POPE LEO X

CHAPTER VII

The Occasion and Causes of the Reformation in Germany. —The Contest about Indulgences.

I.

When Leo X was wise enough to withdraw his opposition to the election of Charles V, even though at the eleventh hour, he saved the dignity of the Holy See from considerable injury. When, however, he thus avoided an open conflict with the new Emperor he did not, apparently, grasp the full importance of his prudent action in respect to the far-reaching religious revolution which was then seething in Germany. From the promulgation of an indulgence, unimportant in itself, there rapidly sprang up, and spread throughout the whole Empire a storm against Rome which made the Papacy tremble to its foundations.

The man who let loose this storm was a figure of which history affords but few examples. For four centuries the picture of his character has been in varying forms before the minds of men; and at the present day there is less agreement in the opinions formed of him than at any former period. On one point, however, friend and foe may join hands, and that is as to the strong personality of Martin Luther. It is true that he alone did not bring about the revolt which was to rend the unity of the Western Church for so many centuries. Nevertheless, it is true that he contributed more than any other to the subversion of existing conditions, though, as a matter of fact, he only put the match to the inflammable heap which had been accumulating for centuries.

The death-throes of the Middle Ages show to an attentive observer not only a remarkable growth in the religious sense and life, but also in that of grave moral and religious evils. We find light and darkness mixed to an unusual extent among the people, taken as a whole. The most characteristic and glaring contrasts of the time are to be found among the clergy, both secular and religious. Alongside of the most joyous self-sacrifice and inspired love of God and man, we find tokens of unbridled self-seeking, covetousness, luxury, and immorality. To many of that time the evils seemed so great that they feared the judgments of God.

One cause of the downfall of the German Church lay in her enormous riches, the unhealthy growth of which aroused on one side the envy and hatred of the laity, and on the other had a most deleterious effect on the ministers of the Church themselves. The worst feature of all was the inducement offered by this wealth to nobles of all degrees, to use the Church as a means of providing for themselves, by turning to their own advantage ecclesiastical stipends, especially those of canonries and prebendaries. The misuse of such incomes reached back as far as the beginning of the 13th century, though it did not become universal until the beginning of the 15th century. The natural consequence of this was that an increasing number of nobles embraced the ecclesiastical state for the sole purpose of obtaining possession of some sinecure. Through these noble ecclesiastics, who often, while quite young and before binding themselves by any vows, received various benefices connected with cathedrals, a spirit of worldliness, love of pleasure, and covetousness crept into the chapters. The cases of scandal given by these young ecclesiastics by their immoral conduct were only too frequent, and the general characteristics infused into the chapters made It only too probable that they would offer but little or no resistance to the impending religious revolt, and would even welcome it, provided it did not interfere with their monetary interests.

The monopoly of the cathedral benefices by the nobility had a further effect most fateful for the German Church. The episcopal sees were as a rule held by nobles, who saw in the sacred office nothing but a source of power and wealth. The dangers always attendant on the position of Bishops as landowners were thus doubled. The danger had been increased since the middle of the 15th century by the contest between the princely families and the knighthood of the Empire, with the result that the episcopal sees were occupied in an increasing ratio by the scions of princely houses. Though there were always honourable exceptions to the prevailing decadence, still the purely secular element increased steadily among the Bishops, who devoted their large incomes to the holding of luxurious courts, and in taking part in the quarrels and feuds of their families, while they left the duties of their office to be performed by their suffragans. On the eve of the revolt from the Church, many were the complaints made by earnest and upright Catholics against the worldliness of the Episcopate. But nowhere was a stronger protest made than in the remarkable work, “Onus ecclesiae”.

“How often”, says this book, “does the choice fall on a good, virtuous, and learned Bishop, and how often on one who is inexperienced, carnal, and ignorant of spiritual things? Prelacies are for the most part obtained by evil methods and ambition, not by election or other lawful means. The Church is brought into danger by these methods of conferring spiritual offices. Where is the Bishop who at the present time preaches or troubles himself about the souls entrusted to his care? Seldom do we find a chief pastor who is content with one church, and does not hold several benefices, even trying to appropriate more than one see. Moreover, Bishops care more for the table than for the altar, and while they are ignorant about theology they love worldly knowledge. Rather are they temporal lords than servants of Christ. They adorn their bodies with gold, but bespatter their souls with dirt. They are ashamed of their spiritual ministrations, and seek their fame in worldly vanities. In defiance of ecclesiastical laws they surround themselves with immoral persons, court fools, and frivolous companions. Sometimes they have recourse to worthless theologians and artful lawyers who, being moved by covetousness, bend the law like wax whichever way suits them, and flatter them while they keep silence about the truth. As to the accursed chase to which the Bishops devote themselves in a most scandalous fashion, I say nothing. Furthermore, the Bishops are always looking out for war, they whose calling it is to promote unity and peace. I know some prelates who prefer to wear the sword and weapons of soldiers than the spiritual garb of their state. Thus it happens that the episcopal revenues are spent on this world’s possessions, sordid cares, stormy wars, and worldly dominion. They do not even exercise charity, but neglect the poor of Christ, while they fatten their dogs and other beasts, as though they would become like to them. To such as these might Christ most justly say: “I was a stranger and poor, and you did not take me in; therefore depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire”. Nearly all the Bishops are covetous, take what belongs to others, and squander the property of the Church. They devote to other purposes what they ought to use for the service of God and of the poor. They do not use the revenues of the Church for holy purposes, but spend them on their relatives, play actors, flatterers, huntsmen, bad women, and such like persons. Even the inalienable possessions of their sees are given by them unlawfully to their relatives, to whom they hire them out at a nominal interest, to the detriment of their churches, the ruin of justice, and the great oppression of the poor. Such prodigals ought to be numbered among heretics. Provincial and diocesan synods, though prescribed, are not held. Consequently many ecclesiastical matters which ought to be amended are neglected. Besides this they do not make visitations in their parishes at stated times : yet they do not forget to charge them with heavy taxes. For these reasons religion languishes in both laity and clergy, and the churches are unadorned and falling into ruin. If a visitation is made, the Bishop troubles himself rather about its temporal concerns than about those that are spiritual ; though he quite neglects to see that the funds of the parish are looked after by suitable persons”.

Even if the author of this work, led away by his zeal for reform, generalizes too much on the abuses, it is established by the testimony of other good and earnest men that in the latter days, before the great revolt from the Church, her chief pastors were in many places in a very bad moral state. The possession of most of the episcopal sees by the sons of princes and nobles, who neglected their duty, and were as a rule no better than their equals in the world, and the neglect in the chief pastoral office which this involved, had as its consequence the general moral depravity of the secular and regular clergy, as well as of the laity. Without this the sudden secession from the Church and from the faith of their fathers, of such an enormous portion of the German people, would remain inexplicable, however favourable might have been the circumstances that led to the great subversion.

Several of the Popes of the 13th century had fought against the monopoly by the princes and nobles of the benefices and sees of the Church in Germany. But, with these exceptions, the Holy See not only countenanced but even encouraged the fatal abuse. Worldliness and a confusion of ideas had assumed such proportions in the Curia that, at the dawn of the 15th century, they seemed to have lost all idea of the fatal influence which the secularization of the Episcopate must have on religion. Even one so sagacious as tineas Silvius de' Piccolomini, when defending the Roman See against the accusations brought against it by Martin Mayr, reckons it as among the merits of the Curia that it raised the sons of princes to the episcopal sees, as had happened lately at Treves and Ratisbon.

“ For”, he says, “a Bishop of princely estate is far more likely than one of lower degree to promote the interests and importance of the Church, and preserve her rights”. Looking at things from the point of view of the leading humanists, he reproaches men of lower estate for desiring to be Bishops as soon as they had acquired some learning. He laments, moreover, that the element of the lower nobility, whose noble descent it is not always so easy to prove, should have such a preponderance in the cathedral chapters, Cologne and Strasburg excepted, that these were not inclined to select the sons of princes to occupy the sees, lest they should have a Bishop whom they would have to obey. It does not seem to have occurred to the intellectual Sienese that it was not merely a high position which was required to make a good Bishop, but, primarily, the necessary moral qualities.

At the end of the second decade of the 16th century, when the revolt against the Church began, not only were a great number of archiepiscopal and episcopal sees occupied by the sons of princes, but several of these princely Bishops, such as Albert of Brandenburg, held, with the sanction of the Pope, two or more bishoprics.

In marked contrast to the higher clergy, who luxuriated in their rich revenues, the lower clergy, who had the cure of souls, had no fixed salary, and depended for subsistence on uncertain tithes and stole-fees. From poverty, though sometimes also from covetousness, they had recourse to methods of gaining money which were incompatible with their state, and could not fail to draw down on them the contempt of the people. Among those things which led to this lamentable state of things, the first to be considered is the enormous number of the lower clergy. Although the multitude of religious foundations for Masses bears striking testimony to the piety of the Middle Ages, there existed a dark side in the shape of the quantity of small benefices which were the result. These afforded their occupants neither enough to live on nor enough to employ them. The consequence was that there was a superfluity of clerics attached to the parish churches in the larger cities and smaller towns, as also to the cathedrals. It stands to reason that where the number was so excessive it was not everyone who had a vocation to the spiritual state ; nor can it be doubted that even if the vocation existed, there was nothing like enough work for all.

Parents at that time had so little conscience that they destined for the priesthood and religious life those of their children who were unfitted to make their way in the world;--and this for the sole reason of providing for them. These lamentable circumstances, combined with lack of occupation, absence of a true vocation, and want of theological training, conduced to the immorality of many of the clergy. Even when a good and worthy Bishop was found to fulfil his duty, it was difficult, if not impossible, under the circumstances, for him to maintain the necessary discipline. In the condition of the Episcopate as described above, any abuse could spread unhindered.

The complaints in the 15th century as to the immorality and concubinage of the clergy are very numerous. But we must always remember that many of the expressions used by preachers and moralists are manifestly exaggerated, and that it stands to reason that more is said about evil and depravity than about what was regular and normal. Nor must it be overlooked that there existed in the Church in Germany righteous and serious-minded Bishops, who held synods and carried on a constant warfare—and not always without results—against immorality and other scandals. There were, moreover, whole districts, such as the Rhine country, Schleswig-Holstein, and the Allgau, where, as we learn on good authority, the clergy for the most part led irreproachable lives. Still there was a superabundance of what was evil. The condition of the clergy was very bad, especially in Franconia, Westphalia, Bavaria, in the Austrian territories, especially the Tyrol, in the diocese of Constance, on the Upper Rhine, and in nearly all the large towns. There was a spiritual proletariat which extended over a large area, and formed a constant danger to the Church, being ready at any moment to attach itself to whatever movement promised to injure her.

Luxury was combined with immorality among the clergy in a higher position. “The clergy”, says a contemporary, “are to be found in inns and taverns, and at sports and theatres, more frequently than in consecrated places”. These debased tastes were rightly attributed to the abuse of the rights of patronage by both spiritual and lay per sons, who often preferred to advance bad and uneducated priests in preference to the worthy. Contemporaries mention pride and covetousness as the sins which drew down most hatred on the clergy. Even those who were in other respects better men, were a prey to covetousness. Complaints were made that even the educated clergy did not devote themselves to their sacerdotal duties, and cared only for the financial advantages of their sacred office. The love of money showed itself in all grades of the clergy by their efforts to raise as high as possible the manifold ecclesiastical taxes and revenues, in hunting for and accumulating benefices, in nepotism, and in simony. Another evil custom which was the outcome of covetousness, was that of serving benefices vicariously, by placing substitutes to serve the rich cures in which they did not care to reside in person. While they were living in affluence and frequenting the courts of princes and nobles, their office was supplied by scantily-paid vicars.

The Popes of the 15th century must incur blame by the manner in which they entrusted the offices of the Church to the unworthy and incapable, and by their facility in granting dispensations for holding a plurality of benefices, without the obligation of living on them. It is obvious how bad must have been the effect of this granting by the Popes of one preferment after another to the greedy benefice-hunters who flocked in thousands over the Alps. The hatred felt for these courtiers was general. All this contributed to fostering a widespread and deep discontent with the actual condition of ecclesiastical « affairs, the displeasure being extended to the Pope himself.

Still more injurious was the deviation from their original purpose of the old episcopal seminaries for the training of the priesthood. The universities could serve the purpose as far as the cultivation of theological knowledge was concerned, but were no adequate substitute as places of spiritual training, because they were frequented by only a small portion of the clerics. Thus, alongside of the t higher and educated clergy there existed among the lower clergy a number of ignorant and uneducated men who, as Trithemius complains, did not trouble themselves about the study of Holy Scripture, and often had not even mastered the Latin tongue. But, as in the case of other reproaches, such accusations must not be generalized on. The very activity of men like Trithemius, Wimpheling, Geiler von Kaisersberg, and others, who spoke so strongly against abuses, shows that alongside of the many bad elements in the Church of Germany there was much that was good. Even such a severe censor of the clerical offences of the time as Johannes Nider, is explicit in his warning against exaggerated generalizations; because in every condition of life the good and the bad lived alongside of one another, though more attention was invariably paid to what was bad than to what was good. In the same way that there were excellent Bishops as well as those who were unworthy, so all over Germany there were good and conscientious priests among the secular clergy and in the religious orders. This is incidentally pointed out by Wimpheling, who is often so bitter in his judgments. At the outbreak of the Reformation it was shown that, alongside the multitude of unworthy priests and monks who, from lack of theological training and discernment, and especially from moral neglect, flocked to embrace the Lutheran heresy, there always remained a number of learned priests of high moral character who stood true to the Church, at the cost of personal sacrifice and even danger.

To form any general judgment as to the condition of the religious houses in Germany at that time, is therefore peculiarly difficult, owing to the lack of individual research. The number of religious houses was enormous. Even those who are most ready to admit the value of the religious state must lament a certain superabundance of religious foundations. The circumstances were, however, very different in individual cases, and the abuses, though undoubtedly numerous, must not be generalized on. The religious orders of that time produced many upright and worthy priests, and this was all the more important, because the greatest part of the work for souls was in the hands of the mendicant friars. The monasteries, moreover, did a great deal to relieve the social needs of the people. Even if grave abuses did exist, nearly everywhere there could be seen signs of a strong reaction against the prevailing corruption. The attempts at reform in the monasteries date from the end of the great Schism of the West, and were at first accomplished under great difficulties. There were four great and successful streams of reform in the religious orders : that of the Benedictines (Bursfeld Congregation), the Canons Regular (Windesheim Congregation), and the Augustinians and Franciscan Observantines.

Stress must be laid on the fact that after Martin V, nearly all the Popes were zealous in the cause of the reform of the religious orders of Germany, both generally and in individual cases. Above all, we must remember the important work done by the Cardinal-Legate, Nicholas of Cusa, in Germany and the Netherlands, and his monastic reforms in the year 1451. Pius II also did a great deal, comparatively speaking, for the reform of the monastic houses in Germany, especially by his patronage of the Bursfeld Congregation and the reform of the Franciscan Observantines.

The results of the monastic reform varied greatly, and the sharpest contrasts could be seen in every field. The circumstances in different countries and different Orders varied very much. In Upper Germany the attempt to reform the mendicant friars met with the fiercest opposition. In Lower Germany, just at the critical time of the Lutheran revolt, the Saxon province of Luther’s own Order, the Augustinians, had so degenerated that, in 1521, it broke away as a whole, and, with the exception of a few members, followed the new religion.

As a rule it was the richest cloisters and abbeys which had fallen furthest from their original spirit, and which were most strongly opposed to any attempt at reform. Wealth had the same baneful effect on them as it had on the Episcopate and cathedral chapters. It tempted the nobles, who saw in the Church only a means of provision for their sons, and regarded religious houses as made to be appropriated for their own ends. They made it, moreover, their business to guard these emoluments from the encroachments of the burgher and peasant class, who were already excluded from the higher ecclesiastical positions. The German nobility in this way drew great odium on itself. Rich abbeys served practically as “hospitals for the nobles”, in which those were placed by preference who were unfit for the world. Even the lame and blind were placed in them without any regard for a religious vocation. Such elements introduced an entirely worldly spirit into the cloister; nor did it end there. Thus did these religious houses decline more and more from their fervour. Many of the inmates went about in the world just as they pleased, and were not even required to return. In fact, contemporaries complain that cloisters and consecrated places became mere pleasure resorts. These noble communities were the most dissolute and most opposed to ecclesiastical reform.

All this was equally the case in the houses of religious women. Many of these stood in most evil repute. It was therefore no matter for surprise that these dissolute religious passed over wholesale to the new religion, broke their vows, and threw to the winds everything which had hitherto been most sacred to them.

But if a considerable portion of the clergy and religious were disposed to embrace a doctrine such as Luther's new gospel, which so entirely suited their inclinations, the contempt and hatred of the laity for the degenerate clergy was no mean factor in the great apostasy. While the great mass of the lower orders clung for a while with fidelity to the Catholic Faith, the educated classes showed the strongest antipathy to the degenerate clergy, and from them the same spirit of opposition spread to the lower classes. More and more general became the indignation felt with those Bishops who lived like secular princes, who were better versed in the arts of war than in the duties of their sacred ministry, and who did not even reside in the dioceses the revenues of which they devoured. The scandalous manner in which many of the higher clergy paraded their wealth acted as a challenge to criticism. In the episcopal towns of the Rhine Provinces there were serious quarrels and open rupture between the burghers and the clergy, and in other places there were scandalous conflicts between the Bishops and their subjects.

The desire of acquiring wealth and property which possessed some of the religious houses, to the injury of people outside, was also very injurious to the cause of the Church. Envy drove the laity to generalize on individual cases of this kind, and detest all the clergy without distinction. Hatred and contempt were levelled against those degenerate monks who were accused of having entered the cloister merely to feast and gormandize at the expense of their poorer fellow-citizens. A spirit of bitter enmity against the clergy is expressed in the various revolutionary writings of the 15th century. Of these, the “Reformation of the Emperor Sigismund” appeared at the time of the Council of Basle. Afterwards appeared “The Reformation of Frederick III”, written in the last quarter of the century; and the most radical of all in the work, lately discovered, of a revolutionary of the Upper Rhine, written in the first decade of the 16th century. In this book, which contains the darkest possible and most grossly exaggerated picture of the condition of ecclesiastical, public, and social affairs, an attempt was made to radically revolutionize all departments, and secularize all Church property.

Together with the dissatisfaction with the clergy, there grew up a deep-seated and often bitter hostility to the Pope and the Roman Curia. This spirit of opposition showed itself not only among the princes and burgher class, but was strongest of all among the clergy of both the and lower ranks. In this lay the greatest danger for the Papacy; “for with a discontented clergy rested the power at any moment of drawing the simple folk into apostasy”.

There were many degrees and different currents of opposition to Rome in Germany, between which a dis tinction must be drawn. The great Schism of the West, which began in 1378, not only caused much confusion by its long duration, but, as a natural consequence, gave a severe blow to Papal authority. The fact of the dual Papacy could not fail of itself to have this effect. To this must be added the great dependence of the Popes on temporal princes, caused by the Schism. In order to increase, or even keep the obedience due to them, the Popes saw themselves compelled to make important and far-reaching concessions to the temporal powers, unless they were willing to put up with arbitrary interference in the ecclesiastical domain, and submit to the extension of sovereign rights at the expense of spiritual authority.

Thus did the great Schism lastingly and fatefully prepare the way for the apostasy of the 16th century. A further consequence of this destructive confusion of the dual Papacy was the obscurity which it cast over the doctrine of the divine institution of the Primacy, and the monarchical character of the constitution of the Church.

A party sprang up in the Church which placed the authority of a General Council above that of the Pope. Even ecclesiastically-minded theologians who acted in the interests of the Church, brought forward various theories having this tendency. A sweeping system of the kind was propounded by the eminent German theologian Heinrich von Langenstein in a work written by him in 1 38 1, advocating the assembly o fa “Council of Peace”.  Another German theologian, Conrad von Gelnhausen, developed this new theory in his Einigungsbrief in 1380. In France Langenstein’s principles produced a strong effect on the celebrated John Gerson. Though with those who were sincere the movement was promoted with the honourable object of healing the Schism, the council theory took with others a form of radical opposition to the authority, of the Supreme Pontiff. Doctrines were propounded which denied the divine institution of the Papacy and the unity of the Church. A copious German literature testifies to this anti-Papal current. The best known of these books is the passionately violent Confutatio primatus Papae, by the Saxon Minorite, Matthias Doring, based on the Defensor pacis of Marsilius of Padua. After the Council of Basle, which was so fatal in its result to the holders of the Council theory, and after the Vienna Concordat of 1448 a change in many respects for the better came over the so-called conciliar movement, which was apparently relegated to the background even in Germany. But though smothered and hidden, the anti-Papal movement was by no means destroyed ; though kept out of sight, it was in reality more effective even if less visible and on the surface.

During the pontificate of Callixtus III a movement in Germany, hostile to the Papacy, sprang up under the leadership of the Archbishop of Mainz, Dietrich von Erbach. The Primate of the German Church, in union with the Archbishops of Cologne and Treves, strove to promote the assembly of a great national Council, with the object of obtaining the recognition of the decrees of the Council of Basle and of pro curing the redress of the so-called “grievances” of the German nation. But under their parade of reforming zeal these prelates were in reality seeking their own advantage.

The anti-Papal movement in Germany became more violent and dangerous under Pius II. To prove this it is sufficient to recall the attitude of the Archbishop of Mainz, Diether von Isenberg (a type of the secularized Episcopate), and the disorders. in the Tyrol under Duke Sigismund. The polemical writings of Gregor Heimburg in the interests of the Duke were of a violence almost unprecedented. On the other hand, Andrea Zamometic’s hazardous attempt under Sixtus IV to promote the assembling of a Council was of but slight importance. Of the same nature were the schismatic attempts of Maximilian I under Julius II, which were completely frustrated. The secularization of the Roman Curia, which reached its zenith under Alexander VI, had a bad effect on the loyalty of the Germans to Rome, and caused great dissatisfaction in those who were eyewitnesses of it. Nevertheless, any thought of a real secession from Rome found no place among the masses of the German people. In all their complaints the duty of obedience to the Pope was expressly maintained. The grievances brought against the Roman Curia, and the other causes of dissatisfaction alluded to, did not in any way touch the Faith, but were directed solely against abuses which could be remedied without severing Germany from the centre of ecclesiastical dignity. Such abuses referred to the proceedings of canon law, to the Roman practice of administration, especially in the granting of benefices, and the method of taxation through the Papal courts. In many cases the grievances were so completely justified that upright, ecclesiastically- minded men, warmly attached to the Holy See, admitted them. If the Curia was able to make so many unjustifiable encroachments in Germany, it was because it did not find itself face to face with a powerful and united government, such as it met with in England and France. The breaking up of the Empire into a number of greater and lesser territories almost invited encroachment, and “the Curia, which had so many methods at its command, always had some German princes at its back, even if others were opposed to it”.

The dissatisfaction with Rome was made more acute and virulent by the introduction of the national element, expressed by a bitter hatred of the Italians, whom the Germans charged with underrating their nation, and for caring only for what could be gained from them. This dislike was felt equally by men devoted to the Church, such as Berthold von Henneberg, Archbishop of Mayence, and wild radical spirits of the type of the revolutionary of the Upper Rhine, who to their boundless contempt united the bitterest hatred of Rome.

But in addition to an antipathy of this kind, which had no dogmatic tendency and was directed solely against the real and supposed abuses in the ecclesiastical government, heretics arose in the 15th century— largely in connection with the heresy of Hus—such as Johann von Wesel, who was called before the Inquisition at Wesel in February, 1479, and had to recant his false doctrines. The Bohemian Brethren, who denied any distinction between priests and laymen, and called the Pope Antichrist, began at that time to propagate their doctrines in Germany. Their eight different confessions of faith were printed in the German tongue in Nuremberg and Leipzig.

Ecclesiastical grievances had been much increased in Germany by political, legal, and social abuses. The study of German history shows an increase in the decay of the Empire ever since the 13th century, and as a consequence of this the sovereignty of the princes had become confirmed. The long reign of Frederick III had been especially injurious to the power of the Empire, and to its position in the eyes of Europe. The injury wrought by him was so great that later on even a distinguished ruler like Charles V could not, in spite of the gain of a few temporary results, succeed in reducing the unsettled state of things to order. From the time of Frederick III the princely houses, which had always in later times had a greater or lesser influence on the history of the German people, were firmly established at the expense of the imperial power, while only certain sovereign rights were allowed to the Emperor. The introduction of Roman law, which ever since the 13th century had been slowly supplanting the native German law, was of the greatest moment in this political development. The princes who were striving by its help to establish their power and sovereignty were its most eager promoters. Dating from the middle of the 15th century, a change, unknown before, had been introduced into the government of the territories belonging to spiritual as well as temporal princes ; and all the more important court and civil offices were held by Roman jurists, and the principles of Roman law were introduced in every branch of government. In place of the older mode of self-government belonging to the German law, bureaucracy prevailed, which interfered with and controlled everything, burdened the people to the utmost of its power, quite regardless of the violation of their ancient rights. “According to the abominable theory of Roman jurisconsults”, says Wimpheling, “the prince is everything in the country, and the people nothing. The people have to obey, pay taxes, offer their services, and, above all, obey not only the princes, but also their officials, who are beginning to assume the functions of the real lords of the country, and arrange matters so that even the princes have next to nothing to do with the government”. Taxation, above all, was promoted by the Roman jurists. The application of Roman law to this had the most injurious effects, and the result of the action of the jurists as advisers to the territorial lords, was the degradation of the peasantry, who, under the dominion of the new law, were outraged, oppressed, and ground down on every side. The effects of Roman law extended into every phase of the life of the people, bringing about the subversion of all actual conditions.

To this extension of the power of the princes—in the sense of that of the old Roman patricians—was due the fact that they aspired to dominion in the spiritual domain as well. Long before the outbreak of the Reformation, many jurists had come to the conclusion that princes might claim ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and, after the example set by the ancient Roman Emperors, “regulate even religious matters, institute and deprive Bishops, and appropriate Church property as their right, to be turned to the use of the State”. In the same way that Charles the Bold of Burgundy was instructed by his jurisconsults that he himself should be Pope in his own dominions, so the German territorial lords held the opinion that they might claim Papal rights in their own lands. To the existing desire to appropriate Church property, there was now added a desire on the part of the German princes to usurp the spiritual jurisdiction of the Bishops. Many events, especially in the second half of the 15th century, show the way in which the proprietors of land usurped jurisdiction in purely spiritual matters, and acted as if they were the lawfully constituted spiritual authorities. Sometimes the abuses which had crept into some monastery gave the desired excuse for the interference of lay authority, and monastic reformers, such as Johann Busch, called in the help of the secular arm of the nobles for the restoration of order. In individual cases, where the temporal prince in question was religiously minded, such a usurpation of spiritual rights might seem to be of small importance. But in the case of most German princes such an interference was not prompted by any desire for the purity of the Church, but was solely the assertion of the punitive office which had been claimed by them since the middle of the 15th century. German landed proprietors assumed rights in respect to the Church in an increasing ratio. Such as these were the “taxation of the Church, the limitation of her right to acquire property by loan, the exercise of the State placet, immoderate interference in the appointment of Bishops and other ecclesiastical officials, the right of visitation, and supervision of ecclesiastical matters in their own territories”.

The waning authority of the Pope and the weakening of the imperial central power by the increase of territorial influence—both a result of the great Schism—had the unhealthy effect of severing Church and State, to the injury of the former. The new State Church, as is shown by the history of the 16th century, contained the gravest dangers for the unity of the Church. In the increase of the power of the princes there lurked an easy and safe excuse for despoiling the Church, not only partially, but, in a certain sense, completely, by perfecting the revolt and seceding from Rome. Under this new development a disposition was infused into the lower and oppressed classes to join in every movement of revolt, provided only it were subversive of the authority of State and Church.

The humanism of Young Germany was the most important of the movements which threatened danger to the Church. It was totally different both in nature and effect from that of the older humanists. Whereas the latter school looked at things from the point of view of Christianity, at the service of which they placed classical antiquity as an important factor of culture, in the humanist school of Young Germany the study of antiquity was its own end, and often evinced a spirit not only indifferent, but often hostile, to Christianity. The real founder and type of the younger school was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. A great scholar but a weak character, a man of brilliant attainments, by the many-sidedness and versatility of his active mind, Erasmus exercised by his numerous writings a prodigious influence on his time. In spite of all the services he rendered to classical study, it must be admitted that, though he never separated himself openly from the Church, Erasmus did much by his attacks, not only on degenerate scholasticism but on scholasticism itself, as well as by his venomous irony, to lessen respect for the authority of the Church and for faith itself among a large number of the highly-cultivated men of the day. Thus did he prepare the way for the impetuous and impassioned Luther.

The influence exercised by Erasmus over the younger school of humanists was portentous. While on the one hand he filled his disciples with a one-sided enthusiasm for classical antiquity, and a contempt for the ecclesiastical science of the Middle Ages (about which he knew but little), he brought discredit on the study of philosophy. He accustomed the susceptible youth of the day to despise serious, scientific, and speculative research, and regard rhetoric, witty speech and the art of style as the first requisites of education. Jakob Locher, surnamed Philomusus, well known as the translator, editor, and expounder of the ancient classics, and also as the author of text-books of classical philosophy, was now in the field with his lawless views of life, and had taken his stand as the disciple of pure paganism purged from all Christianity. He recommended the ancient poets, even the most objectionable, as the best, nay, only means for the education of youth.

With the second decade of the 16th century complaints were entered against the abandonment and depreciation of philosophical studies, against the one-sided and exclusive study of the classics, as well as against the presumption and immorality of the younger humanists. In 15 12 Johannes Cochlaus made the following protest: “Philo sophy is set aside ; some devote their lives to belles lettres ; others, without fitting preparation, take up the study of law ; while others again throw themselves into the study of medicine merely for the sake of gain : all this being to the injury of the student. Humanist studies, however much they may conduce to the ornamentation of learning, are injurious to those who have no solid scientific training. Hence the levity of certain persons, to whom the name of  ‘poets’ is erroneously given. Hence the buffoonery and the criminally scandalous lives of some. They are the common slaves of Bacchus and Venus ; not the pious priests of Phoebus and Pallas”.

The younger humanists considered themselves qualified to look down with contempt on “the old barbarians” who busied themselves with scientific and dialectic questions ; because, without any profound study of the spirit of the ancients, they had acquired a certain facility in handling their form of speech, and, by a superficial imitation, could fabricate worthless verses. Those humanist productions, which take in vain the name of the Most Holy and treat of Christian things as of a mere play of the mind, are particularly unsavoury and revolting. Of this kind were the “Christian Heroids”, in imitation of Ovid, which were published in 15 14 by Rabanus Hessus. More original, though shameless and coarse beyond words, were the ‘poets’ imitations of the old erotic poets ; for in these their mode of life was in harmony with their verses. Even as in the movement of the Italian Renaissance the idea of sensual pleasure was let loose in the most unbridled manner, so was it now with many of the younger humanists such as Locher, Hermann van dem Busche, and Ulrich von Hutten. They fell into the wildest extravagances, if for no other reason than to show their superiority to the Italians.

Conrad Mutianus Rufus, by his influence over the humanists of Erfurt, of whom he was the leader, was responsible for the mixture of Christianity and paganism in the movement. This canon of Gotha, who had been in Italy a warm adherent of Neoplatonism, then rampant among the humanists, was for a time at least an opponent of positive Christianity. His definition of that religion was antagonism to the Mosaic system, and humanitarianism quite independent of revelation, while, together with his followers, he had nothing but scorn and contempt for the Church and her institutions and doctrines. Guided by such an influence, a frivolous literature sprang up in Germany, the key-note of which was enmity to the Church and the spiritual state : above all, it poured its scorn on the religious orders. It is no wonder that such doings eventually caused among many earnest men of strong ecclesiastical leanings an antipathy towards humanistic studies in general, and that the religious orders and scholastic theologians were especially zealous in their opposition to the ‘poets’, as the representatives of an unchristian learning, often exceeding all reasonable bounds in a one-sidedness which, under the circumstances, was intelligible. Mutianus was one of the most impassioned of the anti-scholastics, and described the fight of the humanists against scholasticism as “a fight of light against darkness”. His one ambition was to annihilate the old school and all its institutions.

A characteristic type of the younger humanists of Germany was the gifted but morally-depraved Ulrich von Hutten. Having been early imbued at Erfurt with the tenets of a completely pagan sect of humanists, he became there the champion of a proletariat of nobles, who had nothing to lose by the subversion of the existing state of things. He was possessed of an unbounded self­confidence which made him regard himself as the chosen supporter of the movement of the new era; so that every thing he did or tried to do was in his eyes of history­making importance. All this, combined with his ability and gift of writing, made him one of the most dangerous promoters of revolutionary ideas. Towards the Church and her doctrines and institutions, his attitude was one of unmixed scorn and repugnance. In 1513 he returned from his first sojourn in Italy the avowed enemy of the Papacy, against which he declared open war.

The dispute between Reuchlin and the theologians of Cologne, gave an impetus to the open war between the younger humanists and the representatives of the older school of learning. Johann Reuchlin, who had a natural inclination towards the Church, and was much esteemed in Germany for his personal qualities as well as for his knowledge of Greek, and still more of Hebrew, had become imbued with the doctrines of a fanatical theosophy, induced by his study of the Jewish Kabbala, and encouraged by his own propensity for mystical subtleties. He expressed his opinions in two books, Vom wundertaligen Wor  and liber kabbalistische Kunst. Reuchlin was far from wishing to injure the Church by these theories ; he thought rather that they would bring about a better understanding of Christianity by throwing new light upon it from the Jewish books. But in reality his views were calculated to sow confusion in the brains of the youth of Germany, and give an impetus to the inclination, already existing among them, to cast themselves adrift, at the expense of Christianity, from all dogmatic teaching. Several theologians spoke with disapprobation of Reuchlin’s writings, and Jakob Hochstraten, a Dominican of Cologne, wrote an answer in 1519.

The outcome of these literary publications was a long dispute about the authority of the Jewish books. Johann Pfefferkorn, a baptized Jew of Cologne, in his zeal for the conversion of his former fellow-believers, had arrived at the conclusion that the chief cause of their obstinacy would be removed if they were compelled to give up all the Talmud books in their possession. Pfefferkorn demanded this in several works, written in the years 1507-1509, and it was solely due to his efforts that an imperial mandate was issued on the 19th of August, 1509, commanding the Jews to produce before him all books opposed to the Christian Faith and their own law. He obtained permission to take away such books and destroy them in any place in the presence of the parish priest and two members of the Council. In a later mandate of the 10th of November, 1509, the Emperor gave the conduct of the whole affair to Uriel, the Archbishop of Mainz, who was commissioned to obtain the opinion of the Universities of Cologne, Mainz, Erfurt, and Heidelberg, together with that of the converted Jew Victor Carben, of Reuchlin, and of the Inquisitor Jakob Hochstraten. The judgment of Reuchlin was not in agreement with the severity of the others consulted, for he considered that only the manifestly scandalous books of the Jews should be destroyed, after lawful sentence had been passed ; though he opined that all the other books should be detained. However, the whole affair came to nothing, as the Emperor would come to no decision.

The question of the Jewish books gave rise to a dispute which was most important to the religious and spiritual life of the nation. Immediately, it was a purely personal quarrel between Reuchlin and Pfefferkorn, who thought he had been insulted by the other. But it went further ; Pfefferkorn avenged himself by the impassioned pamphlet, the Handspiegel (1511), in which, without any ground to go on, he accused Reuchlin of having been bribed by the Jews. Reuchlin replied even more violently by his "Augenspiegel, which was published during the autumn fair at Frankfort, 1511. This book caused the greatest sensation in Germany, and was sent by the chief parish priest at Frankfort, Petrus Meyer, to Hochstraten, the Inquisitor of the province of Mainze. The two theologians Arnold von Tungern and Conrad Kollin were charged by Hochstraten with the examination of the book. Reuchlin at once exerted himself to obtain a favourable verdict. The first pronouncement on either side, calmly made, seemed to justify such an expectation. But, soon after, the strife broke out afresh, and Reuchlin, in a second pamphlet published in 1512, stood by what he had said before, and attacked the Frankfort theologians. Arnold von Tungern replied in a temperate Latin book, while at the same time Pfeflerkorn attacked his adversary in his Brandspiegel. Reuchlin, embittered by the censure passed by the Emperor Maximilian on the 7th of October, 1512, on his Augenspiegel, published (1513) a Defence against the Cologne Calumniators, which is one of the most frantic libels of the age. On the 9th of July 1513 the Emperor ordered its suppression. After this the theological faculties of Louvain, Cologne, Mainz, Erfurt, and Paris pronounced the condemnation of the Augenspiegel. Hochstraten, as Inquisitor, opened the trial, and in September, 1513, called Reuchlin before his tribunal at Mainz. Reuchlin now appealed to the Pope, and by means of a flattering letter gained the advocacy of the physician of Leo X, the influential Jew, Bonet de Lattes. Leo X handed over the case to George, Bishop of Spires. This prince, only twenty-seven years of age, and little versed in such matters, passed on the decision to Canon Truchsess, a disciple of Reuchlin. Against his verdict, which exonerated the Augenspiegel and censured Hochstraten for condemning it, the Inquisitor appealed to the Pope, who this time appointed as judge Cardinal Grimani. The latter summoned both parties to Rome in June, 1514. Hochstraten was bidden to appear in person, but Reuchlin, on account of his advanced age, was allowed to send an advocate to represent him. Hochstraten had started for Rome even before the summons reached him ; but the affair dragged on year after year, for Reuchlin had many influential patrons at the Curia, and the Pope forbore from any interference.

Leo X suspected no danger, though there were not wanting those who warned him. Even as early as the 21st of April, 1514, the learned Adrian of Utrecht, afterwards Adrian VI, appealed to Cardinal Carvajal and begged him to do his best to persuade the Pope to be prompt to heal “this cankerous disease”. Shortly afterwards the Cologne theologians appealed to the same Cardinal. They, and above all the Inquisitor, had remained faithful to their duty in respect of the heretical Augenspiegel, and, being supported by the verdict of various Universities, had condemned and burnt the book. Whereupon its author obtained, by a false statement, the appointment of a new judge at Spires. He, “being more inclined to error than to Catholic truth, and being ignorant both of theology and the mysteries of faith”, was bold enough to acquit the book, “to the injury of the Catholic Church, the joy of the Jews, the detriment of the Universities and their scholars, and the grave and harmful scandal of the common folk”. Hochstraten had appealed to the Holy See, and implored Cardinal Carvajal to help him, by doing which he would be maintaining the holy faith ; “for if”, said he, “the frivolity of the poets (i.e. the humanists) be not suppressed in this affair which is polluting faith, they will in the future be less diffident in attacking theological truth”.

But on both sides of the Alps rich patrons of Reuchlin's appeared, who were able to postpone a decision. Even the Emperor Maximilian interested himself on his behalf. Erasmus also spoke warmly to the Pope in favour of his friend. But, on the other hand, the Archduke Charles, afterwards the Emperor Charles V, put in a plea for Reuchlin’s adversary. With words of warning he approached the Pope in 1515. “Corruption”, said he, “will grow every day that the decision of this case is postponed. In Rome, where the trial is held, nothing is discussed except the form in which the question is put, while the substance of it is neglected. A few Cardinals are charged with the examination of the matter, whereas, on account of its importance, the affair ought to be laid before the Cardinals assembled in the Council which was then sitting in the Lateran. Would that the strife could be ended! Would that the cruel wolf could be prevented from shedding the innocent blood of the sheep, and this scandal be removed from the path of the weak!”. Francis I also had warned the Pope, and begged him to speedily make a happy decision about the matter, conforming himself in this with the judgment passed by the German schools, and “our University of Paris”. The University of Louvain, in a letter sent to the Pope, said that it looked on it as a sacred duty to care for the order and purity of the Catholic Church. In the condemnation of Reuchlin’s book, Louvain had agreed with the other faculties, especially that of Paris. “All who walked in the house of God had spoken unanimously”.

Yet no decision was given! When the Roman commission, the majority of whom favoured the Augenspiegel, declared themselves ready to express their final opinion, a Papal mandate, dated July, 1516, was issued, which deferred a decision. This did not make Hochstraten desist from his efforts. For another year he remained in Rome, and it was only in July, 1517, after more than three years' sojourn there, that he returned to Cologne without having succeeded in his object.

While Rome hesitated, affairs on the other side of the Alps had taken a menacing turn. The younger humanists, now firmly united for the first time, made use of the Reuchlin dispute in their rebellion against the authority of the Church, and especially against the doctrines of the Dominican Order, as being to them the chief re presentative of scholasticism. Under the leadership of Mutianus, who, moved merely by theological antagonism, took the side of Reuchlin against his convictions, the younger humanists gathered round the latter and stirred him up to greater fury than before against his opponents, while they poured forth scorn and satire on the theological teaching of the old school. In the years 1515-1517 the Letters, published under the title of Epistolae obscurorum virorum, appeared. The first part of them was written by Crotus Rubianus, and the second entirely by Hutten. The writers of this work did their utmost to defame their adversaries by the grossest accusations. The real motive of this shameful libel was hostility to the authority of the Church. A number of the letters in the second part are dated from Rome. It was Hutten who extended the line of attack, and made war directly against the Holy See. What the humanists did now in respect to Reuchlin, they repeated when soon afterwards they espoused the cause of Luther, whose first confederates they became.

The outbreak of the Lutheran movement and the attitude of the humanists towards Reuchlin at last caused the latter’s case to be regarded in Rome in a less favourable light ; the trial terminated in a way unfavourable to him. But the Papal decision came too late ; in the long interval of hesitation, Reuchlin's name had been taken up as a war-cry by all the adversaries of the Holy See. In his final verdict, Leo X, on the 23rd of June, 1520, declared the Spires judgment to be invalid, forbade the circulation of the Augenspiegel as a book offensive, scandalous, and unlawfully favourable to the Jews. Moreover, he condemned Reuchlin to pay all costs of the trial. At the same time Hochstraten was reinstated in his offices of Prior and Inquisitor, of which he had been shortly before deprived by the Frankfort Chapter, intimidated by the threats of Sickingen.

The Reuchlin dispute, thus decided all too late by Rome, was the forerunner of a far more important contest, which was to bring about a final parting of the ways.

II.

When we look at the condition of things connected with the Church in Germany at the close of the Middle Ages, we can see that, even if by no means hopeless, it was such as to cry out urgently for reform. It is true that the Church stood firm with strong vitality ; it is true that faith and piety waxed strong among the masses of the people in spite of the excesses in the lives of both secular and regular clergy. Nevertheless there existed smouldering elements, the letting loose of which was bound to lead to a catastrophe. There was an abundance of inflammable material ready laid in the field of politics and society, and above all in that of the Church, and there were only wanting the right man and the given opportunity to cause a disastrous conflagration. Both were at hand.

That the outbreak of the revolt against Rome should be connected with a financial question was by no means fortuitous; for in Germany at that time there was no subject of complaint more rampant than the constant demands for money made by the Curia, and the grave abuses connected therewith. The Papal tax-gatherers had always filled a difficult position in that country. To the nation’s innate sense of liberty there was united a general reluctance to recognize any taxes, whether legal or ecclesiastical. Ever since the development of political economy had facilitated financial dealings with Rome, the complaints against the covetousness of the Curia had become so violent as to lessen the respect felt for the Holy See. “Every person subjected to a demand for money gave vent to his displeasure, without considering that the Papacy, being a universal institution, must have the right to turn to the faithful to help it to defray its expenses”.

As a matter of fact, discontent with the Curia’s system of taxation, which was carried on by all its chief agents, was shown as early as the 13th century, and ere long passed all bounds. In the 15th century complaints were openly made by the Germans about the way in which their country was impoverished by the large sums of money which were for ever flowing into Rome. The complaints of some, as for instance Martin Mayr, were made with a vicious intention, and were meant to frighten the members of the Curia and secure a good price as hush-money. But others, upright and devout Catholic chroniclers, brought forward the same accusations§ That there was much exaggeration in them cannot be doubted ; and the latest researches show the necessity of caution in accepting the current opinion. One of the most distinguished investigators pertinently declares that a closer knowledge of the Papal system of taxation will prove to be its apology; which shows how much must remain uncertain in the present state of research. But whatever may be the final verdict passed, it is certain that it was the general opinion in Germany that, in the matter of taxation, the Roman Curia put on the pressure to an unbearable degree.

The covetousness of Rome in its worst developments, connected especially with trade, money-changing, and gratuities, was the favourite theme of the most bitter satires. Again and again was the complaint made that chancery dues, annates, medii fructus, and consecration fees were unduly raised or unlawfully extended ; that numerous new indulgences were published without the consent of the Bishops of the country, and tithe after tithe raised for a Crusade and diverted to another object. Even men devoted to the Church and the Holy See, such as Eck, Wimpheling, Karl von Bodmann, Archbishop Henneberg of Mayence, and Duke George of Saxony, shared in the dissatisfaction, and often declared that the German grievances raised against Rome were, from a financial point of view, for the most part only too well founded.

Added to the grievance about the tithe for the Crusade, it was a standing source of displeasure that each year the promulgation of indulgences became more and more a mere money transaction, which led to many abuses. Even under Julius II this grievance was attacked by Ulrich von Hutten.

At the court of the Medici Pope no account was taken of the deep-seated dissatisfaction caused by the Roman demands for money. With inconceivable thoughtlessness no attempt was made to leave the old beaten track. Quite regardless of the innumerable complaints which were lodged against it, the little official world lulled itself to sleep in false security. Misgivings expressed by a few individuals passed by unheeded. Nothing was allowed to disturb the prevailing satisfaction in the actual state of ecclesiastical affairs. That the Germans should inveigh against Rome was such a matter of course that no particular attention was paid to their outbursts. The chronic need of money, a consequence of disorganized finances and the Pope's boundless expenditure, led Rome to have recourse to the most perilous methods. The most reckless means of filling the always empty coffers were resorted to without misgiving. Vainly did Aleander in 1516 tell Leo X that he much feared a revolt against the Holy See, on the part of Germany, for that thousands were only awaiting their opportunity to speak out their mind most openly. But no heed was paid to the warning voice, and, in the face of the growing fermentation, the Pope committed the unpardonable error of proclaiming an indulgence for the building of the new basilica of St. Peter's, on an even more extensive scale than that proclaimed under Julius II.

According to custom, Leo X, on entering on his pontificate, had revoked all the indulgences granted by his predecessor. He made, however, one exception, and declared his intention of not revoking that which Julius II. had granted for the furtherance of the erection of the new church of St. Peter’s. As on former occasions, the Franciscan Observantines were charged by Leo X. with its promulgation in their respective provinces. No new field was opened in this proclamation, so that it applied neither to Portugal, France, Burgundy, nor to any German territory except Austria, nor to the Bohemian part of Silesia. But at the end of 1514 all this was changed. On the 29th of October, the St. Peter’s Indulgence was extended for one year to Savoy, Dauphiny, Provence, Burgundy, Lorraine, and to the town and diocese of Liege. On the 2nd of December it was further extended for two years to the ecclesiastical provinces of Cologne, Treves, Salzburg, Bremen, Besancon, and Upsala. The intermediate dioceses were exempt; the exceptions being the possessions of Albert, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg, and Administrator of the diocese of Halberstadt, those of the Margrave of Brandenburg, as well as the dioceses of Cambrai, Tournai, Thérouanne, and Arras. Giovanni Angelo Arcimboldi, a member of a Milanese family and court prelate, was named commissary for indulgences in this new field. At the end of September, 1515, Arcimboldi’s powers were extended to the diocese of Meissen. At Easter, 1516, he named as his coadjutor the Dominican, Johann Tetzel. When, at the end of 15 16, Arcimboldi went north, Tetzel entered the service of the Elector of Mainz, Albert of Brandenburg, to whose dioceses of Mainz, Magdeburg, and Halberstadt an indulgence had been granted, the proclamation of which was to lead to events, the import of which was little suspected.

Albert of Brandenburg, Archbishop of Magdeburg since August 1513, and, since September of the same year, Administrator of the see of Halberstadt, was, for political reasons, elected as Archbishop of Mainzon the death of Uriel von Gemmingen on the 9th of March, 1514. But Albert was resolved to retain the other two sees as well, the result of which would be an accumulation of bishoprics such as had been hitherto unknown in Germany. There were difficulties in Rome about his confirmation in the sees, which were increased by Cardinal Lang, who had hoped to secure Magdeburg and Halberstadt for himself. Large-hearted as he was in such matters, Leo X must have hesitated to confide to the care of a prince only twenty- five years of age a field of jurisdiction so vast as to baffle the powers of a man of great experience, even were he to confine himself to the supervision of what was absolutely necessary.

But all hesitation vanished before the enticing prospect of securing the loyalty of the two powerful Brandenburg Electors by this act of condescension. After long negotiations the object of Albert’s ambition was achieved. In August, 1 5 14, he was confirmed in the archiepiscopal see of Mainz, together with that of Magdeburg and the episcopal see of Halberstadt. It is true that for his confirmation in these sees he had to pay a fee of 14,000 ducats, besides the extraordinary tax of 10,000 ducats for holding the two extra bishoprics. The whole sum was advanced by the celebrated banking house of Fugger, which reigned over international finance, under the management of the genial Jakob Fugger. To indemnify him, and above all to enable him to pay his debt to Fugger, Albert was entrusted with the proclamation of the St. Peter's Indulgence in the ecclesiastical provinces of Mainzand Magdeburg, including the diocese of Halberstadt, and throughout the territory of the house of Brandenburg. Half the proceeds were to go towards defraying the expenses of St. Peter's, and the other half to the Archbishop of Mainz. It has been held that Albert made an offer for the grant of the indulgence in his territories, and that the 10,000 ducats were a premium paid in advance by him for the favour ; but later researches have disproved this. The 10,000 ducats were rather an extra fee paid by him for the right to hold the sees of Magdeburg and Halberstadt in addition to that of Mainz. As a matter of fact Brandenburg made no offer for the privilege of proclaiming the indulgence, the proposal coming to him from the Dataria. The Envoy of Albert was at first but little inclined to meddle with the affair, because, said he, “dissatisfaction and perhaps worse might come from it”. But at last there was nothing left to him but to consent. Probably the chief agent of this business was the future Cardinal Armellini.

Though the term of simony has been applied to this case, it is not quite borne out by facts. Still the whole thing, looked at from every point of view, was a disgraceful affair for all concerned. That it, together with other causes, led to the impending catastrophe, appears to us like a judgment from heaven. Even if the proclamation of the above-mentioned indulgence were but, so to speak, the last stone which set the avalanche in motion, it is a fact, proved by what took place, that the revolt against the Papacy proceeded from a grave abuse, patent to all beholders, connected with the obnoxious financial trans actions of the Roman Curia. No doubt its demands for money affected the clergy primarily; but what weighed most with the discontent of the laity, was that the enforced payment of a certain sum of money should be added to the usual conditions for gaining an indulgence.

An indulgence is, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, as defined in the 13th century, a remission of the temporal punishment which remains due to sin, after its guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted in the sacrament of penance; which temporal punishment remains, to be suffered either here or in purgatory. Dis­pensers of indulgences are the Pope and Bishops, who draw from the inexhaustible treasury which the Church possesses in the merits of Jesus Christ, the most Blessed Virgin Mary, and the Saints (thesaurus ecclesiae). The indispensable condition for gaining any indulgence, is the state of grace given by means of contrition and confession. Besides this, good works, such as prayer, visits to churches, almsgiving, and pious offerings for holy objects and for the common welfare of the Church, are prescribed.

A distinction must be drawn between plenary indulgences, which cancel all temporal punishment due to sin, and partial indulgences, which cancel only a part of the same. Plenary indulgences, which the Pope alone, as Vicar of Christ, can grant, were granted in the second half of the 11th Century to Crusaders. A special kind of plenary indulgence is the Jubilee Indulgence, which was first granted by Boniface VIII. When such a Jubilee Indulgence was promulgated, it was done in an especially solemn manner. Confessors-extraordinary were appointed, with faculties more extensive than those exercised in the ordinary ministrations of a parish priest to his flock, and which gave them the power of absolution in reserved cases.

As regarded the application of indulgences to the dead, theologians were of divided opinion until the middle of the 15th century. Some rejected it or left the matter open, while others said it was lawful. The latter view gained general acceptance under the influence of the decisions of Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII; and by the beginning of the 1 6th century the application of indulgences to the souls in purgatory was no longer disputed by any Catholic writer. As an indulgence for the dead is fundamentally nothing else than a solemn form of prayer for the dead, according to the general opinion it could be gained even in a state of mortal sin ; whereas, if anyone wished to gain an indulgence for himself, contrition and confession were necessary conditions, added to some good work prescribed, such as a visit to a church or a pious offering in money.

The Papal Bulls all put forward the doctrine of Indulgences with dogmatic accuracy; and most theologians of the declining Middle Ages, though they may differ on individual points, agree in essentials ; and all unite in ex plaining indulgences, not as being a remission of guilt, but as a remission of temporal punishment. All equally start from the presumption that, in order to gain an indulgence, the sin must have been already forgiven through contrition and confession. In the sermons and catechetical writings of the 15th century, the doctrine of indulgences is treated clearly and theologically. The sermons preached by the celebrated Geiler von Kaisersberg in 1501 and 1502 are quite a standard explanation of Christian doctrine. The ordinary pastors of souls preached, only with varying skill, the doctrines of the Church as formulated by Popes and theologians. Sermons of the 15th century which have been preserved, prove how plainly and thoroughly this was done, and in such a way that persons of the more ignorant classes must have understood the matter.)

Such preaching of indulgences in accordance with the spirit of the Church could have only a beneficial effect, and constituted a means of extraordinary work for souls which may be compared with that of popular missions at the present day. A number of elements combined on such occasions to produce a powerful influence on the spiritual life of the people ; and zealous reformers in the Church, such as Geiler von Kaisersberg, attached the utmost importance to the preaching of an indulgence. The season of grace was ushered in with special and impressive solemnities, such as processions, prayers, canticles, the erection of crosses, or pictures of the Mother of God with her Divine Son lying dead on her knee. Well-known preachers were invited from a distance to instruct the people in frequent discourses, not only about the indulgence itself, but about all the truths of faith and the duties of the Christian life, with exhortations to repentance and amendment of life.

For those thus stirred up to better things there were always at hand their own confessors, to whom to have recourse, these being, for the occasion, provided with special faculties for absolution in reserved cases and for dispensation from vows, being moreover well fitted to deal with all the ordinary cases of conscience submitted to them. Not only were the faithful exhorted to frequent the sacraments, but they were incited to prayer, almsgiving, fasting, devotion to the Saints, and all other holy practices. Whoever profited conscientiously by this time of grace granted by the Church, was sure to make progress in the spiritual life. After what had perhaps been a long life of sin, he was reconciled to his Lord and God, and enabled to set forth, full of good resolutions, to lead henceforward a good Christian life. Such a season of grace was also a powerful means of alleviating the sorrows of life. The unfortunate of every kind found strength and consolation under suffering, and returned to the difficult duties of their life comforted and reinvigorated. In this way indulgences represented a true renewal of spiritual life. Many witnesses testify that, towards the close of the Middle Ages, this end proposed was often attained.

It is true that even then complaints were made by unsuspected and credible persons of many abuses connected with indulgences. Nearly all arose from this, that the faithful, after frequenting the sacrament of penance, as the recognized condition for gaining the indulgence, found themselves called on to make an offering of money in proportion with their means. This offering for good works, which should have been only accessory, was in certain cases made into the chief condition. Thus an indulgence was lowered from its ideal purpose and degraded into a merely financial transaction. The need of money instead of the good of souls became only too often the end of the indulgence.

Like nearly all the abuses which disfigured the Church at the close of the Middle Ages, this about indulgences dates to a great extent from the Schism of the West. In order to hold his own against the French anti-popes, Boniface IX, who was not scrupulous in his methods of supplying the apostolic coffers, granted an unusual number of indulgences, with the avowed object of procuring money. This he did first by proclaiming in 1390 a Roman Jubilee over a large area, including Italy and Germany. To this in itself no exception could be taken; but the gaining of the indulgence was connected with conditions which could not fail to lead to abuses. To the ordinary conditions this was added, that whoever wished to gain a plenary indulgence must offer the same amount of money which he would have spent on a journey to Rome and in the churches there. All details were to be arranged with the collector: even should he ask but a small tribute from some, and a merely nominal offering from the very poor, still the fact remained that such bargaining between collector and pilgrim gave so marked a stamp of business to the Jubilee, that there could not fail to be unauthorized imposition on the side of the collector, and fraudulent excuses on the side of the pilgrim. Of all monies received half had to be sent to Rome. The evil consequences of all this were soon made evident. Neither religious nor secular clergy shrank from the direct sale of spiritual gifts, and gave absolution for money to those who did not even profess to have contrition. Boniface IX was told of these abuses, but instead of ordering stringent measures to be taken, he only expressed his displeasure with many of the clergy who possessed indulgence-faculties because they would render no account of the proceeds. The impression that the question of money was the chief consideration with the Roman Curia, was increased by the intelligence that the official agents of the Jubilee Indulgence in Cologne in 1394, an abbot and a banker, were living together. This was the first instance of the kind. Another custom arose of appointing sub-delegates for the proclamation of the indulgence, which no doubt weakened the sense of responsibility in the real dispensers. Much mischief was done by the expenses attendant on publishing the Bulls of indulgences. In addition to the great cost of preparing them, large fees had to be given to the officials of the Curia. There are undoubted proofs that this went on during the pontificate of Boniface IX.

Boniface’s successors went even further than he did. All the Popes of the latter days of the Middle Ages, driven by Crusade difficulties and other embarrassments, or else moved by the constant requests for assistance from clergy and laity, granted indulgences to quite an extraordinary extent, both as to number and area. Though in the wording of the Bulls, the doctrine of the Church was never departed from, and confession, contrition, and definitely prescribed good works were made the condition for gaining the indulgence, still the financial side of the matter was always apparent, and the necessity of making offerings of money was placed most scandalously in the foreground. Indulgences took more and more the form of a monetary arrangement, which led to many conflicts with the secular powers, who were always demanding a share of the proceeds. “That he who granted the grace should receive a share gave no offence, but it was the amount which was the occasion of scandal. The faithful felt themselves wronged by the Curia ; and so also did the members of the latter feel themselves aggrieved by the Emperor and territorial Princes, who either forbade the proclamation of the indulgence in their lands, or else seized the profits”.

With the multiplication and extension of indulgences, and their conversion into money transactions, it was obvious, considering the covetousness of the age, that the gravest abuses should prevail at their promulgation. Painful occurrences were frequent at the collection and division of the indulgence offerings. No wonder that loud and violent complaints were heard on every side. We can understand what the abuses must have been if even a good man like Eck, who was devoted to the Holy See, could complain openly that “one indulgence drove out another!”. Eck reported that “permissory letters” were given as the actual reward of crime. Jerome Emser severely censures the guilt of “the covetous commissaries, monks, and priests, who preach the indulgence in a shameless manner, and lay more stress on money than on confession, contrition, and penance”. Murner also speaks of the abuses connected with indulgences. These, however, were by no means confined to Germany. At the Council of Trent, Cardinal Pacheco complained of the doings of the preachers who proclaimed the cruciata indulgence in Spain. The severe Cardinal Ximenes, notwithstanding his devotion to the Holy See, expressed his disapprobation of the indulgence proclaimed by Leo X for building St. Peter’s. In the Netherlands such scandal was given among the more strict Catholics by the behaviour of the indulgence comissaries, and by the frivolity with which they granted dispensations, that at Louvain open protestations were made in 1516 against the proclamation. At the Lateran Council some of the Bishops complained of the abuses attending the proclamation of the indulgence by the Minorites. A compromise was agreed to; but this effected no good, for Egidio Canisio remonstrated with Adrian VI for entrusting the indulgence to the Franciscans, which militated against the jurisdiction of the Bishops. No proofs are needed of how much the authority of the Church suffered from all this, what scandal was given, or what occasion offered to her enemies to blaspheme. Cardinal Canisio was of opinion that the facilities for absolution encouraged sinners, and were an inducement to sin.

In Italy also, voices were raised in protest against the undue multiplicity of indulgences.  Satirists like Ariosto jeered at their cheapness, while seriously-minded men like Sadolet emphatically opposed them. But Leo, always in need of money, paid no attention. He was surrounded by unscrupulous advisers, such as Cardinal Pucci, who knew how to appease his conscience by—to put it mildly—their rare gifts of casuistry. §It is therefore not surprising that the Medici Pope committed himself to the proclamation of this indulgence, which he entrusted to the new Elector, Albert of Brandenburg.

The petition of Albert of Brandenburg to be entrusted with the proclamation of the Mayence and Magdeburg Indulgence was dated the 1st of August, 1514, and received the placet of the Pope on the very same day. But the proclamation itself was delayed for a short time. The Bull was not prepared until the 31st of March, 1515. By it the Archbishop of Mayence and the Franciscan Guardian of that city were nominated the indulgence commissaries in the provinces named in Albert's petition, for eight years from the publication of the Bull. The commissaries were given the right to suspend all other indulgences in their official circuit. They were also entrusted with the Motu Proprio of Leo X of the 15th of April to the Cardinal­Bishop of Ostia, as Camerlengo, and his official subordinates, which confirmed the Jubilee Indulgence applied for by Albert in his petition. The Bull passed immediately into the hands of the Emperor Maximilian, who made use of the favourable opportunity to secure some of the proceeds for himself. To enable the Emperor to reap the benefit of three out of the eight years' indulgence granted by the Pope, the Chancellor of Mainz, Johann von Dalheim, arranged to pay in each of these three years 1000 Rhenish florins into the imperial exchequer, which money was to be applied to the erection of the Church of St. James, adjoining the imperial residence at Innsbruck.

As it was not explicitly stated in the Bull that half of the proceeds were to go to the Archbishop of Mainz, the latter, to avoid future molestation, decided to delay the promulgation of the indulgence until he had received an unambiguous assurance from Rome to that effect. The arrangements connected with this caused fresh delay. As the Papal Brief, giving the assurance asked for, and sent off on the 14th of February, arrived at Mainz only a few days before the Jubilee Sunday, it was, as the provost Dietrich Zobel wrote to Albert, too late for that year. Thus it was that the preaching of the indulgence was introduced in Mainz only at the beginning of the fateful year 1517. In consequence of the confusion which ensued, it was carried on during only two years out of the eight. According to Fugger’s estimate, only lately discovered, the proceeds were distinctly less than they had been on any previous occasion.  It appears that after paying the duty to the Emperor, Albert received as his share scarcely half of the “composition”, to say nothing of the confirmation fees. “The Mayence and Magdeburg Indulgence was a bad speculation for Albert, from a purely mercantile point of view”. It is a manifest fable that Tetzel received for the Elector of Mainz in one year the sum of 100,000 golden florins.

After January, 1517, Tetzel is known to us as the Archbishop of Mainz’s general subcommissary. On the 24th of January he was at Eisleben, which then be longed to the diocese of Halberstadt, throughout which, as well as the archdiocese of Magdeburg, he subsequently travelled. Early in the year he arrived at Jutterbog, whither there came many people from the neighbouring town of Wittenberg to gain the indulgence, because it was not allowed to be proclaimed in Saxony. On this occasion the professor of Wittenberg, Martin Luther, who was already secretly estranged from the Church, busied himself with the matter of the indulgence.

No doubt Tetzel was an eloquent and popular preacher, but owing to what followed his words on this occasion, his powers have been overrated by friend and foe alike. In the interests of historical truth we must no more agree with all that Tetzel said and did, than we must accept the conventional picture drawn by his adversaries. The accusations of gross immorality brought against him by contemporary opponents are mere inventions, as also is the assertion of modern writers that he preached scandalously and criminally about the Mother of God. These charges can be proved to be calumnies by Tetzel's own evidence, supported by official witnesses. The purport of Tetzel’s indulgence sermons has been distorted in the most absurd manner. The mistakes made have come chiefly from the fact that sufficient care has not been taken to keep distinct the questions of different kinds which arose. Above all, a most clear distinction must be made between indulgences for the living and those for the dead. As regards indulgences for the living, Tetzel always taught pure doctrine. The assertion that he put forward indulgences as being not only a remission of the temporal punishment of sin, but as a remission of its guilt, is as unfounded as is that other accusation against him, that he sold the forgiveness of sin for money, without even any mention of contrition and confession, or that, for payment, he absolved from sins which might be committed in the future. His teaching was, in fact, very definite, and quite in harmony with the theology of the Church, as it was then and as it is now, i.e., that indulgences “apply only to the temporal punishment due to sins which have been already repented of and confessed”.

The so-called indulgence and confession letters (confessionalia) could, it is true, be obtained for payment alone, without contrition or any other condition. The mere gaining of such a letter granted neither the forgiveness of sin nor the gaining of any indulgence. All that its possessor acquired was the right, once in his life and at the hour of death, to receive at the hands of a confessor freely chosen by himself, and after a good confession, absolution from most of the cases reserved to the Pope. A plenary indulgence was attached to this. Thus, in this case also, contrition and confession were the recognized conditions for gaining the indulgence.

The case was very different with indulgences for the dead. As regards these there is no doubt that Tetzel did, according to what he considered his authoritative instructions, proclaim as Christian doctrine that nothing but an offering of money was required to gain the indulgence for the dead, without there being any question of contrition or confession. He also taught, in accordance with the opinion then held, that an indulgence could be applied to any given soul with unfailing effect. Starting from this assumption, there is no doubt that his doctrine was virtually that of the drastic proverb : “As soon as money in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory's fire springs”. The Papal Bull of indulgence gave no sanction whatever to this proposition. It was a vague scholastic opinion, rejected by the Sorbonne in 1482, and again in 1518, and certainly not a doctrine of the Church, which was thus improperly put forward as dogmatic truth. The first among the theologians of the Roman court, Cardinal Cajetan, was the enemy of all such extravagances, and declared emphatically that, even if theologians and preachers taught such opinions, no faith need be given them. “Preachers”, said he, “speak in the name of the Church only so long as they proclaim the doctrine of Christ and His Church ; but if, for purposes of their own, they teach that about which they know nothing, and which is only their own imagination, they must not be accepted as mouthpieces of the Church. No one must be surprised if such as these fall into error”.

Unfortunately many of the preachers of the indulgence in Germany and elsewhere were not as prudent as Cardinal Cajetan. Without hesitation they proclaimed scholastic opinions as if they were defined truth, and always obtruded the question of money in a manner which did much harm. Tetzel cannot be exonerated from blame in this respect, even if he did not go as far as Arcimboldi. Tetzel was no doubt prone to exaggerations, and was wanting in modesty and simplicity. His manner was arrogant and pretentious, and he carried out the duties of his office in such a business-like way that scandals could not fail to arise. Even men who were in other respects quite on his side, complain of this. His contemporary and brother in religion, Johann Lindner, reproaches him severely for making gain his first object. “Tetzel”, he writes, “devised unheard-of means of making money. He was far too liberal in conferring offices ; he put up far too many public crosses in towns and villages, which caused scandal and bred complaints among the people”. Thus spiritual treasures were carped at, on account of the abuses which accompanied them.

A professor of Wittenberg University, whose name had, hitherto, been known but to few, became the interpreter of the widespread indignation caused by the abuses connected with the proclamation of the indulgence. On the 31st of October, on the occasion of Tetzel’s preaching, Martin Luther affixed to the door of the castle church of Wittenberg ninety-five theses, challenging a dispute on the subject of indulgences. According to the academic customs of the day, there was nothing unusual in this proceeding: but a burning question was involved. Added to this was the blunt polemical style of Luther’s theses, which were full of contradictions far beyond their ostensible object. They roused great attention in every quarter. Even though Tetzel’s sermons were the occasion of Luther’s attack, it was directed less against him personally than against the whole system of indulgences. The primary object of the Wittenberg professor’s attack was the teaching body of the Church, especially the Pope and the Archbishop of Mainz, whom Luther regarded as chiefly responsible for the abuses. In his secret heart it was not the abuses of the actual system of indulgences which were at the bottom of Luther’s action. The theses of October the 31^st were nothing but the first incidental expression of his deeply--lying antagonism to the Catholic doctrine of good works. The doctrines of justification by faith alone, and the absence of free-will in man, already completely formulated in his heart, could have nothing in common with such a thing.

Luther had no intention at that time of separating himself from the Church. Neither can it be said that he took up the dispute about indulgences as a pretext to introduce his new doctrines. On the contrary, it may be assumed that he had no object beyond attacking the real and supposed abuses attached to the preaching of the indulgence. Nevertheless, the theses of the Wittenberg professor, taken as a whole, had a significance far wider than this. They could not fail to stir up the people against the authority of the Church, nor to bring indulgences into contempt, and lead the masses into error. What they put forward was a mixture of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, under which contempt and hatred of the Holy See, and much else that was reprehensible from a Catholic point of view, was scarcely concealed. The thirty-sixth thesis was directed against indulgences as interpreted by the Catholic Church, and the fifty-eighth directly denied the doctrine of the treasury of the Church.

On the same day that he had affixed them to the church, Luther sent his theses to Archbishop Albert of Brandenburg, with a letter, in which he partly summarized them, and complained of the false representations made to the people and the false promises of the preachers. In the beginning of the letter he says that he by no means wishes to accuse the preachers—whom he had not heard—of uttering such pernicious doctrine from the pulpit ; but later, turning on them, he reproaches these same preachers because they, “by lying fables and empty promises, breed a false sense of security in the people”. In conclusion, he demands of the Archbishop to countermand the instructions, which were at any rate given without his knowledge or consent, and to replace them by a teaching of a better kind. He adds the threat that in case Albert should refuse, there might arise one who would write against the system, to the great injury of the Archbishop.

Albert of Brandenburg laid the case before his counsellors at Aschaffenburg and the professors of the University of Mainz. The first were unanimous in their desire that a process against Luther should be instituted. The Archbishop sent on this opinion, together with Luther's theses, to the Pope, “with the good hope”, as he wrote to his counsellors at Halle, “that His Holiness would grasp the situation so as to meet the error at once, as occasion offers and as the exigency requires, and not lay the responsibility on us”. He urged these counsellors to consider the document with due deliberation and diligence. If they were of opinion that it would be advisable to make the process more stringent, they were to intimate the same to Luther through Tetzel, in order that such poisonous error may no longer be spread among the people. But it may be safely assumed that the counsellors of Halle did not think that the legal proceedings recommended at Aschaffenburg were expedient, or that any intimation as to their increased severity was communicated to Luther through Tetzel.

The opinion of the University of Mainz, which was sent in only on the 17th of December, 1517, after repeated reminders on the part of the Archbishop, touched on only one point in Luther's theses, namely, the limitation of the Pope's authority in the matter of indulgences. It censured this as being opposed to the traditional doctrine, to adhere to which “was safer and more advisable”. The Mainz professors refused to pass a formal judgment on the propositions, but rather recommended an appeal to the decision of the Pope.

By the propagation of Luther’s theses, Tetzel felt himself called on to bring his learning to bear on the adversary. He did this by a long list of theses, which he defended before the University of Frankfort on the Oder, on the 20th of January, 1518. The author of these propositions was not Tetzel himself, but the Frankfort professor, Conrad Wimpina. His anti-theses went too far on certain points, where they put forward scholastic opinions as if they were truths of faith. Generally, however, the defence gave a solid exposition of the accepted doctrine of indulgences, and proved the errors of Luther. Special stress was laid on this, that “indulgences do not remit sin, but only the temporal punishment due to it, and this only on the condition that the sin is heartily repented of and confessed ; that they do not take from the merits of Christ, but place His satisfactory sufferings in the place of the satisfactory punishment”.

A travelling dealer came to Wittenberg in the middle of March with a number of copies of the Frankfort anti-theses to sell. He was at once set upon by the students who had attached themselves to Luther, and the books torn from him and burnt in the public market-place. Later, this action was blamed by Luther himself. But shortly after as soon indeed as he had heard of the publishing of Tetzel’s theses, Luther brought out his “Sermon on Indulgences and  Grace”, in which he went further than he had ever gone before. In it he severely condemns the scholastic division of penance into confession, contrition, and satisfaction, as not being founded on Scripture. At the end of the sermon he makes this declaration: “If I am called a heretic by those whose purses will suffer from my truths, I care not much for their bawling: for only those say this whose dark understanding has never known the Bible”.

In answer to this sermon, which was circulated in all parts, Tetzel published his Vorlegung, directed “against an audacious sermon containing twenty articles full of errors concerning Papal Indulgences and Graces”. In this work he went exhaustively into the doctrine of indulgences. It is to the credit of Tetzel’s acumen and theological training that he so fully grasped the scope of Luther’s new doctrine, and perceived how closely it attacked the first principles of the Christian faith and the authority of the Church. Other good Christian scholars judged Luther's doctrines far too superficially, and saw nothing in the whole dispute beyond a scholastic quarrel about non-essential points. Luther’s articles, Tetzel complained in his work, will cause “great scandal”. For by them “many will be led to despise the supremacy and authority of the Pope and the Holy Roman See. Works of sacramental satisfaction will be left undone. Preachers and teachers will no longer be believed. Each person will interpret Holy Scripture just as he pleases. Wherefore, the practice of a holy and simple Christianity by the greater number of the faithful must be endangered ; for each one will learn to believe just what he chooses”.

At the conclusion of the Vorlegung, which appeared in April, Tetzel announced that he would shortly publish further points of doctrine, about which he intended to hold a disputation in the Frankfort schools. This was issued at the end of April or the beginning of May, 1518, in the form of fifty theses, composed by Tetzel himself. In these he touched only incidentally on the doctrine of indulgences, having already treated it sufficiently. This time he entered more deeply into the subject of the authority of the Church, which Luther had questioned. As the professor of Wittenberg had appealed to the Bible in his attack on indulgences, Tetzel argued that there were many Catholic truths which had to be firmly believed by faithful Christians, besides those mentioned explicitly in Holy Scripture. Among these must be counted belief in the dogmatic decisions of the Pope in matters of faith, as well as that of tradition approved by the Church. He here struck the key-note of the whole dispute. Indulgences, as something incidental to the main point at issue, soon disappeared from these polemical discussions; but, on the other hand, the question of the authority of the Church always remained in the foreground.

Luther's counterattack on the Vorlegung  was in pamphlet form, and bore the title, Eyn Freyheyt des Sermons Bebstlichen Ablas und gnad belangend wider die vorlegung, so tzur schmach seyn und desselben Sermon ertichtet (Wittenberg, 1 5 18). In this work he only mentions Tetzel’s fifty theses incidentally at the end, where he dismisses them with an ironical remark. After publishing his fifty theses, Tetzel wrote no more. In consequence of Luther's attitude, it was impossible to carry on the preaching of the indulgence. He therefore returned at the end of 15 18 to the Dominican convent at Leipzig.

Meanwhile, Luther’s theses, translated into German and scattered broadcast about the country, were producing a great effect. As truth and falsehood were mixed in them to an extraordinary degree, both the friends and foes of ecclesiastical authority found something in them to suit them. As for the masses of the people, the cause of their approbation was to be found in the declaration that the support of the poor by almsgiving was more meritorious than the gaining of indulgences. But the popularity of the movement came chiefly from its onslaught on the hated requisitions for money and the general abuses connected with them. Very soon all those who were discontented with the Curia—for mercantile, political, national, and other reason —flocked after Luther, and thus he took his place at the head of a national religious revolt, which was to be carried on by him until a large portion of the German people separated themselves from the centre of the unity of the Church.

Very few foresaw this at first : on the contrary, numbers believed both then and long after that the Wittenberg professor was the champion of the reform of abuses in the Church, which had been looked for so eagerly by the faithful. Most people felt, no doubt, that Luther would carry on the desired reformation inside the Church and in obedience to her laws. They quite overlooked the fact that the sweeping away of abuses was only part of the reformer's programme. They either did not know, or would not admit, that he was already in vital antagonism to the Church by reason of the grave heretical doctrines which he held.

Among the few German theologians who from the very beginning feared great dangers for the Church from Luther’s movement, was Johann Eck, a professor of Ingoldstadt. In his rejoinders (obelisci) to Luther’s theses, at first disseminated only in manuscript form, he pointed out the kinship in many of the opinions expressed in them to the doctrines of Wyclif and Hus, which had been already condemned by the Church.

CHAPTER VIII.

Luther is summoned to Rome.—His Transactions with Cardinal Cajetan and with Miltitz. —The Bull “Exsurge” and its Reception in Germany.—Aleander’s Mission to the Diet of Worms, and the Imperial Edict against Luther.