15. The Indifference of Leo X to the Agitation in Germany.—The dispute which arose between Luther and Tetzel was looked upon at Rome as the wrangle between two monks—Luther was an Augustine monk, Tetzel a Dominican; and it was supposed that the former was jealous because the Dominicans had been preferred for this work of selling indulgences. In addition to assailing Tetzel, Luther wrote a protest to Albert, Archbishop of Mentz and Magdeburg, and was as surprised as he was indignant to learn that the archbishop received of the profits arising from this wretched traffic. His assault upon Tetzel provoked a protracted controversy, a war of pamphlets between himself and Tetzel and his friends, among whom was John Eckius, a theologian of Ingolstadt. The dispute on both sides was more noted for its warmth than for its Christian character.
16. At last Leo X was aroused from his indifference to the controversy that had arisen in Germany, by the emperor, Maximilian I informing him that the agitation was serious, and that Germany was taking sides in respect to it. He therefore appointed Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, then at the diet of Augsburg, to hear the cause of Luther. The cardinal summoned the monk before him at Augsburg, in October, 1518. They had three interviews, but nothing was accomplished towards reconciliation, as the cardinal treated Luther imperiously, and peremptorily ordered him to submit his judgment to the authority of the pope. This the reformer refused to do until he was convinced of his error, and appealed from the pope ill-informed to the pope better-informed. This took the matter out of the hands of the cardinal.
17. An Appeal to a General Council.—There was a difference between the Reformer and the cardinal in their views in respect to authorities appealed to. The latter sought to convince the former of his errors by appealing to the canon law,[[9]] and the authority of Lombard;[[10]] but Luther refused to admit of any proof except that of the holy scripture, and as the cardinal seems not to have been able to make good his censure of the Reformer's doctrines by proofs from the scriptures, Luther appealed to the pope better informed. But Leo X, the month following (Nov. 9th), issued an edict requiring the church to believe in his power to forgive sins. Learning of this, Luther promptly appealed from the pope to a future council of the whole church.[[11]]
18. Discussion on Free Will.—Meantime the points of disagreement between the Reformer and the church of Rome increased. In 1519 John Eckius [Eck-ius] challenged Andrew Carlstadt [Karl-stat], a friend and colleague of Luther's, to a discussion on the subject of Free Will, about which there was a disagreement between the Reformer and those who thought with him—among whom was Carlstadt—and the adherents of the church of Rome. In this dispute Carlstadt maintained—and of course his were Luther's views—that since the fall, the natural freedom of man is not strong enough to move him to that which is morally good, or to do the will of God. Eckius on the contrary insisted that the free will of man produces good works, and not merely the grace of God; that our free will co-operates with divine grace in the production of good works, and that it depends on man's free power, whether he will give place to the operations of grace or will resist them.
19. Luther and Eckius.—After this dispute with Carlstadt, Eckius drew Luther—who had been present at the discussion on Free Will—into a public debate on the foundation of the authority of the pope. Eckius maintained the orthodox view that the supremacy of the pope was founded on divine right, that he was the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of Christ. Luther allowed the superiority of the pope over other bishops, but based that superiority on other grounds. He could not deny that the pontiffs had possessed a decided pre-eminence from age to age, and therefore he conceived it as his duty not to resist the powers that be. "Unless it had been the will of God," he went on to say, "the pope could never have attained so great and durable a dominion. The whole body of the Christians own themselves to be under the Roman pontiff. This universal consent is a consideration of the greatest weight; the unity of the church should be preserved in everything that is not directly contrary to the word of God."[[12]]
20. In all these admissions, however, it will be observed that the Reformer placed the supremacy of the pontiffs on human, not divine right. It was based upon tradition, upon human arrangement. To the contention of Eckius that the expressions—"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom"—evinced the supremacy of Peter and his successors; that this was the explanation given by the holy fathers, etc., Luther replied: That even if all the fathers, without exception, had understood the passages in that sense, he would confute them by the authority of St. Paul, and by St. Peter himself, who said that Jesus Christ is the only foundation and corner-stone of the church. And further, if the words "Thou art Peter," etc., be construed strictly then they must be confined to the person of Peter and therefore the authority conveyed by them ceased when that apostle died.[[13]]
21. The dispute amounted to nothing except that it widened the breach between the See of Rome and the Reformer. The latter, while preparing for his discussion with Eckius, had his suspicions aroused that the pope was the very anti-Christ of the New Testament. At the conclusion of the debate, George, Duke of Saxony, said to the disputants, privately, "Whether the pope exists by divine or by human right, he is, however, the pope;" and that remark doubtless expressed the sentiments of the papist party.
22. Luther Condemned and Excommunicated.—Eckius hastened to Rome after the discussion at Leipsic [Lip-sik], where, with the assistance of other enemies of Luther, among them Cardinal Cajetan, he urged Leo X to condemn him and his works. This Leo did by issuing a bull, in which forty-one of his tenets were pronounced heretical; his writings condemned to the flames, and he himself commanded to confess his faults within sixty days, beg the forgiveness of the pope or be excommunicated from the church.
23. This bull of condemnation Luther burned; together with a copy of the pontifical canon law, in the presence of a vast multitude. (See note 6, end of section.) By this act he meant to withdraw from the church of Rome, that the excommunication which was expected to follow might be robbed of its force. About a month later—4th of January, 1521—the second bull of Leo was issued in which the Reformer was expelled from the Catholic church for his heresies and for violating the majesty of the pontiff. (See note 7, end of section.)
24. Luther Before the Diet at Worms.—After issuing his bull of excommunication, Leo X called upon the emperor of Germany, Charles V, to vindicate his title to "Advocate and Defender of the Church," by inflicting due punishment on that "rebellious member, Martin Luther." Charles, however, was under deep obligations to Frederic, the Wise, Elector of Saxony, for his election by the states of Germany to the imperial dignity; and Frederic, being a warm friend of Luther's and favorable in the main to his doctrines, advised the emperor to take no action against the Reformer until he had given him a hearing. This course Charles resolved to follow, and therefore summoned Luther to appear before the diet which assembled at Worms in 1521.[[14]]