LDTHSR
454
LDTHSR
and Tiolent of his writines" (Ktetlin-Kaweraii, op.
oit., II, 252). All of them, particularly the last, indis-
putably established his controversial methods as being
^'literally and wholly without decorum, conscience,
taste or fear" (Mosley/' Historical Essays", London,
1892, I, 375-378). His mad onslau^t on Duke
George of Saxony, "the Assassin of Dresden", whom
history proclaims the most honest and consistent
character of his age" (Armstrong, op. cit., I, 325),
" one of the most estimable Princes of nis age " (Cam-
bridge Hist., II, 237), was a source of mortification to
his friends, a shock to the sensibilities of every honest
man, and has since kept his apologists busy at vain
attempts at vindication. The projected alliance with
Francis I, Charles's deadly enemy, met with favour.
Its patriotic aspects need not be dwelt upon. Henrv
VIII of England, who was now deeply concerned with
the proceedings of his divorce trom Catharine of
Anigon, was approached less successfully (Gairdner,
"Lollaniy and the Reform, in England", London,
1008, I, 315-316). The opinion about the divorce,
asked from the universities, also reached that of Wit-
tenberg, where Robert Barnes, an English Augustinian
friar who had deserted his monastery, brought every
influence to bear to make it favourable. The opinion
was enthusiastically endorsed by Melanchthon (Corp.
Ref., II, 520, 552), Osiander, and (Ecolampadius.
Luther also in an exhaustive brief maintained that
before he would permit a divorce, he would rather
that the king took unto himself another queen " (De
Wette, op. cit., IV, 296). However, the memorable
theological passage at arms the kin^ had had with
Luther, the latter's subsequent cringmg apology, left
such a feeling of aversion, if not contempt, in the soul
of his rival reformer, that the invitation was to all
Intents ignored. ^
In the beginning of 1534, Luther after twelve years of intermittent labour, completed and published m six parts his German tnmslation of the entire Bible.
For years the matter of a general council had been agitated in ecclesiastical circles. Charles V constantly appealed for it, the Augsburg Confession emphatically demanded it, and now the accession of Paul III (13 Oct., 1534), who succeeded Clement VII (d. 25 Sept., 1534), gave the movement an impetus, that for once made it loom up as a realizable accomplishment. The pope sanctioned it, on condition that the Protestants would abide by its decisions and submit their credenda in concise, intelligible form. With a view of ascertain- ing the tone of feeling at the German Courts, he sent Vergerius there as legate. He, in order to make the study of the situation as thorough as possible, did not hesitate, while passing through Wittenberg on his way to the Elector of Brandenburg, to meet Luther in per- son (7 Nov., 1535). His description of the jauntilv groomed reformer " in holiday attire, in a vest of dark oalmet, sleeves with gaudy atlas cuffs . . . coat of serge lined with fox pelts . . . several rings on his fingers, a massive gold chain about his neck " (KOstlin- Kawerau, op. cit., II, 370-376; Hausrath, op. cit., II, 665), shows him in a somewhat unusual Kght. The presence of the man who would reform the ancient Church decked out in so foppish a manner, made an impression on the mind of the legate that can readily be conjectured . Aware of Luther's disputatious cluiiv acter, he dexterously escaped discussion, by disclaim- ing all profound knowledge of theology^ and diverted the interview into the commonplace. Luther treated the interview as a comedy, a view no doubt more fully shared b^r the keen-witted Italian (Sixt. " Petnis Paulus Vergerius", Brunswick, 1855, 36-45).
The question was raised as to what participation the Protestants should assume in the council, which had been announced to meet at Mantua. After consider- able discussion Luther was commissioned to draw up a document, giving a summary of their doctrines and cspjnions. This he did, after which the report was sub-
mitted to the favourable consideration of the elector
and a specially appointed body of theologians. It
contained the Articles of Smalkald (1537; Walch,
op. cit., XVI, 2326-2390) a real oppositional record
against the Roman Church" (Guericke), eventually
incorporated in the Concordienformel" and accepted
as a symbolical book. It is on the whole such a
brusque rejection and coarse philippic against the
S»pe as "Antichrist ", that we need not marvel that elanchthon shrank from affixing his unqualified signature to it (Walch, op. cit., XVI, 2366).
Luther's serious illness during the Smalkaldic Con- vention, threatened a fatal termination to his activi- ties, but the prospect of death in no way seemed to mellow his feelings towards the papacy. It was when supposedly on the brink of eternity (24 Feb., 1537) that he expressed the desire to one of the elector's chamberlains to have his epitaph written: "Pestis eram vivus, moriens ero mors tua. Papa" Hiving I was a pest to thee, O Pope, dying I will bo thy death (Kost- Un-Kawerau, op. cit., II, 389)]. True, the historicity of this epitaph is not in chronological a^precment with the narrative of Mathesius, who maintains he heard it in the house of Spalatin, 9 Jan., 1531 (Kostlin-Kawe- rau, op. cit., II, 244), or with the identical words found in his '^ Address to the Clergy assembled at the Augs- burg Diet" (7 Jan., 1530; " Skmmtl. W.", XXIV, 369), in which he hurled back the gibes flung at the priests who had enrolled under his banner and married. Nevertheless it is in full consonance with the parting b^iediction the invalid gave from his wagon to his assembled friends when about to start on his home- ward journey: "May the Lord fill you with His bless- ings and with hatred of the pope (Kostlin-Kawerau, op. cit., II, 390), and the veroatim sentiments chalked on the wall of his chamber, the ni^ht before his death (Ratseberger, "Luther u. seine Zeit, Jena, 1850, 137) . Needless to add, the Protestant Estates refused the invitation to the coimcil, and herein we have the first public and positive renunciation of the papacv.
" What Luther claimed for himself against Catholic authority, he refused to Carlstadt and refused to Zwingli. He failed to see that their position was exactly as his own, with a difference of result, which indeed was all the difiference in the world to him" (Tulloch, "Leaders of the Reformation", Edinburgh and London, 1883, 171). This was never more mani- fest than in the interminable SSacramentarian warfare. Bucer, on whom the weight of leadership fell, after Zwingli's death, which was followed shortly by that of (Ecolampadius (24 Nov., 1531), was unremitting m bringing about a reunion, or at least an understanding on the Lord's Supper, the main point of cleavage be- tween the Swiss and German Protestants. Not only religiously, but politically, would this mean a step to- waras the progress of Zwinglianism. At its formation tiie Swiss Protestants were not admitted to the Smalkaldic League (29 March, 1531); its term of six years was about to expire (29 March, 1537) and they now renewed their overtures. Luther, who all the time could not conceal his opposition to the Zwing- lians (Hausrath. op. cit., II, 353-363; De Wette, op. cit., IV, 207-208, 222-223, 224, 235-236). even going to the extent of directing and begging Duke Albrccht of Prussia, not to tolerate any of Munzer's or Zwingli 's adherents in his territory (De Wette, op. cit., IV. 349), finally yielded to the assembling of a peace conference. Knowing their predicament, he used the covert threat of an exclusion from the league as a persuasive to chrive them to the acceptance of his views (Thudichum, op. cit., II, 485). This conference which, owing to his sickness, was held in his own house at Wittenberg, was attended by eleven theologians of Zwinglian proclivi- ties and seven Lutherans. It resulted in the theolog- ical compromise, reunion it can hardly be called, known as the Concord of Wittenberg (21-29 Mav, 1636; Walch, op. cit., XVII, 2629-2532). The re-
