Is Martin Luther innocent or guilty of these charges?

Transcription

1 Background: Due to a quirk in time, you have been transported back to the year 1520 and the city of Worms. Here, you find yourself involved in the trial of the German Monk, Martin Luther, who has given himself up to the authority of the Catholic Church to address the charges that he is, in two words, a heretical revolutionary. The specific charges are as follows: Count 1. Count 2. Count 3. Development and preaching of heretical doctrines Inciting members of the Catholic Church to rebel against the authority and established doctrines of the universal Church Willful denial of the authority of the Pope and Catholic Church Is Martin Luther innocent or guilty of these charges?

2 Mock Trial 1. Prosecution Opening Statement (1-2 minutes) 2. Defense Opening Statement (1-2 minutes) 3. Prosecution Questioning of Witnesses (10 minutes) a. 3-5 questions per witness 4. Defense Questioning of Witnesses (10 minutes) a. 3-5 questions per witness 5. Prosecution Cross Examination (5 minutes) 6. Defendant Cross Examination (5 minutes) 7. Prosecution Closing Statement (1 minute) 8. Defendant Closing Statement (1 minute) 9. Verdict issued by Charles V and Cardinals Prosecuting Attorney(s) 1. Opening Statement 2. Questioning 3. Cross Examination 4. Closing Statement The Prosecution: Pope Leo X, Johann Tetzel, Ignatius Loyola, Thomas More, Albert of Mainz Defense Attorney(s) The Defense: Martin Luther, John Calvin, 1. Opening Statement Erasmus, Peasant Revolter, John Wycliffe 2. Questioning 3. Cross Examination 4. Closing Statement The Holy Roman Emperor Charles V is presiding over this trial with three Roman Catholic cardinals acting as supporting judges.

3 When did I live? Where did I live? What religion was I? Mock Trial Research Sheet What is my role? Historical Figures Research Accomplishments: How did my life contribute to the Protestant Reformation? Do I support the Church or Martin Luther and why? Significance of my historical figure in the trial:

4 Write 3 questions your attorney should ask you if they wanted to prove their side of the case. Include questions and answers. What about you could be used to support the other side of the case?

5 Mock Trial Research Sheet What is my role? Lawyers Research What am I trying to prove? Factual evidence that supports my case: Who am I questioning in the trial and why?

6 Opening Statement:

7 Witness Questions: 3-5 questions per witness

8 Cross Examination Questions: 3-5 questions per witness Include questions and answers.

9 Closing Statement:

10 Court Officials Assignment Trial of Martin Luther The Judges and News Staff must be knowledgeable about all historical information being presented by the prosecuting side and defending side. They must know and record the historical significance of each member that is present at the trial. Directions: Provide 2-3 brief bullets on why the witness is pertinent to the trial. Prosecuting Side These witnesses oppose Martin Luther, research why WITNESS INFORMATION Pope Leo X Johann Tetzel Ignatius Loyal Albert of Mainz Thomas More

11 Defense Side These witnesses support Martin Luther, research why WITNESS INFORMATION Martin Luther (what did he do and why did he do it?) John Calvin German Peasant Revolter Erasmus John Wycliff

12 Students must also be able to organize and coordinate the trial using legal jargon (see next page)

13 Albert, Archbishop of Mainz Prosecution Witness Martin Luther: Letter to the Archbishop of Mainz, 1517 Luther wrote to the Archbishop protesting the sale of indulgences to finance the building of a new cathedral. The Archbishop, of course, was one of the people who had authorized the sale of indulgences for that purpose. Note the objections Luther states towards indulgences and their use by church officials. Albert forwarded the theses to Rome, suspecting them of heresy. Albert did have liberal ideas which appear to have raised hopes that he could be won over to Protestantism, but after the chaos of the German Peasants' War of 1525 he ranged himself definitely among the supporters of Catholicism To the Most Reverend Father in Christ and Most Illustrious Lord, Albrecht of Magdeburg and Mainz, Archbishop and Primate of the Church, Margrave of Brandenburg, etc., his own lord and pastor in Christ, worthy of reverence and fear, and most gracious. The grace of God be with you in all its fulness and power! Spare me, Most Reverend Father in Christ and Most Illustrious Prince, that I, the dregs of humanity, have so much boldness that I have dared to think of a letter to the height of your Sublimity. The Lord Jesus is my witness that, conscious of my smallness and baseness, I have long deferred what I am now shameless enough to do, -- moved thereto most of all by the duty of fidelity which I acknowledge that I owe to your most Reverend Fatherhood in Christ. Meanwhile, therefore, may your Highness deign to cast an eye upon one speck of dust, and for the sake of your pontifical clemency to heed my prayer. Papal indulgences for the building of St. Peter's are circulating under your most distinguished name, and as regards them, I do not bring accusation against the outcries of the preachers, which I have not heard, so much as I grieve over the wholly false impressions which the people have conceived from them; to wit, -- the unhappy souls believe that if they have purchased letters of indulgence they are sure of their salvation; again, that so soon as they cast their contributions into the money-box, souls fly out of purgatory; furthermore, that these graces [i.e., the graces conferred in the indulgences] are so great that there is no sin too great to be absolved, even, as they say -- though the thing is impossible -- if one had violated the Mother of God; again, that a man is free, through these indulgences, from all penalty and guilt. O God, most good! Thus souls committed to your care, good Father, are taught to their death, and the strict account, which you must render for all such, grows and increases. For this reason I have no longer been able to keep quiet about this matter, for it is by no gift of a bishop that man becomes sure of salvation, since he gains this certainty not even by the "inpoured grace" of God, but the Apostle bids us always "work out our own salvation in fear and trembling," and Peter says, "the righteous scarcely shall be saved." Finally, so narrow is the way that leads to life, that the Lord, through the prophets Amos and Zechariah, calls those who shall be saved "brands plucked from the burning," and everywhere declares the difficulty of salvation. Why, then, do the preachers of pardons, by these false fables and promises, make the people careless and fearless? Whereas indulgences confer on us no good gift, either for salvation or for sanctity, but only take away the external penalty, which it was formerly the custom to impose according to the canons. Finally, works of piety and love are infinitely better than indulgences, and yet these are not preached with such ceremony or such zeal; nay, for the sake of preaching the indulgences they are kept quiet, though it is the first and the sole duty of all bishops that the people should learn the Gospel and the love of Christ, for Christ never taught that indulgences should be preached. How great then is the horror, how great the peril of a bishop, if he permits the Gospel to be kept quiet, and nothing but the noise of indulgences to be spread among his people! Will not Christ say to them, "straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel"? In addition to this, Most Reverend Father in the Lord, it is said in the Instruction to the Commissaries which is issued under your name, Most

14 Reverend Father (doubtless without your knowledge and consent), that one of the chief graces of indulgence is that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to God, and all the penalties of purgatory are destroyed. Again, it is said that contrition is not necessary in those who purchase souls [out of purgatory] or buy confessionalia. But what can I do, good Primate and Most Illustrious Prince, except pray your Most Reverend Fatherhood by the Lord Jesus Christ that you would deign to look [on this matter] with the eye of fatherly care, and do away entirely with that treatise and impose upon the preachers of pardons another form of preaching; lest, perchance, one may some time arise, who will publish writings in which he will confute both them and that treatise, to the shame of your Most Illustrious Sublimity. I shrink very much from thinking that this will be done, and yet I fear that it will come to pass, unless there is some speedy remedy. These faithful offices of my insignificance I beg that your Most Illustrious Grace may deign to accept in the spirit of a Prince and a Bishop, i.e., with the greatest clemency, as I offer them out of a faithful heart, altogether devoted to you, Most Reverend Father, since I too am a part of your flock. May the Lord Jesus have your Most Reverend Fatherhood eternally in His keeping. Amen. From Wittenberg on the Vigil of All Saints, MDXVII. If it please the Most Reverend Father he may see these my Disputations, and learn how doubtful a thing is the opinion of indulgences which those men spread as though it were most certain. To the Most Reverend Father, BROTHER MARTIN LUTHER.

15 Pope Leo X Prosecution Witness The following document was the official response issued by Pope Leo X condemning and rejecting the teachings of Martin Luther. It was the basis on which Luther was subsequently called before the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and was declared to be a criminal and outlaw, put under an Imperial Ban and subject to arrest and execution at any time. Exsurge Domine, is Latin for, "Arise, O Lord" and the document lists the various errors of which Luther was accused. Exsurge Domine (CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF MARTIN LUTHER) Bull of Pope Leo X issued June 15, 1520 With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected. We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication. But Martin has always refused to listen and, despising the previous citation and each and every one of the above overtures, disdained to come. To the present day he has been contumacious. With a hardened spirit he has continued under censure over a year. What is worse, adding evil to evil, and on learning of the citation, he broke forth in a rash appeal to a future council. This to be sure was contrary to the constitution of Pius II and Julius II our predecessors that all appealing in this way are to be punished with the penalties of heretics. In vain does he implore the help of a council, since he openly admits that he does not believe in a council. Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church. Therefore let Martin himself and all those adhering to him, and those who shelter and support him, through the merciful heart of our God and the sprinkling of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ by which and through whom the redemption of the human race and the upbuilding of holy mother Church was accomplished, know that from our heart we exhort and beseech that he cease to disturb the peace, unity, and truth of the Church for which the Savior prayed so earnestly to the Father. Let him abstain from his pernicious errors that he may come back to us. If they really will obey, and certify to us by legal documents that they have obeyed, they will find in us the affection of a father's love, the opening of the font of the effects of paternal charity, and opening of the font of mercy and clemency. We enjoin, however, on Martin that in the meantime he cease from all preaching or the office of preacher. And even though the love of righteousness and virtue did not take him away from sin and the hope of forgiveness did not lead him to penance, perhaps the terror of the pain of punishment may move him. Thus we beseech and remind this Martin, his supporters and accomplices of his holy orders and the described punishment. We ask him earnestly that he and his supporters, adherents and accomplices desist within sixty

16 days (which we wish to have divided into three times twenty days, counting from the publication of this bull at the places mentioned below) from preaching, both expounding their views and denouncing others, from publishing books and pamphlets concerning some or all of their errors. Furthermore, all writings which contain some or all of his errors are to be burned. Furthermore, this Martin is to recant perpetually such errors and views. He is to inform us of such recantation through an open document, sealed by two prelates, which we should receive within another sixty days. Or he should personally, with safe conduct, inform us of his recantation by coming to Rome. We would prefer this latter way in order that no doubt remain of his sincere obedience. If, however, this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices, much to our regret, should stubbornly not comply with the mentioned stipulations within the mentioned period, we shall, following the teaching of the holy Apostle Paul, who teaches us to avoid a heretic after having admonished him for a first and a second time, condemn this Martin, his supporters, adherents and accomplices as barren vines which are not in Christ, preaching an offensive doctrine contrary to the Christian faith and offend the divine majesty, to the damage and shame of the entire Christian Church, and diminish the keys of the Church as stubborn and public heretics.

17 Dr. Johann Eck Witness for the Prosecution Johann Eck was Martin Luther's most zealous opponent. Even as Luther and his colleagues believed it to be their duty to speak out against the errors and abuses of the Roman Church of their day, so Eck believed it his duty to defend Holy Mother Church against Luther and other emerging reformers. While Eck attacks as many others as he can think of, it is Luther who is the real aim of his attack, and, as his cover letter makes clear, it is to Luther that he attributes all the errors of everyone involved in the reforming movement Eck attempted to persuade the German Prince Frederick of Saxony to have Luther's works burned in public, and during the year 1519 he published no less than eight writings against the new movement. He failed, however, to obtain a condemnatory decision from the universities appointed to pronounce on the outcome of the Leipzig disputation. Erfurt returned the proceedings of the meeting to the Saxon duke without signifying its approval, while Paris, after repeated urging, gave an ambiguous decision limited to "the doctrine of Luther so far as investigated". Luther returned Eck's assaults with more than equal vehemence. Eck was far more highly esteemed as "the dauntless champion of the true faith" at Rome than in Germany, where he induced the universities of Cologne and Louvain to condemn the reformer's writings, but failed to enlist the German princes. In January 1520, he visited Italy at the invitation of Pope Leo X, to whom he presented his latest work De primate Petri adversus Ludderum (Ingolstadt, 1520) for which he was rewarded with the nomination to the office of papal protonotary, although his efforts to urge the Curia to decisive action against Luther were unsuccessful for some time. In July he returned to Germany, delivering the Pope s bull Exsurge Domine directed against Luther's writings, in which forty-one propositions of Luther were condemned as heretical or erroneous. He now believed himself in a position to crush not only the "Lutheran heretics," but also his humanist critics. The effect of the publication of the bull, however, soon undeceived him. Bishops, universities and humanists were at one in denunciation of the outrage; and, as for the attitude of the people, Eck was glad to have escaped from Saxony alive. At Meissen, Brandenburg, and Merseburg he succeeded in giving the papal measure due official publicity, but at Leipzig he was the object of the ridicule of the student body and was compelled to flee by night to Freiberg, where he was again prevented from proclaiming the bull. At Erfurt the students tore the instrument down and threw it into the water, while in other places the papal decree was subjected to still greater insults. In his anger he appealed to force, and his Epistola ad Carolum V (18 February 1521) called on the emperor to take measures against Luther, an appeal soon answered by the Edict of Worms (May 1521)

18 Ignatius Loyal Witness for the Prosecution IGNATIUS LOYOLA Ignatius Loyola (d. 1556) was born to a noble family in the Basque region of Spain and spent his early life as a soldier. In 1521, the same year that Luther was excommunicated, Loyola was severely injured and spent a year convalescing. Bedridden, he spent his time reading devotional literature and underwent a spiritual conversion. He renounced his inheritance and began to live as a monk. Eventually he gathered a few followers, whom he led through his now-classic spiritual program, The Spiritual Exercises. In 1540 Loyola and his companions were recognized by the papacy as an official order, The Society of Jesus. Jesuits (as members of the Society came to be called) became the agents of the papacy in its efforts both to reconvert European Protestants and to convert pagans encountered by European explorers to Roman Catholicism. In this selection from The Spiritual Exercises, Loyola describes the proper attitude of the believer toward the teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. 1. Always to be ready to obey with mind and heart, setting aside all judgement of one's own, the true spouse of Jesus Christ, our holy mother, our infallible and orthodox mistress, the Catholic Church, whose authority is exercised over us by the hierarchy. 2. To commend the confession of sins to a priest as it is practised in the Church; the reception of the Holy Eucharist once a year, or better still every week, or at least every month, with the necessary preparation. 3. To commend to the faithful frequent and devout assistance at the holy sacrifice of the Mass, the ecclesiastical hymns, the divine office, and in general the prayers and devotions practised at stated times, whether in public in the churches or in private. 4. To have a great esteem for the religious orders, and to give the preference to celibacy or virginity over the married state. 5. To approve of the religious vows of chastity, poverty, perpetual obedience, as well as to the other works of perfection and supererogation. Let us remark in passing, that we must never engage by vow to take a state (such e.g. as marriage) that would be an impediment to one more perfect 6. To praise relics, the veneration and invocation of Saints: also the stations, and pious pilgrimages, indulgences, jubilees, the custom of lighting candles in the churches, and other such aids to piety and devotion. 7. To praise the use of abstinence and fasts as those of Lent, of Ember Days, of Vigils, of Friday, Saturday, and of others undertaken out of pure devotion: also voluntary mortifications, which we call penances, not merely interior, but exterior also. 8. To commend moreover the construction of churches, and ornaments; also images, to be venerated with the fullest right, for the sake of what they represent. 9. To uphold especially all the precepts of the Church, and not censure them in any manner; but, on the contrary, to defend them promptly, with reasons drawn from all sources, against those who criticize them. 10. To be eager to commend the decrees, mandates, traditions, rites and customs of the Fathers in the Faith or our superiors. As to their conduct; although there may not always be the uprightness of conduct that there ought to be, yet to attack or revile them in private or in public tends to scandal and disorder. Such attacks set the people against their princes and pastors; we must avoid such reproaches and never attack superiors before inferiors. The best course is to make private approach to those who have power to remedy the evil. 11. To value most highly the sacred teaching, both the Positive and the Scholastic, as they are commonly called 12. It is a thing to be blamed and avoided to compare men who are living on the earth (however worthy of praise) with the Saints and Blessed, saying: This man is more learned than St. Augustine, etc 13. That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black. For we must undoubtedly believe, that the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of the Orthodox Church His Spouse, by which Spirit we are governed and directed to Salvation, is the same; 14. It must also be borne in mind, that although it be most true, that no one is saved but he that is predestinated, yet we must speak with circumspection concerning this matter, lest perchance, stressing too much the grace or predestination of God, we should seem to wish to shut out the force of free will and the merits of good works; or on the other hand, attributing to these latter more than belongs to them, we derogate meanwhile from the power of grace. 15. For the like reason we should not speak on the subject of predestination frequently; if by chance we do so speak, we ought so to temper what we say as to give the people who hear no occasion of erring and saying, 'If my salvation or damnation is already decreed, my good or evil actions are predetermined'; whence many are wont to neglect good works, and the means of salvation.

19 16. It also happens not unfrequently, that from immoderate, preaching and praise of faith, without distinction or explanation added, the people seize a pretext for being lazy with regard to any good works, which precede faith, or follow it when it has been formed by the bond of charity. 17. Not any more must we push to such a point when the preaching and inculcating of the grace of God, as that there may creep thence into the minds of the hearers the deadly error of denying our faculty of free will. We must speak of it as the glory of God requires that we may not raise doubts as to liberty and the efficacy of good works. 18. Although it is very praiseworthy and useful to serve God through the motive of pure charity, yet we must also recommend the fear of God; and not only filial fear, but servile fear, which is very useful and often even necessary to raise man from sin Once risen from the state, and free from the affection of mortal sin, we may then speak of that filial fear which is truly worthy of God, and which gives and preserves the union of pure love. Thought Questions 1. According to Loyola, what should a Christian s attitude be toward the church? Toward the Pope? 2. What should the Christian life look like, according to Loyola? 3. What does Loyola say about faith? In what should a Christian believe? 4. Why would Loyola advocate such radical, unquestioning obedience to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church? 5. Loyola founded the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). One mission of the Jesuits was to convert Protestants to Roman Catholicism. In many cases they were successful. Given what you know, why do you think some Protestants were attracted to Loyola s vision?

20 Johann Tetzel Witness for the Prosecution Johann Tetzel ( August 1519) was a German Dominican preacher known for selling indulgences. Tetzel was born in Pirna, Saxony, and studied theology and philosophy at the university of his native city. He entered the Dominican order in 1489, achieved some success as a preacher, and was in 1502 commissioned by the pope to preach the Jubilee (Christian) indulgence, which he did throughout his life. In 1509 he was made an inquisitor of Poland, and in 1517 Pope Leo X made him commissioner of indulgences for all of Germany. He acquired the degree of Licentiate of Sacred Theology in the University of Frankfurt an der Oder, 1517, and that of Doctor of Sacred Theology, 1518, by defending, in two disputations, the doctrine of indulgences against Luther. The accusation that he sold full forgiveness for sins not yet committed, caused great scandal; Martin Luther considered his actions evil, and began to preach openly against him. In 1517, it was believed that all of the money that Tetzel was trying to raise was for the ongoing reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica, though half the money went towards helping the Archbishop of Mainz, Albert of Brandenburg, under whose authority Tetzel was operating, to pay off the debts he had incurred in securing the agreement of the Pope to his acquisition of the Archbishopric. Luther was inspired to write his Ninety-Five Theses, in part, due to Tetzel's actions during this period of time. The Text of a Sermon on Indulgences by Johann Tetzel Listen now, God and Peter call you. Consider the salvation of your souls and those of your loved ones departed. You priest, you noble, you merchant, you virgin, you matron, you youth, you old man, enter now into your church, which is the Church of St. Peter. Visit the most holy cross erected before you and ever imploring you. Have you considered that you are lashed in a furious tempest amid the temptations and dangers of the world, and that you do not know whether you can reach the haven, not of your mortal body, but of your immortal soul? Consider that those who are contrite and have confessed and made contribution will receive complete remission of all their sins. Listen to the voices of your dear dead relatives and friends beseeching you and saying, "Pity us, pity us. We are in dire torment from which you can redeem us for a pittance." Do you not wish to? Open your ears. Hear the father saying to his son, the mother to her daughter, "We bore you, nourished you, brought you up, left you our fortunes, and you are so cruel and hard that now you are not willing for so little to set us free. Will you let us lie here in the flames? Will you delay the promised glory?" Remember that you are able to release them, for as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs. Will you not then for a quarter of a florin receive these letters of indulgence through which you are able to lead a divine and mortal soul into the fatherland of paradise? [Bainton, pp ]

21 Thomas More Witness for the Prosecution More was an English lawyer, scholar, writer, member of parliament and chancellor in the reign of Henry VIII. He was executed for refusing to recognise Henry VIII's divorce and the English church's break with Rome. Thomas More was born on 7 February 1478 in London, the son of a successful lawyer. As a boy, More spent some time in the household of John Morton, Archbishop of Canterbury. He later studied at Oxford, and qualified as a lawyer, although he did contemplate becoming a monk. From 1510 to 1518 he was one of the two under-sheriffs of London and in 1517 entered the king's service, becoming one of Henry VIII's most effective and trusted civil servants and acting as his secretary, interpreter, speech-writer, chief diplomat, advisor and confidant. In 1521 he was knighted, in 1523, he became the speaker of the House of Commons and in 1525 chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. At the same time More was building a reputation as a scholar. He was close to the radical catholic theologian Erasmus, but wrote polemics against Martin Luther and the protestant reformation. Around 1515, he wrote 'The History of Richard III' which established that king's reputation as a tyrant and has been described as the first masterpiece of English historiography. In 1516, he published his most important work 'Utopia' - a description of an imaginary republic ruled by reason and intended to contrast with the strife-ridden reality of contemporary European politics. More remained a passionate defender of Catholic orthodoxy - writing pamphlets against heresy, banning unorthodox books, and even taking responsibility when chancellor for the interrogation of heretics. More took the post of lord chancellor in 1529, just as Henry had become determined to obtain a divorce from Catherine of Aragon. The previous chancellor, Lord Wolsey, had failed to achieve this objective. Henry was close to breaking with the Church of Rome, and the so-called 'Reformation parliament' was about to convene. When Henry declared himself 'supreme head of the Church in England' - thus establishing the Anglican Church and allowing him to end his marriage - More resigned the chancellorship. He continued to argue against the king's divorce and the split with Rome, and in 1534 was arrested after refusing to swear an oath of succession repudiating the pope and accepting the annulment of Henry's marriage. He was tried for treason at Westminster and on 6 July 1535 was executed on Tower Hill.

22 Martin Luther Witness for the Defense Luther summarized his objections to indulgences in the form of ninety-five theses for debate. The 95 Theses denounced the promise of springing souls from purgatory on the basis of a monetary contribution alone to the Church. Moreover, Luther challenged the right of a pope to grant pardons on God's behalf. The power of pardon, Luther believed, was God's alone. If, indeed, the pope had the power he claimed, Luther asked why he didn't simply exercise it: "If the pope does have the power to release anyone from purgatory, why in the name of love does he not abolish purgatory by letting everyone out?" Luther's complaints also went to the Church's justification for promoting contributions. He complained about "the revenues of all Christendom being sucked into this insatiable basilica" when there were much greater needs, including "living temples" and local churches. Selections from the 95 Theses 33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him; 36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon. 43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons; 47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment. 62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of the glory and the grace of God. 66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the riches of men. 67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain. 75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God -- this is madness. 76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

23 John Calvin Witness for the Defense Calvin was indebted to Luther. He repeatedly showed his deep respect for Luther without feeling duty-bound to withhold criticism of some of the teachings of Luther in which he was in disagreement. He recognized Luther as a special servant of God. He called him "An excellent ambassador for Christ." The two Reformers were of different nationalities. Luther was every inch a German, while Calvin on the other hand was French. Both of them had mastered Latin, yet neither of them used Latin exclusively. Each one of them composed an important part of his writing in his mother tongue. Consequently, to both men, a large percentage of their writings remained mutually inaccessible. Calvin broke with Rome and joined the movement which already had been in existence for more than fifteen years, and had already made Europe feel its ground swell. Luther did not break away from Rome; he was, rather, driven out. He was excommunicated after being called to retract. Calvin, who began writing nearly twenty years after, did not have to face the question of separation. The breach was a fact. He simply knew that Rome persecuted "Lutherans," that she handed them over to the state to be burned, and that she accused them falsely of subversion. Luther and Calvin appreciated each other's work. In a letter to Bucer in Strasbourg in 1539, Luther sent his regards to Calvin. He mentioned that he had learned of a few of Calvin's writings. The Institutes was probably one of them. It is true that in many respects there is no difference between Calvin's ideas and that of Luther's, but it is not true that he is only a duplicate of Luther. Calvin had Luther as a starting point, and without difficulty, he remained loyal to his great predecessor. But at the same time, he also surpassed him, especially in his view of the Lord's Supper and church organization. In the history of church and culture, he has an independent place next to Luther. For Calvin, Luther was the first, the pioneer of the Reformation. He defended Luther, describing his work as the work of God. When Calvin addressed the Diet of Speier in 1543, demonstrating the necessity of a reformation, he declared that it was not the work of human beings: "God roused Luther and the others, who carried the torch ahead, in order to recover the way of salvation; and by whose service our churches were founded and established." For Luther, justification of faith was what the Reformation was about, but for Calvin it was the fear of the Lord, living in the presence of God in every area of life. He opposed the privatization of the faith, and refused to compromise with Rome. What then was the key difference between Luther and Calvin? It was not the doctrine of predestination. There was little difference between Luther and Calvin here. In fact, it was also taught by other Reformers. The sacrament of the Lord's supper was a key difference between him and Luther.

24 Erasmus Witness for the Defense At the time of the Reformation, many hoped Martin Luther and Erasmus could unite against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. Luther himself was tempted to unite with Erasmus because Erasmus was a great Renaissance scholar who studied the classics and the Greek New Testament. Examining the Roman Catholic Church, Erasmus was infuriated with the abuses in the Roman Catholic Church, especially those of the clergy. These abuses are vividly described in the satire of his book, The Praise of Folly. Erasmus called for reform in the Roman Catholic Church. Erasmus could have been a great help to the Reformation, so it seemed, by using the Renaissance in the service of the Reformation. But a great chasm separated these two men. Luther loved the truth of God's Word as that was revealed to him through his own struggles with the assurance of salvation. Therefore Luther wanted true reformation in the church, which would be a reformation in doctrine and practice. Erasmus cared little about a right knowledge of truth. He simply wanted moral reform in the Roman Catholic Church. He did not want to leave the church, but remained supportive of the Pope. This fundamental difference points out another difference between the two men. Martin Luther was bound by the Word of God. Therefore the content of the Scripture was of utmost importance to him. But Erasmus did not hold to this same high view of Scripture. Erasmus was a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him. Erasmus at first sympathized with Luther. Naturally he would, for he himself for many years had been making war on indulgences, saint worship and other superstitions of the church, the immorality of the clergy, and preaching the necessity of a pure life to reach Heaven. They had some friendly correspondence, Luther begging Erasmus to come out on his side, and if he could not do that, not to attack him; Erasmus urging Luther to be more moderate, to refrain from violence. Erasmus wrote to Luther: "Generally I think courtesy to opponents is more effective than violence. Old institutions cannot be rooted up in an instant. Quick argument may do more than wholesale condemnation. Avoid all appearance of sedition. Keep cool. Do not get angry. Do not hate anybody. Do not be excited over the noise you have made." Meanwhile the adherents of the church were clamoring for Erasmus to come out and demolish Luther. Both sides thought and said that Erasmus laid the egg that Luther hatched. Erasmus replied: "Yes, I laid an hen's egg, but Luther hatched a crow's," and he ultimately would not publicly support Luther.

25 German Peasant Revolter Witness for the Defense THE TWELVE ARTICLES OF THE PEASANTS OF SWABIA (1524) The Edict of Worms denounced Luther as an opponent of law and a breeder of sedition. This view was substantiated in the eyes of many by the revolt, first of the knights, and then of the peasants, for in both cases the malcontents had much to say of evangelical truth and liberty. The following manifesto of the peasants, drawn up in 1524, clearly shows the influence of Luther ' s teachings. Yet the revolt cannot be attributed to him, but rather to the general social and economic conditions which had produced a number of similar disturbances earlier. Much had been said by the popular leaders of "God ' s justice " and of the vices of the clergy before ever Luther was heard of. Peace to the Christian reader and the grace of God through Jesus Christ: There are many evil writings put forth of late which take occasion, on account of the assembling of the peasants, to cast scorn upon the gospel, saying, "Is this the fruit of the new teaching, that no one should obey but that all should everywhere rise in revolt, and rush together to reform, or perhaps destroy altogether, the authorities, both ecclesiastic and lay?" The articles below shall answer these godless and criminal fault-finders, and serve, in, the first place, to remove the reproach from the word of God and, in the second place, to give a Christian excuse for the disobedience or even the revolt of the entire peasantry. In the first place, the gospel is not the cause of revolt and disorder, since it is the message of Christ, the promised Messiah; the word of life, teaching only love, peace, patience, and concord. Thus all who believe in Christ should learn to be loving, peaceful, long-suffering, and harmonious. This is the foundation of all the articles of the peasants (as will be seen), who accept the gospel and live according to it. How then can the evil reports declare the gospel to be a cause of revolt and disobedience? That the authors of the evil reports and the enemies of the gospel oppose themselves to these demands is due, not to the gospel, but to the devil, the worst enemy of the gospel, who causes this opposition by raising doubts in the minds of his followers, and thus the word of God, which teaches love, peace, and concord, is overcome. In the second place, it is clear that the peasants demand that this gospel be taught them as a guide in life, and they ought not to be called disobedient or disorderly. Whether God grant the peasants (earnestly wishing to live according to his word) their requests or no, who shall find fault with the will of the Most High? Who shall meddle in his judgments or oppose his majesty? Did he not hear the children of Israel when they called upon him and save them out of the hands of Pharaoh? Can he not save his own to-day? Yea, he will save them and that speedily. Therefore, Christian reader, read the following articles with care and then judge.

26 John Wycliffe Witness for the Defense John Wycliffe lived almost 200 years before the Reformation, but his beliefs and teachings closely match those of Luther, Calvin and other reformers. As a man ahead of his time, historians have called Wycliffe the "Morning star of the Reformation." Born in the 1300s, Wycliffe criticized abuses and false teachings in the Church. In 1382 he translated an English Bible the first complete European translation done in nearly 1,000 years. The Lollards, itinerant preachers he sent throughout England, inspired a spiritual revolution. But the Lollardy movement was short-lived. The Church expelled Wycliffe from his teaching position at Oxford, and 44 years after he died, the Pope ordered his bones exhumed and burned. Intense persecution stamped out his followers and teachings. It would be hundreds of years before men like Martin Luther resurrected the reforms of which Wycliffe dreamed. John Wyclif On the Sacrament of Communion Wyclif's Trialogus is a long treatise in the Scholastic style on various subjects which he believed were being wrongfully taught in the Catholic Church. He cast the argument in the form of a classical dialogue between three people called Alithia, Pseudis and Phronesis. The argument against transubstantiation, a small part of which follows, is based on his logical proof that bread and body cannot be in the same place at the same time. ALITHIA. I must request you, brother, to show still farther, from reason or Scripture, that there is no identification of the bread with the body of Christ... For I am no means pleased with the spurious writings which the moderns use, to prove an accident without a subject, because the church so teaches. Such evidence should satisfy no one. PHRONESIS. As to identification, we must, in the first place, agree on what you mean by the term. It signifies, God's making natures, which are distinct in species or number, one and the same - as though, for instance, he should make the person of Peter to be one with Paul... For if A is identical with B, then both of them remain; since a thing which is destroyed is not made identical, but is annihilated, or ceases to be. And if both of them remain, then they differ as much as at first, and differ consequently in number, and so are not, in the sense given, the same... PSEUDIS. In the first place, you cannot escape from this expository syllogism: First, This bread becomes corrupt, or is eaten by a mouse. Second, The same bread is the body of Christ. Third, Therefore the body of Christ does thus become corrupt, and is thus eaten; - and thus you are involved in inconsistency.