main provision of which was that the parties were to divide between them the places to be conquered by the Emperor in Lombardy.

Thus Luther was placed under the ban of the Empire and of the Church. The two great institutions, the two potentates, in whom it had been imagined that all authority on earth is embodied, pronounced against him. The movement that had enlisted in its support to so great an extent the literary and political, as well as the distinctively religious, elements of opposition to Rome, was condemned by Church and State. It remained to be seen whether the decree of the Diet could be carried into execution.

Now we find Luther in the Wartburg, the place of refuge chosen for him by the firm but discreet Elector. It is a very fine remark of Melancthon respecting the Elector to whose honest piety and discerning spirit the Reformation owes so much: "He was not one of those who would stifle changes in their very birth. He was subject to the will of God. He read the writings that were put forth, and would not permit any power to crush what he thought true." Here, though enduring much physical pain consequent upon neglect of exercise,1 Luther is incessantly at work, sending forth controversial pamphlets, writing letters of counsel and encouragement to his friends, and laboring on his translation of the New Testament, the first portion of that version of the entire Scriptures, which is one of his most valuable gifts to the German people.2 Idiomatic, vital in every part, clothed in the racy language of common life, it created, apart from its religious influence, an epoch in the literary development of the German nation.3 Troubles at Witten

1 He adverts to his physical disorders, De Wette, ii. pp. 2, 17, 29, 33, 50, 59. 2 On the previous translations of the Bible into High and Low German, and on their small circulation, especially among the laity, see Herzog's Real-Encyc., art. "Deutsche Bibelübersetzungen."

8 On the incalculable advantage of Luther's Bible as furnishing a "people's book". — a "fundamental work for the instruction of the people' there are good remarks by Hegel, Phil. der Geschichte; Werke, ix. 503, 504.

LUTHER AND THE ICONOCLASTS.

113

berg called him forth from his retreat. An iconoclastic movement had broken out under the lead of Carlstadt, for the purpose of sweeping away in an abrupt and violent manner rites that were deemed incongruous with the new doctrine. There was a certain consistency in this radical movement, and many of the changes that were attempted, Luther and his followers themselves effected afterwards. But there was a spirit of enthusiasm and violence, of which Luther saw the danger; and the innovators were associating with themselves pretended prophets from Zwickau, who claimed a miraculous inspiration and were the apostles of a social revolution. Luther comprehended at a glance the full import of the crisis. Should his movement issue in a sober and salutary reform, or run out into a wild, fanatical sect? It is a mark of the sound conservatism of Luther, or rather of his profound Christian wisdom, that he desired no changes that did not result spontaneously from an insight into the true principles of the Gospel. Better, he thought, to let obnoxious rites and ceremonies remain, unless they fall away from their perceived inconsistency with the Gospel, as the natural result of incoming light and the education of conscience. "If we," he said, are to be iconoclasts because the Jews were, then like them we must kill all the unbelievers." He was unwilling to have the attention of men drawn away from the central questions by an excitement about points of subordinate moment; and he counted no changes to be of any value, however reasonable in themselves, which were brought to pass by the dictation of leaders or by any form of external pressure. Seeing the full extent of the danger, he resolved, whatever might befall himself, to return to his flock. Luther never appears more grand than at this moment. To the prudent Elector who warned him against leaving his retreat, and told him that he could not protect him against the con1 De Wette, ii. 548.

1

66

sequences of the edict of Worms, he wrote in a lofty strain of courage and faith. He went forth, he said, under far higher protection than that of the Elector. This was a cause not to be aided or directed by the sword. He who has most faith will be of most use. "Since I now perceive," he wrote, "that your Electoral Grace is still very weak in faith, I can by no means regard your Electoral Highness as the man who is able to shield or save me." If he had as pressing business at Leipsic, he said, as he had at Wittenberg, he would ride in there if it rained Duke Georges nine days!2 Arriving at Wittenberg, he entered the pulpit on the following Sunday, and by a series of eight discourses put an end to the formidable disturbance (1522).

1

Restored to Wittenberg, Luther continued his herculean labors as a preacher, teacher, and author. Commentaries, tracts, letters upon all the various themes on which he was daily consulted or on which he felt impelled to speak, continually flowed from his pen. In a single year he put forth not less than one hundred and eighty-three publications.3

Meantime the Council of Regency, who managed the government in the absence of the Emperor, steadily declined to adopt measures for the extirpation of the Lutherans. The ground was taken that the religious movement was too much a matter of conscience; it had taken root in the minds of too great a number to allow of its suppression by force. An attempt to do so would breed disturbances of a dangerous character. The drift of feeling through the nation was unmistakably in the direction 1 De Wette, ii. 139.

2 De Wette, ii. 140.

3 He says: "Sum certe velocis mentis et promtæ memoriæ e qua mihi fluit, quum promatur, quicquid scribo." Letter to Spalatin (Feb. 3, 1520); De Wette, i. 405. Five years later he writes: "Sic obruor quotidie literis, ut mensa, scamna, scabella, pulpita, fenestræ, arcæ, asseres, et omnia plena jaceant literis, quæstionibus, querelis, petitionibus, etc. In me ruit tota moles ecclesiastica et politica," etc. Letter to Wenc. Link. (June 20, 1529); De Wette, iii. 472.

DIVISION OF GERMANY.

115

of reform.

Adrian VI., who was a man of strict morals, the successor of Leo. X., found himself unable to remedy the abuses to which he attributed the Lutheran movement. The demand which he made by his legate at the Diet of Nuremberg, in 1522, that the decree against Luther should be enforced, was met by the presentation of a list of a hundred grievances of which the Diet had to complain to the Roman see. His successor, Clement VII., in whom the old spirit of worldliness, after the brief interval of Adrian's reign, was reinstated in the papal chair, fared little better at the Diet of Nuremberg, in 1524, when, through his legate Campeggio, he demanded the unconditional suppression of the Lutheran heresy. The Pope and the Emperor could obtain no more than an indefinite engagement to observe the Worms decree, “as far as possible." This action was equivalent to remanding the subject to the several princes within their respective territories. It was coupled with a reference of disputed matters to a general council, and with a resolution to take up the hundred complaints at the next diet. A majority could not be obtained against the Lutherans and in favor of the coercive measures demanded by the Pope and by Charles. And the movement of reform was spreading in every part of Germany.

This aspect of affairs moved the papal party to the adoption of active measures to turn the scale on the other side — measures which began the division of Germany. Up to this point no division had occurred. The nation had moved as one body: it had refused to suppress the new opinions. Now strenuous efforts were put forth to combine the Catholics into a compact party for mutual aid and defense. At Ratisbon an alliance of this character was formed by the Catholic princes and bishops of South Germany, by the terms of which the Wittenberg heresy was to be excluded from their dominions, and they were to help each other in their common dangers. At

the Diet of Nuremberg it had been determined to hold an assembly shortly after at Spires for the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. The princes were to procure beforehand from their councillors and scholars a statement of the points in dispute. The grievances of the nation were to be set forth, and remedies were to be sought for them. The nation was to deliberate and act on the great matter of religious reform. The prospect was that the evangelical party would be in the majority. The papal court saw the danger that was involved in an assembly gathered for such a purpose, and determined to prevent the meeting. At this moment war was breaking out between Charles and Francis. Charles had no inclination to offend the Pope. He forbade the assembly at Spires and, by letters addressed to the princes individually, endeavored to drive them into the execution of the edict of Worms. In consequence of these threatening movements, the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse entered into the defensive league of Torgau, in which they were joined by several Protestant communities. The battle of Pavia and the capture of Francis I. were events that appeared to be fraught with peril to the Protestant cause. In the Peace of Madrid (January 14, 1526) both sovereigns avowed the determination to suppress heresy. But the dangerous preponderance obtained by the Emperor created an alarm throughout Europe; and the release of Francis. was followed by the organization of a confederacy against Charles, of which Clement was the leading promoter. This changed the imperial policy in reference to the Lutherans. The Diet of Spires in 1526 unanimously resolved that, until the meeting of a general council, every state should act in regard to the edict of Worms as it might answer to God and his imperial majesty. Once more Germany refused to stifle the Reformation, and adopted the principle that each of the component parts of the Empire should be left free to act according to its own