FRESH CONTROVERSIES WITH ERASMUS (1534, 1536) AND DUKE GEORGE († 1539)
1. Luther and Erasmus Again
IN reply to Luther’s “_De servo arbitrio_” against Erasmus the latter
had published, in 1526, a sharp retort entitled “_Hyperaspistes_,”
which, in the following year, he enlarged by adding to it a second
part.[583] In this work the author’s able pen brings into the light of
day the weakness of Luther’s objections, his distortion of the Church’s
teaching, his frequent misrepresentations of Erasmus and his own
self-contradictions.
Luther did not then reply to the work of the chief of the Humanists.
In the ensuing years, however, he became painfully aware that the
hostility of Erasmus had lost him many adherents belonging to the
Erasmian school. A great cleavage had become apparent in the scholar’s
circle of friends till then so closely united, the greater number
taking their master’s side against the smaller group which remained
true to Luther. It was in vain that several of Erasmus’s admirers
intervened and besought Luther to spare the feelings of the elder man.
The Wittenberg professor made many cutting allusions to his opponent
and assumed more and more an attitude which foreboded another open
outburst of furious controversy.
With the art peculiar to him, he came to persuade himself, that the
champion of free-will was hostile to the idea of any Divine supremacy
over the human will, scoffed at all religion, denied the Godhead
and was worse than any persecutor of the Church; he was confirmed
in this belief by the sarcastic sayings about his Evangel, to which
Erasmus gave vent in his correspondence and conversations, and which
occasionally came to Luther’s knowledge. It is true that if we look
at the matter through Luther’s spectacles we can understand how
certain darker sides of Erasmus and his Humanist school repelled him.
Luther fixed on these, and, as was his wont, harshly exaggerated and
misrepresented them. The too-great attention bestowed on the outward
form, seemingly to the detriment of the Christian contents, displeased
him greatly; still more so did the undeniable frivolity with which
sacred things, still dear to him, were treated. At the same time it
was strange to him, and rightly so, how little heed the Humanists who
remained faithful to the Church paid to the principle of authority
and of ecclesiastical obedience, preferring to follow the lax example
set by Erasmus himself, more particularly during the first period of
his career; they appeared to submit to the yoke of the Church merely
formally and from force of habit, and showed none of that heart-felt
conviction and respect for her visible supremacy which alone could win
the respect of those without.[584]
Schlaginhaufen has noted down the following remark made by Luther in
1532 when a picture of Erasmus was shown him. “The cunning of his
mode of writing is perfectly expressed in his face. He does nothing
but mock at God and religion. When he speaks of our Holy Christ, of
the Holy Word of God and the Holy Sacraments, these are mere fine,
big words, a sham and no reality.... Formerly he annoyed and confuted
the Papacy, now he draws his head out of the noose.”[585] In the same
year, and according to the same reporter, he declared: “Erasmus is a
knave incarnate.... Were I in good health, I should inveigh against
him. To him the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are something ludicrous....
Erasmus is as sure there is no God as I am that I can see. Lucian
himself was not so bold and impudent as Erasmus.”[586]
At Easter of the following year Veit Dietrich, who lived in Luther’s
house, announced in a letter to Nuremberg, that the storm was about to
break: Luther was arming himself against Erasmus, reading his books
carefully and gathering together his blasphemies. The same writer in
a collection of Luther’s conversations not yet published quotes the
following outbursts: “Erasmus makes use of ambiguities, intentionally
and with malice, this I shall prove against him.... Were I to cut open
Erasmus’s heart, I should find nothing but mockeries of the Trinity,
the Sacraments, etc. To him the whole thing is a joke.”[587]
And yet, at that very time, Erasmus, who, as years passed, had come to
regret his earlier faults of the pen,[588] was engaged in composing
serious and useful works, in which, though not unfaithful to his older
style, he sought to defend the dogmas of religion and the authority of
the Church. In March his “_Explanatio symboli, decalogi et dominicæ
precationis_” was issued at Basle by Froben; another important work
of the same year, appearing in the guise of an exposition of Psalm
lxxxiv., contained counsels how best to restore the unity of the
Church and to root out abuses. Therein he does not deny the duty of
submitting to the Church, but recommends both sides to be ready to
give and take.
When Luther’s little son Hans had, in his Latin lessons, to study some
works composed by Erasmus for the young, his father wrote out for
him the following warning: “Erasmus is a foe to all religion and an
arch-enemy of Christ; he is the very type of an Epicurus and Lucian.
This I, Martin Luther, declare in my own handwriting to you, my very
dear son Johann, and, through you, to all my children and the holy
Church of Christ.”[589]
Luther’s pent-up wrath at length vented itself in print. He had
received a letter sent him from Magdeburg, on Jan. 28, 1534, by
Nicholas Amsdorf, the old friend who knew so well how to fan the flames
of enthusiasm for the new teaching, and who now pointed out Erasmus
as the source whence George Wicel had drawn all his material for his
latest attack on Lutheranism.[590] It was high time, he wrote, that
Luther should paint Erasmus “in his true colours and show that he was
full of ignorance and malice.” This he would best do in a tract “On
the Church,” for this was the Erasmians’ weak point: They stick to the
Church, because “bishops and cardinals make them presents of golden
vessels,” and then “they cry out: Luther’s teaching is heresy, having
been condemned by Emperor and Pope.” “I, on the other hand, see all
about me the intervention and the wonders of God; I see that faith is
a gift of God Who works when and where He wills, just as he raised His
Son Christ from the dead. Oh, that you could see the country folk here
and admire in them the glory of Christ!”
The letter pleased Luther so well that he determined to print it,
appending to it a lengthy answer to Amsdorf, both being published
together.[591]
In this answer, before launching out into invective against Erasmus
he joins in his friend’s enthusiastic praise of the Evangel which has
dawned: “Our cause was heard at Augsburg before the Emperor and the
whole world, and has been found blameless; they could not but recognise
the purity of our teaching.... We have confessed Christ before the evil
generation of our day, and He too will confess us before God the Father
and His angels.” “Wicel, I shall vanquish by silence and contempt, as
my custom is. How many books I have disposed of and utterly annihilated
merely by my silence, Eck, Faber, Emser, Cochlæus and many others could
tell. Had I to fight with filth, I should, even if victorious, get
dirty in the process. Hence I leave them to revel in their blasphemy,
their lying and their calumny.”
He might, he proceeds, leave Erasmus too to dissolve into smoke like
those others. For a long time past he had looked on him as one crazy
(“_delirus_”); since he had given birth to the “_viperaspides_” (i.e.
“brood of vipers,” a play on the title of the “_Hyperaspistes_”) he had
given up all hopes of his theology, but would follow Amsdorf’s advice
and expose his malice and ignorance to the world.
In contradiction to the facts he goes on to declare, that, in his
“_Explanatio symboli_,” of 1533, Erasmus had “slyly planned” to
undermine all respect for the Christian doctrines, and for this
purpose ingratiated himself with his readers and sought to befool
them, as the serpent did in Paradise. The Creed was nothing to him but
a “fable,”--in support of which Luther adduces what purports to be a
verbal quotation--nothing but the “mouthpiece and organ of Satan”; his
method was but “a mockery of Christ”; according to him, the Redeemer
had come into the world simply to give an example of holiness; His
taking flesh of a virgin Erasmus described in obscene and blasphemous
language; naturally the Apostles fared no better at his hands, and he
even said of John the Evangelist, “_meros crepat mundos_” (because
he mentions the “world” too often): there were endless examples of
this sort to be met with in the writings of Erasmus. He was another
Democrites or Epicurus; even what was doubtful in his statements had to
be taken in the worst sense, and he himself (Luther) would be unable
to believe this serpent even should he come to him with the most
outspoken confession of Christianity.
All this he wrote seemingly with the utmost conviction, as though it
were absolutely certain. At about that same time he sent a warning
to his friend Amsdorf not to allege anything against Erasmus, which
was not certain, should he be tempted to write against him.[592]
Yet Luther’s fresh charges were undoubtedly unjust to his opponent,
although his letter really does forcibly portray much that was
blame-worthy in Erasmus, particularly in his earlier work, for
instance, his ambiguous style of writing, so often intentionally vague
and calculated to engender scepticism.[593]
Not even in Luther’s immediate circle did this letter meet with general
approval. Melanchthon wrote, on March 11, 1534, to Camerarius: “Our
Arcesilaus [Luther] is starting again his campaign against Erasmus;
this I regret; the senile excitement of the pair disquiets me.”[594]
On May 12, 1535, he even expressed himself as follows to Erasmus,
referring to the fresh outbreak of hostilities: “The writings published
here against you displease me, not merely on account of my private
relations with you, but also because they do no public good.”[595]
Boniface Amerbach, a friend of Erasmus’s, sent Luther’s letter to his
brother, calling it a “_parum sana epistola_,” and adding, “Hervagius
[the Basle printer] told me recently that Luther, for more than a year,
had been suffering from softening of the brain (‘_cephalæa_’), I think
the letter proves this, and also that he has not yet recovered, for in
it there is no trace of a sound mind.”[596]
Recent Protestant historians speak of the letter as “on the whole hasty
and dictated by jealousy,”[597] and as based “in part on inaccurate
knowledge and a misapprehension of Erasmus’s writings.”[598]
Shortly after this Luther expressed himself with rather more moderation
in a Preface which he composed for Anton Corvinus’s reply to Erasmus’s
proposals for restoring the Church to unity. In this writing he sought
to make his own the more moderate tone which dominated Corvinus’s
works. He represented as the chief obstacle to reunion the opinion
prevalent amongst his opponents of the consideration due to the Church.
Their one cry was “the Church, the Church, the Church”; this has
confirmed Erasmus in his unfounded opposition to the true Evangel, in
spite of his having himself thrown doubt on all the doctrines of the
Church.[599] He could not as yet well undertake a work on the subject
of the Church, such as Amsdorf wished, as he was fully occupied with
his translation of the Bible. In the Preface referred to above he
announced, however, his intention of doing so later. The result was
his “Von den Conciliis und Kirchen,” of 1539, which will be treated of
below.[600]
Erasmus was unwilling to go down to the grave bearing the calumnies
against his faith which Luther had heaped upon him. He owed it to his
reputation to free himself from these unjust charges. This he did
in a writing which must be accounted one of the most forcible and
sharpest which ever left his pen. The displeasure and annoyance which
he naturally felt did not, however, interfere with his argument or
prevent him from indulging in sparkling outbursts of wit. Amerbach had
judged Luther’s attack “insane”; Erasmus, for his part, addressed his
biting reply to “one not sober.” The title of the writing, published
at Basle in 1534, runs: “_Purgatio adversus epistolam non sobriam M.
Lutheri_.”[601]
It was an easy matter for Erasmus to convict the author of manifest
misrepresentation and falsehood.
He repeatedly accuses the writer of downright lying. What he charges
me with concerning my treatment of the Apostle John, “is a palpable
falsehood. Never, even in my dreams, did the words which he quotes as
mine enter my mind.” Such a lie he can have “welded together” only by
joining two expressions used in other contexts.[602]
As for his alleged blasphemy concerning Christ’s birth from the
Virgin Mary, Erasmus protests: “I can swear I never said anything of
the kind either in a letter, as Luther makes out, though he fails
to say which, or in any of my writings.” Moreover he was a little
surprised to find Luther, whose own language was not remarkable for
modesty, suddenly transformed into a champion of cleanliness of
speech: “Everything, bridegroom, bride and even best man, seems of a
sudden to have become obscene to this Christian Luther,” etc.
Erasmus also points out that the passage concerning the Creed being a
mere fable had been invented by Luther himself by means of deliberate
“distortion” and shameful misinterpretation: “No text,” he exclaims,
“is safe from his calumny and misrepresentation.” As for what Luther
had said, viz. that “whoever tells untruths lies even when he speaks
the truth,” and that he would refuse to believe Erasmus even were he
to make an orthodox profession of faith, Erasmus’s retort is: “Whoever
spoke this bit of wisdom was assuredly out of his senses and stood
in need of hellebore” (the remedy for madness). As to the charge of
deliberately leading others into infidelity he does not shrink from
telling Luther, that “he will find it easier to persuade all that
he has gone mad out of hatred, is suffering from some other form of
mental malady, or is led by some evil genius.”[603]
Luther took good care to say nothing in public about the rebuff he had
received from Erasmus; nor did he ever make any attempt to refute the
charge of having “lied.”
In the circle of his intimate friends, however, he inveighed all the
more against the leader of the Humanists as a sceptic and seducer to
infidelity.
After Erasmus’s death he declared that, till his end (1536), he lived
“without God.” He refused to give any credence to the report that
he had displayed faith and piety at the hour of death. Erasmus’s
last words were: “Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me. I will
extol the mercies of the Lord and His judgments.”[604] Luther, on the
other hand, in his Latin Table-Talk says: “He died just as he lived,
viz. like an Epicurean, without a clergyman and without comfort....
‘_Securissime vixit, sicut etiam morixit_,’” he adds jestingly. “Those
pious words attributed to him are, sure enough, an invention.”[605]
Erasmus, he says,--revealing for once the real ground of all his
hatred--“might have been of great service to the cause of the Evangel;
often was he exhorted to this end.... But he considered it better that
the Gospel should perish and not be preached than that all Germany
should be convulsed and all the Princes be troubled with risings.”
“He refuses to teach Christ,” he said of him during his lifetime; “he
does not take it seriously, that is the way with all Italians and
with them he has had much intercourse. One page of Terence is better
than his whole ‘_Dialogus_’ or his ‘_Colloquium_’; he mocks not only
at religion but even at politics and at public life. He has no other
belief than the Roman; he believes what Clement VII believes; this
he does at his command, and yet at the same time sneers at it.... I
fear he will die the death of the wicked.”[606] After the scholar’s
decease, Luther naturally desired to find his prophecy fulfilled.
An obvious weapon, one constantly employed against Luther by his foes,
was to twit him with his lies; a reply addressed to him in 1531 by a
friend of George of Saxony, Franz Arnoldi of Cöllen, near Meissen, was
no exception to the rule. In this little work entitled “Antwort auf
das Büchlein,” etc., it is not merely stated that Luther, in his “Auff
das vermeint Keiserlich Edict,” had put forward “as many lies as there
were words,”[607] but it is also pointed out that the Augsburg Edict,
“which is truly Christian and requires no glosses,” had been explained
by him most abominably and shamefully, and given a meaning such as His
Imperial Majesty and those who promulgated or executed it had never
even dreamt of.[608] “He promises us white and gives us black. This has
come down to him from his ancestor, the raging devil, who is the father
of lies.... With such lies does Martin Luther seek to deck out his
former vices.”[609]
2. Luther on George of Saxony and George on Luther
The hostile relations between Luther and Duke George of Saxony found
expression at the end of 1525 in a correspondence, which throws some
light on the origin and extent of the tension and on the character
of both men. The letters exchanged were at once printed and spread
rapidly through the German lands, one serving to enlist recruits to
Luther’s standard, the other constituting a furious attack on the
innovations.[610]
Luther’s letter of Dec. 21, 1525, to the Duke, “his gracious master,”
was “an exhortation to join the Word of God,” as the printed title
runs. Sent at a time when the peasants, after their defeat, had
deserted Luther, and when the latter was attaching himself all the more
closely to those Royal Courts which were well disposed towards him, the
purpose of the letter was to admonish the chief opponent of the cause,
“not so barbarously to attack Christ, the corner-stone,” but to accept
the Evangel “brought to light by me.” He bases his “exhortation” on
nothing less than the absolute certainty of his mission and teaching.
“Because I know it, and am sure of it, therefore I must, under pain
of the loss of my own soul, care, beg and implore for your Serene
Highness’s soul.” He had already diligently prayed to God to “turn
his heart,” and he was loath now “to pray against him for the needs
of the cause”; his prayers and those of his followers were invincibly
powerful, yea, “stronger than the devil himself,” as the failure of all
George’s and his friends’ previous persecutions proved, “though men do
not see or mark God’s great wonders in me.”
It is hard to believe that the author, in spite of all he says, really
expected his letter to effect the conversion of so energetic and
resolute an opponent; nevertheless, his assurances of his peaceable
disposition were calculated to promote the Lutheran cause in the public
eye, whatever the answer might be. He will, he says in this letter,
once again “beseech the Prince in a humble and friendly manner, perhaps
for the last time”; George and Luther might soon be called away by
God; “I have now no more to lose in this world but my carcase, which
each day draws closer to the grave.” Formerly he had, it is true,
spoken “harshly and crossly” to him, as God also does “to those whom He
afterwards blesses and consoles”; he had, however, also published “many
kindlier sermons and booklets in which everyone might discern that I
mean ill to no one but desire to serve every man to the best of my
ability.”
The letter partook of the nature of a manifesto, intended to place the
Catholic-minded Prince publicly in the wrong, if it did not, as was
hardly to be expected, draw him over to the side of the innovators.
The Duke replied, on Dec. 28, in a manner worthy of his status in the
Empire and of the firm attitude he had maintained so far. “As a layman”
he refused to enter upon a “Scriptural disputation” with Luther; it was
not untrue that Luther had attacked him “harshly and contrary to the
ordinance of God and the command of the Gospel”; Luther might, if he
chose, compare his former severity with that of God, but he certainly
would not find, “in the Gospels or anywhere in Scripture,” abusive
epithets such as he employed; for him, as a sovereign, to have had to
put up with such treatment from a man under the ban of the Empire,
had cost him much; he had been compelled to put pressure on himself
to accept “persecution for justice’ sake.” Luther’s “utterly shameful
abuse of our most gracious Lord, the Roman Emperor,” made it impossible
for him to be Luther’s “gracious master.”
Formerly, so George admits, when Luther’s writings “first appeared,
some of them had pleased him. Nor were we displeased to hear of the
Disputation at Leipzig, for we hoped from it some amendment of the
abuses amongst Christians.” Luther, however, in his very hearing
at Leipzig, had advanced Hussite errors, though he had afterwards
promised him privately to “write against them” in order to allay
any suspicion; in spite of this he had written in favour of Hus and
against the Council of Constance and against “all our forefathers.”
He, for his part, held fast to the principle, “that all who acted in
defiance of obedience and separated themselves from the Christian
Churches were heretics and should be regarded as such, for so they
had been declared by the Holy Councils, all of which you deny, though
it does not beseem you nor any Christian.” Hence he would “trouble
little” about Luther’s Evangel, but would continue to do his best to
exclude it from his lands.
“One cause for so doing is given us in the evil fruit which springs
from it; for neither you nor any man can say that aught but blasphemy
of God, of the Blessed and Holy Sacrament, of the most Holy Mother
of God and all the Saints has resulted from your teaching; for in
your preaching all the heresies condemned of old are revived, and
all honourable worship of God destroyed to an extent never witnessed
since the days of Sergius [the monk supposed to have taught Mohammed].
When have more acts of sacrilege been committed by persons dedicated
to God than since you introduced the Evangel? Whence has more revolt
against authority come than from your Evangel? When has there been
such plundering of poor religious houses? When more robbery and
thieving? When were there so many escaped monks and nuns at Wittenberg
as now?”[611] etc.
“Had Christ wanted such an Evangel, He would not have said so often:
Peace be with you! St. Peter and St. Paul would not have said that
the authorities must be obeyed. Thus the fruits of your teaching and
Evangel fill us with horror and disgust. We are, however, ready to
stake body, soul, goods and honour in defence of the true Gospel, in
which may God’s Grace assist us!”
After urgent admonitions offered to Luther “as New-Year wishes,” more
particularly to sever his connection with the nun, he promises him his
assistance should he obey him: “We shall spare no pains to obtain the
clemency of our most gracious Lord the Emperor, so far as is possible
to us here, and you need have no fear of any ill on account of what
you have done against us, but may expect all that is good. That you
may see your way to this is our hope. Amen.”
Few Princes were to suffer worse treatment at Luther’s hands than Duke
George. The Duke frequently retaliated by charging Luther with being a
liar.
He wrote, for instance, in 1531, that Luther simply bore witness to the
fact that the “spirit of lying” dwelt in him, “who speaks nothing but
his own fabrications and falsehood.” “You forsworn Luther,” he says
to him, “you who treacherously and falsely calumniate His Imperial
Majesty.”[612]
Luther’s anger against the most influential Prince in the Catholic
League was not diminished by the fact, that the Duke severely censured
the real evils on the Catholic side, was himself inclined to introduce
reforms on his own, and even, at times, to go too far. Such action on
George’s part annoyed Luther all the more, because in all this the Duke
would not hear of any relinquishing of ancient dogma. Hence we find
Luther, quite contrary to the real state of the case, abusing George
as follows: The Duke was secretly in favour of the new teaching and his
resistance was merely assumed; he was opposed to the reception of the
Sacrament under both kinds, only because he wished to tread under foot
the whole teaching of Christ, to forbid Holy Scripture altogether and
particularly to condemn St. Paul;[613] if he, Luther, were not allowed
to abuse the Duke, then neither might he call the devil a murderer and
a liar.[614] “He is my sworn, personal enemy,” he says, and proceeds in
the same vein: “Had I written in favour of the Pope, he would now be
against the Pope, but because I write against the Pope, he fights for
him and defends him.”[615]
Luther, as his manner was, announced as early as 1522 that “the
Judgment of God would inevitably overtake him.”[616] When the Duke,
in 1539, had died the death of a Christian, Luther said: “It is a
judgment on those who despise the one true God.” “It is an example when
a father and two fine grown-up sons sink into the grave in so short a
time, but I, Dr. Luther, prophesied that Duke George and his race would
perish.”[617] There was, according to Luther, only one ray of hope for
the eternal happiness of the Duke, viz. that, when his son Hans lay
dying in 1537, not so long before his own death, it was reported he
had consoled him in the Lutheran fashion. According to Luther he had
encouraged him with the article on Justification by Faith in Christ and
reminded him, “that he must look only to Christ, the Saviour of the
world, and forget his own works and merits.”[618] Needless to say the
pious thoughts suggested to the dying man were simply those usually
placed before the mind of faithful Catholics at the hour of death.
Luther’s imagination and his polemics combine to trace a picture of
Duke George which is as characteristic of himself as it is at variance
with the figure of the Duke, as recorded in history. He accused the
Duke of misgovernment and tyranny and incited his subjects against
him; and, in his worst fit of indignation, launched against the Duke
the booklet “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen” (1531).[619] Yet the
Saxons generally did not regard the Duke’s government as tyrannical
or look upon him as an “assassin,” not even the Lutherans who formed
the majority. On the contrary, they were later on to acknowledge,
that, under the Duke’s reign, they had enjoyed “prosperity and peace”
with the Emperor, amongst themselves and with their neighbours. His
firmness and honour were no secret to all who knew him. The King of
France admired his disinterestedness, when, in 1532, he rejected the
proffered yearly pension of at least 5000 Gulden which was to detach
him from the Empire. At the Diet of Worms this Catholic Duke had been
the most outspoken in condemning the proposal made, that Luther should
be refused a safe conduct for his return journey; he pointed out how
much at variance this was with German ways and what a lasting shame it
would bring on the German Princes. As for the rest he favoured the use
of strong measures to safeguard Germany from religious and political
revolution. He also befriended, more than any other German Prince or
Bishop, those scholars who attacked Luther in print.
After the appearance of the libel “Widder den Meuchler zu Dresen,” he
wrote a reply entitled “About the insulting booklet which Martin Luther
has published against the Dresden murderer,” though it was issued in
1531, not under his own name, but under that of Franz Arnoldi.[620]
The work is more a vindication of the Empire’s Catholic standpoint and
of the honour of the Catholics against Luther’s foul suspicions and
calumnies, than a personal defence of his own cause. It is couched in
the language we might expect from a fighter and a sovereign pelted with
filth before the eyes of his own subjects. It hails expressions of the
roughest against Luther, the convicted “rebel against the Emperor and
all authority,” the inventor of “slimy fabrications and palpable lies”
not worth an answer, amongst which was the “downright false” assertion,
that “the Papists are up in arms” against the Protestant Estates.[621]
In order to understand its tone we must bear in mind Luther’s own
method of belabouring all his foes with the coarsest language at his
command.
At the beginning of his writing the Duke says of Luther’s abuse:
“If both Lutherans and Papists could be reformed by vituperation
and abuse, cursing and swearing, then His Imperial Roman Majesty,
Christian kings, princes and lords would have had no need of a
scholar; plenty other people, for instance, worn-out whores, tipsy
boors and loose knaves, might have done it just as well without any
assistance or help of yours.”[622]
The following, taken from the Duke’s writing, carries us back into the
very thick of the excitement of those years:
“Who is the man who, contrary to God, law, justice and all Scripture
and knowledge, has sacrilegiously robbed, stolen and taken from
Christ all the possessions bestowed upon Him hundreds of years ago by
emperors, kings, princes, lords, counts, knights, nobles, burghers
and peasants, all of whom, out of fervent love and appreciation
for His sacred Passion, His rosy blood and guiltless death, gave
their gifts for the establishment of monasteries, parish-churches,
altars, cells, hospitals, mortuaries, guilds, roods, etc., etc.?
Why, Squire Martin, Dr. Luther!--Who has plundered and despoiled the
poor village clergy--who were true pastors of the Church, ministers
of the Sacraments, preachers and guides of souls--of their blood and
sweat, their hardly earned yearly stipend, nay, their sacred gifts
such as tithes, rents, offerings and Church dues, and that without
any permission of the Ordinaries and contrary to God, to honour and
to justice? Why, Dr. Pig-trough Luther!--Who has robbed, plundered
and deprived God during the last twelve years of so many thousand
souls and sent them down with bloody heads to Lucifer in the abyss
of hell? Who, but the arch-murderer of souls, Dr. Donkey-ear Mertein
Luther!--Who has robbed Christ of His wedded spouses--many of whom
(though perhaps not all) had served Him diligently day and night for
so many years in a lovely, spiritual life--and has brought them down
to a miserable, pitiable and wicked mode of life? Shame upon you, you
blasphemous, sacrilegious man, you public bordeller for all escaped
monks and nuns, apostate priests and renegades generally!--Who has
filched, robbed and stolen from his Imperial Roman Majesty, our
beloved, innocent, Christian Prince Charles V., and from kings,
princes and lords, the honour, respect, service, obedience and the
plighted oath of their subjects (not of all, thank God) by false,
seditious and damnable writings and doctrines? Why, sure, Dr.
Luther!--Who has made so many thieves and scoundrels as are now to
be found in every corner, amongst them so many runaway monks, so
that in many places, as I hear, one is not safe from them either in
the streets or at home? Why, Dr. Luther! That nothing might be left
undone, he has also destroyed the religious houses of nuns.--‘_Summa
summarum_,’ there would be so much to tell, that, for the sake of
brevity, it must stick in the pen.... But I will show you from
Scripture who was the first, the second and the third sacrilegious
robber. The first was Lucifer, who, out of pride, tried to rob the
Almighty of His glory, power, praise and service (Is. xiv. 12). He
received his reward. The second was Aman, who stole from God the
highest honour, viz. worship, for, in his malice, he caused himself
to be worshipped as God. He was hanged on a gallows 50 ells high.
Judas Scariothis stole from Christ and His Apostles the tenth penny of
their daily living; he hanged himself. Luther, the fourth sacrilegious
robber, has surpassed all men in iniquity; what his end and reward
will be God alone knows.”[623]
It has been said, that, among the defenders of Catholicism, no voice
was raised which could compare in any way in emphasis and power with
that of Luther. Döllinger in later life considered that, in comparison
with Luther, his opponents could only “stammer”; what they advanced
sounded “feeble, weak and colourless.”[624] Yet, what we have just
quoted from Duke George cannot in fairness be charged with weakness.
Their indignation and fiery zeal inspired other Catholics too to
express with eloquence and rudeness their conviction of the evil
consequences of Luther’s action.