When tradition becomes a wall against freedom, when authority degenerates into tyranny,the very blessing is turned into a curse, and history is threatened with stagnation and death.^375 At
such rare junctures, Providence raises those pioneers of progress, who have the intellectual and
moral courage to break through the restraints at the risk of their lives, and to open new paths for
the onward march of history. This consideration furnishes the key for the proper appreciation of
Luther’s determined stand at this historical crisis.
Conscience is the voice of God in man. It is his most sacred possession. No power can be
allowed to stand between the gift and the giver. Even an erring conscience must be respected, and
cannot be forced. The liberty of conscience was theoretically and practically asserted by the
Christians of the ante-Nicene age, against Jewish and heathen persecution; but it was suppressed
by the union of Church and State after Constantine the Great, and severe laws were enacted under
his successors against every departure from the established creed of the orthodox imperial Church.
These laws passed from the Roman to the German Empire, and were in full force all over Europe
at the time when Luther raised his protest. Dissenters had no rights which Catholics were bound
to respect; even a sacred promise given to a heretic might be broken without sin, and was broken
by the Emperor Sigismund in the case of Hus.^376
This tyranny was brought to an end by the indomitable courage of Luther.
Liberty of conscience may, of course, be abused, like any other liberty, and may degenerate
into heresy and licentiousness. The individual conscience and private judgment often do err, and
they are more likely to err than a synod or council, which represents the combined wisdom of many.
Luther himself was far from denying this fact, and stood open to correction and conviction by
testimonies of Scripture and clear arguments. He heartily accepted all the doctrinal decisions of
the first four oecumenical Councils, and had the deepest respect for the Apostles’ Creed on which
his own Catechism is based. But he protested against the Council of Constance for condemning
the opinions of Hus, which he thought were in accordance with the Scriptures. The Roman Church
itself must admit the fallibility of Councils if the Vatican decree of papal infallibility is to stand;
for more than one oecumenical council has denounced Pope Honorius as a heretic, and even Popes
have confirmed the condemnation of their predecessor. Two conflicting infallibilities neutralize
each other.^377
(^375) The Devil sometimes tells the truth. So Mephistopheles, in Goethe’s Faust, when he excuses the aversion of the student to the study
of jurisprudence, and says with a wicked purpose:—
"Es erben sich Gesetz’ und Rechte
Wie eine ew’ge Krankheit fort;
Sie schleppen von Geschlecht sich zum Geschlechte
Und schleichen sacht von Ort zu Ort.
Vernunft wird Unsinn, Wohlthat Plage;
Weh dir, dass du ein Enkel bist!
Vom Rechte, das mit uns geboren ist,
Von dem ist, leider! nie die Frage."
(^376) Dr. (Bishop) Hefele discusses this case at length from the Roman Catholic standpoint, in his Conciliengeschichte, vol. VII. (1869),
pp. 218 sqq. He defends Sigismund and the Council of Constance on the ground that a salvus conductus protects only against illegal
violence, but not against the legal course of justice and deserved punishment, and that its validity for the return of Hus to Bohemia
depended on his recantation. But no such condition was expressed in the letter of safe-conduct (as given by Hefele, p. 221), which grants
Hus freedom to come, stay, and return (transire, morari et redire libere). Sigismund had expressly promised him "ut salvus ad Bohemiam
redirem " (p. 226). Such a promise would have been quite unnecessary in case of his recantation.
(^377) See my Church Hist., vol. IV. 500 sqq.; and Creeds of Christendom, vol. I. 169 sqq.