Modern period of ecclesiastical history, outline of the lectures given during the academic year 1914-1915 Modern Period of History / CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA WASHINGTON, D. C. MODERN PERIOD OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OUTLINE OF THE LECTURES GIVEN DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 1914-1915 BY THE REV. DR. GUILDAY PRIVATELY PRINTED FOR THE USE OF THE STUDENTS •1915 NOTICE These pages are for the convenience of the students and not for others; being confidential in nature. They represent the more important matters treated in the Lectures of 1914-1915. Only references to sources in English (original or translation) are given. Students who wish to round out their notes with French, German, Italian or Latin references will find exhaustive bibliographies on all these subjects in the Cambridge Modern History and in Pastor, especially in vols. 1 and iv. An excellent bibliography ad hoc will be found in Smith, Life of Luther. MODERN PERIOD OF ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY (outline of the lectures given during the academic year 1914-1915, BY THE REV. DR. GUILDAY) Modern Period—Ecclesiastical History 1517-1789 GENERAL OUTLINE FIRST PERIOD: FROM LUTHER TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, 1517-1789. Part I:—Reformation in Germany to the Treaty of Westphalia (1517-1648). Part II:—Reformation in Lands outside Germany (1517-1648). Part III:—The Catholic Counter-Reform (1545-1648). Part IV:—Protestantism from 1648-1789. Part V :—The Catholic Church from 1648-1789. SECOND PERIOD: FROM THE FRENCH REVOLUTION TO THE PRESENT TIME, 1789-1915. Part I :—The Catholic Church during this Period. Section I :—The Church in Rome and the Papacy. Section II:—The Church in each Country in particular. Section III:—The Intellectual Life within the Church. Section IV:—Religious, Social and Moral Life within the Church —the Clergy, Monastic Life, the Laity. Section V:—Missions, Missionaries and Mission Countries. Section VI :—General View of the Present Conditions of the Cath- olic Church in the World. Part II :—The History of the Modern Protestant Sects, with Special Reference to their Growth in the United States. SPECIAL OUTLINE OF THE PERIOD COVERED IN THE LECTURES OF I9I4-I915 FIRST PERIOD: FROM LUTHER TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION, 1517-1789. Part I REFORMATION IN GERMANY TO THE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA (1517-1648). Section I: — the eve of the Protestant reformation. Chapter I:—The Causes of the Protestant Reformation—general, particular. Chapter II:—The Insufficiency of Catholic Reform before 1517. Chapter III:—The Popes and the Councils of this Period (1294- I 5 I 7> Chapter IV:—Historiography of this Period (1294-1517). Section II: — martin luther and the protestant reformation (1483— 1543 )* Introductory Note: Sources and Materials for the Life and Works of Martin Luther. Chapter I:—Luther’s Life to the Theses on Indulgences (1483— 1517)- Chapter II:—Luther and the Religious Revolt in Germany to the “Trial” at Augsburg (1517-1518)—The year after the Theses. Chapter III:—The “Trial” at Augsburg (Oct. 11-14, 1518). Chapter IV:—From the Flight to Wittenberg to the Leipzig Debate (Oct., 1518-July 16, 1519). Chapter V:—From the Leipzig Debate to the Edict of Worms (1518-1521). OUTLINE FIRST PERIOD: FROM LUTHER TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (1517-1789). Part I THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY TO THE TREATY OF WESTPHALIA (1517-1648). Section I: — the eve of the Protestant reformation. Introductory Note:—The international situation of Europe from the Pontifi- cate of Boniface VIII (1294-1303) to the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-17). Chapter I:—The CAUSES of the Protestant Reformation. (Read Schaff, vol. vi, pp. 1-93; Janssen, vol. 1, pp. 594-613). A. In general (or in retrospect): 1. Pre-Reformation heresies of Wicliff and Huss. Similarity of their doctrines with those of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. Cf. Barry, Heralds of Revolt. London, 1906; Ullmann, Reformers before the Reformation (English trans.), 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1855. There is a resume of Bonnechose, Reformateurs avant la Reforme du XVIme siecle , in ch. hi (pp. 52-84) of Fisher, The Reformation. New York, 1873; Capes, History of the English Church in the XIVth and XVth Centuries. London, 1900; Gairdner, Lollardy and the Reformation in England, 3 vols. London, 1908. 2. Moral and intellectual retrogression of secular and regular clergy. Insufficency of preparation. Political character of hierarchy. 3. Unchristian influence exercised by the revival of pagan letters. 4. Ignorance of . the people: forma gregis, forma pastoris. 5. Confiscation of Church property. Consequent poverty of masses; enrichment of nobility at expense of Church and good order. 6. Abolition of clerical celibacy and monastic vows. 7. Doctrine of private judgment. Rejection of ecclesiastical authority in matters of faith and morals. 8. False interpretations taught by Reformers of Catholic doctrines. 9. Political persecutions inflicted on Catholics by Protestant authorities. 10. Popular appeal to the worst passions of the masses. (Read Hergenrother, vol. 11, pp. 375-80, for a summary of these causes. They will be found in English in Stang, Martin Luther , pp. 109-110. New York (Pustet), 1883.) 6 B. In particular (or in prospect): 1. The ORGANIC crisis in the Church, or the financial causes of the Reformation. Disorders in the collation of benefices. (Read CMH, vol. i (Renaissance), ch. xv.) Excursus on Benefices—their rise, history and abuse (read article in CE on Benefices (vol. u, pp. 473-6); cf. Taunton, The Law of the Church. London, 1906). Interference of civil authority in their collation; the regalia; the legacy of the Strife of Investitures from the Middle Ages. Concordats. The transformation of the fiscal system of the Papacy—Tithes, Annates, Peter’s Pence, Procurations, Vacant Benefices, Levies and Subsidies, Indulgences. The Papacy and the Fiiggers. 2. The MORAL crisis, or the partial collapse of Christian morality. (Read Introduction of Wace-Buchheim, Luther's Primary Works. London, 1885.) § I. In the Papacy. 1. Boniface VIII and the Quarrel with Philip IV of France; the Bull Unam Sanctam (1302); the XVth General Council at Vienne (1311-12). 2. The Babylonian Exile of the Papacy (1309-1376). 3. The Great Western Schism (1378-1417). The Synods of Pisa (1409) and of Constance (1414-18). 4. Alexander VI (1492-1503). (Read article on Alexander VI by Loughlin, in the CE (vol. 1, pp. 289-94). 5. Julius II (1503-1513)* 6. Leo X (1513-1521). 7. The Synod of Basel (1431) and of Ferrara-Florence (1438-49). 8. The Schism of Felix V (1439-49). 9. The Papacy and the great Italian families. 10. The passing of the temporal sovereignty of the Papacy and the rise of the modern nations. 11. The Fifth General Lateran Council (15 12-17). § II. In the Episcopate. 1. Uncanonical procedure in filling sees. 2. Feudalism in the episcopate. 3. Non-residence. Luxurious and immoral bishops. 4. Investitures. 7 § III. In the ranks of the clergy. a) Regular clergy. Monasticism of this period. 1) The older Orders. 2) The military Orders. 3) New Orders and Congregations—with special ref- erence to the Brethren of the Common Life. 4) The holders of titles in commendam. 5) Convents of women—disorders in the same. b) Parochial Clergy and the Mendicant Friars. 1) The Chapters—their interminable conflicts. 2) The rural clergy—haphazard methods of training and recruitment. 3) The sale of benefices. 4) The moral state of the clergy in general. 5) The cura animarum—methods and discipline. Preaching, style and doctrine of sermons. c) The celibacy of the clergy. (Cf. H. C. Lea, History of Sacerdotal Celibacy (vol. 1, ch. xxiv). § IV. Among the Laity. 1. High standards of morality in spite of evils in the ranks of the clergy. 2. Attitude of the laity towards the discipline of the Church. Sacramental life of the people—reception of Baptism; frequency of Holy Communion; public confession; Jubilee indulgences; pilgrimages; feasts and fasts. 3. Witchcraft. Trials, executions, inquisitorial processes. 3. The INTERNATIONAL crisis, or the growing opposition to papal supremacy. Cf. Creighton, History of the Papacy During the Reformation , vol. 1. London, 1887. Read article by Macksey on State and Church in the CE (vol. xiv, pp. 250-4). § I. The Babylonian Exile of the Papacy at Avignon—its international effect. § II. The Great Western Schism in its relation to the centralized authority of the Papacy. (Salembier, The Great Western Schism (English trans.). London, 1908. Cf. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy (vol. 11, pp. 488-508). London, 1897.) § III. The false Conciliar theory — Concilium supra Papam. Rise and growth of this theory. (Read Pastor, vol. 1, book m.) § IV. Growing opposition to Roman Law. 8 § V. The worldliness of the papal Court. Secularization of the Curia. Nepotism. (Read Introduction to vols. i and iv of Pastor. § VI. Transformation in the Relations between Church and State. The theocratic idea of the Middle Ages and the national spirit in France, Germany, Italy and England. (Read CMH, vol. i (Renaissance), ch. vn-x.) 4. The ARTISTIC crisis—the Renaissance. (Baudrillart, The Catholic Church , Renaissance and Protestantism (English trans.). New York, 1908. Cf. Symonds, Renaissance in Italy , vol. 11, pp. 488-508. London, 1897.) § I. Christian art (painting, sculpture, music, etc.) to the Renaissance. § II. Pagan influence of Renaissance. § III. The two leaders—Petrarch (1304-1374) and Boccaccio (13 13-1375). (Burckhardt, The Renaissance in Italy , (English trans.). London, 1890.) § IV. Leo the Magnificent (15 13-21). (Roscoe, Life and Times of Leo X. 2 vols. London, 1878.) 5. The INTELLECTUAL crisis—Humanism. § I. General latinisation of culture in Italy. § II. Influence of pagan literature on Christian problems. § III. Nature and grace. Sequere naturam—pleasure, lust, dis- play, cupidity. (Read Baudrillart, Introduction (Eng- lish trans.). § IV. Immoral character of pagan humanism. § V. Conflict between Scholasticism and Humanism. (Read Grisar, vol. 1, pp. 281-6.) 1. Attack on Catholic doctrines. 2. Attack on monasticism. 3. Attack on clerical celibacy. § VI. The Reuchlin-Pfefferkorn Controversy. § VII. Epistolae obscurorum virorum (15 15-15 17). 9 § VIII. Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (1467-1536). (Seebohm, The Oxford Reformers: John Colet , Erasmus , and Thomas More. London, 1887; Drummond, Erasmus, Au Life and Character. London, 1873; Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus. London, 1894; Emmerton, Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. New York, 1899; Nichols, The Epistles of Erasmus. London, 1901.) § IX. Ulrich von Hutten (1488-1523). (Strauss, Ulrich von Hutten , his Life and Times , Eng. Trans, by Mrs. Sturge, 2 vols. London, 1874.) C. CONCLUSIONS on these manifold causes of the Protestant Reforma- tion. Danger of generalizations. Purity of Catholic doctrines. Saintly lives in ranks of clergy and laity. Institutions of learn- ing; asylums for the poor and sick. Adverse effect of civil and profane influences on ecclesiastical life. Church hampered in her efforts to remedy abuses. Opinions of modern authors. Chapter II:—The INSUFFICIENCY OF CATHOLIC REFORM-MOVEMENTS before 1517. § I. Meaning of the phrase: Reform in capite et memhris. § II. The canonical reforms of Clement V (1305-14): Corpus Juris Canonici. § III. Pre-Reformation writers on necessity of reform: 1. Peter D’Ailly (1350-1420). 2. John Gerson (1363-1429). 3. Nicholas de Clemanges (1360-1440), De praesulibus simoniacis. 4. De ruina ecclesiae seu de corrupto ecclesiae statu. 5. Dietrich Von Niem, Monita de necessitate reformations ecclesiae. 6 . De modis uniendi ac reformandi ecclesiam. 7. Matthaeus Von Krakau, De squaloribus curiae Romanae. 8. Jacob Von Jiiterbogk, De negligentia praelatorum; Avisamentum ad Papam Nicolaum V pro reformatione ecclesiae. 9. Sebastian Brand, Das Narrenschiff. (English trans., The Ship of Fools , by Alex. Barclay. Edin., 1874.) § IV. Nicholas of Cusa (1401-64). 1. Reform of Diocesan Synods in Germany. 2. Reform within the Orders, especially the Benedictines. 3. Reform in the convents of women. 10 § V. Abortive Conciliar attempts. 1. Pisa (1409-10). (Read Pastor, vol. I, pp. 175-191.) 2. Constance (1414-18). (Read Pastor, vol. I, pp. 192-207.) 3. Basel—Ferrara-Florence (1431-49). § VI. Jerome Savonarola. (Lucas, Fra Girolamo Savonarola. London, 1899; Luotto, The True Savonarola (Eng. trans.). Florence, 1897; cf. article Fra Gir. Savonarola , in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record (July, 1910), by Hogan; O’Neil, Jerome Savonarola. Boston, 1898; Proctor, The Dominican Savonarola and the Reformation. London, 1895; Villari, Life and Times of Savonarola (English trans.), 2 vols. London, 1897. 1. Birth (Ferrara, 1452), education, and entrance into Dominican Order (1474). 2. His preaching journeys and his sermons (1481-91). 3. Reform at San Marco in Florence (1491). 4. Reform of City, 1491-93. Dictator of Florence. 5. Savonarola and the international political situation (Alexander VI and Charles VIII of France). 6. Alexander’s efforts to silence Savonarola (1495-98). 7. Was Savonarola excommunicated? (O’Neil, Was Savonarola really Excommunicated? Boston, 1900.) 8. His trial and execution (May 23, 1498). 9. Savonarola and Luther—the contrast. § VII. Educational reform in the Netherlands—Gerard de Groote and the School of Deventer (1340-84). (Kettlewell, The Brothers of the Common Life , 2 vols. London, 1882; Woodward, Vittorino da Feltre. Cambridge, 1897.) Thomas a Kempis (1379-1471) and the Imitation of Christ. Rudolph Agricola (1442-1485). Alex- ander Hegius (1433-98). Rudolph von Langen (1438-1519). Erasmus of Rotterdam. § VIII. Reform movements in Church in Spain. Flemish influence on Spanish Church. Ximines. The Complutum. § IX. Reform movements within the Religious Orders. § X. The Spread of the Third Orders of lay people. § XI. The attitude of the Church towards printing (1450-15 17). Chapter III:—The POPES and the COUNCILS of this period (1294-15 17) in their relation to the attempt at reform within the Church. Chapter IV HISTORIOGRAPHY of the period. 11 Section II: — martin luther and the protestant reformation, 1483-1546. Chapter I:—LIFE OF LUTHER TO THE THESES ON INDULGENCES (Nov. 10, 1483-October 31, 1517). § I. Luther’s Family, Boyhood and Youth up to His Entrance INTO THE AuGUSTINIAN MONASTERY AT ERFURT (Nov. IO, I483- July 17, 1505)- I. Family. 1. The name—Luther, and the Luther family. 2. His father—Hans Luther. 3. His mother—Margaret Ziegler. 4. His birth—Eisleben, Nov. 10, 1483. (Question of date and year.) 5. His baptism. II. Education. 1. His preliminary education at Mansfeld. Books used. Studies. 2. Education at Magdeburg (1497). His recollections of his school-days. (See Beard, pp. 129-13 3.) 3. Education at Eisenach (1498). Ursula Cotta, his benefactress. 4. Luther enters University of Erfurt (aged 18) in 1501. a) The University of Erfurt and the New Learning. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 1 29-13 5. Read Beard, p. 231.) b) Excursus on Universities in the Middle Ages. 1) Rise and growth of the University system. 2) Organization of the Universities. 3) Founders of Universities. 4) Studies in the Universities. 5. Luther at Erfurt University. a) 1502—Baccalaureate in Philosophy. b) 1505—Master in Philosophy. c) His decision to enter the Augustinian Monastery of Erfurt, July 17, 1505. Excursus on the Orders and Congregations in the Church. d) The Augustinian Hermits in Germany. e) The Saxon Province of the Order. f) Johann von Staupitz, Vicar-General of the German Congregation. g) The Augustinians and the University of Erfurt. h) Reasons given for Luther’s change of life. (Read Beard, pp. 145 ss.) 1) Sudden death of friend by lightning. 2) The epidemic at Erfurt, and the return journey. 3) Severity of home life. 4) Spiritual and moral conflicts. 12 § II. Luther, the Augustinian Friar. 1. His entrance—July 17, 1505. (Read Grisar, vol. 1, pp. 12 ss.) 2. His probation. 3. The novitiate and profession of vows. 4. Luther and von Staupitz. 5. His studies at the University. 6. His spiritual life during this period. 7. His ordination to the priesthood, Feb. 2, 1507. § III. From His Ordination to His Journey to Rome (Feb. 2, 1507- isn)- 1. The year after his ordination, Feb. 2, 1507-1508. 2. His first Mass. 3. His appointment as Professor in the University of Wittenberg in the autumn of 1508. 4. Bachelor of Sacred Theology, March, 1509. 5. The Catholic Reform movement within the Augustinian Order. 6. Luther’s part in this Reform movement. 7. The Little Saints of the Order. 8. His lectures and literary productions of this period (1508-1510). 9. The “finding” of the writings of John Huss. § IV. The Journey to Rome. (Read Grisar, vol. 1, pp. 29 ss.) 1. Reason of the journey; left Erfurt, Sept. 10, 1510; back at Wittenburg, May 8, 1511. 2. Incidents of the journey; legends, etc. § V. From the Journey to Rome to His Election as Rural Visitor (1515). 1. Luther’s literary activity, 15 10-15 15. 2. Catholic Germany and the Fifth Lateran Council, 15 12-17. 3. Doctorate in Theology, October 18, 1512. 4. Beginning of his lectures in Holy Scripture. a) The Psalms . b) Romans. 5. His students and his method of teaching. 6. His friends at this time. a) John Staupitz. b) Carlstadt (Andreas Bodenstein). c) Wenceslaus Link. d) John Lang. e) Nicholas von Amsdorf. f) Spalatin (George Burkhardt). 7. Erasmus and Luther at this time. 8. Luther’s intellectual position vis-a-vis Humanism, the Renais- sance, the Anti-Roman spirit of Germany, and Catholic doc- trines and morality. 13 9- His sermons during this period. 10. The beginning of his apostasy. Theories and facts on the causes which led up to this. (Read Grisar, vol. i, pp. non.) 11. His letters, 1510-1517. (Smith, Luther’s Correspondence , vol. 1 (1507-21). Phila., 1915.) 1 2. The Indulgence disputes and the Anti-Roman attitude in Germany before 1517. § VI. From His Election as Rural Visitor (April 29, 1515) to the XCV Theses, Oct, 31, 1517. 1. His election as Rural Visitor. Meaning and scope of his authority. (Read Grisar, vol. I, pp. 262-326.) 2. The strife within the Augustinian Order. a) The Observantines. b) The Non-Observantines. 3. Luther and Staupitz in this strife. Their relative positions. 4. His literary work during this time (1515-1517). 5. Its interference with his spirtual life. a) Mass. b) Monastic rule. c) Breviary. 6. His attacks on Scholasticism and the Dominicans. 7. His pseudo-mysticism. 8. The beginning of the error on concupiscence. a) His idea of original sin. b) Timor filialis and timor servilis. c) Distaste for practical works of piety. d) The first false steps on the doctrine of Indulgences. (Read Grisar, vol. 1, pp. 292-96.) 9. His opposition to the Indulgence-preachers, etc. a) Disputations on Indulgences and Penance. b) Luther’s Challenge to Tetzel c) The Preparation of the XCV Theses. § VII. The Indulgence Theses of Oct. 31, 1517. 1. Excursus on Indulgences. (Cf. Pesch, Tractatus Dogmaticae Theologiae , vol. vii, pp. 196 ss.) a) Nature of Indulgences. b) Kinds of Indulgences. c) Methods of granting Indulgences. d) Disposition necessary for Indulgences. e) Catalogue of Indulgences. f) Doctrine of Indulgences. g) Abuses in the “Sale” of Indulgences. h) Roman fiscal system—the Fiiggers. 2. Luther’s attitude towards the Leonine Indulgence. 3 . Influence of the “Sale” of Indulgences on growing spirit of rebellion in Germany. 4. John Tetzel, O. P. (1465-1519). 5. Leo X and Albert of Brandenburg. 6. The nailing-up of the XCV Theses to the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg during the night of Oct. 31, 1517. § VIII. The XCV Theses. 1. Their meaning. What did Luther intend to accomplish? (Read Grisar, vol. 1, p. 31 1 ; Beard, p. 192; Pastor, vol. vn, p. 352; Creighton, History of the Papacy during the Reformation, vol. v, p. 68.) 2. Explanation of each one in its historical setting. (Cf. Schaff, vol. vi, pp. 160-7; Grisar, vol. 1, p. 330; Lindsay, vol. 1, p. 229.) Chapter II:—LUTHER AND THE RELIGIOUS REVOLT IN GERMANY TO THE “TRIAL” AT AUGSBURG (Oct. II-14, 1518). § I. The Controversies Over the Theses. 1. Luther and Albert of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Mainz. 2. Tetzel’s 106 Anti-Theses at Frankfort a/O, Jan. 20, 1518. 3. Luther’s Sermon on Indulgences. (ED, vol. 27, p. 4.) 4. Tetzel’s Vorlegung. (Read resume in Pastor, vol. vn, p. 357.) 5. Tetzel’s second Anti-Theses (50) at Frankfort, May 1, 1518. 6. Luther’s Freiheit des Sermons , May, 1518. (ED, vol. 27, p. 8.) § II. Effect of These Controversies. 1. Intensification of the opposition. a) Against “sale” of Indulgences. 1) On part of clergy. 2) On part of princes and laity. b) Against papal authority. 2. Indulgences forgotten in attack on papal authority. § III. Catholics Find a Leader in Johann Eck (1486-1543). § IV. Luther and Rome. 1. Sources still untouched—Holy Office. (See Pastor, vol. vn, p. 361, note.) 2. Leo X’s attempt to silence the contestants. 3. Luther’s refusal to obey Staupitz. (Read Grisar, vol. 1, p. 297.) 4. The Heidelberg Disputation , April 26, 1518. (Cf. Grisar, vol. 1, p. 315. See theses in EL, vol. 32, p. 383.) 5. Luther sends Resolutions to Rome. 6. Sermon on Excommunication , May 16, 1518. (EL, vol. 33, p. 369.) IS 7- Action of Rome, June, 1518—Perisco, Prierias. Luther sum- moned to Rome, July, 1518. The Responsio (Aug. 9, 1518). (EL, vol. 33, pp. 1-67.) Efforts to have trial in Germany. Letters between Luther, Spalatin, Frederick, Maximilian and Leo X. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 349-50.) 8. Frederick succeeds in having trial at Augsburg. 9. The Papal Briefs to Cajetan (August 23, Sept. 11, 1518). (EL, vol. 33, pp. 361-4.) § V. Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony (1463-1525). Chapter III:—THE “TRIAL” AT AUGSBURG (Oct. 11-14, 1518). (Cf. Brevis Commemoratio rerum Augustanarum , written by John Ruel. EL, vol. 33, p. 365-92.) Introductory Note:—The Diet of Augsburg (1518). History of the German Diets. Object of the Augsburg meeting: choice of an Emperor. The candidates and the imperial electors. Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetan. The quarrel Haps- burg-Valois. Charles V. § I. First Interview with Cajetan, Oct. ii, 1518. 1. Those present; Cajetan’s attitude. The papal Brief of in- structions. (See discussion on same by Pastor, vol. vii, p. 369 note.) Luther’s attitude towards the Brief will be found in EL, vol. 33, pp. 358-60 (Postilla F. M. Lutheri super Breve praecedens). 2. Cajetan’s demands. (EL, vol. 33, p. 369.) a) That Luther should recant his heresies and give signs of repentance. b) That he should promise not to promulgate his doctrines further. c) That he should abstain from whatever might disturb the peace of the Church. 3. The 58th thesis. (EL, vol. 32, p. 290. Cf. Schaff, vol. vi, p. 164.) 4. Luther’s attitude. § II. Second Interview, Oct. 13, 1518. (Pastor, vol. vn, p. 373.) 1. Luther’s defense, denial of heterodoxy, submission to Church, demands hearing before Universities (Basle, Freiburg, Louvain and Paris). Cajetan unable to grant request: not a trial granted, but a recantation asked by the Holy See. 2. Luther’s written defense of his position. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 372 ss.) § III. Third Interview, Oct. 14, 1518. The Crisis Reached. Ex- planation of Cajetan’s Attitude. Luther’s Final Attitude. (See letter from Luther to Spalatin, Oct. 14, 1518, in Smith, Life , p. 49.) Cajetan Endeavors to Silence Luther Through His Augustinian Superiors. 16 § IV. Further Developments of the Situation. a) Oct. 1 6, 1518—Luther appeals from Cajetan to the Pope, or from the Pope male informato to the Pope melius informato. (Appellatus D. M. Lutheri prima a Cajetano ad Papam {acta Augustae , Anno 1518 , mensa Octobri , EL, vol. 33, pp. 397-405.) b) Oct. 17, 1518—Luther writes to Cajetan, admitting Cardinal’s forbearance and his own lack of respect at the interviews. Promises to remain silent on Indulgences if his adversaries do likewise. Firm in his refusal to recant. (EL, vol. 33, p. 393. Translation in Smith, Life , p. 52.) c) Oct. 18, 1518—Luther writes to Cajetan announcing his im- mediate return to Wittenberg. d) Luther waits till Oct. 20 for answer. None came. Leaves Augsburg secretly. e) Oct. 20, 1518, leaves Augsburg. Reaches Wittenberg, Oct. 31, 1518. f) Oct. 28, 1518, Cajetan appeals to Frederick to have Luther sent to Rome for the sake of peace. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 405-9.) This letter reached Frederick Nov. 19, 1518, and was sent by the Elector to Luther. Chapter IV FROM THE FLIGHT TO WITTENBERG TO THE END OF THE LEIPZIG DEBATE (Oct. 20, 1518-July 6, 1519). § I. Luther’s Reply (Nov. 19) to Cajetan’s Letter to Frederick of Oct. 28. His Fears of Banishment. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 435 j-j.) § II. University of Wittenberg Appeals to Frederick in Luther’s Favor. § III. The Bull of Leo X (Nov. 9, 1518) on Indulgences. Doctrine on the same Made Clear. Luther’s Name Not Mentioned in This Document. Cajetan Received This Decree at Leip- zig, Dec. 13, 1518, and Caused it to be Published Throughout Germany. Its Effect Neutralized by the Events which Took Place Between Nov. 19 and Dec. 13. a) Nov. 28, 1518—Luther’s Appellatus M. Lutheri ad Concilium. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 435 ss.) b) Sermon De digna preparatione cordis pro suscipiendo Sacramento Eucharistiae . (EL, vol. 33, p. 3 13.) “The Pope is Antichrist.” c) Dec. 8, 1518—Frederick’s reply to Cajetan’s letter of Oct. 28. Encloses Luther’s letter of Nov. 18, and refuses to proceed against him unless proven heretical. d) Failure of Cajetan’s attempt to silence Luther. (Pastor, vol. vii, p. 380.) § IV. Dec. 11, 1518 — Luther Publishes the Acta Augustana. Purpose and Scope of This Pamphlet. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 367-396.) 17 § V. The Efforts of the Saxon Papal Chamberlain—Miltitz. 1. Life, character and education of the “superficial, frivolous and vain courtier,” Karl von Miltitz (b. 1480, d. 1529). (Pastor, vol. vii, p. 380.) 2. Sent by Leo X (Nov., 1518) to take Golden Rose to Frederick; authorized to pacify the Lutheran faction. His interviews with Pfeffinger, Frederick’s minister; with Spalatin and Frederick. 3. The blame put on Tetzel. Miltitz orders Tetzel to meet him in Altenburg. Tetzel then ill in Leipzig. Miltitz goes to Leipzig—his brutal treatment of Tetzel. Tetzel’s death, August 11, 1519. 4. Jan. 6, 1519—Miltitz meets Luther at Spalatin’s house in Altenburg. Luther again pledges his silence if adversaries do likewise. Luther’s two letters to Frederick on this meeting. Points of agreement: (De Wette, vol. 1, pp. 209, 216, 231. Translation of letters of Jan. 5-6 in Smith, Life , p. 54-5. Letter of Jan. 19, 1519, to Frederick will be found in De Wette, vol. 1, p. 575. Translation in Smith, Correspondence, vol. 1, pp. 153-5.) a) Promises silence, provided opponents do likewise. b) Promises letter of submission to Pope. c) Promises to “send out a paper admonishing everyone to follow the Roman Church, obey and honor her, and explaining that my writings were not to be understood in a sense damaging to her.” d) Promises to abide by decision of Archbishop of Salzburg (Matthew Lang, an intimate friend of Staupitz). 5. Jan. 12, 1519—Emperor Maximilian dies. Papacy’s interest in election clouds the issue with Luther. 6. Luther draws up “paper” in German — Instruction on Certain Articles (ED, vol. 24, pp. 1-10), in which he explains his doctrines on Intercession of the Saints , Purgatory , Indulgences, the Commands of Holy Church, Good Works , and the Church of Rome. His conclusions show a distinct step towards heterodoxy. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 367-396.) 7. March 3, 1519—The unsent letter written by Luther at Alten- burg, for Leo X, in which he expresses his submission to the Holy See, his deep regret over the controversy which has arisen. (This letter will be found in EL, vol. 33, pp. 452-4, and in Enders, vol. 1, p. 442. It was really composed in January, at the time of Luther’s interview with Miltitz; but, as it was not considered satisfactory, it was never sent. Its insincerity can be tested by the letter to Christopher Scheurl, dated Wittenberg, Feb. 20, 1519, in which he states that he is ready to act “in earnest against the Pope and Roman 18 arrogance.” Cf. Smith, Correspondence, vol. i, p. 166. Cf. Beard, p. 275-6, who tries to justify this glaring incon- sistency; Pastor, vol. vii, p. 383.) 8. March 29, 1519—The Pope, badly informed by Miltitz who represented Luther as ready to recant, writes to Luther, in- viting him at papal expense to come to Rome. (Translation of the papal letter in Smith, Corresp., vol. 1, p. 172.) 9. Luther’s literary work at this time. § VI. The Breaking of the silence — The Carlstadt-Eck Controversy. 1. The Obelisci of Eck—an attack on the XCV Theses. 2. Luther’s answer, the Asterici adversus obeliscos Joh. Eccii. The thirteenth proposition against the supremacy of Holy See. 3. Carlstadt enters the arena as Luther’s friend; attacks Eck and Tetzel in the 406 Theses. 4. Eck writes a Defence of his Obelisci, in which he challenges Carlstadt to a public debate before some University. 5. Carlstadt’s Anti-Theses—the twelfth directly opposed to the supremacy of the Holy See. § VII. The Leipzig Debate — June 27-July 18, 1519. 1. March 13, 1519, Luther appeals to Frederick to allow him to answer Eck. 2. Negotiations and arrangements for the Debate. 3. Important development of the Lutheran situation; indulgences forgotten in the attack on papal authority. 4. Luther’s attitude towards Papacy — “I am studying the decrees of the Popes for my Debate and (I speak it in your ear) / know not whether the Pope is Antichrist himself or his apostle ” —Luther to Spalatin, Wittenberg, March 13, 1519 (Smith, Corresp., vol. 1, p. 170). 5. June, 1519—Luther publishes Resolutio Lutherana super pro- position sua xiii de potestate Papae. (EL, vol. 34, p. 296.) 6. Eck arrives at Leipzig June 21/22, 1519. June 23 was feast of Corpus Christi. June 24, Carlstadt and Luther arrive in the city. (Read Beard, p. 293.) Bishop of Merseberg endeavors to stop proceedings. 7. The Debate itself. a) Monday, June 27, 7 a. m., Solemn Procession of disputants and University body to St. Thomas’ Church, followed by Solemn High Mass of the Holy Ghost. After Mass entire body goes to the Pleissenberg. Formal open- ing of Debate. b) Tuesday-Friday, June 28-July 1, disputation between Carl- stadt and Eck on free will, nature and grace. Eck triumphs. c) July 4-14, disputation between Eck and Luther on primacy of Pope. Eck triumphs. (Read Grisar, vol. 1, p. 364.) d) July 16, formal close of Debate with Te Deum. 19 8. Result of the Debate. (The acts of the Debate in EL, vol. 34, p. 18-221.) a) Luther called his defeat a tragedy. (Cf. his letter to Spa- latin on the same, dated Wittenberg, July 20, 1519, in Smith, Life , pp. 64-68.) b) Eck’s tactless celebration of his triumph. c) “Luther the Hussite.” d) The turning point in Luther’s life. Reconciliation with Church impossible. Chapter V:—FROM THE LEIPZIG DEBATE TO THE EDICT OF WORMS (July 16, 1519-May 8-26, 1521). § I. Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560). 1. Birth, education, name, family (grand-nephew of Reuchlin). 2. 1518—appointed to Chair of Greek and Hebrew at Wittenberg. 3. De corrigendis adoloscentiae studiis. (Aug. 29, 1518.) 4. Luther’s influence on Melanchthon; accompanies Luther to Leipzig Debate. 5. Melanchthon assumes leadership of “Reform” party. § II. The Aftermath of the Debate. 1. Eck celebrates his triumph by sending a complete account to Frederick. 2. Frederick gives this account to Luther. 3. Melanchthon sends an account, dated Wittenberg, July 21, 1519, to Oecolampadius. (ED, vol. 34, p. 475.) 4. Eck’s reply Excusatio Joannis Eccii (ED, vol. 34, p. 487), dated Leipzig, July 25, 1519. 5. Melanchthon’s reply Defensio Philippi Melanchthonis . (ED, vol. 34, p. 493.) 6. April, 1519—dispute between Luther and Franciscans of Jiiter- bogk, who select fourteen theses from Luther’s works as heretical. (EL, vol. 33, p. 471.) (Luther’s answer to them, dated Wittenberg, May 15, 1519, in EL, vol. 33, p. 462.) Friars are silenced. Eck takes up gauntlet in their favor, and publishes the fourteen theses (with a xvth, which he put as vth), with a commentary. 7. Luther publishes all the documents on this controversy in his Defensio contra malignum Joannis Eccii judicium. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 462, 472-514.)—This work published later in the year. 8. Quarrel with Hoogstraeten (Reuchlin’s old enemy), who has attacked Luther in his Apologia sua contra Reuchlinum. (EL, vol. 33, pp. 294-7.) Luther answers by letter, dated Witten- berg, July 23, 1518—deserves mention here because scattered about at this time. 20 9- Hieronymus Emser (1497-1527). Most ardent of all Luther’s opponents at this time. Luther’s professor at Erfurt. Accom- panied Duke George of Saxony to Leipzig Debate. Wrote to John Zack accusing Luther of Bohemian tendencies. Luther answered in one of his vilest publications, Ad aegocerotem Emseranum M. Lutheri additio—“To the Emserian Goat.” Emser replied in equally offensive work, A venatione Lutheriano aegocerotis Assertio —“To the Mad Bull of Wittenberg.” Luther publicly burns Emser’s works, together with Bull of Excommunication and the Corpus Juris Canonici(Ju\y 10, 1520). 10. Miltitz continues his fatuous attempts at peace. Two more meetings with Luther—Liebenwerda, Oct. 9, 1519, and Lich- tenburg, Oct., 1520. § III. Germany divided on the Lutheran problem. Scholastics and humanists; Wittenberg and the other Universities (Erfurt, Louvain, Cologne, Paris). Erasmus. § IV. Luther’s literary activity during this period. 1. Commentary on Galatians. 2. Operationes in Psalmos. 3. Exposition of Our Father. 4. His Sermons (Usury, Sacraments, Prayer). Results of his Sermons : a) Sermon on Eucharist — Explanation of Dr. Luther's Articles in his Sermon on the Holy Eucharist. (ED, vol. 27, p. 70.) (Chalice to Laity.) The Stolpian mandate (Jan. 29, 1520). Luther’s Answer to the Placard , issued under the official seal at Stolpe (Feb. 7, 1520). b) On Celibacy. 5. The Tesseradekas. 6. Resolutiones Lutheri super Propositions suas Lipsiae disputatas. (EL, vol. 34, pp. 224-296.) § V. Luther’s further attempts to get a hearing in Germany. Letters to Archbishop of Brandenburg and to Bishop of Merseberg (Leipzig in this diocese at the time), dated Feb. 4, 1520. Kindly letters in reply. Luther’s letter to Spalatin, Feb., 1520—takes a firmer stand against the Holy See (Translation in Smith, Life , p. 72). Influenced by Hutten’s publication of Lorenzo da Valla’s De Donatione Constantini. Through Hutten Luther corresponds with Franz von Sickingen. (See Hutten’s letter to Luther, Mainz, June 4, 1120, advising him to stand fast: “Let us defend the common freedom and liberty of our long enslaved fatherland” — in Smith, Life , p. 79.) Rumors of a Bull of Excommunication in preparation at Rome. Frederick warned of this by Cardinal Riario (May 20, 1520) in letter which reaches him July 6, and which Frederick sent to Luther. Luther’s attitude now one of defiance. (Translation of letter from Luther to Spalatin, dated Wittenberg, July 10, 1520, in Smith, Life, p. 74-5.) 21 § VI. Increasing number of Luther’s adversaries. 1. Louvain and Cologne Universities. Froben’s edition (1519) of Luther’s works examined by these two Faculties and con- demned. Louvain condemnation (Nov., 1519) approved by Cardinal Florentius of Tortosa (formerly of Louvain, later Adrian VI) and published (March, 1520)—EL, vol. 35, p. 176. Luther’s Responsio ad condemnationem per Lovanienses. (EL, vol. 35, p. 172. Cf. Bossuet, Variations (Eng. Trans.), vol. 1, p. 179. For Luther’s and contemporary correspondence on the “Asses of Louvain and Cologne,” cf. Smith, Corresp ., pp. 299 ss. 2. Augustine of Alveld, Franciscan, enters lists against Luther at solicitation of Bishop of Merseberg in a book defend- ing Primacy of the Pope. Luther’s friend Lonicer and Bernhardi replied in Contra Romanistam fratrem Augustinum Alveldensem. (De Wette, vol. 1, p. 446.) Alveld replied in German, and Luther then replied (June, 1520) in German On the Roman Papacy against the Renowned Romanists of Leipzig. (ED, vol. 27, p. 85; Eng. trans. in Works of Martin Luther, with Introduction and Notes. Vol. 1, pp. 327-394. Phila- delphia, 1915.) 3. Prierias, one of his first antagonists, issued an Epitome of a book on the Primacy he was preparing, Epitoma responsionis ad Lutherum: Index quidem longissimus sed brevissimum Epitoma. Luther answered him in the book mentioned above against Alveld. § VII. The Commencement of the Great Apostasy (Grisar, vol. 11, p. 9). The Parting of the Ways. An appeal to the nation for support against Rome. I. June, 1520—rumors grow stronger about the preparation of a Bull of Excommunication. Luther realizes the danger of his position. Cf. Letter to Spalatin, dated Wittenberg, June 8, 1520 (De Wette, vol. I, p. 453; Engl, transl. Smith, Corresp ., vol. 1, p. 328-9) — “I have the intention of publishing a broad- side (public appeal) to Charles and the whole German nobility against the tyranny and wickedness of the Roman Court.” II. The THREE PRIMARY BOOKS—the Cornerstone of the New Religion. (Wace-Buchheim, LuthePs Primary Works. London, 1896.) A. The Address to the Nobility of the German Nation. (Preface, dated June 23, 1520, appeared early in August, 1520)—ED, vol. 21, pp. 274-360. Eng. transl. in Wace-Buchheim, pp. 17-92. 22 Contents : 1. Dedicatory letter to Nicholas von Amsdorf (1483- 1 565), “My particular and affectionate friend. ” a) “The time to keep silence is past and the time to speak has come.” b) “I have brought together some propositions on the improvement of the Christian Estate.” 2. The Book itself. “The bugle-call to revolution.” (Beard, p. 361.) I. The Three Walls of the Romanists. 1. The first wall—Spiritual supremacy of the Pope. 2. The second wall—Custodianship of the Scrip- tures. 3. The third wall—Inferiority of a general Council. II. Of the matters to be considered in the Council. 1. Worldliness of the Papal Court. 2. Avarice of the clergy. Ecclesiastical graft. 3. Unnecessary “swarm of vermin” at Rome in papal service. Plurality of benefices. III. Twenty-seven Articles respecting the Reformation of the Christian Estate. 3. Effects of this work. a) John Lang’s letter advising its recall. Luther’s answer — “persuaded that the papacy is the seat of the true and genuine Antichrist.” (Eng. trans. in Smith, Life , p. 86.) b) Efforts of Gabriel della Volte, General of the Augustinians to silence Luther. His Letters, March 15, 16, 1520, to Staupitz, in Smith, Corresp ., pp. 297-99. —“The axe is laid at the root.” c) Staupitz’s unsuccessful effort for peace at Chapter in Eisleben. His resignation as Vicar. John Lang elected in his place. Staupitz joins Bene- dictines at Salzburg. Dies as Abbot of St. Peter’s Monastery there, 1524. d) Luther to Wenzel Link, Wittenberg, Aug. 19, 1520 — “I do not wish to stir up rebellion, but only to assert the freedom of a general council.” (Eng. trans. in Smith, Life , pp. 87-88.) 23 e) Luther’s Sermon on the Mass. (ED, vol. 27, pp. I 39-I 73 *) Sent by Luther to Staupitz, Aug. 3, 1520, though completed probably in May, 1520. An attack on the Roman liturgy based on Scripture. (Cf. Kostlin-Hay, Theology of Luther, vol. I, pp. 346-54.) f) Luther’s letter to Charles V, D. Martini Lutheri ohlatio sive protestatio. (EL, vol. 36, pp. 1-6.) 4. Sept., 1520—Luther learns of Bull of Excommunica- tion. In October publishes the second Primary Work: B. The Babylonish Captivity of the Church. (Praeludinum de Captivitate Bahylonica , etc.) Written in Latin; translated (1520) into German; appeared in October. 1. The Address was an appeal to the nobility of Germany to throw off Roman authority; the Prelude was an attack upon the fundamental theology of the Church. —“The Papacy is the mighty hunting of the Roman Bishop.” Attacks the Sacramental system, sacra- ment by sacrament. (Latin in EL, vol. 35, pp. 206- 256; German in ED, vol. 27, pp. 173-200; English trans. in Wace-Buchheim, pp. 141-245.)—“Indulgences are wicked devices of the flatterers of Rome.” —“I must deny that there are seven Sacraments, and must lay it down, for the time being, that there are only three: baptism, penance and the bread . . . only one sacrament, and three sacra- mental signs.” —“To deny reception in both kinds to the laity is an act of impiety and tyranny.” —“All vows, whether those of religious orders or of pilgrimages . . . should be done away with.” —“I so detest divorce that I prefer bigamy.” —“Of this sacrament (Orders) the Church of Christ knows nothing; it was invented by the Church of the Pope.” 2. Erasmus saw the consummation of Luther’s heresy in this tract. (Erasmus to John Reuchlin, Cologne, Nov. 8, 1520—Eng. trans. in Smith, Corresp., vol. 1, p. 329 — “a fatal tragedy is now being enacted.”) 3. Henry VIII of England sets about preparing an answer to this work. C. On the Liberty of a Christian Man. (ED, vol. 27, pp. 173-200; English trans. in Wace-Buchheim, pp. 93-137.) 24 1. Object and occasion—Miltitz’s attempt to induce Luther to write apology to Pope; hence Dedicatory Letter to Leo X (mixture of scorn and reverence). The two former Primary Works to the learned; this third, to the people in general. Its mystical character. How far occasioned by the Bull of Ex- communication is uncertain. Luther knew of the Bull early in September. The Tract is dated Sept. 6, 1520. In it he asserts his independence of Pope and Bull. (Beard, p. 370.) 2. Theses in this Tract. A. “A Christian man is the most free lord of all, subject to none. ,, B. “A Christian man is the dutiful servant of all, subject to everyone.” 3. Its influence the widest of the three—contains the elemental mystic principle of Protestantism:—obedi- ence to nothing except to Christ. III. Effect of these Three Primary Works—German national pride aroused as never before (Grisar, vol. 11, p. 38). Luther wins some of Germany’s most prominent men (Pirkheimer, Diirer, etc.) to his doctrines. His alliance with Humanism (von Hutten) and the Anti-Roman nobility (Franz von Sickingen). “Luther the National Reformer” (McGiffert, p. 158). §VIII. EXCOMMUNICATION—the Bull Exsurge Domini (June 15, 1520). I. The preparation of the Bull. 1. Eck’s part in its preparation. At Rome (March, 1520), gives Leo X account of Leipzig Debate, presents him with MS. of his work on the Primacy of Peter, and urges Luther’s condemnation. 2. The committee on investigation (Accolti, Pucci, etc.); its discussions (Feb.-May, 1520). 3. First draft of Exsurge Domine, May 21, 1520. Final draft, June 15, 1520. II. The Exsurge Domine (Bullarium Romanum , vol. 5, pp. 748-757). 1. Influence of the Louvain Condemnation in the wording of the Bull. 2. Elements of the Bull. a) Luther’s errors unconditionally condemned. — Tenor articulorum (41) heresis Lutheri. Lindsay gives a resume of these heretical articles (vol. 1, p. 248). i° Indulgences. 2° Purgatory. 3 0 Efficacy of the Sacraments. 4 0 Penance and good works. 5° Supremacy of the Holy See. 25 b) His writings to be sought out and burned. c) Luther given 60 days for reflection, another 60 days to reach Rome to make his submission—otherwise, excommunication. 3. The Exsurge does not condemn him as a heretic. It is rather a Bull of Warning — Exclamatio Pontificis adversus Lutherum. (Cf. Kalkoff, Forschungen zu Luthers romischen Prozess. Rome, 1905.) Rome made every effort to save Luther from final sentence. (Pastor, vol. vii, p. 404.) III. Its Publication. A. The two papal Briefs, July 17-18, 1520, entrusting publi- cation of Exsurge to Papal Librarian, Jerome Aleander and to Dr. John Eck. 1. Recapitulation of Eck’s life up to this point. 2. Jerome Aleander (1480-1542). B. The choice of Eck a “great misfortune to the Catholic cause” (Pastor, vol. vn, p. 406). Eck’s efforts to pub- lish Bull in Germany. (It had been secretly published and lampooned by humanists and satirists before his arrival in August, 1520.) Carried his life in his hands, owing to opposition. His powers of inserting names in the Bull. The submission of Adelmann, Pirkheimer and Spengler. (Beard, pp. 377-8.) C. Its reception in Germany—best index of popular feeling for and against Rome. (Pastor, vol. VII, pp. 408-13.) Reasons for the opposition: 1. Eck’s personal influence in its composition. 2. Material, economic and pacificist objections. 3. Supineness of the hierarchy. D. The reception at Wittenberg (Oct., 1520). Student riot. IV. Luther and the Exsurge. “Forgery.” 1. Eck’s New Bull and Lies. (ED, vol. 24, pp. 17-31.) 2. Nov. 17, 1520—Luther appeals a second time from Pope to General Council. (ED, vol. 24, pp. 31-38.) 3. Against the Execrable Bull of Antichrist. (ED, vol. 24, pp. 38-55; EL, vol. 36, pp. 132-156.) 4. Dec. 10, 1520—The burning of the Exsurge at Wittenberg. Luther’s complicity. 5. An assertion of all the Articles of Martin Luther condemned in Leo X’s Bull. (Jan., 1521.) ED, vol. 24, pp. 55-151; El, vol. 36, pp. 154-233. (Justification of his doctrines.) 6. Why the Books of the Roman Pontiff and of his disciples have been burned by Martin Luther. (ED, vol. 24, pp. 151-166.) In this work Luther enumerates 30 propositions of Canon Law as worthy to be burnt. Prologue gives five reasons for his act. (Beard, pp. 3 76-7.) V. Erasmus and Luther. 26 § IX. The Papal Envoys (Aleander and Carracciolo) to the Diet of Worms. Their failure. I. The Diet of Worms (opened Jan. 28, 1521). First imperial Diet of Charles V (1500-1558). Purpose: reorganization of his vast empire and the consolidation of peace. Religious question only arises in April, when Luther arrives. 1. Charles V, and his attitude towards Luther. 2. Aleander (1480-1542) had charge of the ecclesiastical ques- tions for the Church at the Diet; Carracciolo (1459- 1538) had charge of the political interests of the Papacy. 3. Aleander arrived at Worms in November, 1520. His re- ception, and the opposition towards the Papacy — “Nine-tenths of the Germans shout, ‘Long live Luther,’ and the other tenth, ‘Death to Rome’!” 4. Erasmus brought into the affair by Frederick, who asked him to show how Luther had erred. Erasmus wrote the Axiomata Erasmi Rotterdami pro causa M. Lutheri , which was published in the Brevis Commemoratio rerum coloniae Agrippinae in causa Lutheri gestarum. (EL, vol. 36, pp. 238-51.) 5. Nov. 28, 1520, Charles wrote to Frederick, telling him to bring Luther to Worms. Aleander’s efforts to prevent this. 6. Dec. 7, 1520, Charles countermands the order to bring Luther. 7. Luther’s letter to Spalatin on this order, Wittenberg, Dec. 21, 1520. (Eng. transl. in Smith, Life, p. 105.) 8. Aleander’s efforts to have Luther placed under imperial ban—outlawing him. Luther’s letter to Frederick, Wittenberg, Jan. 25, 1521, asking him for a “free safe- conduct for all emergencies.” (Eng. trans., Smith, Life , pp. 106-7.) 9. Aleander’s opponents—Von Hutten and von Sickingen. 10. Aleander’s recognition of the justice of some of the com- plaints in Germany against the Papacy. (Pastor, vol. vii, p. 441. Pastor’s whole eighth volume is a graphic description of the unfortunate condition of things in the Church at this time.) 11. Feb. 12, 1521. Aleander presents to Charles the Bull, Decet Romanum Pontificem (Bullarium Romanum , vol. 6, p. 761), of Jan. 3, 1521, announcing the excommunication of Luther, since the time (60 days) had passed. At the same time Leo X sent a Brief to Charles requesting him to issue an Edict securing the papal sentence. Charles temporized, claiming that States of Empire must be con- sulted. 27 12. Aleander appeared before Diet with the request that the excommunication be executed. Speech on this occasion a masterpiece. Two points: a) Luther’s heresies dangerous to the State and Church. b) Prevention of his being given a hearing at Worms. Anti-papal feeling so strong among Princes that this second point was lost. Even Duke George of Saxony, noted for his allegiance, brought forward the old grava- mina of the German nation against the Papacy. 13. Feb. 19, 1521. States reject imperial Edict condemning Luther unheard and suggest a safe-conduct to Worms and a trial there. II. Charles V and Luther. 1. March 2, 1521. Charles consents. March 6, 1521, safe- conduct granted to Luther ordering him to appear at Worms in 21 days “to obtain information about certain doctrines and certain books which originated with you.” Charles’ letter to Luther, dated Worms, March 6, and the safe-conduct. (Eng. trans. in Smith, Corresp ., pp. 482-4.) March 26, 1521—imperial edict orders destruction of all Luther’s works. 2. The Political character of the Religious Rebellion at this time. A. The attitude of the Reformers towards the Papacy. a) The confusion between the politico-social disorders in the Empire and the religious dissatisfaction. b) The later Protestant claim of progress in intel- lectual and industrial circles after the Los von Rom movement. B. The position Charles held vis-a-vis the Empire. a) His ancestry and his possessions. b) His education and his abilities. c) The condition of the Empire in 1519. 1) The problem of the Orient. 2) The religious divisions of Germany. 3) The rise of the German nationalism. d) His policy towards the Papacy. e) The Hapsburg-Valois enmity, 1520-1544. C. The attitude of the Papacy towards the Empire and Charles. a) The international policy of the Papacy at the close of the Middle Ages—supremacy in Italy and primacy in Christendom. b) Were France and Spain papal pawns in this international policy? 28 3. Von Hutten’s threatening letter to Charles V, dated Ebern- burg, March 27, 1521 (Eng. transl. in Smith, Corresp ., pp. 503-4): “They accuse Luther of heresy not con- sidering what crimes that involves; but they accuse him and shout that he should be condemned unheard . . . ” Von Hutten apologized for this letter (April 8, 1521), but made a second violent attack on “these fellows,” Aleander and Carracciolo. III. Luther at the Diet. 1. Luther leaves Wittenberg for Worms, April 2, 1521. 2. The incidents of the journey; his companions. 3. The gathering of the evil geniuses of the rebellion against Rome. 4. Glapion’s (Charles’ confessor) efforts to settle the affair at the Ebernburg. Luther’s refusal to meet him. 5. Arrival at Worms, April 16, 1521. 6. Luther before the Diet (April 17, 1521). (Read Schaff, vol. vi, pp. 301 ss.; Pastor, vol. vii, pp. 433 ss.) a) Aleander’s clever management of the trial. b) Luther’s admission of authorship. c) Asks for a day to reflect before answering question whether he would recant. 7. The day of April 18, 1521. a) Long speech by Luther (Latin and German) defending his doctrines. b) Luther defies the Diet. “Here I stand. I can not do otherwise. God help me. Amen!” (On the authen- ticity of this celebrated saying, see Grisar, vol. II, pp. 72 - 77-) 8. April 19, 1521—Charles’ declaration to the Diet on the preservation of peace and othodoxy. 9. April 19-20, 1521—Lutherans threaten to arouse the peasantry. Some of the Princes and the Archbishop of Mainz frightened; private consultations with Luther opened up; their failure. (Pastor, vol. vii, p. 435.) 10. April 25, 1521, Luther asks permission to return to Witten- berg. Safe-conduct of 21 days granted. 11. Luther left Worms on April 26, reached Frankfurt on the 28th, and went through Hersfeld, Eisenach and Mohra, where his father was born. IV. His “capture” and quasi-imprisonment in the Wartburg. 1. “Captured” by some knights in service of Frederick and taken to the Wartburg (May 4, 1521). 2. “Knight George.” 3. The change in his career. (Denifle, vol. 11, p. 212.) 29 V. The closing of the Diet and the Edict of Worms (May 26, 1521). 1. After Luther’s departure Aleander draws up the Edict of condemnation or ban. 2. May 5, Charles concludes alliance with Leo X against France. 3. May 23, Frederick leaves Worms. 4. May 25, Diet closes. 5. May 26, Aleander presents Latin and German copy of Edict to Charles during Mass, (Trinity Sunday). The emperor signs both after Mass, May 26, though the documents were dated May 8. Reason for the antedating. The Edict will be found in Walch, vol. xv, pp. 2264-80. It gave legal force to the Bull of Excommunication within the Empire. Luther a public outlaw. 6. May 31, Charles left Worms. VI. The attitude of the Princes towards the Edict—the verdict of the Diet not the verdict of the nation. Notice The Lectures of 1915-1916 begin with 30 Chapter VI:—THE YEAR ON THE WARTBURG AND THE PROGRESS OF THE REFORMATION IN LUTHER’S ABSENCE.