3. This rule employed to interpret the Bible and to settle controversies that might arise, Luther rejected. Writing in defense of his conduct in burning the papal bull of excommunication and the decretals of the popes, he said:
Let no man's good sense be so far seduced as to reverence the volumes I have burnt, on account of their great antiquity or their high titles. Let every one first hear and see what the pope teaches in his own books, and what abominable, poisonous doctrines are to be found among the sacred, spiritual laws; and then let him freely judge, whether I have done right or not in burning such writings.
4. Among the teachings in the decretals which Luther held up for special condemnation were the following:
(1) The pope has the power to interpret scripture, and to teach as he pleases; and no person is allowed to interpret in a different way. (2) The pope does not derive from the scripture but the scripture derives from the pope, authority, power and dignity.
He then affirms that comparing together the different parts of the canon law, its language amounts to this:
That the pope is God on earth; above all that is earthly or heavenly, temporal or spiritual; that all things belong to the pope; and that no one must venture to say, what doest thou?[[35]]
It was against this arbitrary authority that Luther rebelled.
5. Attempted Settlement by a General Council.—At last when through the influence of the emperor the pope consented to appoint a council, a difficulty arose as to where it should be held. The pope on his part seemed determined to have it assemble in Italy, or in some country where his influence would predominate; the Reformers were equally determined to submit their cause to no council outside of Germany. The difficulty had arisen in Germany; they insisted it should be settled by a council in Germany, or by a diet of the empire. The cause was never fairly tried by a council of the whole church; the revolt against the authority of the pope was sustained by an appeal to arms, as related in section I, Part III, of this work.
6. Revolution, not Rebellion.—Had that revolt against the Catholic church been a revolt against legitimate authority it would have been rebellion: but as it was against a usurped and hence an illegitimate authority, it was a justifiable revolution. For in ecclesiastical government, no less than in civil government, if a long train of abuses renders it odious, and those who execute it are tyrannical and usurp authority which the law of God does not sanction, by which unrighteous dominion is exercised over the minds of men, it is the right of the people to resist such authority: and refuse to sustain those who exercise that unrighteous dominion to please their vanity or gratify their ambition.
7. True Position, but a Corrupt Church.—The position that the church, officered by inspired prophets and apostles—men having by virtue of their priesthood and official position a right to the inspiration and revelations of God—the position that the church of Christ so officered, has the right to decide upon all controversies and to determine the meaning of scripture, is, beyond all questioning, a true position. But the difficulty with the Roman Catholic church was that it was no longer the church of Christ, as already proven in Part II of this work. It had no prophets or apostles, no men who had a right to the revelations of God. The popes and bishops of the church taught that revelation had ceased, and they depended on scripture and tradition alone, interpreted by themselves, for their guide. The power the church possessed was usurped power merely, the growth of ages. It had become both arrogant and insolent, and at last intolerable, and when a man was found possessing the courage to resent its presumption and defy it, he found plenty to applaud and sanction his act.