Chapter IV: Theology and Its Battles (15)

§ 120.1. =Italian Humanists.=--Italy was the cradle of humanism,
the Greeks who settled there (§ 62, 1, 2), its fathers. The first
Greek who appeared as a teacher in Italy was Emmanuel Chrysoloras,
in A.D. 1396. After the Council of Florence, =Bessarion= and
=Gemisthus Pletho= settled there, both ardent adherents of
the Platonic philosophy, for which they created an enthusiasm
throughout all Italy. From A.D. 1453 Greek _littérateurs_ came
in crowds. From their schools classical culture and pagan ideas
spread through the land. This paganism penetrated even the
highest ranks of the hierarchy. =Leo X.=[353] is credited with
saying, “How many fables about Christ have been used by us and
ours through all these centuries is very well known.” It may not
be literally authentic, but it accurately expresses the spirit of
the papal court. Leo’s private secretary, Cardinal =Bembo=, gave
a mythological version of Christianity in classical Latin. Christ
he styled “Minerva sprung from the head of Jupiter,” the Holy
Spirit “the breath of the celestial Zephyr,” and repentance
was with him a _Deos superosque manesque placare_. Even during
the council of Florence Pletho had expressed the opinion that
Christianity would soon develop into a universal religion not
far removed from classical paganism; and when Pletho died,
Bessarion comforted his sons by saying that the deceased had
ascended into the pure heavenly spheres, and had joined the
Olympic gods in mystic Bacchus dances. In the halls of the
Medici there flourished a new Platonic school, which put Plato’s
philosophy above Christianity. Alongside of it arose a new
peripatetic school, whose representative, =Peter Pompanazzo
[Pomponazzo]=, who died A.D. 1526, openly declared that from
the philosophical point of view the immortality of the soul
is more than doubtful. The celebrated Florentine statesman and
historian =Macchiavelli=,[354] who died A.D. 1527, taught the
princes of Italy in his “Prince,” in direct contradiction to
Dante’s idealistic “Monarchia,” a realistic polity which was
completely emancipated from Christianity and every system of
morality, and presented the monster Cæsar Borgia (§ 110, 12)
as a pattern of an energetic prince, consistently labouring for
the end he had in view. Looseness of morals went hand in hand
with laxity in religion. Obscene poems and pictures circulated
among the humanists, and their practice was not behind their
theory. Poggio’s lewd facetiæ, as well as Boccadelli’s indecent
epigrams, fascinated the cultured Christian world as much by
their lascivious contents as by their classical style. From the
dialogues of Laurentius Valla on lust and the true good, which
were meant to extol the superiority of Christian morals over
those of the Epicureans and Stoics, comes the saying that the
Greek courtesans were more in favour than the Christian nuns.
The highly gifted poet, Pietro Aretino, in his poetical prose
writings reached the utmost pitch of obscenity. He was called
“the divine Aretino,” and not only Charles V. and Francis I.
honoured him with presents and pensions, but also Leo X.,
Clement VIII., and even Paul III. showed him their esteem and
favour. In their published works the Italian humanists generally
ignored rather than contested the church and its doctrines and
morality. But =Laurentius Valla=, who died A.D. 1457, ventured
in his _Adnotationes in N.T._ freely to find fault with and
correct the Vulgate. He did even more, for he pronounced the
Donation of Constantine (§ 87, 4) a forgery, and poured forth
bitter invectives against the cupidity of the papacy. He also
denied the genuineness of the correspondence of Christ with
Abgarus [Abgar] (§ 13, 2), as well as that of the Areopagite
writings (§ 47, 11) and questioned if the Apostles’ Creed was
the work of the apostles (§ 35, 2). The Inquisition sought to
get hold of him, but Nicholas V. (§ 110, 10) frustrated the
attempt and showed him kindness. With all his classical culture,
however, Valla retained no small reverence for Christianity. In
a still higher degree is this true of =John Picus=, Prince of
=Mirandola=, the phœnix of that age, celebrated as a miracle
of learning and culture, who united in himself all the nobler
strivings of the present and the past. When a youth of twenty-one
he nailed up at Rome nine hundred theses from all departments
of knowledge. The proposed disputation did not then come off,
because many of those theses gave rise to charges of heresy,
from which he was cleared only by Alexander VI. in A.D. 1493.
The combination of all sciences and the reconciliation of all
systems of philosophy among themselves and with revelation on
the basis of the Cabbala was the main point in his endeavours.
He has wrought out this idea in his _Heptaplus_, in which, by
means of a sevenfold sense of Scripture, he succeeds in deducing
all the wisdom of the world from the first chapter of Genesis.
He died in A.D. 1494, in the thirty-first year of his age. In
the last year of his life, renouncing the world and its glory,
he set himself with all his powers to the study of Scripture,
and meant to go from land to land preaching the Cross of Christ.
His intentions were frustrated by death. His saying is a very
characteristic one: _Philosophia veritatem quærit, theologia
invenit, religio possidet_.

§ 120.2. =German Humanism.=--The home of German humanism was
the University of =Erfurt=, founded A.D. 1392. At the Councils
of Constance and Basel Erfurt, next to Paris, manifested
the greatest zeal for the reformation of head and members,
and continued to pursue this course during the twenty years’
activity of John of Wesel (§ 119, 10). About A.D. 1460 the first
representatives of humanism made their appearance there, a German
Luder and a Florentine Publicius. From their school went forth
among others Rudolph of Langen, who carried the new light into
the schools of Westphalia, and John of Dalberg, afterwards Bishop
of Worms. When these two had left Erfurt, =Maternus Pistorius=
headed the humanist movement. Crowds of enthusiastic scholars
from all parts of Germany gathered around him. As men of poetic
tastes, who appreciated the ancient classics, they maintained
excellent relations with the representatives of scholasticism.
But in A.D. 1504 Busch, a violent revolutionist, appearing
at Erfurt, demanded the destruction of the old scholastic
text-books, and thus produced an absolute breach between the
two tendencies. Maternus retired, and =Mutian=, an old Erfurt
student, assumed the leadership in Gotha. Erfurt and Gotha were
kept associated by a lively intercourse between the students
resident at these two places. Mutian had no literary ambitions,
and firmly declined a call to the new University of Wittenberg.
All the more powerfully he inspired his contemporaries. His
bitter opposition to hierarchism and scholasticism was expressed
in keen satires. On retiring from public life, he devoted himself
to the study of Holy Scripture and the Fathers. Shortly before
his death he wrote down this as his confession of faith: _Multa
scit rusticus, quæ philosophus ignorat; Christus vero pro nobis
mortuus est, qui est vita nostra, quod certissime credo_. The
leadership passed over to Eoban Hesse. The members of the society
joined the party of Luther, with the exception of Crotus Rubianus.
=Ulrich von Hutten= was one of the followers of Mutian, a knight
of a noble Franconian family, inspired with ardent patriotism
and love of freedom, who gave his whole life to battle against
pedantry, monkery, and intolerance. Escaping in A.D. 1504 from
Fulda, where he was being trained for the priesthood, he studied
at Erfurt, fought in Maximilian’s army with the sword, in Mutian’s
and Reuchlin’s ranks with the pen, and after the fall of Sickingen
became a homeless wanderer, until he died in want, in A.D. 1523,
on Ufenan, an island in the Lake of Zürich.[355]

§ 120.3. Next to Erfurt, =Heidelberg=, founded in A.D. 1386,
afforded a congenial home for humanist studies. The most
brilliant representative of humanism there was =Rudolph
Agricola=, an admirer and disciple of À. Kempis and Wessel.
His fame rests more on the reports of those who knew him
personally than on any writings left behind by him. His pupils
mostly joined the Reformation.--The University of =Wittenberg=,
founded by Frederick the Wise in A.D. 1502, was the nursery of
a wise and moderate humanism. Humanist studies also found an
entrance into Freiburg, founded in A.D. 1455, into =Tübingen=,
founded in A.D. 1477, where for a long time Reuchlin taught,
and into =Ingolstadt=, founded in A.D. 1472, where the Duke
of Bavaria spared no efforts to attract the most distinguished
humanists. Conrad Celtes, a pupil of Agricola, taught at
Ingolstadt until his removal to Vienna in A.D. 1497. Eck
and Rhegius, too, were among its ablest alumni. As a bitter
opponent of Luther, Eck gave the university a most pronounced
anti-reformation character; whereas Rhegius preached the
gospel in Augsburg, and spent his life in the service of the
Reformation. Reuchlin also taught for a time in Ingolstadt,
and the patriotism and reformatory tendencies of Aventinus
the Bavarian historian received there the first powerful
impulse. At =Nuremberg= the humanists found a welcome in the
home of the learned, wealthy, and noble Councillor Pirkheimer.
In Reuchlin’s controversy with the scholars of Cologne he showed
himself an eager apologist, and headed the party of Reuchlin.
He greeted Luther’s appearance with enthusiasm, and entertained
the reformer at his own house on his return from the discussion
with Cajetan (§ 122, 3), on account of which Eck made the papal
bull against Luther tell also against him. What he regarded
as Luther’s violence, however, soon estranged him, while the
cloister life of his three sisters and three daughters presented
to him a picture of Catholicism in its noblest and purest form.
His eldest sister, Christas, abbess of the Clara convent at
Nuremburg [Nuremberg], one of the noblest and most cultured
women of the 16th century, had a powerful influence over him.
He died in A.D. 1530.

§ 120.4. =John Reuchlin=, born in A.D. 1455 at Pforzheim, went
to the celebrated school at Schlettstadt in Alsace, studied at
Freiburg, Paris, Basel, and Orleans, taught law in Tübingen,
and travelled repeatedly in Italy with Eberhard the Bearded
of Württemberg. After Eberhard’s death he went to the court of
the Elector-palatine Philip, and along with D’Alberg [Dalberg]
did much for the reputation of the University of Heidelberg.
Afterwards he was for eleven years president of the Swabian
court of justiciary at Tübingen. When in A.D. 1513 the seat
of this court was removed to Augsburg he retired to Stuttgart,
was called in A.D. 1519 by William of Bavaria to Ingolstadt as
professor of Greek and Hebrew. On the outbreak of the plague
at Ingolstadt in A.D. 1520, he accepted a call back to Tübingen,
where he died in A.D. 1522. He never gave in his adhesion to
the reforming ideas of Luther. He left unanswered a letter
from the reformer in A.D. 1518. But as a promoter of every
scientific endeavour, especially in connection with the study
of the original text of the O.T., Reuchlin had won imperishable
renown. He was well entitled to conclude his _Rudimenta linguæ
Hebraicæ_ of A.D. 1506 with Horace’s words, _Stat monumentum aëre
perennino_, for that book has been the basis of all Christian
Hebrew philology.[356] He also discussed the difficult subject
of Hebrew accents in a special treatise, _De Acc. et Orthogr.
Hebr._ 11. iii, and the secret doctrines of the Jews in his _De
arte Cabbalistica_. He offered to instruct any Jew who wished
it in the doctrines of Christianity, and also to care for his
temporal affairs. His attention to rabbinical studies involved
him in a controversy which spread his fame over all Europe.
A baptized Jew, Pfefferkorn, in Cologne in A.D. 1507 exhibited
a neophyte’s zeal by writing bitter invectives against the Jews,
and in A.D. 1509 called upon the Emperor Maximilian to have all
rabbinical writings burnt because of the blasphemies against
Christ which they contained. The emperor asked the opinion of
the universities of Mainz, Cologne, Erfurt, and Heidelberg,
as well as of Reuchlin and the Cologne inquisitor Hoogstraten.
Erfurt and Heidelberg gave a qualified, Reuchlin an unqualified
answer in opposition to the proposal. The openly abusive
Jewish writings, _e.g._ the notorious _Toledoth Jeschu_, he
would indeed condemn, but all other books, _e.g._ the Talmud,
the Cabbala, the biblical glosses and commentaries, books of
sermons, prayers, and sacred songs, as well as all philosophical,
scientific, poetic, and satirical writings of the Jews, he
was prepared unconditionally to defend. Pfefferkorn contended
against him passionately in his “Handspiegel” of A.D. 1511, to
which Reuchlin replied in his “Augenspiegel.” The theological
faculty of Cologne, mostly Dominicans, pronounced forty-three
statements in the “Augenspiegel” heretical, and demanded its
suppression. Reuchlin now gave free vent to his passion, and
in his _Defensio c. calumniatores suos Colonienses_ denounced
his opponents as goats, swine, and children of the devil.
Hoogstraten had him cited before a heresy tribunal. Reuchlin
did not appear, but appealed to Pope Leo X. (A.D. 1513). A
commission appointed by Leo met at Spires in A.D. 1514, and
declared him not guilty of heresy, found Hoogstraten liable
in the costs of the process, which was enforced with hearty
satisfaction by Franz von Sickingen in A.D. 1519. But meanwhile
Hoogstraten had made a personal explanation of his affairs at
Rome, and had won over the influential _magister sacri palatii_,
Sylvester Prierias (§ 122, 2), who got the pope in A.D. 1520
to annul the judgment and to condemn Reuchlin to pay the costs
and observe eternal silence. The men of Cologne triumphed, but
in the public opinion of Germany Reuchlin was regarded as the
true victor.

§ 120.5. A multitude of vigorous and powerful pens were now
in motion on behalf of Reuchlin. In the autumn of A.D. 1515
appeared the first book of the =Epistolæ obscurorum virorum=,
which pretended to be the correspondence of a friend with
the Cologne teacher Ortuinus Gratius of Deventer. In the most
delicious monkish Latin the secret affairs of the mendicant
monks and their hatred of Reuchlin were set forth, so that
even the Dominicans, according to Erasmus, for a time regarded
the correspondence as genuine. All the more overwhelming was
the ridicule which fell upon them throughout all Europe. The
mendicants indeed obtained from Leo a bull against the writers
of the book, but this only increased its circulation. The
authors remained unknown; but there is no doubt they belonged
to the Mutian party. Justus Jonas, a member of that guild,
affirms that Crotus Rubianus had a principal hand in its
composition. The idea of it was probably suggested by Mutian
himself. Ulrich von Hutten repudiated any share in it, and
on internal and external grounds this is more than probable.
Busch, Urban, Petrejus, and Eoban Hesse most likely contributed
to it. In order to keep up the deception, Venice was given as
the place of publication, the name of the famous Aldus Manutius,
the papal publisher of Venice, was put upon the title, and
a pseudo-papal imprimatur was attached. The second book was
issued in A.D. 1517 by Frobenius in Basel. The monkish party
published as a counterblast _Lamentationes obscurorum virorum_
at Cologne in A.D. 1518, but the lame and forced wit of the
book marked it at once as a ridiculous failure. The monks and
schoolmen were once and for ever morally annihilated.[357]

§ 120.6. =Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam= was the most brilliant
of all the humanists, not only of Germany, but also of all Europe.
Born in A.D. 1465, he was educated by the Brothers of the Common
Life at Deventer and Herzogenbusch, and afterwards forced by his
relatives to enter a monastery in A.D. 1486. In A.D. 1491 he was
relieved from the monastic restraints by the Bishop of Cambray,
and sent to finish his studies at Paris. He visited England in
A.D. 1497, in the company of young Englishmen to whom he had been
tutor. There the humanist theologian Colet of Oxford exerted over
him a wholesome influence that told upon his whole future life.
After spending a year and a half in England, he passed the next
six years, sometimes in France, sometimes in the Netherlands;
was in Italy from A.D. 1507 till A.D. 1510; then again for
five years in England, for most of that time teaching Greek
at Cambridge; then other six years in the Netherlands; and at
last, in A.D. 1521, he settled with his publisher Frobenius in
Basel, where he enjoyed intercourse with the greatest scholars
of the day, and maintained an extensive correspondence. He
refused every offer of official appointment, even the rank of
cardinal, but in reality held undisputed sway as king in the
world of letters. He did much for the advancement of classical
studies, and in various ways promoted the Protestant Reformation.
The faults of the scholastic method in the study of theology
he unsparingly exposed, while the misdeeds of the clergy and
the ignorance and sloth of the monks afforded materials for his
merciless satires. The heathenish spirit of many of the humanists,
as well as the turbulent and revolutionary procedure of Ulrich
von Hutten, was quite distasteful to him; but his Pelagianising
tendencies also prevented him from appreciating the true character
of the gospel. He desired a reformation of the Church, but he had
not the reformer’s depth of religious emotion, world-conquering
faith, self-denying love, and heroic preparation for martyrdom.
He was much too fond of a genial literary life, and his perception
of the corruption of the church was much too superficial, so that
he sought reformation rather by human culture than by the Divine
power of the gospel. When the Reformation conquered at Basel in
A.D. 1529, Erasmus withdrew to Freiburg. He returned to Basel
in A.D. 1536 for conference with Frobenius, and died there under
suspicion of heresy without the sacraments of the church. His
friends the monks at an earlier period, on the occasion of a
false report of his death, had said in their barbarous Latin that
he died “_sine lux, sine crux, sine Deus_.” The most important of
his works are his critical and exegetical treatises on the N.T.
The first edition of his Greek N.T., with Latin translation,
short notes, and three introductory sections, was published
in A.D. 1516. In the second edition of A.D. 1519, one of
these introductory sections, _Ratio veræ theologiæ_, appeared
in a greatly extended form; and from A.D. 1522 it was issued
separately, and passed through several editions. Scarcely less
important were his paraphrases of all the biblical books except
the Apocalypse, begun in A.D. 1517. He did much service too
by his editions of the Fathers. On his polemic with Luther
see § 125, 3. His _Ecclesiastes s. concionator evangelicus_
of A.D. 1535 is a treatise on homiletics admirable of its kind.
In his “Praise of Folly” (Ἐγκώμιον μωρίας, _s. Laus stultitiæ_)
of A.D. 1511, dedicated to his friend Sir Thomas More, he
overwhelms with ridicule the schoolmen, as well as the monks
and the clergy; and in his “Colloquies” of A.D. 1518, by which
he hoped to make boys _latiniores et meliores_, he let no
opportunity pass of reproaching the monks, the clergy, and
the forms of worship which he regarded as superstitious. Also
his _Adagia_ of A.D. 1500 had afforded him abundant scope for
the same sort of thing. A piety of the purest and noblest type,
derived from the schools of the Brothers of the Common Life, and
from intercourse with Colet, breathes through his _Enchiridion
militis christiani_ of A.D. 1502.[358]--Continuation § 123, 3.

§ 120.7. =Humanism in England.=--In England we meet with two
men in the end of the 15th century, closely related to Erasmus,
of supreme influence as humanists in urging the claims of reform
within the Catholic church. =John Colet= in A.D. 1496 returned
to England after a long sojourn in Italy, where he had obtained,
not only humanistic culture, but also, through contact with
Savonarola and Mirandola, a powerful religious impulse. He then
began, at Oxford, his lectures on the Pauline epistles, in which
he abandoned the scholastic method and returned to the study
of Scripture and the Fathers. There, in A.D. 1498, he attached
himself closely to Erasmus and to young Thomas More, who was
studying in that place. In A.D. 1505 Colet was made doctor and
Dean of St. Paul’s, in which position he expounded with great
success whole biblical books and large portions of others in his
sermons. After his father’s death in A.D. 1510, he applied his
great wealth to the founding of a grammar school at St. Paul’s
for the instruction of more than 150 boys in classical, biblical,
and patristic literature. A convocation of English bishops in
A.D. 1512, to devise means for rooting out heresy (§ 119, 1),
gave him the opportunity in his opening sermon to speak plainly
to the assembled bishops. He told them that reform of their
own order was the best way to protect the church against the
incursion of heretics. This aroused the bitter wrath of the old,
bigoted Bishop Fitzjames of London, who disliked him exceedingly
on account of his reforming tendencies and his pastoral and
educational activity. But the archbishop, Warham of Canterbury,
repelled the bishop’s fanatical charge of heresy as well as King
Henry’s suspicions in regard to the political sympathies of the
simple, pious man. Colet died in A.D. 1519.--=Thomas More=, born
in A.D. 1480, was recommended to the king by Cardinal Wolsey, and
rose from step to step until in A.D. 1529 he succeeded his patron
as Lord Chancellor of England. In bonds of closest intimacy
with Colet and Erasmus, More also shared in their desires for
reform, but applied himself, in accordance with his civil and
official position, more to the social and political than to the
ecclesiastical aspects of the question. His most comprehensive
contribution is found in his famous satire, “Utopia,” of
A.D. 1516, in which he sets forth his views as to the natural
and rational organization of all social and political relations
of life in contrast to the corrupt institutions of existing
states. The religious side of this utopian paradise is pure
deism, public worship being restricted to the use of what
is common to all religions, and peculiarities of particular
religions are relegated to special or private services. We
cannot however from this draw any conclusion as to his own
religious beliefs. More continued to the end a zealous Catholic
and a strict ascetic, and was a man of a singularly noble and
steadfast character. In the controversy between the king and
Luther (§ 125, 3) he supported the king, and as chancellor he
wrote, in direct contradiction to the principles of religious
toleration commended in his “Utopia,” with venomous bitterness
against the adherents of the anti-Catholic reformation. But
he decidedly refused to acquiesce in the king’s divorce; and
when Henry quarrelled with the pope in A.D. 1532 and began to
carry out reforms in a Cæsaro-papistic manner (§ 139, 4), he
resigned his offices, firmly refused to acknowledge the royal
supremacy over the English church, and, after a long and severe
imprisonment, was beheaded in A.D. 1535.[359]

§ 120.8. =Humanism in France and Spain.=--In =France= humanist
studies were kept for a time in the background by the world-wide
reputation of the University of Paris and its Sorbonne. But a
change took place when the young king Francis I., A.D. 1515-1547,
became the patron and promoter of humanism. One of its most
famous representatives was =Budæus [Buddæus]=, royal librarian,
who aided in founding a college for the cultivation of science
free from the shackles of scholasticism, and exposed the
corruptions of the papacy and the clergy. But much as he
sympathized with the spirit of the Reformation, he shrank
from any open breach with the Catholic church. He died in
A.D. 1540. His like-minded contemporary, =Faber Stapulensis=,
as a teacher of classical literature at Paris gathered crowds
of pupils around him, and from A.D. 1507 applied himself almost
exclusively to biblical exegetical studies. He criticised and
corrected the corrupt text of the Vulgate, commented on the
Greek text of the gospels and apostolic epistles, and on account
of this, as well as by reason of a critical dissertation on Mary
Magdalene of A.D. 1521, was condemned by the Sorbonne. Francis I.
and his sister Margaret of Orleans protected him from further
persecution. Also his former pupil, William Briçonnet, Bishop
of Meaux, who was eagerly endeavouring to restore morality
and piety among his clergy, appointed him his vicar-general,
and gave him an opportunity to bring out his French translation
of the New Testament from the Vulgate in A.D. 1523, which was
followed by a translation of the Old Testament and a French
commentary on the pericopes of the Sundays and festivals.
As Faber here represented the Scriptures as the only rule of
faith for all Christians, and taught that man is justified not
by his works, but only by faith in the grace of God in Christ,
the Sorbonne charged him with the Lutheran heresy, and Parliament,
during the king’s imprisonment in Spain (§ 126, 5) in A.D. 1525,
appointed a commission to search out and suppress heresy in the
diocese of Meaux. Faber’s books were condemned to the flames,
but he himself, threatened with the stake, escaped by flight to
Strassburg. After his return the king provided for him a safe
retreat at Blois, where he wrought at his translation of the Old
Testament, which he completed in A.D. 1528. He spent his last
years at Nérac, the residence of his patroness Margaret, now
Queen of Navarre, where he died in A.D. 1536 in his 86th year.
Though at heart estranged from the Catholic church, he never
formally forsook it.--In =Spain= Cardinal Ximenes (§ 118, 7)
acted as the Mæcenas of humanist studies. The most distinguished
Spanish humanist was =Anton of Lebrija=, professor at Salamanca,
a fellow labourer with Ximenes on the Complutensian Polyglott,
and protected by him from the Inquisition, which would have
called him to account for his criticism of the Vulgate. He died
in A.D. 1522.

§ 120.9. =Humanism and the Reformation of the Sixteenth
Century.=--Humanists, in common with the reformers, inveighed
against the debased scholasticism as well as against the
superstition of the age. They did so however on very different
grounds, and conducted their warfare by very different methods.
While the reformers employed the word of God, and strove
after the salvation of the soul, the humanists employed wit
and sarcasm, and sought after the temporal well-being of
men. Hence the reaction of the despised scholasticism and the
contemned monasticism against humanism was often in the right.
A reformation of the church by humanism alone would have been
a return to naked paganism. But, on the other hand, classical
studies afforded men who desired a genuine reformation of
the church a rich, linguistic, philosophical, and scientific
culture, without which, as applied to researches in church
history, the exposition of Scripture, and the revision of
doctrine, the reforms of the sixteenth century could hardly
have been carried out in a comprehensive and satisfactory manner.
The most permanent advantage won for the church and theology
by the revival of learning was the removal of =Holy Scripture=
from under the bushel, and giving it again its rightful place
as the lamp of the church. It pointed back from the Vulgate,
of which since A.D. 1500, some ninety-eight printed editions
had appeared, to the original text, condemned the allegorical
method of exposition, awakened an appreciation of the grammatical
and historical system of interpretation, afforded scientific
apparatus by its philological studies, and by issuing printed
Bibles secured the spread of the original text. From the time
of the invention of printing the Jews were active in printing
the Old Testament. From A.D. 1502 a number of Christian scholars,
under the presidency of Ximenes, wrought at Alcala at the great
Complutensian Polyglott, published in A.D. 1520. It contained the
Hebrew and Greek texts, the Targums, the LXX., and the Vulgate,
as well as a Latin translation of the LXX. and of the Targums,
with a much-needed grammatical and lexical apparatus. Daniel
Bomberg of Antwerp published at Venice various editions of the
Old Testament, some with, some without, rabbinical commentaries.
His assistants were Felix Pratensis, a learned Jew; and Jacob ben
Chaijim, a rabbi of Tunis. As the costly Complutensian Polyglott
was available only to a few, Erasmus did great service by his
handy edition of the Greek New Testament, notwithstanding its
serious critical deficiencies. Erasmus himself brought out five
successive editions, but very soon more than thirty impressions
were exhausted.

THIRD DIVISION.

History of the Development of the Church under
Modern European Forms of Civilization.

§ 121. CHARACTER AND DISTRIBUTION OF MODERN CHURCH HISTORY.

In the Reformation of the sixteenth century the intelligence of Germany, which had hitherto been under the training and tutelage of the Romish church, reached maturity by the application of the formal and material principles of Protestantism,--the sole normative authority of Scripture, and justification by faith alone without works of merit. It emancipated itself from its schoolmaster, who, for selfish ends, had made and still continued to make strenuous efforts to check every movement towards independence, every endeavour after ecclesiastical, theological, and scientific freedom, every struggle after evangelical reform. Yet this emancipation was not completely effected in all the purely German nationalities, much less among those Romanic and Slavonic peoples which had bowed their necks to the papal hierarchy. The Romish church of the Reformation not only adhered to the form and content of its former unevangelical constitution, but also still further developed and formally elaborated its creed in the same unevangelical direction, and the result was a split in the western church into an Evangelical Protestant and a Roman Catholic church. Then again the principles of the Reformation were set forth in different ways, and Protestantism branched off into two divisions, the Lutheran and the Reformed. Besides these three new western churches and the one old eastern church, which all rested upon the common œcumenical basis of the old Catholic church, a variety of sects sprang out of them. Through these greater and lesser divisions, modern church history, where, with some advantages and some disadvantages, one church is pitted against another, possesses a character entirely different from the church history of earlier times.

Modern church history naturally falls into four divisions.
The distinguishing characteristic of each is found partly in
the opposition of particular churches to one another, partly
in the antagonism of faith and unbelief. The transition from
one to another corresponds generally with the boundaries of
the centuries. The =sixteenth century= forms the Reformation
period, in which the new Protestantism, parted from the old
Roman Catholicism, cast off the deformatory elements which had
attached themselves to it, and developed for itself a system
of doctrine, worship, and constitution; while the Roman Catholic
church, from the middle of the century, set to work upon a
counter-Reformation, by which it succeeded in large measure
in reconquering the field that had been lost. The =seventeenth
century= was characterized on the Protestant side as the age
of orthodoxy, in which confessionalism obtained undivided
supremacy, deteriorating however in doctrine and life into
a frigid formalism, which called forth the movement of Pietism
as a corrective; but, on the Roman Catholic side, it was
characterized as a period of continued successful restoration.
In the =eighteenth century= begins the struggle against the
dominant church and the prevailing conceptions of Christianity
in the forms of deism, naturalism, and rationalism within
both the Protestant and Catholic churches. The fourth division
embraces the =nineteenth century=. The newly awakened faith
strives vigorously with rationalism, and then, on the Protestant
side, splits into unionism and confessionalism; while, on the
Roman Catholic side, it makes its fullest development in a
zealous ultramontanism. But rationalism again renews its youth
under the cloak of science, and alongside of it appears a more
undisguised unbelief in the distinctly antichristian forms of
pantheism, materialism, and communism, which seeks to annihilate
everything Christian in church and state, in science and faith,
in social and political life.

FIRST SECTION.

CHURCH HISTORY OF THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

I. The Reformation.[360]

§ 122. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE WITTENBERG REFORMATION.

At the beginning of the sixteenth century everything seemed to combine in favour of those reforming endeavours which had been held back during the Middle Ages. There was a lively perception of the corruptions of the church, a deep and universal yearning after reformation, the scientific apparatus necessary for its accomplishment, a pope, Leo X., careless and indolent; a trafficker in indulgences, Tetzel, stupidly bold and shameless; a noble, pious, and able prince, Frederick the Wise (§ 123, 9), to act as protector of the new creed; an emperor, Charles V. (§ 123, 5), powerful and hostile enough to kindle the purifying fire of tribulation, but too much occupied with political entanglements to be able to indulge in reckless and violent oppression. There were also thousands of other persons, circumstances, and relations helping, strengthening, and furthering the work. And now, at the right hour, in the fittest place, and with the most suitable surroundings, a religious genius, in the person of Luther, appeared as the reformer, with the rarest combination of qualities of head and heart, character and will, to engage upon that great work for which Providence had so marvellously qualified him. This mighty undertaking was begun by ninety-five simple theses, which he nailed to the door of the church of Wittenberg, and the Leipzig Disputation marked the first important crisis in its history.

§ 122.1. =Luther’s Years of Preparation.=--Martin Luther,
a miner’s son, was born on November 10th, A.D. 1483. His
childhood was passed under severe parental control and amid
pinching poverty, and he went to school at Mansfeld, whither
his parents had migrated; then at Magdeburg, where, among the
Brothers of the Common Life, he had mainly to secure his own
support as a singing boy upon the streets; and afterwards at
Eisenach, where Madame Ursula Cotta, moved by his beautiful
voice and earnest entreaty, took him into her house. In A.D. 1501
he entered on the study of jurisprudence at Erfurt (§ 120, 2),
took the degree of bachelor in A.D. 1502, and that of master in
A.D. 1505. During a fearful thunderstorm, which overtook him as
he travelled home, he was driven by terror to vow that he would
become a monk, impressed as he was by the sudden death of an
unnamed friend which had taken place shortly before. On the
17th July, A.D. 1505, he entered the Augustinian convent at
Erfurt. In deep concern about his soul’s salvation, he sought
by monkish asceticism, fasting, prayer, and penances to satisfy
his conscience, but the inward struggles only grew stronger. An
old monk proclaimed to the weary inquirer, almost fainting under
the anxiety of spirit and self-imposed tortures, the comforting
declaration of the creed, “I believe in the forgiveness of sins.”
Still more powerful in directing him proved the conversation
of his noble superior, John Staupitz (§ 112, 6). He showed him
the way of true repentance and faith in the Saviour crucified
not for _painted_ sins. Following his advice, Luther diligently
studied the Bible, together with, of his own accord, Augustine’s
writings. In A.D. 1507 he was ordained priest, and in A.D. 1508
Staupitz promoted him to the University of Wittenberg, founded
in A.D. 1502, where he lectured on the “Dialectics” and “Physics”
of Aristotle; and in A.D. 1509 he was made _Baccalaureus
biblicus_. In the autumn of the same year he went again,
probably by Staupitz’ advice, to Erfurt, until, a year and a
half afterwards, he obtained a definite settlement at Wittenberg.
Highly important for his subsequent development was the journey
which, in A.D. 1511, he took to Rome in the interests of his
order. On the first view of the holy city, he sank upon his
knees, and with his hands raised to heaven cried out, “I greet
thee, holy Rome.” But he withdrew utterly disgusted with the
godless frivolity and immorality which he witnessed among the
clergy on every side, and dissatisfied with the externalism
of the penitential exercises which he had undertaken. During
his whole journey the Scripture sounded in his ear, “The just
shall live by his faith.” It was a voice of God in his soul,
which at last carried the blessed peace of God into his wounded
spirit. After his return, in A.D. 1512, Staupitz gave him
no rest until he took the degree of doctor of divinity; and
now he gave lectures in the university on Holy Scripture, and
afterwards preached in the city church of Wittenberg. He applied
himself more and more, by the help of Augustine, to the study
of Scripture and its fundamental doctrine of justification by
faith alone. About this time too he was powerfully influenced
by Tauler’s mysticism and the “Deutsche Theologie,” of which
he published an edition in A.D. 1516.

§ 122.2. =Luther’s Theses of A.D. 1517.=--The æsthetic and
luxurious pope Leo X. (§ 110, 14), avowedly for the building of
St. Peter’s, really to fill his own empty coffers, had proclaimed
a general indulgence. Germany was divided between three indulgence
commissions. The elector-cardinal Albert of Mainz, archbishop
of Magdeburg, and brother of Elector Joachim of Brandenburg,
undertook the direction of the commission for his archiepiscopal
province, for which he was to receive half the proceeds for the
payment of his debts. The most shameless of the traffickers in
indulgences employed by him was the Leipzig Dominican prior,
John Tetzel. This man had been sentenced at Innsbrück to be
drowned for adultery, but on the intercession of the Elector
of Saxony had his sentence commuted to imprisonment for life.
He now was taken from his prison in order to do this piece of
work for Albert. With great success he went from place to place,
and offered his wares for sale, proclaiming their virtues in the
public market with unparalleled audacity. He went to Jüterbock,
in the vicinity of Wittenberg, where he attracted crowds of
purchasers from all around. Luther discovered in the confessional
the corrupting influence of such procedure, and on the afternoon
of All Saints’ Day, =October 31st, A.D. 1517=, he nailed on
the door of the Castle Church of Wittenberg ninety-five theses,
explaining the meaning of the indulgence. Although they were
directed not so much against the principle of indulgences as
against their misunderstanding and abuse, they comprehended
the real germ of the Reformation movement, negatively in the
conception of repentance which they set forth, and positively
in the distinct declaration that the grace of God in Christ can
alone avail for the forgiveness of sin. With incredible rapidity
the theses spread over all Germany, indeed over all Europe.
Luther accompanied them with a sermon on indulgence and grace.
The immense applause which its delivery called forth led the
supporters of the old views to gird on their armour. Tetzel
publicly burnt the theses at Jüterbock, and with the help of
Wimpina posted up and circulated at Frankfort and other places
counter-theses. The Wittenberg students purchased quantities
of these theses, and in retaliation burnt them, but Luther did
not approve their conduct. In April, A.D. 1518, Luther went
to Heidelberg, to take part there in a regular chapter of the
Augustinians, which was usually accompanied by public preaching
and disputations by members of the order. The disputation, which
on this occasion was assigned to Luther, gave him the welcome
opportunity of making known to wider circles these philosophical
and theological views which he had hitherto uttered only in
Wittenberg. The professors of the University of Heidelberg
repudiated and opposed them, but in almost every case mildly
and with tolerance. On the other hand, many of the young
theologians studying there enthusiastically accepted his
doctrines, and several of them, _e.g._ Martin Bucer of
Strassburg (§ 125, 1), John Brenz and Erhard Schnepf of Swabia
(§ 133, 3), as well as Theobald Billicanus, afterwards reformer
of Nördlingen, etc., there and then consecrated themselves to
their life work.

§ 122.3. =Prierias, Cajetan, and Miltitz,
A.D. 1518, 1519.=--Leo X. at first regarded the matter as an
insignificant monkish squabble, and praised Brother Martin as
a real genius. He gave no heed to Hoogstraten’s outcry of heresy,
nor did he encourage the Dominican Prierias in his attack on
Luther. The book of Prierias was a harmless affair. Luther gave
it a short and crushing reply. Prierias answered in a second
and third tract, which Luther simply republished with sarcastic
and overwhelming prefaces. The pope then enjoined silence upon
his luckless steward. In May, A.D. 1518, Luther wrote a humble
epistle to the pope, and added a series of _Resolutiones_ in
vindication of his theses. Staupitz is said to have revised
both. Meanwhile it had been determined in Rome to deal with
the Wittenberg business in earnest. The papal procurator made
a complaint against Luther. A court was commissioned, which
summoned him to appear in person at Rome to answer for himself.
But, on the representations of the University of Wittenberg
and the Elector Frederick the Wise, the pope charged Cardinal
Cajetan, his legate at the Diet of Augsburg, to take up the
consideration of the matter. Luther appeared, and made his
appeal to the Bible. The legate however wished him to argue
from the schoolmen, demanded an unconditional recantation,
and at last haughtily dismissed “the beast with deep eyes
and wonderful speculations in his head.” Luther made a formal
appeal _a sanctissimo Domino Leone male informato ad melius
informandum_, and quitted Augsburg in good spirits. The cardinal
now sought to rouse Frederick against the refractory monk, but
Luther’s buoyant and humble confidence won the noble elector’s
heart. Cajetan continued a vigorous opponent of the reformed
doctrine. But Luther’s superiority in Scripture knowledge
had so impressed the cardinal, that he now applied himself
closely to the study of the Bible in the original tongues;
and thus, while firmly attached to the Romish system, he was
led on many points, _e.g._ on Scripture and tradition, divorce,
injunctions about meats, the use of the vernacular in public
worship, the objectionableness of the allegorical interpretation,
etc., to adopt more liberal views, so that he was denounced
by some Roman Catholic controversialists as guilty of various
heresies.--Luther had no reason in any case to look for any
good from Rome. Hence he prepared beforehand an appeal for an
œcumenical council, which the publisher, against Luther’s will,
at once spread abroad. In Rome the cardinal’s pride was wounded
by the failure of his undertaking. A papal bull defined the
doctrine of indulgences, in order more exactly to guard against
misrepresentations, and an accomplished courtier, the papal
chamberlain, Carl von Miltitz, a Saxon, was sent to Saxony,
in A.D. 1519, as papal nuncio, to convey to the elector the
consecrated golden rose, and to secure a happy conclusion
to the controversy. The envoy began by addressing a sharp
admonition to Tetzel, and met Luther with hypocritical
graciousness. Luther acknowledged that he had acted rashly,
wrote a humble, submissive letter to the pope, and published
“_An Instruction on some Articles ascribed to him by his
Traducers_.” But after all the retractations which he made
at the diet he still firmly maintained justification by faith,
without merit of works. He promised the nuncio to abstain
from all further polemic, on condition that his opponents
also should be silent. But silent these would not be.

§ 122.4. =The Leipzig Disputation, A.D. 1519.=--John Eck
of Ingolstadt had engaged in controversy with a zealous
supporter and colleague of Luther, Andrew Bodenstein of
Carlstadt, professor and preacher at Wittenberg, and Luther
himself took part in the discussion between the two. This
disputation came off at Leipzig, and lasted from June 27th
to July 16th. But Eck’s vanity led him not only to seek the
greatest possible fame from his present disputation, but also
to drag in Luther by challenging his theses. Eck disputed for
eight days with Carlstadt about grace and free will, and with
abundant eloquence, boldness, and learning vindicated Romish
semi-Pelagianism. Then he disputed for fourteen days with Luther
about the primacy of the pope, about repentance, indulgences,
and purgatory, and pressed him hard about the Hussite heresy.
But Luther sturdily opposed him on the grounds of Scripture,
and confirmed himself in the conviction that even œcumenical
councils might err, and that not all Hussite doctrines are
heretical. Both parties claimed the victory. Luther continued
the discussion in various controversial treatises, and Eck,
too, was not silent. New combatants also, for and against,
from all sides appeared upon the scene. The liberal humanists
(§ 120, 2) had at first taken little notice of Luther’s
contention. But the Leipzig Disputation led them to change
their attitude. Luther seemed to them now a new Reuchlin,
Eck another specimen of Ortuinus Gratius. A biting satire of
Pirkheimer (§ 120, 3), “Der abgehobelte Eck,” appeared in the
beginning of A.D. 1520, exceeding in Aristophanic wit any of
the epistles of the Obscurantists. It was followed by several
satires by Ulrich von Hutten, who received new inspiration
from Luther’s appearance at Leipzig. Hutten and Sickingen,
with their whole party, undertook to protect Luther with body
and soul, with sword and pen. This was a covenant of some
advantage to the Reformation in its early years; but had it
not been again abrogated, it might have diverted the movement
into an altogether wrong direction. From this time forth Duke
George of Saxony, at whose castle and in whose presence the
disputation had been conducted, became the irreconcilable enemy
of Luther and his Reformation.

§ 122.5. =Philip Melanchthon.=--At the Leipzig Disputation there
also appeared a man fated to become of supreme importance in the
carrying out of the Reformation. Born on February 16th, A.D. 1497,
at Bretten in the Palatinate, Philip Melanchthon entered the
University of Heidelberg in his thirteenth year, and at the
age of sixteen published a Greek grammar. He took the degree
of master at seventeen, and at twenty-one, in A.D. 1518, on the
recommendation of his grand-uncle Reuchlin, he was made Professor
of Greek in Wittenberg. His fame soon spread over all Europe, and
attracted to him thousands of hearers from all parts. Luther and
Erasmus vied with one another in lauding his talents, his fine
culture and learning, and his contemporaries have given him the
honourable title of _Præceptor Germaniæ_. He was an Erasmus of
nobler form and higher power, a thorough contrast to Luther. His
whole being breathed modesty, mildness, and grace. With childlike
simplicity he received the recognised truths of the gospel. He
bowed humbly before the powerful, practical spirit of Luther, who
also, on his part, acknowledged with profound thankfulness the
priceless treasure God had sent to him and to his work in this
fellow labourer. Melanchthon wrote to his friend Œcolampadius
at Basel an account of the Leipzig Disputation, which by chance
fell into Eck’s hands. This occasioned a literary controversy,
in which Eck’s vain over-estimation of himself appears in
very striking contrast to the noble modesty of Melanchthon.
He took part in the Reformation first in February, A.D. 1521,
by a pseudonymous apology for Luther.[361]

§ 122.6. =George Spalatin.=--In consequence of his influential
position at the court of the elector, which he obtained on
Mutian’s (§ 120, 2) recommendation, after completing his
philosophical, legal, and theological studies at Erfurt,
George Burkhardt, born in A.D. 1484 at Spalt, in the diocese
of Eichstadt, and hence called Spalatinus, played an important
part in the German Reformation. Frederick the Wise, who had,
in A.D. 1509, entrusted him with the education of his nephew
John Frederick, appointed him, in A.D. 1514, his court chaplain,
librarian, and private secretary, in which capacity he accompanied
the elector to all the diets, and was almost exclusively the
channel for communicating to him tidings about Luther. John the
Constant, in A.D. 1525, made him superintendent of Altenburg,
and took him with him to the diets of Spires, in A.D. 1526, 1529,
and of Augsburg in A.D. 1530. John Frederick the Magnanimous, his
former pupil, employed him in A.D. 1537 on important negotiations
at the conference of the princes at Schmalkald [Schmalcald]
(§ 134, 1). From A.D. 1527 Spalatin was specially busy with
the visitation and organization of the Saxon church (§ 127, 1),
conducted, in the interests of the Reformation, an extensive
correspondence, and composed several works on the history of his
times and the history of the Reformation.

§ 123. LUTHER’S PERIOD OF CONFLICT, A.D. 1520, 1521.

The Leipzig Disputation had carried Luther to a more advanced standpoint. He came to see that he could not remain standing half way, that the carrying out of the Reformation principle, justification by faith, was incompatible with the hierarchical system of the papacy and its dogmatic foundation. But amid all the violence and subjective one-sidedness which he showed at the beginning of this period of conflict, he had sufficient control of himself to make clear the spiritual character of his reforming endeavours, and firmly to reject the carnal weapons which Ulrich von Hutten and his revolutionary companions wished him to take up, thankful as he was for their warm sympathy. His standpoint as a reformer is shown in the writings which he published during this period. The Romish bull of excommunication provoked him to strong words and extreme measures, and with heroic boldness he entered Worms to present to the emperor and diet an account of his doings. The papal ban was followed by the imperial decree of outlawry. But the Wartburg exile saved him from the hands of his enemies and--of his friends.

§ 123.1. =Luther’s Three Chief Reformation Writings,
A.D. 1520.=--In the powerful treatise, “To His Imperial Majesty
and the Christian Nobility of the German Nation on the Improvement
of the Christian Condition,” which appeared in the beginning of
August, A.D. 1520, Luther bombards first of all the three walls
behind which the Romanists entrenched themselves, the superiority
of the spiritual to the civil power, the sole right of the pope
to interpret Scripture and to summon œcumenical councils. Then he
commends to the laity, as consecrated by baptism to a spiritual
priesthood, especially civil rulers ordained of God, the task
of carrying out the reformation which God’s word requires, but
the pope and clergy hinder; and then finally he makes a powerful
appeal for carrying out this work in a practical way. He exposes
the false pretensions of the papal curia, demands renunciation of
annats and papal confirmation of newly elected bishops, complete
abandonment of the interdict and the abuse of excommunication,
the prohibition of pilgrimages and the begging of the monks, a
limitation of holy days, reform of the universities, permission
to the clergy to marry, reunion with the Bohemian Picards
(§ 119, 8), etc.--The second work, “On the Babylonish Captivity
of the Church,” is a dogmatic treatise, and is directed mainly
against the misuse of the sacraments and the reckoning of them
as seven, which have been made in the hands of the pope an
instrument of tyranny over the church. Only three are recognised
as founded on Scripture: baptism, penance, and the Lord’s Supper,
with the remark that, strictly speaking, even penance, as wanting
an outward sign, cannot be styled a sacrament. The doctrine of
transubstantiation, the withholding of the cup from the laity,
and the idea of a sacrifice in the mass are decidedly rejected.
The third treatise, “On the Freedom of a Christian Man,” enters
the ethical domain. It represents the life of the Christian,
rooted in justifying faith, as complete oneness with Christ.
His relation therefore to the world around is set forth in two
propositions: A Christian man is a free lord over all things,
and subject to no one; and a Christian man is a ministering
servant of all things, and subject to every one. On the one
hand, he has the perfect freedom of a king and priest set over
all outward things; but, on the other hand, he yields complete
submission in love to his neighbour, which, as consideration of
the weak, his very freedom demands.[362]