Luther, however, recommended to his friend the sermons of Tauler. "I have never seen," said he, "either in Latin or our own tongue a sounder theology, or one more agreeable to the gospel. Taste and see how sweet the Lord is; but be it after you have tasted and seen how bitter every thing is that is ours."[273]

[273] "Quam amarum est quicquid nos sumus." (Ibid. p. 46.)

It was in the course of the year 1517 that Luther entered into communication with Duke George of Saxony. The House of Saxony had then two heads. The princes, Ernest and Albert, carried off in their youth from the castle of Altenbourg by Kunz of Kaufungen, had, by the treaty of Leipsic, become the founders of the two houses which still bear their name. The Elector Frederick, the son of Ernest, at the period of which we write, was the chief of the Ernestine branch, while his brother, Duke George, was chief of the Albertine branch. Dresden and Leipsic were in the states of the duke, who had his residence in the former of these cities. His mother, Sidonia, was daughter of George Podiebrad, King of Bohemia. The long struggle which Bohemia had maintained with Rome, from the days of John Huss, had had some influence on the prince of Saxony, and he had often shown a desire for a reformation. "He has sucked it from his mother," it was said: "he is by birth an enemy of the clergy."[274] He in various ways annoyed the bishops, abbots, canons, and monks, in so much that his cousin, the elector, was more than once obliged to interpose in their behalf. It might have been supposed that Duke George would be a warm partisan of the Reformation. Devout Frederick, on the contrary, who had once put on the spurs of Gregory in the Holy Sepulchre, girt himself with the great ponderous sword of the conqueror of Jerusalem, and taking an oath to combat for the Church, like a bold knight, might have been expected to prove one of the most eager champions of Rome. But when the gospel is in question, the antic.i.p.ations of human wisdom are often at fault. The result was the opposite of what might have been supposed. The duke would have taken pleasure in humbling the Church, and those connected with it, and lowering the bishops, whose princely train far surpa.s.sed his own; but to receive into his heart the evangelical doctrine which must have humbled it, to acknowledge himself a guilty sinner, incapable of being saved, unless through grace, was quite a different matter. He would willingly have reformed others, but he had no desire to reform himself. He would, perhaps, have a.s.sisted in obliging the bishop of Mentz to be contented with a single bishopric, and have no more than fourteen horses in his stable, as he himself repeatedly expressed it;[275] but when he saw another than himself appear as reformer,--when he saw a mere monk undertake the work,--and the Reformation gaining numerous adherents among the humbler cla.s.ses,--the haughty grandson of the Hussite king became the most violent adversary of the reform of which he had at first promised to be a partisan.

[274] Luth. Op. (W.) xxii, p. 1849.

[275] Ibid.

In July 1517, Duke George asked Staupitz to send him a learned and eloquent preacher. Staupitz sent Luther representing him as a man of great learning and irreproachable character. The prince invited him to preach at Dresden, in the chapel of the castle on the feast of St.

James the Elder.

On the day fixed the duke and his court proceeded to the chapel to hear the preacher of Wittemberg.

Luther gladly seized the occasion to bear testimony to the truth before such an a.s.sembly. He took for his text the gospel of the day, "Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons."

(Matth., xx, 20-25.) He preached on the wishes and rash prayers of men; then dwelt strongly on the a.s.surance of salvation, making it rest on this foundation, viz., That those who hear the word of G.o.d with faith are the true disciples, whom Jesus Christ has elected unto eternal life. He next treated of eternal election, showing that this doctrine, when exhibited in connection with the work of Christ, is well fitted to calm the terrors of conscience, and so, instead of disposing men to flee from G.o.d, allures them to seek their refuge in Him. In conclusion, he brought forward a parable of three virgins, and drew a very instructive improvement from it.

The word of truth made a deep impression on the hearers. Two in particular appeared to give earnest attention to the discourse of the monk of Wittemberg. The one was a respectable looking lady who sat in one of the court pews, and whose features bespoke deep emotion. It was Madam de la Sale, grand mistress to the d.u.c.h.ess. The other was Jerome Emser, a licentiate in canon law, and secretary and counsellor to the duke. Emser was a man of talent and extensive information. A courtier and able politician, his wish would have been to please both parties at once; to pa.s.s at Rome for a defender of the papacy, and at the same time figure in Germany among the learned men of the age. But under this flexible spirit a violent temper lay concealed. Thus Luther and Emser, who were afterwards repeatedly to break a lance, met for the first time in the chapel of the castle of Dresden.

The dinner-bell having rung for the inmates of the castle, the ducal family and the persons attached to the court were soon seated at the table. The conversation naturally turned on the preacher of the morning. "How did you like the sermon?" said the duke to Madam de la Sale. "Could I again hear such another discourse," replied she, "I could die in peace." "And I," replied George, angrily, "would give a good sum not to have heard it. Such discourses are good only to make people sin with confidence."

The master having thus stated his opinion, the courtiers proceded without restraint to express their dissatisfaction. Every one was ready with his remark. Some alleged, that in the parable of the three virgins, Luther had had three ladies of the court in his eye. On this the talk was endless. They rallied the three ladies whom they affirmed that Luther had intended.[276] He is an ignorant blockhead, said one.

He is a proud monk, said another. Each had his comment on the sermon, making the preacher say whatever he pleased. The truth had fallen into the midst of a court ill prepared to receive it. Every one tore it at pleasure. But while the word of G.o.d was to many an occasion of stumbling, to the grand mistress it was a stone "elect and precious."

Falling sick about a month after, she confidently embraced the grace of the Saviour, and died rejoicing.[277]

[276] "Has tres postea in aula principis a me notatas garrierunt."

(Luth. Ep. i, 85.) It was afterwards prattled that I had alluded to three ladies of the court.

[277] Keith, Leb. Luth., p. 32.

In regard to the duke, perhaps the testimony which he had heard given to the truth was not in vain. However much he opposed the Reformation during his life, it is known that in his last moments he declared, that his only hope was in the merits of Jesus Christ.

It naturally fell to Emser to do the honours to Luther in his master's name. He accordingly invited him to supper. Luther refused; but Emser insisted and constrained him to come. Luther only expected to meet a few friends, but he soon perceived that a trap had been laid for him.[278] A master of arts from Leipsic, and several Dominicans, were with the prince's secretary. The master of arts, who had an overweening opinion of himself, and a deep hatred of Luther, accosted him with a bland and friendly air; but he soon broke out, and screamed at full pitch.[279] The battle began. "The discussion," says Luther, "turned on the absurdities of Aristotle and St. Thomas."[280] At last Luther challenged the master of arts, with all the erudition of the Thomists, to define what it was to fulfil the commandments of G.o.d. The master of arts, though embarra.s.sed, put on a good countenance. "Pay me my fees," says he, stretching out his hand, "_da pastum_." One would have said, he was going to give a lesson in form, mistaking the guests for his pupils. "At this foolish reply," adds the Reformer, "we all burst a laughing, and the party broke up."

[278] "Inter medias me insidias conjectum." (Luth. Ep. i, 85.) That I had fallen into a snare.

[279] "In me acriter et clamose invectus est." (Ibid.) He keenly and clamorously inveighed against me.

[280] "Super Aristotelis et Thomae nugis." (Ibid.) On the trifles of Aristotle and Thomas.

During the conversation, a Dominican had been listening at the door, and would fain have come in to spit in Luther's face.[281] He refrained, however, though he afterwards made a boast of it. Emser, who had been delighted at seeing his guests battling, while he seemed to hold a due medium, hastened to apologise to Luther for the manner in which the party had gone off.[282] Luther returned to Wittemberg.

[281] "Ne prodiret et in faciem meam spueret." (Luth. Ep. i, 85.) From coming forward and spitting in my face.

[282] "Enixe se excusavit." (Ibid.) Earnestly excused himself.

CHAP. XI

Return to Wittemberg--Theses--Nature of Man--Rationalism--Demand at Erfurt--Eck--Urban Regius--Luther's Modesty.

Luther zealously resumed his labours. He was preparing six or seven young theologians, who were forthwith to undergo an examination in order to obtain a licence to teach. And what most delighted him was, that their promotion was to be to Aristotle's disgrace. "I should like," said he, "to multiply his enemies as fast as possible."[283]

With that view, he at this time published Theses, which deserve attention.

[283] "Cujus vellem hostes cito quam plurimos fieri." (Luth. Ep. i, 59.) Whose enemies I could wish quickly to become as numerous as possible.

The leading topic which he discussed was _liberty_. He had already glanced at it in the theses of Feldkirchen, but now went deeper into it. Ever since Christianity began, there has been a struggle, more or less keen, between the opposite doctrines of the freedom and the slavery of man. Some schoolmen had taught, like Pelagius and others, that man possessed in himself the liberty or power of loving G.o.d and doing good. Luther denied this liberty, not to deprive man of it, but, on the contrary, to make him obtain it. The struggle, then, in this great question, is not, as is usually said, between liberty and servitude; but between a liberty proceeding from man, and a liberty proceeding from G.o.d. Some who call themselves the advocates of liberty, say to man, "You have the power of doing good, and require a greater liberty." Others, who have been called advocates of slavery, say to him, on the contrary, "You have no true liberty; but G.o.d offers it to you in the gospel." The one party speaks of liberty, but a liberty which must end in slavery; while the other speaks of slavery, in order to give liberty. Such was the struggle in the time of St.

Paul, in the time of Augustine, and in the time of Luther. Those who say "Change nothing!" are champions of slavery. Those who say "Let your fetters fall!" are champions of liberty.

It would be a mistake, however, to suppose that the whole Reformation can be summed up in this particular question. It is one of the many doctrines which the Wittemberg doctor maintained--that is all. It would, above all, be a strange illusion to hold, that the Reformation was fatalism, or an opposition to liberty. It was a magnificent emanc.i.p.ation of the human mind. Bursting the numerous bands with which thought had been bound by the hierarchy, and reviving the ideas of liberty, right, and examination, it delivered its own age, and with it ours also, and the remotest posterity. And let it not be said that the Reformation, while it freed man from human despotism, enslaved him by proclaiming the sovereignty of grace. No doubt, it wished to bring back the human will to the Divine, to subordinate the one, and completely merge it in the other; but what philosopher knows not that entire conformity to the will of G.o.d alone const.i.tutes sovereign, perfect freedom; and that man will never be truly free, until supreme righteousness and truth have sole dominion over him?

The following are some of the Ninety-nine Propositions which Luther sent forth into the Church, in opposition to the Pelagian rationalism of scholastic theology.

"It is true that man, who is become a corrupt tree, can only will and do what is evil.

"It is not true that the will, when left to itself, can do good as well as evil; for it is not free but captive.

"It is not in the power of the will of man to choose or reject whatever is presented to it.

"Man cannot naturally wish G.o.d to be G.o.d. His wish is that he himself were G.o.d, and that G.o.d were no G.o.d.

"The excellent, infallible, and sole preparation for grace, is the eternal election and predestination of G.o.d.[284]

[284] "Optima et infallibilis ad gratiam praeparatio et unice dispositio, est aeterna Dei electio et praedestinatio." (Luth. Op. (L.) i, 56.) The best and infallible preparation, and the only predisposition for grace, is the eternal election and predestination of G.o.d.

"It is false to say that when man does all he can, he clears away the obstacles to grace.

"In one word, nature possesses neither a pure reason nor a good will.[285]

[285] "Breviter, nec r.e.c.t.u.m dictamen habet natura nec bonam voluntatem." (Ibid.) Briefly, nature has neither a right dictate nor a good will.

"On the part of man, there is nothing which precedes grace, unless it be impotence and even rebellion.

"There is no moral virtue without pride or sullenness, that is to say, without sin.

"From the beginning to the end we are not the masters of our actions, but the slaves of them.

"We do not become righteous by doing what is righteous, but having become righteous we do what is righteous.

"He who says that a theologian who is not a logician is a heretic and an adventurer, maintains an adventurous and heretical proposition.

"There is no form of reasoning (syllogism) which accords with the things of G.o.d.[286]

[286] "Nulla forma syllogistica tenet in terminis divinis." (Luth. Op.

(L.) i, 56.) No syllogistic form holds in divine terms.