In his own mind Luther practically denied his doctrine as often as

he struggled with remorse, or sought to overcome his terrors of

conscience. Few men have had to exert their will with such energy (as

we shall have occasion to point out later, vol. v., xxxii.) to hold

their own against inward unrest. He, the advocate of the servitude of

the will, in his struggles with himself and his better feelings, made

his soul the battlefield of free-will, i.e. of a will vindicating its

freedom.

From his artificial position of security he ventures to stand up

vigorously against others, great men even, who “abused” his doctrine.

Count Albert of Mansfeld was one of those who, according to Luther’s

account, said of predestination and the helplessness of the will:

“The Gospel? What is predestined must come to pass. Let us then do as

we please. If we are to be saved, we shall be saved,” etc. Luther,

therefore, takes him to account in a letter addressed to him on

December 8, 1542. He tells him that he intends to speak freely, being

himself “a native of the county of Mansfeld.” “He, too, had been

tormented with such thoughts or temptations” and had thus been in

danger of hell. “For in the case of silly souls such devilish thoughts

breed despair and cause them to distrust God’s grace; in the case of

brave people, they make them contemners and enemies of God, who say:

let me alone, I shall do as I please, for in any case all I do is to

no purpose.” He does not forbear to scold the Count for his behaviour,

for “withdrawing himself from the Word and the Sacrament,” for “growing

cold and set upon Mammon.” In the end he is, however, only able to give

him the following questionable consolation concerning his doctrine.

“It is perfectly true that what God has determined must certainly take

place,” but there is “a great distinction to be observed” between the

revealed and the secret will of God. He should not “trouble himself

much” about the latter; for those who do soon “come to care nothing for

the Word of God or the Sacrament, give themselves up to a wild life,

to Mammon, tyranny and everything evil; for, owing to such thoughts,

they can have no faith, hope or charity for either God or man.” Instead

of this he desires, as he had explained in his book against Erasmus,

that we should simply cling to the God Who has revealed Himself; “what

He has promised we must believe, and what He has commanded we must

do.” A servant, for instance, does not presume to seek out “the secret

thoughts” of his master before obeying him. “Has not God the same right

to secret knowledge of His own beyond what He chooses to tell us?” Some

say: If it is to be, then all will happen in any case according to

God’s will; “of what use, then, is baptism, Holy Scripture and every

other creature to us? If God wills it, He can surely do it without all

that.”[852]

At that time the report of such frivolous talk among the great ones led

him to broach the subject in the lectures on Genesis which he happened

to be delivering.[853] Here, if we may trust the reporter, he reverts

to the doctrine he had defended in his “_De servo arbitrio_,” viz.

that all things happen of entire necessity (“_esse omnia absoluta et

necessaria_”).[854] He retracts nothing, but merely says, that he had

emphasised the necessity of paying attention only to the revealed God;

in this artifice he finds a means of preventing any frivolous abuse of

the theory of predestination, any despair or recourse to the complaint

“I cannot believe.”

In another letter he gives encouragement, no less doubtful in

character, to an unknown person, who, in the anxiety caused by his

apprehension of being predestined to hell, had applied to him. Luther

boldly re-affirms the existence of such absolute predestination:

“God rejected a number of men and elected and predestined others to

everlasting life before the foundation of the world, such is the

truth.” “He whom He has rejected cannot be saved, even though he should

perform all the works of the Saints; such is the irrevocable nature of

the Divine sentence. But do you gaze only upon the Majesty of the Lord

Who elects, that you may attain to salvation through our Lord Jesus

Christ.” In Christ, he proceeds, we have that revealed Majesty of God,

Who wills to save all who believe in Christ; “whom He has predestined

to salvation, He has also called by the gospel, that he may believe and

be justified by faith.”[855]--Yet, strangely enough, this letter also

contains a sentence which denies absolute predestination to hell, the

only such denial known to have been made by Luther.[856] The text of

the letter has, however, not yet been verified critically. The words in

question appear to be a quotation from Augustine added by another hand

in extenuation of Luther’s doctrine.

Although Luther did not put forth his rigid doctrine of predestination

to hell either in his popular or strictly theological writings, yet, to

the end of his life, he never surrendered it; that he “never retracted

it” is emphasised even in Köstlin and Kawerau’s Life of Luther.[857]

Of his book against Erasmus Luther spoke long after as the only one,

save the Catechism, which he would be sorry to see perish.[858] In

reply to the question put by Caspar Aquila, a preacher, why so many

who heard the Word did not believe, he refused to ascribe this to

free-will, and as regards the temptations to despair, which the same

enquirer complained were the result of his thoughts on predestination,

Luther insisted, that God had not chosen to reveal His secret will

(“_maiestas lucis illius occultata et non significata est_”),

hence the need to turn away resolutely from such thoughts and to

defy this “greatest of all temptations, truly a devilish one.” He

refuses to withdraw even the proposition, that all things happen of

necessity.[859] In his later years he is fond of speaking of the

power of sin over man’s interior, and though he does not allude so

decidedly or so frequently to man’s “absolute and entire dependence

upon God’s Omnipotence,” yet he has by no means relinquished the idea.

Thus the “difference between his earlier and later years” is one only

of degree, i.e. he merely succeeded in keeping his theory more in the

background.[860]

The controversy with Erasmus did not cease with the appearance of

Luther’s book, on the contrary. Apart from the question itself, the

injustice done to the eminent scholar, and still more to the Church,

by the arrant perversion of his opponent’s words to which Luther

descended in order to stamp him and the Catholic doctrine of the past

as altogether un-Christian, could not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

It has been admitted, even by Protestants, as Luther’s constant policy

in this work to make Erasmus say, that, in order to arrive at salvation

it was sufficient to use free-will and that grace was unnecessary,

and then to conclude that the Holy Ghost and Christ were shamefully

set aside by Catholics. This Luther did (as Kattenbusch says) “by a

certain, of course _bona fide_, perversion of his [Erasmus’s] words, or

by a process of forced reasoning which can seldom, if indeed ever, be

regarded as justified.”[861]

4. New Views on the Secular Authorities

“Since the time of the Apostles no doctor or scribe, no theologian or

jurist has confirmed, instructed and comforted the consciences of the

secular Estates so well and lucidly as I have done.”[862]

“Even had I, Dr. Martin, taught or done no other good, save to

enlighten and instruct the secular government and authorities, yet for

this cause alone they ought to be thankful to and well-disposed towards

me, for they all of them, even my worst enemies, know that in Popery

such understanding of the secular power was not merely discountenanced,

but actually trampled under foot by the stinking, lousy priests, monks

and mendicant friars.”[863]

“In Popery,” as hundreds of documents attest, the people were taught,

as they always had been, that the secular government was divinely

appointed and altogether independent in its own sphere;[864] that

it was nevertheless to govern according to the dictates of law and

justice; that, far from neglecting it, it was to promote the eternal

welfare of the subject; finally, that it was bound to recognise the

Catholic Church as the supreme guardian, of both the natural and

religious law. Government and secular Estate could work in all freedom

and prosperity. All that Luther taught rightly concerning the secular

power had been proclaimed long before by the voice of the Church and

put into practice.[865] As to the new and peculiar doctrines he taught

in the first period of his career, they must now be examined.

A curious changeableness and want of logic are apparent, not merely

in his way of expressing himself, but also in his views. This was due

in part to the fact that his mental abilities lent themselves less to

the statement and defence of general theories than to controversy on

individual points, but still more to the influence on his doctrine

exercised by the changes proceeding in the outer world.

The main point with him in the matter of the secular authorities was,

whether they might demand obedience from him and his followers in

matters concerning the new doctrine, i.e. whether they might compel

them to forsake the innovations, or whether the Lutheran party had

the right to resist the authorities and the Emperor, even by the use

of force. Another question was whether Catholics could be left free

to practise their religion in localities where the authorities were

on Luther’s side. Were the authorities bound to respect Catholic

convictions, or had the Lutheran Prince or magistrate the right to

force the refractory to accept the innovations? Finally, Luther’s

relations with those parties within the new faith who differed from him

raised fresh questions: Were the evangelical authorities to tolerate

these sectarians, or were they to repress any deviation from the

Wittenberg doctrine?

To formulate any definite answers to such questions was rendered still

more difficult in Luther’s case by the fact that prudence compelled

him to exercise great reticence and caution in his utterances on many

such points.[866] On the one hand he might easily have spoilt his whole

work in the eyes of his cautious sovereign had he proclaimed openly

the right of his friends among the nobles to resist the Emperor even by

force. On the other, many would have been repelled had he laid down the

principle of intolerance towards Zwinglians and Anabaptists as strongly

at the commencement as he did later. In considering his doctrine

concerning the secular authorities and the obedience due to them, we

must simply take his utterances in their historical sequence, at the

same time keeping a watchful eye on his actual behaviour in which we

shall find at once their explanation and justification.[867] Only in

this way shall we arrive at a clear estimation of his tangled ideas on

secular authority and religious toleration.[868]

As to his varying theories,[869] at the outset and during the first

stage of his revolt against the Church, Luther was fond of launching

out into very questionable and far-reaching statements concerning the

secular authority, as appears, for instance, in his tract addressed

in 1520 to the German Nobility. Where the authorities are on the side

of the Evangel, their power is so great that they may exercise their

office “unhindered,” “even against Pope, bishop, parson, monk or nun

or whatever else there be”; in that case, too, the secular authorities

are perfectly justified in summoning clerics to answer before their

tribunal.[870] “St. Paul says to all Christians,” Luther argues, “‘Let

every soul’--hence, I suppose, even the Pope himself--‘be subject to

higher powers, for they bear not the sword in vain.’ ... St. Peter,

too, foretold that men would arise who would despise the temporal

rulers, which has indeed come to pass through the rights of the

clergy.”[871] In such wise does he charge the past.

But now, he continues (owing to his efforts), “the secular power

has become a member of the ghostly body, and, though its office is

temporal, yet it has been raised to a spiritual dignity; its work may

now be done freely and unhindered among all the members of the whole

body, punishing and compelling, where guilt deserves it or necessity

demands, regardless of Pope, bishop or priest, let them threaten

and ban as they please.”[872] It is clear how the interests of the

“reformation” he has planned impel him to extend the rights of the

secular power, even in the spiritual domain, over all who resist.

In his work “On the secular power,” of March, 1523, we find an entirely

different language.

Here he insists with great emphasis on the fact that the secular

authorities have no right to interfere in the spiritual domain. The

explanation of his change of attitude is that here he is thinking of

the Catholic authorities who were placing obstacles in the way of the

spread of the Lutheran apostasy. His teaching is: The secular power

exists and is ordained by God, but it has no concern with spiritual

matters, may not place difficulties in the way of the preaching of

the “Word,” and has no right to curtail the interests of the Evangel,

by prohibiting Luther’s books, by threatening excommunication, or by

hindering the new worship. He thus sets up general principles which are

quite at variance with the line of action he himself constantly pursued

where the authorities were favourable to his cause.

His teaching he expounds in this way: Temporal rulers are, it is true,

established in the world by the will of God and must be obeyed; but

their sword must not invade a domain which does not belong to them;

it is not their business to render men pious, and they have nothing

whatever to do with the good, their only object being to prevent

outward crimes and to maintain outward peace as “God’s task-masters and

executioners.”[873] He speaks almost as though there were two kingdoms

of men, one, of the wicked and those who are not “Christians,” coming

under the rule of the authorities and belonging to the kingdom of the

world; the other, the kingdom of God, whose members are not subject

to earthly laws and authorities; such are “all true believers in and

beneath Christ.”

Not only could this curious dualism be objected to on the score of

want of clearness, but the assertion that the secular power was merely

an “executioner” for the punishment of outward crime actually tended to

abase and degrade it. The olden Church had, on the contrary, exalted

the secular power by permitting its representatives to share in many

ways in the spiritual work of the Church, and by desiderating the

harmonious co-operation of the two powers, spiritual and secular, in

the interests of the ultimate end of mankind.

The singular attitude adopted by Luther is to be explained, as hinted

above, by the fact that, in his work “On the secular power,” he has

allowed himself to be so largely influenced by polemical regard for

the Catholic authorities, whom he describes as those blind, wretched

people, the Emperor and the wise Princes and tyrants generally. He

inveighs against the “clever squires who seek to uproot heresy,” and

against “our Christian Princes, who defend the faith.” The authorities

with whom he is here concerned consist almost exclusively of persons

who, “instead of allowing God’s Word to have free course,” would fain

impose by compulsion the faith of bygone days upon their subjects,

thus creating “liars by constraint.” They “command men to feel with

the Pope,” but they act “without the clear Word of God” and must

therefore necessarily perish in their “perverted understanding.”[874]

In the work in question he nevertheless seeks to establish a general

theory, though, partly owing to its being forcibly shaped to meet the

special needs of the case, partly because it was based on a certain

kind of pseudo-mysticism, the theory remains open to many objections.

The secular power (more particularly where it is Catholic) cannot

exercise any authority in spiritual matters, hence, he says, “these

two governments must be carefully kept asunder, and both be preserved,

the one to render men pious, the other to safeguard outward peace

and prevent evil deeds.”[875] In speaking as he does here and

elsewhere in this work of the “two governments” he is, however, very

far from acknowledging an independent ecclesiastical or spiritual

government such as had existed in Catholicism. What he called

spiritual government was “without law or command,” and merely “the

inward sovereignty of the Word,” “Christ’s spiritual dominion” where

souls are ruled by the Evangel; there the Word of God is furthered

by teaching and the sacraments, by which minds are led and heresy

vanquished; “for Christians must be ruled by faith, not by outward

works.... Those who do not believe are not Christians and do not

belong to Christ’s kingdom, but to the kingdom of the world, and

must therefore be compelled and governed by the sword.” “Christians

do all what is good without compulsion and God’s Word suffices

them.”[876]--Hence it is certain that he does not look upon this

kingdom of the Christian as a real government, seeing that it implies

no jurisdiction. The power to make and enforce laws in this world

belongs only to the secular authorities. They alone form on earth a

real government. “Priests and bishops,” too, have neither “supremacy

nor power.”[877]

True believers are subject to “no laws and no sword,”[878] for they

stand in need of none. For this reason Christ commands us not to

make use of the sword and to refrain from violence. “The words of

Christ are clear and peremptory: ‘resist not evil’” (Matt. v. 39).

These words and the whole passage concerning the blow on the cheek,

the Sophists (i.e. the Schoolmen) had indeed interpreted as a mere

“counsel.” In reality, however, they constitute a command, though

only for “Christians”; “the sword has no place among Christians,

hence you cannot use it upon or among Christians, since they need it

not.”[879] He is here addressing Duke Johann, the Elector’s brother,

who sympathised with his cause and to whom, in the Preface, the

work is dedicated. He goes on to tell him that the Christian ruler

nevertheless must not lay aside the sword on account of what has just

been said, for in point of fact there are few such “Christians,”

wherefore the sword was still “useful and necessary everywhere.” “The

world cannot and will not do without” authority. Even with the sword

you still remain “true to the gospel,” he tells this Christian Prince,

and still hold fast to Christ’s Word, “so that you would gladly offer

the other cheek to the smiter and give up your cloak after your coat,

if the matter affected yourself or your cause.”[880] Every Christian

likewise must comply with the command to relinquish his rights,

“allow himself to be insulted and disgraced,” but in his neighbour’s

cause he must insist upon what is just, even to having recourse to the

sword of authority.[881]

In this way he fancies, as he says in the Dedication, that he is the

first to instruct “the Princes and secular authorities to remain

Christians with Christ as their Lord, and yet not to make mere

counsels out of Christ’s commands”; but the “Sophists” “have made a

liar of Christ and placed Him in the wrong in order that the Princes

may be honoured.... Their poisonous error has made its way throughout

the world, so that everyone looks upon Christ’s teaching as counsels

for the perfect and not as obligatory commands, binding on all.”

Should the secular power exceed its limits and the rulers demand what

is against conscience, then God is to be obeyed rather than man.[882]

He now comes to the new Evangel. If the authorities require you “to

believe this or the other,” “or order you to put away certain books,

you must reply, ... In this respect you are acting like tyrants; you

are going too far and commanding where you have neither right nor

power, etc. Should they thereupon seize your property and punish you

for your disobedience, you should esteem yourself happy and thank

God.”[883] In the County of Meissen, in Bavaria, and in the March,

where the authorities required, under penalties, that his translation

of the New Testament should be given up, he says, “the subjects are

not to surrender a single leaflet, nor even a letter, if they do

not wish to imperil their salvation, for whoever does such a thing,

surrenders Christ into the hands of Herod.” They are, however, not to

offer violent resistance, but to “suffer.”[884]

The Imperial Edicts issued against the innovations led him to speak

more fully of the interference of the secular authorities on behalf of

religious doctrine generally. “God,” he declares, “will permit none

to rule over the soul but Himself alone.... Hence, when the secular

power takes upon itself to make laws for the soul it is trespassing

upon God’s domain and merely seducing and corrupting souls. We are

determined to make this so plain that everyone can grasp it, and that

our squires, Princes and bishops may see what fools they are when with

laws and commandments they try to force the people to believe this

or that.”[885] Such meddling of the authorities with matters which

did not concern them was, so he says, due to the “commandments of

men,” and was therefore utterly at variance with “God’s Word.” God

would have “our faith founded only on His Divine Word,” but what the

worldly authorities were after “was uncertain, or rather, certainly,

displeasing [to God], because there was no clear Word of God in its

favour.” “Such things are enjoined by the devil’s apostles, not by

the Church, for the Church commands nothing save when she knows for

certain that it is according to the Word of God.... As for them, they

will find it a hard job to prove that the decrees of the Councils are

the Word of God.”[886]

It is well worth our while to consider the following general grounds

he assigns for his repudiation of all interference of the authorities

in matters of faith, for, not long after, his position will be very

different. He declares that, speaking generally, the authorities have

“no power over souls”; the soul is removed altogether from the hands

of men and “placed in the hands of God alone.” The ruler has just as

little control over a soul as he has over the moon. “Who would not

be accounted crazy who commanded the moon to shine at his pleasure?”

Besides, Pope, Bishops and Schoolmen are “without God’s Word,” “and

yet they wish to be termed Christian Princes, which may God prevent!”

Further proofs follow from the Bible, where we read, that God alone

knows and governs all things, and from the fact, that “every man’s

salvation depends on his belief, and he must accordingly look to it

that he believes aright”; “faith is a voluntary act to which no one

can be forced, nay, it is a Divine work of the Spirit.” Moreover, “it

is a vain and impossible thing” to compel the heart, and God will

bring to a dreadful pass the purblind rulers who are now attempting

it.[887]

His conclusion is that “the secular power must be content to wait and

allow people to believe this or the other as they please and are able,

and not to compel any man by force.”[888]

“Heresy can never be withstood by force,” he says further on.

“Something else is needed.... God’s Word must here do the work, and

if it fails, then the secular power will certainly not achieve it,

though it should fill the world with blood.... God’s Word alone

can be effective.” Hence the squires should learn at last to cease

“destroying ‘heresy,’ and allow God’s Word which enlightens the heart”

to have its way.[889]

Nevertheless, he admits that it is the right of the bishops to

“restrain heretics.” “The bishops must do this, for it appertains

to their office though not to the Princes”--a theory which Luther

persistently refused to see carried to its logical conclusion. He also

admits, that “no one has a right to command souls unless he knows

how to show them the way to heaven,”--though here, again, he would

have denied the consequence which Catholics gathered from this truth,

when they urged that the measures adopted by the Empire against the

innovations were for the safeguarding of the road to heaven, which an

infallible Church points out to mankind. In Luther’s opinion there

no longer existed any Church able to “point out the way to heaven”

without danger of error. “This no man can do,” he exclaims in the

same passage,[890] “but God alone.” It was hopeless for Catholics to

argue that the Church did so only in God’s name, and under explicit

promise of His assistance. Facts are there to prove that, at the

very time when Luther was proclaiming his theories of religious

toleration, he was setting them at nought in the most outrageous

fashion where Catholics were concerned; he was, however, careful to

veil his invitation to abolish their faith and worship under the

specious pretext of demolishing abuses, sacrilege and the Kingdom of

Antichrist. Nor was it long before he invoked the help of the secular

power against sectarians within his own camp.

Where, towards the close of the work “On the secular power,” Luther

passes on to show how Princes, who are “desirous of acting as

Christian Princes and lords,” ought to administer their authority, he

reaches a less controversial subject and is able to expound in that

popular, imaginative language which he knew so well how to handle

certain wholesome views which had already found expression in earlier

times. In the forcible exhortations he here gives, rulers desirous

of profiting might have found much to learn. Whoever wishes to be a

Christian Prince must above all “lay aside the notion that he is to

rule and govern by violence.” “Justice must reign at all times and

in everything.” His whole mind must be set on “making himself of use

and service to his subjects.” Secondly, “he must keep an eye on the

Jacks-in-office and on his councillors, and behave towards them in

such a way as not to despise any of them, while at the same time not

confiding in any one man to such an extent as to leave everything to

him.” “Thirdly, he must take care to deal rightly with evil-doers.”

“He must not follow those advisers and fire-eaters who urge and tempt

him to make war.” “Fourthly--what ought really to have been placed

first-- ... the ruler must behave towards his God as a Christian,

submitting himself to Him with entire confidence, and praying for

wisdom to rule well.”[891]

Concerning the latter point, viz. the attitude of the ruler towards

God and towards religion, which, according to Luther, really should

come first, the exhortations of earlier days addressed to the rulers,

hardly ever failed to represent the protection of the Kingdom of God

as the noblest task of any sovereign, who looked beyond temporal

things to the world to come. Luther himself at a later period commends

the protection and extension of the Kingdom of God most earnestly and

eloquently to all rulers who followed the new faith, and instances

the example of the Jewish Kings and Jewish priesthood.[892] Here,

however, where he is full of other interests, we find not a word

of the kind. On the subject of their relation to God, all he does

is to remind the Princes in one sentence of the need of “true

confidence and heartfelt prayer,” and, having done so, he breaks off

and hurriedly brings the work to an end. In this circumstance, in

itself insignificant, Luther’s violent breach with tradition is very

apparent. Here, where, for the first time in any work of his, he

puts forth his views as to what the conduct of secular authorities

should be, in dealing with their relations to faith and worship, he

has not a word in support of the recommendation to protect religion,

albeit so justifiable and hitherto so usual; he could not give such

a recommendation, because a few pages before he had laid it down

that “the secular government has laws which do not extend beyond

life and property and what is external on earth.” “The secular power

must leave people free to believe this or that as they please”; “the

blind, miserable wretches [the Catholic Princes] see not how vain

and impossible a thing they are undertaking.”[893]--Nowhere in the

writing, as a Protestant theological critic remarks, “does the idea

appear that a Christian ruler has the right or the duty to pass beyond

the limits of his temporal jurisdiction and to concern himself with

ecclesiastical matters.”[894]

It is quite remarkable how Luther reduces the action of the secular

power and the rights of the authorities to a judicial constraint to be

exercised against evil-doers, or, as he says, to the task of a mere

executioner.

For the explanation of these ideas on the secular power, two points are

of especial importance: In the first place, Luther was at that time

somewhat disappointed with the Princes and the nobles. In his work “To

the Nobility” he had urged them to make an end of the Papal rule, and

now he was vexed to see that, almost to a man, they had declined to do

anything, whilst he himself was under the ban of the Empire. Secondly,

it was his idea of the inward action of the Evangel upon souls and his

conception of a sort of invisible Church, which induced him to exclude

altogether the secular power from the spiritual domain, and to speak

in exaggerated and disparaging terms of the “outward actions” with

which alone it was concerned. In those years, when he was still to

some extent under the influence of his early pseudo-mysticism, he was

fond of picturing to himself the community of believers as an assembly

of all those who had been awakened by “the Word,” and who, in spirit,

were far above the compulsion of any earthly regulations. Thus, with

him, the Church, in comparison with the political community, tended to

evaporate into a mere union of souls, scarcely perceptible to earthly

eyes.[895]

To us now it is clear that, in spite of every effort to the contrary,

the new Church was bound in process of time to become entirely

dependent on the secular power, first and foremost in its outward

administration. Luther’s spiritual Church could not endure but for the

support of the authorities.

It is notorious that the tendency to make his Church depend upon the

secular authorities, as soon as they had embraced his cause, was part

of Luther’s plan from the very outset. A State Church corresponded

with his requirements. However much at the commencement Luther might

emphasise the congregational ideal, tracing the whole authority of the

freshly formed communities back to it, viz. to the priestly powers

inherent in all the faithful, yet, as occasion arises, he falls back on

the one external authority left standing, now that he has definitely

set aside one of the two powers recognised of old.

In the sixteenth century the Church was confronted not only by official

Protestantism, but by various other opposing bodies, Anabaptists,

fanatics and anti-Trinitarians. If among all these only the Wittenberg,

Zürich and Geneva groups “were able to assert themselves, this,”

says a recent Protestant theologian, Paul Wernle, “was not due, or

at least not solely due, to the fact, that they were more true or

more profound than the others, but that they accommodated themselves

better to existing conditions, and, above all, to the State.”[896] Karl

Sell, a Protestant professor of theology, speaks in the same strain:

“Where the Reformation gained the day it did so with the help of the

secular power, of the Princes or republics and, in every instance,

the Reformation itself strengthened the power of these authorities.

Upon them devolved the new office of caring ... for religion.... Thus

_the_ duty of providing for wholesome doctrine and right faith, for

the doctrine which alone could be pleasing to God, became one of the

principal concerns of the rulers; hence arose the strict adherence to

orthodoxy, the exclusion of erroneous teaching from the confines of the

State, in short, the theological police system which prevailed in all

Protestant countries till the middle of the seventeenth century.”[897]

The tendency to seek an alliance with the secular powers did not,

however, hinder Luther from degrading the authorities and the Princes

in the eyes of the people in the most relentless and public manner.

In his mortification at the want of response to his call he allowed

himself to be carried away to strictures and predictions which greatly

excited the masses.

In his work “On the secular power” he asks: “Would you learn why God

has decreed such a terrible fate to befall the worldly Princes?” His

answer is: “God has delivered them up to a perverted mind and means to

make an end of them, just as in the case of the clerical Princes....

Secular lords should rule over the land and the people in outward

matters. This they neglected. All they could do was to rob and oppress

the people, heaping tax upon tax and rate upon rate.” He reminds his

readers that the Romans, too, acted unjustly in things both spiritual

and temporal--until “they were destroyed. There now! there you see

God’s judgment on the great braggarts.”[898]--“There are few Princes,”

he says, in the same writing, “who are not regarded as either fools

or knaves. This is because they prove themselves to be such, and the

common people are growing to understand it; scorn for Princes, which

God calls ‘_contemptum_,’ prevails among the peasants and common folk;

and I fear there will be no stopping this unless the Princes behave

as beseems Princes and begin again to govern reasonably and justly.

Your tyranny and wantonness cannot be endured much longer.”[899] His

chief grievance here and elsewhere is, that the rulers do not allow

the gospel to be freely preached, but their “dancing, hunting, races,

games and such-like worldly pleasures” he also holds up to execration.

“Who does not know that in heaven a Prince is like a hare?” i.e. it

would take many beaters to locate one.[900] “I do not say these things

in the hope that the secular Princes will profit”; it is not indeed

absolutely impossible for a Prince to be a good Christian, “but such

a case is rare.” A Prince who is at the same time a Christian is

“one of the greatest wonders and a most precious sign of the potency

of Divine Grace.”[901]--It has been already pointed out that, in

seeking the causes of the Peasant-War, we must take into account these

inflammatory discourses of Luther’s to the people and his imperious

demand for freedom to preach the “Evangel.”

In his “Exhortation to Peace” of the year 1525, he addresses “the

Princes and Lords,” spiritual and temporal, and tells them they have

themselves to blame for the seditious risings of the peasants: “We

have no one on earth to thank for such disorder and revolt but you,

Princes and Lords, and more particularly you, blind bishops and mad

priests”; you are not merely enemies of the Evangel, but “rob and

tax in order to live in luxury and state, until the poor, common

people neither can nor will bear it any longer. The sword is at your

throat,” etc.; here he is speaking to the “tyrannical and raging

authorities,” as he terms them, of that sword which, according to the

words he had flung among the people in earlier years, had long been

unsheathed.[902]--To Frederick his Elector he had written, on March

7, 1522, that the Princes who were hostile to the Evangel did not see

that they were “forcing the people to rebel, and behaving as though

they wished themselves or their children to be exterminated; this,

without a doubt, God will send as a punishment.”[903]

How Luther was wont to criticise the authorities in his sermons,

regardless of the effect it might produce in such a period of

excitement, appears from a sermon preached on August 20, 1525, i.e. at

the time of the great peasant rising in Germany.

“Let anyone count up the Princes and rulers who fear God more than

man. How many do you think they will number? You could write all their

names on one finger, or as someone has said, on a signet ring.”[904]

“At the Courts nowadays infidelity, egotism and avarice prevail among

the Princes and their councillors ... they say: my will be done and

forget that there is a God in heaven above.”[905] “These braggarts and

great lords think they are always in the right, and want others to

give judgment and pass sentence as pleases them. If this is not done,

woe betide the judge.”[906]

In the same sermon, it is true, Luther quotes, happily and at the same

time forcibly, passages from Holy Scripture in praise of good rulers.

In his popular style he points out what should be the qualities of

a righteous sovereign who is solicitous for his people’s welfare.

Such a ruler, he says, is courageous and determined in dealing with

evil of every sort, and says to himself: “Even though this rich,

powerful, strong man, be he Jack or peer, becomes my enemy, I don’t

care. By virtue of my office and calling I have one on my side who is

far stronger, more respected and more powerful than he, and though

he [the enemy] should have all the devils, Princes and Kings on his

side, all worse than himself, what is all that to me if He Who sits

up there in Heaven is with me? All undertakings should be decided in

this way, and one should say: Dear Lord, I leave it in Thy hands,

though it should cost me my life. Then God answers: Be steadfast and

I will also stand by you.” Luther nevertheless concludes: “But where

will you find such rulers? Where are they?”[907] In his sermon of

December 3, likewise, he had drawn a beautiful picture of the modesty

and renunciation which the example of Christ teaches both Princes and

people. Yet there again, at the conclusion, we find him saying: “There

is no kingdom that is not addicted to plunder. The Princes are a gang

of cut-purses.”[908]

In the writing “On the secular power,” to which we must here revert,

Luther says, that the Princes are, as a rule, “the biggest fools or the

worst knaves on the surface of the earth”; a good Prince “had always

been a rare bird from the beginning of the world.” Because the world

is “of the devil,” therefore “its Princes too are of a like nature.”

In spite of this Luther ends by saying, that as God’s “hangmen,” the

Princes ought to be obeyed.[909] Later on he was to declare that the

passages from the Bible, which he had here quoted in support of this

obedience, were his best defence against the charge of diminishing the

respect due to Princes, or of teaching rebellion. “The fact that, in

that work, I based and confirmed the temporal supremacy and obedience

on Scripture is of itself sufficient refutation of such slanders.”[910]

When he asserts in the above writing, that “Among Christians no

authority can or ought to exist, but that everyone should be subject

to all,”[911] his intention was not, as has sometimes been erroneously

supposed by his opponents, to incite the people against the secular

power; the words, though badly chosen, must be understood in connection

with his mystical theory of the true believers, i.e. of the invisible

Church, being intended to convey, that no authority should rule by

enforced commands, but that, on the contrary, all must ‘serve,’ and

that even superiors should be mindful of their duty of ‘service.’ It

is not, however, very surprising that such a statement, so unwisely

expressed in general terms as that, “among Christians there neither

can nor ought to be any authority,” when taken out of its context and

published abroad among the people, was misapplied by the malcontents,

more especially when taken in conjunction with other questionable

utterances of Luther’s.

His experience with the fanatics, and, still more, the events of the

Peasant-War, caused Luther to dwell more and more strongly on the

duty and right of the authorities to exercise compulsion towards

evil-doers.[912]

In the work “Against the Heavenly Prophets,” the first published in the

stormy year 1525, he says: “The principal thing” required to protect

the people against the devils who were teaching through the mouths

of the Anabaptist prophets was, “in the case of the common people,”

compulsion by the sword and by law. The authorities must force them to

be at least “outwardly pious” (true Christians, of course, do all of

themselves); the law with its penalties rules over them in the same

way that “wild beasts are held in check by chains and bars, in order

that outward peace may prevail among the people; for this purpose the

temporal authorities are ordained, and it is God’s will that they be

honoured and feared.”[913] The change in his views concerning the

treatment of sectarians and heretics will, however, be considered

elsewhere.[914]

On the other hand, it must be pointed out here that he at least allows

the supreme secular power such authority as to deprecate any armed

resistance to it, even where the Evangel is oppressed. In his work “On

the secular power” we find him stating: “I say briefly that no Prince

may make war on his over-Lord, such as the King, or the Emperor, or any

other feudal superior, but must allow him to seize what he pleases.

For the higher authorities must not be resisted by force, but merely

by bringing them to a knowledge of the truth. If they are converted,

it is well; if not, you are free from blame, and suffer injustice for

God’s sake.”[915]--As early as 1520 we find him saying: “Even though

the authorities act unjustly God wills that they should be obeyed

without deceit, unless, indeed, they insist publicly on the doing of

what is wrong towards God or men; for to suffer unjustly harms no man’s

soul, indeed is profitable to it.”[916] At the outset he persisted in

dissuading Princes favourable to his cause from armed resistance to the

Emperor.

His earlier unwillingness, however, only contrasts the more strangely

with his later attitude, particularly after the Diet of Augsburg, when

his position had become stronger and when danger appeared to threaten

the new Evangel from the Imperial power, even though all the Emperor’s

steps were merely in accordance with the ancient laws of the Empire.

Addressing the protesting Princes, he tells them they must act as so

many Constantines in defence of their cause, and not wince at bloodshed

in order to protect the Evangel against the furious, soul-destroying

attacks of the new Licinii. His change of front in thus inciting to

rebellion he covered, by declaring he was most ready to render to Cæsar

the things that were Cæsar’s, but that when the Emperor forbade “what

God in His Word [according to Luther’s interpretation] had taught and

commanded,” then he was going beyond his province; in such a case it

was well to remember that “God still retained what was His,” “and that

they, the tyrants, had lost everything and suffered shipwreck.”[917] In

this case the action taken by the temporal power according to law must,

he says, be forcibly frustrated by the subject. New theories as to the

rights of the Emperor and the Princes did their part in justifying

these demands in his eyes. “Gradually,” says Fr. von Bezold, “his

experience of the limitations of the Imperial power and the liberty of

the Princes of the Empire brought about a change in him. Thus he became

... the father of the doctrine of the right of resistance.”[918]

In 1522 he had written in quite a different strain to his Elector. At

that time the critical question of the latter’s attitude towards the

Imperial authority and of the protection to be afforded Luther against

the Emperor was under discussion. “In the sight of men it behoves Your

Electoral Highness to act as follows: As Elector to render obedience

to the power established and allow His Imperial Majesty to dispose of

life and property in the towns and lands subject to Your Electoral

Highness, as is right and in accordance with the laws of the Empire;

nor to oppose or resist, or seek to place any obstacle or hindrance

in the way of the aforesaid power should it wish to lay hands on me

or kill me.... If Your Electoral Highness were a believer, you would

see in this the glory of God, but since you are not yet a believer,

you have seen nothing so far.”[919] This, compared to the summons to

resistance, spoken of above, reads like an invitation to submit with

entire patience to those who were persecuting the Evangel. It is true

that the then position of affairs to some extent explains the case. The

writer was well aware that the Elector might be relied upon to protect

him, he also knew that a little temporary self-restraint in his demands

would do his cause no harm, and that a profession of entire readiness

to sacrifice himself would be most conducive to his interests.[920]

But from this time the opinion that, in the pressing interests of

the gospel, it was permissible to make use of violence against the

authorities and their worldly regulations, breaks out repeatedly, and,

in spite of the reticence he frequently displays and of his warnings

against rebellion and revolt, he is quite unable to conceal his inner

feeling. Many passages of an inflammatory character have already been

instanced above and might be cited here.[921]

The opposition smouldering in his breast to the conduct of the

authorities in the matter of religious practices differing from

their own, comes out very strongly at an early period. Though he

declared that he had no wish to interfere, yet, even in 1522, he

requested Frederick the Elector of Saxony, through the intermediary

of Spalatin,[922] to have Masses prohibited as idolatrous, “an

interference in religious matters on the part of the authorities,”

as Fr. Paulsen remarks, “which it is difficult to reconcile with the

position which Luther assigns to them in 1523 in his work ‘On the

secular power.’”[923] Paulsen also recalls the statement (above, p.

300) that a sovereign may not even order his subjects to surrender the

book of the gospels, and that whoever obeyed such an order was handing

over Christ to Herod. It is true, he concludes, that here the order

would have emanated from “Popish authorities.”

When the Canons of Altenburg, in accordance with their chartered

rights, wished, in 1522, to resist the appointment of a Lutheran

preacher in that town, neither olden law nor the orders of the

authorities availed anything with Luther, as we shall see below (p. 314

ff); “against this [the introduction of the Evangel] no seals, briefs,

custom or right are valid,” he writes; it was the duty of the Elector

“as a Christian ruler to encounter the wolves.” Finally, we have the

outburst: “God Himself has abrogated all authority and power where it

is opposed to the Evangel, ‘we must obey God rather than men’” (Acts v.

29).[924]

Here we have a practical commentary on what he says when speaking of

the “Word” which must make its way alone: “The Word of God is a sword,

is destruction, vexation, ruin, poison, and as Amos says, like a bear

in the path and a lioness in the wood.”[925]

Even in his sermon on Good Works in 1520 he had made a remarkable

application of the above principle of the abrogation of all authority

in the case of those who ruled in defiance of God: People must not, he

declares in accordance with Acts v. 29, allow themselves to be forced

to act contrary to God’s law; “If a Prince whose cause is obviously

unjust wishes to make war, he must not be followed or assisted,

because God has commanded us not to kill our neighbour or to do him an

injury.”[926] A Protestant theologian and historian of Luther remarks

on this: “Luther does not, however, explain how far the responsibility,

right and duty of the subject extends, and clearly had not given this

matter any careful consideration.”[927]

A want of “consideration” may be averred by the historian concerning

all Luther’s theoretical statements on secular authority during the

first period of his career. The historian will find it impossible to

discover in Luther’s views on this subject the thread which, according

to many modern Protestant theologians, runs through his new theories.

Wilhelm Hans, a Protestant theologian, was right when he wrote in

1901: “Luther’s lack of system is nowhere more apparent than in his

views concerning the authorities and their duty towards religion. The

attempt to sum up in a logical system the ideas which he expressed on

this subject under varying circumstances and at different times, and

to bring these ideas into harmony with his practice, will ever prove a

failure. It will never be possible to set aside the contradictions in

his theory, and between his theory and his practice.”[928]

5. How the New Church System was Introduced

A complete account of the introduction of the new ecclesiastical system

will become possible only when impartial research has made known to us

more fully than hitherto the proceedings in the different localities

according to the records still extant.

Some districts were thrown open to the new Evangel without any

difficulty because the inhabitants, or people of influence, believed

they would thus be bringing about a reformation in the true sense of

the word, i.e. be contributing to the removal of ecclesiastical abuses

deplored by themselves and by all men of discernment.

In the opinion of many, to quote words written by Döllinger when yet

a Catholic, “there was on the one side a large body of prelates,

ecclesiastical dignitaries and beneficiaries who, too well-provided

with worldly goods, lived carelessly, troubling themselves little

about the distress and decay of the Church, and even looking with

complacent indolence at the stormy attacks directed against her; on

the other side stood a simple Augustinian monk, who neither possessed

nor sought for what those men either enjoyed in plenty or were

striving to obtain, but who, for that very reason, was able to wield

weapons not at their command; to fight with spirit, irresistible

eloquence and theological knowledge, with invincible self-confidence,

steadfast courage, enthusiasm, yea, with the energy of a will called

to dominate the minds of men and gifted with untiring powers for

work. Germany was at that time still virgin soil; journalism was

yet unknown; little, and that of no great importance, had as yet

been written on subjects of public and general interest. Higher

questions which might otherwise have engrossed people’s minds were

not then mooted, thus people were all the more open to religious

excitement, while at the same time the nation, as yet unaccustomed

to pompous declamation and exaggerated rhetoric, was all the more

ready to believe every word which fell from the lips of a man who,

as priest and professor of theology at one of the Universities, had,

at the peril of his life, raised the most terrible charges against

the Church, charges too which on the whole met with comparatively

little contradiction. His accusations, his appeals to a consoling

doctrine, hitherto maliciously repressed and kept under a bushel,

he proclaimed in the most forcible of language, ever appealing to

Christ and the gospel, and ever using figures from the Apocalypse

to rate the Papacy and the state of the Church in general, figures

which could not fail to fire the imagination of his readers. Luther’s

popular tracts, which discussed for the first time the ecclesiastical

system as a whole, with all its defects, were on the one hand

couched in biblical phraseology and full of quotations and ideas

from Holy Scripture, while at the same time they were the work of a

demagogue, well aware of the object in view, and perfectly alive to

the weaknesses of the national character. His writings could equally

well be discussed in the tap-rooms and market-places of the cities

or preached from the pulpits. Even more efficacious than the methods

employed in propagating it were the motives embodied in the system

itself; the doctrines--brought before the people in so many sermons,

hymns and tracts--on justification without any preparation, by the

mere imputation of the sufferings and merits of Christ, were sweet,

consoling and welcome.... Then there was the new Christian freedom ...

the abolition of the obligation to confess, to fast, etc. ‘Oh, what

a grand doctrine that was,’ Wicel wrote at a later date, ‘not to be

obliged to confess any more, nor to pray, nor to fast, nor to make

offerings or give alms.... You ought surely to have been able to catch

two German lands, not one only, with such bait, and to have dragged

them into your net. For if you give a man his own way, it is easy to

convert him.’”[929]

_Altenburg, Lichtenberg, Schwarzburg, Eilenburg_

When the first preacher of the Lutheran faith at Altenburg in the

Saxon Electorate, Gabriel Zwilling, a former comrade of Carlstadt’s,

began to behave in too violent and arrogant a manner, Luther, out

of consideration for his sovereign, admonished him to “lay aside

all presumption” and to “leave God to do everything.” “You must not

press for innovations, but, as I besought you once before, free

consciences by means of the Word alone, and by exhorting to pure faith

and charity.... I gave my word to the Prince that you would do this,

so don’t act otherwise and bring shame on me, upon yourself and the

Evangel. You see the people running after external things, sacraments

and ceremonies; this you must oppose and make an end of; see that you

lead them first to faith and charity in order that by their fruits they

may show themselves to be a branch of our Vine.”[930]

As, however, the gentle methods which Luther had promised his Elector

to employ did not appear to suffice, recourse was had to force. The

town-council, with the support of the inhabitants of Wittenberg, boldly

threw law and custom overboard.

Prejudiced in favour of Luther, they had invited him to visit Altenburg

and to preach there, and he had agreed. On that occasion Luther had

recommended Gabriel Zwilling to the magistracy as resident preacher, in

spite of the Anabaptist tendencies he had already shown. The Canons,

who were faithful to the Church and who for centuries had the gift

of the livings, opposed the appointment of Zwilling to one of the

parishes. Thereupon the town-council, in a complaint composed by Luther

himself, declared that, as the natural and duly appointed senate of

the congregation, it had the right to decide; that the councillors

were, by virtue of their office, not merely responsible for the secular

government, but also were bound by the duty of “fraternal Christian

charity” to interfere on behalf of the Evangel. The council, or

rather Luther, also pointed out, that according to Matthew vii. every

man has the right to drive away ravening wolves, that the Canons

with the Provost at their head were indeed such, not having scrupled

to appropriate the revenues, whilst all the while teaching false

doctrine; “Scripture does not give power to a ‘_Concilium_,’ but to

each individual Christian to judge of doctrine, to detect the wolves

and to avoid them.... Each one must believe for himself and be able to

distinguish between true and false doctrine.”[931] Luther here at one

and the same time, because it happens to serve his purpose, advocates

an extravagant religious freedom, manifestly inconsistent with any

religious commonwealth, and yet denies the unfortunate Canons any

liberty whatsoever: “They must either hold their tongues or teach the

pure Evangel”--or else depart elsewhere.

Luther supported the manifesto in a letter addressed to the Elector in

which he declares, that, “God Himself has abrogated all authority and

power where it opposes the gospel,”[932] though he does not say who is

to decide whether anyone may quote the gospel in his own favour, and

what is to be done if the authorities themselves assume the right of

“deciding in matters of doctrine.”

The Provost of the Canons, in the matter of the appointment,

represented the lawful authority. To the demand of the councillors

he replied by asking what they would say were he to appoint a new

burgomaster at Altenburg; yet they had as little right to introduce

a preacher as he would have to interfere in their affairs; further,

it was not his duty to stand by and see his collegiate establishment

deprived of any of its chartered rights.[933]

The decision came at last before the Elector. He refused to confirm the

appointment of Zwilling in his office of preacher, as his turbulent

Anabaptist views did not inspire confidence. In the summer of 1522,

however, he bestowed the appointment on Wenceslaus Link, one of

Luther’s friends, without paying any attention to the Canons and

obviously acting on Luther’s advice. Link, in February, 1523, resigned

the office of Vicar-General of the Augustinian Congregation, and soon

after was married by Luther himself at Altenburg. The Canons protested

in vain against the compulsion exercised.

In the spring, 1524, Link succeeded in inducing the council of

Altenburg to prohibit the Franciscans from celebrating Mass in public,

preaching and hearing confessions. The council vindicated its action

in a document--probably composed by Link--addressed to the Elector,

in which from the Old and New Testament it is shown that rulers must

not tolerate “idolatry.”[934] When Spalatin, after resigning his post

as Court Chaplain, became parish priest of Altenburg, he at once set

about suppressing the Catholic worship even in the Collegiate Church

of the town. A demand for the suppression of the “idolatrous worship”

at Altenburg, which Luther had addressed to the Elector on July 20,

1525,[935] was followed by another composed by Spalatin in October of

the same year.[936] Both were full of attacks on the un-Christian,

blasphemous mischief to which an end ought to be put. On January 10,

1526, a fresh document of a similar nature, written by Spalatin and two

Altenburg preachers, was forwarded to the Elector. There we read that

the sovereign, if he wishes to escape the severe chastisements of God,

must follow the example of the pious Jewish kings, who rooted out the

abomination of idolatry. Owing to the continuance of the service in

the Collegiate Church at Altenburg, the weak were exposed to spiritual

danger, and he must furthermore consider that “many a poor man would

readily come over to the Evangel if this miserable business were made

an end of.” The utmost that could be permitted was, that the Canons

should perform “their ceremonies in the most private fashion, with

locked doors, no one else being admitted.”[937]

This petition was at once based by Luther on the general theological

principles referred to above, i.e. the statement he had addressed

to the Elector, declaring that, owing to the value of the Evangel,

no place must be allowed in the Electorate for the practice of any

religion other than the “evangelical”: Let there be but one doctrine

in every place! Luther adds, that the Canons of Altenburg had indeed

alleged their conscience, but that this was not a true conscience but

merely a fictitious one, otherwise they would have agreed “to allow

their conscience to be formed and instructed from Scripture.” This

they had refused to do, and had appealed instead to traditional usage

“as vouched for by the Church,” “thereby giving ample proof that their

plea concerning their conscience was an invention and only brought

forward for the sake of preserving appearances; for a true conscience

desires nothing so ardently as to be instructed from Scripture.” If

they wished to continue publicly to blaspheme the true God by their

worship, they must “prove from Scripture their right and authorisation

to do so.”[938] The Canons were convinced that there was no need for

them to prove to Luther their right from the Bible, and also that the

best proof would be of no avail. The decision on the validity of any

such proof lay in the last instance with the Electoral Court, and he

would indeed have been blind who could have expected in that quarter

any judgment differing from Luther’s.

* * * * *

Recourse was accordingly taken to force, and the Catholic religion was

obliged to retire from its last foothold. Nevertheless, a large number

of the burghers of Altenburg remained secretly faithful to the Church

of their fathers. When, in 1528, the Lutheran visitors held an enquiry

there, the town-councillors, who themselves were on the side of Luther,

declared there were still “many Papists” in the town.[939]

* * * * *

Lichtenberg, in the Saxon Electorate, affords an example of how

Catholic ecclesiastics themselves promoted the falling away of their

flock by being the first to join the party of the innovators, sometimes

merely in order to be able to marry. As soon as Luther had heard that

Wolfgang Reissenbusch, the clerical preceptor and administrator of the

property belonging to the Antonines, was showing signs of a desire for

matrimony, by means of the seductive letter of March 27, 1525, already

quoted above,[940] he invited him to carry out his project boldly.

After his marriage, and notwithstanding the fact of his broken vow,

the monk not only retained his spiritual office, but even continued to

administer the temporalities of his Order, in defiance of all justice.

According to the custom now introduced, the property was placed at the

disposal of the Elector. Reissenbusch enjoyed the favour of the Court,

and in due course became one of the councillors of the Elector; his

district was gradually won over to Lutheranism.

* * * * *

Count Johann Heinrich of Schwarzburg, son of Count Günther one of

Luther’s enemies, wished to see the new church system introduced in his

domains, but met with the resistance of the monks to whom his father,

legally and in due form, had entrusted the livings. He accordingly

approached Luther with the question whether he might deprive them of

the livings, rights and property.

Luther soon came to a decision, replied in the affirmative and

proceeded to explain to his questioner how he might quiet his

conscience.[941] The Count’s father had made the transfer on the

condition that the monks should: “Keep their observance and above

all preach the Gospel.” Upon taking over the cure of souls they had

assumed the usual obligation of preaching the Catholic faith. Now,

he continues, it is only necessary that the Count should summon them

before him, and in the presence of witnesses prove from their replies

that they had not preached the Gospel (i.e. not according to Luther);

thereupon he would have the “right and the power, indeed it would be

his duty, to take the livings away from them ... for it is not unjust,

but an urgent duty, to drive away the wolf from the sheepfold....

No preacher receives property and emoluments for doing harm, but in

order that he may make men pious. If, therefore, he does not make them

pious, the goods are no longer his. Such is my brief answer.” This was

indeed the principle which he applied throughout the Saxon Electorate.

The result of its application to the bishoprics of Germany and to the

great ecclesiastical domains in the Empire was to overthrow the very

foundation of the law of property. If the bishop, abbot or provost no

longer succeeds in making people pious, “then the property no longer

belongs to him.”

Johann Heinrich of Schwarzburg at once seized upon the property and

rights which his father had made over by charter to the Catholic

Church. The monks were ousted, the livings seized, the new teaching

was introduced and the Count became the founder of Lutheranism in

Schwarzburg.

In Eilenburg Luther proceeded through the agency at once of his

sovereign and the town-councillors, who were no less zealous than the

Prince himself in their efforts to extend their sphere of influence.

Luther himself had already worked there in person for his cause. On

the occasion of his second stay at Eilenburg he found the councillors

somewhat lacking in zeal. Those who favoured the innovations were,

however, of opinion that if the Elector were to invite them to apply

for a preacher, they would do so. There is no doubt that the Catholic

consciences of the councillors were still troubled with scruples, and

that the demand of a number of the new believers among the people had

as yet failed to move them.

Luther accordingly wrote from Eilenburg to the Court Chaplain,

Spalatin, asking him to employ his influence with the Elector in the

usual way. He was to obtain from the latter a letter addressed to

the town-councillors begging them to “yield to the poor people in

this so essential and sacred a matter,” and to summon one of the two

preachers whom he at once proposed. The reason he gives in these words:

“It is the duty of the sovereign, as ruler and brother Christian, to

drive away the wolves and to be solicitous for the welfare of his

people.”[942] The change of religion was thereupon actually carried

out, under the Elector’s pressure, in true bureaucratic fashion as

a matter appertaining to the magistracy. One of the two preachers

proposed, Andreas Kauxdorf of Torgau, arrived shortly after, having

been dutifully accepted by the councillors. He was permitted to

Lutheranise the people, however reluctant and faithful to the Church

they might be. He remained there from 1522 to 1543, in which year he

died.

_General Phenomena accompanying the Religions Change_

It not infrequently happened that the people were deceived by faithless

and apostate clerics who became preachers of the new religion, and

were drawn away from the olden faith without being clearly aware of

the fact. After having become gradually and most insensibly accustomed

to the new faith and worship, not even the bravest had, as a rule,

the strength to draw back. The want of religious instruction among

the people was here greatly to blame, likewise the lack of organised

ecclesiastical resistance to the error, and also, the indolence of the

episcopate.

Mass still continued to be said in many places where Lutheranism had

taken root, though in an altered form, a fact which contributed to the

deception. One of the chief of Luther’s aims was to combat the Mass as

a sacrifice.

He expressed this quite openly to Henry VIII in 1522: “If I succeed

in doing away with the Mass, then I shall believe I have completely

conquered the Pope. On the Mass, as on a rock, the whole of the Papacy

is based, with its monasteries, bishoprics, colleges, altars, services

and doctrines.... If the sacrilegious and cursed custom of Mass is

overthrown, then the whole must fall. Through me Christ has begun to

reveal the abomination standing in the Holy Place (Dan. ix. 27), and to

destroy him [the Papal Antichrist] who has taken up his seat there with

the devil’s help, with false miracles and deceiving signs.”[943] In

respect of the deception of the Mass, “I oppose all the pronouncements

of the Fathers, of men, of angels, of devils, not by an appeal to

‘ancient custom and tradition’ nor to any man, but to the Word of the

Eternal Majesty and to the Gospel which even my adversaries are forced

to acknowledge.” “This is God’s Word,” he vehemently exclaims of his

denial of the sacrifice, “not ours. Here I stand, here I take my seat,

here I stay, here I triumph and laugh to scorn all Papists, Thomists,

Henryists, sophists, and all the gates of hell, not to speak of all the

sayings of men, and the most sacred and deceitful of customs.”[944]

It was of the utmost importance to him that the Mass should no longer

be regarded as a sacrifice and as the centre of worship. He wished to

reduce it to a mere “sign and Divine Testament in which God promises us

His Grace and assures us of it by a sign.”[945] Nor is the presence of

Christ in the sacrament, according to him, to be assumed as the result

of a change of substance; Christ is in, with, and beneath the bread.

The churches were robbed of their Divine Guest, for only in the actual

ceremony of reception was the Supper a sacrament, at all other times

it was nothing.[946]

Yet, in spite of all this, as already pointed out, Luther did not

wish to abolish every form of liturgical celebration at once. In the

reconstruction of public worship everything depended on not making

the change felt by the people in a way that was displeasing to them.

The very fact of the change was concealed from many by the form of

liturgy Luther advocated,[947] and by the retaining of the ceremonies,

vestments, lights, etc. Even the elevation was continued for a long

while. But, though the celebration was clothed in a Catholic garb, yet

of everything that expressed in words the sacrificial character Luther

had already said that it “must and shall be done away with.”[948]

“The priest,” says Luther thoughtfully, when giving detailed

instructions on the subject, “will easily be able to arrange that the

common people learn nothing of it, and take no scandal.”[949] “How

the priests are to behave with regard to the Canon,” he wrote in his

Instruction for the Visitors in the Saxon Electorate, “they know well

from other writings, and there is no need to preach much about this

to the laity.” One would have thought, nevertheless, that the “common

people,” no less than the learned, had a perfect right to the truth and

to being instructed.

Luther was also anxious that the innovation at communion should be

introduced in an unobtrusive manner. “Avoid anything unusual or any

attempt to oppose the masses.”[950]

Although to receive under both kinds was regarded as the only

“evangelical” way, agreeable “to Christ’s institution,” yet the weak

were to be permitted to receive under the form of bread only and

the reception of the chalice not to be prescribed “until we make

the Evangel better known throughout the world.”[951] “But if anyone

is so weak in this matter as rather to omit receiving the Sacrament

altogether than to receive under one kind only, he was also to be

indulged and allowed to live according to his conscience.”[952] In

justification of all this Luther declared that the practice of the

new religion must be introduced gently and “without detriment to

charity.” That it was really a question of preventing disturbances and

preserving charity, Cochlæus and others could not be made to see; this

writer, in his work on Lutheranism, goes so far as to speak of Luther’s

“hypocritical deception” of the masses.

Later, the advocate of this sagacious method of procedure could

declare: “Thank God, in indifferent matters our churches are so

arranged that a layman, whether Italian or Spaniard, unable to

understand our preaching, seeing our Mass, choir, organs, bells,

chantries, etc., would surely say that it was a regular papist church,

and that there was no difference, or very little, between it and his

own.” He rejoiced that, in spite of the hot-heads, no more had been

altered in the ritual than was absolutely necessary to conform it to

his teaching.[953]

Such is the course to pursue, he says, “If our churches are not

to be shattered and confused and nothing to be effected among the

Papists.”[954] As a matter of fact, the system he recommended did in

some districts “effect much” among Papists who would otherwise have

refused to have anything to do with him, the poor people not dreaming

of the wide gulf which separated the new worship from the old. The

people would not voluntarily have given up their faith in the truly

sacrificial character of the Eucharist, in transubstantiation and

sacrifice generally; as Melanchthon himself admitted: “The world is so

much attached to the Mass that it seems well-nigh impossible to wrest

people from it.”[955]

We may here mention what occurred at a later date within the Lutheran

fold. At the instigation of Wittenberg the adaptation of the Catholic

worship was carried out very thoroughly in some places, the principle

proving highly conducive to the acceptance of the new church system.

In few countries, however, was this the case to such an extent as in

Denmark, where Luther’s friend Bugenhagen was responsible for the

change of religion. Even to-day, in the Protestant worship established

in Denmark, Norway and the duchies formerly united to the Danish crown,

there is to be found a surprising number of Catholic reminiscences,

from the solemn Eucharistic service down to the ringing of the bells

thrice daily for prayer. In the celebration of the solemn Eucharist the

preachers even vest in a white linen alb and chasuble of red velvet;

the elevation, too, is still preserved, for, after the “consecration,”

which is pronounced from the middle of the altar according to

immemorial custom, the Bread and Wine are shown to the people.

Martin Weier, a young student of good family from Pomerania, took

counsel of Luther as to how, on his return from Wittenberg, he was to

behave with regard to his old father in the matter of Divine worship.

Luther, according to his own account, told him “to conform to his

father’s wishes in every way in order not to offend him; follow his

example concerning fasting, prayer, hearing Mass and the veneration

of the Saints, but at the same time instruct him in the Word of God

and on the subject of justification, so as, if possible, to become

his spiritual father without giving any offence.” Luther had declared

concerning himself that he had offended God most horribly by his former

celebration of Mass, more so than if he had been “a highwayman or

kept a brothel”; yet he tells his aristocratic pupil that he will be

committing no sin, if, “for the sake of his father, he is present at

Mass and other acts by which God is dishonoured.”[956]

A contrast to this system of accommodation and the gentle introduction

of innovations is presented by the acts of violence which too often

occurred on German soil at the time of the religious revolution. The

excesses perpetrated by the people were, as can be proved, encouraged

by the inflammatory speeches of the preachers, Luther’s own words

being frequently appealed to; their effect in such times of popular

commotion was like that of oil poured on the flames. In “the streets

and at every corner,” on all the walls, on placards, in broadsides,

and even on playing cards the clergy and the monks were abused, to

quote Luther’s own testimony.[957] “Turks” and “worse than Turks,” such

were the descriptions applied to them by the populace in imitation

of Luther. “We shall never be successful against the Turks,” he says

later, reverting to his earlier style of language, “unless we fall upon

them and the priests at the right moment and smite them dead.”[958]

In the case of Luther himself such expressions were empty words, but

the mob scrupled little about carrying them into effect. In many

instances, however, lust for riches on the part of the great, who

longed to possess themselves of Church property, and the long-standing

antagonism of towns and Princes to the rights claimed by bishops and

abbots, led to violence. The exaltation of their own power was for many

of the authorities their principal reason for taking sides against the

older Church. It must be borne in mind that, subsequent to 1525, Luther

himself was no longer the sole head of the movement of apostasy. More

and more he began to hand over the actual guidance of the movement to

the secular power, a condition of things which had been preparing since

the Diet of Worms. The direction of so far-reaching an undertaking was

scarcely suited to his talents, which were not of the administrative

order. To his followers, however, he remained the chief authority as

pastor, preacher and writer; he continued to take an active part in all

public affairs, and, on many occasions, exercised a direct and profound

influence on the spread of the new Church.

Many well-meaning and highly respected men supported the new

establishment from no selfish motives, and became open and genuine

promoters of Luther’s cause, because they looked upon it as just and

true. The ideal character, which Wittenberg was successful in stamping

on Luther’s aims, proved very seductive, especially in the then

prevailing ignorance of the real state of things, and in many places

won for the cause devoted and enthusiastic workers.

To take but one example: A knight, Hartmuth (Hartmann) von Cronberg,

in the Taunus, glowing with zeal for the new Evangel, wrote a letter

recommending the Lutheran congregational system to the inhabitants of

Cronberg and Frankfurt.

In 1522 he published a letter, addressed to Luther, in which he

expresses his readiness to work faithfully with him in order that

“all may awake from the sleep and prison of sin.” I have heard, with

heartfelt sympathy”, he says to Luther, of “your great pains and

crosses arising from the ardent charity you bear towards God and your

neighbour, for I am thoroughly aware, from sad observation, of the

misery and dreadful ruin of the whole German nation.” “It is no wonder

that a true Christian should tremble in every limb with horror when

he considers the desolation and how awful the fall of Germany must be

unless a Merciful God enlightens us by His Grace so that we may come

to the knowledge of Him.” “Fain would I speak to the German lands and

say: O Germany! rejoice in the visitation of your heavenly Father,

accept with humble thanksgiving the heavenly light, the Divine Truth

and the Supreme Condescension, avail yourself of the great clemency

of God, Who of His Mercy is ready to forgive you your great sin....

Throw off the heavy yoke of the devil and accept the sweet yoke of

Christ.” The writer beseeches God to grant “that we may not trust in

ourselves or our works; rather do Thou justify us by a strong faith

and confidence in Thee alone, and Thy Divine promises, in order that

Thy Divine, Supreme Name, Grace and Clemency may be increased, praised

and magnified throughout the world.”[959]

The same enthusiastic man of the sword had, even before this,

expressed himself in favour of Luther in other writings in language

almost fanatical. Luther, while at the Wartburg, had received two

pamphlets from him, one addressed to the Emperor and the other to the

Mendicant Orders. Luther had thanked him in similar tones for his

zeal, and encouraged him to stand fast in spite of persecution.[960]

The above-quoted letter, addressed by Cronberg to Luther, was his

answer to Luther’s from the Wartburg; both were printed together and

made the round of Germany under the title “A missive to all those who

suffer persecution for the Word of God.”

Luther there says to his admirer: “It is plain that your words spring

from the depths of your heart and soul,” and this testimony seemed

no exaggeration in the eyes of many who were also working for the

spread of Lutheranism with all their heart, and in the best of faith.

Cronberg and all these were animated by the spirit which Luther by

his writings had sought to instil into all, and which he had once

expressed in his own powerful, defiant fashion: “And even should Satan

attempt greater and worse things he shall not weary us; he may as well

attempt to drag Christ down from the right hand of God. Christ sits

there enthroned, and we too shall remain masters and lords over sin,

death, the devil and every thing.”

The earnestness with which Cronberg espoused the Lutheran ideas

is shown by the fact of his resigning, after the Diet of Worms, a

yearly stipend of 200 gold gulden, promised him by the Emperor, when

he entered his service with Sickingen in 1519.[961] The assistance

he lent to Sickingen’s treacherous machinations against the Empire

proved his undoing. His castle of Cronberg was seized on October 15,

1522. He sought to console himself for the loss of his property by a

passionate devotion to his religious and political aims. After a life

of “undismayed attachment to what he deemed his duty,” says H. Ulmann,

this man, “whose fidelity to conviction verged on puritanism,” died at

Cronberg on August 7, 1549.[962]

This Lutheran had demanded of the Emperor that he should convince the

Pope by “irrefragable proofs” that he was the viceroy of the devil,

nay, himself Antichrist. But should the Pope, owing to demoniacal

possession, not admit this, then the Emperor had full right and

authority and was bound before God to proceed against him by force,

as against “an apostate, heretic and Antichrist.”[963] Some of his

admirers, and likewise a eulogist of modern times, have extolled

Hartmuth von Cronberg as a “Knight after God’s own heart.” His

fanaticism, however, went so far that few dared to follow. The most

unjust acts of violence, not merely against the Papal Antichrist,

but also against church property which he declared everyone free to

appropriate, were exalted by him to principles. In a circular-letter

to Sickingen he wrote: “All ecclesiastical property has been declared

free [i.e. ownerless] by God Himself, so that whoever by the grace of

God can get some of it may keep it with God’s help, and no creature

whether Pope or devil can harm such property.” He warns the Frankfurt

priest, Peter Meyer, in a printed letter, that unless he is converted

to the “Evangel” any man may, with a good conscience, take action

against him, “just as it is lawful to fall upon a ravening wolf, a

sacrilegious thief and murderer, with word and deed.”[964]

_Wittenberg. The Saxon Electorate_

The abolition of the last remnants of Catholic worship in Wittenberg

was characterised by violence and utter want of consideration.

Only in the Collegiate Church, which was ruled by Provost and Chapter,

had it been possible to continue the celebration of Mass. On April 26,

1522, at the instance of Luther, the Elector Frederick determined that

the solemn exposition of the rich treasury of relics belonging to the

Church should be discontinued, in spite of the fact that the relics

were in great part his own gift to a Church which had enjoyed his

especial favour. Luther, however, was anxious completely to transform

this “Bethaven,” this place of idolatry, as he called the Church,[965]

and in this matter the Prior and some of the Canons were on his side.

After some unsuccessful negotiations, carried on with the Elector

through Spalatin, Luther himself invited the Chapter, on March 1, 1523,

to abolish all Catholic ceremonies, as abominations, which could only

give scandal at Wittenberg. “The cause of the ‘Evangel,’ which Christ

has committed to this city as a priceless gift,” forced him, so he

declared, to speak. “My conscience can no longer keep silence owing to

the office entrusted to me.” If they would not give way peaceably, then

they must be prepared for “public insults” from him, seeing that they

would have to be excluded from the congregation as non-Christians, and

have their company shunned.[966]

The Dean, who was faithful to the Church, and the Catholic members of

the Chapter persisted in their resistance, urging that the Elector

himself did not wish to see the Masses discontinued which his ancestors

had founded for the repose of their souls.

Luther, not in the least disconcerted, on July 11, 1523, repeated his

written declaration, this time in a peremptory tone. “If we endure

this any longer,” he writes, “it will fall upon our own heads and we

shall be burdened with the sins of others.” The Canons were not to

tell him that “the Elector commanded or did not command to do this or

to alter that. I am speaking now to your own consciences. What has the

Elector to do with such matters?” he asks, strangely contradicting his

own theory. “You know what St. Peter says, Acts v. 29, ‘We ought to

obey God rather than men,’ and St. Paul (Gal. i. 8), ‘Though an angel

from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached

to you, let him be anathema.’” He summons them to “obey,” otherwise

he will pray against them as he has hitherto prayed for them, and as

Christ was “jealous” it might be that his “prayer would be powerful and

you may have to suffer for it.” “Christ soon punishes those who are

His, when they wax disobedient (cp. 1 Peter iv. 17).”[967]

His violence in the pulpit gave reason for anticipating the worst when,

on the very next day, he gave free rein to his eloquence against the

Collegiate Church.

On August 2, 1523, he again stirred up the excited mob against the

Canons and their service.[968]

He spoke to the multitude on that day of independent action to be

taken by all who were able, without the Elector and even against

him: “What does he matter to us?” he cried. “He commands only in

worldly matters. But if he attempts to act further, we [i.e. Luther

and the people] shall say: “Your Grace, pray look after your own

business.”[969] It was an unequivocal invitation to make use of force

when he told the people in the same sermon, that they also would be

“responsible for the sins of others” if they permitted the Popish

disorder any longer in their midst. “I am afraid that this may also

be the reason why the Evangel effects so little amongst us, viz. that

we suffer such things to be.”[970] Yet he was careful prudently to

admonish the people not to touch the Canons’ persons.

This admonition seems to have been more than counterbalanced by the

remaining contents of the discourse. After the sermon the Elector sent

to remind Luther earnestly that, as a rule, he had spoken against

risings and that he trusted he would “not go any further,” as there

was quite enough “discontent at Wittenberg already.”[971] The offender

in reply assured the Elector by messenger, that he would give the

people no occasion for the employment of force, for discontent or

tumult,[972] and, for the time being, he refrained from any further

steps. Whether he calmed the populace, or how he did this, we are not

told. We do know, however, that he addressed a fresh letter to the

Canons couched in such strong language as to draw down on himself

another reprimand from the Elector, who urged that Luther did not

act up to what he preached.[973] In the letter in question, dated

November 17, 1524, he told the Canons quite openly, that, unless they

refrained voluntarily from “Masses, vigils and everything contrary to

the Holy Evangel,” they would be forced to do so; he moreover asked

for a “true, straight and immediate answer, yea or nay, before next

Sunday”; what has happened is that “the devil has inspired you with a

spirit of defiance and mischief.” The “great patience with which we

have hitherto supported your devilish behaviour and the idolatry in

your Churches” is exhausted. He also hints that they could no longer

be certain of the Elector’s protection.[974]

Had he drawn the bow still tighter and incited to direct acts of

violence, the results would have fallen on his own head. Yet a sermon

which he delivered on November 27 against Mass at the Collegiate

Church had such an effect upon the people, that the matter was

decided. In it he asserted, that the Mass was blasphemy, madness and

a lie; its celebration was worse than unchastity, murder or robbery;

princes, burgomasters, councillors and judges must protect the honour

of God, since they had received the sword from Him.[975] He exhorts

“all princes and rulers, burgomasters, councillors and judges” to

summon the “blasphemous ministers” of the “whore of Babylon” and

force them to answer for themselves. His appeal is ostensibly for the

interference of the responsible authorities, not of the masses.

The agitation intentionally fomented became, however, so great,

that the Canons did not know what steps to take against the “rising

excitement of the inhabitants” of Wittenberg,[976] for the saving

of the Catholic services, and for the safety of their own persons.

Even before this, students had perpetrated disorders at night in the

Collegiate Church, and Luther had himself declared that he was obliged

daily to restrain the people to prevent the committing of excesses. The

Canons were now tormented by the singing of satires on the Mass outside

their house, and had to listen to the curses which were showered on

them. One night the Dean had his windows smashed. The Town Council, and

also the University, now definitely took sides against the Chapter,

and, after warning them in writing of God’s anger, sent representatives

to advise the Canons of their excommunication. Although no actual

tumult took place, yet the public declarations and the threatening

attitude of the populace incited by Luther amounted to practical

compulsion. The few Canons still remaining finally yielded to force,

particularly when they saw that the Elector, Frederick “the Wise,”

refused to give any but evasive replies to their appeals.

On Christmas Day, 1524, for the first time, there was no Mass.

Protestants themselves have recently admitted that, “contrary to the

express wish of the sovereign and not without the employment of force

against the Canons”[977] did “Luther succeed in carrying matters

so far.”[978] “The Canons finally gave way before new outbursts of

violence on the part of the students and the citizens,” when, according

to Luther’s own account, there remained only “three hogs and paunches”

of all the Canons formerly attached to this Church, not of “All

Saints,” but rather of “All Devils.”[979]

An echo of his tempestuous sermon of November 27 is to be found in the

pamphlet which Luther published at the commencement of 1525: “On the

abomination of Silent Masses” (against the Canon of the Mass). In the

Preface he refers directly to the inglorious proceedings against the

unfortunate Chapter. He finds it necessary to declare that he, for

his part, had aroused no revolt, for what was done by the established

authorities could not be termed revolt; the “secular gentlemen,”

who, according to him, constituted the established authorities, had,

however, felt it their duty to take steps against the Catholic worship

in the Collegiate Church.

In that same year, 1525, under the auspices of the new Elector Johann,

a great friend to Lutheranism, who succeeded the Elector Frederick upon

his death on May 5, 1525, and whom Luther had long before won over

to his cause, the order of Divine Service at Wittenberg was entirely

altered. “The Pope” was at last, as Spalatin joyfully proclaimed

throughout the city, “completely set aside.”[980]

* * * * *

Under the rule of the Elector Johann, Luther at once carried out the

complete suppression of Catholic worship throughout the Electorate.

On October 1, 1525, Spalatin wrote to the Elector Johann: “Dr. Martin

also says, that your Electoral Grace is on no account to permit anyone

to continue the anti-Christian ceremonies any longer, or to start them

again.”[981]

With the object of helping him in his work at Court and of removing

any scruples he might have, Luther explained to Spalatin, in a letter

of November 11 of the same year, that by stamping out the Catholic

worship rulers would not be forcing the faith on anyone, but merely

prohibiting such open abominations as the Mass; if anyone, in spite of

all, desired to believe in it privately, or to blaspheme in secret, no

coercion would be exercised.[982] No attention was paid to the rights

of Catholics to a Divine Worship, attendance at which was to them a

matter of conscience. They were simply to be permitted to emigrate;

if they chose to remain they were not to “perform or take any part in

any public worship.”[983] It was on such principles as these that the

Memorandum which Spalatin presented to the Elector on January 10, 1526,

was based.[984]

Luther himself appealed to the Elector on February 9, 1526, seeking to

“fortify his conscience” and to encourage him “to attack the idolaters

with even greater readiness.” He points out to him, first, how damnable

is the blasphemous, idolatrous worship; were he to afford it any

protection, then “all the abominations against God would eventually

weigh upon his, the Prince’s, conscience”; secondly, that differences

in religious worship would inevitably give rise to “revolt and

tumults”; hence the ruler must provide that “in each locality there be

but one doctrine.”[985]

To the force of such arguments Johann could not but yield.

He answered in a friendly letter to Luther on February 13, 1526, that

he had been pleased to take note of the difficulty, and would for the

future know how to comport himself in these matters in a Christian and

irreproachable manner.[986] Subsequent to this assurance he acted as an

apt pupil of the Wittenberg Professor.

In accordance with the instructions given by the Elector in 1527 for

the general Visitation of the Churches in the Saxon Electorate, an

“inquisition” was to be held everywhere by the ecclesiastical Visitors

as to whether any “sect or schism” existed in the country. Whoever

was “suspected of error in respect of the sacraments or some doctrine

of faith” was to be “summoned and interrogated, and, if the occasion

required, hostile witnesses were to be heard”; if any refused to

give up their “error,” they were commanded to sell their possessions

within a given time and to quit the country.[987] One thing only was

still wanting, viz. that the people should be compelled by the Ruler

to attend the Lutheran sermons and services. Even this was, however,

implied in the regulations, since those who did not attend were classed

among the “suspects.” As time went on Luther demanded the exercise of

such coercion, and it was actually introduced in the Electorate and,

later, in the Protestant Duchy of Saxony.[988]

The proceedings on the introduction of the innovations in other

districts were similar to those in the Electorate of Saxony. Wherever

a small group of persons were willing to throw in their lot with the

first local representatives of the new faith--generally clerics--they

were backed up by the State authorities, who reconstructed the

religious system as they thought best. “Nowhere was the primitive

Lutheran ideal realised of a congregation forming itself in entire

independence.... Thus at an early date Lutheranism took its place among

the political factors, and its development was to a certain extent

dependent upon the tendencies and inclinations of the authorities and

ruling sovereigns of that day.”[989]

The Electors Frederick and Johann of Saxony were gradually joined by

a number of other Princes who introduced the innovations into their

lands, and the magistrates of the larger, and even of some of the

smaller, Imperial cities soon followed suit. Thus the whole movement,

having owed its success so largely to the authorities, was governed and

exploited by them and assumed a strongly political character, needless

to say, much to the detriment of its religious aspect.

What part the “inclinations of the ruling sovereigns” played, even

in opposition to Luther’s own wishes, is plain from the example of

the Margrave Philip of Hesse, who, next to the Elector of Saxony, was

the most powerful, and undoubtedly the most determined, promoter of

the great apostasy. This Prince, whose leanings were towards Zürich,

as early as 1529 was anxious to extend the alliance he had concluded

in the interests of the innovations with the Saxon Electorate, so

as to embrace also the Zwinglians. Attracted by Zwingli’s denial of

the sacrament, he also sought, with the assistance of theologians of

his own way of thinking, to amalgamate the Swiss doctrine with that

of Wittenberg; in this he was not, however, successful. The great

religious alliance with Wittenberg aimed at by Zwingli himself as well

as by Philip, and which it was hoped to settle at the Conference of

Marburg (see vol. iii., xix. 1), was never realised, Luther refusing to

give in on any point. In Hesse, however, the Zwinglian influence was

maintained through the agency of theologians of Bucer’s school, which

had the favour of the Court, while at Strasburg and other South German

cities the authorities, leaning even more to the Swiss Confession, set

up their “reformed” view as the actual rule of faith in their domains.

_Nuremberg_

The history of the apostasy of Nuremberg, which may be considered

separately here, exhibits another type of the proceedings at the

general religious revolution.

Here the two centres of the inception of the movement were the

Augustinian monastery, inhabited by monks of Luther’s own Order,

and, as in so many other places, the town-council. Several clerics

had already preached the new doctrines when the magistrates, at the

time of the Diet of Nuremberg, in 1522, from motives of prudence,

forbade the discussion of controversial questions in the pulpit.

In 1524 two Provosts, and likewise the Prior of the Augustinians,

abolished the celebration of Mass. The most active in the cause of

the change of religion was the former priest and preacher, Andreas

Osiander. At the Diet of Nuremberg, in 1524, Catholic prelates were

insulted by the excited mob. Wives were taken by the Augustinian

Johann Walter, by Dominic Schleupner, preacher at St. Sebaldus, by

the Abbot of St. Ægidius, by Provost Pessler and Osiander himself.

Whereas the town-council--the moving spirits of which were Hieronymus

Ebner, Caspar Stützel and particularly Lazarus Spengler, the Town

Clerk--formally decided to join Luther’s party, many among the people

remained wavering, doubtful and undecided; here, as in so many other

places, we find no trace of any sudden falling away of the people as a

whole.

What Charity Pirkheimer, the sister of the learned Nuremberg

patrician, wrote of her native city is applicable to many other

towns: “I frequently hear that there are many people in this city who

are almost in despair and no longer go to any sermons, but say the

preaching has led them astray so that they really do not know what to

believe, and that they are sorry they ever listened to it.”[990]

The magistrates of Nuremberg, by dint of violent measures, sapped all

Catholic life little by little and prevailed on the chief families

to embrace Lutheranism. The religious Orders were prohibited from

undertaking the cure of souls, the clergy were ordained civilly,

while, to those who proved amenable, stipends were assured for

life. The monastery of St. Ægidius surrendered to the magistrates

in 1525 with its community numbering twenty-five persons, likewise

the Augustinian priory from which no less than twenty-four religious

passed over to Lutheranism, likewise the Carmelite monastery with

fifteen priests and seven lay brothers, of whom only a few remained

staunch, and finally the Carthusian house, where most of the monks

became Lutherans.

All these changes took place in 1525.

The Dominicans held out longer. At last the five surviving Friars

surrendered their convent to the magistrates in 1543. The Franciscan

Observantines, however, made the finest stand, enduring every kind of

persecution and the most abject poverty until the last died in 1562.

Together with the sons of St. Francis mention must also be made of the

convent of Poor Clares, subject to them, and presided over as Abbess

by Charity Pirkheimer, a lady equally clever and pious.

The Poor Clares, eighty in number, were, like the nuns of the other

convents in the town, deprived of their preachers and confessors and

forced to listen to the evangelical pastors, which they did grudgingly

and with many a murmur. For five years they were forcibly prevented

from receiving the Blessed Sacrament. The priests of the town could

only bring them spiritual assistance at the peril of their lives, and

the consolations of the Church had eventually to be conveyed to them

from a distance, from Bamberg and Spalt, by priests in disguise. One

after another the inmates died in heroic fidelity to the Catholic

religion; those who survived clung even more closely to the faith

of their fathers and to the strict observance of their Rule. It is

touching to read in the “Memoirs” of Charity Pirkheimer how the poor

nuns passed through the misery of bodily privations and spiritual

martyrdom in union with our suffering Saviour, in an inward peace

which nothing could destroy; how they worked actively for their

friends, the poor of the city, and even celebrated now and then little

family festivals in joyful, sisterly love.

Wenceslaus Link, the former Superior of the Augustinian house at

Altenburg, had removed to Nuremberg with his wife, where he became

warden and preacher to the new hospital, proving himself a fierce

Lutheran. In 1541 he informed Luther of the sad experiences he had

had with the Evangel in the city. The “Word” was despised, he writes,

immorality was on the increase and went unpunished, the preachers

were hated and he himself when he went out had the name “parson”

derisively hurled at him; people dubbed the Evangel a human invention,

and snapped their fingers at the sentence of excommunication. Luther

expressed his sympathy with his downhearted correspondent and sought

to encourage him: it grieved him deeply, he wrote, that this fate

should have befallen the Word of God; such a state of things was the

third great temptation in the history of the Church, the first being

the persecutions in the times of the Pagan rulers, and the second the

difficulties occasioned by the great heresies in the period of the

Fathers of the Church, both of which had been safely withstood. He

comforts Link by assuring him that this, the third great temptation of

the Gospel, will also pass over happily. “Should this not be the case,

however, then there is no hope for Nuremberg, for that would be to

grieve the Holy Ghost, and it would be necessary to think of quitting

this Babylon. ‘We would have cured Babylon, but she is not healed [he

says with Jeremias li. 9]; let us forsake her.’”[991]

It would, of course, be unfair to ascribe to Luther all the deeds of

violence or injustice which took place in great number on the spread

of the new ecclesiastical system. It is notorious how much the unruly,

turbulent spirit of that day contributed to the distressing phenomena

of the struggle then being carried on. Such a far-reaching revolution

naturally set free forces and passions in both the higher and lower

spheres, which could only with difficulty be brought once more under

control. Now and then, too, faithful Catholics, laymen, priests and

religious, by a misuse of the power they happened to possess, gave

occasion to renewed acts of oppression on the part of the Lutherans.

It is, nevertheless, right to point out the turbulent stamp which

Luther impressed upon the movement. His own share in the work, some

examples of which we have considered above, were utterly at variance

with his advice to Gabriel Zwilling, viz. “to leave everything to God,

to avoid introducing innovations and to guide the people solely by

faith and charity” (above, p. 314).

_Luther and the Introduction of the New Teaching at Erfurt_

The most powerful impulse to the introduction of the new teaching in

Erfurt proceeded from the Augustinian house in that town. Its former

Prior, Johann Lang, became an apostle of Lutheranism after having

prepared the way for the innovation as a Humanist of modern views

closely allied with the Humanist group at Erfurt.

We find Lang, in the summer of 1520, still Rural Vicar of his Order,

and he may have retained the dignity for some time longer when

Wenceslaus Link was elected as Staupitz’s successor at the Chapter

held at Eisleben in that year. The fourteen monks of the Augustinian

Congregation--at one time so faithful to the Church--who quitted

the Order before Lang, remind us of the sad fact, that in his work

Luther met with support in many places from those who were originally

Catholics, and that the innovation was often heartily welcomed by

members of the clergy, secular and regular.

The Saxon Augustinian Congregation, which was strongly represented

at Erfurt, had been undermined by Luther’s spirit no less than by

the struggle between the Conventuals and the Observantines. At the

convention of the Order, held at Wittenberg on the Feast of the Three

Kings in 1522, it was decided that begging would henceforth be no

longer allowed,[992] “because we follow Holy Scripture.” At that time

many had already apostatised. It was further ordained, that, by virtue

of the evangelical freedom of the servants of God, everyone was free

to leave his monastery. “Among those who are Christ’s there is neither

monk nor layman. Whoever is not yet able to comprehend this freedom

may act as he thinks fit, but must not give scandal to others by his

conduct, in order that the Holy Evangel be not blasphemed.” On this the

Protestant historian of the Augustinian Congregation remarks: “This

[i.e. the giving of no scandal] was more easily commended than put

into effect.” And, speaking of the time when the Erfurt Augustinian

house was already almost empty (Usingen, Nathin and a few others alone

remaining faithful), he writes: “Lang and his companions were in great

danger of seeing the triumph of the Evangel rather in the rooting

out of Popery than in the promoting of the new evangelical life....

Usingen, exposed to the mockery and insults of his own pupils, which he

had certainly never deserved, at last quitted in anger the spot where

he had worked for many years,” “an honest man.”[993] He withdrew in

1525 to the Augustinian monastery at Würzburg.

Factors favourable to the spread of Lutheranism in Erfurt were:

The Humanism, antagonistic to the Church, which was all-powerful

at the University; the restlessness of the common people, who were

dissatisfied with their condition; the jealousy existing between the

secular and regular clergy, the struggle which the town was carrying on

with its chief pastor, the Archbishop of Mayence, concerning rights and

property; last, but not least, the hatred of the laity for the opulent

and far too numerous clergy. Here, therefore, we find the selfsame

elements present which elsewhere so ably seconded the preaching of the

new evangelists.

Erfurt affords an example of how pious foundations of former ages had

multiplied to an excessive and burdensome extent, a condition of things

which was no longer any real advantage to the Church, and simply tended

to arouse the jealousy of the laity and working man.

There were more than three hundred vicariates (livings, or benefices),

twenty-one parish churches or churches of the same standing, thirty

chapels and six hospitals; the number of secular clergy was in

proportion to the work entailed in serving the above, and there was

an even greater number of monks and nuns. In every corner there were

monastic establishments. Benedictines, the Scottish Brotherhood, the

Canons Regular, Carthusians, Dominicans and Franciscans, Servites and

Augustinians, all were represented. In addition to this were four or

five convents of women. Erfurt perhaps possessed more ecclesiastical

foundations and institutions than any other town in Germany, with the

possible exception of Cologne and Nuremberg.[994] The rich possessions

of the convents and churches at Erfurt were made the pretext for the

religious innovations. The immunity they enjoyed from the burdens borne

by the citizens was to be made an end of, the ecclesiastical property

was to be handed over to the town, and the town itself was to be

withdrawn from the temporal sway of the Archbishop of Mayence.

When Luther, who was already under the ban, preached at Erfurt, on

April 7, 1521, in the Church of the Augustinians (see above, p. 63), he

represented the religious change, the way for which had already been

paved, in the light of that evangelical freedom which his view of

faith and works was to bring to the inhabitants of Erfurt.[995]

“We must not build upon human laws or works, but have a real faith in

Him Who destroys all sin.... Thus we don’t care a straw for man-made

laws.” He derides the ecclesiastical laws, enacted by shepherds who

destroyed the sheep and treated them “as butchers do on Easter Eve.”

“Are all human laws to be ignored?” “I answer and say, that, where

true Christian charity and faith prevails, everything that a man does

is meritorious and each one may do as he pleases, provided always

that he accounts his works as nothing; for they cannot save him.”

“Christ’s work, which is not ours,” alone avails to save us. He extols

the “_sola fides_” in persuasive and popular language, showing how it

alone justifies and saves us.

It was on this occasion that, unguardedly, he allowed himself to

be carried away to say: “What matters it if we commit a fresh sin!

so long as we do not despair but remember that Thou, O God, still

livest.”[996]

The contrary “delusion,” he says, had been invented and encouraged by

the preachers, whose proceedings were infinitely worse than any mere

“numbering of the people.” He storms against the clergy and vigorously

foments the social discontent. To build churches, or found livings,

etc., was mere outward show; “such works simply gave rise to avarice,

desire for the praise of men and other vices.” “You think that as a

priest you are free from sin, and yet you nourish so much jealousy in

your heart; if you could slay your neighbour with impunity you would

do so and then go on saying Mass. Surely it would not be surprising

were a thunderbolt to smite you to the earth.” In order to complete

the effect of this demagogic outburst he mocks at the sermons, with

their legends “about the old ass,” etc., and their quotations from

ancient philosophers, who were “not only against the Gospel, but even

against God Himself.”

The result was stupendous, especially in the case of the young men at

the University whom the Humanists had disposed in Luther’s favour. On

the day after Luther’s departure one of his sympathisers, a Canon of

the Church of St. Severus, who had taken part in the solemn reception

accorded Luther on his arrival in the town, was told by the Dean, Jakob

Doliatoris, that he was under excommunication and might no longer

attend the service in choir. On his complaining to the University, of

which he was a member, the students intervened with demonstrations in

his favour.[997]

Luther heard of this only through certain unreliable reports and wrote

to Spalatin: “They apprehend still worse things at Erfurt. The Senate

pretends to see nothing of what is going on. The clergy are reviled.

The young apprentices are said to be in league with the students. We

are about to see the prophecy fulfilled: ‘Erfurt has become a new

[Husite] Prague.’” Previous to this, in the same letter, he had said of

his adversaries in the Empire: “Let them be, perhaps the day of their

visitation is at hand.”[998]

Soon after, however, he became rather more concerned, perhaps owing to

further reports of the unrest, and began to fear for the “good name

and progress of the Evangel,” in consequence of the acts of brutality

committed. “It is indeed quite right,” he wrote to Melanchthon, “that

those who persist in their impiety should have their courage cooled,”

but in this “Satan makes a mockery of us”; he sees in a mystical vision

“The Judgment Day,” the approaching end of the world at Erfurt, and

the fig tree, as had been foretold, growing up, covered with leaves,

but bare of fruit because the cause of the Evangel could not make its

way.[999]

In July, 1521, there broke out in the town the so-called “Pfaffensturm.”

In a few days more than sixty parsonages had been pulled down,

libraries destroyed and the archives and tithe registers of the

ecclesiastical authorities ransacked; little regard was shown for

human life. A little later seven clergy-houses were again set on fire.

Meanwhile the Lutheran preachers, with the fanatical Lang at their

head, were at liberty to stir up the people.[1000] The ruin of the

University was imminent; many parents withdrew their sons, fearing

lest they should be infected with the “Husite heresy.” The customary

Catholic services were, however, performed as usual, but the end

of Catholic worship could be foreseen owing to the ever-increasing

growth of “evangelical freedom.” Renegade monks, especially Luther’s

former Augustinian comrades, preached against “the old Church as the

mother of faithlessness and hypocrisy”; Lang spoke of the monasteries

as “dens of robbers.” Under the attacks of the preachers one human

ordinance after another fell to the ground. Fasting, long prayers,

founded Masses, confraternities, everything in fact, disappeared

before the new liberty, value being allowed only to temporal works of

mercy. The avarice of the “shorn, anointed priestlings” was no longer

to be stimulated by the people’s money. “Ruffianly crowds showed

their sympathy with the preachers by yelling and shouting in church.

Theological questions were debated in market-places and taverns, men,

women and boys expounded the Bible.”[1001]

Luther, through Lang, urged the Augustinians at Erfurt, who still

remained true to their monastic Rule, to apostatise; he merely

expressed the wish that there should be no “tumults” against the

Order. Lang was to “defend the cause of the Evangel”[1002] at the

next Convention of the Saxon Augustinians, a meeting which took place

at Epiphany, 1522 (above, p. 337). Lang justified his apostasy in

a work in which he expressly appeals to the new doctrines on faith

and good works. The exodus of the monks from their convent was not,

however, carried out as quietly as Luther would have wished; he dreaded

the “slanders of the foes of the Evangel” and was depressed by the

immorality of the inhabitants of Erfurt, and by his own experience with

his followers. He spoke his mind to Lang: “The power of the Word is

still concealed, or else you pay too little heed to it. This surprises

me greatly. We are just the same as before, hard, unfeeling, impatient,

sinful, intemperate, lascivious and combative, in short, the mark of

the Christian, true charity, is nowhere to be found. Paul’s words are

fulfilled in us: We have God’s Word on our lips, but not in power (cp.

1 Cor. iv. 20).”[1003] In 1524 Lang married the rich widow of an Erfurt

fuller.

Those who had been unfaithful to their vows and priestly obligations,

and then acted as preachers of the new faith, gave the greatest scandal

by their conduct.

Many letters dating from 1522, 1523 and 1524, written by Lutheran

Humanists such as Eobanus Hessus, Euricius Cordus and Michael Nossenus,

who, with disgust, were observing their behaviour, bore witness to the

general deterioration of morals in the town, more particularly among

the escaped monks and nuns.[1004] “I see,” Luther himself wrote to

Erfurt, “that monks are leaving in great numbers for no other reason

than for their belly’s sake and for the freedom of the flesh.”[1005]

Meanwhile, discussions were held in the Erfurt circle of the

semi-theologian Lang, on the absence of free-will in man and on “the

evil that God does.” Lang applied to Luther for help. “I see that

you are idlers,” was his reply, “though the devil provides you with

abundance of occupation in what he plots amongst you. You must not

argue concerning the evil that God does. It is not, as you fancy, the

work of God, but a ceasing to work on God’s part. We desire what is

evil when He ceases to work in us and leaves our nature free to fulfil

its own wickedness. Where He works the result is ever good. Scripture

speaks of such ceasing to work on God’s part as a ‘hardening.’ Thus

evil cannot be wrought [by God], since it is nothing (‘_malum non

potest fieri, cum sit nihil_’), but it arises because what is good is

neglected, or prevented.”

This was one of the ethical doctrines proclaimed by Luther and

Melanchthon which lay at the back of the new theory of good works.

Luther enlarged on it in startling fashion in his book “_De servo

arbitrio_” (above, p. 223 ff.).

Bartholomew Usingen, the learned and pious Augustinian, who had once

been Luther’s professor and had enjoyed his especial esteem, witnessed

with pain and sadness the changes in the town and in his own priory.

The former University professor, now an aged man, fearlessly took his

place in the yet remaining Catholic pulpits, particularly at St.

Mary’s, assured of the support and respect of the staunch members of

the fold who flocked in numbers to hear him. There he protested against

the new doctrines and the growing licentiousness, though he too had to

submit to unheard-of insults, abuse and even violent interruptions of

his sermons when emissaries of the Lutherans succeeded in forcing their

way in. He also laboured against religious innovations with his pen.

“If we are taught,” says Usingen, “that faith alone can save us, that

good works are of no avail for salvation and do not merit a reward for

us in heaven, who will then take the trouble to perform them?--Why

exhort men even to do what is right if we have no free-will? And who

will be diligent in keeping the commandments of God if the people are

taught that they cannot possibly be kept, and that Christ has already

fulfilled them perfectly for us?”[1006]

Usingen points out to the preachers, especially to Johann Culsamer,

the noisiest of them all: “The fruits of your preaching, the excesses

and scandals which spring from it, are known to the whole world; then

indeed shall the people exert themselves to tame their passions when

they are told repeatedly that by faith alone all sin is blotted out,

and that confession is no longer necessary. Adultery, unchastity,

theft, blasphemy, calumny and such other vices increase to an alarming

extent, as unfortunately we see with our own eyes (‘_patet per

quotidianum exercitium_’).”[1007]

“The effect of your godless preaching is,” he says, on another

occasion, “that the faithful no longer perform any works of mercy, and

for this reason the poor are heard to complain bitterly of you.”[1008]

“The rich no longer trouble about the needy, since they are told

in sermons that faith alone suffices for salvation and that good

works are not meritorious. The clergy, who formerly distributed such

abundant alms from the convents and foundations, are no longer in a

position to continue these works of charity because, owing to your

attacks, their means have been so greatly reduced.”[1009]

The worthy Augustinian had shown especial marks of favour to his pupil

Lang, and it grieved him all the more deeply that he, by the boundless

animosity he exhibited in his discourses, should have set an example

to the other preachers in the matter of abuse, whether of the Orders,

the clergy or the Papacy. He said to him in 1524, “I recalled you from

exile [i.e. transferred you from Wittenberg to the _studium generale_

at Erfurt] ... and this is the distinction you have won for yourself;

you were the cause of the Erfurt monks leaving their monastery; there

had been fourteen apostasies and now yours makes the fifteenth; like

the dragon of the Apocalypse when he fell from heaven, you dragged

down with you the third part of the stars.”[1010]

Usingen mentions the “report,” possibly exaggerated, that at one time

some three hundred apostate monks were in residence at Erfurt; many

ex-nuns were daily to be seen wandering about the streets.[1011] Most

of these auxiliaries who had flocked to the town in search of bread,

were uneducated clerics who drew upon themselves the scorn of the

Humanists belonging to the new faith. Any of these clerics who were

capable of speaking in public, by preference devoted themselves to

invective. Usingen frequently reproached his foes with their scurrility

in the pulpit, their constant attacks on the sins and crimes of the

clergy, and their violent reprobation and abuse of institutions and

customs held in universal veneration for ages, all of which could only

exercise a pernicious influence on morality. “Holy Scripture,” he says

in a work against the two preachers Culsamer and Mechler, “commands

the preacher to point out their sins to the people and to exhort them

to amendment. But the new preaching does not speak to the people of

their faults but only of the sins of the clergy, and thus the listener

forgets his own sins and leaves the church worse than he entered it.”

And elsewhere: “Invective was formerly confined to the viragoes of the

market-place, but now it flourishes in the churches.” “Even your own

hearers are weary of your everlasting slanders. Formerly, they say,

the gospel was preached to us, but such abuse and calumny was not then

heard in the pulpit.”[1012]

It could not be but regarded as strange that Luther himself, forgetful

of his former regard, went so far as to egg on his pupils and friends

at Erfurt against his old professor. Usingen certainly had never

anticipated such treatment at his hands. “He has, as you know,” Luther

wrote to Lang, on June 26, “become hard-headed and full of ingrained

obstinacy and conceit. Therefore, in your preaching, you must draw down

upon his folly the contempt that such coarse and inflated blindness

deserves.” As from his early years he had never been known to yield to

anyone, Luther gave up the hope of seeing the stubborn sophist “yield

to Christ”; he sees here the confirmation of the proverb: “No fool like

an old fool.”[1013]

Carried away by his success at Erfurt, Luther urged the preachers not

to allow their energies to flag.

It is true that in an official Circular-Letter to the Erfurt

Congregation, despatched on July 10, 1522, and intended for

publication, his tone is comparatively calm; the superscription is:

“Martin Luther, Ecclesiastes of Wittenberg, to all the Christians at

Erfurt together with the preachers and ministers, Grace and Peace in

Christ Jesus, Our Lord.”[1014] Therein, at Lang’s request, dealing with

the controversy which had arisen at Erfurt regarding the veneration

of the Saints, he declares that whilst there was certainly no warrant

of Scripture for Saint-worship, it ought not to be assailed with

violence (i.e. not after the fashion of the fanatics whose doings

were a public danger). He trusts “we shall be the occasion of no

rising” and points to his own example as showing with what moderation

he had ever proceeded against the Papists: “As yet I have not moved

a finger against them, and Christ has destroyed them with the sword

of His mouth” (2 Thess. ii. 8).[1015] “Leave Christ to act” in true

faith--such is the gist of his exhortation in this letter so admirably

padded with Pauline phrases--but despise and avoid the “stiff-necked

sophists”; “Whoever stinks, let him go on stinking.” He concludes,

quite in the Pauline manner: “May Our Lord Jesus Christ strengthen you

together with us in all the fulness of the knowledge of Himself to

the honour of His Father, Who is also ours, to Whom be Glory for ever

and ever, Amen. Greet Johann Lang [and the other preachers]: George

Forchheim, Johann Culhamer, Antony Musam, Ægidius Mechler and Peter

Bamberger. Philip, Jonas and all our people greet you. The Grace of God

be with you all, Amen.”[1016]

But when Luther, at the instance of Duke Johann of Saxony and his son

Johann Frederick, came to Erfurt, in October, 1522, accompanied by

Melanchthon, Agricola and Jacob Probst, and proceeded to address the

multitude who flocked to hear him (October 21 and 22), he was unable to

restrain his passion, and, by his words of fire, fanned the hatred and

blind fanaticism of the mob to the highest pitch.

He scolded the clergy as “fat and lazy priestlings and monks,” who

“hitherto had carried on their deceitful trade throughout the whole

world,” and upon whom “everything had been bestowed.” “So far they

have mightily fattened their great paunches.” “Of what use were their

brotherhoods, indulgence-letters and all their countless trickeries?”

“Ah, it must have cost the devil much labour to establish the

ecclesiastical Estate.... Alas for these oil-pots who can do nothing

but anoint people, wash walls and baptise bells!” But the believer is

“Lord over Pope and devil and all such powers, and is also a judge of

this delusion.”