Chapter 10: Challenging Tradition, The Reformation in Europe
The history of the Protestant Reformation can be understood as part of a much longer tradition of challenging established authority. Throughout medieval Europe, religious, political, and intellectual authorities claimed significant influence over how people understood the world and their place within it. Yet these claims were repeatedly questioned by both scholars and ordinary believers. The growth of universities, the recovery of classical texts, the development of humanism, and the spread of literacy encouraged Europeans to examine traditional institutions and ideas more critically. At the same time, problems within the medieval Church, including corruption, political entanglements, and criticism of clerical abuses, created growing demands for reform. These developments did not necessarily represent a rejection of Christianity; many critics believed that challenging established authority was necessary to restore the Church to what they understood as its original religious mission.
By the early sixteenth century, these challenges increasingly focused on the authority of the Catholic Church and the papacy. Reformers questioned who possessed the authority to define Christian belief, how salvation was achieved, and what role the Church and its clergy should play between individuals and God. The invention of the printing press allowed these arguments to circulate rapidly across Europe, transforming what might once have been a local theological dispute into a broad religious movement. In 1517, Martin Luther’s criticism of the sale of indulgences and his subsequent challenge to Church authority helped initiate the Protestant Reformation. However, the Reformation did not emerge from just this single act of rebellion, but from the longer history of Europeans questioning established authority and seeking new ways to understand religion.
10.1 Raimon de Cornet: Poem Criticizing the Avignon Papacy (early 14th century)
Raimon de Cornet (c. 1300–1340) was a troubadour and cleric from southern France who became a sharp critic of the Catholic Church and the Avignon Papacy. The Avignon Papacy began in 1309, when Pope Clement V established the papal residence at Avignon rather than Rome, and lasted until 1377. The period generated considerable criticism over the papacy’s close relationship with French political power, its growing bureaucracy, and the wealth and luxury associated with the papal court.
In his “Poem Criticizing the Avignon Papacy,” probably written in the 1330s, Cornet attacks what he sees as the corruption of Christian leadership. His use of the popular troubadour poetic tradition is significant: rather than presenting a learned theological argument, Cornet communicates his criticism in a form accessible to a broader audience. Cornet’s complaints anticipate themes that would become prominent in later reform movements: clerical corruption, excessive wealth, the abuse of ecclesiastical authority, and the gap between Christian ideals and the behavior of church officials.
The following is replicated in its entirety from J. H. Robinson, Readings in European History (Boston: 1904), pp. 375-377
I see the pope his sacred trust betray,
For while the rich his grace can gain alway,
His favors from the poor are aye withholden.
He strives to gather wealth as best he may,
Forcing Christ’s people blindly to obey,
So that he may repose in garmets golden.
The vilest traffickers in souls are all
His chapmen, and for gold a prebend’s stall
He’ll sell them, or an abbacy or miter.
And to us he sends clowns and tramps who crawl
Vending his pardon briefs from cot to hall–
Letters and pardons worthy of the writer,
Which leaves our pokes, if not our souls, the lighter.
No better is each honored cardinal.
From early morning’s dawn to evening’s fall,
Their time is passed in eagerly contriving
To drive some bargain foul with each and all.
So if you feel a want, or great or small,
Or if for some perferment you are striving,
The more you please to give the more ‘t will bring,
Be it a purple cap or bishop’s ring.
And it need ne’er in any way alarm you
That you are ignorant of everything
To which a minister of Christ should cling,
You will have revenue enough to warm you–
And, bear in mind, the lesser gifts won’t harm you.
Our bishops, too, are plunged in similar sin,
For pitilessly they flay the very skin
From all their priests who chance to have fat livings.
For gold their seal official you can win
To any writ, no matter what’s therein.
Sure God alone can make them stop their theivings,
‘T were hard, in full, their evil works to tell,
As when, for a few pence, they greedily sell
The tonsure to some montebank or jester,
Whereby the temporal courts are wronged as well,
For then these tonsured rogues they cannot quell,
Howe’er their scampish doings may us pester,
While round the church still growing evils fester.
Source: from J. H. Robinson, Readings in European History (Boston: 1904), pp. 375-377.
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.© Paul Halsall, July 1998
10.2 Petrarch: Letter Criticizing the Avignon Papacy (1340-1353)
Francesco Petrarch (1304–1374), commonly known as Petrarch, was an early humanist Italian poet and scholar who is often described as one of the founders of Renaissance humanism. He is best known for his Canzoniere, a collection of poems centered largely on his idealized and unrequited love for a woman named Laura, but his interests extended to classical literature, history, philosophy, and the moral condition of his own society. Petrarch believed that the recovery of ancient Roman literature could help Europeans improve their intellectual and moral lives. His admiration for classical Rome also contributed to his criticism of what he regarded as the political and cultural decline of contemporary Italy.
Petrarch had a complicated and deeply critical relationship with the Avignon Papacy. The papacy had moved from Rome to Avignon in 1309, only five years after Petrarch’s birth, and remained there for most of his lifetime. Petrarch spent considerable time in Avignon and its surrounding region, but he became increasingly hostile toward the papal court. He regarded Avignon as corrupt, excessively wealthy, politically compromised, and unworthy of the spiritual leadership expected from the successors of St. Peter. His goal was not to abolish papal authority but to restore the papacy to Rome and reform its moral and spiritual character.
The following is replicated in its entirety from J. H. Robinson, Readings in European History (Boston: 1904), p. 502.
Petrarch, Letter to a friend, 1340-1353
…Now I am living in France, in the Babylon of the West. The sun in its travels sees nothing more hideous than this place on the shores of the wild Rhone, which suggests the hellish streams of Cocytus and Acheron. Here reign the successors of the poor fishermen of Galilee; they have strangely forgotten their origin. I am astounded, as I recall their predecessors, to see these men loaded with gold and clad in purple, boasting of the spoils of princes and nations; to see luxurious palaces and heights crowned with fortifications, instead of a boat turned downward for shelter.
We no longer find the simple nets which were once used to gain a frugal sustenance from the lake of Galilee, and with which, having labored all night and caught nothing, they took, at daybreak, a multitude of fishes, in the name of Jesus. One is stupefied nowadays to hear the lying tongues, and to see worthless parchments turned by a leaden seal into nets which are used, in Christ’s name, but by the arts of Belial, to catch hordes of unwary Christians. These fish, too, are dressed and laid on the burning coals of anxiety before they fill the insatiable maw of their captors.
Instead of holy solitude we find a criminal host and crowds of the most infamous satellites; instead of soberness, licentious banquets; instead of pious pilgrimages, preternatural and foul sloth; instead of the bare feet of the apostles, the snowy coursers of brigands fly past us, the horses decked in gold and fed on gold, soon to be shod with gold, if the Lord does not check this slavish luxury. In short, we seem to be among the kings of the Persians or Parthians, before whom we must fall down and worship, and who cannot be approached except presents be offered. O ye unkempt and emaciated old men, is it for this you labored? Is it for this that you have sown the field of the Lord and watered it with your holy blood? But let us leave the subject.
I have been so depressed and overcome that the heaviness of my soul has passed into bodily affliction, so that I am really ill and can only give voice to sighs and groans.
Source: J. H. Robinson, Readings in European History (Boston: 1904), p. 502.
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use. © Paul Halsall, July 1998
10.3 Martin Luther: The Ninety-Five Theses (1517)
Martin Luther (1483–1546) was a German monk, theologian, and professor whose criticisms of the Catholic Church helped initiate the Protestant Reformation. Luther became increasingly concerned with Church practices that he believed had departed from the teachings of Scripture, particularly the sale of indulgences, which were promoted as a means of reducing punishment for sin. His theological concerns centered on questions of salvation, faith, Scripture, and the authority of the Church.
In 1517, Luther wrote the Ninety-Five Theses, a series of propositions questioning the theology and practice surrounding indulgences. Traditionally, Luther is said to have posted the theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517, although historians debate the details of this story. The theses were originally intended as an invitation to academic debate rather than a declaration of separation from the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, their rapid dissemination through the printing press helped turn Luther’s criticisms into a much larger controversy over salvation and the proper role of the Church. The resulting conflict eventually led to Luther’s excommunication and the emergence of Lutheranism and other Protestant traditions.
The following is adapted from Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Eddicacy of Indulgences in Works of Martin Luther: Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38
Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.
In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam agite (repent), willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.
4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.
6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.
8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.
9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.
10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.
11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.
13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be released from them.
17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.
18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.
19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.
20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.
21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;
22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.
23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.
24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding promise of release from penalty.
25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.
27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].
28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.
32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation because they have letters of pardon.
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;
34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.
35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.
36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.
37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.
38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.
41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.
42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.
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;
44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.
47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.
48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.
49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.
52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.
54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this Word.
55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.
71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed!
72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!
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.
79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.
80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.
81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.
82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.”
86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”
89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”
90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.
91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.
94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;
95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.
Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Eddicacy of Indulgences in Works of Martin Luther: Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds. (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol.1, pp. 29-38. As found on Project Wittenberg.
This text was converted to ASCII text for Project Wittenberg by Allen Mulvey, and is in the public domain. You may freely distribute, copy or print this text.
10.4 Martin Luther: Letter of Martin Luther to Pope Leo X (1520)
After Martin Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses circulated widely in 1517, what began as a theological dispute over indulgences quickly developed into a much larger challenge to the authority of the Catholic Church. The printing press spread Luther’s ideas throughout Germany and beyond, while debates over salvation, Scripture, Church authority, and the role of the papacy intensified. Luther increasingly rejected the idea that the pope possessed supreme authority over Christian belief and argued that salvation came through faith rather than through works or the purchase of indulgences.
The controversy eventually brought Luther into direct conflict with the Church. In 1520, Pope Leo X condemned Luther’s teachings and ordered him to recant. Luther publicly rejected the pope’s authority and was excommunicated in 1521. At the Diet of Worms that same year, he refused to withdraw his writings. Protected by Frederick the Wise of Saxony, Luther continued writing and translating the Bible into German. His ideas gained support among German princes and towns, helping establish the Lutheran movement and contributing to the wider Protestant Reformation. Following is a letter Martin Luther wrote to Pope Leo X in 1520 which was both an attempt at reconciliation as well as an introduction to a treatise he included Concerning Christian Liberty. The treatise is not included here.
The following text is adapted from Henry Wace and C. A. Buchheim, First Principles of the Reformation, London: John Murray, 1883.
Among those monstrous evils of this age, with which I have now for three years been waging war, I am sometimes compelled to look to you and to call you to mind, most blessed father Leo. In truth, since you alone are everywhere considered as being the cause of my engaging in war, I cannot at any time fail to remember you; and although I have been compelled by the causeless raging of your impious flatterers against me to appeal from your seat to a future council–fearless of the futile decrees of your predecessors Pius and Julius, who in their foolish tyranny prohibited such an action–yet I have never been so alienated in feeling from your Blessedness as not to have sought with all my might, in diligent prayer and crying to God, every best gift for you and for your See. But those who have hitherto endeavoured to terrify me with the majesty of your name and authority, I have begun quite to despise and triumph over. One thing I see remaining, which I cannot despise, and this has been the reason of my writing anew to your Blessedness; namely, that I find that blame is cast on me, and that that rashness, in which I am judged to have spared not even your person, is imputed to me as a great offence.
Now, to confess the truth openly, I am conscious that, whenever I have had to mention your person, I have said nothing of you but what was honourable and good. If I had done otherwise, I could by no means have approved my own conduct, but should have supported with all my power the judgment of those men concerning me; nor would anything have pleased me better, than to recant such rashness and impiety. I have called you Daniel in Babylon; and every reader thoroughly knows with what distinguished zeal I defended your conspicuous innocence against Silvester, who tried to stain it. Indeed the published opinion of so many great men, and the repute of your blameless life, are too widely famed and too much reverenced throughout the world to be assailable by any man of however great name, or by any arts. I am not so foolish as to attack one whom everybody praises; nay, it has been and always will be my desire not to attack even those whom public repute disgraces. I am not delighted at the faults of any man, since am very conscious myself of the great beam in my own eye, nor can I be the first to cast a stone at the adulteress.
I have indeed inveighed sharply against impious doctrines, and I have not been slack to censure my adversaries on account, not of their bad morals, but of their impiety. And for this I am so far from being sorry, that I have brought my mind to despise the judgments of men, and to persevere in this vehement zeal, according to the example of Christ, who, in his zeal, calls his adversaries a generation of vipers, blind, hypocrites, and children of the devil. Paul too charges the sorcerer with being a child of the devil, full of all subtlety and all malice; and defames certain persons as evil workers, dogs, and deceivers. In the opinion of those delicate-eared persons, nothing could be more bitter or intemperate than Paul’s language. What can be more bitter than the words of the prophets? The ears of our generation have been made so delicate by the senseless multitude of flatterers, that, go soon as we perceive that anything of ours is not approved of, we cry out that we are being bitterly assailed; and when we can repel the truth by no other pretence, we escape by attributing bitterness, impatience, intemperance, to our adversaries. What would be the use of salt, if it were not pungent? or of the edge of the sword, if it did not slay? Accursed is the man, who does the work of the Lord deceitfully.
Wherefore, most excellent Leo, I beseech you to accept my vindication, made in this letter, and to persuade yourself that I have never thought any evil concerning your person; further, that I am one who desires that eternal blessing may fall to your lot, and that I have no dispute with any man concerning morals, but only concerning the word of truth. In all other things I will yield to any one, but I neither can nor will forsake and deny the Word. He who thinks otherwise of me or has taken in my words in another sense, does not think rightly, and has not taken in the truth.
Your See, however, which is called the Court of Rome, and which neither you nor any man can deny to be more corrupt than any Babylon or Sodom, and quite, as I believe, of a lost, desperate, and hopeless impiety, this I have verily abominated, and have felt indignant that the people of Christ should be cheated under your name and the pretext of the Church of Rome and so I have resisted, and will resist, as long as the spirit of faith shall live in me. Not that I am striving after impossibilities, or hoping that by my labours alone, against the furious opposition of so many flatterers, any good can be done in that most disordered Babylon, but that I feel myself a debtor to my brethren, and am bound to take thought for them, that fewer of them may be ruined, or that their ruin may be less complete, by the plagues of Rome. For many years now, nothing else has overflowed from Rome into the world–as you are not ignorant–than the laying waste of goods, of bodies, and of souls, and the worst examples of all the worst things. These things are clearer than the light to all men; and the Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become the most lawless den of thieves, the most shameless of all brothels, the very kingdom of sin, death, and hell; so that not even Antichrist, if he were to come, could devise any addition to its wickedness.
Meanwhile you, Leo, are sitting like a lamb in the midst of wolves, like Daniel in the midst of lions, and, with Ezekiel, you dwell among scorpions. What opposition can you alone make to these monstrous evils? Take to yourself three or four of the most learned and best of the Cardinals. What are these among so many? You would all perish by poison, before you could undertake to decide on a remedy. It is all over with the Court of Rome; the wrath of God has come upon her to the uttermost. She hates councils, she dreads to be reformed, she cannot restrain the madness of her impiety, she fills up the sentence passed on her mother, of whom it is said, “We would have healed Babylon, but she is not healed; let us forsake her.” It had been your duty and that of your Cardinals, to apply a remedy to these evils, but this gout laughs at the physician’s hand, and the chariot does not obey the reins. Under the influence of these feelings I have always grieved that you, most excellent Leo, who were worthy of a better age, have been made Pontiff in this. For the Roman Court is not worthy of you and those like you, but of Satan himself, who in truth is more the ruler in that Babylon than you are.
…For what happens in your court, Leo, except that, the more wicked and execrable any man is, the more prosperously he can use your name and authority for the ruin of the property and souls of men, for the multiplication of crimes, for the oppression of faith and truth, and of the whole Church of God? O Leo! in reality most unfortunate, and sitting on a most perilous throne–I tell you the truth, because I wish you well; for if Bernard felt compassion for his Anastasius at a time when the Roman See, though even then most corrupt, was as yet ruling with better hope than now, why should not we lament, to whom so much additional corruption and ruin has happened in three hundred years?
Is it not true that there is nothing under the vast heavens more corrupt, more pestilential, more hateful than the Court of Rome? She incomparably surpasses the impiety of the Turks, so that in very truth she, who was formerly the gate of heaven, is now a sort of open mouth of hell, and such a mouth as, under the urgent wrath of God, cannot be blocked up; one course alone being left to us wretched men, to call back and save some few, if we can, from that Roman gulf.
Behold, Leo my father, with what purpose and on what principle it is that I have stormed against that seat of pestilence. I am so far from having felt any rage against your person, that I even hoped to gain favour with you, and to aid in your welfare, by striking actively and vigorously at that your prison, nay, your hell. For whatever the efforts of all intellects can contrive against the confusion of that impious Court will be advantageous to you and to your welfare, and to many others with you. Those who do harm to her are doing your office; those who in every way abhor her are glorifying Christ; in short, those are Christians who are not Romans.
But, to say yet more, even this never entered my heart, to inveigh against the Court of Rome, or to dispute at all about her. For, seeing all remedies for her health to be desperate, I looked on her with contempt, and, giving her a bill of divorcement, said to her, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still and lie that is filthy, let him be filthy still;” giving myself up to the peaceful and quiet study of sacred literature, that by this I might be of use to the brethren living about me.
…At this day the name of the Court of Rome stinks in the nostrils of the world, the papal authority is growing weak, and its notorious ignorance is evil spoken of. We should hear none of these things, if Eccius had not disturbed the plans of Miltitz and myself for peace. He feels this clearly enough himself, in the indignation he shows, too late and in vain, against the publication of my books. He ought to have reflected on this at the time when he was all mad for renown, and was seeking in your cause nothing but his own objects, and that with the greatest peril to you. The foolish man hoped that, from fear of your name, I should yield and keep silence; for I do not think he presumed on his talents and learning. Now, when he sees that I am very confident and speak aloud, he repents too late of his rashness and sees–if indeed he does see it–that there is One in Heaven who resists the proud, and humbles the presumptuous.
…Thus I come, most blessed Father, and in all abasement beseech you to put to your hand, if it is possible, and impose a curb upon those flatterers who are enemies of peace, while they pretend peace. But there is no reason, most blessed Father, why any one should assume that I am to utter a recantation, unless he prefers to involve the case in still greater confusion. Moreover, I cannot bear with laws for the interpretation of the Word of God, since the Word of God, which teaches liberty in all other things, ought not to be bound. Saying these two things, there is nothing which I am not able, and most heartily willing, to do or to suffer. I hate contention; I will challenge no one; in return I wish not to be challenged; but, being challenged, I will not be dumb in the cause of Christ my Master. For your Blessedness will be able by one short and easy word to call these controversies before you and suppress them; and to impose silence and peace on both sides; a word which I have ever longed to hear.
Therefore, Leo my Father, beware of listening to those Sirens, who make you out to be not simply a man, but partly a God, so that you can command and require whatever you will. It will not happen so, nor will you prevail. You are the servant of servants, and, more than any other man, in a most pitiable and perilous position. Let not those men deceive you, who pretend that you are Lord of the world; who will not allow any one to be a Christian without your authority; who babble of your having power over heaven, hell, and purgatory. These men are your enemies and are seeking your soul to destroy it, as Isaiah says: “My people, they that call thee blessed are themselves deceiving thee.” They are in error, who raise you above councils and the universal Church. They are in error, who attribute to you alone the right of interpreting Scripture. All these men are seeking to set up their own impieties in the Church under your name, and alas! Satan has gained much through them in the time of your predecessors.
…In fine, that I may not approach you empty handed, Blessed Father, I bring with me this little treatise[Concerning Christian Liberty], published under your name, as a good omen of the establishment of peace, and of good hope. By this you may perceive in what pursuits I should prefer and be able to occupy myself to more profit, if I were allowed, or had been hitherto allowed, by your impious flatterers. It is a small matter, if you look to its exterior, but, unless I mistake, it is a summary of the Christian life put together in small compass, if you apprehend its meaning. I, in my poverty, have no other present to make you; nor do you need anything else than to be enriched by a spiritual gift. I commend myself to your Paternity and Blessedness, whom may the Lord Jesus preserve for ever. Amen.
Wittenberg; 6th September, 1520.
Source: Letter to Pope Leo X in Henry Wace and C. A. Buchheim, First Principles of the Reformation, London: John Murray, 1883.
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use. © Paul Halsall, October 1998
10.5 The Act of Supremacy, England (1534)
The Act of Supremacy of 1534 was a landmark piece of legislation passed by the English Parliament during the reign of King Henry VIII. It formally broke the institutional relationship between the English Church and the papacy and declared Henry VIII to be the “Supreme Head” of the Church of England. The act was a crucial step in the English Reformation and was closely connected to Henry’s dispute with Pope Clement VII over the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
The Act of Supremacy transformed the relationship between religion and political authority in England. Rather than recognizing the pope as the highest ecclesiastical authority, the English crown assumed control over the church within the kingdom. This enabled Henry and his government to reorganize the English Church, including the later dissolution of the monasteries and the transfer of substantial church property to the Crown and its supporters. The act demonstrates how the Protestant Reformation was not simply a theological movement but could also involve questions of royal power and control over religious institutions.
The following is replicated in its entirety from The Act of Supremacy as published on Tudor History.org
Albeit, the King’s Majesty justly and rightfully is and oweth to be the supreme head of the Church of England, and so is recognised by the clergy of this realm in their Convocations; yet nevertheless for corroboration and confirmation thereof, and for increase of virtue in Christ’s religion within this realm of England, and to repress and extirp all errors, heresies and other enormities and abuses heretofore used in the same, Be it enacted by authority of this present Parliament that the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and style thereof, as all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges, authorities, immunities, profits and commodities, to the said dignity of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining. And that our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors kings of this realm, shall have full power and authority from time to time to visit, repress, redress, reform, order, correct, restrain and amend all such errors, heresies, abuses, offences, contempts and enormities, whatsoever they be, which by any manner spiritual authority or jurisdiction ought or may lawfully be reformed, repressed, ordered, redressed corrected, restrained or amended, most to the pleasure of Almighty God, the increase of virtue in Christ’s religion, and for the conservation of the peace, unity and tranquillity of this realm: any usage, custom, foreign laws, foreign authority, prescription or any other thing or things to the contrary hereof notwithstanding.
Source: The Act of Supremacy as published on Tudor History.org This source is in the Public Domain.
10.6 John Calvin: Letter to the King (1536)
John Calvin (1509–1564) was a French theologian and one of the leading figures of the Protestant Reformation. Influenced by the ideas of Martin Luther and other reformers, Calvin rejected several teachings and practices of the Catholic Church and advocated a return to what he believed was the authority of Scripture and the teachings of early Christianity. After converting to Protestantism, he was forced to leave France and eventually settled in Geneva, where he developed a highly influential model of Protestant religious organization.
In 1536, Calvin published the Institutes of the Christian Religion, dedicating the work to Francis I. Calvin’s dedication was more than a gesture of respect toward the French king. He wrote in response to the persecution of French Protestants, seeking to defend them against accusations of heresy and political disloyalty. Calvin argued that the reformers were not dangerous rebels but sincere Christians seeking to restore the Church to biblical principles. By addressing Francis directly, Calvin appealed to the king’s authority and challenged him to reconsider the persecution of those who embraced the Protestant faith. The dedication therefore served both as a defense of the French Reformation and as an early statement of Calvin’s theological vision.
The following is adapted from Institutes of The Christian Religion, by John Calvin; A New Translation, by Henry Beveridge, Esq. Edinburgh: Printed for The Calvin Translation Society, 1845. Vol. 1.
Prefatory Address
To his most Christian Majesty, the most mighty and illustrious Monarch, Francis, King of the French, his Sovereign; John Calvin prays Peace and Salvation in Christ.
Sire, – When I first engaged in this work, nothing was farther from my thoughts than to write what should afterwards be presented to your Majesty. My intention was only to furnish a kind of rudiments, by which those who feel some interest in religion might be trained to true godliness. And I toiled at the task chiefly for the sake of my countrymen the French, multitudes of whom I perceived to be hungering and thirsting after Christ, while very few seemed to have been duly imbued with even a slender knowledge of him. That this was the object which I had in view is apparent from the work itself, which is written in a simple and elementary form adapted for instruction.
But when I perceived that the fury of certain bad men had risen to such a height in your realm, that there was no place in it for sound doctrine, I thought it might be of service if I were in the same work both to give instruction to my countrymen, and also lay before your Majesty a Confession, from which you may learn what the doctrine is that so inflames the rage of those madmen who are this day, with fire and sword, troubling your kingdom. For I fear not to declare, that what I have here given may be regarded as a summary of the very doctrine which, they vociferate, ought to be punished with confiscation, exile, imprisonment, and flames, as well as exterminated by land and sea.
I am aware, indeed, how, in order to render our cause as hateful to your Majesty as possible, they have filled your ears and mind with atrocious insinuations; but you will be pleased, of your clemency, to reflect, that neither in word nor deed could there be any innocence, were it sufficient merely to accuse. When any one, with the view of exciting prejudice, observes that this doctrine, of which I am endeavouring to give your Majesty an account, has been condemned by the suffrages of all the estates, and was long ago stabbed again and again by partial sentences of courts of law, he undoubtedly says nothing more than that it has sometimes been violently oppressed by the power and faction of adversaries, and sometimes fraudulently and insidiously overwhelmed by lies, cavils, and calumny. While a cause is unheard, it is violence to pass sanguinary sentences against it; it is fraud to charge it, contrary to its deserts, with sedition and mischief…
Our adversaries, indeed, clamorously maintain that our appeal to the word of God is a mere pretext, – that we are, in fact, its worst corrupters. How far this is not only malicious calumny, but also shameless effrontery, you will be able to decide, of your own knowledge, by reading our Confession. Here, however, it may be necessary to make some observations which may dispose, or at least assist, you to read and study it with attention. When Paul declared that all prophecy ought to be according to the analogy of faiths (Rom. 12: 6,) he laid down the surest rule for determining the meaning of Scripture. Let our doctrine be tested by this rule and our victory is secure. For what accords better and more aptly with faith than to acknowledge ourselves divested of all virtue that we may be clothed by God, devoid of all goodness that we may be filled by Him, the slaves of sin that he may give us freedom, blind that he may enlighten, lame that he may cure, and feeble that he may sustain us; to strip ourselves of all ground of glorying that he alone may shine forth glorious, and we be glorified in Him? When these things, and others to the same effect, are said by us, they interpose, and querulously complain, that in this way we overturn some blind light of nature, fancied preparatives, free will, and works meritorious of eternal salvation, with their own supererogations also; because they cannot bear that the entire praise and glory of all goodness, virtue, justice, and wisdom, should remain with God…For this hope some of us are in bonds, some beaten with rods, some made a gazing-stock, some proscribed, some most cruelly tortured, some obliged to flee; we are all pressed with straits loaded with dire execrations, lacerated by slanders, and treated with the greatest indignity.
Look now to our adversaries, (I mean the priesthood, at whose beck and pleasure others ply their enmity against us,) and consider with me for a little by what zeal they are actuated. The true religion which is delivered in the Scriptures, and which all ought to hold, they readily permit both themselves and others to be ignorant of, to neglect and despise; and they deem it of little moment what each man believes concerning God and Christ, or disbelieves, provided he submits to the judgement of the Church with what they call implicit faith; nor are they greatly concerned though they should see the glory of God dishonored by open blasphemies, provided not a finger is raised against the primacy of the Apostolic See and the authority of holy mother Church. Why, then, do they war for the mass, purgatory, pilgrimage, and similar follies, with such fierceness and acerbity, that though they cannot prove one of them from the word of God, they deny godliness can be safe without faith in these things – faith drawn out, if I may so express it, to its utmost stretch? Why? just because their belly is their God, and their kitchen their religion; and they believe, that if these were away they would not only not be Christians, but not even men…
Source: Institutes of The Christian Religion, by John Calvin; A New Translation, by Henry Beveridge, Esq. Edinburgh: Printed for The Calvin Translation Society, 1845. Vol. 1.
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Sourcebook. The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted texts related to medieval and Byzantine history. Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.© Paul Halsall, January 2023use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use. © Paul Halsall November 1996.
10.7 Jacques-Auguste de Thou: The Massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day (23-24 August 1572)
Jacques-Auguste de Thou (1553–1617) was a French historian, magistrate, diplomat, and prominent intellectual who lived through the religious and political turmoil of the late sixteenth century. Coming from an influential Parisian legal family, de Thou became involved in government and diplomacy and witnessed many of the conflicts surrounding the French Wars of Religion. His political experience and access to government documents, correspondence, and eyewitness testimony gave him an unusually broad perspective on the events he later described.
De Thou’s great historical work, the Historiae sui temporis (History of His Own Time), was written in Latin and covers European history from approximately 1543 to 1607, with particular attention to the religious and political conflicts that divided France. He began gathering material for the work decades before its publication, and the first portion appeared in 1604. De Thou attempted to present himself as an impartial historian, emphasizing the importance of truth and careful evaluation of conflicting accounts. His treatment of the French Wars of Religion is especially valuable because he was critical of religious extremism and showed a degree of sympathy toward Protestants. His relatively tolerant perspective contributed to the work being placed on the Catholic Index of Forbidden Books in 1609. The passage below includes his account of the massacre that took place on St. Bartholomew’s Day, 1572.
From J.H. Robinson, ed., Readings in European History 2 vols. (Boston: Ginn, 1906), 2:179-183.
So it was determined to exterminate all the Protestants, and the plan was approved by the queen. They discussed for some time whether they should make an exception of the king of Navarre and the prince of Conde. All agreed that the king of Navarre should be spared by reason of the royal dignity and the new alliance. The duke of Guise, who was put in full command of the enterprise, summoned by night several captains of the Catholic Swiss mercenaries from the five little cantons, and some commanders of French companies, and told them that it was the will of the king that, according to God’s will, they should take vengeance on the band of rebels while they had the beasts in the toils. Victory was easy and the booty great and to be obtained without danger. The signal to commence the massacre should be given by the bell of the palace, and the marks by which they should recognize each other in the darkness were a bit of white linen tied around the left arm and a white cross on the hat.
Meanwhile Coligny awoke and recognized from the noise that a riot was taking place. Nevertheless he remained assured of the king’s good will, being persuaded thereof either by his credulity or by Teligny, his son-in-law: he believed the populace had been stirred up by the Guises, and that quiet would be restored as soon as it was seen that soldiers of the guard, under the command of Cosseins, had been detailed to protect him and guard his property.
But when he perceived that the noise increased and that some one had fired an arquebus in the courtyard of his dwelling, then at length, conjecturing what it might be, but too late, he arose from his bed and having put on his dressing gown he said his prayers, leaning against the wall. Labonne held the key of the house, and when Cosseins commanded him, in the king’s name, to open the door he obeyed at once without fear and apprehending nothing. But scarcely had Cosseins entered when Labonne, who stood in his way, was killed with a dagger thrust. The Swiss who were in the courtyard, when they saw this, fled into the house and closed the door, piling against it tables and all the furniture they could find. It was in the first scrimmage that a Swiss was killed with a ball from an arquebus fired by one of Cosseins’ people. But finally the conspirators broke through the door and mounted the stairway…all armed with cuirasses…
After Coligny had said his prayers with Merlin the minister, he said, without any appearance of alarm, to those who were present…Go then from this place, my friends, as quickly as you may, for fear lest you shall be involved in my misfortune, and that some day your wives shall curse me as the author of your loss. For me it is enough that God is here, to whose goodness I commend my soul, which is so soon to issue from my body. After these words they ascended to an upper room, whence they sought safety in flight here and there over the roofs.
Meanwhile the conspirators, having burst through the door of the chamber, entered, and when Besme, sword in hand, had demanded of Coligny, who stood near the door, “Are you Coligny ?” Coligny replied, “Yes, I am he,” with fearless countenance. “But you, young man, respect these white hairs. What is it you would do? You cannot shorten by many days this life of mine.” As he spoke, Besme gave him a sword thrust through the body, and having withdrawn his sword, another thrust in the mouth, by which his face was disfigured. So Coligny fell, killed with many thrusts. Others have written that Coligny in dying pronounced as though in anger these words: “Would that I might at least die at the hands of a soldier and not of a valet.” But Attin, one of the murderers, has reported as I have written, and added that he never saw any one less afraid in so great a peril, nor die more steadfastly.
Then the duke of Guise inquired of Besme from the courtyard if the thing were done, and when Besme answered him that it was, the duke replied that the Chevalier d’Angouleme was unable to believe it unless he saw it; and at the same time that he made the inquiry they threw the body through the window into the courtyard, disfigured as it was with blood. When the Chevalier d’Angouleme, who could scarcely believe his eyes, had wiped away with a cloth the blood which overran the face and finally had recognized him, some say that he spurned the body with his foot. However this may be, when he left the house with his followers he said: “Cheer up, my friends! Let us do thoroughly that which we have begun. The king commands it.” He frequently repeated these words, and as soon as they had caused the bell of the palace clock to ring, on every side arose the cry, “To arms !” and the people ran to the house of Coligny. After his body had been treated to all sorts of insults, they threw it into a neighboring stable, and finally cut off his head, which they sent to Rome. They also shamefully mutilated him, and dragged his body through the streets to the bank of the Seine, a thing which he had formerly almost prophesied, although he did not think of anything like this.
As some children were in the act of throwing the body into the river, it was dragged out and placed upon the gibbet of Montfaucon, where it hung by the feet in chains of iron; and then they built a fire beneath, by which he was burned without being consumed; so that he was, so to speak, tortured with all the elements, since he was killed upon the earth, thrown into the water, placed upon the fire, and finally put to hang in the air. After he had served for several days as a spectacle to gratify the hate of many and arouse the just indignation of many others, who reckoned that this fury of the people would cost the king and France many a sorrowful day, Francois de Montmorency, who was nearly related to the dead man, and still more his friend, and who moreover had escaped the danger in time, had him taken by night from the gibbet by trusty men and carried to Chantilly, where he was buried in the chapel.
Source: J.H. Robinson, ed., Readings in European History 2 vols. (Boston: Ginn, 1906), 2:179-183.
This source is part of the Hanover Historical Texts Project Most of the texts in the Hanover Historical Texts Collection are in public domain. However, the electronic forms of public domain texts that we have created for the Collection are under copyright. We grant permission to copy and use items in the Hanover Historical Texts Collection for educational purposes; we ask that you acknowledge the Hanover Historical Texts Collection. We do not grant permission for commercial uses. Scanned by Brian Cheek, Hanover College. November 12, 1995. Proofread by Jonathan Perry, March 2001.