Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/498

 455

monstrants, technically waiving the points of differ- ence, Bubecribed to the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord's Supper, infant baptism, and absolution. That the Zwinglian theologians *'who subscribed to the Con- cord and declared its contents true and Scriptural, dropped their former convictions and were trans- formed into devqut Lutherans, no one who was ac- ouainted with these men more intimately' can believe" (rhudichum, op. cit., II, 489). They simply vielded to the unbending determination of Luther, ana "sub- scribed to escape the hostility of the Elector John Frederick who was absolutelv Luther's creature, and not to forfeit the protection of the Smalkaldic League; they submitted to the inevitable to escape still ereater dangers" (Idem, op. cit.). As for Luther, the poor, wretohed Concord" as he desiniates it, received nttle recognition from him. In 1539, he coupled the names of Nestorius and Zwingli (Sftmmtl. W., XXV, 314) in a way that gave deep offence at Zurich (Kolde, ** Aiia- lecta^', 344). At Wittenberg, Zwingli and (Ecolam- padius beca^me convertible terms for heretics (Sfimmtl. W., XXXV, 46), and with Luther's taunting remark that ' ' he would pray and teach against them until the end of his days'^ (De Wette, op. cit., V, 687), the rup- ture was again completed.

The internal controversies of the Lutheran Church, which were to shatter its disjointed imity with the force of an explosive eruption after his death, and which now only his daimtless courage, powerful will, and imperious personality held witmn the limits of murmuring restraint, were cropping out on all sides, found their way into Wittenberg, and affected even his bosom friends. Though unity was out of the question, an appearance of uniformity had at all hazards to be maintained. Cordatus, Schenck, Agri- cola, all veterans in the cause of reform, lapsed into doc- trinal aberrations that caused him much uneasiness. The fact that Melanchthon, his most devoted and loyal friend, was under a cloud of suspicion for enterts^- ing heterodox views, though not as yet fully shared by him, caused him no little irritation and sorrow (Kostr- lin-Kawerau, op. cit. II, 445-473). But all these domestic broils were trivial and lost sight of, when compared to one of the most critical problems that thus far confronted the new Church, which was sud- denly sprung upon its leaders, focussing more espe- cially on its nierophant. This was the double mar- riage of Landgrave Philip of Hesse.

Philip the Magnanimous (b. 23 Nov., 1504) was married before his twentieth year to Christina, daiu^- ter of Duke George of Saxony, who was then in her eighteenth year. He had the reputation qf bdng '* the most immoral of princelines', who ruined him- self, in the language of his court theologians, by ''unre- strained and promiscuous debaucherv (Kolde, " Ana- lecta", 354). He himself admits that he could not remain faithful to his wife for three consecutive weeks (Lenz, " Brief wechsel . . . Philippe und Bucer", Leipzig, 1880-1887, 1, 361). The malignant attack of venereal disease, which compelled a temporary cessa- tion of his profligacy, also directed his thoughts to a more ordinate gratification of his passions. His affections were already directed to Margaret von der Saal, a seventeen year old lady-in-waiting, and he con- cluded to avail himself of Luther's advice to enter a double marriage. Christina was "a woman of excel- lent qualities and noble mind, to whom, in excuse of his infidelities, he [Philip] ascribed all sorts of bodily infirmities and offensive habits" (Schmidt, *' Melanch- thon," 367). She had borne him seven children. The mother of Margaret would only entertain the proposi- tion of her daughter becoming PhiUp's ''second wife" on condition that she, her brother, PhiUp's wife, Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer, or at least, two prominent theologians be present at the marriage, Bucer was entrusted with the mission of securing we ooDsent of Luther, Melanchthon, and the Saxon piinoe*.

In this he was eminently successful. All was to be done under the veil of the profoundest secrecy. This secrecy Bucer enjoined on the landgrave again and again, even when on his journey to Wittenberg (3 Dec., 1539) that ''all might redound to the glory of God" (Lenz, op. cit., I, 119). Luther's position on the question was fully known to him. Hie latter's imfailinff opportunism in turn grasped the situation at a gumee. It was a question of expedi- ency and necessity more than propriety and legality. If the simultaneous polygamy were permitted, it would prove an imprecedented act in the history of Christendom; it would, moreover, affix on Philip the brand of a most heinous crime, punishable under recent legislation with death by beheading. If re- fused, it threatened the defection of the landgrave, and would prove a calamity beyond reckoning to the Protestant cause (Hausrath, op. cit., II, 398).

Evidently in an embarrassing quandary, Luther and Melanchthon filed their joint opinion (10 Dec., 1530). After expressing gratification at the landgrave's last recovery, ** for the poor, miserable Church of Christ is small and forlorn, and stands in need of truly devout lords and rulers ", it goes on to say that a general law that a *' man may have more than one wife' could not be handed down, but that a dispensation could be granted. All knowledge of the dispensation and the marriage should be buried from the public in deadlv silence. ''All gossip on the subject is to be ignorecL as kmg as we are ri^t in conscience, and this we hold is right", for "what is permitted in the Mosaic law, is not forbidden in the (jospel" (De Wette-Seidemann, VI. 239-244; "Corp. Ref.", Ill, 856-863). ThenuUity and impossibility of the second marriage while the legality of the first remained untouched was not mentioned or hinted at. His wife, assured by her spiritual director "that it was not contrary to the law of God" (Corp. Ref., Ill, 884), gave her consent, though on her aeatn- bed she confessed to her son that her consent was feloniously wrung from her (Rommel, "Gesch. von Hessen", GotharKassel, 1852-1858, V, 20-21). In return Philip pledged his princelv word that she would be "the first and supreme wife and that his matri- m«nial obligations "would be rendered her with more devotion than before". The children of Christina "should be considered the sole princes of Hesse" (Rommel, op. cit.). After the arrangement had al- ready been completed, a daughter was bom to Chria- tina, 13 Feb., 1540 (Rockwell, * ' Die Doppelehe Phillip's von Hessen", Marburg, 1904, 32). The marriage took

£lace (4 March, 1540) in the presence of Bucer, Lelanchthon, and the court preacher Melander who performed the ceremony. Melander was "a bluff agitator, surly, with a most unsavoury moral reputa- tion" (Hausrath, op. cit., II, 397), one of his moral derelictions being the fact that he had three living wives, having dei^rted two without going through the formality of a legal separation (Idem, op. cit., II, 396). Philip lived with both wives, both of whom bore him children, the landgravine two sons and a daughter, and Margaret six sons (Mensel, " Neuere Geschichte der Deutschen", II, 191). How can this "darkest stain" (Bezold) on the history of the German Refor- mation be accounted for? Was it "poUtics, bibli- dsm, distorted vision, precipitancy, fear of the near approaching Diet [Ratisbon] that played such a role in the sinful downfall of Luther?' (Hausrath, op. cit., II, 400) . Or was it the logical sequence of premises he had maintained for vears in speech and print (" 0pp. Lat. " Erlangen, V, 95, 100; De Wette, op. cit., II, 459; IV, 241, 296; VI, 243), not to touch upon the ethics of that extraordinary sermon on marriage (Sammtl.W., XX 57-86)? He himself writes defiantly that he "is not ashamed of his opinion" (Lauterbaoh, op. cit., 198). The marriage in spite of all precautions, injunctions, and pledges of secrecy leaked out, caused a nftt?ny?ftl sensation and soandal^ a3xd«i^\s^\&s:S*Q£s^%sw