ueiance of certein nobles in Saxonie, because of the Emperours Edict, aboue mentioned.
I.e., the banning of Luther's works and the order for his arrest (after his safe conduct had expired) issued by Charles V at the Diet of Worms.
The account of Luther's quarrel with Carlstadt over images is drawn from Johannes Sleidan, A famouse cronicle of our time, called Sleidanes Commentaries, trans. John Daus (London, 1560), STC 19848, fos. 35v-36r and 45r-v.
Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt (c. 1480-1541), often known simply as Carlstadt, became a leading and extreme Lutheran. In 1518, he had been an important and outspoken ally of Luther's but Carlstadt eventually fell out with him.
Furthermore Luther writyng of Carolostadius, affirmeth that hee also ioyned with the sentence of them, which begā then to spread about certeine partes of Saxonie, saying that they were taught of God, that all wickednes beyng vtterly suppressed, and all the wicked doers slayne, a new full perfectiō of all thynges must be set vp, and the innocent onely to enioye all thynges. &c.
[Back to Top]The cause why Luther so stoode agaynst that violent throwyng downe of Images, and agaynst Carolostadius, semeth partly to rise of this, by reason that Pope Adrian, in his letters sent to the princes and states of Germany, doth grieuously complayne, and charge the secte of Luther, for sedition and tumultes, and rebellion agaynst Magistrates, as subuerters and destroyers of all order, and obedience, as appeareth by the woordes of the Popes letter before expressed, pag. 985. therfore M. Luther, to stoppe the mouth of such slaunderers, & to preuēt such sinister suspitions, was enforced to take this way, as he did: that is, to procede, as much as hee might, by order and authoritie.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaThe causes discussed why
Foxe's knowledge of Adrian VI's letters comes from Sleidan's Commentaries (see A famouse cronicle of our time, called Sleidanes Commentaries, trans. John Daus (London, 1560), STC 19848, fo. 37r-v) but it is Foxe who shrewdly guesses that they caused Luther to prohibit Carlstadt's iconoclasm.
In the following paragraphs, Foxe, who staunchly endorsed iconoclasm, is trying to explain away Luther's opposition to iconoclasm as tactical and also not a precedent to be followed in England.
The second point to be noted is, to consider the cause why that Luther did so stand with standyng of Images, whiche cause was tyme, and not his owne Iudgement. For albeit in iudgement he wished them away, yet tyme so serued not therunto then, as it serueth now. For then the doctrine of Luther first beginnyng to spryng, & being but in the blade, was not yet knowen wherto it tended, nor to what it would grow, but rather was suspected to tende to disobedience and sedition: and therfore the pope hearyng of þe doinges of Carolostadius in Wittenberge, and of other lyke, tooke his ground thereby to charge the sect of Luther with sedition, vprores, and dissolute libertie of lyfe. And this was the cause, why Luther compelled then by necessitie of tyme, to saue his doctrine from sclaunder of sedition and tumulte, beyng layd to hym by the Pope (as ye haue heard) was so much offēded with Carolostadius & other, for their violence vsed agaynst Images. For otherwise, had it not bene for the Popes accusations, there is no doubt, but Luther would haue bene as well contented with abolishyng of Images and other monumentes of Popery, as he was at þe same tyme, contented to write to the Friers Augustins for abrogatyng of priuate Masses. And therfore as Luther in this doyng is to be excused, the circumstāces considered: Marginaliaxxxxso the lyke excuse perhaps will not serue the ouermuch curious imitation of certeine Lutherians in this present age now: MarginaliaLutheriās of thys age.whiche consideryng onely the facte of Luther, do not marke the purpose of Luther, neither do expende the circumstances & time of his doinges: being not much vnlyke to the ridiculous imitatours of kyng Alexander the great, whiche thought it not sufficient to followe him in his vertues, but they would also couterfeite him in hys stoupyng & all other gestures besides: ;MarginaliaHowe Luther is to be folowed.but to these lyuing now in the Churche, in an other age then Luther did, it may seme (after my minde) sufficient to folow the same way after Luther, or to walke with Luther, to the kyngdome of Christ, though they Iumpe not also in euery foote steppe of hys, and kepe euen the same pase, and turnynges in all pointes, as he did.
[Back to Top]MarginaliaLuther not to bee contenmed for one litle blemishe.And contrarywise
Here Foxe is defending Luther against the numerous godly in England who rejected key parts of Lutheran theology (notably on the Eucharist), by praising Luther as a great physician of souls.
Foxe based this account of the Colloquy of Marburg on Caspar Hedio, Paralipomoena rerum memorabilium (Strasbourg, 1538), pp. 472-3 and Johannes Sleidan, A famouse cronicle of our time, called Sleidanes Commentaries, trans. John Daus (London, 1560), pp. 472-3. It should be observed that Foxe is going out of chronological order in his narrative, as the Colloquy of Marburg was held in 1529.
[Back to Top]In all these summes of doctrine aboue recited, Luther and Zuinglius did consent and agree. Neither were then opinions so differēt in the matter of the Lordes Supper, but that in the principall pointes they accorded.
In fact, in 14 of the 15 articles drawn up by Luther before the Colloquy (and listed by Foxe), the Lutheran and Swiss Reformers agreed. But the Swiss refused to accept the doctrine of the Eucharist contained in article 15. Foxe is de-emphasizing the disagreement in response to a blistering attack by Nicholas Harpsfield, who argued that Lutherans, Zwinglians and Calinists were not of the same religion because they did not share the same beliefs on the key doctrine of the Eucharist (Harpsfield, Dialogi sex, pp. 802-17 and 822-25).
[Back to Top]