princes and people of Germany against the Papacy. By attacking the indulgences he knew he should please his prince, the Elector of Saxony; he would not displease his sovereign, the emperor; and if he did it in a tone of boldness, and with an air of audacious coarseness, he was certain to please a great part of the people. He had everything to gain, and nothing to fear. If he desired, as we suspect, and the sequel shows, release from monastic vows, this might serve his purpose, like a malefactor would fire his prison in the hope of escaping amidst the conflagration. Anyhow, proud, sensual, restless, he had a good chance of notoriety, princely favour, popular applause, and ambition and the worser passions were certain of gratification. The Diet of Mentz, held in this very year, re-echoed the old complaint of secular princes, that "the wealth of the country found its way to Rome. And "on that hint he spoke. This was the scope of the celebrated "propositions" against the Papal indulgences, which he posted up on the 1st November, 1517, on the doors of the church of All Saints, Wittenberg. Let it be recollected, in passing, that the university of Wittenberg, in which Luther was professor, had been, a few years before, founded by the Elector of Saxony, who had just refused to admit the preachers of the papal indulgences into his electorate. Ranke himself confesses that "an aliance had been formed between the monk of Wittenberg and the sovereign of Saxony." And very skilfully were the "propositions" framed to propitiate the secular princes, and pander to the vulgar German prejudices against the Papacy, which for centuries had been fostered by a prelacy too much under the influence of princely patrons, and by a clergy whom they had done so much to corrupt. 66 66 Bishops and clergy have the same power in purgatory as the Pope has." Why does not the Pope, who is richer than Croesus, build St. Peters with his own money, rather than with that of poor Christians?" "Christians should be taught that he who gives to the poor, or assists the needy, does better than he who purchases indulgences." There is consummate art in the adaptation of the "propositions" to the sordid jealousies and peculiar prejudices of each class, the princes or the Hist. Reform. A.D. 1517. † Audin v. i. p. 93. people, the clergy or the laity. And equal art is shown in the steering clear of any direct impeachment of the papal supremacy in the doctrine of indulgences, insomuch that Audin quotes a Protestant author, Schræch, who considers that neither of these dogmas was then disbelieved or disputed by Luther." If this be so, there never was a safer course to pursue, whether he believed these doctrines or not; and, on the latter hypothesis, he could scarcely have pursued a course less sincere, less courageous, or less ingenuous, since the whole tendency of his "propositions" was to bring doctrines into contempt, which if he believed he wanted honesty to adhere to, and if he disbelieved he wanted the courage to impugn. The last "proposition" is,." If indulgences were preached according to the meaning and intention of the Pope, it would be easy to answer these questions;" plainly implying that, according to the intention and meaning of the Pope, the preaching of his indulgences was right enough, but also implying what was absolutely untrue, that the preaching of Tetzel at all varied from the "meaning or intention of the Pope;" that it did not was soon seen, by Luther finding himself logically driven into a total denial of the doctrine of indulgences altogether, which at the outset he thus admitted or implied was, in itself, a sound doctrine. If honest in his original declarations, it is not easy to see the honesty of his subsequent contention. 66 In his reply to one of his antagonists, a venerable and scholar like priest, Luther betrayed the ruffianly spirit which lurked in him, and which rendered him so worthy of the sympathy and support of the robber-princes, whose hereditary policy it was to plunder the Papacy. He denounced Rome as the scarlet Babylon and the synagogue of Satan. He advised the emperor and the princes to hunt down Romanists like his antagonist, with the sword, and desired that he could wash his hands in the blood of cardinals and popes, and the nest of serpents brooding in the Roman Sodom. Here again there could not be a safer theme * Ib. 95. "Si fures furca si latrones gladio si hæreticos igne plectimur cur non magis hos magistros perditionis has cardinales hos papas et totum istam Romanæ Sodoma colluviem quæ ecclesiam Dei sine fine corrumpet omnibus armis impetrinus et manus nostras in sanguine istorum lavamus." Opera Luther, t. i. p. 60. of scurrility than the Court of Rome (which like modern heretics, and some catholics, he had learnt doubtless to distinguish from the See of Rome), in an age and in a country bitterly opposed to that court, with all the hatred of the wrongdoer for the wronged-of baffled brigands for their rescued victims. Italy, thanks to the spirit and courage of Pontiffs such as Sixtus and Julius, had now, under Leo, attained something like tranquillity and repose, and the patrimony of the Holy See was protected from the incursions of unchristian invaders. But the princes whose schemes of spoliation had been defeated, hated the Pontiffs who had foiled them; and the brutal revenge which Luther suggested to Maximilian, as Savonarola had suggested to Charles VIII. of France, was one which they would have been happy to enjoy, and did enjoy, when a few years afterwards, the army of Charles V. of Germany sacked Rome, and perpetrated the atrocities which their apostle had suggested. Nor had he to wait so long for the reception if not the realization of his denunciations. The Protestant historian of the House of Austria has told us, that Maximilian, who was anxious "to reform the abuses and curb the encroachments of the Church," (we have seen what the Emperor understood by such words,) far from opposing the first attacks of Luther against indulgences, was pleased with his spirit and acuteness, declared that he deserved protection, and treated his adversaries with contempt and ridicule."* To which we will add, repeating words of Ranke which we have already quoted, that the emperor recommended Luther to the Elector of Saxony, saying, that "there might come a time when he would be needed." On the other hand, Luther, with that mixture of artifice and truculence which characterized him, repeatedly deprecated any condemnation of his views, until his errors were clearly demonstrated. As that meant that his teaching was to be tolerated, not merely until its errors were in his judgment demonstrated, but until he admitted that they were so "demonstrated," the professed readiness to be convinced was a pretence, while at the same time it tended to entrap the defenders of the faith into discussions and 66 * Coxe, vol. i. p. 387. † Hist. of Popes, vol. i. p. 65. VOL. XXXIX.-No. LXXVII. 3 disputations, in which he well knew the ignorant and the corrupt, the worldly-minded and the interested being judges, he should make the most powerful impression, and his heresy would meanwhile be diffused. Thus, in his rebellion against authority, he would be sure to find adherents, and his revolt from faith protectors. In May, 1518, he wrote to Staupitz and the Bishop, professing respect for the authority of the Church. Even Protestant writers appreciate the shrewdness of this course, while they are sensible to its insincerity. Thus Roscoe writes, "Declarations apparently so just and reasonable, gained him many powerful friends. Even his sovereign and great patron, the Elector of Saxony, seems to have considered this as a decisive proof of the rectitude of his views." In a letter which bears date, August, 1518, he says, "I am informed that he has always been ready to make his appearance before impartial and prudent judges, and to defend his doctrines, and that he owns himself ready on all occasions to submit to and embrace those more correct opinions, which may be taught him on the authority of the Holy See.' In the account of Erasmus in which he seems to have suggested to Luther some of the leading points on which he ought more particularly to insist, we find the same sentiment repeated. It is also invariably referred to in the letters of Erasmus. "The papal bulls may have more weight," he says, "but a book filled with arguments derived from the sacred writings, and which pretends to teach only, and not to compel, will always be preferred by men of real learning, for a wellinformed mind is easily led by reason, but does not readily submit to authority."* Here we see the pride of human learning and human reason opposed to infallible authority and faith. Erasmus lived long enough to see the folly and the fallacy of these views. And an intelligent Protestant like Roscoe could perceive and expose their insincerity. Plausible as this conduct may appear on the part of Luther, it must be confessed that its success was much beyond what might reasonably have been expected from it, and that it was, in fact, little more than a veil thrown over the eyes both of his enemies and friends. He only influenced however men who, like *Life of Leo, vol. i. p. 10. Erasmus, had their faith weakened by pride of human learning; or, like the Elector, had it destroyed by coarser passions of covetousness or lust. The Elector and the university of Wittenberg which he had founded, had united in entreating of the Pope to dispense with Luther's personal appearance at Rome. Their reasons were obvious and were twofold. They desired not to suppress the heresy, and for the purpose of its diffusion, all that was necessary was discussion,-public discussion, —and perpetual appeal ad populum. How thereon could a revolt from authority be conducted? Its essence was an appeal to human pride against the infallible authority of the Church. Hence the policy of Luther was their policy, and the Pope, unsupported by the Emperor, was obliged to yield. Staupitz stipulated for public discussion. The legate reluctantly consented. Next day Luther presented him a written paper, so pregnant with the spirit of rebellion, that the Legate refused to receive it. He sent Staupitz to remonstrate with Luther. Apparently the remonstrances had effect; Luther wrote to the nuncio a letter full of protestations of obedience and reverence for Papal authority. That night he secretly and hastily quitted Augsburg, leaving a public notice that he had always declared that he would submit his opinions to the judgment of the Church and the supreme Pontiff; but that he appealed to the Pope.* Was there ever a greater combination of tergiversation and insolence; insincerity and truculence? If he was sincere in submission to authority, why not have yielded? If not-why shrink from openly impeaching an authority he would not yield to? "Both parties might without any extraordinary sagacity have fancied that between an entire obedience to the Roman Church and a direct opposition to them there is no medium. To doubt the supreme authority of the Holy See in matters of faith: to call upon her to defend her doctrines by arguments-to assert those of a contrary tenor--to enforce them not only by reason and Scripture, but by sarcasm and abuse, and proudly to impeach the authority of the Church itself, was to throw off all obedience and to appear in open rebellion." The truth is plain, that Luther's was a rebellion against authority disguised |