§ 56. REFLECTIONS ON LUTHER’S TESTIMONY. 919
respect for the Apostles’ Creed on which his own Catechism is based. But he protested against the Council of Constance for condemning the opinions of Hus, which he thought were in accordance with the Scriptures. The Roman Church itself must admit the fallibility of councils if the Vatican decree of papal infallibility is to stand; for more than one cecumenical council has denounced Pope Honorius as a heretic, and even Popes have confirmed the condemnation of their predecessor. Two conflicting infallibilities neutralize each other.!
Luther did not appeal to his conscience alone, but first and last to the Scripture as he understood it after the most earnest study. His conscience, as he said, was bound in the word of God, who cannot err. There, and there alone, he recognized infallibility. By recanting, he would have committed a grievous sin.
One man with the truth on his side is stronger than a majority in error, and will conquer in the end. Christ was right against the whole Jewish hierarchy, against Herod and Pilate, who conspired in condemning him to the cross. St. Paul was right against Judaism and heathenism combined, “yunus versus mundum;” St. Athanasius, “the father of orthodoxy,” was right against dominant Arianism; Galileo Galilei was right against the Inquisition and the common opinion of his age on the motion of the earth; Déllinger was right against the Vatican Council when, “as a Christian, as a theologian, as an historian, and as a citizen,” he protested against the new dogma of the infallibility of the Pope.?
1 See my Church Hist., vol. TV. 500 sqq.; and Creeds of Christendom, vol. I. 169 sqq.
2 Déllinger’s declaration of March 28, 1871, for which he was excommunicated, April 17, 1871, notwithstanding his eminent services to the Roman Catholic Church as her most learned historian, bears some resemblance to Luther’s declaration at Worms. See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I. 195 sqq.
814 THE GERMAN REFORMATION. A.D. 1517 To 1530.
That Luther was right in refusing to recant, and that he uttered the will of Providence in bearing testimony to the supremacy of the word of God and the freedom of conscience, has been made manifest by the verdict of history.
§ 57. Private Conferences with Luther. The Emperor's Conduct.
On the morning after Luther’s testimony, the Emperor sent a message—a sort of personal confession of faith — written by his own hand in French, to the Estates, informing them, that in consistency with his duty as the successor of the most Christian emperors of Germany and the Catholic kings of Spain, who had always been true to the Roman> Church, he would now treat Luther, after sending him home with his safe-conduct, as an obstinate and convicted heretic, and defend with all his might the faith of his forefathers and of the councils, especially that of Constance.!
Some of the deputies grew pale at this decision; the Romanists rejoiced. But in view of the state of public sentiment the Diet deemed it expedient to attempt private negotiations for a peaceful settlement, in the hope that Luther might be induced to withdraw or at least to moderate his dissent from the general councils. The Emperor yielded in spite of Aleander’s protest.
The negotiations were conducted chiefly by Richard von Greiffenklau, Elector and Archbishop of Treves, and at his residence. He was a benevolent and moderate churchman, to whom the Elector Frederick and Baron Miltitz had once desired to submit the controversy. The Elector of Brandenburg, Duke George of Saxony, Dr. Vehus (chancellor of the Margrave of Baden), Dr. Eck of Treves, Dean Cochleus of
1 Walch, XV. 2235-2237.
§ 57. PRIVATE CONFERENCES WITH LUTHER. 315
Frankfort,! and the deputies of Strasburg and Augsburg, likewise took part in the conferences.
These men were just as honest as Luther, but they occupied the standpoint of the medieval Church, and could not appreciate his departure from the beaten track. The archbishop was very kind and gracious to Luther, as the latter himself admitted. He simply required that in Christian humility he should withdraw his objections to the Council of Constance, leave the matter for the present with the Emperor and the Diet, and promise to accept the final verdict of a future council unfettered by a previous decision of the Pope. Such a council might re-assert its superiority over the Pope, as the reformatory councils of the fifteenth century had done.
But Luther had reason to fear the result of such submission, and remained as hard as a rock. He insisted on the supremacy of the word of God over all councils, and the right of judging for himself according to his conscience.” He declared at last, that unless convinced by the Scriptures or “clear and evident reasons,” he could not yield, no matter what might happen to him; and that he was willing to abide
1 John Cochleus (his original name was Dobeneck; Ὁ. 1479, at Wendelstein in Franconia, d. at Bresau, 1552) was at first as a humanist an admirer of Luther, but turned against him shortly before the Diet of Worms, and became one of his bitterest literary opponents. He went to Worms unasked, and wished to provoke him to a public disputation. He was employed by the Archbishop of Treves as theological counsel, and by Aleander as a spy. Aleander paid him ten guilders ‘‘per sue spese’’ (see his dispatch of April 29 in Brieger, I. 175). Cochleus wrote about 190 books, mostly polemical against the Reformers, and mostly forgotten. Luther treated him with great contempt, and usually calls him ‘‘ Doctor Rotzloffel,’’ also ‘‘ Kochloffel.”’ See Works, ἘΠ]. ed., XX XI. 270 sq., 276 sq., 302 sq.; LXII. 74, 78. Otto, Johann Cochlaus, der Humanist, Breslau, 1874; Felician Gess, Johannes Cochleus, der Gegner Luthers, Oppeln, 1886, IV. 62 pages.
2 ““Gnddiger Herr,’’ he said to the Archbishop of Trier, “ich kann alles leiden, aber die heilige Schrift kann ich nicht iibergeben.’? And again: “* Lieber will ich Kopf und Leben verlieren, als das klare Wort Gottes verlassen.”’