The Age of Darkness.—We have not found it necessary to our purpose to dwell upon the particular events of ecclesiastical history from the tenth to the sixteenth centuries. Those were the days of spiritual darkness of this earth. The papal power was supreme, and with an iron hand it ruled the nations. Some idea of its arrogance and power may be conjectured from the fact that in the eleventh century^[1] Henry IV, of Germany, the greatest temporal monarch in the world, in that age, stood for three days together in mid-winter, bare headed, and bare footed, and meanly clad, at Canossa (a town in Italy where the pope was temporarily residing), professing himself a penitent in order to obtain absolution from the Roman pontiff, Gregory VII. His offense was persisting to sell ecclesiastical offices in his empire contrary to the edicts of the pope. [See note 1, end of section.]^[2]

2. The Revival of Learning.—In the latter part of the fifteenth century occurred that event called by historians the "Revival of Learning." The intellectual stupor of Europe had been as profound as spiritual darkness had been dense. But with the close of the fifteenth century, literature, science and art seemed to spring into active life. The invention of gun-powder^[3] had completely revolutionized the modes of warfare; the employment of the mariner's compass made ocean navigation less dangerous; the discovery of a new passage to India by the Cape of Good Hope, by Vasco de Gama [Vas-ko-da-ga-ma], and the discovery of America by Columbus, greatly enlarged the commerce of Europe and increased the comforts of life. Painting in oil came into vogue about this time and filled Europe with masterpieces of art; engraving on copper, invented early in the century, multiplied and diffused them. Paper made of linen also came into common use; and, finally, between 1436 and 1452 A. D. printing was invented, which gave to the modern world the intellectual riches of the ancients.

3. In the middle of this century—the fifteenth—Constantinople was taken by the Turks, and with that event the eastern division of the Roman empire fell. The fall of the great capital drove many of the Greeks into Italy. They took with them a greater knowledge of antiquity than that possessed by the western nations, together with numerous manuscripts; and literature from that time may be said to have commenced its splendid career. [See note 2, end of section.] Intellectual pursuits became not only a pleasure, but a passion; "and it may be regarded as a maxim, that wherever the progress of intelligence is a true pleasure, a desire for liberty is soon felt, nor is it long in passing from the public mind to the state."^[4] It was so in Europe; for the "Revival of Learning" preceded, and there can be no doubt that it did much to produce, that struggle for enlarged liberty which convulsed Europe in the following century.

4. Release of the Masses from Serfdom.—The masses, moreover, began to be released, to some extent, from the serfdom of former times, and to be given some share of civil and political freedom. This change was largely due to the breaking up of the old feudal system of land tenure and service. According to feudal principles, all the land of a country belonged to the king, not as representing the community, but as sovereign feudal lord. Out of this land the king granted portions to his subjects, on condition of their paying him homage and fealty, and rendering him active military service a certain number of days in every year. The estates the king granted to his more immediate and distinguished followers, whom he called his barons, were styled baronies, and were of large extent; the barons in their turn made undergrants to their own retainers, on similar conditions to those imposed upon themselves by the king. The relation between landlord and tenant, though at first merely lifelong, soon came to be regarded as hereditary, the heir becoming entitled on the death of the tenant to occupy his land upon the same terms.^[5]

5. This order of things established a powerful landed aristocracy on the one hand, and a peasant tenantry on the other, whose vassalage was but little removed from absolute slavery. The crusades and the development of a commercial class, living chiefly in the cities, in time wrought the destruction of feudalism.

6. The Crusades, their Influence on Feudalism and Liberty—The crusades were religious wars carried on in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, between the Christian nations of the West and the Mohammedans of the East. It had for ages been looked upon as an act of piety to make a pilgrimage to Palestine and visit the various places hallowed by the presence of Messiah during his earthly career, especially his sepulchre at Jerusalem. These Christian pilgrims had been respected by the Saracens for centuries; but when the Seljuk Turks captured Jerusalem, towards the close of the eleventh century, the Christians met with insult and cruelty. The western nations, under the fervent preaching of Peter the Hermit, a native of France, who had witnessed the atrocities practiced upon Christians in the Holy Land, were lashed into a fury of resentment against the Turks. Pope Urban II took up the cause, and advocated wresting the Holy Land from the dominion of the infidels. Europe responded, "God wills it," and preparations were made for the holy war.

7. To raise the money necessary to equip and transport their soldiers to the distant East, the barons had to sell their lands, which had the effect of breaking down to a very great extent the feudal system of land tenure, and with it the obligations that it imposed. The direct result of this was to enlarge the liberties of the people. For the same purpose—to raise money for carrying on the holy wars in the East—kings granted to the towns political privileges, a circumstance which also contributed vastly to the progress of popular liberty. Thus the way was prepared for that religious revolution of the sixteenth century known in history as the Reformation.

8. Martin Luther.—The Reformation is usually considered to have begun with the fearless preaching of Martin Luther against the sale of indulgences, A. D., 1517. Luther was born at Eisleben [Is-la-ben], Germany, A. D., 1483. His father was a miner of Mansfield in the same country. After attending the school of Magdeburg [Mag-de-boorg] and Eisenach [Is-sen-ak] he was sent to study philosophy and jurisprudence at Erfurt [Er-foort]. Much against the will of his father, he abandoned the pursuit of these studies, and joined himself to the Augustine Eremites, a rigid order of mendicant monks. His good temper, industry and abilities won for him the good opinions of his superiors. In 1508 he was sent by his vicar-general to be professor of philosophy at Wittemburg. While here he applied himself to Biblical theology and soon discovered a wide discrepancy between the religion of the scriptures and that of the church. Two years after becoming a professor at Wittemburg, he made a journey to Rome on some business connected with the Augustine order of monks; and was not a little shocked at the corruption and depravity of the Italian clergy. That visit to Rome did much to dispel the veneration in which he had held the "Holy See," and armed him for his subsequent conflict with it.

9. Indulgences and their Origin.—The thing which provoked Luther's opposition to the church of Rome was the reckless sale of indulgences by the agents of the pope in Germany. The origin of indulgences, according to the learned Schlegel, must be sought in the earliest history of the church. In the first centuries of the Christian era, such Christians as were excluded from the communion of the church on account of their apostasy in the times of persecutions, or on account of other heinous sins, had to seek a restoration to fellowship by a public penance, in which they entreated the brethren to forgive them, frequently standing before the door of the church clothed in the garb of mourning. This punishment was regarded as a sort of "satisfaction" made to the community of saints, and was called by that name. In the case of aged or infirm Christians this "satisfaction" was sometimes omitted, and this omission was called "indulgence." Originally, therefore, indulgences were merely the remission of ecclesiastical punishments imposed on grave offenders against church laws.^[6]

10. It is maintained, however, in the decretal of Pope Clement VI, that "one drop of Christ's blood being sufficient to redeem the whole human race, the remaining quantity that was shed in the garden and upon the cross, was left as a legacy to the church, to be a treasure from whence indulgences were to be drawn and administered by the Roman pontiffs."^[7] The doctrine was held that Messiah had atoned for the eternal punishment of sins, but not for its temporary punishment. The temporary punishment the Catholic Church divided into that of the present life and that of the future life, or of purgatory. It was held that every man who attained salvation, must suffer the temporary punishment of his sins, either in the present world or in the flames of purgatory. It was also held that the priest to whom a man confessed his sins, had the power to adjudge and impose the necessary punishment.

11. The punishment usually consisted of fastings, pilgrimages, whippings, etc.; but people of distinction and wealth were permitted to employ substitutes to receive this punishment; and there were monks ever ready to endure the punishment of the transgressor for a consideration paid in money. This penance was finally changed to paying to the church the money instead of employing monks to endure the punishment. Whoever, for instance, was bound to whip himself with so many stripes each day for several weeks might pay to the church or to the monastery a certain sum of money, or give it a piece of land and then be released from the penance. As the popes perceived that something might be gained in this way, they assumed to themselves the right of commuting penances for pecuniary satisfactions, which every bishop had before exercised in his own diocese. At first they released only from the punishments of sin in the present world; but in the fourteenth century they extended this release also to the punishment in purgatory.

12. The Traffic in Indulgences.—When such indulgences were to be published, the disposal of them was commonly farmed out. The papal court could not always wait to have the money conveyed from every country of Europe; and there were rich merchants at Genoa, Milan, Venice, and Augsburg, who purchased the indulgences for a particular province and paid to the papal treasury handsome sums for them. Thus both parties were benefited. The pope came at once into possession of large sums of money; and the farmers did not fail of a good bargain. They were careful to employ skillful hawkers of the indulgences, persons whose boldness and impudence bore due proportion to the eloquence with which they imposed upon the simple people. Yet that this traffic might have a religious aspect, the pope appointed the archbishops of the several provinces to be his commissioners, who in his name published that indulgences were to be sold, and usually selected the persons to hawk them, and for this service shared the profits with the merchants who farmed them.^[8] [See notes 3 and 4, end of section.]

13. In the beginning of the sixteenth century the sale of indulgences was pushed vigorously and became most offensive. The reason for resorting to this mode of raising revenue was justified by the pope on the plea of completing the church of St. Peter, at Rome, which had been commenced by Julius II.

14. John Tetzel.—The hawker of indulgences who traveled through Germany, where Luther was living, was John Tetzel, a Dominical monk, at once one of the boldest, most eloquent and the most profligate of men. [See note 6, end of section.] His reckless preaching of these papal wares aroused the indignation of Luther, who published ninety-five propositions against the sale of indulgences, in which he even gently censured the pope for permitting the people to be diverted from Christ.

15. The Indifference of Leo X to the Agitation in Germany.—The dispute which arose between Luther and Tetzel was looked upon at Rome as the wrangle between two monks—Luther was an Augustine monk, Tetzel a Dominican; and it was supposed that the former was jealous because the Dominicans had been preferred for this work of selling indulgences. In addition to assailing Tetzel, Luther wrote a protest to Albert, Archbishop of Mentz and Magdeburg, and was as surprised as he was indignant to learn that the archbishop received of the profits arising from this wretched traffic. His assault upon Tetzel provoked a protracted controversy, a war of pamphlets between himself and Tetzel and his friends, among whom was John Eckius, a theologian of Ingolstadt. The dispute on both sides was more noted for its warmth than for its Christian character.

16. At last Leo X was aroused from his indifference to the controversy that had arisen in Germany, by the emperor, Maximilian I informing him that the agitation was serious, and that Germany was taking sides in respect to it. He therefore appointed Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, then at the diet of Augsburg, to hear the cause of Luther. The cardinal summoned the monk before him at Augsburg, in October, 1518. They had three interviews, but nothing was accomplished towards reconciliation, as the cardinal treated Luther imperiously, and peremptorily ordered him to submit his judgment to the authority of the pope. This the reformer refused to do until he was convinced of his error, and appealed from the pope ill-informed to the pope better-informed. This took the matter out of the hands of the cardinal.

17. An Appeal to a General Council.—There was a difference between the Reformer and the cardinal in their views in respect to authorities appealed to. The latter sought to convince the former of his errors by appealing to the canon law,^[9] and the authority of Lombard;^[10] but Luther refused to admit of any proof except that of the holy scripture, and as the cardinal seems not to have been able to make good his censure of the Reformer's doctrines by proofs from the scriptures, Luther appealed to the pope better informed. But Leo X, the month following (Nov. 9th), issued an edict requiring the church to believe in his power to forgive sins. Learning of this, Luther promptly appealed from the pope to a future council of the whole church.^[11]

18. Discussion on Free Will.—Meantime the points of disagreement between the Reformer and the church of Rome increased. In 1519 John Eckius [Eck-ius] challenged Andrew Carlstadt [Karl-stat], a friend and colleague of Luther's, to a discussion on the subject of Free Will, about which there was a disagreement between the Reformer and those who thought with him—among whom was Carlstadt—and the adherents of the church of Rome. In this dispute Carlstadt maintained—and of course his were Luther's views—that since the fall, the natural freedom of man is not strong enough to move him to that which is morally good, or to do the will of God. Eckius on the contrary insisted that the free will of man produces good works, and not merely the grace of God; that our free will co-operates with divine grace in the production of good works, and that it depends on man's free power, whether he will give place to the operations of grace or will resist them.

19. Luther and Eckius.—After this dispute with Carlstadt, Eckius drew Luther—who had been present at the discussion on Free Will—into a public debate on the foundation of the authority of the pope. Eckius maintained the orthodox view that the supremacy of the pope was founded on divine right, that he was the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of Christ. Luther allowed the superiority of the pope over other bishops, but based that superiority on other grounds. He could not deny that the pontiffs had possessed a decided pre-eminence from age to age, and therefore he conceived it as his duty not to resist the powers that be. "Unless it had been the will of God," he went on to say, "the pope could never have attained so great and durable a dominion. The whole body of the Christians own themselves to be under the Roman pontiff. This universal consent is a consideration of the greatest weight; the unity of the church should be preserved in everything that is not directly contrary to the word of God."^[12]

20. In all these admissions, however, it will be observed that the Reformer placed the supremacy of the pontiffs on human, not divine right. It was based upon tradition, upon human arrangement. To the contention of Eckius that the expressions—"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom"—evinced the supremacy of Peter and his successors; that this was the explanation given by the holy fathers, etc., Luther replied: That even if all the fathers, without exception, had understood the passages in that sense, he would confute them by the authority of St. Paul, and by St. Peter himself, who said that Jesus Christ is the only foundation and corner-stone of the church. And further, if the words "Thou art Peter," etc., be construed strictly then they must be confined to the person of Peter and therefore the authority conveyed by them ceased when that apostle died.^[13]

21. The dispute amounted to nothing except that it widened the breach between the See of Rome and the Reformer. The latter, while preparing for his discussion with Eckius, had his suspicions aroused that the pope was the very anti-Christ of the New Testament. At the conclusion of the debate, George, Duke of Saxony, said to the disputants, privately, "Whether the pope exists by divine or by human right, he is, however, the pope;" and that remark doubtless expressed the sentiments of the papist party.

22. Luther Condemned and Excommunicated.—Eckius hastened to Rome after the discussion at Leipsic [Lip-sik], where, with the assistance of other enemies of Luther, among them Cardinal Cajetan, he urged Leo X to condemn him and his works. This Leo did by issuing a bull, in which forty-one of his tenets were pronounced heretical; his writings condemned to the flames, and he himself commanded to confess his faults within sixty days, beg the forgiveness of the pope or be excommunicated from the church.

23. This bull of condemnation Luther burned; together with a copy of the pontifical canon law, in the presence of a vast multitude. (See note 6, end of section.) By this act he meant to withdraw from the church of Rome, that the excommunication which was expected to follow might be robbed of its force. About a month later—4th of January, 1521—the second bull of Leo was issued in which the Reformer was expelled from the Catholic church for his heresies and for violating the majesty of the pontiff. (See note 7, end of section.)

24. Luther Before the Diet at Worms.—After issuing his bull of excommunication, Leo X called upon the emperor of Germany, Charles V, to vindicate his title to "Advocate and Defender of the Church," by inflicting due punishment on that "rebellious member, Martin Luther." Charles, however, was under deep obligations to Frederic, the Wise, Elector of Saxony, for his election by the states of Germany to the imperial dignity; and Frederic, being a warm friend of Luther's and favorable in the main to his doctrines, advised the emperor to take no action against the Reformer until he had given him a hearing. This course Charles resolved to follow, and therefore summoned Luther to appear before the diet which assembled at Worms in 1521.^[14]

25. Before this august body the Reformer appeared to make answer to the two questions: First, if the books which he had written, the titles of which were read to him, were his; second, if he was prepared to retract those books and their contents, or if he persisted in the opinions he had advanced in them. He acknowledged the books to be his, and in a speech of some length he explained his motives in writing his books, and refused to retract them. He thus concluded his speech:

26. I cannot submit my faith either to the pope or to the council, because it is as clear as the day that they have frequently erred and contradicted each other. Unless, therefore, I am convinced by the testimony of scripture, or by the clearest reasoning—unless I am persuaded by means of the passages I have quoted,—and unless they thus render my conscience bound, by the word of God, I can not and will not retract, for it is unsafe for a Christian to speak against his conscience. HERE I STAND, I CAN DO NO OTHER, MAY GOD HELP ME! AMEN!

27. Luther was protected by a safe conduct from the emperor—a written guarantee pledging the faith and honor of the empire for his safety for a limited length of time—or doubtless he would have been burned at the stake for his adherence to his doctrines and his defiance of the pope. Indeed, some members of the diet advised the violation of the safe conduct, as the word of honor given to an heretic, according to the morals of the age, was not binding. Charles V, however, would not listen to such perfidy. He dismissed Luther to return to Wittenberg in accordance with the terms of his safe conduct; at the same time condemning him as an heretic misled by his own folly. He forbade him on his return to Wittenberg to cause the least disorder among the people, and then promised the representatives of the pope that he would proceed against him and his adherents as contumacious heretics, by excommunication, by interdict and by every means calculated to destroy them.

28. Luther's Confinement at Wartburg.—Prince Frederic, the Wise, fearing that Luther would fall a prey to his enemies, in the storm which he saw gathering about him, had him intercepted on his way back to Wittenberg, by persons in disguise, who carried him to the castle of Wartburg [Wart-berg], where he was concealed ten months. The extremes into which some of his followers went, both in doctrine and in opposition to the Catholics, at last called him from his place of retirement, in order to restrain them and correct the abuses to which some of his doctrines gave birth.

29. Death of Leo X—Demands for a General Council.—The year following the diet at Worms, Leo X died and was succeeded by Hadrian VI. This pontiff, while renewing the demand that the edict of the diet of Worms against Luther and his adherents should be executed, acknowledged the church to be in a lamentable condition, and promised a general reformation. The assembled princes at the diet of Nuremberg, before which the demands of Hadrian were presented, thought the time propitious—the emperor Charles was absent in Spain—to insist upon a free council to be held in Germany, to deliberate in the ancient manner on a general reformation of the church. This Hadrian promised to grant, but before it could be assembled he died, having occupied the papal chair but two years and eight months. He was succeeded by Clement VII, who reproved the German princes for neglecting to proceed against Luther and his adherents. The emperor seconded the demands of the pope, and a number of the princes, awed by the united demands of the pope and the emperor, promised to enforce the edict to the extent of their power.

30. Death of Frederic—Distinct Church Founded.—In 1525, Prince Frederic, the Wise, Elector of Saxony, and friend of Luther, died. He was succeeded by his brother John. Frederic had ever been an ardent admirer of Luther, but was extremely cautions in giving him any direct assistance. John was of a different temperament. He believed the principles which the Reformer taught, but saw quite clearly that they must either be abandoned or the authority of the pope discarded. He resolved upon the latter; and taking matters in his own hands, determined to organize a church altogether distinct from that of Rome. To accomplish this he called upon Luther and Philip Melancthon [Me-lanc-thon] to draw up a formula for public worship, and draft a form of church government in harmony with their principles, fixing the salaries of the clergy, defining their official duties, etc. This the Reformers gladly undertook, and shortly afterwards had the pleasure of seeing other German princes pursue the same course that John had taken, and adopt the system of worship they had formulated.

31. The Rupture Between the Pope and the Emperor.—This bold step threatened for a time to disrupt the German empire; for the princes who remained true to the old religion openly consulted together upon the advisability of taking up arms against the Lutherans; and the princes favoring the Reformers met to consider the necessity of forming an alliance to resist their enemies. In the midst of these threatening prospects an event happened which was of great advantage to the Lutheran cause, and prevented for the moment any action against them. The Emperor Charles V and Pope Clement VII became open enemies. The pontiff, fearing the increasing power of Charles, had formed an alliance with Francis I, king of France, against him. This so incensed Charles that he abolished the authority of the pope in Spain, made war upon him in Italy, captured the cities of Rome, besieged the pontiff in his castle of St. Angelo, and subjected him to great indignities.

32. The Diet at Spire—1529.—The difficulties between Charles and the pope were finally settled, however, and a diet was called at Spire in 1529, in which a majority voted to deprive the princes of Germany of the right to regulate religious matters within their respective territories—a right which a diet held three years before at Spire had granted. That is, such power was granted pending the settlement of religious difficulties by a free general council.^[15] The diet also declared all changes made in the public religion unlawful. This action was considered a hardship by those princes who had made such changes, and they protested against the action of the diet and appealed to the emperor.^[16] It was this protest which gave to the dissenting princes, and the followers of Luther generally, the name Protestants.

33. The envoys of the dissenting princes sent to inform Charles of the stand they had taken in relation to the religious controversy in Germany were imprisoned by him, a circumstance which threatened hostility, and the Protestant princes at once took counsel for their safety and sought to form closer alliances with each other for mutual defense. Unfortunately, however, the would-be reformers of religion were not united in doctrine, and the efforts of the princes at union were rendered vain by the disputes of the theologians.

34. Diet at Augsburg—Protestant Confession of Faith.—The emperor finally determined to settle this religious controversy within his empire, and appointed a diet to be assembled at Augsburg for that purpose. In order that the faith of the Protestants might be clearly set forth, together with their reasons for separation from the Roman church, Luther and Melancthon, at the instance of the princes who favored their doctrines, drew up a confession of faith, known as the Augsburg Confession. It consisted of twenty-eight articles, twenty-one of which stated the doctrines of the Reformers, and the other seven stated their reason for withdrawing from the Roman church. These in brief were—communion in one kind; by which the sacramental cup was denied the laity; imposing celibacy on the clergy; private masses; auricular confession; legendary traditions; monastic vows; and lastly, the excessive power of the church. In respect to this last "abuse," as these several above things are called, they discriminate between civil and ecclesiastical power, and insist that neither should infringe upon the domain of the other.

35. The diet of Augsburg assembled on the 20th of June, 1530; and after the Confession of Faith was read to the emperor, it was signed by John, Elector of Saxony, four princes of the empire, and the representatives of two imperial cities, Nuremberg [Nu-rem-berg] and Reutlingen [Roit-ling-en].^[17]

36. The friends of the pope at the diet presented a confutation of the Protestant confession, and thereupon the emperor commanded the Protestants to abandon their whole cause of controversy. In reply they protested they were not satisfied with the "confutation," and asked that a copy of it might be given them that they might make answer to it. This the emperor would not grant, nor would he permit an answer to be read before the diet which Philip Melanchthon had written out from memory. A number of conferences were held between the leaders of the contending parties with a view to reach an honorable compromise, but they had drifted too far apart, and all hope of reconciliation was lost. At last the emperor issued a decree commanding back to their allegiance to the pontiff the princes and cities that had become alienated from the holy See of Rome, on pain of incurring the vengeance of the emperor. The religious changes made in some of the principalities were censured and the edict of Worms against Luther and his adherents received new force.

37. The League of Smalcald.—Nothing daunted by the unfavorable decree of the emperor, the Protestant princes assembled at Smalcald, and entered into a league among themselves, and made every effort to induce the kings of England, France, Denmark and other princes to join their confederacy. This movement seriously embarrassed Charles, for he was just on the eve of a war with the Turks, and needed the entire strength of his empire. He therefore entered into negotiations with the Protestant princes, and finally agreed to annual the edict of Worms and of Augsburg, allow the Protestants to regulate religious matters to please themselves until either a council of the church or a diet of the empire should determine what religious principles should be approved and obeyed—the council to be called within six months. Such were the concessions of the emperor. On their part, the Protestant princes were to contribute money for the Turkish war, and acknowledge Ferdinand, brother of the emperor, king of the Romans.^[18]

38. The Truce of Nuremberg.—This treaty of peace being drawn up and accepted in the city of Nuremberg [Nu-rem-berg], was known as the Truce of Nuremberg, and under it the Protestant cause was materially strengthened; for every day men and cities threw off their allegiance to the pope and rejoiced in their new-found freedom.

39. Difficulty in Locating the Council.—The emperor urged the pontiff to call the long-talked-of council which was to settle these unhappy difficulties. But this Clement VII seemed not anxious to do. When he did propose a council it was at places in Italy, and to this the Germans would not consent, as a council held there would be under the influence of the pope; besides, the controversy had arisen in Germany, and there it should be settled. The Protestants also insisted that the decision should be founded solely on the scriptures, a point which required the church of Rome to set aside all the former decisions of her great councils—a thing her pontiffs were in no temper to do, as they considered themselves in the position of a parent having absolute jurisdiction, dealing with a refractory child. Finally, the successor of Clement VII—Paul III—with the approval of the emperor, called a council to meet at Trent, in Austria (in the Austrian Tyrol). But this was not satisfactory to the Protestants, and Charles X despairing of settling the difficulties by peaceful methods and being urged to it by Pope Paul III prepared to settle them by resorting to force. While the Catholics and Protestants were preparing for this conflict Luther, whose preaching had begun this agitation, died at Eisleben, his native town. [See note 8, end of section.]

40. Reverses of the Protestants.—In the war which followed the Protestants met with severe reverses and were forced by the emperor to consent to refer the religious controversy to the council of Trent, but it being reported that the plague had broken out in that city, the council was broken up, nor could Charles induce the pope to call another immediately (see note 9, end of section); hence it became necessary to formulate a treaty which should bind both parties in respect to religion, pending the convening of a council. This treaty was called The Interim, and was of course most favorable to the victorious party—the Catholics—and went far towards establishing the old methods of worship.

41. Victory of Protestants—Religious Liberty Secured.—At last the emperor persuaded the pope to re-assemble the Council of Trent, and gave notice to the Protestants to attend, promising to use his best endeavor to have everything done in a Christian manner and without passion. But before this council could assemble the Protestant princes revolted, took the emperor by surprise, and forced him into signing a treaty at Paussau, in 1552, which guaranteed religious liberty to the Protestants. This treaty was re-confirmed by the emperor in the diet at Augsburg, 1555. By that treaty all who had accepted the Confession of Augsburg were declared free from all jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, and his bishops. They were to be permitted to live in peace and the quiet enjoyment of religious liberty. Men were to be left free to join either the Reformed or the Catholic Church, and any person making war upon others, or molesting them because of their religion was to be accounted the public enemy of Germany.

42. Such was the fruit of the great revolution of the sixteenth century in Germany—religious liberty. To that end all the struggles tended, and its result was indeed glorious, worth all the tears and blood it had cost to gain it. But it was not a reformation, if by that is meant the bringing back of primitive Christianity. That the Reformers did not do. Indeed they left more truth in the Catholic church than they brought out with them, or found in their speculations after leaving that church, as will be seen by a careful consideration of Protestant doctrines treated in subsequent sections.

NOTES.

1. The Humiliation of Henry IV.—It was the fourth day on which he had borne the humiliating garb of an affected penitent, and in that sordid raiment he drew near on his bare feet to the more than imperial majesty of the church, and prostrated himself in more than servile deference before the diminutive and emaciated old man, from the terrible glance of whose countenance, we are told, "the eyes of every beholder recoiled as from the lightning." Hunger, cold and nakedness, and shame, had for the moment crushed the gallant spirit of the sufferer. He wept and cried for mercy, again and again renewing his entreaties until he had reached the lowest level of abasement to which his own enfeebled heart or the haughtiness of his great antagonist could depress him. Then, and not till then did the pope condescend to revoke the anathema of the vatican.—Sir J. Stephen's Essays On Ecclesiastical Biography.

2. Influence of Greek Literature on the Fifteenth Century.—The classical school of that period (15th century) inspired its disciples with admiration, not only for the writings of Virgil and Homer, but for the entire frame of ancient society; for its institutions, its opinions, its philosophy, as well as its literature. Antiquity, it must be allowed, whether as regards politics, philosophy, or literature, was greatly superior to the Europe of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. It is not surprisingg, therefore, that it should have exercised so great an influence; that lofty, vigorous, elegant and fastidious minds should have been disgusted with the coarse manners, the confused ideas, the barbarous modes of their own time, and should have devoted themselves with enthusiasm, and almost with veneration, to the study of a state of society at once more regular and more perfect than their own. Thus was formed that school of bold thinkers, which appeared at the commencement of the fifteenth century, and in which prelates, priests and men of learning were united by common sentiment and common pursuits.—Guizot's Hist. Civilization.

3. Luther on Indulgences.—I was compelled in my conscience to expose the scandalous sale of indulgences. I saw some seduced by them into mischievous errors, others tempted into an audacious profaneness. In a word, the proclaiming and selling of pardons proceeded to such an unbounded licentiousness that the holy church and its authorities became subjects of open derision in the public taverns. There was no occasion to excite the hatred of mankind against priests to a greater degree. The avarice and profligacy of the clergy had for many years past kindled the indignation of the laity. Alas! they have not a particle of respect or honor for the priesthood, except what solely arises from fear of punishment.—Luther. 4. Duke George of Saxony on the Corruption in the Church.—[Duke George is regarded as a bigoted papist, esteemed by the Roman Catholics as a most sincere and active defender of the faith of his day. His testimony, therefore, to the sale and evils of indulgences, and the corruption of the clergy, is the more valuable. He entirely approved of Luther's condemnation.] "Indulgences which ought to be obtained by prayer, fastings, benevolence towards our neighbor, and other good works," said the duke, "are sold for money. Their value is extolled beyond all decency. The sole object is to gain a deal of money. Hence the preachers who are bound to set forth truth, teach men nothing but lies and frauds. They are not only suffered to go on thus, but they are well paid for their fraudulent harangues. The reason is the more conviction they can produce among their hearers, the more money flows into the chest. Rivers of scandalous proceedings arise from this corrupt fountain. The officials of the bishops are equally attentive to scrape money together. They vex the poor with their censures for great crimes, as whoredom, adultery, blasphemy; but they spare the rich. The clergy commit the very same crimes, and nobody censures them. Faults which ought to be expiated by prayers and fastings are atoned for by money, in order that the officials may pay large sums to their respective bishops, and retain a portion of the gain for themselves. Neither when a fine is inflicted is it done in a way to stop the commission of the same fault in the future, but rather so that the delinquent understands he may soon do that very thing again, provided he be but ready to pay. Hence all the sacraments are sold for money; and where that is not to be had, they are absolutely neglected."—Duke George, quoted by Milner, Church Hist. vol. iv, p. 568.

5. Character of Tetzel.—He was a profligate wretch, who had once fallen into the hands of the Inquisition in consequence of his adulteries, and whom the elector of Saxony rescued by his intercession. He now cried up his merchandise in a manner so offensive, so contrary to all Christian principles, and so acceptably to the inconsiderate, that all upright men were disgusted with him. * * * He claimed to have power to absolve, not only from all church censure, but likewise from all sins, transgressions, and enormities, however horrid they might be, and even from those of which only the pope can take cognizance. He released from all the punishments of purgatory, gave permission to come to the sacraments, and promised to those who purchased their indulgences, that the gates of hell should be closed, and the gates of paradise and of bliss open to them.—Schlegel.

6. Luther Burning the Pope's Bull.—On the 10th of December, a placard was posted on the walls of the university of Wittemberg, inviting the professors and students to be present at nine o'clock in the morning, at the eastern gate near the Holy Cross. A great number of doctors and students assembled, and Luther walking at their head, conducted the procession to the appointed place. How many burning piles has Rome erected during the course of ages! Luther resolves to make a better application of the great Roman principle. It is only a few old papers that are to be destroyed; and fire, thinks he, is intended for that purpose. A scaffold had been prepared. One of the oldest masters of arts set fire to it. As the flames rose high into the air, the formidable Augustine, wearing his frock, approached the pile, carrying the Canon Law, the Decretals, the Clementines, the papal Extravagants, some writings by Eckius and Emser, and the pope's bull. Luther held up the bull and said: "Since thou hast vexed the Holy One of the Lord, may everlasting fire vex and consume thee." He then flung it into the flames. Never had war been declared with greater energy and resolution. After this Luther calmly returned to the city, and the crowd of doctors, professors and students testifying their approval by loud cheers, re-entered Wittemberg with him.—D'Aubigne's Hist. of the Reformation.

7. Excommunication of Luther.—The excommunication bull was an attack upon the rights of the German churches. For Luther had appealed to an ecclesiastical council; and in consequence of this appeal the pope could no longer have jurisdiction of the case. Hence the number of Luther's friends increased the more after the publication of this bull.—Schlegel.

8. The Character of Luther.—Seckendorf * * * defies all the adversaries of Luther to fix any just censure on his character except what may be ranked under two heads, viz., a disposition to anger, and an indulgence in jesting. Beyond all doubt the Saxon reformer was of a choleric temper, and he too often gave way to this constitutional evil, as he himself laments. Neither is it to be denied that he also too much encouraged his natural propensity to facetiousness. The monks of his time were in general guilty of the like fault, and often to so great a degree as very improperly to mix scurrilities with sacred subjects. Moreover, the vices and follies of those whom Luther opposed, afforded a strong temptation both to the spirit of anger and of ridicule. For however severe he may be thought in many of his invectives, we are compelled by unquestionable evidence to confess that his keenest satirical pieces never reached the demerits of those who ruled the church in that age. But after all that can be said in mitigation, it must be owned that a reformer ought to have considered not so much what they deserved as what became the character he had to support; viz., that of a serious Christian, zealous for the honor of his God, displeased with the vices of his clerical brethren, and grieved on account of the pitiable ignorance of the people, yet more desirous of curing the prevailing evils than of exposing them.—Milner.

9. The Pestilence and the Council of Trent.—The report of a pestilence was a mere pretense. The Pope Paul III was equally zealous of the council which had not been disposed in all respects to govern itself by his prescription, and of the governing power of the emperor, which he did not wish to see farther increased by the council. He indeed hated the Protestants, but he did not wish to see the emperor, under color of enforcing the decrees of the council, acquire a more absolute authority over Germany. He had already withdrawn his troops from the imperial army; and he now wished to see the council dispersed. The Spanish members opposed him; but he found means to prevail.—Schlegel.

REVIEW.

1. What centuries may be considered as the age of moral and spiritual darkness?

2. What power was supreme in those ages?

3. Give an instance illustrating the pride and insolence of the popes. (Note 1.)

4. What was Henry IV's offense?

5. From what period do historians date the "revival of learning?"

6. What several inventions and circumstances contributed to the intellectual awakening of Europe?

7. What effect did the fall of the eastern division of the Roman empire have on the west?

8. What was the influence of ancient literature on the west? (Note 2.)

9. What circumstances led to the enlargement of the liberty of the masses?

10. Describe land tenure under the feudal system.

11. What were the Crusades?

12. Who aroused the nations of western Europe to undertake the Crusades?

13. What effect did the Crusades have on the feudal system of land tenure and liberty? 14. What did this enlarged liberty prepare the people for?

15. What event is usually considered the beginning of the Reformation?

16. Give an account of the birth and parentage of Martin Luther.

17. What schools did he attend and with what result?

18. What effect was produced by his visit to Rome?

19. State the origin of indulgences.

20. What doctrine respecting the efficacy of Christ's blood was advanced by Pope Clement VI?

21. What doctrine is held by the Roman Catholic church about the atonement of Christ for sin?

22. Of what did the temporary punishments for sin usually consist—that is, in early times?

23. What changes were made later?

24. Describe the traffic in indulgences.

25. What excuse was made by the pope for the vigorous sale of indulgences in the 16th century?

26. Who hawked indulgences in the part of Germany where Luther lived?

27. What was the character of Tetzel? (Note 5.)

28. In what spirit was Luther's controversy with Tetzel regarded at Rome?

29. What aroused the pope from his indifference?

30. In what way did meet the difficulty?

31. What course was pursued by Cardinal Cajetan and what was the result?

32. What difference in respect to authority to be appealed to in the settlement of controversy existed between Luther and the cardinal?

33. What act of Leo X led Luther to appeal to a general council?

34. State what two parties existed in the Roman Catholic church and what their difference.

35. Describe how the controversy on free will arose.

36. State the respective positions of Eckius and Carolstadt in the controversy.

37. What discussion arose between Luther and Eckius after the debate on free will?

38. What position did Eckius take in relation to the supremacy of the pope?

39. What was Luther's position?

40. What was the effect of the discussion?

41. Relate the circumstance of Luther's excommunication.

42. How did Luther treat the bull of excommunication? (Notes 6 and 7.)

43. State how Luther came to be summoned before the diet at Worms. 44. What two questions confronted Luther at the diet?

45. How did he answer them?

46. By what means was Luther protected from the vengeance of the pope?

47. What at last called him from his retirement?

48. Who succeeded Leo X?

49. What demand was made upon Pope Hadrian by the German princes?

50. What event prevented the assembling of the council?

51. What course did Pope Clement VII follow?

52. How did the death of Frederic, the Wise, and the succession of John, his brother, affect the Reformation?

53. What did John's course threaten to produce?

54. What circumstance prevented it?

55. Relate what transpired at the diet at Spire.

56. By what means did the German emperor decide to settle the religious controversy in his realm?

57. State what you can of the Augsburg confession of faith.

58. What unreasonable demand did the emperor make of the Protestants?

59. What compromise was effected?

60. What difficulty arose concerning convening the council?

61. What reverses did the Protestants sustain in the conflict of arms?

62. What finally resulted from all this agitation?

63. Give the character of Luther? (Note 8.)