LUTHER 443 LUTHBB
forms, they reached Luther and wrought him up to adjust the theological difficulties. But the audiences a high pitch of indignation. Eck in a letter of explana- were doomed to failure. Cajetan came to adjudicate, tion sought to mollify the ruffled tempers of Carlstadt Luther to defend ; the former demanded submission^ and Lutner and in courteous, urgent tones begged the latter laimched out into remonstrance; the one them to refrain from public disputation either by showed a spirit of mediating patience, the other mis- lecture of print (Ldscher, Reformations Acta", II, took it for apprehensive fear; the prisoner at the bar Leipzig, 1723, 64-65; De Wette, op. cit., I, 125). In could not refrain from bandying words with the judge spite of the fact that Carlstadt forestalled Luther, the on the bench. The l^ate, with the reputation of " the latter gave out his " Asterisci (10 Au^., 1518). This most renowned and easily the first tneologian of his skirmish led to the Leipzig Disputation. Sylvester age "t could not fail to be shocked at the rude, discour- Prierias, like Tetzel, a Dommican friar, domestic theo- teous, bawline tone of the friar, and having exhausted logian of the Court of Rome, in his official capacity as all his efforts, ne dismissed him with the injunction not Censor Librorum of Rome, next submitted his report to call again until he recanted. Fiction and myth nad " In prsraumtuoeas M. Lutheri Conclusiones Dialo- a wide sweep in dealing with this meeting and have gus '*. In it he maintained the absolute supremacy of woven such an inextricable web of ot»curity about it the pope, in terms not altogether free from exaggera- that we must follow either the highly coloured narra- tion, especially stretching his theory to an unwarrant- tive of Luther and his friends, or be guided by tbs able pomt in dealing with indulgences. This evoked more trustworthy criterion of lexical conjecture. Luther's "Responsio ad Silv. Pnerietatis Dial(^m". The papal Brief to Cajetan (23 Aug.), which was Hoogst raten, whose merciless lampooning in the Epis- handed to Luther at Nuremberg on his way home, in tolsB Obscurorum Virorum" was still a living m^m- which the pope, contrary to all canonical precedents, ory, likewise entered the fray in defence of papal pre- demands the most summary action in regard to the rogatives, only to be dismissed by Luther's * Scheaam uncondemned and unexcommunicated '* child of in- contra Hochstratanum", the flippancy and vulgarity iquity", asks the aid of the emperor, in the event of of which one of Luther's most ardent students apolo- Luther's refusal to appear in Rome, to place him under getically characterizes as being " in tone with the pre- forcible arrest, was no doubt written in Germany, and vailing taste of the time and circumstances, but not to is an evident forgery (Beard, op. cit., 257-258 ; Hanke. be commended as worthy of imitation " (Ldscher, op. " Deutsche Gesch.", VI, 97-98). Like all forged papal cit., II, 325). documents, it still shows a surprising vitality, ana is
Before the " Dialoeus " of Prierias reached Germany, found in every biography of Luther, a papal citation reached Luther (7 Aug.) to appear in Luther's return to Wittenberg occurred on the anni-
person within sixty davs in Rome for a hearing. He versary of his nailing the Theses to the castle church
at once took refuge in the excuse that such a trip could door (31 Oct., 1518). All efforts towards a recanta-
not be undertaken without endangering his life; he tion having failed, and now assured of the sympathy
sought influence to secure the refusal of a safe-conduct and support of the temporal princes, he followed his
through the electorate and brought pressure to bear appeal to the pope by a new appeal to an oecumenical
on the Emperor Maximilian and Elector Frederick to council (28 Nov., 1518), which, as will be seen later, he
have the hearing and judges appointed in Germany, again, denying the authority of both, followed by an
The university sent letters to Rome and to the nuncio appeal to the Bible.
Miltitz sustaining the plea of "infirm health" and The appointment of Karl von Miltitz, the young
vouching for his orthodoxy (De Wette, op. cit., 1, 131). Saxon nobleman in minor orders, sent as nuncio to de-
His literary activity continued unabated. His '* Reso- liver the Golden Rose to the Elector Frederick, was
lutiones ", which were already completed, he also sent unfortunate and abortive. The Golden Rose was not
to the pope (30 May) . The letter accompanying them offered as a sop to secure the good graces of the elector,
breathes the most loyal expression of confidence and but in response to prolonged and importunate agita-
trust in the Holy See, and is couched in such terms of tion on his part to get it (Hiusrath, ** Luther ", 1, 276).
abject subserviency and fulsome adulation (De Wette, Miltitz not only l£K;ked prudence and tact, but in his
op. cit., 119-122), that its sincerity and frankness, fol- frequent drinking-bouts lost all sense of diplomatic
lowed as it was by such an almost instantaneous revul- reticence; by continually borrowing from LuthCT's
sion, is instinctively questioned. IMoreover before this friends he prnced himself in a position only to inspire
letter had been written his anticipatory action in contempt. It is true that his unauthorized overtures
preaching his "Sermon on the Power of Excommuni- drew from Luther an act, which if it "is no reoanta-
cation " (16 May), in which it is contended that visible tion, is at least remarkably like one" (Beard, op. cit.,
union with the Church is not broken by excommimica- 274). In it he promised : (1) to observe silence if his
tion, but by sin alone, only strengthens the surmise of assailants did the same; (2) complete submission to
a lack of good faith. The inflammatory character of the pope; (3) to publish a plain statement to the public
this sermon was fully acknowledged by himself (De advocating loyalty to the Church; (4) to place the
Wette, op. cit., I, 130). whole vexatious cause in the hands of a delegated
Influential intervention had the effect of having the bishop. The whole transaction closed with a ban- hearing fixed during the Diet of Augsburg, which was quet, an embrace, tears of joy, and a kiss of peace — called to effect an alliance between the Holy See, the only to be disregarded and ridiculed afterwards by Emperor Maximilian, and King Christian of Norway, Luther. The nuncio's treatment of Tetzel was severe Denmark, and Sweden, in the war against the Turks, and unjust. When the sick and ailing man could In the oflicial instructions calling the Diet, the name not come to him on account of the heatedj)ublic senti- or cause of Luther does not figure. ment against him, Miltitz on his visit to Leipzig sum-
The papal legate, Cajetan, and Luther met face to moned him to a meeting, in which he overwhelmed face for the first time at Augsburg on 11 Oct. Cajetan him with reproaches and charges, stigmatized him as (b. 1470) was "one of the most remarkable figures the originator of the whole unfortunate affair, threat- woven into the history of the Reformation on the ened the displeasure of the pope, and no doubt has- Roman side ... a man of erudition and blameless tened the impending death of Tetzel (11 Aug., 1519). life " (WeizsScker) ; he was doctor of philosophy and While the preliminaries of the Leipzig Disputation theology before he was twenty-one. at this early age were pending, a true insight into Luther's real atti- filling chairs with distinction in botn sciences at some tude towarcts the papacy, the subject which would of the leading universities; in humanistic studies he form the main thesis of discussion, can best be gleaned was so well versed as to enter the dialectic arena from his own letters. On 3 March, 1519, he writes against Pico dolla Mirandola when only twenty-four. Leo X: "Before God and all his croatu.^^.^ \ V«»k^ Surely no better qualified man could be detailed to testimony that I \«\^Vftx ^\^ ^^'^\\^,\\«^ ^^ ^^>cc^
