CHAPTER II

THE RELIGIOUS REVOLUTION

LUTHERIANISM AND ZWINGLIANISM

(a) In Germany.

Janssen, op. cit. (i., a). Pastor, op. cit. (i. a). Dollinger, /Die Reformation/, 1846-8. Hergenrother-Kirsch, op. cit. (i., b). Grisar, S.J., /Luther/, 3 Bde, 1911-12 (Eng. Trans. 1913-14). Denifle-Weiss, O.P., /Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwicklung/, 1906-9. Weiss, /Lutherpsychologie als Schlussel zur Lutherlegende/, 2 auf., 1906. Hausrath, /Luthers Leben/, 2 Bde. 1904. Kostlin-Kawerau, /Martin Luther, Sein Leben und seine schriften/, 1903. Cardauns, /Zur Geschichte der Kirchlichen Unions --und Reformsbestrebungen von 1538-42/, 1910. Laemmer, /Monumenta Vaticana historiam ecclesiasticam saeculi XVI. illustrantia/, 1861. Raynaldus, /Annales Ecclesiastici/, 1735 (tom. xx.-xxi.). Armstrong, /The Emperor Charles V./, 1902. /Cambridge Modern History/, vol. ii. (The Reformation), 1903. Kidd, /Documents Illustrative of the Continental Reformation/, 1911. For a fairly complete bibliography on this period of history, cf. Grisar's /Luther/ (Eng. Trans., vol. i., xv.-xxv.; Cambridge Modern History, ii., pp. 728-64; Hergenrother-Kirsch, Bd. iii., pp. 4-8).

The religious revolt that had been foretold by many earnestecclesiastics began in Germany in 1517. Its leader was Martin Luther,the son of a miner, born at Eisleben in 1483. As a boy he attendedschool at Eisenach and Magdeburg, supporting himself by singing in thestreets until a kind benefactress came to his assistance in the personof Ursula Cotta. His father, having improved his position in theworld, determined to send the youth to study law at the University ofErfurt, which was then one of the leading centres of Humanism on thenorthern side of the Alps. But though Luther was in close touch withsome of the principal classical scholars of Germany and was by nomeans an indifferent classical scholar himself, there is no evidenceof his having been influenced largely in his religious views by theHumanist movement. He turned his attention principally to the study ofphilosophy, and having received his degree in 1505, he began tolecture on the physics and ethics of Aristotle.

Suddenly, to the surprise of his friends, and the no small vexation ofhis father the young Luther, who had not been particularly remarkablefor his religious fervour, abandoned his career at the university andentered the novitiate of the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt (July1505). The motives which induced him to take this unexpected step arenot clear. Some say he was led to do so by the sudden death of astudent friend, others that it was in fulfilment of a vow which he hadmade during a frightful thunderstorm that overtook him on a journeyfrom his father's house to Erfurt, while he himself tells us that hebecame a monk because he had lost confidence in himself.[1] Of hislife as a student very little is known for certain. Probably he was noworse and no better than his companions in a university city, whichwas described by himself in later life as a "beerhouse" and a "nest ofimmorality."[2]

The sudden change from the freedom and excitement of the university tothe silence and monotony of the cloister had a depressing influence ona man like Luther, who, being of a nervous, highly-strung temperament,was inclined to pass quickly from one extreme to another. He began tobe gloomy and scrupulous, and was driven at times almost to despair ofhis salvation; but Staupitz, the superior of the province, endeavouredto console him by impressing on him the necessity of putting his trustentirely in the merits of Christ. Yet in spite of his scruplesLuther's life as a novice was a happy one. He was assiduous in theperformance of his duties, attentive to the instruction of hissuperiors, and especially anxious to acquire a close acquaintance withthe Sacred Scriptures, the reading and study of which were stronglyrecommended to all novices in the Augustinian order at this period.[3]In 1506 he was allowed to make his vows, and in the following year hewas ordained priest. During the celebration of his first Mass he wasso overcome by a sense of his own unworthiness to offer up such a puresacrifice that he would have fled from the altar before beginning thecanon had it not been for his assistants, and throughout the ceremonyhe was troubled lest he should commit a mortal sin by the slightestneglect of the rubrics. At the breakfast that followed, to whichLuther's relatives had been invited, father and son met for the firsttime since Luther entered the monastery. While the young priest waxedeloquent about the happiness of his vocation and about the storm fromheaven that helped him to understand himself, his father, who had keptsilent throughout the repast, unable to restrain himself any longerinterrupted suddenly with the remark that possibly he was deceived,and that what he took to be from God might have been the work of thedevil. "I sit here," he continued, "eating and drinking but I wouldmuch prefer to be far from this spot." Luther tried to pacify him byreminding him of the godly character of monasticism, but theinterruption was never forgotten by Luther himself or by his friendswho heard it.

After his ordination the young monk turned his attention to theology,but, unfortunately, the theological training given to the Augustiniannovices at this period was of the poorest and most meagre kind.[4] Hestudied little if anything of the works of the early Fathers, andnever learned to appreciate Scholasticism as expounded by its greatestmasters, St. Thomas or St. Bonaventure. His knowledge of ScholasticTheology was derived mainly from the works of the rebel friar Williamof Occam, who, in his own time, was at constant war with the Popes,and who, during the greater part of his life, if not at the moment ofhis death, was under sentence of excommunication from the Church. Thewritings of such a man, betraying as they did an almost completeunacquaintance with the Scriptures and exaggerating men's naturalpowers to the undervaluing or partial exclusion of Grace, exercised abaneful influence on a man of Luther's tastes and temperaments.Accepted by Luther as characteristic of Scholastic Theology, suchwritings prejudiced him against the entire system. Acting on theadvice of the provincial, Staupitz, he gave himself up with great zealto the study of the Bible, and later on he turned his attention to theworks of St. Augustine, particularly the works written in defence ofthe Catholic doctrine on Grace against the Pelagians. In 1508 he wentto the university of Wittenberg, founded recently by Frederick ofSaxony, to lecture on Logic and Ethics, and to continue histheological studies; but for some reason, as yet unexplained, he wasrecalled suddenly to his monastery at Erfurt, where he acquired famerapidly as a lecturer and preacher.

Thirty foundations of the Augustinians in Saxony had accepted thereform begun by Andrew Proles in the fifteenth century, and hadseparated themselves definitely from the unreformed houses of theorder in Germany. They were subject immediately to the general of theorder, whose vicar at this time in Saxony was the well-known Humanist,Staupitz.[5] The latter was anxious to bring about a reunion betweenthe two parties and to have himself appointed as superior; but theparty who stood for the strict observance were opposed bitterly tosuch a step, and determined to send a representative to Rome to pleadtheir cause. The fact that they selected so young a man as Luther tochampion their interests is a sufficient proof of the position whichhe had won for himself amongst his religious brethren. He was lookedup to already as an ornament of the order, and his selection for thishighly important mission served to increase the over-weening pride andself-confidence that had manifested themselves already as weak spotsin his character. Accompanied by a companion of his order he startedon his long journey across the Alps. As he reached the heights ofMonte Mario and surveyed the Popes he fell on his knees, according tothe custom of the pilgrims, and hailed "the city thrice sanctified bythe blood of martyrs." He had looked forward with pleasure to a stayin Rome, where he might have an opportunity of setting his scruples torest by a general confession of his sins, but, unfortunately, hisbrother Augustinians in Rome and those with whom he came most incontact seemed to have been more anxious to regale him with storiesabout the real or imaginary scandals of the city than to give himspiritual consolation or advice. Yet in later life, when he haddefinitely separated from the Church and when he was most anxious toblacken the character of Rome and the Popes, it is remarkable that hecould point to very little detrimental to them of which he hadpersonal knowledge, and was forced to rely solely on what had beentold him by others. Nor did he leave Rome as a declared enemy of thePapacy, for even so late as 1516 he defended warmly the supremacy ofthe Pope as the one safeguard for the unity of the Church.[6] Many ofhis biographers, indeed, assert that, as he stood by the /ScalaSancta/ and witnessed the pilgrims ascending on their bare knees, heturned aside disgusted with the sight and repeated the words of St.Paul, "the just man lives by his faith"; but such a statement, dueentirely to the imagination of his relatives and admirers is rejectedas a legend by those best qualified to judge.[7] The threatened unionof the strict and unreformed that had occasioned Luther's journey toRome was abandoned; but it is worthy of note that Staupitz hadsucceeded in detaching him from his former friends, and that hereturned to Germany a convinced and violent opponent of the party ofstrict observance, who had sent him to Rome as their representative.During his stay in the city there is good reason for believing that onhis own behalf he sought for permission to lay aside his monastichabit and to devote himself for ten years to study in Italy, but hisrequest was refused on the ground that it was not supported by theauthority of his superiors. This petition was probably the foundationfor the rumours that were circulated in Germany by his opponents thatwhile in Rome he endeavoured to have himself "secularised" and toobtain a dispensation to marry.

On his return to Germany he devoted himself once more to the study oftheology in preparation for the doctorate which he won at Wittenbergin 1512. Almost immediately he was appointed professor at theuniversity and undertook to lecture on the Psalms. His eloquence andhis imagination, his retentive memory enabling him to illustrate histexts by parallel passages drawn from the books of the Old Testament,and in a certain way his exaggerations, his strength of diction, andhis asperity of language towards all with whose views he did not findhimself in agreement, made his lectures most popular at theuniversity, and filled his hall with an eager and attentive audience.Amongst the students Luther had no rival, and even the few professorswho were inclined to resent his methods and his views were captivatedby the magic influence of their brilliant young colleague. TheAugustinians, mindful of the honour he was achieving for their order,hastened to appoint him to the important position of district vicar(1515), while the Elector Frederick could not conceal his delight athaving secured the services of so capable a professor for the newuniversity.

At Wittenberg Luther felt himself completely at home. He was proud ofthe distinctions conferred upon him by his brethren, and of theinfluence accorded to him by his companions in the university. Greatas were his industry and his powers of application, yet they were putto the most severe tests to enable him to complete the programme hehad set himself to accomplish. His lectures at the university, hissermons preached in the Augustinian church, his visitations of thehouses of his order in the district over which he was vicar, hiscorrespondence, partly routine and partly entailed by his closerelations with some of the leading men in Germany, occupied all histime even to the exclusion of the spiritual exercises enjoined by hisrule. Very frequently he neglected to celebrate Mass or even to readthe divine office, and then alarmed by his negligence and guilt he hadrecourse to extraordinary forms of penance. Fits of laxity werefollowed by fits of scrupulousness until at last he was driven attimes almost to despair. It was then that he called to mind theconsoling advice given to him by his superior that he should put histrust in the merits of Christ, and the teaching of St. Augustine onthe frailty of human nature unless it was aided and supported bydivine Grace. He began to develop the idea that justification couldnot be acquired by good works, that concupiscence could not beovercome, and that consequently man could be justified only by theimputation of the merits of Christ. Years before, views such as thesehad been passing through his mind, as may be seen in his sermonsagainst the Augustinians of the strict observance, but they foundadequate expression only in his commentaries on the Epistles of St.Paul to the Romans and to the Galatians (1515-6). Still, as yet, heheld strongly to the principle of authority in matters of religion,and inveighed against heretics who would dare to set aside theauthority of the Pope in order to follow their own judgment. Inreality, however, his own teaching on merit and justification was nolonger in harmony with Catholic doctrine, and only a slight occasionwas required to bring him into open and definite conflict with theauthorities of the Church.

This occasion was provided by the preaching in Germany of anIndulgence proclaimed by Leo X. (1513-21). The building of St. Peter'shad been begun by Julius II. and was continued by his successor LeoX., the son of Lorenzo de' Medici, and the great patron of theHumanist movement. In order to provide funds to enable him to continuethis gigantic undertaking Leo X. proclaimed an Indulgence. In additionto Confession and Holy Communion it was ordered that those of thefaithful who wished to share in the spiritual favours granted by thePope should contribute according to their means for the completion ofSt. Peter's, or that they should pray for the success of the work incase poverty did not permit them to give alms. The publication of theIndulgence in a great part of Germany was entrusted to Albrecht ofBrandenberg, who had been elected Archbishop of Mainz though he wasalready Archbishop of Magdeburg and Administrator of Halberstadt. Thefees to be paid by an archbishop appointed to Mainz were exceptionallyhigh not to speak of the large sum required for the extraordinaryfavour of being allowed to hold two archbishoprics. As a means ofenabling Albrecht to raise the required amount, it was proposed by anofficial of the Datary that he should be allowed to retain half of thecontributions given on the occasion of the publication of theIndulgence in the provinces of Mainz and Magdeburg, and in the landsof the House of Brandenburg.

To publish the Indulgence in the above-mentioned territories Albrechtappointed the Dominican John Tetzel,[8] who had acquired alreadyconsiderable renown as a preacher. Tetzel was a man of solid educationand of good moral standing, whose reputation as a successful popularpreacher stood high in Germany at this period. Many grave abuses havebeen alleged against him by his enemies concerning his manner ofcarrying out the office entrusted to him by the archbishop, and inregard to his own private life serious crimes have been laid to hischarge; but as a matter of history it is now admitted that Tetzel wasa much maligned man, that his own conduct can bear the fullestscrutiny, and that in his preaching the worst that can be said againsthim is that he put forward as certainties, especially in regard togaining indulgences for the souls of the faithful departed, what weremerely the opinions of certain schools of theologians. Nor is it trueto say that as the result of his activity vast sums of money madetheir way into the papal treasury. The accounts of the monies receivedduring the greater portion of the time are now available, and it canbe seen that when all expenses were paid comparatively little remainedfor either the Archbishop of Mainz or the building fund of St.Peter's.[9]

Tetzel preached with considerable success in Halberstadt, Magdeburgand Leipzig, and in May 1517 he found himself in the neighbourhood ofWittenberg, whence many people flocked to see him, and to gain theIndulgence. This was not calculated to please Luther or his patron theElector, Frederick of Saxony, and provided Luther with an occasion ofgiving vent to his own views on good works, Grace, and Justification.Years before, both in his sermons attacking the Augustinians of thestrict observance for their over confidence in the merits of goodworks and penance, and in his commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paulto the Romans and to the Galatians, he had indicated already that hisviews on man's power to do anything good, and on the means and natureof justification differed widely from those put forward by Catholictheologians. At last, after careful consideration, following the bentof his own inclination and the advice of his friends, he determined totake the field openly by publishing, on the eve of the festival of AllSaints, 1517, his celebrated seventy theses against Indulgences.[10]This document was drawn up with great skill and foresight. Some of thetheses were perfectly orthodox and professed great reverence for theteaching of the Church and the authority of the Pope; others of themwere open to an orthodox as well as to an unorthodox interpretation;others, still, were opposed clearly and definitely to Catholicdoctrine, and all of them were put forward in a way that was likely toarrest public attention and to win the support of the masses.[11] Theywere affixed to the doors of the university church in Wittenberg, andcopies of them were spread broadcast through Germany. Before a weekhad elapsed they were discussed with eagerness in all parts of thecountry, and the state of feeling became so intense that Tetzel wasobliged to discontinue his mission, and to retire to Frankfurt, whereunder the direction of Wimpina, he set himself to draw up a number ofcounter theses which he offered to defend.

The circumstances of the time were very favourable to a campaign suchas Luther had initiated. The princes of Germany and even some of thebishops made no secret of their opinion that indulgences had beenabused, and many of them were anything but displeased at the step thathad been taken by the Wittenberg professor. The old opposition betweenthe Teuton and the Latin was growing daily more marked owing to theviolent and abusive language of men like Ulrich von Hutten, who posedas German patriots; while the Humanist party, roused by the attacksmade upon Reuchlin by the Dominicans of Cologne, backed by theScholastic Theologians, were not sorry to see their opponentschallenged in their own special department, and obliged to act on thedefensive. The knights or lower nobles, too, who had been deprived ofmany of their privileges by the princes, were ready for any scheme ofviolence in the hope that it might conduce to their advantage; and thelower classes ground down for centuries were beginning to realisetheir own strength, partly owing to the spread of secret societies,and were willing to lend a ready ear to a leader who had givenexpression to views that were coursing already through their minds.

From all parts of Germany letters of congratulation poured in uponLuther. Many of these came from men who had no desire for a religiouschange, but who thought that Luther's campaign was directed onlyagainst abuses in the Church. From the Humanists, from several of theprofessors and students of Wittenberg, and even from the superiors ofhis order he received unstinted praise and encouragement. At least oneof the bishops, Lorenz von Bibra of Wurzburg, hastened to intercedefor him with Frederick the Elector of Saxony, while none of the otherstook up an attitude of unflinching opposition. Tetzel, who had beenforced to abandon his work of preaching, defended publicly atFrankfurt on the Maine a number of counter theses formulated by ConradWimpina. To this attack Luther replied in a sermon on indulgences inwhich he aimed at expressing in a popular style the kernel of thedoctrine contained in his theses. Sylvester Prierias, the master ofthe Sacred Palace in Rome, to whom Luther's theses had been forwardedfor examination, published a sharp attack upon them,[12] and wasanswered in Luther's most abusive style. The most distinguished,however, of the men who took the field against him was John Eck,[13]Professor of Theology and Vice-Chancellor of the University ofIngolstadt. He was a man well versed in the Scriptures and in thewritings of the Fathers, a ready speaker and an incisive writer, inevery way qualified to meet such a versatile opponent. While on avisit with the Bishop of Eichstatt he was consulted about Luther'stheses, and gave his opinion in the /Obelisks/ on the dangerouscharacter of the teaching they contained. The /Obelisks/ was preparedhastily and was not intended for publication, but it was regarded asso important that copies of it were circulated freely even before itwas given to the world. Luther replied in the /Asterisks/, a work fullof personal invective and abuse. A Dominican of Cologne, Hochstraten,also entered the lists against Luther, but his intervention did moreharm than good to the cause of the Church by alienating the Humanistparty whom he assailed fiercely as allies and abettors of Luther.These attacks, however, served only to give notoriety to Luther'sviews and to win for him the sympathy of his friends. His opponentsmade one great mistake. Their works were intended in great part onlyfor the learned, while Luther aimed principally at appealing to themasses of the people. The Augustinians represented him as the victimof a Dominican conspiracy, and to show their high appreciation of hisservices they selected him to conduct the theological disputation at achapter meeting held at Leipzig six months after the publication ofhis theses (1518). At this same meeting Luther defended the view thatfree will in man and all power of doing good were destroyed byoriginal sin, and that everything meritorious accomplished by man isreally done by God. His old opponent at the university, Bodenstein(surnamed Carlstadt from his place of birth), declared himself openlyin favour of Luther's teaching on free will, and published a reply toEck.

As a result of this controversy between Eck and Carlstadt it wasarranged that a public disputation should be held at Leipzig (27 June-15 July, 1519). The Catholic teaching was to be defended by Eckagainst his two opponents, Luther and Carlstadt. A hall in the castleof Pleissenburg was placed at the disposal of the disputants by DukeGeorge of Saxony, who was a convinced Catholic himself, and whobelieved that the disputation might be the means of removing manydoubts and misunderstandings. The acts of the disputation were to bedrawn up and forwarded to the Universities of Paris and Erfurt fortheir decision. When it became known throughout Germany that a meetinghad been arranged between Eck and his two principal opponents, theexcitement, especially in the learned circles, became intense, and sogreat was the rush of scholars from all parts of the country towitness the encounter, that the immense hall was packed with an eagerand attentive audience when Eck and Carlstadt entered the pulpits thathad been prepared for them.

Few men in Germany, or outside it, were more fitted to hold their ownin such a disputation than the distinguished Vice-Chancellor ofIngolstadt. He was a man of imposing appearance, gifted with a clearand pleasing voice and good memory, even tempered and ready, quick todetect the weak points of his adversaries, and keenly alert to theirdamaging concessions and admissions. The first point to be debatedbetween him and Carlstadt was the question of Grace and Free Will.Carlstadt was at last obliged to concede that the human will wasactive at least to the extent of co-operating or of not co-operatingwith divine Grace, a concession that was opposed entirely to thethesis he had undertaken to sustain. Luther, alarmed by thediscomfiture of his colleague, determined to enter the lists at onceon the question of the primacy of the Roman See. He was not, however,more successful than Carlstadt. Eck, taking advantage of Luther'sirascible temperament and his exaggerations of speech, forced him stepby step to put aside as worthless interpretations given by the earlyFathers to certain passages of Scripture, and to reject the authorityand infallibility of General Councils. Such a line of arguments,opposed as it was to the teaching and beliefs of the Church, rousedthe opposition of the audience, and served to open the eyes of DukeGeorge to the real nature of Luther's movement. Annoyed by his owndefeat and by the attentions and applause lavished upon his rival bythe people of Leipzig, Luther left the city in disgust. Thedisputation undoubtedly did good in so far as it made clear to all theposition of the two parties, and succeeded in holding Duke George ofSaxony and the city of Leipzig loyal to the Church; but it also didmuch harm by giving Luther the notoriety that he was so anxious toobtain, and by winning to his side Philip Melanchthon, who wasdestined to be in after life his ablest lieutenant. Both sides, as isusual in such contests, claimed the victory. The Universities ofCologne and Louvain condemned Luther immediately, as did also Paris in1521, but as far as can be known Erfurt pronounced no decision on thequestions submitted.

Meanwhile what was the attitude of the authorities in Rome towardsLuther's movement. Leo X., having learned something of the turmoilcreated in Germany by Luther's theses and sermons, requested thevicar-general of the Augustinians to induce his rebellious subject torecall his teaching, or, at least, to keep silent. The vicar wrote tothe principal, Staupitz, but, as the latter was one of those who hadencouraged Luther to take the steps he had taken, very little was doneto secure peace. Luther was, however, induced to write a mostsubmissive letter to the Pope in which he begged for an investigation,pledging himself at the same time to accept the decision of Leo X. asthe decision of Christ (30th May, 1518).[14] Not satisfied with thecourse of events, and alarmed by the reports forwarded to him fromGermany, the Pope appointed a commission to examine the wholequestion, the result of which commission was that Luther was summonedto submit at once or to appear at Rome to defend himself within sixtydays.

He and his friends were thrown into a state of great alarm by thisunexpected step. On the one hand, were he to submit and to acknowledgethat he had been in error his reputation would be shattered, theAugustinians would feel themselves disgraced, and the University ofWittenberg would lose caste in the estimation of educated Germans. Onthe other hand, if he adopted the bold policy of refusing to yield tothe papal entreaties he was in danger of being denounced publicly as aheretic. In this difficult situation his friends determined to invokethe protection of the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the founder andpatron of Wittenberg University. Alarmed by the danger that threatenedthis institution from the removal or excommunication of one of itsmost popular professors, and anxious to gain time, Frederick requestedthe Pope to refer the matter for decision to some German bishop or toa neutral university. In reply to this request Leo X. appointedCardinal Cajetan, papal legate in Germany, to hold an inquiry (23Aug., 1518). Luther, having armed himself with a safe conduct, went toAugsburg to meet the papal representative, who received him verykindly, and exhorted him to withdraw his statements and submit. Lutherendeavoured to induce the cardinal to enter into a discussion on thequestions in dispute, but the latter did not allow himself to be drawninto a disputation. Finally, Luther refused to submit, though, at thesame time, he declared solemnly that he wished unsaid and unwrittenwhat he had said or written against the Roman Church. A few days laterhe fled from Augsburg after having drawn up a formal appeal "from thePope ill-informed to the Pope well-informed," while the cardinal,disappointed by the failure of his efforts, turned to the Elector ofSaxony for help against the rebellious monk. But the latter, deceivedby the recommendations forwarded on Luther's behalf by his ownsuperior, Staupitz, yielded to the entreaties of Spalatin, the courtchaplain, and of the professors of Wittenberg, and declined to takeany steps to compel Luther to submit. Fearful, however, lest hispatron might not be able to shield him from the censures of Rome,Luther determined to anticipate the expected condemnation by issuingan appeal to a future General Council (28 Nov., 1518).

In the meantime Leo X. who had learned from his representative theresult of the Augsburg interviews, issued the Bull, /Cum postquam/ (9Nov., 1518), in which he explained authoritatively the Catholicdoctrine on Indulgences, and threatened excommunication against allwho refused to accept it. This document was deprived of much of itseffect owing to the misrepresentations of Luther and his friends, whoannounced that it owed its origin to the schemes and intrigues oftheir Dominican opponents at Rome and in Germany. The occasion calledfor speedy and decisive action. But the impending imperial election,in which Charles I. of Spain (1516-56) and Francis I. of France (1515-47) were to be rival candidates, made it necessary for the Pope toproceed cautiously, and above all, to do nothing that might antagonisethe Elector of Saxony, whose influence would be of the greatestimportance in deciding the votes of the electoral college, if, indeed,it did not secure his own election. Had the appointment of a successorto Maximilian I. rested with Leo X. it can hardly be doubted that, inthe hope of preserving the balance of power and of securing thefreedom of the Holy See, he would have favoured the claims of theElector against either or both the rival monarchs.[15]

In these circumstances it was decided to send Karl von Miltitz,[16]who was by birth a Saxon nobleman and at that period a chamberlain atthe Papal Court, to present Frederick with the Golden Rose, and tobring about a peaceful settlement of a controversy that had beendisturbing the whole Empire. The selection of Miltitz for such adelicate mission was most unfortunate. Proud, obstinate, and ill-informed about the real issues at stake, he was anxious to have theglory of putting an end to the controversy at all costs, and hence hewas willing to appear before Luther as a humble suitor for peacerather than as a stern judge. All his severity and reproaches werereserved for Luther's opponents, especially for Tetzel, whom he heldprimarily responsible for the whole mischief, and towards whom heacted both imprudently and unjustly. The Elector showed himself butlittle inclined to respond to the advances of Leo X. He consented,however, to arrange an interview between Miltitz and Luther atAltenburg (Jan. 1519). During the course of the interviews that tookplace between them, Luther pledged himself to remain silent if hisopponents were forced to do likewise. He promised, too, that ifMiltitz wrote advising the Pope to appoint a German bishop to try thecase and to convince him of his error he would be willing to retracthis theses, to submit to the Church, and to advise all his supportersto remain loyal to the Holy See. At the same time he prepared a letterfor transmission to Rome, in which he addressed the Pope in the mostrespectful terms, declaring as on oath before God and creatures thatit never entered into his mind to attack in any way the authority ofthe Roman Church or of the Pope, that he confessed willingly that inthis Church was vested supreme jurisdiction, and that neither inheaven or on earth was there anything he should put before it exceptJesus Christ the Lord of all things.[17] Throughout these proceedingsit is clear that Luther meant only to deceive Miltitz and to lull thesuspicions of the Roman authorities, until the seed he had plantedshould have taken root. Only a short time before he had written to afriend, hinting that the Pope was the real Anti-Christ mentioned bySt. Paul in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, and asserting hisability to prove that he who ruled at the Roman Court was worse thanthe Turk.[18]

Several months passed and no further steps were taken by Rome to meetthe crisis. This delay was due in great measure to the death ofMaximilian I. (1519), and to the sharp contest that ensued. The twostrongest candidates were Charles I., King of Spain, who as son ofPhilip the Handsome (son of Maximilian), and of Joanna of Castile(daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella), was ruler of Spain, theNetherlands, Austria, and Naples, and Francis I., King of France. Forcenturies the Pope had striven to prevent the union of Naples and theEmpire, and with good reason, for such a union must prove almost ofnecessity highly detrimental to the safety of the Papal States and theindependence of the Holy See. For this reason, if for no other, Leo X.did not favour the candidature of Charles. Nor could he induce himselfto display any enthusiasm for the cause of Francis I., whoseintervention in Italian affairs the Pope had good grounds to dread. Asagainst the two the Pope endeavoured to induce the princes to electone of their own number, preferably the Elector of Saxony. But theElector showed no anxiety to accept such a responsible office, and inthe end Charles succeeded in winning over to his side the majority ofthe princes. He was elected and proclaimed Emperor under the title ofCharles V. (1519).

While Rome remained inactive, and while the opponents of Luther inGermany were handicapped by the crude diplomacy of Miltitz, Luther wasgaining ground with marvellous rapidity. His success was due partly tohis own great personal gifts as a popular demagogue, and partly alsoto the fact that no man knew better than he how to make capital out ofthe ecclesiastical abuses of the time, and to win to his side all whohad any reason to be discontented with the existing order. He wasstrengthened very much by the inactivity of the German bishops, whoseemed unwilling to take any severe measures against him, by the helpand encouragement of Frederick of Saxony, who, during the interregnumand for some time after the election of Charles V. was the realadministrator of Germany, by his union with the leading Humanistscholars and professors, especially Erasmus, all of whom regardedLuther merely as the champion of liberty against the obscurantism ofthe Scholastics, and by his secret alliances with discontented nobles,such as Ulrich von Hutten and Franz von Sickingen, whose sole hope ofimproving their fortunes lay in the creation of public disorder.

Johann Eck, Luther's chief opponent, realising that there was no hopeof stirring up the German authorities to take action, hastened to Rometo impress upon the Pope and his advisers the extreme gravity of thesituation, and to urge them to proceed against the revolt with allpossible energy and despatch. Luther himself recognised clearly enoughthat the crisis he had long foreseen was at hand, and he began toprepare men's minds for complete rupture with the Church by his sermonon excommunication in which he bade defiance to the ecclesiasticalauthorities. He threw himself with renewed energy into the fray,turning out volume after volume with feverish rapidity, each moreviolent and abusive than its predecessor, and nearly all couched inlanguage that was as intelligible to the peasant as it was to theprofessor. In his /Address to the Nobles of Germany/, in his works /Onthe Mass/, /On the Improvement of Christian Morality/, and /On theBabylonian Captivity/, he proclaimed himself a political as well as areligious revolutionary. There was no longer any concealment orequivocation. The veil was lifted at last, and Luther stood forth tothe world as the declared enemy of the Church and the Pope, thechampion of the Bible as the sole rule of faith, and the defender ofindividual judgment as its only interpreter. In these works herejected the Mass, Transubstantiation, vows of chastity, pilgrimages,fasts, the Sacraments, the powers of the priesthood, and thejurisdiction and supremacy of the Pope. With such a man there could beno longer any question of leniency or of compromise. The issues atstake, namely, whether the wild and impassioned assertions of a rebelmonk should be accepted in preference to the teaching of Christ'sChurch, ought to have been apparent to every thinking man; and yet soblinded were some of his contemporaries by their sympathy with theHumanists as against the Theologians, that even still they forcedthemselves to believe Luther sought only for reform.

At Rome the trouble in Germany was one of the main subjects thatengaged the attention of the Curia. It was felt that the time had comewhen decisive measures must be taken. After long and anxiousdeliberations Leo X. published the Bull, /Exsurge Domine/ (June 1520),in which forty propositions taken from Luther's writings werecondemned, his works were ordered to be burned, the full penalties ofexcommunication were proclaimed against him unless he withdrew hiserrors and made his submission within sixty days, while his aiders andabettors were besought in the most touching terms to abandon thedangerous path into which they had been betrayed. Had such apronouncement been issued at the beginning of the movement it mighthave done much to restore peace to the Church, but, coming as it didat a time when Luther's movement, backed by all the revolutionaryforces of Germany, had already acquired considerable dimensions, itfailed to put an end to the tumult. Besides, the papal decision wasdeprived of much of its force by the fact that Eck, Caraccioli, andAleandro were appointed as a commission to superintend its execution.The appointment of Eck was a great tactical blunder, as it affordedLuther and his friends an opportunity of proclaiming that the sentenceof excommunication was procured by the intrigues andmisrepresentations of their personal enemies; while the fact that theGerman bishops were disregarded in the execution of the Bull as ifthey were not above suspicion themselves, was looked upon by many asa studied insult to the entire German hierarchy. Even though Lutherhad entertained any thoughts of submission, the triumph of Eck wouldhave created very serious obstacles; but, knowing as he did, that evenat the worst he could reckon upon the support of a certain number ofthe discontented nobles who had pledged themselves to put their swordsat his disposal, he had no intention of making his submission.

The reception accorded to the papal document varied according to theviews of the local authorities and the state of public feeling in thedifferent cities and provinces. Thus, while its publication waswelcomed in Cologne, Mainz, Halberstadt, and Freising, it was receivedwith very mixed feelings at Leipzig and at Erfurt. Frederick ofSaxony, to whom Leo X. had addressed a personal appeal, refused toabandon Luther's cause unless it were proved from the Scriptures thathe was wrong. He did, indeed, suggest that Luther should write arespectful letter to the Pope, but his suggestion passed unheeded. Atfirst Luther pretended that the Bull was a forgery brought forward byEck to discredit him, but when this line of defence proved useless, heboldly attacked the papal pronouncement in his pamphlet, /Against theBull of Anti-Christ/, in which he denounced Leo X. as a heretic andapostate, an enemy of the Holy Scriptures, a tyrant, and acalumniator. Lest, however, the courage of his supporters might beovercome by the terrors of excommunication, he issued an appeal fromthe sentence of the Pope to the judgment of a future General Council.Finally, on the 10th December, 1520, in the presence of an immenseconcourse of the citizens and students of Wittenberg, he burnedpublicly the papal Bull and the writings of his political opponents.On this occasion he proclaimed his intention of overthrowing theecclesiastical organisation, and of introducing a new theologicalsystem. For the future it was to be war to the knife against the Popeand the Church, and he called upon German patriots and all truefriends of personal liberty to take their stand by his side in theconflict that had been begun.

Charles V. was apparently in a very strong position. Not since thedays of Charlemagne had any ruler claimed jurisdiction over so wide aterritory as his, comprising, as it did, Germany and Austria, thekingdom of the two Sicilies, Spain, and the Netherlands. But inreality the very extent of his dominions made him much less powerfulthan he might have been as the sovereign of a smaller but more compactregion. It served to awaken the suspicions of his subjects, who fearedthat he might abolish their distinctive national constitutions andweld his scattered territories into one great empire, and to excitethe jealousy of the other rulers of Europe, who imagined that he mightdeclare himself dictator of the western world. The German princes,having resisted successfully all the efforts made by his grandfather,Maximilian I., to convert the loose confederation of the German Statesinto a united and centralised nation, were on their guard lest hissuccessor should attempt a similar policy with the aid of Spanishtroops and Spanish gold; the Spaniards resented the absence of theking from Spain, where many of the lower classes were in a statebordering on rebellion; Francis I. of France, trembling for the veryexistence of his country, was willing to do all things, even to agreeto an alliance with the sons of Mohammed, if he could only lessen theinfluence of his powerful rival. The Turks under Soliman I. weredetermined to realise the dreams of their race by extending theirterritories from the Bosphorus to the Atlantic; while even the Popehad good reason to suspect that Charles V., unmindful of the exampleof his great namesake, might seek to become the master rather than theprotector of the Church.[19]

On account of the troubles in Spain it was only late in the year 1520that Charles V. could come to Germany to meet the electors, and totake over formally the administration of the Empire (23 Oct.). Lessthan two weeks had elapsed when the papal representative, Aleandro,himself a distinguished Humanist, sought an interview with the newruler, and besought him to enforce the papal Bull against Luther withthe full weight of his imperial authority. But the wavering attitudeof many of the princes and the determined opposition of Frederick ofSaxony made the Emperor hesitate to condemn Luther without giving himan opportunity for explanation and defence. The Diet was soon to openat Worms, and Charles V. issued an invitation to Luther to attend,guaranteeing at the same time his personal safety on the way to andfrom Worms and during his sojourn in the city.

The Diet met in January 1521, but despite the efforts of Aleandro themajority of the princes still failed to realise the gravity of thesituation. Feeling against Rome was running very high in Germany atthe time. Many of the princes insisted on presenting a documentembodying the grievances of Germany (/Centum Gravamina/)[20] to thepapal ambassador, while even such an orthodox supporter of the Churchas Duke George of Saxony, brought forward very serious complaintsagainst the clergy, accompanied by a demand that a General Councilshould be summoned to restore peace to the Church. Luther,strengthened by the safe conduct of the Emperor and by a secretunderstanding with some of the princes and knights, set out fromWittenberg for Worms, where he arrived in April 1521. On presentinghimself before the Diet he was invited to state if he were really theauthor of the works published under his name, copies of which werepresented to him, and, if so, was he willing to retract the doctrinescontained in them. In reply to the former of these questions headmitted the authorship of the volumes, but asked for time to considerwhat answer he should make in regard to the latter. A day was allowedhim for consideration. When he appeared again, all traces of thehesitation and nervousness that marked his attitude at the previoussession had disappeared. He refused to retract his opinions, and madeit clear that he no longer acknowledged the authority of the Pope orof General Councils as a safe guide in matters religious.

Thereupon the Emperor intimated to the princes that he was determinedto take vigorous action against such a heretic and disturber of thepublic peace, though at the request of some of the princes he allowedtime for private conferences between Luther and representativeCatholic theologians, notably Eck and Cochlaeus.[21] These conferenceshaving failed to produce any result the Emperor issued an order (25thApril) commanding Luther to depart from Worms without delay, andforbidding him to preach to the people on his journey under pain offorfeiting his safe conduct. A month later Charles V. published adecree placing Luther under the ban of the Empire. He was denounced asa public heretic whom no one should receive or support; he was to beseized by any one who could do so, and delivered to the Emperor; hiswritings were to be burned, and all persons proved guilty ofcountenancing himself or his errors were liable to severe punishment.Many hoped that the decree might put an end to the confusion, but inreality Charles V. was powerless to enforce it, especially as themajority of the princes were unwilling to carry out its terms in theirterritories. Hence, outside the hereditary dominions of the House ofHabsburg, the lands of Joachim I. of Brandenburg and of Duke George ofSaxony, and in Bavaria, it remained a dead letter.

On the route from Worms Luther was taken prisoner by soldiers of theElector, Frederick of Saxony, according to arrangements that had beenmade for his protection, and was brought to the castle at Wartburgwhere he remained for close on a year (May 1521-March 1522) under theassumed name of Yonker George, safe in spite of the imperial decrees.In the silence of his retreat at Wartburg Luther had an opportunityfor reflection on the gravity of the situation that he had created. Attimes he trembled, as he thought of separating himself definitely fromthe great world-wide organisation which recognised the jurisdiction ofthe Bishop of Rome, and of setting up his own judgment against thefaith that had been handed down for centuries, and that was supportedby the ablest scholars from the days of Clement of Rome to those ofSt. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.

In his anxiety of mind he was the victim of hallucinations, believingthat the spirit of evil appeared to him in visible form, and heldcommune with him in human speech. He was assailed, too, with violenttemptations of the flesh, which reduced him to a state bordering ondespair. But these moments of depression passed away, to be succeededby fits of wild exultation in which he rejoiced at the storm that hehad created already, and at the still greater storm he was soon tocreate. He set to work with tireless energy, believing himself to beinspired from on high as was the apostle, St. John, during his stay inthe island of Patmos. At the instigation of his friends, who urged himto attack the celibacy of the monks and nuns, he turned his attentionto this question, and issued a work /On Monastic Vows/, in which hedeclared that such vows of chastity, being opposed to the freedom ofthe Gospel, were sinful and should be neglected. In his book /On theMass/ he assailed the Mass and the whole theory of the Christianpriesthood, declaring that every believer was in a true sense apriest. He poured out a most violent torrent of abuse against HenryVIII. of England, who, in his /Defence of the Seven Sacraments/, hadventured to join issue with the German reformer. At the same time heundertook to prepare a translation of the New Testament as a means ofadvancing his propaganda. By aid of mis-translations and marginalnotes he sought to popularise his views on Faith and Justification,and to win favour with the people by opening to them the word of God,which he asserted falsely had been closed against them for centuries.

All his pamphlets were couched in popular language and were exactlythe kind of works likely to appeal to the masses of the people, aswell as to the debased instincts of those who had entered into thereligious state in response to the wishes of their parents orguardians rather than in obedience to the call of God. But whileLuther thus catered for the multitude, Melanchthon sought to gain thesupport of the more educated classes by throwing Luther's teachinginto scientific and systematic form in his work, /Loci Communes/(1521), a book that remained for centuries the standard authority onLutheran teaching.

It would be wrong to assume that Luther developed his theologicalsystem in its entirety before his separation from the Church. On thequestion of Justification and Free-will he had arrived at viewsdistinctly opposed to Catholic doctrine, but his system as such tookshape only gradually in response to the attacks of his opponents orthe demands of his friends. On the one hand, imbued with the ideas ofGerman Pantheistic mysticism, Luther started with the fixed principlethat man's action is controlled by necessary laws, and that even afterjustification man is completely devoid of free will at least inreligious matters. According to him, human nature became soessentially maimed and corrupted by the sin of Adam that every workwhich man can do is and must be sinful, because it proceeds in someway from concupiscence. Hence it is, he asserted, that good works areuseless in acquiring justification, which can be obtained only byfaith; and by faith he understood not the mere intellectual assent torevealed doctrines, but a practical confidence, resulting, no doubt,from this assent, that the merits of Christ will be applied to thesoul. Through this faith the sinner seizes upon the righteousness ofChrist, and by applying to himself the justice of his Saviour his sinsare covered up. For this reason Luther explained that justificationdid not mean the actual forgiveness of sin by the infusion of someinternal habit called sanctifying grace, but only the non-imputationof the guilt on account of the merits of Christ.

Since faith alone is necessary for justification it followed as alogical consequence that there was no place in Luther's system for theSacraments, though in deference to old traditions he retained threeSacraments, Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist. These, however, as hetook care to explain, do not produce grace in the soul. They are mereoutward pledges that the receiver has the faith without which hecannot be justified. Having in this way rejected the sacramentalsystem and the sacrificial character of the Mass, it was only naturalthat he should disregard the priesthood, and proclaim that allbelievers were priests. In harmony with his theory on justification,and its dependence on faith, he denounced Purgatory, Prayers for theDead, Indulgences, and Invocation of the Saints as being in themselvesderogatory to the merits of Christ.

On the other hand, he laid it down as the leading principle that theBible was the sole rule of faith, and that individual judgment was itsonly interpreter. Consequently he rejected the idea of a visibleauthority set up by Christ as an infallible guide in religiousaffairs. In this way he sought to undermine the authority of theChurch, to depreciate the value of the decrees of the Popes andGeneral Councils, and to re-assure his less daring followers bystripping ecclesiastical censures of more than half their terrors.[22]

The results of Luther's literary activity were soon apparent atWittenberg and other centres in Germany. The Augustinians in Luther'sown convent set aside their vows as worthless, and rejected the Mass.Carlstadt made common cause with the most radical element in the city,celebrated Mass on Christmas morning in the German language (1521),and administered Holy Communion to every one who came forward toreceive, without any inquiry about their spiritual condition. Puttinghimself at the head of a body of students and roughs he went round thechurches destroying the pictures, statues, confessionals, and altars.To increase the confusion a party of men at Zwickau led by ashoemaker, Nicholas Storch, and a preacher, Thomas Munzer, followingthe principle of private judgment advocated by Luther, insisted onfaith as a condition for baptism and rejected infant baptism asworthless. They were called Anabaptists. They claimed to be specialmessengers from God, gifted with the power of working miracles, andfavoured with visions from on high. In vain did Luther attack them asheretics, and exhort his lieutenants to suppress them as being moredangerous than the Papists. Carlstadt, unable to answer theirarguments from Scripture, went over to their side, and evenMelanchthon felt so shaken in his opposition that he appealed toWartburg for guidance. The students at the university became sorestless and turbulent that Duke George of Saxony began to take theprompt and decisive action necessary for dealing with such a dangeroussituation. Luther, alarmed for the future of his work, abandoned hisretreat at Wartburg (March 1522) and returned to Wittenberg, where hehad recourse to stern measures to put an end to the confusion. Hedrove Carlstadt from the city, and even followed him to other placeswhere he tried to find refuge, till at last, after a very disedifyingscene between them in a public tavern, he forced him to flee fromSaxony. Carlstadt's greatest offence in the eyes of his master was hispreaching against the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, thoughLuther himself admitted that he should have liked to deny the RealPresence if only to annoy the Pope, were it not that the words ofScripture proved too strong. Carlstadt adopted a differentinterpretation, but Luther was not the man to tolerate individualjudgment in the case of one of his own lieutenants. Carlstadt wasdenounced as a heretic and a blasphemer, for whom no punishment couldbe sufficiently severe. Munzer, too, was banished, and with theassistance of the Elector, Luther was enabled to overcome all hisopponents.

Luther owed his success in the opening years of his campaign mainly tohis ability in gauging the feelings of the different classes whosesupport he wished to obtain, as well as to his complete mastery of theGerman language. In appealing to the monks and nuns, who were longingto escape from the obligations they had contracted, he offered themcomplete liberty by denouncing their vows as opposed to the freedom ofthe Gospel and consequently sinful. Many of the monks and nunsabandoned their cloisters and fled to Wittenberg to seek the pleasuresdenied them hitherto, and to put in practice Luther's teaching on thenecessity of marriage. Though he encouraged bishops and priests tomarry, and though he forwarded his warmest congratulations toCarlstadt on his betrothal to a fifteen year old maiden (1522), Lutherhimself hesitated long before taking his final plunge; but at last,against the advice of his best friends, he took as his wife CatherineBora, one of the escaped nuns who had sought refuge in Wittenberg. Hismarriage (1525) was a source of amusement to his opponents as it wasof dismay to his supporters. Melanchthon complained bitterly of thestep his master had taken, but he consoled himself with the thoughtthat the marriage might out an end to his former frivolity, and mightallay the suspicions that his conduct had aroused.[23] To the princes,the free cities, and the landless knights he appealed by holding outhopes that they might be enriched by a division of the ecclesiasticalestates and of the goods of the monasteries and churches. With theoverthrow of the Pope and of the bishops the princes were led toexpect that they might themselves become spiritual dictators in theirown dominions. To the friends of the Humanist movement and the greatbody of the professors and students he represented himself as thechampion of learning and intellectual freedom, anxious to defend themagainst the obscurantism of the Scholastics and the interference ofthe Roman congregations.

A large number of the leading Humanists, believing that Luther hadundertaken only a campaign against universally recognised abuses, wereinclined at first to sympathise with his movement. The friendlyattitude they adopted, and the influence employed by Erasmus andothers on his behalf during the early years of his revolt contributednot a little to his final success. But as it became evident that hisobject was the overthrow of the Church and of doctrines accepted asdogmas of faith by the whole Christian world, his former allies fellaway one by one. On the question of free-will Erasmus, who had longplayed a double role, found it necessary to take the field openlyagainst him.[24] Luther's answer, full of personal abuse andinvective, drew a sharp reply from Erasmus, and all friendlyintercourse between them was broken off for ever.

But it was on the mass of the people, the peasants and the artisans,that Luther relied mainly for support, and it was to these headdressed his most forcible appeals. The peasants of Germany, grounddown by heavy taxes and reduced to the position of slaves, were readyto listen to the revolutionary ideas put forward by leaders likeSickingen and von Hutten, and to respond to the call of Luther to riseagainst their princes whether they were secular or ecclesiastical. Inthe imagination of the peasants Luther appeared as the friend of humanliberty, determined to deliver them from the intolerable yoke that hadbeen laid upon them by their masters. His attacks were confined atfirst to the prince-bishops and abbots, but soon realising thestrength of the weapon he wielded, he attacked the lay princes in thepamphlets entitled /Christian Liberty/ and /The Secular Magistracy/,and advocated the complete overthrow of all authority. It is true,undoubtedly, that many of the peasants were already enrolled in thesecret societies, and that had there never been a Luther a popularrising might have been anticipated; but his doctrines on evangelicalfreedom and his frenzied onslaughts on the ecclesiastical and layrulers, turned the movement into an anti-religious channel, andimparted to the struggle a uniformity and bitterness that otherwise itcould never have acquired.

Risings of the peasantry took place in various parts of Germany,notably in Swabia, Thuringia, the Rhine Provinces, and Saxony (1524).Thomas Munzer, the leader of the Anabaptists, encouraged them in theirfight for freedom. At first the attack was directed principallyagainst the spiritual princes. Many monasteries and churches wereplundered, and several of the nobles were put to death. Soon the layprinces of Germany, alarmed by the course of the revolutionaries andfearing for the safety of their own territories, assembled theirforces and marched against the insurgents. The war was carried onmercilessly on both sides, close upon 100,000 peasants being killed inthe field, while many of their leaders, amongst them Thomas Munzer,were arrested and condemned to death. In nearly every importantengagement the peasants, as might be expected, suffered defeat, sothat before the end of 1525 the movement was, practically speaking, atan end. Luther, who had been consulted by both sides, and who hadtried to avoid committing himself to either, frightened by the veryviolence of the storm he had been instrumental in creating, issued anappeal to the princes calling upon them to show no mercy to the forcesof disorder,[25] and even Melanchthon, gentle and moderate as heusually was, did not hesitate to declare that the peasants of Germanyhad more liberty than should be allowed to such a rude and unculturedpeople. The Peasants' War, disastrous as it was, did some good byopening men's eyes to the dangerous consequences of Luther'sextravagant harangues, and by giving some slight indications as to thereal character and methods of the man, who was posing as a heaven-sentreformer and at the same time as a champion of popular liberty.

But though Luther lost ground in many quarters owing to the part heplayed before and during the Peasants' War, he had no intention ofabandoning the struggle in despair. During the early years of hiscampaign his mind was so engrossed with the overthrow of existingreligious institutions, that he had little time to consider how heshould rebuild what he had pulled down. At first he thought that novisible organisation was necessary, as the Church, according to hisview, consisted of all those who had true faith and charity. But soonhe abandoned this idea in favour of district or local churches thatshould be left completely independent. The disturbances in Germanyduring the Peasants' War taught him the hopelessness of such a scheme,and showed him that his only chance of permanent success lay in theorganisation of state churches to be placed under the protection andauthority of the civil rulers. By this bribe he hoped to conciliatethe princes, whom he had antagonised by his attacks on their own bodyas well as by his attitude during the early stages of the disturbance.The Elector John of Saxony, who had succeeded his brother Frederick,hesitated at first to assist him in the momentous work of setting up arival Christian organisation. But, at last, mindful of the advantagesthat would accrue to him from being recognised as supreme head of theChurch in his own dominions, he gave a reluctant consent to the plansformulated by Luther.

A body of visitors consisting of clerics and lawyers was appointed todraw up a new ecclesiastical constitution, the most noteworthy featureof which was the complete dependence of the new church on the secularauthority of each state. Episcopal jurisdiction was rejected, and inplace of the bishops, superintendents were appointed. The ordinaryadministration was to be carried out by a synod of clerics and laymenelected by the various parishes, but, in reality, the right ofappointment, of taxation, of apportioning the temporal goods, and ofdeciding legal difficulties passed under the control of the sovereign.Strange to say, though Luther insisted on individual judgment duringhis campaign against the Catholic Church, he had no difficulty inurging the civil rulers to force all their subjects to join the newreligious body. The goods of the Catholic Church were to beappropriated, some of them being set aside for the support of the newreligious organisation, while the greater portion of them found theirway into the royal treasury. The Mass, shorn of the Elevation and ofeverything that would imply the idea of sacrifice, was translated intothe German language, so that in all solemn religious services theplace of the Sacrifice was taken by the hymns, Scriptural lessons, thesermon, and the Lord's Supper. Melanchthon wrote a Visitation Book(1527) for the guidance of Lutheran ministers, and Luther himselfpublished two catechisms for the instruction of the children. TheLutheran church was organised on a similar plan in Hesse andBrandenburg and in many of the free cities such as Nurnberg,Magdeburg, Bremen, Frankfurt, Ulm, etc. By these measures theseparation was completed definitely, and a certain amount of unity wasensured for the new religion.

Meanwhile, how fared it with the Emperor and the Pope? Shortly afterthe Diet of Nurnberg (1522) Charles V. left Germany for theNetherlands. Owing to the troubles in Spain and the long drawn out warwith France he was unable to give any attention to the progress ofaffairs in Germany. The administration of the Empire was committed tothree representatives, the ablest of whom was the Elector Frederick ofSaxony, the friend and patron of Luther. The result was that Lutherhad a free hand to spread his views notwithstanding the decree ofWorms.

Leo X. died in 1521 and was succeeded by Adrian VI. (1522-3), a formertutor of the Emperor. As a Hollander it might be anticipated that hisrepresentations to the German princes would prove more effective thanthose of his Italian predecessor, particularly as not even his worstenemies could discover anything worthy of reproach either in hisprinciples or personal conduct. Convinced that Luther's only chance ofwinning support lay in his exaggerated denunciations of real orimaginary abuses, he determined to bring about a complete reform,first in Rome itself and then throughout the entire Christian world.Owing to his ill-disguised contempt for all that was dear to the heartof the Humanist Leo X., and to the severe measures taken by him toreduce expenses at the Roman Court, he encountered great opposition inRome, and incurred the dislike both of officials and people.

When he learned that a Diet was to be held at Nurnberg (1522) toconsider plans for the defence of the Empire against the Turks who hadconquered Belgrade, he despatched Chieregati as his nuncio to invitethe princes to enforce the decree of Worms, and to restore peace tothe Church by putting down the Lutheran movement. In his letters toindividual members of the Diet and in his instructions to the nuncio,which were read publicly to the assembled representatives, Adrian VI.admitted the existence of grave abuses both in Rome itself and innearly every part of the church.[26] He promised, however, to doeverything that in him lay to bring about a complete and thoroughreform.

These admissions served only to strengthen the hands of Luther and hissupporters, who pointed to them as a justification for the wholemovement, and to provide the princes with a plausible explanation oftheir inactivity in giving effect to the decree of Worms. The princesrefused to carry out the decree of Worms, alleging as an excuse thedanger of popular commotion. They brought forward once more thegrievances of the German nation against Rome (/Centum Gravamina/),insisted on a General Council being called to restore peace to theChurch, and held out a vague hope that an effort would be made toprevent the spread of the new doctrine till the Council should beconvoked.

The papal nuncio, dissatisfied with the attitude of therepresentatives, withdrew from the Diet before the formal reply wasdelivered to him. Adrian VI., cognisant of the failure of his effortsand wearied by the opposition of the Romans to whom his reforms weredispleasing, made a last fruitless effort to win over Frederick ofSaxony to his side. The news that the island of Rhodes, for thedefence of which he had laboured and prayed so strenuously, had falleninto the hands of the Turks, served to complete his affliction and tobring him to a premature grave. He died in September 1523 to the greatdelight of the Romans, who could barely conceal their rejoicing evenwhen he lay on his bed of death. He was an excellent Pope, thoughperhaps not sufficiently circumspect for the critical times in whichhe lived. Had he been elected a century earlier, and had he been givenan opportunity of carrying out reforms, as had been given to some ofhis predecessors, the Lutheran movement would have been animpossibility.

He was succeeded by Clement VII. (1523-34). The new Pope was arelative of Leo X., and, like him, a patron of literature and art. Hewas a man of blameless life and liberal views, and endowed with greatprudence and tact, but his excessive caution and want of firmness ledto the ruin of his best-conceived plans and to the failure of hisgeneral policy. He despatched Cardinal Campeggio as his legate to theDiet of Nurnberg (1524). Once again the princes of Germany closedtheir ears to the appeal of the Pope, refused to take energeticmeasures to enforce the decree of Worms, and talked of establishing acommission to consider the grievances of their nation against Rome,and to inquire into the religious issues that had been raised.Campeggio, feeling that it was hopeless to expect assistance from theDiet, turned to the individual princes. He succeeded in bringing aboutan alliance at Ratisbon (1524) between the rulers of Austria, Bavaria,and several of the ecclesiastical princes of Southern Germany for thepurpose of opposing the new teaching and safeguarding the interests ofthe Catholic Church. A similar alliance of the Catholic princes ofNorthern Germany was concluded at Dessau in 1526. At the same time theprinces who were favourable to Lutheran views, notably Philip ofHesse, John, Elector of Saxony, the rulers of Brandenburg, Prussia,Mecklenburg and Mansfeld, together with the representatives of thecities of Brunswick and Mecklenburg, met and pledged themselves tomake common cause, were any attempt made by the Emperor or theCatholic princes to suppress Luther's doctrine by force. In this wayGermany was being divided gradually into two hostile camps.

Unfortunately Charles V., whose presence in Germany might haveexercised a restraining influence, was so engrossed in the life anddeath struggle with France that he had no time to follow the progressof the religious revolt. To complicate the issue still more, ClementVII., who had been friendly to the Emperor for some time after hiselection, alarmed lest the freedom of the Papal States and of the HolySee might be endangered were the French driven completely from thepeninsula, took sides openly against Charles V. and formed an alliancewith his opponent. The good fortune that had smiled on the French armssuddenly deserted them. In 1525 Francis I. was defeated at Pavia andtaken as prisoner to Spain, where he was forced to accept the termsdictated to him by his victorious rival. On his release in 1526 herefused to abide by the terms of the Treaty, and a new alliance,consisting of the Pope, France, England, Venice, Florence, Milan, andSwitzerland was formed against Charles V. Disturbances, fomented bythe Italian supporters of the Emperor, broke out in the Papal States,and a German army led by the Prince of Bourbon marched on Rome withoutthe knowledge of Charles, captured the city, plundered its treasures,and for several days wreaked a terrible vengeance on the citizens.Charles, who was in Spain at the time, was deeply grieved when thenews was brought to him of the havoc that had been wrought by hissubordinates. A temporary peace was concluded immediately between theEmperor and the Pope, and the peace of Barcelona in 1529 put an end tothis unholy strife. About the same time the hostilities betweenCharles and Francis I. were brought to a conclusion by the Peace ofCambrai, and the Emperor, having been crowned by the Pope at Bologna(1530), was free at last to turn his attention to the religiousrevolution in Germany.[27]

During the struggle between Charles V. and the Pope the Lutheranprinces had a free hand to do as they pleased, and, indeed, at onetime they were not without hope that Charles might be induced to placehimself at their head. Besides, owing to the fact that the Turks wereadvancing on Hungary and were likely to overrun the hereditarydominions of the House of Habsburg, they felt confident that noattempt could be made to suppress Lutheranism by force. At the Diet ofSpeier, in 1526, John Duke of Saxony, and Philip of Hesse adopted soviolent and unconciliatory an attitude that Germany was on the brinkof civil war, had not the Archduke Ferdinand, alarmed by the successof the Turks, used all his powers to prevent a division. It was agreedthat both sides should unite against the Turks, that a Council shouldbe called within a year to discuss the religious difficulties, andthat in the meantime individual rulers were free to enforce ordisregard the decree of Worms as they wished.

These concessions, wrung from the Catholic princes owing to the fearof Turkish invasion, did not satisfy either party. False rumours werespread among the Protestant princes that Duke George of Saxony andother Catholic rulers intended to have recourse to arms, and thoughthe Duke was able to clear himself of the charge, the relationsbetween the two parties became gradually more strained. In 1526 theTurks overcame the Hungarians and Bohemians at Mohacz, and advancinginto Austria were encamped under the very walls of Vienna. It becamenecessary to summon another Diet at Speier (1529). The Catholicprinces were in the majority, and the knowledge, that the Emperor hadconcluded peace with France and the Pope and was now ready to supportthem, rendered them less willing to accept dictation. It was carriedby a majority that the Emperor should endeavour to have a Councilconvoked within a year, that in the meantime the rulers in whoseterritories the decree of Worms had been in force should continue toenforce it, and that in the states where the new teaching had takenroot the rulers were at liberty to allow it to continue, but, in theinterval before the Council they should permit no further changes tobe introduced. Nobody should be allowed to preach against theSacrament of the Altar; the Mass should be celebrated if it had notbeen abolished, and if abolished no one should be punished forcelebrating or attending it, and the Scripture should be expoundedaccording to the traditional interpretation of the Church.

The Lutheran party objected strongly to this decree, and as theirobjections were over-ruled they submitted a formal protest, on accountof which they received the distinctive title of Protestants.[28] Theprotest, signed by the Elector of Saxony, the Margrave of Brandenburg,the Dukes of Brunswick-Luneburg, Philip of Hesse, and therepresentatives of fourteen cities, having failed to produce anyeffect on the Diet, a deputation was appointed to interview theEmperor and to place their grievances before him. But Charles V.,mindful of his imperial oath, refused to allow himself to beintimidated. He warned the deputation that he and the Catholic princeshad also their duties to fulfil towards God and the Church, and thatuntil a Council should assemble they must obey the decrees of theDiet. In January 1530 he convened a new Diet to meet at Augsburg atwhich he himself promised to be present.

The Diet was convened to meet at Augsburg in April 1530, but it wasthe middle of June before the Emperor, accompanied by the papallegate, made his formal entrance into the city. On the following daythe feast of Corpus Christi was celebrated with the customarysolemnities, and the Emperor was pained deeply when he learned thatthe Protestant princes refused to be present or to take any part inthe function. At the opening of the Diet it was agreed that thereligious question should take precedence, and the Protestant princeswere invited to make a clear statement of their doctrines and demands.Luther himself could not be present on account of the decree of Worms,and hence the duty of preparing a complete exposition of theProtestant doctrine devolved upon the ablest of his lieutenants,Philip Melanchthon. He drew up and presented to the Diet the documentknown as the /Augsburg Confession/ (/Confessio Augustana/), acceptedby Luther himself as a masterly though perhaps too moderate statementof the new teaching. The Confession was divided into two parts, theformer of which consisted of twenty-one articles or dogmas of faithreceived by himself and his friends; the latter dwelt with what hetermed abuses which they rejected, notable amongst these beingcelibacy of the clergy, monastic vows, auricular confession, privatemasses, communion under one kind, abstinence, and episcopalgovernment. The Confession was drawn up very skilfully, greatprominence being given to the doctrines on which all Christians wereagreed, while the distinctive tenets of the Protestant reformers wereput forward in their mildest and least offensive form. The documentwas read to the Diet in German by Bayer, Chancellor of the Elector ofSaxony, and undoubtedly it produced a marked impression on theassembly. The Emperor held a conference with the Catholic princes,some of whom advocated prompt recourse to the sternest measures.Others, however, amongst them being several of the ecclesiasticalprinces, misled by the temperate and, in a certain sense, misleadingcharacter of Melanchthon's statement, and believing that a peacefulsolution to the religious difficulty was still possible, urged CharlesV. to abstain from decisive action. It was agreed that the work ofexamining and refuting the Augsburg Confession should be entrusted toa certain number of Catholic theologians, the most prominent of whomwere Eck, Cochlaeus, and Conrad Wimpina.[29] Unfortunately these menallowed their natural feelings of irritation to overcome theirjudgment, and not content with a calm and judicial refutation of thedocument submitted to them, they attacked warmly the exaggerations,contradictions, and misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine of whichLuther had been guilty, and succeeded in imparting to their reply abitter and ironical tone more likely to widen than to heal thedivision. At the request of the Emperor they modified it veryconsiderably, confining themselves entirely to a brief anddispassionate examination of the individual points raised byMelanchthon, and in its modified form their refutation (/ConfutatioConfessionis Augustanae/) was presented to the Diet (3rd Aug.).

When the reply of the Catholic theologians had been read the Emperorcalled upon the Protestant princes to return to the unity of theChurch; but his appeal fell upon deaf ears, and it seemed as if theissue were to be decided immediately by civil war. By way ofcompromise it was suggested that representatives of both partiesshould meet in conference, Eck, Cochlaeus, and Wimpina being selectedas the Catholic theologians, Melanchthon, Brenz, and Schnep as thechampions of Lutheranism. From the very outset it should have beenevident to all that, where disagreement was so fundamental, one partymaintaining the theory of an infallible Church as the only safe guidein religious matters, the other rejecting entirely the authority ofthe Church and the Pope in favour of individual judgment, thediscussion of particular dogmas could never lead to unity. As a matterof fact Melanchthon was willing to make most important concessions,and on the question of original sin, free-will, justification, faith,penance, and the intercession of the saints, formulas were put forwardnot displeasing to either party. Even in regard to the Eucharist, thejurisdiction of the bishops, and the supremacy of Rome, Melanchthonwas inclined to go far to meet his opponents, much to the disgust ofthe extremists of his own party and to the no small alarm ofLuther.[30] But in reality the apparent harmony existed only on paper,and the concessions made by Melanchthon depended entirely on themeaning that should be placed on the ambiguous phraseology andqualifications with which they were clothed. On the question of theMass, the celibacy of the clergy, and the meritorious character ofgood works, no agreement was arrived at, as Melanchthon, alarmed bythe opposition of his own supporters and the reproofs of Luther, wasunwilling to modify his position. What the conference of theologianshad failed to do was undertaken by a mixed commission consisting ofprinces, theologians, and lawyers, but without any result. InSeptember the Emperor announced that he was endeavouring to procurethe convocation of a General Council and that in the meantime theProtestants should return to the old faith, a certain time beingallowed them for consideration, that they should attempt no furtherinnovations or interference with the followers of the old faith, thatthey should restore the ecclesiastical goods which had been seized,and that they should unite with the Catholics in opposing theAnabaptists and the Sacramentarians.

The Protestant princes refused to submit on the ground that theirdoctrines were in harmony with the Word of God, and to justify thiscontention Melanchthon published the /Apologia ConfessionisAugustanae/, which was in many points more full and explicit than theConfession itself. Some of the German cities that had embraced theZwinglian doctrine, notably, Strassburg and Constance, repudiated theAugsburg Confession, and presented a document embodying their beliefs,known as the /Confessio Tetrapolitana/ which found no favour withCharles V. or with the Diet. Finally, on the 18th November, theEmperor announced to the Diet that until a General Council shouldmeet, everything must be restored to the /status quo/, that he felt itincumbent upon him as protector of the Church to defend the Catholicfaith with all his might, and that in this work he could count on thefull support of the Catholic princes. Unfortunately, it was by nomeans correct to state that the Catholic rulers of Germany stoodbehind their Emperor. Nearly all of them were anxious to avoid civilwar at any cost, and not a few of them hesitated to support theEmperor lest the suppression of the Protestant princes might lead tothe establishment of a strong central power. Nor were the Protestantsalarmed by the threat of force. With the Turks hovering on the flanksof the empire, they were confident that they might expect concessionsrather than violence.

The Protestant princes met in December (1530) at Schmalkald toconsider their position, and early in the following year (1531) theyformed the Schmalkaldic League for the defence of their religious andtemporal interests. Negotiations were opened up with France, Denmark,and England, and notification was made to the Emperor that they mustwithhold their assistance against the Turks until their religiousbeliefs were secured. They refused, furthermore, to recogniseFerdinand, brother of Charles V., whom Charles had proclaimed King ofthe Romans. The Emperor, alarmed by the news that Soliman waspreparing an immense army for a general attack on Italy and Austria,and well aware that he could not count either on the assistance of theCatholic princes or the neutrality of France, was forced to give way.In July 1532 peace was concluded at Nurnberg. According to the termsof the Peace of Nurnberg it was agreed that until a General Councilshould assemble no action should be taken against the Protestantprinces, and that in the interval everything was to remain unchanged.This agreement, it was stipulated, should apply only to those whoaccepted the Confession of Augsburg, a stipulation that was meant toexclude the followers of Zwingli.

Charles V. was really anxious that a Council should be called, nor wasClement VII. unwilling to meet his wishes, if only he could have beencertain that a Council constituted as such assemblies had beenconstituted traditionally, could serve any useful purpose. Time andagain Luther had expressed his supreme contempt for the authority ofGeneral Councils, though he professed to be not unwilling to submitthe matters in dispute to a body of men selected by the civil rulers.In 1532-3 Pope and Emperor met at Bologna to discuss the situation,and messengers were despatched to see on what terms the Protestantswould consent to attend the Council. The members of the SchmalkaldicLeague refused (1533) to accept the conditions proposed by the Pope,namely, that the Council should be constituted according to the planhitherto followed in regard to such assemblies, and that all shouldpledge themselves beforehand to accept its decrees.[31]

Clement VII. died in September (1534) and was succeeded by Paul III.(1534-49). He convoked a General Council to meet at Mantua in 1537,but the League refused once more to attend (1535). Even had there beenno other difficulties in the way, the war that broke out with renewedbitterness between Charles V. and Francis I. would have made itimpossible for such a body to meet with any hope of success. Thehelpless condition of the Emperor, confronted, as he was, on the oneside by the French and on the other by the Turks, raised the hopes ofthe Protestant party, and made them more determined than ever toattend no Council in which the authority of the bishops or thejurisdiction of the Pope should be recognised. Moreover, each yearbrought new accessions to their ranks. The appearance of organisedChristian bodies, completely national in character, accepting thecivil rulers as their head, and conceding to them full power to dealas they liked with ecclesiastical property, created a deep impressionon several princes and free cities, and made them not averse to givingthe new religion a fair trial. In 1530, the Elector of Saxony, Philipof Hesse and the rulers of Ansbach, Anhalt, Brunswick-Luneburg,Bayreuth, East Friesland, and a few of the larger cities had gone overto Luther. Before ten years had elapsed the greater part of NorthernGermany had fallen from the Catholic Church, and even in SouthernGermany Protestantism had made serious inroads. Several of the moreimportant cities such as Wittenberg, Strassburg, Nurnberg, Magdeburg,Frankfurt-on-Main, Hamburg, and Erfurt became leading centres for thespread of the new teaching, while many of the German universities, forexample, Erfurt, Basle, Frankfurt, Rostock, and Marburg supportedstrongly the efforts of Luther.

The Catholic princes, alarmed by the rapid spread of the new doctrinesand by the extravagant demands of the Protestants, met together toform the Holy League (1538) as a defence against the Schmalkaldicconfederation. Feeling was running so high at the time that the longexpected war might have broken out immediately, had not the dread of aTurkish invasion exercised a restraining influence on both parties. In1539 negotiations were opened up for a temporary armistice, andanother fruitless attempt was made to arrive at peace by means of areligious conference. Before any result had been attained the Emperorsummoned a Diet to meet at Ratisbon (April 1541). Three theologianswere appointed from both sides to discuss the questions at issue.Though some of the Catholic representatives showed clearly enough thattheir desire for union was much greater than their knowledge ofCatholic principles, an understanding was arrived at only in regard toa few points of difference. By the Recess of the Diet (known as the/Ratisbon Interim/) it was ordered that both parties should observethe articles of faith on which they had agreed until a General Councilshould meet, that in the interval the terms of the Peace of Nurnbergshould be carried out strictly, that the religious houses that hadescaped destruction hitherto should remain undisturbed, and that thedisciplinary decrees promulgated by the cardinal legate (Contarini)should be obeyed by the Catholics.

The Protestant princes were still dissatisfied. In order to procuretheir assistance Charles was obliged to yield to further demands,notably, to permit them to suppress the monasteries in theirdominions. But, fortunately for the Catholic Church, the agreementembodied in the /Ratisbon Interim/ was rejected by the more extremeProtestant Party led by Luther himself, and the danger of gravemisunderstanding was removed.

During the following years the Lutheran movement continued to advanceby leaps and bounds. Duke George of Saxony, one of its strongestopponents, died in 1539, and his successor invited the Lutheranpreachers to assist him in the work of reform. Henry, Duke ofBrunswick, was driven from his kingdom by the League of Schmalkald andforced to seek refuge in Bavaria. The Bishoprics of Hildesheim andNaumburg were captured by force, and it required all the efforts ofthe Pope and of the Emperor to prevent Cologne from being handed overto Luther's followers by its prince-bishop (Hermann von Wied).Lutheranism provided almost irresistible attractions for the layrulers, who desired to acquire wealth and power at the expense of theChurch, as well as for the unworthy ecclesiastical princes who wereanxious to convert the states of which they were merely administratorsinto hereditary dominions.

But though outwardly the movement prospered beyond expectation all wasfar from well within. The fundamental principle enunciated by Luther,namely, the rejection of all religious authority, opened the way fornew theories and new sects. Quite apart from the controversies betweenthe followers of Luther and Zwingli, which shall be dealt with later,the Anabaptists and others continued to destroy the harmony of theself-styled reformers. The Anabaptists seized the city of Munster,proclaimed a democratic theocracy with John of Leyden, a tailor, atits head, and pronounced their intention of taking the field for theoverthrow of tyrants and impostors. But their success was short-lived.Conrad, bishop and prince of Munster, raised an army, laid siege tothe city which he captured after a desperate struggle, and put todeath the fanatical leaders who had deceived the people (1535-6).Other writers and preachers questioned the doctrines of the Trinityand Incarnation, and advocated many heresies condemned by the earlyChurch, some of them going so far as to insist on the revival ofcircumcision and the Jewish ceremonial law.[32]

Nor did the new teaching exercise an elevating influence on the moralsor conduct of its adherents. Luther himself was forced to admit thatthe condition of affairs had grown worse even than it had been beforehe undertook his campaign. "Since we have commenced to preach ourdoctrine," he said in one of his sermons, "the world has grown dailyworse, more impious, and more shameless. Men are now beset by legionsof devils, and while enjoying the full light of the Gospel are moreavaricious, more impure, and repulsive than of old under the Papacy.Peasants, burghers, nobles, men of all degrees, the higher as well asthe lowest are all alike slaves to avarice, drunkenness, gluttony, andimpurity, and given over to horrible excesses of abominablepassions."[33]

The princes, free from all religious and ecclesiastical restraints,set an example of licentiousness which their subjects were not slow toimitate. Philip of Hesse was the life and soul of the Lutheranmovement. He was married already to Christina, daughter of Duke Georgeof Saxony, by whom eight children had been born to him, but finding itimpossible to observe his marriage obligations, and wishing to impartto his own sinful conduct an air of decency, he demanded permissionfrom Luther to marry one of the maids of honour in attendance on hissister. This request placed Luther and Melanchthon in a very delicateposition. On the one hand, if they acceded to it they would beregarded as patrons and defenders of adultery and would exposethemselves to the ridicule of their opponents; on the other, were theyto refuse compliance with his wishes, Philip, forgetful of his formerzeal for the pure word of God, might carry out his threats to returnto the Catholic Church. After long and anxious deliberation theydetermined to exercise a dispensing power such as had never beenexercised before by any Pope. "In order to provide for the welfare ofhis soul and body and to bring greater glory to God," they allowed himto take to himself a second wife, insisting, however, that the wholeaffair should be kept a close secret. But hardly had the marriageceremony been gone through (1540) than the story of the dispensationbecame public. Luther was at first inclined to deny it entirely as aninvention of his enemies, but he changed his mind when he found thatthe proofs were irrefragable and determined to brazen out theaffair.[34]

Luther's last years were full of anxiety and sorrow. As he lookedround his own city of Wittenberg and the cities of Germany where hisdoctrines had taken root he found little ground for self-congratulation. Religious dissensions, bitterness, war-likepreparations, decline of learning, decay of the universities, andimmorality, had marked the progress of his gospel. In many districtsthe power of the Pope had indeed been broken, but only to make way forthe authority of the civil rulers upon whom neither religious nordisciplinary canons could exercise any restraint; the monasteries andreligious institutions had been suppressed, but their wealth hadpassed into the treasuries of the princes, whilst the poor for whosebenefit it had been held in trust were neglected, and the ministers ofreligion were obliged to have recourse to different occupations tosecure a livelihood. To his followers and his most intimate associateshe denied the liberty of thought and speech that he claimed forhimself, by insisting on the unconditional acceptance of his doctrinesas if in him alone were vested supreme authority and infallibility.For exercising their right to private judgment, Carlstadt was pursuedfrom pulpit to pulpit till at last he was forced to seek safety inflight; Zwingli was denounced as a heretic for whose salvation it wasuseless to pray; the Anabaptists were declared to be unworthy of anybetter fate than the sword or the halter; Agricola, his most zealousfellow-labourer, was banished from his presence and his writings wereinterdicted; and even Melanchthon was at last driven to complain ofthe state of slavery to which he had been reduced.[35]

His failing health and his disappointments served to sour his temperand to render him less approachable. The attacks that he directedagainst the Papacy such as /The Papacy an Institution of the Devil/,and the verses prepared for the vulgar caricatures that he inducedCranach to design (1545) surpassed even his former productions inviolence and abusiveness. Tired of attacking the Papacy, he turned hisattention once more to the Jews, upon whom he invoked the vengeance ofHeaven in the last sermon that he was destined to preach on earth. Hewas taken suddenly ill in Eisleben, where he had come to settle somedisputes between the Counts of Mansfeld, and on the 18th February1546, he passed away.[36]

Luther is a man whose character it is difficult to appreciate exactly.At times he spoke and wrote as if he were endowed with a deeplyreligious feeling, convinced of the truth of his doctrines, andanxious only for the success of the work for which he professed tobelieve he had been raised up by God. Some of his sermons sounded likea trumpet call from Heaven, warning the people that the hour forrepentance had drawn nigh, while his conversations with his intimatefriends breathed at times a spirit of piety and fervour redolent ofthe apostolic age. This, however, was only one feature of Luther'scharacter, and, unfortunately, it was a feature that manifested itselfonly too rarely. As a general rule his writings, his sermons andspeeches, and, in a word, his whole line of conduct were in directopposition to everything that is associated generally in the popularmind with the true religious reformer. His replies to his opponents,even to those who, avoiding personalities, addressed themselvesdirectly to his doctrines, were couched in the most violent andabusive language. His wild onslaughts and his demands for vengeance onany one who ventured to question his teaching, whether they wereCatholics, Zwinglians, Sacramentarians or Anabaptists, were the veryantithesis of the spirit of charity and meekness that shouldcharacterise a follower, not to say an apostle, of Christ. Nor werehis over-weening pride and self-confidence in keeping with the spiritof meekness and humility inculcated so frequently in the writings ofthe New Testament.

In his letters, and more especially in his familiar intercourse withhis friends,[37] his conversation was frequently risky and indecent;his relations with women, at least before his marriage with CatherineBora, were, to put it mildly, not above suspicion, as is evident fromhis own letters and the letters of his most devoted supporters; whilehis references to marriage and vows of chastity in his sermons andpamphlets were filthy and unpardonable even in an age when people weremuch more outspoken on such subjects than they are at present. Thoughhe insisted strongly on the necessity of preaching the pure Word ofGod, he had little difficulty in having recourse to falsehood whentruth did not serve his purpose, or in justifying his conduct byadvocating the principle that not all lies were sinful particularly ifthey helped to damage the Roman Church. His frequent and enthusiasticreferences to the pleasures of the table were more like what oneshould expect to find in the writings of a Pagan epicure than in thoseof a Christian reformer. He was not, as is sometimes asserted, ahabitual drunkard. His tireless activity as a writer and preacher isin itself a sufficient refutation of such a charge, but he wasconvinced that a hard drinking bout was at times good for both souland body, and in this respect at least he certainly lived up to hisconvictions.[38]

It would be a mistake to judge him by his Latin writings, which, bothin manner and style, seldom rise above the level of mediocrity. It isin his German books and pamphlets that Luther is seen at his best.There, he appears as a man of great ability and learning, gifted witha prodigious memory, a striking literary style, and a happy knack ofseizing upon the weak points of his adversaries and of presenting hisown side of the case in its most forcible and attractive form. No manknew better than he how to adapt himself to the tastes of his audienceor the prejudices of his readers. He could play the role of the judgeor the professor almost as well as that of the impassioned fanaticconvinced that behind him were arrayed all the powers of Heaven. Indealing with men of education, who were not likely to be captivated byrhetoric, he could be calm and argumentative; but when he addressedhimself to the masses of the people he appeared in his true characteras a popular demagogue, hesitating at nothing that was likely toarouse their indignation against the Roman Church and their enthusiasmfor the movement to which he had devoted his life. In words of fieryeloquence he recalled to their minds the real and imaginary grievancesof their nation against Rome, the over-weening pride and tyranny ofthe spiritual princes, the scandalous lives of many of theecclesiastics, and the failure of the Pope and councils to carrythrough a scheme of wholesale reform. He called upon them to throw offthe yoke imposed by foreigners on their fathers and themselves, and tosupport him in his struggle for the liberty of the people, theindependence of the German nation, and the original purity of theGospel, promising them that if only they would range themselves underhis banner, all their grievances, both spiritual and temporal, mustsoon be redressed. Had Luther never appeared, or had he been lessgifted as an orator, a writer and a popular leader than he was, acrisis must have arisen at the time; but his genius and enthusiasmturned what might have been a trickling stream into a raging torrent,threatening destruction to beliefs and institutions hitherto regardedas inviolable. The time was ripe for a reformer, and Luther's onlyclaim to greatness was his capacity of utilising in a masterly way thematerials, political and religious, that lay ready at his hand.Religious abuses, social unrest, politics, personal vanities, and theexcesses always attendant upon a great literary revival, were pressedinto his service, and were directed against the Roman Church. And yethis success fell far short of his expectations. Beyond doubt hecontrived to detach individuals and kingdoms from their obedience tothe Pope and their submission to ecclesiastical authority only tosubject them to the spiritual yoke of secular princes, and to exposethem to doctrinal anarchy subversive of dogmatic religion; but theCatholic Church and the See of Rome, for the overthrow of which he hadlaboured so energetically, emerged triumphant from the terrible trialthat had been permitted by God only for its purification.

During the period that intervened between the /Ratisbon Interim/ andthe death of Luther (1541-6) Charles V., hard pressed by the war withFrance and the unsuccessful expeditions against the Barbary pirates,was obliged to yield to the increasing demands of the Protestantprinces; nor could Paul III., however much he desired it, realise hisintention of convoking a General Council. But at last the Peace ofCrepy (1544) which put an end to the war with France, and theconvocation of a General Council to meet at Trent in March 1545,strengthened the hands of the Emperor, and enabled him to dealeffectively with the religious revolution. The Protestant princesannounced their determination to take no part in a Council convokedand presided over by the Pope. Charles left no stone unturned toinduce them to adopt a more conciliatory attitude, but all his effortshaving proved unavailing, he let it be known publicly that he wouldnot allow himself to be intimidated by threats of violence, and thatif need be he would insist on obedience at the point of the sword.John Frederick of Saxony and Philip of Hesse, alarmed by thethreatening aspect of affairs, determined to anticipate the Emperor,and took the field at the head of an army of forty thousand men(1546).

Charles V., relying upon the aid of the Pope and the co-operation ofthe Catholic princes, issued a proclamation calling upon all loyalsubjects to treat them as rebels and outlaws. Maurice of Saxonydeserted his co-religionists on promise of succeeding to theElectorship, joined the standard of Charles V., and in conjunctionwith Ferdinand directed his forces against Saxony. The Elector wasdefeated and captured at Muhlberg (April 1547). He was condemned todeath as a traitor, but he was reprieved and detained as a prisoner inthe suite of the Emperor, while his nephew, Maurice of Saxony,succeeded to his dominions. Philip of Hesse, too, was obliged tosurrender, and Charles V. found himself everywhere victorious. Heinsisted on the restoration of the Bishop of Naumburg and of Henry ofBrunswick to his kingdom as well as on the resignation of HermannPrince von Wied, Archbishop of Cologne. He was unwilling, however, toproceed to extremes with the Protestant princes, well knowing that hecould not rely on some of his own supporters. Besides, he had becomeinvolved in serious difficulties with Pope Paul III., who complained,and not without reason, of the demands made upon him by the Emperor,and of the concessions that the Emperor was willing to make to theLutherans.

Charles V. summoned a Diet to meet at Augsburg (1547), where he hopedthat a permanent understanding might be secured. A document known asthe /Augsburg Interim/, prepared by Catholic theologians inconjunction with the Lutheran, John Agricola, was acceptedprovisionally by both parties. The doctrines were expressed in a verymild form, though not, however, altogether unacceptable to Catholics.Protestants were permitted to receive communion under both kinds;their married clergy were allowed to retain their wives; and it wasunderstood tacitly that they might keep possession of theecclesiastical property they had seized. The /Augsburg Interim/, asmight have been anticipated, was displeasing to both parties. Mauriceof Saxony, unwilling to give it unconditional approval, consultedMelanchthon and others of his school as to how far he might accept itsterms. In their reply they distinguished between matters that wereessential and those that were only of secondary importance. The lattermight be accepted unreservedly in obedience to the orders of theEmperor. In regard to doctrines, they were willing to compromise onthe question of justification and good-works, to accept thesacraments, including confirmation and Extreme Unction, the Mass withthe addition of some German hymns, and in a certain sense thejurisdiction of the bishops. Such concessions were a distinctdeparture from Luther's teaching and would have been impossible had hebeen alive.

The relations between the Pope and the Emperor took a more friendlyturn when the General Council was transferred from Bologna to Trent(1551). The Protestant princes, invited to send representatives,declined at first, but in a short time several of them agreed toaccept the invitation. Safe conducts were issued for theirrepresentatives by the Council in 1551 and again in 1552. Even theWittenberg theologians were not unfavourably disposed, and Melanchthonwas actually on his way to Trent. But suddenly Maurice of Saxony, whohad assembled a large army under pretext of reducing Magdeburg, andhad strengthened himself by an alliance with several princes as wellas by a secret treaty with Henry II. of France, deserted the Emperorand placed himself at the head of the Protestant forces. When all hisplans were completed he advanced suddenly through Thuringia, tookAugsburg, and was within an inch of capturing the Emperor who then layill at Innsbruck (1552). At the same time the French forces occupiedLorraine. Charles, finding himself unable to carry on the struggle,opened negotiations for peace, and in 1552 the Treaty of Passau wasconcluded. Philip of Hesse was to be set at liberty; a Diet was to becalled within six months to settle the religious differences; in themeantime neither the Emperor nor the princes should interfere withfreedom of conscience; and all disputes that might arise were to bereferred to a commission consisting of an equal number of Protestantand Catholic members.

Owing to the war with France it was not until the year 1555 that theproposed Diet met at Augsburg. The Protestant party, encouraged bytheir victories, were in no humour for compromise, and as it wasevident that there was no longer any hope of healing the religiousdivision in the Empire, it was agreed that peace could be secured onlyby mutual toleration. In September 1555 the Peace of Augsburg wasconcluded. According to the terms of this convention full freedom ofconscience was conceded in the Empire to Catholics and to allProtestants who accepted the Augsburg Confession. The latter werepermitted to retain the ecclesiastical goods which they had alreadyacquired before the Treaty of Passau (1552). For the future eachprince was to be free to determine the religion of his subjects, butin case a subject was not content with the religion imposed on him byhis sovereign he could claim the right to migrate into a more friendlyterritory.

A great difficulty arose in regard to the disposal of theecclesiastical property in case a Catholic bishop or abbot shouldapostatise. Notwithstanding the protests of the Protestant party, itwas decreed that if such an event should occur the seceder could claimhis own personal property, but not the property attached to hisoffice. This clause, known as the /Ecclesiasticum Reservatum/, gaverise to many disputes, and was one of the principal causes of theThirty Years' War.

By the /Peace of Augsburg/ Protestantism was recognised as a distinctand separate form of Christianity, and the first blow was struck atthe fundamental principles on which the Holy Roman Empire had beenbuilt. Charles V. was blamed at the time, and has been blamed sincefor having given his consent to such a treaty, but if all thecircumstances of the time be duly considered it is difficult to seehow he could have acted otherwise than he did. It is not the Emperorwho should be held accountable for the unfavourable character of theAugsburg Peace, but "the most Catholic King of France" who alliedhimself with the forces of German Protestantism, and the Catholicprinces who were more anxious to secure their own position than tofight for their sovereign or their religion. Charles V., broken downin health and wearied by his misfortunes and his failure to put downthe religious revolt, determined to hand over to a younger man theadministration of the territories over which he ruled, and to devotethe remainder of his life to preparation for the world to come. In aparting address delivered to the States of the Netherlands he warnedthem "to be loyal to the Catholic faith which has always been andeverywhere the faith of Christendom, for should it disappear thefoundations of goodness should crumble away and every sort of mischiefnow menacing the world would reign supreme." After his resignation heretired to a monastery in Estremadura, where he died in 1558. Spainand the Netherlands passed to his legitimate son, Philip II., whileafter some delay his brother, Ferdinand, was recognised as hissuccessor in the Empire.

Charles V. was a man of sound judgment and liberal views, of greatenergy and prudence, as skilful in war as he was in the arts ofdiplomacy, and immensely superior in nearly every respect to hiscontemporaries, Francis I. of France and Henry VIII. of England. Yetin spite of all his admitted qualifications, and notwithstanding thefact that he was the ruler of three-fourths of Western Europe, helived to witness the overthrow of his dearest projects and thecomplete failure of his general policy. But his want of success wasnot due to personal imprudence or inactivity. It is to be attributedto the circumstances of the times, the rebellion in Spain, the openrevolt of some and the distrust of others in Germany, the rapidadvance of the Turks towards the west, and, above all, the strugglewith France. Despite his many quarrels with the Holy See, and in faceof the many temptations held out to him to arrive at the worldwidedictatorship to which he was suspected of aspiring, by putting himselfat the head of the new religious movement, he never wavered for amoment in his allegiance to the Catholic Church. ----------

[1] Grisar, /Luther/ (Eng. Trans.), i., p. 4.

[2] /Id./ p. 8.

[3] Grisar, /Luther/ (Eng. Trans.), i., p. 14.

[4] Id. chap. iv.

[5] Keller, /Johann von Staupitz und die Anfange der Reformation/, 1888.

[6] Grisar, op. cit. (Eng. Trans.), i., 34, 323.

[7] Id. i., 34, Bd. iii., 957-8.

[8] Paulus, /Johann Tetzel, der Ablassprediger/, 1899. /Die Deutschen Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther/, 1903.

[9] Grisar, op. cit. (Eng. Trans.), i., pp. 341-55.

[10] Kidd, /Documents of the Continental Reformation/, pp. 20-6.

[11] Specially, Nos. 43, 45, 59, 86.

[12] /Dialogus . . . in presumptuosas M. Lutheri conclusiones de potestate Papae./

[13] Greving, /Johann Eck/, etc., 1906.

[14] "/Beatissime Pater, prostratum me pedibus tuae beatitudinis offero cum omnibus quae sum et habeo. Vivifica, occide, voca, revoca, approba, reproba, ut placuerit. Vocem tuam vocem Christi in te praesidentis et loquentis agnoscam. Si mortem merui, mori non recusabo./"

[15] Pastor, op. cit., iv., 177-9.

[16] Creutzberg, /Karl von Miltitz/, 1907.

[17] "/Coram Deo et tota creatura sua testor, me neque voluisse neque hodie velle Ecclesiae Romanae ac Beatitudinis Tuae potestem ullo modo tangere aut quacunque versutia demoliri; quin plenissime confiteor huius ecclesiae potestatem esse super omnia, nec ei praeferendum quidquid sive in coelo sive in terra praeter unum Jesum Christum Dominum omnium/" (3rd March, 1519). Kidd, op. cit., p. 43.

[18] Grisar, op. cit. (Eng. Trans.), i., 359.

[19] /Cambridge Modern History/, ii., chaps. ii., iii.

[20] /Imperatorum nationis Germanicae gravamina ad Sadem Romanam/, 1725.

[21] De Weldige-Kremer, /De Joannis Cochlaei Vita et Scriptis/, 1865. He was one of the most energetic opponents of the Reformation party.

[22] Schwane, /Dogmengeschichte der neuren zeit/, 1890, pp. 131-51, 210-240, 251-92.

[23] Grisar, op. cit., Bd. iii., 228.

[24] /De Libero Arbitrio/, etc., 1524.

[25] Grisar, op. cit., Bd. i., pp. 483-502.

[26] Raynaldus, /Ann. Eccl./ (ann. 1522).

[27] Pastor, op. cit., Bd. iv., pp. 212-393.

[28] "Of such slender dimensions was the original Protestant Church; small as it was, it was only held together by the negative character of its protest."--/Camb. Mod. Hist./, ii., p. 205.

[29] Negwer, /Wimpina/, 1909.

[30] Hergenrother-Kirsch, op. cit., Bd. iii., p. 80.

[31] Pastor, op. cit., Bd. iv., 473-5.

[32] Hergenrother-Kirsch, op. cit., iii., pp. 102-8.

[33] For Luther's own views on the results of his preaching, cf. Dollinger, /Die Reformation/, Bd. ii., pp. 426-52.

[34] Grisar, op. cit., Bd. ii., 382-436.

[35] Grisar, op. cit., Bd. iii., 211-30.

[36] That there can be no question of suicide is admitted (Paulus /Luthers Lebensende/, 1898).

[37] /Tischreden/ (/Table Talk/), cf. Grisar, ii., 178 sqq. Smith, /Luther's Table Talk/, 1907. /Am. Ecc. Review/ (1906, pp. 1-18).

[38] /Personal Character of Luther/ (/Ir. Theol. Quart./, viii., p. 77-85).

(b) Zwingli in Switzerland: His attitude towards Lutheranism.

See works mentioned above (II. a). Dandliker, /Geschichte der Schweiz/, 3 Bde, 1904. Dandliker-Salisbury, /A Short History of Switzerland/, 1899. De Haller, /Histoire de la revolution religieuse ou de la reforme protestante dans la Suisse occidentale/, 1837. Gelpke, /Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz/, 1856- 61. Schuler-Schulthess, /Opera Huldrici Zwinglii/, 8 vols., 1828- 42. Jackson, /Huldreich Zwingli/, 1901.

The territory now known as Switzerland formed portion of the HolyRoman Empire. In 1291, however, during the reign of Rudolph ofHabsburg, the three states or cantons of Uri, Schweiz, andUnterwalden, formed a confederation to defend their rights andprivileges, thus laying the foundation for the existence ofSwitzerland as an independent nation. Other cantons joined thealliance, more especially after the victory at Morgarten in 1315, whenthe Austrian forces despatched against the Swiss were almostannihilated. Austria made various attempts to win back the Swiss totheir allegiance but without success, and in 1394 the independence ofthe allied cantons was practically recognised.

About the time of the Reformation in Germany Switzerland consisted ofthirteen cantons and several smaller "allied" or "friendly" states notadmitted to full cantonal rights. Though bound together by a loosekind of confederation for purposes of defence against aggression, thevarious states enjoyed a large measure of independence, and each wasruled according to its own peculiar constitution. The Federal Diet orGeneral Assembly was composed of representatives appointed by thecantons, and its decisions were determined by the votes of the states,the largest and most populous possessing no greater powers than theleast influential member of the confederation. Some of the states werenominally democratic in their form of government, but, as in mostcountries during this period, the peasants had many grounds forreasonable complaint, particularly in regard to taxation, treasurypensions, and the enlisting and employment of the Swiss mercenarytroops, then the best soldiers in Europe.

As in Germany, many causes were at work to prepare the ground for thenew religious teaching. On account of the free character of itsinstitutions refugees of all kinds fled to Switzerland for asylum, andwere allowed great liberty in propagating their views. Again, theSwiss mercenaries, returning from their campaigns and service, duringwhich they were brought into contact with various classes and nations,served much the same purpose as does the modern newspaper. In boththese ways the peasants of Switzerland were kept in touch with thesocial, political, and religious condition of the rest of Europe, andwith the hopes and plans of their own class in other kingdoms.Humanism had not, indeed, made very striking progress in Switzerland,though the presence of Erasmus at Basle, and the attacks that hedirected against the monks and the clergy, could not fail to producesome effect on a people whose minds were already prepared for suchmethods by their acquaintance with modern developments.

If, however, the Church in Switzerland had been free from abuses notall the wit and eloquence of Erasmus and his followers could haveproduced a revolt, but unfortunately, the influences that led to thedownfall of religion in other countries were also at work in the Swisscantons. The cathedral chapters were composed for the greater part ofmen who had no vocation to the priesthood, and who adopted theclerical profession because they wished to enrich themselves from therevenues of the Church, and were ensured of good positions through theinfluence of their relatives and patrons. Many of the clergy were farfrom being perfect, nor were all the religious institutions mindful ofthe spirit or even of the letter of their constitutions.Unfortunately, too, owing to the peculiar political development oftheir country, the bishops of Switzerland were subject to foreignmetropolitans, two of them being under the jurisdiction of theArchbishop of Mainz, two under Besancon, one under Aquileia, and onesubject immediately to Rome. Partly for this reason, partly, also,owing to the increasing encroachments of the civil power, disputes andconflicts between the ecclesiastical and temporal jurisdictions werenot unfrequent. But it would be a mistake to suppose that there wereno good ecclesiastics in Switzerland at this time. There were manyexcellent priests, both secular and regular, who recognised the sadcondition of affairs, and who supported measures such as thoseundertaken by the Bishop of Basle in 1503 with all their power. Thegreat body of teachers known as the Friends of God were at work inSwitzerland as in the Netherlands, and were doing splendid service foreducation, both secular and religious.

The man, who played in Switzerland the part played so successfully byLuther in Germany, was Ulrich Zwingli. He was the son of rich parents,born at Wildhaus, in the canton of Saint Gall (1484), educated at theUniversities of Berne, Basle, and Vienna, and after his ordination tothe priesthood, appointed to the parish of Glarus. He was a young manof remarkable ability both as a student and as a preacher, and wasfortunate enough to attract the notice of a papal legate, throughwhose influence a pension was assigned to him to enable him toprosecute his studies. He was a good classical scholar with a morethan average knowledge of Hebrew, and well versed in the Scripturesand in the writings of the Fathers. For a time he acted as chaplain tosome Swiss regiments fighting in Italy for the Pope against France,and on his return to his native country he was appointed preacher atthe famous shrine of Our Lady at Einsiedeln.[1] Here his oratoricalpowers stood him in good stead, but his judgment and level-headednesswere not on the same high plane as his declamatory powers, nor was hisown private life in keeping with the sanctity of the place or with thedenunciations that he hurled so recklessly against his clericalbrethren. He began to attack pilgrimages and devotions to the BlessedVirgin, but it was not so much for this as for his unlawful relationswith a woman of bad character that he was relieved of his office.[2]He retired to Zurich where he was appointed preacher in the cathedral.Here he denounced the lives of the clergy and the abuses in theChurch, relying, as he stated, upon what he had seen himself in Italyduring his residence there as chaplain to the Swiss mercenaries. LikeLuther, he well knew how to win the attention and sympathy of the mobby his appeals to the national feelings of his countrymen, and likeLuther he insisted that the Scriptures were the sole rule of faith. Hedenounced in the strongest language the immorality and vices of theclergy, celibacy, vows of chastity, pilgrimages and the veneration ofthe saints, but for so far he had not broken entirely with the Church.

The preaching of the Indulgences promulgated by Leo X. in Constancewas entrusted to the Franciscans. Their work was a difficult oneespecially as the Grand Council of Zurich forbade them to persist, as,indeed, did also the able and zealous Hugo von Hohenlandenberg, Bishopof Constance, in whose diocese Zurich was situated. Zwingli, confidentof the support of the city authorities, attacked the doctrine ofIndulgences and was backed by the Grand Council, which ordered, at hisinstigation, that the Word of God should be preached according to theScriptures, regardless of tradition or the interpretation of theChurch. Later on he directed his attacks against the meritoriousnessof good works and the practice of fast and abstinence (1522), andabout the same time he addressed a petition to the Bishop of Constancedemanding that he should not interfere with the preaching of the pureWord of God nor set any obstacle to the marriage of his priests. Headmitted publicly that his relations with women had been disgraceful,that he had learned from his own personal experience how impossible offulfilment was the vow of chastity, and that marriage was the onlyremedy that would enable him to overcome the emotions of carnal lustreferred to by St. Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians (I. 7, 9).The bishop refused to yield to this demand insisting on the strictobservance of celibacy, and appealed to the Grand Council to supporthim with the full weight of their authority (April 1522).

Incensed by this refusal Zwingli shook off the yoke of ecclesiasticalauthority, rejected the primacy of the Pope, and the infallibility ofGeneral Councils, denounced celibacy and vows of chastity asinventions of the devil, and called upon the Swiss people to supporthim in his fight for religious freedom. Once before, in 1520, Leo X.had summoned Zwingli to Rome to answer for his teaching, but thesummons had been unheeded. Adrian VI. made another attempt to win himfrom his dangerous course by a letter full of kindness and sympathy,but his remonstrance produced no effect (1523). The Grand Council ofZurich, hopeful of securing a preponderating influence in Switzerlandby taking the lead in the new movement, favoured Zwingli. Instead ofresponding to the appeal of the Bishop of Constance it announced agreat religious disputation to be held in January 1523, to which bothZwingli and his opponents were summoned for the explanation anddefence of their views. Zwingli put forward sixty-seven theses, theprincipal of which were that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, thatthe Church is not a visible society but only an assembly of the elect,of which body Christ is the only true head, that consequently thejurisdiction of the Pope and of the bishops is a usurpation devoid ofscriptural authority, that the Mass, Confession, Purgatory, andIntercession of the Saints are to be rejected as derogatory to themerits of Christ, and finally, that clerical celibacy and monasticvows, instead of being counsels of perfection, are only cloaks for sinand hypocrisy. The Bishop of Constance refused to take part in such adisputation. His vicar-general, Johann Faber of Constance, however,attended the meeting, not indeed to take part in the discussion butmerely to protest against it as opposed to the authority of the Churchand of the councils. As his protests were unheeded, he undertook todefend the doctrines attacked, but in the end the Grand Councildeclared that the victory rested with Zwingli.

Flushed with his triumph Zwingli now proceeded to put his theoriesinto practice. Supported by a mob he endeavoured to prevent thecelebration of Mass, religious processions, the use of pictures andstatues, and the solemn ceremonial associated with Extreme Unction andthe Viaticum. He compiled an introduction to the New Testament for theuse of the clergy, called upon them to abandon their obligations ofcelibacy, and set them an example by taking as his wife a woman whohad been for years his concubine. He and his followers, supported bythe majority of the Grand Council, went through the city destroyingaltars, pictures, statues, organs, and confessionals, and erecting inplace of the altars plain tables with a plate for bread and a vesselfor wine. The Catholic members of the Grand Council were driven fromtheir position, and Catholic worship forbidden in Zurich (1523-5).

The system of Zwingli was much more rationalistic and, in a certainsense, much more logical than that of Luther. Imbued with theprinciples of pantheistic mysticism, he maintained that God is inHimself all being, created as well as uncreated, and all activity.Hence it was as absurd to speak of individual liberty or individualaction as to speak of a multiplicity of gods. Whether it was a case ofdoing good or doing evil man was but a machine like a brush in thehands of a painter. In regard to sin he contended man may be punishedfor violating the law laid down by God even though the violation isunavoidable, but God, being above all law, is nowise to blame.Concupiscence or self-love is, according to him, at the root of allmisdeeds. It is in itself the real original sin, and is not blottedout by Baptism. His teaching on the Scriptures, individual judgment,ecclesiastical authority as represented by the bishops, councils, andPope, good works, indulgences, purgatory, invocation of the saints,and vows of chastity differed but slightly from what Luther had putforward. On the question of Justification, and particularly on thedoctrine of the Eucharist, the two reformers found themselves inhopeless conflict.[3]

Zwingli's teaching did not at first find much favour in other portionsof German Switzerland. Lucerne declared against it in 1524. The cityauthorities forbade the introduction of the new teaching, and offeredan asylum to those Catholics who had been forced to flee from Zurich.Other cantons associated themselves with Lucerne, and a deputation wassent to Zurich to request the city authorities to abandon Zwingli andto take part in a general movement for a real and constitutionalreform. But the Grand Council, mindful of the political advantageswhich would accrue to Zurich from its leadership in the new religiousrevolt, declined to recede from their position.

While Zwingli was at work in Zurich, Oecolampadius (1482-1531) sethimself to stir up religious divisions in Basle. He was born atWeisnberg, studied law at Bologna and theology subsequently atHeidelberg, was ordained priest, and appointed to a parish in Basle(1512). With Erasmus he was on terms of the closest intimacy, and, asBasle was then one of the great literary centres of the world, he soonbecame acquainted with Luther's pamphlets and teaching. Some of theclergy in Basle, notably Wolfgang Capito, a warm friend of Zwingli,were already showing signs of restlessness especially in regard to theMass, purgatory, and invocation of the saints, and Oecolampadius wasnot slow to imbibe the new ideas. In 1518 he was appointed preacher inthe Cathedral of Augsburg, but, having resigned this office on accountof failing health, he withdrew to the convent of Altmunster, where,for some time, he lived a retired life. Subsequently he acted aschaplain to the well-known German knight, Franz von Sickingen, andfinally, in 1524, he accepted the parish of St. Martin's in Basle.

He now proclaimed himself openly a supporter of Zwingli, advocated thenew teaching on justification and good works, and attacked severalCatholic doctrines and practices. For him, as indeed for most of theother reformers, clerical celibacy was the great stumbling block. Heencouraged his followers by taking as his wife a young widow, who wassubsequently in turn the wife of the two renowned Lutheran preachers,Butzer and Capito. At first the city authorities and a large body ofthe university professors were against him, but owing to thedisturbances created by his partisans full liberty of worship wasgranted to the new sect (1527). Not content with this concession, theydemanded that the Mass should be suppressed. In 1529 the followers ofOecolampadius rose in revolt, seized the arsenal of the city, directedthe cannon on the principal squares, and attacked the churches,destroying altars, statues, and pictures. Erasmus, disgusted with suchmethods of propagating religion, left Basle and sought a home inFreiburg. The Catholics were expelled from the city council, theirreligion was proscribed, and Basle joined hands with Zurich in itsrebellion against the Church.

The revolt soon spread into other cantons of Switzerland. In Berne andSchaffhausen both parties were strong and determined, and for a timethe issue of the conflict was uncertain, but in 1528 the party ofZwingli and Oecolampadius secured the upper hand. Similarly in St.Gall, Glarus, etc., victory rested with the new teaching. Othercantons, as for example, Solothurn, wavered as to which side theyshould take, but the three oldest cantons of Switzerland, Uri, Schweizand Unterwalden, together with Zug, Freiburg and Lucerne, refused tobe separated from the Church.

Apart altogether from the question of religion, there was a naturalopposition between populous and manufacturing centres like Berne andBasle, and the rural cantons, devoted almost entirely to agriculturaland pastoral pursuits. When religious differences supervened toaccentuate the rivalry already in existence, they led almostinevitably to the division of Switzerland into two hostile camps.Zurich, Basle, Berne, Schaffhausen, and St. Gall, though they were themost important cities, soon found themselves unable to force theirviews on the rest of the country, as they were withstood by thefederal council, the majority of which was still Catholic. The latterinsisted that a conference should be held to settle the religiousdisputes. The conference was arranged to take place at Baden in 1526.Eck, assisted by two other Catholic theologians, Faber and Murner,undertook to defend the Catholic position. Zurich refused to sendrepresentatives, but the reforming party were represented byOecolampadius, Haller, and others of their leaders. The conference wasattended by delegates from twelve cantons, and was approved of by theSwiss bishops. After a discussion lasting fifteen days during whichEck defended the Catholic doctrine regarding the Mass, Eucharist,Purgatory, and the Intercession of the Saints, the majority of thecantons decided in his favour, and a resolution was passed forbiddingreligious changes in Switzerland and prohibiting the sale of the worksof Luther and Zwingli.

It was soon evident, however, that peace could not be secured by suchmeasures. The rural and Catholic cantons were in the majority, much tothe disgust of flourishing cities like Berne and Zurich. These states,believing that they were entitled to a controlling voice in thefederal council, determined to use the religious question to bringabout a complete change in the constitution of the country byassigning the cantonal representation in the federal council on thebasis of population. They formed an alliance with the other Protestantcantons and with Constance to forward their claims (1527-8), but theCatholic cantons imitated their example by organising a Catholicfederation to which the Archduke, Ferdinand of Austria, promised hissupport (1529).

Zwingli was most eager for war, and at his instigation the army ofZurich, backed by Berne, took the field in 1529. The Catholic states,however, made it clear that they were both able and willing to defendthe constitution, but the bond of national unity and the dislike ofcivil war exercised such an influence on both parties that a conflictwas averted by the conclusion of the Peace of Kappel (1529). Theconcessions secured for his party by this Peace did not satisfyZwingli, who desired nothing less than the complete subjugation of theCatholic cantons. Negotiations were opened up with Philip of Hesse,with the German Lutherans, and with Francis I. of France, and when thenews of the formation of the League of Schmalkald reached theProtestants of Switzerland, it was thought that the time had come whenthe triumph of Zurich and Berne, which meant also the triumph of thenew teaching, should be secured. Zwingli besought his followers toissue a declaration of war, but it was suggested that the reduction ofthe Catholic cantons could be secured just as effectively by ablockade. In this movement Zurich took the lead. The result, however,did not coincide with the anticipations of Zwingli. The Catholiccantons flew to arms at once, and as their territories formed acompact unit, they were able to put their united army into the fieldbefore the forces of Zurich and Berne could effect a junction. Thedecisive battle took place at Kappel in October 1531, when theZwinglians suffered a complete defeat, Zwingli himself and fivehundred of the best men of Zurich being left dead on the field. Thearmy of Berne advanced too late to save their allies or to change theresult of the war. The Catholic cantons used their victory with greatmoderation. Instead of crushing their opponents, as they might havedone, they concluded with them the second Peace of Kappel (1531).According to the terms of this treaty, no canton was to force anotherto change its religion, and liberty of worship was guaranteed in thecantonal domains. Several of the districts that had been waveringreturned to the Catholic faith, and the abbot of St. Gall was restoredto the abbey from which he had been expelled.

Oecolampadius followed Zwingli to the grave in a short time, havingbeen carried off by a fever about a month after the defeat of Kappel,and the leadership of the movement devolved upon their successors,Bullinger and Myconius.

With regard to the Sacraments Luther and Zwingli agreed that they wereonly signs of grace, though in the explanation of this view Zwingliwas much more extreme, because much more logical, than Luther.Believing as he did that justification depended upon faith alone, hecontended that the Sacraments were mere ceremonies by which a manbecame or showed himself to be a follower of Christ. They were devoidof any objective virtue, and were efficacious only in so far as theyguaranteed that the individual receiving them possessed the faithnecessary for justification. But it was principally in regard to theEucharist that the two reformers found themselves in hopelessdisagreement. Had Luther wished to be consistent he should have thrownover the Real Presence as well as Transubstantiation, but the force oftradition, the fear that any such teaching would arouse the oppositionof the people, and the plain meaning of the texts of Scripture forcedhim to adopt a compromise. "Had Doctor Carlstadt," he wrote, "or anyone else been able to persuade me five years ago that the sacrament ofthe altar is but bread and wine he would, indeed, have done me a greatservice, and rendered me very material aid in my efforts to make abreach in the Papacy. But it is all in vain. The meaning of the textsis so evident that every artifice of language will be powerless toexplain it away." He contended that the words "This is My body andThis is My blood" could bear only one meaning, namely, that Christ wasreally present, but while agreeing with Catholics about the RealPresence of Christ in the Eucharist, he rejected the doctrine ofTransubstantiation, maintaining in its place Consubstantiation orImpanation.

Though Luther insisted so strongly on the Real Presence, it is notclear that in the beginning he had any very fixed views on thesubject, or that he would have been unwilling to change any views hehad formed, were it not that one of his lieutenants, Carlstadt, beganto exercise his privilege of judgment by rejecting the Real Presence.Such an act of insubordination aroused the implacable ire of Luther,who denounced his former colleague as a heretic, and pursued him fromWittenberg and Jena, where he had fled for refuge. In the endCarlstadt was obliged to retire to Switzerland, where his doctrinefound favour with the Swiss reformers.

From the beginning of his campaign Zwingli realised that the RealPresence was not in harmony with his theory of justification, andhence he was inclined to hold that the Eucharist was a mere signinstituted as a reminder of Christ's death. But in view of the cleartestimony of the Holy Scripture he was at a loss how to justify hisposition. At last by pondering on other passages that he consideredsimilar to the text "This is My body," where the word "is" should beinterpreted "signifies," he contended that the true meaning ofChrist's words at the Last Supper is, "This signifies My body."Oecolampadius agreed with this interpretation, though for a differentreason, comparing the Blessed Eucharist to a ring that a husband goingaway on a long journey might give to his wife as a pledge and reminderof his affection.[4]

Luther resented bitterly such a theory as an attack upon hisauthority, especially as Zwingli refused to allow himself to be brow-beaten into retracting his doctrine. Instead of submitting to the newreligious dictator, Zwingli sought to justify himself by the veryprinciple by which Luther justified his own revolt against theCatholic Church. He contended that Luther's theory of justificationinvolved logically the rejection of the Eucharist as well as of theother Sacraments, that the Scriptural texts could be interpreted as hehad interpreted them, and that he was not bound to take any cognisanceof the Christian tradition or of the authority of the councils. Hecomplained that Luther treated himself and his followers as hereticswith whom it was not right to hold communion, that he proscribed theirwritings and denounced them to the magistrates, and that he didprecisely towards them what he blamed the Pope for doing to himself.Luther found it difficult to meet this line of argument. Much againsthis will he was obliged to support his opinions by appealing to thetradition of the Church and the writings of the Fathers, which latterhe had denounced as "fetid pools whence Christians have been drinkingunwholesome draughts instead of slaking their thirst from the purefountain of Holy Scripture."[5] "This article (The Eucharist)," hewrote, "is neither unscriptural nor a dogma of human invention. It isbased upon the clear and irrefragable words of Holy Writ. It has beenuniformly held and believed throughout the whole Christian world fromthe foundation of the Church to the present time. That such has beenthe fact is attested by the writings of the Holy Fathers, both Greekand Latin, by daily usage and by the uninterrupted practice of theChurch. . . . To doubt it, therefore, is to disbelieve the ChristianChurch and to brand her as heretical, and with her the prophets,apostles, and Christ Himself, who, in establishing the Church said:'Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of theworld.'"[6]

The opposition of Luther did not put an end to the controversy. TheZwinglian theories spread rapidly in Switzerland, whence they werecarried into Germany, much to the annoyance of Luther and of theProtestant princes for whom religious unity was necessary at almostany cost. Luther would listen to no schemes of compromise. Hedenounced the Zwinglians in the most violent terms, as servants of thedevil, liars, and heretics for whose salvation no man should pray.Having rejected Transubstantiation in order to rid himself of thesacrificial idea and of the doctrine of a Christian priesthood, hefought strongly for the Real Presence on the ground that God's body,being united to the divinity, enjoyed the divine attribute ofubiquity. To this Zwingli made the very effective rejoinder that ifthe words of Scripture "This is My body and this is My blood" are tobe interpreted literally they could bear only the sense put upon themby the Catholics, because Christ did not say "My body is in or underthis bread," but rather "This (the bread) is My body." Furthermore, hepointed out that Luther's explanation concerning the ubiquity ofChrist's body led clearly to a confusion of the divine and humannature of Christ, and was in consequence only a renewal of theMonophysite heresy, condemned by the whole Christian Church.

This unseemly dispute between the two leaders of the new movement didnot please the Protestant princes of Germany, for whom division oftheir forces might mean political extinction. The Elector of Saxonysupported Luther warmly, while Philip of Hesse was more or lessinclined to side with Zwingli. A conference was arranged between thetwo parties at Marburg (1529), at which Luther and Oecolampadius werepresent to defend their views. On a few secondary matters an agreementwas arrived at, but on the main question, the Real Presence, Lutherwould yield nothing, and so the Reformers were divided into twoparties, German Lutherans and Swiss Reformed. ----------

[1] /Precis Historique de l'Abbaye et du Pelerinage de Notre-Dame-des- Ermites/, 1870.

[2] /Realencycl. fur Protestantische Theol./, xxi., p. 778.

[3] Schwane, op. cit., p. 141.

[4] Schwane, op. cit., p. 349.

[5] Dollinger, /Die Reformation/, i., pp. 430-51.

[6] Alzog, iii., 256-7.

(c) Northern Europe.

See bibliography, chap. ii. (a). Karup, /Geschichte der Katholischen Kirche in Danemark/, 1863. Munter, /Kirchengeschichte von Danemark und Norwegen/, 1823. Theiner-Cohen, /La Suede et la Saint-Siege sous les rois Jean III., Sigismond III., et Charles IX./, 1842. Butler, /The Reformation in Sweden/, 1884. De Flaux, /La Suede au XVIme siecle/, 1861. Englestoft, /Reformantes et Catholici tempore, quo sacra emendata sunt, in Dania concertantes/, 1836. Schmitt, /Die Verteidigung der Kathol. Kirche in Danemark gegen die Religionsneuerung im 16en Jahr/, 1899. /Confutatio Lutheranismi Danici/, etc. (written 1530, ed. 1902).

At the beginning of the sixteenth century political power in Denmarkwas vested to a great extent in the hands of the bishops and nobles.It was by these two parties that the king was elected, and so greatwas their influence that, as a rule, the candidate chosen by theirvotes was obliged to accept any conditions they cared to impose. Thebishops, as in most countries at the time, held enormous estates,granted to their predecessors by the crown or bequeathed by generousbenefactors for the maintenance of religion. Unfortunately, with someexceptions, they were not men zealous for religious interests, orcapable of understanding that a serious crisis was at hand. In everydirection the need of reform was only too apparent, and, as such aswork had not been undertaken by those who should have undertaken it, asplendid opportunity was afforded to the men who desired not thewelfare of religion but rather the overthrow of the Church.

Christian II. (1513-23) wished to put an end to the supremacy of thebishops and nobles and to assert for himself and his successorsabsolute control. He was a man of great ability and determination,well acquainted with the tendencies of the age, and not particularlyscrupulous about the means by which the success of his policy might beassured. To such a man Luther's attack on the bishops of Germanyseemed to be almost providential. He realised that by embracing thenew religious system, which enabled him to seize the wealth of theChurch and to concentrate in his own hands full ecclesiastical power,he could rid himself of one of the greatest obstacles to absolutism,and secure for himself and his successors undisputed sway in Denmark.Though his own life was scandalously immoral he determined to becomethe champion of a religious reformation, and against the wishes of thenobles, clergy, and people he invited a disciple of Luther's toCopenhagen, and placed at his disposal one of the city's churches.This step aroused the strongest opposition, but Christian, confidentthat boldness meant success, adopted stern measures to overcome hisopponents. He proclaimed himself the patron of those priests who werewilling to disregard their vows of celibacy, issued regulationsagainst the unmarried clergy, and appealed to the people against thebishops and the nobles. As the Archbishop-elect of Lund was unwillingto show himself to be coerced into betraying the interests confided tohis charge, the king commanded that he should be put to death.

By these violent methods he had hoped to frighten his subjects intocompliance with his wishes, but he was doomed to speedy and completedisappointment. The bishops and barons, though divided on manyquestions, were at one in their resistance to such despotism, and theyhad behind them the great body of the people, who had little if anydesire for a religious revolution. Christian II. was deposed, and inhis place his uncle, Frederick I. (1523-33), became king of Denmark.At his coronation the new monarch pledged himself to defend theCatholic religion and to suppress heresy. Soon, however, motivessimilar to those that had influenced his predecessor induced him alsoto lean towards Lutheranism. At first his efforts for the spread ofthe new teaching were carried out secretly, but once he felt himselfsecure on the throne, he proclaimed himself publicly a Lutheran (1526)and invited Lutheran preachers to the capital. A Diet was called in1527 at Odensee to consider the religious controversy that had arisen.In this assembly the king, basing his defence on the ground thatthough he had pledged himself to protect the Catholic Church he wasunder no obligation to tolerate abuses, contended that the suppressionof abuses and the purifying of religion were the only objects he hadat heart in the measures that he had taken. Owing mainly to his ownstubbornness and the cowardly and wavering attitude of the bishops, itwas agreed by the Diet that till a General Council could be convokedfull toleration should be given to the Lutheran preachers, that in themeantime no civil disabilities should be inflicted on supporters ofthe new religion, that those of the clergy who wished to marry shouldbe allowed to do so, that the archbishop should apply no longer toRome for his pallium, and finally that the confirmation of theappointment of bishops should be transferred from the Pope to theking.

By these measures, to which the bishops offered only a faintopposition, Denmark was separated practically from the Holy See, andthe first step was taken on the road that was to lead to nationalapostasy. The next important measure was the disputation arranged bythe king to take place at Copenhagen in 1529. The very fact that atthis meeting no Danish ecclesiastic capable of defending the Catholicfaith was to be found, and that it was necessary to have recourse toGermany for champions of orthodoxy, is in itself a sufficientindication of the character of the bishops who then ruled in Denmark,and of the state of learning amongst the Danish clergy of the period.Eck and Cochlaeus were invited to come to Copenhagen, but as they hadsufficient work to engage their attention at home, the duty ofupholding Catholic doctrine devolved upon Stagefyr, a theologian ofCologne.[1] He could not speak Danish, nor would the Lutheran partyconsent to carry on the conference in Latin. Furthermore, he claimedthat the authority of the Fathers and the decrees of previous GeneralCouncils should be recognised, but the Lutherans insisted that theBible was the only source from which Christians should receive theirdoctrines. In these circumstances, since a disputation was impossible,both parties agreed to submit a full statement of their views inwriting to the king and council, who, as might have been anticipated,decided in favour of Lutheranism.

During the remainder of his reign, Frederick I. spared no pains tosecure the victory for the new teaching in his dominions. The nobleswere won over to the king's views by promises of a share in thepartition of ecclesiastical property, and those who wished to standwell with the sovereign were not slow in having recourse to violenceas affording proof that their zeal for Lutheranism was sincere.Consequently the Lutheran party found themselves in a majority in theDiet of 1530, and were powerful enough to do as they pleased. Inaccordance with the example set in Germany and Switzerland attackswere begun on churches, pictures, and statues, but in many places thepeople were not prepared for such changes, and bitter conflicts tookplace between the rival parties. In the confusion that resulted thesupporters of the deposed king rose in arms against his successfulrival, and the country was subjected to the horrors of civil war.Frederick I. found it necessary to abandon the violent propagation ofLutheranism and to offer toleration to the Catholics.

On his death in 1533 the bishops of Denmark protested against thesuccession of his son Christian III. (1533-51) who was a personalfriend of Luther, and who had already introduced Protestantism intohis own state of Holstein; but as the nobles, won over by promises ofa share in the spoliation of the Church, refused to make common causewith the bishops, their protest was unheeded. Confident that he couldrely on the support of the nobles, the king gave secret instructionsto his officials that on a certain day named by him all the bishops ofDenmark should be arrested and lodged in prison. His orders werecarried out to the letter (1536), and so rejoiced was Luther by thisstep that he hastened to send the king his warmest congratulations.The bishops were offered release on condition that they should resigntheir Sees and pledge themselves to offer no further opposition to thereligious change. To their shame be it said that only one of theirnumber, Ronnow, Bishop of Roskilde, refused to accept liberty on suchdisgraceful terms, preferring to remain a prisoner until he wasreleased by death (1544). The priests who refused to accept the newreligion were driven from their parishes, and several monasteries andconvents were suppressed.

To complete the work of reform and to give the Church in Denmark a newconstitution Bugenhagen, a disciple of Luther, was invited to thecapital (1539). He began by crowning the king according to Lutheranritual, and by drawing up a form of ecclesiastical government thatplaced full spiritual power in the hands of the civil ruler. As inGermany, superintendents were appointed in room of the bishops who hadresigned. When the work of drawing up the new ecclesiasticalorganisation had been finished it was submitted to and approved of bythe Diet held at Odensee in 1539. In another Diet held in 1546 theCatholic Church in Denmark was completely overthrown, her possessionswere confiscated, her clergy were forbidden to remain in the countryunder penalty of death, and all lay Catholics were declared incapableof holding any office in the state or of transmitting their propertyto their Catholic heirs. By those measures Catholicism was suppressed,and victory was secured for the Lutheran party.

Norway, which was united with Denmark at this period, was forced intosubmission to the new creed by the violence of the Danish kings, aidedas they were by the greedy nobles anxious to share in the plunder ofthe Church. Similarly Iceland, which was subject to Denmark, wasseparated from Rome, though at first the people offered the strongestresistance to the reformers. The execution, however, of their bishop,John Aresen, the example of Denmark and Norway, and the want ofcapable religious leaders produced their effects, and in the endIceland was induced to accept the new religion (1551). For aconsiderable time Catholicism retained its hold on a large percentageof the people both in Norway and Iceland, but the severe measurestaken by the government to ensure the complete extirpation of theCatholic hierarchy and priesthood led almost of necessity to thetriumph of Lutheranism.

By the Union of Kalmar (1397) Sweden, Norway, and Denmark were unitedunder the rule of the King of Denmark. The Union did not, however,bring about peace. The people of Sweden disliked the rule of aforeigner, and more than once they rose in rebellion against Denmark.In the absence of a strong central authority the clergy and noblesbecame the dominant factors in the state, especially as they took thelead in the national agitations against King Erik and his successors.As in most other countries at the time, the Church was exceedinglywealthy, the bishoprics and abbacies being endowed very generously,but unfortunately, as elsewhere, the progress of religion was not inproportion to the worldly possessions of its ministers. Endowment haddestroyed the liberty of election so essential for goodadministration, with the result that the bishops and otherecclesiastical dignitaries were selected without much regard for theirqualifications as spiritual guides. Yet it must be said that ingeneral the administrators of the ecclesiastical property were nothard task-masters when compared with their lay contemporaries, nor wasthere anything like a strong popular feeling against the Church. Stillthe immense wealth of the religious institutions, the prevalence ofabuses, and the failure of the clergy to instruct the people in thereal doctrines of their faith were a constant source of menace to theChurch in Sweden, and left it open to a crushing attack by a leaderwho knew how to win the masses to his side by proclaiming himself thechampion of national independence and of religious reform.

In 1515 Sten Sture, the administrator of Sweden, supported by theBishop of Linkoping as leader of the popular party, made a gallantattempt to rally his countrymen to shake off the Danish yoke.Unfortunately for the success of his undertaking he soon found adangerous opponent in the person of Gustaf Trolle, Archbishop ofUpsala, the nominee and supporter of the King of Denmark. Thearchbishop threw the whole weight of his influence into the scales ofDenmark, and partly owing to his opposition, partly owing to the wantof sufficient preparation the national uprising was crushed early in1520. Christian II. was crowned King of Sweden by the Archbishop ofUpsala. He signified his elevation to the throne by a general massacreof his opponents which lasted for two days, and during which many ofthe best blood of Sweden were put to death (Nov. 1520). The archbishopwas rewarded for his services to Denmark by receiving an appointmentas region or administrator of Sweden. He and his party made loud boastof their political victory, but had they been gifted with a littleprudence and zeal they would have found good reason to regret atriumph that had been secured by committing the Church to the supportof a Danish tyrant against the wishes of the majority who favourednational independence. Religion and patriotism were brought intoserious conflict, and, given only a capable leader who would know howto conduct his campaign with skill, it was not difficult to foreseethe results of such a conflict.

As it happened, such a leader was at hand in the person of GustafEriksson, better known as Gustavus Vasa. His father had been put todeath in the massacre of Stockholm, and he himself when a youth hadbeen given as a hostage to the King of Denmark. He made his escape andfled to Lubeck, where he was kindly received, and remained until anopportunity arose for his return to Sweden. He placed himselfimmediately at the head of the party willing to fight against Denmark,called upon his countrymen to rally to his standard, and in a shorttime succeeded in driving the Danish forces from Sweden. He wasproclaimed administrator of his country in 1521, and two years later anational Diet assembled at Strengnas offered him the crown.

Such an offer was in exact accordance with his own wishes. But he hadno intention of becoming king of Sweden merely to remain a tool in thehands of the spiritual and lay lords as the kings of Denmark hadremained. Determined in his own mind to make himself absolute ruler ofSweden by crushing the bishops and barons, he recognised that Luther'steaching, with which he was familiar owing to his stay at Lubeck, heldout good hopes for the success of such a project. The warm attachmentof the Bishop of Upsala for the Danish faction had weakened thedevotion of the people to the Church, and had prepared the way for thechange which Gustavus contemplated. Some of the Swedish ecclesiastics,notably the brothers Olaf and Laurence Peterson, both students ofWittenberg, the former a well-known preacher at Stockholm, the lattera professor at Upsala, were strongly Lutheran in their tendencies, andwere ready to assist the king. Though in his letters to Rome and inhis public pronouncements Gustavus professed himself to be a sincereson of the Church, anxious only to prevent at all costs the spread ofLutheranism in his dominions, he was taking steps secretly toencourage his Lutheran supporters and to rid himself of the bishopsand members of the religious orders from whom he feared seriousopposition. As was done elsewhere, he arranged for a publicdisputation at which Olaf Peterson undertook to defend the mainprinciples advocated by Luther, but the results of the controversywere not so satisfactory for his party as he had anticipated.

Gustavus now threw off the mask of hypocrisy, and came forward boldlyas the champion of the new religion. He removed those bishops who weremost outspoken in their opposition, banished the Dominicans who stoodloyal to Rome, and tried to force the clergy to accept the change.Anxious to enrich his treasury by confiscating the wealth of theChurch he scattered broadcast Luther's pamphlet on the confiscation ofecclesiastical property, and engaged the professors of the Universityof Upsala to use their efforts to defend and popularise the views itcontained. A commission was appointed to make an inventory of thegoods of the bishops and religious institutions and to induce themonasteries to make a voluntary surrender of their property. By meansof threats and promises the commissioners secured compliance with thewishes of the king in some districts, though in others, as for examplein Upsala, the arrival of the commission led to scenes of the greatestviolence and commotion. More severe measures were necessary to overawethe people, and Gustavus was not a man to hesitate at anything likelyto promote the success of his plans. Bishop Jakobson and some of theclergy were arrested, and after having been treated with every speciesof indignity were put to death (1527).

In this year, 1527, a national Diet was held at Vesteras principallyfor the discussion of the religious difficulties that had arisen. Bothparties, the supporters of the old and of the new, mustered theirforces for a final conflict. Gustavus took the side of the so-calledreformers, and proposed the measures which he maintained were requiredboth in the interests of religion and of the public weal. The Catholicparty were slightly in the majority and refused to assent to theseproposals. Gustavus, though disappointed at the result, did notdespair. He announced to the Diet that in view of its refusal to agreeto his terms he could undertake no longer the government and defenceof the country. A measure such as this, calculated to lead to anarchyand possibly to a new subjugation of the country by Denmark, wasregarded by both sides as a national disaster, and secured for theking the support of the waverers. The masses of the people werealarmed lest their opposition might lead to the restoration of Danishtyranny, while the support of the nobles was secured by thepublication of a decree authorising them to resume possession of allproperty handed over by their ancestors to religious institutions forthe last eighty years. The remainder of the possessions of the Churchwere appropriated for the royal treasury. The king now issued aproclamation in favour of the new religion, insisted on the adoptionof a liturgy in the vulgar tongue, and abolished clerical celibacy. Atthe National Assembly of Orebro (1529) the Catholic religion wasabolished in favour of Lutheranism, and two years later LaurencePeterson was appointed first Lutheran Archbishop of Upsala.

Though the Lutheran teaching had been accepted, great care was takennot to shock the people by any violent change. Episcopal government ofthe Church was retained; most of the Catholic ritual in regard to thesacraments and the Mass was adopted in the new liturgy, and even insome cases the pictures and statues were not removed from thechurches. But the revolution that Gustavus had most at heart was fullyaccomplished. The authority of the Pope had been overthrown, and inhis place the king had been accepted as the head of the SwedishChurch. Nor did the Lutheran bishops find themselves in the enjoymentof greater liberty and respect as a result of their treason to theChurch. Gustavus warned them that they must not carry themselves likelords, and if they would attempt to wield the sword he would know howto deal with them in a summary manner. Resenting such dictation andtyranny they began to attack Gustavus in their sermons and to organiseplots for the overthrow of his government. The conspiracy wasdiscovered (1540). Olaf and Laurence Peterson, the two prominentleaders of the reforming party, were condemned to death, but werereprieved on the payment of a large fine. Laurence was, however,removed from his position as Archbishop of Upsala. In the Diet ofVesteras in 1544 the crown of Sweden was declared to be hereditary,and was vested in the family and heirs of Gustavus. Thus the well-considered policy of Gustavus was crowned with success. By means ofthe Lutheran revolt he had changed the whole constitution of thecountry, had made himself absolute master of Sweden, and had securedthe succession to the throne for his own family.

But he had not broken the power of his opponents so completely as tobring peace to his country, nor, if credence be given to theproclamations in which he bewailed the increase of evil under the pleaof evangelical freedom, did the reformed religion tend to theelevation of public morals. On his death in 1560 he was succeeded byhis son Erik XIV. (1560-9). Hardly had the new king been proclaimedthan the principle of private judgment introduced by the reformersbegan to produce its natural results. Calvinism, which was so opposedto Lutheranism both in doctrine and in church government, found itsway into Sweden, and attracted the favourable notice of the king.Regardless for the time being of the Catholic Church, which to allappearances was dead in Sweden, the two parties, Lutherans andCalvinists, struggled for supremacy. Erik was won over to the side ofthe Calvinists, and measures were taken to overcome the Lutherans byforce, but the king had neither the capacity nor the energy of hisfather. The plan miscarried; the Calvinists were defeated (1568), andErik was deposed and imprisoned.

His younger brother John succeeded to the throne under the title JohnIII. He was a man of considerable ability, and was by no meanssatisfied with the new religion. His marriage with Catharine, sisterof Sigismund, King of Poland, herself a devoted Catholic, whostipulated for liberty to practice her religion, helped to make himmore favourable to a Catholic revival. He set himself to study theScriptures and writings of the Holy Fathers under the guidance ofCatharine's chaplains, and convinced himself that he should return tothe Catholic Church and endeavour to rescue his country from thecondition of heresy into which it had fallen. He allowed the monks andnuns who were still in Sweden to form communities again, andendeavoured to win over the clergy by a series of ordinances couchedin a Catholic tone which he issued for their guidance. In 1571 heinduced the Archbishop of Upsala to publish a number of regulationsknown as the /Agenda/, which both in ritual and doctrine indicated areturn to Rome, and he employed some Jesuit missionaries to explainthe misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine indulged in by theLutheran and Calvinist leaders. His greatest difficulty in bringingabout a reunion was the presence of Lutheran bishops, but fortunatelyfor him many of them were old men whose places were soon vacant bydeath, to whose Sees he appointed those upon whom he could rely forsupport. When he thought the time was ripe he summoned a NationalSynod in 1574, where he delivered an address deploring the sadcondition to which religious dissensions had reduced the country. Hepointed out that such a state of affairs had been brought about by theReformation and could be remedied only by a return to the Church. Theaddress received from the clergy a much more favourable reception thanhe had anticipated. As the Archbishopric of Upsala was vacant, hesecured the election of an archbishop, who have his adhesion toseventeen articles of faith wholly satisfactory to Catholics, and whoallowed himself to be consecrated according to the Catholic ritual. Hepromised also to use his influence to secure the adhesion of the otherbishops. In 1576 the king issued a new liturgy, /The Red Book ofSweden/, which was adopted by the Diet in 1577, and accepted by alarge body of the clergy. Its principal was the king's brother, Karl,Duke of Suthermanland, who for political reasons had constitutedhimself head of the Lutheran party, and who refused to agree with theRoman tendencies of the king on the ground that they were opposed tothe last wishes of Gustavus and to the laws of Sweden. A disputationwas arranged to take place at Upsala, where the Belgian Jesuit,Laurence Nicolai, vindicated triumphantly against his Lutheranopponents the Catholic teaching on the Church and the Mass. Copies ofthe celebrated catechism of the Blessed Peter Canisius were circulatedthroughout Sweden, and made an excellent impression on the people.

Encouraged by these hopeful signs, the king despatched an embassy toRome to arrange for the reconciliation of Sweden to the Church. Theroyal commissioners were instructed to request, that owing to thepeculiar circumstances of the country, permission should be given forCommunion under both kinds, for the celebration of the Mass in theSwedish language, and for the abrogation of the law of celibacy atleast in regard to the clergy who were already married. Gregory XIII.,deeply moved by the king's offer of a reunion, sent the Jesuit,Anthony Possevin, as his legate to discuss the terms. John set anexample himself by abjuring publicly his errors and by announcing hissubmission to the Church (1578).

A commission was appointed at Rome to discuss the concessions whichthe king demanded, and unfortunately the decision was regarded inSweden as unfavourable. A warm controversy, fomented and encouraged bythe enemies of reunion, broke out between the opponents and supportersof the new liturgy. Duke Karl, who had now become the hope of theLutheran party, did everything he could to stir up strife, while atthe same time Rome refused to accept the terms proposed by the king.Indignant at what he considered the unreasonable attitude of the Romanauthorities, John began to lose his enthusiasm for his religiouspolicy, and after the death of his wife who was unwavering in herdevotion to her religion, there was no longer much hope that Swedenwas to be won from heresy (1584). The king married another who wasstrongly Lutheran in her sympathies, and who used her influence overhim to secure the expulsion of the Jesuits. Though John III. took nofurther steps to bring about reunion he could not be induced towithdraw the liturgy, the use of which he insisted upon till his deathin 1592.

His son Sigismund III. should have succeeded. He was an ardentCatholic as his mother had been, but as he had been elected King ofPoland (1586) he was absent from Sweden when the throne became vacantby the death of his father. Duke Karl and his friends did not fail totake advantage of his absence. When the Synod met the senatorsdemanded that Sigismund should accept the Augsburg Confession as acondition for his election to the throne. To this Sigismund sent theonly reply that a good Catholic and an honest man could send, namely,a blunt refusal. His uncle, Duke Karl, the acting regent of Sweden,took steps to seduce the Swedish people from their allegiance to theirlawful king, and to prepare the way for his own accession. Heproclaimed himself the protector of Lutheranism and endeavoured to winover the bishops to his side. In a national Assembly held at Upsala(The "Upsala-mote" 1593) after a very violent address from the regentagainst the Catholic Church, the bishops confessed that they hadblundered in accepting the liturgy of John III., and the Assemblydeclared itself strongly in favour of the Augsburg Confession.

When, therefore, Sigismund returned to claim the throne he found thatLutheranism was entrenched safely once more, and that even the mostmoderate of the bishops appointed by his father must be reckoned withas opponents. The clergy united with Duke Karl in stirring up thepeople against him. In these conditions he was forced to abandon hisprojects of reform, and to entrust his uncle with the administrationof Sweden when he himself was obliged to return to Poland. WhileSigismund was engaged in Poland, the regent conducted a most skilfulcampaign, nominally on behalf of Protestantism, but in reality tosecure the deposition of Sigismund and his own election to the throne.In the Diet of Suderkoping (1595) Sigismund was condemned for havingbestowed appointments on Catholics and for having tolerated theCatholic religion in his kingdom of Sweden, and it was ordered thatall who professed the doctrines of Rome should abandon their errorswithin six months under pain of expulsion from the country. TheArchbishop of Upsala made a visitation of the churches, during whichhe ordered that all those who absented themselves from the Lutheranservice should be flogged in his presence, that the pictures, statues,and reliquaries should be destroyed, and that the liturgy introducedby John III. should be abolished. The greatest violence was usedtowards the supporters of King Sigismund, most of whom were eitherCatholic or at least favourably inclined towards Catholicism.

Enraged by a decree that no edict of the king should have any bindingforce unless confirmed by the Swedish Diet, and driven to desperationby the tyranny and oppression of the regent, some of Sigismund'sfollowers raised the standard on behalf of their king, and Sigismundreturned to Sweden with an army of five thousand men. He found himselfopposed by the forces of the regent against whom he was at firstsuccessful, but in his treatment of his uncle and his rebel followershe showed himself far too forgiving. In return for his kindness,having strengthened themselves by a large army they forced him tosubmit to the decision of a national Assembly to be held at Jonkoping(1599). At this meeting Duke Karl accused the king of endeavouring toplunge Sweden once more into the errors from which it had been rescuedby the reformers. In May of the same year a resolution was passeddeclaring that the king had forfeited the allegiance of his subjectsunless he yielded to their demands, and more especially unless hehanded over his son and heir to be reared by the regent as aProtestant. Many of his supporters, including nine members of theCouncil of State, were put to death. Finally in 1604 Sigismund wasformally deposed, and the crown was bestowed on his uncle, Duke Karl,who became king under the title of Charles IX. Protestantism hadtriumphed at last in Sweden, but even its strongest supporters wouldhardly like to maintain that the issue was decided on religiousgrounds, or that the means adopted by Charles IX. to secure thevictory were worthy of the apostle of a new religion. ----------

[1] A Franciscan. He was the author of the /Confutatio Lutheranismi Danici/, edited and published 1902.