Luther Mackinnon 02

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
The Union of England and Scotland, 8vo, pp.

542. 10s. 6d. net (Published, 1896; Re-issue,
1907).
The History of Edward the Third, 8vo, pp. xxx
and 606. 18s. net (Published, March 1900).
The Growth and Decline of the French
Monarchy, 8vo, pp. xx and 840. 21s. net
(Published, April 1902).
A History of Modern Liberty, 3 vols. :Vol. I. Svo, pp. xxii and 398.
Vol. II. 8vo, pp. xi and 479.
30s. net (1906).
Vol. III. 8vo, pp. xviii and 5or.
15s. net (1908).
The Social and Industrial History of Scotland
from the Union to the Present Time, 8vo,
pp. viii and 298. 16s. net (Published, May
1921).
The Constitutional History of Scotland from
Early Times to the Reformation, 8vo, pp.
viii and 352. 16s. net (Published, 1924).
Luther and the Reformation, Vol. I., 8vo, pp.
xix and 317. 16s. net (1925).
LONGMANS, GREEN, -& CO. LTD.
The Social and Industrial History of Scotland

from the Earliest Times to the Union, 8vo,
pp. viii and 183. 9s. net (Published, May
1920).
BLACKIE & SON LTD.
LUTHER AND THE

REFORMATION
BY
JAMES MACKINNON, Ph.D., D.D.

Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, University of Edinburgh
VOL. }I,
THE BREACH WITH ROME (1 ~17-21)
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. LTD.

'
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.4

NEW YORK, TORONTO
CALCUTTA, BOMBAY, AND MADRAS
/
1928
Made in GreaiBntain
PREFACE
THIS volume deals with the devekipment of Luther's views
as a Reformer froni l517-2r. These four years are of
supreme importance for the initiation of the Reformation
movement. The history of Luther's life and his religious
development to 1517, which formed the subject of the
first volume, iriight. be described as the. prologue to the
Reformation drama. The four succeeding years constitute
the first act of this drama, and Kalkoff has justly termed these
"the decisive years of the Reformation~" They show us
thefruition of his earlier religious experience in the sphere
of actual life ... It was during these years that the monk
and the theologian developed into the militant Reformer.
This develqpment took its immediate rise in the Indulgence Controversy of 1517-18, with which the opening
chapter of this volume consequently deals in some detail.
This controversy led to the intervention of the Pope, and
this interventiOn led in turn to the widening of the con.:.
troversy and culminated in the breach with Rome, with
all the .consequences that this breach involved for the
Papacy and the medireval Church. At the outset Luther
by no means realised the issue to which the indulgence
controversy was to lead him. Superficially viewed, this
controversy appeared to be one of those theological disputes in which the scholastic theologians had pe:tiodically
indulged throughout the Middle Ages. Leo X. himself was
disposedat first to regard it as nothing more than a conventional monkish quarrel. The Pope, however, soon
learned to know better. For what had seemed, on a superficial view, but a scholastic dispute erelong developed into
an attack on the doctrines and institutions of the medireval
Church. The- ?kfrmish over indulgences thus became a
j>it'ched battle; or rather series of battles, between Luther
v
Vl
Preface
and his assailants, in the course of which the attack as well

as the defence widened its scope until it embraced the whole
medireval doctrinal and ecclesiastical system, and Luther
progressively enunciated and maintained his distinctive
teaching in ever more aggressive antagonism to this system.
In the struggle to assert and vindicate his religious convictions against the forces of tradition as incorporated in the
Papacy and the medireval Church, he was gradually led
to question and ultimately to reject the papal absolutism
over the Church, to substitute for the papal-hierarchic
Church of the Middle Ages the more spiritual and democratic conception of the New Testament, to vindicate the
sovereignty and independence of the national State against
the papal claim to superiority over the State as well as the
Church, to champion the rights of the individual reason and
conscience and the principle of religious toleration.
This ever waxing conflict thus led him step by step to
the apprehension of certain distinctive principles of far-.
reaching practical as well as theological import, and to
the full consciousness of his mission as a Reformer. His
opponents, as he ironically reminds them on occasion,
were his best teachers. His is, indeed, a striking case of
learning by discussion and controversy. At the same time,
he believed that he was being drawn onwards by a divine
power which he could not resist or control, and this belief,
abetted by his fighting temperament and his original,
receptive mind, explains the astoundingly rapid develop,
ment, both as a theologian and an ac#ve Reformer, which it
is the object of this volume to delineate.
Whilst the subject-matter is perforce encrusted i theological controversy, not always interesting or edifying to
the modern reader, it is of perennial importance in respect
both of the principles at issue and their far-reaching effects.
Luther became the leader of an emancipation movement of
superlative prospective significance in the political and
intellectual as well as the religious sphere. At this stage of
his career his watchword is Liberty-liberty for the
individual, the Church, the State. Liberi enim sumus ab
omnibus Qecomes his resounding war cry in spite of his
strongly conservative vein. True, it is liberty only as he is
Preface
...
Vll
able to comprehend it, liberty in the relative sense as against

his opponents, who strove to crush him and his cause. His
struggle in behalf of liberty is coloured by the temperament
and the religious experience of the man, and conditioned
by the limitations of his theological standpoint and outlook.
We may miss in him the larger and wider spirit of the
Renaissance, and fail at times to appreciate the rather
one-sided dogmatism of the theologian. Even so, he is
undoubtedly during these fateful years the prophet and
the apostle of a new age, of a mighty emancipation from
inherited and enforced traditions, beliefs, institutions, even
if he does not always understand the full implications of
this movement. It is this aspect of his heroic struggle,
throughout these years of strenuous battling with a host
of assailants and ever-threatening danger of the stake,
which has particularly interested the writer and which
the writer has sought to set in the foreground and convey
to the reader. In addition, he has striven to display the
personality of .the man as it unfolds itself throughout this
titanic struggle.
This volume is the fruit of a critical study of the writings
in which Luther developed his reforming ideas within this
period. Advantage has also been taken of the latest
researches on the subject, including in particular the works
of the veteran specialist, Paul Kalkoff, to which I have
pleasure in acknowledging my indebtedness. Kalkoff's contributions are of solid merit, in spite of the criticisms, in
regard to detail, to which they have been subjected and to
which reference is occasionally made in the footnotes.
My own studies in this field have been carried on in
connection with the Advanced Class or Seminar in Ecclesiastical History of Edinburgh University, and I take this
opportunity of dedicating the volume to the former members
of this class from many li,tnds beyond the seas as well as
Great Britain, and adding. the cordial greetings and good
wishes of their old professor.
The publication of the book has been encouraged by the
Carnegie Universities Trust, which has made a grant in aid
of it. My thanks are also due to Mr F. C. Nicholson, M.A.,
the Librarian of the University Library, who has been
...
Preface
Vlll
unwearying in placing the rich resources of the Library at

my disposal and in procuring the additional material
required for the purpose of the work. My acknowledgments
are also due to the members of the Library Staff;
In view of frequent inquiries as to the extent of the
work, I may add that two additional volumes, the manuscript
of which is nearly complete, will extend it to the death of
Luther in 1546.
THE UNIVERSITY; EDINBURGH,
December 1927.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
PAGES
THE INDULGENCE CONTROVERSY
1-36
I. MOTIVE AND JUSTIFICATION OF LUTHER'S ATTACK
1-12
Views of Janssen, Pastor,. Paulus as to Luther's motive-His Theses not an attack on the doi::trine of the Church, but on
the errors and .abuses of the Indulgence system-Desires to
initiate a discussion_, not a revolt-Gravity :of the abuses of the
system-Difficulty and obscurity of the doctrine of Indulgence-Difference of opinion among the scholastic; theologians-Critics
of the system previous to Luther~
II. THE COUNTER-ATTACK
- 12-25
Sensation caused by the Theses-Attitude.of the Archbishop

of Maintz-Boldness. of Luther's action-Encouragements and
misgivings of Luther's friends-The Dominicans up .in arms
-Wimpina's .counter-Theses fa defence of both .doctrine and
practice-Luther already denounced as a heretic.
III. LUTHER'S DEFENCE -
- 25-36
Burning of .the counter-Thes~s-,.Luther's. " Sermon on

Indulgence and Grace "-Tetzel's. "Vorlegung "-Lilther'.s
"Freiheit. des Sermo.ns "-Tetzel's Theses on the papal power
-Eck takes . sides against Lilther_.:.His "Obelisks " ;tnd
Luther's "Asterisks."
CHAPTER II
THE DEVELOPING SITUATION
I. ROMAN INTERVENTION
- 37-61
- 37-42
Pope Leo X. submits the case to Cajetan for examination--'-

At the instigation of the Dominicans. Leo takes energetic action
-Commissions Volta, General Of th~ Augustinian Order, to
enjoin Luther to refrain from further agjtatfon-Luther. in. a
letter .to Staupitz maintains hi$ position-More complia!}t
tone of his letter to the Bishop. of Brandenburg_.:. His reliance
on the protection of the Elector of Saxony.
ix
Contents
PAGBS
II, THE HEIDELBERG DEBATE -
- 42-53
Chapter of the Augustinian Order at Heidelberg-Luther's

journey thither-Expounds his theology in a series of Theses
-Makes a favourable impression and gains adhererits-Bucer's
account of the debate in a letter to Beatus Rhenanus-Luther
and Trutvetter-Faith in himself and his reforming missionSermon on the validity of excommunication.
Ill. APPEAL TO THE POPE
- 53-61
Luther's" Resolutions" on his Ninety-five Theses-Letters

to Staupitz and the Pope on the subject-Not content to stand
on the defensiVe-The " Resolutions " mark an advance on the
Theses-Shown by an examination of the work-Claim& liberty
of discussion-But will not be thought a heretic.
CHAPTER III
THE PAPAL PROSECUTION OF LUTHER
I.
THE CITATION TO ROME
.. 62-97
- 62-72
The Pope appoints a Commission to examine his writings and

cite Luther as suspect of heresy-Prierias's "Dialogue "-How
Luther receives the citation-His reply to the "Dialogue"Dominican machinations against him at the Diet of Augsburg
-Bogus. Theses on Excommunication ascribed to him-The
Emperor Maximilian's letter to the Pope-Emperor's attitude
influenced by the question of the imperial succession-Luther
undismayed.
II. CAJETAN AND LUTHER

Cajetan instructed to take summary measures against Luther
as a notorious heretic-This procedure legally justifiable but
ill-advised-The Elector of Saxony strives to counter this
summary procedure-At his instigation Cajetan undertakes
to give Luther a fatherly hearing at Augsburg-Papal change
of attitude influenced by political considerations-Elector directs
Luther to appear at Augsburg under safe conduct-His anxious
journey thither-Interviews with Serriilonga-Gracious reception by Cajetan-Lively discussions-Luther submits a written
statement-Heated altercation-Will not revoke unconditionally
and secretly escapes from Augsburg.
111.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HEARING
Appeal from Cajetan to the Pope-Cajetan complains to the

Elector-What Luther stood for-Champions individual right
against the principle of absolute authority-Strength of his
position from the moral and religious point of view-Determined
not to yield.
Contents.
Xl
CHAPTER IV
PAGES
THE SEQUEL OF THE AUGSBURG HEARING
I.
APPEAL TO A GENERAL COUNCIL AND THE

DECLARATION ON INDULGENCES
98-u9
PAPAL
98-1o6
Why he appeals from the Pope to a Council-Such an Appeal

accounted Heresy-Cajetan drafts a Declaration on Indulgences
-The Papal Decretal on the subject-Threatening situation
-Luther contemplates leaving Wittenberg-The Elector
determines to protect him-His spirited letter to Cajetan.
II. THE MISSION OF MILTITZ -
1o6-u9
Miltitz as papal Nuncius-The Elector declines to surrender

or banish Luther-Miltitz negotiates oh his own accountInterview with Luther at Altenburg-Proposes that he should
cease controversy and write a submissive letter to the PopeLuther explains and justifies his position-Drafts a letter of
submission-Professes reverence for the Pope and the Roman
Church, but denounces the opponents of Reform-Letter not
forwarded-Conditional agreement to observe silence pending
arbitration of the case-Miltitz's misleading account to the
Pope-Pope invites Luther to Rome to retract-Miltitz reprimands and Luther consoles Tetzel-Eck indirectly challenges
Luther-Luther's " Instruction to the People "-Is the Pope
Antichrist ?
CHAPTER V
THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION
120-146
1. BEFORE THE ENCOUNTER
120-128
Eck's indirect challenge-Luther accepts--'His counterTheses-Correspondence with Erasmus-Confidence in his

cause-Preparatory studies-The " Resolutio Luthetiana."
II. THE THEOLOGICAL. BATTLE OF LEIPZIG.

Luther not officially invited to take part-Luther and Duke
George of Saxony-Mosellanus and his portraiture of Luther
and Eck-Preliminary debate between Carlstadt and Eck on
free will and grace-Luther and Eck at close quarters~Eck
maintains and Luther denies the divine right of the papal
primacy-Luther asserts the supreme authority of Scripture and
adduces the Fathers and the example of the Greek Church in
support of his contention-,-The interpretation of Matt. xvi. 18
-Eck charges Luther with holding the .errors of Wiclif and
Hus-Luther maintains that Hus unjustly condemned by the
Council of Constance-Appeals again to Scripture as the
supreme test of belief-Eck accuses him of calling in question
the authori:ty of a General Council-Luther maintains the
fallibility of General Councils-He eJ>plains his position in
German-Rebuts the charge of heresy, but maintains his
standpoint-Eck pronounces him "a heathen and a publican "
-In the course of further debate Eck practically justifies
Luther's attack on Indulgences-Parting shots-Respective
xii
Contents
PAGl!S
merits of the disputants- Popular interest in the debate-Eck claims the victory-Luther dissatisfied with the course of
the debate-The strength of his arguments-It contributes to a
clearer understanding 9f his, position.
CHAPTER VI
THE SEQUEL OF THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION
147-181
I. THE AFTERMATH OF THE DJSPUTATION
147-161
The decision referred to, the Universities of Erfurt and

Paris~Their evasion~Epistolary and pamphlet warfareEck's letters to the Eleetor and the Pope-Luther's reply to his
letter to the Elector-His " Resolutiones Lutherianre "Defends Gunther against Eck-" Epistola " against EckEck's work on the papal primacy.,:,:," Eccius Dedolatus "Luther and Emser-Luther and Dungersheim-Ridicules the
official of Meissen-Onslaught on the. theologians of Louvain
and Cologne-Replies to Alveld and Prierias-Luther as
controversialist- Veritas vini:et:_These controversies contribute
to development of his views cm questions at issue.
,
II. PROGRESS. OF LUTHER'S REFORMING VIEWS

Rejection of the scholastic theology-Tentatively applies
critical method to Scripture-How he understands the authority
of the Church-Criticises ecclesiastical institutions-Advancing
views on the Sacraments of Penance, Baptism, and the Lord's
Supper-The accusation of Hussitism-Luther explains, but
will not be diverted by the outcry against him-Discovers that
he had been a Hussite all along-Influence of Valla's exposure
of the Donation of Constantine-His conception of the Church
as a spiritual democracy-Aggressive outburst against Rome-Beginning to turn to the State for a Reformation-His" Sermon
on Good Works "-A popular exposition of his theology~
Fiducial faith the principle of the religious life-" The Master
Craftsman of Works "--How he would reform religion and the
Church-Application of his teaching in the political, social, and
economic spheres-Conception of the State-Limitation of
, obedience-Warning against misgovernment.
CHAPTER VII
THE CONDEMNATION OF LUTHER
1. RESUMPTION OF THE PROCESS
182-221
182-192
Offer to make Luther a cardinal ?~Lull in the process

against him-Miltitz continues negotiation-Futile interview
with, Luther at Liebenwerda-The Curia discards the policy of
drift-Letters to Luther from Crotus Rubianus on the situation
at Rome-The Pope's menacing communication to the Elector
~The Elector's exculpation of himself and Luther-His diplo~
matic ingenuity-Denunciation of the Elector at Rome-The
Pope nominates a series of commissions to deal with the case-Letter of Venetus to Staupitz-Under Eck's influence Bull of
Condemnation drafted and submitted to the ConsistoryIts adoption by the Consistory and public proclamation at Rome.
xiii
Contents
PAGBS
II. THE BULL EXSURGE D.OMINE
' 192-199
It condemns Luther's pestiferous errors, forty-one in number

-"-Requires all Christians to reject under varim1s penalties-
Relates the efforts made to secure his retraction-Allows an'
interval of sixty days to l:etract after publication of Bull in
Germany-Fa,iling compliance he and his adherents to be cut
off and punished as heretics-Its specious'professions~Ignores
the evils against which Luther had revolted-Its futility in
view of the actual situation in Germany-Eck and Aleander
commissioned to publish the Bull in Germany.
Ill. IN PROSPECT OF THE BULL
199-213
1 Early reports of the proceedings .against him at Rome~

His confidence in God and 'his cause unshaken'-'-Humanist
support-Schaumburg and Sickingen offer. him protection" We fear nothing more "-Letters ofRiari6 and Tetleben to
the Elector-At the Elector's request Luther writes suggested
replies-Jada mihz" alea-The Elector replies accordinglyProposes arbitratioii-Luther's " Erbieten "-Li:tter to the
Emperor-Losing faith in such expedients-War against Antichrist-At Miltitz's instigation the Chapter of the Augustinian
Order urges Lt1ther to write a submissive letter to the PopeThe letter to Leo X.-Its denunciation of Roman corruption_::...
It expresses the outraged moral sense of Christendom.
IV. LUTHER AND THE BULL
213-221
Violent opposition tci the publication of the Bull and the

burning of Luther's books-'-Era~mus on Luther's "crime "A fight to a finish-Luther professes to doubt the authenticity
of the Bull-Lashes the Roman Antichrist..C..:" Eck's New Bulls
and Lies " ; " Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist "Gross degeneration of 'the Papacy and the Church-Pastor's
description-Luther renews his appeal to a General CouncilBurhs the Bull and gives his reasons for doing so.
CHAPTER VIII
THE REFORMATION MANIFESTOS OF 1520

I. THE APPEAL TO THE NATION
222-270
,222-247
The "Address to the Nobility "-Plan of the work and its lack
,of symmetry-The explanation-The. Address not inspired by
Hutten and the' lesser nobility or written. in thefr interestDifference of Illotive in Hutten's and Luther's antagonism to
Rome-: How far the Address influenced by Hutten's nation:alism
_:Sources of the Address-Its striking originalitY-The Appeal to
the Iaity-The'thr~e walls behind which the Romanists entrench
xiv
Contents
PAGBS
themselves-The Roman claim to independence of and superiority

over the temporal estate-No essential distinction between the
spiritual and the temporal estate-The State as divinely ordained
and Christian entitled to reform the Church in case of grave
evils-The papal pretension to be the infallible interpreter. of
Scripture and arbiter of faith untenable-The right of the individual Christian and the Christian State to convene a reforming
Council-Review of the abuses under the Roman misgovernment
of the Church-Vehement description of the trafficking in sacred
things at Rome-Substantial accuracy-What reforms are to be
undertaken by the Reichstag or the territorial authoritiesDrastic diminution of the power of the Pope and the CuriaArraigns the Pope in person-Advocates the autonomy of the
national Church-Restricts the papal office to the spiritual
oversight of Christendom-Restores the rights of the local
Church-Vindicates the sovereignty of the State against the
usurpation of the Roman Antichrist-Drastic reform of the
usages and institutions as well as the constitution of the ChurchHow he would deal with the Hussite question-Proclaims the
principle of toleration-Would reform the State as well as the
Church-Scheme of educational, legal, and social reformWeakness and strength of the Address-Whilst theoretically
distinguishing between the spheres of C!fo.rch and State he
practically empowers the State to undertake the task of reform
-In idealising the State he does not sufficiently realise the
danger to the autonomy of the Church and individual Christian
liberty-His ideal of a reformed national Church which recognises a limited papal headship not really practicable-Merits
and limitations of his scheme of national reform.
II. THE ATTACK ON THE SACRAMENTS

Genesis of " The Babylonic Captivity of the Church "Discussions with Melanchthon-The work inspired by his
opponents-Importance for the development of Luther's teaching
-Written at high pressure-Daring emancipation from medi::evalism in religion-Reduces the sacraments to three-Advocates
communion in both kinds-Rejects transubstantiation in favour
of consubstantiation-Denies the magical and sacrificial view
of the Sacrament-How far he retains the traditional' view of
baptism-The emphasis on personal faith for its efficacy-What baptism specifically signifies-His impassioned appeal
on behalf of Christian liberty from priestly bondage-Priestly
tyranny in the Sacrament of Pena,nce-His conception of the
priesthood as a ministry and of Orders-The realisation of
these ideas involves a profound modification of the medi::eval
Church and its institutions-Extraordinary combination of
boldness and self-restraint-Enunciates revolutionary ideas,
but does not face their practical application-The " De
Captivitate " alienates some of his humanist supportersMurner's translation diffuses the knowledge of it.
III.
THE LIBERTY OF A CHRISTIAN MAN
The fruit of the Conference at Lichtenberg-Written for

presentation to the Pope-Simple exposition of his doctrine
of justification-Treats the subject from the double standpoint
of the freedom and the subjection of the Christian-The believer
xv
Contents
PAGES
independent of external works-Dependent for salvation only

on the Gospei received in fai.th-Faith leads fr?m the Law
to the Gospel-Renders promises of God effect1ve-Imputed
righteousness-Mystical union of the soul with Christ-The
Pauline mysticism has displaced that of the medireval mystics
-The emancipation of the soul\ through faith from works
involves its subjection in self-discipline and service for others
-Works in this sense an essential of the Christian life,'though
not to be done with a view to justification-Has completely
outlived the monastic ideal of work righteousness-Stress on
the inward disposition, not on the outward work-This granted,
emphasises the absolute necessity of good works-His magnificent
altruism-The limitation of liberty-Economic aspect of his
spiritual teaching.
CHAPTER IX
THE DIET OF WORMS
J.
271-320
THE EMPEROR AND LUTHER
The Emperor Charles V.-Favour:;; a practical but not a

doctrinal Reformation-Unity of the Church indispensable to
the unity of the State-Hampered by political considerations in
his treatment of the Luther.an question-Conference with the
Elector at Cologne-The Elector and the papal NunciosEmperor's change of attitude-The Elector persists in his
determination to secure an impartial hearing-The Emperor's
anger at Luther's "Erbieten "-The duel between the Elector
and Aleander over the question of according Luther a hearing
-Germany largely on the side of Luther-Hostility to Aleander
-Th.e Bull of Excommunication and Aleander's oration to the
Diet-Demands the immediate issue of an Edict against Luther
-Draft of an Edict submittedto the Diet-Violent altercation
between the Electors of Saxony and Brandenburg-The Diet.
insists that Luther should be heard-The Emperor fain to.
agree to summon him under safe conduct-Imperial mandate
against Luther's writings.
II.
BEFORE THE SUMMONS
Luther the great man of the age-Comparison with the other

figures on the stage-Maintains the fight with his assailants.
new and old-The nervous strain-Will not move an inch from
the truth-Spirited letter to Staupitz-Rejects Hutten's proposal
of an armed rising-Will defy the Emperor as well as the Pope.
IIL
LUTHER AND THE DIET
290-306
His journey to Worms-Sermon at Erfurt-,-,Spurns the

attempt of Glapion to lure him from his determination to enter
Worms-Arrival at. Worms and arrangement of tactic to
be observed on his appearance before the Diet-In presence of
the Diet, 17th April-Interrogated by the official of TrierAsks to be allowed an interval for reflection-His request granted
xvi
Contents
PAGl!S
-Eyewitnesses on hj!i pearing-:-Second appearance before the

Diet, 18th April-:-Asked by the official. whether he. will
defend all his writings or.retract anything ?-He explains ;lnd
asks to be instructed and shielded from .the calumnies of his
enemies-The Emperor retires for consultation-As a resq.lt
the official adduces the errors in his writings and demands
an explicit reeantation',_Luther at the parting of the ways,.His fateful declaratiori~Cannot and . will not recant unless
convir~ced from Scripture or.evident reason-Profound sensatfon
-Altercation with the e>fficial,-" I ain through "-Congratula~
tions of his friends-:-Significance of his attitude-Pits individual
convfotion against corporate infallibility~The Emperor will not
tolerate heresy-:-Rumours of a risirtg-Themajority of the Diet
secure him a_ further hearing before a commission.
IV.
THE EDICT OF WORMS ..
Discussions in the commission-Attempts by the Arch

bishop of Trier to bring him to submit-Luther, Cochlaeus,
and Vehus-Private conference with the archbishop-Failure
of these negotiatiqns-His appeal to Scripture as _the sole
arbiter-Force of this appeal from the historical point of view
..,..,.Lack _of confidence in the reference of his case .to a General
Council-,:Imperfal mandate.to leave Wcirnis-Measures,of the
Elector .to. protect him from the consequences of his refusal to
recant-:Seized and conveyed to the W\J,rtburg-Letters to the
Emperor. and the 'Diet.:_The Emperor declares his intention
of proceeding against_ -Luther " with the advice and consent '!
cif the Diet-The Edict. drawn .up by Aleander _and revised by
imperial Privy' <:;:ouncil-Completion of the alliance. with the
Pope and conclusion of the Diet-:-Edict submitted to and
appi;Q_ved by a number of its members-Issued with the pro
fessed consent of the Dfot_:__Unwarranted .assumption-The
Edict coP,demns Luther and. his. teaching-Places him under the
imperial. ban, enacts the outlawry. and. arrest. of his adherents
and th_e burning of his .l;iqoks-,-Rigorous cernwrship of the
press-An attempt. to stifle the progressive forces of the
Renaissance.
CHAPTER X
CONCLUSION
I.
INFATUATION OF THE PAPACY
321-344
321-326
The breach with Rome coll).plete-The Pope's action in

accordance with ecclesiastical law and usage-Results in
disrupting the Western Church-Infatuated folly of this action
even from the standpoint of the interest of Rome-The. strength
of Luther's position as against mere legality in the face of an un
reformed Papacy.,-Jn shirking the clamant question of l'eform
arid. condemning . Luther, the Papacy makes Luther the . hero
of an alienated,.. natfon-Luther not desirous of fomenting
schism-:-His distinction behyeen the Catholic Church and the
Papacy-His ingrained conservatism,.-Papal lack of _moral
power and higher stat~smanship. ,
xvu
Contents
PAQBS
II. LUTHER'S DEVELOPMENT AS A REFORMER
326-336
Its rapid progress-His early views on heresy-His changed

attitude-The papal medireval Church a heretical divergence
from early Christianity-The extraordinary receptivity of his
mind-His development rooted in his religious experience-His
cardinal doctrine of justific.ation by fiducial faith-What it presupposes and involves-God's absolute righteousness and man's
unreserved dependence on God's mercy-The supreme im
portance of the Gospel as revealed in the Word-The right of
private judgment-Freedom of thought and toleration-Liberty
-The conception of the Church as a religious brotherhood in
place of the papal-hierarchic conception of it-The power of
Luther's personal faith and of his personality-The prophet of a
new age in religion-The Reformation as he created it.
III.
LUTHER AND HIS PREDECESSORS
Luther's originality - Views of Haller and Ritter Inadequate explanation of the Reformation on national and
racial grounds-Luther's work not whoHy new-Ritschl's
one-sided view of its originality-How far he was anticipated by
his reforming predecessors-What he owed to the forces and
spirit of the age.
IV. LUTHER AND THE ELECTOR FREDERICK
. 340-344
The part played by the Elector second only to that of Luther

himself-His relations with Luther and his persistence in
protecting him-Kalkoff's view of the Elector's attitude and
its opponents-The indisputable service rendered by him to
the evangelical movement-Wittenberg University as its focus.
INDEX
345-354
LUTHER
AND THE REFORMATION
CHAPTER I
THE INDULGENCE CONTROVERSY

I. MOTIVE AND JUSTIFICATION OF LUTHER's ATTACK
\LUTHER's motive in posting up his ninety-five theses was,

Ion his own testimony, solely to direct the attention of his
jfellow-theologians to the obscurity of the doctrine and the
I abuses of the practice of indulgences. Certain Roman
Catholic writers, on the other hand, attribute the theses to
his doctrine of justification by faith which had led him
into antagonism to the Catholic teaching of good works
and impelled him to challenge not merely the abuses, but
the principle of indulgences in the interest of th.is doctrine.
Janssen, for instance, maintains that "it was not these abuses
which impelled Luther to the course he took, but the.
doctrine of indulgences itself-above all the Church's teach~
ing of good works, which was contrary to his views co;icerning justification and free will." 1 In this diagnosis of the
case he is followed by Pastor, who, however, seems to
contradict himself. Whilst, with Janssen, he maintains that
"in his secret heart it was not the abuses of the actual system
which were at the bottom of Luther's action . . . but his
deep-lying antagonism to the Catholic doctrine of good
works," he adds on the same page "that he had no object
1
"History of the German People," iii.

I
91.
Eng. trans.,
1910,
Luther and the Reformation
beyond attacking the real and supposed abuses attached

to the preaching of the indulgence." 2 Luther's doctrine
of justification may indirectly have influenced his view of
the theory and practice of indulgences, though the theses
do not explicitly proclaim this doctrine. But it is not the
case that in attacking the system, as practised by Tetzel
and his fellow-preachers, his object was covertly to discredit the teaching of the Church on the subject in the
interest of this doctrine, and that the attack was, therefore,
not really what it professed to be-an attempt to effect
a clamant practical reform. Paulus, another Roman
Catholic writer, whilst asserting that Luther was already
unconsciously estranged from the Church in essential
points, has diagnosed his motive more accurately. He
scouts the notion that "he only made his opposition to
indulgences the pretext stealthily to diffuse his new dogmatic
conceptions. When he came out into the open with his
sensational theses he' had by no means thought out a clear
and definite programme for the future. His only object
at first was to challenge the abuses of the system." 3
This is the only conclusion warranted by Luther's own
testimony, the veracity of which there is no reason to call in
question .. Heavers again and again during the controversy
to which the theses gave.rise that his only motive in posting
them up was to draw attention to the errors and abuses
of the system, to combat and correct these errors and abuses
by means of competent criticism and discussion, and thus
rouse the ecclesiastical .authorities to put a stop to the
proceedings of the indulgence preachers in the interest of
religion and morality. In the letter to the Archbishop of
Maintz accompanying the theses (3rst October r5r7), he
arraigns in scathing terms the conduct of the indulgence
preachers in misleading the people by their lavish offers
History of the Popes," vii. 351-352. Eng. trans.
"Johann Tetzel der Ablassprediger," 168-169 (1899). Bratke, a
Protestant writer, is also in error in thinking that Luther's object was
not so much to draw attention to the evils of the system, as to attain
to a definite idea of the doctrine of salvation, which the problem of
indulgences had raised in his mind. "Luther's Ninety-five Theses,"
272 f. (1884).
2
"
Motive and Justification of Luther's Attack
of worthless pardons instead of preaching the gospel.

He does not, indeed, claim to speak from personal knowledge
of their preaching, 4 for Tetzel and his fellow-vendors were
forbidden to carry on the traffic in electoral Saxony. 5 But
he has discovered (evidently in the confessional) its evil
effects on the people, who believe that by buying an indulgence ticket they are assured of salvation. This false
notion is, he adds, also countenanced in the archbishop's
"Instruction" to his commissaries, which had come into
his hands, and he begs him both to cancel this compromising
document and impose on his agents a different form of
preaching. 6 The letter clearly shows that in arraigning
this nefarious traffic he was actuated not by antagonism
to the Church or even to the principle of indulgence in itself,
but by a justifiable indignation and anxiety on the score of
its evil religious effects. In a letter to Lang shortly afterwards he rebuts the accusation of his opponents that he
had posted up his theses at the instigation of the Elector
Frederick for the purpose of discrediting the archbishop,
and avers on oath that he had done so without the Elector's
knowledge. 7 He assures Christopher Scheurl (5th March'
r5r8) that he had neither intended nor desired to excite
a public commotion against the practice. He had only
drawn up the theses for discussion by those competent to
judge in order that, i.f they failed to gain their approval,
they might be rejected, and, if approved-, be published. 8
The method of carrying the discussion to the bar of public
opinion by translation and publication in the vernacular
was by no means to his liking. Not that he did not desire
the people to be enlightened on the subject. Only this was
not the right way to do it. He had his doubts on some
' Enders, "Luther's Briefwechsel," i. u5, non adeo accuso prredicatorum exclamationes quas non audivi.
6 "T.R.," v. 77.
6 Enders, i. II 7. Eundem libellum penitus toll ere et prredicatoribus
veniarum imponere aliam prredicandi formam.
1 Ibid., i. 121-122; cf. 156 and 160.
8 Ibid., i. 166.
Non fuit consilium neque votum eas evulgari, sed
cum paucis apud et circum nos habitantibus primum super ipsis conferri,
ut sic multorui judicio vel damnatre abolerentur, vel probatre ederentur.
Luther and /the Reformation
of the theses, and if he had foreseen the storm which their

publication had aroused, he would have expressed himself
differently or omitted some of them. He writes in the
same strain to his old teacher Trutvetter, whilst emphasising
the necessity of exposing the indulgence fraud by which
the people are being misled and deceived, and which will
inevitably end in disillusion and revolt. The whole indulgence traffic is merely a device of Italian ecclesiastics for
making money. They care not a straw for anything else,
and he would, therefore, wish the nefarious system abolished
throughout the whole Church. 9 Similarly, he informs the
Bishop of Brandenburg, in whose diocese Wittenberg was
included, that his only object in drawing up the theses was
to help by discussion towards a more definite conception
of the subject in the face of the prevailing difference of
opinion. Whilst the views expressed in them might differ
from those of a few of the canonists and some of the
scholastic theologians, they did not seem to him to be
contrary to the Scriptures, the fathers, and the canons.
The discussion was only tentative until the Church should
finally decide the question. Meanwhile he declines,..., to
accept mere scholastic opinions as articles of faith, and
claims the liberty of discussion which the scholastic theologians have &ercised without demur for so many centuries
even in the most sacred matters. His opponents had
straightway treated his theses as dogmatic assertions.
Nothing, he energetically protests, is farther from the
truth. In some points he is still in doubt, in others he
confesses his ignorance. Some of the views attributed to
him he denies, and not one of them is he disposed to assert
dogmatically. His intention is to dispute, not to dogmatise,.
and he is ready to submit the whole question to the decision
of the Church.10
In the letter which he sent to the Pope (3oth May 1518),
in forwarding his " Resolutions" or amplification of his
s Enders, i. 189.
Ibid., i. 148-151. Enders dates the letter l3th Feb. 1518.
Kalkoff assigns itto the 22nd May with more probability. " Forschungen zu Luther's Romischen Prozess," 49 (1905); "T.R.," iv. 316~318.
10
theses, he says that he was impelled by the scandalous

preaching of the indulgence agents privately to call the
attention of a number of ecclesiastical magnates to this
evil which was the talk of every tavern, to the great detriment of the papal authority. His appeal proving ineffective,
he determined to challenge the abuse in a public disputation.
These theses, he repeats, were not dogmas, but propositions
for debate by competent theologians, with a view to the
refutation of the errors of the indulgence preachers, and had
he foreseen the effects of their publication he would have
taken care to make them more intelligible. 11 In the
protestation prefaced to the "Resolutions" he is equally
explicit. "At the outset, I protest that I desire to advance
and hold nothing but what can be established from Scripture,
from the ecclesiastical fathers accepted by the Roman
Church, and also from the papal canons and decretals." 12
Finally, in his appeal from Cardinal Cajetan to the Pope
(22nd October 1518), he adduces anew the uncertainty of
the theory and the crass abuse of the practice of indulgences
as the sole motive of his action, and professes his readiness
to submit the dispute to the judgment of the Church and
His Holiness.la
Luther's testimony to the gravity of the abuse and the
detriment wrought by it to the Church as well as religion
is equally incontestable, and amply explains and justifies
the challenge which he sounded forth in these theses. Some
of the charges against Tetzel's preaching were, indeed,
as Paulus has shown,14 the fruit of popular exaggeration
or misunderstanding. He does not, for instance, seem to
hp.ve asserted that in the case of the living indulgence was
valid without contrition, or that it covered future as well
as present sins, and therefore carried the right to commit
sin with impunity. In ascribing such enormities to the
indulgence preacher,15 Luther allowed himself to be misled
11
13 Ibid., ii. 29-30.

Enders, i. 200-203.
14 " Tetzel," 56 f.
"Werke," i. 529-530.
15
Luther erroneously includes these in the list of Tetzel's misleading
assertions in his later pamphlet, "Wider Hans Worst " (1541).
"Werke," Ii. 539.
12
by the reports he had heard and uncritically accepted.

Tetzel appears to have preached the necessity of contrition
for the validity of an indulgence in the case of the living
in accordance with .the received doctrine of the Church.
But it is not so certain that he took pains to impress this
doctrine on his ignorant hearers, who were unfitted to
understand the theological aspect of the theory, as Luther
had found in the confessional. Certain it is that in the
case of souls in purgatory he did preach that a mere money
payment without contrition on the part of those who made
this payment for their dead relatives was sufficient to free
the soul from purgatory.16 Moreover, the motive behind
the traffic in this particular instance was the purely mercenary one of raising as much money as possible in order to .
provide for the financial necessities of the Roman Curia
and the Archbishop of Maintz. Luther gauged quite
correctly this mercenary motive, though he wrongly assumed
that the Pope was personally not responsible for it 1 except
in so far as he had consented to grant a dispensation to
the archbishop to acquire the See of Maintz in addition
to those of Magdeburg and Halberstadt, which had, of course,
to be paid for, and for the payment of which the indulgence
was to provide. At worst the Pope, he believed, was merely
the unwitting tool of the archbishop's ambition and the
greed of his own Medici relatives who were only too eager to
share in the spoil.17 In point of fact, Leo X. was not so
. innocent of complicity in the odious traffic as Luther
imagined,18 and this complicity only strengthens the case
for the indictment which on practical grounds he lauri.ched
against it in the theses.
Luther was in truth by no means solitary in his
denunciation of it. Even those who subsequently took
sides against him in the controversy to which this indictment
gave rise, deplored and denounced the evil religious and
moral effects of the indulgence preaching of Tetzel and
See MacKinnon, " Luther and the Reformation,'' i~ 294.
See Luther's communication to Miltitz in January 1519, in
which he explains why he was impelled to attack the indulgence traffic,
whilst\exculpating the Pope of responsibility for it. Enders, i. 341-342.
18 See " Luther and the Reformation,'' i. 290-291.
16
17
Motive and Justification of Luther's' Attack
his fellow~commissaries. Eck, Emser, Murner, Cochlaeus,

Duke George of Saxony said some very hard things about
it whilst contesting Luther's theological contentions on the
subject. Tetzel's fellow-Dominican, Johann Lindner, asserts
that his mercenary zeal aroused the indignation and contempt
of the people. 19 These criticisms have been repeated by
modern Roman Catholic writers who have had the courage
to face the facts. "The whole thing," remarks Pastor,
in reference to the Indulgence Bull of r5r5, "looked at
from every point of view, was a disgraceful affair for all
concerned. That it, together with other causes, led to the
impending catastrophe, appears to us like a judgment from
heaven . . . . It is a fact, proved by what took place, that
the revolt against the Papacy proceeded from a grave abuse,
patent to all beholders, connected with the obnoxious
'financial transactions of the Roman Curia." 2o
Whilst modern Roman Catholic writers like Pastor and
Paulus largely justify Luther's attack on the practice, they
rebut l).is criticism of the doctrine of indulgence and refuse
to admit that the current teaching on the subject was either
erroneous or obscure. In the theses, Luther accepts the
principle of indulgence in itself. But he holds strongly
that the principle is liable to misapprehension and error
and tends to distort the gospel of God's grace. He treats
the subject in a very independent spirit, and is at no pains
to conceal his personal convictions on the theory as well
as the practice. It is this independent note that repels
his Roman Catholic critics, to whom any attempt at
independent thought or self-assertion in the face of ecclesiastical authority is necessarily inadmissible. They assume,
moreover, that the teaching of the Church on the subject
was explicit and incontestable, and they tax Luther with
ignorance or presumption in questioning it. The indulgence
preachers might err and misrepresent this teaching, but
what the Church believed and taught was neither obscure
nor doubtful. ."The papal Bulls," says Pastor, "all put
forth the doctrine of indulgences with dogmatic accuracy,
and most theologians of the declining Middle Ages, though
19
Paulus, " Tetzel," 120.
20 "
History of the Popes," iii. 332-333.
they may differ on individual points, agree in essentials, and

all unite in explaining indulgences not as being a remission of
guilt, but as a remission of temporal punishment. All equally
start from the presumption that in order to gain an indulgence the sin must have been already forgiven through
contrition and confession." 21 Essentially there was thus
nothing to dispute about as far as the doctrine of the
Church was concerned.
Whether this teaching was as clear and definite as
Luther's critics contend is, however, very debatable. The
fact is that there had been throughout the later medireval
centuries a great deal of discussion and difference of opinion
on the doctrine itself. The practice had developed out of
the old penitential system and the doctrine had been
elaborated by the thirteenth-century schoolmen. But it
was still open to question whether scholastic theories on .
such a subject, even if sanctioned by the Pope, were to
be received as articles of faith, and in taking objection to
this assumption, Luther was only repeating what notable
theologians and churchmen of the fifteenth century had
said before him. In any case it is certain that he had his
own doubts and difficulties on the subject, and profoundly
felt the need of a thorough discussion of it, from both the
religious and the theological points of view, and a deliberate
expression of the mind of the Church on it. His early
sermons on indulgences clearly show that, whilst accepting
the system, there were many questions on which he was by
no means prepared to give a definite answer. 22 In the
face of these questionings, the assumption of Hergenrother,
Grisar, Paulus, and others that he understood well enough
the doctrine of indulgences which he attacked, and that
his professed doubts were only a pretext for this attack
is unwarranted by the evidence. In support of this assumption they appeal to his sermons on the subject previous
to the posting up of his theses as a proof that the ignorance
about indulgences of which he later speaks, in reference
"
21 " History of the Popes," vii. 336;

cf. Hefele-Hergenrother,
"Concilien Geschichte," ix. 42 f. (1890).
22
See "Werke,'' i. 65 f.; cf. 98-99, I4I.
Motive and Justihcation ot Luther's Attack
to these early years, in his tract, "Wider Hans Worst,"

was not in accordance with fact, and that his testimony
on the subject is, therefore, unreliable. In the passage in
this tract, written in r54r, to which they appeal in support
of this contention, he, indeed, says that when Tetzel
appeared at Juterbog in r5r7 and the people flocke4
from Wittenberg across the Saxon frontier to hear him,
"he did not know what the indulgence meant." At first
sight this assertion does seem in flat contradiction to the
testimony of his early sermons, which certainly show that
he knew a great deal about the subject before Tetzel had
begun to preach in the neighbourhood of Wittenberg. But,
as the context shows, the ignorance of which.he speaks refers,
not to the scholastic doctrine of indulgences, but rather to
the contents of Tetzel's sermons and the archbishop's
"Instruction," with which he was not then acquainted. 23
As the early sermons and the theses show, he had been
studying this doctrine for at least a couple of years previously.
The theses were, in fact, largely the recapitulation of the
main idea of these sermons. But this study had only
revealed to him the difficulty and obscurity of the subject
and aroused serious doubts and misgivings as to the validity
of the system from the religious point of view. As the
result of these doubts and misgivings the whole theory
might well appear to him nebulous and uncertain.
That there was ample ground for his hesitation and
uncertainty cannot be reasonably questioned. This was
in truth .one of these nebulous theological doctrines in
which make-believe was too readily accepted as fact, since
it rested on the assumption of an inexhaustible supply of
merit which the scholastic doctors placed at the disposal
of the Pope for the benefit of souls in purgatory as well
as those in the flesh. These doctors reasoned on the subject
with all the assurance of experts in the knowledge of the
world beyond, with which their acquaintance was, to say
the least, highly problematic. Objections to the fullyfledged theory were certainly not lacking. The applicability
of indulgences to purgatory, for instance, was only a
23
See the tract, '' Wider Hans Worst." "Werke," li .. 530 f.
IO
comparatively recent papal innovation and was not above

question. Still more du bfous, and certainly highly objectionable on moral and religious grounds, was the assumption
included in the Bull of r5r5 and the relative " Instruction"
of the archbishop that the buying of an indulgence ticket
without contrition on the part of the purchaser would
infallibly benefit the dead. On this point there was a
sharp division of opinion both during and before Luther's
time. 24 Even the doctrine of the Treasure of Merits, on
which the practice was based, was .only a theory of the
scholastic theologians, though the Pope had recognised the
theory as a correct dogmatic basis. 25 Nor was the papal
and priestly power to remit sin, which the plenary indulgence
assumed, by any means indisputable. In the classical
text-book of medireval theology, which still dominated the
schools in Luther's time, Lombard taught that this power
was only declaratory and that the actual remission ex-
tended only to the abatement of ecclesiastical penaltit:s,
penitential works. Though Aquinas and his school attributed the actual power of forgiveness to the priest and
this became the accepted ecclesiastical view, later theologians
like Duns and his school materially limited it, and
Wiclif and Wessel explicitly denied it. 26 On the question
whether a Jubilee Indulgence like that of r5r5 conveyed
full remission of the 'guilt as well as the penalty of sin,
statements were made that, to say the least, were apt to
be misleading. Such an indulgence was said to be valid
for the full remission of both guilt and penalty, inasmuch
as it involved contrition and confession, and thus carried.
with it spiritual benefits equivalent to those obtainable in
the sacrament of penance. It was on this ground that
theologians like John von Faltz, for instance-Luther's
old teacher in the Erfurt monastery-unhesitatingly asserted
that a plenary indulgence availed for the full remission of
sin. 27 Only an expert in the scholastic theology could
Paulus, "Tetzel," 157 f.
Bull of Clement VI., 1343, "Documente zum Ablassstreit," 19-20.
26 See " Luther and the Reformation," i. 88.
27 Coelifodina,
" Documente zum Ablassstreit," 55; and see
Paulus, "Tetzel," 94-95.
24
25
11
appreciate the subtle reasoning by which this conclusion

was arrived at, and in any case the association of a plenary
indulgence in return for a money contribution to an
ecclesiastical project like the building of St Peter's, not
to mention the mercenary and secret bargain between the
Curia and the archbishop underlying it, with the spiritual
benefit obtainable in the sacrament of penance was highly
objectionable from the religious point of view. It betrays
the mercenary and materialist spirit which had invaded
the medireval conception of religion, reflected only too
crassly in this sordid traffic in sacred things. In the archbishop's "Instruction" to the subcommissaries, to whom
he entrusted this traffic, the grace obtainable by this
expedient is extolled as exceeding in magnitude all other
spiritual benefits, 28 since it assures to the sinner the perfect
remission of all sins (guilt as well as penalty) and complete
immunity from the pains of purgatory. This supreme
benefit is indeed limited to the contrite and confessed, or
to those who have at least the intention of confessing within
a given time. But it is not solely to contrition and confession,
but to contrition and confession plus a money payment that
this inestimable grace is vouchsafed. The attainment of
God's justifying grace which it involves is thus made
dependent on the purchase of an indulgence, and it was
this, among other objectionable features of the transaction,
that exercised the mind of Luther, as his indignant protest
to the archbishop shows. It is certain that, as Luther
learned in the confessional and as he also indignantly
represented to the archbishop, the belief in the efficacy
of a money payment, apart from contrition and confession,
as an insurance against both guilt and penalty, was widespread among the people. 29 Moreover, the acceptance of
the lower form of contrition known as attrition (not real
repentance, but merely the fear of the consequences of sin),
which was recognised by theologians like Paltz, was certainly
fitted to make this cheap method of earning forgiveness and
Prima gratia est plenaria remissio omnium peccatorum, qua
quidem gratia nihil majus dici potest. " Documente," uo.
9
2
"Documente," 144-145.
28
12
immunity from punishment here and hereafter appear in

a very questionable light, both morally and religiously.
No wonder that on this point there was sharp difference of
opinion.so
From the works of Paltz 31 and others it is evident that
the subject bristled with difficulties and gave rise to not
a little difference of opinion. On the question of the
applicability of indulgences to purgatory, for instance,
Paltz tells us that some are wont to doubt whether indulgences apply to purgatory and whether the souls of the
dead can be relieved by this expedient. 32 The critics of the
system in the fifteenth century included notable churchmen
like Gerson and Cusanus, 33 not to mention aggressive
antagonists like John of Wesel and Wessel Gansfort, and
in his theses Luther was only repeating what critics like
the Dominican P. Schwarz had written towards the close
of the century, in denunciation of the traffic and its agents,
and the detriment accruing thereby to both religion and
the authority of the Church. 34 Wessel also anticipated
Luther in a remarkable degree in his trenchant criticism of
the whole system, and it was not without reason, in respect
of his attack on indulgences at least, that Luther later
whole-heartedly recognised the affinity of Wessel's teaching
with his own.
II.
THE COUNTER-ATTACK
Luther's invitation to his fellow-theologians outside

Wittenberg evoked no response, and the proposed disputation
30
PauJus, "Tetzel," uof.

)
See especially his supplementm'n to the Coelifodin:a, in which
he replies to the objections of those who contested the system.
32
Coelifodina, " Documente," 65. Apud nonnullos solet in dubium
verti de animabus in purgatorio retentis an via indulgentiarum relevari
possent.
33
On this moderate party see Bratke, " Luther's Ninety-five
Theses," 154 f.
"' See the summary of Schwarz's indictment in Pastor, vii.
341-342.
31
The Counter-Attack
13
on the theses was not held. 35 The archbishop did not

deign to reply to his letter, and the other bishops 36 to
whom he wrote on the subject took no action. His ordinary,
the Bishop of Brandenburg, advised him to leave the matter
alone. The question involved the authority of the Church,
and in attacking it he would only make trouble for himself. 37
"I can well believe," says Luther, "that both he and the
archbishop reflected that the Pope would prove much too.
powerful for a miserable mendicant like me." 38 Some
of the other bishops, he tells us, were more favourably
disposed ; to others his action appeared either ridiculous
or in,fatuated in view of the risk of incurring the papal
censure. 39
Nevertheless, the theses were by no means stillborn.
\without his concurrence they were printed and circulated
jboth in the Latin original and in a vernacular translatidn,
iand before the end of the year they were being read and
Jdiscussed all over Germany. They certainly caused a
sensation not only among the learned; but among the people
who saw in him the man for the hour. " Thus my
propositions were posted up against Tetzel's preaching,
as may be seen from the printed copies of them. Alplost
within a fortnight they were known all over Germany, 4 o
for everybody complained of the indulgence, especially of
Tetzel's sermons. And whilst the bishops and doctors kept
Enders, i. 150. Igitur cum in hanc harenam vocarem omnes,
veniret vero nullus.
3 6 Myco!lius says that besides the archbishop he wrote to the Bishops
of Brandenburg, Zeitz, andMerseburg. "Geschichte der Reformation,"
ed. by Clemens, 21-22. In his letter to the Pope in May I 518, Luther says
that he wrote to several magnates Ecclesiarum, Enders, i. 201-202;
in that to the Elector of Saxony, l9th Nov. 1518, he says that he wrote
only to the archbishop and the Bishop of Brandenburg.
37 "T.R.," vi. 238-239.
38 ' ' Werke," Ii. 540; cf. Myconius, 22.
See also his preface to
the 1545 ed. of his works, "Documente zu Luther's Entvricklung,'' 12.
a9 Enders, i. 202.
40 This is evidently an exaggeration, due to defective memory.
Myconius not only repeats this exaggeration, but adds that within
a month they were circulated over the whole nf Christendom.
" Geschichte," 22.
35
14
quiet and no one would bell the cat for fear of Tetzel and
his fellow-inquisitors of heresy, who threatened all opponents
of the traffic with the stake, then it was that Luther became
a famous doctor as the one who should come and take
a grip of the business. This fame was not to my liking." 41
Though the archbishop ignored Luther, he could not
afford to ignore the sensation caused by the theses. He
was keenly interested in the financial side of the traffic,
and he had some reason to doubt a scrutiny of his private
conduct. For these reasons it was imperative to take
prompt measures to silence " the audacious monk of
Wittenberg," as he dubbed him, by means of the papal
authority. When, therefore, his councillors of the diocese
of Magdeburg at Halle, whither Luther had addressed his
letter, forwarded it along with others of his writings 42 to
Aschaffenburg in the diocese of Maintz, he sent these docu.,.
ments to the Pope, without even waiting for the opinion of
the University of Maintz to which he had at first submitted,
them. 43 Meanwhile, after consultation with his advisers
at Aschaffenburg, he directed on the 13th December those
at Halle to inhibit "the audacious monk" (processus
inhibitorius). His Halle council hesitated, however, to
adopt this course for fear of the scandal which a refusal
of compliance on Luther's part would cause, and advised
the archbishop to waive the inhibition.
As clearly appears from the archbishop's letter to them,
his main concern was not to probe the evils which Luther
had arraigned, but to muzzle the presumptuous monk,
who, he says, "was scandalising and misleading the poor
41 "
Werke," Ii. 540-541.

Brieger concludes that in addition to the theses they sent him his
" Disputation on the Scholastic Theo,logy " and his exposition of the
penitential psalms. "Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte," xi. u5 f.
43 Kalkoff says that they were already in the hands of the Roman
Curia in the beginning of December 1517. "Entscheidungsjahre der
Reformation," 24 (1917). Karl Muller, on the other hand, says that they
only reached Rome in the beginning of Jan. 1918. " Luther's Ri:imischen Prozess," "Z.K.G.," xxiv. 52. Boehmer thinks that they could
scarcely have reached Rome much before Cl:),ristmas l 5l 7. " Der Junge
Luthe~," 190 (1925). Kalkoff's date seems the more probable.
43
The Counter-Attack
15
unintelligent people." 44 There is no sign in the letter of

any attempt to face the evils of the system or any sense of
the necessity of applying a remedy. It was a fateful
dereliction of duty on the part of a high Church dignitary,
though we could hardly expect any other attitude in one
to whom the indulgence was merely an expedient for paying
the debts contracted in the pursuit of his ambition. Such
a man was not likely to be impressed by Luther's profession
in the preface to the theses that he was actuated solely,
by the love of truth and zeal for its elucidation. Luther
had attacked an institution of the Church, and, even if it
had become a crying scandal and a source of error, it must
be maintained for the benefit of a worldly archbishop and
a corrupt Curia. To criticise the system or demand an
investigation into its theological presuppositions and its
religious aspect was sheer presumption and rebelliol!. This
was also naturally the attitude adopted by Tetzel and his
abettors of the Dominican Order, who were already on the
warpath against. him. Whether the Pope would adopt the
same attitude remained to be seen. As the suggestion to
proclaim a Jubilee Indulgence as a financial expedient had
originated in the Roman Curia and had the papal sanction,
the prospect of a radical reform of the system under papal
auspices was not very promising .. Luther himself seems to
have expected that the Pope would espouse his cause and
even thank him for his efforts ! He was not as yet conscious
of any rebellion against the papalaufliorjty()i]inydivetgence.:
.ffOfo the"friieleacliiiig of. the Church, far le.ss of ::tl1Y c1es~re
. to provoke rupture.. " lhad hoped that the Pope would
protect me. For l haa so grounded and armed my disputation with the Scriptures and the papal decrees that I was
certain the Pope would condemn Tetzel and bless. me." 45
Lutper's hope was rather na'ive, and he was destined erelong
to be disillusioned. But the refusal of the ecclesiastical
'
44
"Z.K.G.," xi. u5.
"Werke," Ii. 543; cf. his preface to the 1545 ed. of his works,
" Documente," I 2. Et in iis certus mihi videbar me habiturum patron um papam. See also" T.R.," 76. Tum temporis agnovi Papam
dominum meum et putabam me illi rem gratam facturum.
45
v.
authorities to listen to his challenge was none the less as

fateful as it was fatuous. It meant Nemesis not only for
this sordid .trafficking in sacred things by ecclesiastical
hirelings in high places, but for the Church itself, so unworthily represented by its highest dignitaries.
At this stage, however, it seemed a case of Athanasius
against the world over again. Would he have the strength
of will and conviction to persist in the face of opposition ?
He had, indeed, struck a popular note in spite of himself,
and the diminishing sales of Tetzel's wares erelong attested
the practical effect of the theses. 46 " Since the Germans,"
he wrote long afterwards (r545), " were tired of these
plunderings, traffickings, and the infinite imposture of these
Roman robbers, they awaited with bated breath the upshot
of so great an enterprise which no one before, either bishops
or theologians, had dared to tackle. And the popular
breeze favoured me, because the arts and ongoings of the
Romilns with which they filled and exhausted the whole
world were hateful to all." 47 Stray notes of encouragement
came to him as the expression of the popular feeling. " Go
on and carry out your purpose," wrot(( Dr Fleck from his
monastery at Steinlausig, near Bitterfeld, who, on reading
the theses exclaimed, "Ho, ho, there he is at last who
will do the job." 48 Such encouraging messages were,
however, at first exceptional. Luther's friends played the
part of Job's counsellors. "Would you write against the
Pope?" said the jurist Schurf. "What will you make of
it? They will not suffer it." "How," quietly returned
Luther, "if they must suffer it." 49 His colleagues of the
Theological Faculty of the University were equally dubious,
and even Carlstadt feared that he was going too far. 50
"You speak the truth, good brother," remarked Albert
Krantz on reading the theses, "but you will achieve
nothing. Go to your cell and pray God to have mercy on
u
41
48
'
60
See Hausrath, " Luther's Leben," i. 179-180.

" l)ocumente,'' 13.
Walch, " Luther's Sammtliche Schriften," xv. 489.
" Tischreden,'' iii. 565.
Walch, xv. 491; cf. Enders, i. 155.
The Counter-Attack
17
you." s1 His fellow-monks were still more alarmed at his

daring. The prior and subprior besought him to think
of the interest of his Order and not to expose himself and
it to the ill will of the Dominicans. " If," replied he,
"this business has not been begun in God's name, it will
come to nothing. But if God is in it, it will assuredly
prevail." 52 To Lang he writes in similar terms, in view
of the hostility of the Erfurt theologians, who accused him
of rashness and pride. "Who," he asks," has ever produced
anything new without incurring the charges of pride and
contention at the hands of those who plume themselves on
their own prudence ? Why were Christ and the martyrs
put to death and doctors have suffered odiuin? Was it
not because they appeared proud and contemptuous of the
old and renowned wisdom, or because they dared to produce
something new without the counsel of those who think that
wisdom consists in clinging to the old? . . . Not by the
judgment or purpose of men do I shape my actions, but by
the will of God. . If this work is of God, who will prevent
it? If it is not of God, who will make it prevail? " 53
' These words already foreshadow the great innovator,
the master spirit of a religious revolution. Though asyet
unconscious of any substantial divergence from the medireval
Church or any defiance of established authority, the independent spirit is already perceptible. It is significant
that he signs himself M artinus Eleutherius, Martin the
Emancipator. He clearly will not discard a conviction
merely because it is objectionable to the Erfurt theologians,
to whom his theses against the scholastic theology had
given offence, which those against indulgences have only
aggravated. 54 The conservative attitude of mind which
adduced the old as a sufficient argument against the
new and decried independent . thought as presumption,
materially contributed to bring about the Reformation.
This conservatism in its reaction on the inquiring mind
51 Kostlin, " Luther," i. 164 (5th ed., 1903);
Boehmer, " Der
Junge Luther," 179 (1925).
52
Hausrath, " Luther," i. 178.
53
Enders, i. 126.
54
Ibid., i. 124.
18
becomes the unwilling nurse of progress. Luther's opponents

were in this respect his best teachers. In taking up 4is
challenge Tetzel and his supporters claimed a monopoly of
truth in virtue of use and wont. They stood for the papal
authority and what they deemed to be the teaching of the
Church against individual criticism or conviction. This
is the keynote of the series of anti-theses with which Tetzel
opened the counter-attack in a disputation held in the
presence of a provincial gathering of the Dominican Order,
presided over by Dr Rab, prior of the Leipzig monastery,
of which Tetzel was a member.
It was natural that Tetzel's Order should rally in his
defence. His opponent was an Augustinian and the rrfonastic esprit de corps was touched by a challenge emanating
from a rival Order. Moreover, the Dominicans were the
champions of orthodoxy and the absolute power of th~
Pope, and saw in the theses a covert attack on both. They
had taken the lead in the antagonism to the new !earning
and were equally quick to scent danger in the new theology
of the Wittenberg reformer. The challenging tone of the
theses was fitted to excite their active hostility, and in
view of their aggressive obscurantism, Luther's idea of
discussing the subject solely on its merits was certainly
rather naive. He had riot merely challenged a practical
abuse ; he had raised the question of the principle of indulgence and the papal power in relation to it, and had thus
provoked the counter-attack of which he found himself the
object. Though he was genuinely astonished at the outcry
which his challenge evoked, it was rather naive to complain
if the champions of use and wont in theology and usage
hit back. The case of Reuchlin might ha~e warned him that
the obscurantists who had waged so bitter a war against
the new learning would not be less intransigent in their
antagonism to the new theology. Of this uncompromising
antagonism Tetzel's counter-theses gave no uncertain
intimation. They were indeed couched in the most dog
matic and intolemnt terms.
Their real author was, however, not Tetzel, but Konrad
Koch, otherwise known as Wimpina, from his native place
Wimpfen, Professor of Theology in the University of Frank-
The Counter-Attack
furt-on-the Oder, which the Elector of Brandenburg had
founded in 1506. Though the theses passed under the name
of Tetzel, Luther rightly divined their real author, 55 who
seems to have had a personal grudge against the Wittenberg
University. Hausrath presumes that in defending the indulgence traffic he was at the same time actuated by the desire
to further the interest of the Brandenburg family, the patrons
of the Frankfurt University, who were personally interested
in the success of Tetzel's mission. 56 At all events he had,
it appears, formerly been at feud with Martin Pollich, the
first Rector of the University of Wittenberg and a friend
of the new learning, whose critical attitude towards the
scholastic .theology he had resented. 57 He relished still
less the anti-scholastic attitude of Luther and his Wittenberg
colle~gues, and :needed no prompting to step into the arena
in behalf of Tetzel in ro6 theses in refutation of those of
Luther. 58 Their Latinity is anything but classic and far
from lucid. They bear no trace of original thought and
simply reiterate the conventional scholastic teaching on
the subject. We miss in them the fertile, inquiring mind
which utters itself in Luther's series. Many of them are
simply the reproduction of Luther's contentions with the
magisterial dictum that so to assert or believe is error,
which is qualified on occasion with such epithets as "manifest," "most abominable," "most impious," "pernicious,"
"insane," "blasphemous." The demonstration of this
magisterial dictum is evidently reserved for the disputation
itself, for there is little proof adduced in support of. the
author's assertions. He assumes, in fact, a monopoly of
55 Enders, i. 170; cf. "Werke," i. 532.
It was usual enough for
a professor to dr;J.w up the theses on which a candidate for a degree was to
dispute, and Wimpina's authorship is no proof of Tetzel's ignorance of
theology, as has been maintained by some Protestant writers.
56 " Luther," i. 184.
57 Kostlin, " Luther," i. 81.
58 The theses were originally not numbered.
They are giv:en in
this number in vol. i. of " Luther's Opera," ed. 16u, Jena. They
are also to be found in Paulus, "Tetzel," 171 f., who reduces them
to ninety-five, which he thinks is the correct figure. Also in Kohler,
" Luther's Ninety-five Theses " (1903), and " Documente zum Ablassstreit," 128 f. (1902).
20
knowledge and sapienc~. Unlike Luther, there is no

obscurity or dubiety in either doctrine or practice, nothing
really to dispute about, nothing morally or theologically
objectionable even in the preaching of the indulgence
preachers.
He rejects at the outset Luther's distinction between
true repentance and mere penance. He calmly assures us
that Christ in calling sinners to repentance instituted the
Sacrament of Penance, and did not, as Luther erroneously
contends, refer merely to internal repentance involving
the lifelong outward mortification of the flesh. Christ
thereby, in fact, established confession and satisfaction
in the later ecclesiastical, sacramental sense as obligatory
practices, and without these internal repentance is of no
avail. 59 Satisfaction involves a penalty (pcena), or its
equivalent, which God accepts as such, and the penalty is.
imposed by the priest in accordance with his own judgment,
or the prescription of canon law, or the divine justice, and
is to be rendered in this life or in purgatory. Such satisfaction once made in accordance with priestly imposition, is
not as a rule to be repeated or continued throughout life,
though the sinner is, theoretically at least, held bound
continually to detest the sin from which he has been
absolved, and not to be without fear on the score of its
forgiveness. 60 Whilst condemning Luther's more spiritual
view of repentance as lifelong hatred or sorrow for. sin, he
is thus fain, in passing, to put in a caveat against the
mechanical view of the subject which the indulgence preaching undoubtedly tended to nurture and against which
Luther's protest was directed. Luther had admitted the
obligation of confession and satisfaction in the Sacrament
of Penance, whilst denying the power of Pope or priest to
forgive sin and attributing to them only a dedaratory
power. To this denial Wimpina takes emphatic exception.
He categorically asserts the Thomist view of the priestly
power to forgive sin, and discards the older view of a merely
declaratory power such as Abelard and Lombard had
taught long before Luther. Since the sacraments effect
59
Theses 14
60
Ibid., 5-10.
The Counter-Attack
21
what they signify and the priest is invested with the

power of the keys, the Pope and even the humblest
priest can thereby remit the guilt as well as the punishment of sin and not merely declare or warrant its
remission. 61
Moreover, the Pope may by means of indulgences grant
remission (relaxare) from the punishment of sin after
contrition and confession. Whilst the satisfaction in the
punitive sense (pama vindicativa) is thus completely
remitted, the moral obligation of striving to make satisfaction for sin by good works remains (pama curativa), and
the plenary indulgence does not relax this obligation; 62
Whether the indulgence mongers in their eagerness to push
the traffic were mindful to emphasise this obligation is a
different matter. Luther at all' events had discovered in
the confessional that the practice of the people did not
square with the theory in this respect, and the mere assertion
of the theory was not a sufficient answer to his indictment
of the questionable moral effects of the traffic.
On the question whether canonical penalties apply to
the dead as well as the living, and whether indulgences
are valid against the pains of purgatory, Wimpina dogmatises
in the most uncompromising style against his opponent.
The fact that the Church excommunicates heretics, schismatics, and traitors after their death, and exhumes and
burns, their remains proves, he avers, beyond question,
the applicability of the canon law to the dead. 63 Whilst
it certainly proved the barbarous fatuousness of Church
practice in this respect, Luther might assuredly be excused
for refusing to regard it as conclusive evidence against
his proposition to the contrary. In answer to the second
question, Wimpina says that those suddenly dying impenitent, or .with insufficient penance, are liable to grievous
suffering for their sins. Nevertheless, there is no need to
despair of them since the least degree of contrition (minima
contritio) at the point of death suffices for changing the
eternal il}to a temporary punishment. Moreover, since
this mutation is quickly attainable by way of a plenary
61
Theses 19-27.
62
Ibid., II-15.
68
Ibid., 38-39.
22
indulgence, how foolishly do they act who dissuade the

people from buying an indulgence ticket for use in the
case of a sudden death and thus neglect an effective expedient for ensuring against the pains of purgatory and
run the risk of being consigned for ever to hell. 64 Against
Luther's doubts or denials on the subject 65 he categorically
maintains the plenary power of the Pope over purgatory
in the remission not merely of penalties imposed by himself,
but of all penalties, and the competence of the indulgence
preachers to make effective use of it as th~ Pope's agents. 66
The Pope has not, indeed, the power of the keys in respect
of those in purgatory. Nevertheless, he has authority to
apply the benefit of a plenary indulgence to them by the
method of suffragium (.per modum suffragii). Luther had
admitted in his theses that he had this power in the sense
of intercession for souls in purgatory. But he had denied
that he could make this power effective by way of indul-'.
gences. Wimpina, on the contrary, categorically asserts
that he can impart this magical effect to a plenary indulgence.
Nay, the effect of the purchase of' a plenary indulgence on
behalf of the dead is instantaneous. It takes effect even
before the purchase money clinks in the bottom of the
chest, and to call its effect in question, to doubt the instant
purification of souls in purgatory by this method is manifest
error. 67 Wimpina speaks about purgatory with all the
assurance of the man on the spot. So effective is a plenary
indulgence that it is not necessary for the purchaser of such
an indulgence ticket or " confessional letter " on behalf of
friends in this life or s()uls in purgatory to be in a state
of contrition. The mere purchase, apart from the spiritual
condition of the purchaser, 68 is sufficient to ensure the desired
66
65
Theses 28-37.
Ibid., 39 f.
Ibid., 45-52.
lbz:d., 53-58. Wimpina thus unreservedly adopts the saying
attributed to Tetzel. He even heightens the magical effect of buying
an indulgence ticket for the dead. Not " as soon as," but even " before "
the money clinks at the bottom of the chest the soul flies from purgatory to
heaven. That Tetzel actually preached in this sense is certain. See
Paulus, " Tetzel," 138 f.
68 The precautionary expedient of buying a confessional letter
conferred the right to absolution for future sins only after confession
64
67
The Counter-Attack
spiritual effects! Wimpina even pronounces this questionable assumption to be "a Christian dogma," and magisterially proclaims Luther's denial of it as another of his many
errors.
Equally untenable and perverse are Luther's doubts
and denials as to the necessity and efficacy of indulgences
in the case of the living. In this case confession and contrition are indeed necessary. But every confessed and contrite
person who has obtained an indulgence in accordance with
the prescribed fo;rm is certain of his salvation, and to say
that every truly penitent sinner can have plenary and
speedy remission from both the guilt and the penalty of
sin and participation in all spiritual benefits, without indulgences, is erroneous. 69 Luther had emphasised the moral
and religious value of works of charity and mercy compared with mere indulgences. Works of charity, retorts
Wimpina, are of more value from the point of view of
earning merit. But indulgences are more effective in
respect of achieving the speedy satisfaction for sin and
the total relaxation of punishment. Whilst giving or
lending to the poor may be better from the point of view of
augmenting merit,, buying an indulgence is preferable from
the p6int of view of satisfaction. It also is a work of mercy
and certainly makes a better man if done in a pious spirit.
Spiritual alms of this kind are more excellent than material
ones, and whoever: is in need of this benefit does far better
in thinking of his own salvation than in giving to the poor
except in a case of extreme necessity. 70 Self first, my
neighbour second, is evidently for Wimpina the supreme
law in religion.
In regard to the abuses of the system, to say that Leo
offers indulgences at a cheaper rate than his predecessors
is not a very convincing answer to Luther's charge that the
and contrition, so that ultimately its use was dependent on the spiritual
condition of the person later seeking absolution on the strength of the
letter. See Paulus, 131 f. But to buy such a letter for future use by
oneself or a friend, apart altogether from the religious condition of
the person buying it at the time of the transaction, reveals a very gross,
matter of fact conception of religion.
69 Theses 61-67,
1o {bid., 71-78.
24
Pope, albeit unwittingly, is building St Peter's out of the

skin and bones of his flock. 71 Nor is it sufficient to say,
in reply to the charge that the preaching of the Gospel is
sacrificed to the mercenary indulgence preaching, that if
on festival days so much time is given to preaching about
the saints, it is well to devote an equal or even a larger
time to the preaching of indulgences. 72 What Luther has
said on the Treasure of the Church (or of merits) is a tissue of
error, 73 and his attack on the mercenary spirit of the indulgence preachers is the fruit of malevolence and baseless
rumour. The story about violating the mother of God is
based on lying hearsay and meant only to excite the hatred
of the people against them, though Wimpina gravely
assures us, on theological grounds, that an indulgence is
capable of absolving even such an enormity. So, too, the
repetition in Luther's theses of the popular criticisms of
the system is fitted to expose the Pope to contumely, whilst
pretending to flatter him, and to foster disturbance among
the people. 74
This, then, is the truth about indulgences which Luther'
has perverted and which we have deemed it advisable to
state in some detail on the principle of hearing the other
side. The counter-theses contain indisputable dogma and
assume that what the indulgence preachers proclaim on
the subject is dogmatically correct. Any attempt to
question its correctness is error. Moreover, there is nothing
exceptionable in the practice, and Luther, in arraigning it
on moral and religious grounds, is guilty of seducing and
stirring up the people against the Church. If the didactic
professor did not explicitly accuse him of heresy, Tetzel
and. the preachers made good the omission. They were
already denouncing him as a heretic and threatening to
bum him within a month. 75 The heresy hunters were,
however, somewhat premature. Some of the counter-theses
were merely scholastic opinions rigged up as dogmas, and
72 Ibid., 88.
Thesis 83.
74
I.bid., 90-94.
Ibid., 97 f.
76 Enders, i. I 55, in omnibus conscionibus me hrereticum clamant;
cf. i. 169, me promittunt populo certissime comburendum.
11
1s
Luther's Defence
25
such dogmas had many critics among orthodox churchmen.

Theologians like Cardinal Cajetan, himself a Dominican,
had doubts about the vaunted efficacy of indulgences for
souls in purgatory, and expressed themselves strongly on
the conduct of the indulgence preachers in passing off their
own notions as the teaching of the Church. The theologians
of the Sorbonne were very dubious, and in May 1518
denounced the assumption that one could redeem a soul
from purgatory py merely purchasing an indulgence ticket
as "a false and scandalous proposition." Even the Pope
is said by Miltitz to have condemned the ranting of Tetzel
on the subject in no measured terms. 76
III.
LUTHER'S DEFENCE
With the Elector's permission Luther had invited Tetzel

to come to Wittenberg to discuss the subject with him. 77
Tetzel deemed it advisable not to risk an encounter with the
Wittenberg theologian and preferred to defend himself at
Frankfurt with the aid of Wimpina. He sent instead a
consignment of the counter-theses towards the middle of.
March 1518. Without Luther's knowledge the students took
the opportunity of indulging their frolicsome zeal and at
the same time putting a stop to the sale by making a bonfire
of the obnoxious prints in the market-place. Luther
deplored this youthful escapade, for which he disclaimed all
responsibility. and which, as he wrote to Lang, would only
make the situation more dangerous for him. 78 He adopted
the more legitimate expedient of preaching a sermon on
the subject in which he criticised the counter-theses and
the heads of which he published under the title of "A
Sermon on Indulgence and Grace." 79 By this time he
Enders, i. 327; Paulus," Tetzel," 163-165.
See " Werke," i. 392; Kalkoff, " Entscheidungsjahre," 27.
78 Enders., i. 170; cf. " Werke," i. 277.
79 '.' Werke," i. 237 f.
Kostlin, in the 3rd edition of his " Life of
Luther " (1883), assumed that the sermon was composed at the time
he posted up his theses and that he published it in Feb. 1518. "Luther,"
i. 174, 182. Knaake adopted this conclusion in his preface to the
76
77
26
had reached the conclusion that indulgences were " a mere

fooling of souls and of no use to anyone except the sluggards
and dullards in the way of Christ." 80 In the sermon he
discards the more technical and scholastic method of the
ninety-five theses and confines himself to the religious aspect
of the question. Whilst hi'! doubts at the outset whether the
Sacrament of P~nance has any scriptural warrant, he
accepts it as an ecclesiastical institution. He is concerned
chiefly with Wimpina's argument in favour of indulgence
as a means of securing the remission of penitential
satisfactions which consist in prayer, fasting, and works
of charity. If, he asks, indulgence assures the remission
of these things, what remains for the penitent to do in
pursuit of the Christian life? That it can take away in
addition the punishment of sin demanded by the divine
justice, he denies point blank. It can at most only remit
the penalties imposed by the priest. For the forgiveness
of sin God requires nothing but true repentance, which
will rather seek to bear the Cross of Christ and give proof
of its sincerity in good works, not strive to evade the moral
discipline to which God by this means subjects the soul.
This discipline is in God's hands and no one has any power
to dispense from it. The distinction between punitive
and curative satisfactions is a mere scholastic invention
in order to find room for a system which is incompatible
.with the divine discipline of the soul and only leads to
the neglect of this discipline. It is, moreover, fundamentally wrong to strive to make satisfaction for sin. God
forgives freely out of His immeasurable grace and requires
nothing in return for this grace except a life of well-doing.
It is only the lazy and indifferent Christian that seeks
indulgence which makes no one better, but leaves him in
his imperfect condition. Money spent on such an object
is money misspent. The whole principle of the system
sermon in Luther's " Werke," i. Brieger has, however, shown that the
sermon was written after the publication of Wimpina's counter-theses.
It contains evident references to these and is undoubtedly a reply to
them. "Z.K.G.," xi. 112 f.
so Enders, i. 155,
Luther's Defence
27
is bad from the religious point of view. Its motive is

mercenary and selfish. There are other and better ways
of spending money for religious objects, such as the care
of the poor and the legitimate schemes of the Church,
without thereby seeking to purchase spiritual benefits for
oneself which money can in no sense secure. An indulgence is one of the usages which are not obligatory, and
though he would fiot prevent anyone from making use of
this ecclesiastical expedient, he would exhort all Christians
rather to exercise themselves in good works and freely
submit to the. discipline of suffering. Further, all this
dogmatising about purgatory rests on mere scholastic opinion
in which he has no faith and which the Church has not
decided. The only way to benefit the dead is to pray for
them. In conclusion he is not much moved by the bluster
of the indulgence preachers whose money chests have felt
the ill effects of his teaching and who accordingly denounce
him as a heretic. These "dark heads" have no real
knowledge of the Scriptures or the best Christian teachers
and do not understand "even their own teachers. Otherwise
they would have learned not to calumniate an opponent
unheard and unrefuted.
Tetzel himself took up the attack ~n a "Vbrlegung"
against the "audacious" sermon (April r5r8). Luther's
twenty heads are so many errors. His teaching is contrary
to the Council of Constance and. is in part a repetition of
the heresies of Wiclif and Hess. Against these errors he
sets forth the Bigh Church view .of the papal power in the
matter of indulgences and accuses Luth~r of an artful
design to undermine the papal authority and that of the
Roman Church, which cannot err in matters of faith. He
expands the contentions of Wimpina and defends the
scholastic doctors against his aspersions. The sermon is
full of poison and he augurs the worst of this poisonous
teaching. "For many will pe led to despise the supremacy
and power of the Pope and the Holy Roman See. Works
of sacramental satisfaction will be neglected. Preachers and
doctors will no longet be believed: Every one will interpret
the Hbly Scripture according to his good pleasure. The
whole of Christendom will necessarily be greatly en-
28
dangered, for each one will come to believe just what he

pleases." 81
Luther resented the cry of heresy on a question of this
kind, with which Tetzel sought to intimidate him and
thus silence an inconvenient adversary. Criticism of an
ecclesiastical usage which had become a glaring abuse was
not necessarily heresy and he was determined to maintain
the right of criticism. He gave his reasons for exercising
this freedom in a tract entitled" Eine Freiheit des Sermons"
(Freedom of Preaching) which he published in June r5r8.
He betrays his irritation in the invective in which he trounces
his opponent. The master of the popular diatribe is already
in evidence. The style cannot certainly be called academic.
Unlike the theses, the tract was meant for the people and
it shows that Luther could play the part of the popular
publicist as well as the profound theologian. In this effusion
we have a foretaste of the rough sarcasm in dealing with
opponents which was to prove far more potent in effecting
a reformation than the academic tilting by way of thesis
and counter-thesis. Tetzel has denounced him as a heretic
and threatened to -burn him. Luther tells him that he
might do better to make use of his fire to roast his geese
with. On the question at issue he confronts his opponent
with the testimony of Scripture and reason which Tetzel
has handled as the sow does a bag of oats. The Scriptures
are the grand test of faith and usages, and he pours out his
scorn on the method of reading into them what is not there
and twisting them into warranting one's own crude notions.
By this method they cook a mess the sight of which fills
one with disgust. No one has a right to distort Christ's
teaching in this arbitrary fashion. Tetzel only shows his
crass ignorance in discovering in this teaching the Sacrameilt
of Penance and the indulgence system. The Pope does not
possess the power, which he ascribes to him, of playing fast
and loose by such an expedient with Christ's command to
repent. Nor have his opponents the right to proclaim
81 Article
19. The " Vorlegung" is given by Uischer,
'' Reformationsakta," i. 484 f. (1720). In contracted form by Kohler,
"Documente," 146 f.; Hergenrother, "Concilien Geschichte," ix. 33 f.
Luther's Defence
mere scholastic opinions as Scripture truth, since it belongs
only to a General Council to interpret Scripture. They only
mislead the people with their chatter about the papal power
of forgiveness and indulgences in order the better to empty
their pockets. He is ready to recognise the usages of the
Church, but these usages are not to be confused with the
abuses of them. That the Pope allows such abuses is not
surprising, since even .worse evils are suffered to exist at
and out of Rome. To denounce this abuse is not heresy
which has to do only with what it is essential to believe,
and belief in the indulgence system is not obligatory. All
this bluster about heresy and apostasy is merely the braying
of a big ass. Whilst emphasising the supreme authority of
Scripture as the test of right belief, he is so far unconscious
of any divergence from ecclesiastical orthodoxy. All this
outcry about danger to the faith is mere bluff. "Tetzel
complains," he ironically concludes, " that my sermon will
cause great scandal and lead to contempt of the Roman See,
the faith, the sacraments, the teachers of Scripture, etc.
I cannot otherwise understand all this than that the heavens
will immediately fall down and to-morrow not a single pot
will remain whole." 8 2
Before the publication of this counterblast to the
"Vorlegung," Tetzel had returned to the charge in a series
of fifty theses in barbarous Latin drawn up by himself
about the ertd of April or the beginning of May 1518, 83 which
he proclaimed his intention of defending in the University
of Frankfurt. In these he deals with the indulgence
82
"Werke," i. 393. ln a letter to Link, loth July 1518, Luther
tells him about the publication of this tract, which he describes as a trifle
and says that he had followed the exhortations of his friends rather than
his own inclination in publishing it. Enders, i. 2II.
83 Paulus, " Tetzel," 54.
It does not appear that the disputation
on these theses took place. Paulus adds that in the cours~ of this year he
obtained the degree of doctor of theology either from the University of
Frankfurt or from the General of his Order. Ibid., 55. K!alkoff has,
however, made it clear that he obtained the degree at the General Chapter
of his Order in the summer of 1518 as a reward for his polemic against
Luther," Z.l\;G." (1925), 222. The theses are given in Luther's "Omnia
Opera," i. 7-9 (16u), and Hergenri:ither, " Concilien Geschichte," ix.
47 f.
30
controversy only incidentally and transfers his polemic to

the larger question of the papal power. The controversy
was, in fact, henceforth overshadowed by this far more
fundamental issue, and its importance lies mainly in the fact
that it etelong forced Luther to face this issue in further
conflict with his opponen)ts. In thts respect Wimpina,
Tetzel, Eck and others did him an unwitting service. They
compelled him to criticise and revise his own conception of
the Church and the papal power in the light of Scripture,
history, and his own religious experience, with results little
dreamt of either by him or them. At this stage, however,
he had little fault to find with Tetzel's contentions on these
points, except in so far as they cohtained .a renewal of the
threats against himself as a heretic and did not spare even
the Elector of Saxony as the protector of his heresy .. He
contented himself, in fact, with a sarcastic allusion to them .
at the conclusion of his " Freiheit des Sermons," whilst
. professing his willingness to admit the greater part bf them
as truth 84 and renewing his invitation to Tetzel to come
to Wittenberg under the Elector's safe. conduct, with free
lodging and board, to discuss the question.
The admission is all the more surprising inasmuch as
Tetzel sets forth the papal power without qualification.
This power is suprem.e in the Church and cannot be restricted
or amplified by any single individual or by the whole world,
but by God alone. The Pope's jurisdiction extends over all
in things pertaining to the Christian religion and.the Apostolic
See. He wields supreme authority over Church and General
Council and all are bound to obey his decrees hi so far as
consonant with divine arid na.tural right. He alone determines the faith. He alone interprets Scripture and approves
or condemns the opinions and acts of others'. He cannot
err in the least degree. In his official capacity he is infallible and every one who questions his authority is guilty
of treason and heresy,is excluded from the hope of heaven
and merits the penalty of death. The keys of the Church
were not given to the Church universal, but to Peter and
to the Popes as his successors; The Church possesses the
" " Werke,H i. 392-393, halt ich das mehrer Theil vor Warheit.
Luther's Defence
truth without falsity, and its doctrines are to be believed
by all even if they are not expressly contained in Scripture
or the ancient doctors. All observances decreed by the
Apostolic See are also to be esteemed as Catholic truth
even if the warrant of Scripture is lacking. Whatever thl'l
doctors approved by the Church have taught is similarly to
be accepted without such warrant. All who deliberately
doubt .the faith thus accredited or interpret the Scriptures
otherwise, or set forth new and false opinions of their bwn,
or attempt to detract from the privileges of the Roman
ChurGh are heretics. To maintain any proposition that
tends to produce schism by undermining the authority of
prelates, princes, or the papal bulls is to be guilty of sedition.
Even to question what the preachers proclaim as Catholic
truth is inadmissible, and to refuse to amend error against
the counter-assertions, say, of a Tetzel, is hereticalcontumacy.
In other 1 words, if a Luther challenges the teaching and
conduct of the indulgence preachers and decline.s to yield
to their superior wisdom, he is to be esteemed ipso facto a
heretic. Nay, those who protect him (a thrust at the
Elector of Saxony) and intervene to prevent his punishment
are to be excommunicated, and if they do not make amends
within a year, are to be esteemed infamous and subjected
to the most severe penalties. He concludes the series with
still more ominous threats against Luther himself. "The
beast that toucheth the mount shall surely be ~toned"
(Exodus xix. r3).
Luther did not deem it worth while to continue the
controversy with Tetzel, who henceforth recedes into the
background. He denounces the theses in a single sarcastic
sentence. Tetzel, borrowing from Luther, had prefaced
each of his contentions with the clause, "Christians are to
be taught." This, retQrted Luther, should rather read:
"The indulgence mongers (qucestores) and the inquisitors
of heresy are to be taught." 85

By this time a more redoubtable antagonist had appeared
in Dr John Maier, otherwise known as Dr Eck, the name
of his Suabian birthplace, Professor of Theology at Ingolstadt.
86
"Werke," i. 393
32
Eck was a theologian of rising reputation, who had taken

his master's degree at Tiibingen in r5or at the age of fifteen.
He had continued the study of theology, begun at Tiibingen,
at Koln and Freiburg, and in his twenty-fourth year attained
the theological doctorate (r5ro). In the same year he was
appointed through Pfeffinger's influence to a chair of theology
at Ingolstadt and became canon of Eichstadt. He was
ambitious as well as able and his resource and ability,
coupled with an inordinate self-assurance, had gained him
considerable notoriety in academic debate at Bologna and
Vienna. He professed humanist sympathies and courted
the friendship of Peutinger, Scheurl, and other champions
of the new culture. Through Scheurl he had early in r5r7
sought that of Luther, and this introduction resulted in ;:i.
friendly correspondence which led Luther to regard him
as a kindred spirit and to speak appreciatively in his letters
to Scheurl of his learning and ability. 86 He was, therefore,
justifiably surprised on learning in March r5r8 that he had
without warning attacked his theses in a communication to
the Bishop of Eickstadt which, though not printed, was
circulated in MS. under the title of " Obelisks." 87 " I
should marvel," wrote L1,1ther to Egranus, " did I not know
the machinations of Satan, at the fury with which Eck
has dissolved a very recent and agreeable friendship without
a word of warning or farewell. In these ' Obelisks ' he called
me a virulent Hussite, a heretic, a seditious, insolent, and
rash fellow, and, to omit the lesser contumelies, a despiser
86 Enders, i. IIo.
Eccio nostro, eruditissimo et ingeniosissimo
viro; cf. ibid., i. 92, 97, II2, 166. For his early life see Wiedemann,
''Dr Johann Eck" (1865) and the article "Eck" in Herzog-Hauck,
"Encyclopiidie fiir Protestantische Theologie," 3rd ed. See also the
interesting introduction by Vfrnich to " Eck's Disputation" at Vienna
(1517) and other pieces, "Corpus Catholicorum," vi. 13 f. (1923).
87
Enders, i. 172-173. Literally " little daggers "-the signs to
denote questionable statements in ancient writings, used for this purpose
by Origen. A copy was sent to Luther by Link. " Werke," i. 281 ;
cf. Enders, v. 2. Eck himself entitled his notes on the theses "Adnota
tiones." But in the text he describes them as" Obelisks," and this was
the title under which Luther referred to them. See Greving," Johannes
Eck, Defensio Contra Carolstatini Invectiones," " Corpus Catholic
orum," i. 8 (1919).
Luther' s Defence
33
of the supreme pontiff. Briefly, they contain nothing else

than the most offensive calumnies against me and my
theses and only reveal the spite and malice of an infuriated
mind. I wish, nevertp.eless, to swallow this stuff worthy
of a Cerberus with patience. But my friends have compelled
me to reply, though I have done so only privately. . . .
The more these zealots rage against me, the more I make
headway." 8 8 Eck in a letter to Carlstadt sought to excuse
himself by saying that he had only penned these animadversions "privately" at tlie request of his bishop and
had no idea that they would be circulated. He disclaimed
all responsibility for their circulation and declared that he
had no intention of hurting Luther. 89 There seems to be
no -substantial reason for doubting the sincerity of these
professions and ascribing his antagonism mer~ly to the
craving for notoriety, self-advertisement, 90 which appears
to have played a not inconsiderable part in his public
activity. In his " Defensio" against Carlstadt he tells us
that he had occasion to visit the bishop on some other
business, and had taken advantage of the opportunity to
discuss the theses at great length and express his dissent
from them. At the end of the discussion, the bishop,
who apparently did not share his unfavourable impression
of faem, asked him to submit his animadversions in writing.
Hence these notes, or "Obelisks/' which were a private
communication, 91 but a copy of which was, it seems, sent to
Link by the bishop's nephew, Bernhard von Adelmann,
Canon of Augsburg,' who was Eck's personal enemy. 92
Though a professed humani?t, he was at bottom a votary
of the scholastic theology, cind in attacking the theses he
88
Enders, i. 172-173.
Ibid., i. 174; Barge, " Karlstadt," i. 125 (1905).
9 0 Knaake (" Werke," i. 278) suspects him of insincerity in these
professions and thinks that he himself circulated these notes in his desire
for notoriety. See also Hausrath, " Luther's' Leben," i. 196. Greving
has, however, made out a strong case in favour of his honesty in this
matter, " Corpus Catholicorum," i. 9-10. See, however, Kalkoff's
criticism in" Z.K.G." (1925), 220-222.
91
" Corpus Catholicorum," i. 36-37.
Greving, " Corpus Catholicorum," i. 10.
89
34
seems to have been giving expression to the conservative,

reactionary tendency which accorded with his real theological
standpoint. At all events, Luther was convinced, as he
wrote to Staupitz, that he had incurred the hostility of
Eck and other blind followers of the schoolmen simply
because he preferred the Bible and the Fathers to the
scholastic theologians and followed the apostolic injunction
to prove all things. 9a
Eck's critical notes were hastily written and repeat
for the most part the objections and accusations with which
we are already familiar. He views the subject from the
traditional standpoint and draws his arguments from the
scholastic theology. Luther, on the other hand, he contends, has drunk at the poisonol!s fountain of Bohemian
heresy, has undermined the Sacrament of Penance and the
papal power, and his teaching will tend to beget tumult,
sedition,. and schism in the Church:114 The blunt and acrid
style in which those criticisms were couched and the offensive
epithets liberally interspersed amply bear out Luther's
description of the virulent character of the attack in his
letter to Egranus. His reply took the form of a detailed
commentary which he entitled "Asterisks" (signs also used
by Origen to denote explanatory passages). He emphatically rebuts the imputation of Hussite heresy. He reminds
Eck that it had been falsely said by the enemies of Christ
that He was possessed by a demon, and accuses him of
downright mendacity. If to dispute on matters of opinion
is poisonous heresy, then Eck, with his predilection for dis.:.
putation, has been infecting a number of the universities
with this kind of poison and is, on this assumption, the
98 Enders, i. 176, iidem de scholasticis doctoribus mihi conflant
odium, quia enim illis pnefero ecclesiasticos et Bibliam, p::ene insaniunt
pr;:e fervore zeli sui. Ego scholasticos cum judicio, non clausis oculis
(illorum more) lego. Sic pnecepit Apostolus omnia probate.
94
Luther's "Werke," i. 303; cf. 285, 296, 305. They are also
given in " Opera Latina Var," i. 410. The " Asterisks," along with
the "Obelisks,'' were first published in the 1545 edition of Luther's
Latin works. For a critical examination of the text by Pietsch
see "Werke,'' ix. 770 f.; cf. Greving, " Corpus Catholicorum,''
i. 8-9.
Luther's Defence
35
most pestilential heretic in the Ghurch.

He belongs to
that class of people who raise the cry of sedition and schism
whenever one arraigns the abuses in the Church and thereby
menaces their tyranny over the Christian people. Are
not the papal decrees and the books of the schoolmen full
of denunciations of all sorts of abuses? If these have not
caused seditions and schisms, is it a fair criticism to say
that his arraignment of only one abuse will produce these
tragedies ? 96 Eck regards the denial of the priestly power
of remitting sin as derogatory to the Sacrament of Penance, '
since the sacraments effect what they signify. Luther
meets this by insisting that personal faith is essential to the
efficacy of the sacraments, since it is not the sacrament,
but the faith of the sacrament that justifies, brings the
rerriission of sin. Paul and all the Fathers teach this,
and to teach otherwise is to render the sacramental system
entirely inefficacious. 97 Not he, but Eck and other flatterers
of the Pope, who ascribe to him their own falsehoods, are
subverters of the papal authority. The Pope, who is but
a man, may be deceived by their specious chatter. But
God is the truth and cannot be deceived. For his part he
will not be browbeaten by such adulation of the Pope or mere
appeals to the schoolmen. ,If Eck wishes to convince and
conquer, let him adduce solid reasons from the Scriptures
and the Fathers. " If Christ and His Word are with me,
I will not fear what the whole world may do to me." 98
He evidently writes. in a state of extreme irritation
and pays Eck back in his own coin in the matter of opprobrious epithets. In his eyes he has proved a treacherous
friend, who in spite of his specious association with the
party of enlightenment, has joined in the hue and cry of
the obscurantist heresy hunters and has adopted towards
him the same tactics as the obscurantists had done in the
case of Reuchlin. 99 To be called a Hussite was in those
days the last word in theological calumny. This was very
95
97
" Werke," i. 303.
Ibid., i. 286.
98 Ibid., i. 306.
Ibid., i. 297,
99 Ibid., i. 302.
Per omnia mihi facit Eckius secut Johanni Reuc;hlin
fecit ille suus Satan.
90
96

provoking, and in his irritation Luther overwhelms him
with contempt as well as sarcasm. He calls him a sophist,
a her<:<tic, an ignoramus, etc., though in his non-controversial
mood he had a high opinion of his learning and his ability. 100
As we learn from a letter to Spalatin in February 1518,
he tried to moderate his vehemence in dealing with his
opponents, thaugh he found it difficult in the heat of
controversy to practise due self-restraint.1 Apart from these
unfortunate personalities into which his irritation and his
impulsive temperament betrayed him, the "Asterisks"
give a foretaste of the depth of conviction and. the stubborn
intrepidity which were erelong to manifest and maintain
themselves in a far wider area than that of the scholastic
tournament.
This encounter did not go farther in the meantime, since
neither the " Obelisks" nor the "Asterisks " got the length
of the printing press; and Luther was not anxious for its
continuance. Carlstadt, who took up the cudgels in his
behalf, during his absence at the meeting of his Order at
Heidelberg, in a formidable series of theses, did so without
his knowledge and against his inclination. 2 In a letter to
Eck, l7th May 1518, Luther intimated his readiness to
close the controversy, and contented himself with sending
the " Asterisks " in MS. to him through Link. 3
Enders, i. 209.
Ibid., i. 155. Ego multo amplius laboro quomodo me ipsum
cohibeam ne illos contemnam, et sic peccem in Christum quam quomodo
eos triumphem.
2 Ibid., i. 209. They were 406 in number. Eck's" Defensio" in reply
to them.is given by Greving in " Corpus Catholicorum," i.
a Ibid., v. 2.
1 00
CHAPTER II
THE DEVELOPING SITUATION
l. ROMAN INTERVENTION
LUTHER's opponents were not content to urge a paper
warfare against him. As we have noted, the Archbishop
of Maintz. had betimes brought his theses and other writings
to the notice of the Pope. In consequence of this communication, Leo, in December r5r7, submitted these documents for examination to the General of the Dominican
Order, Thomas de Vio, titularly known, from his birthplace
Gaeta, as Cardinal Cajetan. Cajetan was a staunch curialist
and had distinguished himself in the fifth Lateran Council
as the uncompromising champion of the papal power.1 He
was the most capable exponent of the Thomist theology
at the papal court, 2 and his theological learning consequently fitted him to give an expert opinion oil the question
at issue. He responded with a reasoned statement (dated
8th December r5r7) of the doctrine of indulgences markedly
different in tone from the effusions of Wimpina, Tetzel,
and Eck. He contented himself with merely referring to
the divergent views on the papal power of indulgence of
certain professors of theology 3 without mentioning Luther's
name, and refrained from explicitly condemning his teaching.
As his statement shows, the subject bristled with objections
and he was too conscious of the evil effects of the compromis1 See article " Cajetan " in Herzog-Hauck, " Realencyclopadie,"
and Lauchert, " Corpus Catholicorum," x. 9 f.
2 Pastor, viii. 252.
" "Opusc~la Omnia," i. 129 (1582.). De quanam vi quum varias
pontificii juris theologire professorum opiniones esse animadverterem.
Lauchert thinks that Cajetan's tract did not refer to Luther's theses.
" Corpus Catholicorum," x. 9 (1925). He does not give any reason for
this conclusion.
37

ing propaganda of the indulgence preachers to raise forthwith
the cry of heresy on a question of this kind. 4 The theses
evidently furnished, in Cajetan's opinion, no substantial
ground for a charge of heresy, and as the result of his report
the Pope appears to have taken no immediate action against
Luther. Leo was, in fact, not disposed to take the matter
very seriously. "A drunken German has written this
stuff," he is reported to have remarked. "He will think
differently when be is sober." 5
The incentive to such action came from the German
Dominicans who, under the leadership of Dr Rab, the prior
of the Leipzig monastery, to which Tetzel belonged, forwarded
in January r5r8 to Rome a number of charges against the
Wittenberg professor. They found a powerful abettor at
Rome in their fellow-countryman Nicolas -von Schonberg,
a member of the Order and secretary of Giulio di Medici,
cousin of the Pope and papal vice-chancellor; 6 At his
instigation the Pope, on the 3rd February r5r8, directed
Gabriel della Volta, whom he had designated the successor
of Cardinal Aegidius de Viterbo as General of the Augustinian
Order, 7 to restrain Luther, either by letter or through
suitable intermediaries, from farther propagating his new
doctrines. 8 The case, urged the Pope, demanded prompt
handling. The fire once kindled might easily become
a conflagration if not quickly extinguished. The evil
increases daily and hesitation or' delay is dangerous.
By this time Cajetan had also come to take a more serious
~
' See, for instance, his condemnation of the indulgence preachers in

another tract on the subject, 2oth Nov. 1519 .. "Opuscula Omnia," i. 150.
Prredicatores ecclesire personam agunt dum ;prredicant Christi et ecclesire
doctrinam. Dum autem ex proprio sensu aut cupiditate dicunt ea qure
nesciunt non agunt ecclesire personam; et ideo non est mirum sit in
istiusmodi verbis errant.
5 " Tischreden," ii. 567.
6 Kalkoff, "Entscheidungsjahre," 25.
See the letter in which Leo informs him of his decision that .he
should succeed Aegidius in Walch, xv. 518-521 (23rd Jan. 1518).
8 Bembi, "Epistolre Leonis X.," xvi. 18; Kalkoff," Forschungen,"
44. A German trans. of the letter is given in Walch, xv. 521-523. The
original has been lost and the version in Bembi's collection has been
recast. See Pastor, vii. 362, and viii., Appendix, 22.
..
Roman Intervention
39
view of the case, Among the documents remitted by the

Archbishop of Maintz to the Pope were probably the two
Disputations on Grace and the Scholastic Theology of r5r6
and r5r7, in which Luther had boldly controverted the
scholastic teaching on these subjects. 9 He had not only
criticised the indulgence system. He had attacked the
Thomist theology and appealed from Aristotle and the
schoolmen.to the Bible in support of his teaching on free will,
grace, good works, and justification by faith. To Cajetan,
the most distinguished exponent of this theology in the
sacred college, this attack raised a more vital issue than the
polemic against the indulgence system. Here in truth was
a fundamental divergence from the teaching of the Church
which demanded energetic intervention, and in the actual
missive sent by Volta to Staupitz it was apparently mainly
on .the question of his divergence from the traditional
theology that he challenged the Wittenberg professor.
That this was the real issue we can discern from the letter
which Luther, on the 3rst March, wrote in reply to that
of Staupitz in forwarding to him Volta's injunction to
refrain from farther agitation. From this letter it appears.
that the missive contained a threefold accusation. He
had condemned in his sermon.s and writings the endless
repetition of prayers and psalms (Rosaries, etc.) which
to the Dominicans constituted the essence of meritorious
devotion, but which he regarded as mere mechanical "works,"
detrimental to spiritual religion as represented by Tauler
and Staupitz himself in his recently published book " On
the Love of God." He had farther taught that men should
not confide in anything but Jesus Christ alone, not in their
own merits and works, since in the words of Paul (Rom.
ix, r6) " salvation is not of him that runneth, but of God that
hath mercy." From these words they suck the venom
which they disseminate against him. He had, in the third
place, incurred their fury and their hatred by his preference
for the Bible and the Fathers over the scholastic theologians.10
On these grounds he had acquired an evil reputation in the
9
10
See " Luther and the Reformation," i. 274J,

Enders, i. 175-176,

Dominican Order at least,11 and nothing less than the
renunciation of these detestable opinions will satisfy them
and the Pope. With this demand Luther will in no wise
comply. He will maintain at all hazards his convictions
and defend his right of free discussion. It has happened
to him as to St Paul at the hands of those who calumniated
the Apostle's teaching. "I have not begun this work,
nor will I desert from it because of fame or infamy. I
read the scholastic theologians with discrimination and
not with closed eyes, as is their habit. Has not the Apostle
commanded to prove all things and hold fast to that which
is good? I do not reject all these opinions, but neither do
I approve all. As is their wont, these clamourers make of
the part the whole ; out of a spark they make a conflagration,
out of a midge an elephant. For these spectres I, as long as
God is propitious, care nothing. Words they are and words
they will remain. If it has been permissible for Scotus and
Biel to dissent from St Thomas, and again for the Thomists
to contradict the whole world, so that there are among the
scholastic theologians almost as many sects as there are
heads, yea as many hairs of each head, why will they not
permit to me the same right of free discussion against them
as they arrogate against each other ? If God is in this
enterprise no one will prevent it. If He is quiescent no
one will set it in motion. Farewell, and pray for me and the
truth of God whatever it may be." i2
Enders i. 175 Valde credo nomen meum apud multos fretere.
Ibi'd., i. 175-176. Kalkoff (" Forschungen," 45 f.; and "Entc
scheidungsjahre,'" 29 f.) interprets Luther's letter as a reply to one
written to him by Staupitz, who in turn had received a communication
from Volta directing him to call his subordinate to account. This
interpretation does not rest on any extant letters, but only on the inference
of their existence. Boehmer (" Der J.unge Luther,'' 190) pronounces
this to be " a mere supposition,'' whilst not denying the possibility
of its correctness.
Stracke (" Luther's Grosses Selbstzeugnis,
1545,'' 30-31 (1926)) comes to the same conclusion and states it more
positively, with reasons given. There is, indeed, in Luther's letter
to Staupitz no direct mention of these inferred communications. But, it
is very probable that Volta did carry out the papal instruction and
communicated with Staupitz, an.d equally probable that Staupitz brought
this communication to Luther's notice. At the same time, it is only
11
12
Roman Intervention
At the same time, he was prepared to waive farther
controversy in deference to the request of his ordinary,
the Bishop of Brandenburg, who had also received instructions from Rome to use his authority to prohibit farther
discussion. 1s The bishop wisely avoided the peremptory
tone of Volta's missive to Staupitz, and his tactful intervention evoked from Luther a '\7ery different response. Luther
had previously notified him of his intention to publish in
self-defence an amplification of his theses (".Resolutions")
which he had prepared for the press,1 4 and at the bishop's
request, courteously conveyed to him through the Abbot
of Lehnin, at once agreed to defer publication. As he
wrote to Spalatin, he did so solely in recognition of his
considerate treatment at the hands_ of the bishop who,
in asking him to defer farther controversy, expressed himself
very freely on the indulgence system.15
In thus refusing to surrender his convictions in deference
to the behest of his Dominican opponents, Luther was
doubtless encouraged by the knowledge that the Elector
was resolved to stand between him and his enemies. In
case of his refusal to comply with Volta's demand, Staupitz
seems to have been directed to bring the matter before the
forthcoming chapter of the German Augustinian Order ;:i.t
Heidelberg, which should exact his submission and in
case of non-compliance send him to Rome for .trial. Th~
indulgence preachers were prophesying that he would be
burned within a month and he was warned not to risk
the journey to Heidelberg in view of the danger of being
right to say that the interpretation given in the text, following Kalkoff,
is based only on this inference. The inference does, however, seem to
fit the actual situation. It is most unlikely that Volta paid no heed to
the urgent papal instruction of 3rd Feb. 1518. Luther does, in the
beginning of his letter to Staupitz, apparently refer to a communication
from him (Primum valde credo nomen meum apud multos fcetere). This
is not necessarily limited to Germany, as Straclrn maintains, but is
quite genera,1. The tone of the whole letter shows that he is face to
face with the menace of very serious consequences, which he is prepared
to brave to the uttermost.
ia Kalkoff, "Entscheidungsjahre," 32.
14 Enders, i. 166.
u Ibid., i. 178.
42
arrested on the way thither.16 Nor were these threats and

warnings unfounded. He now knew that, if the Dominican
Order had its way, a heretic's doom awaited him if he
persisted in maintaining his convictions. But he also
knew that he could rely oh the ElectOr to prevent his seizure
and deliverance to the tender mercies of the Roman
Inquisition. In a letter to Lang (21st March 1518) he
announced his determination to undertake the journey
which his obedience as a monk required of him. "I shall,
notwithstanding, fulfil my duty and proceed on foot . . . .
Our prinGe with a wonderful goodwill and inclination to
the solid study of theology has, unasked, energetically
taken me and Carlstadt into his protection and will in no
way suffer me to be given up to Rome." 17 Frederick the
Wise refused to be bribed into compliance by the grant of
certain privileges for the castle church at Wittenberg and
confessional "faculties" for Spalatin, his chaplain.18
The Elector not only gave him a safe c~nduct and made
known his express wish that no attempt should be made
to delay or prevent his return. He commended him to the
protection of his fellow-Elector of the Palatinate, Ludwig v~,
with whom he maintained a dose friendship, and to his
brother the Count Wolfgang, who had recently been a
student at Wittenberg.19 He gave him, besides, letters to
several notables, irtcluding the Bishop of Wiirzburg, in order
the better to ensure his safety on the way to Heidelberg. 20
II.
THE HEIDELBERG DEBATE
Thus safeguarded, he set out on the gth April 21 and

continued his journey in a confident and sanguine mood,
which is reflected in the letters in which he recorded his
experience to Spalatin, the Elector's chaplain and secretary
and the influential intermediary between him and his
17 Ibid., i. 169-170.
Enders, i. 169.
20 Ibid., i. 186:
s Ibid., i. 179-180.
io Ibid., i. 192.
21 Enders, i. 171, supposes that he left Wittenberg on the uth,
Knaake on the 9th April. "Werke," i. 350.
16
The Heidelberg Debate
43
powerful patron. His only complaint is about the fatigue of

the journey, which he made on foot as far as Wiirzburg,
and the lack of passing empty waggons. He was accom~
panied by a young member of his Order, probably Leonhard
Beier, with whom, as respondent, he was to dispute a series
of theses at the Heidelberg Chapter. The Bishop of
Wiirzburg, Lorenz von Bibra, an enlightened and cultured
prelate, gave him a cordial reception and added his safe
conduct to that of the Elector. From here he travelled in
a waggon with his friend Lang and other members of his
Order and sent back the courier, whom the Elector had
directed to accompan'y him, with the request that Spalatin
should see that he was suitably rewarded for his faithful
service. "For I am poor and ought to be and have little
to give him." In the early stage of his journey he had
travelled as much as possible incognito in view of the
danger in which the accusation of heresy might involve
him. At Coburg he was recognised by the local priest, an
old Wittenberg student, and treated to a festive meal.
His friendly reception at Wiirzburg and at Heidelberg,
which he reached on the 2rst April, proved that the
Dominican clamour about heresy had so far completely
missed fire. At Heidelberg his Vicar-General Staupitz
and Link, his former colleague in the Wittenberg monastery,
received him as an old friend and refused to gratify the
Dominican rivals of the Augustinian Order by treating
him as suspect of heresy. The large majority of his brethren
adopted the same attitude, whilst Count Wolfgang, as an
old Wittenberg student, showed him special honour by
inviting him, along with Staupitz and Lang, to a banquet
in the magnificent electoral castle overlooking the town
and showing him its treasures and its wonderful armoury.
He was evidently greatly impressed by the castle and its
splendours, and his monastic devotion did not scorn the
pleasures of the table. He was already learning to appreciate
the human side of life. "We spent a happy time in delightful
and joyous\conversation, eating and. drinking the while." 22
Rather an' unpromising prelude to the inquisition with
\
aa Enders, i.
192.
44
which his Dominican opponents had threatened him, and

which was to secure either his retraction or his surrender
to Rome. There was no inquisition and Luther was called
on merely to discuss his characteristic teaching which his
Dominican accusers had arraigned in the missive to Staupitz.
The question of indulgences was entirely ignored. The
discussion only gave him an opportunity of making known
his distinctive theology to the members of his Ordoc and
others, including members of the Dominican monastery who
were present and took part in the debate, and the professors
of the Heidelberg Theological Faculty.
It was as the exponent and propagandist of this theology,
not as an accused heretic, that he submitted and defended
forty theses which he had prepared for discussion. The
first twenty-eight deal with purely theological questions;
the last dozen with points of the scholastic philosophy as
dominated by Aristotle. The debate seems, however, to
have been confined to the first series, and in the preface
to these he appeals to the authority of " the divine Paul,
the most choice instrument and organ of Christ," and
to "St Augustine, his most faithful interpreter," as the
stfl,ndard of theological truth. They compress the teaching
of his Commentaries on Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews
in axiomatic form and assert the doctrine of the nullity of
man's works for salvation and the impotence of the will
to the good in the most uncompromising terms. 23 His
teaching is in this respect ultra-Augustinian. The attempt
to fulfil the law, he contends, cannot make a man righteous,
for the law only produces the sense of sin. Much less can
he attain righteousness by his own natural powers. Thus
it follows that his works, however specious and good they
outwardly appear in his own eyes, are only sins and cannot
become good unless they spring fr~m a right inward disposi23 After finishing the course on Romans he had lectured on Galatians
during the winter of 1516-17 (Schubert, " Luther's Vorlesung iiber
den Galaterbrief, 1516:17"; "Einleitung," vi. (1918)), and on Hebrews
from Easter 1517 to Easter 1518 (Ficker, "Luther, 1517," 36 (1918).
As Fick!)r has shown, the course on Hebrews shows a certain advance in
definiteness in his ideas on grace, faith, the certainty of salvation, etc .
.Ibid,, 14 f., and relative notes containing extracts from this course.
45
tion which begins in self-distrust, humility, and fear. In

other words, his works cannot possibly be good unless he
discards human presumption, acknowledges that his every
act is worthy of damnation by a just God, and realises his
utter dependence on Him for the good. It farther follows
that in virtue of this sinful state he possesses free will
only in name. 24 The will is free only to do evil. It is indeed
possible to conceive of the will as capable of the good. 25
But in the sinful state induced by the fall it cannot but do
the evil because it has become the captive and slave of
sin. Therefore, when a man does what in him lies he cannot
but sin. Nay, in striving to merit God's grace by doing
what he can, he only adds sin upon sin and becomes doubly
guilty. Even 'in the state of innocence he was not endowed
with the power of active goodness in virtue solely of free
wm.2s
Half of the first series of theses. thus enforced the pessimistic religious psychology which he had drawn from the
Scriptures, the mystics, Augustine, .and his own spiritual
experience. This psychology was certainly fitted to challenge
dissent on rational and ethical grounds and might well
lead to fatalist despair or indifference. In the second half
he provides the antidote to this pessimism. Here the
optimist displaces the pessimist. The Gospel ta}{es the
place of the law. "You ask, What then? Shall we give
place to ease, because we can do nothing but sin? I
answer, By no means. But prostrate yourselves and pray
for grace and transfer your hope to Christ in whom is our
salvation, our life, our resurrection. For we thus. teach
and the law so makes sin to be known in order that, having
discovered our sin, grace may be sought and obtained." 27
This conviction of sin, of the absolute futility and nullity
of human works is the first condition of salvation, which
begins in self-despair and the humble and zealous quest
of the grace of Christ. In thus humbly seeking does man
24
Liberum arbitrium post peccatuin res est de solo titulo.
2 In bonum potentia subjectiva.

26
z?
Theses 1-16.
Demonstration of the sixteenth thesis.
'

become fitted to find this grace, and thus to preach sin
is to preach life, not despair. 28 The sick man only desires
medicine when he perceives the existence of his disease,
and to teU him of the existence of his disease is only to
incite in him the desire to be cured. We must seek and
know God not in our own wisdom and good works, but in
sufferings, in the Cross (per passiones et crucem). In Christ
crucified is the true theology and knowledge of God. 29
The scholastic theologians. have distorted this knowledge
by their exaltation of works and hunian wi$dom above the
suffering and foolishness of the Cross. They have ignored
the wisdom of God hidden in this foolishness, and have
mistaken by this preference the evil for the good and the
good for the evil. They are those whom the Apostle calls
the
enemies of the Cross. 30 This true
wisdom we learn from
.
.
the law which judges and condemns whatever is not in
Christ and leads to a true 1understanding of the theology of
the Cross, without which we can only make the worst use
of the best things. The wisdom of the law is indeed in
itself not evil, nor to be shunned. But it consists not in the
self-glory of works, but in destroying our confidence in
works and leading us to. confide in God, who works in us.
It thus kills us in order to make us alive. To be born again
we must first die in order to rise to new life in .Christ.
Righteousness is not acquired by the accumulation of
righteous acts, as Aristotle teaches, but is infused by grace
and. faith. Not that the righteous man does no works.
Only his works do not make him righte,ous in God's sight,
but faith infused by God first makes him righteous and
produces in him its own works. Justifying righteousness is,
therefore, the work of G9d in us, not our own. It is operated
solely through faith in Christ who works in us. The law
says, Do this, and nothing is achieved. Grace says, Believe
in Him, and all is accomplished. Through faith Christ
enters into us, who has fulfilled the law for us and in whom
we are also enabled to fulfil it by His inspiration and the
u Theses 17-18.
Ergo in Christo crucifixo est vera theologia et cognitio dei.
ao Theses 19-22,
29
47
imitation of His example. With this teaching, he insists

in conclusion, the philosophy and ethics of Aristotle are
altogether at variance, and in the last dozen theses he adds
some arguments in proof of his contention that it is dangerous
for anyone to make use of his philosophy unless he has first
become a fool in Christ, anq declares his prderence for
Plato and even Parmenides and Anaxagoras. 31 .
To Luther these theses are not mere theological proposi,tions, but truths. of his own religious experience. They
bespeak profound personal conviction and are expressed in
very dogmatic language. In his preface he nevertheless
proferred them for discussion in a diffident spirit and quoted
the text, "Trust not in thine own understanding." According to Bucer, who was present, he spoke with admirable
suavity in answering objections and showed the utmost
patience in listening to counter-arguments as well as
remarkable acuteness, promptness, and knowledge of
Scripture. 32 The testimony of Count Wolfgang in a letter
to the Elector Frederick is equally emphatic. " He showed
himself so skilful a debater that he has gained for your
university no little praise and many learned men have
complimented him. in high terms." 33 , The disputation in
the hall of the Augustinian monastery seems to have been
conducted with good feeling on both sides, and in his report
to Spalatin, Luther speaks in very appreciative terms of
the self-restraint and courtesy with which the professors of
the Heidelberg Theological Faculty, with one exception,
parried his arguments. "Although this theology appeared
strange to them, they nevertheless skirmished against it
31 The theses are given in "Werke," i. 330 {;
Stange, " Die
Aeltesten Ethischen Disputationen Luthers," 49 f. (1904). Bauer has
given a detailed exposition in" Z.K.G.," xxi., "Die Heidelberger Disputation Luther's" (1901)-a careful examination.which has, however,
been supersedeci by the publication of Luther's Commentary on Romans
and by later Luther research. Kostlin has ciiticised Bauer's exposition
of Luther's teaching on free will in "Z.K.G.," xxi. 577 f. For a criticism of Kalkoff's version of the proceedings at Heidelberg see Stracke,
" Luther's Grosses Selbstzeugnis, 1545," 1:31 f. (1926). See also
Hirsch, " Die Heidelberg Disputation," "Z.K.G."
32
Letter to Beatus Rhenanus in Luther's "Werke," ix. 162.
33 waich, xv. 519.
48
both acutely and finely." 34 The discordant note was

struck by the youngest of their colleagues. " If," he burst
out, " the peasants were to hear such things, they would
certainly pelt you with stones and kill you." This appeal to
the peasants as referees on such abstruse reasonings convulsed
the whole assembly with laughter. There was, however,
an opposition party led by his old teacher, Usingen, who
stoutly resisted all his efforts to persuade him to a better
opinion both during the disputation and in private intercourse. Luther was equally staunch in resisting counterarguments in defence of the old theology. "However
much," notes Bucer, " the champions of the old theology
might ply him with their sophistic arguments, they were
unable to move him a finger's breadth from his position." 35
Another old teacher, Trutvetter, though not present, sent
him a letter bitterly condemning his views and telling him
that he was ignorant of diq:lectic, not to speak of theology. 36
It appears, farther, that the charges against him contained
in Volta's missive to Staupitz were submitted to the assembly,
coupled with the demand for his retraction. 37 The majority
of the members were, however, too much impressed by his
forcible exposition of his evangelical views to play into the
hands of his Dominican enemies either by demanding a
retraction or by venturing, in the face of the Elector's
explicit wish, to deliver him to Rome as suspect of 'heresy ..
They seem to have contented themselves. with a promise
to send to Rome an explanation of his position, which he
erelong implemented in the submission of the " Resolutions "
on his ninety-five theses against indulgences to the Pope. 38 .
The tone of his letter to Staupitz clearly shows that if he
had failed to gain the assent of the older theologians, he
had won the sympathy of the younger members of his
Order as well as others who attended the debate. He
made, in Bucer, one of these enthusiastic young converts,
whose name was to become famous as one of the leading
34 Enders, i. 192.
as " Werke," ix. 162.
36 Enders, i. 192.
37 Ibid., i. 212.
Literas quas in capitulo coram audiebas.
38 Kalkoff, "Z.K.G.," xxvii. 322-323.
49
reformers of Southern Germany. Though a member of the

Dominican monastery at Heidelberg, Bucer was already
veering, by way of the humanist approach, towards the
militant reform party. To Luther he owed the impulse that
carried him farther on the way thither. Arrested by the
arguments of the brilliant debater, he sought an interview
with him and was captivated by the magnet of his personality
and genius during the meal which he invited the eager
young Dominican to sh~re with him. "Whatever problem
I raised," wrote he to Beatus Rhenanus, "he explained
most abundantly. He is altogether of one mind with
Erasmus, except that in this one thing he excels him,
viz., that what Erasmus merely enunciates, he teaches
openly and freely. Would that I had time to write you more
about him. He has brought to pass that at Wittenberg
these trivial authors (the scholastics) are banished to a
man and Greek letters, Jerome, Augustine, Paul are publicly
expounded." 39 Several other reformers of the future,
including Brenz and Billican, who were also present, carried
away impressions that were to bear fruit in due season.
Luther himself already counted on the support of the young
generation. "Though those that have grown old in their
bad ways of thinking are difficult to move, the minds of
the younger generation are turning away from the narrow
ways of the elders and I have every .reason to hope that,
as Christ, when rejected by the Jews, migrated to the
Gentiles, now likewise the youth will transfer itself to the
true theology which these old men reject." 40
There was, indeed, some reason for the hesitation of the
votaries of the old ideas to go all the way with him in his
reaction towards Paul and Augustine. His evangelical
teachillg was really incompatible with the teaching and
institutions of the Church as well as with the theology of
the schools. Trutvetter, with whom he sought an interview
at Erfurt on his return journey, evidently perceived the
revolutionary drift of the new theology, and turned a deaf
ear to his arguments. 41 Luther, in fact, made no secret of
his determination to bring about a radical revolution of
39
"Werke," ix. 162.
40
Enders, i. 193
u Ibid., i. 193
50
the scholastic theology. "I simply believe," he told him,

"that it is impossible to reform the Church unless the
canons, decretals, the scholastic theology, philosophy, and
logic, as they are now taught, are eradicated and other
studies instituted. Clinging to this opinion, I daily pray
the Lord that it may forthwith.be brought about that we may
be recalled to the study of the Bible and the Fathers pure
and simple. To you I appear to be no logician. Perhaps
neither I am. But this I know, that I fear the logic of no
one in defending this opinion." 42 He adds that he had
first learned from Trutvetter himself that faith is owed to
the canonical books of Scripture only, and to exercise his
judgment in regard to all others, as Augustine, Paul, and
John teach. "Permit me, therefore, to use the same
liberty towards the scholastic theologians as has been
permitted to you and all others hitherto. I wish to follow.
this example if I shall be taught better things through the
Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church, whilst following
the scholastic theologians as far as they are founded on
their teaching. From this conviction I shall not be debarred
by your authority, which with me is certainly very weighty,
far less by that of others." 43 The old schoolman insisted
on relying on the dictates of natural reason as well as the
traditional interpretation of Scripture, and Luther carried
away the impression that he could neither prove his own
doctrine nor confute his. At the same time, his own
teaching on the absolute impotence of the.will, for instance,
was by no means so self-evident as he assumed, nor free
from objections from the moral and even the scriptural
point of view. Moreover, his exegesis in support of this
and other contentions is not always impeccable. He quotes
Paul with effect in demonstration of his doctrine of grace,
works, and justification. But to the modern reader at least
his striving to make the prophets and the other Old
Testament writers as well as the Gospels speak in terms
of the Pauline-Lutheran theology is not convincing.
The Heidelberg visit evidently inspired him with new
courage to face the attacks of his Dominican opponents.
u Enders, i. 188.
48
Ibid., i.
190.
51
The tone of the letters to Spalatin in which he describes

the debate is that of one who was learning to have faith
in himself and his mission as a reformer. The journey, he
tells him, has been of great benefit to him physically. The
food and drink had agreed so well with him that he has
become stouter and better conditioned. 44 For nearly six
months he had kept silent, with the exception of his sermon
on "Indulgence and Grace,"in spite of the embittered clamour
of his Dominican enemies. Once back in Wittenberg he
boldly challenged them in a public protest in defence of
his right of disputation on the question that had aroused the
outcry of heresy against him. Neither the University of
Wittenberg nor the civil and ecclesiastical authorities had,
he tells them, condemned him for making use of this righta contention amply justified by the friendly attitude of
the Elector and his university colleagues and by the kindly
reception accorded him by Staupitz and his brethren at
Heidelberg. In his letter to Trutvetter he assures him that
the whole university, the Elector, the Bishop of Brandenburg,
many other prelates, and ever so many enlightened people
are on his side. 45 He, therefore, publicly protests against
the gratuitous and ignorant clamour of those who have
denounced him as an evildoer and a heretic and begs them
either to show him a better way, or subordinate their judgment to that of God and the Church. " I am not," he
sharply concludes, "so wickedly infatuated as to set up
my own judgment above that of all others, nor so presumptuous as to make God's Word subservient to human
fables." 46
His opponents had threatened him with excommunication or worse. He knew that they were exerting themselves
at Rome to put their threat in execution 47 and he determined
45 Ibid., i. 188.
Enders, i. 192.
The protestation was originally written in German and subse-.
quently translated into Latin. The Latin version is given in "Werke,"
ii. 620, and the editor dates it 1519. Clemen, who gives the original
German version, has shown that it belongs to 1518 (" Z.K.G.," xxvi.
246 f.), and Kalkoff demonstrates that it was drawn up immediately after
Luther's return from Heidelberg in May 1518 (" Z.K.G.," xxvii., 32of.).
47 Enders, i. 199.
46

to try to counteract their machinations by an appeal to
public opinion. Hence the sermon on the validity of
excommunication, 48 which he delivered on the r6th May.
The communion of the faithful, he contended, is of a twofold
character-spiritual and external. The first consists in
oneness of faith, hope, charity, the second in p<!-rticipation
in the sacraments and usages of the Church. God alone
can give or take away this spiritual communion and no
creature can deprive another of it. Only through one's
sin can one lose it and only God can restore it by reconciling
the sinner to Himself. The excommunication of the Church
comprehends only the deprivation of extefual communion.
by means of the refusal of the sacraments, etc. It does not
extend to spiritual communion which remains intact as
long as faith, hope, and charity remain in the heart of the
believer. In the case of a just excommunication, i.e., of any .
one in mortal sin, it only signifies that the sinner has by
reason of his sin already deprived himself of this spiritual
communion and given himself to the devil. Exclusion
from the Church does not bring this about, but only presupposes and declares it. Moreover, it is to be applied
only for the purpose of correction, salvation, not of perdition. 49 In the case of an unjust excommunication the
sentence of the Church has no validity from the spiritual
point of view. An excqmmunication imposed for no real
sin, or for what may really be a just action, does not deprive
the soul of spiritual communion. To ihtur such an excommunication is, in fact, the highest inerit in the sight
of God. 50 Such excommunication is all too common. As
practised at the present time, in connection with the indulgence traffic in particular, the system has become a detestable
tyranny over the people and whilst inflicting ecclesiastical
censure for trifling causes, allows the most horrible and
scandalous crimes to go unpunished. Nevertheless, even
an unjust excommunication is to be borne patiently, since
Christ gave this power to the Church, and we must submit
to the abuse, as well as the use of this power, out of ryverence
48
Sermo de virtute excommunicationis.

"Werke," i. 640.
00
Ibid., i. 642.
Appeal to the Pope
53
for Mother Church. In this we must follow Christ's example,

who submitted to the injustice of Caiaphas and Pilate.
Nay, we must not seek to evade such suffering, but gladly
endure it as part of God's discipline. At the same time,
we may not, on account of this suffering or the fear of it,
prove untrue to the righteous cause for which we have
incurred it, even if it exposes us to death itself. 51 If we
are refused the Eucharist, yea if our bones are exhumed
and cast into the ditch because of an unjust excommunication,
we shall gain the eternal crown as the reward of endurance
in a righteous cause. Luther, it is evident, already foresees
the papal ban and is prepared to face the ordeal in the
firm conviction that if the Pope may kill the body, he cannot
kill the spirit or deprive it of its indefeasible right of the
crown of life in virtue of its spiritual union with Him,
from whom neither Pope nor priest can sever it. 52
Ill.
APPEAL TO THE POPE
Luther farther attempted to counter the tactics of his

opponents at Rome, and at the same time fulfil the undertaking given to the brethren at Heidelberg, by a direct
appeal to the Pope. During the winter months he had
been working at an elaborate exposition and defence of
his ninety-five theses against indulgences. This disquisition he now quickly completed, and on the 3oth May he
dispatched it in MS. to Staupitz with the request to forward
it, along with a letter, to the Pope. 53 In the letter to Staupitz
he reminds him of their intercourse years ago in the Wittenberg monastery and speaks of the help he had derived from
his fatherly c01,msel in his spiritual, conflict as a young
monk. To him he owed the dawn of the insight into the
meaning of repentance as a change of heart and mind and
61
"Werke," L 643.
The sermon is given in "Werke," i. 634 f. Though preached on
the 16th M,ay, it was only printed in Aug.1518, in consequence of the
outcry evoked by an inaccurate version of it circulated in MS. in the
form of theses by his enemies. He tells us that he only gives the sense
of it as far as he could remember, not the actual words (sensa non verba).
63
Enders, i. 198.
62
54
the difference between it and penance or penitential works.

This new insight which the study of the Scripture had
fully unfolded to him, 54 had ultimately led him to challenge
the pernicious teaching of the indulgence preachers and the
evils of the indulgence system~ As a consequence .he has
been charged with subverting the papal power, and therefore
he has been compelled to vindicate himself, though he would
fain remain in his own obscure corner. Hence this " inept
effusion," which he begs him to transmit to the Pope in
the hope that it may serve in the place of an advocate
against the ceaseless machinations of his enemies. Not that
he desires him to share his danger. He has taken this step
solely at his own risk. Christ, he is assured, will see whether
he has set forth His will or his own, for the mouth of the
Pope, like the heart of the king, is in His hands. Wherefore he
awaits the Pope's decision speaking as judge from the Roman.
Seat. "To these threatening friends of mine," as he ironically calls them in conclusion, "I have nothing to respond,
except in the words of Reuchlin, ' He who is poor fears
nothing, has nothing to lose.' I have nothing and desire
nothing. If I have had fame and honour, let hini who so
wills deprive me of them. One thing remains to me, a
weak body overmuch plagued by ceaseless ~oils. If they
deprive me of these by force or cunning, they will perchance
make me poorer by the loss of one or two hours of life.
Sufficient for me is my sweet Redeemer and Propitiator,
my Lord Jesus Christ, to whom I will sing as long as I live.
If anyone will not sing with me, what matters it ? Let him
howl if he likes by himself." 5 5
He begins his letter to the Pope himself with an ironic
reference to " certain friends " who have done their best to
give a very evil odour to his name in the Curia. They have
denounced him as a subverter of the papal authority and the
power of the keys, as a heretic, apostate, traitor,and hundreds
of other ignominious names. Against this clamour he finds
a sure protection in his innocence and in a quiet conscience.
There is nothing new in these charges. " These most honour54
55
See " Luther and the Reformation," i. 125-129.

Enders, i. 196-199.
Appeal to the Pope
55
able and veracious gentlemen" have already distinguished

him in his own country wit.4 these insignia in order to
screen their own evil deeds by vilifying him. With this
spirited exordium he proceeds to arraign the indulgence
commissaries, the official instructions under which they
carry on their mission, and their mercenary and offensive
methods in despite of the papal decretals against the
indulgence traffic. They have thereby brought the greatest
scandal and derision on the ecclesiastical authority, whilst
striving to silence those who have opposed their scandalous
utterances with threats of fire and the terror of the papal
name. They have thus done their best to excite schism
and sedition among the people by their tyranny, to the
detriment of the priestly authority in the whole of Germany.
For this result the blame does not lie with him. He had
refrained from appealing to the people against this evil
and had, in the first place, brought it to the notice of the
ecclesiastical authorities. Failing to secure their intervention, he had resorted to the expedient of a public discussion
as the best available method of counteracting their questionable dogmas. This right of discussion he claims on the
ground of the papal authority, which entitles him as a doctor
of theology to dispute not merely on indulgences, but on
incomparably more important theological questions. This
expedient he has been impelled to make use of by his
opponents, who mix up the fancies of Aristotle with the
verities of theology. Hence this conflagration by which they
have sought to set the world on fire and which. it was far
from his intention to instigate. Nay, if he had foreseen
this agitation he would have striven to couch his theses
in more intelligible language. " What now shall I do ?
Revoke I cannot." He has, therefore, yielding to the
desire of many, determined to send forth these trifles in
explication of his theses under the protection of the Pope,
so that all who will may perceive how sincerely he cherishes
and reverences the ecclesiastical power and the keys and,
at the same time, how wickedly and falsely his adversaries
have tainted his name with so many opprobrious epithets.
In conclusion, he significantly reminds the Pope that he can
confidently reckon on the protection of others besides his

Holiness. Had he been such an evildoer as his adversaries
seek to make out, it would not have been possible for the
illustrious Elector of Saxony, distinguished among all for
his love of Catholic and apostolic truth, to suffer such a
pest in his university, nor would he have been tolerated by
his quick-witted and zealous colleagues. " Wherefore, most
blessed Father, I prostrate myself at your feet with all that
I am and possess. Make alive, kill; call, recall, approve,
condemn, I , will acknowledge thy voice as the voice of
Christ, presiding and speaking in thee. If I have merited
death, I shall not refuse to die. The earth is the Lord's
and the fullness thereof." 56
He had already a week earlier written in a similar strain
to the Bishop of Brandenburg, to whom, as his bishop,
he was also accountable. 57 In spite of the humble tone of
the conclusion of the epistles to the Pope and the bishop,
he is not content to stand on the defensive. He carries
the war into the camp of his enemies, boldly retorts the
charges of sedition and heresy against his opponents. He
claims and vindicates in uncompromising fashion the liberty
of discussion and teaching which belongs to his office as
professor. of theology and will not renounce it at the bidding
of obscurantist monks. He pits against the heresy hunters
the ardent support of his liberal-minded colleagues and
makes use of the growing reputation of his university as
a centre of light and leading in ail age of enlightenment.
He reminds the Pope that he can count on the goodwill
and protection of a powerful prince of the empire. He
reminds him, too, of the scandalous abuses which cast
discredit on his regime and have begotten a widespread
revulsion from the Church and the Papacy. The dedication
to the Pope is at the same time an indictment of these
evils and a plain intimation that the moral sense of Christendom, as represented by this intrepid monk, is at last
demanding a reckoning.
56 Enders, i. 200-203.
The draft of a letter to the Pope in a milder
form has been preserved, and is printed in "Werke," ix. 133-135. Luther
appears to have discarded it for the more vigorous statement of his case
actually sent.
57 Ibid., i. l48-15r.
Appeal to the Pope
57
This is also the note of the work itself. The " Resolu.:.
tions" expound and accentuate the characteristic ideas
of the ninety-five theses. They mark an advance on the
standpoint of the theses in respect particularly of their
conception of the priestly power of absolution and the
papal authority, and they explicitly enunciate the evangelical
doctrine of justification by faith as a fndamental criterion
of belief and practice. They thus reveal the growing
influence of his personal experience of sin and saving faith,
as well as of the controversy with his opponents, in mould-ing his attitude towards the dogmas and institutions of the
Church. Accorpingly, whilst recognising the priestly power
of absolution, as in the theses, he materially limits it and
ascribes the forgiveness of sin to God alone. God, he
contends wit;h an evident reference to his own religious
experience, first humiliates the sinner, begets in him the
consciousness of sin and the fear of the Lord befo:re justifying, forgiving him. Salvation begins in fear, humility,
and misery of conscience. 58 This is an indispensable condition of forgiveness. It is here that the priestly function
comes in. It is the office of the priest, in view of the
humility and contrition of the repentant sinner, to absolve
him and thereby impart peace of conscience. 59 It is so far
indispensable inasmuch as Christ has invested him with
the power of absolution in the declaratory sense, and his
function is thus part of the divine ordinance. Luther
cannot yet dispense with the priest as the divinely
authenticated medium of certifying salvation. Nevertheless; forgiveness does not essentially depend on the priestly
power of absolution. It is the function of God alone to
forgive. The remission of sin takes place before the remission of the priest. 60 It is the work of God alone and
is the result of faith, tn1st in the Word of Christ. It is
not essentially in the power of the priest, but dependent
on personal faith in Christ's word of promise given tO the
"Werke," i. 540.
Ibid., i. 540.
sQ Ibid;, i. 54r. Remissio culpre fiat per infusionem gratire ante
remissionem sacerdotis.
68
69

Church. 61 "You will only have peace of conscience in as far
as you believe the word of promise. For Christ is our peace,
but only in faith. Because if one does not believe in His
Word, one will never have this peace even though absolved
a thousand times by the Pope himself and confessing to
the whole world." 62 "Peter did not absolve before Christ.
He only declared and showed His absolution, and it is only
in virtue of the confidence of his faith' in the word of promise
that the sinner obtains peace and remission with God." 63
" You have peace of conscience not because the Pope gives
it, but because you have received it in faith. You only
have it in as far as you believe on account of Christ's
promise." 64 The whole system of work righteousness
founded on the Sacrament of Penance is fundamentally
misleading. Salvation is not dependent on penitential
satisfactions which only give rise to misery and despair
on the score of these works, but on the gratuitous remission
due to the mercy of Christ, and begetting trust and joy of
heart. The Gospel, the theology of the Cross, in contrast
to the scholastic theology, is not a gospel of works, but of
the grace of a merciful God in Christ through whom the
law has been fulfilled and is to be fulfilled by us, not by
working, but by believing, not in offering anything to
God, but in receiving all from Christ and participating in
,
His fullness. 66
Nor does Luther hesitate materially to circumscribe the
papal power. He, indeed, cherishes and expresses a deep
reverence for the papal authority. Like the temporal
authority, it is divinely ordained and we must submit to
its exercise everi when it is unjust and oppressive, as the
history of the Church, past and present, has found by
experience of the infinite burdens which it imposes. The
Pope possesses the power of the keys and we are not actively
to Tesist the abuse of this power, though we are not bound
to approve it. 66 But this does not involve acquiescence
61 "Werke," i. 54r. Non propter ipsum pr::elatum aut potestatem ejus
ullo modo, sed propter verbum Christi qui mentiri non potest dicendo,
quodcunque Salveris super terram.
64
62 Ibid., i. 54r.
63 Ibid., i. 542.
Ibid., i. 543
65 Ibid., i. 616-617.
66 Ibid., i. 618-619; c/. 621,
Appeal to the Pope
59
in the nefarious doings and teachings of the papal agents

against which it is the duty of all good Christians to protest
and oppose. 67 He sees in Leo X. the best of popes, whose
culture and integrity are the admiration of all good men.
He seems to have been sincere in his appreciation of the
Pope's good qualities, though the expression of his sense
of his worth may also have been actuated by the diplomatic
motive. But he does not hesitate to tell him in the plainest
terms what he thinks of the papal power as represented by
a Julius II. and an Alexander VI., or of that veritable
Babylon, the Rome of this generation, which is governed
by such popes. 68 Nor does he hesitate to circumscribe the
power of the keys. He asserts the supremacy of a General
Council in the examination of matters of faith and denies
to the Pope the right to establish new articles of faith which
belongs to it alone. 69 " The Pope is but a man who may
err in faith and morals, and the faith of the whole Church
would, assuredly be involved in danger if whatever seems
good to him is to be necessarily believed as truth." 70 Even
if the Pope, supported by a great part of the Church, should
decide in favour of any view, it is not sin or heresy to hold
the contrary, especially in a matter not necessary to salvation, until a General Council has either approved or condemned it. 71 The Pope claims to dispense the superfluous
merits of the saints as part of the Treasure of the Church.
The saints, as sinful men, boldly retorts Luther, can have
no superfluous merits, and to assert th,at they have is
heresy. 72 He questions the assumption that the Pope
possesses the power of the two swords-temporal as well as '
spiritual-and wonders who first invented this figment.
He protests emphatically against this assumption of the
flatterers of the Pope's power and condemns the monstrous
use of force in the suppression of heresy. He does not
approve of heretics like the Picards, but he would overcome
67
68
"Werke," i. 62r.
Ibid., i. 573
Ibid., i. 582-583. Solius papre non sit novos fidei statuere articulos,
sed secundurn statutos judicare et rescindere qurestiones fidei. Hie
autem erit articulus novus ; ideo ad universale concilium pertinebit
ejus determinatio.
10
71 Ibid., i. 583.
72 Ibid., i. 606.
Ibid., i. 583.
69
60
them by love, not by force. 73 The Pope is the servant and

minister of the keys to Christians (servus et minister) and
does not possess those terrible powers with which his
flatterers seek to terrorise over them. 74 He demands a
reformation of the Church, which it is not the office of
the Pope and the cardinals alone, but of the whole of
Christendom, yea of God only, to effect. How futile any
mere ecclesiastical attempt to remedy incontestable abuses
has proved, the example of the recent Lateran Council has
amply shown. 75 Though the very stones cry aloud for
reformation, the efforts of good and learned men here and
there are wholly impotent to effect it. It remains only to
pray for the Church and tolerate these manifest evils as
marks of God's wrath in the hope that He will in his own .
time send the remedy. 76
The note of antagonism throughout the "Resolutions u
to traditional doctrine and usage is thus very striking.
The work is an indictment as well as an apology. Its author
has certainly made free use of the right to criticise and
dispute which he claims as an accredited teacher of the
Church. It bespeaks supreme courage to dedicate such a
document to its head, who laid such store on his absolute
power as the supreme lord of Christendom. 77 If Leo took
the trouble to read it, he would certainly not be disposed
to accept the audacious Wittenberg monk's version of wh.at
constituted heresy or ecclesiastical allegiance. Luther,
however, was not conscious of either heresy or disloyalty.
He. protested at the outset that he intended neither to
assert nor to hold anything that was not in agreement
with the Scriptures and the Fathers received by the Roman
Church, and hitherto preserved in the papal canons and
decrees. He was, moreover, prepared to submit, in the
case of any controversial point left undecided by the Scriptures and the Fathers, to the judgment of. his ecclesiastical
superiors, whilst claiming, in the name of Christian liberty,
the right to accept or reject what was merely a scholastic
73
76
77
74 Ibid., i. 596.
"Werke," 624-625.
ibid., i. 627-628; cf. 573
Kalkoff, " Entscheidungsjahre," 27.
76
Ibid., i. 627.
Appeal to the Pope
6r
opm10n, even if supported by the authority of Aquinas.

Of o:ile thing he is convinced. He was liable to err, but
he will not be thought a heretic, however much his opponents
decry him as such. 78 What if the ecclesiastical authorities
to whom he professed submission judged differently?
Would he recognise the validity of their judgment and
submit? So far it is Luther versus the scholastic theologians
and the indulgence preachers, from whom he appeals to
the Scriptures and the Fathers. Not he, but they are the
real heretics who foist their dogmas on the Scriptures and
the Fathers. He .forgot that the Church had gone a long
way in doctrine and usage beyond his supreme authorities,
and he was already discovering that his antagonism to the
scholastics had, at the same time, involved him in antagonism
to the Pope and the priesthood, though he had not yet
clearly apprehended the fact.
78
"Werke.," i. 530. Errare quidem potero, sed hrereticus non ero,
quantunlibet premant et tabescant ii qui aliter sentiunt vel cupiunt.
CHAPTER III
THE PAPAL PROSECUTION OF LUTHER

I. THE CITATION TO ROME
MEANWHILE his Dominican opponents had been busy fomenting his prosecution at Rome, and on the failure of the
attempt to effect his submission through Staupitz and his
brethren in Germany, they succeeded in inducing the Pope
formally to institute proceedings against him in the middle
of June 1518. To this end they denounced him to the
Procurator-fiscal Perusco, whose office it was to take
cognisance of such an accusation.1 At his instance Leo
commissioned Hieronymus Ghinucci, Bishop of Ascole and
Auditor of the Apostolic Chamber, and Silvestro Mazzolini,
named from his birthplace, Prierias, Master of the Sacred
Palace, to cite Luther to appear personally at Rome for
examination as suspect of heresy and a subverter of the
papal power, under certain penalties for refusaU
As Master of the Sacred Palace, Prierias exercised the
office of censor of books, and to him was assigned the task of
examining Luther's ninety-five theses against indulgences
and drawing up a statement in justification of the citation.
As a member of the Dominican Order and a staunch
adherent of the Thomist theology, his judgment was a
foregone conclusion. He was, in fact, an obscurantist of
1 Ad importunam eorum instantiam, says Luther.
" Werke," ii.
30. The procurator had jurisdiction only over the members of the Curia
and co'uld only take cognisance of such a case as Luther's by special
commission from the Pope. See K. Muller, " Luther's Romischen
Prozess,''" Z.K.G.," xxiv. 5 r. The main source of information regarding
the initiation at Rome of the process against him are his two appellations
and the papal brief to Cajetan in "Werke," ii.
2 "Werke," ii. 30-31; cf. 38 and 23.
This procedure was in accordance with canon law. See K. Muller," Z.K.G.," xxiv. 64-68.
62
The Citation to Rome

the first water who had distinguished himself by his antagonism to Reuchlin. 3 A hurried examination of the theses
which, as he afterwards boasted, he completed in three days,
sufficed to convince him that the charges of Luther's
opponents were justified and that he was guilty of propagating heretical or false teaching. This examination, to which
he gav:e the title of "A Dialogue against the Presumptuous
Conclusions of Martin Luther," 4 was certainly not couched
in a judicial spirit. For Prierias the standard of theological
truth is the teaching of Aquinas, and he begs the question
by proclaiming, in accordance with the teaching of his
master, as a fundamental axiom the absolute and infallible
power of the Pope, as incorporating that of the Roman
Church, in matters of faith and morals, and, consequently,
in respect of the theory and practice of indulgences. In
virtue of this absolute power of the Roman Church he has
the right to compel by the secular arm all those holding
heretical views of the faith and is not bound to persuade the
he1'etic of his errors, 5 or give reasons for his decisions .
.a Kolde, "Martin Luther," i. 161 .
. ' "Dialogus in prresumptuosas M. Lutheri Conclusiones." Prierias
published it with a dedication to the Pope immediately after. There
is no reason to doubt the identity of the " Dialogue " with the state
ment drawn up by Prierias in justification of the citation. Kostlin,
"Luther," i. 189-191; Kolde, ~Luther," L 161-162; Enders,
i. 164-165, assume that it was written earlier (Feb. 1518) and that
Prierias had thus already taken sides against Luther and was
therefore unfitted to act as judge. This assumption is erroneous.
The" Dialogue" was written in June by commando{ the Pope. The
unfitness of Prierias to act as judge does not consist in the fact that he
had already taken sides against. Luther, but in the manifest partisanship
of the document which he composed, Extracts from it are given in
Kohler," Luther's Ninety-five Theses,"and in Luther's reply," Werke,"
i. It is given in extenso in the Erlangen ed. of Luther's works, " Opera
Latina Var.," i'. 341 f.
6
Ecclesia Romana qure in R9mano pontifice virtualiter inclus~ est,
temporalis et spiritualis potestatis apicem in papa tenet et sreculari
bracchio (prout jura decernunt) potest eos qui fide primo suscepta.
deinde male sentiunt, compescere, nee tenetur rationibus certare ad
vincendos protervientes.
Kohler, " Luther's Ninety-five Theses,"
209; cf. 205. Unde tibi pro regula observandum est quod ecclesia
Romana sicut in dicto, ita et in facto suo non fallitur in fide aut moribus,
alioqui a via salutis aberras.

Moreover; he mingled with his reasonings on behalf of this
a priori dogma gross personal abuse and threats most
unbefitting the function of a judicial investigator. As
Luther in his reply humorously reminded him, he assumed
the right to baptize him with a plethora of opprobrious
names. 6 He repeatedly denounces him as a heretic. He
describes him as "a leper and a loathsome fellow," " a false
libeller and calumniator," and not content with calling
him a fool, ends by telling him that he is " a dog and the
son of a dog, born to bite and snap at the sky with his
doggish mouth."
On the ground of this partisan and ~trociouslyill-mannered
document, Luther was accordingly cited to appear at Rome
within sixty days after the receipt of the citation as a heretic
and a rebel against the ecclesiastical power, under penalty
of excommunication and the consequences therein implied. 7
The citation, with the "Dialogue," was dispatched to
Cardinal Cajetan, then on his way to Germany as papal
legate to the Diet of Augsburg, where he arrived on the
7th July. From Augsburg the legate forwarded the documents to Wittenberg, 8 and on the rst of August they were
in Luther's hands. 9 He had been expecting the ultimatum ;
had in fact been warned by Count Albert of Mansfeld not
fo leave Wittenberg, and rumour had it that his enemies
were scheming to seize him and" baptize him with death." 10
He had become, he wrote to Link, "like Jeremiah, a man
of strife and contention to the whole earth." But his
courage only rose with the increasing danger. "The mcire
they threaten, the greater becomes my confidence." 11
"My wife and children," he adds sardonically, "are pro-vided for, my lands arid goods are disposed of, my fame and
good name are already gone. One thing only remains, a
weak and worn body which, if they destroy, they will only
make me poorer by an hour or two of life. The soul they
cannot deprive me of. With Reuchlin I will sing, 'He
"Werke..'' i. 685.
The citation is not extant, but it has been reconstructed by
K. Muller, "Z.K.G.," xxiv. 59-60.
8 Kalkoff, " Forschungen zu Luther's Riimischen Prozess " 52.
1
10 Ibid., i. 211.
11 Ibid., i. 2II.
9 Enders, i. 214.
6
The Citation to Rome.

who is poor fears nothing because he has nothing to lose.'
I know that, from the beginning, the Word of Christ has been
of that character that he who would proclaim it on earth
must, like the Apostles; leave and renounce all and hourly
expect death. Unless this were so, it would not be the
Word of Christ. It is gained by death; it is proclaimed
and preerved by dyings, and it will ever be renewed and
repaid by death. Pray,.therefore, for me that the Lord
Jesus may increase and preserve this spirit of his most
devoted sinner." 12
These words were not mere arm-chair rhetoric. For
Luther knew that to obey the citation to Rome was to
take the road to the stake. At the same time, he was
, determined not to surrender his cause and his life at the
biddbig of a vulgar obscurantist like Prierias. He would
try at least to make sure of a fair trial at the bar of a less
prejudiced tribunal than that of his Dominican enemies.
On the day after receiving the citation he addressed a
letter to the Elector requesting him to obtain from .the
Pope the. remission of his case to .a German tribunal.13 He
wrote at the same time to Spalatin, who was with the
Elector at Augsburg, to use his influence with him and his
councillors to this end; He immediately set to work on
a reply to Prierias,14 which he finished in two days.16 In
spite of its outrageous style, he put restraint on his pen
out of respect for his opponent's age and on the principle
of not returning evil for evil.16 But if studiously courteous,
considering the gross insults of his Italian opponent, it is
certainly not lacking in spirit and incisive reftitation. His
courage is all the more remarkable inasmuch as he was
faced in the " Dialogue" with an official challenge on the
Enders, i. 2u-212.
Ibid., i. 214. 'Pastor says that he wrote also to the Emperor,
vii. 367. But this does not appear from his letter to Spalatin, in
which he says that he wrote to .the Elector to use his influence with
the Emperor.
. 14 Ad Dialog'um Silvestti Ptieratis de potestate Papa! Responsio,
"Werke," i. 647 f.
is "Werke," i. 686.
16
Ibid., i. 686; cf. 683.
12
1.3
66
part of the highest ecclesiastical authority, not with a

mere academic disputation. None the less he declines to
own himself a heretic or accept the deliverance of a high
papal dignitary, writing by commission of the Pope, as to
what constitutes heresy. If this dignitary swears by
Aquinas, Luther does not hesitate to pit against that
paragon of orthodoxy the superior authority of Paul and
Augustine. He claims anew the right of Christian liberty
in discussing and judging not merely the doctrine of indulgences, but the Thomist conception of the Church and the
papal power. In the name of this liberty he boldly refuses
to accept the opinions of Aquinas, with which his opponent
bombards him, without proof based on Scripture, the
Fathers, the canons, and reason.17 He is not a heretic if
he merely holds certain opinions provisionally until a General
Council shall decide.18 He objects to have the opinions o_f
Aquinas thrust on him as articles of faith, especially as the
Thomists do not agree among themselves and a proposition
which is approved in Germany is damned in Italy. 19 For
the Thomists a heretic is simply one who differs from them, 20
and therefore Prierias, when argument fails him, has
recourse in his fury to the cry of heretic. 21 He is no believer
in the blind acceptance of the high doctrines of Aquinas
and his disciple, and champions the appeal to reason as well
as the Scriptures and the Fathers. Such blind belief is
highly detrimental to the Church. To the theology of the
schoolmen he opposes the true theology derived from
the Scriptures and the Fathers-Paul and Augustine-which
under the influence of Aristotle they have corrupted. 22
" The authority of Augustine is greater in the Church
than that of Thomas, and Paul especially is my main
foundation." 23 He rejects as a Thomist figment the
conception of the Church as virtually embodied in the
Roman Church and the Pope. Christ alone embodies the
universal Church and of this Church a General Council is
1 7 "Werke,'' i. 647.
Ideoque meo jure, id est Christiana libertate,
te et illum (Aquinas) rejicio et nego.
18 Ibid., i. 655, 658, 665.
21 Ibid., i. 672.
19 Ibid., i. 658, 674.
22
Ibid., i. 677.
23
0 Ibid., i. 662.
Ibid., i. 662.
The Citation to Rome'

the sole representative. 24 If the popes alone embody the
Church, what crimes must be ascribed to it under popes like
Julius II. and Boniface VIII., for instance. Must it not,
then, .bear the responsibility and the odium of the bloodshed
perpetrated by the bellicose. Julius and the tyranny of
Boniface, of whom it was said that "he entered the Church
as a wolf, governed it as a lion, and died like a dog." 2s
The Pope as well as a General Council may err, though he
professes reverence for both, and in matters of faith is
ready to abide by the decision of a Council. 26 Prierias
calls the Roman Church the rule of faith. The faith, retorts
Luther, derived from the Scriptures, supported by the
authority of the Fathers, is the rule of the Roman Church
and all Churches, not vice versa, as the flatterers of Rome
assert, though he holds that the Roman Church has always
maintained the faith and that the faith of all ought to
conform to it. 27 He refuses to attribute to the Church and
its priesthood powers which belong only to God, such as the
forgiveness of sin. the changing of attrition into contrition,
etc. 28 In thus exalting the ecclesiastical power, the
Thomists have in view not the common good of the Church
as a ministry of all, but merely the domination of the few
and the servitude of the many. 29 This "imperial" power
which the flatterers of the Pope thus confer on him has
resulted in the oppression and extortion of Christendom.
He excepts Leo personally, of whom he has a high opinion,
from this charge. Leo is as a Daniel in Babylon. 3 0 But
he will not be terrified by potfuls of threats and the menacing
clash of Prierias's words, " If I am put to death, Christ,
my Lord, lives." 31 '!You threaten me with maledictions,
invectives, censures. What and whereto? Spare your
threats, my Father. Christ lives. He not only lives; He
also reigns, not only in heaven, but even at Rome, however
24 "Werke," i. 656.
Ergo ecclesiam virtualiter non scio. nisi in
Christo ; representative in Concilio.
25
Ibid., i. 656-657.
26 Ibid., i. 656.
Nee satis ibi esse credo etiam factum ecclesire quia
tarn papa quam Concilium potest errare.
28, Ibid., i. 658-659.
29
27 Ibid., i. 662.
,
Ibid., i. 658.
31
30
,
Ibid., i. 679.
Ibid., i. 686.
68
much she may rage. If I am cursed for the truth, I shall

bless the Lord. The censures of the Church will not
separate me from the Church if the truth joins me to the
Church .. I would rather be cursed and excommunicated
by you and your like than blessed with yqu. I have nothing
to lose. I am the Lord's. If I perish, I perish to the Lord,
that is I am found by Him. Seek, therefore, somebody
else whom you may terrify." 32 Finally, he tells him that
if he wishes to return to the charge, he had better bring
Thomas better armed into the arena lest he should not be
received with that restraint which he had exercised towards
him in this encounter.
Luther's hope of the intervention of the Emperor to
prevent his extradition to Rpme was all too sanguine. His
Dominican opponents transferred their activity from Rome
to Augsburg, where the Diet of the empire had assembled
to consider the Pope's demand for a subsidy in prosecution
of a war against the Turks. They found in his sermon on
''Excommunication" an aggravation of his attack on the
papal authority and the pretext for a new accusation of
heresy. Luther, it seems, had intended to hold a disputation
on the subject, but had waived his intention at the instance
of the Bishop of Brandenburg and in deference to the
a,dvice of his colleagues. 33 He had, however, expressed
himself rather freely on the subject at a supper in the house
of Dr Emser, the secretary of Duke George of Saxony,
on the occasion of a visit, along with Lang, to Dresd~n
towards the end of July. A Dominican monk played the
part of eavesdropper .behind the door of the supper ropm .
.In the heat of .the discussion over Aristotle and Aquinas,
indulgences and excommunication, L11ther had indis32 "Werke," i. 680. The" Responsio" was printed and published at
the end of August. Enders, i. 221. It was forwarded to Prierias who, to
his credit., sent in due course a .missive couched in an explanatory and
even a friendly tone, and dealing only with Luther's personal references to
himself. He promised a fuller reply later. This missive Luther sent
to the printer in Jan. 15 ~9 with a sarcastic preface (Replica Pderatis
Ad Mart. Luther, "Werke,'' ii. 50 f.), and this finished the c.ontroversy beween them as far as Luther was concerned.
33 Enders, i. 212.
69
creetly declared that he cared nothing for the papal ban

and was prepared to die quietly under this disability. 34
These utterances were duly reported by the eavesdropper
to the Dominican heresy hunters who had, it seems, fabricated a series of theses out of the reports of his sermon on
"Excommunication," which they passed off as Luther's,
to which they added a biting diatribe against the avarice
of the Curia, and which they presented to Cajetan as an
additional proof of the aggressive audacity of the heretic. 35
This unworthy artifice proved a master stroke in tactics.
These bogus theses created a sensation at Augsburg and
contributed to discredit Luther in the eyes of many of the
members ,,of the Diet, including the Emperor Maximilian.
" I cannot express," wrote Spalatin to Luther, "how inuch
harm these theses against excommunication have done you,
how much ill will they have kindled against you." 36 They
have, he adds, been denounced to Cajetan and his fellow-legate Cardinal Lang, Archbishop of Salzburg, who, he
fears, have transmitted them to Rome to his infinite
detriment. He therefore (evidently assuming their genuineness) begs him to be more careful of his words in future
and not rashly irritate these hornets against him.
Spalatin's estimate of the mischief wrought by this
unworthy artifice was no exaggeration. It certainly contributed to dash Luther's hope of the imperial intervention
in his favour. At this juncture Maximilian's main preoccupation was to secure the papal support of his project
of getting his grandson, Charles of Spain, elected as his
successor to t~e imperial crown, which the Elector of
Saxony . staunchly opposed. In view of this opposition
he was not disposed to join the Elector in any intervention
Enders, i. 224-225, note 8; Kawerau," Hieronymus Emser," 28 f.
(1898); Hausrath," Luther," i. 220; Herzog-Hauck," Encyclopadie,"
art. Emser; Thurnhofer, " Corpus Catholicorum," iv. II-12.
35
Enders, i. 224, Luther's letter to Staupitz, rst Sept. 1518; cf.
Spalatin's letter to Luther, 5th Sept. Ibid., i. 232-233.
36
Ibid., i. 232-233. The 'result of the fabricated theses was that
Luther published his sermon on " Excommunication " in self-defence
before receiving a request from the Elector, through Spafatin, not to
publish. Ibid., i. 220.
.

on behalf of his protege and was all the readier to become
the tool of Cajetan in his efforts to effect his extradition
to Rome. Hence the imperial letter of the 5th of August
to the Pope, which was evidently drafted by Cajetan. 3 '
In this missive the Emperor emphasises Luther's "damnable
and heretical notions " on indulgences and excommunication,
as exposed by Prierias, and (with a side thrust at the
obnoxious Elector) deplores the fact that he pertinaciously
adheres to them under the patronage of powerful protectors.
The Pope alone can deal effectively with this contentious
and sophistical innovator who maintains his pestilential
opinions against the teaching of the recognised doctors of
the Church. His beatitude is, therefore, requested to enforce the old papal decree against the license of teaching
which presumes to pit its own hallucinations and opinionated
fancies against the orthodox doctors. Thereafter follows a
significant reference to the case of Reuchlin, which, it 1s
implied, is connected with this most dangerous and pernicious
discussion on indulgences and the validity of the papal
censures. Unless the Pope and the cardinals make use of
their authority to repress this licentious spirit, it will not
only reduce the unthinl~ing multitude, but will gain the
ear and the favour of its rulers (another thrust at the Elector
and his councillors). The result will erelong be that every
one will prefer his own fancies to the teachings of the best
and holiest doctors, with the direst consequences to the
papal and ecclesiastical authority. His reverence for this
authority has compelled the Emperor to bring this dangerous
and captious contention to the Pope's notice, and in conclusion he offers to compel obedience throughout the empire
to what he decrees for the praise and honour of God and
the salvation of the faithful. as
The imperial voice is plainly that of Luther's Dominican
opponents, which Cajetan has attuned in befitting official
form. The situation thus astutely engineered was now a
menacing one. Hitherto the Elector had been the only
37
Ulmann, " Kaiser Maximilian I.," ii. 728 (1891); Kalkoff,
"Z.K.G.," xxv. 278-279.

38
Luther's" Opera Latina Var.," ii. 349-350 (ed. by Schmidt, 1865).
German version in Walch, xv. 534-536,
71
bulwark of Luther against the machinations of the heresy

hunters, who had now enlisted on their side a greater than
the Elector in order to deprive him of this bulwark. Thereby
Luther's case assumes a new aspect. It is no longer a purely
theological or ecclesiastical question. This interminable and
scholastic disputation has become a question of state,
Luther a pawn in the game of high policy which at the
moment centres in the question of the election of a successor
to the imperial crown. In this question the Emperor, the
Elector, the Pope, and other potentates are deeply concerned, and Luther's fate is indirectly involved in it. In
it the Emperor and the Elector are in dire disagreement
and this disagreement materially influences the imperial
attitude towards the Elector's protege. Had Frederick been
prepared to support the election of the Emperor's grandson,
it is a fair conclusion that the imperial missive to the Pope
would have been worded very differently. Even so, it was
very doubtful whether the imperial profession of zeal for
the papal authority expressed the real feeling of .the Diet
which, in its statement of grievances against the papal
regime, gave vent to its resentment in no complimentary
terms at the oppressive and corrupt expedients by which
the Curiadrained the material wealth of Germany Romewards.39 It was not very likely that its members would be
disposed to accept the Pope's henchmen of the Dominican
Order, who defended this mercenary regime, as the infallible
exponents of theological truth. Moreover, the Elector's
political astuteness was more than a match for that of the
knightly Emperor, and his sense of justice might be trusted
not to abandon Luther to the tender mercies of his enemies
without the guarantee of a fair trial. Even in this menacing
emergency Luther could, therefore, afford to trust in God
in defence of the truth. He had heard through Spalatin
of the efforts of Cajetan to prejudice the Emperor and the
Elector against him. 40 He is not dismayed by this new
39
See the statement of grievances in Walch, xv. 530 f.; Pastor,
vii. 246 f.
40
Enders, i. 218. Audivi antem Rev. Card. Cajetanum id potissimum habere mandati a Summo Pontifice ut omni studio mihi C::esaris
et Principum animos faciat <i.dversos, J:,etter to Spalatin, 21st Aug.

menace. "I am not afraid in the midst of all this," he
wrote to Spalatin (zrst August). " Even if by their arts
and power they succeed in making me odious to all, there
is left to me the consciousness that all which I have and
of which they seek to deprive me, I assuredly have from
God, to whom I willingly and freely offer it. If He takes
it away, let it be taken away ; if He preserves it, let it be
preserved and His holy name be blessed for ever." 41
At the same time, the ingenuity of his legal colleagues
and friends has, he informs him, suggested an expedient
for countering the machinations of his enemies. They have
advised him to demand a safe conduct from the Elector
through his lands before undertaking the journey to Rome,
and that the Elector should refuse his request and thus
afford him a substantial excuse for declining the citation to
Rome. He was all the readier to adopt this clever sugges"'
tion inasmuch as he knew beforehand that his request would.
not be granted. 4 2
II.
CAJETAN AND LUTHER
Meanwhile the imperial missive had produced a deep

impression at Rome. It left no room for doubt as to the
seriousness of the situation jn Germany and the notoriety
of Luther's heresy. Moreover, the offer of the imperial
co-operation in stamping out the movement encouraged the
Curia to take energetic measures to reduce him to submission, or failing this, to execute summary judgment on him.
as an incorrigible heretic. Hence the resolution to discard
the citation for examination to Rome on the ground
that he has meanwhile abused the papal goodness and
aggravated his previous offence by publishing additional
heretical writings. 43 In view of the notoriety of his heresy,
thus established, 44 Cajetan is commanded, in a brief dated
Enders, i. 218-219.
Ibid., i. 219. Scio mihi negaturum .
. 48 Papal brief to Cajetan in Luther's " Werke," ii. 23.
44
Quoniam res apud nos tum ex fama tum et facti permanentia
notoria et inexcusabilis est.
41
42
Cajetan and Luther
73
the 23rd August, without further delay to summon Luther

to appear before him, to invoke the aid of the secular arm
to compel him to appear, and to retain him in confinement
pending further instructions. If Luther comes of his own
accord and submits with true penitence for his offence, the
legate is empowered to receive him into Holy Mother Church ..
If he refuses, he is to excommunicate him and his adherents
and cut them off from the communion of the faithful by.
public edict. All ecclesiastics, princes, and other magnates,
and all communities and corporations are bound to seize
and surrender him and his followers under penalty of
excommunication (the Emperor only excepted). If any
prince or public body should presume to render him aid
or favour, publicly or privately, directly or indirectly, they
should incur the penalty of interdict, whilst to all who
obeyed the papal mandate a substantial reward was held
out at the legate's discretion.45
In a letter of the same date to the Elector, the Pope
fulminated against Luther, "that son of iniquity who, as if
fortified by his protection, obtrudes himself on the Church
of God and fears no authority or reproof." Whilst professing
to disbelieve in the Elector's complicity, he reminds him
that his attitude in this matter is fitted to excite suspicion
and misunderstanding. He therefore exhorts him to do his
utmost to deliver Luther to Rome for judgment. In so
doing he will render an honourable service to the Catholic
faith and guard himself from the danger of :incurring the
guilt of fomenting a most pernicious heresy in the Church
of God. With this ill-veiled threat was mingled the problematic assurance that, if Luther shall establish his innocence,
he may rely on the papal grace, although he had already
declared him to be a wicked and incorrigible heretic. 4 6 The
45 "Werke," ii. 22-25; "Opera Latina Var.," ii. 354-358.
The
authenticity of the papal brief to Cajetan has been called in question
by Ranke arid others on the ground of its . incompatibility with the
citation to appear within sixty days at Rome, and Luther himself adopted
this attitude. Ulmann (" Deutsche Zeitschrift fiir Geschichts Wissenschaft,i' x. 1f.;1893) andMiiller (" Z.K.G.," xxiv. 62 f.) have adduced
proofs of its authenticity.
46 " Opera Latina Var.," ii. 353-354,
74
Elector certainly had some justification for scepticism on the

score of the papal assurance. Still more rabid was the
missive, of date the 25th August, addressed by direction of
the Pope by the General ofthe Augustinian Order to Gerhard
Ricker, the provincial head of the Order in Saxony. Ricker
is enjoined to arrest and detain Luther, chained hand and
foot, in custody under penalty of excommunication and
interdict against all acting to the contrary and with the
offer of ample reward for obedience. 47
These fulminations are based on " the notoriety " of
Luther's heresy as evidenced by certain writings which
have recently come under the notice of the Pope. 48 On
this ground the Pope has decided to abandon the original
plan of citing Luther to Rome for examination and judgment
and to institute a new and summary procedure against him.
This procedure took no account of the sixty days after
receipt of the citation allowed him to appear at Rome and
defend himself against the original charge of heresy. As a
notorious heretic he was now, in the middle of the interval
of sixty days, presented with the ultimatum, usual in case
of notoriety, of peremptory submission, with ecclesiastical
outlawry as the consequence of refusal to surrender. As
K. Muller has shown, this change of procedure was legally
justifiable. In a case of notorious heresy the Curia was
entitled to cite the delinquent before a tribunal for judgment
without the necessity of leading proof of his heresy, though
it might hear what he had to say. 49 Even so, this legal
right of summary procedure does not appear in accordance
with what we should regard as a fair trial. Notoriety
might be based on mere rumour or falsified evidence, and
in Luther's case it was certainly, in part at least, based on a
fabricated series of theses which he justly disowned and
which he was denied the right of proving to be false. From
the standpoint of strict justice such a summary procedure
41 This missive was discovered by Kolde at Munich and published
in the" Z.K.G.," ij. 472 f. (1878).
48 "Werke," ii. 23.
Nonnullas alias conclusiones ac famosos
libellos similiter publicavit.
Libelli famosi js the legal phrase for
actionable calumny.
u "Z.K.G.," xxiv. 63 f,
Cajetan and Luther
75
was a grossly arbitrary and high-handed exercise of absolute

power which was concerned not with the question of
establishing fact or considering the truth of Luther's views,
but with the ex:J?ediency of seizing and silencing him at all
hazards. Notorious heresy was ipso facto a crime, just as
the confession of Christianity in ancient times was in itself
a sufficient reason for proscription and death at the hands
of the Roman State. 50 Moreover, this procedure was ill the
circumstances precipitate and ill-advised. The Pope and
his advisers, misled by the imperial missive, wholly misconceived the situation in Gerxnany. The age of the Renaissance was not the age of a Hildebrand. Pope Leo could
ill afford to indite such a fulmination breathing the spiiit of
the absolute lawgiver in matters of conscience and belief,
and bristling with threats not only against the heretic,
but against all, from the highest to the lowest in the empire,
who, if they did not share his views, at least desiderated for
him a full and fair hearing before condemnation, The
prestige of the Papacy in Germany was not so indefea~ible
as to risk a recourse to an expedient which might ,easily
exacerbate the widespread resentment against it on national
and economic grounds. As an institution, it was doubtless
still a force in Christendom. But its influence had been
seriously undermined by the demoralisation, the corruption
and oppre~sion which had loosened the bond of allegiance
between it and the German nation and intensified the
critical and even the sceptical spirit, which was by no means
confined to the redoubtable monk of Wittenberg. Luther,
in fact, was <Jnly expressing in his theological and academic
fashion what was seething in the minds of many seriousminded people in Germany, as the pamphlet literature of
the time abundantly prove~. 51 Further, the Emperor, in
6 K. Muller is concerned merely to establish the legal aspect of the
prosecution, and while he exonerates the Curia on the ground of law,
he does not give due weight to the objections that the accused person
might urge against it on the ground of justice.
51
For instance, the "Exhortatio" of the Wiirzburg canon Friedrich
Fischer, which circulated in the popular form of a letter from Rome
and is mentioned in Luther's letter to Spalatin, 2nd Sept. Enders, i. 227.
See also the grievances presented by the clergy of the diocese of Liege

proferring the temporal co-operation in the execution of the
papal fiat, was reckoning beyond his capacity. He was but.
the figurehead of a confederation in which the real power
inhered in the territorial princes. Without the co-operation
of the princes and the Diet his executive power was practically nil, and as long as one of these princes-and he the
most capable and powerful of them-refused to implement
the imperial policy, the papal fulmination was so much
wasted breath.
The papal missive to the Elector led him to approach
Cajetan for the purpose of countering the summary procedure
against his protege. To this end he strove to secure the
free an,d fair hearing which, on receipt of the citation to
Rome, Luther had suggested and which he repeated in
his subsequent letters to Spalatin; 52 In that of the
2nd September, in reference to the difficulties in which the
efforts to protect. him had involved the Elector, Luther
diisclaimed any desire to compromise him as a patron of his
views. He only asked that in defending them he might
b.e guaranteed against the violence of his enemies, i.e.,
summary arrest and condemnation. 53 'Fhe Elector found
the legate less intransigent than Luther had been led to
believe. Cajetan; it seems, was not disposed to give ear
indiscriminately to the Tetzel faction, 54 and as the result
of the Elector's diplomatic intervention, Spalatin was able
to report on the 5th September that there was a good
prospect of receiving a fair hearing of Luther's case.
"Cardinal Cajetan, unless he deceives the prince and me,
is not so prejudiced against you as to endeavour to do
you only harm with the Pope and the Diet. For as the
result of a lengthy and friendly interview with our most
illustrious prince, I have conceived the hope of a much
more lenient and tolerable consideration of your case than
I had feared Would be possible. I have no doubt that with
the help of God the prince will succeed in pulling you through
to the Diet at Augsburg. Walcl:i, xv. 566 f. It was wrongly ascribed to
the Bishop of Liege; cf. Pastor, vii. 247-248.
52 21st Aug. and 2nd Sept.
Enders~ i. 219 and 226.
5a Enders, i. 226.
u "Tetzeliastri," Enders, i. 232.
Cajetan and Luther
77
this crisis. In my judgment you have obtained that your

case Will be legally examined and adjudicated in a safe place
by impartial judges." 55 Accompanying the letter of Spalatin
was one from the Elector himself to the same effect. 56
Spalatin's forecast of a hearingbefore an impartial tribunal in Germany was too optimistic. The legate, it
appears,. forthwith rejected. this proposal and suggested
'instead that Luther should appear before him at. Augsburg,
at the same time expressing his readiness to accord. him
"a fatherly" hearing with a view to a peaceful settlement
of the case. 57 Though the exact understanding was subsequently the subject of dispute, .the Elector certainly understood that, while rejecting Luther's proposal of an impartial
German tribunal, the legate would grant him a friendly
hearing and refrain from attempting to constrain him to
abjure his opinions.58
.
.
Cajetan's conciliatory attitude was not the result merely
of the Elector's diplomatie skill or of a revulsion on principle
in favour of Luther. It was largely actuated by political
considerations connected with the Emperor's plan of securing
the election of h1s grandson as his successor. On . the
27th August, Maximilian had succeeded in gaining the
support of five of the seven Electors for his project. The
two dissentients were the Electors of Saxony and Trier,
and the former in particular had stoutly withstqod the
proposed agreement, whilst supporting on principle the
papal demand for a subsidy for the war against the Tu:rks.
The imperial policy was by no means agreeable to the Pope,
who for political reasons was strongly opposed to the
aggrandisement of the young King of Spain, who was also
King of Naples and whose election might upset the balance
.of power to the disadvantage of the secular interest of the
Enders, i. 232.
Ibid., i. 237 ..
.
57
This appears from the Elector's. own statement; Sl!bseqtiently made
(Kalkoff, "Forsthungen zu Luther's ROinischen J>rozess," l 53) and from
a letter of Luther to SpaJatin on l4th Oct. (Enders, i. 246); cf. Luther's
statement in the preface to the 1545 ed. of his works, " Documente zu
Luther's Entwicklung," 13, and "Opera Latina Var.," L 17.
5 8 Kalkoff, " Forscimngen,'.' .154.

.
.
55
56
78
Luther. and the Reformation
Papacy in Italy. Hence the accommodating attitude of

the legate in the negotiation with the Elector in behalf of
Luther which Spalatin had reported in too optimistic a
strain to Wittenberg on the 5th September. He accordingly dispatched a missive to Rome in behalf of this
conciliatory policy, along with a report on the Emperor's
successful diplomacy in securing the promise of the election
of his grandson and the Elector'.s uncompromising opposition
to it.
The report produced a marked effect on the attitude
of the Curia towards the Elector and his protege. The Pope
in a consistory on the 3rd September had already resolved to
send the Elector the Golden Rose and a grant of indulgence
for his church at Wittenberg in the hope of thereby cajoling
him into abandoning Luther. He purposed, in fact, to commission the Saxon nobleman, Miltitz, a relative of Schonberg
and titular gentleman of the papal chamber, .as the bearer
of these marks of his special favour. 59 At this juncture the
receipt of the communication from Cajetan, relative to the
political question, led him to postpone the mission of Miltitz
and seek to conciliate the Elector's goodwill by adopting
a less drastic attitude towards Luther. He accordingly,
on the nth September, empowered the legate to summon
Luther (through the Elector) to appear before him at
Augsburg and, having heard and examined his case, to
absolve or condemn him as he should deem right, without,
however, allowing himself to be drawn into a disputation.
Sh<:mld he find that Luther had fallen into error and
was prepared publicly to confess and abjure his errors,
he was empo~ered, after imposing salutary penance, to
absolve and rehabilitate him in his reputation and dignities. 60
The brief does not say that, in case of refusal, Luther is to
be arrested. To have done so would have nullified Cajetan's
assurance of a fatherly hearing which the Elector understood
as implying the absence of all constraint. At the sam~
time the brief of 23rd August is assumed to be still in force
and is only modified in the meantime in order to enable
59
60
Kalkoff, "Forschungen," 56; "Z.K.G.,'' x.xv. 279-281,

Papal brief irt Kalkoff, " Forschungen," 57-58.
Cajetan and Luther
79
the legate to give Luther a hearing in accordance with the

Elector's request. 61
On this understanding the Elector directed Luther to

appear at Augsburg, and Cajetan, after the close of the
Diet on the 23rd September, devoted himself to a study
of the controversial questions at issue between him and
his opponents in preparation for the forthcoming interview. 62
The Elector, nevertheless, took steps to procure an imperial
safe conduct for his protege. 63 He granted a safe conduct
through his own dominions 64 and a letter of recommendation
to Cajetan.~ 5 He sent him twenty gold florins for his
journey 66 and directed the University of Wittenberg to
write strong testimonies in his behalf to the Pope and to
Miltitz. 67 He commissioned his councillors Feilitzsch and
Riihel to""act as his assessors at Augsburg and instructed
him not to venture into the presence of Cajetan before
receiving the imperial safe conduct, and in case of necessity
to appeal from the cardinal to the Pope. 68 He did not,
however, think fit to communicate to him the secret assurance of the cardinal to allow him freely to depart in case
even of a refusal to abjure, and Luther set out on his journey
to Augsburg, on the 26th September, along with .Leonhard
Beyer, his companiDn on the Heidelberg visit, 69 in ignorance
of the conditions which the Elector's secret diplomacy had
extorted in his behalf. He was, it appears, under the
impression that he had been summoned to Augsburg in
fulfilment of the papal citation which had reached him
on the 7th August. What he had requested and what
Spalatin had led him to expect was a hearing before an
impartial German .tribunal, with full freedom to discuss
the questions at issue. What he now received was a
61
.Papal brief in Kalkoff, "Forschungen," 58-59.

Ibid., 59-60.
63
64 " Tischreden," ii. 595.
Enders, i. 269.
65
Enders, i. 269; "Werke," ii . 7.
66
" Tischreden," ii. 596.
67
Letters in "Opera Latina Var.," ii. 361 f., 25th Sept. Luther,
according to Kalkoff (" Forschungen,'' 60), took these. letters to
Augsburg along with other documents which were forwarded by Cajetan
to Rome.
68
69
"Tischreden," ii. 596; Enders, i. 267.
Enders, i. 241.
82
80
summons through the Elector to appear before the legate

at Augsburg without being informed of the exact nature
of the interview as arranged by his princely patron. At
Weimar where, on the 29th September, he preached
before the Elector and received the electoral safe conduct
and other documents, 70 he does not seem to have been
accorded a personal interview with the man who was
striving his utmost to protect him and who, in spite of his
interest in his famous professor, maintained a studiously
aloof attitude towards him personally.

It is not surprising, therefore, that his journey to
Augsburg, despite the Elector;s patronage, was clouded by
forebodings of coming. doom which were shared by his
brethren. " On the rciad," he tells us. in the "Table
Talk," " the thought again and again gripped me, ' Now
you must die.' I saw before niy eyes the funeral pile and
I said often to myself, 'Oh what a disgrace shall I bring
on my parents.' And thus the flesh shrank before the
. ordeal." 71 He reproached himself that he had ventured
on the journey before receiving the imperial safe conduct. 72
He was certain that he had not three months to live. His
friends on the route strove to dissuade him, and he rnust
at times have been tempted to retrace his steps or seek
the problematic refuge which Stapitz had offered him
at Salzburg. 73 At Weimar the prior of the Augustinian
monastery, where he spent the riight, implored him to
beware of the trap info which he wa:s walking .. "Dear
doctor, these Italians are a cunninglot and l fear you will
not be able to maintain your case before them. They will
burn you at Augsburg." 74 The same experience at
Niirnberg. " I have found many here who are faint-hearted
in my cause and try to tempt me not to go to Augsburg." 75
The journey was a continuous wrestling with his own fears
7
Kalkoff, "
F'orschungen," 64.
.
72
Ibid., ii. 596.
13 Enders, i. 234-235.
74. Myconius, " Geschichte;'' 28.
75 Enders, i. 238. Letter to his Wittenberg colleagues, 3rd or 4th
Oct.
n "Tischreden," ii. 595.
, Cajetan and Luther
81
or those of his friends. But the sense of duty, the conviction

that his cause was God's cause steeled him in his resolution
to go on even in the face of the martyr's doom. "But
yet I stood fast," he wrote, anticipating the famous saying
at Worms: "Let the Lord's will be done. Even at
Augsburg, yea in the midst of His enemies Jesus Christ
rules. Let Christ live, let Martin die and every sinner,
as it is written, God will be exalted to my salvation. It is
needful that we be rejected either by men or by God. God
is true though every man be a liar." 76 "They will begin
with the nettles; they will hardly at once resort to the
fire," was his reply to the prior at Weimar. " Pray for
me, brother, that God whose cause it is, will be gracious to
it. If He takes it up it is already won, if not I can do
nothing to win it, and the disgrace will be His, not mine." 77
It was in this intrepid spirit that he entered Augsburg
on the 7th October, tired and ill though he was as the
result of his long and anxious journey on foot. 7 8
On the same day he sent Link to announce his arrival
to the cardinal, but on the advice of friends refrained from
seeking an interview until he had received the imperial
safe conduct. 79 Cajetan resented this precaution as a slur
on his good faith, and though he did not oppose the application to the imperial officials which the cautious Elector had
made in his behalf, he subsequently, reproached him with
this lack of confidence in his pledged word. The reproach
was, however, unmerited, since the precaution was directed
not against the cardinal, but against the Emperor, of whose
attitude towards Luther the Elector was by no means
certain in view of his letter to the Pope of the 5th August. 80
Luther, at all events, was only acting in accordance
with the Elector's instructions and the advice of his
friends in awaiting this guarantee of his personal safety,
76
Enders, i. 238. In the " Table Talk " he speaks of the doubts
which assailed him as he neareqAugsburg, v. 78. Nam dremon multis
cogitationibus et acerrimis me vexabat.
77
Myconius, " Geschichte," 28-29.
78
Enders, i. 239.
79
Ibid., i. 239-240. "Tischreden," v. 79.
80
See Kalkoff, "Forschungen," 155-156.
82
which was handed to him on the nth October. These

Augsburg friends warned him, in fact, not to presume too
much on the cardinal's clemency, and assured him that he
cherished a very bitter spirit against him, however much he
might outwardly profess a friendly attitude. 81 They were so
doubtful of the issue that they expressed their astonishment
at his temerity in venturing to enter Augsburg before first
obtaining the safe conduct and merely on the Elector'$
assurance of the cardinal's goodwill. 82 The interval was,
indeed, an anxious one, fear alternating with hope. On the
one hand, the absence of the Emperor and Cardinal Lang
appeared to some a favourable circumstance. He found a
staunch supporter in Conrad Peutinger, the Augsburg
patrician and patron of the humanists, who asked him to
supper, as well as in other members of the senate of the free
imperial city. 83 He was, too, encouraged by the ardent
sympathy of the citizens. The poor monk, who had
tramped the long, tragic road to what seemed a martyr's
doom, suddenly discovered that he had become a popular
hero, the cynosure of all eyes. "The city," h(( wrote to
Melanchthon, "is full of the reputation of my name, and all
desire to see the man, the Herostratus who has lighted
such a conflagration." 84 On the other hand, he divined
from a conversation with the Italian Serralonga, whom the
cardinal sent to sound him, that he would be denied the
right of discussion and would be met with the demand
for a revocation in unconditional obedience to the papal
will. 85 The Italian tried hard during several visits to
induce him beforehand to yield to the demand. " You
have only to pronounce the six letters 'Revoco' and the
business is finished. The cardinal is very well disposed
to you." Luther had been warned against this slippery
gentleman and would not be talked over. He replied that
he was ready to be taught and if convinced of error would
be the first to pronounce judgment on himself. "You will
argue the point, then? " queried the Italian c)inically,
adding that it was quite permissible for the indulgence
u Enders, i. 240.
84 Ibid., i. 244.
82
86
83 Ibid., i. 240.
Ibid., i. 285.
Ibid., i .. 240-241; "Tischreden,'' v. 79.
Cajetan and Luther

preachers to make lying statements if it brought good money
into the chest. 86 "Think you," he asked during a final
visit, "that the Elector of Saxony will take up arms on
your behalf? " "I by no means desire this," was the
reply. "Where, then, will you find a refuge? " "Under
the wide heavens," returned Luther. "If you had the
Pope and the cardinals in your power, what would you
do? " "Show them all respect and reverence," was the
reply. 87 "Thus I hover between hope and fear," 88 he
wrote to Spalatin, and the fear at times overmastered the
hope. "For you and the youth whom you teach I stride
towards the victim's doom," he wrote to Melanchthon.
Nevertheless he was determined not to recant. "I prefer
to perish rather than revoke what I have long spoken and
become the instrument of destroying this best of works." 89
It was in this resolute mood that on the r2th October
he prostrated himself at the cardinal's feet in accordance
with the customary ceremonial. 90 He excused himself for
the delay in appearing on account of the safe conduct by
saying that he had been warned not to venture out of
Wittenberg for fear of the plots of his enemies against his
life and had acted in keeping with, the instructions of the
Elector and the advic.e of friends. He humbly begged the
legate to pardon him.if he had said or done anything rashly
and expressed his readiness to be taught and guided to a
sounder way of thinking. 91 He had come to hear from
him and profess the acknowledged truth. So the cardinal
subsequently informed the Elector. 92
His reception was more gracious than he had been led
to expect. In accordance with his promise to thy Elector,
Cajetan adopted a kindly and fatherly tone in the hope of
thereby b;ringing him to acknowledge his errors. 98 He
warmly commended his humility and readiness to receive
86
Enders, i. 240-24 l ,
"Tischreden," ii. 596-597; v. 79. See also Luther's preface
to the 1545 ed. of hil:l Latin works, and Stracke,'s critical examination
of the passage. "Luther's grosses Selbstzeugnis," 56 f.
88
90
89 Ibid., i. 245.
Enders, i. 241.
"Tisclireden," v. 79.
91
92 Ibid., i. 269.
Enders, i. 2,85.
93
Ibid., i. 246; cf. i. 289; and "Tischreden," v. 79.
87

instruction. 94 In his eagerness to be conciliatory, he even
appeared to be "almost deferential," and Luther was
struck by the suavity and friendliness which .contrasted
so strikingly with the violent spirit of the heresy hunters
of his Order, who had pursued him so fiercely. 95 His
impression was so far accurate, inasmuch as the cardinal
was evidently sincere in his striving to wean him into
retraction by gentleness and thus effect a pacific conclusion
of the case. He had no desire to make a martyr of him
and was genuinely anxious to compose the matter in virtue
of the papal authority with which he had been invested; 96
But he could only do so if, in accordance with the papal
brief of nth September, Luther retracted unconditionally.
For him instruction meant submission to the papal will
without discussion, whereas for Luther it meant conviction
as the result of adequate proof of error from Scripture and
reason. His opening move was, therefore, perforce of the
nature of an ultimatum. He required Luther at the outset
(ante omnia), in terms of the papal mandate, to take to heart
and revoke his errors and to promise to abstain from
propagating them in future or disturbing the peace of the
Church in any respect. 97 No discussion, he added,. was
permissible. 98 In reply Luther asked for a copy of the
papal mandate-a request with which the cardinal was
unable to comply. 99 He next asked that he might be
shown wherein he had erred, as he was not conscious of
any error.100 With this request the cardinal complied so
far as to point out, still in a fatherly tone, that his views
on the Treasure of the Church and the Sacrament of
Penance, as expressed in the fifty-eighth and the seventh
theses on " Indulgences" and the " Resolutions," were
contrary to the received teaching of the Church. Th~
94
Enders, i .. 285.
0 Acta Augustana, " Werke," ii. 7.

96 Enders, i. 269.
Omnia componerem sanctissimi Domini nostri
Papae Leonis X., autoritate; cj. "Acta Augustana," ii. 7.
97 Acta Augustana, "Werke," ii. 7; cj. Enders, i. 285-286 and 269.
98 Acta Augustana, "Werke," ii. 7; cf. Enders, i. 246.
99 Enders, i. 286.
ioo .Acta Aug., "Werke," ii. 7; cf. Enders, i. 286.
Cajetan and Luther

former was plainly incompatible with the Bull Unigenitus
of Clement VI. (r343) which he incorrectly presumed Luther
had not consulted. The Bull, he pointed out, explicitly
affirmed that Christ by His suffering had acquired for the
Church an infinite treasure, to which the Virgin and the
saints had added their quota, and which Christ committed
to Peter and his successors as keepers of the keys of heaven
to be dispensed by them for the benefit of the faithful.1
He characterised as " a new and erroneous doctrine,-"
Luther's assertion in the explication of his seventh thesis
that faith is absolutely necessary to the efficacy of the
absolution of sin in the Sacrament of Penance. Such an
assumption was contrary to Scripture and the true doctrine
of the Church which taught that the grace of the sacrament
was independent of the faith of the recipient. To teach
otherwise would be to render its efficacy doubtful, since no
one could be certain of obtaining grace in virtue of individual
faith. He spoke in the confident tone of one to whom
this is a self-evident truth and his bland assurance was
accentuated by his Italian attendants, who smiled and
laughed their approval, thus giving expression in this
tactless fashion to their assumption that Luther was utterly
vanquished. 2 On these grounds he must, therefore, revoke
his views on indulgences and justification by faith without
demur. 3 The oracle had spoken and could not be gainsaid.
The cardinal and his Italian claque speedily learned that
self-evident truth was not necessarily for Luther synonymous with papal and ecclesiastical belief. For the brother
with the deep eyes and wistful gaze, who stood there and
asked so humbly to be instructed, had learned by long
years of wrestling with the problems of the spirit to probe
to the heart of things. For him the search for truth had been
the search for a gracious God through an abyss of doubt and
fear and despair, not the mere study of old parchments and
the acceptance of scholastic dogmas authoritatively interpreted by Popes or papal representatives. Out of this
abyss he had painfully emerged with convictions of his own,
1
See the Bull, known also as the " Extravagans," in Kohler, " Documente zum Ablass-streit," 19.
2
3 Acta Aug., " Werke," ii. 7.
Enders, i. 286.
86
a message and a mission, born of soul-searching religious

experience as well as long and toilsome reflection. Though
no specialist in the Thomist theology like the cardinal, he
had learned from this experience and reflection far more
than the scholastic doctors wot of and had fairly earned the
right to his convictions. Such a man had assuredly not
undertaken the tragic journey to Augsburg merely to be
told that he must recant in obedience to the papal fiat,
as conveyed by the papal representative. He could, he
afterwards wrote 'in his account of the proceedings, have
learned that at Wittenberg without exposing himself to
the danger and suffering which the journey had entailed:"
Nor had he come there to learn the contents of the Bull of
Clement VI. with which he was as well acquainted as
Cajetan. 5 Above all, he had not come to surrender his
doctrine of justification by faith in deference to the cardinal's
exposition of the ecclesiastical conception of the inherent
efficacy of sacramental grace apart from faith. In singling
out this doctrine Cajetan had struck at the core of Luther's
religious convictions, and in so doing he had unwittingly
defeated his purpose of evading a disputation. For Luther
this was a life and death issue. It was no mere speculativ:e
opinion or dogmatic generalisation, such as the theory of
the Treasure of Merits. It was the great fact of his religious
experience, in comparison with which such a theory was of
subordinate importance, except in so far as it bore on this
superlative issue. This issue Luther could not possibly
allow to go by default, ,and on this issue, in particular, he
drew the cardinal in spite of himself into a long debate.
Cajetan was, in fact, too keen a theologian and dialectician
and temperamentally too fiery in the face of contradiction
to resist the challenge he had himself unwittingly provoked.
Despite repeated protestations and demands for revocation,
he was drawn ever farther into a wordy and warm dispute
with his humble interlocutor. On the question of the
Treasure of Merits he contended that the words of the Bull
were clear and conclusive. 6 Granting the scholastfc assumption on which the theory was based, they certainly were
4
5
Acta Aug., "Werke," ii. 7.

Ibid., " Werke," ii. 7.
Enders, i. 269.
Cajetan and Luther

precise enough, and Luther's attempt to make out that the
Bullcould be interpreted in a sense favourable to his view
was really without much force. 7 He was more convincing
when; eschewing this rather sophistic reasoning, he had
recourse to the argument that the doctrine of the Bull,
viewed from the scriptural standpoint and not from that
of the Thomist theology, was neither clear nor conclusive,
and tended rather to distort the sense of Scripture. It
was, therefore, for him lacking in authority. 8 The charge
of distortion, he sarcastically adds, " mightily distorted "
the cardinal, 9 who warmly replied by insisting on the
absolute and inerrant power of the Pope, who is superior to
a General Council and even to Scripture, and supported his
arguments by adducing the repudiation and abrogation of
the Council of Basle by the fifth Lateran Council under
the present Pope. Even Gerson and his followers, who
championed the superiority of a General Council over the
Pope in that of Constance, deserved to be included in the
condemnation.10 Luther in reply stoutly denied the absolute
supremacy of the Pope and instanced the recent appellation
of the University of Paris against this dogma.11
On the second point, which was to Luther the crucial
one, Cajetan adduced the Thomist view of the inherent
efficacy of sacramental grace and maintained that this was
also the scriptural view.12 On this point Luther was
adamant. He quoted passage after passage of Scripture
in support of his doctrine of justification by faith and
challenged his Thomist opponent to disprove them from
the same source. Only on this condition would he give
up his conviction of the absolute necessity of individual
faith. To do so without this warrant would be to deny
Christ. He might give way on the question of indulgences.
But he would die rather than revoke this fundamental
verity.13
7
8
'9
10
11
12
Acta Aug., "Werke,''

Acta Aug., " Werke,''
Enders, i. 287
Acta Aug., "Werke,"
Acta Aug., "Werke,"
Enders, i. 286.
ii. 12-13; Enders, i. 254-256.

ii. 8; Enders, i. 287.
ii. 8; cf. Enders, i. 287-288 and 290.
ii. 8; Enders, i. 290.
13 Ibid., i. 287.
88
The long discussion thus ended in a complete impasse,

argument being met by each in turn by counter-argument,
the cardinal punctuating his with the papal mandate t6
revoke, until Luther at length put an end to the altercation
by asking time to deliberate before giving a final reply. 14
, On the following day (r3th October) he was accompanied
by Staupitz whom he had summoned to Augsburg, a notary,
and four imperial councillors. 16 As the result of a consultation with his advisers he protested in writing that he
accepted the teaching of the Holy Roman Church and
declared his readiness to renounce anything in his writings
contrary to this teaching. At the same time, he had only
sought in what he had written to establish the truth and
he could not abandon this search, much less make an
enforced revocation unheard and unconvinced. He was
still unconscious of having affirmed anything contrary to
the Scriptures, the Fathers, the papal decrees, or right
reason, and believed that his convictions were sound, true,
and Catholic. Nevertheless, since as a man he was liable
to error, he was ready to submit to the judgment and
legitimate determination of Holy Church and all who held
a better opinion. He therefore offered wholeheartedly to
vindicate on the spot or elsewhere in public discussion his
views, with reasons given. If this were denied him, he
was prepared to respond in writing to the cardinal(s objec-'
tions to his teaching and to refer this written statement
to the judgment and opinion of the Universities of Basle,
Freiburg, Louvain, or in the last resort to the University
of Paris, the mother and the most authoritative of all
learned bodies. 16 This was in effect what he had professed
and proposed all along, viz., the arbitration of an impartial
tribunal.
Such a proposal the cardinal could not, in view of his
instructions, entertain even if he had been disposed to do
so. He, therefore, repeated in the kindly tone with which he
had opened the interview on the previous day the demand
for a retractation and exhorted him to give up this insane
14
16
Acta Aug., " Werke," ii. 8;

Enders, i. 291.
16
Acta Aug.," Werke," ii. 8-9.
Cajetan and Luther
89
plan and not vainly to kick against the pricks. 17 Luther

thereupon asked to be allowed to hand in a written statement, adding that they had had enough of mere battling
in words on the previous day. At this the cardinal~ who
could not afford to admit anything of the nature of a
disputation, fired up at once. The term "battling" seemed
the height of audacity.18 " My son," he remonstrated, " I
have neither crossed words with you nor do I wish to do
so. I am prepared in deference to the suggestion of the
Elector to hear you paternally and kindly, not disputatiously,
to admonish and teach you on behalf of the truth, and even
reconcile you with the Pope and the Church." 19 As Luther
remained silent, Staupitz intervened to support his request
to allow him to submit a written statement, which the
cardinal, who was loth to give up the hope of securing a
retraction, reluctantly but benevolently conceded. 20
Accordingly, on the r4th Luther, accompanied on this
occasion by Feilitzsch and Rlihel, as representatives of the
Elector, presented a detailed exposition of the two main
questions in dispute. 21 It was certainly not lacking in
insistent and plain speaking advocacy of his side of the
case. In the plainest terms the high dignitary, who was
invested with all the prestige of the papal majesty, was told
that Popes might err and had erred, that their decrees
were only to be received as far as they were consonant with
Scripture, that the Fathers of Basle were right in their
contention that a General Council is superior to the Pope,
nay, that the opinion of even the individual Christian is
to be preferred to a papal decretal if it is supported by
adequate authority and reason, that justification by faith
in the Lutheran sense is an infallible scriptural verity, as
shown by numerous quotations, and that without individual
faith the Sacrament of Penance can only involve the
recipient in damnation. Moreover, in matters of belief
17
Enders, i. 270,
Ibid., i. 270, ego audaciam hominis miratus.
19
Ibid., i. 270; cf. 29I.
20
Ibid., i. 292. Luther acknowledges the cardinal's considerate
treatment of him.
21 Enders, i. 246; "Opera Latina Var.," ii. 365-366.
18

the testimony of the individual conscience as the voice of
God is supreme. " In the face of this supreme authority
I cannot do otherwise than obey God rather than man.
Let therefore your Fatherhood be pleased to intercede for
me with our lord, Leo X., that he may not with such inclement
rigour be moved against me, and not plunge into darkness
a soul seeking only the light of truth and most ready to
give up, to change, to revoke all if it can be led to think
differently. For I am not so arrogant and desirous of
vain glory that I may be ashamed to revoke what I may
have erroneously said, yea it will be my greatest joy that
truth should be the victor. Only let me not be forced to do
violence to my conscience. For without any hesitation I
firmly believe this to be enjoined by the Scriptures." 22
This deliberate statement evoked a heated altercation.
According to Luther, the cardinal treated the documen~
with contempt, saying that he would forward it to Rome,
repeating the Thomist doctrine on the points at issue,
demanding anew his revocation, and threatening him with
the penalties of the Church. Again and again Luther
vainly attempted to interrupt the objurgatory outburst.
At length he too lost his temper and began to shout his
counter-arguments until the cardinal terminated the stormy
scene by ordering him to leave his presence. "Begone,"
cried he, "either revoke or . come not again into my
presence." 23 Luther retired in the conviction that further
overtures were hopeless. 24 On reflection, however, Cajetan
resolved to make one more effort indirectly to move him to
submission. He sent for Staupitz and begged him to
persuade him to recant, promising that he should suffer no
humiliation in so doing. 25 To this end he prescribed a
Acta Aug., " Werke," ii. 16; Enders, i. 261.
Acta Aug., "Werke," ii. 16; Enders, i .. 247, 292; "Tischreden," v. 79-80. In his version of what took place in his letter to the
Elector, Cajetan is careful to point out that he agreed to the request
to be allowed to present this statement as an act of kindness, not in
his judicial capacity, and affirms that he continued to treat Luther in
a fatherly fashion, Enders, i. 270. The tone of the letter reflects, however,
the irritation of which he says nothing in his account to the Elector.
24 Acta Aug., "Werke," ii. 16; Enders, i. 292.
25 Enders, i. 292. Sine ulla nota.
22
28
Cajetan and Luther

form of revocation, which Staupitz, with whom Link
associated himself, presented only to be told that Luther
could not revoke against his conscience without express
scriptural warrant, which his Vicar-General was unable to
adduce. 26 He was, in fact, preparing an appeal from the
cardinal to the Pope. 27 Ultimately, in deference to the
entreaties of Staupitz and Link, he consented to write a
humble and reverential letter (r7th October) in which he
admitted that in the heat of disputation he had spoken
indiscreetly, bitterly, and irreverently of the Pope. For
this he begged forgiveness and undertook not to treat further
of the subject of indulgences if his opponents were enjoined
to do likewise. He would, moreover, revoke at the command and advice of his Vicar-General in as far as conscience
would permit, though he could not do so merely on the
ground of arguments based on the views of Aquinas, which
seemed to him not to rest on a sufficiently firm foundation.
He, therefore, begged the cardinal to refer the case to the
Pope in order that doubtful points might be determined
by the Church, which he was only too eager to hear and
to follow. 28 To this communication, which was in effect
merely a repetition in very humble terms of what he had
said already, he awaited a reply for a couple of days without
result. This silence seemed to bode a sinister ending of
the case in view of the cardinal's threat to excommunicate
him and the rumour that he was meditating the arrest of
both Staupitz and himself. 29 Staupitz, in fact, had become
very nervous. He had striven to play the part of mediator
on Luther's behalf and had brought him as far as it was
possible to go towards submission. The situation had
become not only compromising, but dangerous for him as
well as for Luther. He ran the risk of having at the
cardinal's command to compel Luther, in virtue of his vow
of obedience, to retract on pain of excommunication. To
obviate this contingency he formally absolved him from
his vow and along with Link hurriedly set out for Niimberg
without informing the cardinal (r6th October).
26
29
27 Ibid., i. 248.
28 Ibid., i. 263-265.
Enders, i. 293.
Acta Aug., "Werke," ii. 19; Enders, i. 293.
92
Thus left alone, Luther on the r8th made a last attempt

to conjure an answer to his humble appeal in a letter in
which he intimated his intention of doing likewise and of
appealing from the Pope ill-informed to the Pope better
informed. 3o He waited in vain another couple of days
.and then on the night of the 2oth-2rst October slipped
out of Augsburg through a postem in the city wall, and
rode away with a trusty attendant towards Ntimberg on a
horse placed at his disposal by his friend Langenm.antel,
canon of the ea thedral. 31
III.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HEARING
. He left behind him the Appellation to be handed to the

cardinal by his fellow-monk Beyer, 32 who, instead of carry,.
ing out this risky commission, begged the notary to affix
it to the door of the Augsburg cathedral (22nd October). 33
In this document he justified his attack on the indulgence
traffic, .objected to the unjust charge of heresy on the ground
of the prejudices of his accusers against him, adduced
reasons for not appearing at Rome, protested against the
oppressive and minatory conduct of the cardinal in refusing
him a fair hearing, professed anew his desire for instruction
and his readiness submissively to receive it from the Pope,
who is assumed to be well disposed towards him, and
appealed accordingly. 34 He questions the cardinal's im~
partiality on the ground that like Tetzel, Prierias, and
others, he belonged to the Dominican Order. Cajetan had,
however, acted as the commissioned representative of the
Pope, whose instructions he was bound to observe, and
the charge of bias is from this point of view legally weak.
In virtue of this commission he was not at liberty to treat
the matte;r as an open question, whilst he had done his best
to implement his promise to the Elector to give him a
fatherly hearing, though he had not succeeded in maintaining
30
82
34
81 "Tischreden," v. So, 102.

Enders, i. 266-268,
33 Ibid., i. 277-278.
Enders, i. 273.
See the Appellation in" Werke," ii. 28 f.
Significance of the Hearing
93
his equanimity in the heat of the discussion into which he had

allowed himself to be drawn.
In a letter to the Elector (25th October), Cajetan gave
vent to his indignation at what he deemed the deception
and treachery of Luther and his associates in thus frustrating by their flight his efforts to reach a settlement. The
fear of violence at his hands seems, indeed, to have been
unfounded. He had promised the Elector to hear and
treat Luther in a fatherly fashion .and allow him to depart
in safety. There is no reason to believe that he contemplated his seizure, even if he persisted in his refusal to
recant, though the papal chancellor had empowered him
in a missive of the 7th October to take what measures he
deemed expedient. 35 Not only had he to reckon with his
promise to the Elector. Any attempt to arrest one under
the protection of the imperial safe conduct, as well as that
of the Elector, merely for attacking what was incontestably
an intolerable abuse would, in the state of public opinion,
have been the height of rashness. Moreover, in view of the
political situation, it was imperative to respect the wishes
of the Elector who was determined that Luther should have
a fair and unconstrained hearing before being condemned.
Such a hearing the cardinal professed that he had conceded.
He had in truth done his best. to implement his promise,
and Luther's fear of violence at his hands at anyrate, though
natural, was unfounded. But his insistence on revocation
in virtue of his instructions, and his rigid Thomist orthodoxy,
made it difficult, if not impossible, for him to understand or
appreciate a standpoint so radically different from his own,
whilst his choleric temperament, which bore contradiction
hardly, and led him at last to threaten pains and penalties,
tended to frustrate his purpose of bringing about an amicable
settlement.
At the best this hope was exceedingly problematic in
the case of a man of Luther's calibre. The humble monk
who stood there in the character of .an accused heretic
was the prophet of a new age in religion. What he stood
for was nothing less than the indefeasible right of individual
36
Kalk~ff, " Forschungen," 61.
94
liberty of thought and conscience against the medireval

principle of unquestioning obedience to established, corporate
authority. He did not, it is true, realise all that this right
involved and still professed his willingness to submit to the
judgment and determination of the Church, as distinct
from the Roman Church, i.e., the Roman Curia, 36 or accept
the arbitration of an impartial tribunal. His plea is for
freedom to investigate the truth untrammelled by traditional
theological opinion, to follow the light of Scripture and
reason in the search for truth, and to hold fast to hi.s convictions as a sacred obligation which he owes to God and his
conscience. What he really stood for was the divine right
of the individual reason and conscience against external
authority, whether ecclesiastical or academic. Subject to
this indispensable condition, he was willing to yield to
what he called a better opinion. But while admitting th~
pos!libility of a better opinibn, it is evident that, in regard
to his fundamental doctrine of justification by faith, he
was not prepared to give way to any conclusion that
militated against his conviction that the just shall live
by faith and faith alone. This conviction was to him the
very ark of the covenant of his religious expe,rience, the.
sine qud non of his salvation The question of indulgences
might be debatable, though he holds strong opinions on
the subject. 37 On the question of faith there could be no
yielding. "Although on this point I deferred to the.
judgment of the Pope, you may not nevertheless conclude
that I did so because I had any doubt concerning the thing
itself, or that I shall ever change my conviction. Divine
truth is the lord even of the Pope. 38 I await not the judg86 Acta Aug., " Werke,'' ii. 17.
Nee tamen hanc violentiam ejus
regre tuli, sciens earn facultatem interpretandi ex longa Romanre Curire
consuetudine et scholasticorum distinctorum usu sibi prresumptam.
Creditum est enim jam diu quod quicquid Romana Ecclesia ciixerit,
damnarit, voluerit, id mox omnibus dicendum, darrinandum, volendum
esse, nee aliam reddi rationem oportere quam quia sic sedes apostolica et
Romana Ecclesia sentit.
87 Hausrath entirely misses the point when he says that to Luther
the main thing was the question of indulgences. " Luther,'' i. 265.
88 Veritas divina est etiam domina papre.
Acta Aug.. , "Werke,''
ii. 18.
95
ment of men when I have already recognised the judgment

of God. . . . On this point depends the whole summa of
salvation. You are not a bad Christian whether you
acknowledge or ignore the Bull Unigenitus. But you are
indeed a heretic if you refuse, faith in the word of
Christ." 39
Cajetan quite correctly pointed out to the Elector that
though Luther professed that he had only set forth in his
theses his views as matters for disputation, he had in his
subsequent writings again and again asserted these views
as indisputable and irrevocable truths. 40 These assertions
were, he held, partly against the doctrine of the Apostolic
See, partly open to condemnation (from the ecclesiastical
point of view). Here also he spoke truly. And for him,
as the representative of the papal authority and the champion
of ecclesiastical orthodoxy, the only alternative was to
denounce him to the Pope as a traitor and deceiver and to
demand that the Elector should send him to Rome for
judgment, or banish him from his dominions and not
further incur the slur of protecting a rebel against the Roman
Church and thus stain the ancient glory of his house. 41
Luther's attempt, in his refutation 42 of the cardinal's
letter to the Elector, to invalidate this contention is by no
means convincing. He had, he said, been cited only on the
ground of his theses, which he had undoubtedly intended as
the subject of a disputation, not of his other writings. He
either did not know or ignored the fact that these writings had
been submitted to the papal commission and that the Pope
had taken cognisance of them in his brief to Cajetan on the
23rd August. In these he had undoubtedly advanced his
views not merely in a disputatious, but in an assertive style,
and had questioned the papal authority in no very deferential
tone. The fact was that behind the mere question of
indulgences was the all-compelling power of religious
conviction which no argument could shake. In this, and
not in mere disputatious stubbornness, lay the real secret
of the refusal to recant. It was this that constituted the
39
0
Acta Aug., "Werke,'' ii. 17-18.

Enders, i. 271.
u
42
Ibid., i. 271-272.
Ibid;, i. 293 f.
96
real strength of his position. But just herein lay its essential
weakness in the eyes of his opponent. The Papacy embodied
the principle of absolute authority over mind and conscience
against the claims of the individual, on which Luther took
his stand as the very rock on which to build his salvation.
These claims the Papacy could not afford to admit without
the surrender of itself, and this was the sacrifice which
Luther in the name of Scripture, conscience, and reason
demanded that it should make. Here at last was the
ominous challenge which a long series of Reformers, from
Marsiglio of Padua and William of Occam onwards .had
made, and which the Papacy had hitherto succeeded in
frustrating or evading. Here, too, was the equally ominous
revival of the old contention. championed by the Fathers
of Constance and Basle, whom Luther quotes, and surviving
to his own time, on behalf of the errancy of the Popes and
the superiority of a General Council. " Even Peter erred;
yea after receiving the Holy Spirit, and even a cardinal
can err, however learned." 43 The challenge and the claim
were now voiced by this brave and bold monk who, in the
strength of an adamant faith, refused to utter the six letters
Revoco 44 at the bidding of the cardinal as the representative
of absolute authority. Herein lies the significance of the
encounter at Augsburg between this representative and his
indomitable interlocutor.
It was a case of moral force and religious conviction
incorporated in an inflexible soul, defying an absolutism
that has become a byword for scandalous corruption and
nevertheless claims to be the unerring arbiter of religion
.and morality. At last the man enters the arena with the
strength of will and conviction to challenge. this system
in the name of individual liberty and in allegiance to what
he deems the truth. " I see," wrote he to Langenmantel
in reference to the cardinal's letter to the Elector, "that
the Romanists persist in their purpose of damning me.
But I have steeled myself in my purpose not to yield. And
thus I await their condemnation. The Lord will be to me
a counsellor and a helper." 45 "For long they have molested
43
Enders, i. 297.
'' Ibid., i. 296.
46
Ibid., i. 306.
97
John Reuchlin, and me they now molest for the new and
resounding crime of having wished to be taught, of having
sought the truth. And this in the Church, the kingdom of
truth, in which it behoves to render a reason to all who
demand it." 46
48
"Werke," ii. 6,
CHAPTER IV
THE SEQUEL OF THE AUGSBURG HEARING

I.
APPEAL To A GENERAL CouNqL AND THE PAPAL

DECLARATION ON INDULGENCES
AT Niimberg Luther received through Spalatin a copy of

the papal brief of the 23rd August. 1 He found it difficult
to believe that such a mandate could have emanated frbm
Leo X. and concluded that it was the fabrication of his
enemies in Germany. He incorrectly treated it as such
in a postscript to his account of the proceedings at Augsburg,
though he included it in this document as an example of
Romanist perfidy and tyranny. 2 It seems, however, to
have shaken his belief in the Pope's impartiality, 3 and
on his return to Wittenberg on the 3rst October he set
about .the preparation of an appeal from the Pope to a General
Council. 4 He was c<;mfirmed in his purpose by the belief
that the Curia, as the result of Cajetan's report, was preparing
to launch the censure of the Church against him. 5 Hence
the determination to parry the expected stroke by an appeal
to the Church itself, which he made on the 28th November
in the presence of a notary and two witnesses and which
he sent to the press. 6 He has been compelled to make use
of this expedient by the action of the cardinal in instigating
Enders, i. 273-274.
"Werke," ii. 22 f.
3 Enders, i. 274.
Nam incredibile est tale quid monstri a summo
Pontifice egredi . . . aut si vere etiam a curia emanavit, docebo eos
suas impudentissimas temeritates et iniquissimam ignorantiam.
4 Ibid., i. 273. Parabo appellationem ad futurum concilium.
5 Ibid., i. 304.
Creterum expecto maladictiones ex urbe Roma
quotidie; cf. i. 306, 316.
6 "Werke," ii. 36; cf. Enders, i. 314.
Appellavi ad futurum concilium.
1
98
Papal Declaration on Indulgences
99
the Pope to take further measures to secure his condenmation, in spite of his appeal to his Holiness and his
readiness to receive instruction. The Pope, he boldly
affirms, being a man, is liable to err, and in as far as he
errs, is not to be obeyed, nay, is to be resisted. In view
of his unjust and oppressive treatment at the cardinal's
hands and the evident intention of Leo X. to abet this
injustice and oppression, he now appeals from the Pope
not rightly advised (non recte consulto) to a future Council,
convened in a safe place, before which he may freely plead
his cause. 7
The challenge was certainly a daring one, though Luther
in sending it to the press did 'not intend to publish it forthwith, but only to have it in readiness in case the Curia
should proceed to extremes against him. It is not, therefore,
surprising that the Elector attempted to prevent its publication, which, as Luther explained in a letter to Spalatin,
had taken place against his express injunction to the
printer who, for the sake of gain, had distributed copies
without his knowledge. 8 Its publication was, in fact, fitted
to hamper his patron in his efforts to secure for him more
considerate t;reatment. It was thus, in the circumstances,
highly impolitic and was besides futile from the legal point
of view. In a case of notorious heresy such as the Pope
had, in the brief of 23rd August, declared Luther to be
guilty of, an appeal was invalid by canon law. 9 Moreover,
an appeal to a General Council had been, since the time of
Pius II., accounted ipso facto heresy and punishable as
such.10 Luther could only justify his contention by going
back to the principle of the old conciliar party of Constance
and Basle that a General Council' is superior to the Pope,
which, however, it had ultimately failed to establish. At
the same time, such an appeal was by no means a dead
.letter. It had recently found corporate expression in a
Council convened by Louis XII. and a section of the cardinals
7
" Werke," ii. 36-40.

Enders, i. 323-324. Letter to Spalatin, 2oth Dec.; cf. i. 316.
9
K. Muller, "Z.K.G.," xxiv. 74.
10
Bull Execrabilis, Jan. 1460; and Creighton, "History of the
Papacy," iii. 239-240 i K. Miiller, "Z.K.G.," 73.
oo
at Pisa (15n-1512),11 and in the University of Paris,

whose example Luther professedly followed, and the
conviction was widely held that in matters of doctrine
the ultimate and supreme authority lay with a General
Council.
In the meantime, Cajetan had come to the conclusion
that there was some force in Luther's demand for a clear
and definite declaration on the question of indulgences and
that such a declaration was an indispensable basis of further
procedure against him. The Pope himself, if Miltitz may
be trusted, had declared in no measured terms his indignation
at the report of the ongoings of the indulgence preachers;
and had sarcastically remarked, in reference to Prierias's
boast that he had confuted Luther's theses in three days,
that his work would have been more convincing if he had
spent as many months on it.12
As the result of his intensive study of the question and ..
his discussions with Luther, Cajetan drew up and forwarded
to Rome 13 (25th October), along with a report on the case.,
the draft of an official declaration on the subject of indulgences.14 This draft was transformed into a papal decreta~
bearing the date 9th November, and was entrusted, along
with other documents relative to the case, to Miltitz to be
conveyed to the cardinal. It categorically asserts, i:h
opposition to the views of "certain religious in Germany,"
that the Pope as Peter's successor is invested with the
power of the keys. This power includes that of the remission not only of the guilt of sin in the Sacrament of Penance,
but of the temporal punishment for actual sins to which
the sinner is still liable in accordance with the divine justice.
The remission of the temporal punishment is attained by
means of indulgences in virtue of the superabundant merits
of Christ and the saints. On this Treasure of Merits the
Pope can draw for the benefit of the dead as well as the
living, and the remission thereby obtained is valid as far
11
Creighton, " Hist. of the Papacy," v. 150 f.

Enders, i. 327.
la Kalkoff, " Forschungen," 66.
14 His preliminary studies of the subject are in his "Opuscula,"
i. 153 f.
12
Papal ])eclaration on Indulgences
Io1
as the specific indulgence extends. It may, in other words,

be partial or plenary as the case may be, and evidently
depends in part at least on the price paid for it as well as the
spiritual condition of the purchaser, though this is implied
rather than explicitly stated.15 This doctrine all are bound
to hold and teach under pain of excommunication latce.
sententice (i.e., without special judgment) from which only
the Pope can absolve. And in order that no one may
henceforth be able to allege ignorance of the true doctrine
thus officially decreed, the cardinal is empowered to require
the ecclesiastical authorities in Germany to make known
this decretal in their churches within a given time under
penalty of suspension for disobedience, and they and all
their clergy are to /accept and teach and not to attempt
to gainsay it under the aforesaid penalty of excommunication.16
This document Cajetan, on the r3th December, duly
received at Linz, whither he had removed from Augsburg.17
Though Luther's name is not mentioned, everybody knew
who was specifically referred to in the phrase " certain
religious in Germany." He was now instructed in unmistakable terms by the Vicar of Christ himself that his interpretation of the Bull Unigenitus was erroneous and that his
contentions on the subject were inadmissible in the eyes of
the supreme head of the Church, speaking ex cathedra.
He was, therefore, ipso facto excommunicated if he persisted
in maintaining either. Along with this document Cajetan
seems, in fact, to have received a Bull of excommunication
against Luther personally, though he refrained in the
16 "Opera Latina Var.," ii. 43r.
Ac propterea omnes'tam vivos.
quam defunctos qui veraciter omnes indulgentias hujusmodi consecuti
fuerint a tanta temporali pama secundum divinam justitiam pro
peccatis suis actualibus debita liberari, quanta concessre et acquisitre
induJgentire requivalet. The spiritual condition of the purchaser is
referred to in the previous words: " qui caritate jungente membra sunt
Christi." Ibid., ii. 430.
16 Ibid., ii. 429-432.
The decretal bears the title "Cum Postquam."'
17 Ibid., ii. 428, 432-433.
It was shortly after printed and published
at Vienna along with a German translation, for the benefit of the unle;inied .. Kalkoff, "Entscheidungsjahre," 88-89,
I 02
meantime from publishing it.18 ' Luther had professed his

readiness to receive instruction from the Pope, and here
was the thing he had asked for. On'the other hand, he
had also told the Pope in his prefatory letter to the
"Resolutions" that he could not revoke, and the Pope
takes I).O account of his specific objections and contentions
about the power to remit sin and to grant indulgence even
in the case of the dead. The decretal assumes the absolUte
validity of the Thomist-Dominican version of the theory
of indulgences and the papal power in this matter. It takes
no account of the appeal for scriptural reasons, nor does it
enter into any discussion of the points at issue. It is purely'
assertive and relies entirely on the principle of an unerring
external authority, which to Luther was no longer the'
certain norm of truth, whilst recognising the principle of
a money payment which had rendered the indulgenc~
traffic a crying scandal, without a single word in condem~
nation of this scandal. Cajetan had simply stated the
conventional Thomist doctrine and hushed up the scandal,
of its abuse in deference to the fanatics of his Order and the
corrupt officials of the Curia. This was certainly not good
enough for Luther or for his high patron as a final decision
of the conflict.
The situation now looked very threatening. The Curia,
it was reported, was determined to root out the tares of the
Lutheran heresy. "Rome fears you," wrote Scheurl to
Luther. 19 It was felt at Rome that not for roo years,
i.e., since the days of Hus, had there been so anxious a
situation for the Papacy, and the Pope and his advisers
were resolved to brook no further evasion. Luther might
have a bishopric if he would recant and anyone who could '
prevail on him to do so was sure of a cardinal's hat! 20
9
18
This may be inferred from a letter of Scheurl (20th Dec.) to Luther,

in which he says, in reference to the documents which Miltitz had
brought from Rome: "ne opus sit fulminibus qure ille(Miltitz) immania
habet." Enders, i. 329.
19 Enders, i. 328.
Formidat te Roma.
20 This was according to Miltitz the prevailing mood 11t Rome when he
left the city in the middle of Nov. as the bearer of the papal decretal, etc~?
to Cajetan, After his arrival in Germany he thus picture to ~cheurl
103
Luther was not the man to be won by such a bribe. He

had. been expecting the papal condemnation when he made
his appeal to a Council on the 28th November, and he
was resolved to brave exile and even death if it came to
the worst. He would leave Wittenberg, seek a refuge in a
foreign country 1 and offer his life to Christ. 21 He was, in
fact, beginning to ask himself whether the real Antichrist,
spoken of by Paul, was not reigning in the Roman Curia,
whose regime was worse than that of the Turk. 22 Reports
reached him from Niirnberg that Miltitz had arrived there
bearing a number of papal briefs directed against him, 23
and the rumour had reached Spalatin that he had actually
preached a farewell sermon to the people of Wittenberg.
The rumour was unfounded. He had, . he wrote, only
announced the possibility of his doing so. 24 He thought of
going to France and putting himself under the protection
of the French king and the University of Paris. But the
money for the journey could not be found. He mentions,
too, the alternative plan, sugg~sted by the Elector's advisers,
of surrendering himself to the Elector, who should keep
him captive in a safe place until he could have a fair trial.
Nothing came of this proposed anticipation of his later
captivity in the Wartburg, though he mentions the plan
to Spalatin and is content in the meantime to trust himself
to the providence of Goel and the di$cretion of his friends. 25
In this emergency much depended on the Elector's
attitude. It was a critical situation for him as well as
for his protege. On the one hand, the Pope was attempting
to bribe him into the surrender or banishment of Luther
by the .offer of the Golden Rose and indulgence privileges
the prevailing mood at Rome, which Scheurl communicated to Luther
on the 2oth and 22nd Dec. Enders, i. 327 and 335. The phrase 10
years in Scheurl's letter should probably be roo. Miltitz's report is
confirmed by the letters of the Pope\ and the Vice-Chancellor, Giulio
de Medici, to Pfeffinger, 24th and IIth Oct., of which Miltitz was
also the bearer. " Opera Latina Var.," ii. 446-448, where they are
wrongly dated Jan. r519.
21
Enders, i. 308; cf. 299, 304, 314.
22 Ibid., i. 316; l8th, not nth Dec., as it is dated by Enders.
23
Ibid, i. 314, 316.
34
26
Ibid., i. ;p4-315.
Ibid., i. 308,
1 04
for his church at Wittenberg, of which Miltitz was the

bearer, but which were only to be conferred on condition
of his compliance with this demand. On the other, Cajetan
in his letter of the 25th October relative to the Augsburg
interview, which he only received on the r9th November, 26
had virtually threatened him with the consequences of a
refusal. He was faced with the alternative of abandoning
Luther or defying the Pope. It was a harassing problem,
and throughout November and December there was anxious
consultation between him and his advisers and between
Luther and Spalatin in the g.ttempt to solve it. Luther
declared his readiness to leave Saxony and commit his fate
to a higher hand than any earthly protector. He would
on no account compromise the Elector in his cause or
involve him or anyone else in danger on his account, 27
whilst begging him to petition the Pope for a fair trial of
his case. 28 He had, in fact, made up his mind to dare and
suffer for the truth and was not too amenable to the restraint
of the diplomacy of his far-sighted and wary protector, who
was chagrined by the precipitate publication of his appeal
to a Council .and the Acta Augustana, as fitted to frustrate
his diplomatic efforts on his behalf. It is, indeed, difficult
for the prophet to accommodate himself to the arts of the
politician in such matters. In spite of such provocation,
however, the Elector was resolved not to abandon him to his
enemies, and there seems to be no ground for the assumption
that he sent him an order to remove from Wittenberg without
delay. 29 The idea of leaving Wittenberg had originated with ,
Enders, i. 310.
Ibid., i. 299. Letter to the Elector, 19th Npv.; cf. letter to
Spalatin, 2nd Dec., i. 308.
2s Ibid., i. 282.
29 The report which is circumstantially related by Bavarus seems .
to have no real foundation. Bavarus relates the report on the 12th Aug.
1536, i.e., eighteen years later. Extract in Enders, i. 309; German
trans. in Walch, xv. 831. Did he have it from Luther himself? If so,
Lu.ther's memory must have been at fault. There is nothing in his
correspondence at the time to indicate such a mandate on the part of
the Elector. The expression in his letter to Spalatin, 2nd Dec., "Nisi
venissent heri literre ture jam parabam recessum, sed et .adhuc sum in
utramvis partem paratus," does not necessarily indicate sch a mandate.
2s
27
o5
Staupitz and Luther himself, not with the Elector, and the
latter at most only weighed the advisability, in case of
necessity, of such a step, to which Luther himself was a
consenting party. 30 He intervened, in fact, through
Spalatin to prevent him from too hastily carrying out his
intention and warned him against the rash idea of seeking
a refuge in France. 31 He seems also to have considered the
e){pedient of making a show of arresting him (naturally
with his own consent) and concealing him in some safe
place pending further developments. 32 He endeavo.ured to
influence the Emperor in favour of the reference of his case
to an impartial German tribunal. 33 At all events he was
determined to stand between .him and his enemies and to
exhaust all the ingenuity of a resourceful diplomacy to this
end.
/
His letter to Cajetan on the Sth December 34 affords
convincing evidence of this determination. The letter is a
reply to that in which the cardinal on the 25th October
gave an account of the Augsburg interview and which the
Elector had submitted for Luther's criticism. He not only
enclosed this criticism 35 in his reply; he firmly declined
the cardinal's demand for his surrender or banishment. In
support of his refusal he adduced the fact that the University
of Wittenberg supported Luther's demand that, before
being condemned, his errors should be refuted with sufficient
reasons, and had begged him to shield him from the malignity
of his enemies. 36 If it were proved by adequate reasons
that he was guilty-of heresy, he would need no exhortation
and admonition to proceed against him. He was desirous
so Enders, i. 317. Princeps prius fuerit contenttis me non in loco
(Wittenberg), postea voluit omnino ut manerem; cf. i. 319. On
this subject see Kalkoff, " Forschungen," 163.
31
Ibid., i. 319.
32 Ibid., i. 308.
33 The Elector's letter to Pfeffinger, his minister at the imperial
court. Walch, xv. 807-809.
34 It was only forwarded on the l8th Dec.
35 Luther's letter of the l9th Nov. to him.
Enders, i. 284 f.
36 He is referring particularly to the letter, which the University at
his request directed to him, 23rd Nov. "Opera Latina Var./' ii.
426-428 ; cf. Enders, i. 304,
06
to act in this matter as became a Christian prince in accordance with his honour and his conscience, but he would not
be moved by threats to send Luther to Rome or expel him
from his dominions as long as he was not fairly convicted
of the crime of heresy. To expel him would be detrimental
to the university which was both Chris\ian and contained
many good and learned men. He enclosed Luther's response
as evidence on the other side, and supported his demand
that his case might be submitted to the judgment of certain
universities by which he was willing to be guided, or that
at least his errors should be shown to him in writing. He
begged, in conclusion, that he might be favoured with the
reasons for adjudging as a heretic a man who had not yet
been convicted of heresy and assured the cardinal that he
would not willingly be allured to error, nor be found disobedient to the Holy See. 37 Luther had ample reason for
the joy with which he read and re-read 38 this spirited
epistle and for the heartfelt gratitude which he asked
Spalatin to convey to his protector. He will now assuredly
remain at Wittenberg and await the upshot of Roman
devices against him. 3.9
II.
THE MISSION OF MILTITZ
He had not long to wait. On the 28th December

Miltitz arrived at the Elector's court at Altenburg. Along
with his commission as bearer of the Golden Rose and the
indulgence Bulls, he had received the faculty, usually
bestowed on a papal emissary of this kind, to confer various
privileges. This faculty vouchsafed the right to confer
certain offices, such as that of notary, to grant a number
of academic and other titles, to legitimate forbidden
marriages and a number of bastards, and thus earn the
fees payable for such concessions. In particular, he was
empowered to legitimate two persons born out of wedlock
37
38
39
Enders, i. 310-312.
Quam cum gaudio eas (literas) legi et relegi.
Enders, i. ;p4, 33J
The Mission- of Miltitz

and thereby entitle them to high ecclesiastical preferment. 40
This significant concession was evidently intended for the
benefit of two illegitimate sons of the Elector; was, in fact,
to be used as an additional bribe for the surrender of Luther.
In the document and in the papal instructions relative to
his mission, Miltitz was given the title of Nuntius. But
he was enjoined to act in strict subordination to the legate
and was bound under pain of excommunication to adhere
to his instructions in this subordinate capacity. In
particular the Golden Rose and the indulgence privileges
were to be handed, not to the Elector, but to the cardinal
to be made use of by him as expediency might decide.41
The enterprising commissary was, however, :hot content
to confine himself to this subordinate r6le. He was eager
to earn the substantial reward which awaited anyone who
should secure ,Luther's surrender or submission, and gave
himself and his mission an importance which was not
warranted by his commission. He was certainly not
empower:ed to enter into any independent negotiation for
the settlement of the Lutheran heresy, but at most to
explore the situation, report to the Curia and the legate,
and abet the demand for its suppression contained in the
papal letters to the Elector and his advisers, of which he
was the bearer.'.1 2
In these letters the Pope left no room for dubiety as to
the fate of Luther. He denounced him as "a son. of perdition" and exhorted them' to take summary measures for
the suppression of his detestable heresy. 43 Miltitz speedily
discovered that he had come on a vain errand, as far as this
part of his mission was concerned. The Elector was resolved
40 See the document conferring this faculty in Kalkoff, " Forschungen,'' 180 f.
41 Papal instruction to ,Miltitz, Walch, xv. 8n-812. Miltitz was
'
not a fully commissioned diplomatist (nuntius et orator), bt only
a subordinate agent (nuntius et commjssarius). See Kalkoff, "Z.K.G."
(1925), 215.
42 See the Pope's letter to the Elector, Walch, xv. 814; K. Muller,
"Z.K.G.,'' xxiv. 76-77; Kalkoff, ibid., xxv.
43 The letters to the Elector, Pfeffinger, Spalatin, and the Town
Council of Wittenberg i "Opera LatiP.a Var.,'' ii. 446 f.; WaJch,
xv. 8J2 f.
108
not to send Luther to Rome, and parried the demand for

his banishment by pointing out that he could only seek a
refuge in Bohemia and that his presence there would only
increase the danger to the Church. Whereupon Miltitz,
in his eagerness to start a negotiation on his own account,
begged him not to allow him to depart and to summon
him to Altenburg to discuss. with himself the terms of a
settlement of the case. 44 Such a proposal was clearly in
contravention of his commission. But he seems so far to
have impressed the Elector by his self-importance, and
. Luther accordingly appeared at Altenburg on the 4th or
5th January I5I9. .The shallow, voluble, and self-seeking
commissary was ill-fitted to treat with the impassioned
seeker after God and truth. He was totally ignorant of
the problems at issue. He was a mere wirepuller with an
eye to his own advantage-an adept in make-believe and
dissimulation-and his pretension to authority had no real
justification in his commission, though the Curia might be
ready enough to take advantage of any success he might
achieve. Such an intermediary was not likely to make
much impression on a man of Luther's calibre, and Luther
seems to have quickly taken his measure, whilst treating him
with outward respect as the papal representative and sincerely
desirous to reach a feasible understanding. He responded
to his amicable professions and discussed his proposals in a
friendly tone. 45 But he was not deceived by "the Judas
kiss " and " the crocodile tears " of his interviewer. 46
He had been informed by Scheurl in general terms of the
tenor of the documents of which he was the bearer, and
rightly assumed that his professions of goodwill were merely
assumed for his own purposes. .Miltitz had learned on the
way that Luther was so popular a figure that the policy
of violence had no chance of success. 47 Of every five men
44 .The. Elector's declaration on the subject in Walch, xv. 854 f.;
Kalkoff, " Entscheidungsjahre," 99; " Forschungen," 168-169.
46 Enders, i. 348-349.
Cum Carolo amicissime conveni.
46
Ibid., i. 408 ; cf. 43 I
47 Ibid., i. 408.
Sed per viam a Domino prostratus, id est multitudine mihi faventium territus, juxta quod curiosissime ubique de mei
opinione exploraverat,
'
The
Miss~on
of Miltitz
he had spoken to on the subject scarcely two or three favoured

the Roman side of the case. 48 He found the people so fervent
in their support of the new teaching that, as he told Luther,
if he had 25,000 Swiss soldiers he would despair of bringing
them through Germany to Rome. 49 He adapted his tactics
accordingly in the hope of achieving by dissimulation and
blandishment what violence could not effect. 60
In the course of the interview, which took place in
Spalatin's dwelling and lasted two days, Luther, under the
prompting of Feilitzsch and Spalatin, went a considerable
length towards accommodation. On the first day Miltitz
proposed at the outset that he should recant. 61 To this
Luther responded with the old demand that he might be
shown wherein he had erred, 62 and Miltitz was fain to drop
the imperious vituperation of Cajetan and adopt a more
diplomatic method of attaining his object. He proposed
that Luther should refrain from further controversy, should
write a humble letter of submission and apology to the
Pope, should publish a statement of his views for the purpose
of counteracting the misrepresentation of his writings, to
the detriment of the Roman Church, among the people,
and should submit his case to the judgment of a German
bishop. 63 In the course of the discussion Luther justified
his attack on the indulgence system, whieh had given rise
to the proceedings against him, on the ground of the shameful
deception and extortion practised on the people by Tetzel
and the indulgence preachers. For this, not Tetzel, not
the Archbishop. of Maintz, but the Pope himself, whom he
believed to be the m:ere tool of his greedy relatives and
48 Enders, i. 430.
According to Luther's later version of what Miltitz
told hi:QJ. about his discovery, the ratio was three for Luther to one for
the Pope. Preface to the I 545 ed. of his works, " Documente zu Luther's
Entwicklung," I 6.
49 "Tischreden," i. 74; cf. iii. 308.
50
Enders, i. 408. Mutavit violentiam in benevolentiam fallacissime
simulatam.
51 Ibid., i. 408.
Agens mecum multis sane verbis ut pro honore
ecclesire Romanre revocarem mea dicta; cf. ibid., i. 431 and 443.
62 Ibid., i. 408, 431.
.
53 Luther's report of the first day's interview to the Elector.
Walch, xv. 840-842; "Werke," 53, 5-7 (Erlangen ed.).
II o
Luther and the. Reformation
courtiers, was in the first instance responsible, since by his

compliance in allowing the archbishop to hold several Sees
he had caused him to have recourse to this mercenary
traffic to pay for the price of them. It was this swindle,
by which the people were deceived and fleeced, that had
compelled him to denounce the indulgence system and
had not only involved him in controversy, but alienated the
people from the Roman Church. 54 If his opponents had
not raised such a hue and cry over his writings this storm
would not have arisen, and in order to forestall worse consequences he was prepared to refrain from further agitation
if his opponents would undertake to do likewise. He was
ready to submit himself humbly to the Pope and to acknowledge that he had been too hasty and sharp in the heat
of controversy. At the same time, he had no intention of
attacking the Roman Church, but only, as a true son of this
Church, of vindicating it from the contempt and discredit
which the scandalous preaching of the indulgence agents
had brought upon it in the eyes of the people. On this
understanding he was willing to make amends to the Pope
and, farther, to issue an explanatory statement to the
people that what he had written was not to be understood
as derogatory to the Roman Church or subversive of the
obedience and reverence which they owed it. Finally, he
agreed to the suggestion made by Spalatin at the instigation
of Feilitzsch, that the case should be submitted to the
decision of the Archbishop of Salzburg, acting in consort
with unsuspected men of learning, on condition that if he
was not satisfied with this decision, he was to be at liberty
to adhere to his Appellation. His difficulty was that the
Pope would not accept such a tribunal; and in that case
he could not accept the papal judgment. The Pope would
merely write the text-book to which he would supply the
comments and this would only spell failure.
Miltitz was of opinion that the concessions thus made
by Luther would not prove acceptable, though he did not
insist on revocation, and the decision on these four points
was accordingly postponed till the morrow. In reporting
"' Enders, i. 341-343.
The Mission of Miltitz
I I I
the discussion to the Elector, Luther, while assuring him of

his earnest desire to do his utmost to reach a settlement,
made it clear that revocation was for him (,mt of the
question. 55
Pending its renewal on the following day he drafted a
letter of submission to the Pope in accordance with his
promise. In this draft he expresses his sorrow that what
he had intended for the vindication of the Roman Church
has brought upon him the charge of irreverence towards
its head and arou.sed the gravest suspicion in the mind of
the Pope. Miltitz has urged the revocation of his writings,
and if it had been possible he would without delay have
complied. But this was now impossible in view of the fact
that, beyond his expectation and wish, they had attained
so wide a circulation. Moreover, he adds, with an evident
touch of irony, there are so many men of learning and
intelligence in Germany nowadays that if he wished to honour
the Roman Church, the very thing that he ought not to
do was to revoke. For this would only tend to make this
Church more hideous in the sight of men and give occasion
to them to cry out the more against it. Not he, but his
opponents have inflicted injury on the Church and brought
it into evil repute among the Germans by their utterly
absurd declarations in the name of the Pope. These men
have been concerned only to satisfy their most disgraceful
avarice and have thus contaminated the Church with "the
abominable reproach of Egypt" (opprobrio lEgypti). And,
as if these evils were not sufficient, they have inculpated
him at Rome; who has opposed their monstrous doings,
as the author of their own audacity! Nevertheless, he
testifies in the presence of God and all men that it never
was, and is not now his intention to attack in any way the
power of the Roman Church and its head or craftily diminish
it. " Yea, I acknowledge most fully the power of this
Church over all and that nothing is to be esteemed above it
in heaven or earth beyond Jesus Christ, the Lord of all.
Therefore let not your Beatitude give credence to their
5 Aus der Revo<:;ation wirt nichts, Walch, xv. 842; "Werke," 53, 7
(Erl. ed.). See also. von Schubert, "Die Vorgeschichte der Berufung
Luther's auf dem Reichstag zu Worms" (1912).
r 12
. Luther
and the Reformation
evil devices who concoct calumnies concerning Martin."

He will maintain silence if these calumniators are also
enjoined to repress their vain bombast, and he will undertake to instruct and admonish the people sincerely to
reverence the Church and not impute to it the audacious
conduct of his adversaries, nor imitate the excessive acrimony against it into which he has been betrayed in his
conflict with these babblers, in the hope that by God's
grace and his earnest efforts the discord may be lulled to
sleep. One thing only he has sought, and that is, that the
Mother Church of Rome may not be polluted by the
abomination of alien avarice, nor the people 5educed to
error or be taught to esteem love less than indulgences.
All else he accounts of far less importance. If, however,
he can possibly do more he will assuredly be most rea'dy fo
comply. 56
Fearlessly and truly spoken. A few expressions of

humility, but not a word of regret for attacking the evils
which indubitably disgraced the Church and against which
he protests in the strongest terms in the name of religion
and morality. The document was in fact a scathing indictment of the corruption of the Roman Curia and a vindication
of himself rather than an apology. The denunciation of the
curial regime was in truth more pointed than in the prefatory
letter to the "Resolutions." Miltitz felt that it was useless
to serve his purpose of mollifying the Pope and his advisers.
It contains, indeed, a far-reaching acknowledgment of the
papal-Roman primacy, and in this respect is hardly consistent
with the limitation of the papal power and the assertion
of the superiority of a General Council contained in the
Appellation and the Acta Augustana. Nor does it seem
to accord with the belief expressed in the letter to Link
in the previous month that Antichrist was ruling in the
Roman Curia. Luther's dicta in such matters are dep~ndent
on the situation, and it is not surprising that one who was
called on to face a series of crises should have halted at
times betwe,en two opinions. It must be remembered that
he was still feeling his way towards the logical conclusions
56
Enders, i. 443-444.
113
of some of his premises and that it was not the Roman

Church or the Pope as ideally conceived that he had been
engaged in controverting, but the Roman Church and the
papal power as embodied in the actual Curia. To this ideal
Church, as he conceived it, he is still ready to subscribe in
all sincerity. There need be no doubt of the sincerity of
his assurance that he did not desire to attack the Church
thus ideally conceived or dispute the rights which he still
believed it might justly claim. 57 His assumption from the
beginning was that his opponents misrepresented and
a based this ideal for their own mercenary purposes. And
in the draft he certainly does not hide this assumption.
He lets the Pope clearly understand on what terms he
may expect him to acknowledge the superiority of the
Roman Church. Only on condition that he disowns
the other side and the abominations with which he charges
it may he count on his submission.
This condition was, however, what the Pope could not
afford to concede. At the interview on the second day
Miltitz seems, therefore, to have dropped the suggested
letter of apology as impracticable and along with it the
explanatory statement which would likely enough have
been couched in equally inacceptable terms, and to have
limited the agreement to the conditional undertaking to
observe silence and to refer the case to the arbitration
of a German bishop. 58 The draft of the letter was neither
put into final shape by Luther, nor forwarded to Rome by
Miltitz, who himself undertook to write to the Pope an
account of the proceedings. 59
6 7 Pastor, Grisar, and other Roman Catholic writers question his
sincerity. Pastor, " History of the Popes,'' vii. 383-384; Grisar,
" Luther,'' i. 366.
68 See Luther's report of the final agreement on the second day
to the Elector. Walch, xv. 842; De Wette, "Luther's Briefe,'' i. 207;
Brieger, Lutherstudien, " Z.K.G.,'' xv. 204 f.
69 Walch, xv. 842.
Zurn anderen will er, Carol, dem heiligsten
Vater Pabst kurzlich Schreiben aller sachen wie er erfunden gelegenheit.
The date of Luther's letter to the Pope is given by Enders, Walch,
Knaake, and others, as 3rd March 1519. But this is inaccurate, and
the inaccuracy rests on a. later addition to th.e letter, Ex Alden burgo,
3 Martii 1519. Luther was not at Altenburg on the 3r4 March, and as
I I
In this letter he gave his own version of the concessions

which he had extracted from Luther, and led the Pope to
believe that Luther had not only professed sorrow for his
erroJTs and his violence in asserting them, but was prepared
to retract them and refrain from farther propagating them.
He would even have made this retraction to Cajetan had
not the legate adopted a partial attitude in favour of Tetzel. 60
The Pope, it seems, was now only too willing for political
reasons to settle the case on these terms. With the death
of the Emperor Maximilian on the nth January the
question of the election of a successor had entered on a
new phase. The Emperor's agreement with five of the
Electors for the el~ction of his grandson now lapsed, and
the diplomatic campaign began afresh. The Pope was
amdous to prevent the election of either Charles of Spain,
who was also King of Naples, or Francis I., who was master
of Lombardy, though of the two he preferred Francis to
Charles. To aggrandise the power of either was to jeopardise
the temporal power of the Papacy in Italy. In the interest
of this power it was thus imperative to secure the election
of a neutral candidate. For this reason the Pope favoured
the choice of the Elector of Saxony, and to secure the
Elector's support of his policy, he was ready to temporise
on the question of the Lutheran heresy for the time being.
Pending the final decision of this absorbing issue, which
did not take place till the end of June, the Lutheran heresy
was of subordinate importance The Pope was thus fain,
in response to Miltitz's optimistic missive, to cultivate the
Elector by welcoming back to the papal fold the repentant
BriegeF has shown, the draft was written during the visit to. Altenburg
.in the beginning of January, in the interval between the first and the
second day's interview with Miltitz who, finding it unsuitable for his
purpose, dropped the proposal and did not forward the letter to Rome.
In all the older historians the version of what was actually and finally
resolved on at Altenburg is thus inaccurate, and Brieger rendered a great
service to Luther research in bringing out clearly the facts of the case.
so Miltitz's letter, which, he informed the Elector on the 5th Feb.
(Walch, xv. 865), he had written to the Pope, is not extant. But
its tenor is contained in the brief which the Pope wrote to Luther as
the result of Miltitz's communication, and which is given by Enders,
i. 492-493 .

"son of perdition," whom he now addressed as his beloved
son, though he certainly took a considerable time to arrive
at this resolution.
In his brief of the 29th March he
gives thanks to God that He has deigned to enlighten him
and has thus prevented the spread of his pernicious errors
among the people who might have been misled by his teaching, and, not willing the death of a sinner, accepts with
paternal affection his excuses. He invites hill). to appear
and retract in his own presence and assures him that he
may freely and safely undertake the journey to Rome for
this purpose, in the hope that he will prove an obedient
son and will experience the joy of finding in him a gracious
and clement father.61
The letter, which never came into Luther's hands, was
based on a complete misunderstanding, due to Miltitz's
irresponsible and unreliable optimism, of his real position.
The summary retraction which it presupposed, he had
consistently refused to both Cajetan and Miltitz, and even
to the Pope, and he was no nearer this concession at the
end of March than at the beginning of January. During
this interval, in fact, it had become evident that even the
stipulation of observing silence was impracticable. Miltitz
had, indeed, in passing through Leipzig towards the end
of January, administered a harsh reprimand to Tetzel as
the cause of this contention and reported very unfavourably
to the Pope on his private life and his conduct as indulgence
agent. 62 The unfortunate indulgence preacher, as Luther
pointed out, was treated as a convenient scapegoat for the
sins of his superiors and fell into complete discredit. He
dared not, he had written in reply to Miltitz's summons
to appear before him at Altenburg in the beginning of
January, venture out of the monastery at Leipzig for fear
of his life or show himself in the pulpit of the monastery
church without exciting the angry looks of the people. 63
It was left to Luther to say a kind word of his discredited
61
Enders, i. 492-493. Burkhardt (" Luther's Briefwechsel," 23,
1866) wrongly dates the papal brief Nov. 1519. There is no reason to
doubt the authenticity of the document.
62 His letter to the Elector, 22nd Jan.
Walch, xv. 862-863.
63 Letter in Walch, xv. 860-862.
I I
opponent 64 and to show his magnanimity by writing him

a consolatory letter in the midst of the mental misery
(mgritudine animi) .to which he succumbed a. few months
later. " He should not," he wrote, "worry himself about
the matter, since he had not really set the ball a-rolling.
This child had quite another father." 65 He died on the
4th July, the day on which Luther began the debate with
Eck at Leipzig. 66
Miltitz might objurgate the wretched Tetzel. But he
could not prevent the pugnative and fame-loving Eck from
challenging the Wittenberg professor to an academic duel
on the question at issue between them. The challenge was,
indeed, directed to Luther's colleague, Carlstadt. But one
of the theses which he proposed to debate was manifestly
directed against Luther, and Luther was not the man to
observe silence in the face of this provocation of the autho~
of the " Obelisks." He might ignore the " Replica" of
Prierias 67 and contented himself with a written reply to"
Dungersheim, who exchanged letters with him in defence
of the papal power, 68 but he was irritated by what he
regarded as Eck's underhand attack, and early in February
determined, though reluctantly, to enter the arena against
him. 69 In vain, therefore, that the Bishop of Brandenburg,
who paid him a visit at Wittenberg, intervened at the
instigation of the Pope to prevent any further contention.
The bishop expostulated with him to no purpose on :the
rashness and the risk of disturbing the peace of the Church,
and charged him with pride in setting himself up against
ecclesiastical authority. Luther felt, if he did not say;
that in attacking what were grave abuses he was only doing
what it was the duty of the bishops to have done and what,
to their shame, they had neglected. 70
Enders, i. 413.
So Emser wrote in 1521. Paulus," Tetzel," Si.
66 Paulus, "Tetzel," 81-82.
67
Enders, i. 348; cf. 345 and 353
68
Ibid., i. 366-367, 438-44r.
69 Ibid., i. 408-409.; cf. 410, 4rr, 412, 413.
70 Ibid., i. 413.
Fui cum Rev. Dom. Episcopo Brandenburgensi
Wittenberga>., et multis mecum, familiariter tamen, expostularit quod
tanta auderem. lntelligo episcopos nunc tandem sapere, sui fuisse
64
65
117
Meanwhile, pending the arrangement of the place and

date of the debate, he sent forth a popular statement of
his views for the purpose of counteractine; the misrepresenta-'
tion of them by which his opponents were seeking to mislead
the people. This " Instruction to the People " was issued
at the end of February at the instigation of the Elector
and his chaplain and had nothing to do with the discarded
suggestion of Miltitz at the Altenburg interview. 71 Its
purpose was, in fact, to vindicate himself from the aspersions
of his opponents, and in doing so he says very plainly what
he thinks of the Roman. Church and its institutions, whilst
instructing the people in the sense in which they are to be
held in reverence. In this respect he himself virtually
departs from the agreement to let sleeping dogs lie and
seems to have regarded the challenge of Eck as justifying
its non-observance by him. His opponents, he begins, have
sought to mislead the people and render him suspect in
regard to his teaching on the intercession of the saints,
purgatory, good works, the power of the Roman Church, etc.
He will shut the evil mouths of these detractors so that
the people may cease to believe them and learn the facts
from himself. He believes in prayer to the saints, but
protests against the tendency to have recourse to their
intercession for material rather than for spiritual benefits,
and the superstition which invests them with powers that
belong only to God. He believes also in purgatory and in
the duty of seeking by prayer, fasting, and almsgiving to
relieve those suffering in this intermediate state. But we
know nothing definite on the subject and he does not believe
we may or can arbitrarily influence God's jurisdiction over
souls in purgatory by such an artificial expedient as the
purchase of an indulgence on their behalf. An indulgence
is merely the remission of ecclesiastical satisfactions. It is
scilicet officii, quod in me vident prresertim, ideoque non nihil pudere.
Superbum me vocant et audacem, quorum autem neutrum negavi ; sed
non sunt ejusmodi homines qui sciant quid vel Deus vel ipsi simus.
71 Unterricht auff etlich Artickell die im von seinin abgonnern auffgelegt .. "Werke," ii. 69 f.; Enders, i. 446. Brieger has adduced
strong arguments for holding that the document had no connection
with Miltitz's proposal, "Z.K.G.,'' xv. 212 f.
I I
optional and much inferior to good works which are obligatory

on all, and to buy an indulgence ticket and neglect almsgiving
is to deceive God and oneself. The rest can be left to the
learned to dispute about. The ordinances of the Church
are to be observed, but not so as if they were equal to the
commands of God and as if to eat flesh on Friday was as great
a sin as cursing and swearing, or neglecting to help one's poor
neighbour. The formal observance of ecclesiastical regula;..
tions on which the priesthood lays such stress, without
real goodness, is a travesty of religion, and for teaching
this true religion he has been denounced as an enemy
of the Pope and the canon law and worse than a pagan.
One should observe both God's commands and the Church's
ordinances, but at the same time learn to discriminate
between true piety and the mere formalism which makes
an outward show, but is not concerned about the inward
disposition. So in regard to good works, which are of no
avail for salvation unless they spring from God's grace
operating in the heart of man. They are, therefore, the
fruit of a truly religious spirit which consists in humility,
self-condemnation, and dependence on God. Where this
spirit is absent all so-called good works are only bad works.
But so to teach is certainly not to dissuade from good works,
as his adversaries proclaim, but rather to ensure the doing
of what is acceptable and essential in God's sight. The
Roman Church is undoubtedly to be honoured a.bove all
as the Church of Peter and Paul, a long succession of Popes,
and so many thousands of martyrs. Despite the evils
rampant at Rome, it is thus not permissible to separate
from this Church. Separation will not make things better.
The theologians may dispute about the extent of the papal
power and supremacy, but on these things the salvation
of the soul does not depend at all. They are mere externals,
and Christ has founded His Church not on these externals
but on true humility and unity of spirit. As an external
ordinance the Pope's jurisdiction is to be obeyed just as
obedience is to be rendered to the temporal power, even that
of the Turk. 72 He will not deprive the Roman Church of
72
"Werke,"
ii. 73;
cf. Enders, i. 446, 447

this obedience, but the recognition of this right does nC>t
oblige him to accept all the exaggerations of his " dear
friends" who, in attacking him, have raised the cry of
the Papacy in danger, and he will not be intimidated by the
bubbles of these hypocrites. It is none the less evident
that though he regards the papal power as an essential of
the visible Church, he has by this time ceased to see in it
an essential of religion. Even in regard to the external
power of the Pope the doubt whether the Pope is not Antichrist or his apostle is becoming an obsession as the result
of his intensive study of the papal decretals in preparation
for the debate with Eck. "I am looking through the papal
decretals for my disputation at Leipzig," he writes to
Spalatin on the r3th March, " and (I whisper it
your
ear) I am in doubt whether the Pope is Antichrist or his
apostle, so miserably is Christ (that is the truth) corrupted
and crucified by him .in these decretals. I am terribly tormented by the thought that Christ's people is so fooled
under this specious fotm of law in the name of Christianity.
I shall make a copy of my notes on the decretals in order
that you may see what sort of laws they have ordained
in defiance of Scripture in their striving to establish their
bombastic tyranny, not to speak of the other similar works
of Antichrist which the Roman Curia pours forth." 73
73
Enders, i. 450.
CHAPTER V
THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION
l.
BEFORE THE ENCOUNTER
DURING Luther's visit to Augsburg in October 1518, Eck

had, in a personal interview, expressed a desire for a public
disputation with his colleague Carlstadt, who in the previous
May had directed against him a long series of theses in
response to his " Obelisks" against Luther. fo these
Carlstadt had asserted the Lutheran view of penitence,
the supreme authority of Scripture, in and above the Church,
the impotence of the will in the religious sense, the futility
of works apart from grace, etc.1 Eck, of course, retorted
with a counter-series, and in conclusion challenged his
opponent to a public disputation. 2 It was in prosecution
of this challenge that he asked Luther to mediate a meeting
between them. Luther suggested Wittenberg, in place of
Rome or Cologne, which Eck proposed, and finally Eck '"'
'.:was left to choose between Leipzig and Erfurt. To this
preliminary arrangement Carlstadt assented, 3 and ultimately
Eck decided for Leipzig, and in the beginning of December
1518 applied to Duke George of Saxony and the university
authorities for the necessary permission to hold the debate.
Without waiting for this permission he published on the
29th December a series of theses dealing with penance,
purgatory, indulgences, the papal authority to remit sin,
which he proposed to debate with Carlstadt at Leipzig. 4
For the specific issue between him and his opponent-the
1
2
3
Barge, " Karlstadt," i. II8 f.

See " Corpus Catholicorum," i. 81-82.
Enders, i. 268, 280-281; "Werke," ix. 208.
Eck's theses in their original form are given in Luther's "Werke,"
ix. 208-209.
I20
Before the Encounter
I2l
problem of free will and grace-he substituted one on the

superiority of the Roman Church over other Churches and
the supreme power which the Pope as the successor of Peter
and the Vicar of Christ had always possessed. "We deny
the contention that the Roman Church was not superior
to other Churches before the time of Sylvester (beginning
of the fourth century), and, on the contrary, we recognise
that he who possessed the seat and the faith of St Peter
was always (semper) the successor and the Vicar-General
of Christ." This thesis was evidently aimed against Luther's
contentions on the subject in his" Resolutions" 5 and in the
Acta Augustana. The whole series, in fact, which dealt
with the many points raised during the indulgence controversy might be regarded as an attack on Luther's teaching
as championed by Carlstadt. There could, at all events,
be no doubt that the twelfth thesis on the papal supremacy
was deliberately intended to draw Luther into the debate
and thus earn for Eck the glory of combating the great
innovator on behalf of the Pope and the Roman Church.
On receiving the theses Luther at once saw that they were
meant for him rather than for his less distinguished colleague.
Whilst resenting Eck's underhand method of involving
him in a controversy in which he had acted only as mediator
for the purpose of bringing about an amicable discussion
between the parties, Luther decided to accept the challenge
and range himself by the side of his colleague. A public
discussion of these questions was what he had contemplated
from the outset and had repeatedly asked the ecclesiastical
authorities to sanction. On this ground alone he was ready
to meet the Ingolstadt professor and defend his views in,
the presence of an academic assembly. In an open letter
to Carlstadt early in February r5r9 he publicly announced
his determination and roundly denounced Eck as a vainglorious, presumptuous, and double-dealing sophist. 6 In
the same drastic style he made. known his intention in a
letter to Eck himself, reminding him of his considerate
6 In a passage of the "Resolutions," Luther had denied that the
Roman Church in the time of Gregory I. was superior over other Churches.
"Werke," i. 571.
6
Enders, i. 402-405.
r 22
treatment of him in refraining from publishing his

" Asterisks " against him and reproaching him for this
insidious return for his conciliatory efforts as mediator. 7
Before receiving this letter Eck announced that he had
obtained the permission of Duke George and the university
to hold the proposed disputation and had fixed the 27th
June for the meeting. He excused himself for virtually
challenging Luther by saying that as he was the principal
and Carlstadt only the seconder in the dissemination of
these false anc;l erroneous doctrines in Germany, it was only
fitting that he should be present to defend them or to
disprove his counter-theses, to which he had meanwhile
added one on free will and grace with special reference to
his controversy with Carlstadt. He confessed, in fact, that
his theses were drawn up not so much against Carlstadt
as against Luther's perverse teaching, 8 and condescendingly
expressed the hope that he would render obedience to the
Pope and surrender to the truth. as taught by the doctors
of the Church.
In pursuance of his determination Luther had drafted
a dozen theses to which, fbllowing Eck's example, he subsequently added one on free will and grace, and which he
published along with those of Eck and the open letter to
Carlstadt. 9 In the first twelve he maintains his characteristic
views on penitence, the papal and priestly remission of sin,
and indulgences. The last of the series, the thirteenth,
on the papal supremacy contains the crucial issue on which
the debate was to tum. It reflects the deliberate conclusion
to which the long controversy with his opponents, the
interview with Cajetan, the measures of the Curia against
him, and his intensive study of ancient Church history had
driven him. "That the Roman Church is superior to all
other Churches is, indeed, proved by the far-fetched decrees
promulgated by the Roman pontiffs within the last. 400
years. But this ecclesiastical dogma is contrary to the
Enders, v. 6-7, 18th Feb. 1519.
Ibz'd., i. 429.
9 Early in Feb. 1519, under the title " Disputatio et Excusatio
F. Martini Luther adversus Criminationes Joh. EeciU' "Werke,"
ii. 153 f.
7
Before the Encounter
123
approved histories of the previous noo years, the plain

teaching of divine Scripture, and the decree of the Council
of Nicrea, the most sacred of all the Councils." 10 In an
extraordinarily daring preface he gave expression to his
defiance not only of Eck, bvt of all such sophists and
sycophants who, in their exaltation of the papal monarchy,
raise an altar to Baal. He is content to believe that the
Apostolic See neither desires nor is able to do anything to
the detriment of Christ. But he refused to accept the
fictitious daims clamorously adduced for it by its flatterers,
and_in this matter he fears neither the Pope nor those who
invoke his name, far less these scarecrows and puppets
of Rome. "Let them seek to terrify others with their
flatteries and their deifications (per adulationes et consecrationes suas). Martin Luther holds these priests and deifiers
of the Roman cult in contempt." 11
It is not surprising that this daring declaration aroused
the misgivings of his friends as well as exasperated his
enemies. Carlstadt found his thirteenth thesis too sweeping
and irritated his great colleague by his apprehensions.12
Luther even suggested that he was afraid to lose his prebend !
Spalatin urged him to be cautious,13 but Luther, in his appeal
to ancient history, was on surer ground than his nervous
friends divined. His eq,rly religious experience had led him
to the Bible as the supreme guide to a gracious God. The
indulgence controversy, which eventuated in the summary
demand for a revocation, led him to question the right
of the Pope to enforce this demand in virtue of mere external
authority, and compelled him to make an intensive study
of the constitution of the ancient Church as well as the decrees
of the medireval Popes. In so doing he applied the c~tical
spirit and method of the humanists to the study of institutions
as well as doctrines. In this respect he had become a
follower of Erasmus, whose friendship, at the instigation
of Capito, he now sought in a letter full of appreciatio:q.
of his learning and his merits as a reformer. He proclaims
I
10
11
12
13
"Werke," ii. 161.

Ibid., ii. 160.
Enders, ii. 4, 10; Barge, i. 141-142.
Enders, ii. 4.
1 24
himself his disciple and his humble admirer. "Many a

time I talk with you and you with me, 0 Erasmus, our
glory and our hope. . . . For who is there whose inmost
soul Erasmus does not utterly possess, whom Erasmus does
not teach, in whom Erasmus does not reign ? I speak of
those who love literature uprightly. For I greatly rejoice'
that, among other gifts of Christ, this one is numbered, that
you displease many. By this test I am wont to distinguish
the gifts of a gracious God from the gifts of an angry one." 14
He has learned through Capito that his name and his works
are not unknown to him and begs him to recognise a little
brother in Christ as his most devoted admirer, though by
reason of his lack of culture and his obscurity he does not
merit his notice. Erasmus answered in a friendly though .
non-committal vein .. The commotion caused by Luther's.
writings has made itself felt far and wide, has been most .
falsely traced by the insensate theologians to himself as
its inspirer, and has given them a handle to attack him.:
With characteristic caution he tells him that he is entirely
ignorant of his works, which he has not read, with the 8
exception of his Commentary on the Psalms, which he
hopes will prove of great service. He assures him that he
has friends in England and the Netherlands who favour
his cause, whilst warning him against the danger of aggres-
sive agitation and theological controversy and clearly giving
him to understand that he is not minded to become a
theological partisan. The tone is on the whole kindly and
sympathetic up to a point, but reserved and cautious.~ 5
On the other hand, Luther found warm admirers in Capito
and especially in Melanchthon, the brilliant young humanist
whose services he had enlisted as Professor of Greek at
Wittenberg and whose classical knowledge proved of sterling
service to him in his study of ancient sources. Of these
sources the Scripture is the touchstone of truth which the
papal decrees and the sophists of the schools have corrupted.
"The matter," he wrote to Pirkheimer, on the zoth
February, in sending him the open letter to Carlstadt and
the theses on both sides, " veers against their sacred canons,
14
Enders, i. 489.
15
Ibid., ii. 66-68, 3oth May 1519.
.Before the Encounter
125
that is, the profane corruptions of the Holy Scripture, which

I have long desired, but have not willingly dared to force
on their attention. . . . Not that, trusting in my own
strength, I boast of fame before victory, but that I confide
in the mercy of God who is showing His wrath against human
traditions. I will preserve and confess the power of the .
supreme pontiff. But I will not suffer the corruption of
Holy Scripture." 16 The early Fathers stand next in
authority to the Scriptures and it was the study of their
writings as well as the Scriptures that revealed to him the
striking contrast between the constitution of the ancient
Church and that of the medireval Church as reflected in
the papal decretals. It was this contrast that suggested
the doubt whether the Pope was not the very Antichrist.1 7
Nor did he shrink from the implications which this study
was forcing upon him. What gave him strength to stand
firm amid his shrinking colleagues and friends was the
conviction that God Himself was begetting in his mind
these strange al).d startling thoughts and was leading him
in a way not of his choosing. "I know not whence come
these thoughts to me. The thing itself is but at its beginning
in my judgment." 18 "The Lord draws me and not unwilling
I follow." 19 "You know," he wrote in another epistle
to the fearful Spalatin, "that unless Christ had wrought
through me and my works from the beginning, I would
have been utterly lost, especially during my visit to Augsburg.
For who did not either fear this one man (Cajetan) or did
not hope that he would bring destruction upon me? . . .
The truth of Scripture and the Church cannot be handled,
but these hearts must needs be offended. You will, therefore,
not hope for peace or safety for me unless you wish me to
give up theology entirely. Permit, therefore, my friends
to think me mad. This enterprise will not finish (if it be
of God) except, as the disciples did in the case of Christ,
16 Enders, i. 435-436; cf. 349 and his dedication of the Commentary
on the Psalms to the Elector, i. 480 f.
17 Ibid., i. 450; cf. 316.
18 Ibid., i. 316.
Nescio unde veniant istre meditationes; res ista
necdum habet initium suum meo judicio; Letter to Link, I Ith Dec. 1518.
19
Ibid:, i. 436. Letter to Pirkheimer, 2oth Feb. 1519.
26
all my friends forsake me and the truth is left alone, which

saves itself by its own right arm, not by mine, or yours,
or that of any man. This hour I have beheld from the
beginning. . . . In a word, if I perish, the whole world
will not go under. The Wittenbergers by the grace of God
have made such progress that they will not feel the lack of
me. What do you want ? I, miserable man, only fear that
perhaps I am not worthy to suffer and die for such a cause." 20
In this spirit he set himself to prepare for the great
encounter, which was exciting a keen interest not only in
Germany, but in Italy, France, Spain, England, and the.
Netherlands, where his theses were being eagerly read and.'
were finding not a few supporters. 21 So Frobenius wrote to
him from Basle in April. He studied the passages in the,
New Testament adduced in support of the papal claii;ns,
as well as others which are plainly incompatible with these
claims, for the purpose of establishing their historic sense.
For the same end he reviewed the relative passages in the
writings of Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Gregory the Great,
and other ancient Fathers, and the decrees of the early
Councils, especially the Council of Niccea. He then examined
the canon law in its bearing on the later development of the
papal power, especially from the beginning of the twelfth
century onwards, and tested this evidence in the light of
Scripture, the Fathers, the ancient ecclesiastical constitution.
From this evidence he marshalled a formidable array of
arguments against the contentions of the Popes, canonists;
and schoolmen of the last 400 years in favour of the divine
right of the Papacy. The results of this intensive study
he embodied in a work on the papal power which he sent
to the press in the beginning of June, with a view to publication in case he should be debarred from taking part in the
Leipzig debate. 22 Though pugnative in tone, it is comparatively free from the invective against his opponents which
characterises his correspondence during these harassing
months of preparation for the debate, and for which he
21 Ibid., ii. 12.
Enders, ii. 1-2.
Ibid., ii. 70. The work was entitled " Resolutio Lutheriana
Super Propositione XIII. de Potestate Papre." "Werke;" ii. 183 f.
Republished in an enlarged form after the Leipzig disputation.
' 20
22
Before tlie Encounter

excuses himself in the preface on the ground of Eck's
carping and malevolent misinterpretation of his views. 23
He claims the right of free historic inquiry even on the
subject of the papal power. 24 He is ready to recognise
the actual Papacy just as he is ready to acknowledge the
temporal power as de facto established in accordance with
the divine order. But actual (de facto) power does not
necessarily involve power by divine right (de jure divino).
Nor does the mere assumption of divine right prove the
validity of the claim made by the later Popes and their
scholastic champions, or debar him from discussing and
criticising this claim in the light of Scripture and history. 25
He is ready to submit to the papal decrees, but not slavishly
as if they were on a par with God's Word, and certainly
not if they are not in accordance with the Word and can
only be defended by wresting and distorting it in order to
establish the divine right of the medireval Popes. To say
that the Popes have not erred and that they alone truly
interpret Scripture is to fly in the face of history and is
nothing bu~ perverse adulation and sophistic make believe, 26
His opponents call him a heretic, an innovator, and other
opprobrious names. Well, then, go back to Scripture and
ancient history and see whether they do not bear out his
contention that he is not an innovator, but a renovator,
and that not he but they are worthy of the name of heretic.
As a piece of research, apart from its controversial aspect,
the work is a remarkable example of the application of the
critical historic method in the attempt to appraise the
value of dogma and assumption in the light of history.
His critical insight might at times be lacking in penetration;
his historic scholarship not altogether adequate from the
standpoint of later criticism. But he was undoubtedly on
the rigJ:it lines in striving to view the past in its own light
and not through the haze of the later middle age, and thus
to impart the true perspective to the picture he delineates.
He certainly had no little justification for his claim to speak
2s
24
25
~6
"Werke," ii. 183-184.

Ibid., ii. 185. Hujus rei veritatem libere inquirete et disputare.
Ibid., ii. 200-201 ; cf. 186-187.
Ibid., ii. 199, 201.
128
with expert knowledge on a problem which is not so much

a theological as a historic one, even though he holds fro~
the outset a brief on his own side of it. It was, in truth,
a fallacious and futile method, from the historic point of
view, to find the developed medfreval Papacy in the New
Testament, the Fathers, and the records of the ancient
Church, as the ultra-papal party in the schools and their
champion, Eck, professed to do. Very risky, too, the
attempt to do this against an antagonist who had taken
such pains to study the sources 27 and could bring to bear
on the discussion the weight of knowledge, a powerful
and nimble intellect, and a resourceful dialectic.
II.
THE THEOLOGICAL BATTLE OF LEIPZIG
The disputation had been fixed to begin on the z7th

June. 28 But Luther had not been included in the formal
concession granted by Duke George of Saxony and the
University of Leipzig to Carlstadt and Eck, and in spite
of repeated requests the Duke declined to extend to him
this concession. He excused himself by saying that it had
been made only in favour of Carlstadt and Eck and could
not be extended unless Luther could come to a preliminary
arrangement with Eck to this end. 29 To Luther's letter
requesting his compliance 30 Eck paid no attention, and
as the Duke persisted in his stipulation, Luther remained
in uncertainty before his arrival at Leipzig at the end of
June whether he would be allowed to take part in the
encounter. It was only as Carlstadt's supporter that,
along with Melanchthon, Amsdorf and others of his col27 "Werke," ii. 227.
Ex his indiciis volui nasuto lectori satisfactum
ut me non sine causa sic posuisse cognosceret nee ignorantia, sed de
industria sic locutum fuisse, simul, ut insidiosre et adulatorire proposi
tioni Eccii per omnia par referrem.
28 Enders, i. 429.
29 See the Duke's replies to Luther's letters, Gess, " Akten und Briefe
zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen," i. 73 f. (1905); Enders,
i. 445-446; ii. 27' 59.
30
Enders, v. 7-8, 5th April 1519.
The Theological Battle of Leipzig
29
leagues, Duke Barnim of Pomerania, Rector of the

University, and a guard of zoo students, he entered Leipzig
on the 24th of June.
.
On the day of their arrival the Bishop of Merseburg
attempted to bring about a deadlock by affixing to the
door Of the churches a mandate inhibiting the disputation
in virtue of the papal declaration of the gth November
r5r8. 31 To his credit the Duke vindicated against the
bishop the right of free discussion 32 and the Town Council
imprisoned the bishop's emissary. 33 Though a confirmed
votary of use and wont in religion, he was not indifferent to
its practical evils, more especially to the devices of the
Curia for filching the money of his subjects to Rome. He
could deal very drastically with clerical opposition to his
will and had browbeaten the Theological Faculty into
compliance with the proposed disputation, which the
Faculty at first opposed and which he hoped would raise
the prestige of the university. He was not by any means
predisposed in favour of Luther, to whom the stigma of
heresy was attached, and he was ultimately to become
his uncompromising antagonist. But he treated him with
considerate courtesy, inviting him three times to his table,
discussing with him his recent exposition of the Lord's
Prayer in the vernacular, 34 and reminding him of the danger
of the Bohemian heresy.~ 6 Luther divined in this reminder
the influence of his secretary Emser, who, in contrast to
Spalatin, in the case of his cousin the Elector, was playing,
.he suspected,, the part of his detractor, whilst wearing the
mask of friendship. " I was not so stupid," wrote Luther
in reference to this interview, "that I did not distinguish
between the flute and him that played it." 36 Emser
himself, however, seems to have made. no secret of his
dubiety about Luther's views, and in an interview besought
him for God's sake to beware of casting a stumbling-block
among the people. " This matter," retorted Luther, with
a thrust at Eck's, motive in drawing him into the debate,
31
32
83
34
Gess, " Akten und Briefe," i. SS-90; Enders, ii. Sx.

Walch, xv. 1432 f.
8.6 Enders, ii. 85.
Enders, ii. SI.
36 Ibi'd., ii. 85.
"Werke," ii. So f.
3o
"has not been started for God's sake and will not be interrupted for this reason." 3 7 In spite of this adverse influence
behind the scenes, Luther warmly acknowledged the Duke's
hospitality and his evident striving to vindicate liberty
of discussion in the pursuit of truth. 38 He praises, too, the
impartiality of the civic authorities and the more notable
citizens. Even within the university he found sympathisers
in Mosellanus, the Professor of Greek, Auerbach, Professor
of Medicine, and the jurist Pistorius. 39 The Leipzig theologians, on the other hand, reserved their hospitality and
their generosity for Eck, whom they feasted and lionised as
the champion of the scholastic theology, 40 and who understood how to create an atmosphere in his favour and multiply
his partisans.
The theological tournament had attracted a large gathering from far and near which filled the hall of the ducal
castle to overflowing on the afternoon of the 27th June
when Eck and Carlstadt led off on the subject of free will
and grace. Mosellanus had closed the opening religious
ceremonies in the forenoon by a long harangue on the art
of disputing in matters theological.41 More interesting to
the modern reader are the word pictures of the three disputants, which he delineated in a letter to Justin von
Pflug. Luther; he tells him, is of medium height and
emaciated by care and hard study. One can almost count
the bones through the skin. Nevertheless; he makes a
manly and vigorous impression and his voice is clear and
loud. He is a dungeon of learning and his knowledge of
the Scriptures is so extraordinary that he c,:an quote them
with the utmost readiness. He knows Greek and Hebrew
sufficiently to test the interpretation of any passage. He
has a marvellous gift of expression as well as a wealth of
matter. In manner he is courteous and friendly all,d there
is nothing of the misanthrope or the Stoic about him. He
37
Enders, " Luther and Emser," ii. 5; cf. 12, 32 (1890). See also
Thumhofer, " Corpus Catholicorum," iv. 1314
38
40 Ibid., ii. 85.
Ibid., ii. 105-106.
89 Ibid., ii. 85, 105.
41
De ratione disputandi, prresertim in re theologica. Wiedemann,
"Dr Johann Eck,'' 98-99. The original Latin in Loscher, iii. 567 f.
German trans~ in Walch, xv. 999 f.
131
can adapt himself to circumstances. In company he is

agreeable, jocose, vivacious, always joyous, and bright and
confident, however much his adversary may press him,
so that one can hardly believe that-he does not undertake
such high matters without the divine assistance. He has
only one fault, which nearly all disapprove. He is apt to
be more aggressive and biting in discussion than becomes
one who has started something new in theology, or the
character of a theologian. Melanchthon's estimate of Luther
on this occasion was equally favourable. "I admire the
vivacious genius, the learning, and eloquence of Martin,
known to me from a lengthy familiar intercourse, and
whose pious and sincere Christian mind I cannot overestimate." 42
Mosellanus attributes to Carlstadt Luther's qualities in a

lesser degree. Only he is of smaller stature. His face is dark
brown and sunburnt, his voice weak and disagreeable, his
memory less tenacious, and his temper choleric. On
Mosellanus, who is frankly pro-Lutheran and by his account
of the disputation contributed to win for him the goodwill of
his fellow-humanists, Eck, on the other hand, made an unfavourable impression. In contrast to his two opponents
he is of large stature, big limbed, broad chested, with a
voice like a town crier, harsh rather than distinct. His
face, eyes, and features are those of a butcher or a mercenary
soldier rather than a theologian. His memory is prodigious,
and if his intellect were equally remarkable Nature would
have created in him a masterpiece. Unfortunately, he is
lacking in acuteness and penetration of judgment. He can
heap up a mass of arguments and quotations from the
Scriptures and other writings, but without order or point
or relevancy, and knows how to impress with this imposing
show those who cannot judge for themselves. He is
dexterous in evading embarrassing arguments by changing
the subject or adopting his opponent's position, or trickily
attributing to him the very opposite of what he has asserted. 43
As a humanist, Mosellanus was perhaps prejudiced against
Eck as the representative of the old scholastic culture,
42
"
Opera Corpus Ref.," i. 96.
43
Walch, xv.
1422-1424.
r 32
for which he had forsaken his earlier humanist learning.

He repelled by his overbearing, blustering manner, his
provoking self-assurance, his vainglorious hankering after
notoriety, his artful dialectic which was mm;e concerned
with scoring points against an adversary than establishing
the truth. 44 He hardly does justice to his ability and his
learning, which included the ancient languages and the
Fathers as well as the medireval philosophy and theology,
though he conveys the impression that in a contest for
victory rather than for truth he was a resourceful antagonist.
In spite of his self-seeking, he appears, too, to have been
genuinely in earnest in defending the traditional standpoint
against his opponent. His moral character seems to have
been rather vulnerable, to judge from a remark in one of
his letters, in which he relates his experience at Leipzig. 45
The fir:st four days' debate with Carlstadt on free will
and grace gave him a chance of displaying his characteristic
gifts in debate. The Wittenberg theologian had fortified
himself at the outset with a pile of books and papers from
which he laboriously supported his contentions on the
impotence of the will and its absolute dependence on
grace. This might appear to Luther as well as Mosellanus
the surest method of demonstrating the truth. 46 But it
was hardly fitted to interest or enthuse the audience and,
from this point of view, Eck decidedly shone by the ease
with which he could quote his authorities from memory
and the volubility with which he could overwhelm his
embarrassed antagonist and hold the attention of his hearers.
On the second day he prevailed in his demand that Carlstadt
should be debarred the assistance of his books and papers
and should respond directly to his arguments. Bereft of
this support, his lack of memory and readiness in retort
exposed him to the sarcasms of his opponent, and the
efforts of his friends to prompt him certainly did not increase
u That he has on the whole correctly estimated Eck in these respects
appears from the overbearing, self-assertive tone of Eck in his communications relative to the disputation. This impression was also
that of Luther himself. See Stracke, " Luther's Grosses Selbstzeugnis,"
83-84.
45 Walch, xv. 1461..
48 Enders, ii. 82-83; cf. ii. 107.
The The6logical Battle of Leipzig
33
his prestige with his audience. "Truly an unequal pair,"

remarks Mosellanus. Despite his hesitations and his diffidence, he succeeded, h6wever, in improving his position in
the course of the second two days (rst and 3rd July).
Though Eck appeared the more skilful debater, the question
at issue bristled with difficulties and the difficulties were
not all on one side. Whilst Carlstadt maintained the
complete impotence of the will to the good, even in the
extreme sense that apart from grace good works are
only sins, Eck contended that it possesses by nature a
certain power to work the good. From the rational point of
view the contention was certainly the more forcible, and
he could adduce strong arguments from Scripture as well
as common sense in its support. At the same time, he was
hard put to it to maintain his thesis from the religious
and theological point of view and was fain to change his
ground under Carlstadt's searching cross-examination. He
admitted that whilst the will is king of the soul in comparison
with its lower powers, it is, in comparison with grace and
God, only a slave and a servant. 47 Carlstadt at last seized
his opportunity. He claimed this concession as an admission
of the truth of his main position and forced Eck to have
recourse to subtle word-splitting in order to reconcile the
contradiction. He quibbled over the distinction between
totum and totaliter, for instance; 48 In Melanchthon's judgment this scholastic word-splitting was sheer sophistry,
and on the whole he was disposed to agree with Luther that
Carlstadt had made good his thesis against this kind of
quibbling, which he regarded as largely a waste of time
and of precious little practical value. 49
Far more fateful was the encounter with Luther, which
began on the 4th July and lasted till the r4th. With
47
" Der authentische text der Leipziger Disputation," 25, ed. by
Seitz (1903).
48
Seitz, 36 f.
49
"Opera," i. 92; Walch, xv. 1446-1447. Strohl awards far too
emphatically the victory to Eck: Eck avait incontestablement l'avantage.
" Epanouissement de la Pensee Religieuse de Luther," 276 (1924).
Hausrath is equally one-sided, i. l 55 f; Barge is more discriminating.
" Karlstadt," i. 297-298.
r 34
Luther's appearance on the rostrum the discussion was

lifted out of the purely metaphysical and scholastic sphere
into the more concrete one of ecclesiastical government
and authority. Eck had the advantage of championiri~
established beliefs and institutions against one whose teaching was startlingly revolutionary and who, in challenging,
the existing ecclesiastical system, had set out on what
seemed a forlorn hope, though he was not fully conscious of
the extent of his divergence from this system. On a
question like free will and grace the scholastic theologians
might dispute without much risk of incurring the charge
of heresy or of collision with ecclesiastical authority as
long as .they professed unquestioning obedience to this
authority.. It was far more daring and dangerous to
challenge the principle of authority itseH as embodied in
the Papacy and the medireval Church. To question this
principle was equivalent to setting oneself against the
divine order, proclaiming oneself an apostate from the
Catholic faith. In so doing Luther seemed to be taking
his life and his salvation in his hands, judged by the standard
of current belief. Thus to stand up to the ecclesiastical
convention of centuries might well seem a desperate enterprise to his auditors as well as to his self-assured antagonist,
who had besides the force of established order and belief
behind him.
Eck began by asserting the divine right and institution
of the papal monarchy on the ground that the Church
constitutes one body under one head. 60 Luther quietly
replied that the argument did ;not concern him. He, too,
believed in a universal head of the Church. li1 Eck then
claimed that the headship of this monarchy was invested
by Christ in the Pope as the successor of Peter in proof
of the divine right of the Papacy, and quoted Cyprian and
Jerome. in support of his contention. 52 The head of the
Church on earth, retorted Luther, is not man, but Christ.
Witness numerous passages of the New Testament 53 which
60
6
62
68
" Werke,'.l
"Werke,"
"Werke,"
"Werke,"
ii. 255;
ii. 256;
ii. 256;
ii. 257 ;.
Seitz, 56-57.
Seitz, 57.
Seitz, 58.
Seitz, 58-59.
35
plainly disprove the assumption of his antagonist, whose

quotations from Cyprian and Jerome, which he misinterprets,
are not to the point. Both regard all bishops as successors
of the Apostles and, as Jerome points out, there is no distinction in the New Testament between bishop and presbyter.
Each community was governed by its presbyters or bishops
in common. The mother of all Churches may be said to
have been Jerusalem, not Rome, and to it the Council of
Nicrea accorded a primacy, whilst recognising the equality
of the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch with the Bishop
of Rome. At most Rome was regarded by the Western
Fathers as the principal Church of the West and as such
was honoured by them. But in the early centuries there
was no such thing as a primacy by divine right vested in
the Roman bishop, or a universal bishop, as is evident
from the decrees of the Council of Nicrea and the African
Council of 397, as well as the letters of Cyprian, which
clearly prove the equality of bishops in the ancient Church.
The Greeks have never recognised the Roman primacy to
this day. 54
Eck appealed to St Bernard in support of the necessity
of an earthly head of the Church and controverted Luther's
interpretation of the passages from Scripture, Cyprian, and
Jerome in favour of his view of the Roman primacy by
divine right. 55 The Roman Church, being founded on the
rock against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, as
they have prevailed in the case of those of Jerusalem,
Antioch, Alexandria, which were contaminated by heresy,
has preserved the truth uncorrupted. 56 As Christ is the
head of the Church triumphant, so the Pope, as His vicar
and the successor of Peter, is the head of the Church militant.
In virtue of this fact the Papacy exists by divine, not by
human right. It is vain, therefore, to adduce the case
of the Greek Church as a proof of the contrary. In
departing from the Roman Church the Greeks have made
themselves exiles from the Christian faith. 57 Moreover,
64
66
66
67
"Werke," ii. 258-259; cf. 285; Seitz, 60-61; cf. 95.

"Werke," ii. 260; Seitz, 63.
" Werke,'' ii. 262; Seitz, 65.
"Werke,'' ii. 262; Seitz, 65.
36
though the ancient Church rejected the title of universal

bishop, this does not preclude the fact that the Pope was
recognised as bishop of the universal Cht;1.rch. 58
Against arguments in support of the divine' right of the
Papacy derived from St Bernard or even the Fathers, Luther
adduced the supreme authority of Scripture. " The word
of God is above all words of man. . . . I venerate St Bernard
and do not condemn his opinion. But in this discussion
the genuine and specific sense of Scripture is to be accepted
and to decide the is.sue." 59 From the Scripture it is evident
that the Apostles were all equal and that Peter had no
power over the others. He was, indeed, the first in the ranks
of the Apostles, and to him, therefore, is owing a prerogative
of honour, though not of power. This prerogative he is
willing to grant to the Roman pontiff, always reserving the
equal power of each. 60 But, contended Eck;, does not
Scripture explicitly teach that Christ founded His Church
on Peter as the rock (Matt. xvi. I8) ? The brunt of the
battle then ~entred on the interpretation of this 9rucial
passage. According to Eck, Christ in this passage constituted Peter monarch of the Church by divine right and
conferred this power on his successors. The Roman primacy
thus divinely constituted is essential to the unity 0 the
Church and was instituted to this end. 61 In support of this
interpretation he adduced the opinions of Jerome, Ambrose,
Augustine against his antagonist, who suggested that the
rock meant Christ Himself, or the common faith which
Peter'confessed, and maintained .that in any case, whatever
" Werke," ii. 263-264; Seitz, 67.
Sed in contentione accipiendus
est sensus genuinus et ptoprius scripturre, qui stare in acie possit.
60 "Werke," ii. 265; Seitz, 69.
Hoe sane fateor apostolum Petrum
fuisse primum in numero apostolorum et ei deberi honoris prrerogativam,
sed non potestatis. Equaliter electi sunt et requalem potestatem
acceperant. Ita et de Romano pontifice sentio quod honoris prrerogativa
ceteris debeat anteferri, salva cuiusque requali potestate.
61 "Werke," ii. 274; Seitz, 80. Venio ad principale, quod petit,
probaturus primatum ecclesire Romahre esse de jure et constitutione
Christi ita quod Petrus fuerit monarcha ecclesire a Christo institutus
cum suis successoribus . . . probo per illa verba Christi (Matt. xvi.)
Tu es Petrus, etc.
58
69
37
the interpretation of the word " :rock," the word " Church "
did not refer to the Roman Church, but to the Church
generally. 62 In reply Luther claimed the bulk of patristic
exegesis in support of his view. It did not occur to him
to ask whether in view of the absence of the words, " On
this rock I will build my Church," from the other synoptic
Gospels, it was not a later interpolation on behalf of a
Petrine supremacy in the early Church. This would have
been too daring an anticipation of modern criticism. He
was on surer ground when, leaving aside the various interpretations of the Fathers, he claimed that Eck's exegesis
was incompatible with the characteristic testimony of the
New Testament that Christ is both the foundation and
the head of the Church. Even if Augustine or any other
late Father interpreted the text in certain passages in the
Eckian sense, their authority is inferior to that of Paul
and Peter himself, who explicitly taught that Christ is the
foundation on which the Church is built (r Cor. iii. I I ;
r Peter ii. 4 f.). 63 Moreover, it is historically certain that
the Eastern Church did not recognise the papal primacy,
that it existed before that of Rome was founded, and that
its bishops down to the present day have not accepted
confirmation from Rome. Are then the Greeks, who for
r400 years h:;i.ve produced so many saints and martyrs,
to be regarded as outside the Church? Was Gregory of
Nazianzus, for instance, a heretic, a schismatic, a
Bohemian ? 64
This was indeed a poser? Eck, who had at first roundly
pronounced the Greek Church to be heretical and schismatic, 65
was fain to admit that it had produced many saints and
martyrs in spite of heresy and schism. 66 From this slippery
ground he adroitly sought to remove himself and at the
same time embarrass and discredit his antagonist by shifting
the debate to the Hussite heresy. In denying the papal
primacy by divine right Luther, he contended, was defend"Werke," ii.
"Werke," ii.
u "Werke," ii.
65 " Werke," ii.
66 "Werke," ii.
6.2
63
272; Seitz, 78.

277-278; Seitz, 85.
276; seitz, 83.
269; Seitz, 74.
280; Seitz, 89.
38
ing the damnable and pestiferous errors of Marsiglia of

Padua, Wiclif, Hus, which had been condemned by the
Church. He was, therefore, a patron of the Bohemians
who were reportedJo be jubilant over their new champion. 67
It was an artful move, for the University of Leipzig owed its
foundation to the racial and religious conflict between
Czech and German, which had eventuated on the secession
of the German teachers and students from Prague to
Leipzig in 1409. The anti-Hussite spirit was particulaxly
keen in ducal Saxony, and Eck's insinuation was an evident
appeal to the prejudice of his audience. It was besides
entirely irrelevant to the question of the Greek Church
which Eck failed to face squarely in his desire to score a
debating point against his opponent. Luther at once disclaimed any sympathy with the Bohemian or any other
schism. 68 He strove to hold Eck to the question of the
Greek Church, and at the end of the sitting begged th;at
he would refrain from further imputing to him the contumely
of favouring the Hussites. 69
On resuming the discussion in the afternoon, however
(5th July), he himself reverted to the subject and boldly
asserted that among the articles of Hus, which have been
unjustly condemned by the Pope's flatterers,. were many
which were most Christian and evangelical. The admission
fell like a thunderbolt among the audience. According to
Froschel, who was present, Duke George swore audibly.
"The plague take the fellow." 70 Luther nevertheless
persisted in substantiating his contention. " For instance,
the article that it is not necessary to salvation to believe
that the Roman Church is superior to other Churches: I
care not whether this is asserted by Wiclif or Hus. I know
that Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzus, Epiphanius of
C~prus, and innumerable other Greek bishops have been
saved and nevertheless did not hold this article. It is not
in the power of the Roman pontiff or the Inquisitor of
heresy to establish new articles of faith, but only to judge
67
68
69
70
"Werke," ii. 275; Seitz, 81-82.

Walch, xv. 1430.' Das walt die sucht.
39
according to those established. Nor . can any believing

Christian be compelled to believe whatever is beyond
Scripture, which alone is of divine authority, unless there
may hav~ supervened a new an,d proved revelation. Yea,
we are debarred by divine authority from believing anything unless it is proved either by Scripture or a manifest
revelation, as Gerson more recently asserted in many
passages, and Augustine anciently laid down as a specific
canon . . . . Even the canonists declare that the opinion
of a single private person is more valid than that of Pope or
Council if it is supported by a better authority or reason." 71
He was prepared to acknowledge the Roman supremacy
from a feeling of reverence and for the sake of a voiding
schism. But he was not prepared on the pretext of divine
right to condemn the holy men who had disputed it. 72
In reply Eck charged him with defending the perfidy of
the here.ties under the guise of the sanctity of some of the
Greek Fathers, 73 and persisted, in spite of Luther's repeated
protests against the wilful misrepresentation of his views,
in calling him a patron of the Hussites. Still worse, he
has had the effrontery to champion certain of the tenets
of Wiclif and Hus against the holy and praiseworthy Council
of Constance, convened by the consent of the whole of
Christendom. 74 In so doing he had not only championed the
Hussites; he had given them reason for saying that, if
the Council had erred in regard to the articles in question,
it could err in regard to others, and, therefore, its authority
would necessarily become suspect even within the Church.
Eck will not waste words over the question as .to what
a Christian may be compelled or permitted to believe.
But it is an axiomatic truth that an opinion, on which a
Council or the Pope has authoritatively pronounced, cannot
be defended without suspicion of heresy which might otherwise. be defended without injury to the faith. 75 In response
Luther reproached his antagonist with a breach of the
preliminary agreement by which both had bound themselves
11
72
73

" Werke," ii. 280; Seitz, 89.
74
76

"Werke," ii. 284; Seitz, 93
r 40
to refrain from using such contumelious terms as "heretic"

and to refer the question of heresy to authoritative judges
at the conclusion of the disputation. He, therefore, called
the attention of Duke George to the fact that his opponent
had violated the public faith and demanded that he should.
specify the pestilential articles of Hus that he had
called most Christian or retract his accusation. He proceeded to adduce a number of tenets attributed to Hus
which were held not only by him, but by Augustine and
Lombardus, and even by Eck himself. The charge of
Bohemian heresy was, therefore, equally applicable to his
opponent. Out of reverence for the Council of Constance,
he would rather believe that the condemnation of these
and similar articles had been interpolated into its records
by some impostor. Moreover, the Council had declared
only some of the articles to be heretical. Others it had
merely pronounced to be erroneous, or rash, or offensive to
pious ears. Such charges had been made against Christ
Himself. The accusations against himself are, therefore,
baseless and merely show Eck's rashness and presumption.
In support of his contention that if error is ascribed to a
Council its authority is endangered, Eck had quoted
Augustine. But, retorted Luther, Augustine was referring
to the Scripture, which is infall1ble, not to a Council which
is but the creature of the word, and in applying this
reasoning to the case of a Council he has done an injury
to the Scriptures, since it is admitted even by the canonists
that a Council 'may err. Pope and Council are men and
are, therefore, not exe;mpt from the apostolic command to .
prove all things and hold fast to that which is good. 76 Here
again Luther was treading on dangerous ground, and at
the beginning of the following sitting Duke George's
chancellor, Pflug, intervened with a caveat not only against
mutual recrimination, but against the rash handling of
such themes as the Church and its Councils. 77 Eck was.,
76
"Werke," ii. 287-289; Seitz, 98-100. Solutionem meam confirmo
auctoritate Pauli ad Thess. (v. 21), omnia probate, quod bonum est
tenete. Rom. Pontifex ef concilia sunt homines, ergo probandi sunt et
sic tenendi ; nee eximendi ab hac regula apostolica.
77 Seitz, 102.
4r
however, not minded to forego his advantage in luring

Luther into this dangerous byway. He maintained as an
infallible dogma that whatever a Council, legitimately convened, determines and defines in matters of faith is to be
received as absolutely certain. It was rankly abominable
to ~ay that because a Council is composed of men it is liable
to err, since, if legitimately convened, it is ruled not by
men, but by the aivine spirit. 78
He was proceeding at the following sitting (7th July) to
enlarge on the subject of the Council and the pestilential
Hussite heresy for the purpose of discrediting his opponent
in the eyes of his hearers, who did not understand Latin
and were being misled by all kinds of sinister rumours to
Luther's detriment. In order to counteract the rising
prejudice against him thus artfully fostered, Luther interrupted to ask leave to explain his position in German.
He had, he said, _heard more than enough of this odious
insinuation of complicity with the heretical views of the
Hussites, in spite of his repeated disclaimers. He had no
desire to impugn the existing Roman primacy or dissuade
from obedience to the Roman Church .. What he maintained
was that this primacy was not by divine right. But this
did not imply any lack of allegiance on his part to the
de facto Papacy. The imperial power in Germany was
likewise without divine warrant. Nevertheless obedience
to this power was not to be infringed because it was not
founded in Scripture, and for the same reason he implicitly
recognised the duty of obedience to the Papacy. 79 He so
far receded as to agree that the decrees of a Council are
generally to be received, but with this r~servation, that a
Council has sometimes erred and is. liable to err, especially
in matters not of faith. He again categorically denied that
it has. authority to establish new dogmas. Otherwise there
would be as many articles of faith as there are human
opinions. 80 This conviction he will continue to hold until
Eck has proved that a Council cannot err or has not erred.
To do this he would require to ascribe divine right to a
78
79
so
"Werke," ii. 296; Seitz, 109-uo.

"Werke," ii. 298-299; Seitz, 113.
"Werke)" ii. 303; Seitz, 119.
r 42
Council which by its very nature it cannot possess. No

opinion can be heretical which is not against divine right.
It was now Eck's tum to be driven into a tight comer.
All he could do was to give himself an air of infallible sapience,
and to evade Luther's demand with a mere dogmatic
generalisation. "The reverend father asks me to prove
that a Council cannot err. I know not what he means by
this demand unless he desires to cast suspicion on the
laudable and glorious Council of Constance. But this I
say to you, that, if you believe that a Council lawfully
assembled has erred or errs, you are to me a heathen and
a publican." 81
From. the 9th to the r4th July the disputants discussed purgatory, indulgences, penance, absolution. 82 Luther
professed belief in purgatory, but contended that it could
not be proved from Scripture and refused to allow the .
evidence of the Second Book of Maccabees, which Eck
cited and which was not included in the canon. 83 On the
subject of indulgences Eck was much more accommodating.
He was not concerned to defend the indulgence preachers
or the abuse of the traffic. Nor did he regard indulgences
a:s necessary or obligatory, though he accepted the institu.tion as an ecclesiastical ordinance, defended the papal power
_of remission in virtue of true contrition, and contended that
it Was not limited merely to the remission of penitential
works. 84 He went a long way, in fact, towards justifying
Ltither's attack on the system and his contention that indulgences are good if one does not confide in them for salvation.
" On the subject of indulgences," wrote Luther to Spalatin;
"we were almost in agreement. If this doctrine had been
preached by the indulgence sellers, the name of Martin
would to-day have been unknown and the indulgence
commissaries would have died of hunger if the people had
been taught not to rely on this wretched system." 85 There
was again sharp difference of opinion on the interpretation
81
82
83
84
86
"Werke,"
"Werke,"
"Werke,"
"Werke,"
Enders, ii.
ii. 311; Seitz, 129.

ii. 322 f. ; Seitz, 143 f.
ii. 323; Seitz, 144.
ii. 349 f.; Seitz, 177; cf. 182.
11 I.
, 143
of Scripture texts bearing on penance and absolution, and

Luther at last, on the r4th July, gave vent to his impatience of what he deemed the quibbling exegesis of his
opponent in a parting characteristic outburst. "The
learned doctor, I grieve to say, penetrates the Scriptures as
profoundly as a water spider does the water, yea he flees
from the face of them as the devil flees from the Cross.
With all reverence for the Fathers, I prefer the authority
of the Scriptures and commend them to the future judges
of this debate." 86 "The impatient monk," retorted Eck
as a parting shot, "is more scurrilous than becomes the
gravity of a theologian. He prefers the authority of Scripture to the Fathers and sets himself up as a second Delphic
oracle who alone has an understanding of the Scriptures
superior to that of any Father." 87
Carlstadt and he thereafter began a final bout on free
will and grace which ended on the following day, the
r5th July.
Both disputants had displayed no little erudition and
debating power. Eck had, perhaps, a more intimate
knowledge of canon law and could cite the ancient Fathers
and the scholastic theologians with the greatest ease.
Luther himself acknowledged his culture and erudition,
whilst disputing his claim to a sound knowledge of the
Scriptures. 88 Luther's knowledge of the Fathers was at
least equal fo his, arid his method of interpreting them was
more in accordance with historic fact. He wa:s superior in
his profound knowledge of the Scriptures, and Eck, whilst
depreciating the debating power of Carlstadt, was fain to
pay a tribute to that of his greater colleague. 89 The
debate suffered, in fact, from the excess of learning shown
on both sides and the wearisome repetition of arguments
88 Enders, ii. 107.
Nam etsi in literis humanis et opinionibus
scholasticis varie et copiose eruditus, tamen sacrarum literarum ego
inanem inveni disputatorem; cf. Melanchthon, " Opera," i. 96;
. Creterum apud nos magnre admirationi plerisque fuit Ekius ob varias
et insignes ingenii dotes.
89 Qui vegetior sit memoria, ingenii acumine et eruditione, quoted

by Wiedemann, "Eck," 134.
86
8?
44
and counter-arguments based on the endless citation of

passages from the Scripture and the Fathers. Little wonder
that the Leipzig theologians went to sleep over this prolonged
iteration of citations and arguments, and had to be wakened
up at meal times. " They listened so intently," sarcastically
remarks Froschel, "and the debate tasted so sweetly that
they had to be roused out of their sleep at the conclusion
of each sitting in order not to miss their dinner." 90 The
excitement and keenness of the opening days were continued
mainly in the lively discussions in the taverns of the city.
The popular interest was kept alive by the seti;non in which
Luther expounded his characteristic religious views to a
. large audience at the instigation of Duke Bamim of
Pomerania, the Wittenberg Rector, and the counter-sermons
in which Eck carried the contentions of the rostrum to the
pulpit. 91
Whilst Eck claimed the victory, Luther was by no means
satisfied with the course of the debate. Eck had irrelevantly,
if cleverly, managed to bring in side issues (Hussitism and the
Council of Constance) which Luther rightly resented as
beside the point and meant merely to increase his own
reputation and discredit him with the audience, rather
than to establish the truth on its merits. Moreover, Luther
felt that he was struggling against convention in an atmosphere of suspicion and prejudice in his effort to vindicate.
the new truths to which his personal religious experience
and his study of the Scriptures and the Fathers in the
light of this experience had led him. Male disputatum est,
he wrote to Spalatin. 92 " No wonder," he added, " that it
began badly and finished-worse." 93 Nevertheless, though
he had felt the strain and the difficulty of breasting the
fortification of the medireval Papacy in which his antagonist
entrenched himself, he was unshaken in his conviction
that on the main issue the weight of Scripture and early
Church history was on his side. He left to Eck and his
Walch, xv. 1430.
Enders, ii. 8 5-86.
92 Ibid., ii. 85;
cf. u7. Hae disputatione magis tempus est
perditum quam veritas qmesita.
93 Ibid., ii. 86.
90
91
145
patrons the temporary satisfaction of glorying in victory. 94

From the standpoint of actual institutions and beliefs he
might seem an opinionated visionary! who stood alone and
single-handed against the divine order in its medireval form
with nothing but the Bible and the testimony of a remote
past to appeal to. In the course of the debate he had
startled his hearers by denying the divine right' of the
Papacy, ascribing to the Scriptures the supreme authbrity
in the sphere of religion, questioning the condemnation Of
Hus, and refusing to acknowledge the inerrancy of a
General Council. The debate under the artful manipulation of his opponent had carried him further on the way
of both affirmation and negation than he had reckoned on
going. The glory of the defence might seem greater than
that of the attack. But the attack had this advantage,
that it had contributed to make clear the way to a fuller
understanding of his own position. In this respect it was
to prove a fatal blow to the medireval Papacy. Eck's
boastful assumption of victory was certainly premature.
, Though clever and resourceful in debate, he only scored by
means of the dogmatic interpretation of Scripture and
history. Luther followed the more scientific method of
interpreting both in the light of their own evidence and
not of mere dogma, though he also had his dogmatic prepossessions and did not at times hit on the correct historical
interpretation. At the same time, he justly contended that
the books of the New Testament, if rightly used, are the
really normative sources for the constitution and doctrines
of the early Church. Merely as an appeal to the sources,
his insistence on the supreme authority of. Scripture as
the arbiter of early Christian faith and institutions was
indefeasible. Equally convincing was his contention that
there was nothing like the medireval Roman Papacy in the
New Testament Church or for hundreds of years afterwards.
Similarly he was not only perfectly honest in his repudiation
of the Hussite heresy, though he might be nearer it than
he suspected. He was nearer the truth than his opponent
94 Enders, ii. 85.
Interim tamen ille placet, triumphat, et regnat,
sed donec ediderimus nos nostra.
10
46
in his contention that a number of the articles objected

against Hus contained no heresy in the theological sense
of the term, but were either part and parcel of orthodox
belief or were capable of a less objectionable description.
Eck certainly did not err on the side of modesty in constituting himself the supreme arbiter of either heresy or
history. Moreover, even on the question whether a Council
was capable of error, Luther's appeal to history was far
more effective and his demand for proof far more rational
than his opponent's denial of fact on merely dogmatic
grounds.
CHAI'TER VI
TIIE SEQUEL OF THE LEIPZIG DISPUTATION

I. AFTERMATH OF THE. DISPUTATION
BOTH disputants had at the outset agreed to refer the

official report of the debate to the judgment of the Universities of Erfurt and Paris, instead of to the Pope, as Eck
at first suggested.1 Luther expressly reserved his appellation .to a Council and urged that all the Faculties of the
respective universities should be entitled to give judgment.
The case of Reu.chlin had shown what the truth had to expect
from the scholastic theologians, in whose hands it would
fare n() better than the .sheep among the wolves. 2 To
this proposal Eck would not agree, and Duke George, to
whom the question was referred, decided in favour of the
theologians. Eck further stipulated that the Augustinian
111embers of the Erfurt Faculty should be excluded, and
Lu.ther consented on conditio.n that the exclusion should
apply to the Dominicans. 3 Both likewise agreed that .the
official report should not be published until jl.ldgment had
been given.
.
.
Eck expected an easy victory as the result of this arrange:ment ; was, in fact, already boasting of his triumph over his
adversary. As a former Erfurt student and lecturer, Luther
perhaps counted on a decision in his favour from the Erfurt
Faculty. Though Trutvetter had bitterly resented his
attack on the scholastic theology, he was not a member of
the theological faculty, and the Occamist tradition of the
university might predispose it in favour of his view of the
papal power. Luther was, in fact, only repeating in his own
1
2
3
Gess, "Akten und Briefe," i. 91 f.; Enders, ii. 73; cf. 82.
Letter to the Electoi, 18th Aug. Walch, xv.,1550.
Enders, ii. 72-73; Wiedemann, "Eck," 130-131.
147
48
fashion what the great schoolman had maintained a couple

of centuries before him and what the conciliar party of the
previous century had actively championed, Moreover, he
had in his friend Lang, the prior of the Erfurt monastery,
an active if indirect champion. For the same reason he
had no little ground for believing that his arguments against
the divine right of the Papacy would appeal to the Sorbonne
theologians who actively represented the old conciliar standpoint. These hopes proved, however, illusory. It was not
merely a question of passing judgment on a theory of the
papal power, but of espousing the cause of one who had
practically been condemned as a heretic and a pertinacious
rebel against the Holy See. To decide for Luther against
Eck was to risk the charge of defending heresy and rebellion,
and as the weeks passed without a decision, Luther began to
suspect that the Erfurt Faculty on grounds of prudence
was not disposed to compromise itself in his favour."- A
report in the middle. of October that Erfurt had decided
for Eck proved indeed unfounded. 5 But the Faculty,
which was at first divided on the question, ultimately, in
December, declined to give a decision and the Sorbonne
likewise evaded the issue in spite of Eck's efforts, through
Hoogstraten, to influence it in his favour. 6
Meanwhile neither side was disposed to waive further
controversy pending the judicial decision, which was
supposed to settle the issue on its own merits. Instead of
a truce the disputation continued for nearly a year longer
in the form of an epistolary and pamphlet warfare. As
Luther humorously wrote to Lang, " Whilst professing to
await judgment, we mutually pass judgment on each other,
both learned and unlearned mingling in the fray." 7 Eck
and his partisans had their fair share of the responsibility
for this long and bitter aftermath of argument and recriminqtion. They clamorously, claimed the victory and
the glory of having routed the heretics, whilst upbraiding
them with a breach of the truce. The boasting was, tc;i
say the least, both unseemly and provocative and the
6 lbz'd., ii. 203.
' Enders, ii. 139.
6 Eck's letter to Hoogstraten, 24th July. Wiedemann, "Eck," 131.
7 Enders, ii. 139.
Aftermath of the Disputation
r 49
charge of breaking the truce highly questionable. The

parties had only agreed not to publish a copy of the official
report until the arbiters had given judgment. 8 The
agreement did not preclude them from sending reports of
the proceedings to their friends, as Luther, Melanchthon,
Mosellanus, and others did, and Luther quite correctly
maintained their right to 'do so if they pleased. Nor did
it apply to reports which any of those present might have
made and circulated. 9 Moreover, Eck, within a week after
the conclusion of the debate, set a glaring example of this
truce breaking in a letter to the Elector of Saxony on the
22nd July denouncing Luther's views as subversive of the
faith and the Church and suggesting that his books should;
be bumed.10 He likewise wrote to the Pope a vainglorious
epistle giving a minte account of the disputation, urging
instant action against the heretics, and claiming a substantial recognition of his merits.11 On the 25th July
he indited a philippic against Melanchthon, who had
written a dispassionate account of the disputation to
Oecolampadius, preacher at Augsburg and the future
reformer of Basle.12 Melanchthon had no great relish for
such wordy tournaments as a means of ascertaining the truth.
Whilst he recognised that the conflict of wits had been waged
on both sides with no little learning and logical display, he
was of opinion that it did not contribute much to true piety,
whilst emphasising that Luther, . as compared with 'Eck,
was actuate<;l by a sincere passion for the trutl)..13 In
reply he pilloried Eck's scholastic sophistry and his
unscientific method of interpreting the Scriptures and the
works of the Fathers, of which he justiy claimed to have .
a sounder and more critical knowledge than his detractor.
The Scriptures, he reiterated with Luther, are the supreme
standard of Christian truth and are to be interpreted in their
own light, not in the absurd fashion of the schoolmen who
distort them by reading into them a fourfold or even a
8
9
10
11
12
Enders, ii. 72.

Ibid., ii. u8; of. Melanchthon, "Opera," i. III.
Ibid., ii. 91-95.
Ibid., ii. 194-195; cf. Crotus Rubianus to Luther, ibid., ii. 212.
13
Melanchthon, "Opera," L 97 f.
" Opera," i. 96,
50
sixfold sense. 14 Even the Fathers, whom Eck misinterprets

while professing to vindicate, are not above criticism and
may only be used with reserve and judgment, in view of
their discordant and often erroneous exegesis of the supreme
source of Christian truth.15
The loud-voiced, vainglorious, and self-assuming scholastic theologian fared very badly at the hands of the highly
cultured and scholarly young humanist, the admiration of
Erasmus as well as Luther. Equally so at the hands of
Luther himself, to whom the Elector sent his letter of the
24th July. Far from admitting hi.s defeat, he. reiterated
his views in a spirited and cogent statement for the Elector's
enlightenment. He not. only claimed the right of free
discussion. In the matter of heresy he paid Eck back in
his own coin. To suggest the burning of an opponent's
books before he had read them was doubtlessthe stamp of.
an honourable theologian. Equally significant.of his bankruptcy in argument the silly story circulated by him and
his partisans that Luther had. brought the devil himself
in his bag to Leipzig ! It would better become him to
remember the Latin proverb about a pig trying to teach
Minerva.16
This preliminary exchange of blows was the prelude .to
a lengthy pamphlet melee between the principals and their
respective partisans, in which Emser, Dungersheim, Rubeus,
Hoogstraten, the theologians of Cologne and Louvain,
Alveld, Prierias, the Bishops of Brandenburg and Meissen
intervened on the side of Eck; Oecolampadius, Spengler,
Bernhard Adelmann, canon of Augsburg, . Pirkheimer,
Pellican, Bucer, Capito, Montanus, Museus, Crotus
Rubianus, and Ulrich von Hutten on the side of Luther.
Luther himself contributed his full share to this controversial
literature. A lengthy account of the disputation to Spalatin
(r5th August) forms the introduction to an amplification
of the main positions which he had defended a.t Leipzig
and which issued from the press towards the end of August.1 7
1 Ibid., i. n5.
"Opera," i. u5.
Walch, xv. 1538 f.
17 Resolutiones Lutherianre super propositionibus suis
Leipsire
disputatis. "Werke," ii. 391 f,
14
16
5I
Some weeks later he fired another broadside against Eck,

who had been asked by the Bishop of Brandenburg to
annotate some articles drawn up by the Franciscans of
Juterbog against Luther's old pupil, Francis Gunther.
Gunther had been preacher at Juterbog and had introduced
his master's teaching into his sermons. Luther himself
became involved in the quarrel in defence of his old pupil,
and Eck was only too ready to seize the opportunity to
arraign him as a heretic. Luther retorted with a reasoned
defence in which he discovered as many as twenty-four
heresies in the contentions of the Franciscans and the
comments of thefr champion.18
Eck had meanwhile been exercising his critical faculty
at Luther's expense in dissecting the epistle in which he
had recounted to Spalatin the course of the Leipzig debate. 19
To this Luther retorted in the beginning of November with
an "Epistola" in which he tells him freely what he thinks
of his veracity and congratulates him on the glory of
misrepresenting the truth. 20 Eck's vexation at length found
vent in a proposal to burn Luther's books at Ingolstadt,
and he was only dissuaded frorn carrying out his purpose
by Reuchlin, who had taken refuge at Ingolstadt from
the pestilence, and prevailed on the authorities to refrain
from making fools of themselves and exposing the university
to the ridicule of the world. 21 Baulked in his purpose,
lie determined (January 1520) to prosecute the campaign
against his adversary at Rome itself, taking with hirn a
Latin translation of Luther's vernacular writings and the
MS. of his own Opus magnum on the papal Primacy, 22
based on the writings of the pseudo Dionysius, the forged
decretals of Isidore, the interpolated canon of the Council
of Nicrea, and other equally fallacious sources which he
gravely accepted as authentic. This crude, uncritical
18 "Werke," ii. 625 f.
Contra malignum Joh. Eccii Judicium super
aliquot articulos, Sept. I 519.
19 Expurgatio Joh. Eckii adversus criminationes Mart. Lutheri,
Sept. 1519.
20 Epistola super Expurgatione Ecciana.
'' We'rke," ii. 700 f.
21
Enders, ii. 319.
2 2 De Primatu Petri adversus Ludderum.
r 52
fabrication he presented to the Pope who, according to his

own account, bestowed high encomiums on his genius as a
historian and a theologian and promised to gratify his quest
for additional benefices. 23
Meanwhile all Germans who could read Latin were
exploding in laughter over the coarse but clever satire,
"Eccius Dedolatus" (Eck planed down), in which some
witty humanist, Long supposed to have been Pirkheimer, 24
mercilessly ridiculed and doubtless exaggerated the foibles
of the hero of Leipzig. Though this coarse burlesque repels
the taste of a more refined age and Luther to his credit expressed disapproval of this method of controversy, it suited
the rather indelicate palate of the sixteenth century and
succeeded as effectively in discrediting the anti-Lutheran
leader as the " Epistolre Obscurorum Virorum " had done
in the case of Reuchlin's opponents.
Much more to Luther's taste was the telling defenc~
of his cause in the form of a vindication of the brothers
Adelmann of Augsburg, to whom Eck had contemptuously
referred in a missive to the Bishop of Meissen as " the
unlearned" propagators of Luther's errors. 25 This pamphlet
is on a level with Melanchthon's "Defensio" and amply
deserved Luther's cordial appreciation.. It shows how
strongly his scriptural teaching and reforming zeal appealed
to the serious minds of the age, and the satire of his blustering,
self-seeking opponent, which it mingles with this appreciation,
made Eck wince more than even the" Eccius Dedolatus." 26
From the attack on Eck himself he occasionally swerved
to castigate his partisans. Of these the slippery Em.ser
fared worst. Emser had indited an open letter to John
23 See Eck's letter to Fabri with Luther's comments, "Opera Latina
Var.," iv. 256 f.; Walch, xv. 1658 f.
24 The
authorship of Pirkheimer has recently been contested.
Metzler, "Corpus Catholicorum," ii. 92 (1921), says that Pirkheimer
was " undoubtedly " the author, without, however, adducing his
reasons for this emphatic conclusion. Merker ascribes it to Nicolas
Gerbelius. "Der Verfasser des Eccius Dedol~tus" (1923).
25 Canonicorum Indoctorum Lutheranorum ad Joh. Eccium Responsio. " Opera Latina Var.," iv. 61 f. German trans. in Walch, xv.
1513 f.
2a Enders, ii. 341.
53
Zack, administrator of the archbishopric of Prague, in which,

while professedly vindicating Luther from the suspicion of
Bohemian heresy, he deftly sought to convey this impression
to the minds of his readers. 27 So at least Luther interpreted
his object, and the fact that he magnified Eck as the prince
o~ theologians did not tend to lessen his indignation. 28
Emser had the vanity to parade his noble descent, which was
not above suspicion, by stamping his arms (a goat with shield
and helmet) on his writings. Hence Luther's onslaught on
the Emser goat, in which he gave free rein to his indignation
at the double dealing of his would-be friend, whom he
described as a second Joab. 29 Some excuse for the virulence
of this philippic may be found in the fact that his opponents
were circulating silly stories of his Bohemian descent, and so
seriously were these fables taken that he found it necessary
to write to Spalatin a detailed account of his Thuringian
parentage and birth. 30 He expected, he jocula;rly remarked,
to hear soon that he had a wife and children in Bohemia. 31
Emser gave vent to .his not unnatural indignation in a
counterblast, 32 in which Luther found " nothing to the
point," 33 and learned to his amusement that his hostility
to the Papacy was due to his resentment that he and his
Order had been denied any share in the indulgence traffic.
Towards Dungersheim, the long-winded and pedantic
Leipzig professor, who had for sorne time pestered him
with letters on the Papacy, he showed more patience and
restraint till he at last told him to spare him this infliction.
27 De Disputatione Lipsensi
Epistola Hier. Emseri. " Opera
Latina Var.," iv. 3 f. (Aug. 1519); "Corpus Catholicorum," iv. 29 f.
28
Emser stoutly d.enied that he had written the letter to Zack with
an unfriendly purpose. Enders, " Luther unci Emser," ii. 6.
Thurnhofer accepts his disclaimer as sincere and also believes that he
had the right to the crest which he paraded so ostentatiously. " Corpus
Catholicorum," iv. 9 f.
29 Ad Aegocerotem EmserianumMart. Lutheri Additio, Sept. 1519.
"Werke," ii. 658 f.; " Opera Latina Var.," iv. 13 f.
30
Enders, ii. 293-294.
31
Ibid., ii. 291.
32
A Venatione Aegocerotis Assertio, Nov. 1519. " Corpus Catholicorum," iv. 45 f.
33
Enders, ii. 262; cf. ii. 264.
54
"You have nothing on your lips but Church, Church,

heretics, heretics, and you pay no attention to our repeated
demand to prove all things. The Church is for you only
one man, the Pope, to whom you attribute everything,
and yet you do not prove by a single word that he is infallible.
But we have discovered in the papal decretals more heresies
than in any heretic. You ought to prove your contention,
but instead of doing so you are continually begging the
question by the most vicious kind of reasoning. You ought
to prove that the Church of God is among you and nowhere
.else in the world. We desire the Scriptures as judge. You,
on the other hand, desire to be judges of the Scripture.
Please leave off fatiguing me with such stuff, or, as you
threaten, publish your notions . . . . You always misinterpret what I say like that ass Rubeus in your midst at
:j:.;eipzig. This is the habit of you Leipzig critics. You
read the works of others without due attention. You judge
rashly. You are too dull to understand these writings."
But let him not presume too much on the patience with
which for a whole year he has borne his scribbling. " I
am but human as you are. Whilst you sit at ease and
secretly nag at me, I am overwhelmed with work and every
one shows his teeth at me. I alone am expected to show
humility whilst being attacked by ravening wolves. The
weight of the globe oppresses me, and if at length I hit back,
God knows how I am pilloried, whereas you, if I only nod,
cannot bear it. This I write that you may understand
that I desire rather peace and concord. But if it cannot
be, let God's will be done." 34
. In reply Dungersheim sent the inevitable epistle
announcing that he was about to go to the press with a
dialogue against him. 35 Luther had no time to waste on
~he dreary and persistent pedant and left both letter and
dialogue without an answer.
Rubeus, whom Montanus, the Rector of the Wittenberg
school, answered, he contemptuously dismissed as "an ass,"
whose braying was beneath his notice. 36 He bestowed the.
same titl~ on Hoogstraten, the Inquisitor-General, with the
34
Ibid., iL J66-167.
86
Ibid., iL 203.
55
qualification that for sheer ignorance, in spite of his vaunted

dialectic, he had never met a more complete one in his
life. 3.7 Another victim of his slashing style was no less a
personage than the Bishop of Meissen, who took exception
to the Hussite heresy which Duke George and he sniffed
i.n a sermon. on the "Sacrament of the Body of Christ,"
printed for the benefit of the Duchess of Brunswick-Luneburg
in December 1519. 38 The Duke and the bishop seem to
have given. credit. to the story of his Bohemian birth, 39
and whilst the Duke wrote to the Elector a warning on
the subject, the bishop issued a mandate prohibiting the
circulation of the sermon in his diocese and containing
a. misrepresentation of Luther's views. 40 Hertce the outspoken trouncing to which he subjected the official of the
diocese and indirectly the bishop himself in February 1520.
The official, we read, must have lost his senses in wine
when he penned such a lying, drunken, blockhead effusion.
The grim humour and drastic language with which he
.belabours the unlucky culprit in the Saxon dialect was too
much for the gravity of Miltitz, who tells us that he was
having a drink with the bishop and his official at Stolpen
when the unconscionq.ble pieGe was handed to his reverence.
As the bishop read it aloud, the official swore, and the more
he swore the louder Miltitz laughed. From the same source
we learn that even Duke George on reading it "laughed
outrageously." 41 In deference to the representations of
Spalatin, Luther published a less offensive reply in Latin. 42
In the same month appeared a diatribe of the Universities
of Louvain and KOln, in which a number of .his writings
were sentenced to be burned and he himself to be compelled
to retract his damnable heresies. 43 The Louvain theologians,
Ibid., ii. 266; "Werke;'' ii. 742 f. Sermon von der hochwurdigen Sacrament der heiligen wahren Leichnam Christi.
39 " Werke," vi. 81.
40 The episcopal mandate, 24th Jan. 1520, is given in "Werke,"
vi. 151-153.
41 "Werke," vi. 135 f.
Doctor Martinus Luther's Antwort auff die
Tzedel so unter des Officiel's zu Stolpen Sigel ist ausgangen.
42
Ibid., vi. 144 .f. Ad Schedulam Inhibitionis, etc.
4 3 Ibid., vi. 174 f,
37
3 .s
56
who were inclined to favour the condliar party, as

represented by the 'university of Paris, ignored his attack
on the papal power. Those of Cologne, who were staunch
defenders of the papal absolutism, included in their
condemnation his views on this subject. 44 To the delight
of Erasmus and the humanists, who had suffered at the
hands of these obscurantist theologians and bore them a
grudge for their treatment of Reuchlin, Luther let himself
go once more 45 against" the asses of Louvain and Cologne,"
as he dubbed them in a letter to Spalatin on the rgth March
1520. He excepted some of the members of the Louvain
Faculty (Dorpius, for instanc~, had refused to agree 46 )
from the folly of having co111posed this farrago of words
without any proofs of their delirious reasonings, worthy of
the besotted habitues of a brothel or a tavern. God preserve
us from these scolding old wives, whom in His anger and
for our sins He has set in the seats of the learned. But
what can we expect from the persecutors of~ '.Reuchlin, who
have not the sense to reflect that the condemned heresy
of yesterday has often become the received belief of to-day,
as has happened in the case of the great Occam, of Valla,
Pico Mirandola, Wessel, Lefebre, Erasmus, whose so-called
heresies have prevailed in spite of the hysterics of the
obscurantists.
The Leipzig Franciscan, Alveld, next entered the lists
with a defence of the divine right of the Papacy on grounds
of reason, Scripture, the opinions of the schoolmen, and
sundry other considerations. 47 The embittered ~pirit of
the monkish author exploded in objurgatory and contemptuous epithets. Luther did not take this mediocre
production seriously, Alveld being for him. but another
" ass." But as the vernacular version was fitted to mislead
the people, he took the trouble to discuss for their benefit
44 "Werke," vi. 180.
Sedem apostolicam irreverenter palam et
scandalose taxet, autoritatem summi pontificis impudenter attenuet.
46 Ibid., vi. 181 f.
Responsio Lutheriana ad condemnationem
doctrinalem per magistros nostros Lov. et Col. factam.
46 Ibid., vi. 182; cf. Enders, ii. 367.
47 Super apostolica sede, April I 520, and a popular pamphlet in
German on the same theme, May l 520,
57
the twofold question whether the Papacy derives its power

by divine or human right, and whether the Greek, Russian,
Hussite, and other Churches, who hold the latter view, are
to be regarded as heretics and apostates, though they share
the common Christian faith and observe the sacraments.
In discussing this question he concerns himself more with
the subject matter than with the author and develops
his characteristic conception of the Church. 48 He does so
with force and prefers not to retaliate in thy abusive language
of his adversary. " The calumny and vituperation with
which my person is attacked so lavishly, I shall leave unanswered and make a present of this to my dear Romanists.
These do not worry me. I have resolved never to avenge
myself on those who vituperate my person, work, and
character. I know too well that I am not worthy of
, commendation. But that I am sharper and bitter when
it boots tlie defence of, the Scripture, let no one reproach
me in this age. I will not take this lightly. Scold,
vituperate my life and my person as much as you will.
I can easily forgive this. But let no one expect from me
reverence or patience who ventures to make a liar of
my Lord Jesus preached by me, and the Holy Ghost
speaking in Scripture. My person is nothing. Only I will
answer for Christ's Word with joyful heart and blithe
courage without respect of persons. For this God has given
me a joyous, fearless spirit, which they cannot take from
me." 49
In a final reply to Prierias-couched in very viole)lt
terms-he limited his remarks to a preface and a conclusion
to the author's " Epitome," which he interpolated with
short, critical footnotes. He ascribes the ultra-High Church
conception of the Papacy contained therein to the inspiration
of Satan and concludes that, if this conception really
represents the current view at Rome, the Pope is indeed
the Antichrist of Scripture and the Roman Curia the
synagogue of Satan, which he invites the emperor, kings,
and princes to destroy. It is a declaration of war to .the
4 8 Von dem Bapstum zu Rom wieder den hoch berumpten Romanisten
zu Leiptzick, June 1520. "Werke," vi. 285 f.
49 "Werke," v:i. 323.
58
LU.ther and the Reformation
finish against the antichristian power that reigns in the
modern Babylon. so
Such controversies were common enough in the medireval
schools in which the art of disputation, whilst sharpening.
wits, tended to nurture the pugnative spirit and resulted in
frequent academic and monastic quarrels. From this point
of view there was nothing extraordinary in this aftermath
of the Leipzig debate, iri which both sides repeated ad
nau.seam the old arguments and gave themselves the
satisfaction of indulging in personal invective. As a inere
scholastic quarrel the controversy between Eck and Luther
and their respective partisans is not particularly engrossing.
What redeems it and itnparts to it a particular interest
is the fact that it forms an important phase of an epochmaking movement. The personality of Luther would alone
lift it out of the ordinary academic rut. Here we have a
man of undoubted genius asserting and revealing himself
in his conflict with a set of mediocrities, who represent the
conventional religious system against one who represents
hitnself and pits himself against the dominant system and
its representatives of the merely ordinary type. Luther is
certainly no ordinary scholastic disputant of the dry-as-dust
type. He has something new and startling to sa'.y and he
says it in a style all his own. Whether he writes in Latin
or the Saxon dialect he expresses himself in singularly
distinctive fashion. There is a personality behind the
style, a genius, originality, force which are lacking in his
mediocre opponents. In confiiet with these opponents he
is opinionated, headstrong, intolerant. He is oftener than
not unable or unwilling to look objectively at the opponent's
point of view, too prone to see " an ass " in an antagonist.
He does not suffer fools gladly, or hesitate to call a rn,an
a fool because he cannot or will not see eye to eye with
him. The tendency to objurgate the opposition is there,
and if the tendency becomes a habit, as it is likely enough
to do, in a man of his temperatnent, it may well lead him
to tnistake obstinacy for conviction. At this stage, however,
itis ;:i. virtue rather than a vice. For Luther is engaged in
50
Epitoma Responsionis ad Martinum Luther, June 1520.
59
a desperate struggle to maintain his individual convictions

against a power that has no place for individual conviction
and only one way of dealing with it-the dungeon and the
stake. In these circumstances Luther has need of all the
intolerance and the opinionated assurance with which
Nature has endowed him if he is to maintain himself against
the dominant religious and ecclesiastical order. The bull~
dog spirit against the enemy is the only possible one, if
he is not to go under.
But this in itself would not explain this aggressive and
persistent polemic. Behind it is also the strength of
religious conviction, the irrefragable _belief that his cause
is the cause of God, that he is called on to vindicate the
Word of God, the Gospel against its perverters even in the
highest seat of authority, and that the time has come to
make an end of this perversion and -the corruption and
tyranny -for which it is responsible. The conviction that
he stands for the truth and seeks the truth and nothing
but the truth is the sheet anchor of this polemic as far as
he is concerned in it. Veritas vincet. Truth will conquer,
he assures Spalatin, in spite of the loud shout of victory
that resounds from the camp of his enemies. 51 Whatever
the universities decide, he further tells him, he will not
retract a single syllable. The Lord's will be done. 52 There
is undoubtedly character in this contention. In this respect
he is far superior to his chief antagonist, as the champions
whom he rallies to his side clearly realise and do not hesitate
to express. Eck, Prierias,- Dungersheim, Alveld were convinced enough of the strength of their case. But though
they were convinced that they were defending the established divine order, their case was both historically and
morally far weaker than they realised. It was bound up
with an appalling travesty of religion and morality. Even
Eck was fain to admit in his letters from Rome the crying
degeneration of the Curia. 53 But, unlike Luther, the
orthodox Eck was a braggard with an eye to his own reputation and advancement, and Dungersheim and the .others,
61
62 Ibid., ii. 203.

Enders, ii. 139.
"Opera Latina Var.,'' iv. 257. De Roma multo peiora audivi
quam sentiam.
63
60
while respectable, did not rise above the ecclesiastical level

of their time, to which the dominant system, whatever its
shortcomings, was indefeasible. Luther, on the other hand,
in this daring enterprise was treading the dangerous path
that had hitherto led to the stake, breasting Bible in hand
misrepresentation, defamation, threats, death itself for the
sake of what he deemed to be the truth. With the ceaseless
strain of self-defence, the stigma of heresy, the contingency
of martyrdom to exacerbate his spirit, in addition to the
exacting labours of his office as professor and preacher,.
it is hardly to be wondered that his overstrained, overworked condition found vent at times in fierce invective,
one-sided judgment, and .lack of self-restraint.
The long-drawn out pamphlet warfare is further important, inasmuch as it materially contributed to develop
his views on the questions at issue. From this point of
view it would have p~id the Curia to muzzle his opponents
and devote itself instead to the clamant task of radically
reforming the evils which lent such force to Luther's
indictment of the Papacy and the Church. It was surely a
most unpropitious time to parade the extravagant claims
and pretensions of Rome when Germany was seething with
indignations and impatience over papal exactions and
Rome was synonymous for all that was corrupt and oppressive. Nevertheless this was the situation in which an alien
Italian prelate like Prierias chose to flaunt the papal
absolution in its crudest form before a people ripe for revolt
against what it was being told was an intolerable usurpation
and tyranny.
This foolish exaltation of the papal power nQt only tended
to intensify the reaction against it. It drove Luther to
tum the searchlight of historic criticism more intently on
this provocative theory, only to find increasingly cogent
reasons for his counter-theory that the Pope was the
very Antichrist of Daniel and the Apocalypse. Moreover,
the charge of Hussitism which was intended to ensure his
discredit in Germany led him to study the works of Hus,
only to discover that he had been a Hussite all along without
knowing it. The development of his thought under the
pin pricking of his opponents, the relative rapidity with
Progress of Luther's Reforming Views
16 r
which he reaches a clear apprehension of the issue is, indeed,

an astonishing feature of this year of stressful battling.
His controversial and his didactic writings alike show the
progress he has made in what his critics call his apostasy,
but what he himself regarded as his emancipation. At the
end of this year of attack and counter-attack he has come
to the parting of the ways. He has already formed the
resolution that unless the Pope disowns his opponents and
their baneful contentions, he will utterly renounce him and
the Roman Curia. The fateful breach with Rome is already
discernible. Its champions have certainly done their best
to bring it about.
II.
PROGRESS OF LUTHER's REFORMING Vmws
In the " Resolutiones Lutherianre " he renews in a more

defiant and uncompromising spirit the battle of Leipzig all
along the line. He takes the place of Carlstadt in defending
his characteristic views on sin, free will, grace, works,
justification by faith, and shows himself a far more effective
disputant. He controverts and rejects the doctrines of
the schoolmen on these themes as a perversion of Paul's
teaching and roundly denounces their teaching as Pelagian
error. 54 He has, he says, had to unlearn all that he learned
in the schools. " I know and confess that I learned nothing
else from the scholastic theology than ignorance of sin,
righteousness, baptism, and the whole Christian life, nor
was I taught therein truly to understand the power, work,
grace, and righteousness of God, nor what faith, hope, and
charity really mean. Briefly, noJ only have I learned
nothing, but I have learned only in unlearning what was
altogether contrary to the divine writings. I wonder
whether others have learned more to the purpose in this
study. If there are any I frankly congratulate them. I
for my part lost Christ in this labyrinth, and now I have
found Him in Paul." 55 The teaching of Paul is, therefore,
64 Resolutiones
Lutherianre super propositionibus suis
disputatis. "Werke," ii. 41 l f.
56 Ibid., ii. 414.
II
Lipsire
r62
for him the .supreme test of the true theology, and the
personal faith of the believer, as taught by Paul, is of more
validity than all the subtle reasonings of the schoolmen.
In spite of his emphasis on Scripture as the supreme
standard of truth, he begins to apply the critical method
even to this standard and anticipates in tentative fashion
the modern view of the relative value and authority of. its
component parts. He discovers that theEpistle of James
is inferior to the Epistles of .Paul. Its style is far below the
majesty of apostolic diction and is not in any way to be
compared with that of Paul. 56 He distinguishes between a
living faith and mere opinion. 57 The schoolmen are crassly
ignorant of the true sense of Scripture. On the question of
the authority of Scripture in relation to that of the Church
he roundly affirms that to understaI).d the saying of Augustine
that he would not have believed the Gospel unless the
authority of the .Church had induced him to do so, in the
sense of placing the Church and the Pope above the Gospel,
as his opponents do, is a doctrine worthy of Lucifer, who
sought to be equal with God. 58 He reverences the authority
of the Church, but he distinguishes between it and the
Roman Church,and equates it with the whole body of
believers throughout the world in which the spirit of Christ
rules. . It does not consist merely of the Pope and the
cardinals.,.-the Church of papal notaries, penitehtiarie5, and
Masters of the Sacred Palace like .Prierias. 59 Nor does it
consist even in a General Council, which, he agrees, is
superior to the Pope, but which, he contends even more
explicitly than at Leipzig, is liable to err. Did not the
African Council convened by Cyprian err on the question
of the rebaptism of heretics? The Councils of Constance
and Basle decreed that the Pope is inferior to a Council.
The recent Lateran Council at Rome, on the other. hand,
decided for the papal supremacy over a Council. Both
cannot be true. Which of them erred? 6 0
66. "Werke," ii. 425. Stilus epistolre illiuslonge est i~fra apost~lica~
mafestatem, nee cum Paulino ullo modo comparandus, deinde de fide
viva loquitur Paulus.
67 Ibid., ii. 425.
69 Ibid., ii. 427-429.
68 Ibid., ii. 429-430.
60 Ibi'd., ii. 405.
,
163
Nor can he find a divine warrant for certain ecclesiastical

practices or ordinances which his opponents regard as
essentials of religion. He denies, for instance; the monastic
distinction between the precepts and the counsels of the
Gospel, and maintains that there is only a common standard
of the religious life for all Christians, who are bound to strive
after the highest perfection. 61 Auricular confession is not
taught in Scripture, but brotherly confession to one another..
Though he will not condemn it outright, he denouncesiit as
a source. of needless torture of conscience to sensitive souls
and a priestly tyranny. There is no institution of the
Church which stands so much in need of reformation; 62
The whole system of laws and regulations developed by
the Roman Curia is noxious to the liberty of the Church,
leLalone the mercenary spirit which it nurtures. 63 Eck
had said something- about the Pope's power to canonise
the saints: Luther asks where in all Scripture the power
of- canonisation is ascribed to the Pope, and puts sundry
other queries_ about the necessity and the .utility of the
practice. Let every one canonise. as much as he likes for
all that he car~s. 64 He is beginning. to question. the current
belief in purgatory, to treat it as an open question .. It is
not an article of faith and he is certain that it is not heretical
to deny its existence. 65 He doubts,. too, whether there are
more than three sacraments:--Baptism; the Lord's Supper,
and Penance. What the theologians have fabled about the
other four is very problematic. 66
The first three he
explains in the vernacular sermons dedicated to the
61
Contra malignum J .. Eccii Judicium, "Werke,"..ii. 644.

Ibid., ii. 645-646. Non est in ecclesia negotium quod reque ut
istud confessionis et pcenitentire indigeat reformatione. Nam hii:;
omnes leges, quresttis, vis, tyrannis, error, pericula et infinita mala omnium animanim et totius ecclesire grassantur pleno impetu.
5.3 . Ibid., ii. 646.

.
64 Ibid.,. ii. 652.
6
~ Enders, ii .. 225 ..Hoe certum est nemiriem esse hrereticum qui
non credit esse purgatorium, nee est artica!us fidei.
66 Enders, .ii. 278-279,
De aliis sacramentis non est quod tu vel
uUus hominum ex me.speret aut expectet ullum sermonerridonec docear
ex quo loco queam illa. probare. . . ; Qure autem de sacramentis illis
septem fa.bulati ilii sunt, alio tempore audies.
.
62
64
Duchess of Brunswick-Liineburg, in which he already

adumbrates the distinctive ideas later developed in
"The Babylonish Captivity of the Church."
In these
sacraments the great requisite is faith which alone makes
effective what they signify. 67 In the Sacrament of Penance
the forgiveness of sins is given to no one because of the
merit of his repentance, or any satisfaction made for sin,
but solely because of his faith in God's promise in Matt. xvi.
rg, although repentance and good works are not to be
neglected, but are to be sedulously practised for the honour
of God and the good of our neighbour. 68 It follows, therefore, that forgiveness does not depend on Pope, bishop,
or priest, or any man's power, but on the Word of Christ
arid faith alone. For Christ willed not to make our salvation
dependent on man's word or deed, but on His own. Pope,
bishop, and priest can only be the servants of God's Word,
and forgiveness is entirely a matter of His mercy in Christ
accepted by faith. " For this depends not on the priest
or on your own works, but solely on your faith. As much
as you believe, so much you have." 69
Etymologically and in primitive practice, baptism involves
both the immersion and the raising of the baptized person
out of the water, and in accordance with the original
significance and the primitive practice, immersion, 'not
sprinkling, should be observed. 7 For baptism symbolises
spiritual death to sin and resurrection or rebirth by God's
grace. But the spiritual death and regeneration which
are thus symbolised are not completed in the ceremonial
act. This act is but the beginning of a lifelong process of
conflict with sin, the old man, which only ends with life
itself. It is a mistaken notion that baptism magically
takes away sin, as if the evil in human nature were thereby
eradicated and the necessity of continuous dying to sin no
longer existed, and as if the baptized person may therefore
evade or grow slack in the struggle with the flesh. In
baptism God enters into a covenant or bond with the baptized
67
"Werke," ii. 715. Und an dem glauben ligt es als miteynander .
der allein macht <lass die sacrame11t wircken was sie bedeuten und alles
war wirt was der priester sagt, dan wie du glaubst so geschicht dir;
68 Ibid., ii. 716.
69 Ibid., ii. 719.
70 Ibid., ii. 727 f.
65
person, who is under the obligation to carry out throughout

his whole life, in conflict with the passions, the process of
dying to sin and regeneration by God's grace. This is
only possible in as far as God does not impute to him the sin
which inheres in all his actions, in spite of baptism, and
necessitates the continuous exercise of God's mercy and
grace in the non-imputation of sin. As Augustine says,
" Sin is wholly forgiven in baptism, not so that it is no
longer there, bt that it is not imputed." We are, therefore,
conscious of sin to the end of life. At the same time, he
is able to place against the sense of sin and condemnation
the fact of God's forgiving mercy and grace which have
become operative in baptism and whose sway and regenerating power continue to operate till death brings the final
deliverance from the sinful state. Here again faith is the
essential thing, for faith alone can give the assurance of
the forgiveness of sin and the regeneration of our nature.
This is due not to our own satisfaction, our w0rks, which are
necessarily tainted with sin, but to God's mercy in Christ,
of which we lay hold by faith. 71 Luther thus envisages
baptism from a new angle, that of his personal religious
experience and his doctrine' of justification by faith, which
have led him to modify the current doctrine in accordance
with the teaching of Paul.
In tha sermon on the Sacrament of the Altar 72 he
would fain restore communion in both kinds by means
of a General Council, whilst not condemning the practice
of limiting the cup to the priest who partakes of the wine
on behalf of the people. Communion in one kind is not in
accordance with the original institution or with the fundamental idea of this sacrament, which signifies the union
or communion of all Christians with one another and with
Christ. The sermon gives a beautiful picture of the Christian
ideal of mutual service and suffering for the common benefit
71 "Werke," ii. 732.
Dieser Glaub ist der aller notigst, denn er der
grund ist alles trostis ; wer den nit hatt der muss vorzweyffelnn in sunden,
class die sund die nach der Tauff bleybt macht das alle gute werck nit
reyn seyn vor Gott. Derhalben muss man gar keck und frei an die
tauff sich halten und sie halten gegen alle sund und erschrecken des
72 Ibid., ii. 742 f.
gewissen.
66
in accordance with. Christ's example. Whilst sharing the

current belief in transubstantiation he has no taste for the
subtleties with which the scholastic theologians strove to
explain the mystery. 73 He is content to accept without
attempting to rationalise it or questioning the current
conception which a more historic view of the institution
would have led him to do. In this respect he allows his
dogmatic prepossession to get the better of his historic
sense and .still implicitly believes in the transformation of
the bread and wine into the very body and blood of Christ.
But here again he emphasises faith as the indispensable
condition of the efficacy of the sacrament. It has riot in
itself a magic efficacy (opus operatum} apart from the faith
of the recipient (opus operantis). The mere saying of Mass
brings rio spiritual benefit. This is a mischievous fable,
for without personal faith, spiritual participation:; the .
Sacrament of the Altar is of no avail in the sight of God: 74
It is also significant that he says nothing about the Mass. as
an offering or sacrifice, whilst he vigorously denounces. the
brotherhoods who make the.. sacrament. the occasion of
gluttony and carousing (jressen und saujen) instead of
devoting the contributions of the members to good works. 75
. The sermon on the Sacrament of the Altar is a
masterpiece of Luther's gift of popular exposition. But
the suggestion that a General Council should be convened
to restore communion in both kinds aroused the bitter ire
of his opponents. Was this not rank Bohemian heresy?
Did the sermon not prove beyond question the truth of
Eck's insinuation at Leipzig that he was a patron of Hus ?
Was it not an incontestable evidence of his Bohemia~ birth
and education? The audacity and the scandal of such a
challenge fairly took away the breath of Duke George,
the Bishop of Meissen, and other horrified anti-Hussites,
who saw in this proposal not only the worst of heresies,
but the presage in Germany of a Hussite revolution and
civil war. Even the Elector and Spalatin were troubled,
though the Elector refused to respond to his cousin's request
.for active intervention against the heretie.. He limited
73
"Werke," ii. 749-750.
74
Ibid., ii. 751-753.
76
lbz"d., ii, 754 f.
1 67
himself to an expression_, through Spalatin, of his anxiety at

this new storm. 76 Luther responded with an explanation
of his sermon in which he contended that the Roman Church
had never declared communion in both kinds to be heresy,
had in fact consented to recognise such communion in the
.case of the Bohemians (Ultraquists). To refuse to do so
would be to condemn the institution: of Christ Himself.
Christ had, however, not expressly enjoined both, and the
Hussites have erred in causing schism over this question.
He had no sympathy with the extremists among them who
deny transubstantiation and whom he regards as heretics.
But the moderate party of the Ultraquists are at most
schismatics and of the schismatic spirit there is more than
enough in the Church itself, which overflows with quarrelsome, heresy-hunting zealots who would be better employed
in striving to bring back the Hussites by gentleness and
persuasion instead of scolding and cursing them as heretics. 77
He has, moreover, not condemned communion in one kind
which he regards as sufficient, but merely suggested the
advisability of referring the question of communion in both
kinds to the decision of a General Council. 78 To reassure
the Elector he wrote letters, at the request of Spalatin, to
the Archbishop of Maintz and the Bishop of Merseburg
protesting that his only object in treating of this and other
questions was to advance the cause of evangelical truth
a:mong the people. 79 At the same time, while ready to
moderate his tone and write irenic epistles to powerful
churchmen, in deference to the Elector's wishes, he was
not prepared to surrender J;iis convictions merely to evade
the new danger which the controversy over his sermon
had evoked. "Be it so;" he writes to Spalatin on the
rzth February r520, "I foresee a new and great conflagration. Who can resist the purpose of God? Who
knows whether these insensate men are not predestined by
Him as the means of the revelation of the truth? Allow
the thing, I pray you; to go by its own motion. God alone
is in _this business. We are carried away by Him. We
76
77
?9
Enders, ii. 293 f. l4th June 1520.

78 Ibid., vi. 138.
"Werke.," vi. 78 f.
Enders, ii. 308 f.; cf. 315,
6.8
are led rather than lead." 80 " I have already written to

you," he tells him in another letter, "not to presume that
this affair has been begun or carried on by your judgment,
or mine, or that of any man. If it be of God it will -be
completed far against, above, beyond your comprehension
and mine." He has not written merely to please men,
and if he has seemed overfoolish, let him remember that God
has chosen the foolish things of this world that He might
confound them that are wise. The mandate of the Bishop
of Meissen is directed not against him, but against the.
Word of God. His faith in his divine vocation is unshak-:able, and if his steadfastness in the cause brings him
banishment or worse suffering, Spalatin knows how little
he is troubled by such a prospect. " I beseech you, if you
rightly understand the Gospel, do not imagine that this
enterprise can be carried out without tumult, scandal,
sedition. You will not make a feather out of a sword, nor
peace out of war. The Word of God is a sword, war, ruin,
offence, perdition, poison, and as Hosea says, a bear in
the path and a lioness in the wood." 81 God has laid hold of
him and He has foreseen what He wil.l accqmplish through
him. Certain it is that he has not sought these things of
himself, but all he has done has been forced upon him by a
frenzy outside his control. 8.2 Faith, he reminds him, is
the proof (argumentum) of things not seen. Why, then,
judge according to the appearance of things ? He seeks
not his own glory. There is One that seeketh and judget:,
and whether the cause stands or falls, he gains nothing
and loses nothing. He is, indeed, prone to vehemence.
But it is difficult to moderate style and temper under this
continual strain. Was Christ Himself always placid? Did
He not denounce the Jews as a race of vipers and hypocrites ?
Was Paul always patient, who denounced the false prophet
as a son of the devil and an enemy of the truth? He
who is conscious of the truth cannot be patient against its
inveterate and unconvincible enemies. 83
80
81
82
83
Enders, ii. 323. Rapimur, ut video, et agimur potius quam agamus.

Ibid., ii. 328.
Ibid., ii. 329. Omnja alieno furore mihi extorqueri.
Ibid., ii. 329-330.
169
To his amazement he had by this time discovered that

he had been a Hussite all along. Immediately after the
Leipzig disputation two Hussite pastors, 84 who had read
some of his works, wrote him letters congratulating him
on his defence of the Gospel and encouraging him to
persevere in his struggle for the truth against the Roman
An.tichrist. He had, they assured him, many friends in
Boh_emia who regarded him as the Hus of Saxony and
prayed for ;him day and night. At the same time one
of them sent him a copy of Hus's work on the Church. 85
Luther only received these lette;rs in the beginnfog of October
1519. 86 In returp. he sent them a riumber of his writings,
and he and his Wittenberg associates joined in a reply
which Melanchthon put into classic Latin, for both correspondents were disciples of Erasmus. 8 7 Hus's work on
the Churcl;i, which he had not previously read, profoundly
impressed him. He realised that he had been anticipated
by the Bohemian reformer in some, at least, of his contentions, and he unreservedly claimed him as his forerunner
in the common cause. "Without knowing it," wrote
he to Spalatin, "I have hitherto been teaching all that
John Hus -taught and so has Staupitz. In short, we are all
Hussites, though hitherto unconscious of the fact. Yea,
Paul and Augustine themselves were really Hussites. See
the marvellous pass to which we have come without .a leader
and teacher from Bohemia ! I know not for very stupor
what to think, in the face of these terrible judgments of
God among men, of the fact that the clearest evangelical
truth, publicly consumed more than roo years ago, is still
regarded as damnable error and is not allowed to be confessed. Woe to the earth ! " 8 8
His insight was certainly at fault in making this sweeping
generalisation. He was far more original than at such
moments he believed. He was no mere reproduction of
Hus. He saw in the work of Hus more than was there,
for the martyr of Constance was only in a limited degree
84 Johann Poduska, Ultraquist pastor at Prague, and Wenzel Rozdalowsky, Provost of Kaiser Karl College in the same city.
87 Ibid., ii. 201.
86 Enders, ii. 79.
88 Ibid., ii. 345 ..
SG Ibid., ii. 183.
70
his counterpart as an evangelical reformer. His vision was

narrower and he had not attained to Luther's basic principle
of justification by faith. But he had, at least, like Wiclif,
from whom he borrowed, anticipated his views on indulgences, the papal power, the Church, his plea for liberty
of conscience, and to this extent his generous judgment was
well merited~
Another work which came into his hands in February
. r520 made a still more overwhelming impression on his
receptive mind. This was Valla's exposure of the so-called
Donation of the Emperor Constantine, which Hutten had
recently republished with a prefatory letter to Leo X. 89
In this forged document Constantine is represented to have
recognised the primacy of the Roman Bishop over the
whole Church and to have conferred on him sovereign
jurisdiction over the West. The exposure of this fabrication.
fairly took away Luther's breath. It was for him the last
nail in the coffin of the vaunted divine right of the Papacy.
The discovery of this barefaced fabrication of history for
the purpose of bolstering up the claims of the medireval
popes filled him with horror and excited anew the thought
of the Roman Antichrist. " Good God," he wrote to
Spalatin, "how great the darkness and the villany of these
Romanists! How we must wonder at the judgment of
God that these have not only endured, but have prevailed
throughout so many centuries, and that such impure, gross,
and impudent lies have been included among the Decretals,
nay, that nothing may be wanting to these monstrosities,
have wickedly acquired the force of an article of faith.
I am so horrified that I have almost no doubt that the
Pope is that very Antichrist which the world expects and
of whose advent we read in the current vernacular literature,
so closely does the Pope resemble him in all his life, deeds,
words, and laws." 90
The influence of Hus is discernible in the conception
of. the Church which he developed with remarkable argu8' 9 "Hutteni Opera," I., I 55 f.; ed. Bocking; Enders, ii. 332, 24th
Feb. i520. Habeo in manibus, officio Dom. Schleupner, Donationem
Constantini a Laurentio Vallensi per Huttem1m editam .
90 Enders, ii. 332.
r7r
mentative power against the Leipzig Franciscan Alveld.

Alveld had maintained that, on the analogy of the State,
the Church must have an earthly head and that this head
is, by divine right, the Pope. Luther replies that the
analogy does not apply and that the inference is, therefore,
worthless. The State does not exist in an exclusively
monarchic form. Its government may be aristocratic or
democratic; 91 Moreover, according to Scripture, the Church
is a religious democracy consisting of all believers throughout
the world. It is a spiritual body bound together by a
common faith and baptism; This spiritual community is
not bound to R6me under an ecclesiastical monarch . by
divine right, and it iS no .heresy not to be in communion
with Rome. It is, in the words .of the Creed, the communion
of saints; It exists wherever Christians are to be found.
Nor does it c6nsist in the outward ecclesiastical organisation
developed under Roman auspices; 92 and he draws a sharp
distinction between the Church in the spiritual sense, in
which its true being consists, and in theecclesiastical sense,
which is trierelY: its outward form. 93 Of this spiritual
democracy Christ is the o'nly head. This thesis he develops
with no little force of argument and scriptural quotation
against the objections which the Romanists urge against it in
favour of the papal headship. 94 He makes sport of the
ridiculous notion that finds in Aaron arid the Jewish high
priest a figure of St Peter and the Pope, and which Alveld
gravely inflicts on his readers. Though his own exegesis of
Old Testament passages is still influenced by the allegoric
method, Aaron as a figure of Christ is at least better than
Aaron as a figure of the Pope. His opponent boasts tha'.t
the Papacy is an agelong institution, in spite of the fact
that many have contested its claims; Luther meets his
boast with the retort that, though the popes have striven
so long to maintain their claims, they have signally failed
to enslave the whole Church of God. ~Therefore I say,
though the Roman tyrant has striven against the Gospel to
transform the common power into a tyranny, Christ's word,
'The gates of hell shall not prevail against it,' has vindicated
91 "Werke," vi. 292.
93
Ibid., vi. 296-297.
92
Ibid., vi. 294-295.
94
Ibid., vi. 297 f.
172
itself. This Roman pretension to power over the whole

of Christendom has never been realised." 95 Christ's kingdom js far wider than the Roman Church, and though the
Romanists denounce those outside it as heretics, this does
not alter the fact that a large part of Christendom refuses
to acknowledge the papal _pretensions. If the Papacy is a
divinely ordained institution and yet half of Christendom
does not recognise it, would it have been said of it that
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ? 96
The most sweeping declaration of his defiance of Rome
came in his final reply on June 1520 to Prierias, who had
asserted against him the papal absolutism in the most
uncompromising terms. If Rome deliberately professes this
extreme ,doctrine, then Rome is Babylon and the Pope and
the cardinals are the abomination of desolation standing in
the holy place (Dan. ix. 27 ; Matt. xxiv. 15). He will go.
forth from this Babylon in which faith has become extinct,
the Gospel is perverted, and Christ an exile. " Adieu,
therefore, unhappy, lost, and blasphemous Rome. The
wrath of God is come upon you, as you have at last
merited." 97 Rome has exalted itself above all power on
earth and leads the enslaved nations to the devil. "Be
dumb, 0 heaven, be horrified, 0 earth. See, 0 Christians,
what Rome has become." 98 In his wrath against this
tyrannic system his language reaches the climax of violence.
He calls on the Emperor, kings, and princes, in the ultimate
resort, to destroy it root and branch as a criminal against
humanity. " To me it appears that, if the madness of the
Romanists goes on at this rate, no other remedy remains
than that the Emperor, kings, and princes should gird their
arms, attack these pests of the earth, and decide the matter
not with words, but by force and the sword. If we punish
thieves with the gallows, robbers with the sword, heretics
with fire, why do we not the more attack with every arm
at our command these masters of perdition, these cardinals,
thes~ popes, and the whole brood of the Roman Sodom
which corrupts the Church of God without end, and wash
our hands in their blood, and so liberate ourselves from
95
96
"Werke," vi. 310-31 I.

Ibid., vi. 311.
97
98
Ibid., vi. 329.

Ibid., vi. 336.
173
this common and most dangerous conflagration ? " 9 9 Wild

rhetoric assuredly which even the strain of persecution
does not excuse in a Christian theologian. It is, however,
questionable whether he meant it to be taken literally,
since he had already condemned the use of force in the
service of religion, even against the infidel Turk. It would,
nevertheless, have been well had he scored out the passage
before sending this effusion to the printer. At the same
time he is only re-echoing the language of the orthodox
zealots throughout the Middle Ages who had proclaimed the
crusade of fire and sword against the heretic in behalf of
Roman tyranny over soul and conscience and exalted the
papal supremacy over the State as well as the Church.
He is already beginning to seek in the State an ally
in the cause of a radical reformation of the Church. In the
Commentary on Galatians which he had delivered as lectures
in r5r6-r7 and published in revised form in September
r5r9, 100 with .a dedication to Lupinus and Carlstadt, he
adumbrates this policy, though in less truculent fashion.
"These wicked rascals (Prierias, etc.) make sport of and
exhaust the whole of Germany with the lead and wax of
the Roman Curia. What other do they show by their
mockery of the holy names of the Pope and the Roman
Church than that they regard us Germans as mere blockheads and simpletons, barbarians and beasts, whilst they
ridicule our gullibility and our incredible patience under
this spoilation. . . . I rejoice, therefore, that the German
princes in recent Diets (Augsburg) have discriminated
between the Roman Church and the Roma!?- Curia, have
refused the tenths, twentieths, and fiftieths demanded by.
9 9 "Werke," vi. 347. The attempts of Protestant writers (Walther,
"Fur Luther Wider Rom.," 250 f. (r906), and :E}:alkoff, "Entscheidungsjqhre," r20 f.) to explain this passage are not very satisfactory. Kohler
thinks that Luther in these words," wash our hands in their blood," had in
mind Ps. !viii. ro-1 I, in which the judgment of God is about to be fulfilled
on the wicked. Luther believed that this judgment was once more
about to be exemplified in a divine castigation of the Church, and applies
the language of the Psalmist to his own time. ''Das Katholische Lutherbild der Gegenwart," 33-34 (r922). This may be correct, but it is hardly
a justification for the violence of this outburst.
1 0
~ Enders, ii. 139; cf. I 56.
I. 74
Luther arid the Reformation
the.Curia, and have in virtue of this discrhnination recognised

that Council and Pope may err and.have erred. . . , -They
have at last resolved that the Roman Church and the Gospel
are .not the same thing as the insatiable pursuit of money
by the Roman Curia and its legates. The example of
these lay theologians is. worthy of the highest commendation.
This resistance of the princes and other laymen is proof of
greater piety than if they were to take up arms against the
Turks.'' 1
The appeal to. the State to take up the . work of
reformation appears also in .the "Sermon on Good Works."
The sermon is really a treatise which he wrote at Spalatin's
instigation 2 and published at the end of May 1520 with
a dedication to Duke John, the Elector's brother. U had,
he informed Spalatin, swelled into a book, and in his opinion
it was the best of all that he had hitherto written, though
it might not please his critics. 3 Its object, he tells us in
the dedication, was to enlighten the laity on the fundamental
principle of faith in relation to good works as the indispensable. condition of true piety and morality. This principle
he had inculcated in his sermons in the parish church at
Wittenberg and had touched on in those on .the sacraments
which he dedicated to the Duchess of Brunswick-:Liinebwg
and other occasional pieces in the vernacular. Throughout
the. controversy ,:which had developed over his Ninety-'fi:ve
Theses on Indulgences he had addressed himself mainly
to his fellow-theologians, and had at first, at. le.ast, sought
to keep the discussion within the academic sphere .. His
opponents had; however, compelled him to explain or defend.
his views; on occasion, in the vernacular in order to counteract
misrepresentation or calumny. They had, in fact, contemptuously reft)rred. to him as a mere scribbler of popular
sermons. and tracts in spite of the goodly nu:rnber of c;ontroversial pieces, fraughtwith learning and full of audaciously.
original ideas, which had made his name famous or infamos
far beyond the bounds of- Germany. In the dedication he
retorts that he is well content to spend ~is life in seeking
2 Enders,, ii. 331; cf. 34~.
-~ '' Werke," ii. 447-449.
3
Ibid., ii. 366, 25th March 1520. Adeo. augescit inter scribendum,-,
et si sic processerit erit meo judicio omnium qure ediderim optimum.
175
to instruct and improve the ordinary laymen. In this service.

he will gladly leave to others the honour of producing works
of learning after the fashion of the schools. 4 Moreover, he
had by this time come to realise the necessity of appealing
to the people through the press if his cause was to prevail.
Hence this deliberate attempt to enlighten .the laity on the
fundamental issue of faith versus works which had, though
gradually and at first unconsciously, led him into opposition
to the whole medireval ecclesiastical system as well as the
scholastic theology.
Good works.are what God has commanded, just as sin.
is what He has forbidden. . He therefore discusses the
subject in relation to the Ten Commandments, viewed in
the light of the Gospel. From the Christian point of view.
the undamental fact underlying all good works is faith
in Christ, as Christ Himself taught in reply to the question
of the. Jews, " What must we do that we may work the
works of God ? " " This is the work of God," answers
Christ, " that ye may believe in Him whom He hath sent "
(John vi. 28-29). It is from this faith that, under the
Christian dispensation, all good works spring and derive
their goodness. But this faith is no mere .belief in Christ.
It is distinctively trust, confidence that God accepts our
works as pleasing in His sight, and it is this that imparts
to us a good conscience towards Him. The :fiducial element
in faith, :which is already discernible in the Commentary on
Romans, has become for Luther in the sermon on ".Good
Works," as well as in the Commentaryon.Galatians, 5 the
vVerke," vi. 203.
Ibid., ii. 458. Fabulre erg.o sunt opinatorum scholast~corm
hominem esse incertum in.statu salutis sit nee ne. Cave tune aliquando.
sis incertus, s.ed certus quod in .teipso perditus .; laborandUUL autem ut
certlis et solidus sis in fide Christi p.ro peccatis tuis traditi. Quomodo
potest fieri ut hanc fidem, si sit in te, non sentias, cum beatus Augustinus
asserat earn certissime videri ab eo qui habet ? See also Ihmels, "Das
C.hristenthum.Luther's in Seiner Eigenart," 16 (1917). Lu,ther's first
course on Galatians, delivered ill 1516-1517 and elaborated into the
Commentary of 1519, has been edited by Von Schubert from a student's
notebook, under the title of "Luther's Vorlesung iiber den Galaterbrief,
1516-1517 " (1918). The comments are much briefer than in the
elaborated commentary, though his distinctive teaching is there.
.4 "
5
r 76
distinctive, the essential element. 6 Without this trust, this

good conscience towards God, the vital thing in religion is
lacking. It begets in us love, peace, joy, hope; whereas
the lack of it fills the heart with unrest, doubt, and fear
which inevitably result from the mistaken attempt to satisfy
God and gain His favour by our ow:n works and merits.
For we can never be sure of gaining God's favour by such
works and merits in virtue of the element of uncertainty
inherent in such an attempt. Without the fundamental
principle of fiducial faith, religion can only be, in the words
of the Psalmist, " labour and sorrow," as vain as it is
burdensome, since without this faith our works cannot be
pleasing to God. For not on their own account, but on
account of this faith are they good in God's sight. Vain,
therefore, the attempt to find peace in running to St James
of Compostella, Rome, Jerusalem, and other places of
pilgrimage, praying to the saints, fasting, confessing, etc.
Still more hopeless to face, without this faith, the trials and
sorrows of life, the torment of an accusing conscience. To
build on the foundation of our own works and merits, however great, and not on a confiding faith, in absolute dependence on God's merciful acceptance of us, is, he says, to build
on sand and water, and those who teach the people otherwise
are blind leaders of the blipd. 7

In thus applying the test of fiducial faith to the current
religion, Luther was repeating what he h~ previously said
in more technical theological language in his expositions
and controversial writings. He has in mind his own earlier
experience of seeking and failing to find a gracious God
by the system of work righteousness and his long struggle
with the problem of sin, righteousness, the law, his long
drawn-out effort to attain a good conscience towards God.
For him the path to an assured relation to God and a life of
joyous confidence in God did not lie in this direction. His
modem Roman Catholic critics 8 deny his contention that
the medireval faith was lacking in the fiducial element.
The distinctive terms in which he describes it are "trawn," "vertrawn," "zuversicht." "Werke," vi. 205-206.
7
"Werke," vi. 207-209.
8
Deni fie, " Luther und Lutherthum," ii. 727.
Progress of Luther's Reforming Views 177

But, as Brieger has pointed out, the object of this faith was
the Chrch, as the intermediary between God and the soul,
rather than God Himself. 9 Characteristic of medireval piety
was the idea of obedience to rather. than trust in God.10
At all events, Luther was proclaiming something new in
emphasising absolute dependence on, confidence in God as
the distinctive element in faith, in contrast and opposition
to the current medireval conception of religion.
It is this fimdamental principle that he applies to the
whole life of the Christian in his effort to realise the will of
God as contained in the Decalogue. He follows Paul's
method of interpreting the law in the light of Christianity,
and, as in his case, some of his interpretations are rather
forced a:nd far fetched. The sermon, it must be remembered,
is not a strictly objective discussion, but a popular homily.
He makes the first commandment, for instance, forbid the
idol9-try of good works without justifying faith, though he
by no means condemns the prescribed ecclesiastical
ordinances, if observed in the right spirit and with the
true insight.11 At the same time, whilst vigorously denouncing this "idolatry," he protests against the inference of his
critics that his teaching is fitted to undermine the moral life
as well as the institutions of the Church. "Faith," he says,
" must be the master craftsman and director of works." 12
Exercise yourself in faith and you will have enough to do in
bringing forth the works of faith. Herein lies the radical
difference between his piety and that of the conventional
Christian. Faith does voluntarily and gladly what is pleasing to God. The Christian who lives by faith needs no
prescription to bind him, though he must take care not to
let his liberty degenerate into licence or slothfulness in welldoing. Ecclesiastical ordinances have their religious value
in the case of those who are weak or elementary in the faith,
and with whose weakness the strong must bear, whilst
resisting the blind leaders who mislead them by their slavish
doctrine of works. 18 But how is it possible to maintain
Luther und Wir," I 5.
Preuss, " Luther's Frommigkeit," 12 (1917).
"Werke," vi. 209-212.
13 Ibid., vi. 213-214.
Ibid., vi. 213.
e "
10
11
12
12
78
this confidence towards God in the face of sin, to which all

are subject and which makes even the best of our works
sinful in the sight of a perfectly righteous God ? Luther
replies by pointing the sinner to Christ, the great Advocate
with the Father and the propitiator of sin, through whom
the mercy of God becomes operative in forgiveness, and his
trust in God is vindicated in spite of sin.14
In the sermon Luther not only gives a popular exposition
of good works from the evangelical standpoint, he proposes
to reform the Church and Society in accordance with this
teaching. The sermon is alike an evangelical homily and
an aggressive reform manifesto. It is, in fact, in a considerable degree an anticipation of the Great Reform manifestos
that were erelong to follow. From beginning to end he is
on the warpath against the evils rampant in the Church
and the world. We are, he says, living in the time of the
prophets and the apostles over again in their struggle for a
new and better order of things. 15 The sermon is, therefore,
not merely critical; it is constructive. In the place of the
false religion, which he regards as a travesty of true
Christianity, he would simplify and spiritualise th~ worship
and the institutions of the Church. His standpoint is that
of Christ in His reply to the Samaritan woman, "God is a
Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth." 16 He would restore the Mass, which
has become an official performance without any real 'meaning or efficacy for the congregation, to its original institution
as a memorial of Christ's covenant with His disciples, in
which we are assured of the forgiveness of sins through His
death and an occasion of thanksgiving for the benefits bf
this covenant. He would have bishops and priests preach
the Gospel, of which the Mass in its original significance is
the essence and or which they are grossly ignorant; instead
of the absurd fables which they are wont to foist on the
people from the pulpit. 17 He would reduce the number
of holy days or even abolish them, since they serve to foster
sloth, self-gratification, and a superficial formalism. 18 He
14
15
16
"Werke," vi, 215-216.

Ibid., vi: 228.
Ibid., vi. 233.
17
18
Ibid., vi. 231-232.

Ibid., vi. 229-230.
79
would to God that only Sunday were left and that people
were content to worship our Lady and the saints on this
day. 19 He would make of prayer a heartfelt utterance
of personal faith, trust in God, instead of the endless
repetition of prescribed forms in churches and monasteries
without spiritual efficacy or improvement. 20 He would
limit fasting to what is necessary to discipline the flesh and
strengthen the soul in its struggle with the passions, and
would disallow the mistaken excessive asceticism which is
injurious to health and of no real spiritual value. 21 He
would follow common sense and personal experience in the
matter. He would radically reform the ecclesiastical government in order that the hierarchy may devote itself to its
spiritual function, instead of concerning itself with material
things and worldly power. He would begin by suppressing
the whole system of trafficking in ecclesiastical offices,
buying and selling benefices and other devices by which
Rome not only sucks the wealth of Germany to maintain
its corrupt regime, but, dishonours God and destroys
religion. 22 It is high time to take in hand a thorough
reformation of Christendom. Such a reformation is far
more clamant than the crusade against the Turk. " When
the Turks attack cities, land, and people, we esteem it a
great calamity to Christendom. We wring our hands and
summon kings and princes to the holy war. But when
faith goes under, love grows cold, God's Word is neglected,
and all kinds of evil take the upper hand, no one .thinks of
waging a spiritual warfare for the reformation of these
abuses. Yea, popes, bishops, priests, and ecclesiastics who
should be the leaders and captains of this spiritual warfare,
are themselves the leaders and pioneers of such a Turkish,
devilish army as Judas was of the Jews who came to seize
Christ." 23
The sermon seeks to apply the law, evangelically inter.,.
preted, in th~ political, social, and economic sphere as well
as in that of the religious life. Good works are not limited
to the spiritual side of life. Everything we do, in wha~ever
19
20
21
"Werke," vi. 243.

Ibid., vi. 233.
Ibid., vi. 246.
22
23
Ibid., vi. 256-257.

Ibid., vi. 257-258.
1 So
relation we do it, has its religious and moral aspect. It is

good or bad according as it is pleasing to God or not. 24 We
are to serve God in the family, the State, our ordinary calling
as well as in the church or the monastery. He expounds
the second Table of the law in its bearing on the relation
of parents and children, subject and prince, master and
servant, man and his neighbour. In all these relations we
are to exercise ourselves in good works done in faith. The
family is a divine institution for the Christian education
of the young in obedience, the repression of selfwill, the
fear of God as well as the honour of father and mother.
Unfortunately the reality of family life corresponds very
ill with the ideal of the sixth commandment, and the
responsibility for the failure to realise it he lays on the
Church, which neglects this part of its duty, as well as the
pare:nts themselves who lack a true sense of their Christian
vocation and whom the clergy mislead by their false teaching
and their bad example. 25
For Luther the State is also a divine institution and
fulfils an ethical end. He, indeed, distinguishes sharply
between the State and the Church. It has nothing to do
with matters of faith, and its function is, in comparison
with that of the Church, much less exalted and important.
In its own sphere it is entitled to the absolute obedience
of the subject, even in case of misgovernment: He defends
this questionable principle on the ground that whereas
opposition to ecclesiastical misgovernment is imperative
in the interest of the faith, it is not admissible in the case
of misgovernment by the civil authority, on which the
spiritual welfare of the soul does not depend. The subject
is, therefore, bound to bear injustice and oppression Without
complaint or resistance. 26 Only if it seeks to compel him
to do what is against God's commandments may he refuse
obedience, since such transgression of the divine law looses
the bond of obedience. If, for instance, a prince undertakes a war in an unjust cause, his subjects shall not abet
and help him, because God has commanded us not to kill
2'
25 Ibid., vi. 250 f.

"Werke,'' vi. 205-206.
2a Ibid., vi. 258-260.
181
our neighbour, or do him an injustice, and we must obey

God rather than man. 27 At the same time, he emphasises
the duty and the necessity of just and wise government
in the interest of the people and warns against the danger
of misgovernment. He reminds rulers, too, that there is
much in need of reformation in the State as well as the
Church, and he would drastically repress such evils as excessive eating and drinking, the growing luxury of the upper
classes, the practice of usury, the licensing of prostitution,
the extortion of the clergy. 28 Whilst upholding the existing
social and economic order, condemning the prevailing
popular unrest, and emphasising the duty of subjection and
respect on the part of the masses, he recognises the right
of the workers to considerate Christian treatment at the
hands of their lords and masters and quotes Paul in support
of his plea for such treatment. 29
27
"Werke," vi. 265.
2s Ibid., vi. 260-262.

29
Ibid., vi. 263-264. The original MS. of the sermon on Good
Works is printed in "Werke," ix. 229 f., edited by N. Muller.
CHAPTER VII
.THE CONDEMNATION OF LUTHER

I. RESUMPTION OF THE PROCESS
THE anxiety of the Pope to counter the candidature of Charles

of Spain for the imperial crown on the death of Maximilian
had, as we have seen, interrupted the official prosecution
against Luther in the spring and early summer of I5I9.
In a final effort in June of this year to secure the rejection
of Charles and persuade the Elector either to support the .
candidature of the King of France or himself accept the
imperial crown, he had included among other inducements
the offer of a cardinal's hat for "one of his friends." 1 The
"friend" in question was, it seems, no other than Luther
himself t 2 Nothing came of this extraordinary proposal
which implied, of course, that Luther, as Miltitz had previously represented to Rome, was prepared to be reconciled
on its own terms to the Papacy. Well might the astonished
Elector ask what the poor monk of Wittenberg would do
with such a high dignity? He was assured that the Pope
would provide him with an adequate income in the shape
of a rich bishopric. 3 In any case Luther, whose real sentiments Miltitz had misreported to Rome, was not the man
to enter in to such a visionary arrangement to suit the
political plans of the Curia. Moreover, the Eiector was
not disposed to countenance the unconstitutional expedients
to secure his election which the unscrupulous papal diplomacy
had suggested, though he was prepared to accept election by
the legitimate vote of ,his fellow-electors. 4 The Pope was,
1 "
Reichstagsakten," i. 823-824.
3 Kalkoff, ibid., II2.
Kalkoff, "Entscheidungsjahre," III-II2.
' "Reichstagsakten," i. 656-657. Should the majority of the electors
not support the papal policy, the Pope was prepared to sanction a
minority vote in favour of his own nominee. The proposal was a glaring
2
182
Resumption of the Process
183
therefore, fain at the last moment to acquiesce in the

inevitable and inform the electors through Cajetan of his
willingness to recognise the election of Charles, 5 who was
accordingly elected on the 28th June.
In spite of this rebuff, the Curia did not immediately
resume its suit against the Elector's protege. Cajetan had,
indeed, sought to take advantage of the papal proposal to
extort from the Elector the repression of the arch-heretic. 6
Frederick was neither to be bribed nor browbeaten in this
matter and the impotent legate was made the scapegoat
of the papal chagrin over the failure to prevent the election
of the King of Spain and Naples. But whilst he fell into
disfavour and shortly after took his' departure from Germany,
Miltitz was at last empowered to hand over the Golden Rose
which the Pope had for nearly a year vainly dangled before
the Elector's eyes as a bribe for the surrender of Luther,
and thus earn for himself the perquisites usual on such an
occasion (25th September 1519). 7
He was, moreover, allowed to continue his informal
efforts to mediate Luther's submission to the Holy See.
In May 1519 he had invited him to appear at Coblentz
infringement of the Golden Bull of Charles IV., which regulated the
imperial election. See the Elector's letters to Cajetan (Walch, xv.
88]-889) and Orsini(" Reichstagsakten," i. 766), in which the Elector
expresses his determination to act in this matter in accordance with his
duty as a Christian prince. See also Kalkoff, "Z.K.G.," xxv. 415-416.
He ultimately, according to Kalkoff, did consent to his own election, and
on the 27th June '1S19 was actually elected by four votes, including his
own, as Emperor, and for three hours possessed this dignity in virtue of
this vote. The vote was, however, departed from, in view of the imminent
risk of civil war on the part of the Habsburg-Spanish party, and Frederick
IV. abdicated rather than incur this risk in the face of the odds against.his
being able to maintain his imperial dignity against the HabsburgSpanishpower. See Kalkoff, "Z.K.G.,"xliii. 180-182, and xliv. 416-417.
Wolf, Zur Frage des Kaisertums Friedrichs desWeisen, "Z.K.G." (1927),
22 f.) contends against Kalkoff for the usual view that Frederick refused
the imperial .dignity which three of the Electors (Trier, Palatinate,
Brandenburg) were prepared to confer on him and with his own vote would
have given him the majority. Kalkoff's contention is at most little
more than an inference which the definite testimony of Spalatin as
to Frederick's refusal renders very questionable. Kalkoff's view is also
contested by Kirn," Friedrich der Weise und die Kirche," 132 f. (1926).
6
6 "R.A.;" i. 832-833.
7 Ibid., xv. 894.
Walch, xv. 888-890.
84
before the Archbishop of Trier and Cajetan as arbiters,

in accordance with the agreement arrived at at Altenburg
in the previous January. 8 Luther flatly declined the invitati9n. He had not promised to appear personally before the
archbishop, bt only to submit his writings for his judgment,
and with the legate he would have nothing more to do after
his experience at Augsburg. Moreover, Miltitz had no real
authority from Rome to refer the case to the archbishop
and Luther preferred to defend it publicly at Leipzig. He
had only too good reason for distrusting the unveracious
and unreliable commissary and broadly hinted that it
was not safe to trust himself in his hands. Without a
safe conduct, of which Miltitz had, significantly enough,
made no mention, it would be far too risky to expose
himself to the plots of his enemies. 9 In these circumstances,
to have gone to Coblentz would have been to walk in to the
lion's den, and, as he wrote to Spalatin, he was not such a
fool as Miltitz imagined him to be in making such a ridiculous
proposal.10
Four months later, towards the end of September,
Miltitz made an attempt to reopen the question of his
submission in the belief that the delivery of the Golden
Rose would at last induce the Elector to second his efforts.11
"Doctor Martin is in my hands," he is reported to have
boasted at Dresden. 12 The Elector went the length of
agreeing to his proposal to interview Luther at Liebenwerda,13
and the interview took place on the 9th October. Luther
reported to Spalatin that they had discussed the subject
of the papal power without any definite conclusion and that
he had expressed anew his willingness to abide by his
promise to submit his case to the Archbishop of Trier. 1 4
In his version of the interview to the Elector, Miltitz asserted
that he had promised to accompany him to Trier to confer
9
Enders, ii. 18-20.
Ibid., ii. 53-55, 17th May 15 19.
Ibid., ii. 46; cf. 51. Letter to Lang. Homo suavis simul confite;ns se nondum ex Urbe (Rome) recepisse mandatum, et sperat me tarn
crassre naris esse ut non vocatus nisi sua temeritate veniam. Video
ubique, undeque, quocunque modo animam meam qureri.
11
13
Ibid., ii. 159.
Ibid., ii. 160-161.
12 Ibid., ii.1139.
14 Ibid., ii. 187-188.
8
10
18 5
with the archbishop. 15 This Luther denied and found in

this " fabling " another proof of the unreliability of the
pretentious busybody.16 Miltitz sought to justify his statement in a letter to the Elector, who pointed out the discrepancy between his report and that of Luther,17 and
evidently preferred to accept Luther's version of the incident.
At all events he shelved the proposal by informing Miltitz
that he had already come to an understanding with the
archbishop at the Electoral Diet at Frankfurt to bring
Luther to the next Diet for the purpose of submitting his
views to the archbishop's judgment.18
Meanwhile the Curia had resolved to discard the policy
of drift arid resume the prosecution of the unconscionable
Wittenberg professor. Luther was informed of this change
of policy by his old Erfurt fellow-student, Crotus Rubianus,
then sojourning in Italy and thus able to speak from personal
observation. From this well-informed source he learned in
a couple of letters which Crotus addressed to him on the
16th and 31st October 1519 19 that his name had acquired
a very bad odour at Rom~, where it was heresy to approve
his writings. A friend, Andrew Fuchs, Canon of Bamberg,
had sent him his Resolutions on his Ninety-five Theses and
his account of the Augsburg Conference (Acta Augustana),
which it was only safe to read in secret. Those of the
Italian theologians who agreed wit.h him at heart were fain
to dissent from his views in public, not so much from fear
of the Pope as from dread of the disturbance which the
diminution of the papal power would cause in the Church.
For this reason the common opinion at Rome was in favour
of maintaining the absolute power of the Pope as. Vicar
of Christ and the infallible organ of the Holy Spirit. To
argue to the contrary from Scripture was utterly vain. A
hundred Pauls would not induce them to give up their
false opinion. At Rome only the judgment of the Holy
See, not that of Scripture, carries the victory. Equally
16
Enders, ii. 189.

Letters to the Elector and Spalatin (Walch, xv. 907-908; Enders,
ii. 192-193).
17 Enders, ii. 190, 198-200.
19 Ibid., ii. 204 f.
18 Ibid., ii. 190.
18
86
futile to adduce the papal misrule of the Church, the

oppression and corruption of the Curia. The Dominicans
reply that all this happens by divine providence and it ~s
not permissible to dispute the will of God. Roman impiety
has sunk so .low that a. good Christian and theologian is
held in utter contempt. 20 Processions may be seen in the
streets of Rome in which the Eucharist is carried amid a '
crowd of shameless women and prostituted boys. ''I was
lately at Rome with Hess. I saw the monume;nts of ancient
times; I saw the seat of pestilence. It was useful to have
seen it; yet with disgust have I beheld it." 21 Luther's
appeal to a General Council has especially roused the wrath
of the Medici faction and their creatures (the mercenary
relatives of the Pope) who are bent on upholding at all
costs the wretched and corrupt exploitation of Germany,
under the pretext of the liberties of the Church, and will.
not listen to the demand for reform. Let him, nevertheless,
proceed in his struggle against this corrupt regime and
convert Germany to his cause, whilst avoiding these rash
public disputations which only serve to display the verbosity
of disputants like Eck and tend to recrimination unworthy
of a theologian.
Eck, he tells him in the second letter, is celebrated
at Rome as the victor of Leipzig and the Curia has decided
energetically to espouse his cause against Luther and the
Hussites. He has written a letter which the Pope corn
municated secretly to two of his confidential theologians
(one of them, doubtless, Prierias) and the contents of which
Crotus has learned through a friend, a physician of the
papal court, who furtively overheard the conference; It
gave an account of the Leipzig disputation and urged the
necessity of making an example of the champion of. the
Bohemian heresy. If the Pope did not act promptly,
Saxony would be lost to the Church and the contagion
would spread to other parts of Germany. Eck has suggested
the means to be taken to this end and also against the
20
Enders, ii. 207. Eo enim impietatis progressum est ut qui vocetur
bonus Christianus vel theologus is extrema contemptu spretus esse
videatur.
21
Ibid., ii. 207.
87
humanists, especially against Hutten, whose epigrams

against Rome afford convincing evidence of . the nefarious
effects of the new culture. The Pope should compel the
Universities of Paris and Erfurt to pronounce judgment in
Eck's favour and appoint a commission to draw up the
condemnation of Luther's heresy.
This last recommendation, which resembles Luther's
demand for a hearing before a German ecclesiastical
tribunal, did not commend itself to the Curia. But the
missive was deemed so important that its author was
summorled for consultation to Rome 22 (November 1519).
The effect of Eck's communication was erelong apparent
in an Instruction despatched to Miltitz to inform the Elector
of the Pope's displeasure at the continued delay in
suppressing the Lutheran movement, and announcing his
de~ermination to take effective measures against the heretic
and his protectors. It contained, in fact, a threat to place
the electoral dominions under an interdict as well as Luther
under the papal ban. With this portentous missive Miltitz
was on his way from Torgau to the Elector at Lochau
when he was intercepted by Spalatin oh the 8th December
and taken back to Torgau, whence he forwarded the gist
of its contents. 23 In reply Frederick and his councillors
drew up a diplomatic exculpation of the attitude hitherto
adopted by him on the Lutheran question. He disclaimed
all responsibility for the delay in settling the case. He had
always acted in this matter as a Christian prince and an
obedient son of the Holy See. Miltitz had himself begged
him not to banish Luther in view of the danger of thereby
affording him an opportunity to continue his activity else,.
where. Luther had not broken the agreement to keep
silent, which was conditional on his opponents refraining
from further controversy. He had only vindicated his
honour in replying to these and taking part in the Leipzig
debate. His teaching was regarded by many learned men
as well founded and might, therefore, be defended without
detriment to the Church. He had agreed to accept the
22
Kalkoff, "Forschungen," 70; "Z.K.G.," xxv. 436.

2a Walch, xv. 910-912.
88
Archbishop of Trier as arbiter, and neither he nor the

Elector, but Miltitz himself was to blame for the delay
in carrying out the agreement. Moreover, the archbishop
had, at the Frankfurt Diet, found it advisable to postpone the consideration of the matter to the next Diet.
His case was, therefore, still sub Judice and the Elector
failed to understand what he had done to merit the threat
of interdict. 24
This plausible document is not to be taken at its face
value. It mingles fact with diplomatic fiction. Frederick
was not so innocent as he professed of responsibility for the
evasion and delay in dealing with the question. He had,
in fact, all along been exercising his diplomatic ingenuity
to frustrate the prosecution of his famous professor. In
his negotiations with Cajetan this had been his supreme
concern, and this concern also governed his attitude towards .
the go-between Miltitz. He had himself suggested to the
Archbishop of Trier the postponement of the case till the
next Diet. He had never seriously contemplated the removal
of Luther from Saxony. True, he found it difficult to
exercise any real control over Luther, who, in the pursuit
and defence of what he believed to be the truth, concerned
himself little with mere political calculations and .had often
enough tried his protector's patience and jeopardised his
diplomacy by his fearless and aggressive assertion of his
convictions. At the same time, he was in full sympathy
with his brave stand against the corrupt and oppressive
Roman regime. He seems, too, to have appreciated his
evangelical teaching and was by this time not too enthusiastic over the indulgence privileges which Miltitz had
brought along with the Golden Rose and did not consider
it worth while to be present personally to receive them. 26
He had persistently intervened to shelter him from the
tyranny of Rome by diplomatic means. He had only done.
so at the expense of a good deal of diplomatic finesse. He
and his councillors were adepts in the art of diplomatic
fencing, with which the politicians of the Curia were, how24 See the
documents in Walch, xv. 912-919;
"Z.K.G.,'' xxv. 437-44r.
25
Walch, xv. 894-895.
also
Kalkoff,
89
ever, by no means unfamiliar. At Rome, as at Lochau

and every other princely residence, to govern was to
dissemble, and in this respect the document bears the
trace of the diplomatic make-believe of the age. At the
same time, the responsibility for the continuance of the
controversy did not lie on his shoulders, but on those of
the theologians, and not least on those of the ultra-Romanist
zealots who would promptly have settled it by burning
Luther and interdicting his protector. After all, it was his
duty as a ruler to protect his subj,ects from oppression
even if the oppressor was the holy Roman Church, of which
he professed to be an obedient son, but which was widely
regarded in Germany as the incarnation of corruption and
misgovernment and whose interest it was to destroy the
brave monk who had dared to arraign it. If Luther. was
to have a fair hearing it could only be by keeping him in the
meantime safe at Wittenberg and countering every device
of his Dominican enemies to entrap him and send him to a
heretic's doom. Frederick took his own way in the game of
checkmate-the way suit~d to the genius of the wary
politician, though it would have been more straightforward,
if less politic, to follow Luther's example and tell the plain
truth, instead of seeking to hide behind a cloud of diplomatic
special pleading. It was not Luther's way, and Luther, at
any rate, who was risking reputation and even life for the
sake of his convictions, was not consulted in the drafting of
this document.. And yet, humanly speaking, what would
have been his fate had there been no Frederick to exercise
his diplomatic ingenuity on his behalf?
The Pope and his Vice-Chancellor, Giulio de Medici,
saw in this evasive missive a proof of the Elector's veiled
antagonism to the head of the Church. Hence the unmeasured denunciation of him and his advisers in the public
oration delivered in the papal presence on the rrth January
r520 on the occasion of the reception of Cardinal Bibiena
on his return from an embassy to the King of France. The
impassioned orator went the length of denouncing the Elector
by name and his advisers in general as tyrants and enemies
of the faith who, under the influence of Luther, were misleading and seducing Germany, and demanding the prosecu-
r 90
tion and repression of this German "hydra." 26 The Pope

did not go the length of citing the Elector himself for trial
at Rome as the orator demanded, and contented himself with
warning him through Serralonga of the accusation against
him as the enemy of religion. 27 On the other hand, he
determined to resume the process against Luther as the
instigator of the revolt which, as the orator put it, was
in dire danger, ,Jhrough his activity, of utterly undoing
religion. As a preliminary he nominated on the rst February
r520 a commission, drawn from the mendicant Orders, under
the direction of Cardinals Cajetan and Accolti, to examine
his teaching and formulate a list of his heresies. Whilst
Cajetan was 'an erudite theologian and Accolti a distinguished
canonist and patron of Reuchlin, 28 the monkish members
of the commission were unfitted for such an investigation.
They seem to have contented themselves with consulting.
the condemnation drawn up by the Louvain theologians
without taking the trouble to study Luther's writings or
evaluate his views, as Cajetan seems to have desired. With
the exception of the two cardinals, they were as incompetent
as they were eager to pass judgment, and at Cajetan's
instigation the Vice-Chancellor had thein displaced by a
second commission, consisting of trained theologians and
including Luther's opponents Prierias and Rhadino (rrth
February).
Under Cajetan's influence the new commission made an

attempt to discuss and appraise Luther's teaching in a more
objective spirit and to discriminate between what was
deemed heretical and what was merely scandalous or offensive to pious ears (scandalosa et offensiva). It proposed,
moreover, to try the effect of a policy of moderation, and
26 The oration was reported by Melchior von Watt, Schulte, "Quellen
und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken," published by the Koniglichen Preussischen Hist. Institut in Rom., Bd. vi.
Heft i. 174-176; Kalkoff, "Forschungen," 15 f., 36 f., 7r. Kalkoff
assumes that the speech was composed, if not delivered, by Aleander.
Ibid., 175-176; "Entscheidungsjahre," 134
27 Kalkoff, "Forschungen," 16 and 40; "Entscheidungsjahre," 136;
28 Enders, i. 327, 331; Kalkoff, "Z.K.G.," xxv. 99~100.
See also
Schulte, "Die Romischen Verhandlungen iiber Luther," 1520. Konig.
Preuss. Hist. Institut, vi. Heft i. 32 f. (1903).

whilst rejecting Luther's views in a new decretal without,
however, mentioning their author, to give him another
chance to retract them before proceeding to the .extreme
course of condemnation 29 (r5th March). It reflects the
influence of Cajetan and the more moderate party among
the Roman theologians who, as Crotus Rubianus had
informed Luther, wished to forestall an upheaval in the
Church. To this end Venetus, the General of the Augustinian
Order, was directed to write to Staupitz to use his influence
to bring about Luther's submission. Let him take to heart
the disrepute into which he has brought his Order by his
attack on the Papacy and the institutions of the Church
and the continued provocation which he has given the longsuffering Pope, and cease attempting by his writings to
undermine the rock on which the Lord has founded the
Church. Let him take warning in time. The patience of
the magnanimous Leo is not inexhaustible. A Bull against
his writings, if not against his person, is being prepared,
though the Pope is ready to give him a last chance of
" coming to himself." 3o
The Pope was, however, not disposed to implement the
conciliatory policy of the commission. Unde;r the influence
of Eck, who arrived at Rorne shortly after and revealed the
far reaching character of Luther's attack on the papal power,
which had not been fully grasped at Rome, 31 he empowered
a third commission to deal with the case. This commission
consisted of the two cardinals, Eck himself, and "a Spanish
doctor," 32 and towards the end of April the Pope himself
discussed in a long audience the list of forty-one errors in
the form of a Bull of condemnation, which it had laboriously
drafted and which was to be submitted to the Consistory
for discussion and final adjustment. 33 It was based partly
on Eck's report of Luther's contentions on the question
Kalkoff, "Entscheidungsjahre," 140; "Z.K.G.," xxv. 101-102.
The letter, dated 15th March 1520; is given by Brieger in
'' Z.K.G.," ii. 478-489.
31 Eck's letter of 3rd May in" Opera Latina Var.," iv. 256.
Bonum
fuit me venisse hoe tempore Romaro, quod alii parum pernoverunt
errores Lutheranos.
32 Ibid., iv. 257.
33 Ibid., iv. 257.
29
30
192
of the power of the Pope, partly on the condemnation of the

Louvain and Cologne theologians. 34
Four meetings of the Consistory were held between the
2rst May and the rst June before the draft was formally
passed as it had been presented. The discussion, which
was long and sometimes lively, turned not so much on the
contents of the articles, though there was some opposition
on the question of the power of a General Council, which
was voiced particularly by Cardinal Carvajal. 35 It was
mainly concerned with the question whether Luther should
be condemned forthwith, or be allowed a fixed interval to
retract the errors specified ; whether these errors should be
condemned en bloc or discrimination be made specifically
between those which were heretical and those which were
scandalous and offensive to pious ears; whether the articles
were in verbal accord with Luther's writings. 36 Ultimately
it was decided to grant a specified period for retraction,
but not to discriminate, as Cajetan proposed, between the
articles, which were all alike condemned as erroneous. 37
On the r5th June the Bull Exsurge Domine, as thus
completed, was duly signed by the chancery officials and
shortly after publicly proclaimed, with the accompaniment
of the burning of Luther's works in the Piazza Navona. 38
II.
THE BULL EXSURGE DOMINE
The Pope commenced the Bull with the invocation of

the Psalmist, "Arise, 0 Lord, and judge Thine own cause."
Hence its distinctive name, Exsurge Domine. He further
invokes the aid of Peter, Paul, the saints, and the universal
34 Kalkoff," Forschungen," 188; where the points, t~ken from these '
theologians and embodied in the Bull, are given in detail. See also
"Z.K.G.," xxv. 104 f.
a Kalkoff, "Z.K.G.,'' xxv. 120.
3 s Ibid., xxv. II2;
"Entscheidungsjahre,'' 143 f.
3 7 The only attempt to discriminate was the use of the word '' respectively " after the list of errors particularised. The adverb did not,
however, convey to the reader what particular error was to be deem,ed
heretical or merely offensive and scandalous.
3 8 Kalkoff, "Z.K.G.," xxv. 129.
The Bull Exsurge Domine

Church in .vindication of the faith and the maintenance
of the peace and unity of the Church against the lying
teachers, misled by the father of lies, who twist the Scriptures
to the destruction of the truth. He has lately heard with
unspeakable grief that heresies, formerly condemned by his
predecessors and by Councils, have been disseminated in the
renowned German nation, which had hitherto distinguished
itself in the defence of Catholic truth and the liberty of the
Church. Witness the condemnation of Wiclif, Hus, Jerome
by the Council of Constance, the war against the Hussites
and the recent confutation of Hussite (i.e., Lutheran) error
by the Universities of Louvain and Cologne. In virtue of
the pastoral office entrusted to him by divine grace, the
Pope can no longer tolerate the poison of these pestiferous
errors, which he proceeds to specify without referring to
Luther by name. Here follow the forty-one articles bearing
on original sin, concupiscence, the Sacrament of Penance,
justifying faith, communion in both kinds, the treasures of
the Church, indulgences, excommunication, the papal power,
the authority of General Councils, the unjust condemnation
of Hus, good works, the burning of heretics, war against
the Turks, free will, purgatory, the destruction of the
mendicant Orders. No one of sane mind can fail to see
how pestiferous, pernicious, scandalous these errors are,
how seductive of pious and simple souls, how subversive
of love and reverence for the Holy Roman Church, ecclesiastical discipline, and obedience which is the fountain of all
virtues. After intensive examination and discussion, and
mature deliberation by commission and Consistory, the Pope
pronounces .them to be contrary to the doctrine and tradition
of the Catholic Church and the received interpretation of
the Scripture, which Augustine declared he would not have
believed but fur the authority of the Church. Acceptance
of these errors would prove that this self-same Church,
which is directed by the Holy Ghost, errs and always has
erred, which is contrary to the teaching of Christ and the
Fathers and the express carn;ms of Councils and popes,
disobedience to which has always been the source and
cause of heresies and schisms. With the counsel and consent
of the Consistory and the authority of Almighty God and
13
94
the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul as well as his own,

he therefore condemns and rejects these errors and requires
all Christians to do likewise under penalty of the greater
excommunication, and in addition, in the case of
ecclesiastics, deprivation of their benefices; of convents,
chapters, universities, their rights and privileges ; of laymen, their feudal rights and possessions. All dissenters
are further deprived of Christian burial, of legal rights,
and incur the infamy and the penalties due by canon law
to heretics and traitors, without any further declaration
and without possibility of absolution except by the Pope
himself or his special deputy. The whole body of the
faithful, and particularly the ecclesiastical hierarchy and
the civil power, are accordingly debarred from affirming,
defending, maintaining publicly or privately the aforesaid
heretical teaching, and are enjoined to seize and burn, in
the presence of clergy and people, the writings of " a certain
Martin Luther," in which it is embodied.
The Bull then concentrates on Luther himself, who had
so far not been named. It tells of the long-continued and
paternal efforts of the Pope to bring him to renounce his
errors, including the invitation to com7 to Rome, with the
offer of a safe conduct and provision of the necessary money
for this purpose. These marks of the papal kindness he
had contumaciously spurned and had indurately remained
for over a year under the censures of the Church. , Worse
still, he had dared to appeal to a future Council, the authority
of which he, nevertheless, refuses to recognise, against the
decrees of Pope Pius II. and Julius II., which declared
such an appeal to be heresy. On this account the Pope
might proceed without further citation or delay to condemn ,
him as notoriously suspect of heresy, yea as truly a heretic. 39
Nevertheless, he prefers to imitate the divine clemency
which desireth not the death of the sinner, in spite of the
enormity of his offence against him and the Holy See, and
give him an opportunity to retract and return like the
prodigal to the bosom of the Church. He adjures him and
his adherents to desist from disturbing the peace, unity,
89.
Tanquam, de fide notorie suspectum, iio vere hrereticum.

and truth of the Church in order that they may thereby
experience his paternal affection and clemency. An interval
of sixty days after the publication of the Bull in Germany
is allowed for this purpose. Failing compliance, they are
to be cut off as withered branches and suffer punishment as
notorious and pertinacious heretics. Even his writings
which .contain no heresy are to be delivered to the fire
in order that the remembrance of the heretic may be utterly
erased from the company of the faithful. The ecclesiastical
and civil authorities are required to seize and deliver him and
his accomplices to Rome for punishment or banish him from
their territories, with the promise of reward for compliance
and the denunciation of interdict against all places where
they may reside. The clergy are enjoined to publicly
proclaim them heretics if they should not retract within
the prescribed period and to order the faithful to cease all
intercourse with them. Finally, excommunication and anathema are denounced against all of whatever rank and
condition who should refuse to comply with the provisions
of the Bull. 40
The Bull thus condemns unconditionally Luther's teaching and his writings, whilst extending to himself the benefit
of what was known as the "Evangelical Monition" in
cases of heresy, whereby an opportunity of amendment and
retraction was given. In this concession the influence of
the. canonists led by Accolti is discernible as against that
of the theologians led by Eck, who had demanded his
immediate and unconditional condemnation. The Bull thus
does not actually excommunicate the heretic, but makes
actual excommunication contingent on his refusal to retract,
and fully six months elapsed before this supplementary Bull
was promulgated. 41
40 The Bull, witl;i Hutten!s comments, is given in "Opera Latina
Var.," iv. 263 f. German translation in Walch, xv. 1692 f. A copy of
it, as printed at Rome, is in the library of the University of Munich and. is
critically examined by Druffel in "Sitzungsbericht der Miinchener Academie der Wissenschaften, Philos. Hist. Klasse," 1880. See also Kalkoff,
"Z.K.G.," xxv. 129-130. Spalatin's German translation is given by
Kalkoff in" Z.K.G.," xlv. 384 f.
41 Bull Decet Romanum, 3rd Jan. 1521.
r 96
This concessiop. is represented as an evidence of. the

papal magnanimity and wisdom in the treatment of
the heretic, and was apparently intended to create in
Germany a favourable impression of the action of the
Curia and secure an obedient reception of the Bull. If
so, the Pope and his advisers were to be speedily disillusioned.
The Bull contained too many problematic, if plausible
statements to be received at its face value, and in view
of the state of public feeling in Germany it wa~ fitted to
intensify rather than remove the widespread revulsion
against the Papacy and the Curia. The Pope professes to
have been actuated throughout the whole course of the
proceedings against Luther by purely religious motives,
to have shaped his action solely by such. considerations,
and to have had in view only the interests of Germany
in the exercise of his jurisdiction as head of the Church ..
The plea was too specious to be taken seriously. Politicians
like the Elector knew too much about the political manc:euvres
of the Curia over the imperial election to be deceived by
such idealist professions. Was it, for instance, pure zeal
for religion or the interest of Germany that had led the
Pope fo suggest and back up the election of the King of
France to the imperial throne in place of one who, if ruler
'of Spain, was at least of German descent ? Was it zeal for
religion that had proposed to make Luther a cardinal?
Was it zeal for the salvation of souls and the benefit of the
Fatherland which. sold German benefices at Rome and
conferred them on a crowd . of grasping curial officials and
Italian clerics, and patronised the mercenary indulgence
traffic engineered by the Archbishop of Maintz and the
Pope in. order to fleece the German people ? These were '
awkward questions which inevitably suggested themselves
to politicians like the Elector as well as reformers like
Luther, and might occur even to the man in the street whom.
Luther had been enlightenfog in the vernacular on the
corruption of the modem Babylon. Further, there was not
a word in the 'Bull about the glaring evils against which
Luther had forcibly protested, or the clamant necessity
of their reform which he had emphasised. Some indication
of a sense of these evils and of an int~ntion to remove the
197
cause of heresy would have been more fitted to commend

the Bull than the dubious sentimental rhetoric about the
papal magnanimity towards the perfidious heretic. Nor
was there any attempt to meet his appeal from Scripture
or to refute his teaching by giving a statement of the
reasons why it was heretical. To adduce the authority of
the Church as the guarantee of the true interpretation of
Scripture and assume the absolute power of the Pope as
the arbiter of the faith was really to beg the question at
issue. The Church, as it exists, in spite of its rampant
corruption, is assumed to be indefeasible. Noli me tangere,
is the assumption and spirit of the Bull. No allowance is
made for honest difference of opinion, for conscientious
convictions on the questions, whether theological or
ecclesiastical, in dispute.
To address a manifesto of this kind to a nation that
was seething with discontent was, to say the least; very
nai'.ve. To demand that a man of Luther's genius and
.spirit should revoke without reasons given was simply to
invite defiance and revolt. Equally futile to assume the
tone of the spiritual dictator without the moral fore~ and
prestige which could alone lend weight to the papal absolutism. The old conciliar spirit was by no means quiescent,
and even in the Consistory there was some opposition to
the deliverance that it was heresy to a:ppeal to a General
Cotincil. 42 The absolute tone which might influence and
impress the age of a Gregory and an Innocent was out of
season in the age of the successor of an Alexander VI. and
a Julius II. Not o:rily had the widespread degeneration of
the Church fostered the spirit of revolt on national and
economic as well as religious and ethical grounds. The
critical spirit of the Renaissance was at work in evaluating
doctrines and institutions in the light of their origins, in
testing dogma and tradition by historic inquiry, and credulity and superstition by reason. To condemn Luther and
his adherents was to condemn not merely the monk of
Wittenberg and his associates of the Wittenberg theological
faculty and his Order. It . was to condemn the most
42
Kalkoff, "Z.K.G.," xxv. u9 f.
98
powerful and resourceful prince of the empire against

whom, next to Luther, the Bull was undoubtedly aimed.
It was to condemn the more aggressive spirits of the
humanist party who were rallying to Luther's side, a large
section of the nobility, the middle class, and the people
who already saw in him the deliverer from Roman corruption
and tyranny. 43 Assuredly the Pope and his advisers overshot the mark in fulminating this dictatorial parchment
against one who, if he might from the traditional standpoint
be a heretic, was fast becoming a national hero. Only on the
assumption that the Church in its secularised form was what
the Bull declared it to be-the absolute, unerring, and
immaculate organ of truth-was this policy of uncondl.tio~al
and indiscriminate repression explicable. lf the degenerate
medireval Papacy and the absolute system of doctrine for
which it stood were to continue, it was essential to destroy.
Luther. But the attempt fo destroy Luther, without any
attempt to :r:eform either, was to risk the destruction of
both. A decadent system or institution that will not change
in the face of changing conditions and new forces is doomed.
It was assuredly a case of Quos Deus vult perdere ccecos facit.
With this fatal document Eck, well supplied with papal
ducats, was despatched to Germany on the l8th July for
the purpose of notifying the Bull to the ecclesiastical and
secular authorities. With him was associated Aleander,
who had been professor at Paris and Chancellor 9f the
Bishop of Liege before becoming secretary of the ViceChancellor, Giulio de Medici, in 1517. 44 The choice of these
\agents for such a mission was, to say the least, maladroit.
As an Italian and a member of the Curia, Aleander was
not likely to conciliate the goodwill of the Germans. More
distinguished as a humanist and a diplomatist than a
theologian, he was nevertheless the protagonist of the
papal absolutism and the traditional orthodoxy; In the
case of Eck the choice was still more objectionable. To
4 u Enders, ii. 390..
M ultos habes, lY.tartine, socios in ea hreresi
cognitus quidem mihi es, sed quotidie magis magisque ,appares; post
nubila sentimenti ortus nobis est sol. Crotus to Luther, 28th April
I 520; cf. ii. 409, in which Hutten assures him of widespread support.
44 Pastor, " History of the Popes," vii. 404-405.
In Prospect of the Bull
1 99
confide the proclamation of the Bull to one who had distinguished himself by his zeal in the prosecution of Luther
might seem good tactics in the eyes of the zealots of the
Curia. But it could only serve to deepen the impression in
Germany of the injustice and unfairness of the proceedings
against the national reformer, and certainly did not tend
.to procure for the Bull or the papal agents a submissive
reception. The sequel of the missicm was, in fact, erelong
to prove that if the Papacy. was inerrant, it was at least
singularly short-sighted. In shrewd common-sense political
foresight it was no match for the Saxon Elector and his
advisers who knew how to turn to account such a tactical
blunder.
Ill.
IN PROSPECT OF THE BULL
Neither the Elector nor his protege was taken by surprise

by the papal thunderbolt. In the preceding March, Pellican
had conveyed to Luther from Basle a report that measures
were being taken at Rome to excommunicate him and
the Elector. 45 Some weeks later (middle of April) p,nother
clerical friend (Nicolas Demuth) wrote from Halle to the
same effect. 46 There came, too, from Halberstadt the
inevitable popular story that a certain physician, who could
make himself invisible, had received a mandate to kill
Luther l 47 Luther did not take these reports tragically, 48
though he communicated them to Spalatin, who consulted
the jurists on the attitude which the Elector should eventually adopt. 49 On the 4th June, Hutten, writing from
Maintz, prematurely professed to know that Luther was
already excommunicated, and that Eck had' returned loaded
. 45 Enders, ii. 358.
Nunc dicitur de ~xcommunicatione in Principem
Vestrum et te. Pellica:n probably derived his information from Melchior
Watt.
46 Ibid., ii. 383; cf. Melanchthon to John Hessus ("Corp. Ref.," i.
160, 17th April) and to La:ng (ibid., i. 163).
47 Enders, ii. 383.
48 Melanchthon to Hessus, "Corp. Ref.," i. 160.
Nos omnia ingenti
animo expecta:prns.
,. Kalkoff, "z;.l{.G.," xxv. 448-449.
200
by the Pope with benefices and gold, 50 whilst Melanchthon

four days later mentions a still more misleading report
from Rome that the case was at a standstill there. 51 A
fortnight later (zrst June) Luther himself had heard from
Rome that Eck was the moving spirit in the proceedings
against him, but does not yet know the outcome of his
efforts. 52
Meanwhile, in the face of these sinister rumours his
resolution to brave the worst that Rome can do remains
inflexible. " I believe," he writes to Lang on the zrst
March, in reference to Eck's journey to Italy, "that even
Rome is subject to Christ who, if I am worthy, will undertake
for me; if I am unworthy, I do not desire that He will
intervene on my behalf." 63 "It is no new thing," he tells
Spalatin on the 3oth May, in exhorting him to constancy
in the Lord, " if the world is troubled on account of the
Word of God. Was not Herod disturbed at the news of
the birth of Christ? Was not the earth shaken and the
sun darkened at the death of Christ? To me it is truly a
sign that the doctrine is sound if many, and these the great
and the wise, take offence at it." 64 "The miserable
Romanists rage against me," he writes to Jonas on the 2rst
June, " and seek my life. But Christ lives and reigns." 66
His confidence was rooted in his unshakable faith in God. At
the same time, he was a ware that his teaching was taking a
grip of the nation and he found a mainstay in the growing
strength of public opinion in his favour. He knew that the
humanists, including even the cautious Erasmus, were
rallying in his support. Melanchthon's influence was telling
in this direction and his own aggressive onslaught on ~he
papal absolutism and its obscurantist champions was winning
enthusiastic recruits from the humanist party. Tributes of
admiration and appreciation, .incitements to hold fast and
persevere in the cause of truth and liberty came thick and
fast from far and near. Crotus Rubianus, returned from
Italy, congratulates him from Bamberg on his spirited defence
against the obscurantists of Cologne and Louvain and
50
51
52
Enders, ii. 409.

"Corp. Ref.," i. 201.
Enders, ii. 420; cf. 412.
53
64
55
Ibid., ii. 365.

Ibid., ii. 404-405;
]bid., ii. 420.
201
assures him that he has many companions in this" heresy" 56

and .that powerful magnates like Sickingen are ready to
protect him, as Hutten has informed him. From Hutten
himself, who two years before had expressed his contempt
of the hairsplitting over-indulgences by contentious monks, 57
came an offer of friendship and alliance against the common
enemy (4th June 1520). Eck has denounced him as an
adherent of Luther. In this he has not spoken falsely,
for, he adds not quite correctly, he has always thought
alike with him as far as he was able to understand him. 57
It was, however, the national aspect of the movement that
really appealed to him. "In me you have a confirmed
ally, whatever the issue may be. Henceforth confide to
me all your plans. Let us vindicate the common liberty ;
let us free the Fatherland so long oppressed. We have God
on our side, and if God is for us who can be against us." 58
Similar letters came to him. from Bucer, Capito, Justus
Jonas, Pellican, Caspar Hedio, and many others. 59 He
was overwhelmed, he writes to Spalatin, with these epistolary
testimonies of goodwill and devotion, and was by no means
averse that the Elector should know how widespread was
the support of his cause. "Good God, how great is the
concourse of men to us, how many the promises of support
expressedin this multifarious correspondence." 60 Still more,
important, letters came from magnates like Silvester von
Schaumburg, not only professing adherence to his teaching
as grounded on God's Word,. but beseeching him not to
think of seeking a refuge in Bohemia, and guaranteeing him
the protection of a hundred of the Franconian nobility until
it has been subjected to the decision of a General Council,
or an impartial tribunal. 61 Another offer came (r8th June)
through Hutten 62 from the redoubtable Sickingen, who had
acquired a '\.
widespread reputation as a leader of mercenary
Enders, 386 f.
See his letter to Count Hermann of Neuenahr, April 1518.
"Opera," i. 167, ed. Bocking.
58
59 Enders, ii. 397,passim.
"Opera," i. 356.
60
Ibid., ii. 397-398.
61 Ibid., ii. 415-416, rrth June 1520.
62 "Corpus Refor.," i. 201, Melanchthon to Hess.
56
57
202
soldiers. 63 Early in the year Hutten had suggested in letters

to Melanchthon that Luther, if it came to the worst, should
seek the protection of his powerful friend, 64 and Crotus
Rubianus at his instigation had commended the plan to
Luther himself by representing that Sickingen's influence
had done more to overawe the Dominican opponents of
Reuchlin than all the decrees of the Emperor and the Pope.
He enforced it by pointing out that the Curia was bending
all its energies to the task of alienating the Elector from
his cause in the hope of compelling him to seek a refuge in
Bohemia and thus discrediting his cause. Hence the
advisability of favourably considering this more acceptable
alternative. 65 Luther did not definitely reject either offer,
though he told Spalatin that he wished to rely on no
protector except Christ, 66 and seems to have replied to both
in a recognisant spirit. 67 But the reputation of Sickingen
as a military adventurer, whom Melanchthon rather indiscriminately describes as "the rare glory of the German
nobility," 68 was not such as to make him a suitable patrbn
of the G0spel, and the turbulent Franconian nobility Were
also questionable allies in such a cause. Moreover, Luther
had too good ground for his confidence in the Elector's
fidelity to exchange his tried and resourceful prot~ction for
that of such problematic friends. At the same time, he
was quick to see the advantage of holding these offers in
reserve in the game of checkmating the machinations of
his enemies at Rome. He could add these offers to other
substantial proofs of the formidable character of the
movement which the Curia had determined to crush by
fulminating against him and his adherents the terrors of
excommunication. Thus supported he could afford to view
Ulmann, "Franz von Sickingen" (1873).
"Corp. Ref.," ii. 132, 138, Jan.-Feb. 1520.
66
Enders, ii. 392.
66
Ibid., ii. 402. Quod ut non contemno, ita nolo nisi Christo
protectore niti qui forte et hunc ei spiritum dedit. To Spalatin, 13th
May, in reference to Schaumburg's offer; cf. 444 and 456.
61
The replies are mentioned in letters to Spaladn, 29th June and
10th July. Enders, ii. 426, 432. But they have not survived. Ulmann,
"Franz von Sickingen," i. 172.
~s "Corp. Ref.," i. 20J, Equitum Germania;! :ranim decus;
63
64

with equanimity these terrors which in any case his faith
in God had determined him 'to meet without flinching.
This support would, moreover, serve as an additional
weapon wherewith the Elector could parry the expected
fulmination from Rome against the heretic.
Undoubtedly, too, it encouraged him in his determination to resist to the uttermost. "Remember," he wrote tO
Spalatin on the I7th July, in reference to further reports
from Rome, "that it behoves us to suffer for the Word of
God. For now that Silvester von Schaumburg and Franz
von Sickingen have made me secure from the fear of man,
the fury of the demons must needs break forth. It shall
be a struggle to a finish with this diabolic power. Such
is the will of God." 69 " We fear nothing more" (for the
progress of the Gospel), he assures a member of his Order
at Magdeburg in communicating to him (3rd August) the
offers of Schaumburg and Sickingen. 70
Such was the situation when on the 6th July letters
from Rome reached the Elector from Cardinal Riario and
Tetleben, the agent of the Archbishop of Maintz. 71 These
letters were evidently inspired by the Curia and were a
final attempt, pending the adjustment of the Bull, to detach
Frederick from his protege, and thus ensure his suppression
whether he retracted or not. In his epistle the cardinal sees
in Luther's attack on the Papacy and the Church merely the
spirit of contention, ambition, and vainglory'-the motives
usually ascribed to heretics-which is inspired by the devil
and leads to the devil. Though the man is unknown to
him, he has heard that he is highly distinguished by his
intellectual gifts, his learning, and knowledge of the Scrip'tures. The greater the pity that he has devoted these
gifts to the common ruin. It is, therefore, the Elector's
duty to bring about his revocation. He has the power
to do so, if he only will, and the other princes will certainly
not neglect to do their duty. This was a broad hint of the
70 Ibid., ii. 456.
Enders, ii. 443.
That of Riario is dated 3rd April 1520, that of Tetleben 3oth May;
but they did not reach Lochau before the 6th July. Enders (ii. 430-431)
wroI1gly ascribes the first to Cardinal Petrucci. They are given by
69
71
Ka!koff in" Z.K,G.," xxv. 587 f.
204
excommunication and isolation of both in the event of a

refusal, and the warning was emphasised by Tetleben, who
announced the preparation of the forthcoming Bull and
indicated the grave consequences to the Elector and his
house that must ensue if he persisted in favouring the
heretic and opposing the papal will by diplomatic
dissipmlation. 72
The Elector sent these letters to Luther, with a request
for suggestions to be embodied in his reply. In a note to
Spalatin on the 9th July, Luther appeals to the testimony
of his writings to prove that he was not actuated by ambition
and vainglory in this matter. He had been compelled to
defend himself by the attacks of his opponents. 73 Had he
not repeatedly offered to cease further agitation and vainly
asked to be instructed ? Eck was responsible for the di.scussion of the papal power, which he had initiated for no
other purpose than thereby to bring him into contempt
and ruin him and the university. Now that by divine
providence he has been worsted, the Romanists insanely
accuse him of seeking his own glory, who only desires to be
allowed to do his duty unobtrusively and without publicity.
Let him who wills have his office and burn his books. At the
same time, he will not submit to be deprived of the liberty
of discharging his duty in the ministry of the Word. He is
burdened with sins enough. But he will not add to their
number the unpardonable one of demitting this ministry
and rendering himself guilty of so many thousands of souls
by an impious silence or abandoning the truth. Let the
Elector hold himself, as he has hitherto done, irresponsible
for his teaching and let him renew his demand that he be
instructed or convinced of his error, seeing that he himself
is not qualified to instruct or judge or execute until the
case has thus been first tried and conclusively settled. Let
him further tell them that it is necessary to obey God
before men and that he cannot be urged to act against
72 "Z.K.G.," xxv. 592.
Sub dissimulatione quadam erroris ansam
aliquando prrestitisse videatur.
73 Enders, ii. 429.

Testes sunt mei editi libelli in quibus totus
confiteor et queror me in hanc reIIJ nulla libidine, sed per vim tractum
esse.

his conscience, or, by any divine precept, against one whom
he does not know to be innocent or not. From Luther
himself they may obtain all due obedience, but only if
they do not ask him to suppress the truth of the Gospel
and if they permit the way of salvation to be free to the
Christian. What more worthy could he ask? He is
certainly not after a cardinal's hat; or gold, or anything
that Rome holds in high esteem. In this matter neither
threats nor promises will make him untrue to the convictions
for which he suffers. He trusts, in conclusion, that the
Elector will not forget to point out how much Germany,
by the hidden judgment of God, has been the victim of
Italian oppreSsion and trickery. 1 4
A second note on the following day (roth July) strikes a
far less tractable tone. He has just heard of the publication
at Erfurt of the satire in which Eck has been so mercilessly
"planed down " (Eccius Dedolatus), and he almost wishes
that this vaunted and savage Bull against his teaching
had arrived from Rome. He sends the letter of Schaumburg
and desires the Elector to make known its contents to
Cardinal Riario in order that the Romanists may know that
they will only make things worse for themselves if they
succeed in expelling him from Wittenberg. He need not.
fle_e to Bohemia. He can find a refuge in the heart of
Germany itself among those who are willing and powerful
enough to protect him in spite of all their fulminations.
Secure under their protection, he can deal the Romanists
more lusty blows than if he remained in his chair at
Wittenberg under the Elector's auspices and obliged to
reckon with his susceptibilities. " Let them, therefore;
realise that what I have hitherto spared them, they owe
not to my modesty or to their tyranny or their merits,
but to my consideration for the name and authority of the ..
prince as well as the common interest of the students.
But.for my part the die has now been cast (jacta mihi alea).
I hold in contempt alike the fury and favour of Rome.
I will not be reconciled to them ; I will nevermore hold
communion with them. Let them condemn and burn my
books. I will return the compliment and wherever I can get
74
206
fire, I will condemn and bum the whole papal law, that
brood of heresies, and will make an end of the humility so
long and vainly exhibited by me, and no longer puff up
with this profession of obedience the enemies of the Gospel.
They attempt by force to maintain their ignorance, whilst
fearing that they may not succeed so easily as in the days
of yore. I doubt not that the Lord, who knows that I am
a wretched sinner, wiJ.+ accomplish His cause either through
me or through another." 75
This outburst was meant for the benefit of the Elector
and his advisers as well as the Romanists. Luther was
plainly getting impatient of the diplomatic game which they
had been playing so skilfully on his behalf and with which
he had had perforce to reckon in the assertion and defence
of his convictions. He saw that this sort of thing would
not eventually save them and him from the alternative of
submission to or defiance of Rome. For his part he had
made his choice.c-jacta est alea-and was now in a position
to show his electoral patron that he was no longer solely
dependent on his favour in the assertion of convictions
which had nothing to do with the calculations of the
politicians. At the same time, he was sufficiently levelheaded to grasp the diplomatic value of Schaumburg's offer
in parrying the threatened stroke from Rome. In a rhore
restrained postscript he suggests that the Elector should
point out to the Curia that his teaching was so widespread
and deeply rooted that unless Rome eschews violent
measures and has recourse to persuasion on grounds of
reason and Scripture, Germany will become a second
Bohemia. The Germans are of such an unruly, independent
temperament that. it would not be safe for ever so many
popes to provoke their antagonism, especially since the
new culture is spreading fast, even among the laity. 76
Thus prompted, the Elector, in his reply to Riario,
repeated in his own diplomatic fashion his tantalising
assurances of respect and obedience and his innocence of
or complicity with Luther's action, and adduced once more
Luther's readiness to be tried and instructed by an impartial
tribunal and the fact that his case had been referred to
75
16
Ibid., ii. 433
207
the Archbishop of Trier, before whom he was ready to

appear. He adroitly added an expression. of sympathy
for Riario personally without particularising the m~treatment
to which he had been subjected by his brethren of the Curia
whom, inferentially, it ill became to pose as paragons of
political virtue. In the missive to Tetleben he incorporated,
along with these generalities, the gist of Luther's suggestions,
and thus gave the Curia fair warning of the upheaval which
the Bull would inevitably provoke in Germany. 77
The warning was, of course, too late to avert the fatal
fulmination. Several weeks before the despatch of these
letters, the Bull, which conveyed the fatal ultimatum had
been signed and sealed at Rome, and on the 8th July the
Pope had indicted a brief to the Elector denouncing Luther
as "a monster of Satan," sending him a copy of the Bull
and diplomatically expressing in flattering terms his confidence that Frederick will, in case of his refusal of submission,
arrest and imprison him pending further instructions. 78
With these documents Eck was already on his way to
Germany in the latter part of July. In the beginning of
August, Luther and his patron were still ignorant of these
facts and Luther mentions a report that Eck had so far
achieved nothing at Rome! 79 It was only in the middle
of August that Spalatin learned, probably from Miltitz,
that Eck was on his way to Germany with the Bull, though
the report that he had already arrived at Meissen was
incorrect. 80 Nothing definite as to the tenor of the Bull
had,. however, so far transpired, and throug4out the. month
the Elector continued his efforts to influence the Curia in
favour of moderation. Though Luther had explicitly
declared that for him "the die was cast," he consented at
his instigation to draft a letter to Cardinal Carvajal praying
77 The letter to Riario is given in" Opera Latina Var.," ii. 351-352,
but with the wrong date, 5th Aug. 1518. That to Tetleben in v. 7-10,
also wrongly dated lst April 1920. They are also given with the right
dates, along with those of Riario and Tetleben to the Elector, by Kalkoff,
"Z.K.G.," xxv. 587 f. and 508-509.
78 "Opera Latina Var.," v. lo-12; Walch, xv. 1667-1670.
79 Enders, ii. 456, 3rd Aug.
Eccius dicitur adhuc nihil expedivisse in Urbe.
8 9 Ibid., ii. 460, l4th Aug.; cf. Kalkoff, "Z.K.G.," 519-520.
208
him to use his influence in favour of a settlement by

arbitration. 81 To the same end he consented also to issue in
both Latin and German an " Offer " (Erbieten) to arbitrate
and to write a letter to the Emperor Charles. In the
'' Offer," after it had been drastically edited and toned
down by Spalatin, 82 he tells how he has during nearly three
years of controversy suffered persecution and calumny for
eva11gelical truth at the hands of his implacable opponents.
His sole motive had been, as an obedient son of the Church,
to vindicate the truth, not to serve his own ambition or
vanity, and in this spirit he. had offered repeatedly to be
instructed from the Scriptures and submit to the arbitration
of a free and impartial tribunal. His only reward had
been his bitter and persistent denunciation as a heretic
and schismatic. This offer he now renews and he begs
forgiveness for .the violence of his controversial language,
in view of the provocation he had suffered and his singleminded desire to serve the truth. 83
In the letter to the Emperor, 3oth August, he likewise
protested that he had sought only to vindicate the truth
of the Gospel against the superstitious opinions of human
traditions, until he had either been refuted or justified, with
adequate reasons given. He has no desire to be protected.
if he is found to be a wicked heretic. He only asks that he
shall not be condemned unheard or unconvinced. 84
These documents are to be ascribed to the initiative of
the Elector and his secretary rather than to Luther himself,
and the original draft of the " Offer " is hardly recognisable
in the sugared version which finally went to the printer
81 Enders, ii. 464-465, 23rd Aug. The proposed letter does not seem
to have been actually despatched. Kalkoff, "Z.K.G.," xxv. 512-514.
82
Ibid., ii. 464, 466.
83 . The original draft of the Erbieten is couched in much less tractable
terms than the version actually published. It is given in " Werke,"
ix. 303-304, from the original in the ducal library of Gotha. Another
version of it along with that actually published is given in " Werke,"
vi. 476. Also the Latin version, " Doctoris Mart. Lutheri Oblatio sive
Protestatio." In "Opera Latina Var." it bears the wrong date,
17th Jan. 1520.
84 Enders, ii. 468-470; " Opera Latina Var.," v. 2-4, also misdated
l5th Jan. 1520; Walch, xv 16361639, also wrongly dated.

from the hands of Spalatin, who also edited the letter to
the Emperor. 85 He had not much faith in this diplomatic
manceuvring, though he penned the epistle to the Emperor
in the belief that he would favour the cause of reform.
He repeats in a letter to Lang his conviction that "the
Papacy is the seat of the veritable Antichrist, against whose
fraud and iniquity it is permissible to make use of every
effort for .t:lle salvation of souls. For my part I confess
that no obedience is due by me to the Pope." 86 In these
words he was referring to the publication of his "Address
to the German Nobility," which he hurled forth in the
middle of August from the press, 87 . and the publication of
which the cautious and fearful Staupitz vainly attempted
to prevent. 88 He believes that in thus taking up the war
against Antichrist he is inspired by a higher power than
his own will and wish. " Who knows but that the Spirit
moves me by His own impulse, since I am certain that I
am not borne onwards by the pursuit of glory, or money,
or my o_wn satisfaction. Of vengeance I say nothing. Let
the Lord forgive. Nor do I undertake this in order to
stir up sedition, but in order that I may assert the liberty
to have recourse to a General Council." 89 He was already
following up this trumpet call to a practical reformation
by another manifesto on behalf of the deliverance of the
Church from the bondage of the medireval sacramental
system. The "De Captivitate Bal:iylonica Ecclesire" was
in the hands of the printer at the end of August. 90
A last and wholly gratuitous attempt by the busybody
Miltitz was now utterly futile. After vainly seeking fo
induce the Elector to stop the publication of the "Address
to the Nobility," 91 Miltitz attended the Chapter of the
Augustinian Order at Eisleben on the 28th August, at which
Enders, ii. 464.
Ibid., ii. 461. Luther does not use the phrase nobis omnia licere
in the sense that any expedient, moral or immoral, is allowable against
Rome, as some Roman Catholic writers represent, but only that any
attempt to counter the evil which Rome incorporates, such as he has
just made in his" Address to the German Nobility," is justifiable.
87 Ibid., ii. 456, 457, 461.
88
89
90
Ibid., ii. 463.
Ibid., ii. 463.
Ibid., ii. 471,
91 L~tter to the Elector in Walch, xv. 924-927.
14
85
86
2 1o
Staupitz resigned his office as Vicar-General in favour of

Link. He proposed that the Chapter should intervene to
restrain their bellicose member. Staupitz, it appeared, was
no longer prepared to follow his former disciple whom he
had helped so materially to start on his reforming career,
and responded all the more readily to a proposal which the
General of the Order had already some months previously
so earnestly urged. Miltitz still kept up the farce of
adducing his commission as Nuncius from the Pope to justify
his intervention, 92 and in deference to his request the
Chapter decided to send a deputation to Wittenberg to
urge Luther to write a submissive letter. to the Pope. 9 3
This decision was conveyed to him by Staupitz and Link,
the new Vicar-General, and Luther went the length of
agreeing to write to Rome that, throughout the long
controversy he had never intended or desired to attack
Leo personally. " What," he. asked, " can I write more
easily and truly? " 94 Though, on hearing that Eck had
published the Bull at Meissen on the 2rst September and
subsequently at Merseburg and Leipzig, he was at first
disposed to resile from his promise, 95 he ultimately, in
deference to the Elector's behest, met Miltitz at Lichtenburg
on the r:Zth October and agreed to indite the proposed
epistle in Latin and German as a preface to his tract on
" Christian Liberty." 9s
There certainly was no sign of constraint or surrender
on Luther's part in the missive itself. To the dismay of
the peacemakers, it proved in fact to be a terrific arraignment
of the Papacy, whilst assuming the innocence of the Pope
personally of the evils which it denounced so scathingly.
92 Enders, ii. 467.
Locutus sum Fratribus, he wrote to Luther on
29th Aug., ex potestate papre in Capitulo.
93 Ibid., ii. 478.
94 Ibid., ii. 478 . .To Spalatin, IIth Sept., after the interview;
cf. Miltitz's letter to the Elector, 2nd Oct., Walch, xv. 929.
95 Ibid., ii. 486.
96 Ibid., ii. 494-495.
Luther to Spalatin, 12th Oct.; Wakh, xv.
949-951. Miltitz to the Elector, 14th Oct. . In order that the letter
might. not appear to have been written under the constraint of the
publication of the Bull, it was antedated the 6th Sept., Walch, xv.
950.
2U
Though it served as a preface to one of his least bellicose

writings, it was really a public manifesto in defence of his.
position as a reformer in the guise of an appeal to the
Pope, and it is not surprising that it never reached its
destination.
Though he has appealed from the Pope to a Council,
without respect to the foolish and tyrannical decrees of Popes
Pius II. and Julius II., which forbid such an appeal, he
has never ceased to pray for God's blessing on him and
his See. Whilst fearlessly withstanding those who have
sought to terrify him with his name and authority, he
has never spoken of him anything that is not honourable
and excellent. He has, in fact, sought to vindicate his
blameless reputation against the intemperate zeal of men
like Prierias, who have done their best to tarnish it by
their impious flatteries. Though these encomiums sound
rather ironic, Luther had apparently succeeded in retaining
his nai:Ve conviction that the pleasure-ioving, easygoing
and egotistic politician who occupied the chair of Peter
was the innocent victim of a set of corrupt cardinals and
curial officials. This at all events is the assumption that
dominates the epistle and enables him, following the example
of the prophets, Christ, and Paul, to lash the brood of evildoers at Rome who misgovern the Church in his name.
The Pope himself cannot deny that Rome is more corrupt
than Babylon or Sodom ; and this corruption he feels bound
to expose in order to lessen the ruin of souls. "For many
years now . nothing has overflowed into the world from
Rome but the devastation of goods, of bodies, of souls,
and the worst examples of all the worst things. This is
clearer than daylight, and the Roman Church, formerly the
most holy of all, has become the most lawless den of robbers,
the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin,
death, and hell, so that not even Antichrist, if he were to
come, could devise any addition to its wickedness." 97
Meanwhile, the hapless, well-intentioned Pope, like Daniel
in the midst of the lions, Ezekiel among the scorpions, sits
in the midst of wolves and can do nothing in the way of
remedy. If he and the few good cardinals were to attempt
97 "
Werke," vii. 44.
2I2
a reformation, they would die of poison before effecting

3:nything. "It is all over with the Roman curia. The
wrath of God has come upon it to the uttermost. It hates
Councils; it dreads to be reformed ; it is helpless to mitigate
the madness of its impiety ; it fulfils the sentence passed on
its mother, of whom it was written, ' We would have healed
Babylon, but she is not healed. Let us forsake her.'" 98
The disease is past cure. The Roman Curia is not worthy
of Leo, who .deserves to have ruled in a better age, but
only of Satan, who is in truth more the ruler in this Babylon
than he. " Is it not true that under the vast heaven nothing
is more corrupt, more pestilential, more hateful than the '
Roman Curia ? It incomparably surpasses the impiety of
the Turks, so that in truth it, which was formerly the gate
of heaven, is now manifestly a sort of mouth of hell, and
such a mouth that the urgent wrath of God cannot be
walled up. Only one expedient isleft us wretched mortalsto call back and preserve whatever we can from this Roman
abyss." 99 He then recounts his controversy with Eck, on
whose wiles and vainglorious action in drawing him into the
discussion of the papal power, and on Cajetan's imprudent
conduct lies the blame for the progress of his quarrel with
Rome. He adduces the efforts of the Elector and Miltitz
to bring about peace and his own willingness to do his part
to this end, which had been frustrated by Eck's folly and
vanity. At Miltitz's instigation he makes this last effort
to secure the papal restraint of the enemies of peace. Only
let there be no mistake about this. He is not going to
recant. " I will not submit to the prescribed Jaws of
interpreting God's Word, since God's Word, which teaches
liberty, ought not to be bound. Saving this, there is nothing
that I am not willing to do and suffer." 100 Let the Pope,
therefore, beware of those who seek to make of him a
demigod and not a man, who exalt his authority as if he
were lord of the world and babble o~ his power over heaven,
hell, and purgatory, who elevate him above Councils and
the whole Church, and give him alone the right to interpret
Scripture. How unlike Christ such a Vicar in whose heart
98
"Werke," vii. 44.
99
Ibid., vii. 45.
100
Ibid.,vii.47.
Luther and the Bull

Christ does not dwell ; and of whom these flatterers make an
Antichrist and an idol. In writing thus boldly he has only
done his duty both as a friend and as a subject. If Leo
cannot .see this, there is One who sees and judges. As a
testimony of his desire for peace he sends him in conclusion
this little treatise on " Christian Liberty," wherein he will
find a summary of the Christian life in small co:tnpass.
The denunciation of Rome must be read in the light
of the evil repute which Rome had acquired under the
later pre-Reformation Popes, as well as Luther's proneness
to vehement generalisation. In Luther the outraged moral
sense of Christendom at last makes itself heard in the form
of this violent ultimatum to reform itself or take the consequences of revolt and schism. The time has at length
brought the man, and against this man Eck and his Bull
in defence of the Papacy are but a shield of paper. In
laying the blame for this dogmatic quarrel solely on his
opponents-Prierias, Eck; Cajetan, etc.-he ignores the part
played by hiS own dogmatic temperament. He had begun
the attack and his disclaimer of all responsibility for the
development of it is to a certain extent special pleading.
But his plea for a clamant reformation in the interest of
a purer Christianity, based on the teaching of Christ and
the Apostles, and for the freedom of the Gospel, on which
he will not give way an inch, is unassailable. The degenerate
travesty of this teaching, which his opponents defend in
the papal interest and which the Bull seeks to enforce by
excommunication and death, had no longer the prestige
and the moral force to win or overawe the people. Behind
Luther were arrayed the national feeling and the moral
force of a large section of Germany.
IV.
LUTHER AND THE BULL
This fact was already being brought home to Eck in

his mission of publishing the Bull of condemnation. In
Leipzig, where he arrived at the end of September, he had
his first taste of the unpopularity of his mission. He was
ridiculed in satiric verses which were sung in the streets,
2 I4
whilst hostile placards were displayed in various quarters

of the town. He daily received threatening letters and was
fain to confine himself to St Paul's monastery for. fear of
the violence of the populace and the contingent of Wittenberg
students, who made the atmosphere so hot for him that he
fled by night to Freyberg 1 (4th October). The university
at first refused to publish the Bull and ultimately only did
so in February r52r by direction of Duke George. Even
so it was pelted with filth and tom down, as likewise
happened at Torgau, Dobeln, Erfurt, and other places. 2
Erfurt and Vienna followed its example, and even at
Ingolstadt there was some resistance. Wittenberg, sure of
the Elector's support, flatly declined and persisted in its
opposition. 3 Many of the bishops-Naumburg, Freising,
Augsburg, Passau, Bamberg, even the Archbishop of
Salzburg, etc.-declined or procrastinated its publication,
and among the secular princes the example of the Elector
was followed by the Dukes of Bavaria, who requested the
ecclesiastical authorities in their territories to waive proceedings, pending the meeting of the Diet of Worms, on the
ground of the popular disturbances which its publication
would provoke. 4 The same argument was used by the
Elector in justification of his refusal to enforce the Bull
at the behest of the papal Nuncios, Aleander and Caraccioli,
at Cologne in the beginning of November. 5 The argument
was no mere diplomatic evasion, as the widespread hostility
to Eck was proving .. This hostility was not lessened by the
fact that in publishing the Bull at Meissen he had summoned,
1 Miltitz's letter to the Elector, Walch, xv. 930.
Luther to Spalatin,
Enders, ii. 487. See also on the opposition at Leipzig, "Akten und
Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs," i. 143 f.; cf. l6l.
2 Enders, ii. 503, 5u; iii. 104, !06.
3 Melanchthon to Hess, "Corp. Ref.," i. 284.
Bullam Eceianam
apud nos nemo probat prreter eos qui ventri suo potius quam Evangelic
consultum volent, 2oth Feb. l 52r. See also the documents relative to
the publication of the Bull at Wittenberg and elsewhere, Walch, xv.
1875 f.
4 Wiedemann, " Eck," l 53 f. ; Pastor, vii. 408 f. ; Schubert, "Sitz.
Ber. der Heidelberger Akad. der Wissensch.," 1912, 19 f.; Kalkoff,
"Die Entstehung des Wormser Edikts," 7.
5 "Opera Latina Var.," v. 245; Kalkoff, '' Z.K.G:," xxv. 531-532.
Luther and the Bull
215
besides Luther, half a dozen of his adherents by nameCar1$tadt, Pirkheimer, Spengler, Aegranus, Feldkirch, and
B. Adelmann-to recant within the prescribed period. 6 He
was, indeed, empowered by his commission to mention any
name he pleased. 7 But he had the bad taste to select his
personal enemies and thus intensified the resentment which
the choice crf Luther's chief antagonist as papal Nuncio
had excited in Germany.
Pirkheimer, Spengler, and
Adelmann allowed themselves to be overawed and asked
for absolution. But Carlstadt stood firm. For him, as for
Luther, the die. was cast. 8 Luther's books were burned
by the zealots at Cologne, Louvain, Liege, Halberstadt,
Ingolstadt, and Maintz. 9 But this. obscurantist folly only
contributed to intensify the zeal of Hutten, whose books had
also been condemned and who. had been dismissed from
the service of the Archbishop of Maintz,10 and the more
militant humanists on his behalf .11 Even the cautious
Erasmus found courage in an interview with the Elector
at Cologne to denounce the Bull and abet Luther's plea
for a fair a:n.d impartial hearing. 12 "Luther's crime," he
remarked, "consisted in two things. He had attacked
the Pope's crown and the monks' bellies." 13 Luther was
the recipient of numerous letters from powerfl,11 sympathisers
and from less known well-wishers far and near. The
publication of the Bull discovered to him the full extent of
his ~old on the upper classes as well as the people. Whilst
Duke George of Saxony 14 took the lead among the princes
6 See the document in Barge, "Karlstadt," i. 219.
See also Eck's
lttter to the University of Wittenberg, Walch, xv. 1874, and "Opera
Latina Var.," iv. 305-306.
7 The charge of overstepping his commission in so doing brought
against him by the Elector, "Opera Latina Var.," v. 245, and repeated
by Protestant historians, has been shown by Kalkoff to be groundless.
He was entitled to do so by his commission," Z.K.G.," xxv. 532 f.
8 Enders, ii. 487.
Carlstadius et ipse jacta alea in Pontificem Rom.,
cornua sumit; cf. Barge, i. 221.
9
10
Ibid., ii. 532, 534; iii. 2, 21.
"Opera," i. 364.
11 See letters of Capito, Crotus, Hutten.
Enders, iii. 3 f.
12
13
"Opera Latina Var.," v. 241-242.
Ibid., v. 239.
14 Gess, " Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von
Sachsen," i. 143 f.
fZ r
as the executor of the Bull, Duke John Fredeik'k wrote

him to go on preaching and writing and stand firmly by
the Gospel in spite of t:P.e Bull.15 From Duke Bamim of
Pomerania came an assurance of support,16 whilst Sickingen
renewed his offer of protection 17 in response to his letters.
Luther himself was the least disturbed by the news of
the publication of the Bull. "I will laugh their Bull and
their bombast to scorn," he wrote on the 28th September
to Gunther von Biinau, Canon of Merseburg, on hearing of
the arrival of Eck "barbed, bulled, and bribed," as he
put it.18 " What will happen," he reflects in a letter to
Conrad Saum, a Wittenberg disciple, " I know not, nor
am I anxious to know. Certain I am that He who sits
in heaven governing all things has foreseen from eternity
the beginning, the progress, and the end of this enterprise,
which I await. However the lot may fall, it will not move
me, because it will not fall except in accordance with the
best will. Be not anxious, therefore ; your Father knows,
what things you have need of even bejore you ask Him." 19
Danger only steeled his bellicose spiHt. "The more the
adversaries, the better I am pleased," we read in a letter to
another friend. " I am never more defiant and audacious
than when I hear that I am displeasing the enemy. Be
they doctors, bishops, princes, what then? If the Word
of God were not impugned by them, it would not be the
Word of God. The kings of the earth have set themselves
and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and
His Christ. I should greatly grieve if these should praise
me." 20 Whilst humouring the Elector and Spalatin so far
as to talk with Miltitz about the letter to the Pope (and what
a letter!), he tells Spalatin that it is to be a fight to a finish
against the Bull. 21
Hence the two pJ:lippics directed against it in the course
of October under tMe titles, "Eck's New Bulls and Lies"
15
18 Ibid1, ii. 482.

Enders, iii. 22-23, 2oth Dec. 1520.
19
Ibid., ii. 500-501.
Ibid., ii. 484, Ist Oct.
17
20
Ibid., ii. 506, 3rd Nov.
Ibid., ii. 497-498.
21 ,Ibid., ii. 490-491.
Venit tandem Bulla ista Romana per Eccium
allata. . . Ego tum contemno et jam invado tanquam impiam et
mendacem omnibusque modis Eccianam.
16
Luther and the Bull
217
and "Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist."
In these
fulminations Luther professes to believe that it was a mere
lying concoction of his chief antagonist, although, as he
wrote to Spalatin, he was convinced of its authenticity. 22
In the former 23 he bases his incredulity on the twofold
fact of his appellation to a Council and the reference of his
case to the arbitration of the Archbishop of Trier, which has,
he holds, invalidated such an attempt to silence him by force.
Moreover, it is impossible to believe that the Pope can
have made his chief adversary judge in his cause and the
executor of this ex parte judgment. Let Eck produce the
original for his inspection and not merely copies of this
fraudulent document. 24 This profession of incredulity, in
view of his communication to Spaiatin, was a mere device
to discredit the Bull in the eyes of the people, and it would
have been more straightforward to discard this fiction and
frankly acknowledge its authenticity. More effective for
his purpose was the exposure of its misrepresentation of his
teachl.ng which he ascribes to Eck, whom he lashes with a
satire and a wealth of vituperation which leaves him without
a shred of reputation for veracity or learning. With this
vituperation he mingles a spirited defence of Hus against
the Council of Constance, of which Eck had in the beginning
of October published a vindication at Leipzig. The Council,
he now boldly asserts, in condemning Hus, had condemned
Christ over again, and Paul .and Augustine to boot. If he
had read Hus's works before the disputation at Leipzig, he
would have spoken very differently on the subject. Let
the tyrannical persecutors of the truth ta,ke warning. Their
tyranny will avail no longer against its champions. "The
Truth is asserting itself and will burst all the bladders of the
papists. The very stones cry out against the murderers
of Hus. The papists have striven for roo years against
the truth, and the more they have striven the more it has
become evident that it will and shall not remain hidden." 25
22
Enders, ii. 491. Agam tamen adhuc presso nomine papce tanquam
in effictam et mentitam Bullam, quamquam: credo veram et propriam
esse eorum.
23 Von dem neuen Eckischen Bullen und Liigen, "Werke," vi. 579 f.
24
25
"Werke," vi. 592-593.
Ibid., vi. 590.
r8
In the second effusion 26 he still professes scepticism about

the Bull. But if it is authentic, he proclaims his defiance
of the Roman Antichrist: "You Leo X. and you Lord
Cardinp.ls of Rome and whomsoever is of any importance
at Rome, I upbraid and say freely to your faces : If the Bull
has gone forth in your name and with your knowledge
and you recognise it as yours, I shall make use of my power
in virtue of my baptism, by which I became a child. of God
and a co-heir with Christ, and exhort and admonish you
in the Lord that you take to heart your diabolic blasphemies
and put an end to your audacious blasphemies, and this
without delay. Unless you do this, know that I, with all
who worship Christ, will esteem your seat possessed and
oppressed by Satan, the damned seat of Antichrist, to which
we will not render obedience or be subject, or be united,
but will detest and execrate as the chief and supreme enemy
of Christ. We are prepared iii behalf of this conviction
not only to bear your censures, but even to ask that you
may never absolve us and may fulfil your cruel tyranny.
For the sake of this conviction we offer ourselves to death
and by these writings we proclaim that, if you persist in
your fury, we condemn and deliver you, along with your
Bull and all your Satanic decretals, to the destruction of the
flesh in order that your spirit may be delivered with us in
the day of the Lord." 27 He would not be surprised, he
adds in the German version, if the princes, nobility, and
people knocked the Pope, bishops, parsons, and monks on
the head and chased them out of the land, though he disclaims any desire to incite the laity to violence against the
clergy, and would have them pray for them that God may
avert His wrath and deliver them from the evil spirit which
possesses them.2s
The Antichrist whom Luther thus defiantly indicts is

not the shadowy figure of Biblical eschatology, though the
name is borrowed from this source. Itis the corrupt system
which tM' Papacy actually represents and which has practically become a travesty of Christian,ity'. Luther has his own
way of describing this travesty and the description may sound
26
27
Adversus Execrabilem Antichristi Bullam, "Werke," vi. 597 f.

28
"Werke," vi. 604.
Ibid., vi: 621.
Luther and the Bull
219
'
arrogant
and extreme in modern ears. In reality it was
subsfantially justified by the gross degeneration of the
Papacy and the Church under the auspices of Leo X. and
his more immediate predecessors. "For over a century,"
says Pastor, " a cry for the reform of both the head and
members of the Church had resounded from all parts of
Europe. . . ' Many pious, enlightened, and wise men,
religious as well as laymen, rose up in response to the call
and tried to apply a rell)edY to the evils of the day. Many
hands were laid to the difficult task, though no decisive
results were obtained; for even the best-intentioned efforts
made but slight impression on the general deterioration of
ecclesiastical discipline. The task was made the more
difficult by the bad example of those belonging to . the
Roman Curia, which worked against the reformers. With
the dawn of (he new century the cry for reform sounded
louder and louder from both sides of the Alps, taking the
shape of treatises, letters, poems, satires, and predictions,
the theme of which was the corruption of the clergy, and
especially the worldliness of the Roman Curia. To many
the ancient Church seemed to be as rotten as the Holy
Roman-Teutonic Empire, and many foretold the downfall
of both these buttresses of the medireval system. The signs
of the times became more and more threatening. To
observant spectators it seemed as if, with the advent to
power of the Medici, a heavy storm mu~t break over the
Church . . . . With unprecedented optimism Leo X. looked
into the future without anxiety, and frivolously deluded himself as to the importance of the times. He never gave a
thought to reform on the grand scale which had become
necessary. . . . He. did not co-operate in the half measures
taken, nor in the superficial attempts made to carry out the
salutary decrees of the Lateran Council. Therefore the
Roman Curia, which had for a long time been held in
. contempt and made the object of the bitterest satires,
remained as worldly as ever." 2 9
On the r7th November, Luther renewed his appeal
to a General Council and declared his readiness to appear
29
"
History of the Popes," vii. 4-5.
220
and present his cause for judgment. He, therefore, begs

the Emperor, Electors, princes, nobility, and other secular
authorities of the empire to support his appellation in
resistance to the madness and. tyranny of the Pope, or at
least refrain from enforcing the Bull until his case has been
considered and decided by equitable judges in the light of
Scripture and other credible evidence. 30 At the same time
he issued a German version in less legal form for the information of the people. 31
On the roth December he proceeded to the extreme
step of publicly burning the Bull at Wittenberg, in retaliation for the burning of his books by Afoander at Louvain,
Cologne, and Maintz. A public announcement, composed by
Melanchthon, summoned the students and others to assemble
at 9 o'clock at the chapel of the Holy Cross outside the
walls for the cremation of certain obnoxious writings in
accordance with the apostolic example. 32 At the appointed
hour one of the Masters of Arts in the presence of the
assembled doctors, masters, students, and populace lighted
the pile into which Luther solemnly threw the Decretum
of Gratian, the papal decretals, the Summa of Clavisio on
the Sacrament of Penance, the writings of Eck, Emser
and others of his opponents, and finally the Bull itself, with
the apostrophe, "As thou hast confounded the truth of
God, so may He this day consume thee in the fire." 33
Luther's action was intended as a public demonstration to
the whole of Germany that he had foresworh Antichrist
and all his works. He performed the ceremony, as he later
informed Staupitz, "trembling and praying." 34 The
students took the matter less tragically and after singing
the Te Deum and the De Profundis around the burning
pile dispersed to give vent to their anti-papal zeal in a frolic:-,
31
32 Ibid., vii. 183.
"Werke," v.ii. 80-81.
Ibid., vii. 85 f.
Enders, iii. 18. Luther to Spalatin, 10th Dec. See the account
of au eye-witness in "Werke," vii. 184 f. The words used by Luther
are given i)'1 a recently discovered account of the incident, which differs
from that of the former, and published by Perlbach and J. Luther in
the "Bericht der Preuss. Acad. der Wissenschaft," 1907; Grisar,
"Luther," ii. 51.
34 Enders, iii. 70.
30
33
Luther and the Bull
221
some procession. Before commencing his lecture next day

Luther impressed on them the gravity of the situation and
admonished them that the mere burning of the papal Bull
was not sufficient. They must destroy the papal system
itself. "Unless you discard with your whole heart the
papal kingdom, you cannot attain the salvation of your
souls." 35 Apparently he was unconscious that in such an
utterance he was really professing the intolerant papal
principle that makes saJvation depend on one's ecclesiastical
op1mons. This extreme proposition he endeavoured to
substantiate in a manifesto in Latin and German, giving
his reasons why he had burned the Bull. It consists largely
of quotations from the canon law with comments thereon
tending to prove the enormity of the papal claims and their
contradiction of the teaching of the Scriptures. 36 In the
beginning of January 1521 he added, at the Elec~or's request,
a more detailed defence of the articles condemned in the
Bull. than he had been able to give in the previous two
fulminations against it. 3 7
"Werke," vii. 186.
Warumb des papst's und seiner jungernn bucher von Doctor
Martin Luther vorbrant seynn, "Werke," vii. 161f.
87 Assertio omnium Articulorum M. Lutheri per Bullam Leonis X.
novissimam damnatorum, "Werke," vii. 94 f.
36
36
CHAPTER VIII
THE REFORMATION MANIFESTOS OF
1520
I. THE APPEAL TO THE NATION
EARLY in June 1520 Luther intimated to Spalatih his

intention of publishing a manifesto to the Emperor and
the nobility of Germany against the tyranny and wickedness
of the Roman Curia.1 From the same communication we
learn that . the impulse to this resolution was furnished by
the Epitome of Prierias and the vernacular work of Alveld
in defence of the papal power which had just come into
his hands. 2 Prierias's exaltation of the papal power, in
particular, provoked the violent ultimatum to Rome
contained in the preface and conclusion with which, as we
have seen, he reprinted the Epitome. Though he treated
the effusion thus summarily, the extreme claim on behalf
of the absolute, infallible power of even a wicked Pope
filled him with amazement and anger. " I believe," he
exclaimed in the note to Spalatin, "they have all become
unmitigated madmen and fools at Rome. Now we see
what we are to expect from Rome which allows this infernal
effusion to go forth to the Church. Truly these portents
overwhelm me with the enormity of their stupidity." 3
Hence the resolution to arraign the Curia at the bar of German'
public opinion in the Address to the Emperor and the
nobility.
Despite the oft-repeated assertion which ascribes the
1 Enders, ii. 414.
Est animus publicam schedam edere ad Carolum
et totius Germanice nobilitatem adversus Romance Curice tyrannidem et
nequitiam.
2 Kohler overlooks this fact wh,en he ascribes the impulse to the
composition of the work to the prompting of Hutten and Crotus Rubianus.
" Luther's Schrift an den Christlichen Adel," 283, 287 (1895).
3 Enders, ii. 414; cf. 412.
222
The Appeal to the Nation
223
genesis of this famous appeal to Hutten and Schaumburg, 4

it is evident that, in the first instance at least, it had nothing
to do with the offer of alliance and protection made by
Hutten and other representatives of the lesser nobility.
Luther, as we have noted, received Schaumburg's origial
offer in the middle of May rather doubtingly, 5 and the
motive which prompted him to begin the writing of the
Address was concern, not for his own safety, but for the
coinmonwea1 of Germany against what he had come to
regard as the antichristian regime of Rome. 6

Its composition occupied him intermittently throughout
June and July and into the month of Aug,ust, and in accordance with his custom it was sent in portions to the printer
as the writing progressed. 7 On the r8th August he was
able to announce to Lang the fact of its publication, with
a dedication to his colleague, Nicolas von Amsdorff, and the
immediate sale of the whole edition of 4,000 copies. He
had only one copy left which he sent to his friend~ 8
The intermittent character of its composition appears,
indeed, from the work itself. It is by no means an organic
whole. Luther was not .as a rule a systematic thinker or
writer. He wrote too much and too rapidly, and in the rush
of his thoughts he was apt to dash down his ideas without
much concern for their arrangement or for symmetry of
workmanship, In the case of the Address, in particular,
he had apparently not thought out clearly the plan of the
4 Kohler, for instance (" Luther's Schrift an den
Christlichen
Adel," 283 f.), who follows Maurenbrecher, "Studien und Skizzen zur
Geschichte der Reformationszeit" (1874), and Kampfschulte, "Die
Universitat Erfurt" (1860), who are controverted by Knaake in his
introduction to the Address. "Werke, '' vi. 381 f. See also Kohlmeyer,
" Die Entstehurtg der Schrift Luther's an den Christlichen Adel," 34 f.
(1922).
6 Enders, ii. 402.
6 Ibid., ii. 414.
Sic postulat argumenti necessitas, prodenda tandem
sunt Antichristi mysteria. Ita enim se ipsa urgent et latere amplius
no1unt.
7 Ibid., ii. 444.
Editur noster libellus in Papam de reformanda
ecclesia vernaculus, 2oth July; ii. 456, Jam edo librum vulgarem contra
Papam de statu ecclesire emendando, 3rd Aug.; ii. 457, Classicum
meum, etc.
8 Ibid., ii. 461.
224
work from the outset, or if he had done so in general, he

did not exactly adhere to it in the writing of it. As finally
issued from t1::1e press, it professedly consists of three parts:
(r) a refutation on theological grounds of the extreme
claims of the Papacy 9 ; (z) an exposure of the abuses of the
curial regime 10 ; (3) a series of proposals for the reformation
of the abuses rampant in both the Church and the nation.11
But the second part not only exposes certain abuses. It
also suggests reforms, and a large part of it forms a digression
from the professed purpose of exposing abuses in order
particularly to show how the Curia, in countenancing such
abuses, acts in contradiction of its own (the canon) law.12
Similarly the third part not only presents ~large scheme
of reforms, but exposes a large number of\ abuses .which he
had not specified in the second part. He thus mixes up in
both parts the matter'S which he proposes to treat
distinctively in each, and is clearly guilty of a certain
inconsistency in the execution of the professed plan of the
work.
The probable explanation of this lack of symmetry is
that he wrote the work not consecutively, but intermittently. '
Parts I. and II. appear to form a unity, though the greater
portion of Part II. is a digression from his professed theme,
i.e., the exposure of abuses. Between Parts II. and III.
there was evidently a pause, and in taking up the subject
anew, he both exposes a large number of abuses which he
had not mentioned in Part II. and intensifies the attack
on the Pope and the Curia in the sweeping charges made
against them and the formidable series of rdorms demanded.
The chalJenge to both becomes more comprehensive and
uncompromising and begets the impression that 'something
had happened to widen and intensify both his denunciation
and his defiance. This " something " was evidently th,e
intimation conveyed in the letters from Riario and Tetleben,
which the Elector received on the 6th July, that the Pope
had resolved to issue the Bull of condemnation against
Luther. Moreover, he had by this time, as he informs
9
10
"Werke," vi. 404-415.

Ibid., vi. 415-427.
11
12
Ibid., vi. 427-469.

Ibid., vi. 418-427.
225
Spalatin on the roth July,13 received another letter from

Schaumburg offering him the alliance and protection of
the lesser nobility. 14 Encouraged by this offer, he tells
Spalatin that for him the die is cast. Let them condemn
and bum his works. He in tum will publicly condemn
and bum the whole papal law, that brood of heresies, and
will make an end of the humility which he has hitherto
exhibited in vain and with which he will no longer inflate
the enemies of the Gospel. 15 He tells him further a week
later that Schaumburg and Sickingen have delivered him
from the fear of men.16 This offer had secured him against
the possibility of succumbing defencelessly to the expected
papal attack even if, in order to ward off the threatened
interdict against the Elector's territories, he should be forced
to seek a refuge elsewhere. . This refuge was now assured
him, and to the extent of encouraging him to hurl defiance
against the Pope and leading him to intensify and widen the
attack on Rome, which he had begun in the first two parts of
the Address, the influence of Schaumburg and Sickingen is
certainly traceable in the highly bellicose third part of it. 17
That the Address was originally inspired or materially
influenced from this source is, however, an untenable assumption. The main incentive to its composition was, in the
first place, the recent works of Alveld and Prierias, and,
in the second place, the threatened fulmination of Rome
against him and his writings. The fact that the manifesto
was addressed to the nobility is no proof that he had joined
the party of Hutten and the lesser nobles and made himself
18
16 Ibid., ii. 432-433.

Enders, ii. 432.
Ibid., ii. 415-416, dated the nth June. 16 Ibid., ii. 443; cf. 456.
17 Kohlmeyer (" Die Entstehung der Schrift Luther's an den Christlichen Adel " (1922)) argues forcibly in favour of this view of the third
part of the Address. He also adduces strong grounds for the conclusion
that it was not written consecutively and that there was an interval
between the conclusion of Part II. on p. 427 and the writing of Part III.
under the influence of the news from Rome and also the communication
from Schaumburg. Kohler, on the other hand (" Zeitschrift fiir Rechtsgeschichte," xliv., "Kan. Abt.," vi. 1 f.), controverts this view and contends that the work was written consecutively. His arguments do not seem
to me conclusive. In his reply (" Z.K.G.," 1925, 582 f.) Kohlmeyer
substantially maintains his position, whilst slightly modifying it.
14
15
226
the mouthpiece of the ideas and aims of this class in this

"trumpet call" 18 to reform. n was not even addressed to
this class, for the term " nobility," 19 or Adel, means the
princes and the higher nobility as well as the lower. As
a matter of fact, it is directed to the ruling classes of the
empire-to the Obrigkeit, consisting of Emperor, princes,
nobles, knights, and the imperial cities-in a word, the
estates of the empire represented in the imperial Diet.
In certain passages the appeal is addressed to every corporate
local authority (gemeinde) whether actually represented in
the Diet or not. He had already in the dedication of his
Commentary on Galatians, 20 in his sermons on Usury
and on Good Works, 21 summoned the various estates to
begin the work of reform either by their own initiative
or through a General Council, and in the Address he
has in view the interest of the nation as a whole, not that
of any particular class within it. Such an assumption,
too often made by partisan Roman Catholic writers and
others, needs no refutation, if only in view of the sorry
role played in the State by the lesser nobility, many of
whom lived by oppression and robbery, and were more concerned with getting hold of Church lands for themselves
and their families than reforming the abuses fro.m which
they were only too eager to pmfit. That he should have
taken his inspiration from this class or have made himself
the mere mouthpiece of its interest, a mere glance at the
spirit and aim of the work is sufficient to disprove.
It is a different question whether and how far he was
influenced by the writings of Hutten who belonged to th.is
class. Whilst concerned for the interests of his Order,
Hutten had conceive.d the idea of a national reform on
anti-Romanist lines. 22 He was an ardent member of the
18
Classicum; as Lang called it. Enders, ii. 461.

Enders, ii. 414. Ad totius Germanire nobilitatem; cf. ii. 444,
ad universam nobilitatem Germanire. See Kohlmeyer, " Entstehung,"
20
21
35 f.
" Werke," ii. 449
Ibid., vi. 45; cf. 52, 258.
22 Ch. Meyer, "Ul. v. Hutten und Franz von. Sickingen," 19 f.
(1890). Strauss's "Life of Hutten" (English transla~ion by Mrs Sturge,
1874) is too indiscriminating and one-sided. See the chapter on " Die
Entwickelung der Legende von Hutten und Sickingen," in Kalkoff's
"Ulrich von Hutten's Vagantenzeit und Untergang," 31 f. (1925).
19
227
radical humanist party in the struggle against the old

culture and its obscurantist defenders who waged war on
Reuchlin as well as Luther, and he had latterly been
attracted to the Luther~n movement as a promising adjunct
of this cause, not by the moral and religious aspect of this
movement which he was ill fitted to appreciate. With this
radical humanism he combined the aspiration for a reform
on national grounds. It was this combination that made
him the militant foe of the ecclesiastical system which
oppressed artd exploited Germany for the benefit of a corrupt
alien regime as well as stroye to suppress the radical humanist
party. Rome h,ad determined to proscribe Hutten and his
freethinking associates along with Luther, and in this
respect both were now allies in the same cause of antagonism
to the Roman oppressor. With Hutten, however, the main
motive of this antagonism was the humanist and nationalist
one ; with Luther the religious and moral one. In his
own sphere Luther had nothing to learn from, but much to
teach him. He had, moreover, started on his career as a
reformer independently of Hutten and the humanists. The
secret of his reforming mission lay in his religious experience
which had gradually led him to attack ecclesiastical and even
social abuses as well as what he deemed theological error.
From r515 onwards he had, even in the thick of theological
contrqversy, incidentally at least, sounded the call to a
reformation of these practical abuses, and it would be
possible to construct out of his lectures, sermons, and
controversial writings from r515 to the summer of r520
the main outlines of the. reform . programme which he
presented in the Address to the Nobility. At the same
time, the pronouncedly national note of the Address
evidently owed something to Hutten's "Vadiscus" or
"Trias Romana" and his" Inspicientes" (Observers) which
appeared in April 1520 and which Luther had read soon
after their publication. 23 But this influence was not very
28 See Kohlmeyer who gives instances of this influence on the Address
(" Entstehung," 47 f.), which Knaake in his introduction to it
(" Werke," vi. 388-389) had denied too categorically. See especially the
passages of the Vadiscus, "Hutteni Opera,'' iv. 163-165 and 255-257.
Kohlmeyer thinks that there are traces of this influence even in the
228
far-reaching and by no means warrants the assertion that

the Address is merely an echo of the " Vadiscus " and
the " Inspicientes." Kalkoff believes that, whilst Luther
glanced through these satires, they exercised practically no
influence on the Address. 24 This judgment is, however,
too extreme and there is more force in Kohlmeyer's conclusion that the "Vadiscus" quickened Luther's sense of the
evils of the Roman regime from the national point of view,
and that it lent a wider scope and an added force to the
appeal for reform on national as well as religious grounds.
He rightly, I think, sees in the spirited defence of the
imperial crown and the purely national interest against
the claims of the Papacy and in the idea of a national
Church, for instance, "new notes" in Luther's polemic" the echo of the national humanism" of Hutten. 25
It is difficult to determine exactly what were the specific
sources of the Address. 26 In addition to the Scriptures
-his grand authority in this as in his other controversial
writings-he evidently drew on some of the Fathers, the
decrees of the Council of Nicrea, the papal Decretals and the
Canon Law, the decrees of the reforming Councils of
the fifteenth century, especially that of Basle. He does
seem to have drawn directly from the works of the early
fourteenth-century publicists, John of Paris; John of
Jandun, Marsiglia of Padua, and Occam, the defenders of
the independence of the State against the papal claims,
and the right of the secular power to take steps to reform
the Church. This independence and this right they based
on the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, and with
sermon on Good Works and in "Von dem Papstthum Zu Rom."
"Entstehung," 50 f. See also Kohler, 307-314, and Reindell; "Luther,
Crotus, und Hutten," 57 f. (1890).
24 "Entscheidungsjahre," 171; cf. "Ul. v. Hutten's Vagantenzeit
und Untergang," 68 f.
26 "Entstehung," 6o-6f; cf. Kolde, "Luther's Stellung zu Concil
und Kirche," 71-72 (1876).
26 In his work, " Luther's Schrift an den Christlichen Adel,"
Kohler has subjected the Address to a minute examination with a view
to finding evidence of its sources. The result is, on the whole, rather
inconclusive in regard to many of the possible sources adduced and
discussed.

this doctrine Luther does not seem to have been familiar.
At all events, if he was, it does not seem to have appealed
to him. He develops no political philosophy and vindicates
the claims he makes for the State on religious rather than
on political grounds. It is more probable that he owed
something to the works of the fifteenth-century leaders of
the conciliar party, D' Ailly, Gerson, and Nicolas de Tudesco,
leader of the Council of Basle and Archbishop of Palermo,
to those of Dietrich von Nieheim, 27 and to Valla's exposure
of the so-called Donation of Co.nstantine. We can with
more confidence assert or assume his acquaintance
with the reforming publicism of his own time. He had,
for instance, almost certainly in his mind the traditional
gravamina or statement of grievances presented afresh to
the Augsburg Diet in r5r8. 28 The grievances thus summarised were the common stock of the publicists of the
period who indicted or satirised the abuses rampant in
the Church. They form the commonplaces of this satirical
literature and Luther was undoubtedly acquainted with it.
In November r5r7 he mentions one of these satires in a
letter to Spalatin, whilst deprecating the levity with which it
treats so grave a subject. 29 On the other hand, he enjoyed
the "Dialogue between Julius II. and Peter" 30 and pays
a tribute to the skill of the author in exposing the regime
of the worldly, bellicose. Pope. It must, he judges, bear
good fruit if seriously read, and he is sorry that it is not
better known at Rome. For him it contains nothing new,
though it tends to confirm the general impression of the
tyranny and wicked audacity of Rome with which the world
is ringing. 31 The "Encomium Morire" (Praise of Folly) of
Erasmus, which Luther had undoubtedly read, 32 had in
fact powerfully contributed to set the current of public
27
Kohler, 39-41, I I I f.
He expressly refers to this document in .the dedication of his
Commentary on Galatians in 1519. "Werke," ii. 448.
29 Enders, i. 121.
.
. 30 Dialogus Julii et Petri.
31
Enders, i. 433, 2oth Feb. 1519. The Dialogue was attributed to
Erasmus, who disclaimed its authorship. It was probably written by
Faustus Andrelinus.
32 Se~ the dedication of the Address to Amsdorff.
,
28
2 30
opinion against the evils of the papal regime. He was, too,

probably acquainted with Wimpheling's more serious indictment 33 of the ecclesiastical abuses from which Germany in
particular was suffering. His correspondence with Crotus
and Hess, both of whom had recently visited Rome, and his
intercourse with Dr van Wick, who had returned thence
in the summer of r520 and paid him a visit at Wittenberg,
supplied him with some details of the conditions prevailing
there. 34
At the same time, the Address is very far from being
a mere compilation from such sources. It is characte1istically Lutheran in conception, spirit, style, and contents. On
the face of it is the stamp of his genius and personality as
a national reformer. Only Luther could have written it.
Only he could have imparted to it the moral and religious
conviction, the drastic style, the uncompromising defianc~
which sweeps onwards like a hurricane over a doo).11ed
world. In this hurricane the lightning of his wrath darts
forth again and again and we can almost hear the crash
of these lightning strokes which prostrate the rotten system
of the Roman regime to the ground. So vivid, so elemental,
so shattering is the impact.
At the outset of the Address, Luther announces his
determination to appeal from the clergy to the laity for a
reform of the Church. The oppression and misery of
Christendom, and especially of Germany, under the papal
regime have compelled him to make this appeal. General
Councils have hitherto utterly failed to provide a remedy.
The German emperors relying on their own strength, the
force of arms, in their struggles with the Papacy, have been
equally impotent. The accession of the young Emperor
Charles has, however, awakened fresh hope of an effective
"Remedium contra Gravamina <:;ermani:e Nationis" (15r9). Also
his "Responsa et Replic:e ad Aeneam Silvium" (1515). See Knaake,
"Werke," vi. 394. Wimpheling's Gutachten, or repo:it on the same
subject submitted to the Emperor Maximilian in 1,Slo seems to have
been unknown to Luther at the time when he began to write the Address,
since it was published only at the end of May 1520.
34 Enders, ii. 432, 443.

See also Kohlmeyer, 82 f. ' In a passage
of the "Table Talk," Feb. 1538, he acknowledges his indebtedness to
Wick. " Tischreden," iii. 567.
33
23 I
reformation arid in this spirit of optimism Luther summons

him and the Estates to take steps to this end in reliance
not on themselves, but on the divine assistance. 35
The Romanists have hitherto persistently frustrated the
reform of the Church. They have entrenched themselves
behind three walls in defence of their anti-reform policy.
In the first place, they assert that the temporal power has
no jurisdiction over the spiritual, whilst claiming for the
spiritual power jurisdiction over the temporal. In the
second place, if they are faced with the evidence of Scripture
to the contrary, they contend that the Pope alone is entitled
to interpret Scripture. In the third place, if they are
threatened with a General Council, they claim that' the Pope
alone can summon a Council. By these pretexts they have
frustrated a reformation, and he, therefore, sets himself
in the first or preliminary part of the work to invalidate
them.
He "demolishes the first wall by denying that there is
any essential distinction between the spiritual and the
temporal estate. He treats the subject from the theological,
not the political standpoint, and seeks the proof of his
contention in the Bible which appears to be for him a textbook of political science. In virtue of the spiritual priesthood of all believers, all Christians, as possessing a common
baptism, a common faith and Gospel, belong to the spiritual
estate. The only distinction between Christians is one of
offl.ce or function (Amt), not of estate (Stand). The clergy
differ from the laity only in being chosen by their fellowChristians to perform a certain function-that of ministering
the Word and the sacraments. They have no specific,
indelible character in virtue of their ordination, differentiating them from their fellow-Christians. 36 From the spiritual
priesthood of ail believers, it follows that the temporal
power, which consists of baptized believers, is also part of
the Christian body. It is, moreover, ordained by God for
the maintenance of law and morality, and is thus divinely
endowed with an ethical function. To it all are subject
35 "Werke," vi. 404-406.
by Kalkoff (1914) ..
as " Werke,'' vi. 407-408.
"Ausgewiihlte Werke," ii. 5-6, edited
2 32
according to the explicit testimony of Scripture. It is,

therefore, entitled, nay bound, to exercise its function
towards all its subjects without restraint or restriction
whatsoever. Any claim to immunity from its jurisdiction
on the pretext of ecclesiastical law is inadmissible. This
claim is merely an invention of Roman arrogance. If the
Pope and the clergy are guilty of grave dereliction of duty,
of scandalous evils to the danger of souls and tlie detriment
of the common weal, it may and shall punish and reform them
without respect to their threats and excommunications, 37
although apparently it shall not otherwise interfer1:<, in the
performance of their specific function in their own sphere.
" Now I conclude the first paper will is overthrown, inasmuch
as the temporal power has become a member of the Christian
body, and although its work is of a bodily nature, yet it
belongs to the spiritual estate. Therefore it must perform its
work without let or hindrance towards all the members of
the whole body, to punish and ordain wherever guilt deserves
or necessity demands, without respect of Pope, bishop, or
priest, let them threaten or excommunicate as much as they
will." 38
The pretension of the Pope to be the exclusive and
infallible interpreter of Scripture and the arbiter of the
faith is a lying assumption. It merely means that the
Pope is at liberty to decree what he chooses, however
ignorant or wicked he may be, and that the unlearned
gentlemen at Rome possess ex officio a monopoly of the
Holy Spirit, who, however, can only dwell in pure hearts.
This pretension is contrary to Scripture which every pious
Christian, in whom is the mind of Christ, is able to understand
and judge for himself. Let no one, therefore, allow himself
to be deprived of this inherent right as a Christian by such
an usurped authority. 39
Equally unscriptural and baseless is the claim that it
belongs to the Pope alone to summon a Council. Scripture
confers on each member of the Christian community the
care of the welfare of all its members and with it the right
to call the community together for this purpose. There is
3
'
38
"Werke," vi. 409-410.

Ibid., vi. 409-410.
89
Ibid., vi. 411-412.
233
not a word in Scripture to justify this arrogant claim which

rests only on the papal decrees, and these decrees are binding
only in as far as they are not injurious to Christendom and the
laws of God. The first Council was not convened by Peter,
but by all the Apostles, and the most famous of all, the
Council of Nicrea, by the Emperor Constantine, not by the
Roman bishop.. So in the case of many others which were
nevertheless regarded as Christian assemblies. This they
could not have been if the power of convening them had
resided only in the Pope. Therefore, when necessity
demands and the Pope is a cause of offence to Christendom,
every individual Christian is to strive to bring about the
meeting of a free Council. By none can this be so effectively
done as by the temporal power which, in its capacity as
Christian, is amply entitled to do so. In view of the antichristian Roman regime its duty in this matter needs no
proof. To adduce the authority of the Pope in such a case
is mere empty talk. "No one in Christendom has power
to do harm or forbid any one to prevent harm. There is no
power in the Church except for the reformation of what is
amiss." 40 If, therefore, the Pope uses his power to prevent
the convention of a free Council for this purpose, we are to
pay no heed to him and his authority, and if he threatens
and excommunicates, we are to pay him back in his own
coin. To exercise his power to prevent reformation is to
do the work of the devil and of Antichrist. 41
He proceeds in the second part to review the abuses
that should be reformed by a Council, or in case of its
failure, by the temporal power, though, as, we have noted,
he does not, in this part, do so systematically and exhaustively, and mingles demands for reform with the
exposure of abuses. He adduces, in particular, the infinite
detriment accruing from the Roman misgovernment of the
Church to both the material and the religious welfare of
Germany. On both economic and religious grounds a
reformation is urgently necessary. The Curia has become
an organisation for the financial exploitation of Germany
by means of a variety of mercenary devices, by which
German wealth is drained to Rome for the support of a host
40
"Werke," vi. 414.
41
Ibid., vi. 413-414.
234
of cardinals, curial officials, and papal parasites who live

in luxury and vice at Germany's expense. In virtue of
these devices-provision of aliens to rich German benefices,
annats or first fruits, appropriation of livings by the. Pope
under various pretexts, pallium money, commendams,
teservations, compositions, indulgences, dispensations, etc.,
which he describes in detail, Germany is impoverished and
threatened with ruin. 42 It is the victim of Roman avarice,
fraud, knavery, robbery. The Turk himself could not have
more completely devastated the nation. Germany, he calcu"
lates, pays more to the Pope every year than it formerly
paid its emperors. Is it surprising that all classes-princes,
nobles, burgesses, clergy, and people-grow poorer? The
wonder is that they have anything left to eat. And this to
maintain a swarm of vermin at Rome, these ravenous
wolves in sheep's clothing ! 43 The annats, for instance,
supposed to be used for the defence of Christendom against.
the Turk, are a mere pretext for filling the bottomless sack at
Rome. They imagine that the mad, drunken Germans, as
they call them, are such infinite, inveterate fools that.they
will go on for ever pouring their money into this sack.
His denunciation culminates in the vehement description
of the traffic in sacred things as manipulated by the Datarius
(the official who issues and registers certain documents) at
Rome and the Fugger, the papal bankers at Aug~burg. 44
In this section the moral sense of Christendom utters itself
in Luther in a vehement protest, in scornful condemnation
of the corruption and spoliation of the Roman Curia. It is
couched in the language of the prophet rather than the
judge-of the prophet invoking doom on the modern
Babylon, Sodom, Gomorrah, as he alternatively terms Rome.
The Address is a manifesto to the nation against the
overflowing iniquity of the curial regime, not an objective
indictment in a law court. " At Rome there is such a state
of things that baffles description. There is a buying, selling,
exchanging, cheating, roaring, lying, deceiving, robbing,
stealing, luxury, debauchery, villany, and every sort of
contempt of God that Antichrist himself could not possibly
42
44
43 Ibid., vi. 417-419.

"Werke," vi. 415 f.
On the Fugger, see Schulte, "Die Fugger in Rom" (1904).
235
rule more abominably. Venice, Antwerp, Cairo are nothing

compared to this fair and market at Rome, except that
things are done th.ere with some reason and justice, whilst
here they are done as the devil himself wills. And out of
this ocean flows a like virtue into the whole world. Is it
not natural that such people should dread a reformation
and a free Council and rather set all kings and princes by
the ears than that, by their unity, they should bring about
a Council? Which of them would like to have such villany
exposed? Finally, the Pope has constructed a special
shop for this fine traffic, that is, the house of the Datarius
at Rome. Hither all must come who bargain in this way
for prebends and benefices, etc . . . . If you bring money
to this house, you can get all the things that I have men~
tioned, and not only these, but any sort of usury is here
made legitimate for money. What has been stolen, robbed
is here legalised. Here vows are annulled. Here the monk
may buy freedom to quit his Order. Here the clergy can
purchase the marriage state, the children of harlots obtain
legitimacy, dishonour and shame be made respectable,
evil repute and crime be knighted and ennobled. Here
marriage is allowed that is within the forbidden degree, or
is otherwise defective. Oh what oppressing and plunder
rule here! So that it seems as if the whole canon law
were only established in order to snare as much money
as possible, from which every one who would be a Christian
must deliver himself. Here the devil becomes a saint and
a god to boot. What heaven and earth may not do, this
house can do. They speak of compositions. Compositions,
forsooth ! Much rather confusions. Oh what a poor
treasure is the Toll on the Rhine compared with this holy
house! Let no one think that I say too much. It is all
notorious so that even at Rome they are fain to confess
that it is more terrible, worse than words can describe.
I have not touched, nor do I wish to touch on the infernal
dregs of private vices. I speak only of well-known public
evils, and yet I cannot find words strong enough to
characterise them. I have, however, still a last greeting
which I must also deliver. Since this unspeakable greed
is not satisfied with the treasu:res that would be sufficient
2 36
for three. powerful kings, they have added to this traffic

by selling to the Fugger of Augsburg the right to traffic in
bishoprics and benefices, and thus this fine bargaining in
ecclesiastical property has got into the right hands and
spiritual and temporal things have become a common
business. . . . Since this devilish regime is not only a public
robbery, deceit, and tyranny of the gates of hell, but also
the destruction of Christendom in soul and body, it is our
bounden duty to ward off this misery and desolation of the
Christian commonwealth. If we desire to wage war against
the Turks, let us begin here, where they are worst of all.
If we justly hang thieves and behead robbers, why should
we allow Roman greed to go free, which is the greatest thief
and robber that has appeared or can appear on earth, and
this in Christ's and St Peter's holy name! Who can at long
last suffer this or maintain silence about it ? " 45 We must
make allowance for a certain tendency to overcolouring
in Luther's style. Nevertheless this vehement arraignment
of the evils rampant in the Roman Curia can be paralleled
from official Roman sources. For instance, in the indictment
by Pope Hadrian VI. himself a couple of years later and in
the report of the commission, appointed by Pope Paul III.
seventeen years later, and presided over by Contarini, to
suggest a scheme of reform. 46
He proceeds in the third part to treat of the reform
of such abuses which the temporal power or a General
Council shall undertake. In the course of this lengthy
scheme the Council is, however, largely ignored and the
work is mainly to be done by the secular authority. More.over, as we have seen, he introduces many abuses which he
had not particularised in the second part, and under the
influence of the imminent fulmination against him from
Rome, violently attacks the Pope personally as well as the
Curia. In order to get a conjunct view of these reforms
we shall here include those which he had already suggested
in the second part.
This iniquitous and oppressive exploitation of Germany
46
"Werke," vi. 425-427.

"Consilium de emendanda Ecclesia," I 537. Luther's translation
of it is given in " Werke," 1. 288 f.
46

the temporal power shall forthwith redress by a series of
drastic enactments, whether by the Reichstag for the whole
empire, or by the territorial authorities within their respective
spheres. 47 Moreover, the tempc)ral power shall not only
take drastic measures to put an end to the economic evils
arising from this exploitation. It shall take in hand the
thorough reformation of the Church itself. For the
Address contains a detailed scheme of ecclesiastical reform
on the ground that these and other evils are ruinous
to the service of God. Luther would begin the reform
by a radical diminution of the power of the Pope. He
would deprive him of his triple crown and the pomp and
luxury un befitting the chief pastor of Christendom. He
should leave these things to Antichrist and remember that
Christ's kingdom is not of this world and fashion his life
after His example who on earth took upon Himself the
form of a servant. He would drastically reduce or even
abolish the cardinalate and the swarm of curial officials
who batten on German benefices like wolves lying in wait
for the sheep. 48 One per cent. of this corrupt officialdom
would suffice. Whilst disposed in the second part to
excuse the Pope personally as the victim rather than the
cause of a bad system, 49 he regards him in the third part as
" the common enemy and destroyer of Christendom and
the salvation of souls." 50 He. would utterly destroy the
papal legatine system and expel from Germany all papal
legates who sell faculties legalising all kinds of iniquities.
As he thinks of the gross immorality of this system his
indignation impels him to challenge and disown the papal
power in the person of the Pope himself. " Hearest thou,
0 Pope, not the most holy, but the most sinful? Would
that God would hurl thy chair headlong from heaven and
cast it down info the abyss of hell! Who has given thee the
power to exalt thyself above thy God, to break and to
loose what He has commanded, to teach Christians, especially
the German nation, who are of a noble nature and are
praised in all the histories for their uprightness and faithfulness, to . be unreliable, breakers of their oaths, traitors,
47
48
"Werke," vi. 419-420, 427 f.

Ibid., vi. 415-418.
49
60
Ibid.; vi. 419.

Ibid., vi. 428.
2 38
villains, and lacking in faith? God has commanded us to

keep oaths and troth even with enemies and thou takest it
upon thee to cancel such ;;i. command, setting forth in thy
heretical, antichristian decrees that thou hast such power,
and through thy mouth and pen Satan lies as he never lied
before, and thou dost twist and pervert the Scriptures
according to thine own arbitrary will." 51
He would deprive him of the right of confirming bishops
and archbishops and restore the canon of the Council of
Nicrea which conferred this right on neighbouring bishops,
or the metropolitan of the province, and of the right of
exempting abbots and other prelates from their jurisdiction
to the detriment of the episcopal government. He would
at most only allow appeal to him in cases in which primates
and archbishops are unable to agree. Otherwise he would
restrict his office to the spiritual oversight of Christendom.
In no case should temporal matters be submitted to Rome,
but should be dealt with by the temporal authorities, to
whose province they belong, and who should disallow all
excommunications on this ground and only recognise those
relative to faith and morals, which rightly belong to the
sphere of the spiritual authority. He would, however,
allow questions relative to ecclesiastical benefices to be
settled by the bishops concerned under the Primate of
Germany in a national ecclesiastical assembly for the
government of the national Church, and thereby emancipate
Germany from the wretched tyranny and misrule of Rome. 52
He would, in addition, deprive the Pope of the investiture
of the bishops of the national Church and abolish the oath
of fealty to him, as in France and other countries, and thus
rid the national episcopate of this servility to the papal
tyranny. 53 He wol.lld even restore to the local Church
(gemeinde) the right to elect its minister or bishop (these
51
"Werke" vi. 453,

Ibid., vi. 429-431. In his ultimate estrangement from Ro:(lle over
the question of the papal infallibility, Dollinger's conception of a national
German Church undeF a German Primate and a national ecclesiastical
assembly and provincial synods was a revival of that of Luther. See
Wendt, lgnaz von Dollinger, "Z.K.G.,'' xxiv. 292 f.
63
Ibid., vi. 433.
52
239
functionaries being synonymous in the New Testament),

whom the members should support and who should have
as assistants several priests or deacons in the preach,ing of
the Word and the administration of the sacraments. 54 He
would sweep away root and branch the papal claim to feudal
superiority over the German Emperor and thus vindicate
the rights of the empire as a sovereign State as well as
of the national Church. The Pope may anoint and crown
the Emperor as a bishop crowns a king, but he would disallow all the servile acts by which the Emperor does homage
to the Pope as his superior. These claims are the inventions
of the devil, the true work of the Antichrist who exalts himself above God. Except in the spiritual sphere the Pope
is n.ot superior, but subject to the temporal power. He is
not the vicar of the ruling Christ in heaven, who needs no
vicar, but only of Christ as He lived on earth in lowly
subjection, in working, teaching, suffering, and dying.
Otherwise he is the very counter or Antichrist who, by his
usurpation of an authority that does not belong to him,
hinders and destroys the will of Christ. The so-called
Donation of Constantine conferring such authority is an
unspeak'1,ble lie. How can the rule of this wodd consort
with the mission entrusted by Christ to the Apostles, which
consisted ill preaching, prayer, study, the care of the poor?
This is the invention of the knaves who would fain become
lords of the world and rule it in the Pope's name, and thus
perpetuate the old Roman empire. He would deprive him
even of his pretended feudal superiority over Naples and
Sicily, of the possessions in Italy which he has seized by
force and fraud, would, in fact, strip him of all temporal
government whatever and relegate him to his purely spiritual
function. In a word, the Pope's flatterers must cease to
make an idol and a god of him. His pretensions and his
powers must be swept away as absolutely incompatible
with the teaching and example of Christ. 55
He would not only thus radically reform the constitution
64
"Werke," vi. 440.

Ibid., vi. 433-436; cf. the long digression on the subject of the
empire and the Papacy, 462-465. He enlarged the section dealing with
this subject in the 2nd edition. Enders, ii. 464.
66
24p
of the Church. He would drastically apply the pruning

knife to its usages. He would abolish or materially limit
pilgrimages to Rome where people learn only contempt
of God and His commandments. Hence the proverb,
"The nearer to Rome, the worse a Christian." Hence
also the saying, " The first time one goes to Rome one goes
to seek a rascal ; the second time he finds him ; the third
time he brings him home with him." Nowadays people
have become so skilful that they can do these three journeys
in one, and have brought with them the further saying, " It
would be better never to have seen or known Rome." 5 6
Such a pilgrimage is, moreover, economically bad. It is
a waste of money which would be better devoted by the
pilgrim to the care of his neglected wife and children and
service of his neighbour instead of spending it to pamper
Roman greed and usurped authority. He would, in fact,
abolish all pilgrimages, which serve only to foster begging,
vagabondage, the false delusion of human merits, and
other evils. He would repress or drastically reduce the
mendicant Orders without respect to the ordinances of
St Francis or St Dominic, or even the reputed founder of
his own Order, St Augustine, especially as he suspects that
the Pope supports the crowd of begging friars as a bulwark
of his power against the secular clergy. He would further
make the monasteries free schools of Christian instruction,
as he thinks they originally were, and would suppress the
perpetual obligation of monastic vows. Monasticism is
nothing but a tyrannic human institution. He would at
the same time abolish the obligation of celibacy in the case
of the priesthood and thus do away with the scandal of
clerical concubinage. Enforced celibacy is an unwarrantable interference with Christian liberty and an oppression
of the Christian conscience by tyrannical laws which. are
contrary to the ordinances of God and Scripture. Similarly
he would abolish or drastically diminish ecclesiastical
festivals, processions, masses for the dead, interdict, excommunication, except as far as Scripture enjoins it ;
ecclesiastical censures .in various degree, which, he thinks,
should be buried ten .fathoms deep in the earth; saints'
58
"Werke," vi. 437
241
days, which foster only idleness, gluttony, drinking, loss

of income, mendicity, for which he would .substitute a
strictly controlled system of local poor relief; fraternities
which nourish only drunkenness and gluttony, etc. 57
Lastly, in connection with the Hussite question, he would
make a radical breach with the system of force and treachery
in the treatment of heretics and would have the Reichstag
recognise the Bohemian national Church, whether the Pope
agrees or not. " If the Bohemians do not wish to submit
to the Roman ecclesiastical law, we should not force them
to do so; but in the first place be content to see that they
live aright in accordance with faith and Scripture. For
the Christian faith and estate may very well exist without
the Pope's intolerable laws, yea, they cannot exist well
until there are less or even none of these laws. We became
free at our baptism and subject to God's Word alone. Why,
then, should a mere man seek to make us the captives of
his word.
As St Paul says, ' Stand fast, therefore, in
the liberty wherewith Christ has made you free and be not
again entangled with the yoke of bondage.' " 58 In matters
of belief he even proclaims the Christian principle of toleration against the mad principle of an enforced su~;mission
to authority. He boldly denounces the martyrdom of Hus
and the abominable principle that faith is not to be kept
with heretics. "God has conimanded to observe a safe
conduct and this command we must obey even if the world
perish, so much the more even when it is a question of
liberating a heretic. We should seek to overcome heretics
with arguments, not with fire, as the Fathers of old did.
If skill consists in overcoming heretics with fire, the hangman
would be the most learned doctor on earth. There would
be no need for study, but every one that could lay hands on
another would be entitled to purn him." 5 9
Finally, he submits a sketch of educational, legal, and
social reform which the Estates are to undertake in addition
to the reformation of the Church. He would thoroughly
remodel the course of study in the Faculties of Arts and
Theology and extend to all the universities the reforms
already in operation at Wittenberg. In his revulsion from
57
"Werke," vi. 437 f.

16
58
Ibid., vi. 456.
59
Ibid.,vi.455.
242
the .scholastic theology and philosophy he allows his aversion

for Aristotle, who dominated the schools, to carry him too
far in denunciation of "the blind heathen teacher," whom
he regards as the perverter of the true theology. He would
banish his physics, metaphysics, ethics, and his treatise on
the soul from the curriculum, and whilst retaining his logic,
rhetoric, and poetics as practically serviceable, he would
exclude the notes al1d commentaries on these texts. The
present system of using them merely for disputation is a
weariness of the flesh and educationally valueless. His
violent criticism is, he claims, not due to ignorance or
arrogance, since he has read him with more understanding
than Aquinas or Scotus. For this dreary and pernicious
scholasticism he would substitute the study of Latin, Greek
and Hebrew, mathematics and history. As an educationist,
if not altogether as a theologian, he ha.s definitely adopted
the humanist spirit and standpoint. lh the Faculty of
Theology he would make the Bible the supreme study instead
of wasting time and imbibing ,error on that of the Sentences.
A man may be a doctor of the Sentences anci yet be profoundly ignorant of the Gospel, which lies dusty and unheeded beneath the benches. Popes, emperors, universities
may make doctors of arts, medicine, law, the Sentences,
but a true doctor of Holy Scripture can be made by no one
but the Holy Spirit, who does not consider whether a man
is a priest, monk, or layman, nay, who once spoke by an
ass against the prophet who rode on it. Would God we
were worthy to have such doctors! He would make the
Bible also the chief vehicle of religious instruction in the
elei;nentary and in the high schools, to which only the apter
pupils should be sent, and he presses this reform on both
princes and magistrates of cities. 60 Of the canon law he
speaks in terms of the utmost contempt, especially as it has
become practically equivalent to what is contained in the
Scrinium or shrine of the Pope's breast (Scrinium pectoris),
and is therefore what he chooses to make it. He has a higher
opinion of the civil law. But what a wilderness it has
become! There is far too much of it, and he much :r>refers
the common law and usage of the land and would have
60
"Werke," vi. 457-462.
243
every nation governed by its own simple laws, instead of

by the elaborate and burdensome code of ancient Rome. 61
He touches, in conclusion, on the evils in the State
itself which clamantly need reform. He would have the
Reichstag pass sumptuary legislation against the prevailing
luxury and extravagance which are impoverishing both
nobles and people. He would have all classes be content
in the matter of clothing with the simple resources of the
country in flax, fur, and wool, and discourage commerce
in the expensive stuffs and artides of luxury from foreign
lands. The dealers in these things are bidding fair to abet
the Pope in ruining the country. This commerce only
thrives on usury (interest) and he cannot see the justice of
amassing wealth in this way, as the Fugger and similar
banking and commercial companies do, though he does not
profess to be an expert in these matters. There is also far
too much excess in ea ting and drinking, with their attendant
vices, in which Germany has acquired an evil reputation
in foreign lands, and which the temporal authorities should
exert themselves to repress. On one glaring social evil he
has no hesitation in speaking with certain voice. He would
forthwith suppress the public. brothels maintained in the
large towns as a disgrace to a Christian nation. For this
scandal those in authority assuredly have a grave responsibility, a;nd it is their duty to amend it for the good of their
subjects. Honourable wedlock ought to be held up as the
ideal before the young, and the vicious results of sowing their
wild. oats, which will certainly bear a crop of. wild oats,
impressed upon them. But these necessary reforms are
only too sadly neglected by the temporal as well as the
spiritual authorities. " 0 what a rare sight will, for such
reasons, a lord and a ruler be in heaven, although he has
built a hundred churches and raised all the dead." 62
The Address challenges criticism when read in the
calm of the historian's study. 1': bears ample trace of
Luther's tendency to extreme, unqualified generalisation.
It is hardly a historically-minded statement. It is the
speech of the counsel for the prosecution and sentence of
the criminal at the bar, and its tone is very violent and
n "Werke," vi. 459-460.
62
Ibid., vi. 465 f.
244
uncompromising. It contains exaggerations of fact and

misstatement of motive. Luther, we feel, is fairly on the
warpath, in the mind to swear at large. At the same time,
he has undoubtedly a very strong case, so strong that one
is disposed to conclude that he might well have stated it
more moderately without any loss to its strength. Its
vehemence, in fact, rather tends to weaken its force for
the modern reader. Apart from this weakness, however,
we 'Cannot but appreciate the skill, the moral force, the
impassioned eloquence with which the counsel for the
prosecution handles the overwhelming evidence against the
criminal at the bar, though he inclines to ramble at large
at times. One feels that the hour of Nemesis has at last
struck for Roman corruption and misgovernment., Rome
had for generations been steadily heading for this crisis,
and in the monk of Wittenberg the hour has brought the
man of elemental force that fits him to be the agent of
Nemesis. This force consists in the combination of profound moral and religious conviction with a marvellous
gift of thought and telling expression, and in Luther it
perforce functions in its own way like the lightning or t,he
whirlwind. If the combination has its weakness as well as
its strength, it must be remembered that Luther, as the
agent of Nemesis, is there not to examine the case historically
and judicially, but to utter the judgment of God on the
gross corruption and misgovernment of the Church which
must at long last be mended or ended, and for which he
rightly holds Rome responsible. In this sense Rome has
in verity become the Antichrist, and the Reformation can
only begin by sounding the knell of doom, the trumpet of
the last judgment on this Antichrist. This preliminary
function Luther performs in the Address with elemental
power and for the effective performance of this function it
needed just the qualities which constitute this elemental
force-the religious genius, the moral strength, the dogmatic,
albeit one-sided conviction, the courage, the audacity, the
tremendous power of utterance which the Address reveals. ,~
Luther is thus the man for the hour. But for the work
of construction as well as destruction, which an' effective
Reformation demands, organised effort is indispensable, and
245
for this organised effort Luther turns not to the Church

but to the State. His expedient is, indeed, a Council
summoned and abetted by the State. In practice, however,
it is by the State-the Reichstag, or in a subordinate capa9ity
the individual estates-that the contemplated Reformation
is operated. A General, or even a National Council, without
the Pope, summoned for this purpose, would in the circumstances have proved an impossible expedient, fdr the clergy
were under canonical obedience to the head of the Church
and could not constitutionally assemble without the
papal sanction. Practically, therefore, Luther is fain to
rely on the Reichstag for the realisation of his scheme of
reform, a..1d he vindicates the right of the State to reform
the Church on the ground, generally, of its divine institution, and particularly his principle of the priesthood of all
believers. In the third part it is virtually through the
temporal power that the Reformation is to be effected. He
distinguishes, indeed, between the spheres of Church and
State and upholds the right of the Church within its own
sphere. In reality the Reformation is carried out by the
temporal authority which, in virtue of necessity, is empowered to undertake the task. The contention of Karl
Muller 63 and Holl 64 that in the Address Luther restricts
the activity of the State to the removal of abuses of an
economic and political character and assigns to the Council
that of the more purely ecclesiastical evils is, as Kohlmeyer 65
has shown, not conclusive. The State is the only available
power by which that of the Papacy can .be countered, and
Luther, whilst maintaining in theory the distinction between
the two spheres and the autonomy .of the Church in the
spiritual sphere, has perforce to resort to this power in
the actual work of reformation. In this respect he shows
a rather naive tendency to idealise the State which strikingly
contrasts with the tendency to see only evil in the actual
Papacy. He is strongly influenced by his respect for the
integrity of his own sovereign, the Elector, and by the
Kirche, Gemeinde und Obrigkeit nach Luther," 17 f. (1910).
Gesammelte Aufsatze," i. 280 f. (1921). See on the other side
Kohlni.eyer, "Z.K.G.," 1925, 589 f.
ei; ." Entstehung,." 17 f.
63
64
"
"
240
national optimism which. saw in the accession of the young

Emperor the promise of a regenerated empire, of a new era
of national reform, of which the Reichstag, un.der his auspices,
would be the active instrument for the general welfare.
Equally nai:ve the assumption that the Estates, under
such auspices, would bring to bear on the task of reforming
the Church purely religious considerations. Many of the
princes and the nobility were only too likely to view this
task from the angle of their own aims and interests. The
princes and other territorial magnates had been only too
ready to profit from the traffic in benefices, for instance,
for the benefit of their relatives, and from other abuses
which they were now asked to remedy solely for the glory
of God and the religious good of their subjects. There was
a real danger of substituting for the papal tyranny and
exploitation the interested and bureaucratic regime of the.
territorial prince over the territorial Church, of transforming
the Church into a department of State under princely
auspices. In christianising the State in virtue of his doctrine
of the priesthood of believers, Luther did not sufficiently
realise the danger lurking in this device for the autonomy of
the Church and the Christian liberty which he defends in
theory, but which under the plea of necessity he unwittingly
surrenders.
Similarly his conception of a national reformed Church
which might still recognise a reformed Papacy was an ideal
which was hardly feasible. The only feasible alternative
was to disestablish the Papacy within the borders of the
empire and substitute for the papal regime an independent.
national Church. This a.lternative he was personallyprepared
to adopt, though he shows a conservative reluctance to face
this extreme step. If Rome will not renounce Antichrist,
Germany will renounce Rome. This is his alternatl.ve
to the unreformed Papacy. But he still assumes that the
medireval Papacy may be brought to reform itself, or allow
itself to be reformed to the extent of renouncing all the claims
and pretensions and opptessions which had made it an
intolerable burden to the nation, and confine itself to the
purely spiritual oversight of Christendom. It was a pjous
imagination that contemplated the possibility that the
The Attack on the Sacraments
24 7
Papacy would thus forsw~ar itself. A Papacy existing merely

on sufferance, a Papacy divesting itself of all its developed
canonical rights and powers and perpetuating itself merely
as a nominal relic of the past, was a chimera. Luther's
corttemplated constitution of a national Church and a
national assembly under a German primate, with the Pope
as its nominal head, was merely a paper constitution. The
Reformation had to do without the Pope, if only because
the Pope would in no case have consented to lay aside his
triple crown at the behest of the monk of Wittenberg or
even the Reichstag. John Calvin or John. Knox would
hardly have suggested such a paper constitution. Having,
like Luther, rejected both the divine ~nd human right of
the Papacy and d~nounced the Pope as the representative
of Antichrist, they would have logically denied to the Bishop
of Rome any function whatsoever within the national Church.
Finally, as an educational and social reformer Luther is
more practical.. He has turned his back for ever on
scholasticism and is now marching in the van of the progressive educational movement of his time, though his
denunciation of the pagan knave Aristotle is lacking in
discrimination and enlightenment. His demand for the
reformation of national life is admirable and deserves to
have succeeded. In his zeal for religious reform he is not
blind to the evils that are festering in the body politic,
and he can trounce prince, a lord, a financial magnate on
occasion as well as the. Pope. But his political economy is
rather primitive, as he himself acknowledges, and whilst
seeking to better the condition of the people economically
as well as morally, his programme of social reform is silent
on the grave question of serfdom which was agitating th.e
masses and was verging towards a reform of larger scope
than he was capable of grasping.
II.
THE ATTACK ON THE SACRAMENTS
In "The Babylonic Captivity of the Church" 66 he

reappears as the theological reformer. Its genesis is to be
found in the "Sermons on Penance, Baptism, and the
66 "
De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesi;e,"

Eucharist," published in the autumn of I5r9, in the
passage relative to the Mass in the "Sermon on Good
Works," 67 and in the "Sermon on the Mass" which
appeared in revised and enlarged form in August r520, 68
and in which he anticipates to some extent what he
was to say at length on the subject in "The Babylonic
Captivity." In a letter to Spalatin on the r8th December
r5r9 he had mentioned his growing scepticism about the
remaining four sacraments and his intention to discuss
the subject in a future work. 69 The promised work gradually
took shape in his mind as the result of frequent and intensive
discussions with Melanchthon on the priestly office and the
sacramental system. It was in the course of these discussions
that, as we learn from this lett~r, he grasped his characteristic
conception of the priesthood of all believers and. of the
priestly office as a ministry of the Word and sacraments for
the benefit of the Christian community. This ministry
something very different from the official priesthood which
is the creation of human ordinances, which the Roman Curia
has imposed on the Christian community, and by which it
holds the Church in bondage. It was this fundamental
change in his view of the priesthood and the sacraments
that he worked out in the course of the discussions with
Melanchthon and now developed in " The Babylonic
Captivity of the Church." 70 The idea of a Babylonic
bondage of the Church under the papal regime had a,lready
is
"Werke," vi. 230-23r. Luther refers to this passage in a letter

to John Hess, 27th April 1520. Enders, ii. 385. Institutionem sacerdotalem . . . quantum vero ad spiritum fidei nonnihil confert sermo
germanicus.
'
68 Enders, ii. 455; cf. 385.
Ein Sermon van dem neuen Testament,
das ist v9n der heiligen messe. " Werke," vi. 353 f.
69 Enders, ii. 279.
1o Enders, ii. 279.
Officia sacerdotis, he wrote to Spafatin, qure ex
me qureris ignoro, cum quanta magis cogito, non inveniam quad
scribam nisi ceremonialia; deinde valde me urget Petrus Apostolus,
I Peter ii., dicens nos omnes esse sacerdotales; idem Johannes in
Apocalypsi, ut hoe genus sacerdotii, in qua nos sumus, prorsus non
differre videatur a laicis, nisi ministerio qua sacramenta et verbum
r:riinistrantur. Cretera omnia sunt ,re,qualia, si ceremonias et humana
statuta demas, et satis miramur unde ordo nomen sacramenti invenerit.
Mira hrec tibi nonne? Sed prresens plura una. cum Philippo (Melanch67
249
oi:;curred to him in connection with the exclusive claim of the

Pope to interpret the Scriptures. 71 In the "De Captivitate"
he uses the phrase specifically of the bondage. to which the
medireval priestly and sacramental system has reduced the
Church. As in the case of the Address to the Nobility,
the actual impulse to its composition came in part at least
from Alveld; who irr July had controverted his doctrine of
communion in both kinds, 72 though without mentioning
him by name. To this effusion .of "the Leipzig ass," as he
contemptuously termed Alveld, he did not deign to reply
directly. But, as he informed Spalatin, it prompted him
to set to work on the "De Captivitate." 73 In the preface
to the work itself he, in fact, ironically includes the Leipzig
Franciscan among the teachers-Prierias, Eck, Emserto whom he owes his progress in the knowledge of the
Gospel. As Prierias had led him utterly to reject indulgences as an imposture of . Rome and Eck had helped him
to deny to the Papacy even a human right, so Alveld had
greatly contributed to clarify his ideas on the subject of
the Lord's Supper. He profusely thanks the Leipzig lecturer
on the Bible for the service he has thus unwittingly rendered
him and, along with him, a certain friar of Cremona, who
has also contributed, in the philippic he has penned against
him, to his enlightenment. 74
thon), quoniam has res et srepe et acute tractavimus. Proinde.officium
tuum a communibus laicorum officiis nihil differet exceptis oneribus,
qure Romana Curia sine delectu omnibus saterdotibus imposuit.
71 In the course of his preliminary studies for the Leipzig disputation,
see Resolutio Lutheriana, "Werke," ii. 214-215. Absit, absit ista plus
quam Babylonica Captivitas. It recurs in the work against that of
Alveld on the Apostolic See written under his direction by his secretary,
Lonicer, arid published in the beginning of June I 520. Tota hodiernre
ecclesire lerna sub Romano pontifice captivitatem plus quam Babylonicam
servientis. "Werke," vi. 485.
1 2 Alveld entitled his work " Tractatus de communione sub utraque
specie." See the reference to it in Luther's letter to Spalatin, 22nd July '
1520, Enders, ii. 446.
1 3 Enders, ii. 457.
Alveldio non respondebitur, sed occasione ejus
dabitur in lucem quo magis viper:::e irreteriti.ir.
74 He refers to the'' Revocatio Mart. Lutheri ad Sanctam Sedem,"
which Enders (ii. 527) misdates Nov. 1520, and which Luther mentions
in a letter to Voigt, 3rd Aug., ii. 455-456. "Werke," vi. 497-499.
2 50
The work, which was dedicated to his colleague Hermann

Tulich, was the fulfilment of the threat contained in the
conclusion of the Address to sing another song for the
benefit of the Romanists. Unlike the Address, however, it
was intended for the enlightenment of his fellow-theologians
and the cultured class, not of the people, who were quite
unfitted to understand the theological issues which it raised.
It was accordingly written in Latin and was aimed straight
at the heart of the medireval sacerdotal system. In the
history of the development of Luther's doctrinal teaching
it deserves to take rank alongside the Commentary on
Romans, of which, in fact, it was the logical outcome.
Like the Commentary, it is both critical and constructive.
Luther here combats the medireval notion .of the sacraments
as the media of God's grace; on which the priestly power was
based and by which the religious life was conditioned and
controlled, and lie pits against this notion the necessity of
individual faith and individual contact with God as the
essential thing for the reception and experience of His grace.
In thus stressing individual faith he was sounding the death
knell of medireval sacerdotalism. He not only reduces the
number of the sacraments to three at the most; he deprives
them of their magical significance and efficacy and the priest
of his vicarial power as the mediator of sacramental grace.
He remorselessly strips off the sacerdotalism which had
encrusted their original simplicity in the course of the
development of the papal and priestly power. He does not
profess to exhaust the subject. His work is only a prelude
(prmludium) or introduction. It reflects, too, the haste
with which it was actually written, though the subject had
been simmering for some time in his mind. He began it
after the publication of the Address in the middle of August.
At the end of the month he writes rather impatiently that the
printer is not able to keep pace with the composition of the
manuscript. 75 Both printer and author were evidently
working their hardest during September, for in the beginning
of October he announces to Spalatin that its publication
will take place on the 6th of that month. 76 Moreover, it
75
Enders, ii. 471.
76
Ibid., ii. 487.
251
reflects the influence of the Nominalist theology in which

he had been trained, and from which he had not been able
to shake himself free. At the same time, it marks a truly
marvellous emancipation from medirevalism in religion, and
was to his age the stunning revelation of the originality
and independence of the audacious prophet of Wittenberg.
It was credited by some to Erasmus, an assumption which
hardly needed his disclaimer to refute. With all his gifts
Erasmus could not have penned such an indictment of
medireval sacerdotalism. His courage would have oozed in
the attempt.
The thesis of the Babylonic Captivity is that there are
only three sacraments, or better expressed, one sacrament
and three sacramental signs, and that the Roman Curia
has reduced these to a miserable bondage and thereby
spoiled the Church of its liberty. In other words, through
its doctrine of the sacraments Rome has imposed on the
Church an intolerable bondage to its sacerdotalism. 77 From
this bondage he will deliver it by controverting the medireval
conception of the sacraments and setting forth the scriptural teaching on the subject, which Rome has wrested and
perverted in its sacramental system, though one is bound
to admit that his own magisterial interpretation of Scripture
is not always infallible. 78
He has no qifficulty in proving, in the case of the
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, that communion of the
laity in both kinds is the scriptural doctrine. The attempt
to restrict the cup to the priests is, in the face of the evidence,
pure sophistry. 79 With this evidence he boldly challenges
the medireval practice. " I conclude; therefore, that to deny
both kinds to the laity is wicked and tyrannical, nor is it
in the power of any angel, much less of any Pope or Council.
Nor do I care for the deliverance of the Council of Constance,
for, if its authority is valid, why should not that of Basle
be equally valid, which, on the contrary, decreed that the
Bohemians should be allowed to receive in both kinds." 80
11
78
"Werke," vi.
Ibid., vi.
501.
He maintains, for instance, that the Eucharistic

discourse in John vi. has nothing to do with the sacrament.
79 Ibid., vi. 502-506.
80 Ibid., vi. 506-507.
502.
252
He does not go the length of maintaining that communion

in one kind is sinful, nor that communion in both kinds
should be forcibly insisted on by the laity. He contents
himself, rather tamely, with asserting that the right and
liberty of the individual Christian to use both should be
proclaimed and with condemning the priesthood for denying
this right and liberty. He would have them restored by a
General Council which should take up the question and
formally vindicate communion in both kinds against the
tyranny of Rome, s1
The second form of bondage with which Rome has
invested this sacrament is the doctrine of transubstantiation,
which it has unwarrantably made an article of faith. He
tells us that already as a student of the scholastic theology
he was led to doubt this doctrine by a passage in D'Ailly's
Commentary on the Sentences," in which he asserts that
it would be far more reasonable to believe that real bread
and wine and not merely their accidents remained after
consecration by the priest, if the Church had not decreed
otherwise. It was this that first led him to question the
teaching of Aquinas on the subject and to adopt that of
Wiclif, viz., that the substance of the bread and wine is
not transmuted by priestly consecration into the body and
blood of Christ, so that only the accidents, i.e., form, colour,
etc., remain, but that the actual bread and wine remain and
Christ is bodily present in them in virtue of this consecration.
This, he holds, is what the New Testament teaches, and he
cares not if it is denounced as Wiclifite or Hussite heresy.
The New Testament knows nothing of the subtle .distinction
between substance and accident falsely foisted by Aquinas
and the schoolmen on this teaching. Nor did the Church,
he rather ras]:ily adds, know anything of this dogma of
theirs for r,200 years. 82 Discarding their subtle reasoning
81
"Werke," vi. 507.

Both the idea and the term were in vogue earlier.
Transubstantiation was made a dogma of the Church by the fourth Lateran
Council under Innocent II I. in I 2 I 5, and the theory was known to
Albertus Magnus, Alexander of Hales, William of Paris, the predecessors of Aquinas. Hildebert of Tours first used the term (u34)
to define the doctrine; though it had been applied in the previ1:rns
century by Peter Damian.
82
2 53
in its support, he prefers to take the words of institution,

"This is my body, this is my blood," in their literal
significance and to believe not in transubstantiation, but in
consubstantiation, i.e., the real or bodily presence of Christ
in the elements in virtue of their consecration. It does ncit
occur' to him that the literal sense is not necessarily the
true sense and that the symbolic sense is alone iri accordance
with the historic meaning. He realises the difficulty of
taking the words literally and assuming the actual eating
and drinking of Christ's body and blOod. He tries to get
over the difficulty by merely saying that faith is above
reason. 83 " What if philosophy cannot understand these
things? The Holy Spirit is greater than Aristotle." 84
But surely there is another alternative interpretation which
is not only the obvious one, but far more likely to be in
accord with the mind of the Spirit than the crass notion
which he declares to be the true one; . In this matter he
has still one foot in the Middle Ages. He is still under the
influence of the material as against the spiritual view of the
Supper and has recourse to the Nominalist tendency to
exalt faith above reason in order to maintain this material
view, though he also, in the " De Captivitate," accepts
reason as a source of the knowledge of God. Another
instance in which his interpretation of Scripture is by no
means above question. At the same time, he leaves others
at liberty to believe in transub:;tantiation as long as they
grant him the liberty to believe in consubstantiation.
Evidently, however, he would not tolerate those whO
believe in neither.
The third form of bondage is the conception of this
sacrament as a meritorious or good work (opus operatum)
and a sacrifice. In this conception Rome has departed
still further from the primitive institution, and in order
to show this he explains at length that Christ in instituting
the Supper entered into a new covenant or testament
with the believer, that the distinctive feature of this
covenant is the promise of forgiveness of sins through His
83
84
"Werke,'' vi. 508-5u.

Ibid., vi. 5n. Major est Spiritus Sanctus quam Aristoteles.
2 54
death, 85 and that the essential thing for the realisation of the
promise is faith, by which God's free and undeserved mercy in
Christ becomes available to the believer. He thus interprets
the sacrament in the light of his doctrine of justification by
faith, by which the remission of sin is attained. This is
\.vhat the Mass, as instituted by Christ, reflects, and this,
its simple significance, has been obscured and perverted
by means of superstitious ceremonies, from which the priesthood derives its authority and no little pecuniary profit.
It is the visible sign of God's forgiving love in Christ to
those who have faith in His promise. The word or promise
and the sign which faith makes effective-just as the rainbow
was the sign to, those who believed in the promise that the
deluge would cease-these are the simple essentials of the
Mass. We must, therefore, eliminate from it the superstition
which regards it as a good work, i.e., in itself an efficacious
thing as performed by the priest, an opus operatum, and
assigns to its mere performance by the priest a magical
efficacy and a merit apart from the faith of the recipient.
Audacious as it may appear to reject the sacramental
doctrine and overthrow the institutions of centuriesmasses for the dead, anniversaries, etc., which are so
profitable for the priesthood-he will not be restrained by
the number or the magnitude of these errors and traditional
practices from proclaiming the truth. "Truth is stronger
than all these . . . . Unheard of and astounding statements,
you exclaim. But if you examine the real nature of the
Mass, you will acknowledge that I have only spoken the
truth." 86
Still more erroneous is the notion that in the Mass the
priest offers Christ as a sacrifice to God, as the
words of the canon of the Mass, "oblation," "sacrifice,"
"offering," seem to imply. In the Mass we receive a gift;
we offer nothing to God except our prayers. Christ in the
Supper did not offer Himself to God. He only announced
His testament or promise and instituted the sign and seal of
its fulfilment. The nearer the Mass approaches to this first
85 In his reasoning on the covenant or testament and the promise
contained in it, he is influenced especially by Heh. ix.15-17.
86 "Werke," vi. 522.
Fortior omnium est veritas, etc.
2 55
simple Mass, the more Christian it is. It had no display

of vestments, gestures, incantations, or other ceremonies.
It was simplicity itself. He does not absolutely condemn
the elaborate ceremonial that has gradually grown up
around it. But we should not be deceived by its outward
accidents and should remember that in primitive times
when the believers met to celebrate the Supper, they brought
gifts of food and dtj.nk called "collects," from which were
taken the bread and wine to be consecrated for the sacrament.
They were consecrated by word and prayer in accordance
with the Hebrew rite of elevating them, and this custom
of elevation, he explains rather hazardously, prevailed after
the primitive usage of bringing the gifts had. died out and
the " collects " came to signify the prayers. But this
offering and elevation of the host by the priest are not to
be understood as a sacrifice. It is only the relic of an old
rite which had quite a different significance. In this matter
the priest must follow the Gospel and not later superstitious
observances. He is simply there as the minister of the
people to offer prayers for himself and them and should
not communicate alone. In the matter of the Mass all
are equal, priests and laymen. 87
The Sacrament of Baptism also involves a promise of
the forgiveness of sin, appropriated by faith, of which it
is the sign. It is well that this sacrament is reserved for
childhood, since thereby the complete dependence of the
helpless soul on God for salvation is unequivocally expressed.
But this has been obscured by the scholastic idea that,
while baptism takes away original sin, in the case of sins
committed after baptism we must seek to assure their
remission by works of penance-" the second plank of
salvation," as Jerome called them-instead of relying on
the promise of forgiveness appropriated by faith at our
baptism. Hence, in the case of this sacrament also, the
vicious accretion of works and tyrannical human opinions
and traditions which do wrong to the truth of God and to
faith. 88
For Luther baptism, as embodying the promise of forgive87
"Werke," vi. 512-526.
88
Ibid., vi. 527.
256
Iiess appropriated by faith, is essential to salvation. Unlike

Calvin, who denied its absolute necessity for salvation, 89
he ascribes to it a cardinal importance as the medium of
the remission of sin (baptismal regeneration). He retains
the traditional doctrine that God's grace in the remission
of sin is mediated through it and effects the regeneration
of the soul. He speaks of it as the first of the sacraments
and the foundation of them all, without which we possess
none of the others. 90 " He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved.'-' But whilst baptism is a: condition of the
remission of sin, he rejects the traditional notion of its
magical efficacy in itself. Faith in the promise is the
essential requisite of its efficacy, and without faith it has
no justifying effect. " Unless this faith exists and is
applied, baptism profiteth us nothing." 91 When, therefore,
we are conscious of sin we must eschew alike all thought
of the magical efficacy of the rite in working the grace of
remission and all attempts to secure it by penitential works
and fall back simply on the promise appropriated by faith
in our baptism. Here again, as in the case of the Sacrament
of the Altar, he views baptism in the light of his doctrine
of justification by faith and lays stress on faith as the sole
means of remission. "Thus baptism justifies no one and profits
no one, but faith in the word of promise, to which baptism
is added. It is this that justifies and fulfils that which
baptism signifies. . . . Thus it cannot be true that there
inheres in this sacrament an efficacious power of justification
or that it is an efficacious sign of grace. For all these things
are said to the complete detriment of faith in ignoi;ance of
the divine promise, unless they are said to be efficacious
in the sense that, if unhesitating faith is present, the sacraments do confer grace most assuredly and efficaciously." 92
If it is objected that infants cannot have faith, he answers
by saying either that the faith of the parents avails for their
children, or that God, through the -prayers of the Church,
miraculously infuses faith into the heart of the infant. 93
As a sign, Luther holds with Paul that baptism specifically
s 9 Hunter, "The Teaching of Calvin," 150.
92
90
" Werke," vi. 528, 538.
Ibid., vi,' 532-533.
91 Ibid., vi. 527.
93 Ibid., vi. 538.
257
signifies death to sin and resurrection to new life, the immersion of the old man and the emersion of the new. 94
From this point of view he would prefer immersion to
sprinkling, though it is not absolutely necessary to change
the traditional practice. This dying and rising to new life
is, however, not a single act, but a lifelong process only
complete with life itself. Spiritually we need to be baptized
continually in this sense by faith 95 in the process of the
mortifying of the flesh and the .vivifying of the spirit.
All this has been miserably obscured by the bondage
to human works, for which he holds the Pope responsible.
Instead of being the guardian of Christian liberty, he has
become its oppressor by his decrees and laws which ensnare
to his tyrannical power. He denies his right thus to enslave
the Church and defiantly asks who has given him this
pow~,r ?
In reply he pens one of his finest pleas for the
liberty of the individual Christian. " I say, then, that
neither Pope, nor bishop, nor any man has the right of
constituting a single regulation over the Christian man
unless it is do.ne by his own consent. Whatever is done
otherwise is done in a tyrannical spirit. Therefore prayers,
fasts, contributions, and whatever of this kind the Pope
statutes and exacts in his decrees-as numerous as they
are iniquitous-he statutes and exacts by no right, and
he sins against the liberty of the Church as often as he has
attempted anything of this kind. Hence it has come to pass
that the clergy of to-day are indeed the strenuous guardians
of ecclesiastical liberty, i.e., of stones, logs, lands, and money
(for thus to-day things ecclesiastical are regarded as the
same as spiritual things). By these fictitious words they
not only take captive the true liberty of the Church, but
utterly destroy it even more than the Turk, contrary to
the word of the Apostle who says: 'Be ye not the slaves
of men.' For this is truly to be the slaves of men to be
subjected to their statutes and tyrannical laws." 96 " I
admit, indeed, that this accursed tyranny is to be borne
94
"Werke," vi. 533-534.

Ibid., vi. 535. Se~per baptisandus fide, semper moriendum,
semperque vivendum.
96
Ibid., vi. 536.
95
17
2 58
by Christians, like any other violence of this world, in

accordance with the Word of Christ, 'Whosoever smiteth
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.' But
of this I complain that the impious popes boast that they
have the right to do this, and that they presume that they
are providing for the interests of the Christian cause under
the guise of this, their Babylon, and seek to persuade all
to this opinion of theirs. . . . In behalf of this liberty and
conscientious right I call aloud, and I faithfully proclaim
that no law can be imposed by any right on Christians,
whether by men or by angels, unless in as far as they will ;
for we are free from all (liberi enim sumus ab omnibus).
If they are imposed, they are so to be borne that the consciousness of liberty may be reserved, which knows and
with certainty affirms that injury is done to it. . . . I at
least will set free my mind and vindicate my conscience,
upbraiding the Pope and all papists and declaring that
unless they abandon their laws and traditions and restore
their due liberty to the churches of Christ and cause this
liberty to be taught, they are guilty of all souls that perish
by reason of this miserable captivity, and the Papacy is
truly nothing more than the kingdom of Babylon and the
very Antichrist." 97
The worst form of tyranny is that exercised
through the Sacrament of Penance, to which, in the
conclusion of the work, he denies the attribute of a
sacrament. In practice, at all events, it has become a
mere device for completing the tyranny of Pope and priest
in virtue of the words " Whatsoever thou shalt bind "
(Matthew xvi. r9; xviii. r8; John xx. 23). Christ established not a priestly domination through the sacraments,
but a ministry in the Church. In that of penance, which
consists of three parts-contrition, confession, and satisfaction-they have substituted for this ministry a priestly
domination and have put the copestone on their tyranny.
Of contrition they have made a merit instead of the result
of faith in God's promise and threats, producing both
repentance and consolation, and have invented the lower
97
"Werke," vi. 536-537.
2 59
form of attrition for the benefit of the wicked and unbelieving, which in their case they have made the equivalent
of real contrition. Confession is a scriptural and salutary
practice. But it ought to be free and be made to any
brother, not necessarily to the priest, who has no monopoly
of absolution. This reservation of confession to the priest
is merely a means of tyranny and extortion, an unwarranted
usurpation by a venal priesthood in order to enslave the
Christian freeman. Satisfaction, which is a change of life,
they ha-ve made into a burdensome pursuit of merits by means
of external works, to the torture of conscience by all sorts
of scruples and the gratification of priestly greed and
avarice. 98 " In the first place they have so taught it that
the people have never understood true satisfaction, which
consists in newness of life. In the second place they so
insist and render it so necessary that they leave no room
for faith in Christ, miserably tormenting consciences with
scruples that one runs to Rome, another here, another
there, to some convent or other place, another scourging
himself with rods, another injuring his body with watchings
and fastings, and all crying out with equal zeal ' Behold here
or here is Christ and the kingdom of God,' which nevertheless
is within us, thinking that it cometh with observation.
All these enormities we owe to thee, 0 Roman See, and to
thy homicidal laws and rites, by which thou hast so ruined
the whole world that people imagine they can satisfy God for
sins through works, who can only be satisfied solely by the
faith of a contrite heart. This faith thou hast not only
put to silence, but hast oppressed in order only that thou,
like an insatiable leech, mayst have some to whom to say,
' Bring, Bring,' and thus make a traffic in sins." 99
Repentance is a very different thing from penance,
and conditions the whole life in the process of mortifying
the flesh. From this point of view the granting of absolution
before satisfaction is utterly reprehensible.
For the remaining four sacraments-confirmation, matrimony, orders, and extreme unction-he can find no warrant
98
0
"Werke," vi. 543-549.

Ibid., vi. 548.
260
in Scripture and therefore rejects them. Without such

warrant the Church cannot institute a sacrament or impose
such an institution as an article of faith. Here again,
however, he would make no violent or radical alteration,
but submit to recognise these institutions, whilst claiming
the right as a Christian to individual liberty and r~fusing to
yield perforce to what he regards as error and tyranny. ioo
The Word of God is incomparably above the Church, which
is the creature, not the lord of the Word, and whose part if
is to be guided and regul'ated by its directions. This power
only it possesses, and even in exercising it, it is liable to error,
and has in fact often erred. He emphasises anew in treating
of orders his conception of the priesthood as a ministry,
which only exercises its Unction with the consent of the
Christian community, and strongly reasserts the principle
of the priesthood of all believers who entrust the office
of serving the community to one of its members specially
set apart for thiS, purpose. This office is specifically the
ministry of the Word-to preach the Gospel and dispe11se
the Sacraments of Baptism and the Supper-and all attempts
to prove from the New Testament an indelible distinction
between clergy and laity and to erect this ministry into an
ecclesiastical caste, on which the bondage and the questionable institution of celibacy is imposed, are vain. The
so-called Sacrament of Orders, of which the mystic Dionysius
in his " Celestial Hierarchy " makes so much, is nothing
more than a rite by which men are called to minister in the
Church, chosen as preachers of the Gospel, and the fact that
so many of the clergy neglect this essential of their function
is a lamentable proof of the evil of the present pernicious
system.1
.
The realisation of these ideas would n~cessitate a profound
modification of the medireval Church and its institutions. The
"Captivity" is from beginning to end a plea for spiritual
religion and the liberty of the individual Christian as against
medireval sacerdotalism and the medireval priestly caste.
100
"Werke," vi. 549, 560-561.

Ibid., vi. 560 f. He takes occasion in speaking of Dionysius to
declare his revulsion from mystic theology of this kiI).d, and has evidently
largely outlived the mystic phase of his religious development.
1
26 r
It reminds one of Paul's controversy with the Judaisers in

his attempt to emancipate Christianity and the individual
Christian from Judaism. Luther wages a similar controversy
against the vast accretion of tradition and practice which
had accumulated throughout the Middle Ages and which,
he holds, has entangled and enthralled religion in a network
of usages and ideas incompatible with primitive Christianity
and Christian liberty. For the medireval Church he would
substitute the Church of the New Testament, as emancipated
by Paul, and of the first two centuries, in which the priestly
conception of religion was little, if at all, developed. The
work reveals the independence and daring of an extraordinarily original mind, though it is confessedly not ex
haustive. It is for the most part a complete revulsion from,
a thorough-going confutation of the sacerdotal teaching of the
schoolmen, to whom he ascribes the development of the
sacerdotal doctrine of the Church. 2 Though he arraigns the
Pope as the main defaulter, he says that most of the popes
of the previous r,ooo years were intellectual mediocrities
and incapable of serious theological thought. They have
merely borrowed from the schoolmen the rationale of
ecclesiastical ideas and practices.
We are struck on the one hand by the boldness of the
attack, and on the other by the self-restraint with which it
is developed.
In this respect. it is an extraordinary
combination of courage and prudence. He starts section
by section to prove his case, and having proved it he
invariably hesitates to draw the inevitable practical
conclusion.
He prefers to tolerate and compromise.
It is sufficient to vindicate liberty in principle, and
if you recognise the principle he is ready to leave the
practice as it is. It is all very generous and tolerant. But
one cannot help wondering at the same time at the logic or
the problematic morality of the conclusion. One begins
to doubt whether Luther, whilst undoubtedly an original
thinker, has also the gift of initiating and organising the
reform movement which he has called into being. His plan
of campaign in the " Captivity " seems to be to point out
2
"Werke,'' vi. 571.
262
error and abuse in doctrine and practiee and leave God to

remedy them by means of the Word acting on public opinion.
He has not yet seriously faced the problem of the practical
remedy. He was indefinitely conscious of being carried
onwards by a power above himself, whither he krtew not.
He is not in control and has evidently no organising outlook.
He is a strange combination of the progressive and the
conservative mind-capable in a marvellous degree of
striking great transforming ideas from the anvil of his
heart and intellect; incapable of marshalling them in a
definite plan of action. There is to be a revolutionary
change without a revolution; He proclaims his principles
in a militant enough tone, but when it comes to the question
of their realisation he is apt to play the quietist, and decline
to play the man of action. This half-hearted policy will
hardly prove feasible in the long run. He will be obliged to
modify or abandon it under the stress of events and the
.influence of more logical and practical minds.
Meanwhile it must be acknowledged that the enunciation
of these startling revolutionary ideas was in itself a surpassingly daring enterprise and may explain the hesitation
to go further in the meantime. F estina lente is in the drcun1stances as much as we can expect, though it was not in this
way that Paul fought and won the battle of the emancipation
of Christianity from Judaism. As it was, the "Captivity"
cost him the adhesion of some of his supporters in the inore
advanced humanist party. Erasmus, for instance, wondered
and waveted. To a number of reforming churchmen, who
were at first sympathetic towards the movement, it became
a stumbling-block. On the other hand, the German translation of Thomas Murner, revised and published by the
Strassburg printer, Johann Priiss, carried its startling
message beyond the limited circle of the learned' and thus
contributed to diffuse a knowledge of it among the people. 3
3
.
Luther was not too pleased with the translation, as he did not
consider the subject a fit one for the unlearned class, and, besides, complained with some reason that Murner had not correctly rendered the
Latin text into German. He concluded that Murner had falsified the
text in order to injure his reputation. He had certainly taken liberties
with the Latin text. But he does not seem to have originally falsified
The Liberty of a Christian Man
Ill.
263
THE LIBERTY OF A CHRISTIAN MAN
The "Babylonic Captivity" is a polemic from beginning

to end. In this respect it contrasts strikingly with the
thir.d of the triad of reform manifestos which he wrote in
October andpublished in November. It owed its genesis
to the conference with Miltitz at Lichtenburg on the rzth
October, at which he undertook to write a conciliatory
letter . to the Pope. In order not to appear before his
holiness empty-handed, he had composed this modest treatise,
which, however, contains a summa or compendium of the
Christian life as he had learned to conceive it. From it
the Pope may learn with what he would have preferred to
occupy his mind had his impious flatterers not diverted him
from his proper pursuit by their persistent attacks. 4 He
offers it as an irenicon (on the understanding, of course, that
the Pope accepts its teaching), and the reduction of the controversial element to a minimum bears out his profession.
The title, "The Freedom of a Christian Man," aptly conveys
the scope of its contents. It sets forth his cardinal doctrine
of justification by faith as alike an emancipation, through
faith; of the individual Christian from the bondage of external
works, and a limitation of this freedom in virtue of the
obligation of individual self-discipline and service for others.
It reminds us that the fierce controversialist could also be
the saint and that the influence he wielded was due to the
saint as well as the controversialist. It is indeed the
reflection of evangelical piety at its best. It was written
'in Latin fo;: the. purpose of presentation to the Pope, and
he mad~ a free translation for the benefit of the people,
it with intent, though he later took credit for having rendered a service
to the Church in translating it. In any case, the object of the Strassburg
publisher, whci acquired the manuscript and revised it before publication,
was not to damage but to further Luther's cause. See Kalkoff,
"Luther's Ausgewiihlte Werke," ii. 273 f. There is an English transc
lation by Wace and Buchheim (1896).
' See the conclusion of the Latin version of the letter. "Werke,"
vii. 48-49.
264
with a dedication to Hermann Mtihlpfort, Stadtvogt of

Zwickau.5
In " The Liberty of a Christian Man " he discusses
faith expedmentally. He writes with his experience of the
quest for a gracious God in his mind, qf the futility of his
attempt to render God gracious by his own works, and the
necessity of trusting for s~lvation to God's mercy in Christ.
The little book is a simple exposition in the vernacular of
his doctrine of justification by faith for the instruction of
the people, though it was originally written in Latin for
submission to the Pope. 6 It is entirely divested of the
scholastic terminology in which, as expounded in the
Commentary on Romans, this doctrine was originally
entangled. The language is that of religion rather than
of theology. It expresse& concisely and maturely the
certainty of salvation as due, as far as man is concerned,
to sirnple faith alone in dependence solely on God.
He treats the subject from the double standpoint of the
freedom and the subjection of the believer, in virtue of
his faith. It takes us out of the atmosphere of controversy
into that of personal piety, the fountain of which Luther
finds in faith manifesting itself in love. 7 He starts with
the double proposition that the Christian man is the most
frne lord of all and subject to no one, and that he is the
most dutiful servant of all and subject to every one. He
derives it from Paul, " Though I by free froi;n all men,
yet have I mMe myself the servant of all" (r Cor. ix. 19).
" Owe no man anything but to love one another " (Rom.
xiii. 8).
From the religious point of view the believer is
independent of all external things-from works in the
ecclesiastical and even the ethical se:nse. He is dependent
only on the Word of God, the Gospel, 8 received in faith.
Not Hieronymus, as Luther calls him.
"Tractatus de Libertate Christiana," "Werke," vii. 49 f.
Luther's free translation in more concise form, vii. 20 f. English
translation by Wace anc;l Buchheim (1896).
7 " Werke," vji. 49, (Fides) fons enim vivus est, saliens in vitam
reternam.
8 Ibid., vii. 50-5r.
Verbum Dei or evangelium Dei.
6
26 5
It is faith that makes the Gospel operative for salvation

which is due not to works, not even to works conjoined
with faith, but to faith alone. 9 By its very nature faith is
an inward thing and its primary function is that it begets
the sense of sin, unworthiness, absolute dependence on,
need of God in Christ, reliance not o;n human merit, but
on the merit ,of Christ alone. 10 This is proved by numerous
quotations from the New Testament, with bne thrown in
from Isaiah (x. 22-23), which, however, does not really
prove his point and only serves to show his tendency to
force his doctrine of justification into Old Testament
passages which have really nothillg to do with the subject.11
But how is this compatible with the moral precepts of
the Old Testament ? The Old Testament, the law, he
answers with Paul, shows us what we ought to do, but does
not give us the power to do it. The law teaches us our
moral impotence and leads us to turn in our impotence
from the precepts tci the promises, from the Old Testament
to the New, from the law to the Gospel. "God alone
commands ; God alone also fulfils." 12 This is the second
function of faith, to Jead us from precept to promise, from
works to the Gospel. The result is that " to the Christian
man his faith suffices for everything and that he has no
need of works. But if he has no need of works, neither
has he need of the law. If he has no need of the law, he is
certainly free from the law and it is true that 1 the law is
not made for the righteous man' (r Tim. i. 9). This is that
Christian liberty, our faith which demands not that we be
careless or live a bad life, but that no one should need the law
or works for justification and salvation." 13
In thus trusting in God solely for salvation, faith, in the
third place, honours God by acknowledging Him to be true
"Werke," vii. 51. Sola fide.
Ibid., vii. 51. Hace fides non nisi in homine interiore regnare
possit . . . Ideo dum credere incipis simul discis omnia.qure in te sunt
esse prorsus culpabilia, peccata damnanda .. in eum credens alius
homo hac fide fieres, donatis omnibus peccatis tuis et justificato te
alienis meritis, nempe Christi solius.
11 Ibid., vii. 52.
12 Ibid., vii. 53.
Ipse solus prrecipit, solus quoque implet.
13 Ibid., vii. 53.
9
10
266
Luther arid the Reformation
and righteous, worthy of our confidence, and thus makes

His promises effective. In return God honours us by imputing to us truth and righteousness. It is here that the
doc~rine of imputation comes in, by which faith is imputed
for righteousness, as Paul teaches and as he had developed
in-detail in his Commentaries on Romans and Galatians.
He does not here expatiate on the Pauline idea, which is
rather for the theologian than the simple Christian. He
simply glances at it as an experience of faith which gives
to us the sense of righteousness in the sight of God.14
It is, further, a function 0 faith that it unites the soul
to Christ who is mystically represented as the husband
of the spiritual marriage of the soul, which thereby becomes
possessed of all that Christ possesses, exchanges its sin,
death, and condemnation for the grace, life, and salvation
attainable through Him.15 It participates in all that Christ
is as king and priest. As king He is lord of the spiritual
world. As priest He intercedes with God for us. So the
Christian, through this spiritual union, becomes possessed
of all that He possesses in this twofold capacity. He, too,
is king as well as priest, king of a spiritual empire, lord over
sin and death; lord of all things in a spiritual though not
in a material sense. He becomes a participator in his
priestly power which enables him to appear in God's presence
and intercede for others. In this connection he once more
rejects the distinction between clergy and laity and ihsists
anew that the only distinction is that of the specific .function
of the ministry of the Word for the promotion of faith. 16
Luther's piety is thus steeped in the mysticism of the
Pauline epistles and the epistle to the Hebrews, which he
ascribes fo him. He had in his formative period been
strongly attracted and, to a certain extent, influenced by
the medireval mystics-Tauler and the author of " The
German Theology "-whom, as we have seen, he regarded
without sufficient discrimination as the pioneers of his
evangelical teaching. In the " De Libertate Christiana "
he has left the medireval mysties behind him. There can
be no doubt as to the source of the mystical element which
u "Werke," vii. 54.
16
lbz"d., vii. 54-56.
16
Ibid., vii. 56, 59.
267
he thus imparts to his doctrine of justification in this

beautiful little treatise .. It is drawn directly from the
New Testament, which has become the sole source of his
teaching on the subject. His mysticism consists not in
the absorption of self in God, mere Gott Leiden, but in personal
faith in God in Christ, emancipating the soul from the
burden and bondage of sin and endowing it with a spiritual
power, a lordship over both sin and death.
This spiritual power appears in active operation in the
second part of the little treatise in which he treafs of works,
the Christian life as the external expression of personal
faith. "The Christian man is the most dutiful servant of
all and subject to every one." In discussing this part of
the subject Luther is at his very best as a religious teacher.
The discussion is perhaps the finest thing he ever wrote, the
gem of Reformation literature. If faith alone justifies,
why concern ourselves with works ? If, he replies, man
were a purely spiritual being works would, indeed, be
superfluous. He would forthwith attain by faith to the
fullness of the inner, spiritual life. But he is a being of
flesh and blood, not of pure spirit, and can only advance
in the spiritual life by the practice of self-discipline and
service for others. Hence the limitation of his spiritual
freedom in the development of Christian character and in
the life of active well doing. " Although, as I have said,
man is inwardly, according to the spirit, amply justified
by faith, having everything that he ought to have except
that it behoves him to increase this self-same faith arid
riches from day to day until the life to come, nevertheless
he remains in this mortal life on earth in which it is necessary
to rule his own body and have converse with other men.
Here, then, works begin. Here he must not take his ease.
Here he must assL1redly take care to exercise the body with
fastings, watchings, labours, and other regulated disciplines,
and subdue it to the spirit that it may become obedient
and conform to the inward man and to faith ; and that it
may not rebel and become a hindrance, as its disposition
is, if it is not restrained. For the inward man, being made
conform to God and created in the image of God, through
faith rejoices and is made glad on account of Christ, in
i68
whom so many benefits are conferred on him. Whence he

places onlythfa object before him, that he may serve God with
joy and without reward in free charity." 1 7
He considers the subject from the point of the individual
and from that of the individual in relation to others.
Individual self-discipline is an essential of the Christian life.
But here, too, the motive principle must be faith which
creates the aspiration an<J. lends the inspiration to do what
is pleasing to God. Works of this kind are to be done
solely in this spirit an9. with this object, not with a view
to justification and not as merits to this end. Luther has
in view, in particular, the monastic life and its ideal of
work-righteousness, which he has completely outlived,
though he is still a monk by profession. He evidently speaks
from his own experience when he refers to those who, in
their quest for self-righteousness, "injure their brain and
extinguish nature, or at least render it useless" by their
ascetic excesses. " This is an immense folly and ignorance
of the Christian life and of faith, to wish to be justified
and saved by works without faith." 18 Such works, he
roundly declares, " are nothing but impious and damnable
sins." 19 In this matter everything depends on the person,
the inner disposition, as he had demonstrated at length
in the Commentary on Romans. " Good works do not
make a good man," and conversely, " evil works do not
make an evil man." The person must be good o;r bad
before the works can be either. Fro~ the religious point
of view goodness or badness depends on the condition of the
soul. " A work is good if done in faith, bad if done without
faith." 20 It is the principle and the motive that matter.
In the sphere of religion egoism is necessarily bad, how~ver
good it may outwardly seem, however devoted even to
higher things. In self-discipline the principle, the motive
of works must be to do all freely and solely with the object
of pleasing God. This granted, good works are an essential
of the individual Christian life. "We do not, therefore,
reject good works. Nay, we embrace them and teach them
17
19
2o
18 Ibid., vii. 60.

"Werke," vii. 59-60.
Impia et damnabilia peccata.
Ibid., vii. 62. Bonum si in fide, malum si in infidelitate.
269
in the highest degree. Not on their own account do we

condemn them, but on account of the impious addition
and perverse seeking of justification by them." 21 "There:.
fore, although it is good to preach and write concerning
penitence, confession, and satisfaction, nevertheless if we
stop there and do not go on to teach faith, such teaching
is without doubt deceptive and devilish." 22
In discussing the subject from the point of view of the
relation of the individu.al to others, he gives expression to a
splendid Christian altruism. It would, indeed, be difficult
to find a finer expression of it. Faith works by love and
of this love service for the common benefit is an instinctive,
inherent element, though here again he warns against the
tendency to do this service in a wrong spirit and for a wrong
object. "Lastly we shall speak of those works which we
are to exercise towards our neighbour. For man lives not
for himself alone in the works which he does in this mortal
life, but for all men on earth, yea he lives only for others
and not for himself. For to this end he subjects his body
in order that he may be able the more freely and wholeheartedly to serve others, as Paul says in Romans xiv. :
'For none of us liveth to himself and none dieth to himself.
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord, or whether
we die, we die unto the Lord.' It is not possible, therefore,
to take his ease in this life and abstain from works towards
hi? neighbour. For, as has been said, he must perforce
li~e and have converse with men, as Christ, made in the
likeness of men and found in fashion as a man, lived among
and had intercourse with men. . . . To this enq the Christian
must have a care for his own body and strive to maintain it
in health and fitness in order to be able to minister to the
help of those who are in need, so that the strong may serve
the weak and we may be sons of God, caring and labouring
the one for the other, mutually bearing each others' burdens
and so fulfilling the law of Christ. Behold this is the truly
Christian life-this is truly faith working by love-which
with joy and love makes itself profitable in the freest
service, serving freely and willingly, providing abundantly
out of the fullness and riches of its faith.'' 23
21
"Werke," vii. 63.
22
Ibid., vii. 63.
23
Ibid., vii. 64.
270
He appeals to the altruistic ethic of Paul and to the

example of Christ as the model of the Christian life. He
would have every Christian live this example over again,
freely and spontaneously taking His yoke upon him; limiting his liberty by the obligation of Christian duty, as citizen
and individual, whatever his station or calling, for the sake
of others. He would even submit to the usages , and
regulations of the medireval Church in the spirit of Christian
expediency, which he here again characteristically inculcates,
provided his cardinal principle of faith is recognised. In this
connection he warns against allowing liberty to degenerate
into licence. " It is not from works, but from the belief
in works that we are set free by the faith of Christ." 24
The Christian is to walk in the middle path between the
extreme ceremonialists and the extreme anti-ceremonialists.
At the same time, in using his liberty in this way, he must
be careful not to give offence to a weak brother who is
unable to dispense with use and wont, or apprehend the full
liberty of faith.
This magnificent delineation of Christianity regarded
as service for the common benefit differs strikingly from the
egoistic, materialist form of it embodied in the degenerate,
oppressive, corrupt system in which he had been reared
and the reformation of which was inherent in his doctrine
of justification by faith. Even the economic side of the life
of faith is not lost sight of, though for Luther the religious
aspect of it is the main one. He finds room to stress the
obligation of assiduity, faithfulness in the common work
of life for the common benefit. He gives us a new ideal of
the ordinary life in the world in opposition to the medireval,
monastic view of separation from the world in the quest
for individual salvation. The true sphere of the Christian
is in the world, not apart from it. The economic bearing of
this religious principle was to find its expression in the
marked industrial activity of the lands which adopted and
exemplified his teaching in this respect. If this was due also
to the Calvinist doctrine of the sovereignty of God, it owed
not a little to Luther's conception of the consecrated individual life, not in the cloister, but in the arena of the world.
24
"Werke," vii. 70.
CHAPTER IX
THE DIET OF WORMS

I. THE EMPEROR
AND
LUTHER
THE advent of the young Emperor-elect in Germany in

the autumn of I520 was an event of critical import for
the Lutheran movement. On the 23rd October he was
crowned King at Aachen and took the oath to maintain
the faith, defend the Church, and render due subjection to
the Pope and the Roman See. 1 Three days later he was
empowered by papal Bull to assume the title of " elected
Roman Emperor " pending his coronation as Emperor by
the Pope himself. 2 The young King-Emperor thus bound
himself to maintain the status qua in religion in Germany.
He had already, in fact, given proof of his orthodox zeal
by issuing an edict ordering Luther's books to be burned in
his hereditary dominions of Burgundy and the Netherlands. 8
The papal Nuncio, Aleander, at whose instigation the edict
was published, assured the Pope that Charles was a staunch
supporter of the Church, 4 whilst Erasmus augured the
worst for Luther and his cause from this preliminary act of
repression. The imperial court, he wrote, was full . of
mendicant monks and the hope that he would favour a
Reformation in the Lutheran sense was vain. 5
Charles was, indeed, favourable to a practical reformation,
such as Ximenes had effected in the Spanish Church under
1 "
Reichstagsakten," ii. 96.

3 Ibid., ii. 455-456.
Ibid., ii. IOI.
4 Ibid., ii. 461, Constantissime a nobis stat; Kalkoff, "Depeschen
des Aleander," 33 (1897). Kalkoff has translated the dispatches of
Aleander to the papal Vice-Chancellor, and these dispatches are of
the highest importance for the history of the Diet of Worms. The
originals are given by Brieger," Aleander und Luther," 1521 (1884).
Enders, ii. 491; cf. iii. 90.
2
272
the auspices of his grandparents, Ferdinand and Isabella,

and his former Dutch tutor, Cardinal Hadrian, advocated
in the Church at large. He had, too, inherited from
Ferdinand and Isabella the policy of curbing the papal power
in the interest of that of the Spanish crown But he was
ve,ry devout and staunchly orthodox, whilst not too strict
in his morals, and was not disposed to countenance any
deviation from the traditional faith. He might welcome the
reform of the abuses in the German Church and was not
disposed to defend the Papacy and the hierarchy as far as
they were responsible for them. His confessor, Glapion,
even credits him with a certain sympathy with the Lutheran
movement, previous to the appearance of the " Babylonic
Captivity." 6 If so, it certainly did not extend to his
doctrinal teaching. 7 That an individual monk should
challenge the sacramental system of the Church could only.
appear in his eyes an act of apostasy, all the more reprehensible inasmuch as rebellion' in the Church was, he was
led to believe, fitted to lead to rebellion in the State. This
construction was sedulously emphasised by Aleander and
his fellow-Nuncio Caraccioli, and his apprehension on .this
score was inten,sified by the revolt of his Spanish subjects
against the autocratic government inaugurated by
Ferdinand and Isabella, which had broken out in the rising
of the Communeros after his departure from Spain in May
1520 8 to assume the imperial crown. Moreover, the unity
of the Church seemed to hi;rn an indispensable adjunct of
the unity of the State, especially as he was not only the
head of an empire which was :m,erely a loose federation,
but the ruler of vast dominions both widely scattered and
devoid of any real political cohesion. He not only wielded the
imperial sceptre. He was King of Spain, Sicily, and Naples,
6 "Reichstagsakten," ii. 479.
Dan seine kei. Mt. hette vorhin
eher die Babylonica ausgangen seins schreibeus etzlicher mass auchgefallen gehabt.
'
7 The assertion occurs in a disC1,1ssion of the confessor, who was
an expert in diplomacy as well as a reformer on Erasmian lines, with the
Saxon Chancellor, Bruck, at the Diet of Worms, and was actuated by
diplomatic motives. See Kalkoff, "Der Wormser Reichstag," 243 f.
(1922).
'
8 See MacKinnon, " History of Modern Liberty," ii. 217 f.
The Emperor and Luther
2 73
Duke of Burgundy, Lord of the Netherlands, and the vast

Spanish dominions in the new world. To the ruler of this
widespread and heterogeneous inhe~itance the maintenance
of ecclesiastical unity might well seem, from the political
point of view alone, an axiom of statesmanship. Apart
from his undoubted interest in practical reform, he was,
moreover, ill fitted to respond even to the national element
in the German reform movement. He was a Netherlander
by birth and cquld not even speak the German language. 9
At Aachen he responded in Latin, not in German, to the
questions put to him on the occasion of his coronation.10
The political centre of gravity lay for him in Spain rather
than in Germany, and the widespread national antagonism
to Rome could hardly appeal to one who, though his German
descent had contributed to his election, was practically a
foreigner and had more of a political than a national interest
in his imperial office.
On the other hand, there were considerations of a political
nature which made it necessary to walk warily in dealing
with the religious question in Germany. The tide of
public opinion was setting strongly in favour of Luther.
Ale<.tnder was the object of widespread hostility, which
found expression in satiric effusions at his expense, and
was fain to confess that some of the princes, most of the
nobility and people,, and even a large section of the clergy
were hostile to Rome.11 He might urge the Emperor to
repeat in Germany the edict against Luther and his books
which he had promulgated in the Netherlands. But in the
face of the widespread popular hostility Charles hesitated to
adopt such an autocratic policy and was obliged to reckon
with the will of the Estates, especially of the Elector . of
Saxony, in considering the measures to be taken to carry
out the Bull against the arch-heretic of Wittenberg. He
was, moreover, bound by his coronation oath to maintain
9
Ranke, " Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation,"
i. 470.
Sed tantum majestas sua Latine et
loquitur et intelligit.
11 Ibid,, ii. 460-46i.
Kalkoff, " Die Depeschen des Aleander,"
26-28 ; cf. 44.
18
2 74
the old concordats, which permitted an appeal to a General

Council, and not to place any of his subjects under the
imperial ban unheard.12 He and his advisers declined,
therefore, to issue at Aachen a mandate against Luther
without consultation with the Estates. 13 ' As the result of
a conference at Cologne on\the rst November r520 with the
Elector,14 who, with the support of Erasmus, proposed
anew that Luther's case should be referred to the judgment
of a competent and impartial commission, Charles gave the
answer that "the monk would be dealt with in accordance
with the laws of the empire and should not be condemned
unheard." 16 Ultimately, on the 27th November, he invited
him 16 to bring the monk with him for this purpose to the
Diet which he had summoned to meet at Worms on the
6th January r52r. He only stipulated that meanwhile
Luther should refrain from writing or printing anything
against the Pope and the Holy See.17
Aleander and his fellow-Nuncio Caraccioli, on the other
hand, in an interview with the Elector at Cologne on the
4th November, urged him to execute the Bull and forthwith
arrest and surrender Luther to the Pope. The wary diplomatist evaded a direct reply and on the 6th professed once
more, through his councillors, his innocence of complicity
in his professor's doings, adduced the fact that his. case
was still under reference to the Archbishop of Trier as a
sufficient reason for delaying the execution of the Bull,
and parried the demand for his surrender with the counterdemand for an impartial hearing in Germany. Aleander
retorted that the commission to the archbishop had lapsed
with the transference of the case to Rome and that the
judgment of the Pope, formally given in the Bull, was decisive
"Reichstagsakten," i. 871, 873.
"Depeschen," 33; Kalkoff,." Entscheidungsjahre," 187 f.
14 Owing to illness the Elector was not present at the coronation at
Aachen.
15 Kalkoff, " Entscheidungsjahre," 192, and " Erasmus, Luther
und Friedrich der Weise,'.' 86 f. (1919).
16 The letter was written from Oppenheim whilst the Emperor was
on his way to \.Vorms. Another to the same effect came from his ministers,
Chievres and Count Henry of Nassau. Walch, xv. 2018-2022.
1 7 "Reichstagsakten," ii. 466-468.
12
13
The Emperor and Luther..
275
and admitted of no further evasion. 18 Whilst this reasoning

might appear conclusive from the point of view of canon law,
which recognised the Pope as the supreme judge in matters
of faith, it was not so cogent from that of the law of the
empire which recognised the right of appeal to a General
Council. Aleander, nevertheless, persisted in acting on
the old adage, Roma locuta causa finita, and this assumption
he strove to impress on the imperial ministers, Chievres and
Gattinara. 19 He so far succeeded that on the r7th December,
as the result of his arguments at a sitting of the. Imperial
Council on the r4th, the Emperor revoked the invitation
to the Elector to bring Luther 1o Worms. The reason
adduced for this change of attitude was that, as Luther had
not recanted within the period prescribed by the Bull, he
was now under the imperial ban. Only if he submitted to
the Pope should the Elector bring him, not to Worms,
but to Frankfurt, or other place, there to await further
instructions. Should, however, he refuse submission, he
was to remain at Wittenberg pending personal consultation
with the Elector in the matter. 20 The fact that the Pope
had definitely agreed to take the side of the Emperor in
the impending conflict with his rival, Francis I., materially
contri}?uted to this change of attitude on the Lutheran
questfon. 21 The Emperor even went the length of entrusting
Aleander with the task of drafting a mandate or edict in
execution of the Bull against Luther, as the subverter of
political and social order as well as the papal power, in
virtue of the imperial authority and without reference to
the will of the Diet. 22
Meanwhile the Elector had himselt decided to abandon
his intention of bringing Luther to Worms and, in justification of his decision, had adduced the burning of Luther's
books at Cologne, Maintz, and elsewhere. Such violence was,
he protested, incompatible with the understanding that he
should receive a hearing by impartial judges, before whom
s "Reichstagsakten," ii. 462-466.
"Depeschen," 33 f.; cf. 5I.
2o " Reichstagsakten," ii. 468-470.
91 Kalkoff, " Entscheidungsjahre,"
22 Ibz'd., 202 f.
19
202.
276
he had publicly offered to appear if granted a safe conduct,

and to whose decision he was prepared to submit, if he
should be proved from Scripture to have erred. 23 He
repeated the demand for an impartial hearing in an audience
with the Emperor after his arrival at Worms on the 5th
January r52r, and once more succeeded in extracting the
promise that his protege should not be condemned unheard.
This promise he communicated to Luther, with the request
that he should forward for presentation to the Emperor
a copy .of his Erbieten, or offer to appear before an impartial tribunal subject to the grant of a safe conduct.
With this request Luther gladly complied on the 25th
January r52r and assured the Elector of his readiness to
come to Worms in accordance with the terms of this document. 24 His confidence in the imperial goodwill proved,
however, too sanguine. Aleander was doing his utmost
to frustrate the Elector's policy and secure the issue of a
summary edict against the arch-heretic in spite of the
opposition of his supporters in the Diet, 25 which began its
actual session on the 27th January. 26 "The Emperor," he
wrote on the 8th February, "holds firmly to the good
cause." 27 Two days before (6th February) Charles gave a
signal demonstration of his real attitude towards the heretic
when Stein, the court marshal of Duke John of Saxony,
handed him Luther's Erbieten with the request that he "".Ould
see justice done to the petitioner. In the presence of his
courtiers he tore the document in pieces and threw it on
the floor-" a clear indication to the whole Diet," adds
Aleander, "of what the Emperor thinks of Luther." 2s
The Elector and his supporters were, however, not
overawed by this exhibition of the imperial animus against
23 "Reichstagsakten," ii. 470-475.
The Elector's letters to the
Emperor, 2oth and 28th Dec. The Elector refers to Luther's Oblatio or
Erbieten of 3oth Aug.
24 Ibid., ii. 476-477; Luther's " Werke," 53, 56, No. 24 (Erfai;i.gen
edition); Kalkoff, " Entscheidungsjahre," 208-209.
26 " Depeschen," 72-73.
as "Reichstagsakten," ii. 157-159.
27 "Depesche.n," 78; Brieger, 55, el qua! pero sempre e constante
al bene.
28 "Depeschen," 78-79; Brieger, 55
277
the arch-rebel of Wittenberg. They persisted in their

determination that he should have a hearing before the
Reichstag under the imperial safe conduct. Hence the long
duel between Aleander on the one hand, and the Elector
and his supporters on the other, over this crucial issue which
lasted till the beginning of March. Though the Nuncio
could rely on the personal goodwill of the Emperor in his
demand for the summary execution of the Bull in virtue of
his imperial authority, the imperial ministers were very
dubious about the feasibility of such an autocratic policy
in the' face of the active sympathy of tlie nation for Luther
and its embittered feeling against Rome. Even Aleander
was fain to admit in his reports that Luther was the leader,
not of a mere sect, but of the nation in his attack on the
Roman regime. "The whole of Germany," wrote he on the
8th February, " is in open revolt. Nine-tenths of it shouts
for Luther and the other tenth, if it cares not for the
Reformer, cnes 'Death to the Roman Curia.' All are
united in the demand for a Council to be held in Germany.'' 29
The only expedient he can think of for countering the
danger is to send him money to bribe influential officials,
though even with the aid of this expedient it is difficult
~o effect anything. If the Curia hesitates longer, it is to be
feared that the Lutherans will obtain the upper hand and
the Imperial Council will not have the courage to launch
the desired edict ag~inst them. The Germans have lost all
respect for and openly ridicule papal excommunications.
The clergy will not, or dare not, preach against Luther. It
rains Lutheran books daily, German or Latin, and in Worms
itself the printing press and the booksellers are busy diffusing
this pro-Lutheran literature. Without money he is at his
wits' end to deal with this menacing situation. 30 Erasmus
has thrown the weight of his influence on Luther's side,
and the word of Erasmus, who has written worse things
against the faith than even Luther, excites far mote confi~
dence than his own. To the. reader the fact is not surprising,
for, on his own nai:ve confession, he was driven on occasion
to have recoltrse to downright lying in the interest of the
29 " Depeschen," 69-70; Brieger, 48.
ao " Depeschen," 70-73; Brieg-er, 49 f,
278
faith and his mission. 31 When he appears in the streets

people lay their hands on their swords, gnash their teeth,
and hurl threats and oaths at him. His life is not safe
and he is in constant apprehension of being murdered. 32
If the good Emperor should show the slightest tendency to
give way, the whole of Germany would be lost to the Roman
See. 33
Aleander's plea for a summary edict against Luther was
strengthened by the Bull of Excommunication which the
Pope, on the 3rd January, had launched against him and
his adherents as obstinate heretics. 34 The Bull reached the
Nuncio on the roth February along with a papal missive
to the Emperor enjoining its immediate execution. In
response Charles, whose ministers still emphasised the
necessity of securing the co-operation of the Diet in carrying
out the papal demand, requested him to address the Estates
on the subject on the r3th. In an oration which took
three hours to deliver, 35 Aleander accordingly sought to
impress his audience with the gravity of the Lutheran
movement on political as well as ecclesiastical grounds.
He adroitly reminded the Estates that the Hussite movement had led to the subversion of the existing political and
social order in Bohemia A like fate must befall Germany
as the result of Luther's teaching. He enlarged from the
papal point of view on the efforts made to reclaim the
heretic, who had not only persisted in his heresy, but had
. aggravated it by attacking the sacraments and the ritual
of the Church and by preaching his doctrine of universal
priesthood, as he showed by reading extracts from his
recent works on the " Babylonic Captivity of the Church "
and on "Christian Liberty,'' and from his "Assertio." He
had even dared openly to espouse the opinions of Wiclif
and Hus and to asperse the Council of Constance as heretical
for condemning them. He further quoted from the Bull
of the Council of Florence in r439, which he professed to
have discovered in the archives at Worms, to disprove his
31
Depeschen," 75-76; cf. 84, 108.

38 lbz"d:, St.
Ibid., 90-9r.
34 The Bull Decet Romanum, German translation in Walch, xv. 2030 f.
3o "Depeschen," 85. Jn a letter to Eck he says two hours.
32
2 79
assertion that the Greeks had never recognised the papal

headship of the whole Church. He repelled his assumption
that the Bull, "Exsurge Domine," was a fabrication of his
enemies and his assertion that his books had been burned
without the Emperor's knowledge and will in his defence
of the burning of the Bull. Luther, in short, was a dangerous anarchist, a subverter of Church and State, a perverter
of Scripture, though like the devil he could quote Scripture
for his own pernicious purposes. How falsely, therefore,
his defenders aver that he teaches only the evangelical
truth, and claim that he is a pious man of unblemished life.
His life may outwardly be correct. But heretics have always
been hypocrites. Inwardly they are ravening wolves, and
if Luther were a pious Christian, he would not presume to
know better than the Holy Fathers and Mother Church of
Christendom. As to the plea that he should be heard before
being condemned, if only because of the danger of a popular
insurrection in his behalf, what could be the use of hearing
one who has spurned the Pope and the authority of Councils
and has declared that he will not change his opinion even
if an angel from heaven should teach otherwise. Moreover,
in matters of faith it belongs to the Pope alone to judge.
From him the Emperor and the princes derived their
imperial rights, since the empire was conferred on
Charlemagne and his successors by the Pope, and to refuse
to recognise the papal power would be to forfeit these
rights. It behoved the Emperor and the Estates, therefore,
to take measures for the suppression of his pestilential
heresy and forthwith to issue an edict directing the burning
of his books and forbidding the printing and sale of them
in future. 36
The speech was a skilful ex parte appeal on behalf of the
36 "Reichstagsakten," ii. 495 f.
A summary of the speech made
by the. Saxon Chancellor Bruck from notes taken by the Elector's secretaries. CJ. Aleander's .shorter account of his speech, " Depeschen,"
85-87; Brieger, 61-62. The speech was largely a recapitulation
of an instruction drawn up, at the end of Dec. 1520, by Aleander,
which was to form the subject of an imperial communication to the
Elector of Saxony with the object of detaching him from Luther and
preventing him from bringing Luther's case before the Diet. S~e
Kalkoff1 " Per Worrn,ser Reichstag-," 217 f,
280
existing system in Church ,and State against the daring

religious innovator, with intent to excite the self-interest
as well as the religious passion of the audience. The orator
studiously ignored the abuses of the papal regime and
represented the reform movement as an attack on
constituted authority by an opinionated and dangerous
anarchist. It seems to have made an impression on the
assembled Estates, though Aleander noted in the course
of its delivery the .scowls on th~ faces of the Lutheran
members, 37 and was erelong to discover that the Diet was
not disposed to gloss over its grievances on the score of
the papal misgovernment of the Church. Its effect on the
Emperor and his ministers is oli>servable in the resolution
to submit the draft of an edict against Luther, on which
a commission had been at work for some weeks, to the
Diet on the r5th February. Though the Nuncio opposed
its reference to the Estates and urged its immediate issue
in virtue of the imperial authority alone, 38 he had no reason
to quarrel with the draft itself, which was in fact largely
his own composition. 39 It decreed the burning of Luther's
books and his arrest and imprisonment pending further
proceedings against him, and declared his adherents and
abettors of whatever condition guilty of high treason if they
should persist in their disobed.ience. 40 As Aleander had
feared, it met with the bitter opposition of the Lutheran
members. 41 In the chamber of the Electors the del:t'beration
gave rise to a violent altercation between Joachim of
Brandenburg, the leader of the anti-Lutherans, and the
Elector of Saxony, in the course of which both grasped
their swotd hilt and would have come to blows had not the
others thrown themselves between them. 42 The Elector of
"Depeschen," 87; cf. u7. 39 Ibz'd., 72.
Ibz'd., 91-92.
' "Reichstagsakten," ii. 509-513.
41 On the attitude of the members of the various Estates towards the
Lutheran movement see Kalkoff, "Der Wormser Reichstag," 277 f.
42 "Depeschen," 93.
According to Aleander, the Archbishop of
Salzburg was one of those who thus intervened. The archbishop,
however, could not have taken part in the sitting of the Electors.
Lehmann thinks that the incident is not historic, " Historische Aufsatze
und Reden," 22 (I9u). Kalkoff adduces strong reasons in favour of
its historicity, "Z.K.G.," xliii. 194-195.
37
38
281
the Palatinate, usually so taciturn, "bellowed like a steer" 43

in support of his Saxon colleague. Ultimately, on the rgth,
the Estates, whilst acknowledging the Christian zeal of the
Emperor, adduced in a common statement the grave danger
of a popular outbreak if Luther were condemned unheard.
They accordingly proposed that he should be examined,
under a safe conduct, by a commission on the question of
the authorship of the books ascribed to him, though he
should not be allowed to dispute on their contents. If he
agreed to recant his errors against the faith, he should
then be heard on the other points bearing on the reform of
the Church. If not, they were prepared to abet his majesty
in vindicating the faith of their fathers. At the same time,
they pointedly reminded the Emperor of the ecclesiastical
abuses and grievances from which the empire was suffering
in consequence of the misgovernment of the Church and
urged their effective reformation. 44 Aleander had thus not
succeeded in his attempt either to prevent the reference of
the edict to the Estates, or to blink the urgent question of
a reformation, which, though it did not extend to Luther's
characteristic theological doctrines, evidently did include
his views on the papal power and its abuse. 45
In. response the Emperor on the 2nd March announced
his readiness to summon Luther under safe conduct for
examination on the authorship of his books, but without
the right of disputation thereon, and submitted for the
opinion of the Estates a fresh draft of an edict. At the
same time, he requested them to draw up a statement of
grievances against the pa.pal regime and promised to COn?ider
any representation they might make on the subject. 4 &
This second dra.ft, whilst granting Luther a hearing on the
conditions thus intimated by the Emperor, ignored the
demand of the Estates that he should be allowed, in case
of retraction, to discuss the reform of abuses, denounced
his heretical enormities in very severe language, and
43 " Depeschen," 97.
Ludwig V. does not, however, seem to have been
a Lutheran by conviction. Kalkoff, "Wormser Reichstag," 13, 277.
44
"Reichstagsakten," ii. 515-517.
46 Kalkoff, "Wormser Reichstag," 308-309.
H "Reichstagsakten," s19-520,
282
directed that his books should meanwhile be destroyed. 47

It accordingly provoked once more lengthy and heated
debate and failed to secure the approbation of the Estates
(5th March). On the following day, Charles and his
ministers were fain, for political reasons, to waive any
further attempt to reach an agreement on the draft and
to put an end to the deadlock by citing Luther to Worms
in accordance with the demand of the Estates. 48 The
citation, in striking contrast to the proposed edict, was
courteously worded. In agreement with the Estates the
Emperor summoned him to appear for the purpose of being
examined on his teaching and writings. To this end he
is granted a safe conduct for the journey to Worms and
back and assured of the imperial protection, and is required
to appear within twenty-one days after receiving the
citation. 49 On the :trth March the Elector, after some
hesitation, added his own safe conduct. 50
To Aleander the imperial decision seemed a dangerous
truckling to a condemned heretic, against whom it was the
duty of the Emperor and the Estates to execute forthwith
the papal sentence. He was greatly perturbed at the
prospect of Luther's appearance before the Diet. "If
Luther comes, the worst is to be feared." 51 His fears were
shared by the Elector of Brandenburg, 5 ~ and -in co-operation
with him and other anti-Lutherans he strove to counter the
danger by pressing the publication of the edict against his
writings, even without the approbation of the Estates, in
the hope that its publication would scare Luther from
47
"Reichstagsakten," ii. 521-526.

For the details of this protracted negotiation see Kalkoff,
"Wormser Reichstag," 302 f.
60 Ibid., ii. 532.
The delay in doing so was due to negotiations
with the Emperor who had suggested that the Elector should himself
cite Luther. This responsibility the Elector declined to take upon
himself and insisted that the Emperor should do so ('' Reichstagsakten,''
ii. 528). In virtue of the agreement with the Diet, the imperial safe
conduct would have the guarantee of the Estates behind it, which
a summons by an individual member would not have.
61 "Depeschen," 99; cf. II8 f,
02 Ibid., 104.
48
Before the Summons

obeying the citation. He eventually succeeded in securing
its promulgation in a modified form at Worms on the
27th March in the name of the Emperor. 53 But the hope
of thereby frightening Luther from facing the Diet was
foiled by the indomitable resolution of the brave monk
to dare the worst in behalf of his convictions.
II.
BEFORE THE SUMMONS
During these months of intrigue and debate at Worms,

Luther had inflexibly continued the crusade against Antichrist and his abettors in Germany. He paid as little heed
to the Bull of Excommunication as to the Bull of Condemnation, and was not disposed to take his orders even
from the Emperor in this matter. Charles's request to the
Elector in November 1520 to put a stop to his writing
against the Pope 54 shows a singular ignorance of the
character of the man who, by sheer strength of conviction,
had raised a storm which was to shake the Papacy to its
foundations and to eventuate in the disruption of the
medireval Church. He was undoubtedly the strong in.an
and also the great man of the age. All the other actors on
the stage of this world upheaval are mediocre figures
compared with this Colossus whose. genius and potent
personality are laboriously shaping a new world out of the
old. Though the Emperor wields a vast power, he is merely
the embodiment of the old order in Church and State.
He has neither insight into nor sympathy with the religious
and moral forces which, concentrated in the personality of
this monk, are bursting the old order like new wine in old
wine skins. His ministers, Gattinara and Chievres, are
merely clever politicians, adepts in the art of diplomatic
make.:.believe, by which, like their master, they imagine that
they can counter the force of ideas as well as out-manreuvre
53 "Depeschen,'' 140-142; "Reichstagsakten," ii. 529-538; the correspondence of Spalatin with the Elector, Waitz, Epistolre Reformatorum,
" Z.K.G.," ii. 120 f.; Kalkoff, " Wormser Reichstag," 311 f.; and
" Die Entstehung des Wormser Edikts," 156 f. (1913).
-' " Reichstagsakten," ii. 468,
284
their opponents in the diplomatic game. Pope Leo is a

worldling whose main concern is the extension of his
temporal dominion and the preservation of the corrupt
ecclesiastical system of which he is the unworthy creation
and figurehead. His representative Aleander is an able
ecclesiastic of the conventional type, professionally devoted
to the system which affords him position and livelihood and
busl.ly employed in bribing benefice hunters to co-operate
in bringing the reformer to the stake. The Elector and
his advisers are very astute diplomatists of the ordinary
type who would have been little known to history except
for the fact that they have some understanding of the issues,
religious and national, involved in this theological conflict
and creditably make use of their shrewdness and sense of
justice to prevent Dr Martin from sharing the fate of Hus
and Savonarola. Erasmus, who figures in Aleander's dispatches as a damnable patron of Luther and the treacherous
mentor of the Elector, is the greatest scholar of the age
and a reformer, even an aggre;;sive one, up to a point. But
Erasmus is lacking in intensity of religious convicti~:m and
in the moral courage that would have made him the compeer
of the monk of Wittenberg in a fight to a finish against the
power and corruption of Rome. As he himself said, ''if it
came to a crisis he would play the part of Simon Peter over
again." Though Hutten had more of the fighting spirit,
he was not fitted in character and religious conviction to
be the lieutenant of the protagonist of justification by
faith, whilst the enterprising Sickingen did not essentially
rise above the level of the filibuster leader bf his time.
Luther, too, had his limitations if weighed in the balancc:i
of historic criticism. But in n.o one else in this age were
the qualities of the maker of history in the religious and
moral sphere so combined as in this prophet of a faith
which, while positing complete self-effacement, vitalises
at the same time the force of a powerful intellect, an inflexible will, a compelling devotion to the truth as he
apprehends it. The most convincing proof of this is the
fact that, as the supreme crisis of his fate approaches, he
shows himself equal to it.
The attacks of his opponents dlj.ring the winter months
Before the Summons
285
of 1521 only steeled his polemic temper and led him to

formulate his antagonism to the Pope even more aggressively,
as well as to give full play to his rough humour and mordant
sarcasm at .their expense. Whilst the mutual recrimination
of this press warfare is not edifying to the modern reader,
the resourcefulness and the reckless courage of the writer,
with his back to the wall against a world of enemies, are
truly astounding. In addition to Emser new assailants
, appeared in the Strassburg monk Murner, the Itali.an
Dominican Ambrose Catharinus, 55 Marlianus, 56 Bishop of
Tuy, Latomus of Louvain, 57 and others. After a skirmish
in a couple of pamphlets with Emser, 58 whom he regarded
as the virulent mouthpiece of Duke George of Saxony and
who had ventured to controvert his "Address to the
Nobility," 5 9 ''the Leipzig Bock," as he dubbed him,
received due castigation in his most satiric style in a
philippic 60 in which he also dealt faithfully with the shortcomings of Murner. Against Catharinus he demonstrated
at length from Scripture in his own exegetical fashion that
the Pope was the Antichrist of Daniel. 61 To the people he
addressed an "Instruction," in which he denied the right
of the priests to refuse their penitents absolution unless they
surrendered his books. He advised the people to do without
absolution thus arbitrarily refused, and even to abstain
from the Sacrament of the Altar rather than act against
their conscience and the Word of God, which the Pope had
condemned in the Bull. The Word is indispensable to
66 On this controversialist see Lauchert, "Die ltalienischen Literarischen Gegner Luther's," 30 f. (1912).
56 See Kalkoff, "Wormser Reichstag," 152 f.
57 Enders, iii: 98; " Depeschen," 38-39.
68 An den Bock zu Leipzig, Jan. 1521, "werke,'' vii. 262 f.; .
and Auf den Bock zu Leipzig Antwort, ibid., vii. 271 f., in answer
to Emser's An den Stier zu Wittenberg, given by Enders, " Luther
und Emser," ii. 3 f.
59 Enders, iii. 84, 87, and" Luther und Emser," i. 3 f.
ao Auf das Buch Bock's Emser's in Leipzig Antwort, "Werke,"
vii. 621 L, and Enders, " Luther und Emser," ii. 47 f.
61 Ad Librum Eximii Magistri Amp. Catharini Responsio, "Werke,"
vii. 705 f., and " Opera Latina Var.," v. 289 f. It was finished by the
end of March, but not published till June.
286
salvation. Absolution, sacraments, priest, and Church are

not, and Christ Himself, the true bishop, could spiritually feed
them without the sacrament. 62 For the popular edification
he also translated and amplified his " Assertio" of the
articles condemned in the papal Bull and sent it forth from
the press in the beginning of March. 63 He reiterated and
vindicated the views on the sacraments, the priestly office,
the ritual of the Church, which Aleander had summarised
from the " Babylonic Captivity " and the " Assertio " and
had denounced as heretical in his speech to the Estates in
the middle of February. 64
To the strain of this incessant polemic was added
the burden of his daily official duty of lecturing and
preaching and the preparation for the press of his revised
course on the Psalms, an exposition of selected portions of
the Gospels and Epistles, 65 and of the Magnificat in
German. 66 " I am oppressed by many troubles ; my life is
a cross to me," he complains in a letter to Pellican at the
end of February, in which he recounts the harassing; and
wearing experience of these months. 67 The nervous strain
accounts in part for the violence of his polemic, though
there is no sign of lack of intellectual vigour as the result
of bodily exhaustion and mental perturbation. His mind
is, in fact, incredibly fecund under the probing of his many
assailants, "the gnats," as he contemptuously calls them. 68
It is in a continuous turmoil which, he confesses, he is
powerless to control. " You rightly admonish me to
Ein Unterricht der Beichtkinder iiber die Verpotten Bucher,
"Werke," vii. 290 f.; Enders, iii. Sr, 87.
63
Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Mart. Luther's so <lurch
Romische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind. " Werke," vii. 308 f;;
Enders, iii. 98.
64 Responsio Extemporaria ad Articulos quos Magistri nostri ex
Babylonica et Assertionibus ejus excerpserunt. " Werke," vii. 608 f.;
Enders, iii. u3, March 1521.
65 Enarrationes epistolarum et evangeliorum quas postillas vacant.
"Werke," vii. 463 f., March 1521.
66
"Werke," vii. 544 f. Though it was being printed in March,
it was not completed and did not appear till the end of August or the
beginning of September.
67 Enders, iii. 93.
68 Ibid., iii. 98.
62
Feb.
152r.
Before the Summons

observe moderation," he writes to Pellican. "I myself
feel the need of it. But I am not master of myself (sed
compos mei non sum). I am gripped by I know not what
spirit, though I am conscious of wishing ill to' no one. But
these men urge me on most furiously; so that I am not
sufficiently on my guard against Satan. Pray the Lord
for me that I may think and speak and write what becomes
both Him and me, though riot them." 69
At the same time, he is absolutely convinced that he is
on the right path and will not move an inch from what he
deems the truth, whatever befall. When Spalatin communi.cates to him in December 1520 the Emperor's suggestion
that the Elector should bring him to Worms for a hearing,
he replies that, well or sick, he will comply and dare the
consequences for the sake of the Gospel. The Lord lives
and reigns who preserved the three youths in the furnace of
the king of Babylon. Even if he perish, what is that to the
fate of Christ Himself who died for the Gospel? Spalatin
may rest assured that he will do all that is required of him
except consult his own safety and deny the Gospel. 70 He
reminds the weakly Staupitz, who had shrunk .before the
storm and submitted at Salzburg, that he has not forgotten
his encouraging assurance that he had begun this enterprise in the name of Christ. The hand of God, not of man,
is still patently in it, and to this faith he will cling in spite
of the raging tumult and the floods with which he is battling
and which are sweeping him along. 71 - He grieves. over
Staupitz's weakly surrender to Antichrist who, in condemning him, has condemned Christ This is surely not the
time, when Christ is suffering anew, for fearing, for hesitating
between the Pope and Christ, for giving way, but
for speaking out. Staupitz has exhorted him to humility
and warned him against arrogance. But if he has shown
too much arrogance, Staupitz has shown too much
humility. " If Christ gave Himself for us, shall we not
fight and give our life for Him? More is at stake in this
issue tha,n many believe. The Gospel itself is involved.
' Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess.
' 9
Enders, iii. 93.
70
Ibid., iii. 24-25.
71
Ibid., iii, 70-71.
28 8
before my Father.' They may accuse me of every sort of

vice-arrogance, self-seeking, adultery, murder, anti-p9pery.
But may I never be cbnvicted of an impious silence when
the Lord Himself is being crucified afresh. The Word of
Christ is not the word of peace, but the word of the sword .
. . . If you will not follow me, permit nie at least fo go
on and to be carried away. By the grace of Christ I will
not keep silent about the monstrous evils of this monster
Antichrist." Nor is he without powerful supporters. Hutten
and many others, he adds, are mightily advocating his cause,
and poems daily appear which are anything but delectable
to that Babylon. The Elector is exerting himself prudently
and firmly in his behalf, whilst he himself is keeping three
printing presses busy against Antichrist. 72 The people are
on his side, as the opposition to the burning of his books
at Maintz has shown. 13
Hutten has,in fact, proposed to oppose force with force and
to decide the issue by an appeal to arms. 74 Luther decisively
rejects the proposal of an armed revolution on behalf of the
Gospel, though he had in a couple of passages in his notes
on Prierias's "Epitoma" and in, his "Address to the
Nobility " seemed to incite to a violent overthrow of Anti.:.
christ. 75 " You see what Hutten wants," he wrote in
forwarding his letter to Spalatin on the 16th January 152r.
" I do not wish to contend for the Gospel with force and
slaughter, and I.have writtep to tell hhh so. By the Word
the world was conquered and the Church has been preserved,
and by it the Church will be reformed. For as Antichrist
established himself without arms, so will he be overthrown by
the Word without armed force." 76 A war against the clergy
would only be a war against women and children. 77
72
Enders, iii. 83-85, 9th Feb. 1521.

Ibid., iii. 7 r.
74 Ibid., iii. 15-16.
Hutten's letter to Luther, 9th Dec. 1520.
75 In his reply to Emser he explains that he ciid not mean this passage
to be taken literally. He does not believe in the use of force in matters
of religion. But if the Pope will insist on burning heretics, he thereby
gives the right to use force against him in self-defence, though personally
he is opposed to such violent methods. "Werke," vii. 645-646.
76 Enders, iii. 73.
77 Ibid., iii. 90.

73
Before the Summons

In defence of the Word as the supreme rule of faith he
. was, however, determined to defy the Emperor as well as
the Pope. He had learned with regret in the middle of
January of the imperial decision to resile from the invitation
to Wonns. 78 Two months elapsed before he heard that he
was to be asked to recant the articles which Aleander had
culled from the " Babylonic Captivity" and the "Assertio,''
and which Spalatin sent him. The Emperor, he replied,
might save himself the trouble of summoning him to Worms
for such a purpose. "You need be in no doubt that I will
revoke nothing, since I see that they adduce no other
argument than that I have written against the rites and
usages of the Church such as they imagine it. I will,
therefore, assure the Emperor, if summoned only for the
purpose of recanting, that, if it were only a question of
recanting, I could do this here at Wittenberg equally well.
But if he means to summon me for the purpose of killing
me and shall pold me for an enemy of the empire as the
result of my answers to his questions, I shall offer to come.
With the help of Christ I will not flee, nor will I prove
unfaithful to the Word in the battle. Certain I am that
these bloody men will not rest till they have sent me to
the stake and I should wish that if possible only the papists
were guilty of my blood. . . . The will of the Lord be
done. Meanwhile per~uade whoever you can not to take
part in this wicked Council of the Malignants." 79 "At
Worms," he wrote to an unknown correspondent on the
24th March, " they are exerting themselves to get me to
recant a large number of articles, but my revocation
will be as follows : Formerly l have said that the Pope
is the Vicar of Christ. This I now revoke and say,
the Pope is the enemy of Christ and the apostle of the
devil." 80
Two days later, the 26th March, the herald arrived at
Wittenberg with the imperial citation and safe conduct.
78
79
80
Enders, iii. 73.

Ibid., iii. 113. Letter to Spalatin, l9th March.
Ibid.; iii. l 17,
290
Luther .and the Reformation
III.
LUTHER AND THE DIET
The citation made mention only of an investigation, not

of a revocation, and on the 2nd April, Luther accordingly
set out on his momentous journey to Worms. He was
accompanied by his colleague Amsdorf, his fellow-monk
Petzensteiner, and a student Swaven, besides the friendly
herald' Sturm. At Leipzig his arrival excited little interest,
though the Town Council sent him a present of wine. 81
The interest increased as he proceeded and in the
Thuringian towns the people came out to meet his waggon
and see the daring heretic " who had thrown down the
gauntlet to the Emperor and all the world." " Some,"
relates Myconius, "comforted him very badly by saying
that at Worms, where so many cardinals and bishops were
assembled, he would be burned to ashes as Hus had been at
Constance." "If," retorted Luther, "they make a fire
that would fill the sky between Wittenberg and Worms,
he would go on in the name of the Lord, since t4ey had
summoned him, and would walk into the jaws of Behemoth
and confess Christ between his teeth." 82 At Weimar or
Erfurt he read the imperial edict against his books, which
had practically condemned him beforehand. He turned
pale for a moment, and the herald asked him whether he
would proceed farther-.:.-. 1' I will enter Worms if all the
devils were in it," was the reply.sa He at once divined
that the object of this decree was to scare him from continuing his journey, and wrote to Spalatin from Frankfurt that
he would enter Worms in spite of the powers of hell and the
principalities of the air. 84 At Weimar, Gotha, and Erfurt
he preached to large congregations. So great was the
throng at Erfurt that the gallery of the church began to
crack and a panic was only prevented by the self-possession
of the preacher, who called out to the people to keep quiet.
81
82
83
s4
Warbeck to Duke John of Saxony, "Reichstagsakten," ii. 851.

"Geschichte der Reformation," 34, ed .. Clemen.
" Tischredeh," iii. 284-28 5.
Enders, iii. 121.
Luther and the Diet

The devil was only trying to create a false alarm. so At
Weimar .he was joined by Justus Jonas, canon at Erfurt
and his future colleague at Wittenberg, and outside his
old university city he was welcomed by a goodly array of
sympathisers, on the 6th April, at the head of which rode
his old friends Crotus Rubianus, now Rector of the University,
and Eobanus Hessus, and feasted ih honour of the Word of
God. The evangelical sermon which he preached on the
following. day is extant in the notes of a hearer 86 and
consists of an aggressive exposition of the doctrine of
justification by faith, not by works, as the scholastic doctors
and the preachers erroneously proclaim, ahd thereby pervert
the Gospel. " I will and must proclaim the truth. For
this purpose I stand here." The truth consists in the
acceptance of the Gospel in confiding faith in Christ the
Saviour, not in the work-righteousness prescribed by the
Church and proclaimed in the fables of the perverse and
ignorant preachers of human superstition and penitential
performances. The sermon is a battle cry against the
conventional religion and clearly portends what may be
expected of him at Worms. At Eisenach lie had a sudden
attack of illness, evidently the result of the fatigue and
excitement of the Erfurt reception. The attack passed
off after some blood-letting and a sound sleep, induced by
drinking some strong wine with which the Justice of the
Peace, John Oswald, presented him. 87 But it left him very
languid and the languor continued all the way to Frankfurt,
which he reached on the r4th April. 88

At Offenheim, Bucer brought him an invitation to seek
a refuge in the Ebernburg. On the publication of the edict
against his books Hutten had indited a series of violent
letters to the Empetor, the papal Nuncios, the Archbishop
of Maintz, and the bishops. 89 Scared by the threat of a
religious war, with Hutten as its prophet and Sickingen
as its leader, the imperial ministers sought to silence the
ss Report of an eyewitness, Greser, quoted in " Werke," vii. 803.
as " Werke," vii. 808 f.
87 Myconius, " Geschichte," 34.
ss Enders, iii. 120-121.
89 "Opera,'' ii. 12 f.; "Depe$chen,"
146
f.; Brieger,
122~123.
292
dangerous firebrand by sending the imperial chamberlain,

Armsdorf, and the confessor Glapion, to offer him a pension
of 400 gulden and suggest the invitation to Luther to confer
with the confessor at the Ebernburg. Their object was to
prevent Luther from continuing .his journey to Worms.
As the result of the interview with Glapion, Hutten accepted
the imperial bounty, and both he and Sickingen, whilst
insisting on a drastic practical reformation of the Church,
whose. wealth they coveted, allowed themselves to be
persuaded, for the time being at least, that Luther had gone
too far in his attack on its teaching. 90 Hence the invitation
to Luther which would simply have meant that the prescribed period for his appearance at Worms would have
lapsed and with it the imperial safe conduct. This was what
the Nuncios and the imperial ministers were eager to achieve.
But unlike the volatile and shifty Hutten, Luthe.r was not to
be thus easily entrapped. He declined to be wheedled by such
a wild-goose project frotn his purpose of testifying to the truth
before the Emperor and the Diet. He sent word to Glapion
that, if he wished, he might speak with him at Worms. 91 He
repeated in a letter to Spalatin from Offenheitn his declaration to the herald that he would enter Worms even if there
were as many devils in it as tiles on the roofs of the houses. 92
" And so I went on in mere simplicity of heart." 93
On the morning of the r6th he entered Worms in the
00 Such is the version of the interview given by Aleander, " Depes
chen," 157-158, and it receives some confirmation from Hutten's.letter
to Spalatin, " Z.K.G.," ii. 126-127; " Reichstagsakten," ii. 538-540.
See also Kalkoff, Ulrich von Hutten und die Reformation," Quellen und
Forschungen zur Reformationsgeschichte," iv. 287 f. and 358 f. (1920).
91 " Tischreden," iii. 282, 285; v. 69; Walch, xv~ 2172.
92 The letter is not extant, but Spalatin records the saying in. his
~'Annals,'' ed. by Cyprian, 38. In his" Table Talk" he says distinctly
that he did use these words in the letter to Spalatin from Offenheim,
"Tischreden," v. 65. See also Walch, xv. 2174. In a previous
letter from Luther to Spalatin, written from Frankfurt, 14th April,
he says that he will enter Worms in spite of the gates of hell and the
'powers of the air. Enders, iii. 12r.
93 "Tischreden," iii. 285.
Ego vero ex mera simplicitate processi.
There seems to be no ground for the assumption that it was at Offenheim
that he wrote his famous hymn, " Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott." See
the discussion of the qt,1estion by Lucke," Werke," xxxv. 203 f.
Luther and the Diet

waggon in which he had travelled frotn Wittenberg, a blast
of the trumpet of the watchman from the cathedral tower
signalling his arrival. In front of the waggon rode the
herald, behind Justus Jonas, who had preceded him to
Worms, and a number of noblemen who had ridden out to
meet him. A crowd of several thousand citizens convoyed
him through the streets to his lodging in the Hospital of the
Knights of St John. 94 On alighting he was embraced by a
priest and, adds Aleander viciously, "looking around him
with his demonic eyes, exclaimed ' God will be with me.' " 95
The Elector had taken good care to secure him a lodging
to which his councillors could have free access to him and
decide the tactics to be followed in the audience before the
Diet, to which he was formally summoned by the Marshal von
Pappenheim at four o'clock on the next day, the r7th April.
If asked to recant he was to request time for deliberation
and avoid a definite avowal. This non-committal attitude
was prescribed by the Elector's advisers 96 and by
Hieronymus Schurf, who aCted as his legal assessor, in
order to frustrate the tactics of Aleander, who had drawn
up the questions to be put to the arch-he:nitic 97 for the
purpose of securing a partial if not a complete recantation,
which would at least tend to discredit him from the outset
in the eyes of the Diet and the nation. 98 Though this
94 Warbeck, an eyewitness of the scene, to Duke John of Saxony,
" Reichstagsakten," ii. 850-851; "Tischreden," v. 69.
90
" Depeschen," 167.
96 This is indeed only an inference.
But it is highly probable
that the Elector's advisers discussed with Luther the tactics to be followed
before the Diet. See the arguments of Miss Wagner against this
probability, " Z.K.G.," xlii. 373 f., and Kalkoff's reply, ibid., xliii.
205. In writing to Spalatin from the Wartburg in September, Luther
reminds him that, but for his advice and that of other friends, he would
have spoken more aggressively at Worms. Enders, iii. 230.
s1 " Depeschen," 169.
98 Kalkoff, "Der Wormser Reichstag," 338 f.
Aleander (" Depeschen," 168-170) says nothing in his dispatch to Rome about a partial
retraction, and represents that,, in accordance with the Bull, he asked
for a complete retraction. The fact is, however, that he had arranged
with the official of Trier so to put the question in order that Luther
might be induced to retract partially and thus discredit himself and
his cause. It was this manceuvre that Schurf sought to disconcert.

prudent tactic .was probably not in accordance with
Luther's inclination, he allowed himself to be guided in
the matter of procedure by the astute Schur, and its
adoption certainly does not imply any wavering on his
part in his determination not to surrender his convictions
to expediency.
At four o'clock on the r7th he was brought by the marshal
and the herald by a bypath to the episcopal palace, in which
the Estates were assembled; in order to avoid the crowded
streets. 99 At the entrance to the palace voices were heard
exhorting him to play the man and not to fear those who
could only kill the body, but not the soul.1 0 Even inside
99
Acta et Gestre D. Mart. Luth. in Comitiis Principum Vuormaclre,
"Reichstagsakten," ii. 547. The Acta are also given in "Werke,"
vii.825 f., and " Opera Latina Var.,'' vi. 5 f.
There are several main original sources for Luther's appearances
before the Diet :I. The Acta et Gestre.
These incorporate the notes of Luther's
speech on the 18th April, made byhimseJf, and'were apparently composed
under his direction by an adherent whose identity is uncertain. They
have been ascribed by Kostlin and others to Spalatin on somewhat
questionable grounds. Knaake concludes in favour of Bucer. Kalkoff
decides in favour of Justus Jonas (" Wormser Reichstag,'' 330 f.).
The question of their authorship is, however, still.an open one.
2. A German translation of Luther's speeches on the 18th (" Reichstagsakten," ii. 575 f.; "Werke,~' vii. 867 f.). This has been attributed
by Kalkoff (" Wormser Reiclistag,'' 334-335) and others to Spalatin.
The authorship is, however, dubious.
.
3, An account emanating from Johann von Ecken, the official, of Trier,
and worked up by Aleander (" Reichstagsakteh," ii. 588 t; "Werke,''
vii. 825 f.).
.
.
.
4. Report by a Spaniard who \vas present; evidently in attendance
on the Emperor (ibid., ii. 632 f.).

5. Reportsby the representatives of Frankfurt, Augsburg, Niirnberg,
and others (ibid.,.ii. 862 f.).
6. Aleander's dispatches edited in the original Italian by Brieger,
under the title, " Aleander und Luther," 1521. Well informed, if
one.-sided, though he himself refrained from attending the sittings out
of respect for the papal Bull.
7. Luther's letters and his reminiscences or' l'eforences in his later
\vorks and in the "Tischreden,'' iii. and v.
100 The story that Frundsberg accosted him with the words, " Little
monk, you are treading a difficult way,'' etc., is not historic.
Luther and the Diet
95
the assembly words of encouragement reached his ear as

he followed the marshal to his appointed place opposite the
official of the Archbishop of Trier, Dr John von der Ecken,
who acted as interrogator. He retained his self-composure
in the presence of the Emperor and the august assembly of
magnates, secular and ecclesiastical, including the ambassadors of foreign nations, 2 who surrounded him. He
greeted Peutinger, who was present, with the exclamation,
" Dr Peutinger, are you also here ! " 3 So little was he
overawed in the presence of the august assembly that the
marshal was fain to remind him, in reference to these
communications, not to speak unless asked to do so. 4
" The fool," reports Aleander, " entered with a smile upon
his face and moved his head constantly from side to side
in the Emperor's presence." 6 Charles, it would appear,
shared the Nuncio's prepossession which could only, as a
matter of course, see in the heretic a depraved specimen of
humanity to whom the orthodox scandalmonger was already
attributing every vice. To Aleander the man with the
pinched features and the piercing eyes, whom the incessant
overstrain of .years of toil and conflict had reduced to a
skeleton, is a libertine and a drunkard! The youthful
Emperor, sitting in state before him, could hardly be expected
to be favourably impressed by the unconventional ease of
manner which presumed to inspect the situation with lively
curiosity and showed no sign of being unnerved in the face
of the assembled majesty and might of the empire. "This
mart;" he exclaimed, according to Aleander, as Luther
entered, " will never make a heretic of me." 6 Luther at
all events was no less determined that the Emperor should
not make of him a recreant to his conscience and the Word
of God.
He was asked by the official whether he acknowledged
1
1 " Reichstagsakten,"
ii. 549.
Inter eundum ad audiendum
Ctesaris mandatum et cum jam esset in ipso principum consessu ab al~is
alia voce coi:nmonebatur.
2 " Reichstagsakten," ii. 632.
Spanish report.
a Ibid., iL 862.
4 Ibid., ii. 547.
Ne quid loqueretur nisi qresitus.
0
G "Depeschen," 171.
Ibid., 196.
296
the authorship of the books on the table before him and

whether he was prepared to recant any part of them ?
"Let the titles of the books be read," called out Schurf
who stood beside him. Aleander had taken, pains to make
a fairly complete collection since his arrival in Germany,
and after a secretary 7 had recited the titles, Luther answered
the first question in the affirmative, whilst adding that the
list was not exhaustive. To the second he replied by asking
time for consideration on the ground ,of the supreme importance of the issue involved. " Since it is a question of
faith and the salvation of souls, and concerns the Word of
God, than which nothing is greater in heaven or ea.rth and
which it behoves us all duly to revere, it would be rash and
dangerous for me to proffer anything without due reflection.
Moreover, since, without due premeditation I might say
less than the matter demands, or more than the truth
admits, and thereby incur the judgment of Christ who
said, ' Whoever shall deny Me before men, him will I deny
before My Father in heaven,' I therefore supplicate your
imperial majesty to grant me time for deliberation in order
that I may_ answer without detriment to the Word of God
and danger to my salvation." s
Following the example of the official, he spoke in Latin
and repeated what he had said in German for the benefit
of those who were not familiar with Latin. The .Emperor
and the Estates thereupon retired for deliberation, and
on reassembling the official expatiated on the enormity
and danger of his heresy and expressed surprise that he
was not prepared with a definite answer, in view of the
fact that he knew the purpose for which he had been cited,
viz., to acknowledge his books and recant their contents.
He concluded his harangue, which, according to Aleander,
wa.s inspired by the Emperor rather than the Estates, by
intimating that, as the result of the deliberation, his majesty,
in order to avoid any semblance of acting precipitately,
had resolved to grant him an interval of twenty-four hours
for consideration. Luther might fairly have disputed the
7 According to the Spanish report, ";Reichstagsakten," ii. 633.
s "Reichstagsakten," ii. 548-549.
Luther and the Diet
2 97
official's version of the citation, which made no mention of a

recantation, but only of an examination of his books and
teaching. But he was precluded from replying, and according to the Nuncio did not appear as cheerful on retiring as on
entering. He was, in fact, acting a prescribed part in thus
declining definitely to answer the second question. Everi
so, he had made it sufficiently clear that for him the Word
of God was the supreme standard and arbiter in this controversy and that his answer would be conditioned by this
imperative consideration. The inference that in thus evading an explicit an]?wer .he had lost his nerve in the presence
of the Emperor and the Estates is not supported by the
reports of the sitting, with a couple of exceptions. Thatof
the official himself bears that he spoke in a somewhat
subdued, but nevertheless intelligible tone. 9 Aleander, as
we have noted, explicitly remarks on the self-confident
attitude in which he faced the assembly. Peutinger, whom
he greeted on his entrance, avers, in his report to the senate
of Augsburg on the 19th April, that he had never found or
seen him otherwise than in good spirits from beginning to
end of the hearing before the Diet.10 Fiirstenberg, the
Frankfurt representative, reports, indeed, that he spoke in
a low voice as if terrified and horror-stricken,11 and the
'Spanish reporter says that he did so "with much terror
and little calm." 12 But Furstenberg admits the inexactitude
of his report 13 and the Spanish scribe betrays a marked
tendency to represent Luther in an unfavourable light.
Certain it is that in the brief account which he wrote on the
same evening to a humanist well-wisher, John Cuspinian of
Vienna, there is no trace of the slightest hesitation on the
subject. " Assuredly, with Christ's help, I shall not recant
one jot." 14
9 " Reichstagsakten," ii. 589. Summissive aliquanto, sed tamen
intelligibili voce dixit.
10 Ibid., ii. 862,
Ich haben in nit anderst gefunden mid gesohen
dan das er gilter ding ist.
11 Ibid., ii. 862. That he spoke in a low voice at the first hearing
is explicable from the fact that it took place in a small chamber before
the Estates only.
12 Ibid., ii. 634.
Con mucha Ansia y poco Sosiego.
14 Enders, iii. 123.
is Ibid., ii. 865.
298
On his arrival at the episcopal palace at four o'clockon the

following day (the r8th), he was kept waiting for two hours
while the Emperor and the Estates were deliberating in an
upper chamber on other business. 16 It was nearly six
o'clock before the hearing, which took place in a larger
hall than on the previous day,16 began in. the presence of
a crowded audience of spectators as well as members. The
official, speaking in Latin and German,1 7 opened the proceedings with a speech in which he extolled once more the imperial
Clemency in granting him a respite for reflection, though
every Christian and especially a learned professor should
have no hesitation in giving fortliwith a reason for his faith.
He concluded by demanding whether he was prepared to
defend all the books which he had recognised as his, or to
retract anything ? 18 The assembly, note the reporters,
awaited the answer with bated breath. Luther, who by all
accounts spoke on this occasion in a clear and animated voice,
did not answer with a direct refusal, but proceeded to show
why he should not be requested straightway to recant.
He. began by asking his august audience to excuse him if
he should not observe the mode of address usual in courts
with which he was not familiar. As a simple monk he was
accustomed to speak and write in simplicity of heart and
with a view to the glory Of God and the truth. He
acknowledged anew the authorship of his books which,
he pointed out, were of various content. One section dealt
With practical religion and morals, and even his opponents
were fain to confess that he had treated these subjects in
so simple and evangelical a fashion that they were without
reproach and worthy to be read by all Christians. Even
the . papal Bull, whilst condemning his books with cruel
15 " Reichstagsakten," ii. 549;
" Depeschen," 173. The former
says that he arrived at five o'clock; the latter at four o'clock, which
is the more probable hour, and is confirmed by the Spanish report.
16 Ibid., ii. 634.
See Kalkoff, " Wormser Reichstag," 335-338.
17 It did not escape notice that the German version was couched in
less virulent terms (virulentius) than the Latin one,: which was given
mainly for the benefit of the clerical members. "Reichstagsakten," ii.
510.
18 Ibid., ii. 550.
Visne libros tuos agnitos omnes tueri. An vero
quicquam retractare ?
Luther and the Diet

and monstrous injustice, had described some as harmless.
Should he retract these, would he not be condemning what
friends and foes alike regarded as the truth ? Another
category was directed against the Papacy and the Curia which
have devastated Christendom, both body and soul, by their
doctrines and their corruptions. Who could doubt or deny,
in the face of the universal experience and complaints of
the papal regime, that the consciences of the faithful were
miserably ensnared, oppressed, and tormented by the laws
and human doctrines of the Pope. The substance of the
German nation was -being devoured by this intolerable
tyranny which was condemned by the canon law itself,
from which he quoted. If he should revoke these, would he
not; therefore, be strengthening this tyranny and opening
not merely the windows but the doors more widely to
further oppression of the people? Nay, would he not
thereby make himself the tool of the oppressor, who could
then adduce the authority of the Emperor and the empire
in support of his tyranny? The speaker knew that he could
count on the sympathy of his audience in thus arraigning the
papal misgovernment, and gave free rein to his invective
until he was checked by the Emperor who, according to
Aleander, commanded hirtl to forbear. further reference to
the Pope, whilst allowing him to continue his speech.19
A third category dealt with the writings .of individuals
who had defended the Roman tyranny. and had striven to
overthrow his conclusions. Whilst he admitted that he
had written inore sharply than befitted his profession; he
had defended the teaching of Christ; not his own opinions,
and his revocation of these writings would also only conduce
to aggravate the evils from which the Church was suffering.
At the same time, since he was a man, and not God, he was
ready to say with Christ, " If I have spoken evil, bear
witness of the evil." Unlike Christ he was liable to err
and was ready, as he ought, to hear such "witness." He,
therefore, besought his majesty, the Estates, or anyone else,
i 9 " Depeschen," 17 5.
Charles had little knowledge of Latin and
did not understand German, and Kalkoff supposes that his confessor
directed his attention to the violence of Luther's language. " Entscheidungsjahre," 238.
300
high or low, to bear witness and convince him of his errors

from the Scriptures. If thus convinced, he would most
readily revoke and be the first to throw his books into
the fire.
As to the reproach directed against him by the official
at the previous sitting that his teaching tended to excite
strife and tumult, the Word of God must inevitably give
rise to strife and tumult, in accordance with the saying of
Christ, "I came not to send peace but a sword." Let them
not forget that God is wonderful and terrible in His counsels,
and beware of making an inauspicious beginning of the reign
of the young Emperor by. condemning the Word of God.
"I speak thus, not because I imagine that this august
assembly stands in need of instruction or admonition from
me, but because I may not deny to Germany the service
which I owe to her. And thus I commend myself to your
majesty and lordships, humbly asking that you may not
suffer me without cause to be calumniated by the machinations of my adversaries." 2o
The Emperor and his advisers who, on the strength of his
apparent hesitation on the previous day, .had reckoned on
at least a ,partial recantation, thereupon retired for consultation. As the result of this consultation the official
was instructed to demand a definite reply and to hold out
the lure that, if he recanted his errors against the faith,
the Emperor was prepared to intercede with the Pope on
his behalf and would not insist on the indiscriminate burning
of his books. The orator, who had also been well primed
by Aleander before the sitting, 21 again adopted a hectoring
tone. In a long harangue he strove to invalidate Luther's
plea for a judicial examination of his books on the assumption that the received faith in its medireval form was not
open to question. To discriminate between his writings
was merely to evade the issu!(. Had he not, after his
condemnation by the Pope, put forth far more execrable
writings than even before ? Had he not asserted the
heresies of John Hus to be true and thus utterly destroyed
the authority of a General Council? All heretics have
2o
"Reichstagsakten," ii. 551554

Depeschen,P 172-173.
al "
Luther and the Diet

mingled the false with the true and thus made their books
only the more dangerous. All have appealed to Scripture
in defence Of their own notions. Luther has adduced nothing
new, but merely repeated the contentions of the Beguines,
the Waldensians, Wiclif, and Hus, and other condemned
heretics. What the Catholic Church has judicially
determined and our fathers have held as the true faith
Luther would presumptuously reject on the assumption
that he alone has discovered the true faith, and thus make
Christianity a laughing-stock to Jew and Turk. What
audacity to arrogate to himself alone a knowledge of the
Scriptures against all the doctors of the Church and to be
wise above all others ! iet him, therefore, abandon all
thought of disputing what he was bound to believe with
firm and unquestioning faith, and give a definite and straight~
forward answer 22 to the question whether he will revoke
and retract the errors contained in his works. 23
Luther had at last come to the parting of the ways in
the face of the issue thus stated between a faith based on
tradition and corporate authority and a faith based on
individual conviction. The hour of destiny had come and
with it the man. He uttered only a single, though very
involved sentence. But this utterance was to prove the
most fateful in modern religious history. It involved not
merely a reformation, but a revolution of the medireval
Church. " Since, therefore, your majesty and your lordships
desire a. simple answer, I will give you one straight to the
point and without (intentional) offence. 24 Unless I am
convinced by the testimony of Scripture, or by an evident
22
Non ambigue, non cornute respondeas.

" Reichstagsakten," ii. 591-594.
24 Responsum neque cornutum neque dentatum-" with neither
horns nor teeth." The phrase literally translated is rather unintelligible.
The non cornutum refers to the assumed evasion by Luther of the
official's question. The non dentatum to the desire of Luther not to
give an offensive answer and evidently refers to the previous rebuke
of the Emperor, who had interrupted him in his attack on the Papacy
and commanded him to refrain from what.he deemed offensive language.
For the most recent and at the same time illuminating discussion of
the phrase, see Kalkoff, "'Vormser Reichstag,'' 347 f. See also
Meissner, " Archiv ftir Reformationsgeschichte," iii. 321 f.
23
302
reasoh (ratione evidente)-for I confide neither in the Pope

nor a Council alone, since it is certain that they have often
erred and contradicted themselves-:! am held fast .by the
Scriptures adduced by me, and my conscience is taken
captive by God's Word, and I neither can nor will revoKe
anything, seeing that it is not safe or right to act against
conscience. God help me. Amen.'! 25
This deliberate declaration decisively frustrated the
attempt to extract from him even a partial retraction~
It created a profound sensation. "There was a great
noise," remarks Peutinger, 26 as the excited and exhausted
members began to leave the hall. Amid this hubbub the
official made a final effort to secure a recantation. "Your
conscience, Martin, is in error and. you may safely let it
alone and recant: Conscience is no valid plea against a
General Council, which cannot err and which you cannot
possibly prove to have erred in matters of faith, though fr
may possibly have erred in matters of morals." 27 To which
Luther retorted that General Councils had erred and he
was prepared to prove it. Whereupon the Emperor impatiently rose from his seat, exclaiming that he had had
enough of this argumentation against Councils, and retired
in angry mood from the excited assembly. 28 As Luther
made his way out accompanied by two guards, the Spanish
courtiers broke into hisses and jeers. 29 In the excitement
and confusion his friends concluded that he was being led
away to prison and protested loudly until Luther reassured
them. 30 .. Outside he was .greeted by the Spanish guards
20 "Reichstagsakten," ii. 555;
cf. Luther's brief recapitulation
in his letter to the Emperor, 28th April, Enders, iii. 131. The usual
version of the final words, " Here I stand, I can do. no other," are
found in an account printed shortly afterwards at Wittenberg. They are
evidently an amplification of the words actually utte.red by Luther; The
German translation of the Latin version of the speech also contains only
the words, "God help me. Amen." "Reichstagsakten," ii. 582;
"Werke," vii. 877. Luther, who had so far spoken in both Latin and
German, delivered.this fateful declaration only in Latin.
26 Ibid., ii. 862.

28 "Depes.chen," 176;
29
27
Ibid., ii. 594.
" Reichstagsakten,'' ii. 558.
ao So Luther himself related long afterwards. " Werke," 64, 370 f;
(Erlangen edition); cf..'' Tischreden,"v. 1l
Luther; and the Diet

with the cry, " To the fire with him ! " 31 Luther atld his
adherents, on the other hand, appeared in exalted m.ood
and passed on with uplifted hands after the old German
fashion 0f celebrating a victory. 32 "I am through, I am
through," 33 he cried joyfully on reaching his lodging and
receiving the congratulations of his .friends. Had he a
hundred heads he would gladly lose them all rather than
belie the truth.
He had no, little reason for jubilation. His heroic
declaration had evoked the admiration of not a few of the
members of the Diet who might not understand or share his
theological views. The Elector was emphatic in his approba~
tion: "Right well has Dr Martin spoken in Latin and
Gen.nan before the Emperor, the princes, and all the Estates.
He is much .too bold for me." 34 He sent his chaplain to
let him know that he could count on his continued support,
and the approval of the wary strategist was a guarantee
that his enemies would not be allowed to crush him. Duke
Eric of Brunswick, though a good Catholic, showed his
goodwill by sending him a goblet of beer 1:o cool himself
after the exertion and excitement of the day's ordeal, whilst
the young Landgrave Philip of Hesse paid him a visit and
parted with the words, " Dear Doctor, if you are in the
right, may God sustain you," 35
These encouraging omens doubtless contributed to the
exaltation with which he emerged from the ordeal of these
two days. The real secret of it was, however, the consciousness that he had achieved a moral victory, whatever the
Emperor and the Diet might devise against him. This
victory did not consist merely in the fact that he had faced
unflinchingly the majesty and might of the empire.. Its
significance lies rather in the fact that he had dared to
challenge an even greater power to which a large part of
Christendom as well as the empire owned allegiance, to
pit individual conviction against the principle of corporate
31 "
32
33
34
3 '3
Reichstagsakten," ii. 636. Spanish report.

Ibid., ii. 636; "Depeschen," 176.
Ibid., ii. 852. lch bin hindurch, ich bin hindurch.
Spalatin, " Annales," 49 f. ; cf. " Tischreden," v. 7.I.
"Tischreden," iii. 285; v .. 81.
304
infallibility which the Roman Church embodied and had

implacably maintained against both sect and individual.
To challenge this principle had hitherto been equivalent to
challenging Christianity itself. And this was the audacious
thing that Luther had ventured to do. If the conscience
and reason of the individual are to decide, what becomes of
the truth, or, what might seem even more omir10us to the
ecclesiastical mind, what becomes of the Church? Would
this challenge not lead to universal anarchy in the State
as well as universal error in the Church? What a convulsion
had it not led to in the case of the Hussites roo years earlier,
and what dire results must not be apprehended from this
revival of Hussite heresy ? If a General Council can err in
matters of faith, what of the faith and where to find the
truth? The truth, retorted Luther, resides in the conscience
and reason of the individual, enlightened and guided by
Scripture. It was indescribably daring, superlatively heroic.
This Augustinian monk was by no means the first thus to
challenge the principle of corporate infallibility in things
religious. A long line of confessors and martyrs had dared
and died for conscience sake throughout the centuries.
Hus had spoken as unflinchingly at Constance as Luther
spoke at Worms, and Hus was, if possible, the more heroic
of the two, inasmuch as the circumstances of the age in the
early fifteenth century were more hopeless for the speaker
than in the early sixteenth. Nevertheless, even Luther,
with the Elector to protect him and the national feeling
of Germany largely arraying itself behind him, and with a
more conscientious Emperor than Sigismund to observe his
pledged word, in spite of the prompting of an Aleander
to break it, must have felt that, in adducing the plea of
the individual conscience against the authority of the
Church, he was still attempting the impossible thing.
Happily for his cause, the world had made some advance,
under humanist influence, in enlightenment since Hus's
day, though it had burned Savonarola less than a quarter
of a century ago, whereas the Papacy and the Church had
continued to lose in moral, if not material strength. Moreover, the anti-papal feeling in the Diet was too strong and
too well justified by the grievances (gravamina), which a
Luther and the Diet

committee was engaged in formulating, 36 for the Emperor
and his ministers to succeed in enlisting forthwith the
condemnation of the heretic. When, therefore, on the
following day (rgth) Charles summoned the Electors and a
number of the princes to deliberate on his fate, they asked
time to consider the question. " Good," returned the
Emperor; "but I will tell you beforehand my own conclusion
on the subject." 87 He was, he said, resolved to abide by
the faith of his ancestors. It was preposterous that a single
monk should be right in his opinion and the whole of
Christendom in error for r,ooo years and more. It would
be a disgrace to the German empire, which had been constituted the. guardian of the Catholic faith, to tolerate even
the suspicion of heresy. In view of the stubbornness shown
by Luther on the previous day, he regretted that he had
delayed so long in proceeding against him and his false
doctrine. He had resolved not to give him a further hearing,
but. to take the necessary measures for the suppression of
his heresy, whilst observing meanwhile the safe conduct
granted to him.ss
The majority of the Diet was not to be thus intimidated.
In the electoral chamber, indeed, Joachim of Brandenburg
carried a motion to aid and abet the Emperor, against the
Electors of Saxony and the Palatinate. 39 But his brother,
the Archbishop of Maintz, took fright at the placards which
appeared overnight on the walls of the Rathhaus and other
buildings, threatening a popular rising in defence of Luther
and bearing the ominous words Bundschuh (the war cry of
the peasants) thrice repeated. 40 In his alarm the archbishop
88 "
Reichstagsakten," ii. 66 l f.
"Depeschen," 177
88
" Reichstagsakten," ii. 595.
The emphatic declaration was read
in both French and German. Many of the princes, notes Aleander,
in his jubilant dispatch to Rome, turned deadly pale during the reading
of it.
39 Ibid., ii. 596-598.
Aleander erroneously says (" Depeschen,"
178) that the decision was unanimous, but corrects himself on p. 183.
40 " Depeschen," 182. At the same time a placard containing a
denunciation of Luther. and his heresy appeared for the purpose of
discrediting him and his cause. Kalkoff, "Wormser Reichstag,"
352-355.
87
20
306
urgently represented to the Emperor the danger of provoking

a civil war. 41 Charles laughed at his fears. The placard
was but the dodge of some would-be Minutius Screvola,
and in reality these threats were merely the fireworks of
one of Luther's humanist friends, Hermann von dem Busche.
But he could not afford to ignore the will of the Estates
who, under the influence of the astute Elector, 42 united in
representing the desirability of affording the heretic a
further hearing with a view to his recantation. Having
regard to his request to be shown his errors and in order
that the people might not be led to believe that he had
been condemned unrefuted, they proposed that a commission of three or four men learned in the Scriptures
should be nominated to discuss with him the main points,
doctrinal and institutional, for the purpose of bringing
about a reconciliation. They strengthened their proposal
by reminding his majesty that God willeth not the death
of a sinner, but that he should repent and live. They
ignored the papal Bull of Condemnation and left the arbiters
free to examine Luther's writings afresh 'and draw up a
set of articles which he was to be asked to revoke, with
reasons given for this demand. This proc~dure, they pointed
out, would tend to forestall the evils which were ;otherwise
to be apprehended. If Luther should nevertheless persist
in his opinions, they would then support the Emperor. in
taking measures against him as an incorrigible heretic,
subject to the due observance of the safe conduct granted
him. 43 To this request the Emperor reluctantly acceded
on the 22nd April, and granted an interval of three days
for the proposed conference. If the Estates succeeded in
thereby bringing about the submission of. the heretic, he
was prepared to intercede with the Pope for him. But
he emphatically refused to take part in the conference,
or allow his ministers to do so. 44
Depeschen," 182-183.
Ibit/., 184.
In this answer the Estates
used the French language in which the Emperor's communication had
been written. Charles understood only Spanish and French.
u Ibid., ii. 601; " Depeschen," 184.
41 "
42
The Edict of Worms
IV.
THE EDICT OF WORMS
Ort the 24th April, Luther accordingly appeared before a

representative commission of the Estates consisting of the
Archbishop of Trier, who presided, the Elector of Brandenburg, Duke George of Saxony, the Bishops of Brandenburg
and Augsburg, the Master of the Teutonic Order, Dr Peutinger
of Augsburg, and the representative of Strassburg, with
Dr Vehus, Chancellor of the Margrave of Baden, as orator
instead of the official of Trier. On this occasion he was
accompanied by Schurf, Amsdorf, and Justus Jonas. The
commission was certainly not distinguished by its theological
learning, for both Peutinger and Vehus were jurists arid the
prelates were ecclesiastics rather than theologians, and were
no match for the Wittenberg professor in either intellectual
ability or erudition. Dr Vehus, who opened the conference
with a long speech, disclaimed in fact any pretension to
speak as a theological expert, 45 and in this confession his
fellow-members might well have joined. He adopted a very
different tone, however, from that of the hectoring official,
and sought to persuade Luther in a brotherly spirit to
reconsider his refusal to retract. He erilarged on the duty
of submission to the decisions of General Councils as the
authoritative organ of the Holy Spirit. Councils might have
decreed diverse but not coritrary opinions (diversa, but not
contraria), and by this scholastic distinction he sought to
disprove Luther's assertion' that they had contradicted
themselves. With equal plausibility he sought to overthrow the appeal to conscience by reminding him that
distrust of self, humility, and the avoidance of offence and
strife were also enjoined in the Gospel, and by pointing out
the grave danger involved in his principle to civil government and social order and the risk of frustrating, by his
obstinate adherence to his own opinions, the growth of the
good seed which he had undoubtedly sown in some of his
1
Reichstagsakten," ii. 612 and 618. Report of Vehus on the

conference.
45 "
308
books. Let him, therefore, desist from his opinionated

opposition to authority and submit his writings and his
teaching to the judgment of the Emperor and the Estates. 46
In reply, Luther cordially acknowledged the moderate
and kindly spirit which had dictated this admonition.
He had no intention of bringing the authority of Councils
into contempt. But the Council of Constance, in condemning the doctrine of Hus that the Church consists in the whole
body of the predestined, had condemned the Word of God
and the article of the creed, "I believe in the Holy Catholic
Church." He would submissiyely accept sentence of death
at the Emperor's hands, but he refused to be compelled
to revoke the plain Word of God, in the defence of which
it was incumbent to obey God rather than man. It was
not possible to avoid offence in matters of faith and morals.
Christ Himself was the great stumbling block. He had
always taught obedience to governments arid magistrates,
even to bad ones. But he refused to be compelled to deny
God's Word against his conscience.
.
' .
Would he, then, agree to submit his writings to the
judgment of the Emperor and the Diet ? He expressed his
readiness to do so. Nay, he would accept the humbiest
Christian as judge, provided the judgment rested on the
authority of the divine word. He quoted Paul and Augustine
in support of this principle. " Do I understand you to
say," asked the Elector of Brandenburg, "that you will not
submit uriless convinced by Holy Scripture ? " " Yes, most
gracious lord," replied Luther, "or by clear and eviclent
reasons.;' 47
Thus the matter ended as far as the commission of the
Estates was concerned, and a final effort made by the
Archbishop of Trier on his own responsibility was equally
unsuccessful. He invited Luther, Schurf, and Amsdorf
to dine with him along with the Frankfurt theologian,
Cochlreus, a former humanist sympathiser whom the
"Babylonic Captivity" had alienated and who was on
the outlook to advance his own interests. The official,
supported by Cochlreus, argued afresh that heretics like
46 "
Reichstagsakten," ii. 612-618.
The Edict of Worms

Arius had based their heresy on Scripture in order to
prove that such heretical. appeals to Scripture had no
validity against the decrees of a General Council. 48 After
dinner Cochlreus continued the discussion with him and his
friends in Luther's lodging and suggested the expedient of a
public disputation, if Luther would waive his safe conduct,
which he, of course, refused to do, whilst carrying on the
discussion in. an amicable and even jovial mood. 49 As the
three days respite granted by the Emperor (22nd to 24th
April) extended only to the evening of the 24th, the archbishop begged and received an extension of two days. He
accordingly notified Luther to meet Vehus and Peutinger
in further conference on the morrow, the 25th. Vehus
again pressed on him the proposal to submit his writings to
the judgment of .the Emperor and the Estates. Luther
objected that the Emperor had burned his books before the
meeting of the Diet and had issued a mandate against
hiin whilst proceeding under safe conduct to Wornis. He
nevertheless asked an interval for consideration, and on re~
suming the conference in the afternoon he once more insisted
on the cardinal condition that his writings should be judged
only in accordance With the testimony of Scripture. Vehus
then suggested that he should agree to submit them to the
judgnient of a future Council. This he was willing to do
provided that it was convened without delay, that the
articles to be submitted should be specified to him beforehand, and that he should be free to write and preach in
accordance with the Word of God on all matters not contained
in these articles.5o
This agreement Vehus communicated to the archbishop
who thereupon summoned Luther to a private conference
with himself, to which Spalatin was later admitted.
48 "Reichstagsakten," ii.
563-564, and the report of Cochlreus.
Ibid., ii. 625-627.
49 Ibid., ii. 627-631.
50 Ibid., ii. 619-623.
Luther, in his letter to the Emperor and the
Estates after his departure from Worms, says that he assumed that
the articles were to be considered in the light of the evidence of the
Word. Enders, iii. 131,138. "Hie," he says, "fuit controversire
totius cardo."
3I o
" What," asked the archbishop, "if the articles to be

referred to the future Council included matters condemned
by 'the Council of Constance ? " " In that case," was the
reply, "I cannot and will not undertake to remain silent.
Certain I am that in these decrees the Council condemned
God's Word, and I will rather lose my head than prove
false to the clear Word of God." 51 According to Alealider
the archbishop also attempted to persuade him to retract
by offering him a rich priory in his diocese and undertaking to
protect him if, in consequence of his retraction, his followers
should threaten to kill him. Luther indignantly rejected
the offer and also refused to make even a partial retraction,
the effect of which would have been, as Aleander remarks,
.to discredit him and his cause in the eyes of the people, and
which the archbishop proposed with this intent. 52
The negotiations of these laborious days thus ended in
failure. The baffled archbishop notified the fact to the
Emperor, who forthwith sent Luther a mandate to leave
Worms on the morrow, the 26th, to return to Wittenberg
within twenty-one days, and to refrain from preaching or
writing during his journey thither. The failure was inevitable in view of Luther's determination to oppose to the
demand for a recantation the appeal to Sqipture. To
demand that his, opponents should accept the Scriptures as
the only arbiter of the question at issue was in reality to
ask them to renounce many of the doctrines and institutions
of the Church in its medireval form. To make them the
only test of doctrine and practice was to cut at the rootof
the papal and priestly power and the medireval sacramental
system and to ask his opponents to commit ecclesiastical
suicide. On the other hand, to convince him of the truth
of the .medireval doctrines and practice to which he objected
was equally impossible for the simple reason that Scripture,
historically interpreted, could not be made to sanction what
was the product of a gradual and lengthy evolution. To
his opponents his insistence on the exclusive authority of
Reichstagsakten,'' ii. 567.
Depeschen," 190-192. The proposal was in keeping with the
policy of Aleander and the Romanists from the outset to entrap Luther
'
into a partial retraction.
61 "
52 "
The Edict. of Worms
311
Scripture appeared as mere stubbornness and diabolic perversity. He certainly was dogmatic enough in maintaining
this principle. There is doubtless also something of the doctrinaire in his contention that his interpretation of Scripture
is the only permissible one, though he professes his willingness
to accept a better one and, in theory at least, observes the
attitude of the open mind. He stands, too, for persuasion
and toleration against the brutal principle of suppressing
conscience by threats and violence and denying freedom
of thought in things religious. He does so on religious
rather than on broad human grounds. His contention on
behalf of the liberty of the individual springs from religious
conviction rather than from the objective search for truth
as an indefeasible right of the individual reason. .It might
be difficult to argue on the merits of the case with one whose
convictions are based on faith rather than reason. Nor
does he make due allowance for the fact that the
interpretation even of Scripture cannot, in the nature of
the case, be a thing of mathematical certainty and necessarily
tends to difference of opinion. For Luther the evidence of
Scripture is simple, clear, and convincing, though he admits
that it is not all on the same level of absolute credibility.
The Epistle of James, for instance, compared with _those of
Paul, is of limited authority.
At the same time, from the historical point of view, the
appeal to the sources of Christianity as the true norm of
what its founders taught and ordained is a very strong one.
If the object of the controversy was to establish whether
the doctrines and institutions of the medireval Church were
in accord with original Christianity, Luther was amply
justified in his contention that the issue could , only be
settled in the light of the New Testament evidence. To
adduce the decisions of later <:;ouncils as of equal authority
and obligation with the dicta of Christ and the Apostles,
on the assumption that Councils cannot err and the Pope
is the infallible judge of the faith, was historically
inadmissible. This assumption was open to the gravest
objection if only in view of the dissensions of which these
Councils were the arena, the limited . knowledge of their
members 1 the difficulty of arriving at a true judgment in
3r 2
matters historical, the difference of time and circumstance,

the subtle influence of the tendency to read the present
into the past, the play of human passion and prejudice
from which no assembly, even of ecclesiastics, is exempt.
It was, indeed, a questionable inference that what such an
assembly decreed was ipso facto infallibly true and binding
on the individual reason and conscience. This could at
most be only a matter of belief. It was not capable of
proof. However much Luther might emphasise faith, he
had lost all confidence in this species of it. Moreover, he had
no confidence in the unconditional reference of his case
to such a Council. The proposal was in reality but a device
to evade the real issue he had raised and disarm him in
' the meantime. The Council could not possibly have treated
the issue as an open question. It could not overthrow the
dedsion of the Council of Constance without virtually
justifying both Luther and Hus and without profoundly
modifying, if not revolutionising, the medireval Church.
Luther received the imperial mandate on the evening
of the 25th with complete equanimity, though he refused
to be bound by the imperial prohibition not to preach on
the return journey, and in the sequel did not observe
it. " As it has seemed good to the Lord, so let it be.
Blessed be the name of the Lord." He expressed his
gratitude to the Emperor and the Estates for according
him a hearing and for the honourable observance of the
safe conduct. " I have sought nothing but a reformation
of the Church in accordance with Holy Scripture. I would
suffer death and infamy, surrender life and reputation for
his imperial majesty and the empire. I would reserve
nothing but the liberty to confess and bear witness to the
Word of God alone." 58 Apart from this irrefragable faith,
he had substantial reason for his equanimity in the knowledge
that the Elector had taken measures to protect him from the
ultimate consequences of his heroic refusal to retract. At
ten o'clock on the 26th he set out on the return journey,
ostensibly to Wittenberg. His real destination was the
Wartburg, though the secret was known only to the Elector's
08 "
Reichstagsakten," ii. 568.
The Edict of Worms

advisers, to himself, the Warden of the Wartburg, Hans
von Verlepsch, and the trusty Knight of Altenstein,
Burkhard von Wenkheim, to whom was entrusted the duty
of intercepting him in the Thuringian Forest. 54 On the
4th May he had reached Altenstein. Here in the gathering
darkness he was seized by a party of horsemen under the
command of the Knight and the Warden and hurried
away by a roundabout route to the Wartburg overlooking
Eisenach, 55 where, as Ritter George, he was to spend nearly
a year in safe obscurity. From Friedberg he had sent back
the herald Sturm with letters to the Emperor and the Estates,
reiterating his readiness to render due obedience ,in temporal
things, but claiming and maintaining the right and duty
of obeying God, not man, in things pertaining to the salvation
of the soul. He had shown his obedience as a subject by
appearing at Worms, in spite of the fact thathis safe conduct
had been violated by the mandate against his books. As
his opponents had not refuted his teaching from Scripture,
the only norm of Christian truth, he begged his majesty
and the Estates not to resort to violence to coerce his
conscience, and renewed his offer to submit to the judgment
of an impartial tribunal, on condition that its judgment was
based on God's Word alone. 5 6
This appeal was addressed to deaf ears as far as the
Emperor at least was concemed, 57 though a month elapsed
before he, on the 26th May, signed the Edict placing Luther
and his adherents under the ban of the empire. On the
3oth April he communicated to the Estates his intention
to proceed against the Lutheran heresy and asked their
advice. The Estates in reply requested that the proposed
Edict should be submitted to them for consideration and
54 The Elector himself, whilst arranging the plan with his advisers
(" Tischreden," v. 82), did not prescribe the place and left this to
Feilitzsch and Thun in order to be free to profess his ignorance on the
subject. See '' Depeschen," 235, and the Elector's "Biiefwechsel mit
Herzog Johann," 15 f., ed. by Forstemann.
56 See his own account in" Tischreden," v. 82.
56 Enders, iii. 130 f., 28th April.
0 7 The Elector in fact could find no one courageous enough to present
it to the Emperor, so that it did not come irtto his hands. Kalkoff,
"Wormser Reichstag," 379.
3I 4
report. 58 In professing to be guided by "the advice and

foreknowledge" of the Estates, the Emperor was only
acting in accordance with the constitution of the empire,
which required him to secure their agreement in a matter
of this kind affecting the national interest as well as th.e
fate of Luther. In all important national affairs he was
in fact limited by the cooperation and consent of the Diet
and was not entitled to issue an Edict of such importance
on his own responsibility. 59 The reply df the Estates clearly
assumes this constitutional principle on which the action
of the Emperor in intimating his intention for their consideration was based. He was, moreover, obliged to avoid
precipitate measures in view of the necessity of securing
their sanction of a large force in the impending war with
France. The task of drawing up the proposed Edict was,
however, committed, not to the German commission which,
under the presidency of the Archbishop of Salzburg, 60
had previously dealt with the subject, but to Aleander, 61
.who by working all night presented the Latin draft to the
Chancellor Gattinara on the morning of the following day
(rst May). 62 To his chagrin, instead of accepting it as it
stood, the chancellor submitted it to the Emperor's Germar;t
Privy Council, whom the Nuncio suspected of partiality
for Luther. 63 The revision did not materially modify the
Report of Schwarzenberg to the
Dukes of Bavaria. Wurde beslossen das kei. mt., wie die irer mt. fur guet
ansehen, stellen !assen, die si, die stande, in underthanigkeit ersehen
und auf ir mt. begern ir guetbedunken auch darin anzaigen wollten ;
cf. the report of Spengler to Niirnberg, ibid., ii. 898.
69 See on this subject the arguments of Kalkoff, "Wormser Reichstag," 358 f., against Paulus, who maii;itains the legality of the Edict
as finally issued by the Emperor. " Zur Geschichte des Wormser
Reichstags," Hist. Jahrbuch, 269 f. (1919); cf. Paquier, "Aleandre,"
270 (1900).
60
The archbishop, who was out of favour with the court, had withdrawn. from Worms, and his withdrawal provided the Emperor and
his ministers with the opportunity of transferring the task to Aleander.
Kalkoff, " Entstehung des Wormser Edikts," 195 (1913).
61 " Reichstagsakten," ii. 638; " Depeschen," 206.

62 " Depeschen," 206-207; " Ents.tehung," 196-197.
63
" Depeschen," 207-208; " Entstehung," 235.
Aleander's suspicion was unfounded.
The Edict of Worms
31 5
contents, however, and as thus revised it was translated

into German, and on the 8th May presented by Aleander
to be forthwith printed and published. 64 The printing was
already being proceeded with and on the r2th May Aleander
handed the Emperor the Latin original and the German
translation, written on parchment, for signature. To his
astonishment Charles declined to sign on the ground that
he deemed it necessary to submit it for the consideration
of the Estates. 65 He had not yet secured their co-operation in the war against France and hesitated to affix his
signature to a document which outlawed many of his
German subjects, as well as the heretic himself, 66 and was
fitted on this account to endanger the negotiations for
the grant of 4,000 horse and 20,000 foot for the war. 67
Moreover, Sickingen and Hutten were assuming a threatening attitude in defence of Luther. At the same time he
assured the Nuncio that the proposed reference would be
merely formal. 68 Though the Estates on the same day
agreed to grant this force on certain conditions, it was
not till the 23rd that they formally declared their intention to support him against the enemy. 69 He had, too,
by this time concluded a formal alliance with the Pope
which bound him to use all his strength for the suppression
of the Lutheran heresy.
There was, therefore, now no reason for further reserve
in the matter of the Edict, and two days later (25th May)
he closed the Reichstag, whose ranks had been thinned by
the departure of the Electors of Saxony and the Palatinate
,,.
and many others, without having submitted it for its
"Reichstagsakten," ii. 639; "Depeschen," 214-215.
Depeschen," 230.
The dubiety of the Archbishop of Maintz and others on this
head appears from Aleander's letter to the archbishop. " Reichstagsakten," ii. 640; cf. " Depeschen," 243; Balan, " Monumenta
Reformation is Lutheranre," 263 (I 884).
67 " Depeschen," 232-233. The negotiations were also concerned
with the establishment of the Reichs regiment or the government of the
empire in the Emperor's absence from Germany, and the Reichskammer
or imperial court of justice.
68 Ibid., 23r.
e9 " Reichstagsakten," ii. 931.
64
66 "
88
3I 6
consideration and approval: 70 In order to give it at least

the semblance of the sanction of the Estates, he convened
on the evening of the same day the four remaining Electors
and a few of the bishops and the princes at the episcopal
palace. Here Aleander handed him a papal brief, thanking
him for his zeal for the faith, which was read by the
Chancellor Gattinara a.mid the applause of the Spanish and
Italian courtiers, who were present in large numbers;
Aleander also distributed briefS of a similar tenor to the
Electors and the princes. Whereupon, after the Withdrawal
of the papal representatives, the Emperor called for, the
Edict, which was produced by Dr Ziegler, the Vice-Chancellor.
"This," said Charles, speaking in French, "is the Edict
which I propose tO execute in the affair of Luther.'' It
wa.s apparently the German version of it which was read
by Dr Spiegel amid the tense attention of the magnates
present, and which had been further revised for the purpose
of toning down and compressing the virulent rhetoric of
the original Latin version, without substantially altering
its sense. 71 At the conclusion of the recital the Elector of
Brandenburg acted his part in this prearranged performance
by declaring the approval and consent of the Estates, who
would not desire to alter a single jot of the Edict, and
requested its execution against the heretic and his adherents;
On the following day, the 26th, the Emperor put his signature
to the parchment copies of the Latin original and the German
version, publicly and ostentatiously presented to him by
Aleander at the conclusion of High Mass in the cathedral, 72
and issued a proclamation announcing that it had been
enacted "with the consent and will of the Estates" and
commanding its execution thi;oughout the empire. 73
70
"Reichstagsakten," ii. 937 f.; "Depeschen," 245-246. The
closing sitting was held in the Rathhaus, where the Diet usually sat.
71 Kalkoff, "Entstehung," 251 f.; "Entscheidungsjahre," 266;
72
"Depeschen," 249-250. See also "Reichstagsakten," ii. 947.
Report of the Venetian Contarini.
73
" Reichstagsakten," ii. 659-661. Wir haben aus merklichen,

beweglichen ursachen, mit rat und willen unser und des heiligen reichs
churfiirsten, fi.irsten und stande, hie bei uns versanielt, ein edict und
gebotsbrief Martin Luther und ein Gesetz die druckerei berurend ausgeen
!assen.
The Edict of Worms
317
The professed consent of the Estates was, to say the

least, misleading. The Diet had been formally closed and
this surreptitious meeting of a few magnates, devised by
the plotters behind the scenes, was evidently a ruse to
invest the Edict with what was really a fictitious sanction. 74
The proclamation conveys the impression that it was voted
at an ordinary sitting of the Reichstag. In reality it was only
approved by a rump manipulated for this purpose. This
underhand tactic certainly suggests the conclusion that the
Emperor and his advisers were afraid to put the Edict to the
test of. a regular discussion and vote and were fain to evade,
in this surreptitious fashion, the request. of the Estates on
the 3oth April that it should be submitted for their consideration and approval. It had been the striving' of
Aleander all along to prevent or evade such discussion
and vote, and in unison with the Emperor and Gattinara,
he had succeeded in his purpose. Even so, as his dispatches
show, a good deal of bribery in money or promises was
required to secure. this questionable declaration in
vindication of the faith against a heretic who was also
the mouthpiece of a national revulsion from Rome. As. it
was, Aleander was so anxious about the final issue, in view
of the undoubted sympathy of the people for Luther and
the possibility of vacillation on the part of the anti-Lutherans
at the last moment, that, even after the declaration of the
evening of the 25th, he spent a sleepless night and was only
reUevec;l from his anxiety when the Emperor at last put his
signature to the fateful document and directed the issue of
the proclamation for its execution on the following day.7 5
Even the date of the document, the Sth May, was apt to
be misleading, though in retaining the date of the draft
on which it had been submitted to and practically approved
by the Emperor; instead of inserting that of the actual
acceptance of the so-called enactment, the Emperor and
his advisers were not necessarily guilty of an act of bad
faith ..
74 Armstrong ("Emperor Charles V.,'' i. 79) says that "the Diet
on its last day unanimously approved the Edict of Worms.'' He does
not seem to have grasped the situation .
. 1.6 " Depeschen," 248-249.
3I 8
The Edict recites the efforts made by the Pope to bring

Luther to recant, the condemnation of his teaching, and the
steps 'taken by the Emperor, in obedience to the papal
will, to execute the Bull of Condemnation. Instead of
repenting of his perversity and seeking absolution, Luther
had persisted like a madman in his heresies and blasphemies,
and had aggravated his offence by continuing and widening
his attack on the doctrines and institutions of the Church.
Details are given of the revolutionary and calumnious
contentions contained in his books against the papal and
priestly power, the sacraments, the authority of the Fathers
and Doctors recognised by the Church. His teaching is
subversive of government as well as religion and morality,
and tends to excite nothing but rebellion, strife, war, murder,
plunder, and conflagration. It is both anarchic and antinomian inasmuch as he advocates freedom from all law,
ecclesiastical and civil, and has in fact written worse things
against the temporal than against the ecclesiastical power;
He has aspersed with his dirty mouth the Council of
Constance as " a synagogue of Satan," and denounced the
Emperor Sigismund and the princes of the empire, who
carried out the burning of Hus, as apostles of Antichrist and
murderers. He has boasted that if Hus was a heretic, he
was tenfold more a heretic. He is the very devil himself
, in the form of a man in monk's cowl, who has collected
all the forgotten heresies of former times in one stinking
puddle, with some new abominations of his own, especially
his doctrine of justification by faith, under the pretence of
proclaiming the Gospel. The Emperor, in duty bound to
protect and support the Holy See, and to stand fast in the
faith of his ancestors, then details the steps taken in conjunction with the Estates to secure the retraction of the
notorious and obdurate heretic. In consequence of the
failure of these efforts and his obstinate refusal to retract,
he has decreed, in virtue of his imperial authority and
"with the unanimous consent and will" of the Estates,
to execute the Bulls issued by the Pope, the competent judge
in the case, against the said Martin Luther as an excommunicated heretic. He accordingly places him under the
imperial ban, prohibits all his subjects under pain of high
The Edict of Worms

treason from holding intercourse with or affording him
assistance of any kind, and commands them to seize him
wherever found and notify the fact to the authorities.
Similarly, they are empowered to arrest his adherents and
protectors and take possession of their property, unless they
can show that they have received the papal absolution.
Further, no one may read, possess, buy or sell or print his
books, even those which otherwise contain good teaching,
since a single drop of the poison of heresy is fitted to ruin
the soul, arid all are 'bound to burn them under the aforesaid
'penalties. In consequence of the abuse and danger of the
freedom of the press, no book may henceforth be written or
printed tending to discredit the faith, the Pope, the Church,
the clergy, and the scholastic theology, and all such writings
shall also be burned, their authors and publishers seized
and put to death, and their property confiscated for the
benefit of those arresting them. The prohibition and
the penalty were extended even to pictures and engravings.
For the future the censorship of books treating of the
faith is entrusted to the bishops and their representatives,
with the co-operation of the University Faculties of
Theology. Even the publication of all books, whatever
their subject, is likewise made dependent on the episcopal
approval. The Edict concludes by denouncing the sentence
of outlawry against all who shall co1;itravene its provisions. 76
The narrative part is manifestly an ex parte and hopelessly biased statement of the Lutheran movement. It
ignores the grave evils which had called Luther into the
arena against the corruption and misgovernment of Rome
and the manifold abuses in the Church. It represents him
as solely actuated by a diabolic perversity and grossly
misrepresents his teaching. It reeks of the bitter animus
,6 its author, the Italian Aleander, his most persistent and
also his most unscrupulous antagonist. If Luther taught
anarchy, as the Edict falsely asserted, Aleander certainly
did his best to outdo him in inciting in this fanatic deliverance to confiscation and violence on behalf of the faith.
The purely enacting part displays clearly enough the
76 "
Reichstagsakten," ii. 643 f.
3 20
tyrannic regime which Luther dared to challenge in the

riame of individual liberty of thought and conscience, as
he understood this liberty. It was not only an attempt on
the part of Aleander and those for whom he spoke to erect
a bulwark around the traditional faith and ecclesiastical
authority against their redoubtable antagonist. It was an
attempt to stifle the progressive forces at work in the
Renaissance in the interest of obscurantist bigots and
corrupt ecclesiastics, to gag all criticism of the scholastic
system and the oppressive medireval regime in Church and
State. It was in fact directed as much against Erasmus
and the new learning, against Dlirer and the new art, as
against the heretic of Wittenberg. It is not surprising that
Erasmus thought it time to exchange Louvain for Basle
as a residence, 77 and Dlirer, who was then at Antwerp,
made tracks for Nlirnberg. 1s
77 So at least his enemies represented the motive of his departure,
which he himself denied. See Emerton, " Desiderius Erasmus,"
347 f. (1899).
78 Diirer gives expression to his distress on learning the news of
Luther's disappearance. See his Diary of a Journey in the
Netherlands in Dtirer's "Briefe, Tagebiicher, und Reime," ed. by
Thausing, II9 f. (1888). He left Brussels on the 12th July 1521.
CHAPTER X
CONCLUSION
I.
INFATUATION OF THE PAPACY
breach with Rome was complete. Rome had cast out

Luther from its communion and the Emperor, in obedience
to the papaldecree, had outlawed him. Rome had no place
in its system of unquestioning obedience to the absolute will
of the Pope in matters of faith for one who persisted in
adducing the plea of individual conviction and. the individual
.conscience as a reason for refusing such obedience. It
had only one way .of dealing with this refusal-excommunica
tion by the ecclesiastical power and death at the hands of
the secular power as the executor of its sentence. Heresy
was not only an offence against the faith. It was a crime
which the temporal power was bound to punish. In
casting the heretic out of the Church and requiring the
State to proceed against him, the Pope was acting in
accordance with ec.clesiastical law and usage which did not
admit the validity of ariy plea based .on
individual
reason and. conscience. From the point of vjew of canon
law Luther, having been found guilty of heresy, had unchurched himself. The papal action in instituting an
examination of his .writings in response fo the accusation
of his opponents and, on the ground of this examination~
finding him guilty of heresy, was legally <;:orrect. .If a
retraction were not forthcoming, excommunication and the
extreme penalty attaching to heresy were inevitable. In
recognising the prerogative of the Pope to act as he had
done for the preservation of the faith and adducing the
obligation of the temporal authority to execute the papal
will,1 the Edict of Worms was in accordance with ecclesiastical
THE
the
21
"
Reichstagsakten," ii. 644 and 654.
322
law and practice. If by the law of the empire the heretic

was entitled to be tried by a national tribunal, 2 the Emperor
had, formally at least, given him a hearing before the Diet
and professedly issued the Edict in the name of the Estates
as well as by his own authority. The hearing, as it turned
out, might merely be for the purpose of giving him a last
chance to recant, and the profession of issuing it with the
consent and authority of the Estates might be but a pretence.
But, from the point of view of Rome, such an objection did
not count, since the proceedings at Worms, after the Pope
had authoritatively declared Luther a heretic, were in. admissible and invalid. Its representatives at Worms had
accordingly done their utmost to frustrate his citation and
had taken no part directly in these proceedings, whilst
indirectly exerting themselves to the utmost to secure his
outlawry in obedience to the papal will. In the end the.y
had succeeded in their efforts; and on the 26th May 1521
Luther, who was already under the ban of the Pope, was
placed under that of the empire. In so doing .they had at
the same time succeeded in disrupting the Western Church,
though they little reeked that this would prove the result
of their triumph. They seem, indeed, to have expected a
popular convulsion which might eventuate even in a religious
war. But the bloodshed and havoc would only ruin Germany
and in the end the papal supremacy would emerge triumphant amid the slaughter and the extermination of the
heretics. 3 Doubtless a truly Christian consummation for the
zealots who strove to maintain an unreformed Papacy and.
Church to contemplate !
There can be no doubt at any rate of the infatuated folly
of the whole business from the point of view even of the
interest of Rome, not to speak of that of the Church and
religion. The real interest of both lay not in proscribing
Luther as a heretic, but in responding betimes to his urgent
2 "Reichstagsakten," i. 871-873. Arts. 18 and 24 which ordain that
no member of any Estate was to be put under the ban without regular process.
3 Enders, iii. 80.
Paulus questions the menacing language attributed
to Aleander ("Hist. Jahrbuch," xxxh:. 273 f., 1919). Kalkoff adduces
weighty reasons for accepting its authenticity. " Hutten und die
Reformation," 5!1.\-584.
Infatuation of the Papacy

demand for a drastic reformation of both the Roman Curia
and the Church. Legally Luther might have earned and
even provoked excommunication and outlawry. His
developing attack might seem at last to allow -of no other
alternative if the Pope was to continue in the enjoyment of
his claims and powers as the al>solu te head of Christendom,
and if the misgovernment and corruption for which the
Papacy actually stood were to subsist for the benefit of the
crowd of ecclesiastical hirelings at Rome and throughout
the Church. But to adopt this alternative in the interest
of an unreformed Papacy and Church was nothing short of
madness. To assume that merely to destroy Luther was
to save the Papacy and the Church, and yet refuse or neglect
to reform either was to court disaster with open eyes. For
Luther's thesis that Rome was the seat of Antichrist was no
mere declaration of an apocalyptic visionary. It was only
a Biblical phrase for expressing the outraged conscience
of at least the serious-minded section of his compatriots
and the indignation, on at least material grounds, of a
widespread public opinion in Germany. In casting out
Luther and insisting on his outlawry Rome, with incredible
blindness, overlooked the fact that it left him, too, no other
alternative than to appeal to public opinion which; on moral
or material grounds, was widely alienated from the Roman
regime, and which, as it turned out, was to render the
Edict of Worms largely a dead letter. Mere legality was
not a very forcible pretext to adduce in these circumstances.
The corruption, oppression, hypocrisy, and worldliness which
Luther had denounced were far more concrete and convincing
arguments in favour of espousing the side of the heretic
against the degenerate papal absolutism that reigned at
Rome, and nevertheless presumed to dictate in matters of
faith and morals. Moreover, Luther's appeal to a General
Council as the supreme arbiter of. both might well seem,
even from the constitutional point of view, of greater
weight than the papal appeal to canon law. The old
conciliar party still had its adherents in Germany as well
as in the Universities of Paris and Louvain, in spite of the
fact that the recent Council of the Lateran had condemned
and disallowed such an appeal. Even his appeal to the
324
Scriptures as the only norm of the truth found a ready

response in the increasing number of his adherents who
were prepared, if need be, to support him against the Pope
and even a Council. And though the Pope had acted in
accordance with canon law in arraigning, condemning, and
excommunicating him, there was no little point in Luther's
contention that his case had not been fairly and impartially
considered. The Curia had too readily espoused the side
of his opponents . in the indulgence controversy without
subjecting the outcry of his Dominican accusers to anything
like judicial criticism. It had joined with them in blinking
the fact .of the scandal and evil of the system which he had
dared to call in question and which it suited its financial
interest to maintain. It acted on the principle that his
attack on the system was in itself a proof of disloyalty and
defiance, and evaded the arguments on moral and religious
grounds adduced against it. It held fast to both the theory
and the practice and refused to admit Luther's claim to
criticise either, and his demand for an adequate discussion
of even debatable points. It simply reaffirmed the traditional doctrine and practice and ignored both abuse and
difference of opinion. Here again it showed a fateful
opaqueness of view. For the time had gone past when either
the accusations of the zealots for the old order, who raised
the cry of heresy, or even the fiat of the Pope could overawe
and silence the voice of criticism. The attempt thus to shirk
the issue only in fact led Luther. to challenge the dogmatic
dicta of his opponents and the fiat of the Pope and rallied
public opinion to his side. The responsibility for the
development of the conflict, with all its fateful consequences
for an unreformed Papacy and Church, is thus traceable to
the intransigent and infatuated tactics .. of his opponents
and their patrons in the Curia. It was not without reason
that Luther ironically described them as his instructors,
his masters in heresy. From the outset, by their intransigent attitude in the matter of reform, they left hhn no
alternative but to challenge, and ultimately to disown and
defy, the papal absolutism and materially contributed to
justify the widening scope of the attack in the eyes of the
people. They made him, in fact, the hero of the nation
Infatuation of the Papacy

in his struggle with a corrupt and oppressive alien regime
which he at last proclaimed to be the very Antichrist.
' Throughout this developing attack Luther nevertheless
had no intention of separating from the Church and
fomenting schism, though the attackwas gradually tending
towards this climax. He had an inborn reverence for
authority even if there was in him the making of a rebel
and even a revolutionist. In the disputation of Leipzig
he had emphasised the unity of the Church (nostta unitas)
as the supreme obligation in reference to the Hussite schism.
He was prepared to remain within the Church in spite of
the rampant abuses which disfigured and defamed it.
Separation, as he said in his Instruction to the people, would
not make things better. He persistently distinguished
between the Catholic Church and. the Papacy and was
prepared, even up to the final breach at Worms, to recognise
a .reformed Papacy within a reformed Church. In spite
of the most violent diatribes against Antichrist, the most
revolutionary innovations in both doctrine and usages, he
was prepared to tolerate and compromise if he were
permitted individual freedom to maintain his convictions;
His attitude might be illogical and inconsistent and ulti'."
mately proved impracticable. But the fact .remains that
if the Curia had adopted a more considerate and impartial
attitude and refrained from slamming the door against
even a practical reformation; had it been wise enough to
moderate or abandon the old policy of compulsion in matters
of faith and conscience, it would have found in his innate
reverence for authority, his ingrained conservatism, the
elements of a possible modus vivendi. At all events Luther
later asserted that if the Pope and his advisers had adopted
a less tyrannical attitude and shown more skill and insight,
they would have obtained a very different response on
his part. He was, in truth, a strange blend of the fighter and
the pacifist, and in his later years of failing strength doubted
whether. he would have the courage to play. the part he
had acted at Worms over again. 4 But, he adds, the Papacy
haq .to fall, if only in virtue of its own corruption, since
4
"Tischreden," v. 69,
3 ;z6
Rome was no longer the fountain of justice, but a house of

harlots 5 and the rule of the devil. The Curia had, indeed,
appeared at times to recede from the policy of violence and
unconditional submission in deference to political expediency,
and duririg one of these intervals of enforced moderation
Luther, in the negotiation with Miltitz, had gone the length
of agreeing to cease from further controversy. But moderation based on mere political expediency was a poor substitute
for the higher statesmanship which such an emergency
demanded, and the recourse to such expediency only attests
the incapacity of the Curia to cope with the situation.
Regarded even from the point of view of its own supposed
interest, such political scheming only eased the situation
for Luther without securing any real advantage for Rome.
Regarded from the higher point of view, it was utterly
fatuous to assume that it could avail in dealing with a man
of Luther's calibre, who was not only actuated by profound
religious conviction, but had behind him the force of an
awakening public opinion. The method of mano;uvring
arid finessihg on such an urgent question as the reformation
of the Church in deference to expediency was out of place
in the age of the Renaissance, in which the critical,
independent spirit was so powerfully at work in the search
for truth and the prestige of the Papacy had been so widely
sapped. The age of the Renaissance was indeed also the
age of Machiavelli in ecclesiastical as well as secular statecraft. But it was also the age of a Luther to whom conscience and the Gospel were imperative realities, which
would neither be mano;uvred nor compelled into abeyance
to suit the ecclesiastical politicians at Rome.
II.
LUTHER'S DEVELOPMENT AS A REFORMER
What strikes one most in surveying those four years of

conflict between 1517 and 1521 is the rapid progress of
Luther's development as a Reformer. How far ha\> he
moved from his earlier standpoint as a zealous monk when
5 "Tischreden," iii. 2J2, ed. Forstemann; cf. Weimer edition, v.
72-73.
Luther's Development as a Reformer
3 27
the Papacy was to him the very keystone of true religion

and rebellion against it the most nefarious of heresies!
He had shared to the full Augustine's view of heretics as
breakers of the unity of the Church and the reprobate
champions of human opinions against its divine teaching.
Again and again in his early writings he had aspersed the
heretical. sects as the enemies of the truth. Long afterwards
onlooking back on his early years as a monk and a theological
teacher, he declared that he was so fervid a papalist that he
would have been the first to lay hands on and burn the
heretic. Even after the discovery of his cardinal doctrine ,
of justification by faith and his first tentative efforts as a
reformer, he had continued to cherish and maintain the
conventional view of heresy. In his attack on the scholastic
theology he was convinced that he was vindicating the
faith and the true teaching of the Church against its
perverters, and in challenging abuses like the indulgence
system nothing was farther from his mind than the thought
that he was guilty of heresy,,as his opponents contended.
In the course of the ensuing conflict with the ecclesiastical
authorities he rebutted the charge and sought to prove
that it applied to his opponents, not to him. Even in the
face of the papal Bull he maintained that not Martin Luther
but the Pope was the arch-heretic, yea the Antichrist, and his
final and fixed conviction was that the medireval papal
Church was, in essential points, a heretical divergence
from the early Church, which it was his mission to vindicate
in the interest of the true faith. He was the renovator,
not the innovator of the faith. He was doubtless sincere
in his contention that the medireval Church had perverted
the faith and had departed from that of the Apostles and
the Fathers in dogma, constitution, and usage. At the
same time, he could only maintain this contention at the
expense of admitting that he himself had departed from
what he formerly held to be the true faith and had diverged
into what he formerly abhorred as heresy. Judged by his
own former standard, which was that of the medireval
Church, he had become by r520 in essential respects what
the Bull declared him to be, a renegade from the faith in its
rnedireval form. All attempts to invalidate this charge
3 28
could only be of the nature of special pleading. The only

valid plea was that he had, on cogent grounds, come .to
renounce what he had formerly fervently believed, that the
grounds he adduced were so compelling that he had no other
alternative, and that in adopting this alternative he was
restoring; not subverting, the faith of the Apostles and the
Fathers. Apart from a tendency in his dialectic encounters
with his opponents to blink the fact at times that he was
at variance with the received dogmas, this was the plea that
he maintained with such resource of argument and such
passionate earnestness.
.
The outstanding feature of this development . is the
rapidity with which, under the stress of the controversy
with his opponents, he worked out the ideas. which brought
him, one might say almost in spite of himself, into irreconcilable antagonism to the medireval Church. It says muc.ti
for the receptivity of his mind that this development was
practically completed within the years I5I8-20. When
in December I5ZO he hurled the papal Bull into the fire, the
process which had positively begun but three years before
was finished, though it might be said that its preconditions
came into being with the discovery of the specific meaning
of Romans i. I7 nearly seven years earlier. Its root lies.
in his cardinal do<;trine of justification by faith, which had
materialiy changed his spiritual outlook as the result of this
discovery in his cell at. Wittenberg . shortly before the.
summer of I5I3. This doctrine . was the offspring of his.
religious experience during the protracted spiritual conflict
in the monastery in the quest for a gracious God, rather
than of reflection or theological r<:isearch. It is an
experienced truth, not a mere dogma, though it is expressed
in very dogmatic terms. It was burned into his soul in
the furnace of the long spiritual trial begotten by the
thought of an absolutely righteous God and. the obsession
of sin that haunted him for years on end, It became to
him the lodestar alike of theology and the religious life.
In this experienced verity lies the secret bf the impassioned.
intensity, the daring self-assertion, the uncompromising
determination, the intolerance, one might say, with which
he took up the struggle with the scholastic theologians and
3 29
the indulgence preachers, which led him gradually to extend

the attack to the papal power and the dogmas and institutions of the Church. The genesis of the Lutheran Reformation is undoubtedly to be sought in the sphere of religious
experience rather than in that of theological speculation,
though the controversy over faith and works, the law and
the Gospel, grace and free will, etc., out of which the
Reformation eventuated, savours strongly enough of the
scholastic theology. Even when the debate enters on the
more concrete sphere of the papal power, the canon law,
and ecclesiastical usages the decisive factor is, directly or
indirectly, the question how these stand in relation to this
fundamental doctrine and the implications involved in it;
The genius and temperament of the man himself count indeed
for much in shaping this development. But it was his specific
experience of this central truth that <;ailed into activity the
powers of the man and produced the Reformation as a
religious movement. It was this that made of the theologian
the man with a message and a mission for his time. One
cannot read .the record of the struggle which eventuated
in the .breach with Rome-:-as this record is unfolded in his
own works-without being impressed again and again by
the surpassing intellectual and moral force that was at work
in this daring monk in demolishing the dominant system
in religion and fashioning the new order in place of the old,
And the mainspring of it all is the one overmastering
conception of the gospel of faith as he has apprehended and
experienced it. It is in very deed an astounding example
of the power of an idea, working through the genius of the
solitary seeker for truth in the monk's cell, in moulding
and making history in the face of the might and the terror
of the dominant system.
This development starts from the conviction that the
personal faith of the believer is the bedrock of true religion.
This conviction had already appeared in his first course oli
the Psalms (r5r3-r4). It was developed more fully and
independently in those. on Romans (r5r5-r6), Galatians
(r5r6-r7), and Hebrews (r5r7.,r8), tbe last of which shows
a distinct advance in the definiteness of his ideas on the
subject (particularly in regard to fiducial faith and the
3 3o
assurance of salvation). 6 This personal faith brings the

soul into the right and only feasible relation to God from
the religious point of view. It presupposes the recognition
ot God's absolute righteousness and the impossibility of
attaining the good, as measured by this high standard,
and the assurance of salvation except in unreserved
dependence on, personal trust in God's mercy in Christ.
It excludes the system of work-righteousness embodied in
the Sacrament of Penance, for instance, and based on the
principle of meriting salvation by penitential works, instead
of accepting it purely as God's gift and eschewing the false
confidence in the efficacy, the merit of such works. It
involves the personal apprehension of the gospel of God's
grace or mercy, as revealed in His Word or promise, on which
faith lays hold in humble but unhesitating trust and in
which God's saving plan and purpose are made known to
the believer. Hence the supreme importance of the Word
as the only reliable and decisive witness and arbiter in all
things pertaining to the salvation of the soul. H~nce, too,
the principle that not the Pope or the hierarchy is the
channel of the Holy Spirit, the guardian of the true tradition,
and the infallible judge of the true tradition, but the believing
soul enlightened and guided by the Spirit acting through
the Word. Hence, again, the inference that the believer
is entitled to exercise his own judgment in matters of faith
and may not be compelled by the Pope, or even the corporate
authority of a General Council, to accept doctrines or institutions in violation of his own conviction or conscience, as
instructed by the Spirit through the Word. Luther might
appeal from the Pope to a General Council, but ultimately
even the acceptance of the dictum of a General Council is
conditioned by the conformity of this dictum to the Word.
The appeal to a General Council, as thus ultimately
conditioned, would not, therefore, have prevented the
breach with 'Rome, since a Council could hardly have
reversed his excommunication by the Pope as a heretic,
though it might have gone a considerable length in yielding
his demand for a drastic practical reformation, supposing,
6
See Ficker, " Luther " (1918),
Luther's Development as a Reformer 3 3 I

of course, that it acted independently of the corrupt curial
influence. In any case, the Word becomes for Luther the
only compelling force over the individual reason and
conscience, All recourse to external force in religion on
the part of either Pope or Council is inadmissible. The
right of freedom of thought, inquiry, and discussion in
interpreting the Word, in proving all things and holding
fast to that which is good, is insistently demanded. The
principle is, indeed, of far-reaching bearing, for it is capable
of application in the sphere of science and philosophy as
well as religion, though for Luther the main concern is the
religious one and there is undoubtedly in his impassioned
dogmatism a lurking danger for freedom of thought. It is
questionable whether he had grasped the full meaning of
the emancipation which he championed. His outlook was
limited compared to ours. But he must be judged in the
light of his own age rather than that of ours. It is rather
what he stood for than how he stood for it that is all~
important. Freedom of thought and toleration. in the
sphere of religion is an essential of his conception of the
fundamental importance of personal faith in the Word
and promise of God. It made Luther the great freethinker
of his time in the sphere of religion. It involves, too, a
far-reaching emancipation from human ordinance and
regulation as applied to the religious life. 'The Reformation
necessarily becomes an emancipation movement. Its watchword is "Liberty." . Liberty not only of thought and
inquiry, but liberty from the bondage of monastic and
penitential works, _by which the medireval Church has
trammelled the individual soul and which, in the case of the
Sacrament of Penance in particular, tends, on the one hand,
to induce a false confidence in such works and, on the other,
to torture the conscience with recurring doubt and despair
as to their efficacy in meriting salvation. Liberty in this
wider sense is thus the keynote of the Reformation. Liberi
enim sumus ab omnibus 7 might be taken as the motto of
the movement, and the echo of this call in behalf of liberty
in the " Babylonic Captivity of the Church " resounds
1
De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesire, " Werke," vi. S37.
3 32
through the other Reformation manifestos. Faith is free-'

dom, limited only by a compelling submission to the Word,
the Gospel. It is freedom in the sense that Paul proclaimed
that Christ has made the believer free from the law, from
the bondage of works which can in no sense make him
acceptable in the sight of God. It does not mean freedom
to sin, but only freedom from sin, and demands the life of
service, of self-denial in the conflict with the flesh, the world,
and the devil' in accordance with the teaching and example
of Christ and in reliance solely on God's grace.
The insistence on personal faith in God's Word and
promise as the essential thing in religion results farther
in a profound modification of the conception of the Church.
Salvation does not necessarily depend on the Church, with
its sacramental system and its priestly hierarchy, as the
indispensable media of God's grace, but on the acceptanc.e
of the Gospel in reliance on the Word and work of God
Himself in Christ. The Church does not consist of this
priestly order under its absolute papal head, but of all
believers, who are equal in God's sight in virtue of a common
f;:i.ith and baptism. There is no essential distinction between
clergy and laity, no exclusive monopoly of God's grace in a
priestly caste through which this grace operates. For
Luther the great reality is God and the soul rather than God
and the Church. All believing souls are priests inasmuch
as they are by their.faith brought into immediate personal
relation to God and are thereby en~itled to intercede for
themselves and others. All are, through the operation of
God's Spirit in believing hearts, in direct union and
communion with Him. The doctrine of the priesthood of
believers nullifies the development of the medireval priestly
caste and the practice of official priestcraft in the. Church,
and reduces the distinction between priest and layman to
one of function, not of order. The historic development
of .a priestly order is confronted with the primitive institu-.
tion of the spiritual priesthood of the New Testament which
includes all believers. The official priesthood resolves
itself into a ministry as commissioned by Chri$t Himself,
the one and eternal High Priest of the Word and the
sacraments, which are limited to baptism and. the Lord's
33 3
Supper, from which the crass notion of transubstantiation

is eliminated, though that of the' real presence is retained in
the form of consubstantiation or impanatiori. Hence the
transformation of the Church into a religious democracy
or brotherhood consisting .of the whole body of believers
governed by the Holy Spirit operating through the Word
and involving a far-reaching modification and adaptation
of the hierarchy; in accordance with this spiritually democratic ~o:n;c tion, though here, too, Luther would not
make y ra ical ch~~ge in the Church order i~ his principle
were allowed recogmt10n. Even so, the medueval Papacy
On
as antichristian must be radically transformed.
Scriptural and historic grounds its claim to an absolute
rule over the Church is decisively rejected as an usurped
tyranny, incompatible with the freedom of the individual
believer and the sole headship of Christ. The papal office
is, therefore, reduced to that of a general supervision of
Christendom, if indeed it is to be retained at all in the
national Reformed Church which emerges as a practically
autonomous body. The papal claim to secular power and
its pretension to supremacy over the State is also decisively
rejected, and the State as well as the Church is emancipated
from the papal absolutism. With the rejection of the
medireval Papacy goes the whole canon law, for which there
is no room in the new spiritual democracy and which Luther
consigned to the flames along with the Bull of the mediceval
Antichi"ist.
Such; in brief, is the gist of this astounding development
which made the breach of 1521 inevitable. Its revolutionary
character is patent, though this climax was not contemplated
by Luther from the outset, and his conservative instinct
persistently shows itself in the disposition to be content
with the enunciation of principles, without insisting on
their general application in practice in the form of a radical
and imperative revolution of existing institutions. He was,
in truth, as he repeatedly confessed, driveri onwards by
a force which he did not comprehend and could not control,
but ill' which he recognised the compelling influence of a
higher power. Faith, on which he laid such stress, is no
mere theological conception; but a living force in his daily
334
life of toil and struggle. The thought of God's nearness to

him and his need of God is the compass that guides him in
the storm-swept sea he is ploughing. At the same time, in
reading the record of this stressful conflict with his theological opponents and ultimately with the corporate authority
of the Church, as wielded by the Pope and supported by
the Emperor, it is the power of his own personality, inspired
by impassioned religious conviction, that strikes one as the
arresting thing. He stands out as the seeker for truth,
resolute to find, by intense meditation, laborious study;
what he seeks, driven step by step in the course of this
conflict to test doctrines and institutions in the light of
Scripture and history, determined with a splendid courage
not to .swerve from this search even if it seems to be leading
him farther than he would natuially care to go, breaking
loose from tradition, defying. all the power and prestige of
constituted authority, and ready to face death rather than
yield to fear or prudence. The motive of all this devotion
and daring is religious rather than scientific, though he is
undoubtedly influenced by the critical, scientific spirit born
,of the Renaissance. In this pursuit a profoundly religious
nature, a powerful intellect, a dominating will, a capacity
to look at things in a new light amounting to genius find
striking expression. Such a man is perforce a dogmatist
and his impassioned dogmatism has its questionable side.
He does not always carry us along with him. His interpretation of Scripture, for instance, is not always convincing.
His doctrinaire emphasis on the total depravity of human
nature is one-sided. Reason and soul are not always well
balanced and he allows the tendency to irrationality too
much scope. He sometimes shows a lack of ability to see
the force of counter..arguments and is liable, with that facile
power of language which distinguishes him, to trounce
opponents instead of answering them, to substitute
vehemence for argument. It is impossible always to agree
with his contentions and conclusions. Nevertheless one
feels, and is fain to admit, that even this weakness was also
a source of strength in one who had to fight every inch of
the way to a Reformation in the face of tremendous odds.
In seeking to effect what many before him had tried and
335
failed to do, Luther's dogmatic temperament was an asset

with which he could hardly afford to dispense. The man
of impassioned conviction was an indispensable prerequisite
if the Reformation was to have a chance of prevailing in
the face of the evils and the influences against which he
had to struggle. As we follow the course of this struggle
the reflection is borne in upon us that this is the man, and
the only man, sufficient for these things. It is this impression
that his reforming writings of this period convey to us, as
those of his reforming predecessors do not do to anything
like the same extent.
The personality of Wiclif and
Hus is, compared with that of Luther, lacking in the
element of the strong man who overmasters his age, though
it must not be forgotten that they were far less fortunate
in their age than he. Occam and Marsiglio, the conciliar
reformers of the early fifteenth century, Savonarola and
Erasmus do not touch him in this respect. He is not a
replica of any predecessor unless we go as far back as Paul.
Nor is he a mere reproduction of these predecessors rolled
into one. He does not merely inherit; lie creates. He is the
unique Reformer in the qualities and powers he brings to bear
on his Herculean task-::the prophet of a new age in religion,
when religion, as represented by a corrupt Curia and a
degenerate Church, had declined so far towards the nadir of
degeneration, and the revival of which could only come
from one who could create as well as destroy.
This is the surpassing climax that is shaping itself in
the recess of Luther's genius and personality during
these stressful years, and towards which he advances amid
a storm of antagonism and menace with a sublime courage
and persistence-self-imposed, self-commissioned, singlehanded, contra mundum. To this creative genius and
dynamic personality is due the inception of that movement
which not only brought into existence the Reformed Church
on t:e ancient model, but was to contribute, in far-reaching
fashion, to shape modern history in the assertion and
vindication of principles which had a wider bearing than
the purely religious one. Without the creative mind of
Luther, the intensity of faith, the daring courage, the
unyielding and, ak times, the overweening dogmatism of
3 36
this monk of Wittenberg, the Reformation in this far-reaching

sense would have been impossible. There would and must
have come sooner or later a reckoning for the Papacy and
the Church in virtue of the forces, political, intellectual,
and economic, that were undermining the old medireval
order in religion. An unreformed Papacy and Church
could not have afforded for long to ignor~ or brave these
forces unscathed and unchanged. But the Reformation
would not have been the formative force which his genius
and dynamic personality imparted to it. Both its scope
and effects would have been more limited. It would have
been, for the individual as well as the nation, far more a
matter of accommodation with, than an emancipation from,
the absolutist papal and ecclesiastical regime that presumed
to ford it over reason and conscience, with all that this
emancipation implied for the development of modern liberty
in those lands in which it was to find its most logical and
active vindication .
. Ill.
LUTHER AND HIS PREDECESSORS
Luther's originality in initiating this movement is evident
to anyone who reads through the works which the struggle

of these fateful years inspired and coloured. In them we
witness the birth throes of a new force in religion. The
question of his originality is, indeed, occasionally still being
debated in Germany not merely by theologians of the
Evangelical and Roman Catholic Churches, but by nonconfessional historians like Haller and Ritter, for instartce.
Haller, in a memorial discourse on " The Causes of the
Reformation," 8 maintains that "the greater part, yea all,
of what Luther uttered and demanded had already been
uttered and demanded before him." This is certainly too
sweeping, and in his reply to Ritter's criticism 9 he denies
that he had intended to rob Luther of a certain originality.10
s "Die Ursach~n der Reformation " (1917).
9 In a note to his article, " Die Geschichtliche Bedeutung des
deutschen Humanismus," " Hist. Zeitschrift," cxxvii. 433 (1923),
10 "z.K.G.," xlii. 328 f. (1923).
.
Luther and His Predecessors
3 37
There is, nevertheless, force in his critic's contention that

such sweeping. generalisations leave little enough room for
originality.11 Ritter himself, however, seeks to minimise
his originality in the sphere where it appears most
distinctively~his doctrine of justification by faith-:-and
would seek it rather in the racial sphere. For him the.
Reformation is distinctively the result of the operation of;
"certain mysterious forces of our national being." This
in tu:rn is one of those generalisations which, while porten'.'
tous, do not in reality make us much wiser. To seek to
explain a movement like the Reformation on merely nation~!
or racial grounds is at most to try to explain the whole
by a part. It is an altogether inadequc1te substitute for
t.he religious experience and intuition .which are not distinctively racial, but human. It is a case in which the
man and the movement must, in the first place, be viewed
sub specie ceternitatis, and if .this p9int of view is placed in
the background the explanation will perforce be partial
and inadequate. Luther stands on common ground with
Paul and Augustine. Racial psychology counts for little
in relation to such spiritual phenomena which transcend the
limits of race and time and must be envisaged from the
religkms and the human angle. The Reformation is not
merely a reflection of the German soul, but of the revival
of the Pauline type of religious thought and experience
operating through the genius and the personality of his great
modern disciple.
On the other hand, while the Reformation as a religious
movement is essentially the work of Luther, his work is
not wholly new. It had its antecedents in the aspirations
of preceding reformers, in ideas bequeathed by them, an<:l
in forces which were working towards this end, A. Ritschl
and his s.chool deny to the Reform Movement of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the title of a Reformation in
the later sense and practically contend .that Luther had
no predecessor in the ranks. of the earlier reformers.i 2 As a
historian of dogma Ritschl views the position too exclusively
Z.K.G.," xliii. 169 f. (1924).
Ritschl, " Die Christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung," i.
f.; zte Auflage (1882).
11 "
12
105
22
33 8
from the. dogmatic standpoint. The kernel of the

Reformation is, indeed, the doctrine of justification as
Luther rediscovered and developed it. There is, however, a
danger of overestimating and exaggerating his originality
by unduly restricting the view of the movement to the
dogmatic standpoint and concentrating exclusively on
the doctrine of justification to the neglect of other features
of it. His doctrine of justification was undoubtedly the
fruit of his own religious experience and intuition. It is
certain, too, that as a Reformer he was no mere reproduction
of any of his reforming predecessors. But it is also true
that he was to a certain extent antiCipated and even
influenced by those whom Ullmann described as " Reformers
Before the Reformation" (the title of his wel!-known book),
but who, to Ritschl, are only" so-called reformers." These
so-called .reformers represent a reform of varying kind and
,degree. They include exclusively practical reformers who
limited their demands to the abolition of the more glaring
abuses; constitutional reformers like Marsiglio and Occam
in the fourteenth century ; D' Ailly, Gerson, and other leaders
of the later conciliar party in the early fifteenth ; spiritual
reformers like Tauler and the mystics ; doctrinal reformers
like Wiclif, Hus, Wessel Gansfort. It is the case that
this varied reform movement of the previous two centuries
failed to eventuate on such a far-reaching Reformation as
that which Luther brought to fruition, and that it was
more or less dominated by the medireval outlook on the
doctrine and institutions of the Church. In none of these
older reformers do we observe the genius, the creative
force that made him the epoch maker in modern religion.
At the same time, each class of reformer had some affinity
with him and in its own sphere anticipated some pha9e of
his reforming activity. To a certain extent this activity
was the culmination of theirs, the result of forces already
operating in them. The practical reformers, if they
kept stri<;:tly within the traditional and orthodox limit in
regard to doctrine and institutions, anticipated him in their
outspoken antagonism to current abuses. It is narrow and
one-sided to 'contend that mere antagonism to abuse is no
reformation at all. As his Lectures on Romans show,
Luther and His Predecessors
3 39
Luther, too, began as a reformer of abuses; the removal

of which would have gone fa:i; to keep him, with his conservative tendency to find a modus vivendi, within . the
Church. The constitutional reformers, if they refrained
from attacking doctrine, went a long way towards his
position in their attempt to limit the papal absolutism by
contending for the superiority of a General Council a? the
supreme legislative authority in the Church.. Their master,
William of Occam, was, in truth, in the domain of ecclesiastical
polity as daringly original as Luther, and from the conciliar
party, if not from Occam 13 himself, he undoubtedly derived
inspiration in developing his attack on the Papacy. With
the teaching of the spiritual reformers, of Tauler and the
mystics, he was familiar before he began his attack on
indulgences. If he outgrew the mystic standpoint, he was
strongly influenced by the mystic stress on the inwardness of
religion,' the union of the individual soul with God, and
the . striving to spiritualise and vitalise the conventional
religion. To doctrinal reformers like Wiclif, Hus, and
Wessel Gansfort he owed nothing directly in his formative
period as a reformer. With Wiclif's works he does not
seem to have been acquainted at all, and those of Hus and
Wessel only came into his hands after he had already outdistanced both in his reforming ideas, He ascribed without
sufficient discrimination an identity of ideas which did not
really exist, though both of them had within limits
anticipated some of his contentions. This anticipation is
still more apparent in the case of Wiclif, of whom Hus was
the disciple. For if even Wiclif had not grasped the Pauline
doctrine of justification, he had emphatically asserted the
supreme authority of Scripture and denied the doctrine of
transubstantiation in favour of that of consubstantiation
as well as renounced in principle the secularised medireval
Papacy as antichristian.
Moreover, while creating a distin(Z:tive reform movement
out of his own religious thought and experience, he owed
18 He does not seem to have studied Occam's writings on the Church
and the papal power as von Below assumes (" Die U rsachen der
Reformation," 80), and only in as far as the conciliar party reflected
Occam's teaching on this subject did the Occamist influence operate,
22 A
340
something to the forces and the spirit of the age which were
already making for a new order of things in both Church
and State, preparing the way for his message and his mission.
He was, in truth, the fortunate heir of a great inheritance.
Humanism was working for his advent in its application of
the critical spirit in the sphere of religion as well as science,
philosophy, and education. Erasmus, in particular, was
his predecessor in this respect, and Erasmus went a
considerable way in supporting him in the critical years that
culminated in the breach with Rome. Lang, Link, Spalatin,
Scheurl, Melanchthon, Jonas, Capito, Bucer, Oecolampadius,
Hutten, Crotus, and others were, so far, fellow-workers
whose support was an inspiration and an encouragement
to the daring rebel of Wittenberg in his unequal struggle
with his Dominfcan opponents and persecutors. The
people, with social grievances .to redress, were ready to.
welcome a gospel which proclaimed the spiritual brotherhood
of believers and vindicated, in things religious at least, the
rights of the individual against a corrupt hierarchy, which
was identified with feudal privilege and oppression and
was growingly obnoxious to the masses on this account.
On national grounds he could count on the support of the
higher classes, as well as the people, in his attack on a corrupt
alien ecclesiastical regime which exploited the empire for
the material benefit of Rome. It is, indeed, significant
that the Diet, which was supposed to have joined in his
condemnation, presented a detailed statement of grievances
against this regime.14
IV.
LUTHER AND THE ELECTOR FREDERICK
And in the Elector of Saxony, whose subject he was,

he had the good fortune to find a protector resourceful
enough to foil the attempts of his enemies to crush him, and
staunch in his resolution to see fair play done even to the
heretic. The part played indirectly by the Elector in
bringing to fruition the Reformation was second only to that
14
"Reichstagsakten," ii. 661 f.
Luther and the Elector Frederick
341
of the Reformer himself. His activity on his behalf has

recently been the subject of controversy, which is hardly
surprising in view of his enigmatic personality and his
predilection for indirect action and diplomatic manceuvre.
He seems to have shown a strange lack of interest in Luther
personally, in as far as he did not enter into direct intercourse with him, but employed the sympathetic and helpful
Spalatin as go-between. This may have been due in part
to an ingrained habit of reserve and an exaggerated sense
of his princely dignity in accordance with the overweening
meticulous formality of the time. Probably th13 more potent
reason was the necessity of avoiding, in his capacity as ruler,
anything in his relations with the daring rebel of Wittenberg
that would tend to compromise him with the Pope and
the Curia. A cautious attitude was imposed on him in the
circumstances, alike by etiquette and diplomatic necessity,
and it must not be forgotten that an open and dec}ared avowal
of Luther's cause would have exposed him and his subjects
to excommunication and interdict. This was a contingency
not to be lightly risked, and the .undoubted difficulty and
danger of the situation go far to explain the aloofness and
extreme wariness of his attitude. Behind it was, evidently
from the outset, the determination to shield Luther from his
enemies and secure him a fair hearing. This determination
he persistently maintained in his relations with the Curia
and its representatives, though at the expense of a good
deal of diplomatic fencing and finesse.
The. driving force of the movement was, of course,
Luther himself, and the Elector's part was that of acting
as a buffer against his enemies. But this part was essential
for the development of the movement, and in this sense his
protection was an indispensable adjunct of Luther's genius.
" Without Frederick the Wise," judges Troeltsch, " Luther's
activity would not have been possible." 15 Luther, indeed,
ultimately gained the support of a section of the nobility.
But this support could not have been an effective substitute
for that of the Elector, whose influence, as the most powerful
magnate of the empire, was a factor to be reckoned with by
15 "
Historische Zeitschrift," cxxiv. uz.
344
works, gratefully remembered how much it owed in these

critical years to his personal interest. 22
Moreover, it is not the least of his merits that, in founding
and fostering the University of Wittenberg, he provided
Luther with the sphere in which he could develop ,and
promote "the new theology," which was rising like another
star in the east on the horizon of the academic youth. He
had a keen interest and a justifiable pride in the institution
which was reflecting such renown on his principality, and
to which an increasing number of students 23 was being
attracted by Luther's rising fame a.nd that of his colleagues,
Carlstadt, Amsdorf, and Melanchthon. Wittenberg became
the focus of the new movement in theology and the higher
education. Its reputation was already dwarfing that of
the other German schools of learning, and by multiplying
Luther's disciples materially contributed to diffuse his
teaching and his reforming influence.
22 Et procedebat feliciter evangelium sub umbra istius Principis et
late propagabatur.
23 Enders, i. 227; ii. 57, and other passages of the letters.
INDEX
Augustine, St, 50, 66, 126, 136137' 139-140, 193, 217' 308, 337
Augustinian Order, Chapter of,
41 f., 209-210
A
Aachen, 271, 273-274
Abelard, 20
Accolti, Cardinal, 190
Acta Augustana; 94-95, 104, II2,
121, 185
" Address
to
the
German
Nobility," 209, 222 f., 285, 288
Adelmann, Bernhard von, Canon
of Augsburg, 33, 150, 152, 215
Aleander, Papal Nuncio, 214, 220,
271 f., 310, 314 f., 319-320
Alexander VI., Pope, 59, 196
Alexandria, Bishop of, 135
Altar, Sacrament of the, Luther's
sermon on, 165-166
Altenburg, 106, 108, u5, u7, 184
Altenstein, 313
Alveld, Leipzig, theologian, l 50,
156-157, 159, 171, 222, 225, 249
Ambrose, St, 136
Amsdorf, Luther's colleague, 128,
223, 290, 307-308, 344
Anaxagoras, 47
Antioch, Bishop of, 135
Antwerp, 235, 320
Aquinas, Thomas, 10, 40, 63, 66 f.,
68, 102, 242
.
Aristotle, 47, 66, 68, 253
Armsdorf, Imperial Chamberlain,
292
Aschaffenburg, 14
"Assertio," Luther's, 278, 286,
289
Auerbach, Professor of Medicine,
Leipzig, 130
Augsburg, 149, 297
- Bishop of, 214, 387
- Diet of, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71, 76,
173, 229
- Luther's interview with Cajetan
at, 77 f., 98, 105, 184
B
Baden,Margrave of, 307
Bamberg, 200
- Bishop of, 214
Baptism, Luther's sermon on, 163.
165, 247
- doctrine of, 255-257
Basil, St, 138
Basle, Council of, 87, 89, 96, 99,
162, 228
- City of, 320
- University of, 88
Bavaria, Dukes of, 214
Beier, Leonhard, 43, 79, 92
Beguines, 301
Bernard, St, 135-136
Bibiena, Cardinal, 189
Biel, 40
Billican,. 49
Bitterfeld, 16
Bohemia, 108, 153, 169, 202, 205206, 278
Bohemians, 137-138, l 53, 167,
186, 251
Bologna, University of, 32
Boniface VIII., Pope, 67
Brandenburg, Bishop of, 4, 13, 41,
51, 56, 68,u6, 150-151, 307
- Elector Joachim of, 19, 280, 282,
305, 308, 316
Brenz, 49
Brieger, German theologian, 177
Bruck, Saxon Chancellor, 343
Brunswick, Duke Eric of, 303
Brunswick-Uineburg, Duchess of,
155, 164, 174
HS
Index
346
Bucer, 49, 150, 201, 340

Biinau, Gunther von', 216
Bundschuh, 305
Burgundy, 271, 273
Busche, Hermann von dem, 306
c
Cairo, 235
Cajetan, Cardinal (Thomas de
Vio), 5, 25, 37-39, 64, 69 f., 7273, 76 f., 81 f., 92 f., 98 f., 104
f., 109, 114, 115, 122, 183-184,
190-191' 213
Calvin, John, 247
Canisio, 220
Capito, 124, 150, 201, 340
Caraccioli, Papal Nuncio, 214, 274
Carlstadt, 16, 33, 36, 42, u6,
120 f., 128 f., 130 f., 143, 173,
215, 344
Carvajal, Cardinal, 192, 207
Catharinus, Ambrose, 285
Charles V., King of Spain and
Emperor, 69, 77, II4, 182-183,
202, 208, 222, 230, 271 f., 295 f.,
321-322, 334; 343
Chievres, Minister of Charles V.,
275, 283
Christian Liberty, Luther's tract
on, 213, 263 f., 278
Clement VI., Pope, 85, 86
Coblentz, 183-184
Coburg, 43
Cochlaeus, scholastic theologian,
7, 308-309
Cologne (Koln), 32, 120, 150,
155-156, 193, 200, 214-215, 274275
Communeros, Rising of, 272
Confession, auricular, 163
Consistory, Papal, adopts Bull
against, Luther, 191-192
Constance, Council of, 87, 96, 99,
139 f., 144, 162, 193, 217, 251,
278, 304, 308, 312, 318
Constantine, Emperor, 170, 229,
233, 239
Contarini, Cardinal, 236
Council,African (397 A.D.), 135
- fallibility of, 139 f., 145
Cremona, Friar of, 249
Crotus Rubianus, 150, 185-187,

190, 200, 291, 340
Curia, Roman, 7, 15, 54, 69, 71, 72,
74, 78, 94, 102, 103, 197' 108,
112, I 13, II9, 129, 160-161, 163,
173-174, 182, 185-186, 188, 196,
202-203, 206-207' 219, 233-234,
236, 251, 277, 299, 324 f., 341,
. 343
Cusanus, Cardinal, 12
Cuspinian, John, 297
Cyprian, St, 126, 134-135, 162
D
D'Ailly, Cardinal, 229, 252, 338
Datarius, the, 235
" De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesire," 164, 209, 247 f., 272,
278, 289, 308, 331
Decretals, papal, 228
Demuth, Nicolas, 199
" Dialogue between Julius II. and
Peter,'' 229
Dionysius, pseudo, 151, 260
Dobeln, 214
Dominicans, opposition of, to
Luther, 18, 68, 70-71, 147, 186,
189, 324, 340
Dresden,. 184
Dungersheim, scholastic theologian, 118, 150, 153-154, 159
D iirer, Albrecht, 320
E
Ebernburg, 291-292
"Eccius Dedolatus," 152, 205
Eck, Johann, scholastic theologian, 7, 30 f., 116, 117, u9,
120 f., 128 f., 147 f., 166, 186187, 191, 198 f,, 207, 210; 213,
216-217, 220, 249, 273 f.
Ecken, Dr John, Official of Trier,
295 f.
Eichstadt, Bishop of, 32
Eisenach, 291
Eisleben, 209
Egranus, 32, 34, 215
Index
Emser, 68, 129, 150, 152,153, 220,
249, 285.
"Encomium Morire," 229
Epiphanius of Cyprus, 138
" Epistola," Luther's against Eck,
151
Erasmus, 49, 123-124, 156, 169,
215, 229, 251, 273-274, 277,
284, 320, 340
'' Erbieten," Luther's, 208, 276
Erfurt, 10, 49, 147-148, 187, 214,
290-291
,
Excommunication of Luther, 274275, 283
Exsurge Domine, Bull of Condemnation against Luther, 191 f.,
279, 283
F
Feilitzsch, Saxon Councillor, 79,
89, 109, I IO, 343
Feldkirch, Luther.'s adherent, 215
Ferdinand, King of Spain, 272
Fleck, Dr, 16
Florence, Council of, 278
Francis I., King of France, 114,
182, 189, 196, 275
Franciscans of J iiterbog, 151
Frankfurt-on-the-Main, 185, 188,
275; 290
Frankfurt-on-Oder; University of,
18-19, 25, 29
.
Frederick, Elector of Saxony, 3,
31, 41, 42, 43, 47, 51, 56, 65,
69 f:, 73-74, 76 f., 83, 92 f.,
99, 103 f., III, 114, 129, 149
150, 155, 166-167, 182 f., 187 f.,
196, 198, 202 f., 215-216, 224,
274 f., 280 f., 287-288, 293,
303, 305-306, 312, 315, 340 f.
Freiburg, University of, 32, 88
Freising, Bishop of, 214
Freyberg, 214
Friedberg, 313
Frobenius of Basle, 126
Froschel, 138
Fuchs, Andrew, Canon of Bamberg, 185
F iirstenberg, Deputy of Frankfurt,
297
347
G
Galatians, Luther's Commentary

on, 175, 226, 329
Gattinara, Chancellor of Charles
v., 275, 283, 314, 316
George, Duke of Saxony, 7, 68,
120, 122, 128, 129, 130, 138,
140, 147, 155. 166, 214-215, 285,
307
George, Ritter, 313
Gerson, 12, 87, 139, 229, 338
Ghinucci, Auditor of Apostolic
Chamber, 62
Good Works, sermon on, 174 f.,
226, 248
Gotha, 290
Greek Church, the, 135, 137-138,
279
Glapion, Confessor of Charles V.,
272, 292
Gratian, Decretum of, 220
Gregory the Great, Pope, 126
Gregory Nazianzus, 137-138
Gregory VII., Pope, 197
Grisar, Rom. Cath. historian, 8
Gunther, Francis, 151
H
Hadrian VI., Cardinal and Pope,
236, 272
Halberstadt, 6, 199, 215
Halle, 14, 199
Haller, 336
Hausrath, Adolf, 19, 342
Hebrews, Luther's Commentary
on,329
Hedio, Caspar, 201
Heidelberg, 36, 41 f., 53, 79 ,
Hergenrother, Roman Catholic
historian, 8
Hess, Johann, 186
Hesse, Landgrave Philip of, 303
Hessus, Eobanus, 291
Hicker, Gerhard, 74
Holl, Karl, 245
Hoogstraten, 148, 150, 154
Hus, John, Hussites, 102,. 138 f.,
I45iA6, 155, 160, 166, 169, 186;
193,217,241,252,278, 284,290,
Index
301,304,308,312,318,325, 339
340
Hutten,.Ulrich von, 150, 170, 187,
199. 201-202, 215, 223, 225 f.,
288, 291-292, 315, 340
I
Indulgence, controversy on, l f.;
papal declaration on the doctrine
of, loo, 102
Ingolstadt, University of, 32, 151,
215
.
Innocent Ill.; Pope, 197 .
" Instruction " to the people
(Luther's), II7II9, 285-286
Isabella, Queen of Spain, 272
Isidore, Decretals of, 151
J
Janssen; German historian, l
Jerome, St, 126, 134-136
- martyr; i 93
Jerusalem, Church of, 135
John, Duke of Saxony, 174, 276
John of Paris, 228
John of J andun, 228
John, St, Knights of, 293
Jonas, Justus, 200-201, 291, 293,
307, 340
Julius II., Pope, 59, 67, 194, 197,
21!, 229
Jiiterbog, 9, l 51
K
Kalkoff, Paul, 228, 342-343
Knox, John, 247
Krantz, Albert, 16
L
Lang, Cardinal, Archbishop of
Salzburg, 69, 82
Lang, Johann, 3, 17, 25, 42, 43,
68, 148, 200
Langenmantel, Canon of Augs
burg, 92, 96
Lateran, Fifth Council of, 37, 87,

162, 219, 323
Latomus, theologian of Louvain,
285
Lefebre, 156
Lehmann, Max, 342
Leipzig, II5, II6, 128, 138, 150,
210, 213, 217
- Disputation of, II9, 120 f.,
1.28 f., 162, 166, 169, 186-187,
217, 325
\
Leo X., Pope, 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 15,
25, 37 f., 53 f., 67' 70 f., 73 f., 78,
90, 98 f., 170, 189 f., 210 f., 218219, 223, 237~238, 284, 340
Liberty, appeal for, 257-258, 331332
Lichtenburg, 210, 263
Liebenwerda, 184
Liege, 215
Lindner, Johann, 7
Link, 33, 36, 43, 64, 81-83, 91;
II2, 210, 340
Linz, 101
Lochan, 187; 189
Lombard, Peter, lo, 20
Louis XII., King of France, 99
Louvain, University of, 88, 150,
155-156, 190, 193, 200, 2-r5. 220,
323
Lupinus; 173
Luther, motive of his ninety~five
theses, l f.; steadfastness in face
of the outcry against his theses,
16-17, 35; Martinus Eleutherius
17; sermon on Indulgence and
Grace, 25-27;
freedom of
preaching, 28-29; his " Asterisks " against Eck, 34-36;
letter to Staupitz, March 1518,
39-40 ; attends Chapter of
Augustinian Order at Heidelberg, 41 f.; expounds his new
theology, 44 f.; correspondence
with Trutvetter, 48, 49-50; protest on behalf .of right of free
disputation, 51; on validity of
excommunication, 52-53; letter
to Staupitz, 53-54; to t.he Pope,
submitting his Resolutions on his
ninety-five theses, 54-56; contents
of the Resolutions, 57 f.; cited
to Rome, 62 f. ; determination to
Index
Luther, Martin-contd.
br:i.ve -death fo_r his convictions,
64-65 ; reply to Prierias, 65-68;
garbled version of his views
on excommunication, 68-69;
Luther's political importance,
71 ; fearlessness in face of
Maximilian's antagonism, 72;
Cajetan enjoined to proceed
summarily against him, 72-73;
procedure legally justifiable, 74;
nevertheless ill-advised, 7 5-76;
Elector's intervention on his
behalf, 76 f. ; Cajetan undertakes to give him a fatherly
hearing at Augsburg, 77; largely
actuated by political considerations, 77-78 ; Elector directs
him to go to Augsburg, 79-80;
journey thither, 80-81; cautious
attitude of, before interview,
81-82; .wiles of Serralonga,
82-83; gracious reception by
Cajetan, who vainly invites him
to revoke, 84-86; Luther draws
him into a heated discussion of
the .points . at issue, 86-88 ;
Luther demands an impartial
tribunal, which Cajetan refuses,
88-89; submits a statement of
his views, 89-90; Cajetan orders
him .to leave his presence, 90 ;
unsuccessful efforts of. Staupitz
Luther
to mediate, 90-91;
escapes from Augsburg, 92 ;
appeal from Cajetan to the
Pope, 92; Cajetan's account of
the interview, 93 ; Luther's
Acta Augustana, 94-95 ; comments on Cajetan's account,
95-96; appeal from Cajetan to
the Pope, 98-99; Pope condemns
his teaching on indulgences,
100-102; his determination to
resist it, 103; contemplates
leaving Wittenberg, 103-105;
Elector continues to protect him,
105-106;
conference
.with
Miltitz, 106 f. ; draft letter of
submission to Pope, 111-113;
changed attitude of Pope, who
invites him to Rome, 114-115;
accepts Eck's challenge to dis-
349
putation, 116; his " Instruction
to the People/' 117-119; Eck's
theses and Luther's - countertheses, 120-123; corresponds
with .Erasmus, 123-124; determined to go on, 125-126; prepares for the disputation and
writes the " Resolutio Lufheriana," 126c128; letters to Duke
George regarding Leipzig disputation, 128 ; Luther's reception by the Duke at Leipzig,
129-130; Mosellanus's description of Luther at Leipzig, 130131 ; Luther's daring encounter
with Eck, 134; denies the papal
primacy by divine right, _134136 ; asserts the supreme authority of Scripture, 136, 139; his
interpretation of Matt. xvi. 18,
136-137; adduces the Greek
Church in refutation of papal
claim, 135, 137; accused by
Eck of holding errors of Wiclif
-and Hus, 137-i39; questions the
condemnation of H us by the
Council of Constance and asserts
that a Council may err, 139-142;
Eck's admissions to him on
indulgences, 142; Luther dissatisfied with the debate, 144;
helps him to a clearer understanding of his position, 145;
strength of his arguments, 145146; agrees to refer decision to
Erfurt and Paris, 147-148; continues the controversy with Eck
and others, 148 f.; Melanchthon
and others champion his cause,
149-150;
defends Gunther
against Eck and the Franciscans,
l 51 ; disapproves of the "Eccius
Dedolatus," 152; polemic with
Emser, 152-153; reply to Dungersheim, 153-154; trounces the
official of Meissen, 155; "The
asses of Louvain and Cologne,"
156; deals with -Alveld and
Prierias, 156-157; revelation of
Luther's personality and character in these polemics, 158-159;
his motto Veritas vincet, l 59;
Index
development of his thought
through controversy, 160; his
judgment of the scholastic
tentative
theology, 161-162;
criticism of Scripture, 162;
limits the authority of the
Church, 162; criticises ecclesi, astical institutions, 163; conception of the Sacraments of
Penance, Baptism, and the
Lord's Supper, 163-166; sensation caused by these sermons,
166; explains his sermon on
the Lord's Supper, 167; but
maintains his ground, 167-168;
discovers that he has been a
Hussite all along, 169-170; his
feelings on reading. Valla's
Donation of Constantine, 170;
Hussite influence on his conception of the Church, 170-172;
denunciation of Rome, 172-173;
turns to the State for a Reformation, 173-174; his " Sermon
on yood Works," 174 f.; fiducial faith as the principle of the
religious life, 175-176; applies
it to the whole life of the
Christian, 177; demands a farreaching Reformation, 178-179;
applies his teaching in the
political, social, and economic
spheres, 179-180; his view of
the State, 180; limits obedience
and warns against misgovernment, 180-181 ; offer of a cardinal's hat, 182; further relations with Miltitz, 183-185;
letters from Crotus Rubianus in
Italy, 185-187; the Pope demands the suppression of the
Lutheran movement, 187; the
Elector's diplomatic reply, 187189 ; denunciation of the Elector
at Rome, 189-190; Pope appoints a series of commissions
with a view to Luther's condemnation, 190; Bull of Condemnation adopted by the
Consistory (Exsurge Domine),
192; its contents, 192 f.; Luther
and the reports about the Bull,
199-200; letters of encourage
ment, 200-201 ; offers of Hutten,
Sickingen, Schaumburg, 201203 ; letters of Riario and
Tetleben to the Elector and
Luther's suggested replies, 203206; Elector's reply, 206-207;
his " Erbieten " and letter to
the Emperor, 208-209 ; no
obedience due to the Pope,
209 ; engaged in writing the
" Address to the Nobility "
and the " Babylonic Captivity,"
209 ; Chapter of the Augustinian
Order at Eisleben makes representations to him, 209-210;
meeting with Miltitz at Lichtenburg, 210; letter to Leo X.,
210-213; publication of the
Bull in Germany, 213-216;
Luther unmoved, 216 ; his
philippics against it, 216-.218;
Pastor on the corruption of the
Curia, 219; renews his appeal
to a Council and burns the Bull,
220-221 ; composes his " Address to the Nobility," 222-223;
lack of symmetry, 223-224; the
explanation, 224; incentive to
its composition, 225-226; the
question of Hutten's influence,
226-228; its sources, 228-230;
essentially Luther's own work,
230; analysis of its contents,
230-243; appreciation and criticism, 243-247; the "Babylonic
Captivity" graduallytakesshape,
247-249; what he owes to his
opponents, 249; analysis of its
contents, 250-260; boldness of
the attackand self-restraint.with
which developed, 260-262; its
effects, 262; the liberty of a
Christian man, 263-264 ; analysis of its contents, 264-270;
his ideal of the Christian life,
270; the Emperor and the
Lutheran question, 271-274;
change of attitude, 275; tears
Luther's " Erbieten " in pieces,
276; failure of Aleander's efforts
to secure the issue of an Edict
Index
35 1
against Luther, 277-281 ; the
Diet, 317; tenor and criticism
Emperor decides at the request
of the Edict, 318-320; legal
of the Diet to summon Luther to
correctness of the papal action,
Worms, 282; Luther's greatness
321-322; its infatuated folly in
compared with the other actors
view of the actual situation,
in the drama, 283-284 ; Luther
322-325; Luther's distinction
meanwhile continues his polbetween the Catholic Church
and the Papacy, 325; does not
emic, 284-286 ; " I am not
master of myself," 286-287;
desire a schism and would fain
correspondence with Staupitz,
have avoided it, 325 ; incapacity
287-288; rejects Hutten's plan
of the Curia in dealing with the
of an appeal to force, 288;
situation, 326; his development
as a Reformer and his denial of
will never revoke, 289; his
the charge of heresy, 325-328;
journey to Worms, 290"291;
will not be allured from entering
rapidity of his development,
Worms, 291-292; consultation
328 ; his doctrine of fiducial
with Schurf, his legal assessor,
faith and what it involved,
293-294 ; his first appearance
328-331 ; prophet of an emancipation movement whose. watchbefore the Diet, 294; the course
of the first hearing, 295-296;
word is liberty, 331-332; his
eyewitnesses on his bearing,
conception of the Church and
297 ; the course of the second
what it involved, 332-333 ; the
hearing and his refusal to recant,
personality of the man and its
298-302 ; the sensation in the
power, 333-334; his creative
Diet, 302 ; " I am through ! " i mind, 335-336; Luther and his
303; admiration of his friends,
predecessors, 336; views of
303 ; 1heroism and far-reaching
Haller and Ritter, 336-337;
Ritschl's view of.his originality,
significance of his stand, 303-304;
the Emperor reluctantly grants a
337-338 ; how far anticipated by
respite of three days for discussion
previous reformers, 338-339;
with a commission of the Diet,
what he owed to the forces and
spirit of the age, 340; Luther
305-306; Luther and the comand the Elector Frederick, 340mission, 307-308; further efforts
341 ; the Elector's persistence
to reach an agreement, 308-309;
Luther and Cochlaeus, 309; priin shielding him, 341 ; views
of Troeltsch, Lehmann, Miss
vate conference with the ArchWagner, Kalkoff, and Hausrath,
bishop Elector of Trier, 309-310;
imperial mandate to leave
341-342; Luther's own sense of
his obligation, 343; Wittenberg
Worms, 310;
judgment of
the focus of the new movement
Luther and .his .attitude, 3roin theology, 344
312; " So let it be,' 1 312;
intercepted and lodged in the
Wartburg, 312-313; letters from
M
Friedberg to the Emperor and
Diet, 313; the Emperor to Machiavelli, 326
proceed against him in consulta- Magdeburg, 6, 14, 203
tion with the Diet, 313-314; Magnificat, the, Luther's exposiEdict drawn up by Aleander,
tion, 286
but only submitted to a few Maintz, 199, 215, 220, 275, 288
members after the closing of the - Archbishop Albrecht of, 2, 3, 6,
Diet, 315-316; its proclamation,
9, lo, II, 13, 14, 37, 39, 109,
316; the professed consent of the
167, 196, 203, 2.15, 291, 305
Index
35 2
Maint.,:, University of, 14

Mansfeld, Count Albert of, 19, 64
Marlianus, Bishop of Tuy, 285
Marsiglio of Padua, 96, 138, 228,
335, 338
Mass, Luther's sermon on, 248
- doctrine of, 253-255
Maximilian I., Emperor, 69'f., 73,
77-78, 81, 82, II4, 182
Medici, Giulio di, 38, 189-190
Meissen, Bishop of, 150, 152, 155,
166, 207' 210, 214
Melanchthon, 82-83, 124, 128, 131,
133, 149, 152, 169, 201-202,
220, 248, 340; 344
Merits, Treasure of, 10, 24, 59,
. 84, 86
Merseburg, 210 216
- Bishop of, 129, 167-168
Miltitz, papal Nuncio, 25, 78, 100,
103, 104, 106 f., 155, 182-185,
187-188, 207' 209-210, 212, 216,
263, 326
Mirandola, Pico, 156
Montanus, I 50, 154
Mosellanus, Professor of Greek,
Leipzig, 130 f., 149
Muller, Karl, 74, 245
Murner, 7, 262, 285
Museus, 150
Myconius, 290
N
Naples, 272
Naumburg, Bishop of, 214
Netherlands, 271, 273
Nicrea; Council of, 123, 126, 135,
151, 228, 233
Nieheim, Dietrich von. 229
Niirnberg, So, 91, 92, 98, 103, 320
0
" Obelisks," Eck's, 32 f., II6, 120
Occam, William of, 96, 147. 156,
22$, 335, 338-339
Oecolampadius, 149-150, 340.
Offenh{!im, 291-292
Orders, Luther's conception of, 260
Oswald, John, 291
p
Palatinate, Elector of, 42, 280-281,
305, 315
- Count Wolfgang of, 42, 43, 47
Paltz, Johann von, 10, II, 12
Pappenheim, von, Marshal, 293
Paris, Universityof, 87, 88, 100,
103, 147-148, 187' 323
Parmenides, 47
Passau, Bishop of, 214
Pastor, Roman Catholic historian,
1,7,219
Paul III., Pope, 236
Paulus, Nikolaus, 2, 5, 7, 8
Pellican, 150, 199, 201, 287
Penance, doctrine of, 258-259
- Luther's sermon on, 163-164
Perusco, papal procurator-fiscal,
62
.
Peter, St, 134 f.
Petzensteiner, Augustinian monk,
290
Peutinger, Conrad, 32, 82, 295,
297' 307' 309
Pfeffinger, 32
Pflug, Justin von, 130, 140
Pirkheimer, 124, 150, 152, 215
Pisa, Couricil of, 99-100
Pistori~s, Professor of Law, Leipzig, 130
Pius II., Pope, 99, 194, 2II
Plato, 47
Pollich, Martin, 19
Pomerania, Duke Barnim of, 129,
144
Postille, Luther's, 286
Prague, 138, 153
Prierias (Silvestro Mazzolini), 6264, 65-67, 70, 92, lOO, II6, 1.50,
157. 159-160, 162, 172-173, 186,
190, 211, 213, 222, 225, 249, 288
Priiss,Johann, 262
R
Rab, Dr, Prior of Dominican
monastery, Leipzig, 18, 38
Renaissance, 326, 334
"Resolutio Lutheriana," 126-128
"Resolutiones Lutherianre," 150,
161-162
Index
Reuchlin, 18, 35, 54, 64, 70, 97,
151-152, 156, 190, 202, 227
Rhadino, theologian, 190
Rhenanus, Beatus, 49
Riario, Cardinal, 203, 205-207,
224
Ritschl, A., 337-338
Ritter, 336-337
Romans, Luther's Commentary on,
175, 250, 264, 329
Rose, The Golden, 78, 103, 106107' 183-184
Rubeus, 150, 154
R iihel, Saxon Councillor, 79, 89
s
Salzburg, 80, uo, 287
- Archbishop of, 214, 314
Saum, Conrad, 216
Savonarola, 284, 304, 335
Saxony, Duchy of, 138
- Electorate of, 3, 169, 186, 188
Schaumburg, Silvester von, 201,
203, 205-206, 223, 225
Scheurl, Christopher, 3, 32, 102,
108, 340
Schonberg, Nicolas von, 38, 78,
IIO
Schurf, jurist, 16, 293-294, 296,

307-308
Schwarz., P., 12
Scotus; Duns, 10, 40, 242
Sorbonne, the, 25, 148
Serralonga, 82-83, 190
Sicily, 272
Sickingen, Franz von, 201 f.,
225, 291-292, 315
Sigismund, Emperor, 304, 318
Spain, 272-273
Spalatin, 36, 42, 43, 47, 65, 69, 71,
76-77' 79, 83, 98, 103, 105, 106,
109, IIo, II9, 123, 129, 142, 144,
150-151, 153, 155-156, 166-168,
174, 184, 199,200,202,204,207,
209, 216-217, 222, 225, 248-250,
287-290, 292, 340-341
Spengler, 150, 215
Staupitz, 34, 3~, 41, 43, 48, 51, 53,
62, 80, 88 f., 105, 169, 191' 209210, 287
.Stein, court-marshal, 276
353
Steinlausig, 16
Stolpen, 155
Strassburg, Deputy of, 307
Sturm, imperial herald, 290, 313
Swaven, student of Luther, 290
Sylvester, Pope, 121
T
Tauler, mystic theologian, 338339
Tetleben, 203, 204, 207, 224
Tetzel, 2 f., 13 f., 16, 18-19, 24,
25, 27 f., 30-31' 36, 76, 92, 109,
II4-II6
Teutonic Order, Master of, 307
Thun, von, Saxon Councillor, 343
Torgau, 187, 214
Transubstantiation, 252-253
Trier, Elector-Archbishop .of, 77,
184-185, 188, 207' 217' 274,
307-310
- official of, 295 f.
Troeltsch, German theologian,
341
Trutvetter, schoolman, 4, 48, 4950, 147
Tiibingen, University of, 32
Tudesco, Nicolas de, Archbishop
of Palermo, 229
u
Ullmann, theologian, 338
Ultraquists, 167
Unigenitus, papal Bull, 85-86, 95,
IOI
Usingen, schoolman, 48
Usury, Luther's sermon on, 226
v
Valla Laurentius, humanist, 156,
170, 229
Vehus, Dr, 307, 309
Venice, 235
Verlepsch, Hans von, 313
Vienna, University of, 32
Viterbo, Aegidius de, 38
Index
354
Volta, Gabriel della (Venetus),

38 f., 48, 191
"Vorleg1.mg,'' Tetzel's, 27
w
Wagner, Elizabeth, 342
Waldensians, 301
Wartburg, the, 103, 312-313, 343
Weimar; 80, 81, 290-291
Wenkheim, Burkhard von, 313
Wesel, John of, 12
Wessel Gansfort, 10, 12, 156, 339340
Wiclif, John, 10, 138, 139, 193,
252, 301' 339-340
Wick, Dr van, 230
"Wider Hans Worst," Luther's
polemic, 9
Wimpheling, 230
Wimpina (Konrad Koch), theses
against Luther, 18 f., 37
Wittenberg, 4, 9, 12, 14, 19, 49,

51, 64, 78, 79, 83, 98, 103-106,
II6, 120, 124, 144, 189, 197, 205,
210, 220, 241, 275, 289, 292,
310, 312, 328, 343-344
Worms, 81, 274 f., 289 f., 310
- Diet of, 290 f.
- Edict of, 313 f., 321-323
Wiirzburg, Bishop of, 42, 43
Prynted in. Great Britain at THE
x
Ximenes, Cardinal, 271
z
Zack, John, 152-153
Ziegler, Dr, Imperial Vice-Chan-
cellor, 316
DARIEN PRRSS,
Edinburglt.

Luther Mackinnon 02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luther Mackinnon 02

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Luther Mackinnon 02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

The Union of England and Scotland, 8vo, pp.

The Social and Industrial History of Scotland

LUTHER AND THE

JAMES MACKINNON, Ph.D., D.D.

THE BREACH WITH ROME (1 ~17-21)

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. LTD.

39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.4

and his assailants, in the course of which the attack as well

able to comprehend it, liberty in the relative sense as against

unwearying in placing the rich resources of the Library at

THE UNIVERSITY; EDINBURGH,

THE INDULGENCE CONTROVERSY

I. MOTIVE AND JUSTIFICATION OF LUTHER'S ATTACK

II. THE COUNTER-ATTACK

Sensation caused by the Theses-Attitude.of the Archbishop

III. LUTHER'S DEFENCE -

Burning of .the counter-Thes~s-,.Luther's. " Sermon on

THE DEVELOPING SITUATION

Pope Leo X. submits the case to Cajetan for examination--'-

II, THE HEIDELBERG DEBATE -

Chapter of the Augustinian Order at Heidelberg-Luther's

Ill. APPEAL TO THE POPE

Luther's" Resolutions" on his Ninety-five Theses-Letters

THE PAPAL PROSECUTION OF LUTHER

THE CITATION TO ROME

The Pope appoints a Commission to examine his writings and

II. CAJETAN AND LUTHER

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HEARING

Appeal from Cajetan to the Pope-Cajetan complains to the

THE SEQUEL OF THE AUGSBURG HEARING

APPEAL TO A GENERAL COUNCIL AND THE

Why he appeals from the Pope to a Council-Such an Appeal

II. THE MISSION OF MILTITZ -

Miltitz as papal Nuncius-The Elector declines to surrender

1. BEFORE THE ENCOUNTER

Eck's indirect challenge-Luther accepts--'His counterTheses-Correspondence with Erasmus-Confidence in his

II. THE THEOLOGICAL. BATTLE OF LEIPZIG.

I. THE AFTERMATH OF THE DJSPUTATION

The decision referred to, the Universities of Erfurt and

II. PROGRESS. OF LUTHER'S REFORMING VIEWS

THE CONDEMNATION OF LUTHER

1. RESUMPTION OF THE PROCESS

Offer to make Luther a cardinal ?~Lull in the process

II. THE BULL EXSURGE D.OMINE

It condemns Luther's pestiferous errors, forty-one in number

Ill. IN PROSPECT OF THE BULL

1 Early reports of the proceedings .against him at Rome~

IV. LUTHER AND THE BULL

Violent opposition tci the publication of the Bull and the

THE REFORMATION MANIFESTOS OF 1520

themselves-The Roman claim to independence of and superiority

II. THE ATTACK ON THE SACRAMENTS

THE LIBERTY OF A CHRISTIAN MAN

The fruit of the Conference at Lichtenberg-Written for

independent of external works-Dependent for salvation only

THE EMPEROR AND LUTHER

The Emperor Charles V.-Favour:;; a practical but not a

BEFORE THE SUMMONS