Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 20.djvu/351

Rh REFORMATION 333 coercion, it is certain that Luther's influence after the year 1523 was not favourable to the political liberties of his countrymen. In that year both Sickingen and Hutten were removed by death, the victims of a policy to which Luther was always strenuously opposed, the endeavour to enforce the redress of political and ecclesiastical griev- ances by recourse to arms. The iconoclastic ardour of Karlstadt and the fanaticism of Miinzer alarmed him be- yond measure, and he regarded with the most genuine distrust the spread of their influence among the peasantry. The sequel justified his alarm. Ground between the exac- tions of the agents of the church on the one hand and the oppression of the nobles on the other, the peasants rose at last in fierce rebellion. No such insurrection, so wide- spread, so sanguinary, and so ruthless in its vengeance, had ever before disquieted Germany as that which marked the close of the year 1524. The part played by Luther in relation to that gloomy episode will always be a matter for dispute among critics of different schools. To some he appears as lending his great influence to crush the efforts of down-trodden classes driven to desperation by in- tolerable oppression, to others as the champion of law and order against lawless miscreants intent on revolutionizing both church and state. Luther himself considered that loyalty to the emperor and to the civil authority was a primary duty, and that questions of religious reform should never be suffered to affect the citizen's fidelity to his politi- cal obligations. He probably held that his views were justified by the sequel ; but they were not shared by Ulrich von Hutten nor by Zwingli, who both maintained that the popedom and the empire were too closely associated to make it possible to attack the one without also attacking the other. 1 The sacramental controversy runs parallel with the history of the Peasants' War, and it unfortunately hap- pened that the theory of the Eucharist maintained by Zwingli was the same as that upheld by Karlstadt, whose iconoclastic successes at Wittenberg had made him an object of especial dislike to Luther. It was in vain, therefore, that (Ecolampadius and Martin Bucer sought to mediate between the two parties. Luther, to whose view the republican doctrines and the sacramental theory advocated by Zwingli appeared closely associated, believed he saw in the latter only a second Karlstadt ; and he was thus led to assail him and his followers with an amount of coarse ridicule altogether unbecoming both the subject and the occasion. Zwingli replied in much more temperate fashion, but he did not hesitate to assert that the doctrine which Luther maintained was identical with that taught by the Church of Rome. 2 To this Luther replied in his tractate entitled Belcenntniss vom Abendmahl Christi (1528). This pamphlet warfare only served, however, to embitter the relations of the two parties ; and, although the reaction- ary sentiments evinced by several of the princes at the second diet of Spires (15th March 1529) gave significant warning of the necessity for union and concord among the whole body of the Reformers, it was distinctly foreseen that the conference convened at Marburg a month later was not likely to lead to any healing of the schism (LUTHER). The excellent intentions of the landgrave of Hesse in con- vening the conference were altogether frustrated. The moral effect was, however, distinctly favourable to Zwingli. His demeanour towards his opponent had throughout been conciliatory and fraternal, while that of Luther had been of a different character. Although fourteen articles, em- bracing the most important tenets of the Christian faith, had been agreed upon almost without discussion, he could not regard as a brother the man who differed from him on the obscure and doubtful doctrine embodied in the fifteenth 1 See Ranke's Deutsche Geschichte, iv. 107. 2 Deutsche Schriften, iii. 16. article. This intolerance, a sinister omen for the future of the Reformation movement, produced an unfavourable impression on the minds of not a few with respect to Luther's moderation, and caused them subsequently to espouse the side of Zwingli, among their number being the landgrave Philip and Francis Lambert. The former, indeed, did not altogether despair of yet bringing about an alliance between the two parties, and was especially desirous of prevailing upon the Evangelical party (as the Lutherans now began to be called) to admit the congrega- tions at Ulm and Strasburg into their communion. With this design he caused the congress of Schmalkald to be convened on the 29th of November, an earlier date than that originally intended. His friendly purpose was, how- ever, again frustrated ; and it soon became evident that the elements of difference between Luther and Zwingli the reluctance of the former to engage in any line of action which might involve an appeal to arms, and the patriotic spirit of the other, which led him to look upon the assertion of political freedom as itself a Christian duty which it would be moral cowardice to evade were such as it was hopeless to compose. Such were the circumstances under which the emperor, Imperial temporarily freed from graver political anxieties by the policy. treaty of Cambray, convened the diet of Augsburg ; and on the 25th June 1530 the able and generally temperate ex- position of the Protestant faith drawn up by Melanchthon, known as the Confession of Augsburg, was read before the assembly and the people. The Catholic reply, composed by Eck and other theologians, was then presented, and finally the Reformers were called upon to renounce their distinctive tenets and return to their ancient faith. They were at the same time required to arrive at a formal decision within a stated period; and on the 13th of August the Evangelical princes notified to the emperor their inability to comply with his command. On the 29th of the follow- League ing March, at a third congress, convened at Schmalkald, of they formed themselves into the memorable League, where- by each party to the compact pledged himself to the following agreement : "As soon as any one of them should be attacked for the gospel's sake, or on account of any matter resulting from adherence to the gospel, all should at once proceed to the rescue of the party thus assailed, and aid him to the utmost of their ability." It was like- wise resolved steadfastly to oppose the assembling of any council which was not summoned independently of the pope or was not in its composition fairly representative of the whole church. In the meantime the efforts made further to define doctrine had been attended with the usual, it might be said the inevitable, results. The tenth article of the Augsburg Confession had been rigorously formulated so as not merely to exclude the Zwinglian theory of the Lord's Supper but also to involve in censure any interpretation that deviated, however slightly, from that laid down by Luther himself. A certain section of the Evangelicals declined, accordingly, to sign the Con- fession, and the four cities of Strasburg, Constance, Mem- mingen, and Lindau shortly after drew up and submitted to the diet another confession, known as. the Confessio Tetrapolitana, the composition mainly of Bucer and Hedio. In this the influence of the Zwinglian party so far prevailed that the adoration of images, a point on which the Augsburg Confession had been silent, was specifically condemned. The four cities were, however, admitted to the League of Schmalkald in 1531. Other circumstances temporarily strengthened the hands of the Leaguers. The emperor had formed the design of raising his brother Ferdinand, king of Bohemia and Hungary, to the dignity of "king of the Romans"; but the project roused the jealousy of the house of Bavaria, and the