CHAPTER XII.

THE LUTHERANS, ZUINGLIANS, AND CALVINISTS.

THE Societies of which I am about to treat in this chapter, are only those which were originally separated from the Roman Obedience. I leave out of the question those communities which have separated from them, and which are too insignificant to merit attention. It is needless to say, that the Lutherans, Zuinglians, and Calvinists, are accused of schism and heresy by Romanists, in separating themselves from the church, denying her authority, rejecting tradition, and allowing private judgment to an unlimited extent. I propose to examine, whether these communities did voluntarily separate from the church; whether they maintained principles subversive of unity in faith and discipline; whether they constituted churches of Christ; and whether it was allowable to hold any religious intercourse with them.

SECTION I.

WHETHER THE LUTHERANS SEPARATED FROM THE CHURCH,

This is a question which can only be determined by reference to the facts of history, and these prove con

clusively, that Luther and the Lutherans did not, either in intention, or by act, separate from the Roman church; that they were always desirous of a reconciliation, and that they were disposed to make great sacrifices for that object.

First then, it does not seem that Luther had the slightest notion of separating from the church or rejecting its authority. It is well known that he was roused by the abuses of Tetzel in the preaching and sale of indulgences, abuses which are admitted by Romanists themselves. In 1517 Luther wrote to the archbishop of Mayence, and the bishops of Brandenburgh and Mersburgh urging them to repress the evil conduct of Tetzel. In 1518 he transmitted his theses on indulgences to the bishop of Brandenburgh, his diocesan, protesting at the same time, that he did not mean to determine them dogmatically, but that they were merely for discussion and disputation, as was customary in the schools, and that he submitted himself to the judgment of his bishop'. Nor was this all. In the same year he wrote to pope Leo X. with the greatest humility and respect, relating the excesses of the preachers of indulgences, his having informed the bishops, and his disputation against the dogmata of Tetzel, which he justified by his academic right of doctor of divinity, and by the faculties he held from the pope himself; concluding with an assurance that his theses were merely for academical disputation, and were not intended to go abroad to the world; and finally, that he submitted himself entirely to the pontiff. Nothing could be farther from any appearance of schismatical conduct than this. It is obvious that

a Gerdesii Historia Evangelii renovati, tom. i. p. 90.

b

Ibid. p. 221.

Ibid. 221, 222.

Luther paid the highest respect and submission to the ordinary and existing authorities in the church, and that his principles and conduct contradict the notion that he designed to separate from it. Even writers of the Roman communion are obliged to confess, that for more than three years, that is, until he was excommunicated by Leo X., all his discourses were full of similar protestations. Writers of another sort are too often disposed to pass over these circumstances, as if they were in some way discreditable to Luther; but the simple truth is, that he was duly impressed with the obligation of preserving unity, and had no wish to separate from the Roman church.

Leo X. having appointed cardinal Cajetan to be judge in Luther's case, who was now accused of heresy, a conference ensued at Augsburgh, in which Cajetan insisted that Luther, without any discussion to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the positions he had advanced, should at once, in obedience to the papal authority (which he exaggerated in the highest degree), retract his errors. Luther, in reply, protested that he would submit to the judgment of the Roman church; but declined to retract his positions until their error had been shown, because he had advanced them not dogmatically, but merely in the way of discussion; that he had said nothing in them "contrary to the Scripture,, the councils, and fathers;" and that he was ready to submit to the decision of the church. He treated Cajetan with the greatest respect, and even offered to be silent on the subject in future, if his adversaries Eckius, Cochlæus, De Prierio, Hochstrat, &c. were also required to be silent. In conclusion, finding that cardinal Cajetan

ل

e

Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 125. Fleury, liv. 125. s. 79-84.

had orders to arrest him and bring him to Rome, if he did not renounce his doctrines unconditionally, he withdrew from Augsburgh, but addressed a letter to Cajetan, offering again to be silent if his adversaries were, and expressing his readiness to retract if his errors should be proved. At the same time he appealed (as the university and parliament of Paris did almost contemporaneously) from the expected sentence against him, to the pope better informed". In all this Luther's desire of peace is evident, and it is impossible to blame him for declining to retract as errors or heresies, without any discussion or ecclesiastical judgment, what he had merely advanced in the way of academical discussion.

Cajetan nevertheless at once treated Luther as a heretic, writing to the elector of Saxony, and urging him to give up Luther to the papal power, or at least to expel him from his dominions; but the elector most justly replied, that Luther ought not to be treated merely by the way of authority, and be compelled to retract before his cause was examined and judged, but ought first to be lawfully convicted of error'. Luther, though well aware of the designs for his destruction, did not attempt to revolt against the church, but offered to accept any German bishop as his judge'.

Still

Leo X. presently issued a bull approving of indulgences, and condemning all who disputed the doctrine relating to them which he there laid down. This decree obliged Luther to take the farther step of appealing formally from the pope to a general council (a mode

of proceeding perfectly legitimate, and practised perpetually in the Roman obedience). But he denied at the same time that he intended "to depart from the sentiments of the church," or to "doubt the primacy and authority of the Roman see'." In farther testimony of his wishes, he again wrote, in March 1519, to Leo X. (though the pontiff had already written to the elector of Saxony against him as a heretic, urging his banishment ""), declaring in the most submissive terms that he had never designed to injure the authority of the Roman church, that he would not trouble the church for trifling matters, and would submit to all that was required of him for the sake of peace". He also acquiesced in the proposal of Miltitz, the papal nuncio, to be judged by the archbishop of Treves. At the beginning of his discussion with Eckius, in the same year, Luther and his friends declared that they did not wish to remove the doctrines of the catholic church, to which they always desired to be attached°. In 1520 he wrote to the archbishop of Mayence and the bishop of Mersburgh, to excuse himself, and to request them not to believe him a heretic without hearing him. Nor was this the last testimony afforded by Luther of his desire to remain in communion with the church. He had actually engaged Seckingen to procure him an honourable reconciliation with Rome, as cardinal Pallavicini acknowledges, when, in 1520, Leo X. issued a bull against Luther, in which it is declared that unless he shall revoke the errors therein attributed to him within sixty days, he and all his adherents shall be deemed to

'§ 90.

m Liv. 126. s. 9. n Ib. 12.

P Ib. 51.

Pallavicini Hist. Conc. Trid. 1. i. c. 21. Fleury, s. 63.

。 Ib. 25.