In May, 1518, he wrote assuring him in the most respectful terms,
that he submitted unconditionally to the judgment of the Church
whatever he was advancing concerning Indulgences and kindred
subjects; that the Bishop was to burn all his scribbles (Theses and
Resolutions) should they displease him, and that he would “not mind
in the least.”[229]--And yet a confidential letter sent three months
earlier to his friend Spalatin mentions, though for the benefit of
him “alone and our friends,” that the whole system of Indulgences now
seemed to Luther a “deluding of souls, good only to promote spiritual
laziness.”[230]
To the Emperor too he also gives assurances couched in submissive and
peaceful language, which are in marked contrast with other statements
which emanated from him about the same time.
It is only necessary to recall his letter of Aug. 30, 1520, to
Charles V.[231] Here Luther seeks to convince the Emperor that he
is the quietest and most docile of theologians; who was “forced to
write only owing to the snares laid for him by others”; who wished
for nothing more than to be ignored and left in peace; and who was
ready at any moment to welcome the instruction which so far had been
refused him.--Very different was his language a few weeks earlier when
writing to Spalatin, his tool at the Electoral Court of Saxony: “The
die is cast; the despicable fury or favour of the Romans is nothing
to me; I desire no reconciliation or communion with them.... I shall
burn the whole of the Papal Laws and all humility and friendliness
shall cease.”[232] He even hopes, with the help of Spalatin and the
Elector, to send to Rome the ominous tidings of the offer made by the
Knight Silvester von Schauenburg to protect him by armed force; they
might then see at Rome “that their thunders are of no avail”; should
they, however, obtain from the Elector his dismissal from his chair
at Wittenberg, then, “with the support of the men-at-arms, he would
make things still warmer for the Romans.”[233] And yet, on the other
hand, Luther was just then most anxious that Spalatin, by means of the
Elector, should represent his cause everywhere, and particularly at
Rome, as not yet defined, as a point of controversy urgently calling
for examination or, at the very least, for a biblical refutation
before the Emperor and the Church; the Sovereign also was to tell the
Romans that “violence and censures would only make the case of Germany
worse even than that of Bohemia,” and would lead to “irrepressible
tumults.” In such wise, by dint of dishonest diplomacy, did he seek
to frighten, as he says, the “timid Romanists” and thus prevent their
taking any steps against him.[234]
If we go back a little further we find a real and irreconcilable
discrepancy between the actual events of the Indulgence controversy
of 1517 and 1518 and the accounts which he himself gave of them later.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account