177 



LUTHER, MARTIN. 



LUTHER, MARTIN. 



873 



five theses or propositions concerning indulgences, in which, drawin 

 the distinction between the canonical penalties inflicted by the Churc 

 on the penitent sinner, and the penalties required here or hereafter b 

 Divine justice, he maintained that the pope had the power of remittin 

 the former only ; that indulgences could not be applicable to the dead 

 that true contrition of heart and amendment of life would obtai 

 pardon without any papal indulgences ; that the true treasures of th 

 Church were contained in the Gospel and in the operation of the Hoi 

 Ghost : that at all events, if indulgences be of any avail, they ough 

 to be distributed gratis to the poor, and not to be made an article o 

 trade : and here he exposed in strong colours the avarice, impudence 

 and licentiousness of the quaestors, and the fearful corruption o 

 principles and conduct among the poor deluded population reaultinj 

 from the whole system. 



Luther enclosed a copy of his propositions in a letter to the Arch 

 bishop of Magdeburg, dated 31st October 1517, beseeching that prelat 

 to interpose to prevent the further spreading of error, and to put i 

 stop to Tctzel's scandalous practices. On the same day Luthe 

 affixed another copy of his theses on the gates of the Castle churcl 

 of Wittenberg, signed with his name, and containing his offer to defem 

 them. This was Luther's first challenge to that power which then 

 kept all Europe in awe, and which he was destined to shake to its 

 very foundations. Though in these celebrated theses there was nothing 

 but what has been maintained by many Roman Catholics, still some 

 of them were certainly at variance with the opinions generally enter 

 tained for three centuries before Luther's time, and also with the claim 

 of infallibility assumed by the popes. From the pulpit of the same 

 church Luther repeatedly expounded his propositions, and was eagerl; 

 'd to by crowded audiences. His theses spread with thegreates 

 rapidity, and the main principle upon which they rested, namely, thai 

 indulgences could only remit the canonical or temporary penalty 

 gained ground universally throughout Germany. Tetzel and his 

 brother Dominicans, after burning Luther's theses, attempted to 

 answer them by counter-propositions, mainly grounded upon tht 

 supreme authority of the pope and his infallibility. But this produc 

 tion injured Tetzel's cause, and a copy of it was publicly burnt by th< 

 Wittenberg students. Leo X., when he heard of the dispute, remarked 

 that it was but a quarrel between monks, and that brother Luther 

 seemed to be a man of parts. 



In 1518 Eckius, a professor of divinity at Ingolstadt, took up the 

 controversy against Luther, who answered him, and thus increased his 

 popularity and the number of his adherents, whilst at the same time 

 the warmth of debate carried him beyond his original propositions 

 and led him to touch on the abstruse subjects of free-will and the 

 means of justification. Still it appears that Luther had as yet no 

 intention of separating from the Roman Catholic Church. In May 

 1518 he addressed a submissive letter to Leo X., in which he says 

 "I throw myself prostrate at your feet, most holy father; call or 

 recall me, approve or condemn me as you please ; I shall acknowledge 

 jour voice as the voice of Christ, who presides and speaks in your 

 person." Leo summoned Luther to appear at Rome in sixty days, and 

 there to plead his own cause ; but the elector of Saxony interpo-ed, 

 and obtained permission for Luther to be examined within the bounds 

 of the empire, and to be judged by its ecclesiastical laws. Cardinal 

 Caietano, of the order of Dominican*, and papal legate at the diet of 

 Augsburg, was ordered to examine him. Luther, accompanied by 

 Staupitz and another friend, repaired to Augsburg in October 1518, 

 and was received by the cardinal with courtesy ; but instead of arguing 

 the point with him, the cardinal assumed an imperious tone, and com- 

 manded him to retract because the pope so willed it, and how could he 

 (Luther), a single monk, expect to be able to cope with the pope ! 

 (Luther's ' Letter' to Spalatin, chaplain to the elector, and his friend, 

 dated Augsburg, 14th of October.) Luther replied that neither the 

 legate nor the pope could pretend to infallibility, and that St. Peter 

 himself had errei In one of these interviews however the cardinal 

 was insensibly drawn out from his high ground, and entered the field 

 of controversy, but it would appear with little success. He rejected 

 with scorn what he considered the novel doctrine of justification by 

 faith and by faith alone. In the end, Luther, thinking perhaps of the 

 fate of John Huss, suddenly quitted Augsburg, leaving behind an 

 appeal to the pope, " better informed." In November of the same 

 year Leo issued a bull, declaratory of the doctrine of indulgences, 

 asserting that the pope, as Christ's Vicar on earth, had the power of 

 delivering from all the punishments due to sin those who had repented 

 and were in a state of grace, whether they be alive or dead. On the 

 2Sth of November Luther appealed from the pope to a general council 

 of the church. 



Meantime the cardinal legate was urging the Elector of Saxony to 

 expel Luther from his dominions. But the elector, who considered 

 Luther ta the pride and ornament of his newly-founded university of 

 Wittenberg, would not consent, and the Emperor Maximilian I. having 

 died jut at this moment, Frederick, as hereditary vicar of the empire 

 during the vacancy, was a person too important for even Rome to 

 dictate to. Leo commissioned a new legate, a Saxon, named Miltitz, 

 a man of sagacity and prudence, to endeavour to bring Luther to a 

 reconciliation. Miltitz had a conference with Luther at Altenburg, 

 in the beginning of 1519, in which he agreed with Luther in con- 

 demning the abuse made by Tetzel of the indulgences, threw the 

 B100. DIV. VOL. lit 



whole blame of it on that monk's ignorance and profaneuess, and so 



far conciliated the warm but generous spirit of hia antagonist as to 

 induce him to write a submissive letter to Leo, dated 13th of March 



1519, in which Luther acknowledged that he had carried his zeal and 

 animosity too far, and promised to observe in future a profound 

 silence upon the matter in debate, provided his adversaries would 

 observe an equal temperance ; further protesting tliat he never meant 

 to deny the power of the pope, which was inferior only to that of 

 Christ, and that he would always exhort the people to honour the 

 Roman see, which he had in his writings endeavoured to clear from 

 the impious exaggeration of the qusestors. " This letter," says 

 Beausobre, "is a sad monument of human weakness," for Luther had 

 already appealed from the pope to the council. Luther's vacillation 

 however may be easily accounted for by reference to the old esta- 

 blished reverence for the papal see, the reminiscence of his own early 

 impressions and education, and of his solemn monastic vows, and 

 also to the cordiality and convivial familiarity of his intercourse with 

 M iltitz. It appears that Leo himself wrote to Luther a very mild and 

 conciliatory epistle, published by Loscher in his ' Unschuld Nachricht,' 

 1742. Miltitz had other conferences with Luther at Leibeuwerd and 

 Lichtenberg, which gave great hopes of a full reconciliation, when 

 the polemic intemperance of Luther's personal adversaries widened 

 the rupture and brought the dispute to a crisis. (Seckendorf, ' Com- 

 mentarius Histor. de Lutherauismo.') 



Eckius challenged Carlostadt, one of Luther's disciples, to a public 

 disputation at Leipzig, concerning free-will. Carlostadt maintained 

 that since the fall of our first parents our natural liberty is not strong 

 enough to lead us in the path of good without the intervention of 

 divine grace. Eckius asserted that our natural liberty co-operates 

 with divine grace, and that it is in the power of man to consent to 

 the divine impulse or resist it. Eckius seemed to have the best of 

 the argument on his side, when Luther, who had repaired to Leipzig, 

 entered the lists against Eckius, by preaching in the chapel of Duke 

 George's castle a sermon calculated to draw the hostility of Eckiua 

 against himself. Eckius, in fact, immediately selected from Luther's 

 works thirteen propositions, which he met by as many counter- 

 propositions. One was concerning the supremacy of the llomau see. 

 Eckius maintained that the church was a monarchy with a head of 

 divine appointment. Luther admitted this, but contended that the 

 head was no other than Jesus Christ. The long acknowledged 

 supremacy of the pope, he observed, extended only to the Western 

 church, and he maintained that it was not jure divino, but founded 

 on reasons of policy and tacit consent. Then came the subjects of 

 purgatory, and of indulgences, in which Luther had decidedly the 

 advantage, and partly drew his antagonist to his side. Next were 

 discussed the questions of absolution, grace, free-will, and good works, 

 in which the Catholic divine appeared to prevail in point of argu- 

 ment. Hoffman, the rector of the University of Leipzig, who had 

 been appointed judge of the disputation, refused to declare to whom 

 the victory belonged, and the decision of the matter was referred to 

 the universities of Paris and of Erfurt. Luther however went on 

 publishing several works, ' On Babylonian Captivity,' ' On Christian 

 Liberty,' &e., in which he openly attacked the doctrines and the 

 authority of the church of Rome. Leo now assembled a congregation 

 of cardinals, before whom the works of Luther were laid, and by 

 whose advice a bull of condemnation was drawn up against Luther, 

 aad published on the 15th of June 1520, in which forty-one propo- 

 sitions, extracted from his writings, were declared heretical, and as 

 such solemnly condemned ; his writings were ordered to be publicly 

 Durnt; and Luther himself was summoned to confess and retr.ict 

 within the space of sixty days, under pain of excommunication. 

 Luther having again appealed to the general council of the church, 

 >ublicly separated himself from the communion of Rome, by buruing 

 on a pile of wood, without the walls of Wittenberg, in presence of a 

 vast multitude of people, Leo's bull, and also the decretals and canona 

 relating to the pope's supreme jurisdiction. This was done on the 

 .Oth of December 1520, and on the 6th of the following January the 

 >ope launched a second bull against him, by which Luther was 

 ixpelled from the communion of the church for having disowned 

 ,he supremacy of the Roman Pontiff 



Luther having now irrevocably separated from Rome, gave way to 

 he violence of his temper iu several vehement and scurrilous 

 pamphlets, full of coarse vituperation against the pope, whom he 

 ipenly styled Antichrist. 



At the same time Leo urged the new emperor Charles V., in hia 

 haracter of advocate and defender of the church, to make an exem- 

 ilary punishment of Luther as an obdurate heretic. But Frederick, 

 he elector of Saxony, employed his influence with Charles to have 

 (Uther's cause tried by a diet of the empire, which assembled at 

 iVorms, in April 1521. 



Having obtained the emperor's safe conduct, he repaired to ;Worma, 

 nd was met by multitudes outside of the town. On entering he 

 egan singing the hymn " Our God is a strong citadel," which became 

 nown as Luther's hymn, and the inspiring song of the Reformation. 

 )n the 17th of April he appeared before the emperor, the electors, 

 ishops, dukes, margraves, and other princes and lords assembled, and 

 eing aeked whether he was the author of the books now produced, 

 n which the propositions condemned by the pope were contained, he 



3n 



