During the following years the Lutheran movement continued to advance

by leaps and bounds. Duke George of Saxony, one of its strongest

opponents, died in 1539, and his successor invited the Lutheran

preachers to assist him in the work of reform. Henry, Duke of

Brunswick, was driven from his kingdom by the League of Schmalkald and

forced to seek refuge in Bavaria. The Bishoprics of Hildesheim and

Naumburg were captured by force, and it required all the efforts of

the Pope and of the Emperor to prevent Cologne from being handed over

to Luther's followers by its prince-bishop (Hermann von Wied).

Lutheranism provided almost irresistible attractions for the lay

rulers, who desired to acquire wealth and power at the expense of the

Church, as well as for the unworthy ecclesiastical princes who were

anxious to convert the states of which they were merely administrators

into hereditary dominions.

But though outwardly the movement prospered beyond expectation all was

far from well within. The fundamental principle enunciated by Luther,

namely, the rejection of all religious authority, opened the way for

new theories and new sects. Quite apart from the controversies between

the followers of Luther and Zwingli, which shall be dealt with later,

the Anabaptists and others continued to destroy the harmony of the

self-styled reformers. The Anabaptists seized the city of Munster,

proclaimed a democratic theocracy with John of Leyden, a tailor, at

its head, and pronounced their intention of taking the field for the

overthrow of tyrants and impostors. But their success was short-lived.

Conrad, bishop and prince of Munster, raised an army, laid siege to

the city which he captured after a desperate struggle, and put to

death the fanatical leaders who had deceived the people (1535-6).

Other writers and preachers questioned the doctrines of the Trinity

and Incarnation, and advocated many heresies condemned by the early

Church, some of them going so far as to insist on the revival of

circumcision and the Jewish ceremonial law.[32]

Nor did the new teaching exercise an elevating influence on the morals

or conduct of its adherents. Luther himself was forced to admit that

the condition of affairs had grown worse even than it had been before

he undertook his campaign. "Since we have commenced to preach our

doctrine," he said in one of his sermons, "the world has grown daily

worse, more impious, and more shameless. Men are now beset by legions

of devils, and while enjoying the full light of the Gospel are more

avaricious, more impure, and repulsive than of old under the Papacy.

Peasants, burghers, nobles, men of all degrees, the higher as well as

the lowest are all alike slaves to avarice, drunkenness, gluttony, and

impurity, and given over to horrible excesses of abominable

passions."[33]

The princes, free from all religious and ecclesiastical restraints,

set an example of licentiousness which their subjects were not slow to

imitate. Philip of Hesse was the life and soul of the Lutheran

movement. He was married already to Christina, daughter of Duke George

of Saxony, by whom eight children had been born to him, but finding it

impossible to observe his marriage obligations, and wishing to impart

to his own sinful conduct an air of decency, he demanded permission

from Luther to marry one of the maids of honour in attendance on his

sister. This request placed Luther and Melanchthon in a very delicate

position. On the one hand, if they acceded to it they would be

regarded as patrons and defenders of adultery and would expose

themselves to the ridicule of their opponents; on the other, were they

to refuse compliance with his wishes, Philip, forgetful of his former

zeal for the pure word of God, might carry out his threats to return

to the Catholic Church. After long and anxious deliberation they

determined to exercise a dispensing power such as had never been

exercised before by any Pope. "In order to provide for the welfare of

his soul and body and to bring greater glory to God," they allowed him

to take to himself a second wife, insisting, however, that the whole

affair should be kept a close secret. But hardly had the marriage

ceremony been gone through (1540) than the story of the dispensation

became public. Luther was at first inclined to deny it entirely as an

invention of his enemies, but he changed his mind when he found that

the proofs were irrefragable and determined to brazen out the

affair.[34]

Luther's last years were full of anxiety and sorrow. As he looked

round his own city of Wittenberg and the cities of Germany where his

doctrines had taken root he found little ground for self-

congratulation. Religious dissensions, bitterness, war-like

preparations, decline of learning, decay of the universities, and

immorality, had marked the progress of his gospel. In many districts

the power of the Pope had indeed been broken, but only to make way for

the authority of the civil rulers upon whom neither religious nor

disciplinary canons could exercise any restraint; the monasteries and

religious institutions had been suppressed, but their wealth had

passed into the treasuries of the princes, whilst the poor for whose

benefit it had been held in trust were neglected, and the ministers of

religion were obliged to have recourse to different occupations to

secure a livelihood. To his followers and his most intimate associates

he denied the liberty of thought and speech that he claimed for

himself, by insisting on the unconditional acceptance of his doctrines

as if in him alone were vested supreme authority and infallibility.

For exercising their right to private judgment, Carlstadt was pursued

from pulpit to pulpit till at last he was forced to seek safety in

flight; Zwingli was denounced as a heretic for whose salvation it was

useless to pray; the Anabaptists were declared to be unworthy of any

better fate than the sword or the halter; Agricola, his most zealous

fellow-labourer, was banished from his presence and his writings were

interdicted; and even Melanchthon was at last driven to complain of

the state of slavery to which he had been reduced.[35]

His failing health and his disappointments served to sour his temper

and to render him less approachable. The attacks that he directed

against the Papacy such as /The Papacy an Institution of the Devil/,

and the verses prepared for the vulgar caricatures that he induced

Cranach to design (1545) surpassed even his former productions in

violence and abusiveness. Tired of attacking the Papacy, he turned his

attention once more to the Jews, upon whom he invoked the vengeance of

Heaven in the last sermon that he was destined to preach on earth. He

was taken suddenly ill in Eisleben, where he had come to settle some

disputes between the Counts of Mansfeld, and on the 18th February

1546, he passed away.[36]

Luther is a man whose character it is difficult to appreciate exactly.

At times he spoke and wrote as if he were endowed with a deeply

religious feeling, convinced of the truth of his doctrines, and

anxious only for the success of the work for which he professed to

believe he had been raised up by God. Some of his sermons sounded like

a trumpet call from Heaven, warning the people that the hour for

repentance had drawn nigh, while his conversations with his intimate

friends breathed at times a spirit of piety and fervour redolent of

the apostolic age. This, however, was only one feature of Luther's

character, and, unfortunately, it was a feature that manifested itself

only too rarely. As a general rule his writings, his sermons and

speeches, and, in a word, his whole line of conduct were in direct

opposition to everything that is associated generally in the popular

mind with the true religious reformer. His replies to his opponents,

even to those who, avoiding personalities, addressed themselves

directly to his doctrines, were couched in the most violent and

abusive language. His wild onslaughts and his demands for vengeance on

any one who ventured to question his teaching, whether they were

Catholics, Zwinglians, Sacramentarians or Anabaptists, were the very

antithesis of the spirit of charity and meekness that should

characterise a follower, not to say an apostle, of Christ. Nor were

his over-weening pride and self-confidence in keeping with the spirit

of meekness and humility inculcated so frequently in the writings of

the New Testament.

In his letters, and more especially in his familiar intercourse with

his friends,[37] his conversation was frequently risky and indecent;

his relations with women, at least before his marriage with Catherine

Bora, were, to put it mildly, not above suspicion, as is evident from

his own letters and the letters of his most devoted supporters; while

his references to marriage and vows of chastity in his sermons and

pamphlets were filthy and unpardonable even in an age when people were

much more outspoken on such subjects than they are at present. Though

he insisted strongly on the necessity of preaching the pure Word of

God, he had little difficulty in having recourse to falsehood when

truth did not serve his purpose, or in justifying his conduct by

advocating the principle that not all lies were sinful particularly if

they helped to damage the Roman Church. His frequent and enthusiastic

references to the pleasures of the table were more like what one

should expect to find in the writings of a Pagan epicure than in those

of a Christian reformer. He was not, as is sometimes asserted, a

habitual drunkard. His tireless activity as a writer and preacher is

in itself a sufficient refutation of such a charge, but he was

convinced that a hard drinking bout was at times good for both soul

and body, and in this respect at least he certainly lived up to his

convictions.[38]

It would be a mistake to judge him by his Latin writings, which, both

in manner and style, seldom rise above the level of mediocrity. It is

in his German books and pamphlets that Luther is seen at his best.

There, he appears as a man of great ability and learning, gifted with

a prodigious memory, a striking literary style, and a happy knack of

seizing upon the weak points of his adversaries and of presenting his

own side of the case in its most forcible and attractive form. No man

knew better than he how to adapt himself to the tastes of his audience

or the prejudices of his readers. He could play the role of the judge

or the professor almost as well as that of the impassioned fanatic

convinced that behind him were arrayed all the powers of Heaven. In

dealing with men of education, who were not likely to be captivated by

rhetoric, he could be calm and argumentative; but when he addressed

himself to the masses of the people he appeared in his true character

as a popular demagogue, hesitating at nothing that was likely to

arouse their indignation against the Roman Church and their enthusiasm

for the movement to which he had devoted his life. In words of fiery

eloquence he recalled to their minds the real and imaginary grievances

of their nation against Rome, the over-weening pride and tyranny of

the spiritual princes, the scandalous lives of many of the

ecclesiastics, and the failure of the Pope and councils to carry

through a scheme of wholesale reform. He called upon them to throw off

the yoke imposed by foreigners on their fathers and themselves, and to

support him in his struggle for the liberty of the people, the

independence of the German nation, and the original purity of the

Gospel, promising them that if only they would range themselves under

his banner, all their grievances, both spiritual and temporal, must

soon be redressed. Had Luther never appeared, or had he been less

gifted as an orator, a writer and a popular leader than he was, a

crisis must have arisen at the time; but his genius and enthusiasm

turned what might have been a trickling stream into a raging torrent,

threatening destruction to beliefs and institutions hitherto regarded

as inviolable. The time was ripe for a reformer, and Luther's only

claim to greatness was his capacity of utilising in a masterly way the

materials, political and religious, that lay ready at his hand.

Religious abuses, social unrest, politics, personal vanities, and the

excesses always attendant upon a great literary revival, were pressed

into his service, and were directed against the Roman Church. And yet

his success fell far short of his expectations. Beyond doubt he

contrived to detach individuals and kingdoms from their obedience to

the Pope and their submission to ecclesiastical authority only to

subject them to the spiritual yoke of secular princes, and to expose

them to doctrinal anarchy subversive of dogmatic religion; but the

Catholic Church and the See of Rome, for the overthrow of which he had

laboured so energetically, emerged triumphant from the terrible trial

that had been permitted by God only for its purification.

During the period that intervened between the /Ratisbon Interim/ and

the death of Luther (1541-6) Charles V., hard pressed by the war with

France and the unsuccessful expeditions against the Barbary pirates,

was obliged to yield to the increasing demands of the Protestant

princes; nor could Paul III., however much he desired it, realise his

intention of convoking a General Council. But at last the Peace of

Crepy (1544) which put an end to the war with France, and the

convocation of a General Council to meet at Trent in March 1545,

strengthened the hands of the Emperor, and enabled him to deal

effectively with the religious revolution. The Protestant princes

announced their determination to take no part in a Council convoked

and presided over by the Pope. Charles left no stone unturned to

induce them to adopt a more conciliatory attitude, but all his efforts

having proved unavailing, he let it be known publicly that he would

not allow himself to be intimidated by threats of violence, and that

if need be he would insist on obedience at the point of the sword.

John Frederick of Saxony and Philip of Hesse, alarmed by the

threatening aspect of affairs, determined to anticipate the Emperor,

and took the field at the head of an army of forty thousand men

(1546).

Charles V., relying upon the aid of the Pope and the co-operation of

the Catholic princes, issued a proclamation calling upon all loyal

subjects to treat them as rebels and outlaws. Maurice of Saxony

deserted his co-religionists on promise of succeeding to the

Electorship, joined the standard of Charles V., and in conjunction

with Ferdinand directed his forces against Saxony. The Elector was

defeated and captured at Muhlberg (April 1547). He was condemned to

death as a traitor, but he was reprieved and detained as a prisoner in

the suite of the Emperor, while his nephew, Maurice of Saxony,

succeeded to his dominions. Philip of Hesse, too, was obliged to

surrender, and Charles V. found himself everywhere victorious. He

insisted on the restoration of the Bishop of Naumburg and of Henry of

Brunswick to his kingdom as well as on the resignation of Hermann

Prince von Wied, Archbishop of Cologne. He was unwilling, however, to

proceed to extremes with the Protestant princes, well knowing that he

could not rely on some of his own supporters. Besides, he had become

involved in serious difficulties with Pope Paul III., who complained,

and not without reason, of the demands made upon him by the Emperor,

and of the concessions that the Emperor was willing to make to the

Lutherans.

Charles V. summoned a Diet to meet at Augsburg (1547), where he hoped

that a permanent understanding might be secured. A document known as

the /Augsburg Interim/, prepared by Catholic theologians in

conjunction with the Lutheran, John Agricola, was accepted

provisionally by both parties. The doctrines were expressed in a very

mild form, though not, however, altogether unacceptable to Catholics.

Protestants were permitted to receive communion under both kinds;

their married clergy were allowed to retain their wives; and it was

understood tacitly that they might keep possession of the

ecclesiastical property they had seized. The /Augsburg Interim/, as

might have been anticipated, was displeasing to both parties. Maurice

of Saxony, unwilling to give it unconditional approval, consulted

Melanchthon and others of his school as to how far he might accept its

terms. In their reply they distinguished between matters that were

essential and those that were only of secondary importance. The latter

might be accepted unreservedly in obedience to the orders of the

Emperor. In regard to doctrines, they were willing to compromise on

the question of justification and good-works, to accept the

sacraments, including confirmation and Extreme Unction, the Mass with

the addition of some German hymns, and in a certain sense the

jurisdiction of the bishops. Such concessions were a distinct

departure from Luther's teaching and would have been impossible had he

been alive.

The relations between the Pope and the Emperor took a more friendly

turn when the General Council was transferred from Bologna to Trent

(1551). The Protestant princes, invited to send representatives,

declined at first, but in a short time several of them agreed to

accept the invitation. Safe conducts were issued for their

representatives by the Council in 1551 and again in 1552. Even the

Wittenberg theologians were not unfavourably disposed, and Melanchthon

was actually on his way to Trent. But suddenly Maurice of Saxony, who

had assembled a large army under pretext of reducing Magdeburg, and

had strengthened himself by an alliance with several princes as well

as by a secret treaty with Henry II. of France, deserted the Emperor

and placed himself at the head of the Protestant forces. When all his

plans were completed he advanced suddenly through Thuringia, took

Augsburg, and was within an inch of capturing the Emperor who then lay

ill at Innsbruck (1552). At the same time the French forces occupied

Lorraine. Charles, finding himself unable to carry on the struggle,

opened negotiations for peace, and in 1552 the Treaty of Passau was

concluded. Philip of Hesse was to be set at liberty; a Diet was to be

called within six months to settle the religious differences; in the

meantime neither the Emperor nor the princes should interfere with

freedom of conscience; and all disputes that might arise were to be

referred to a commission consisting of an equal number of Protestant

and Catholic members.

Owing to the war with France it was not until the year 1555 that the

proposed Diet met at Augsburg. The Protestant party, encouraged by

their victories, were in no humour for compromise, and as it was

evident that there was no longer any hope of healing the religious

division in the Empire, it was agreed that peace could be secured only

by mutual toleration. In September 1555 the Peace of Augsburg was

concluded. According to the terms of this convention full freedom of

conscience was conceded in the Empire to Catholics and to all

Protestants who accepted the Augsburg Confession. The latter were

permitted to retain the ecclesiastical goods which they had already

acquired before the Treaty of Passau (1552). For the future each

prince was to be free to determine the religion of his subjects, but

in case a subject was not content with the religion imposed on him by

his sovereign he could claim the right to migrate into a more friendly

territory.

A great difficulty arose in regard to the disposal of the

ecclesiastical property in case a Catholic bishop or abbot should

apostatise. Notwithstanding the protests of the Protestant party, it

was decreed that if such an event should occur the seceder could claim

his own personal property, but not the property attached to his

office. This clause, known as the /Ecclesiasticum Reservatum/, gave

rise to many disputes, and was one of the principal causes of the

Thirty Years' War.

By the /Peace of Augsburg/ Protestantism was recognised as a distinct

and separate form of Christianity, and the first blow was struck at

the fundamental principles on which the Holy Roman Empire had been

built. Charles V. was blamed at the time, and has been blamed since

for having given his consent to such a treaty, but if all the

circumstances of the time be duly considered it is difficult to see

how he could have acted otherwise than he did. It is not the Emperor

who should be held accountable for the unfavourable character of the

Augsburg Peace, but "the most Catholic King of France" who allied

himself with the forces of German Protestantism, and the Catholic

princes who were more anxious to secure their own position than to

fight for their sovereign or their religion. Charles V., broken down

in health and wearied by his misfortunes and his failure to put down

the religious revolt, determined to hand over to a younger man the

administration of the territories over which he ruled, and to devote

the remainder of his life to preparation for the world to come. In a

parting address delivered to the States of the Netherlands he warned

them "to be loyal to the Catholic faith which has always been and

everywhere the faith of Christendom, for should it disappear the

foundations of goodness should crumble away and every sort of mischief

now menacing the world would reign supreme." After his resignation he

retired to a monastery in Estremadura, where he died in 1558. Spain

and the Netherlands passed to his legitimate son, Philip II., while

after some delay his brother, Ferdinand, was recognised as his

successor in the Empire.

Charles V. was a man of sound judgment and liberal views, of great

energy and prudence, as skilful in war as he was in the arts of

diplomacy, and immensely superior in nearly every respect to his

contemporaries, Francis I. of France and Henry VIII. of England. Yet

in spite of all his admitted qualifications, and notwithstanding the

fact that he was the ruler of three-fourths of Western Europe, he

lived to witness the overthrow of his dearest projects and the

complete failure of his general policy. But his want of success was

not due to personal imprudence or inactivity. It is to be attributed

to the circumstances of the times, the rebellion in Spain, the open

revolt of some and the distrust of others in Germany, the rapid

advance of the Turks towards the west, and, above all, the struggle

with France. Despite his many quarrels with the Holy See, and in face

of the many temptations held out to him to arrive at the worldwide

dictatorship to which he was suspected of aspiring, by putting himself

at the head of the new religious movement, he never wavered for a

moment in his allegiance to the Catholic Church.

----------

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

[2] /Id./ p. 8.

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

[4] Id. chap. iv.

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

1888.

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

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

[8] Paulus, /Johann Tetzel, der Ablassprediger/, 1899. /Die Deutschen

Dominikaner im Kampfe gegen Luther/, 1903.

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

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

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

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

potestate Papae./

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

[14] "/Beatissime Pater, prostratum me pedibus tuae beatitudinis

offero cum omnibus quae sum et habeo. Vivifica, occide, voca,

revoca, approba, reproba, ut placuerit. Vocem tuam vocem Christi

in te praesidentis et loquentis agnoscam. Si mortem merui, mori

non recusabo./"

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

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

[17] "/Coram Deo et tota creatura sua testor, me neque voluisse neque

hodie velle Ecclesiae Romanae ac Beatitudinis Tuae potestem ullo

modo tangere aut quacunque versutia demoliri; quin plenissime

confiteor huius ecclesiae potestatem esse super omnia, nec ei

praeferendum quidquid sive in coelo sive in terra praeter unum

Jesum Christum Dominum omnium/" (3rd March, 1519). Kidd, op. cit.,

p. 43.

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

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

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

1725.

[21] De Weldige-Kremer, /De Joannis Cochlaei Vita et Scriptis/, 1865.

He was one of the most energetic opponents of the Reformation

party.

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

210-240, 251-92.

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

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

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

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

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

[28] "Of such slender dimensions was the original Protestant Church;

small as it was, it was only held together by the negative

character of its protest."--/Camb. Mod. Hist./, ii., p. 205.

[29] Negwer, /Wimpina/, 1909.

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

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

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

[33] For Luther's own views on the results of his preaching, cf.

Dollinger, /Die Reformation/, Bd. ii., pp. 426-52.

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

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

[36] That there can be no question of suicide is admitted (Paulus

/Luthers Lebensende/, 1898).

[37] /Tischreden/ (/Table Talk/), cf. Grisar, ii., 178 sqq. Smith,

/Luther's Table Talk/, 1907. /Am. Ecc. Review/ (1906, pp. 1-18).

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

77-85).

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

See works mentioned above (II. a). Dandliker, /Geschichte der

Schweiz/, 3 Bde, 1904. Dandliker-Salisbury, /A Short History of

Switzerland/, 1899. De Haller, /Histoire de la revolution

religieuse ou de la reforme protestante dans la Suisse

occidentale/, 1837. Gelpke, /Kirchengeschichte der Schweiz/, 1856-

61. Schuler-Schulthess, /Opera Huldrici Zwinglii/, 8 vols., 1828-

42. Jackson, /Huldreich Zwingli/, 1901.

The territory now known as Switzerland formed portion of the Holy

Roman Empire. In 1291, however, during the reign of Rudolph of

Habsburg, the three states or cantons of Uri, Schweiz, and

Unterwalden, formed a confederation to defend their rights and

privileges, thus laying the foundation for the existence of

Switzerland as an independent nation. Other cantons joined the

alliance, more especially after the victory at Morgarten in 1315, when

the Austrian forces despatched against the Swiss were almost

annihilated. Austria made various attempts to win back the Swiss to

their allegiance but without success, and in 1394 the independence of

the allied cantons was practically recognised.

About the time of the Reformation in Germany Switzerland consisted of

thirteen cantons and several smaller "allied" or "friendly" states not

admitted to full cantonal rights. Though bound together by a loose

kind of confederation for purposes of defence against aggression, the

various states enjoyed a large measure of independence, and each was

ruled according to its own peculiar constitution. The Federal Diet or

General Assembly was composed of representatives appointed by the

cantons, and its decisions were determined by the votes of the states,

the largest and most populous possessing no greater powers than the

least influential member of the confederation. Some of the states were

nominally democratic in their form of government, but, as in most

countries during this period, the peasants had many grounds for

reasonable complaint, particularly in regard to taxation, treasury

pensions, and the enlisting and employment of the Swiss mercenary

troops, then the best soldiers in Europe.

As in Germany, many causes were at work to prepare the ground for the

new religious teaching. On account of the free character of its

institutions refugees of all kinds fled to Switzerland for asylum, and

were allowed great liberty in propagating their views. Again, the

Swiss mercenaries, returning from their campaigns and service, during

which they were brought into contact with various classes and nations,

served much the same purpose as does the modern newspaper. In both

these ways the peasants of Switzerland were kept in touch with the

social, political, and religious condition of the rest of Europe, and

with the hopes and plans of their own class in other kingdoms.

Humanism had not, indeed, made very striking progress in Switzerland,

though the presence of Erasmus at Basle, and the attacks that he

directed against the monks and the clergy, could not fail to produce

some effect on a people whose minds were already prepared for such

methods by their acquaintance with modern developments.

If, however, the Church in Switzerland had been free from abuses not

all the wit and eloquence of Erasmus and his followers could have

produced a revolt, but unfortunately, the influences that led to the

downfall of religion in other countries were also at work in the Swiss

cantons. The cathedral chapters were composed for the greater part of

men who had no vocation to the priesthood, and who adopted the

clerical profession because they wished to enrich themselves from the

revenues of the Church, and were ensured of good positions through the

influence of their relatives and patrons. Many of the clergy were far

from being perfect, nor were all the religious institutions mindful of

the spirit or even of the letter of their constitutions.

Unfortunately, too, owing to the peculiar political development of

their country, the bishops of Switzerland were subject to foreign

metropolitans, two of them being under the jurisdiction of the

Archbishop of Mainz, two under Besancon, one under Aquileia, and one

subject immediately to Rome. Partly for this reason, partly, also,

owing to the increasing encroachments of the civil power, disputes and

conflicts between the ecclesiastical and temporal jurisdictions were

not unfrequent. But it would be a mistake to suppose that there were

no good ecclesiastics in Switzerland at this time. There were many

excellent priests, both secular and regular, who recognised the sad

condition of affairs, and who supported measures such as those

undertaken by the Bishop of Basle in 1503 with all their power. The

great body of teachers known as the Friends of God were at work in

Switzerland as in the Netherlands, and were doing splendid service for

education, both secular and religious.

The man, who played in Switzerland the part played so successfully by

Luther in Germany, was Ulrich Zwingli. He was the son of rich parents,

born at Wildhaus, in the canton of Saint Gall (1484), educated at the

Universities of Berne, Basle, and Vienna, and after his ordination to

the priesthood, appointed to the parish of Glarus. He was a young man

of remarkable ability both as a student and as a preacher, and was

fortunate enough to attract the notice of a papal legate, through

whose influence a pension was assigned to him to enable him to

prosecute his studies. He was a good classical scholar with a more

than average knowledge of Hebrew, and well versed in the Scriptures

and in the writings of the Fathers. For a time he acted as chaplain to

some Swiss regiments fighting in Italy for the Pope against France,

and on his return to his native country he was appointed preacher at

the famous shrine of Our Lady at Einsiedeln.[1] Here his oratorical

powers stood him in good stead, but his judgment and level-headedness

were not on the same high plane as his declamatory powers, nor was his

own private life in keeping with the sanctity of the place or with the

denunciations that he hurled so recklessly against his clerical

brethren. He began to attack pilgrimages and devotions to the Blessed

Virgin, but it was not so much for this as for his unlawful relations

with a woman of bad character that he was relieved of his office.[2]

He retired to Zurich where he was appointed preacher in the cathedral.

Here he denounced the lives of the clergy and the abuses in the

Church, relying, as he stated, upon what he had seen himself in Italy

during his residence there as chaplain to the Swiss mercenaries. Like

Luther, he well knew how to win the attention and sympathy of the mob

by his appeals to the national feelings of his countrymen, and like

Luther he insisted that the Scriptures were the sole rule of faith. He

denounced in the strongest language the immorality and vices of the

clergy, celibacy, vows of chastity, pilgrimages and the veneration of

the saints, but for so far he had not broken entirely with the Church.

The preaching of the Indulgences promulgated by Leo X. in Constance

was entrusted to the Franciscans. Their work was a difficult one

especially as the Grand Council of Zurich forbade them to persist, as,

indeed, did also the able and zealous Hugo von Hohenlandenberg, Bishop

of Constance, in whose diocese Zurich was situated. Zwingli, confident

of the support of the city authorities, attacked the doctrine of

Indulgences and was backed by the Grand Council, which ordered, at his

instigation, that the Word of God should be preached according to the

Scriptures, regardless of tradition or the interpretation of the

Church. Later on he directed his attacks against the meritoriousness

of good works and the practice of fast and abstinence (1522), and

about the same time he addressed a petition to the Bishop of Constance

demanding that he should not interfere with the preaching of the pure

Word of God nor set any obstacle to the marriage of his priests. He

admitted publicly that his relations with women had been disgraceful,

that he had learned from his own personal experience how impossible of

fulfilment was the vow of chastity, and that marriage was the only

remedy that would enable him to overcome the emotions of carnal lust

referred to by St. Paul in his epistle to the Corinthians (I. 7, 9).

The bishop refused to yield to this demand insisting on the strict

observance of celibacy, and appealed to the Grand Council to support

him with the full weight of their authority (April 1522).

Incensed by this refusal Zwingli shook off the yoke of ecclesiastical

authority, rejected the primacy of the Pope, and the infallibility of

General Councils, denounced celibacy and vows of chastity as

inventions of the devil, and called upon the Swiss people to support

him in his fight for religious freedom. Once before, in 1520, Leo X.

had summoned Zwingli to Rome to answer for his teaching, but the

summons had been unheeded. Adrian VI. made another attempt to win him

from his dangerous course by a letter full of kindness and sympathy,

but his remonstrance produced no effect (1523). The Grand Council of

Zurich, hopeful of securing a preponderating influence in Switzerland

by taking the lead in the new movement, favoured Zwingli. Instead of

responding to the appeal of the Bishop of Constance it announced a

great religious disputation to be held in January 1523, to which both

Zwingli and his opponents were summoned for the explanation and

defence of their views. Zwingli put forward sixty-seven theses, the

principal of which were that the Bible is the sole rule of faith, that

the Church is not a visible society but only an assembly of the elect,

of which body Christ is the only true head, that consequently the

jurisdiction of the Pope and of the bishops is a usurpation devoid of

scriptural authority, that the Mass, Confession, Purgatory, and

Intercession of the Saints are to be rejected as derogatory to the

merits of Christ, and finally, that clerical celibacy and monastic

vows, instead of being counsels of perfection, are only cloaks for sin

and hypocrisy. The Bishop of Constance refused to take part in such a

disputation. His vicar-general, Johann Faber of Constance, however,

attended the meeting, not indeed to take part in the discussion but

merely to protest against it as opposed to the authority of the Church

and of the councils. As his protests were unheeded, he undertook to

defend the doctrines attacked, but in the end the Grand Council

declared that the victory rested with Zwingli.

Flushed with his triumph Zwingli now proceeded to put his theories

into practice. Supported by a mob he endeavoured to prevent the

celebration of Mass, religious processions, the use of pictures and

statues, and the solemn ceremonial associated with Extreme Unction and

the Viaticum. He compiled an introduction to the New Testament for the

use of the clergy, called upon them to abandon their obligations of

celibacy, and set them an example by taking as his wife a woman who

had been for years his concubine. He and his followers, supported by

the majority of the Grand Council, went through the city destroying

altars, pictures, statues, organs, and confessionals, and erecting in

place of the altars plain tables with a plate for bread and a vessel

for wine. The Catholic members of the Grand Council were driven from

their position, and Catholic worship forbidden in Zurich (1523-5).

The system of Zwingli was much more rationalistic and, in a certain

sense, much more logical than that of Luther. Imbued with the

principles of pantheistic mysticism, he maintained that God is in

Himself all being, created as well as uncreated, and all activity.

Hence it was as absurd to speak of individual liberty or individual

action as to speak of a multiplicity of gods. Whether it was a case of

doing good or doing evil man was but a machine like a brush in the

hands of a painter. In regard to sin he contended man may be punished

for violating the law laid down by God even though the violation is

unavoidable, but God, being above all law, is nowise to blame.

Concupiscence or self-love is, according to him, at the root of all

misdeeds. It is in itself the real original sin, and is not blotted

out by Baptism. His teaching on the Scriptures, individual judgment,

ecclesiastical authority as represented by the bishops, councils, and

Pope, good works, indulgences, purgatory, invocation of the saints,

and vows of chastity differed but slightly from what Luther had put

forward. On the question of Justification, and particularly on the

doctrine of the Eucharist, the two reformers found themselves in

hopeless conflict.[3]

Zwingli's teaching did not at first find much favour in other portions

of German Switzerland. Lucerne declared against it in 1524. The city

authorities forbade the introduction of the new teaching, and offered

an asylum to those Catholics who had been forced to flee from Zurich.

Other cantons associated themselves with Lucerne, and a deputation was

sent to Zurich to request the city authorities to abandon Zwingli and

to take part in a general movement for a real and constitutional

reform. But the Grand Council, mindful of the political advantages

which would accrue to Zurich from its leadership in the new religious

revolt, declined to recede from their position.

While Zwingli was at work in Zurich, Oecolampadius (1482-1531) set

himself to stir up religious divisions in Basle. He was born at

Weisnberg, studied law at Bologna and theology subsequently at

Heidelberg, was ordained priest, and appointed to a parish in Basle

(1512). With Erasmus he was on terms of the closest intimacy, and, as

Basle was then one of the great literary centres of the world, he soon

became acquainted with Luther's pamphlets and teaching. Some of the

clergy in Basle, notably Wolfgang Capito, a warm friend of Zwingli,

were already showing signs of restlessness especially in regard to the

Mass, purgatory, and invocation of the saints, and Oecolampadius was

not slow to imbibe the new ideas. In 1518 he was appointed preacher in

the Cathedral of Augsburg, but, having resigned this office on account

of failing health, he withdrew to the convent of Altmunster, where,

for some time, he lived a retired life. Subsequently he acted as

chaplain to the well-known German knight, Franz von Sickingen, and

finally, in 1524, he accepted the parish of St. Martin's in Basle.

He now proclaimed himself openly a supporter of Zwingli, advocated the

new teaching on justification and good works, and attacked several

Catholic doctrines and practices. For him, as indeed for most of the

other reformers, clerical celibacy was the great stumbling block. He

encouraged his followers by taking as his wife a young widow, who was

subsequently in turn the wife of the two renowned Lutheran preachers,

Butzer and Capito. At first the city authorities and a large body of

the university professors were against him, but owing to the

disturbances created by his partisans full liberty of worship was

granted to the new sect (1527). Not content with this concession, they

demanded that the Mass should be suppressed. In 1529 the followers of

Oecolampadius rose in revolt, seized the arsenal of the city, directed

the cannon on the principal squares, and attacked the churches,

destroying altars, statues, and pictures. Erasmus, disgusted with such

methods of propagating religion, left Basle and sought a home in

Freiburg. The Catholics were expelled from the city council, their

religion was proscribed, and Basle joined hands with Zurich in its

rebellion against the Church.

The revolt soon spread into other cantons of Switzerland. In Berne and

Schaffhausen both parties were strong and determined, and for a time

the issue of the conflict was uncertain, but in 1528 the party of

Zwingli and Oecolampadius secured the upper hand. Similarly in St.

Gall, Glarus, etc., victory rested with the new teaching. Other

cantons, as for example, Solothurn, wavered as to which side they

should take, but the three oldest cantons of Switzerland, Uri, Schweiz

and Unterwalden, together with Zug, Freiburg and Lucerne, refused to

be separated from the Church.

Apart altogether from the question of religion, there was a natural

opposition between populous and manufacturing centres like Berne and

Basle, and the rural cantons, devoted almost entirely to agricultural

and pastoral pursuits. When religious differences supervened to

accentuate the rivalry already in existence, they led almost

inevitably to the division of Switzerland into two hostile camps.

Zurich, Basle, Berne, Schaffhausen, and St. Gall, though they were the

most important cities, soon found themselves unable to force their

views on the rest of the country, as they were withstood by the

federal council, the majority of which was still Catholic. The latter

insisted that a conference should be held to settle the religious

disputes. The conference was arranged to take place at Baden in 1526.

Eck, assisted by two other Catholic theologians, Faber and Murner,

undertook to defend the Catholic position. Zurich refused to send

representatives, but the reforming party were represented by

Oecolampadius, Haller, and others of their leaders. The conference was

attended by delegates from twelve cantons, and was approved of by the

Swiss bishops. After a discussion lasting fifteen days during which

Eck defended the Catholic doctrine regarding the Mass, Eucharist,

Purgatory, and the Intercession of the Saints, the majority of the

cantons decided in his favour, and a resolution was passed forbidding

religious changes in Switzerland and prohibiting the sale of the works

of Luther and Zwingli.

It was soon evident, however, that peace could not be secured by such

measures. The rural and Catholic cantons were in the majority, much to

the disgust of flourishing cities like Berne and Zurich. These states,

believing that they were entitled to a controlling voice in the

federal council, determined to use the religious question to bring

about a complete change in the constitution of the country by

assigning the cantonal representation in the federal council on the

basis of population. They formed an alliance with the other Protestant

cantons and with Constance to forward their claims (1527-8), but the

Catholic cantons imitated their example by organising a Catholic

federation to which the Archduke, Ferdinand of Austria, promised his

support (1529).

Zwingli was most eager for war, and at his instigation the army of

Zurich, backed by Berne, took the field in 1529. The Catholic states,

however, made it clear that they were both able and willing to defend

the constitution, but the bond of national unity and the dislike of

civil war exercised such an influence on both parties that a conflict

was averted by the conclusion of the Peace of Kappel (1529). The

concessions secured for his party by this Peace did not satisfy

Zwingli, who desired nothing less than the complete subjugation of the

Catholic cantons. Negotiations were opened up with Philip of Hesse,

with the German Lutherans, and with Francis I. of France, and when the

news of the formation of the League of Schmalkald reached the

Protestants of Switzerland, it was thought that the time had come when

the triumph of Zurich and Berne, which meant also the triumph of the

new teaching, should be secured. Zwingli besought his followers to

issue a declaration of war, but it was suggested that the reduction of

the Catholic cantons could be secured just as effectively by a

blockade. In this movement Zurich took the lead. The result, however,

did not coincide with the anticipations of Zwingli. The Catholic

cantons flew to arms at once, and as their territories formed a

compact unit, they were able to put their united army into the field

before the forces of Zurich and Berne could effect a junction. The

decisive battle took place at Kappel in October 1531, when the

Zwinglians suffered a complete defeat, Zwingli himself and five

hundred of the best men of Zurich being left dead on the field. The

army of Berne advanced too late to save their allies or to change the

result of the war. The Catholic cantons used their victory with great

moderation. Instead of crushing their opponents, as they might have

done, they concluded with them the second Peace of Kappel (1531).

According to the terms of this treaty, no canton was to force another

to change its religion, and liberty of worship was guaranteed in the

cantonal domains. Several of the districts that had been wavering

returned to the Catholic faith, and the abbot of St. Gall was restored

to the abbey from which he had been expelled.

Oecolampadius followed Zwingli to the grave in a short time, having

been carried off by a fever about a month after the defeat of Kappel,

and the leadership of the movement devolved upon their successors,

Bullinger and Myconius.

With regard to the Sacraments Luther and Zwingli agreed that they were

only signs of grace, though in the explanation of this view Zwingli

was much more extreme, because much more logical, than Luther.

Believing as he did that justification depended upon faith alone, he

contended that the Sacraments were mere ceremonies by which a man

became or showed himself to be a follower of Christ. They were devoid

of any objective virtue, and were efficacious only in so far as they

guaranteed that the individual receiving them possessed the faith

necessary for justification. But it was principally in regard to the

Eucharist that the two reformers found themselves in hopeless

disagreement. Had Luther wished to be consistent he should have thrown

over the Real Presence as well as Transubstantiation, but the force of

tradition, the fear that any such teaching would arouse the opposition

of the people, and the plain meaning of the texts of Scripture forced

him to adopt a compromise. "Had Doctor Carlstadt," he wrote, "or any

one else been able to persuade me five years ago that the sacrament of

the altar is but bread and wine he would, indeed, have done me a great

service, and rendered me very material aid in my efforts to make a

breach in the Papacy. But it is all in vain. The meaning of the texts

is so evident that every artifice of language will be powerless to

explain it away." He contended that the words "This is My body and

This is My blood" could bear only one meaning, namely, that Christ was

really present, but while agreeing with Catholics about the Real

Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, he rejected the doctrine of

Transubstantiation, maintaining in its place Consubstantiation or

Impanation.

Though Luther insisted so strongly on the Real Presence, it is not

clear that in the beginning he had any very fixed views on the

subject, or that he would have been unwilling to change any views he

had formed, were it not that one of his lieutenants, Carlstadt, began

to exercise his privilege of judgment by rejecting the Real Presence.

Such an act of insubordination aroused the implacable ire of Luther,

who denounced his former colleague as a heretic, and pursued him from

Wittenberg and Jena, where he had fled for refuge. In the end

Carlstadt was obliged to retire to Switzerland, where his doctrine

found favour with the Swiss reformers.

From the beginning of his campaign Zwingli realised that the Real

Presence was not in harmony with his theory of justification, and

hence he was inclined to hold that the Eucharist was a mere sign

instituted as a reminder of Christ's death. But in view of the clear

testimony of the Holy Scripture he was at a loss how to justify his

position. At last by pondering on other passages that he considered

similar to the text "This is My body," where the word "is" should be

interpreted "signifies," he contended that the true meaning of

Christ's words at the Last Supper is, "This signifies My body."

Oecolampadius agreed with this interpretation, though for a different

reason, comparing the Blessed Eucharist to a ring that a husband going

away on a long journey might give to his wife as a pledge and reminder

of his affection.[4]

Luther resented bitterly such a theory as an attack upon his

authority, especially as Zwingli refused to allow himself to be brow-

beaten into retracting his doctrine. Instead of submitting to the new

religious dictator, Zwingli sought to justify himself by the very

principle by which Luther justified his own revolt against the

Catholic Church. He contended that Luther's theory of justification

involved logically the rejection of the Eucharist as well as of the

other Sacraments, that the Scriptural texts could be interpreted as he

had interpreted them, and that he was not bound to take any cognisance

of the Christian tradition or of the authority of the councils. He

complained that Luther treated himself and his followers as heretics

with whom it was not right to hold communion, that he proscribed their

writings and denounced them to the magistrates, and that he did

precisely towards them what he blamed the Pope for doing to himself.

Luther found it difficult to meet this line of argument. Much against

his will he was obliged to support his opinions by appealing to the

tradition of the Church and the writings of the Fathers, which latter

he had denounced as "fetid pools whence Christians have been drinking

unwholesome draughts instead of slaking their thirst from the pure

fountain of Holy Scripture."[5] "This article (The Eucharist)," he

wrote, "is neither unscriptural nor a dogma of human invention. It is

based upon the clear and irrefragable words of Holy Writ. It has been

uniformly held and believed throughout the whole Christian world from

the foundation of the Church to the present time. That such has been

the fact is attested by the writings of the Holy Fathers, both Greek

and Latin, by daily usage and by the uninterrupted practice of the

Church. . . . To doubt it, therefore, is to disbelieve the Christian

Church and to brand her as heretical, and with her the prophets,

apostles, and Christ Himself, who, in establishing the Church said:

'Behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the

world.'"[6]

The opposition of Luther did not put an end to the controversy. The

Zwinglian theories spread rapidly in Switzerland, whence they were

carried into Germany, much to the annoyance of Luther and of the

Protestant princes for whom religious unity was necessary at almost

any cost. Luther would listen to no schemes of compromise. He

denounced the Zwinglians in the most violent terms, as servants of the

devil, liars, and heretics for whose salvation no man should pray.

Having rejected Transubstantiation in order to rid himself of the

sacrificial idea and of the doctrine of a Christian priesthood, he

fought strongly for the Real Presence on the ground that God's body,

being united to the divinity, enjoyed the divine attribute of

ubiquity. To this Zwingli made the very effective rejoinder that if

the words of Scripture "This is My body and this is My blood" are to

be interpreted literally they could bear only the sense put upon them

by the Catholics, because Christ did not say "My body is in or under

this bread," but rather "This (the bread) is My body." Furthermore, he

pointed out that Luther's explanation concerning the ubiquity of

Christ's body led clearly to a confusion of the divine and human

nature of Christ, and was in consequence only a renewal of the

Monophysite heresy, condemned by the whole Christian Church.

This unseemly dispute between the two leaders of the new movement did

not please the Protestant princes of Germany, for whom division of

their forces might mean political extinction. The Elector of Saxony

supported Luther warmly, while Philip of Hesse was more or less

inclined to side with Zwingli. A conference was arranged between the

two parties at Marburg (1529), at which Luther and Oecolampadius were

present to defend their views. On a few secondary matters an agreement

was arrived at, but on the main question, the Real Presence, Luther

would yield nothing, and so the Reformers were divided into two

parties, German Lutherans and Swiss Reformed.

----------

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

Ermites/, 1870.

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Northern Europe.

See bibliography, chap. ii. (a). Karup, /Geschichte der

Katholischen Kirche in Danemark/, 1863. Munter, /Kirchengeschichte

von Danemark und Norwegen/, 1823. Theiner-Cohen, /La Suede et la

Saint-Siege sous les rois Jean III., Sigismond III., et Charles

IX./, 1842. Butler, /The Reformation in Sweden/, 1884. De Flaux,

/La Suede au XVIme siecle/, 1861. Englestoft, /Reformantes et

Catholici tempore, quo sacra emendata sunt, in Dania

concertantes/, 1836. Schmitt, /Die Verteidigung der Kathol. Kirche

in Danemark gegen die Religionsneuerung im 16en Jahr/, 1899.

/Confutatio Lutheranismi Danici/, etc. (written 1530, ed. 1902).

At the beginning of the sixteenth century political power in Denmark

was vested to a great extent in the hands of the bishops and nobles.

It was by these two parties that the king was elected, and so great

was their influence that, as a rule, the candidate chosen by their

votes was obliged to accept any conditions they cared to impose. The

bishops, as in most countries at the time, held enormous estates,

granted to their predecessors by the crown or bequeathed by generous

benefactors for the maintenance of religion. Unfortunately, with some

exceptions, they were not men zealous for religious interests, or

capable of understanding that a serious crisis was at hand. In every

direction the need of reform was only too apparent, and, as such as

work had not been undertaken by those who should have undertaken it, a

splendid opportunity was afforded to the men who desired not the

welfare of religion but rather the overthrow of the Church.

Christian II. (1513-23) wished to put an end to the supremacy of the

bishops and nobles and to assert for himself and his successors

absolute control. He was a man of great ability and determination,

well acquainted with the tendencies of the age, and not particularly

scrupulous about the means by which the success of his policy might be

assured. To such a man Luther's attack on the bishops of Germany

seemed to be almost providential. He realised that by embracing the

new religious system, which enabled him to seize the wealth of the

Church and to concentrate in his own hands full ecclesiastical power,

he could rid himself of one of the greatest obstacles to absolutism,

and secure for himself and his successors undisputed sway in Denmark.

Though his own life was scandalously immoral he determined to become

the champion of a religious reformation, and against the wishes of the

nobles, clergy, and people he invited a disciple of Luther's to

Copenhagen, and placed at his disposal one of the city's churches.

This step aroused the strongest opposition, but Christian, confident

that boldness meant success, adopted stern measures to overcome his

opponents. He proclaimed himself the patron of those priests who were

willing to disregard their vows of celibacy, issued regulations

against the unmarried clergy, and appealed to the people against the

bishops and the nobles. As the Archbishop-elect of Lund was unwilling

to show himself to be coerced into betraying the interests confided to

his charge, the king commanded that he should be put to death.

By these violent methods he had hoped to frighten his subjects into

compliance with his wishes, but he was doomed to speedy and complete

disappointment. The bishops and barons, though divided on many

questions, were at one in their resistance to such despotism, and they

had behind them the great body of the people, who had little if any

desire for a religious revolution. Christian II. was deposed, and in

his place his uncle, Frederick I. (1523-33), became king of Denmark.

At his coronation the new monarch pledged himself to defend the

Catholic religion and to suppress heresy. Soon, however, motives

similar to those that had influenced his predecessor induced him also

to lean towards Lutheranism. At first his efforts for the spread of

the new teaching were carried out secretly, but once he felt himself

secure on the throne, he proclaimed himself publicly a Lutheran (1526)

and invited Lutheran preachers to the capital. A Diet was called in

1527 at Odensee to consider the religious controversy that had arisen.

In this assembly the king, basing his defence on the ground that

though he had pledged himself to protect the Catholic Church he was

under no obligation to tolerate abuses, contended that the suppression

of abuses and the purifying of religion were the only objects he had

at heart in the measures that he had taken. Owing mainly to his own

stubbornness and the cowardly and wavering attitude of the bishops, it

was agreed by the Diet that till a General Council could be convoked

full toleration should be given to the Lutheran preachers, that in the

meantime no civil disabilities should be inflicted on supporters of

the new religion, that those of the clergy who wished to marry should

be allowed to do so, that the archbishop should apply no longer to

Rome for his pallium, and finally that the confirmation of the

appointment of bishops should be transferred from the Pope to the

king.

By these measures, to which the bishops offered only a faint

opposition, Denmark was separated practically from the Holy See, and

the first step was taken on the road that was to lead to national

apostasy. The next important measure was the disputation arranged by

the king to take place at Copenhagen in 1529. The very fact that at

this meeting no Danish ecclesiastic capable of defending the Catholic

faith was to be found, and that it was necessary to have recourse to

Germany for champions of orthodoxy, is in itself a sufficient

indication of the character of the bishops who then ruled in Denmark,

and of the state of learning amongst the Danish clergy of the period.

Eck and Cochlaeus were invited to come to Copenhagen, but as they had

sufficient work to engage their attention at home, the duty of

upholding Catholic doctrine devolved upon Stagefyr, a theologian of

Cologne.[1] He could not speak Danish, nor would the Lutheran party

consent to carry on the conference in Latin. Furthermore, he claimed

that the authority of the Fathers and the decrees of previous General

Councils should be recognised, but the Lutherans insisted that the

Bible was the only source from which Christians should receive their

doctrines. In these circumstances, since a disputation was impossible,

both parties agreed to submit a full statement of their views in

writing to the king and council, who, as might have been anticipated,

decided in favour of Lutheranism.

During the remainder of his reign, Frederick I. spared no pains to

secure the victory for the new teaching in his dominions. The nobles

were won over to the king's views by promises of a share in the

partition of ecclesiastical property, and those who wished to stand

well with the sovereign were not slow in having recourse to violence

as affording proof that their zeal for Lutheranism was sincere.

Consequently the Lutheran party found themselves in a majority in the

Diet of 1530, and were powerful enough to do as they pleased. In

accordance with the example set in Germany and Switzerland attacks

were begun on churches, pictures, and statues, but in many places the

people were not prepared for such changes, and bitter conflicts took

place between the rival parties. In the confusion that resulted the

supporters of the deposed king rose in arms against his successful

rival, and the country was subjected to the horrors of civil war.

Frederick I. found it necessary to abandon the violent propagation of

Lutheranism and to offer toleration to the Catholics.

On his death in 1533 the bishops of Denmark protested against the

succession of his son Christian III. (1533-51) who was a personal

friend of Luther, and who had already introduced Protestantism into

his own state of Holstein; but as the nobles, won over by promises of

a share in the spoliation of the Church, refused to make common cause

with the bishops, their protest was unheeded. Confident that he could

rely on the support of the nobles, the king gave secret instructions

to his officials that on a certain day named by him all the bishops of

Denmark should be arrested and lodged in prison. His orders were

carried out to the letter (1536), and so rejoiced was Luther by this

step that he hastened to send the king his warmest congratulations.

The bishops were offered release on condition that they should resign

their Sees and pledge themselves to offer no further opposition to the

religious change. To their shame be it said that only one of their

number, Ronnow, Bishop of Roskilde, refused to accept liberty on such

disgraceful terms, preferring to remain a prisoner until he was

released by death (1544). The priests who refused to accept the new

religion were driven from their parishes, and several monasteries and

convents were suppressed.

To complete the work of reform and to give the Church in Denmark a new

constitution Bugenhagen, a disciple of Luther, was invited to the

capital (1539). He began by crowning the king according to Lutheran

ritual, and by drawing up a form of ecclesiastical government that

placed full spiritual power in the hands of the civil ruler. As in

Germany, superintendents were appointed in room of the bishops who had

resigned. When the work of drawing up the new ecclesiastical

organisation had been finished it was submitted to and approved of by

the Diet held at Odensee in 1539. In another Diet held in 1546 the

Catholic Church in Denmark was completely overthrown, her possessions

were confiscated, her clergy were forbidden to remain in the country

under penalty of death, and all lay Catholics were declared incapable

of holding any office in the state or of transmitting their property

to their Catholic heirs. By those measures Catholicism was suppressed,

and victory was secured for the Lutheran party.

Norway, which was united with Denmark at this period, was forced into

submission to the new creed by the violence of the Danish kings, aided

as they were by the greedy nobles anxious to share in the plunder of

the Church. Similarly Iceland, which was subject to Denmark, was

separated from Rome, though at first the people offered the strongest

resistance to the reformers. The execution, however, of their bishop,

John Aresen, the example of Denmark and Norway, and the want of

capable religious leaders produced their effects, and in the end

Iceland was induced to accept the new religion (1551). For a

considerable time Catholicism retained its hold on a large percentage

of the people both in Norway and Iceland, but the severe measures

taken by the government to ensure the complete extirpation of the

Catholic hierarchy and priesthood led almost of necessity to the

triumph of Lutheranism.

By the Union of Kalmar (1397) Sweden, Norway, and Denmark were united

under the rule of the King of Denmark. The Union did not, however,

bring about peace. The people of Sweden disliked the rule of a

foreigner, and more than once they rose in rebellion against Denmark.

In the absence of a strong central authority the clergy and nobles

became the dominant factors in the state, especially as they took the

lead in the national agitations against King Erik and his successors.

As in most other countries at the time, the Church was exceedingly

wealthy, the bishoprics and abbacies being endowed very generously,

but unfortunately, as elsewhere, the progress of religion was not in

proportion to the worldly possessions of its ministers. Endowment had

destroyed the liberty of election so essential for good

administration, with the result that the bishops and other

ecclesiastical dignitaries were selected without much regard for their

qualifications as spiritual guides. Yet it must be said that in

general the administrators of the ecclesiastical property were not

hard task-masters when compared with their lay contemporaries, nor was

there anything like a strong popular feeling against the Church. Still

the immense wealth of the religious institutions, the prevalence of

abuses, and the failure of the clergy to instruct the people in the

real doctrines of their faith were a constant source of menace to the

Church in Sweden, and left it open to a crushing attack by a leader

who knew how to win the masses to his side by proclaiming himself the

champion of national independence and of religious reform.

In 1515 Sten Sture, the administrator of Sweden, supported by the

Bishop of Linkoping as leader of the popular party, made a gallant

attempt to rally his countrymen to shake off the Danish yoke.

Unfortunately for the success of his undertaking he soon found a

dangerous opponent in the person of Gustaf Trolle, Archbishop of

Upsala, the nominee and supporter of the King of Denmark. The

archbishop threw the whole weight of his influence into the scales of

Denmark, and partly owing to his opposition, partly owing to the want

of sufficient preparation the national uprising was crushed early in

1520. Christian II. was crowned King of Sweden by the Archbishop of

Upsala. He signified his elevation to the throne by a general massacre

of his opponents which lasted for two days, and during which many of

the best blood of Sweden were put to death (Nov. 1520). The archbishop

was rewarded for his services to Denmark by receiving an appointment

as region or administrator of Sweden. He and his party made loud boast

of their political victory, but had they been gifted with a little

prudence and zeal they would have found good reason to regret a

triumph that had been secured by committing the Church to the support

of a Danish tyrant against the wishes of the majority who favoured

national independence. Religion and patriotism were brought into

serious conflict, and, given only a capable leader who would know how

to conduct his campaign with skill, it was not difficult to foresee

the results of such a conflict.

As it happened, such a leader was at hand in the person of Gustaf

Eriksson, better known as Gustavus Vasa. His father had been put to

death in the massacre of Stockholm, and he himself when a youth had

been given as a hostage to the King of Denmark. He made his escape and

fled to Lubeck, where he was kindly received, and remained until an

opportunity arose for his return to Sweden. He placed himself

immediately at the head of the party willing to fight against Denmark,

called upon his countrymen to rally to his standard, and in a short

time succeeded in driving the Danish forces from Sweden. He was

proclaimed administrator of his country in 1521, and two years later a

national Diet assembled at Strengnas offered him the crown.

Such an offer was in exact accordance with his own wishes. But he had

no intention of becoming king of Sweden merely to remain a tool in the

hands of the spiritual and lay lords as the kings of Denmark had

remained. Determined in his own mind to make himself absolute ruler of

Sweden by crushing the bishops and barons, he recognised that Luther's

teaching, with which he was familiar owing to his stay at Lubeck, held

out good hopes for the success of such a project. The warm attachment

of the Bishop of Upsala for the Danish faction had weakened the

devotion of the people to the Church, and had prepared the way for the

change which Gustavus contemplated. Some of the Swedish ecclesiastics,

notably the brothers Olaf and Laurence Peterson, both students of

Wittenberg, the former a well-known preacher at Stockholm, the latter

a professor at Upsala, were strongly Lutheran in their tendencies, and

were ready to assist the king. Though in his letters to Rome and in

his public pronouncements Gustavus professed himself to be a sincere

son of the Church, anxious only to prevent at all costs the spread of

Lutheranism in his dominions, he was taking steps secretly to

encourage his Lutheran supporters and to rid himself of the bishops

and members of the religious orders from whom he feared serious

opposition. As was done elsewhere, he arranged for a public

disputation at which Olaf Peterson undertook to defend the main

principles advocated by Luther, but the results of the controversy

were not so satisfactory for his party as he had anticipated.

Gustavus now threw off the mask of hypocrisy, and came forward boldly

as the champion of the new religion. He removed those bishops who were

most outspoken in their opposition, banished the Dominicans who stood

loyal to Rome, and tried to force the clergy to accept the change.

Anxious to enrich his treasury by confiscating the wealth of the

Church he scattered broadcast Luther's pamphlet on the confiscation of

ecclesiastical property, and engaged the professors of the University

of Upsala to use their efforts to defend and popularise the views it

contained. A commission was appointed to make an inventory of the

goods of the bishops and religious institutions and to induce the

monasteries to make a voluntary surrender of their property. By means

of threats and promises the commissioners secured compliance with the

wishes of the king in some districts, though in others, as for example

in Upsala, the arrival of the commission led to scenes of the greatest

violence and commotion. More severe measures were necessary to overawe

the people, and Gustavus was not a man to hesitate at anything likely

to promote the success of his plans. Bishop Jakobson and some of the

clergy were arrested, and after having been treated with every species

of indignity were put to death (1527).

In this year, 1527, a national Diet was held at Vesteras principally

for the discussion of the religious difficulties that had arisen. Both

parties, the supporters of the old and of the new, mustered their

forces for a final conflict. Gustavus took the side of the so-called

reformers, and proposed the measures which he maintained were required

both in the interests of religion and of the public weal. The Catholic

party were slightly in the majority and refused to assent to these

proposals. Gustavus, though disappointed at the result, did not

despair. He announced to the Diet that in view of its refusal to agree

to his terms he could undertake no longer the government and defence

of the country. A measure such as this, calculated to lead to anarchy

and possibly to a new subjugation of the country by Denmark, was

regarded by both sides as a national disaster, and secured for the

king the support of the waverers. The masses of the people were

alarmed lest their opposition might lead to the restoration of Danish

tyranny, while the support of the nobles was secured by the

publication of a decree authorising them to resume possession of all

property handed over by their ancestors to religious institutions for

the last eighty years. The remainder of the possessions of the Church

were appropriated for the royal treasury. The king now issued a

proclamation in favour of the new religion, insisted on the adoption

of a liturgy in the vulgar tongue, and abolished clerical celibacy. At

the National Assembly of Orebro (1529) the Catholic religion was

abolished in favour of Lutheranism, and two years later Laurence

Peterson was appointed first Lutheran Archbishop of Upsala.

Though the Lutheran teaching had been accepted, great care was taken

not to shock the people by any violent change. Episcopal government of

the Church was retained; most of the Catholic ritual in regard to the

sacraments and the Mass was adopted in the new liturgy, and even in

some cases the pictures and statues were not removed from the

churches. But the revolution that Gustavus had most at heart was fully

accomplished. The authority of the Pope had been overthrown, and in

his place the king had been accepted as the head of the Swedish

Church. Nor did the Lutheran bishops find themselves in the enjoyment

of greater liberty and respect as a result of their treason to the

Church. Gustavus warned them that they must not carry themselves like

lords, and if they would attempt to wield the sword he would know how

to deal with them in a summary manner. Resenting such dictation and

tyranny they began to attack Gustavus in their sermons and to organise

plots for the overthrow of his government. The conspiracy was

discovered (1540). Olaf and Laurence Peterson, the two prominent

leaders of the reforming party, were condemned to death, but were

reprieved on the payment of a large fine. Laurence was, however,

removed from his position as Archbishop of Upsala. In the Diet of

Vesteras in 1544 the crown of Sweden was declared to be hereditary,

and was vested in the family and heirs of Gustavus. Thus the well-

considered policy of Gustavus was crowned with success. By means of

the Lutheran revolt he had changed the whole constitution of the

country, had made himself absolute master of Sweden, and had secured

the succession to the throne for his own family.

But he had not broken the power of his opponents so completely as to

bring peace to his country, nor, if credence be given to the

proclamations in which he bewailed the increase of evil under the plea

of evangelical freedom, did the reformed religion tend to the

elevation of public morals. On his death in 1560 he was succeeded by

his son Erik XIV. (1560-9). Hardly had the new king been proclaimed

than the principle of private judgment introduced by the reformers

began to produce its natural results. Calvinism, which was so opposed

to Lutheranism both in doctrine and in church government, found its

way into Sweden, and attracted the favourable notice of the king.

Regardless for the time being of the Catholic Church, which to all

appearances was dead in Sweden, the two parties, Lutherans and

Calvinists, struggled for supremacy. Erik was won over to the side of

the Calvinists, and measures were taken to overcome the Lutherans by

force, but the king had neither the capacity nor the energy of his

father. The plan miscarried; the Calvinists were defeated (1568), and

Erik was deposed and imprisoned.

His younger brother John succeeded to the throne under the title John

III. He was a man of considerable ability, and was by no means

satisfied with the new religion. His marriage with Catharine, sister

of Sigismund, King of Poland, herself a devoted Catholic, who

stipulated for liberty to practice her religion, helped to make him

more favourable to a Catholic revival. He set himself to study the

Scriptures and writings of the Holy Fathers under the guidance of

Catharine's chaplains, and convinced himself that he should return to

the Catholic Church and endeavour to rescue his country from the

condition of heresy into which it had fallen. He allowed the monks and

nuns who were still in Sweden to form communities again, and

endeavoured to win over the clergy by a series of ordinances couched

in a Catholic tone which he issued for their guidance. In 1571 he

induced the Archbishop of Upsala to publish a number of regulations

known as the /Agenda/, which both in ritual and doctrine indicated a

return to Rome, and he employed some Jesuit missionaries to explain

the misrepresentations of Catholic doctrine indulged in by the

Lutheran and Calvinist leaders. His greatest difficulty in bringing

about a reunion was the presence of Lutheran bishops, but fortunately

for him many of them were old men whose places were soon vacant by

death, to whose Sees he appointed those upon whom he could rely for

support. When he thought the time was ripe he summoned a National

Synod in 1574, where he delivered an address deploring the sad

condition to which religious dissensions had reduced the country. He

pointed out that such a state of affairs had been brought about by the

Reformation and could be remedied only by a return to the Church. The

address received from the clergy a much more favourable reception than

he had anticipated. As the Archbishopric of Upsala was vacant, he

secured the election of an archbishop, who have his adhesion to

seventeen articles of faith wholly satisfactory to Catholics, and who

allowed himself to be consecrated according to the Catholic ritual. He

promised also to use his influence to secure the adhesion of the other

bishops. In 1576 the king issued a new liturgy, /The Red Book of

Sweden/, which was adopted by the Diet in 1577, and accepted by a

large body of the clergy. Its principal was the king's brother, Karl,

Duke of Suthermanland, who for political reasons had constituted

himself head of the Lutheran party, and who refused to agree with the

Roman tendencies of the king on the ground that they were opposed to

the last wishes of Gustavus and to the laws of Sweden. A disputation

was arranged to take place at Upsala, where the Belgian Jesuit,

Laurence Nicolai, vindicated triumphantly against his Lutheran

opponents the Catholic teaching on the Church and the Mass. Copies of

the celebrated catechism of the Blessed Peter Canisius were circulated

throughout Sweden, and made an excellent impression on the people.

Encouraged by these hopeful signs, the king despatched an embassy to

Rome to arrange for the reconciliation of Sweden to the Church. The

royal commissioners were instructed to request, that owing to the

peculiar circumstances of the country, permission should be given for

Communion under both kinds, for the celebration of the Mass in the

Swedish language, and for the abrogation of the law of celibacy at

least in regard to the clergy who were already married. Gregory XIII.,

deeply moved by the king's offer of a reunion, sent the Jesuit,

Anthony Possevin, as his legate to discuss the terms. John set an

example himself by abjuring publicly his errors and by announcing his

submission to the Church (1578).

A commission was appointed at Rome to discuss the concessions which

the king demanded, and unfortunately the decision was regarded in

Sweden as unfavourable. A warm controversy, fomented and encouraged by

the enemies of reunion, broke out between the opponents and supporters

of the new liturgy. Duke Karl, who had now become the hope of the

Lutheran party, did everything he could to stir up strife, while at

the same time Rome refused to accept the terms proposed by the king.

Indignant at what he considered the unreasonable attitude of the Roman

authorities, John began to lose his enthusiasm for his religious

policy, and after the death of his wife who was unwavering in her

devotion to her religion, there was no longer much hope that Sweden

was to be won from heresy (1584). The king married another who was

strongly Lutheran in her sympathies, and who used her influence over

him to secure the expulsion of the Jesuits. Though John III. took no

further steps to bring about reunion he could not be induced to

withdraw the liturgy, the use of which he insisted upon till his death

in 1592.

His son Sigismund III. should have succeeded. He was an ardent

Catholic as his mother had been, but as he had been elected King of

Poland (1586) he was absent from Sweden when the throne became vacant

by the death of his father. Duke Karl and his friends did not fail to

take advantage of his absence. When the Synod met the senators

demanded that Sigismund should accept the Augsburg Confession as a

condition for his election to the throne. To this Sigismund sent the

only reply that a good Catholic and an honest man could send, namely,

a blunt refusal. His uncle, Duke Karl, the acting regent of Sweden,

took steps to seduce the Swedish people from their allegiance to their

lawful king, and to prepare the way for his own accession. He

proclaimed himself the protector of Lutheranism and endeavoured to win

over the bishops to his side. In a national Assembly held at Upsala

(The "Upsala-mote" 1593) after a very violent address from the regent

against the Catholic Church, the bishops confessed that they had

blundered in accepting the liturgy of John III., and the Assembly

declared itself strongly in favour of the Augsburg Confession.

When, therefore, Sigismund returned to claim the throne he found that

Lutheranism was entrenched safely once more, and that even the most

moderate of the bishops appointed by his father must be reckoned with

as opponents. The clergy united with Duke Karl in stirring up the

people against him. In these conditions he was forced to abandon his

projects of reform, and to entrust his uncle with the administration

of Sweden when he himself was obliged to return to Poland. While

Sigismund was engaged in Poland, the regent conducted a most skilful

campaign, nominally on behalf of Protestantism, but in reality to

secure the deposition of Sigismund and his own election to the throne.

In the Diet of Suderkoping (1595) Sigismund was condemned for having

bestowed appointments on Catholics and for having tolerated the

Catholic religion in his kingdom of Sweden, and it was ordered that

all who professed the doctrines of Rome should abandon their errors

within six months under pain of expulsion from the country. The

Archbishop of Upsala made a visitation of the churches, during which

he ordered that all those who absented themselves from the Lutheran

service should be flogged in his presence, that the pictures, statues,

and reliquaries should be destroyed, and that the liturgy introduced

by John III. should be abolished. The greatest violence was used

towards the supporters of King Sigismund, most of whom were either

Catholic or at least favourably inclined towards Catholicism.

Enraged by a decree that no edict of the king should have any binding

force unless confirmed by the Swedish Diet, and driven to desperation

by the tyranny and oppression of the regent, some of Sigismund's

followers raised the standard on behalf of their king, and Sigismund

returned to Sweden with an army of five thousand men. He found himself

opposed by the forces of the regent against whom he was at first

successful, but in his treatment of his uncle and his rebel followers

he showed himself far too forgiving. In return for his kindness,

having strengthened themselves by a large army they forced him to

submit to the decision of a national Assembly to be held at Jonkoping

(1599). At this meeting Duke Karl accused the king of endeavouring to

plunge Sweden once more into the errors from which it had been rescued

by the reformers. In May of the same year a resolution was passed

declaring that the king had forfeited the allegiance of his subjects

unless he yielded to their demands, and more especially unless he

handed over his son and heir to be reared by the regent as a

Protestant. Many of his supporters, including nine members of the

Council of State, were put to death. Finally in 1604 Sigismund was

formally deposed, and the crown was bestowed on his uncle, Duke Karl,

who became king under the title of Charles IX. Protestantism had

triumphed at last in Sweden, but even its strongest supporters would

hardly like to maintain that the issue was decided on religious

grounds, or that the means adopted by Charles IX. to secure the

victory were worthy of the apostle of a new religion.

----------

[1] A Franciscan. He was the author of the /Confutatio Lutheranismi

Danici/, edited and published 1902.