TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES:
—Obvious print and punctuation errors were corrected.
—Whereas adequate character is unavalaible, superscripts are rendered
as word^[sup].
LUTHER
NIHIL OBSTAT
C. SCHUT, S.T.D.,
_Censor Deputatus._
IMPRIMATUR
EDM. CAN. SURMONT,
_Vic. Gen._
_Westmonasterii, die 10 Julii, 1913._
LUTHER
BY
HARTMANN GRISAR, S.J.
PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF INNSBRUCK
AUTHORISED TRANSLATION FROM THE GERMAN BY
E. M. LAMOND
EDITED BY
LUIGI CAPPADELTA
VOLUME IV
LONDON
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRÜBNER & CO., LTD.
BROADWAY HOUSE, 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.C.
1915
A FEW PRESS OPINIONS OF VOLUMES I-III.
“His most elaborate and systematic biography ... is not merely a book
to be reckoned with; it is one with which we cannot dispense, if only
for its minute examination of Luther’s theological writings.”--_The
Athenæum_ (Vol. I).
“The second volume of Dr. Grisar’s ‘Life of Luther’ is fully as
interesting as the first. There is the same minuteness of criticism
and the same width of survey.” _The Athenæum_ (Vol. II).
“Its interest increases. As we see the great Reformer in the thick of
his work, and the heyday of his life, the absorbing attraction of his
personality takes hold of us more and more strongly. His stupendous
force, his amazing vitality, his superhuman interest in life,
impress themselves upon us with redoubled effect. We find him the
most multiform, the most paradoxical of men.... The present volume,
which is admirably translated, deals rather with the moral, social,
and personal side of Luther’s career than with his theology.”--_The
Athenæum_ (Vol. III).
“There is no room for any sort of question as to the welcome ready
among English-speaking Roman Catholics for this admirably made
translation of the first volume of the German monograph by Professor
Grisar on the protagonist of the Reformation in Europe.... The
book is so studiously scientific, so careful to base its teaching
upon documents, and so determined to eschew controversies that are
only theological, that it cannot but deeply interest Protestant
readers.”--_The Scotsman._
“Father Grisar has gained a high reputation in this country through
the translation of his monumental work on the History of Rome and the
Popes in the Middle Ages, and this first instalment of his ‘Life of
Luther’ bears fresh witness to his unwearied industry, wide learning,
and scrupulous anxiety to be impartial in his judgments as well as
absolutely accurate in matters of fact.”--_Glasgow Herald._
“This ‘Life of Luther’ is bound to become standard ... a model of
every literary, critical, and scholarly virtue.”--_The Month._
“Like its two predecessors, Volume III excels in the minute analysis
not merely of Luther’s actions, but also of his writings; indeed,
this feature is the outstanding merit of the author’s patient
labours.”--_The Irish Times._
“This third volume of Father Grisar’s monumental ‘Life’ is full of
interest for the theologian. And not less for the psychologist; for
here more than ever the author allows himself to probe into the
mind and motives and understanding of Luther, so as to get at the
significance of his development.”--_The Tablet._
CONTENTS
CHAPTER XXI. PRINCELY MARRIAGES _pages_ 3-79
1. LUTHER AND HENRY VIII OF ENGLAND. BIGAMY INSTEAD OF DIVORCE.
The case of Henry VIII; Robert Barnes is despatched to
Wittenberg; Luther proposes bigamy as a safer expedient
than divorce (1531); Melanchthon’s advice: _Tutissimum
est regi_ to take a second spouse. The conduct of
Pope Clement VII. The Protestant Princes of Germany
endeavour to secure the good-will of the King of
England; final collapse of the negotiations; Luther’s
later allusions to Henry VIII _pages_ 3-13
2. THE BIGAMY OF PHILIP OF HESSE.
The question put by Philip to Luther in 1526; Philip
well informed as to Luther’s views. Bucer deputed by
the Landgrave to secure the sanction of Wittenberg for
his projected bigamy; Bucer’s mission crowned with
success; Philip weds Margaret von der Sale; Luther’s
kindly offices rewarded by a cask of wine; the bigamy
becomes known at the Court of Dresden; the Landgrave is
incensed by Bucer’s proposal that he should deny having
committed bigamy. Luther endeavours to retire behind
the plea that his permission was a “dispensation,”
a piece of advice given “in confession,” and,
accordingly, not to be alleged in public. Some
interesting letters of Luther to his sovereign and
to Hesse; his private utterances on the subject
recorded in the Table-Talk. “_Si queam mutare!_” The
Eisenach Conference; Luther counsels the Landgrave to
tell a good, lusty lie; the Landgrave’s annoyance.
Melanchthon’s worries; an expurgated letter of his
on Landgrave Philip. Duke Henry of Brunswick enters
the field against Luther and the Landgrave; Luther’s
stinging reply: “Wider Hans Worst.” Johann Lening’s
“Dialogue”; how it was regarded by Luther, Menius and
the Swiss theologians. The Hessian bigamy is hushed
up. The Bigamy judged by Protestant opinion; Luther’s
consent to some extent extorted under pressure _pages_ 13-79
CHAPTER XXII. LUTHER AND LYING _pages_ 80-178
1. A BATTERY OF ASSERTIONS.
Luther’s conduct in the matter of the Bigamy an excuse
for the present chapter. His dishonest assurances
in his letters to Leo X, to Bishop Scultetus his
Ordinary, and to the Emperor Charles V (1518-1520);
his real feelings at that time as shown in a letter to
Spalatin; Luther’s later parody of Tetzel’s teaching;
his insinuation that it was the Emperor’s intention
to violate the safe-conduct granted; he calls into
question the authenticity of the Papal Bull against
him, whilst all the time knowing it to be genuine; he
advises _ordinandi_ to promise celibacy with a mental
reservation; his distortion of St. Bernard’s “_perdite
vixi_”; his allusion to the case of Conradin, “slain
by Pope Clement IV,” and to the spurious letter of
St. Ulrich on the babies’ heads found in a convent
pond at Rome. His allegation that his “Artickel” had
been subscribed to at Schmalkalden; his unfairness
to Erasmus and Duke George; his statement, that, for
a monk to leave his cell without his scapular, was
accounted a mortal sin, and that, in Catholicism,
people expected to be saved simply by works; his
advocacy of the “Gospel-proviso”; his advice to the
Bishop of Samland to make a show of hesitation in
forsaking Catholicism _pages_ 80-99
2. OPINIONS OF CONTEMPORARIES IN EITHER CAMP.
Bucer, Münzer, J. Agricola, Erasmus, Duke George, etc.,
on Luther’s disregard for truth _pages_ 99-102
3. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEM. SELF-SUGGESTION AND SCRIPTURAL GROUNDS OF
EXCUSE.
The palpable untruth of certain statements which
Luther never tires of repeating. How to explain his
putting forward as true what was so manifestly false:
The large place occupied by the jocular element; his
tendency to extravagance of language; he comes, by dint
of repetition, to persuade himself of the truth of
his charges. The new theology of mendacity: Luther’s
earlier views consistent with the Church’s; study of
the Old Testament leads him to the theory that only
such untruths as injure our neighbour are real lies;
influence of his teaching on the theologians of his
circle: Melanchthon, Bucer, Bugenhagen, Capito, etc. _pages_ 102-116
4. SOME LEADING SLANDERS ON THE MEDIÆVAL CHURCH HISTORICALLY
CONSIDERED.
Luther’s distortions of the actual state of things
before his coming; admissions of modern scholars. The
olden Catholics’ supposed “holiness-by-works”; on the
relations between creature and Creator; the Lamb of
God; the Eucharistic sacrifice; “personal religion”;
Luther’s plea that he revived respect for the secular
calling; the olden teaching concerning perfection _pages_ 116-131
5. WAS LUTHER THE LIBERATOR OF WOMANKIND FROM “MEDIÆVAL DEGRADATION”?
Luther’s claim to be the saviour of woman and
matrimony; what he says of the Pope’s treatment of
marriage; marriage “a state of sin”; witnesses to the
contrary: Devotional and Liturgical books; Luther’s own
attachment in his younger days to St. Anne. Various
statements of Luther’s to the advantage or otherwise
of woman and the married life; his alteration of
outlook during the controversy on the vow of Chastity;
the natural impulse, and the honour of marriage;
expressions ill-befitting one who aspired to deliver
womankind; practical consequences of the new view
of woman: Matrimonial impediments and divorce; Duke
George on the saying “If the wife refuse then let the
maid come.” Respect for the female sex in Luther’s
conversations. The new matrimonial conditions and the
slandered opponents; the actual state of things in
Late Mediæval times as vouched for in the records. Two
concluding pictures towards the history of woman: A
preacher’s matrimonial trials; the letters of Hasenberg
and von der Heyden and the “New-Zeittung” and “Newe
Fabel” which they called forth _pages_ 131-178
CHAPTER XXIII. FRESH CONTROVERSIES WITH ERASMUS
(1534, 1536) AND DUKE GEORGE († 1539) _pages_ 179-193
1. LUTHER AND ERASMUS AGAIN.
Their relations since 1525; the “_Hyperaspistes_”;
Luther’s attack in 1534 and Erasmus’s “_Purgatio_”;
Luther on the end of Erasmus _pages_ 179-186
2. LUTHER ON GEORGE OF SAXONY AND GEORGE ON LUTHER.
Luther exhorts the Duke to turn Protestant; the Duke’s
answer; how George had to suffer at Luther’s hands;
his true character utterly at variance with Luther’s
picture; the Duke repays Luther in his own coin _pages_ 187-193
CHAPTER XXIV. MORAL CONDITIONS ACCOMPANYING THE
REFORMATION. PRINCELY PATRONS _pages_ 194-227
1. REPORTS FROM VARIOUS LUTHERAN DISTRICTS.
The Duchy of Saxony; the Electorate of Brandenburg; the
Duchy of Prussia; Würtemberg; Duke Ulrich and Luther;
Blaurer and Schnepf; the sad state of things revealed;
the Landgraviate of Hesse; results of Landgrave
Philip’s bad example _pages_ 194-202
2. AT THE CENTRE OF THE NEW FAITH.
The Electorate of Saxony; the morals of Elector Johann
Frederick; the character of his predecessors; Luther’s
relations with them; the records of the Visitations;
Luther compares himself to Lot dwelling in Sodom _pages_ 202-210
3. LUTHER’S ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN THE DECLINE IN MORALS.
His candid admissions; his varied explanations of the
state of things: The malice of Satan; the apparent
increase of evil due to the bright light of the
Evangel; his seeming lack of success the best proof of
the truth of his mission; Luther on Wittenberg and its
doings _pages_ 210-218
4. A MALADY OF THE AGE: DOUBTS AND MELANCHOLY.
The habitual depression in which zealous promoters
of the Evangel lived; Melanchthon, Spalatin, Jonas,
Camerarius, etc.; the increase in the number of
suicides; expectation of the end of all; the sad case
of Johann Schlaginhaufen _pages_ 218-227
CHAPTER XXV. IN THE NARROWER CIRCLE OF THE PROFESSION
AND FAMILY. LUTHER’S BETTER FEATURES _pages_ 228-283
1. THE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR, THE PREACHER, THE PASTOR.
Relations with the Wittenberg students; esteem in
which Luther was held by them; he warns them against
consorting with evil women. The Preacher and Catechist;
the force and practical bearing of Luther’s sermons;
his instructions to others how best to preach; his
discourses at home; the notes of his sermons; what he
says of Our Lady when preaching on the Magnificat; his
staunch fidelity to the great doctrines of Christianity
and his attachment to Holy Scripture; the fine
qualities of his German as evinced in his translations
and elsewhere. The spiritual guide; his concern for
discipline; his circular letters; his strictures on
certain legends; his efforts to re-introduce a new form
of confession and to further the cause of Church-music _pages_ 228-257
2. EMOTIONAL CHARACTER AND INTELLECTUAL GIFTS.
The place of feeling in Luther’s life; an interview
with Cochlæus; his powerful fancy and still more
powerful will; his huge capacity for work _pages_ 257-261
3. INTERCOURSE WITH FRIENDS. THE INTERIOR OF THE FORMER AUGUSTINIAN
MONASTERY.
The better side of the Table-Talk; his friends and
pupils on his kindly ways; his disinterestedness,
love of simplicity, his generosity, his courage when
plague threatened; his occasional belittling of his
own powers; his prayer and his trust in God; his lack
of any real organising talent. Luther’s family life;
his allusions to his wife; his care for his children _pages_ 261-283
CHAPTER XXVI. LUTHER’S MODE OF CONTROVERSY A COUNTERPART
OF HIS SOUL _pages_ 284-350
1. LUTHER’S ANGER. HIS ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE JEWS, THE LAWYERS AND THE
PRINCES.
Sir Thomas More on Luther’s language. Three writings
launched against the Jews; the place of the pig and
donkey in Luther’s stable of metaphor. Luther’s animus
against the Lawyers due to their attachment to the
matrimonial legislation as then established. His attack
on the Princes in his “Von welltlicher Uberkeytt”; his
ire against Albert, Elector of Mayence; his list of the
archbishop’s relics; how the Duke of Brunswick fared _pages_ 284-295
2. LUTHER’S EXCUSE: “WE MUST CURSE THE POPE AND HIS KINGDOM.”
The Pope is the “Beast” and the “Dragon”; Luther’s
language in the Table-Talk, and in the Disputation
in 1539; on the Papal Bearwolf (Werewolf); the Papal
Antichrist; Luther’s wrath against all who dared to
stand up for the Pope; how the Pope deserves to be
addressed _pages_ 295-305
3. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF LUTHER’S ABUSIVE LANGUAGE.
His ungovernable temper; reality of certain misuses
against which he thundered; his vexation with those
who, like Carlstadt and Zwingli, seemed to be robbing
him of the credit which was his due; his tendency to be
carried away by the power of his own tongue; his need
for the stimulus and outlet provided by vituperation;
his ill-humour at the smallness of the moral results
obtained; abuse serves to repress his own troubles of
conscience. Connection of Luther’s abusiveness with his
mystic persuasion of his special call; all his anger
really directed against the devil; it is no insult “to
call a turnip a turnip.” The unpleasant seasoning of
Luther’s abuse; some samples; was language of so coarse
a character at all usual at that time? Indignation of
the Swiss _pages_ 306-326
4. LUTHER ON HIS OWN GREATNESS AND SUPERIORITY TO CRITICISM. THE ART OF
“RHETORIC.”
His occasional professions of humility; a number of
typical sayings of Luther referring to his peculiar
standing and his achievements: The predictions
fulfilled in him; the poverty of the exegesis of the
Fathers; his reforms more far-reaching than those
of any Councils; his being alone no better argument
against him than against the Old-Testament Prophets,
who also stood up against the whole world. Harnack’s
dilemma: Was Luther a megalomaniac, or were his
achievements commensurate with his claims? His habit
of giving free rein to his “rhetoric”; its tendency to
extravagance, unseemliness, and, occasionally, to rank
blasphemy; “papist and donkey is one and the same, _sic
volo, sic iubeo_”; his rhetoric a true mirror of his
inward state; his changeableness; his high opinion of
himself to some extent fostered by the adulation of his
friends _pages_ 327-350
CHAPTER XXVII. VOICES FROM THE CAMP OF THE DEFENDERS OF
THE CHURCH _pages_ 351-386
1. LUTHER’S “DEMONIACAL” STORMING. A MAN “POSSESSED.”
Hostile contemporaries ascribe Luther’s ravings to the
devil, others actually hold him to be beset by the
devil; references to his eyes; the idle tale of his
having been begotten of the devil _pages_ 351-359
2. VOICES OF CONVERTS.
Their opinion of Luther and Luther’s opinion of them;
Egranus, Zasius, Wicel and Amerbach _pages_ 360-365
3. LAMENTATIONS OVER THE WOUNDS OF THE CHURCH AND OVER HER
PERSECUTIONS.
The Preface of Cochlæus to his “_Commentaria de actis.
etc., M. L._”; the sermons of Wild, the Mayence
Franciscan, and the complaints laid before the Diet, at
Ratisbon (1541) and Worms (1545) _pages_ 365-369
4. THE LITERARY OPPOSITION.
Was Luther really dragged into controversy by the
tactics of his opponents? A retrospect: The character
of the writings of Tetzel and Prierias; Emser; Eck
and his “Obelisks”; his “_Enchiridion_”; Cochlæus’s
“_Septiceps Lutherus_”; other champions of the Church _pages_ 370-386
CHAPTER XXVIII. THE NEW DOGMAS IN AN HISTORICAL AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL LIGHT _pages_ 387-527
1. THE BIBLE TEXT AND THE SPIRIT AS THE “TRUE TESTS OF DOCTRINE.”
Liberty for the examination of Scripture and Luther’s
autonomy; Luther gradually reaches the standpoint that
the Bible is the only judge in matters of faith; those
only must be listened to who teach “_purum verbum
Dei_.” Experience given by the Spirit; divergent
utterances regarding the perspicuity of Holy Writ;
the Bible a “heresy-book.” Luther not in favour of
verbal inspiration; mistakes of the sacred writers;
which books are canonical, and why? The discord which
followed on Luther’s principle of relying on private
judgment and the “_influxus spiritus_”; he reverts to
the “outward Word” in his controversy with Zwingli and
corroborates it by tradition. What authority, apart
from the Church’s, can lay doubts to rest? The object
of faith: Many articles, or only one? Protestants on
Luther’s self-contradictions; the end of Luther’s
“formal principle” _pages_ 387-420
2. LUTHER AS A BIBLE EXPOSITOR.
Some characteristic of Luther’s exegesis; his respect
for the literal sense; all his reading of the Bible
coloured by his theory of Justification; his exegesis
in the light of his early development _pages_ 420-431
3. THE SOLA FIDES. JUSTIFICATION AND ASSURANCE OF SALVATION.
Connection between the “material principle”
(justification) and the “formal principle” (Scripture
as the only rule) of Luther’s theology, and between
the “material principle” and the theory of the
worthlessness of works and of God’s being the sole real
agent; the theory at variance with the teaching of St.
Augustine. The need of struggling to feel entirely
certain of our personal justification; Luther’s own
failure to come up to his standard; present-day
Protestants on Luther’s main Article “on which the
Church stands or falls” _pages_ 431-449
4. GOOD WORKS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE.
The Church’s teaching; origin of Luther’s new ideas to
be sought in his early dislike for the “Little Saints”
and their doings; the perils of his theory; on the fear
of God as a motive for action. Augustine summoned as a
witness on Luther’s behalf; the witness discarded by
Melanchthon and the Pomeranians; Augustine’s real view;
the new doctrine judged by 16th-century Protestants;
Luther’s utterances in favour of good works; what
charity meant in the Middle Ages; Luther on the
hospitals of Florence _pages_ 449-481
5. OTHER INNOVATIONS IN RELIGIOUS DOCTRINE.
Luther no systematic theologian. The _regula fidei_;
Harnack on Luther’s inconsequence; Paulsen on “Pope
Luther.” Luther’s teaching on the sacraments; on
infant-baptism and the faith it requires; liberal
Protestants appeal to his principles against the
“magical” theory of Baptism; penance an extension of
baptism. Luther’s teaching on the Supper; Communion
merely a means of fortifying faith; Impanation versus
Transubstantiation; theory of the omnipresence of
Christ’s body; Luther’s stead-fastness in his belief
in the Real Presence. Attitude towards the invocation
of the Saints, particularly of the Blessed Virgin. His
views on Purgatory _pages_ 482-506
6. LUTHER’S ATTACK ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
The place of this sacrifice in the Church previous
to Luther’s time; Luther’s first attacks; the Mass
suppressed at Wittenberg; his “Von dem Grewel der
Stillmesse”; Eck’s reply; Luther undertakes to prove
that the priests’ attachment to the Mass is based
merely on pecuniary grounds; connection between his
attack on the Mass and his theory as a whole. His work
on the “Winkle-Mass”; his dispute with the devil; his
defence of his work on the “Winkle-Mass”; Cochlæus
replies; Luther’s references to the Mass in his
familiar talks, and in his Schmalkalden “Artickel”; a
profession of faith in the Real Presence _pages_ 506-527
VOL. IV.
THE REFORMER (II)
LUTHER
CHAPTER XXI
PRINCELY MARRIAGES
1. Luther and Henry VIII of England. Bigamy instead of Divorce
IN King Henry the Eighth’s celebrated matrimonial controversy the Roman
See by its final decision was energetically to vindicate the cause
of justice, in spite of the fear that this might lead to the loss of
England to Catholicism. The considered judgment was clear and definite:
Rather than countenance the King’s divorce from Queen Catherine, or
admit bigamy as lawful, the Roman Church was prepared to see the
falling away of the King and larger portion of the realm.[1]
In the summer, 1531, Luther was drawn into the controversy raging round
the King’s marriage, by an agent of King Henry’s. Robert Barnes, an
English Doctor of Divinity who had apostatised from the Church and was
residing at Wittenberg, requested of Luther, probably at the King’s
instigation, an opinion regarding the lawfulness of his sovereign’s
divorce.
To Luther it was clear enough that there was no possibility of
questioning the validity of Catherine’s marriage. It rightly appeared
to him impossible that the Papal dispensation, by virtue of which
Catherine of Aragon had married the King after having been the spouse
of his deceased brother, should be represented as sufficient ground for
a divorce. This view he expressed with praiseworthy frankness in the
written answer he gave Barnes.[2]
At the same time, however, Luther pointed out to the King a loophole
by which he might be able to succeed in obtaining the object of his
desire; by this concession, unfortunately, he branded his action as
a pandering to the passions of an adulterous King. At the conclusion
of his memorandum to Barnes he has the following: “Should the Queen
be unable to prevent the divorce, she must accept the great evil and
most insulting injustice as a cross, but not in any way acquiesce in
it or consent to it. Better were it for her to allow the King to wed
another Queen, after the example of the Patriarchs, who, in the ages
previous to the law, had many wives; but she must not consent to being
excluded from her conjugal rights or to forfeiting the title of Queen
of England.”[3]
It has been already pointed out that Luther, in consequence of his
one-sided study of the Old Testament, had accustomed himself more
and more to regard bigamy as something lawful.[4] That, however, he
had so far ever given his formal consent to it in any particular
instance there is no proof. In the case of Henry VIII, Luther felt
less restraint than usual. His plain hint at bigamy as a way out of
the difficulty was intended as a counsel (“_suasimus_”). Hence we can
understand why he was anxious that his opinion should not be made
too public.[5] When, in the same year (1531), he forwarded to the
Landgrave of Hesse what purported to be a copy of the memorandum, the
incriminating passage was carefully omitted.[6]
Melanchthon, too, had intervened in the affair, and had gone
considerably further than Luther in recommending recourse to bigamy
and in answering possible objections to polygamy.
In a memorandum of Aug. 23, Melanchthon declared that the King was
entirely justified in seeking to obtain the male heirs with whom
Catherine had failed to present him; this was demanded by the interests
of the State. He endeavours to show that polygamy is not forbidden by
Divine law; in order to avoid scandal it was, however, desirable that
the King “should request the Pope to sanction his bigamy, permission
being granted readily enough at Rome.” Should the Pope refuse to give
the dispensation, then the King was simply and of his own authority to
have recourse to bigamy, because in that case the Pope was not doing
his duty, for he was “bound in charity to grant this dispensation.”[7]
“Although I should be loath to allow polygamy generally, yet, in the
present case, on account of the great advantage to the kingdom and
perhaps to the King’s conscience, I would say: The King may, with a
good conscience (‘_tutissimum est regi_’), take a second wife while
retaining the first, because it is certain that polygamy is not
forbidden by the Divine law, nor is it so very unusual.” Melanchthon’s
ruthless manner of proceeding undoubtedly had a great influence on the
other Wittenbergers, even though it cannot be maintained, as has been
done, that he, and not Luther, was the originator of the whole theory;
there are too many clear and definite earlier statements of Luther’s
in favour of polygamy to disprove this. Still, it is true that the lax
opinion broached by Melanchthon in favour of the King of England played
a great part later in the matter of the bigamy of the Landgrave of
Hesse.[8]
In the same year, however, there appeared a work on matrimony by the
Lutheran theologian Johann Brenz in which, speaking generally and
without reference to this particular case, he expressed himself very
strongly against the lawfulness of polygamy. “The secular authorities,”
so Brenz insists, “must not allow any of their subjects to have two or
more wives,” they must, on the contrary, put into motion the “penalties
of the Imperial Laws” against polygamy; no pastor may “bless or ratify”
such marriages, but is bound to excommunicate the offenders.[9] Strange
to say, the work appeared with a Preface by Luther in which, however,
he neither praises nor blames this opinion.[10]
The Strasburg theologians, Bucer and Capito, as well as the Constance
preacher, Ambrosius Blaurer, also stood up for the lawfulness of
bigamy. When, however, this reached the ears of the Swiss theologians,
Œcolampadius, in a letter of Aug. 20, exclaimed: “They were inclined to
consent to the King’s bigamy! But far be it from us to hearken more to
Mohammed in this matter than to Christ!”[11]
In spite of the alluring hint thrown out at Wittenberg, the adulterous
King, as everyone knows, did not resort to bigamy. It was Henry the
Eighth’s wish to be rid of his wife, and, having had her removed, he
regarded himself as divorced. After the King had repudiated Catherine,
Luther told his friends: “The Universities [i.e. those which sided
with the English King] have declared that there must be a divorce. We,
however, and the University of Louvain, decided differently.... We
[viz. Luther and Melanchthon] advised the Englishman that it would be
better for him to take a concubine than to distract his country and
nation; yet in the end he put her away.”[12]
When Clement VII declared the first marriage to be valid and
indissoluble, and also refused to countenance any bigamy, Henry VIII
retorted by breaking with the Church of Rome, carrying his country
with him. For a while Clement had hesitated on the question of bigamy,
since, in view of Cardinal Cajetan’s opinion to the contrary, he
found it difficult to convince himself that a dispensation could not
be given, and because he was personally inclined to be indulgent
and friendly; finally, however, he gave Bennet, the English envoy,
clearly to understand that the dispensation was not in his power to
grant.[13] That he himself was not sufficiently versed in Canon Law,
the Pope repeatedly admitted. “It will never be possible to allege the
attitude of Clement VII as any excuse for the Hessian affair” (Ehses).
It is equally impossible to trace the suggestion of bigamy back to
the opinions prevailing in mediæval Catholicism.[14] No mediæval
pope or confessor can be instanced who sanctioned bigamy, while
there are numbers of theologians who deny the Pope’s power to grant
such dispensations; many even describe this negative opinion as the
“_sententia communis_.”[15]
Of Cardinal Cajetan, the only theologian of note on the opposite
side (see above, vol. iii., p. 261), W. Köhler remarks, alluding
particularly to the recent researches of N. Paulus: “It never
entered Cardinal Cajetan’s head to deny that the ecclesiastical
law categorically forbids polygamy.”[16] Further: “Like Paulus, we
may unhesitatingly admit that, _in this case_, it would have been
better for Luther had he had behind him the guiding authority of the
Church.”[17]
* * * * *
Henry VIII, as was only natural, sought to make the best use of the
friendship of the Wittenberg professors and Princes of the Schmalkalden
League, against Rome and the Emperor. He despatched an embassy, though
his overtures were not as successful as he might have wished.
We may describe briefly the facts of the case.
The Schmalkalden Leaguers, from the very inception of the League, had
been seeking the support both of England and of France. In 1535 they
made a determined effort to bring about closer relations with Henry
VIII, and, at the Schmalkalden meeting, the latter made it known that
he was not unwilling to “join the Christian League of the Electors and
Princes.” Hereupon he was offered the “title and standing of patron
and protector of the League.” The political negotiations nevertheless
miscarried, owing to the King’s excessive demands for the event of an
attack on his Kingdom.[18] The project of an alliance with the King
of Denmark, the Duke of Prussia, and with Saxony and Hesse, for the
purpose of a war against the Emperor, also came to nothing.
In these negotiations the Leaguers wanted first of all to reach an
agreement with Henry in the matter of religion, whereas the latter
insisted that political considerations should have the first place.
In the summer, 1535, Robert Barnes, the English plenipotentiary, was
raising great and exaggerated hopes in Luther’s breast of Henry’s
making common cause with the Wittenberg reformers.
Into his plans Luther entered with great zest, and consented to
Melanchthon’s being sent to England as his representative, for the
purpose of further negotiations. As we now know from a letter of
recommendation of Sep. 12, 1535, first printed in 1894, he recommended
Barnes to the Chancellor Brück for an interview with the Elector,
and requested permission for Melanchthon to undertake the journey to
England. Joyfully he points out that “now the King offers to accept
the Evangel, to join the League of our Princes and to allow our
‘_Apologia_’ entry into his Kingdom.” Such an opportunity must not
be allowed to slip, for “the Papists will be in high dudgeon.” Quite
possibly God may have something in view.[19]
In England hopes were entertained that these favourable offers would
induce a more friendly attitude towards the question of Henry’s
divorce. Concerning this Luther merely says in the letter cited: “In
the matter of the royal marriage, the ‘_suspensio_’ has already been
decided,” without going into any further particulars; he, however,
reserves the case to be dealt with by the theologians exclusively.
In August, 1535, Melanchthon had dedicated one of his writings to
the King of England, and had, on this occasion, lavished high praise
on him. It was probably about this time that the King sent the
presents to Wittenberg, to which Catherine Bora casually alludes in
the Table-Talk. “Philip received several gifts from the Englishman,
in all five hundred pieces of gold; for our own part we got at least
fifty.”[20]
Melanchthon took no offence at the cruel execution of Sir Thomas More
or at the other acts of violence already perpetrated by Henry VIII; on
the contrary, he gave his approval to the deeds of the royal tyrant,
and described it as a commandment of God “to use strong measures
against fanatical and godless men.”[21] The sanguinary action of the
English tyrant led Luther to express the wish, that a similar fate
might befall the heads of the Catholic Church at Rome. In the very
year of Bishop Fisher’s execution he wrote to Melanchthon: “It is easy
to lose our tempers when we see what traitors, thieves, robbers, nay
devils incarnate the Cardinals, the Popes and their Legates are. Alas
that there are not more Kings of England to put them to death!”[22] He
also refers to the alleged horrors practised by the Pope’s tools in
plundering the Church, and asks: “How can the Princes and Lords put up
with it?”
In Dec., 1535, a convention of the Schmalkalden Leaguers, at
Melanchthon’s instance, begged the envoys despatched by Henry, who
were on their way to Wittenberg, to induce their master to promote the
Confession of Augsburg--unless, indeed, as they added with unusual
consideration, “they and the King should be unanimous in thinking that
something in the Confession might be improved upon or made more in
accordance with the Word of God.”[23]
Just as in the advances made by the King to Wittenberg “the main
point had been to obtain a favourable pronouncement from the German
theologians in the matter of his divorce,” so too in consenting to
discuss the Confession of Augsburg he was actuated by the thought that
this would lead to a discussion on the Papal power and the question
of the divorce, i.e. to those points which the King had so much at
heart.[24]
On the arrival immediately after of the envoys at Wittenberg they
had the satisfaction of learning from Luther and his circle, that
the theologians had already changed their minds in the King’s favour
concerning the lawfulness of marriage with a brother’s widow. Owing to
the influence of Osiander, whom Henry VIII had won over to his side,
they now had come to regard such marriages as contrary to the natural
moral law. Hence Henry’s new marriage might be considered valid. They
were not, however, as yet ready to draw this last inference from the
invalidity of the previous marriage between the King and Catherine.[25]
Luther, however, became more and more convinced that marriage with a
brother’s widow was invalid; in 1542, for instance, on the assumption
of the invalidity of such a union, he unhesitatingly annulled the
marriage of a certain George Schud, as a “devilish abomination”
(“_abominatio diaboli_”).[26]
The spokesman of the English mission, Bishop Edward Fox, demanded from
Luther the admission that the King had separated from his first wife
“on very just grounds.” Luther, however, would only agree that he
had done so “on very many grounds.” He said later, in conversation,
that his insistence on this verbal nicety had cost him three hundred
Gulden, which he would have received from England in the event of
his compliance.[27] He cannot indeed be accused of having been,
from ecclesiastico-political motives, too hasty in gratifying the
King’s demands in the matter of the divorce. Yet, on the other hand,
it is not unlikely that the desire to pave the way for a practical
understanding was one of the motives for his mode of action. His
previous outspoken declarations against any dissolution of the Royal
marriage compelled him to assume an attitude not too strongly at
variance with his earlier opinion.
After the new marriage had taken place negotiations with England
continued, principally with the object of securing such acceptance
of the new doctrine as might lead to a politico-religious alliance
between that country and the Schmalkalden Leaguers. Luther, however,
stubbornly refused to concede anything to the King in the matter of
his chief doctrines, for instance, regarding Justification or the
rejection of the Mass.
The articles agreed upon at the lengthy conferences held during the
early months of 1536--and made public only in 1905 (see above, p. 9,
n. 4)--failed to satisfy the King, although they displayed a very
conciliatory spirit. Melanchthon outdid himself in his endeavour to
render the Wittenberg teaching acceptable. “It is true that the
main points of faith were not sacrificed,” remarks the discoverer
and editor of the articles in question, “but the desire to please
noticeable in their form, even in such questions as those concerning
the importance of good works, monasteries, etc., is nevertheless
surprising.”[28] Luther himself, in a letter of April 29, 1536, to
the Electoral Vice-Chancellor Burkhard, spoke of the concessions
made in these articles as the final limit; to go further would be
to concede to the King of England what had been refused to the Pope
and the Emperor; “at Augsburg [in 1530] we might have come to terms
more easily with the Pope and the Emperor, nay, perhaps we might do
so even now.” To enter into an ecclesiastico-political alliance with
the English would, he considers, be “dangerous,” for the Schmalkalden
Leaguers “were not all of one mind”; hence the (theological) articles
ought first to be accepted; the League was, however, a secular matter
and therefore he would beg the “beloved Lords and my Gracious Master
to consider” whether they could accept it without a previous agreement
being reached on the point of theology.[29]
Though Luther and the Princes set great store on the projected
alliance, on account of the increase of strength it would have brought
the German Evangelicals, yet their hopes were to be shattered, for the
articles above referred to did not find acceptance in England. Luther
was later on to declare that everything had come to nought because
King Henry wished to be head of the Protestants in Germany, which the
Elector of Saxony would not permit: “Let the devil take the great
Lords! This rogue (‘_is nebulo_’) wanted to be proclaimed head of our
religion, but to this the Elector would in no wise agree; we did not
even know what sort of belief he had.”[30] Probably the King demanded a
paramount influence in the Schmalkalden League, and the German Princes
were loath to be deprived of the direction of affairs.
After all hopes of an agreement had vanished Henry VIII made no secret
of his antipathy for the Lutheran teaching.
The quondam Defender of the Faith even allowed himself to be carried
away to acts of bloodshed. In 1540 he caused Luther’s friend, Robert
Barnes, the agent already referred to, to be burnt at the stake as a
heretic. Barnes had adopted the Lutheran doctrine of Justification. It
was not on this account alone, however, that he was obnoxious to the
King, but also because the latter had grown weary of Anne of Cleves,
whom Barnes and Thomas Cromwell, the King’s favourite, had given him
as a fourth consort, after Anne Boleyn and Jane Seymour. Cromwell,
though not favourably disposed to Lutheranism, was executed a few days
before. On April 9, 1536, Luther had written to Cromwell a very polite
letter, couched in general terms,[31] in answer to a courteous missive
from that statesman handed to him by Barnes. From Luther’s letter
we see that Cromwell “had been described to him in too favourable
a light,”[32] as though predisposed to the Lutheran doctrine or to
regard Luther as a divinely sent teacher. Luther deceived himself if
he fancied that Cromwell was ready to “work for the cause”; the latter
remained as unfriendly to Lutheranism proper as the King himself.
In the year of Barnes’s execution Melanchthon wrote the letter to Veit
Dietrich in which he expresses the pious wish, that God would send a
brave murderer to bring the King to the end he deserved.[33]
Luther, on his side, declared: “The devil himself rides astride this
King”; “I am glad that we have no part in his blasphemy.” He boasted,
so Luther says, of being head of the Church of England, a title which
no bishop, much less a King, had any right to, more particularly one
who with his crew had “vexed and tortured Christ and His Church.”[34]
In 1540 Luther spoke sarcastically of the King’s official title:
“Under Christ the supreme head on earth of the English Church,”[35]
remarking, that, in that case, “even the angels are excluded.”[36]
Of Melanchthon’s dedication of some of his books to the King, Luther
says, that this had been of little service. “In future I am not going
to dedicate any of my books to anyone. It brought Philip no good in
the case of the bishop [Albert of Mayence], of the Englishman, or of
the Hessian [the Landgrave Philip].”[37] Still more fierce became his
hatred and disappointment when he found the King consorting with his
sworn enemies, Duke George, and Albert, Elector of Mayence.[38] When
he heard the news of Barnes having been cast into prison, he said:
“This King wants to make himself God. He lays down articles of faith
and forbids marriage under pain of death, a thing which even the Pope
scrupled to do. I am something of a prophet and, as what I prophesy
comes true, I shall refrain from saying more.”[39]
Luther never expressed any regret regarding his readiness to humour the
King’s lusts or regarding his suggestion of bigamy.
The Landgrave Philip of Hesse, however, referred directly to the
proposal of bigamy made to the King of England, when he requested
Luther’s consent to his own project of taking a second wife. The
Landgrave had got to hear of the proposal in spite of the unlucky
passage having been struck out of the deed.
The history of the Hessian bigamy is an incident which throws a curious
light on Luther’s exceptional indulgence towards princely patrons of
the Evangel in Germany.
2. The Bigamy of Philip of Hesse
As early as 1526 Philip of Hesse, whose conduct was far from being
conspicuous for morality, had submitted to Luther the question whether
Christians were allowed to have more than one wife. The Wittenberg
Professor gave a reply tallying with his principles as already
described;[40] instead of pointing out clearly that such a thing was
divinely forbidden to all Christians, was not to be dispensed from by
any earthly authority, and that such extra marriages would be entirely
invalid, Luther refused to admit unconditionally the invalidity of such
unions. Such marriages, he stated, gave scandal to Christians, “for
without due cause and necessity even the old Patriarchs did not take
more than one wife”; it was incumbent that we should be able “to appeal
to the Word of God,” but no such Word existed in favour of polygamy,
“by which the same could be proved to be well pleasing to God in the
case of Christians”; “hence I am unable to recommend it, but would
rather dissuade from it, especially for Christians, unless some great
necessity existed, for instance were the wife to contract leprosy
or become otherwise unfit.”[41] It is not clear whether Philip was
interested in the matter for personal reasons, or simply because some
of his subjects were believers in polygamy.
Luther’s communication, far from diverting the Prince from his project,
could but serve to make him regard it as feasible; provided that the
“great necessity” obtained and that he had “the Word of God on his
side,” then the step could “not be prevented.” By dint of a judicious
interpretation of Scripture and with expert theological aid, the
obstacles might easily be removed.
The Hessian Prince also became acquainted with Luther’s statements on
bigamy in his Commentary on Genesis published in the following year.
To them the Landgrave Philip appealed expressly in 1540; the preacher
Anton Corvinus having suggested that he should deny having committed
bigamy, he replied indignantly: “Since you are so afraid of it, why do
you not suppress what Luther wrote more than ten years ago on Genesis;
did he and others not write publicly concerning bigamy: ‘Advise it I
do not, forbid it I cannot’? If you are allowed to write thus of it
publicly, you must expect that people will act up to your teaching.”[42]
The question became a pressing one for Luther, and began to cast a
shadow over his wayward and utterly untraditional interpretation of the
Bible, when, in 1539, the Landgrave resolved to take as an additional
wife, besides Christina the daughter of George of Saxony, who had now
grown distasteful to him, the more youthful Margeret von der Sale. From
Luther Margeret’s mother desired a favourable pronouncement, in order
to be able with a good conscience to give her consent to her daughter’s
wedding.
_Philip Seeks the Permission of Wittenberg._
Early in Nov., 1539, Gereon Sailer, an Augsburg physician famous for
his skill in handling venereal cases, who had treated the Landgrave
at Cassel, was sent by Philip to Bucer at Strasburg to instruct the
latter to bring the matter before the theologians of Wittenberg. Sailer
was a friend of the innovations, and Bucer was highly esteemed by the
Landgrave as a theologian and clever diplomatist.
Bucer was at first sorely troubled in conscience and hesitated to
undertake the commission; Sailer reported to the Landgrave that, on
hearing of the plan, he had been “quite horrified” and had objected
“the scandal such an innovation in a matter of so great importance and
difficulty might cause among the weak followers of the Evangel.”[43]
After thinking the matter over for three days Bucer, however, agreed to
visit the Landgrave on Nov. 16 and receive his directions. A copy of
the secret and elaborate instructions given him by Philip concerning
the appeal he was to make to Luther still exists in the handwriting of
Simon Bing, the Hessian Secretary, in the Marburg Archives together
with several old copies,[44] as also the original rough draft in
Philip’s own hand.[45] The envoy first betook himself to the meeting of
the Schmalkalden Leaguers, held at Arnstadt on Nov. 20, to confer upon
a new mission to be sent to England; on Dec. 4 he was at Weimar with
the Elector of Saxony and on the 9th he had reached Wittenberg.
The assenting answer given by Luther and Melanchthon bears the date
of the following day.[46] It is therefore quite true that the matter
was settled “in haste,” as indeed the text of the reply states. Bucer
doubtless did his utmost to prevent the theologians from having
recourse to subterfuge or delay.
The above-mentioned instructions contain a sad account of the “dire
necessity” which seemed to justify the second marriage: The Landgrave
would otherwise be unable to lead a moral life; he was urged on by
deep distress of conscience; not merely did he endure temptations of
the flesh beyond all measure, but, so runs his actual confession,
he was quite unable to refrain from “fornication, unchastity and
adultery.”[47] The confession dealt with matters which were notorious.
It also contains the admission, that he had not remained true to his
wife for long, in fact not for more than “three weeks”; on account
of his sense of sin he had “not been to the Sacrament.” As a matter
of fact he had abstained from Communion from 1526 to 1539, viz. for
thirteen years, and until his last attack of the venereal disease.
But were the scruples of conscience thus detailed to the Wittenbergers
at all real? Recently they have been characterised as the “outcome of a
bodily wreck.”
“I am unable to practise self-restraint,” Philip of Hesse had declared
on another occasion, “I am forced to commit fornication or worse,
with women.” His sister Elisabeth had already advised him to take a
concubine in place of so many prostitutes. In all probability Philip
would have abducted Margaret von der Sale had he not hoped to obtain
her in marriage through the intervention of her relations and with
Luther’s consent. A Protestant historian has recently pointed this out
when dealing with Philip’s alleged “distress of conscience.”[48]
Bucer was well able to paint in dismal hues the weakness of his
princely client; he pointed out, “how the Landgrave, owing to his
wife’s deficiencies, was unable to remain chaste; how he had previously
lived so and so, which was neither good nor Evangelical, especially
in one of the mainstays of the party.”[49] In that very year Philip
of Hesse had, as a matter of fact, been ailing from a certain malady
brought upon him by his excesses; he himself spoke of it as a “severe
attack of the French sickness [syphilis], which is the penalty of an
immoral life.”[50]
True to his instructions, Bucer went on to say that the Landgrave
had firmly “resolved” to make use against his unchastity--which he
neither could nor would refrain from with his present wife--of “such
means as God permitted and did not forbid,” viz. to wed a second wife.
The two Wittenbergers had perforce to listen while Bucer, as the
mouthpiece of the Landgrave, put forth as the grounds of his client’s
firm resolve the very proofs from Scripture which they themselves had
adduced in favour of polygamy; they were informed that, according to
the tenor of a memorandum, “both Luther and Philip had counselled
the King of England not to divorce his first wife, but rather to
take another.”[51] It was accordingly the Landgrave’s desire that
they should “give testimony” that his deed was not unjust, and that
they should “make known in the press and from the pulpit what was
the right course to pursue in such circumstances”; should they have
scruples about doing this for fear of scandal or evil consequences,
they were at least to give a declaration in writing: “That were I to
do it secretly, yet I should not offend God, but that they regard it
as a real marriage, and would meanwhile devise ways and means whereby
the matter might be brought openly before the world”; otherwise, the
instructions proceeded, the “wench” whom the Prince was about to take
to himself might complain of being looked upon as an improper person;
as “nothing can ever be kept secret,” “great scandal” would indeed
arise were not the true state of the case known. Besides, he fully
intended to retain his present wife and to consider her as a rightful
spouse, and her children alone were to be the “lawful princes of the
land”; nor would he ask for any more wives beyond this second one. The
Landgrave even piously reminds Luther and Melanchthon “not to heed
overmuch the opinion of the world, and human respect, but to look to
God and what He has commanded or forbidden, bound or loosened”; he,
for his part, was determined not to “remain any longer in the bonds of
the devil.”
Philip was careful also to remind them that, if, after putting
into execution his project, he was able to “live and die with a
good conscience,” he would be “all the more free to fight for the
Evangelical cause as befitted a Christian”; “whatever they [Luther and
Melanchthon] shall tell me is right and Christian--whether it refers
to monastic property or to other matters--that they will find me ready
to carry out at their behest.” On the other hand, as an urgent motive
for giving their consent to his plan, he broadly hinted, that, “should
he not get any help from them” he would, “by means of an intermediary,
seek permission of the Emperor, even though it should cost me a lot
of money”; the Emperor would in all likelihood do nothing without
a “dispensation from the Pope”; but in such a matter of conscience
neither the Pope nor the Emperor were of any great account, since he
was convinced that his “design was approved by God”; still, their
consent (the Pope and Emperor’s) would help to overcome “human
respect”; hence, should he be unable to obtain “consolation from
this party [the Evangelical],” then the sanction of the other party
was “not to be despised.” Concerning the request he felt impelled
to address to the Emperor, he says, in words which seem to convey
a threat, that although he would not for any reason on earth prove
untrue to the Evangel, or aid in the onslaught on the Evangelical
cause, yet, the Imperial party might “use and bind” him to do things
“which would not be to the advantage of the cause.” Hence, it was in
their interest to assist him in order that he might “not be forced to
seek help in quarters where he had no wish to look for it.”
After again stating that he “took his stand on the Word of God”
he concludes with a request for the desired “Christian, written”
testimony, “in order that thereby I may amend my life, go to the
Sacrament with a good conscience and further all the affairs of our
religion with greater freedom and contentment. Given at Milsungen on
the Sunday _post Catharine anno etc._ 39.”
The Wittenberg theologians now found themselves in a quandary. Luther
says: “We were greatly taken aback at such a declaration on account
of the frightful scandal which would follow.”[52] Apart from other
considerations, the Landgrave had already been married sixteen years
and had a number of sons and daughters by his wife; the execution of
the project would also necessarily lead to difficulties at the Courts
of the Duke of Saxony and of the Elector, and also, possibly, at that
of the Duke of Würtemberg. They were unaware that Margaret von Sale
had already been chosen as a second wife, that Philip had secured the
consent of his wife Christina, and that the way for a settlement with
the bride’s mother had already been paved.[53]
The view taken by Rockwell, viz. that the form of the memorandum to be
signed by Luther and Melanchthon had already been drawn up in Hesse
by order of Philip, is, however, erroneous; nor was the document they
signed a copy of such a draft.[54]
It is much more likely that the lengthy favourable reply of the
Wittenbergers was composed by Melanchthon. It was signed with the
formula: “Wittenberg, Wednesday after St. Nicholas, 1539. Your Serene
Highness’s willing and obedient servants [and the signatures] Martinus
Luther, Philippus Melanchthon, Martinus Bucerus.”[55] The document is
now among the Marburg archives.
Characteristically enough the idea that the Landgrave is, and must
remain, the protector of the new religious system appears at the
commencement as well as at the close of the document. The signatories
begin by congratulating the Prince, that God “has again helped him out
of sickness,” and pray that heaven may preserve him, for the “poor
Church of Christ is small and forsaken, and indeed stands in need of
pious lords and governors”; at the end God is again implored to guide
and direct him; above all, the Landgrave must have nothing to do with
the Imperialists.
The rest of the document, apart from pious admonitions, consists of
the declaration, that they give their “testimony that, in a case
of necessity,” they were “unable to condemn” bigamy, and that,
accordingly, his “conscience may be at rest” should the Landgrave
“utilise” the Divine dispensation. In so many words they sanction the
request submitted to them, because “what was permitted concerning
matrimony in the Mosaic Law was not prohibited in the Gospel.”
Concerning the circumstances of the request they, however, declined
“to give anything in print,” because otherwise the matter would be
“understood and accepted as a general law and from it [i.e. a general
sanction of polygamy] much grave scandal and complaint would arise.”
The Landgrave’s wish that they should speak of the case from the
pulpit, is also passed over in silence. Nor did they reply to his
invitation to them to consider by what ways and means the matter
might be brought publicly before the world. On the contrary, they
appear to be intent on burying in discreet silence a marriage so
distasteful to them. It even looks as though they were simple enough
to think that such concealment would be possible, even in the long
run. What they fear is, above all, the consequences of its becoming
common property. In no way, so they declare, was any universal law,
any “public precedent” possible, whereby a plurality of wives might
be made lawful; according to its original institution marriage had
signified “the union of two persons only, not of more”; but, in view
of the examples of the Old Covenant, they “were unable to condemn it,”
if, in a quite exceptional case, “recourse were had to a dispensation
... and a man, with the advice of his pastor, took another wife, not
with the object of introducing a law, but to satisfy his need.”
As for instances of such permission having been given in the Church,
they were able to quote only two: First, the purely legendary case
of Count Ernest of Gleichen--then still regarded as historical--who,
during his captivity among the Turks in 1228, had married his
master’s daughter, and, then, after his escape, and after having
learnt that his wife was still living, applied for and obtained a
Papal dispensation for bigamy; secondly, the alleged practice in
cases of prolonged and incurable illness, such as leprosy, to permit,
occasionally, the man to take another wife. The latter, however,
can only refer to Luther’s own practice, or to that followed by
the teachers of the new faith.[56] In 1526 Luther had informed the
Landgrave that this was allowable in case of “dire necessity,” “for
instance, where the wife was leprous, or had been otherwise rendered
unfit.”[57] Acting upon this theory he was soon to give a decision in
a particular case;[58] in May or June, 1540, he even stated that he
had several times, when one of the parties had contracted leprosy,
privately sanctioned the bigamy of the healthy party, whether man or
woman.[59]
They are at great pains to impress on the Landgrave that he must
“take every possible care that this matter be not made public in the
world,” otherwise the dispensation would be taken as a precedent by
others, and also would be made to serve as a “weapon against them
and the Evangel.” “Hence, seeing how great scandal would be caused,
we humbly beg your Serene Highness to take this matter into serious
consideration.”
They also admonish him “to avoid fornication and adultery”; they had
learnt with “great sorrow” that the Landgrave “was burdened with
such evil lusts, of which the consequences to be feared were the
Divine punishment, illness and other perils”; such conduct, outside
of matrimony, was “no small sin”--as they proceed to prove from
Scripture; they rejoiced, however, that the Prince felt “pain and
remorse” for what he had done. Although monogamy was in accordance
with the original institution of marriage, yet it was their duty to
tell him that, “seeing that your Serene Highness has informed us that
you are not able to refrain from an immoral life, we would rather that
your Highness should be in a better state before God, and live with a
good conscience for your Highness’s own salvation and the good of your
land and people. And, as your Serene Highness has determined to take
another wife, we consider that this should be kept secret, no less
than the dispensation, viz. that your Serene Highness and the lady in
question, and a few other trustworthy persons, should be apprised of
your Highness’s conscience and state of mind in the way of confession.”
“From this,” they continue, “no great gossip or scandal will result,
for it is not unusual for Princes to keep ‘_concubinas_,’ and, though
not everyone is aware of the circumstances, yet reasonable people will
bear this in mind and be better pleased with such a manner of life
than with adultery or dissolute and immoral living.”
Yet, once again, they point out that, were the bigamy to become
a matter of public knowledge, the opinion would gain ground that
polygamy was perfectly lawful to all, and that everyone might follow
the precedent; the result would also be that the enemies of the
Evangel would cry out that the Evangelicals were not one whit better
than the Anabaptists, who were likewise polygamists and, in fact, just
the same as the Turks. Further, the great Lords would be the first
to give the example to private persons to do likewise. As it was,
the Hessian aristocracy was bad enough, and many of its members were
strongly opposed to the Evangel on earthly grounds; these would become
still more hostile were the bigamy to become publicly known. Lastly,
the Prince must bear in mind the injury to his “good name” which the
tidings of his act would cause amongst foreign potentates.
A paragraph appended to the memorandum is, according to recent
investigation, from Luther’s own pen and, at any rate, is quite in
his style.[60] It refers to Philip’s threat to seek the Emperor’s
intervention, a step which would not have been at all to the taste
of the Wittenbergers, for it was obvious that this would cripple
Philip’s action as Protector of the Evangelicals. This menace had
plainly excited and troubled Luther. He declares in the concluding
sentences, that the Emperor before whom the Prince threatened to lay
the case, was a man who looked upon adultery as a small sin; there was
great reason to fear that he shared the faith of the Pope, Cardinals,
Italians, Spaniards and Saracens; he would pay no heed to the Prince’s
request but only use him as a cat’s-paw. They had found him out to be
a false and faithless man, who had forgotten the true German spirit.
The Emperor, as the Landgrave might see for himself, did not trouble
himself about any Christian concerns, left the Turks unopposed and was
only interested in fomenting plots in Germany for the increase of the
Burgundian power. Hence it was to be hoped that pious German Princes
would have nothing to do with his faithless practices.
Such are the contents of Luther and Melanchthon’s written reply. Bucer,
glad of the success achieved, at once proceeded with the memorandum to
the Electoral Court.
This theological document, the like of which had never been seen,
is unparalleled in the whole of Church history. Seldom indeed has
exegetical waywardness been made to serve a more momentous purpose.
The Elector, Johann Frederick of Saxony, was, at a later date, quite
horrified, as he said, at “a business the like of which had not been
heard of for many ages.”[61] Sidonie, the youthful Duchess of Saxony,
complained subsequently, that, “since the Birth of Christ, no one had
done such a thing.”[62] Bucer’s fears had not been groundless “of the
scandal of such an innovation in a matter of so great importance and
difficulty among the weak followers of the Evangel.”[63]
Besides this, the sanction of bigamy given in the document in question
is treated almost as though it denoted the commencement of a more
respectable mode of life incapable of giving any “particular scandal”;
for amongst the common people the newly wedded wife would be looked
upon as a concubine, and such it was quite usual for Princes to
keep. Great stress is laid on the fact that the secret bigamy would
prevent adultery and other immorality. Apart, however, from these
circumstances, the sanctioning, largely on the strength of political
considerations, of an exception to the universal New-Testament
prohibition, is painful. Anyone, however desirous of finding
extenuating circumstances for Luther’s decision, can scarcely fail
to be shocked at this fact. The only excuse that might be advanced
would be, that Philip, by his determination to take this step and
his threat of becoming reconciled to the Emperor, exercised pressure
tantamount to violence, and that the weight of years, his scorn for the
Church’s matrimonial legislation and his excessive regard for his own
interpretation of the Old Testament helped Luther to signify his assent
to a plan so portentous.
_The Bigamy is Consummated and made Public._
The object of Bucer’s hasty departure for the Court of the Elector
Johann Frederick of Saxony was to dispose him favourably towards the
impending marriage. In accordance with his instructions from Hesse, he
was to submit to this Prince the same arguments which had served him
with the two Wittenbergers, for the superscription of the instructions
ran: “What Dr. Martin Bucer is to demand of D. Martin Luther and
Philip Melanchthon, and, should he see fit, after that also of the
Elector.”[64] In addition to this he had in the meantime received
special instructions for this delicate mission to Weimar.[65]
The Landgrave looked upon an understanding with the Elector as
necessary, not merely on account of his relationship with him and out
of consideration for Christina his first wife, who belonged to the
House of Saxony, but also on account of the ecclesiastico-political
alliance in which they stood, which made the Elector’s support seem to
him quite as essential as the sanction of the Wittenberg theologians.
Bucer treated with Johann Frederick at Weimar on 15 or 16 Dec. and
reached some sort of understanding, as we learn from the Elector’s
written reply to the Landgrave bearing the latter date. Bucer
represents him as saying: If it is impossible to remove the scandal
caused by the Landgrave’s life in any other way, he would ask, as a
brother, that the plan should not be executed in any other way than
“that contained in our--Dr. Luther’s, Philip’s and my own--writing”;
upon this he was unable to improve; he was also ready to “lend him
fraternal assistance in every way” should any complications arise from
this step.[66] In return, in accordance with the special instructions
given to Bucer, he received from the Landgrave various political
concessions of great importance: viz. support in the matter of the
Duke of Cleves, help in his difficulties about Magdeburg, the eventual
renunciation of Philip’s title to the inheritance of his father-in-law,
Duke George, and, finally, the promise to push his claims to the
Imperial crown after the death of Charles V, or in the event of the
partitioning of the Empire.
The Elector, like his theologians, was not aware that the “lady” (she
is never actually named) had already been chosen. Margaret von der
Sale, who was then only seventeen years of age, was the daughter of a
lady-in-waiting to Philip’s sister, Elisabeth, Duchess of Rochlitz. Her
mother, Anna von der Sale, an ambitious lady of the lower nobility, had
informed the Landgrave that she must stipulate for certain privileges.
As soon as Philip had received the replies from Wittenberg and Weimar,
on Dec. 23, 1539, the demands of the mother were at once settled by
persons vested with the necessary authority. Even before this, on the
very day of the negotiations with Luther, Dec. 11, the Landgrave and
his wife Christina had each drawn up a formal deed concerning what
was about to take place: Christina agreed to Philip’s “taking another
wedded wife” and promised that she would never on that account be
unfriendly to the Landgrave, his second wife, or her children; Philip
pledged himself not to countenance any claim to the Landgraviate on the
part of any issue by the second wife during the lifetime of Christina’s
two sons, but to provide for such issue by means of territories
situated outside his own dominions.[67] Such was the assurance with
which he proceeded towards the cherished goal.
Several Hessian theologians of the new faith, for instance, the
preacher Dionysius Melander, a personal friend of the Landgrave’s, and
Johann Lening were on his side.[68] To the memorandum composed by
Luther and Melanchthon the signatures of both the above-mentioned were
subsequently added, as well as those of Anton Corvinus, then pastor
at Witzenhausen, of Adam Fuldensis (Kraft), then Superintendent at
Marburg, of Justus Winther--since 1532 Court Schoolmaster at Cassel
and, from 1542, Superintendent at Rotenburg on the Fulda--and of
Balthasar Rhaide (Raid), pastor at Hersfeld, who, as Imperial Notary,
certified the marriage. The signature of the last was, however,
subsequently erased.[69]
About the middle of Jan., 1540, Philip informed the more prominent
Councillors and theologians that he would soon carry out his project.
When everything was ready the marriage was celebrated on March 4 in
the Castle of Rotenburg on the Fulda by the Court Chaplain, Dionysius
Melander, in the presence of Bucer and Melanchthon; were also present
the Commandant of the Wartburg, Eberhard von der Thann, representing
the Elector of Saxony, Pastor Balthasar Rhaide, the Hessian Chancellor
Johann Feige of Lichtenau, the Marshal Hermann von Hundelshausen,
Rudolf Schenk zu Schweinsberg (Landvogt of Eschwege on the Werra),
Hermann von der Malsburg, a nobleman, and the mother of the bride, Anna
von der Sale.[70] The draft of the short discourse still exists with
which the Landgrave intended to open the ceremony. Melander delivered
the formal wedding address. On the following day Melanchthon handed the
Landgrave an “admonition,” i.e. a sort of petition, in which he warmly
recommended to his care the welfare of education. It is possible that
when summoned, to Rotenburg from a meeting of the Schmalkalden League
at which he had been assisting, he was unaware of the object of the
invitation. Subsequent explanations, furnished at the last moment, by
Melander and Lening, seem to have drawn a protest from Melanchthon
which roused the anger of the two preachers. This shows that
“everything did not pass off smoothly at Rotenburg.”[71] Both were, not
long after, stigmatised by Melanchthon as “_ineruditi homines_” and
made chiefly responsible for the lax principles of the Landgrave.[72]
Luther tried later to represent Lening, the “monster,” as the man by
whom the idea of the bigamy, a source of extreme embarrassment to the
Wittenbergers, had first been hatched.[73]
Although the Landgrave was careful to preserve secrecy concerning
the new marriage--already known to so many persons,--permitting only
the initiate to visit the “lady,” and even forbidding her to attend
Divine Worship, still the news of what had taken place soon leaked
out. “Palpable signs appeared in the building operations commenced
at Weissenstein, and also in the despatch of a cask of wine to
Luther.”[74] At Weissenstein, in the former monastery near Cassel, now
Wilhelmshöhe, an imposing residence was fitted up for Margaret von der
Sale. In a letter of May 24, 1540, to Philip, Luther expresses his
thanks for the gift of wine: “I have received your Serene Highness’s
present of the cask of Rhine wine and thank your Serene Highness most
humbly. May our dear Lord God keep and preserve you body and soul.
Amen.”[75] Katey also received a gift from the Prince, for which Luther
returned thanks on Aug. 22, though without mentioning its nature.[76]
On the cask of wine and its destination the Schultheiss of Lohra
spoke “openly before all the peasants,” so Anton Corvinus informed
the Landgrave on May 25, saying that: “Your Serene Highness has taken
another wife, of which he was perfectly sure, and your Serene Highness
is now sending a cask of wine to Luther because he gave your Serene
Highness permission to do such a thing.”[77]
On June 9 Jonas wrote from Wittenberg, where he was staying with
Luther--who himself was as silent as the tomb--to George of Anhalt:
Both in the Meissen district and at Wittenberg there is “much gossip”
(‘_ingens fama_’) of bigamy with a certain von Sale, though, probably,
it was only “question of a concubine.”[78] Five days later, however,
he relates, that “at Würzburg and similar [Catholic] localities the
Papists and Canons were expressing huge delight” over the bigamy.[79]
The behaviour of the Landgrave’s sister had helped to spread the
news. On March 13 the Landgrave, through Marshal von Hundelshausen,
had informed the latter of the fact, as he had formally promised
Margaret’s mother to do. The “lady began to weep, made a great outcry
and abused Luther and Bucer as a pair of incarnate scamps.”[80] She
was unable to reconcile herself to the bigamy or to refrain from
complaining to others. “My angry sister has been unable to hold her
tongue,” wrote the Landgrave Philip on June 8.[81] The Ducal Court of
Saxony at Dresden was anxious for reliable information. Duke Henry was
a patron of Lutheranism, but one of the motives for his curiosity in
this matter is to be found in the fact that the Landgrave was claiming
a portion of the inheritance of the late Duke George, who had died
on April 17, 1539. In accordance with Henry’s orders Anna von der
Sale, as a subject of the Saxon duchy, was removed by force on June
3 from her residence at Schönfeld and carried to Dresden. There the
mother confessed everything and declared, not without pride, that her
daughter Margaret “was as much the rightful wife of the Landgrave as
Christina.”[82] About Whitsun the Landgrave personally admitted the
fact to Maurice of Saxony.
The Court of Dresden at once informed the Elector of Saxony of its
discovery and of the very unfavourable manner in which the news had
been received, and the latter, in turn, communicated it, through
Chancellor Brück, to Luther and Melanchthon.
The Elector Johann Frederick, in view of the change of circumstances,
became more and more vexed with the marriage. To a certain extent he
stood under the influence of Elisabeth Duchess of Rochlitz. In his
case, too, the question of property played a part, viz. whether, in
view of the understanding existing between Hesse and Saxony as to the
succession, the children of the second wife were to become the heirs
in the event of the death of the children of the first wife, this
being what the Landgrave demanded. Above all, however, the cautious
Elector was anxious about the attitude of the Empire and Emperor. He
feared lest steps should be taken against the general scandal which
had been given and to obviate the danger of the spread of polygamous
ideas. Hence he was not far from withdrawing from Luther the favour
he had hitherto shown him, the more so now that the Court of Dresden
was intent on raising trouble against all who had furthered the
Landgrave’s plan.
Meanwhile the news rapidly spread, partly owing to persons belonging
to the Court. It reached King Ferdinand, and, by him, and still more
by Morone, the Nuncio, it was carried to the Emperor.
Morone wrote on June 15, from the religious conference then proceeding
at Hagenau, to Cardinal Farnese at Rome: “During the lifetime of his
first wife, a daughter of Duke George of Saxony of good memory, the
Landgrave of Hesse, has, as we hear, taken a second wife, a lady of
distinction, von der Sale by name, a native of Saxony. It is said,
his theologians teach that it is not forbidden to Christians to have
several wives, except in the case of a Bishop, because there is no
such prohibition in Holy Scripture. I can hardly credit it, but since
God has ‘given them over to a reprobate mind’ [Rom. i. 28] and as the
King has assured me that he has heard it from several quarters, I give
you the report for what it is worth.”[83]
Philip of Hesse, who was already in disgrace with the Emperor on
account of his expedition into Würtemberg and his support of Duke
Ulrich, knew the penalties which he might expect unless he found some
means of escape. The “_Carolina_” (1532) decreed “capital punishment”
against bigamists, no less than against adulterers.[84] The Landgrave
himself was even fully prepared to forfeit one-third of his possessions
should it be impossible to arrive otherwise at a settlement.[85] He
now openly declared--as he had already hinted he would--that, in case
of necessity, he would make humble submission to the Emperor; if the
worst came to the worst, then he would also make public the memorandum
he had received from Wittenberg in order to exculpate himself--a threat
which filled the Elector with alarm on account of his University and of
Luther.
Bucer, the first to be summoned to the aid of the Hessian Court,
advised the Landgrave to escape from his unfortunate predicament by
downright lying. He wrote: If concealment and equivocation should
prove of no avail, he was to state in writing that false rumours
concerning his person had come into circulation, and that no Christian
was allowed to have two wives at the same time; he was also to replace
the marriage-contract by another contract in which Margaret might
be described as a concubine--such as God had allowed to His beloved
friends--and not as a wife within the meaning of the calamitous
Imperial Law; an effort was also to be made to induce the Court of
Dresden to keep silence, or to deny any knowledge of the business, and,
in the meantime, the “lady” might be kept even more carefully secluded
than before.[86]
The Landgrave’s reply was violent in the extreme. He indignantly
rejected Bucer’s suggestion; the dissimulation alleged to have been
practised by others, notably by the Patriarchs, Judges, Kings and
Prophets, etc., in no wise proved the lawfulness of lying; Bucer had
“been instigated to make such proposals by some worldly-wise persons
and jurists whom we know well.”[87] Philip wrote to the same effect to
the Lutheran theologians, Schnepf, Osiander and Brenz, who urged him
to deny that Margaret was his lawful wife: “That, when once the matter
has become quite public, we should assert that it was invalid, this we
cannot bring ourselves to do. We cannot tell a lie, for to lie does
not become any man. And, moreover, God has forbidden lying. So long
as it is possible we shall certainly reply ‘_dubitative_’ or ‘_per
amphibologiam_,’ but to say that it is invalid, such advice you may
give to another, but not to us.”[88]
The “_amphibologia_” had been advised by the Hessian theologians, who
had pointed out that Margaret could best be described to the Imperial
Court of Justice as a “_concubina_,” since, in the language of the
Old Testament, as also in that of the ancient Church, this word had
sometimes been employed to describe a lawful wife.[89] They also
wrote to Luther and Melanchthon, fearing that they might desert the
Landgrave, telling them that they were expected to stand by their
memorandum. Although they were in favour of secrecy, yet they wished
that, in case of necessity, the Wittenbergers should publicly admit
their share. Good care would be taken to guard against the general
introduction of polygamy.[90]
_Dispensation; Advice in Confession; a Confessor’s Secret?_
Was the document signed by Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer a dispensation
for bigamy?
It has been so described. But, even according to the very wording
of the memorandum, the signatories had no intention of issuing a
dispensation. On the contrary, according to the text, they, as learned
theologians, declared that the Divine Law, as they understood it,
gave a general sanction, according to which, in cases such as that of
Philip of Hesse, polygamy was allowed. It is true that they and Philip
himself repeatedly use the word “dispensation,” but by this they meant
to describe the alleged general sanction in accordance with which the
law admitted of exceptions in certain cases, hence their preference
for the term “to use” the dispensation, instead of the more usual “to
beg” or “to grant.” Philip is firmly resolved “to use” the dispensation
brought to his knowledge by Luther’s writings, and the theologians,
taking their cue from him, likewise speak of his “using” it in his own
case.[91]
It was the same with the “dispensation” which the Wittenbergers
proposed to Henry VIII of England. (See above, p. 4 f.) They had no
wish to invest him with an authority which, according to their ideas,
he did not possess, but they simply drew his attention to the freedom
common to all, and declared by them to be bestowed by God, viz. in his
case, of taking a second wife, telling him that he was free to have
recourse to this dispensation. In other words, they gave him the power
to dispense himself, regardless of ecclesiastical laws and authorities.
Another question: How far was the substance of the advice given in the
Hessian case to be regarded as a secret? Can it really be spoken of as
a “counsel given in confession,” or as a “secret of the confessional”?
This question later became of importance in the negotiations which
turned upon the memorandum. In order to answer it without prejudice
it is essential in the first place to point out, that the subsequent
interpretations and evasions must not here be taken into account.
The actual wording of the document and its attendant historical
circumstances have alone to be taken into consideration, abstraction
being made of the fine distinctions and meanings afterwards read into
it.
First, there is no doubt that both the Landgrave’s request for the
Wittenberg testimony and its granting were intended to be confidential
and not public. Philip naturally assumed that the most punctilious
secrecy would be preserved so long as no decision had been arrived
at, seeing that he had made confidential disclosures concerning his
immorality in pleading for a second marriage. The Wittenbergers, as
they explicitly state, gave their reply not merely unwillingly, with
repugnance and with great apprehension of the scandal which might
ensue, but also most urgently recommended Philip to keep the bigamy to
himself. Both the request and the theological testimony accordingly
came under the natural obligation of silence, i.e. under the so-called
confidential seal of secrecy. This, however, was of course broken when
the suppliant on his part allowed the matter to become public; in
such a case no one could grudge the theologians the natural right of
bringing forward everything that was required for their justification,
even to the reasons which had determined them to give their consent,
though of course they were in honour bound to show the utmost
consideration; for this the petitioner himself was alone to blame.
As a matter of fact, however, strange though it may seem, Philip’s
intention all along had been ultimately to make the marriage public.
It cannot be proved that he ever made any written promise to observe
the recommendation of absolute secrecy made by the theologians. Those
who drew up the memorandum disregarded his wish for publicity, and, on
the contrary, “advised” that the matter should be kept a dead secret.
Yet ought they not to have foreseen that a Prince so notoriously
unscrupulous would be likely to disregard their “advice”? The
theologians were certainly no men of the world if they really believed
that the Landgrave’s bigamy--and their memorandum by which it was
justified--would or could remain concealed. They themselves had allowed
a number of other parties to be initiated into the secret, nor was it
difficult to foresee that Philip, and Margaret’s ambitious mother,
would not allow the stigma of concubinage to rest permanently on the
newly wedded bride. The mother had expressly stipulated that Margaret
should be treated as a lawful wife and given this title, and not as a
concubine, though of this the Wittenbergers were not aware.
Further, the theological grounds for the Wittenberg “advice” must not
be lost sight of in considering the question of the obligation of
silence or secrecy. The theologians based their decision on a doctrine
which they had already openly proclaimed. Nor did Luther ever withdraw
from the standpoint that polygamy was lawful; he even proclaimed it
during the height of the controversy raised by the Hessian bigamy,
though he was careful to restrict it to very rare and exceptional
cases and to make its use dependent on the consent of the authorities.
Thus the grounds for the step he had taken in Philip’s favour were
universally and publicly known just as much as his other theological
doctrines. If, however, his teaching on this matter was true, then,
strictly speaking, people had as much right to it as to every other
piece of truth; in fact, it was the more urgent that this Evangelical
discovery should not be put under a bushel, seeing that it would have
been a veritable godsend to many who groaned in the bonds of matrimony.
Hence everything, both on Philip’s side and on that of the theologians,
pointed to publicity. But may, perhaps, the Wittenberg “advice” have
been esteemed a sort of “counsel given in Confession,” and did its
contents accordingly fall under the “secret of Confession”?
The word “Confession,” in its sacramental meaning, was never used in
connection with the affair dealt with at Wittenberg, either in Philip’s
instructions to Bucer or in the theologians’ memorandum, nor does it
occur in any of the few documents relating to the bigamy until about
six months later. “Confession” is first alleged in the letter of excuse
given below which Luther addressed to the Elector of Saxony. It is
true that the expression “in the way of Confession” occurs once in the
memorandum, but there it is used in an entirely different sense and
in no way stamps the business as a matter of Confession. There it is
stated (above, p. 21), that those who were to be apprised of the bigamy
were to learn it “in the way of Confession.” Here the word Confession
is employed by metonymy and merely emphasises the need of discretion.
Here there was naturally no idea of the sacramental seal, or of the
making of a real Confession. In the Middle Ages the term Confession was
not seldom used to denote the imparting of an ordinary confidential
secret, just as the word to confess originally meant to admit, to
acknowledge, or to communicate something secret. This, however, was not
the meaning attached to it by those who sought to shelter themselves
behind the term in the controversies which ensued after the bigamy
had become generally known. To vindicate the keeping secret of his
so-called “advice in Confession,” Luther falls back upon his Catholic
recollections of the entire secrecy required of the Confessor, in other
words, on the sacramental “seal.”
Undoubtedly the Seal of Confession is inexorable; according to the
Catholic view it possesses a sacramental sanction and surrounds, like
a protecting rampart, the sanctuary of the Sacrament of Penance, which
otherwise would be shunned by all. But this absolute and sacramental
obligation of silence attends only the administration of the Sacrament
of Penance.
The idea that Luther and his comrades when signing the “advice” were
dispensing the Sacrament of Penance cannot but raise a smile. In
connection with this matter non-Catholic theologians and historians
would never have spoken as they have done of Luther as a Confessor, had
they been better acquainted with the usages of the older Church. In the
case of such writers all that is known of the system of Confession is
often a few distorted quotations from casuists. Even under its altered
form, as then in use among the Protestants, Confession could only mean
an admission of one’s sins, made to obtain absolution. In Lutheranism,
confession, so far as it was retained at all, meant the awakening and
animating of faith by means of some sort of self-accusation completed
by the assurance given by the preacher of the Divine promise and
forgiveness, a process which bears no analogy to the “testimony”
given by the theologians to Philip of Hesse. In the Catholic Church,
moreover, in whose practice Luther seems anxious to take refuge,
Confession involves an accusation of all grievous sins, contrition, a
firm resolve to amend, satisfaction and absolution. What was there of
all this in the Landgrave’s so-called Confession?[92] Where was the
authority to absolve, even had this been what the Landgrave sought?
How then could there come into play the Seal of Confession, i.e.
any sacramental obligation apart from the purely natural obligation
of keeping silence concerning a communication made in confidence?
Again, Confession, even according to Lutheran ideas, is not made at a
distance, or to several persons simultaneously, or with the object of
securing a signed document.
Apart from all this one may even question whether the Landgrave’s
disclosures were really honestly meant. Not everyone would have taken
them from the outset as intended seriously, or have regarded them as
above suspicion. Melanchthon, for instance, soon began to have doubts.
(See below.) The readiness, nay, eagerness, shown by Philip later to
repeat his Confession to others, to reinforce it by even more appalling
admissions of wickedness, and to give it the fullest publicity, is
really not favourable to the “Confession” idea; on the contrary, it
reminds us of the morbid pleasure which persons habituated to vice and
who have lost all respect whether for themselves or for the virtue
of others, take in speaking openly of their moral lapses. The most
important point to bear in mind is, however, the fact, that with Philip
of Hesse it was a question of a marriage which he intended should be
kept secret only for a time, and further that the Wittenbergers were
aware of Philip’s readiness to lay his case before the Emperor, nay,
even the Pope should necessity arise.[93] Owing to this they could
not be blind to the possibility of the marriage, and, incidentally,
of the Landgrave’s admission of moral necessity, and further of their
own “advice” being all disclosed. Thus the “Seal of Confession” was
threatened from the very first. Philip himself never recognised a
binding obligation of secrecy on the part of the Wittenbergers; on the
contrary, his invitation to them was: Speak out freely, now that the
step has been taken with your sanction! What was Luther’s answer? He
appealed to the Secret of the Confessional and refused to defend the
act before the world and the Empire, but merely “before God”; all he
was willing to do was to vindicate it “before God, by examples such as
that of Abraham, etc., and to conceal it as much as possible.” And yet,
to forestall what will be related below, full publicity would surely
have been the best thing for himself, as then the world would at least
have learnt that he was not desirous of introducing polygamy generally,
and that the whole business had only been made common property through
Philip’s disregard of the recommendation of secrecy. Instead of this,
however, he preferred to profess his readiness (it was probably no
more than a threat) to admit publicly that he had been in the wrong
all along and had acted foolishly; here again, had he been true to his
word, the “Secret of the Confessional” would assuredly have fared badly.
Even in his letter of excuse to the Elector Johann Frederick concerning
his sanction of the bigamy, Luther explained so much of the incident,
that the “Seal of Confession” was practically violated; quite unmindful
of the inviolability of the Seal he here declared, that he would have
preferred to say nothing of the “counsel given in Confession had not
necessity” forced him to do so. But what kind of Seal of Confession was
this, we may ask, which could thus be set aside in case of necessity?
Melanchthon acted differently. He, without any necessity, at once
recounted everything that had happened to a friend in a letter eloquent
with grief. He, the author of the “Counsel of Confession,” felt under
no obligation to regard the Seal. He considers himself liberated,
by Philip’s behaviour, from the obligation even of confidential
secrecy.[94] Bucer expressed himself on Aug. 8, 1540, in a similar
fashion concerning the counsel given to the Landgrave “in Confession”:
Luther would certainly publish and defend it, should the “marriage
have to be admitted” through no fault of the Landgrave’s.[95] No one,
in fact, displayed the slightest scruple regarding the secrecy of the
Confession--except Luther and those who re-echo his sentiments.
According to the above we are justified in saying that the term
“Counsel given in Confession” is in no wise descriptive of the
Wittenberg document. The word “testimony,” or “certificate,” used both
in Philip’s instructions and in an important passage of the document
signed by Luther, Melanchthon and Bucer, is historically more correct;
the terms “opinion” or “memorandum” are equally applicable.
The Wittenbergers gave their testimony or opinion--such is the upshot
of the matter--but no Dispensation or Counsel in Confession in the
sense just determined. They gave a testimony, which was asked for that
it might be made public, but which was given in confidence, which was
moreover based on their openly expressed teaching, though it actually
dealt only with Philip’s own case, a testimony which no longer involved
them in any obligation of secrecy once the marriage had been made
public by Philip, and once the latter had declared his intention of
making the testimony public should circumstances demand it.
_Luther’s Embarrassment on the Bigamy becoming Public._
At the commencement of June, 1540, Luther was in great distress on
account of the Hessian bigamy. His embarrassment and excitement
increased as the tidings flew far and wide, particularly when the Court
of Dresden and his own Elector began to take fright at the scandal,
and the danger of complications arising with the Emperor. On the other
hand, Luther was not unaware of the Landgrave’s doubts as to whether he
would stand by his written declaration. Jonas wrote from Wittenberg on
June 10 to George of Anhalt: “Philip is much upset and Dr. Martin full
of thought.”[96]
On that very day Brück, the Electoral Chancellor, discussed the
matter with both of them at Wittenberg. He acquainted them with his
sovereign’s fears. They had gone too far, and the publication of the
affair had had the most disastrous results; a young Princess and
Landgravine had appeared on the scene, which was not at all what the
Elector had expected; the Court of Dresden was loud in its complaints
and spared not even the Elector; the Dresden people were bringing
forward against Luther what he had taught in favour of polygamy
thirteen years before; the door had now been opened wide to polygamists.
Not long after Luther wrote, that, were it necessary, he would know how
to “extricate himself.”[97] Even before dropping this curious remark he
had shown himself very anxious to make his position secure. It was with
this object in view, that, after his interview with Brück, probably on
the same day, he proceeded to explain the case to his sovereign in the
lengthy letter[98] in which he appeals to Confession and its secrecy.
“Before the world and against the laws of the Empire it cannot be
defended,” but “we were desirous of glossing it over before God as
much as possible with examples, such as that of Abraham, etc. All
this was done and treated of as in Confession, so that we cannot be
charged as though we had done it willingly and gladly, or with joy and
pleasure.... I took into consideration the unavoidable necessity and
weakness, and the danger to his conscience which Master Bucer had set
forth.”
Luther goes on to complain, that the Landgrave, by allowing this
“matter of Confession” and “advice given in Confession” to become to a
certain extent public, had caused all this “annoyance and contumely.”
He relates in detail what Bucer, when seeking to obtain the Wittenberg
sanction, had recounted concerning his master’s immorality, so
contrary to the Evangel, “though he should be one of the mainstays
of the party.” They had at first looked askance at the idea, but, on
being told that “he was unable to relinquish it, and, should we not
permit it, would do it in spite of us, and obtain permission from the
Emperor or the Pope unless we were beforehand, we humbly begged His
Serene Highness, if he was really set on it, and, as he declared,
could not in conscience and before God do otherwise, that he would at
least keep it secret.” This had been promised them [by Bucer]; their
intention had been to “save his conscience as best we might.”
Luther, far from showing himself remorseful for his indulgence,
endeavours in his usual way to suppress any scruples of conscience:
“Even to-day, were such a case to come before me again, I should not
know how to give any other advice than what I then gave, nor would
it trouble me should it afterwards become known.” “I am not ashamed
of the testimony even should it come before the world, though, to
be spared trouble, I should prefer it to be kept secret so long as
possible.” Still, no angel would have induced him to give such advice
“had he known that the Landgrave had long satisfied and could still
satisfy his cravings on others, for instance, as I now learn, on
lady von Essweg.” This lady was perhaps a relative of Rudolf Schenk,
Landvogt of Eschwege on the Werra.[99] We may recall, that the
proposal of taking a “concubine” in place of the too numerous “light
women” had been made to Philip by his sister.[100]
Luther goes on to excuse his conduct still further to the Elector:
“Still less would I have advised a public marriage”; that the second
wife was to become a Princess or Landgravine--a plan at which the
whole Empire would take offence--had been kept from him altogether;
“what I expected was, that, since he was obliged owing to the
weakness of the flesh to follow the ordinary course of sin and
shame, he would perhaps keep an honest girl in some house, and wed
her secretly--though even this would look ill in the sight of the
world--and thus overcome his great trouble of conscience; he could
then ride backwards and forwards, as the great lords do frequently
enough; similar advice I gave also to certain parish priests under
Duke George and the bishops, viz. that they should marry their cook
secretly.”
Though what he here says may be worthy of credence, yet to apply
the term Confession to what passed between Philip and Wittenberg is
surely to introduce an alien element into the affair. Yet he does use
the word three times in the course of the letter and seemingly lays
great stress on it. The Confession, he says, covered all that had
passed, and, because it “was seemly” to “keep matters treated of in
Confession private” he and Melanchthon “preferred not to relate the
matter and the counsel given in Confession” to the Elector; but,
since the Landgrave “had revealed the substance of the Confession
and the advice,” it was easier for him to speak. Hence he would now
reveal the “advice given in Confession; though I should much have
preferred to keep it secret, unless necessity had forced it from me,
now I am unable to do so.” The fact is, however, that the real Seal
of Confession (and of this Luther was quite aware) does not allow the
confessor who has received the Confession to make any communication
or disclosure concerning it; even should the penitent make statements
concerning other matters which occurred in the Confession, under no
circumstances whatsoever, however serious these may be, not even in
the case of danger to life and limb, may “necessity” “force out”
anything. Although in this case Luther had not heard a Confession at
all, yet he refers to the Secret of the Confessional with which he was
acquainted from his Catholic days, and his own former exercise of it:
“I have received in Confession many confidences, both in Popery and
since, and given advice, but were there any question of making them
public I should be obliged to say no.... Such matters are no business
of the secular courts nor ought they to be made public.”
This uncalled-for introduction of Confession was intended to save him
from being obliged to admit his consent publicly; it was meant to
reassure so weak a theologian as the Elector, who dreaded the scandal
arising from Luther’s advice to commit bigamy, and the discussion
of the case before the Imperial Court of Justice; possibly he also
hoped it would serve against that other princely theologian, viz.
the Landgrave, and cause him to withdraw his demand for a public
acknowledgment of the sanction given. His tactics here remind us of
Luther’s later denial, when he professed himself ready simply to deny
the bigamy and his share in it--because everything had been merely a
matter of Confession.
Even in this first letter dealing with the question, he is clearly on
the look-out for a loophole by which he may escape from the calamitous
business.
The publication of the “testimony” was to be prevented at all costs.
But, as a matter of fact, not only did the “Seal of Confession” present
no obstacle, but even the common secrecy referred to above (p. 31) was
no longer binding. This had been cancelled by the indiscretion of the
Landgrave. Moreover, apart from this, the natural obligation of secrecy
did not extend to certain extreme cases which might have been foreseen
by both parties and in the event of which both would recover their
freedom. It should be noted, that Luther hardly made any appeal to this
natural obligation of secrecy, probably because it could not be turned
to account so easily. The Seal of Confession promised to serve him
better in circles so little acquainted with theology.
In the second letter dealing with the bigamy, dated June 27, 1540,
and addressed to Philip’s intimate, Eberhard von der Thann, Luther
speaks with an eye on Hesse.[101] Thann, through Chancellor Brück,
had informed him of what was being said of him there, and had asked
what Luther would advise the Hessian Prince, and whether, in order to
obviate other cases of polygamy in Hesse, it would be advisable for
the authorities to issue an edict against the universal lawfulness
of having several wives. Luther replied, that he agreed with the
Landgrave’s intention as announced by Thann concerning his second
marriage, viz. to wait until the Emperor “should approach His Serene
Highness on the subject”; and then to write to the Emperor: “That he
had taken a concubine but that he would be perfectly ready to put her
away again if other Princes and Lords would set a good example.” If the
Emperor were compelled “to regard the ‘lady’ as a concubine,” “no one
else would dare to speak or think differently”; in this wise the real
state of things would be “covered over and kept secret.” On the other
hand, it would not be at all advisable to issue any edict, or to speak
of the matter, for then “there would be no end or limit to gossip and
suspicions.”
“And I for my part am determined [here he comes to his ‘testimony’
and the meaning he now put on it] to keep silence concerning my part
of the confession which I heard from His Serene Highness through
Bucer, even should I suffer for it, for it is better that people
should say that Dr. Martin acted foolishly in his concession to the
Landgrave--for even great men have acted foolishly and do so, even
now, as the saying goes: A wise man makes no small mistakes--rather
than reveal the reasons why we secretly consented; for that would
greatly disgrace and damage the reputation of the Landgrave, and would
also make matters worse.” To the Elector his sovereign Luther had
said that, even to-day, he “would not be able to give any different
advice” and that he saw no reason to blush for it. Hence it is hard
to believe that he seriously contemplated admitting that he had been
guilty of an act of “folly” and had “acted foolishly.” It will be
shown more clearly below what his object was in threatening such a
repudiation of his advice to the Landgrave.
In his letter to Thann, Luther decides in favour of the expedient
suggested by the Hessian theologians, viz. of the amphibological use
of the word concubine; here it should, however, be noted, that this
term, if used officially to counteract the common report concerning
the new marriage, plainly implied a denial of the reality of the
bigamy.
But how if the Landgrave were directly confronted in a Court of
Justice with the question: Have you, or have you not, married two
wives?
Here belongs the third letter of Luther’s which we have on the subject
and which was despatched to Hesse before the middle of July. It is
addressed to “a Hessian Councillor” who has been identified, with some
probability, as the Hessian Chancellor Johann Feige.[102]
To the addressee, who was acquainted with the whole matter and had
applied to Luther for his opinion on behalf of the Landgrave, the
writer defines his own position still more clearly; if people say
openly that the Landgrave has contracted a second marriage, all one
need answer is, that this is not true, although it is true that he
has contracted a secret union; hence he himself was wont to say, “the
Landgrave’s other marriage is all nonsense.”
The justification of this he finds in the theory of the secrecy of
confession upon which he insists strongly in this letter. Not only
is his own share in the matter _nil_ because ostensibly done in
confession, but the marriage itself is merely a sort of “confession
marriage,” a thing concealed and therefore non-existent so far
as the world is concerned. “A secret affirmative cannot become a
public affirmative ... a secret ‘yes’ remains a public ‘no’ and vice
versa.... On this I take my stand; I say that the Landgrave’s second
marriage is _nil_ and cannot be convincing to anyone. For, as they
say, ‘_palam_,’ it is not true, and although it may be true ‘_clam_,’
yet that they may not tell.”
He is very bitter about the Landgrave’s purpose of making the marriage
and the Wittenberg “advice” public, should need arise. The fate of
the latter was, in fact, his chief anxiety. “In this the Landgrave
touches us too nearly, but himself even more, that he is determined
to do ‘_palam_’ what we arranged with him ‘_clam_,’ and to make of
a ‘_nullum_’ an ‘_omne_’; this we are unable either to defend or
to answer for, and we should certainly come to high words.” The
last sentence was, however, felt by Luther to be too strong and he
accordingly struck it out of the letter.