him- self and to keep his language within bounds of decency, and it is also his due to add that he succeeded remarkably for him. But though this is by far the most decent of all his controversial writings, his De Servo Arbitrio cannot be commended to controversialists for their imi- tation. 1 He cannot deny himself the pleasure of an occasional mean fling, and a bitter epithet bursts forth from him now and then, as if it were unawares, while a tone of ill-suppressed rage is heard through the whole. 2 1 LOL, 7: 113 seq.,- Walch, 18: 1669 seq. 2 This is a fair specimen: "Who knows, most worthy Erasmus, but God may condescend to visit you, through me, his miserable and frail vessel, that in a EXEUNT HUMANISTS 231 Luther seizes skillfully on the fundamental weakness of Erasmus, who said at the outset of his Diatribe that he was so far from delighting in assertions that he would rather at once go over to the sentiments of the skeptics, if the inviolable authority of the Holy Scriptures and the decrees of the Church would permit to which authorities he willingly submitted himself hi all things, whether he followed what they prescribe or not. 1 Nothing could have been more characteristic of Erasmus, or less characteristic of Luther, than such a saying. Erasmus was es- sentially a skeptic and free thinker, but without the courage of his doubts. He expresses in his writings doubts concerning the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, transubstantiation, the sacra- mental character of penance and marriage, the invocation of saints and the Virgin, the authenticity of the second epistle of Peter and the Apocalypse, the genuineness of miracles, including those of the Scriptures. In fact, it is much easier to make a list of the things that he doubted than of those that he believed. There are only two things in which we may be quite certain that his belief was absolute, Erasmus and sound learning. With such skepticism Luther had nothing in common he believed many things, and he believed all with an energy that amounted to certitude. He correctly interpreted Erasmus to mean: it matters not what is believed by anyone, anywhere, if the peace of the world be undisturbed. Luther proceeds to make a strong point in accusing Erasmus of vacillation in his doctrine of free will, in one breath asserting and denying it. Not without justice, he charges that his distinguished adversary is "resolved to hold with neither side ... in order that . . . you may have it in your power to assert all that you deny and deny all that you now assert." This is precisely what Erasmus had been doing for years, and the thrust must have gone home. He points out inconsistences in his opponent, as Erasmus had pointed them out in his own teaching "You also enjoin us works only. But you forbid us to examine, weigh and know, first our ability, what we can do and what we cannot do, as being curious, superfluous and irreligious." Erasmus had defined free will as "the power in the human will, by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation or turn away from the same." But Luther flatly denies: "The will cannot change itself, nor give it- self another bent; but rather the more it is resisted, the more it is irri- tated to crave. . . . But when God works in us, the will being changed happy hour I may come to you with this book of mine, and gain my dearest bro- ther." This is like the threat of some pious people to pray for their adversaries than which there is no lower depth of hypocritical malice. 1 Et adeo non delector assertionibus, ut facile in scepticorum sententiam pedibus discessurus sim, ubicunque per diviniarum Scripturarum inviobilem auctoritatem et Ecclesiae decreta liceat, quibus meum sensum ubique libens submitto, sive assequor quod praescribit, sivc non assequor. Op., 9: 1215 D. 232 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination and accord." "The will, having lost its freedom, is compulsively bound to the service of sin, and cannot will anything good." 1 Luther grounds this doctrine of the will in the nature of God. "The omnipotence of God makes it, that the wicked cannot evade the motion and action of God, but, being of necessity subject to it, he yields. . . . God cannot suspend his omnipotence on account of his aversion, nor can the wicked man change his aversion. Wherefore it is that he must of ne- cessity continue to sin and err, until he be amended by the Spirit of God." 2 To the objection that this contradicts our ideas of goodness and justice, Luther declares that whatever God wills is right, purely because he wills it : " God is that being, for whose will no cause or reason is to be assigned, as a rule or standard by which it acts; seeing that, nothing is superior or equal to it, but it is itself the rule of all things. For if it acted by any rule or standard, or from any cause or reason, it would no longer be the will of God. Wherefore, what God wills is not therefore right; but on the contrary, what takes place is therefore right because he so wills. A cause and reason are assigned for the will of the creature, but not for the will of the Creator, unless you set up, over him, another Creator." ; Luther thus treats us to the ultimate ab- surdity of his system, a God who is wholly irrational, and acts without any reason, or else he could not be God! Erasmus had made a point of the lamentation of Jesus over Jerusalem, and the words " How often would I have gathered you . . . but ye would not." Luther disposes of the matter by making a distinction between the secret and the revealed will of God, which practically means that God says one thing while he means another. He wishes not the death of a sinner, in his revealed word, but in his inscrutable will he has determined the sinner's death. As man, Christ, who had come to redeem the world, shed tears over Jerusalem, but this does not exclude his purposely leaving the city to perdition, as God. 4 Erasmus replied in a book as long and labored as the Diatribe is brief and simple, which he named Hyperaspistes. 5 He complained, not without rea- son, that Luther had never before written against anyone more rabidly, and what is worse, more maliciously. "How," said he, "can such scur- rilous abuse, such criminal falsehoods benefit your cause, that you should call me an atheist, an epicurean, a skeptic, a blasphemer, and what not?" 1 De Servo Arbitrio, Sec. 41-50. The references to this treatise are conformed to the English version of Cole, London, 1823. 2/6., Sec. 84. s ib., Sec. 88. * /&., Sec. 64, 66. 5 The Hyperaspistes is as long and labored as the Diatribe is brief and simple. Op., X: 1250-1536. The former fills 286 columns of the folio edition of Erasmus,, while the latter occupies but 32 columns. EXEUNT HUMANISTS 233 The Diatribe of Erasmus and Luther's De Semo Arbitrio are little read in this generation, even by those who have dipped into the literature of the Reformation and know something at first hand of the writings of Luther and Erasmus. To us they are chiefly important as marking the separation between Luther and the greatest of the scholars and men of letters of the Renaissance or rather, for there was more in this than the personal element, the separation between Humanism and the Ref- ormation. For this separation we must conclude that Luther was as much responsible as Erasmus, but in the nature of the case it was in- evitable. In any circumstances it was unreasonable to expect Erasmus to become a follower of Luther, and Luther would tolerate none but followers. He thought Erasmus had done his work and had no further use for him he was a hindrance, a makeweight, and he must be thrust aside. At most, he might be only a looker on. And Luther was right. He had come to a place where he must assume responsibility and become the leader of a revolution, and those who were not with him were against him. The likenesses of the two men were accidental and superficial, the differences profound and vital. To Luther religion appeared the chief concern of man, to Erasmus learning. Erasmus desired from youth to become a cultivated man, Luther aspired to be made a new creation in Christ. The goal at which Erasmus aimed for society was its advance in civilization and enlightenment, Luther desired its moral renovation. For himself Erasmus would have attained his ultimate object whenever he should be perfected in the gifts and graces of this world; Luther would remain unsatisfied until he should be made meet for the inheri- tance of the saints in light. There was a difference like a world's diameter between the two men and their ideals, and the wonder is that this fact could have been so long concealed from their contemporaries that they could ever have been reckoned as belonging to the same party. But though Erasmus finally became a hindrance to the Reformation, Luther should have recognized the immense service that Erasmus had rendered, nor should we lose sight of it. There is something touching in his words to Luther: "What you owe to me, and how you have re- quited it I do not now inquire. That is a private matter. It is the public calamity that distresses me: the remediless confusion of all things, which we owe to you more than to anyone else." More than anyone else Erasmus himself had broken the power of authority, and had made it safe to think and write; he had helped to create the conditions in which the Lutheran movement was possible, and he had many times de- fended Luther when the latter needed a defender. It was not his fault if Humanism, revolting against scholastic theology and overthrowing it, was attempting to take the place of the dethroned tyrant. In this it 234 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY was but following the natural order. However, after men begin by an appeal to reason they invariably drift into the assertion of authority and submission to it; and men have done this not less when they have been battling for free thought against bigotry and superstition. Among the narrowest, most intolerant, most scornful of all parties, has often been the party of science, of literature, of culture! Even Erasmus might be a bigot in the interest of "good learning" and Humanism come to stand in the way of spiritual freedom. Nor can we of this generation find it easy to forgive Erasmus his lack of perception. Lucidity was his special gift, and he should have seen clearly that Luther's cause and his own must stand or fall together. Both were struggling in the interests of freedom, against despotism. Eras- mus should have seen that if Rome could succeed in crushing Luther, it would be the turn of the Humanists next. It was a case in which the lovers of liberty, as Franklin said, must all hang together or they would all hang separately. Humanism was thrust aside, and another and greater force came for- ward to take its place. The age had been making learning an end, and men awoke to find there is something in this life more important than the Greek and Latin classics, or the elevation of mind and refinement of taste that come from studying them. The Great High Priest of Culture might minister a little longer at decaying altars, but his cult was waning, and it would be years before he would have a successor. It happened with Erasmus as it has happened often in times of revolution: the great interest to which he had given his mind and heart, noble as it was, worthy as we must regard it, ceased to be the chief interest of the world. He was in the midst of contending parties, himself of no party. The sweetest friendships of his life had been blasted. Growing old, lonely, he saw the darkness gathering about him. For some years he found quiet and work at Basel, but revolution came there too, and he sought another home at Freiburg. Returning at last, intending to stay but a short time at Basel, he sickened there and died, having completed his seventieth year (1536). Of those whose profession was letters he was perhaps the greatest that ever lived. He was a Humanist, a lover of justice and fair play, a hater of noise and confusion and loud talking, a man of genial humor, of adamantine industry; flattered by cardinals, princes, kings and Popes, he was yet the friend, companion and adviser of young scholars. Having offended both Protestants and Catholics by his course, he has had few defenders, and we are in some danger of forgetting how great space he filled in the early days of the Reformation and how impor- tant an influence he exerted for a time on the course of events. With his death Humanism ceased to be a distinct, conscious historic force. CHAPTER IV REFORM OR REVOLUTION? ALL Germany was awakening ; a new national consciousness was coming to the birth. The " monk's quarrel" had grown into an open revolt against the head of the Roman hierarchy. It was daily becoming more clear that great religious, political and social changes were imminent/ but in the universal ferment it was by no means yet apparent what sort of changes would result. The course that the new movement would finally take was not yet seen by its leaders, nor had they thus far de- veloped any definite plan. Perhaps nobody understood the situation less clearly than Luther himself, the author of all this confusion and unrest. But he had been slowly feeling his way toward a settled and reasoned policy, and events were to precipitate his choice of allies and crystallize into permanent convictions ideas that were already in solution in his mind. Everything thus far in the Lutheran movement pointed to revolution. There had naturally gathered under Luther's banner all the discontented elements of society. Much in his earlier teaching had encouraged revolt against the existing order, and if other and more conservative elements in his writings had thus far been overlooked by some of his followers, this was only natural under the circumstances. That he should be re- garded by nearly all, by friends as well as foes, as not merely the central figure of a time of social unrest, but the willing leader of a revolution that could issue in nothing but a general reconstruction of social institu- tions, was nothing more than might have been reasonably expected. 1 But the time was at hand for a clearer declaration of his principles and purposes to make it plain to the world that, while circumstances might make him a rebel for a time, nothing could make him a revolutionary. We have already seen that, of all the classes in sixteenth-centurjV Germany, the peasants were in most desperate case. The recent sharp A advance in prices, and the consequent increase in their rents and the growing exactions of their lords, had made their condition intolerable. They felt most keenly of all the economic crisis through which the nation was passing, the pressure of which was the real, though ill-ap- prehended, cause of the revolt against Rome. It was more than natural, i It is instructive to note that the great religious movement called the Reforma- tion at once called into existence a multitude of socialistic groups; it is also in- structive to note how those in authority dealt with these groups. 235 236 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY it was inevitable, that the new movement should be hailed by them as the harbinger of better days. Luther's strenuous advocacy of liberty for Christian men might by him be understood solely of liberty in things spiritual, but the peasant can hardly be blamed for understanding the brave words of his leader in a less sublimated sense. Luther's insistence on the Scriptures as the sole authority in religion, followed by putting those Scriptures in their native speech into the hands of all his country- men, had resulted in a stricter and more consistent application of his principle to all mooted questions than he himself gave it or approved in others. He might content himself with the ideal of a Church reformed in doctrine and worship, but to the peasant the Gospel had come to mean a reorganization of society in accord with the teachings of Jesus. The discontent of the peasantry was increased, not diminished, by the progress of the revolt against Rome, which they found, in spite of the fine words of the leaders, was bringing them no redress of grievances, and no longer promised them relief from intolerable burdens. Accordingly, they determined to strike a blow for themselves. Living in a chronic state of rebellious feeling, that had often broken forth with less provoca- tion into violence, they now rose in the most serious of all their attempts to gain by force what had been refused them as a matter of justice. The first outbreak occurred in August, 1524, in Swabia, on the lands of the Count of Lupfen, in the Black Forest. The countess had compelled some of her tenants to gather strawberries on a church holiday, and also to collect snail shells for winding her skeins after spinning. Among the customs to which the peasants strenuously objected was this of corvee, or enforced labor in addition to that required of them by law or ancient usage. The limits of this right of corvee were ill-defined, and so every exercise of it gave rise to dispute whether it was a lawful demand or a tyrannous imposition. In this case the exaction seems to have been trivial, yet uncommonly vexatious, as trivial things often are. The tenants refused the service and this spark was sufficient to fire the train and produce the explosion. From estate to estate the revolt spread, and in a few days a force of twelve hundred peasants had gathered under the leadership of one Hans Miiller, a roving soldier of fortune, and ap- peared before the town of Waldshut on the Rhine. The citizens frater- nized with the insurgents and gave them provisions and encouragement. By the middle of October Miiller is said to have had fully five thousand under his nominal command. As winter approached, his forces dwindled away; and in addition the princes and nobles pretended a disposition to grant the demands of the peasants, in order to throw them off their guard and gain time for the gathering of a force to subdue them. Forcible suppression of the revolt was the more difficult, as the struggle between REFORM OR REVOLUTION? 237 the Emperor and Francis I, now fast approaching, had drawn off from Germany most of the available mercenaries, who were promised better pay and active service in Italy, where the struggle was evidently to be waged. The first armed demonstration of the peasants therefore came to nothing. During the winter the people silently brooded over their wrongs, or talked of them at weddings, at funerals and on other occasions of meeting. Early in the year 1525, their grievances took shape and found expression in the famous Twelve Articles. These articles were sent to Luther and he made them the occasion of a public address, first to the nobles, then to the peasants, and finally to both together. 1 The fact that he was consulted, and that he thought it to be his duty to undertake the office of monitor indicates as clearly as possible the preeminence of his position. He was the one man whom all classes would hear, and who had a right to speak to all classes. He was the recognized leader of reform, and it was his prerogative to point out the direction that the new movement should take. There was danger that it would turn aside from its proper course, and arraying class against class, end in tumult and confusion. He must, if possible, prevent the peasants from resorting to violence; or failing in this, he must free himself and his cause from all respon- sibility for their acts. It was a difficult task and he performed it with characteristic boldness. He reminded the nobles of his former address to them, and of his advice, by which they had not profited. For the present disturbed con- dition of things they had no one on earth to thank but themselves, es- pecially the blind bishops and foolish pastors and monks. Things had come to such a pass that the people could not and should not endure them any longer. If the rising peasants did not right them, others must do it. The nobles might slay, but God would make alive. "It is not the peasants, dear Lords, but God who arrays himself against you." Some of the peasants' demands were so reasonable that it was a shame they were compelled to make them. It was the duty of the magistrates to care for the people, but they had failed to do it; instead they had imposed no end of exactions. If crops were poor, the taxes were nevertheless to be paid; if crops were good, the taxes and rents were increased; and the money wrung from the poor was wasted by the rich in luxury and profusion. In a word, the peasants were in a condition of hopeless wretchedness; their most reasonable demands denied, and most unreasonable burdens imposed. To the peasants Luther said that the princes who refuse to admit 1 Ermahnung zum Frieden, auf zwolf Artikel der Bauerschaft, Wittenberg, May, 1522. LDS, 24: 257 seq. Walch 15: 58 seq. A nearly complete version in English, not always accurate, may bo found in Michelet, pp. 161-180. 238 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY the preaching of the Gospel and oppress the people justly deserve to be dethroned, but it was not the business of the peasants to dethrone them. The people must obey the magistrates. The magistrates are God-appointed. Sedition is rebellion against God; they that take the sword perish by the sword. No one must presume to be judge in his own cause; no one must undertake to redress his own grievances. When men undertake to avenge themselves, all law is at an end; and, casting off all restraint, they are worse than the heathen, worse than the Turks. It does not alter their case that their cause is the cause of God. Peter was not permitted to use the sword in defense of his Master, a case in which, if ever, it was right to resort to violence. The people must be patient; the Gospel itself was the remedy for their ills. If they proceed to violence, God will disappoint their designs. He himself would pray against them; and, he said, "though I be a sinner, yet the cause of my prayer is just and I make no doubt it will be heard; for God will have his name to be sanctified." Some of the peasants' claims Luther would not consider they did not belong to his office, which was to instruct men in religious and spiritual affairs. They claimed a right to choose a minister; there was nothing wrong in that, but as the magistrates furnished the funds by which the pastor was supported, it was not lawful for the people to give them to whom they would. The people were first to ask the magistrate to appoint a pastor; if he refused, they might themselves choose one and support him with their own means. If the magistrate should interfere, the people's pastor might flee; and whosoever chose might flee with him. Luther utterly rejected the peasants' claim for exemption from tithes and for release from bondage. " What," he said, " did not Abraham and many other holy men possess bondmen?" The demand for personal freedom savored of rapine and violence, and was repugnant to the Gospel. The address was as simple, candid and undiplomatic as possible. Luther said just what was in his heart. What he said was not pleasing to either party and was not fitted to allay the passions of the peasants. To tell an armed multitude that, for the most part, their demands were reasonable, their burdens unbearable, and that God was fighting against their oppressors, was not exactly the way to induce them to lay down their arms. They would hardly take it patiently to be advised to submit to wrong, to go into exile, and to wait for the coming of Christ to right all things. Naturally they would listen to Luther when he said the things that pleased them, and despise his counsel when he spoke of patient endurance. But, as matter of fact, his address had little or nothing to do with the course of events. It was written April 16th, at Eisleben, and that very day the outbreak began. It has sometimes been thought, because the Twelve Articles are in the REFORM OR REVOLUTION? 239 main reasonable, that the peasants were somehow justifiable in what they did. The substantial justice of their cause has blinded men to their con- duct. History is full of examples of the heartless cruelty of men who seem to themselves to be seeking freedom, justice, and even religion, in a tumultuous uprising. The peasants took arms, as they said, by the command of God, and "out of love to the public, that the doctrine of the Gospel might prosper, justice and honesty of life might flourish, and that they might for the future secure them and theirs from violence and op- pression." But these advocates of freedom forced men to join them under penalty of death; these asserters of truth were bound by no pledge; these friends of honesty became robbers and plunderers; these who wished security for them and theirs were deaf to cries for mercy from others. Wherever they went the country was desolated as if by fire. The sad thing about the matter was, that with all the injury inflicted on others, they got no good to themselves. They were opposed by the army of the Swabian league under General Truchsess, and wherever they were met by regular troops there happened rather a slaughter than a battle. As is usual in such cases, violence provoked violence, and the cruelty of the authorities far surpassed that which they avenged. In this uprising, lasting only two or three months, it is supposed that fifty thousand peasants perished. Thus far only the revolt in southern Germany has been described; there was a similar uprising in the North, under the general leadership of Thomas Miinzer. This man, so famous among the fanatics of that time, was born at Stollburg, probably in 1490, and was educated, as some say, at Wittenberg, or according to others at Leipzig. He studied in an irregular way, was a mystic -in theology, and an enthusiast by nature. After moving from place to place, he settled in Zwickau in 1520, already ripe for reform or revolution. He was not a prophet himself, but he was a friend of the prophets. After staying a short time at Zwickau, he was expelled from the city together with the prophets, who went to Wittenberg, as has already been related; while Miinzer went to Prag r where he had no great success. In 1523 he was at Alstedt, where he married a nun. He was afterwards at Niirnberg, and at Basel, and finally at Miilhausen, where he was first preacher and in a little time magistrate and ruler as well. In the beginning of his public life he had the friend- ship of Luther, but that did not last long; he felt himself called to be the leader of a new movement. The Pope imposed too heavy burdens on men; Luther was too lax in his requirements, especially he did not sufficiently emphasize the things of the Spirit. Miinzer anticipated some of the English Puritans: he would have men look grave, speak little, wear long beards, meditate much on God, pray often and fervently, 240 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY expect some recognizable sign of God's favor, and look for revelations in dreams. He would level all distinctions among men: all were to be equals and brothers, and have all things in common. All who agreed with him were his friends and God's friends; those who opposed him were God's enemies, marked for destruction. His communism was of that intoxicating kind that takes away from men their common sense, robs them of all sympathy with their race, and in the name of brother- hood makes them the enemies of human society. He was not without foresight. In anticipation of war he cast "some great guns in the monas- tery of the Grey Friars," but he neglected to provide ammunition for them. He had a certain prudence, too, and patience to wait for the time to strike. This patience, however, availed little, as Pfeifer, one of his lieutenants, precipitated matters by beginning the attack on nobles, castles and monasteries. His success encouraged others to begin and Miinzer could no longer delay. In beginning his work he issued a proclamation. "Dear brethren," he said, "how long will you sleep! Arise, fight the battle of the Lord. Now is the time. All Germany, France and Italy are moved. Heed not the sorrow of the godless. Show them no pity. Rouse up the vil- lages and towns, and especially the miners in the mountains. On, on, on, while the fire is hot. Let your sword reek with slaughter. So long as your oppressors live you cannot be free from the fear of man. So long as they reign over you, it is of no use to talk of God. On, on, on, while the day is yet yours, God is for you; follow him. The battle is not yours, but the Lord's. Quit you like men. You shall see the divine interposition. Amen. Given at Mulhausen in 1525." He signs him- self, " Thomas Miinzer, servant of God against the ungodly." 1 It was in April that Pfeifer made his first attack. The 15th of the following May, Miinzer and his followers were posted on a hill near Frankenhausen, protected by a rude fortification of wagons and carts. Before them were the Elector of Saxony, Duke George of Saxony, Philip of Hesse and other princes and their retainers. The poor people, badly armed, without organization, already hah' repenting of their folly and rashness, were losing courage in the presence of their enemies. The princes, willing to spare them, sent messengers to them, advising them to deliver up their arms and their leaders and go to their homes. While they hesitated, Miinzer came forward with an encouraging address, the effect of which was increased by the opportune appearance of a rainbow in the heavens, which he and his army interpreted as a divine intimation of victory. On the side of the nobles, Philip of Hesse took the lead, and after a short address, made the assault. The peasants 1 Michelet, p. 181. REFORM OR REVOLUTION? 241 were scattered, and five thousand of them slaughtered. Miinzer was taken in the town of Frankenhausen, and after cruel tortures was be- headed. It is reported of him that in his last hours he recanted his errors, received the last sacraments of the Church and died exhorting the people to hold fast to the true Catholic faith. The incredible levity that marked his whole life makes the tale not difficult to believe. It is further recorded that as he was led forth to die, Duke George, a stead- fast Romanist, said to him, "You should be sorry, Thomas, that you left your order, laid aside your cowl and took a wife." Philip of Hesse, a steadfast Lutheran, said, "Let not that trouble you, Miinzer, but let this be your sorrow, that you have excited the people to rebellion. Trust God, he is gracious and merciful. He has given his Son to die for you." 1 There is no occasion to make a hero of Miinzer. The quick and calami- tous ending of his undertaking is sufficient proof of its madness. The address that he is reported to have made to his desponding followers shows at the same time his skill as an orator and his fanaticism as a leader. His closing words might well have moved the multitude, ac- customed to feel that they were living in the intimate presence of God: "Be not now moved at the suggestions of your own reason," he said, "neither be troubled at a certain shadow and appearance of danger that stands in your way; but fight valiantly against your wicked and accursed enemies and be not afraid of their great guns, for in my coat will I catch all the bullets that they may shoot against you. See you not how gracious God is to us! Behold a manifest sign and token of his good will to us. Lift up your eyes and see that rainbow in the clouds. For seeing we have the same painted on our banner, God plainly declares by that representation which he shows us from on high, that he will stand by us in the battle, and that he will utterly destroy our enemies. Fall on them courageously and with certain hope of divine aid, for God will have us to have no peace with the wicked." 2 With the dispersion of the rabble at Frankenhausen and the death of Miinzer, the insurrection ended. It had accomplished nothing good; what good it aimed at was obscured by the violent methods of seeking it. No one can blame the peasants for being discontented; their con- dition was intolerable. Nor is their rising difficult to account for. Many new forces had been introduced into the life of the times, and these had produced changes and dislocations. Relations that had been natural and beneficial were such no longer. Under feudal institutions vassal 1 See the very hostile and prejudiced account of Miinzer's life, published soon after his death and attributed to Melanchthon, Walch, 16: 159 seq. Luther wrote a bitter tract, called Eine Schreckliche Gericht Gottes iiber Thomas Miintzer, LDS, 65: 12. Also see Strobel, Leben, Schriften und Lehren Thoma Mtintzers, "Numbers, 1795. * Strobel, pp. 110-112. 242 THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY and lord had been mutually helpful: there was loyalty and devotion on the one side, and care and protection on the other. But with the change in the mode of warfare lately introduced, there had come a change in everything else. The forty days' service that the vassal ren- dered his lord in return for the privileges of the land gave place to hired service. With paid soldiers at his command, the lord was independent of his vassals. His interests and theirs were no longer common. There was a constant tendency for the strong to encroach on the rights of the weak, and as constant a tendency among the weak to a feeling of jealousy and estrangement toward the strong. The life, the sweetness, the glory of the old system had passed away and its dead body remained an offense and a burden. In the old times the peasant had borne the burdens for the sake of the blessings; the blessings were gone, while the burdens remained and were increased. It was such a situation as may be brought about in any time of rapid and radical social changes. As the different classes were separated from each other in interests and sympathies, antagonisms might easily arise. Several things con- spired to arouse them. The increase of wealth and luxury and knowl- edge; the quickening of all the pulses of life; opportunities coming as they had not come before aroused new aspirations and ambitions in the bosoms of men. They became conscious that they had rights, that they might rise, and that their inherited condition was a hindrance to them. At this time Luther came preaching that the Pope was a tyrant, imposing unjust, useless, even injurious, laws upon the people; that the bishops were doing the same thing; and that the rulers, in addition to the wrongs that they themselves inflicted were protecting and upholding the Pope and the bishops. Those among the poorer classes who believed Luther came to feel that the rulers were their enemies and God's enemies. That they had this feeling is proved by their conduct, by their publications and the testimony of all. That Luther's teaching helped to produce and intensify it is equally clear. 1 Besides this, there were active fomenters of trouble. Sleidan, a con- temporary historian and witness, says, "This great and terrible war was, in a great measure, occasioned by busy and pragmatical preachers." Against these preachers Luther speaks with the emphasis of indignation. He says, "Satan has raised up many seditious and bloody preachers." "Take heed, therefore, again and again, what sort of men your preachers are, for I am afraid that bloody-minded men have crept in among you who by their sermons inflame you." "The devil, who had not hitherto 1 Duke George of Saxony wrote to Philip of Hesse, his son-in-law, that no one could help seeing that the preaching of Lutherans would produce just such effects as had been produced. Philip replied, saying that there were no Lutherans among those whom he had punished. Gieseler, 4: 123. REFORM OR REVOLUTION? 243 been able to oppress me by means of the Pope of Rome, now goes about to undo me by those bloodthirsty preachers." "Above all things, beware of those teachers that spur you forward. I know what sort of men they are; they lead you to a precipice, that they may get honors and riches by your dangers." He tells the nobles that, on account of their sins, God permits the devil by means of those prophets to stir up the people against them. 1 In the face of all these things, we must conclude that Luther's rebellion against the Papacy had something to