sign in sign up
<<
Home , 1520s, Aachen, Diet (assembly), Diet of Worms, Diet of Worms (1495), Edict

Martin and the of Worms:

Yoking to Secular Power

A thesis submitted to the faculty of the

Athenaeum of Ohio/Mount St. Mary’s Seminary of the West

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

By

Jarred Lee Kohn

Cincinnati, Ohio

March 2018

Abstract

The in 1521 would come to be a turning point for Western .

Martin Luther denied any error existed in his teachings and he was supported in his ideas by the German . Holy Roman Charles V found Luther’s teachings to be contrary to the whole of and upheld teaching from the diet until his eventual abdication in 1555. As a result, Luther came to rely on the German princes to protect him from imperial and ecclesial censure. The princes desired to break free of imperial power and gain greater control over the in their own territories.

They aided Luther in instituting his notion of and Luther in turn capitulated to some of the princes’ demands to maintain their favor. Luther became a means for the princes to circumvent imperial and ecclesial authority.

This thesis by Jarred L. Kohn fulfills the thesis requirement for the master’s degree in Theology and is approved by: Advisor: Rev. J. Endres, Ph.D. Readers: Rev. Msgr. Frank P. Lane, Ph.D. Alan D. Mostrom, M.A.

iii

Table of Contents

Introduction ...... 1 1: The Historical Context of the Diet of Worms ...... 3 Political Ideology ...... 3 The New Holy ...... 6 The State of the Holy Roman ...... 7 Luther’s Journey toward “Reform” ...... 8 ...... 11 ...... 12 The State of Religion in preceding the Diet of Worms...... 15 The Papacy in the Late Medieval Period ...... 17 Chapter 2: The Diet of Worms ...... 20 Luther Provokes ...... 20 Debate over the Luther Controversy ...... 20 Luther Summoned ...... 25 Luther Appears before the Diet...... 28 “I am bound by the Scriptures” ...... 31 The Emperor Responds ...... 35 Chapter 3: The of Worms ...... 38 The Diet and Emperor Deliberate Luther’s Fate ...... 38 The Edict Promulgated ...... 41 The Edict Ignored ...... 45 Papal and Imperial Authority Undermined ...... 47 Luther’s “Imprisonment” at Castle ...... 48 Charles Defers the Settlement of the Lutheran Controversy ...... 50 Luther after Worms ...... 51 The Christian Nobility of the German Nation ...... 53 Charles V Attempts to Reassert His Authority ...... 55 Conclusion ...... 59 Bibliography ...... 62

iv

Introduction

While many would call ’s nailing of his Ninety-Five Theses to the

Wittenberg Castle on 31, 1517 the beginning of the or at least the symbolic beginning of it, the Diet of Worms ( 28- 26, 1521) would come to define how or perhaps more appropriately who would spread the Reformation. It would fall to the German princes and other nobles/ officials to institute

Luther’s reform or at least the parts of that reform that suited them and their ends. The

Diet of Worms would make Luther officially an outlaw within the Holy .

Many of the princes would oppose this measure and Luther would have to avoid Holy

Roman Emperor Charles V for the rest of his life after Worms. Charles would maintain his defense of the Catholic and of Hapsburg hegemony in and globally as the expanded.

All the forces that led to the Diet of Worms and its aftermath did not arise in

1517. For many years prior, the intellectual, religious, economic, and political currents worked to feed what would eventually begin with Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk from . In order to understand the Diet of Worms and its consequences, one must understand the context of the situation within Germany and beyond during the sixteenth century.

The first chapter explores the context of the period leading up to the Diet of

Worms. This context covers the social, political, and theological trends of the fifteenth and sixteenth century. The second chapter is an in depth account of the Diet of Worms.

The various characters and political machinations that contributed to the diet’s outcome are evaluated. In the third and final chapter, the Edict of Worms and subsequent attempts

1

that tilt the balance between Catholicism and Lutheranism within Germany be explored. This will help to explain how Luther came to depend on the German princes for protection and for the implementation of his reform, exploring, in addition, how the princes were able to circumvent the power of the Charles V.

It has been argued that the Diet of Worms was the unleashing of the Reformation in which Luther definitively rebelled against the authority of the Church in favor of the authority of scripture, thus, allowing for a nascent of religious liberty which gave the individual freedom to choose his or her religion. By using secondary sources from contemporary historians, the writings of Martin Luther, and texts of the earliest accounts of the diet itself, it will be argued that Luther did “free” Christianity in Germany from the authority of the , but not in favor of scripture alone, he also allowed greater pressure and influence from the princes and Luther’s personal interpretation to form part of the new authority within Christianity in the territories of the Holy Roman

Empire ruled by princes in favor of Luther’s reform.1 Luther, despite an early hope to free the word of , was confronted by a lack of unity as he found that other reformers interpreted the scriptures differently than himself and thus, Luther came to rely on the

German princes to enact his while also having to succumb to some of their demands in order to protect his ‘reform’ from being squelched or distorted at its core.

1 The main secondary sources used in this research include Harold Grimm, The Reformation Era: 1500-1750, which, in my mind, provides the most balanced view of Luther, his supporters, and the Catholic Church during the Reformation. Diarmaid McCullouch’s The Reformation, considered by many to be the standard text for understanding the Reformation since its publication in 2005, was consulted and cited. Heinz Schilling’s Martin Luther: Rebel in an Age of Upheaval, is the most recent biography of Martin Luther, published in 2017, which provides an up-to-date scholarly assessment of Luther. Harald Kleinschmidt’s Charles V: The World Emperor and Sam Wellman’s Frederick the Wise provided helpful accounts of two men who would shape the political arc of Luther’s reform. James Atkinson’s The Trial of Luther was useful because of its focus on the legal proceedings at the Diet of Worms and its many references to primary sources.

2

Chapter 1: The Historical Context of the Diet of Worms

Political Ideology

Leading up to the Reformation there were two distinct ideas of how to achieve between contending European powers. The first position was championed by the humanist of Rotterdam who focused primarily on maintaining the current makeup of Europe into nations, , and kingdoms of various sizes. This school of political theory believed that by encouraging the rulers of various European nations to focus on maintaining peace within their own realms and furthering the welfare of their people, a nation’s desire for war could be kept in check.2 This school shows the positive view the humanists often had of human nature, though ironically Europe would go to war for the next five centuries on and off because of ascending nationalist tendencies during this period.

One could see the above position as the pragmatic school of political theory at the time of the Reformation because as Heinz Schilling claims, there was no united

Christianity in the West at the time preceding the Reformation:

Diversity was a hallmark of devotional practices and ecclesiastical Institutions, but particularism and the favouring of individual interests were also characteristic of both rulers and peoples as they sought to assert their power and pre-eminence.3

Schilling over-estimates the fragmentation of Christianity throughout Europe in the period preceding the division of Christianity beginning in 1517, ignoring the reality that the of the fifteenth century won a significant victory over the conciliarist

2 Harald Kleinschmidt, Charles V: The World Emperor (Stroud: Sutton, 2004), 84-85.

3 Heinz Schilling, Martin Luther: Rebel in an Age of Upheaval, trans. Rona Johnston Gordon, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017), 19.

3

movement, which emphasized the strong unity between the various national and ethnic expressions of European Christianity.4 This victory, however, did not fully settle the issue as there continued to be debates about the ’s power within the Church and divisions that lurked within Roman Christianity.

The second school on how to maintain European peace was a medieval for which there was a strong historical strain within the Christian tradition, beginning with Augustine who believed that God would not allow the Roman Empire to fall if it remained Christian and even saw the Roman Empire as vehicle for evangelization. The great poet Dante also espoused this school of political thought.5

Immediately preceding the Reformation and during its initial stages, medieval universalism was espoused by Charles V and his advisor Mercurino Gattinara who would serve as Charles’ chancellor of the .

Medieval universalism held the reestablishment of one leader within Europe as its head as the best way to maintain peace and also defeat the that was threatening Western Europe. Like Augustine, Charles and Gattinara both sought a renewed Holy Roman Empire under which there would be one spiritual head (the pope) and one temporal ruler (one of the Hapsburgs). The view being that

[o]nce [Charles V] established political unity, the emperor could unite all the people of the Christian faith. This required both the reformation of the Catholic Church, which had fallen into , and the conquest of the Muslim . The ultimate goal was world peace and the Millenium on Earth.6

4 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation (London: Penguin Books, 2005), 40.

5 Kleinschmidt, Charles V, 81.

6 Rebecca Ard Boone, Mercurino Di Gattinara and the Creation of the Spanish Empire, in Perspective, 23 (Brookfield, VT: Pickering & Chatto, 2014), 47-48.

4

This is evidence that Charles viewed his role as Holy Roman Emperor as connected with the divine prerogative to unite Christianity under his . While Charles himself never suggested himself above the pope, Gattinara seems to have endorsed the emperor over the pope in in some of his works.7 He referenced Charles as the temporal leader of Christendom distinguishing Charles’ power from the pope’s power over religious matters.

We will see that at the Diet of Worms Charles was a staunch defender of the papacy and while he was not an ultramontane Catholic, he did have respect for the office of the pope. When he invaded Rome in 1527, he considered it as more of a check on Pope

Clement VII’s machinations against him, machinations which in turn limited his ability to combat the Lutheran heresy.8

While it would be easy to dismiss this (in as much as it is a ), and while it may be true that Charles may have personally wanted power, the desire for a united Europe with Roman Catholicism as the only religion was not a mere means to his own ambitious ends. He had his plans directed towards the future, in which the Hapsburgs would govern the temporal affairs of Europe and the

Continent could then focus on preaching the to the entire world, just as

Christianity had done in the fourth century after it became the religion of the majority of the Roman citizens and later the of the Roman Empire.9 Christianity’s spread with the expansion of the Roman Empire, had the noteworthy defect of tying the

7 Ibid., 49.

8 MacCulloch, The Reformation, 173-174.

9 Kleinschmidt, Charles V, 82-83.

5

fate of the Church to the fate of a temporal power.10 Medieval universalism would also mesh well with Charles’ dynasticism which he took up from his grandfather Maximillian, a dynasticism that was more about spreading the influence of the Hapsburg family than the influence of one man. 11

These different ways of approaching peace and how to achieve it shows that in

Charles’ actions at Worms and at subsequent diets, he was not an incompetent ruler, indifferent, or fanatically religious ruler, but a man with grand ambitions and deep faith.

The complexity of Charles V is one of the most overlooked areas of Reformation research and a better understanding of him and his style of rule helps to better appreciate the spread of Lutheranism in Germany.

The New Holy Roman Emperor

Equally intriguing to Charles’ political thought are the events surrounding his election as Holy Roman Emperor. Following the death of his grandfather Maximillian in

1519, who had been the Holy Roman Emperor, it now fell to seven electors from around the empire to elect Emperor Maximillian’s successor. Names that were floated included

Charles, the of ; Francis I, the king of ; Henry VIII, the king of ; and Frederick of Saxony, who was an elector himself.12 Both Francis and Charles used bribes to attempt to win electors to their cause.

10 Robert L. Montgomery, The Lopsided Spread of Christianity: Toward an Understanding of the Diffusion of (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002), 1. 11 Kleinschmidt, Charles V, 83.

12 Sam Wellman, Frederick the Wise: Seen and Unseen Lives of Martin Luther’s Protector (St. Louis, : Concordia Publishing House, 2015), 188.

6

Ultimately, Charles would be selected unanimously as the new Holy Roman

Emperor. While Charles won the election to succeed his grandfather, the victory also came with a set of conditions that would seriously curb the emperor’s power, including losing the power to impose taxes, the use of only German or in official imperial communications (to limit Spanish or Dutch influence on the empire), and an interdict on foreign troops being transported or used in battle in the empire. The latter condition would be the one that would plague Charles the most in his fight against the spread of

Lutheranism.13 Charles accepted the terms and was finally crowned in the imperial city of

Aachen, located in Germany on its modern with . The Diet of Worms would be his first diet as the emperor. A diet being a gathering of the various princes and some from throughout the Holy Roman Empire that would meet to debate imperial and the proper powers that belonged to the emperor and the princes.

The State of the Holy Roman Empire

At the time of the Diet of Worms, the Holy Roman Empire had lost much of its prestige in Europe.14 Yet, as was shown in the election of Emperor Charles V, the power to govern the empire was still a substantial force in the hand of the emperor. While the political unity within the empire had disintegrated, there was still a debate between the emperor and the princes over who wielded what and how much power.

The makeup of the empire was a collection of territorial states ruled by German princes with the emperor as the supreme head. However, by the time of Worms there was

13 Ibid., 190-191.

14 Harold Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 2nd Edition (New York: Macmillian Publishing Co., 1973), 99.

7

a strong move toward the empire becoming a loose conglomerate of territorial states with weak central power. While in the initial history of the Holy Roman Empire, the role of the emperor would have been more significant, over time the power within the empire would tip toward the electors and princes. As Schilling wrote, “[T]he search for a balance between territorial interests and the interests of the Empire, would dictate both Luther’s own fate and the fate of his reformation.”15 Thus, the move towards the of the princes over the rights of the emperor affected Luther’s reform.

Luther’s Journey toward “Reform”

As historian Harold Grimm notes, Luther’s religious upbringing “contained nothing that could have foreshadowed his later activities as a reformer, for his parents and acquaintances were typical representatives of late-medieval Catholic .”16 Grimm does note that Luther comes to represent the yearnings and complaints of the German people.17 Increasingly, the resented taxation by the Church. Because of the Holy

Roman Empire’s lack of political cohesion it was simpler for the Church to gain an avenue within the empire to obtain funds from the German people. Without a strong imperial authority to regulate the movement of money, the Church was able to promise favors to lower officials, such as episcopal sees and ecclesial taxes with a specified percentage going to Rome and some staying with the local or ruler.18

15 Schilling, Martin Luther, 20.

16 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 76.

17 Ibid., 75.

18 Ibid.

8

While some aspects of this relationship were mutually beneficial, many people felt that too much money was going to Rome to feed the papal court’s extravagant spending. This for Luther was reinforced when he visited the Roman Curia in 1510 and found Rome a highly secularized center of the renaissance with Pope Julius II as patron of the renaissance’s many expensive endeavors.19 Luther had gone as a pilgrim and left scandalized by what he perceived as the worldly ways of the papal court, an impression that may have impacted his eventual break with Rome.

When Luther came to prominence as a leader of a reform movement (he was not the first to attempt to reform at the time), it was due in part to both

Luther’s prolific writing and the new technology that allowed for Luther’s tracts to be produced and spread throughout Germany.20 The printing press allowed

Luther to come to fame within a short period of time.

Some historians such as Diarmaid MacCulloch have argued that “Luther’s rich paradoxes looked as if they were capable of producing a for the weak and powerless without involving any attack on the existing Church.”21 Yet it is clear that much of Luther’s issue with the current form of Christianity from 1518 on was already significantly different from someone like Erasmus (a humanist, who also endorsed

Church reform but never broke with Rome.) For one, while Luther seems to have been hopeful that Rome and the Church universal would begin to see his “great insight” and conform the Church’s teaching accordingly, in Spring 1518, Luther would have his tower

19 Ibid., 83.

20 MacCulloch, The Reformation, 124.

21 Ibid., 125.

9

experience (or toilet experience depending on the account), a moment in which his reflection upon :17 convinced him that he had rediscovered the core of the

Gospel message: that man’s salvation comes by faith alone, ’s is imputed to us and any act of ours cannot be called good or just.22

Luther deemed this event as a “rediscovery of the true gospel.” Believing that the true understanding of salvation had been obscured by the Roman Catholic Church which had taught something different about salvation throughout the medieval period, it is not clear how he could have thought he was not challenging both the authority of the Pope and modern Church, as some scholars claim.23 If he had remained in the realm of , the Lutheran affair could have gone differently as it has been noted that

Luther was not alone in his critique of the structure and manner in which indulgences were sometimes utilized. He may have had more sympathetic ears among those who saw a need for reform but believed in the authority of the Roman Church.

One of the first areas of Luther’s theology to be affected by his ‘insight’ about salvation was the . While the Roman Church had defined seven sacraments,

Luther argued that a “ consisted of a divine promise marked by a divine command, both of which were only to be found in scripture, and on this test only , and survived.”24 Even penance would be removed from

Luther’s already shortened list. This indicates that already by the time of the pope’s condemnation of Luther in the bull in 1520, Luther’s theology was

22 “Martin Luther to John Von Staupitz, May 30, 1518” in Letters I, American ed, Luther’s Works 48 ( Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1963), 65-70; Schilling, Martin Luther, 123.

23 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 93.

24 MacCulloch, The Reformation, 129.

10

markedly different from that of the Roman Catholic Church, even before condemned Luther’s teachings.

Wittenberg University

Luther had been teaching at the recently formed university at Wittenberg, a university founded by Frederick the Wise.25 It is here that Luther became a renowned lecturer, teaching about the . It is through his study of the scriptures that he would eventually come to his tower experience already mentioned. What is noteworthy about

Luther’s placement at Wittenberg is that Frederick seems to have continually defended

Luther from the outset. It is not clear why Frederick did so, as Luther had proven to draw more attention to Saxony than Frederick usually preferred.26 This attachment to Luther is also interesting because of how much trouble Frederick would receive from Charles V regarding Luther. Given Charles’ deep faith and adherence to Catholicism, which would have been well known throughout the empire,27 why did Frederick not challenge Charles in the election of the Holy Roman Emperor? Instead of challenging him, he endorsed him, even when the pope bestowed the Golden Rose to Frederick (an award given by the pope to a ‘most’ Christian ruler), in hopes that Frederick would contend for the imperial .28 Most say that it was because Frederick recognized that he was not suited for the role, making Frederick appear as a humble figure.

25 Wellman, Frederick the Wise, 157.

26 Ibid.

27 MacCulloch, The Reformation, 131.

28 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 99.

11

Frederick also saw Luther as a high profile professor at his new university, a professor making an impact on the academic world at large who could boost his university’s status among the numerous academic institutions throughout the empire.

Thus, he would have had good to Luther on faculty and shield him from censure that would have either forced Luther to recant or give him over to authorities who could have silenced him, or executed him at worst. Either decision would have left

Frederick’s new school with a poor reputation which would not have bode well for the longevity of .

Renaissance Humanism

Humanism in general had a large impact on the path Luther’s reformation would take. This intellectual movement would lay the foundations for Luther’s and other

Reformers’ rejection of Catholic tradition. This is not to say that humanism itself was against Catholicism, as the heart of was found in . Schilling suggests that Luther actually rejected the Renaissance and this became a significant part of his reformation.29 While Luther did reject certain aspects of the renaissance, in particular its positive view of fallen human nature, this feature of the renaissance did not reside only within the new scholarship known as humanism but also existed within the

Thomistic (and thus, scholastic thought) of Cardinal Cajetan (a Dominican well known for his exposition of St. and his actions as to Wittenberg).30

Reactions against the scholastic method were a feature of renaissance humanism,

29 Schilling, Martin Luther, 18.

30 David Curtis Steinmetz, Luther in Context (Bloomington, IN: University Press, 1986), 48.

12

showing that a positive view of human nature was not an unusual feature in the early sixteenth century intellectual life, even in opposing schools of thought. Schilling in this example is correct in his appraisal of Luther as a rebel against the renaissance movement.

However, Schilling overlooks what stands at the center of Luther’s reformation, namely the that Luther had rediscovered the core of . This ‘rediscovery’ of previously lost meaning bears a great resemblance to the humanist’s focus on a return to the Latin and Greek sources and the original meaning of the words within the text itself, resulting in renaissance methods of determining the authenticity of various texts.31

Luther’s understanding of Christianity was primarily influenced by what he believed to be a more correct understanding of salvation than what was found in medieval

Christianity.

The methods of the renaissance resulted in the questioning of some documents that the medieval culture had taken to be authentic, but were then shown to be less than what they claimed, such as the (a manuscript that was allegedly signed the Emperor Constantine bequeathed the to the pope, during the renaissance the document was proven to be of later scholarship), a document upon which much of the pope’s temporal authority rested (in the opinion of some).32 In short, the renaissance methodology undermined traditional views of authority, which not only

31 MacCulloch, The Reformation, 81.

32 Ibid., 81-82. The Donation of Constantine was a text that had been thought to be of fourth century origin in which the Emperor Constantine gave the pope significant power. In the fifteenth century, humanist scholars noted that the style of the document differed from other fourth century documents. Thus, destroying one source of papal authority. Though it should be noted that while many scholars discredit the document because of its later date (sixth-ninth centuries), others did not deny its late authorship but reasoned that the document could have expressed a reality that had been accepted before its literal composition and we should not impose modern standards of forgery and authorship onto the Donation of Constantine.

13

allowed Luther’s reformation to succeed but may have given him confidence in his own insights over those of the Roman Church when it came to the interpretation of Scripture.

Renaissance Humanists, like Erasmus, desired the reform of ecclesial and religious life in Europe. In fact, many humanists despite nationality initially supported

Luther in his attempts to reform the Church. However, it became clear soon after his initial attempts to correct Rome that Luther had more in mind than merely reinvigorating the existing ecclesial institutions and had in mind more foundational reforms that many humanists thought too extreme. In fact it is argued by Robert Rosin that

the humanists older than Luther were so attached to the Roman church that they could not stay with Luther when he said "faith alone." The older humanists believed in Christ but they also saw Him as a model or blueprint they needed to follow—the philosophia Chrìsti, the philosophy of Christ. That was still a mix of faith and works, that old theology that Luther would reject.33

Luther would use humanist methods in his scriptural interpretation and in his rhetorically eloquent works.

A love for words and eloquence in their composition is something that Alister

McGrath identifies as a marker of Renaissance Humanism, while noting that this eloquence was a means to an end not an end in and of itself.34 Thus, like many of the humanists Luther would use a similar methodology but come to different conclusions than his contemporaries.

This issue would plague the Reformation movement later when the various reformers would be unable to agree with one another on any theological point except for anti-Roman sentiment. Thus, we can see that while Luther came to markedly different

33 Robert Rosin, “Luther at Worms and the Wartburg: Still Confessing: Find It!,” Concordia Journal 32, no. 2 ( 2006): 170. 34 Alister E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction (New York: Blackwell, 1988), 30.

14

conclusions than many men of the , he still applied the humanist methods to reach his theological conclusions and to spread his “rediscovered” gospel via eloquent preaching and rhetorically sound (though harsh) tracts treating various areas of religious reform.

The State of preceding the Diet of Worms

The religious issues within Germany in the period leading up to the Reformation were numerous. The issue that stands out in the popular mind is the debate over indulgences. The particular set of indulgences that incurred the criticism of Luther was the Jubilee that Pope Julius II called to aid in building the new St. Peter’s

Basilica in Rome.35 The reason many German princes consented to the sale of indulgences within Germany was that Rome promised a percentage of the proceeds to the princes or to the bishoprics in their realm.

When Albert of was made of Mainz an agreement was drawn up, that stipulated half of the money from the sale of indulgences in his domain would go to the pope and the other half would to go Albert and the Fuggers, a prominent German banking family.36 Thus, many high-profile Germans consented to this action because they themselves profited from the sale of indulgences. However, there were also some who criticized money going to Rome, money that they believed should have stayed in

Germany. This mindset would eventually give Luther’s condemnation of Rome some fuel among the ruling class of the Holy Roman Empire who saw an opportunity to take

35 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 89. 36 Ibid., 90.

15

control of ecclesial institutions and the monetary benefits they would no longer need to share with Rome.

While Luther did not get involved in the profit-sharing aspect of the indulgence controversy, he instead criticized that indulgences were sold as a means of salvation separate from the need of on the part the individual who bought the indulgence.37 Though it should be noted that “the formal teaching of the church (and for that matter, the theological consensus) was one side of the matter, and the perception of the common people, who flocked to hear (and pay) Tetzel, [was] quite another.”38 So while Luther began to be viewed as rebel by many upon his critique of the sale of indulgences even Catholic theologians of the time period would have agreed with most

(not all) of his judgement on indulgences. Yet, this controversy would give Luther a popularity among both the intelligentsia of his day and the common people, a popularity that he would exploit and which the German princes would utilize at the Diet of Worms.

The movement also had a significant role in the religious outlook of many Germans leading up to the Reformation. This spiritual movement focused on private ; one’s own relationship with God was the focus of this spiritual movement not a particular devotion to a saint or an aspect of the Lord’s life. While much of devotio moderna focused on the life, like attending Mass and going to , its main focus sought to draw one into deeper relationship with the Lord by reading scripture and other spiritual works.39 The most enduring representation of devotio

37 Hans Hillerbrand, The Division of Christendom: Christianity in the Sixteenth Century, (Louisville, KY: Westminster Press, 2007), 33. 38 Ibid., 32. 39 Schilling, Martin Luther, 16.

16

moderna is Thomas a Kempis’ , a work that focused primarily on the individual’s relationship with the Lord.

The devotio moderna movement was important for Luther and the spread of

Lutheranism (and the vast number of other that would follow in Luther’s wake) since Luther would often assert the meaning of scripture is left to the individual believer who did not need the authority of the Church to inform him of scripture’s meaning.40 The devotio moderna movement was not primarily responsible for the turn to the subject in the realm of religion since the humanism of the Renaissance and other philosophies like Occam’s school of thought made the greatest impact on that move in intellectual circles. 41 Though it is unclear how much of a role the devotio moderna movement played in Luther’s journey toward the reformation, one can see the personal search of Luther for God’s grace bears some semblance to the personal search the devotio moderna movement emphasized.

The Papacy in the Late Medieval Period

The power of the papacy during the late Medieval period had waxed and waned due to its difficulty in balancing its role as successor of St. Peter and its status as a secular power in the form of the Papal States. While it would be easy to assume that the secular power of the papacy would undermine the authority of the pope in religious matters, it should be noted that the popes of the medieval period had concerns (not without reason) that without the Papal States the papacy could become the apparatus of a European

40 Martin Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” in The Christian in I, American ed., Luther’s Works 44 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1966), 135.

41 Jared Wicks, Luther and His Spiritual Legacy (Wilmington, DE: M. Glazier, 1983), 20.

17

who may have attempted to use the religious power of the papacy to benefit his own state and relegate the papacy to a marginal role in European politics. By the sixteenth century the papacy’s role in European affairs had lessened but it was still a prominent player in European politics with a fair amount of autonomy from secular powers.42

The debate between the conciliarists (those who thought the highest authority in

Christendom was an ) and those in favor of the absolute power of the pope (with many somewhere in between) dominated the discussion about the role of the papacy leading up to the sixteenth century. With the papal that lasted from 1378-

1417, it was the calling of a council, the that resulted in finally ending the schism.

This council ended the two-line papacy and brought an end to the schism, giving the impression that had won out over the papacy’s absolute power.

However, by the mid-fifteenth century the papacy with help from secular rulers won a victory against the conciliarists.43 This allowed the popes to avoid the use of ecumenical councils to bring about reform and put the power of reform in the hands of the papacy.

But was not the end of the conciliarist debate as Luther, Charles, and many others would call for a Church council to achieve reform within the Church, though the pope would fight against these calls for an ecumenical council until Pope Paul III after the reformation had progressed called the in 1542.44 Up until that point the papacy while not shirking its spiritual responsibility, would often mix political and

42 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 99.

43 Schilling, Martin Luther, 17-18. 44 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 324.

18

religious interests, an intermingling that flowed primarily from the papacy viewing itself as “an Italian city-state and an European power, without forgetting at the same time the claim to be the vice-regent of Christ.”45 This is the world in which Luther began his efforts at reform.

45 H. Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century (Boston: Beacon Press, 1985), 15.

19

Chapter 2: The Diet of Worms

Luther Provokes Rome

Martin Luther first gained the attention of Rome when he protested the sale of indulgences in 1517 with his Ninety-Five Theses which called into question the understanding of indulgences as espoused by the indulgence preacher and Dominican

Johann Tetzel. At first Luther was convinced that the pope did not know what Tetzel and other Dominicans were doing. However, when he was spurned by Rome on the issue, the pope simply sent legates to deal with what he thought was a squabble between

Augustinians and Dominicans, Luther’s order and Tetzel’s. 46

After this experience Luther’s theology began to evolve and he jettisoned much of the traditional sacramental system. Luther also began to develop a novel notion of salvation. These two developments in Luther’s thought obtained the ire of Rome and

Catholic controversialists, the latter of which exchanged heated debates through correspondence with Luther. Finally, in 1520 the , Exsurge Domini, was promulgated by Pope Leo X. While it did not name Luther, it condemned a number of his teachings. Leo then demanded that imperial authorities bring Luther to .

Debate over the Luther Controversy

Cardinal Aleander, the papal legate at the Diet of Worms, opened the Diet of Worms discussion of how the Holy Roman Empire should treat the controversy surrounding Doctor Martin Luther. Aleander as the Papal representative at the diet argued before the diet on , 1521, that the princes of Germany should not give Luther a

46 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 97-99.

20

hearing or examine him but should carry out what Pope Leo X had decreed in his bull

Exsurge Domine. The Germanic princes, however, believed that Luther deserved an impartial hearing. The hearing requested by Frederick the Wise would ask clarification on issues raised by Luther, a list compiled by the well-known Erasmus of Rotterdam.47

It is not clear what the princes and, in particular, Frederick’s expectation were for this impartial hearing. It seemed that they wanted men of learning, biblical scholars, to examine Luther on his teachings. Although, (a different individual than the

Eck that would question Luther later at this diet) at the used biblical arguments to counter the teachings of Luther. “The official record of the disputation, which registered in detail every statement made by the debaters, was sent to the conservative theological faculties at and Louvain.”48 All above mentioned parties condemned the teachings of Luther, suggesting that perhaps the princes wanted not so much further theological debate but an approval of Luther’s teaching by scholars at an imperial diet to give them some leverage over the pope and emperor.

This authorization of Luther’s theology at an imperial diet would mean that

Luther’s criticism of Papal authority had received approval from other learned men. This would weaken the pope’s authority over the German church since the emperor’s power rested on the divine right invested in him by the pope, who traditionally crowned the

Holy Roman Emperor. Luther’s theology would further undermine the emperor’s authority along with papal authority. Both would help the German princes to obtain further independence from imperial jurisdiction and give them greater authority over their

47 James Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, ed. J.P. Kenyon, Historic Trials Series (New York: Stein and Day, 1971), 114-117.

48 Schilling, Martin Luther, 155.

21

respective territorial churches. Both were concerns of the German princes at the diet, as

James Atkinson writes:

Two major issues dominated the German mind at this hour: imperial reform and church reform. In the matter of imperial reform the Estates sought for a weakening and restriction of imperial power and authority with the corresponding increase in their own…People and princes wanted a renewed assertion of the sovereignty of the over his territorial church.49

Thus, there were three differing political forces at work at Worms. First, most of the German princes wanted a decentralized form of government for the empire, granting them more autonomy as local rulers. The nobility were more noticeably divided over

Luther evidenced by some accounts that report German princes fighting over whether

Luther was a heretic.

The second was the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V’s efforts to retain control over the empire. The twenty-year-old emperor had no desire to lose any of the power belonging to the emperor (powers that had already been curbed upon his election) and thus was against de-centralizing the empire. As the leader of not only the Holy Roman

Empire, but of Spain and its overseas holdings, the Duchy of , the Low

Countries, , Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, and Dalmatia which made Charles the most powerful man in Europe. His dynastic concerns are seen in his actions early on as the successor of Maximillian.50 His primary goal at the Diet of Worms was to maintain control of the Holy Roman Empire and to uphold the oath he had taken as emperor to defend the Catholic Faith.

49 Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 115-116.

50 Harold Grimm, The Reformation Era, 101.

22

The pope’s part in the politics and the theological debate at the diet was complicated by factors including Germany’s disdain for Rome’s perceived tyranny over the Church in Germany. However, the pope’s attempts to work against the election of

Charles V as the emperor, gave Charles no reason to support the pope’s cause at the diet.51 It is also important to note that the papal court’s only official representative at

Luther’s trial was Cardinal Aleander. Thus, while Rome’s theological concerns had supporters at the diet, there appears to have been little support for the political interests of the Papal States at the Diet of Worms.52 Thus, the Papal State's lack of influence at the diet would suggest that those who opposed Luther in favor of Church unity most likely did so out of personal religious and theological conviction and not a political maneuver to curry favor with Rome.

Support for Luther’s summons to the diet increased despite Cardinal Aleander’s attempts to keep Luther away from the diet. Aleander’s position was strengthened when the pope finally excommunicated Luther with the bull titled Decet Pontificem Romanum on , 1521, reaching Aleander on 10, 1521.53 The Teutonic leaders, argued that Luther’s case was sitting before the bishop of and Cardinal Cajetan, The

Pope’s proceedings against Doctor Martin were null and void, though the pope had always condemned profound instances of heresy without much consultation of the local bishops and other authorities.54 The pope should have been viewed as the chief authority

51 Sam Wellman, Frederick the Wise, 188.

52 Wim Francois, “The Louvain Theologian John Driedo versus the German Reformer Martin Luther: And Who Could Impose Their Truth,” In Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and Systematic-Theological Studies, (Dudley, MA: University Press, 2007), 46–47.

53 Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 122-123.

54 Ibid., 121.

23

on matters theological in any Catholic state, but especially the Holy Roman Empire. This would be the first of several legal discrepancies at the Diet of Worms and its immediate aftermath.

What Atkinson considers to be the opening of the prosecution of Luther at the diet begins with the following from Aleander:

[T]he promulgation of a general edict throughout the cities and land of Germany to hand this same Martin [Luther] and other heretics supporting him as well as those who further and harbour him and those who follow such perversity, to those punishments decreed against them in our missives, unless they recant. They are to be punished by ordering the rulers of the cities and the of thy provinces and all other public servants and officials under punishments which seem to thee appropriate, that it be declared and made known by public proclamation that they would take proceedings against this same Martin as well as against these condemned heretics, his supporters, and all who favour and further the cause, according to express command of our [Papal] instruction.55

Aleander would proceed to try and argue for the princes, electors, and emperor to respect the authority of the pope. Calling into question whether the princes’ claims that

Luther’s piety and the holiness justifies his calling before an imperial diet. Just because

Luther is calling for reform of the Church does not make Luther special in Aleander’s mind because many heretics had also called for ecclesial reform, yet, the princes thought

Luther’s case to be unique and worthy of an imperial hearing despite Aleander’s point.

Aleander retorted by asking the princes to once again, carry out what the spiritual arm had decreed. Aleander argued, “[T]he Diet is not a competent court in this matter. The

Emperor himself is not in a position to judge affairs of this kind.”56

55 Holy Roman Empire, and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Deutsche Reichstagsakten, 294-507 in Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 125.

56 Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 126-129.

24

The German nobles received this speech of Aleander as an argument for maintaining the status quo within the Church and state, something that would not help bring about reform of the Church in Germany. Following his speech, Aleander introduced a draft of an edict that Emperor Charles supported, but the estates opposed the edict because the German people would not be satisfied unless Luther was given a proper hearing. The princes suggested that Luther’s arguments be heard and he be asked to recant the teachings opposed to the traditional faith. If he did so, they further suggested that he then be heard out in the areas of Church reform for which he called. However, if

Luther refused to recant of his opposition to the true Christian Faith, the estates promised to carry out the will of the emperor.57

The second draft of Aleander’s the result of the text which still condemned

Luther’s theology and emphasized the pope’s good will towards someone he saw as a wayward Augustinian. This document was submitted to and approved by Charles V.58

Luther Summoned

Charles made a further promise enumerated in a letter to Luther:

Honourable, dear, and reverend Sir, Inasmuch as We and the Estates fo the Holy Roman Empire, now assembled here, have undertaken and decided to receive some explanation from you an account of the doctrines and books which you have produced for some time now, We give you immediate security and a safe conduct to come to Us here, and from here a safe return home, a safe conduct recognized by Us and our Empire and attached herewith…come to Us, and within twenty-one days be with Us for certain, nothing doubting. Do not stay aloof…Given in Worms our

57 Ibid., 131-134.

58 Ibid., 137-138.

25

imperial city on the sixth day of the month of in the year of our Lord 1521 and in the second year of our reign.59

Aleander perceived the above action taken by the emperor as a gross mistake. The

Church in Germany could have nothing to do with a man who had been declared a heretic by the head of the Church. To summon him to a diet was to dialogue with .60 While

Aleander may have been correct, that to summon Luther to the Diet of Worms was to invite trouble for the Church and emperor, the emperor would have had good for allowing Luther to appear. Charles realized his position as emperor depended upon the many estates of the Holy Roman Empire.

As such it would be difficult to ignore the request of the princes that Luther be given a fair hearing. Such an action would show the German nation that he was willing to listen to their complaints against Rome and suggest he took an interest in their plight.

There may have also been the added benefit of reminding the pope that the Holy Father would need the emperor’s support in combatting Luther and his movement. It is evident that the emperor had no desire to dialogue with Luther whom he saw as an errant monk as evidenced by his reaction to receiving a letter from Luther. Instead of reading the letter, Charles V ripped it to shreds upon the letter’s arrival.61

Being thus summoned by Sturm, the imperial herald of the Emperor,

Luther began his journey to Worms. Even the Saxon contingent, who was supportive of

Luther, was unsure if Luther should make the journey to Worms. The memory of John

Hus, who had been promised safe conduct in his summons to the Council of Constance

59 Holy Roman Empire, and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Deutsche Reichstagsakten, 526-7 quoted in Atkinson, 138-139.

60 Atkinson, The Trial of Luther. 139.

61 Schilling, Martin Luther, 171.

26

but was still condemned to the infamous stake, gave both the Saxon elector and Luther some doubts to the emperor’s intention in calling Luther to the diet.62

Luther, despite declaring in a letter to , an advisor to Frederick the

Wise, that “all the way from to here I have been sick,”63 he preached throughout his travels from Wittenberg to Worms. He received a warm welcome in many of the towns through which he traveled, showing that Luther had struck a chord with existent discontent among the German people with Rome and corruption that was currently within the German church. 64 Von Sickingen and Hutten (German Knights) tried to convince

Luther to join them for they were meditating an open war against the pro-Roman emperor. Luther refused to subvert the emperor whom he saw as the highest authority on earth even above the pope.65 It would appear that Luther’s reverence for the emperor’s office was sincere. Something made clear, upon a close reading of Luther’s treatise, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, we see (1520), “For these reasons the temporal Christian authority ought to exercise its office without hindrance, regardless of whether it is pope, bishop, or whom it affects.”66

Luther believed that the secular authority was the one responsible for enacting and enforcing ecclesial something the German princes would actively embrace, giving them the power to appoint bishops and pass ecclesial laws and change local religious

62 Ibid., 172-173.

63 “Martin Luther to George Spalatin /Main, , 1521,” in Letters I, American ed, Luther’s Works 48 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1963) 198.

64 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 113.

65 Gordon Rupp, Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 93- 94.

66 Luther, "To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation," 131.

27

practice (and as a result theology) through law. This school of political thought sharply differed from Cardinal Aleander’s view above that the secular authority was obliged as

Christians themselves to enforce what the spiritual arm (the pope) had decreed.

The differing political views between the Romanists or Papalists and Luther will be made clear in the forthcoming examination of Luther before the imperial court and the

Edict of Worms that followed. Charles’ political views focused on the dynastic concerns of the Hapsburg Empire, through which he hoped to unite Christendom under himself and push back the Turkish advance in Europe, perhaps even expanding Christendom as a global empire ruled by the Hapsburgs.67 As Luther approached the diet, all the various political forces would play a part in his fate, the fate of his movement, and the future of

Christendom.

Luther Appears before the Diet

One of the two accounts of what took place at Worms when Luther arrived will be one that may have been written by anonymous supporters of Luther, possibly with the aid of Luther himself. Simply titled, The Account and Actions of Doctor Martin Luther the

Augustinian at the Diet of Worms, it contrasts with the second account written by

Cardinal Aleander using the minutes of Johann von Eck, the imperial prosecutor. But the similarities between the two accounts suggest that we can know with a good level of certainty what happened at the diet.68

67 Kleinschmidt, Charles V, 82-83.

68 George Forell, introduction to Luther at the Diet of Worms, trans. Roger Hornsby in Martin Luther, Career of the Reformer II, ed. George Forell, American ed., Luther’s Works 32 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), 104.

28

Upon Luther’s arrival in Worms on , 1521, he received lodging at the house of the Knights of where he received many guests: “counts, , gilded knights, and nobles, both ecclesiastical and lay.”69 Meant to show how much of Germany was in support of the monk, his welcome would also seem to indicate that Luther’s way of reform was attractive to people of influence in the German nation.

It is important to note whom the author of the pro-Luther account of the diet lists as visitors to Luther before his appearance in front of Charles V. It is suggested in the above report that the general populace was in support of Luther. While Diarmaid

MacCullough claims in his book The Reformation, that Luther “released the word freedom (libertas), to ring through Europe,”70 Luther appears to have been in favor the freedom of the from papal interference in ecclesial matters but not the individual liberty of every man. Luther, for instance, will condemn the Peasants’ Revolt in his 1525 , Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants. Schilling suggests that Luther grew skeptical of secular rulers especially after Charles V’s condemnation of him.71 However, given that he would reject his part in inspiring the

Peasant's Revolt and condemn such a rebellion, we can ask whether Luther placed his hope reform in God or the hands of princes? It would seem that while he recognized that secular ruler could err, Luther left it to the nobility to put his reform into practice, not the pope, institutional church, or the general mass of the faithful.

69 The Account and Actions of Doctor Martin Luther the Augustinian at the Diet of Worms in Career of the Reformer II, 105.

70 Diarmaid MacCulloch, The Reformation, 131.

71 Schilling, Martin Luther, 171.

29

The day after Luther arrived in Worms (, 1521) he was summoned by

Ulrich von , master of the imperial cavalry to stand before Emperor Charles at four in the afternoon. After being escorted to the imperial , Luther stood before

Charles V and Johann Eck opened questioning on behalf of the Emperor: “that you may here publicly acknowledge if the books published so far under your name are yours; then, whether you wish all these to be regarded as your work, or whether you wish to retract anything in them.”72 After a request by Dr. Schruff, a figure of which very little is known except for his part at the Diet of Worms, stood next to Luther, that the list of books be read aloud. Luther acknowledged them as his writings but appealed for more time to consider whether he should recant “because this is a question of faith and the salvation of , and because it concerns the divine Word.”73

After the princes debated between themselves, Eck reported back:

Although you, Martin, have been able to learn well enough from the order why you have been summoned, and therefore, do not deserve to be granted a longer time for consideration, yet, out of innate clemency, his imperial grants one day for your deliberation so that you may furnish an answer openly tomorrow at this hour.74

It is not clear why Luther asked for more time. As Eck recounted, Luther should have known the reason why he had been summoned before the diet.

It would seem that Luther wanted time to consider his course of action. He was prepared to die, as he suggested in his letter to George Spalatin, but he may have been looking for a way to escape the fate of , who was burned at the Council of

72 The Account and Actions of Doctor Martin Luther the Augustinian at the Diet of Worms, 106.

73 Ibid., 107.

74 Ibid.

30

Constance. The request for more time gave some hope that Doctor Martin would recant of his erring teachings.75 By taking another day, Martin would have been able to craft better his reply to the imperial representative (though he had been told that he could not have something prepared in writing but had to respond orally without notes). It could also have been time for him and the German nobility to consider how Luther could be spared the pyre and thus continue to support the German princes with his novel theology: a theology that undermined the universal jurisdiction of the pope in favor of ecclesial matters being managed by local rulers.76

As Luther’s climactic statement at the Diet of Worms approached, he “was admonished by various voices to be brave, to act manfully, not to fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the , rather revere Him who is able to cast both soul and body into [Matt. 10:28].”77 It is unclear how much Luther had reason to fear for his physical safety. While perhaps Aleander would have supported a swift punishment of

Luther, there is a lack of evidence to suggest Charles V had intentions of reneging on his promise of safe conduct that included Luther’s return to Wittenberg.

“I am bound by the Scriptures”

Luther’s speech before the emperor on the , 1521 is cited by some as “the key text of .”78 In answer to whether he would recant of his teaching, Luther

75 Ibid., 108.

76 Peter Blickle, The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants War from a new perspective [Die Revolution von 1525], trans. Thomas Brady and Erik Midelfort, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1985), 159.

77 The Account and Actions of Doctor Martin Luther the Augustinian at the Diet of Worms, 108.

78 Schilling, Martin Luther, 186.

31

divided his works up into three types first, writings that “discussed religious faith and morals simply and evangelically…that even my enemies themselves are compelled to admit that these are useful, harmless and clearly worthy to be read by .”79 The second type of writings were “attacks [against] the papacy and the affairs of the papist as those who both by their doctrines and very wicked examples have laid waste the

Christian world with evil.”80 The third type Luther identified as works against individuals that have supported “Roman tyranny” and Luther admitted, “Against these…I have been more violent than my religion or profession demands.”81

After distinguishing between his different works, Luther then asked for someone of learning to instruct him of his errors “by the writings of the and the evangelists.” If this were achieved, he would “be the first to cast my [Luther’s] books into the fire.”82 Admittedly, finding those who were willing to dialogue with Luther in biblical terms was difficult.

Although, Johann Eck did use biblical arguments along with appealing to the patristic sources and to defend the Catholic faith at the famous Leipzig

Debate, a debate that many widely believed Eck won, from then until Worms, Luther would for the most part only engage in dialogue with his opponents via the pen and printing press.83 Thus, Eck did respond to Luther with scripture passages that were more

79 The Speech of Dr. Martin Luther before the Emperor Charles and Princes at Worms on the Fifth Day after Misericordias Domini [April 18] in Martin Luther, Career of the Reformer II, 109.

80 Ibid.,110.

81 Ibid., 111.

82 Ibid.

83 Schilling, Martin Luther, 152-155.

32

explicitly in support of the pope’s primacy than Luther’s counter-argument. This is just one example of how Luther’s primacy of scripture was is reality a primacy of Luther’s own reading of scripture.

Although Eck was the exceptional Catholic character that used scripture and did not only quote councils, Luther and the Church were speaking a different language. For those in support of Roman Catholicism presided over by the pope, Luther has not just called into question some tangential teachings but struck at the core of Christendom severing personal belief from an objective tradition, a tradition that no Christian could disavow without disavowing Christ as well.

When Eck (the secretary, not the scholar from the ) pushed Luther to answer whether he would recant straightforwardly, Luther claimed, “I am bound by the

Scriptures I have quoted and my is captive to the Word of God.”84 Note that he did not say that he was held captive by all the Scriptures but only by the passages he quoted. As Diarmaid MacCullough (no enemy of Luther) remarks:

When he[Luther] translated a crucial proof-text in Romans 3 ‘we hold that man is justified without works of the law, by faith’, he made no bones about adding ‘only’ to ‘faith’…Luther also had no scruples about ranking different parts of the Bible as more or less valuable depending on whether they proclaimed the message which he had discovered.85

Herein lies both what will unleash the Protestant movement, not a single scripture passage but sections of scripture interpreted and applied by different men, resulting in not just a Lutheran movement, but also the Anabaptists, Calvinists, Anglican, and many other

Protestant . While Luther did not see every individuals’ interpretation as a valid one

84 The Speech of Dr. Martin Luther before the Emperor Charles and Princes at Worms, 112. (Emphasis added).

85 MacCulloch, The Reformation, 134.

33

(because in his mind he had discovered the core of the Gospel), by placing the judgment of his conscience over and against the ruling of the Church, Luther opened the door to any man interpreting scriptures as they applied to him personally.

This is something Eck, the secretary of the Archbishop of Trier, perceived correctly when he replied to Luther’s comment:

But now you, revive those [errors] which the general Council of Constance, composed of the whole German nation, has condemned, and which you wish to be refuted by means of Scripture. In this you are completely mad. For what purpose does it serve to raise a new dispute about matters condemned through so many centuries by church and council? Unless perhaps a reason must be given to just anyone for about anything whatsoever.86

Luther would further claim that the councils had contradicted themselves and that only effective biblical arguments would be able to “get out of the nets in which he was tangled.”87

By breaking the authority of the Church to judge the interpretation of scripture and handing that power to individual conscience, Luther made his theology an attractive school of thought for the German princes, giving them as secular authorities and baptized individuals the ability to guide ecclesial reform in their territories, achieving one of the

German nobility’s goals at the beginning of the diet.88 This they believed would allow them to prevent money being siphoned from Germany into the Papal States and circumvent the authority of the emperor.

86 The Speech of Dr. Martin Luther before the Emperor Charles and Princes at Worms, 113.

87 Ibid.

88 Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 116.

34

Besides this, in undermining the authority of Roman Catholicism and its universal view of the Faith, princes could also undermine the powers of Emperor Charles and achieve a more collective governance of the Holy Roman Empire, something most of the princes desired.89 Admittedly, while Luther’s speech at the diet suggested a subjective turn, he was more in support of obeying the temporal powers in control:

Christ…subjects us, along with our bodies and our , to the emperor and the law of this world, when he says “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” [Luke 20:25]. Paul, too, speaking in Romans 12 [13:1] to all baptized Christians, says “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” And Peter says “Be subject to every ordinance of man. We are bound to live according to this teaching of Christ.”90

In this regard, one can see an inner inconsistency in Luther’s thinking. Luther claimed that he has rediscovered the core of the Gospel with his hermeneutical insight. But when other reformers and even the emperor (the highest temporal ruler in his mind) disagreed with him, he claimed, that they have been led astray and “Therefore we must fear God.”91

The Emperor Responds

Upon being whisked away from the trial after his refusal to recant, it is said that many of the nobility visited Luther to congratulate him on his obstinacy towards pope and emperor.92 Charles however, was not impressed. Citing that he was “descended from the most Christian of the German nation, the Catholic of Spain…they all have remained up to death faithful sons of the church and have always been defenders of

89 Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 115.

90 Martin Luther, “Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants,” in The Career of the Reformer III, American ed., Luther’s Works 46 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1967). 91 The Speech of Dr. Martin Luther before the Emperor Charles and Princes at Worms, 112.

92 Ibid., 115.

35

the Catholic faith,” Charles would not surrender to the profligate spirit sweeping

Germany at the time. Despite the possibility that Charles could have used Luther to gain leverage against Pope Leo X who feared Charles’ growing power as a European ruler, instead, his personal faith in the Catholic Church was not shaken because of Luther, an individual Charles thought an “obdurate monk.”93

As Roger Hornsby’s of Charles’ statement to the diet after hearing

Luther would declare:

After hearing the obstinate answer which Luther gave yesterday, April 18, in the presence of us all, I declare to you that I regret having so long delayed to proceed against this Luther and his false doctrine and I am no longer willing to hear him speak more, but I am making it clear that immediately, according to the mandate, he be taken back keeping in the tenor of his safe-conduct with preaching or admonishing the people with his bad doctrine and making sure no disorder results.94

The German princes were not happy about Charles V condemnation of Luther. This was unsurprising given that they saw in Luther and his school of thought a chance to escape from both imperial and papal rule, making themselves master of the faith in their lands just as Luther declared himself the sole interpreter of Scripture.

Luther would be hurried out of Worms to journey back to Wittenberg. However,

Frederick, out of fear for Luther’s life and to ensure that he could feign an excuse to avoid turning over the now imperially and papally-condemned heretic, had Luther

“kidnapped” and taken to Wartburg castle. Here Luther would continue to write prodigiously compiling his translation of the Bible into German, disavowing monastic

93 Kleinschmidt, Charles V, 78-80.

94 The Speech of Dr. Martin Luther before the Emperor Charles and Princes at Worms, 114n.

36

vows in his treatise On Monastic Vows, and epistlary exchanges with a number of his critics.95

Luther’s story was not confined to the walls of Wartburg Castle and some writings directed to the outside world. What was to be his fate was a debate that would continued between the three political forces mentioned in this chapter: the German princes, the Holy Roman Emperor, and the pope. While Charles V would try to reimpose

Catholicism across Germany, a number of German princes would join Frederick the Wise and begin to implement Luther’s reform as they saw fit. One cannot also forget about the pope and his complicated role in failing to stop the spread of Lutheranism in northern

Europe.

95 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 120-121.

37

Chapter 3: The Edict of Worms

The Diet and Emperor Deliberate Luther’s Fate

Following Luther’s appearance before the Imperial Diet and his subsequent disappearance and interment at Wartburg castle came the deliberations at the Diet determining what was to be the Holy Roman Empire’s position on Luther and his teachings. Cardinal Aleander wanted a strident defense of the Papal condemnation of

Luther. The German princes favored a cunctation in action against Luther, arguing that his case should be left to a general council and men of learning.96 Charles on the other hand wished for an end to the Luther affair so he could attend to other pressing issues in other spheres of his extensive Hapsburg Empire, such as dealing with the Ottoman Turk forces moving through the Balkans towards .97

As stated in the previous Chapter, Charles V’s personal conviction was that

Martin Luther was a heretic and wished for no part in his revolt against the Roman

Church. He instead wished to continue the Hapsburg ’s perennial defense of the

Catholic Faith. If Charles ordered the full condemnation of Luther and asked that the princes condemn the Wittenburg monk to the same fiery fate as John Hus, Charles rightly perceived that he would be in a precarious position with rebellious nobles within his realm that would upturn his dynastic ambitions and plans. Contrarily, Charles’ own belief in the unity of the Christian Faith and the desire to maintain that unity across all his domains (in keeping with his political vision) meant he needed to take some sort of action against Luther’s doctrine.

96 Schilling, Martin Luther, 191-192.

97 Kleinschmidt, Charles V, 81.

38

Throughout Europe even as an ever diverse group of and reformations came about, it was still the norm that there would be only one , no matter the . The split of the German states between Catholic and Lutheran

(not to mention some other Protestant minorities in ) may be why the

Holy Roman Empire did not become a nation state like a number of other countries in

Europe at the time. This also explains why there was so much back and forth throughout

Charles’ reign as emperor. “The establishment in of the first Protestant national

Church in 1527, a full six years before the founding of the Anglican Church” shows that despite Germany being the birthplace of the Lutheranism religious unity could not be easily achieved.98 Germany’s lack of national unity allowed for Catholic and Lutheran princes to both rule within the empire. Though Charles V was an ardent Catholic, the one faith solution that existed in other countries could not easily be achieved in Germany.

From the delicate situation of a ruling class divided by , the Emperor would promulgate the Edict of Worms, a document that would bear his signature but not the approval of the Reichstag, the princes and electors who were present at a diet.99 Many members of the Reichstag were against the edict including many of the German people.

This showed that despite his need for the support of the German princes to wage war against the Turks, Charles remained willing to stand by his convictions.

While some have criticized Charles for his inexperience and perceived lack of political savvy, he preferred to remain faithful to his Catholic Faith, an example of

98 Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 156.

99 Schilling, Martin Luther. 192.

39

personal faith that is comparable to the more oft lauded faith of Luther. Unlike Luther whose faith held his “conscience is captive to the Word of God,”100 Charles’ faith was

objectively [connected] to the institutions and traditions of his lineage, which he equated with the experiences of Christendom and its historic ability to assert itself when challenged both internally and externally. No less decisive for the Emperor than for Luther was the conviction that God was on his side, and Charles was sure divine assistance in his battle against the German heresy, or ‘German plague’ as it would soon be known in his Spanish milieu.101

Contrary to the claims of authors like historian Sam Wellman asserting that Charles “had scant interest in solving the Luther conundrum,”102 Charles was deeply concerned with putting an end to what he viewed as the Lutheran heresy, even if Charles did only threatened enforcement but prudently decided that he could not enforce the edict.103

Other issues and other rulers would keep Charles from dealing with the Luther problem more directly. Given this understanding of Charles’ personal faith and the difficulties facing him as a ruler, it becomes easier to take the edict for what it was, an expression of not only Charles’ dynastic vision that included a united Christendom under the one Church and one monarch but also an expression of his deeply personal faith.104 It is likely that had someone less concerned with maintaining Catholic faith and more amiable towards Lutheranism been emperor, the whole of Germany could have become a

Lutheran state as evidenced by the fact that the spirit of the Protestant

100 The Speech of Dr. Martin Luther before the Emperor Charles and Princes at Worms, 112.

101 Schilling, Martin Luther, 186.

102 Wellman, Frederick the Wise, 219.

103 Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 151-152.

104 Schilling, Martin Luther, 188.

40

Reformation touched almost every imperial city apart from Cologne (if only to be turned back quickly or eventually by the Catholic counter-reformation).105

The Edict Promulgated

The Edict of Worms was largely composed before Luther’s appearance at the diet since the only purpose of his appearance was to obtain the recantation of his teaching.

Aleander and Charles were both aware that the likelihood of recantation was slim following Luther’s appearance at the diet, thus explaining why the edict would be dated

May 8 but was signed by Charles on , 1521, after the closing of the diet the day before.106

The Edict of Worms accused Luther of heresy and disobedience to political authority.107 More than that, the edict not only condemned Luther in general way for his heretical views, but showed the emperor’s well-informed personal faith:

In these books he [Luther] destroys, overturns and abuses the number, the order and the usage of the seven sacraments, held for so long by Holy Church, and in persuasive tones shamefully besmirches the unchangeable law of holy matrimony. He also say that Holy unction is a fabrication of the mind. He wishes to drag our usage and benefits of the ineffable Holy Sacrament to the manner and practice of the condemned Bohemians. He now turns his attack to Confession. This is the most valuable of remedies for hearts stained or burdened with .108

105 R.W. Scribner, “Why Was There No Reformation in Cologne?,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 49, no. 120 (, 1976): 217.

106 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 115-116.

107 Ibid., 116.

108 Holy Roman Empire, and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Deutsche Reichstagsakten, 640-659, quoted in Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 180.

41

The above quote lends proof to Charles’ deep belief in the Church’s sacramental economy. Thus, it would seem evident from the edict itself that Charles did not just enact a dynastic policy in favor of the universal faith that would in turn ensure his universal rule, but evidences belief that the sacraments are aids to and necessary for salvation as part of an affirmation of the entirety of the Catholic Tradition.

Further, Charles went on to say that Luther “not only holds the priestly office in utter contempt, but even urges secular and lay people to wash their hands in the of ,”109 suggesting that he had knowledge of Luther’s writings authored following the bull Exsurge Domine, in which Luther condemned the office of priesthood.110 Showing

Charles did not simply reiterate what Pope Leo X had already condemned but condemned

Luther’s heretical views as they developed.

This level of care for individual issues within the edict shows that Charles wished to be clear with the electors and other governmental and ecclesiastical authorities in the empire that he had no wish to tolerate Luther’s theology, which indicated Charles’ deep conviction of Catholicism’s truth and Luther’s error. Charles in 1521 showed through the edict that he was hopeful for the suppression of Luther’s teaching, but was perhaps naïve about how far and how deeply Lutheran ideas had already penetrated throughout

Germany.

Charles then said in the edict that Luther “despises also the authority of the

Church Fathers” and with his teaching “takes away obedience and authority,”111 shown

109 Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 181.

110 Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” 129-130.

111 Charles V, “The Edict of Worms" in Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 181.

42

by his “speak[ing] publicly against the Councils and to abuse and insult them as he thinks fit.”112

Herein lays one of the great divides between Catholicism and Protestantism: authority. While Catholics continue after Trent and beyond to insist on the Church’s final authority in interpreting not only the scriptures but what a Christian is bound to believe with respect to faith and morals, with the Protestant reformation there is a theological turn-to-the-subject, making the individual the arbiter of his salvation by turning away from one’s sacramental incorporation into Christ and towards a personal act of faith by which Christ justifies us for eternal reward.

Thus, instead of the Church mediating one’s relationship to Christ via the sacraments, emerging Protestant theology would differ in what it thought was necessary for salvation but was united in its belief that the individual Christian had as much authority to interpret scripture as the Church:

[I]f we are all priests, as we said above, and all have one faith, one gospel, one sacrament, why should we [Christians] not also have the power to test and judge what is right or wrong in matters of faith What becomes of Paul’s words in I Corinthians 2 [:15] “A spiritual man judges all things, yet he is judged by no one”? and II Corinthians 4 [:14] “We all have one spirit of faith”? Why, then, should not we perceive what is consistent with faith and what is not, just as well as an unbelieving pope does?113

Given that Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all interpreted scripture in substantially different ways, the above quote could be seen as the hermeneutical text for understanding the reformers. The individual believer was no longer viewed as bound to obey an objective

112 Ibid.

113 Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” 135.

43

authority; one’s conscience had become the new guide for the Christian soul, not the

Church.

It seems this is the core of Charles’ problem with Luther. It is not indulgences, scriptural interpretation or any other single issue, but primarily authority. This will become the crux of all arguments in the reformation. Men will express arguments for what they believe theologically and someone else will counter with their own arguments beginning a never-ending cycle. With no respected authority, this cycle continues down to our very day.

In relation to his contemporary leaders Henry VIII, Francis I, and ,

Charles has been portrayed in our own day as “not only the most powerful of the four at the start [of his reign], [but] also was the ugliest, least intelligent and most religious.”114 It could be argued that Charles saw clearly the future result of Luther’s doctrine, not only to his dominion but also what such doctrine would do to the unity of Christianity in the

West. Along with his strong personal faith that has already been noted, Charles’ foresight to what the Protestant Reformation would bring politically for Germany and the world over may be an influence behind his clear and direct condemnation of Luther in the Edict of Worms.

Without a clear spiritual head of Christendom, what need does Christendom have for a single temporal leader? Charles perceptively checked Luther’s questioning of the pope’s authority because it directly questioned his authority as not only the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire but the divine right of any king, the belief upon which medieval

114 James Srodes, “The First Brexit,” The Washington Times, , 2017, accessed 10, 2017, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/26/book-review-four-princes/.

44

power was founded.115 Thus contrary to the charge of Charles’ stupidity he was not only religious but prudent and intelligent in his rule of the empire.

In the edict Charles demanded of the German princes that upon the expiration of

Luther’s safe conduct promise (, 1521) they:

refuse to give the afore-mentioned Martin Luther hospitality, lodging, food or drink; neither shall any one, by any word or deed, secretly or openly, help or support him in any way at all, nor help him with counsel or advice; but wherever and whenever you come across him or meet him, assuming you have sufficient strength to do so, you shall take him prisoner and send him to us in close custody; or shall order that to be done; or, at the very least, immediately inform us and tells us where he might be captured; in the meantime, you shall hold him prisoner until you hear from us what further action should be taken against him according to the law.116

He emphasized that he was vehemently against Luther and wished to see him brought to justice. However, Charles was careful to honor the safe conduct he promised Luther when he was summoned to Worms. Perhaps, he hoped that having honored the safe conduct the princes would honor his edict. Charles had not only granted a hearing for

Luther before the diet, examined by secretary of the Archbishop of Trier, a German and thus, non-Roman prosecutor, but he had granted Luther a promise of safe conduct to the diet and back home no matter the outcome of the hearing.

The Edict Ignored

Yet, the emperor’s edict was ignored by Frederick, the one man in position to carry it out. Frederick argued in a 1524 letter to Charles that he was not present at the diet when the edict was approved and thus, he should be considered exempt from the mandate

115 Kleinschmidt, Charles V, 82.

116Charles V, The Edict of Worms, Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 184.

45

of the diet’s .117 Frederick had also not received a copy of the edict itself upon its promulgation, an interesting move or oversight by Charles or those responsible for the edict’s delivery to the different estates of the empire. 118 This error led some to suggest that Charles was not invested in the edict, but as it has already been shown, Charles was interested in the religious question that plagued the Holy Roman Empire at the time. 119

The legality of the Edict of Worms was a topic of heated discussion in 1521 and for over three decades after its promulgation; it remains so today. While Charles claimed to have had the support of the electors and princes in the edict, there was no formal vote by the electors and/or princes to approve the edict. Yet Charles still attached their approval to the mandate. It should be noted that Charles did have a legitimate argument when he claimed “that the estates had assured him, prior to Luther’s appearance at

Worms, that he could act if Luther did not recant—and this is now what Charles proposed to do.”120 Charles had trusted the word of the princes to respect his authority in pursuing

Luther if he did not recant.

Instead of swift action on the part of the German princes, there was much debate about the legitimacy of Charles’ edict in the empire. While historian Hans Hillerbrand argues in favor of the German estates’ refusal to enforce the edict because “Charles conveniently overlooked” that several of the estates had “reversed their position,” during the negotiations in May, after Luther’s appearance at the diet.121

117 Wellman, Frederick the Wise, 219.

118 Hillerbrand, The Division of Christendom, 62.

119 Wellman, Frederick the Wise. 219.

120 Hillerbrand, The Division of Christendom, 61.

121 Ibid.

46

One should perhaps also note an oversight in Hillerbrand’s evaluation that the estates reversed their position after Luther’s appearance at the diet, which meant that the princes reversed their position after Luther’s appearance at the diet had not achieved their hoped for conclusion. The princes appear to have been disingenuous in making such promises to Charles. He was promised the support of the princes upon the conditions that

Luther be summoned to the diet, that the summons come with a promise of safe conduct to and from the diet, and that if Luther refused to recant his heretical positions they would support Charles’ action against Luther. Each of these conditions were met and yet the princes removed their promised support. While other authors, like Hillerbrand, argue the princes neglected to carry out the edict because of legal issues, the princes also saw an opportunity to undermine the authority of the emperor and assert authority over matters of faith in their own territories.122

Papal and Imperial Authority Undermined

The princes’ conduct reveals what could be seen as a proto-nationalism underlying the entire Luther affair. The German princes wished to obtain independence from imperial rule and begin to govern Germany with a more representative form of where German territorial princes would rule together the interests of the German nation.123 Luther provided the princes, as mentioned above, the opportunity to overcome imperial rule while undermining the authority of Rome upon whom the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor (traditionally crowned by the pope) rested.

122 Ibid., 62-63.

123 Atkinson, The Trial of Luther, 115-116.

47

Through papal prerogative the Holy Roman Emperor was made the defender of

Christendom and its chief monarch (in honor but not necessarily in power).

Peter Blicke points out:

When Luther rejected the magisterial authority of the old church, theology was set free from its axiomatic dependence on and tradition and necessarily reoriented Christian doctrine to Scripture. The recourse to Scripture made possible a whole new theological starting over against the Roman Church, and thus a “Reformation theology.”124

The rejection of “magisterial authority” was a logical extension of the rejection of imperial authority. Luther wrote to Charles that he was “definitely ready to comply with and obey Your Majesty, whether it bring me life or death…”125 Yet, along with his protector Frederick, Luther would escape the enforcement of the Edict of Worms and thus disobey his “Sacred Majesty” Charles until the end of his life, a discrepancy neither

Luther nor any of his supporters ever seem to address. Luther would still acknowledged the authority of the emperor as a legitimate secular authority to be obeyed but at the same time undermined the office of the Holy Roman emperor with his theology.126 Thus, having undermined the pope’s authority, Luther allowed for princes like his own protector Frederick the Wise to deceptively undermine the authority of Charles.

Luther’s “Imprisonment” at Wartburg Castle

The disobedience of Luther and the princes was seen in Luther’s journey back to

Wittenberg as he travelled from town to town. Luther preached in given towns despite

124 Blickle, The Revolution of 1525, 157.

125 “Martin Luther to Emperor Charles V, , 1521,” in Letters I, American ed., Luther’s Works 48 (Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1963). 126 Blickle, The Revolution of 1525. 156-157.

48

Charles’ prohibition on Luther’s preaching or teaching in public even before the edict.127

On May 4, 1521, Luther was travelling to Walterhausen, southeast of Eisenach and west of when Luther was confronted by men on horseback who forced him out of his carriage and made him walk. From there he was ushered to a waiting horse which Luther mounted and rode off with his unidentified captors to an unknown location. The captors were working for Frederick to bring Luther to Wartburg Castle,128 where, as before mentioned, Luther would be hidden away while writing many theological works.

This is indicative of the lengths to which Frederick and other German princes thought necessary to circumvent the emperor in order to protect Luther and ‘defend’ their right to govern their territorial church. In fact, this “kidnapping” not only allowed

Frederick to claim that he could not act against Luther because he was supposedly unaware of his whereabouts but it also spread among the German people the rumor that

Luther had been kidnapped and perhaps killed by his ‘Romanist’ opponents, thus making

Luther a martyr in some people’s eyes, if only for a brief time.129

Luther’s kidnapping only bolstered Luther’s image before the wider populace, which made the job of many other Catholic controversialists in combating Luther’s ideas all the more difficult. Although, no author cited herein has noted the effect of Luther’s disappearance on Charles’ image, there remains the question of what effect Luther’s kidnapping and rumored but false account of murder had on how Charles was perceived in Germany. Is it possible that it led some to believe that Charles had not honored his

127 Schilling, Martin Luther, 199.

128 Ibid., 199-200.

129 Ibid., 200.

49

promise of safe conduct for Luther? This would have led to more anti-imperial sentiment among the masses giving further esteem to princes who had supported Luther and allowed them more autonomy in the governance of their territorial affairs.

In short, the hiding of Luther by Frederick allowed Frederick and the other

German princes sympathetic to Luther time to determine how to handle the Luther affair and navigate around the edict. This being so, during Luther’s intervening months at

Wartburg Charles had to attend to other issues throughout his vast holdings and had to put the Lutheran controversy aside until he could solidify his power.130

Charles Defers the Settlement of the Lutheran Controversy

Kleinschmidt points out that for Charles “in the course of the , politics had forced the emperor to accept that his struggle against the ‘Lutheran heresy’ was interconnected with the war [against the Ottoman Empire]. Charles had to realize that he had to pacify the Lutherans within the Roman Empire before he could strike against the

Ottoman Turkish Empire.”131 Charles had to contend with this and the many other issues related to calming unrest within his various realms during the 1520s so that he could lead

Europe against the Turks and fulfill his vision of re-founding the Roman Empire as a global Catholic empire.

This goal of Charles was made all the more difficult by Francis I, the king of

France, and Pope Clement VII, both of whom feared the power Charles wielded as each had plans for the expansion of their own power. This led both of them to form an alliance

130 Kleinschmidt, Charles V, 158.

131 Ibid.

50

to try and check Charles’ dynastic ambitions. This move meant “it was now the pope [and

Francis I] who prevented Charles from attacking the Lutherans and the Turks.”132

In 1540, Hungary’s Duke John Zapolya died and instead of honoring a previous treaty which would have made Charles’ brother Ferdinand the Duke of Hungary, the

Hungarians crowned John Zapolya’s infant son John Sigismund and turned to the Turks for military aid against Charles. Once again, the Turks threatened Austria and Charles needed to utilize both Catholic and Lutheran soldiers to control the situation.133 This was not the first time Charles had to use Lutheran soldiers in a campaign. These instances show the many forces that worked against Charles and the Hapsburg empire throughout

Europe and North . In order to prevent the Ottomans from conquering the heart of

Europe, Charles had to make such compromises and prudential judgements throughout his reign.

Luther after Worms

Luther’s actions and work spanning from the end of his “imprisonment” at

Wartburg castle until his death is closely bound up with his relationship with the German princes. He depended heavily upon the protection of Frederick the Wise to continue his reformation. Though in 1525 Frederick died and his brother succeeded him, Schilling argues that Frederick, John, and John Frederick, all successive electors of

Saxony, honored an early form of separation of church and state. 134 While Luther did

132 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 175.

133 Ibid., 180-181.

134 Schilling, Martin Luther. 236; Wellman, Frederick the Wise. 229.

51

make a distinction between earthly and spiritual authority, yet, after Luther’s death

Grimm notes that Lutheran princes would begin to conflate the spiritual and temporal realms, Something that was already beginning take place even within Luther’s lifetime.135

It is not clear whether Luther thought that the princes were a necessary evil for a time to advance his evangelical preaching or if he wanted to separate the two spheres of power in theory, but practically Christian princes would be the primary mode of his reform. This tension is seen in Luther’s mind during the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525 when he threw his weight behind the authority of the princes in his treatise Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. This revolt was the largest public uprising in

Germany until the that followed Germany’s defeat in the First World War in

1918.136 Schilling notes that Luther:

believed in Christ’s victory over the powers of darkness, [in this case the Peasants’ Revolt] but that victory required that the princes do their duty as Christian authorities and not hesitate to re-establish order and peace, cost what it will, at this decisive moment in the history of the world and salvation when threatened to crush the rediscovered Gospel.137

Clearly, Luther was interested in the influence that the secular realm had on the spiritual realm. Luther would grow weary of the princes’ powers as he saw that many princes used their power for their own personal gain, as the princes after crushing the peasants appeared to be the only victors in the confrontation having further subjected the lesser nobility.138

135 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650. 183.

136 Blickle, The Revolution of 1525. 3.

137 Schilling, Martin Luther. 258.

138 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650. 142.

52

Thus, just as one must look at reality during this period from the perspective of those who took part, as must be the case for Charles V, so must one be willing to look at what Luther actually taught and not what he has come to represent. While he did advocate two spheres of authority: temporal and spiritual, Luther rejected the medieval model of two separate realms:

It is a pure invention that pope, bishop, priests, and monks are called the spiritual estate while princes, lords, and farmers are called the temporal estate…All Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office.139

With this rejection of the spiritual estates as separate and greater that the temporal estates,

Luther suggested that “God’s worldly government is effected through kings, princes and , through the use of the sword and the . They have no authority in matters of doctrine,” while the “spiritual government is effected through the Word of God and the guidance of the .” 140

The Christian Nobility of the German Nation

This reinterpretation of the spiritual secular put the Christian prince in an awkward position. If the secular authority had no power to make statements about document while at the same time the only authority in the Word of God and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, where exactly did this leave the Christian prince? Luther would acknowledge that it had been Christian princes that had called councils in the past and they should do the same once again. Thus, it would seem that Luther made a

139 Luther, “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,” 127.

140 Alister E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction (New York, NY: Blackwell, 1988), 142.

53

distinction that prevented princes from creating and altering doctrine, while making it incumbent on them to be the impetus for ecclesial reform.

Yet, even if the two kingdom theory explained above was Luther’s ideal there were a number of different interpretations of spiritual and secular power within the various territories of the empire and it appears that only political necessity led to eventual agreement among German Lutherans.141 Luther condemned in 1526,142 when

Phillip of sought the approval of Luther for his bigamous in 1540 when

Luther and other reformers stated that it was better for Phillip to enter into bigamy than commit and divorce his first wife. They taught bigamy was allowed only in this case for Phillip because of his struggle to avoid sexual escapades that put his soul in danger of .143 (Apparently these works did have a role in Luther’s notion of salvation). Even the idyllic reformer was subject to the pressure of a prince who threatened to change camps and become Catholic if the reformer did not agree to grant him the permission and allowance for a second wife.144

The events that transpired above show that Lutheran theology had become subject to the influence of the secular which Luther’s two kingdom theory would not have allowed even if Luther considered himself to be exempt from the Edict of Worms promulgated by Charles V. He could not escape having to rely on the German princes to spread his “rediscovered” gospel message. While Luther remained very critical of those

141 Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 149.

142 An unspecified letter of Martin Luther in John Alfred Faulkner, “Luther and the Bigamous Marriage of Philip of Hesse,” The American Journal of Theology 17, no. 2 (1913): 207.

143 Schilling, Martin Luther, 431.

144 Ibid., 430.

54

in leadership, Protestant or Catholic, his movement in many ways from the Diet of

Worms in 1521 to the Peace of in 1555 used by the princes to further their own political aims.

Charles V Attempts to Reassert His Authority

At the Diets of in 1526 and 1529, Charles V tried once again to enforce the Edict of Worms.145 This attempt was unsuccessful as even some Catholic princes did not like Charles’ further insertion into the political affairs of the empire. Most of the princes wanted greater autonomy from the emperor, and thus even if they were Catholic and wanted the of Catholicism throughout the empire, they were unwilling to concede their power to the emperor. 146

The Diet of Augsburg in 1530 highlighted just how contested the state of religion was within the empire just under a decade after the Diet of Worms. Charles had hoped to reunify the religions within the empire during this diet. While Cardinal Lorenzo

Campeggio, the papal legate, wanted to take a hard stance against Protestantism, Phillip

Melanchthon, a student of Luther and his successor at Wittenberg as the primary leader of the Lutheran reformation, was willing to concede even clerical to make the

Augsburg confession more congenial to Catholic theologians. Surprisingly, it was actually John of Saxony who defended the original confession compiled by the (a political alliance of Lutheran princes meant to form a united political force

145 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 165.

146 Bainton, The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, 147.

55

against the emperor) while Phillip Melanchthon was willing to bend to a number of

Catholic teachings and practices.147

Despite these concessions Charles still “declared the Protestant position untenable and threatened to use force as the protector of the Church. But the fact that he had not yet obtained the support of the estates against the Turkish danger led to further negotiations…[Still] he expressed his determination to enforce the Edict of Worms.”148

This resulted in a firmer unity between the Protestant princes who recognized Charles’ threat of force to implement the Edict of Worms. Fifteen years later when Charles could finally turn his attention to the Lutheran issue it was more difficult for him to fully stamp out the influence of Lutheranism in the empire.

Throughout the Charles struggled to impose his will upon the Holy Roman

Empire. This was in large part because he had to counter the Turkish threat in Hungary and throughout the Balkans as mentioned above and he would again have to contend with

Francis who would support the rise of the first Lutheran state in southern Germany by sending in French troops to reinstate the Lutheran Duke Ulrich in Württemberg. Further,

Francis would make an alliance with the Turkish Sultan Suleiman (along with Pope

Clement VII). Charles had to contend with the pirate Hayreddin Barbarossa’s interference with Spanish trade, a pirate who was allied with France against the

Hapsburgs. All these factors made it difficult for Charles to take decisive action against the Lutheran princes in Germany.149

147 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 166-167.

148 Ibid., 167-168.

149 Ibid., 175-177.

56

By 1540 it seemed that Charles was almost completely drained of his power in

Germany when he struck upon some “good” luck in the form of the assent of Luther,

Martin Bucer, and Melanchthon to the bigamy of Phillip of Hesse. Phillip was the greatest opponent of Charles in the Empire and the support given to Phillip by the primary leaders of the Reformation in Germany provided another opportunity for Charles to reassert his authority.

Thus, during the Charles would have more success in his attempts to slow the spread of the Lutheran Confession. Given that there was now more interest in reform within the hierarchy of Italy and other Catholic areas, Charles felt confident that he could now turn back the Lutheran tide within the Holy Roman Empire especially since he had settled many of the disputes that had previously kept him from focusing on the Lutheran issue.150 This effort resulted in a number of battles throughout the decade which ended in

1547 when Charles captured Wittenberg. Yet, less than ten years later Charles would abdicate the and his brother Ferdinand would succeed him.151 Ferdinand would then approve the Peace of Augsburg assuring freedom to Lutherans princes within the empire. This peace only discussed Catholics and Lutherans, with no direct mention of other Protestant sects.152 This served as further evidence to show that the concern of the princes was not so much about religious but primarily about their rights as rulers of their respective territories.

150 MacCulloch, The Reformation. 226-227.

151 Grimm, The Reformation Era 1500-1650, 276.

152 Ibid., 212.

57

Given this context, it is understandable that Charles was unable to squelch what

Charles viewed as Luther’s heretical message. In order to maintain the power needed to combat the forces trying to overthrow his empire, Charles had to attend to different conflicts throughout his many realms and even use Lutheran troops in order to defend his dynastic lands. It was not that Charles was an incompetent ruler, but that many different

European and Islamic leaders were working against him. These opponents included the pope who like other temporal leaders did not wish to see a universal Hapsburg monarchy.

Thus, Charles’ containment of Lutheranism to (for the most part) was a laudable feat and not an all-encompassing failure as a number of historians have suggested.

58

Conclusion

In the century preceding the Diet of Worms there were a number of forces within the Church and state that led to the disintegration of a united Christian Europe, yet there were still those that hoped to maintain the Catholicism of the . Those hoping for unity looked to an increasingly centralized papacy that could transcend national and serve as the final voice in religious matters, matters that touched every aspect of life at that time or a medieval universalism that was espoused by men such as Charles

V who believed that he could unite the entirety of Europe under the Hapsburg dynasty which would exalt Catholicism as the one true Faith and spread that faith to the New

World.

The era was impacted by intellectual movements that led to the theological “turn- to-the-subject” that would define the Protestant Reformation. The era embraced new methods of learning that were really a return to the classics. These methods led to a questioning of the basis of authority in society, including the role of the Church.

At the Diet of Worms there was a struggle between the German princes and the emperor over power within the empire. This struggle was shown in the trial of Luther at

Worms in which Luther defied the authority of the pope and declared the authority of scripture to be the supreme power in Christianity, evidence of the theological turn-to-the- subject discussed above. The princes used this challenge to authority to become the masters of ecclesial matters within their territories and thus supported Luther in part for their own gain. At the same time the Emperor Charles V asserted the authority of the emperor over the princes by enforcing the pope’s condemnation of Luther in an effort to maintain the Holy Roman Empire as a one faith entity.

59

Charles attempted to maintain religious unity by promulgating the Edict of

Worms which demanded that Luther be condemned and thus in Charles’ eyes be brought to justice. Charles attended to a number of challenges in the 1520s and 1530s within his vast sovereign holdings before he could try to put an end to the Lutheran heresy in

Germany. By the time he attempted to do so, Lutheranism had become entrenched and

Charles would abdicate the imperial throne in acknowledgement of his failure.

The princes responded to the Edict of Worms by circumventing the edict and implementing Luther’s idea of reform. Luther endorsed this initially but would come to see that the princes had more than religious reform in mind. The princes wished to use

Luther to obtain autonomy from the authority of the emperor.

Thus, Luther became entangled in politics especially following the Diet of

Worms. In part this was a necessity for Luther, a form of quid pro quo, because he was protected by the German princes. But at the same time Luther had championed the separation of the spiritual and temporal but would come to rely on the Lutheran princes to implement his reform not to mention also quell dissident groups, like the Anabaptists who tried to mangle the truth of the Gospel he believed he had rediscovered. His of the princes’ war against the Peasants’ Revolt and Phillip of Hesse’s bigamy show not primarily Luther’s hypocrisy but instead that the German princes saw the usefulness of

Luther’s theology in achieving their political ends. At times an expedient Luther would embrace this reality while at other times he would bemoan the actions of the German princes.

The Diet of Worms’ legacy is that the Reformation was more than a religious movement. It had both political and social elements that were already present before 1521

60

and continue to influence the state of both religion and society down to the present day.

Luther’s reform began as a personal search for salvation but in the wake of the diet became largely a political and religious program that would result in the idealistic reformer becoming a tool in the hand of the German princes.

61

Bibliography

Atkinson, James. The Trial of Luther. Edited by J.P. Kenyon. Historic Trials Series. New York: Stein and Day, 1971.

Bagchi, David V. N. Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists, 1518- 1525. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1991.

Bagchi, David V. N., and David Curtis Steinmetz, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Reformation Theology. Cambridge Companions to Religion. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Bainton, Roland H. The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century. Enl. ed. Boston: Beacon Press, 1985.

Bireley, Robert. The Refashioning of Catholicism, 1450-1700: A Reassessment of the Counter Reformation. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1999.

Blickle, Peter. The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants War from a new perspective [Die Revolution von 1525]. Translated by Thomas Brady and Erik Midelfort. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.

Boone, Rebecca Ard. Mercurino Di Gattinara and the Creation of the Spanish Empire. Empires in Perspective, 23. Brookfield, VT: Pickering & Chatto, 2014.

Brady, Thomas A., Heiko Augustinus Oberman, and James D. Tracy, eds. Handbook of European History, 1400-1600: , Renaissance, and Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 1996.

Carroll, Warren Hasty. The Cleaving of Christendom. Front Royal, VA: Christendom Press, 2000.

Evans, Robert John Weston. The Making of the , 1550-1700: An Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1984.

Faulkner, John Alfred. “Luther and the Bigamous Marriage of Philip of Hesse.” The American Journal of Theology 17, no. 2 (1913): 206–31.

Forell, George W., ed. Introduction in Luther’s Works: Career of the Reformer II. American Edition. Vol. 32. 55 vols. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958.

Grimm, Harold. The Reformation Era 1500-1650. 2nd Edition. New York: Macmillian Publishing Co., 1973.

Gritsch, Eric W. “The Diet of Worms.” Christian History 9, no. 4 (November 1990): 36.

62

Hillerbrand, Hans Joachim. The Division of Christendom: Christianity in the Sixteenth Century. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007.

Holy Roman Empire, and Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, eds. Deutsche Reichstagsakten: Jüngere Reihe. Gotha: F. A. Perthes, 1893.

Kleinschmidt, Harald. Charles V: The World Emperor. Stroud: Sutton, 2004.

Kolb, Robert. Martin Luther as , Teacher, Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520 - 1620. Texts and Studies in Reformation and Post-Reformation Thought. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999.

Lamberigts, Mathijs, Lieven Boeve, Terrence Merrigan, and Dirk Claes. Theology and the Quest for Truth: Historical- and Systematic-Theological Studies. Dudley, MA: Leuven University Press, 2007.

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Edited by James Atkinson. Vols. 25, 31, 32, 35, 36, 44, 46, 48, 55. Saint Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1958-1986.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. The Reformation. London: Penguin Books, 2005.

McGrath, Alister E. Reformation Thought: An Introduction. New York: Blackwell, 1988.

Montgomery, Robert L. The Lopsided Spread of Christianity: Toward an Understanding of the Diffusion of Religions. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002.

Monti, James. A Sense of the Sacred: Roman Catholic in the Middle Ages. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012.

Noll, Mark A. Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the . Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2012.

Pastor, Ludwig, Frederick Ignatius Antrobus, Ralph Francis Kerr, Ernest , and E. F. Peeler. The History of the Popes: From the Close of the Middle Ages. Vol. VII. St. Louis, MO: Herder, 1923.

Rosin, Robert. “Luther at Worms and the Wartburg: Still Confessing: Find It!” Concordia Journal 32, no. 2 (April 2006): 161–74.

Rupp, Gordon. Luther’s Progress to the Diet of Worms. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Schilling, Heinz. Martin Luther: Rebel in an Age of Upheaval. Translated by Rona Johnston Gordon. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Scribner, R.W. “Why Was There No Reformation in Cologne?” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 49, no. 120 (November 1, 1976): 217–41.

Skydsgaard, Kristen Ejner. One in Christ. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1957.

63

Steinmetz, David Curtis. Luther in Context. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Strodes, James. “The First Brexit.’” The Washington Times. Accessed , 2017. //www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/26/book-review-four-princes/.

Wellman, Sam. Frederick the Wise: Seen and Unseen Lives of Martin Luther’s Protector. St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2015.

Wicks, Jared. Luther and His Spiritual Legacy. Wilmington, DE: M. Glazier, 1983.

64