__________________________________________________________________

           Title: History of the Christian Church, Volume VII. Modern
                  Christianity. The German Reformation
      Creator(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)
     Print Basis: Second edition, revised
   CCEL Subjects: All; History; Proofed;
      LC Call no: BR145.S3
     LC Subjects:

                  Christianity

                  History
     __________________________________________________________________

   This volume constitutes the first part of

   THE HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION

   by Philip Schaff

   It is included as Volume VII in the 8-volume

   HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH

   Volume VIII in this series, on the Swiss

   Reformation, completes the 2-volume unit

   on he The History of the Reformation

   HISTORY

   of the

   CHRISTIAN CHURCH [1]

   by

   PHILIP SCHAFF

   professor of church history in the union theological seminary

   new york

   Christianus sum: Christiani nihil a me alienum puto

   VOLUME VII.

   MODERN CHRISTIANITY

   THE GERMAN REFORMATION

   This is a reproduction of the Second Edition, Revised
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA:
   Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. This material has been carefully
   compared, corrected¸ and emended (according to the 1910 edition of
   Charles Scribner's Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX,
   1998.
     __________________________________________________________________

   PREFACE.

   I publish the history of the Reformation in advance of the concluding
   volume on the Middle Ages, which will follow in due time.

   The Reformation was a republication of primitive Christianity, and the
   inauguration of modern Christianity. This makes it, next to the
   Apostolic age, the most important and interesting portion of church
   history. The Luther and Zwingli celebrations of 1883 and 1884 have
   revived its memories, and largely increased its literature; while
   scholars of the Roman Church have attempted, with great ability, an
   ultramontane reconstruction of the history of Germany and Europe during
   the period of the Reformation. The Cultur-Kampf is still going on. The
   theological battles of the sixteenth century are being fought over
   again in modern thought, with a slow but steady approach to a better
   understanding and filial settlement. Protestantism with its freedom can
   afford to be fair and just to Romanism, which is chained to its
   traditions. The dogma of papal infallibility is fatal to freedom of
   investigation. Facts must control dogmas, and not dogmas facts. Truth,
   the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is the aim of the
   historian; but truth should be told in love (Eph. 4:15).

   The signs of the times point to a new era in the ever onward March of
   Christ's kingdom. God alone foreknows the future, and sees the end from
   the beginning. We poor mortals know only "in part," and see "in a
   mirror, darkly." But, as the plans of Providence unfold themselves, the
   prospect widens, old prejudices melt away, and hope and charity expand
   with our vision. The historian must be impartial, without being neutral
   or indifferent. He must follow the footsteps of Divine Providence,
   which shapes our ends, and guides all human events in the interest of
   truth, righteousness, and peace.

   I have collected much material for a comprehensive history of the
   Reformation, in the libraries of Europe, during several summer visits
   (thirteen in all), and digested it at home. I have studied the Luther
   literature in Berlin, the Zwingli literature in Zuerich, the
   Calvinistic literature in Geneva and Paris, the English and Scotch
   Reformation in London, Oxford, and Edinburgh. Two years ago I
   revisited, with great satisfaction, the classical localities made
   memorable by the Reformation,--Wittenberg, Eisleben, Eisenach, the
   Wartburg, Halle, Leipzig, Jena, Weimar, Erfurt, Gotha, Heidelberg,
   Zuerich, Geneva,--and found kind friends and Christian brethren
   everywhere. At Marburg, Coburg, Augsburg, I had been before. By way of
   contrast I made in the same year an interesting tour through
   Roman-Catholic Spain, the land of Ferdinand and Isabel, Charles V.,
   Philip II., and Ignatius Loyola, and compared her former and present
   state with the Protestant North. In Italy I have been three times,
   including a three-months sojourn in Rome. A visit to the places of
   events brings one nearer to the actors, and puts one almost into the
   position of a witness.

   This volume embraces, besides a general introduction to modern church
   history, the productive period of the German Reformation, from its
   beginning to the Diet of Augsburg (1530), and the death of Luther
   (1546), with a concluding estimate of the character and services of
   this extraordinary man. I have used the new Weimar edition of his works
   as far as published; for the other parts, Walch and the Erlangen
   edition. Of modern Protestant historians I have chiefly consulted Ranke
   (my teacher), and Koestlin (my friend), with whose views, on Luther and
   the Reformation I am in essential harmony. I have also constantly
   compared the learned Roman-Catholic works of Doellinger, and Janssen,
   besides numerous monographs. The reader will find classified lists of
   the sources and literature in all leading sections (e.g., pp. 94, 99,
   183, 272, 340, 399, 421, 494, 579, 612, 629, 695, 706), and occasional
   excursions into the field of the philosophy of church history (as in
   the introductory chapter, and in §§ 49, 56, 63, 79, 87, 99, etc.). In
   these I have endeavored to interpret the past in the light of the
   present, and to make the movements of the sixteenth century more
   intelligible through their results in the nineteenth. For we must judge
   the tree by its fruits. "God's mills grind slowly, but wonderfully
   fine."

   I am conscious of the defects of this new attempt to reproduce the
   history of the Reformation, which has so often been told by friend and
   foe, but too often in a partisan spirit. I have done the best I could.
   God expects no more from his servants than faithfulness in the use of
   their abilities and opportunities.

   The Author.

   New York, September, 1888.

   HISTORY

   of

   MODERN CHRISTIANITY

   THE REFORMATION.

   FROM A.D. 1517 TO 1648.
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER I.

   ORIENTATION.

   Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
   is liberty.--2 Cor. 3:17.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 1. The Turning Point of Modern History.

   The Reformation of the sixteenth century is, next to the introduction
   of Christianity, the greatest event in history. It marks the end of the
   Middle Ages and the beginning of modern times. Starting from religion,
   it gave, directly or indirectly, a mighty impulse to every forward
   movement, and made Protestantism the chief propelling force in the
   history of modern civilization.

   The age of the Reformation bears a strong resemblance to the first
   century. Both are rich beyond any other period in great and good men,
   important facts, and permanent results. Both contain the ripe fruits of
   preceding, and the fruitful germs of succeeding ages. They are turning
   points in the history of mankind. They are felt in their effects to
   this day, and will be felt to the end of time. They refashioned the
   world from the innermost depths of the human soul in its contact, with
   the infinite Being. They were ushered in by a providential concurrence
   of events and tendencies of thought. The way for Christianity was
   prepared by Moses and the Prophets, the dispersion of the Jews, the
   conquests of Alexander the Great, the language and literature of
   Greece, the arms and laws of Rome, the decay of idolatry, the spread of
   skepticism, the aspirations after a new revelation, the hopes of a
   coming Messiah. The Reformation was preceded and necessitated by the
   corruptions of the papacy, the decline of monasticism and scholastic
   theology, the growth of mysticism, the revival of letters, the
   resurrection of the Greek and Roman classics, the invention of the
   printing press, the discovery of a new world, the publication of the
   Greek Testament, the general spirit of enquiry, the striving after
   national independence and personal freedom. In both centuries we hear
   the creative voice of the Almighty calling light out of darkness.

   The sixteenth century is the age of the renaissance in religion,
   literature, and art. The air was stirred by the spirit of progress and
   freedom. The snows of a long winter were fast, melting before the rays
   of the vernal sun. The world seemed to be renewing its youth; old
   things were passing away, all things were becoming new. Pessimists and
   timid conservatives took alarm at the threatened overthrow of cherished
   notions and institutions, and were complaining, fault-finding and
   desponding. A very useless business. Intelligent observers of the signs
   of the times looked hopefully and cheerfully to the future. "O
   century!" exclaimed Ulrich von Hutten, "the studies flourish, the
   spirits are awake, it is a luxury to live." And Luther wrote in 1522:
   "If you read all the annals of the past, you will find no century like
   this since the birth of Christ. Such building and planting, such good
   living and dressing, such enterprise in commerce, such a stir in all
   the arts, has not been since Christ came into the world. And how
   numerous are the sharp and intelligent people who leave nothing hidden
   and unturned: even a boy of twenty years knows more nowadays than was
   known formerly by twenty doctors of divinity."

   The same may be said with even greater force of the nineteenth century,
   which is eminently an age of discovery and invention, of enquiry and
   progress. And both then as now the enthusiasm for light and liberty
   takes two opposite directions, either towards skepticism and
   infidelity, or towards a revival of true religion from its primitive
   sources. But Christianity triumphed then, and will again regenerate the
   world.

   The Protestant Reformation assumed the helm of the liberal tendencies
   and movements of the renaissance, directed them into the channel of
   Christian life, and saved the world from a disastrous revolution. For
   the Reformation was neither a revolution nor a restoration, though
   including elements of both. It was negative and destructive towards
   error, positive and constructive towards truth; it was conservative as
   well as progressive; it built up new institutions in the place of those
   which it pulled down; and for this reason and to this extent it has
   succeeded.

   Under the motherly care of the Latin Church, Europe had been
   Christianized and civilized, and united into a family of nations under
   the spiritual government of the Pope and the secular government of the
   Emperor, with one creed, one ritual, one discipline, and one sacred
   language. The state of heathenism and barbarism at the beginning of the
   sixth century contrasts with the state of Christian Europe at the
   beginning of the sixteenth century as midnight darkness compared with
   the dawn of the morning. But the sun of the day had not yet arisen.

   All honor to the Catholic Church and her inestimable services to
   humanity. But Christianity is far broader and deeper than any
   ecclesiastical organization. It burst the shell of mediaeval forms,
   struck out new paths, and elevated Europe to a higher plane of
   intellectual, moral and spiritual culture than it had ever attained
   before.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 2. Protestantism and Romanism.

   Protestantism represents the most enlightened and active of modern
   church history, but not the whole of it.

   Since the sixteenth century Western Christendom is divided and runs in
   two distinct channels. The separation may be compared to the Eastern
   schism of the ninth century, which is not healed to this day; both
   parties being as firm and unyielding as ever on the doctrinal question
   of the Filioque, and the more important practical question of Popery.
   But Protestantism differs much more widely from the Roman church than
   the Roman church differs from the Greek, and the Protestant schism has
   become the fruitful mother of minor divisions, which exist in separate
   ecclesiastical organizations.

   We must distinguish between Catholicism and Romanism. The former
   embraces the ancient Oriental church, the mediaeval church, and we may
   say, in a wider sense, all the modern evangelical churches. Romanism is
   the Latin church turned against the Reformation, consolidated by the
   Council of Trent and completed by the Vatican Council of 1870 with its
   dogma of papal absolutism and papal infallibility. Mediaeval
   Catholicism is pre-evangelical, looking to the Reformation; modern
   Romanism is anti-evangelical, condemning the Reformation, yet holding
   with unyielding tenacity the oecumenical doctrines once sanctioned, and
   doing this all the more by virtue of its claim to infallibility.

   The distinction between pre-Reformation Catholicism and
   post-Reformation Romanism, in their attitude towards Protestantism, has
   its historical antecedent and parallel in the distinction between
   pre-Christian Israel which prepared the way for Christianity, and
   post-Christian Judaism which opposed it as an apostasy.

   Catholicism and Protestantism represent two distinct types of
   Christianity which sprang from the same root, but differ in the
   branches.

   Catholicism is legal Christianity which served to the barbarian nations
   of the Middle Ages as a necessary school of discipline; Protestantism
   is evangelical Christianity which answers the age of independent
   manhood. Catholicism is traditional, hierarchical, ritualistic,
   conservative; Protestantism is biblical, democratic, spiritual,
   progressive. The former is ruled by the principle of authority, the
   latter by the principle of freedom. But the law, by awakening a sense
   of sin and exciting a desire for redemption, leads to the gospel;
   parental authority is a school of freedom; filial obedience looks to
   manly self-government.

   The characteristic features of mediaeval Catholicism are intensified by
   Romanism, yet without destroying the underlying unity.

   Romanism and orthodox Protestantism believe in one God, Father, Son,
   and Holy Spirit, and in one divine-human Lord and Saviour of the race.
   They accept in common the Holy Scriptures and the oecumenical faith.
   They agree in every article of the Apostles' Creed. What unites them is
   far deeper, stronger and more important than what divides them.

   But Romanism holds also a large number of "traditions of the elders,"
   which Protestantism rejects as extra-scriptural or anti-scriptural;
   such are the papacy, the worship of saints and relics,
   transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers and masses for
   the dead, works of supererogation, purgatory, indulgences, the system
   of monasticism with its perpetual vows and ascetic practices, besides
   many superstitious rites and ceremonies.

   Protestantism, on the other hand, revived and developed the Augustinian
   doctrines of sin and grace; it proclaimed the sovereignty of divine
   mercy in man's salvation, the sufficiency of the Scriptures as a rule
   of faith, and the sufficiency of Christ's merit as a source of
   justification; it asserted the right of direct access to the Word of
   God and the throne of grace, without human mediators; it secured
   Christian freedom from bondage; it substituted social morality for
   monkish asceticism, and a simple, spiritual worship for an imposing
   ceremonialism that addresses the senses and imagination rather than the
   intellect and the heart.

   The difference between the Catholic and Protestant churches was
   typically foreshadowed by the difference between Jewish and Gentile
   Christianity in the apostolic age, which anticipated, as it were, the
   whole future course of church history. The question of circumcision or
   the keeping of the Mosaic law, as a condition of church membership,
   threatened a split at the Council of Jerusalem, but was solved by the
   wisdom and charity of the apostles, who agreed that Jews and Gentiles
   alike are "saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 15:11). Yet
   even after the settlement of the controversy by the Jerusalem
   compromise Paul got into a sharp conflict with Peter at Antioch on the
   same question, and protested against his older colleague for denying by
   his timid conduct his better conviction, and disowning the Gentile
   brethren. It is not accidental that the Roman Church professes to be
   built on Peter and regards him as the first pope; while the Reformers
   appealed chiefly to Paul and found in his epistles to the Galatians and
   Romans the bulwark of their anthropology and soteriology, and their
   doctrine of Christian freedom. The collision between Paul and Peter was
   only temporary; and so the war between Protestantism and Romanism will
   ultimately pass away in God's own good time.

   The Reformation began simultaneously in Germany and Switzerland, and
   swept with astonishing rapidity over France, Holland, Scandinavia,
   Bohemia, Hungary, England and Scotland; since the seventeenth century
   it has spread by emigration to North America, and by commercial and
   missionary enterprises to every Dutch and English colony, and every
   heathen land. It carried away the majority of the Teutonic and a part
   of the Latin nations, and for a while threatened to overthrow the papal
   church.

   But towards the close of the sixteenth century the triumphant march of
   the Reformation was suddenly arrested. Romanism rose like a wounded
   giant, and made the most vigorous efforts to reconquer the lost
   territory in Europe, and to extend its dominion in Asia and South
   America. Since that time the numerical relation of the two churches has
   undergone little change. But the progress of secular and ecclesiastical
   history has run chiefly in Protestant channels.

   In many respects the Roman Church of to-day is a great improvement upon
   the Mediaeval Church. She has been much benefited by the Protestant
   Reformation, and is far less corrupt and far more prosperous in
   Protestant than in Papal countries. She was driven to a counter-reform
   which abolished some of the most crying abuses and infused new life and
   zeal into her clergy and laity. No papal schism has disgraced her
   history since the sixteenth century. No pope of the character of
   Alexander VI. or even Leo X. could be elected any more. She lives
   chiefly of the past, but uses for her defence all the weapons of modern
   warfare. She has a much larger membership than either the Greek or the
   Protestant communion; she still holds under her sway the Latin races of
   both hemispheres; she satisfies the religious wants of millions of
   human beings in all countries and climes; she extends her educational,
   benevolent and missionary operations all over the globe; she advances
   in proportion as Protestantism degenerates and neglects its duty; and
   by her venerable antiquity, historical continuity, visible unity,
   centralized organization, imposing ritual, sacred art, and ascetic
   piety she attracts intelligent and cultured minds; while the common
   people are kept in ignorance and in superstitious awe of her mysterious
   authority with its claim to open the gates of heaven and hell and to
   shorten the purgatorial sufferings of the departed. For good and evil
   she is the strongest conservative force in modern society, and there is
   every reason to believe that she will last to the end of time.

   Thus the two branches of Western Christendom seem to hold each other in
   check, and ought to stimulate each other to a noble rivalry in good
   works.

   The unhappy divisions of Christendom, while they are the source of many
   evils, have also the good effect of multiplying the agencies for the
   conversion of the world and facilitating the free growth of every phase
   of religious life. The evil lies not so much in the multiplicity of
   denominations, which have a mission to fulfil, as in the spirit of
   sectarianism and exclusivism, which denies the rights and virtues of
   others. The Reformation of the sixteenth century is not a finale, but a
   movement still in progress. We may look hopefully forward to a higher,
   deeper and broader Reformation, when God in His overruling wisdom and
   mercy, by a pentecostal effusion of His Holy Spirit upon all the
   churches, will reunite what the sin and folly of men have divided.
   There must and will be, in the fullest sense of Christ's prophecy, "one
   flock, one Shepherd" (John 10:16). [2]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [2] We say "one flock" (mia poimne) not "one fold" (which would require
   mia aule). The latter is a strange mistranslation which has passed from
   the Latin version (ovile) into King James's version, and has often been
   abused as an argument for the papacy and ecclesiastical uniformity. It
   is corrected in the Revision. The two flocks, Jews and Gentiles, became
   one flock in the one Shepherd (poimen), not by entrance into the aule
   of the Jews. There may be one flock in many folds or ecclesiastical
   organizations. The prophecy was no doubt already fulfilled in the
   Apostolic Church (Eph. 2:11-22), but awaits a higher fulfillment when
   "the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in, and all Israel shall be
   saved." Rom. 11:25, 26.
     __________________________________________________________________

   §3. Necessity of a Reformation.

   The corruption and abuses of the Latin church had long been the
   complaint of the best men, and even of general councils. A reformation
   of the head and the members was the watchword at Pisa, Constance, and
   Basel, but remained a pium desiderium for a whole century.

   Let us briefly review the dark side in the condition of the church at
   the beginning of the sixteenth century.

   The papacy was secularized, and changed into a selfish tyranny whose
   yoke became more and more unbearable. The scandal of the papal schism
   had indeed been removed, but papal morals, after a temporary
   improvement, became worse than ever during the years 1492 to 1521.
   Alexander VI. was a monster of iniquity; Julius II. was a politician
   and warrior rather than a chief shepherd of souls; and Leo X. took far
   more interest in the revival of heathen literature and art than in
   religion, and is said to have even doubted the truth of the gospel
   history.

   No wonder that many cardinals and priests followed the scandalous
   example of the popes, and weakened the respect of the laity for the
   clergy. The writings of contemporary scholars, preachers and satirists
   are full of complaints and exposures of the ignorance, vulgarity and
   immorality of priests and monks. Simony and nepotism were shamefully
   practiced. Celibacy was a foul fountain of unchastity and uncleanness.
   The bishoprics were monopolized by the youngest sons of princes and
   nobles without regard to qualification. Geiler of Kaisersberg, a stern
   preacher of moral reform at Strassburg (d. 1510), charges all Germany
   with promoting ignorant and worldly men to the chief dignities, simply
   on account of their high connections. Thomas Murner complains that the
   devil had introduced the nobility into the clergy, and monopolized for
   them the bishoprics. [3] Plurality of office and absence from the
   diocese were common. Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz was at the same time
   archbishop of Magdeburg and bishop of Halberstadt. Cardinal Wolsey was
   archbishop of York while chancellor of England, received stipends from
   the kings of France and Spain and the doge of Venice, and had a train
   of five hundred servants. James V. of Scotland (1528-1542) provided for
   his illegitimate children by making them abbots of Holyrood House,
   Kelso, Melrose, Coldingham and St. Andrews, and intrusted royal
   favorites with bishoprics.

   Discipline was nearly ruined. Whole monastic establishments and orders
   had become nurseries of ignorance and superstition, idleness and
   dissipation, and were the objects of contempt and ridicule, as may be
   seen from the controversy of Reuchlin with the Dominicans, the writings
   of Erasmus, and the Epistolae Virorum Obscurorum.

   Theology was a maze of scholastic subtleties, Aristotelian dialectics
   and idle speculations, but ignored the great doctrines of the gospel.
   Carlstadt, the older colleague of Luther, confessed that he had been
   doctor of divinity before he had seen a complete copy of the Bible.
   Education was confined to priests and nobles. The mass of the laity
   could neither read nor write, and had no access to the word of God
   except the Scripture lessons from the pulpit.

   The priest's chief duty was to perform, by his magic words, the miracle
   of transubstantiation, and to offer the sacrifice of the mass for the
   living and the dead in a foreign tongue. Many did it mechanically, or
   with a skeptical reservation, especially in Italy. Preaching was
   neglected, and had reference, mostly, to indulgences, alms, pilgrimages
   and processions. The churches were overloaded with good and bad
   pictures, with real and fictitious relics. Saint-worship and
   image-worship, superstitious rites and ceremonies obstructed the direct
   worship of God in spirit and in truth.

   Piety which should proceed from a living union of the soul with Christ
   and a consecration of character, was turned outward and reduced to a
   round of mechanical performances such as the recital of Paternosters
   and Avemarias, fasting, alms-giving, confession to the priest, and
   pilgrimage to a holy shrine. Good works were measured by the quantity
   rather than the quality, and vitiated by the principle of
   meritoriousness which appealed to the selfish motive of reward.
   Remission of sin could be bought with money; a shameful traffic in
   indulgences was carried on under the Pope's sanction for filthy lucre
   as well as for the building of St. Peter's Dome, and caused that
   outburst of moral indignation which was the beginning of the
   Reformation and of the fearful judgment on the Church of Rome.

   This is a one-sided, but not an exaggerated description. It is true as
   far as it goes, and needs only to be supplemented by the bright side
   which we shall present in the next section.

   Honest Roman Catholic scholars, while maintaining the infallibility and
   consequent doctrinal irreformability of their church, admit in strong
   terms the decay of discipline and the necessity of a moral reform in
   the sixteenth century. [4]

   The best proof is furnished by a pope of exceptional integrity, Adrian
   VI., who made an extraordinary confession of the papal and clerical
   corruption to the Diet of Nürnberg in 1522, and tried earnestly, though
   in vain, to reform his court. The Council of Trent was called not only
   for the extirpation of heresy, but in part also "for the reformation of
   the clergy and Christian people;" [5] and Pope Pius IV., in the bull of
   confirmation, likewise declares that one of the objects of the Council
   was "the correction of morals and the restoration of ecclesiastical
   discipline." [6]

   On the other hand, it must be admitted that the church was more than
   once in a far worse condition, during the papal schism in the
   fourteenth, and especially in the tenth and eleventh centuries; and yet
   she was reformed by Pope Hildebrand and his successors without a split
   and without an alteration of the Catholic Creed.

   Why could not the same be done in the sixteenth century? Because the
   Roman church in the critical moment resisted reform with all her might,
   and forced the issue: either no reformation at all, or a reformation in
   opposition to Rome.

   The guilt of the western schism is divided between the two parties, as
   the guilt of the eastern schism is; although no human tribunal can
   measure the share of responsibility. Much is due, no doubt, to the
   violence and extravagance of the Protestant opposition, but still more
   to the intolerance and stubbornness of the Roman resistance. The papal
   court used against the Reformation for a long time only the carnal
   weapons of political influence, diplomatic intrigue, secular wealth,
   haughty pride, scholastic philosophy, crushing authority, and bloody
   persecution. It repeated the course of the Jewish hierarchy, which
   crucified the Messiah and cast the apostles out of the synagogue.

   But we must look beyond this partial justification, and view the matter
   in the light of the results of the Reformation.

   It was evidently the design of Providence to develop a new type of
   Christianity outside of the restraints of the papacy, and the history
   of three centuries is the best explanation and vindication of that
   design. Every movement in history must be judged by its fruits.

   The elements of such an advance movement were all at work before Luther
   and Zwingli protested against papal indulgences.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [3] In his Narrenbeschwörung (1512): "Aber seit der Teufel hat Den Adel
   bracht in Kirchenstat, Seit man kein' Bischof mehr will han Er sei denn
   ganz ein Edelmann," etc.

   [4] So Bellarmine and Bossuet. Möhler also (in his Kirchengesch. III.
   99) says: "We do not believe that the period before the Reformation was
   a flourishing period of church history, for we hear from it a thousand
   voices for a reformation in the head and members (wir hören aus
   derselben den tausendstimmigen Ruf nach einer Verbesserung anHaupt und
   Gliedern uns entgegentönen)" Even Janssen, the eulogist of mediaeval
   Germany, devotes the concluding section of the first volume of his
   Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (p. 594-613) to a consideration of some
   of the crying evils of those times.

   [5] Sess. I. (held Dec. 13, 1545): "ad extirpationem haeresium , ad
   pacem et unionem ecclessiae, ad reformationem cleri et populi
   Christiani." See Smets, Concilii Trident. Canones et Decreta, p.10.

   [6] "Ad plurimas et perniciosissimas haereses extirpandas, ad
   corrigendos mores, et restituendam ecclesiasticam disciplinam" etc. See
   Smets, l.c. 209.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 4. The Preparations for the Reformation.

   C. Ullmann: Reformatoren vor der Reformation. Hamburg, 1841, 2d ed.
   1866, 2 vols. (Engl. trans. by R. Menzies, Edinb. 1855, 2 vols.). C. de
   Bonnechose: Réformateurs avant réforme du xvi. siècle. Par. 1853, 2
   vols. A good résumé by Geo. P. Fisher: The Reformation. New York, 1873,
   ch. III. 52-84; and in the first two lectures of Charles Beard: The
   Reformation, London, 1883, p. 1-75. Comp., also the numerous monographs
   of various scholars on the Renaissance, on Wiclif, Hus, Savonarola,
   Hutten, Reuchlin, Erasmus, etc. A full account of the preparation for
   the Reformation belongs to the last chapters of the History of
   Mediaeval Christianity (see vol. V.). We here merely recapitulate the
   chief points.

   Judaism before Christ was sadly degenerated, and those who sat in
   Moses' seat had become blind leaders of the blind. Yet "salvation is of
   the Jews;" and out of this people arose John the Baptist, the Virgin
   Mary, the Messiah, and the Apostles. Jerusalem, which stoned the
   prophets and crucified the Lord, witnessed also the pentecostal miracle
   and became the mother church of Christendom. So the Catholic church in
   the sixteenth century, though corrupt in its head and its members, was
   still the church of the living God and gave birth to the Reformation,
   which removed the rubbish of human traditions and reopened the pure
   fountain of the gospel of Christ.

   The Reformers, it should not be forgotten, were all born, baptized,
   confirmed, and educated in the Roman Catholic Church, and most of them
   had served as priests at her altars with the solemn vow of obedience to
   the pope on their conscience. They stood as closely related to the
   papal church, as the Apostles and Evangelists to the Synagogue and the
   Temple; and for reasons of similar urgency, they were justified to
   leave the communion of their fathers; or rather, they did not leave it,
   but were cast out by the ruling hierarchy.

   The Reformation went back to first principles in order to go forward.
   It struck its roots deep in the past and bore rich fruits for the
   future. It sprang forth almost simultaneously from different parts of
   Europe and was enthusiastically hailed by the leading minds of the age
   in church and state. No great movement in history--except Christianity
   itself--was so widely and thoroughly prepared as the Protestant
   Reformation.

   The reformatory Councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basel; the conflict of
   the Emperors with the Popes; the contemplative piety of the mystics
   with their thirst after direct communion with God; the revival of
   classical literature; the general intellectual awakening; the biblical
   studies of Reuchlin, and Erasmus; the rising spirit of national
   independence; Wiclif, and the Lollards in England; Hus, and the
   Hussites in Bohemia; John von Goch, John von Wesel, and Johann Wessel
   in Germany and the Netherlands; Savonarola in Italy; the Brethren of
   the Common Life, the Waldenses, the Friends of God,--contributed their
   share towards the great change and paved the way for a new era of
   Christianity. The innermost life of the church was pressing forward to
   a new era. There is scarcely a principle or doctrine of the Reformation
   which was not anticipated and advocated in the fourteenth and fifteenth
   centuries. Luther made the remark that his opponents might charge him
   with having borrowed everything from John Wessel if he had known his
   writings earlier. The fuel was abundant all over Europe, but it
   required the spark which would set it ablaze.

   Violent passions, political intrigues, the ambition and avarice of
   princes, and all sorts of selfish and worldly motives were mixed up
   with the war against the papacy. But they were at work likewise in the
   introduction of Christianity among the heathen barbarians. "Wherever
   God builds a church, the devil builds a chapel close by." Human nature
   is terribly corrupt and leaves its stains on the noblest movements in
   history.

   But, after all, the religious leaders of the Reformation, while not
   free from faults, were men of the purest motives and highest aims, and
   there is no nation which has not been benefited by the change they
   introduced.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 5. The Genius and Aim of the Reformation.

   Is. Aug. Dorner: On the formal, and the material Principle of the
   Reformation. Two essays, first published in 1841 and 1857, and
   reprinted in his Gesammelte Schriften, Berlin, 1883, p. 48-187. Also
   his History of Protestant Theology, Engl. trans. 1871, 2 vols.

   Phil. Schaff: The Principle of Protestantism, Chambersburg, Penn., 1845
   (German and English); Protestantism and Romanism, and the Principles of
   the Reformation, two essays in his "Christ and Christianity," N. York,
   1885. p. 124-134. Also Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I. 203-219.

   Dan. Schenkel: Das Princip des Protestantimus. Schaffhausen, 1852 (92
   pages). This is the concluding section of his larger work, Das Wesen
   des Protestantismus, in 3 vols.

   K. F. A. Kahnis: Ueber die Principien des Protestatismus. Leipzig,
   1865. Also his Zeugniss von den Grundwahrheiten des Protestantismus
   gegen Dr. Hengstenberg. Leipzig, 1862.

   Charles Beard: The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in its relation
   to Modern Thought and Knowledge. Hibbert Lectures for 1883. London,
   1883. A Unitarian view, written with ample learning and in excellent
   spirit.

   Henry Wace and C. A. Buchheim: First Principles of the Reformation, or
   the 95 Theses and three Primary Works of Dr. M. Luther. London, 1885.

   The literature on the difference between Lutheran and Reformed or
   Calvinistic Protestantism is given in Schaff's Creeds of Christendom,
   l. 211.

   The spirit and aim of evangelical Protestantism is best expressed by
   Paul in his anti-Judaistic Epistle to the Galatians: "For freedom did
   Christ set us free; stand fast, therefore, and be not entangled again
   in a yoke of bondage." Christian freedom is so inestimable a blessing
   that no amount of abuse can justify a relapse into a state of spiritual
   despotism and slavery. But only those who have enjoyed it, can properly
   appreciate it.

   The Reformation was at first a purely religious movement, and furnishes
   a striking illustration of the all-pervading power of religion in
   history. It started from the question: What must a man do to be saved?
   How shall a sinner be justified before God, and attain peace of his
   troubled conscience? The Reformers were supremely concerned for the
   salvation of the soul, for the glory of Christ and the triumph of his
   gospel. They thought much more of the future world than of the present,
   and made all political, national, and literary interests subordinate
   and subservient to religion. [7]

   Yet they were not monks, but live men in a live age, not pessimists,
   but optimists, men of action as well as of thought, earnest, vigorous,
   hopeful men, free from selfish motives and aims, full of faith and the
   Holy Ghost, equal to any who had preceded them since the days of the
   Apostles. From the centre of religion they have influenced every
   department of human life and activity, and given a powerful impulse to
   political and civil liberty, to progress in theology, philosophy,
   science, and literature.

   The Reformation removed the obstructions which the papal church had
   interposed between Christ and the believer. It opened the door to
   direct union with him , as the only Mediator between God and man, and
   made his gospel accessible to every reader without the permission of a
   priest. It was a return to first principles, and for this very reason
   also a great advance. It was a revival of primitive Christianity, and
   at the same time a deeper apprehension and application of it than had
   been known before.

   There are three fundamental principles of the Reformation: the
   supremacy of the Scriptures over tradition, the supremacy of faith over
   works, and the supremacy of the Christian people over an exclusive
   priesthood. The first may be called the objective, the second the
   subjective, the third the social or ecclesiastical principle. [8]

   They resolve themselves into the one principle of evangelical freedom,
   or freedom in Christ. The ultimate aim of evangelical Protestantism is
   to bring every man into living union with Christ as the only and
   all-sufficient Lord and Saviour from sin and death.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [7] What Dr. Baur, the critical Tübingen historian, says of Luther, is
   equally applicable to all the other Reformers: "Dass für Luther die
   Reformation zur eigensten Sache seines Herzens geworden war, dass er
   sie in ihrem reinsten religiösen Interesse auffasste, getrennt von
   allen ihr fremdartigen blos äusserlichen Motiven, dass es ihm um nichts
   anderes zu thun war, alsum die Sache des Evangeliums und
   seinerseligmachenden Kraft, wie er sie an sich selbst in seinem innern
   Kampf um die Gewissheit der Sündenvergebung erfahren hatte, diess ist
   es, was ihn zum Reformator machte."Gesch. der Christl. Kirche, vol. IV.
   5 (ed. by his son, 1863). Froude says of Luther: "He revived and
   maintained the spirit of piety and reverence in which, and by which
   alone, real progress is possible."Luther, Preface, p. vi.

   [8] German writers distinguish usually two principles of the
   Reformation, the authority of the Scriptures, and justification by
   faith, and call the first the formal principle (or Erkenntnissprincip,
   principium cognoscendi), the second the material principle (principium
   essendi); the third they omit, except Kahnis, who finds a third
   principle in the idea of the invisible church, and calls this the
   Kirchenprincip. The Lutheran Church gives to the doctrine of
   justification by faith the first place; and the Formula of Concord
   calls it "articulus praecipuus in tota doctrina Christiana." But the
   Reformed confessions give the first place to the doctrine of the
   normative authority of Scripture, from which alone all articles of
   faith are to be derived, and they substitute for the doctrine of
   justification by faith the ulterior and wider doctrine of election and
   salvation by free grace through faith. The difference is
   characteristic, but does not affect the essential agreement.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 6. The Authority of the Scriptures.

   The objective principle of Protestantism maintains that the Bible, as
   the inspired record of revelation, is the only infallible rule of faith
   and practice; in opposition to the Roman Catholic coordination of
   Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition, as the joint rules of faith.

   The teaching of the living church is by no means rejected, but
   subordinated to the Word of God; while the opposite theory virtually
   subordinates the Bible to tradition by making the latter the sole
   interpreter of the former and confining interpretation within the
   limits of an imaginary consensus patrum. In the application of the
   Bible principle there was considerable difference between the more
   conservative Lutheran and Anglican Reformation, and the more radical
   Zwinglian and Calvinistic Reformation; the former contained many
   post-scriptural and extra-scriptural traditions, usages and
   institutions, which the latter, in its zeal for primitive purity and
   simplicity, rejected as useless or dangerous; but all Reformers opposed
   what they regarded as anti-scriptural doctrines; and all agreed in the
   principle that the church has no right to impose upon the conscience
   articles of faith without clear warrant in the Word of God.

   Every true progress in church history is conditioned by a new and
   deeper study of the Scriptures, which has "first, second, third,
   infinite draughts." While the Humanists went back to the ancient
   classics and revived the spirit of Greek and Roman paganism, the
   Reformers went back to the sacred Scriptures in the original languages
   and revived the spirit of apostolic Christianity. They were fired by an
   enthusiasm for the gospel, such as had never been known since the days
   of Paul. Christ rose from the tomb of human traditions and preached
   again his words of life and power. The Bible, heretofore a book of
   priests only, was now translated anew and better than ever into the
   vernacular tongues of Europe, and made a book of the people. Every
   Christian man could henceforth go to the fountain-head of inspiration,
   and sit at the feet of the Divine Teacher, without priestly permission
   and intervention. This achievement of the Reformation was a source of
   incalculable blessings for all time to come. In a few years Luther's
   version had more readers among the laity than ever the Latin Vulgate
   had among priests; and the Protestant Bible societies circulate more
   Bibles in one year than were copied during the fifteen centuries before
   the Reformation.

   We must remember, however, that this wonderful progress was only made
   possible by the previous invention of the art of printing and by the
   subsequent education of the people. The Catholic Church had preserved
   the sacred Scriptures through ages of ignorance and barbarism; the
   Latin Bible was the first gift of the printing press to the world;
   fourteen or more editions of a German version were printed before 1518;
   the first two editions of the Greek Testament we owe to the liberality
   of a Spanish cardinal (Ximenes), and the enterprise of a Dutch scholar
   in Basel (Erasmus); and the latter furnished the text from which, with
   the aid of Jerome's Vulgate, the translations of Luther and Tyndale
   were made.

   The Roman church, while recognizing the divine inspiration and
   authority of the Bible, prefers to control the laity by the teaching
   priesthood, and allows the reading of the Scriptures in the popular
   tongues only under certain restrictions and precautions, from fear of
   abuse and profanation. Pope Innocent III. was of the opinion that the
   Scriptures were too deep for the common people, as they surpassed even
   the understanding of the wise and learned. Several synods in Gaul,
   during the thirteenth century, prohibited the reading of the Romanic
   translation, and ordered the copies to be burnt. Archbishop Berthold,
   of Mainz, in an edict of January 4th, 1486, threatened with
   excommunication all who ventured to translate and to circulate
   translations of sacred books, especially the Bible, without his
   permission. The Council of Constance (1415), which burnt John Hus and
   Jerome of Prague, condemned also the writings and the hopes of Wiclif,
   the first translator of the whole Bible into the English tongue, to the
   flames: and Arundel, archbishop of Canterbury and chancellor of
   England, denounced him as that "pestilent wretch of damnable heresy
   who, as a complement of his wickedness, invented a new translation of
   the Scriptures into his mother tongue." Pope Pius IV. (1564), in the
   conviction that the indiscriminate reading of Bible versions did more
   harm than good (plus detrimenti quam utilitiatis), would not allow
   laymen to read the sacred book except by special permission of a bishop
   or an inquisitor. Clement VIII. (1598) reserved the right to grant this
   permission to the Congregation of the Index. Gregory XV. (1622), and
   Clement XI. (in the Bull Unigenitus, 1713), repeated the conditional
   prohibition. Benedict XIV., one of the liberal popes, extended the
   permission to read the Word of God in the vernacular to all the
   faithful, yet with the proviso that the translation be approved in Rome
   and guarded by explanatory notes from the writings of the fathers and
   Catholic scholars (1757). This excludes, of course, all Protestant
   versions, even the very best. They are regarded as corrupt and
   heretical and have often been committed to the flames in Roman Catholic
   countries, especially in connection with the counter-Reformation of the
   Jesuits in Bohemia and elsewhere. The first edition of Tyndale's New
   Testament had to be smuggled into England and was publicly burnt by
   order of Tunstall, bishop of London, in St. Paul's church-yard near the
   spot from which Bibles are now sent to all parts of the globe. The
   Bible societies have been denounced and condemned by modern popes as a
   "pestilence which perverts the gospel of Christ into a gospel of the
   devil." The Papal Syllabus of Pius IX. (1864), classes "Societates
   Biblicae" with Socialism, Communism, and Secret Societies, calls them
   "pests frequently rebuked in the severest terms," and refers for proof,
   to several Encyclicals from November 9th, 1846, to August 10th, 1863.
   [9]

   Such fulminations against Protestant Bible societies might be in some
   measure excused if the popes favored Catholic Bible societies, which
   would be the best proof of zeal for the spread of the Scriptures. But
   such institutions do not exist. Fortunately papal bulls have little
   effect in modern times, and in spite of official prohibitions and
   discouragements, there are zealous advocates of Bible reading among
   modern Catholics, as there were among the Greek and Latin fathers. [10]
   Nor have the restrictions of the Council of Trent been able to prevent
   the progress of Biblical scholarship and exegesis even in the Roman
   church. E pur si muove. The Bible, as well as the earth, moves for all
   that.

   Modern Protestant theology is much more just to ecclesiastical
   tradition than the Reformers could be in their hot indignation against
   the prevailing corruptions and against the papal tyranny of their day.
   The deeper study of ecclesiastical and secular history has dispelled
   the former ignorance on the "dark ages," so called, and brought out the
   merits of the fathers, missionaries, schoolmen, and popes, in the
   progress of Christian civilization.

   But these results do not diminish the supreme value of the sacred
   Scripture as an ultimate tribunal of appeal in matters of faith, nor
   the importance of its widest circulation. It is by far the best guide
   of instruction in holy living and dying. No matter what theory of the
   mode and extent of inspiration we may hold, the fact of inspiration is
   plain and attested by the universal consent of Christendom. The Bible
   is a book of holy men, but just as much a book of God, who made those
   men witnesses of truth and sure teachers of the way of salvation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [9] Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, II. 218; Köllner, Symbolik II. 351,
   sqq.; Hase, Handbuch der Protestant. Polemik, fourth ed., 1878, p. 68
   sqq. There were indeed vernacular translations of the Bible long before
   the Reformation; but it is a most astounding exaggeration when Perrone,
   as quoted by Hase, asserts (Praelect. Theol. III. § 317): "Per idem
   tempus 800plus minus editiones Bibliorum aut N. T. ante Reformationem
   prodierant, ac per universam Europam catholicam circumferebantur,
   antequam vel protestantis nomen agnosceretur. Et ex his 200 versiones
   in linguis vernaculis diversarum gentium omnium manibus libere
   versabantur."

   [10] See L. Van Ess,Auszüge über das nothwendige und nützliche
   Bibellesen aus den Kirchenvätern und anderen kathol. Schriften, second
   ed., 1816; also the preface to his translation of the New Testament.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 7. Justification by Faith.

   The subjective principle of Protestantism is the doctrine of
   justification and salvation by faith in Christ; as distinct from the
   doctrine of justification by faith and works or salvation by grace and
   human merit. Luther's formula is sola fide. Calvin goes further back to
   God's eternal election, as the ultimate ground of salvation and comfort
   in life and in death. But Luther and Calvin meant substantially the
   same thing, and agree in the more general proposition of salvation by
   free grace through living faith in Christ (Acts 4:12), in opposition to
   any Pelagian or Semi-pelagian compromise which divides the work and
   merit between God and man. And this is the very soul of evangelical
   Protestantism. [11]

   Luther assigned to his solifidian doctrine of justification the central
   position in the Christian system, declared it to be the article of the
   standing or falling (Lutheran) church, and was unwilling to yield an
   inch from it, though heaven and earth should collapse. [12] This
   exaggeration is due to his personal experience during his convent life.
   The central article of the Christian faith on which the church is
   built, is not any specific dogma of the Protestant, or Roman, or Greek
   church, but the broader and deeper truth held by all, namely, the
   divine-human personality and atoning work of Christ, the Lord and
   Saviour. This was the confession of Peter, the first creed of
   Christendom.

   The Protestant doctrine of justification differs from the Roman
   Catholic, as defined (very circumspectly) by the Council of Trent,
   chiefly in two points. Justification is conceived as a declaratory and
   judicial act of God, in distinction from sanctification, which is a
   gradual growth; and faith is conceived as a fiducial act of the heart
   and will, in distinction from theoretical belief and blind submission
   to the church. The Reformers derived their idea from Paul, the
   Romanists appealed chiefly to James (2:17-26); but Paul suggests the
   solution of the apparent contradiction by his sentence, that "in Christ
   Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but
   faith working through love."

   Faith, in the biblical and evangelical sense, is a vital force which
   engages all the powers of man and apprehends and appropriates the very
   life of Christ and all his benefits. It is the child of grace and the
   mother of good works. It is the pioneer of all great thoughts and
   deeds. By faith Abraham became the father of nations; by faith Moses
   became the liberator and legislator of Israel; by faith the Galilean
   fishermen became fishers of men; and by faith the noble army of martyrs
   endured tortures and triumphed in death; without faith in the risen
   Saviour the church could not have been founded. Faith is a saving
   power. It unites us to Christ. Whosoever believeth in Christ "hath
   eternal life." "We believe," said Peter at the Council of Jerusalem,
   "that we shall be saved through the grace of God," like the Gentiles
   who come to Christ by faith without the works and ceremonies of the
   law. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved," was Paul's
   answer to the question of the jailor: "What must I do to be saved?"

   Protestantism does by no means despise or neglect good works or favor
   antinomian license; it only subordinates them to faith, and measures
   their value by quality rather than quantity. They are not the
   condition, but the necessary evidence of justification; they are not
   the root, but the fruits of the tree. The same faith which justifies,
   does also sanctify. It is ever "working through love" (Gal. 5:6).
   Luther is often charged with indifference to good works, but very
   unjustly. His occasional unguarded utterances must be understood in
   connection with his whole teaching and character. "Faith" in his own
   forcible language which expresses his true view, "faith is a living,
   busy, active, mighty thing and it is impossible that it should not do
   good without ceasing; it does not ask whether good works are to be
   done, but before the question is put, it has done them already, and is
   always engaged in doing them; you may as well separate burning and
   shining from fire, as works from faith."

   The Lutheran doctrine of Christian freedom and justification by faith
   alone, like that of St. Paul on which it was based, was made the cloak
   of excesses by carnal men who wickedly reasoned, "Let us continue in
   sin that grace may abound" (Rom. 6:1), and who abused their "freedom
   for an occasion to the flesh" (Gal. 5:13). All such consequences the
   apostle cut off at the outset by an indignant "God forbid."

   The fact is undeniable, that the Reformation in Germany was accompanied
   and followed by antinomian tendencies and a degeneracy of public
   morals. It rests not only on the hostile testimonies of Romanists and
   separatists, but Luther and Melanchthon themselves often bitterly
   complained in their later years of the abuse of the liberty of the
   gospel and the sad state of morals in Wittenberg and throughout Saxony.
   [13]

   But we should remember, first, that the degeneracy of morals,
   especially the increase of extravagance, and luxury with its attending
   vices, had begun in Catholic times in consequence of discoveries and
   inventions, the enlargement of commerce and wealth. [14] Nor was it
   near as bad as the state of things which Luther had witnessed at Rome
   in 1510, under Pope Julius II., not to speak of the more wicked reign
   of Pope Alexander VI. Secondly, the degeneracy was not due so much to a
   particular doctrine, as to the confusion which necessarily followed the
   overthrow of the ecclesiastical order and discipline, and to the fact
   that the Lutheran Reformers allowed the government of the church too
   easily to pass from the bishops into the hands of secular rulers.
   Thirdly, the degeneracy was only temporary during the transition from
   the abolition of the old to the establishment of the new order of
   things. Fourthly, the disorder was confined to Germany. The Swiss
   Reformers from the start laid greater stress on discipline than the
   Lutheran Reformers, and organized the new church on a more solid basis.
   Calvin introduced a state of moral purity and rigorism in Geneva such
   as had never been known before in the Christian church. The Huguenots
   of France, the Calvinists of Holland, the Puritans of England and New
   England, and the Presbyterians of Scotland are distinguished for their
   strict principles and habits. An impartial comparison of Protestant
   countries and nations with Roman Catholic, in regard to the present
   state of public and private morals and general culture, is eminently
   favorable to the Reformation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [11] Only in this sense can it be called Augustinian; for otherwise
   Augustin's conception of justificatio is catholic, and he identifies it
   with sanctificatio. Moreover he widely differs from the Protestant
   conception of the church and its authority. Luther felt the difference
   in his later years.

   [12] Articuli Smalcaldici, p. 305 (ed. Rechenb., or 310 ed. Müller):
   "De hoc articulo [solam fidem nos justificare] cedere or aliquid contra
   illum largiri aut permittere nemo piorum potest etiamsi coelum et terra
   et omnia corruant. (Acts 4:12; Isa. 53:3). Et in hoc articulo sita sunt
   et consistunt omnia, quae contra papam, diabolum et universum mundum in
   vita nostra docemus, testamur et agimus. Quare opportet nos de hac
   doctrina esse certos, et minime dubitare, alioquin actum est prorsus,
   et papa et diabolus et omnia adversa jus et victoriam contra nos
   obtinent." Luther inserted in his translation of Rom. 3:28, the word
   allein (sola fide, hence the term solifidianism), and the revised
   Probebibel of 1883 retained it. On the exegetical questions involved,
   see my annotations to Lange on Romans 3:28.

   [13] The weight of Döllinger's three volumes on the Reformation (1848)
   consists in the collection of such unfavorable testimonies from the
   writings of Erasmus, Wizel, Haner, Wildenauer, Crotus Rubeanus,
   Biblicanus, Staupitz, Amerpach, Pirkheimer, Zasius, Frank, Denk,
   Hetzer, Schwenkfeld, Luther, Melanchthon, Spalatin, Bugenhagen, and
   others. They give, indeed, a very gloomy, but a very one-sided picture
   of the times. Janssen makes good use of these testimonies. But both
   these Catholic historians whose eminent learning is undeniable, wrote
   with a polemic aim, and make the very truth lie by omitting the bright
   side of the Reformation. Comp. on this subject the controversial
   writings of Köstlin and Ebrard against Janssen, and Janssen's replies,
   An meine Kritiker, Freiburg i. B. 1883 (Zehntes Tausend, 227 pages),
   and Ein zweites Wort an meine Kritiker, Freib. 1883 (Zwölftes Tausend,
   144 pages).

   [14] Even Janssen admits this, but is silent about the greater
   corruption in Rome. See his Geschichte des Deutschen Volkes I. 375 sqq.
   Comp. his Ein zweites Wort an meine Kritiker, p. 82.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 8. The Priesthood of the Laity.

   The social or ecclesiastical principle of Protestantism is the general
   priesthood of believers, in distinction from the special priesthood
   which stands mediating between Christ and the laity.

   The Roman church is an exclusive hierarchy, and assigns to the laity
   the position of passive obedience. The bishops are the teaching and
   ruling church; they alone constitute a council or synod, and have the
   exclusive power of legislation and administration. Laymen have no voice
   in spiritual matters, they can not even read the Bible without the
   permission of the priest, who holds the keys of heaven and hell.

   In the New Testament every believer is called a saint, a priest, and a
   king. "All Christians," says Luther, "are truly of the spiritual
   estate, and there is no difference among them, save of office alone. As
   St. Paul says, we are all one body, though each member does its own
   work, to serve the others. This is because we have one baptism, alike;
   one gospel, one faith, and are all Christians for baptism, gospel and
   faith, these alone make spiritual and Christian people." And again: "It
   is faith that makes men priests, faith that unites them to Christ, and
   gives them the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, whereby they become
   filled with all holy grace and heavenly power. The inward
   anointing--this oil, better than any that ever came from the horn of
   bishop or pope--gives them not the name only, but the nature, the
   purity, the power of priests; and this anointing have all they received
   who are believers in Christ."

   This principle, consistently carried out, raises the laity to active
   co-operation in the government and administration of the church; it
   gives them a voice and vote in the election of the pastor; it makes
   every member of the congregation useful, according to his peculiar
   gift, for the general good. This principle is the source of religious
   and civil liberty which flourishes most in Protestant countries.
   Religious liberty is the mother of civil liberty. The universal
   priesthood of Christians leads legitimately to the universal kingship
   of free, self-governing citizens, whether under a monarchy or under a
   republic.

   The good effect of this principle showed itself in the spread of Bible
   knowledge among the laity, in popular hymnody and congregational
   singing, in the institution of lay-eldership, and in the pious zeal of
   the magistrates for moral reform and general education.

   But it was also shamefully perverted and abused by the secular rulers
   who seized the control of religion, made themselves bishops and popes
   in their dominion, robbed the churches and convents, and often defied
   all discipline by their own immoral conduct. . Philip of Hesse, and
   Henry VIII. of England, are conspicuous examples of Protestant popes
   who disgraced the cause of the Reformation. Erastianism and
   Territorialism whose motto is: cujus regio, ejus religio, are
   perversions rather than legitimate developments of lay-priesthood. The
   true development lies in the direction of general education, in
   congregational self-support and self-government, and in the intelligent
   co-operation of the laity with the ministry in all good works, at home
   and abroad. In this respect the Protestants of England, Scotland, and
   North America, are ahead of the Protestants on the Continent of Europe.
   The Roman church is a church of priests and has the grandest temples of
   worship; the Lutheran church is a church of theologians and has most
   learning and the finest hymns; the Reformed church is a church of the
   Christian people and has the best preachers and congregations.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 9. The Reformation and Rationalism.

   G. Frank: De Luthero rationalismi praecursore. Lips., 1857.

   S. Berger: La Bible an seizième siècle; étude sur les origines de la
   critique. Paris, 1879.

   Charles Beard: The Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in relation, to
   Modem Thought and Knowledge (Hibbert Lectures). London, 1883. Lect. V.

   Comp. also Lecky: History of Rationalism in Europe. London, 4th ed.
   1870, 2 vols. George P. Fisher: Faith and Rationalism. New York, 1879,
   revised 1885 (191 pages).

   The Roman Catholic Church makes Scripture and tradition the supreme
   rule of faith, laying the chief stress on tradition, that is, the
   teaching of an infallible church headed by an infallible Pope, as the
   judge of the meaning of both. [15]

   Evangelical, Protestantism makes the Scripture alone the supreme rule,
   but uses tradition and reason as means in ascertaining its true sense.

   Rationalism raises human reason above Scripture and tradition, and
   accepts them only as far as they come within the limits of its
   comprehension. It makes rationality or intelligibility the measure of
   credibility. We take the word Rationalism here in the technical sense
   of a theological system and tendency in distinction from rational
   theology. The legitimate use of reason in religion is allowed by the
   Catholic and still more by the Protestant church, and both have
   produced scholastic systems in full harmony with orthodoxy.
   Christianity is above reason, but not against reason.

   The Reformation is represented as the mother of Rationalism both by
   Rationalistic and by Roman Catholic historians and controversialists,
   but from an opposite point of view, by the former to the credit, by the
   latter to the disparagement of both.

   The Reformation, it is said, took the first step in the emancipation of
   reason: it freed us from the tyranny of the church. Rationalism took
   the second step: it freed us from the tyranny of the Bible. "Luther,"
   says Lessing, the champion of criticism against Lutheran orthodoxy,
   "thou great, misjudged man! Thou hast redeemed us from the yoke of
   tradition: who will redeem us from the unbearable yoke of the letter!
   Who will at last bring us a Christianity such as thou would teach us
   now, such as Christ himself would teach!"

   Roman Catholics go still further and hold Protestantism responsible for
   all modern revolutions and for infidelity itself, and predict its
   ultimate dismemberment and dissolution. [16] But this charge is
   sufficiently set aside by the undeniable fact that modern infidelity
   and revolution in their worst forms have appeared chiefly in Roman
   Catholic countries, as desperate reactions against hierarchical and
   political despotism. The violent suppression of the Reformation in
   France ended at last in a radical overthrow of the social order of the
   church. In Roman Catholic countries, like Spain and Mexico, revolution
   has become a chronic disease. Romanism provokes infidelity among
   cultivated minds by its excessive supernaturalism.

   The Reformation checked the skepticism of the renaissance, and the
   anarchical tendencies of the Peasants' War in Germany and of the
   Libertines in Geneva. An intelligent faith is the best protection
   against infidelity; and a liberal government is a safeguard against
   revolution.

   The connection of the Reformation with Rationalism is a historical
   fact, but they are related to each other as the rightful use of
   intellectual freedom to the excess and abuse of it. Rationalism asserts
   reason against revelation, and freedom against divine as well as human
   authority. It is a one-sided development of the negative, protesting,
   antipapal and antitraditional factor of the Reformation to the
   exclusion of its positive, evangelical faith in the revealed will and
   word of God. It denies the supernatural and miraculous. It has a
   superficial sense of sin and guilt, and is essentially Pelagian; while
   the Reformation took the opposite Augustinian ground and proceeded from
   the deepest conviction of sin and the necessity of redeeming grace. The
   two systems are thus theoretically and practically opposed to each
   other. And yet there is an intellectual and critical affinity between
   them, and Rationalism is inseparable from the history of Protestantism.
   It is in the modern era of Christianity what Gnosticism was in the
   ancient church--a revolt of private judgment against the popular faith
   and church orthodoxy, an overestimate of theoretic knowledge, but also
   a wholesome stimulus to inquiry and progress. It is not a church or
   sect (unless we choose to include Socinianism and Unitarianism), but a
   school in the church, or rather a number of schools which differ very
   considerably from each other.

   Rationalism appeared first in the seventeenth century in the Church of
   England, though without much effect upon the people, as Deism, which
   asserted natural religion versus revealed religion; it was matured in
   its various phases after the middle of the eighteenth century on the
   Continent, especially in Protestant Germany since Lessing (d. 1781) and
   Semler (d. 1791), and gradually obtained the mastery of the chairs and
   pulpits of Lutheran and Reformed churches, till about 1817, when a
   revival of the positive faith of the Reformation spread over Germany
   and a serious conflict began between positive and negative
   Protestantism, which continues to this day.

   1. Let us first consider the relation of the Reformation to the use of
   reason as a general principle.

   The Reformation was a protest against human authority, asserted the
   right of private conscience and judgment, and roused a spirit of
   criticism and free inquiry in all departments of knowledge. It allows,
   therefore, a much wider scope for the exercise of reason in religion
   than the Roman church, which requires an unconditional submission to
   her infallible authority. It marks real progress, but this progress is
   perfectly consistent with a belief in revelation on subjects which lie
   beyond the boundary of time and sense. What do we know of the creation,
   and the world of the future, except what God has chosen to reveal to
   us? Human reason can prove the possibility and probability of the
   existence of God and the immortality of the soul, but not the certainty
   and necessity. It is reasonable, therefore, to believe in the
   supernatural on divine testimony, and it is unreasonable to reject it.

   The Reformers used their reason and judgment very freely in their
   contest with church authority. Luther refused to recant in the crisis
   at Worms, unless convinced by testimonies of the Scriptures and "cogent
   arguments." [17] For a while he was disposed to avail himself of the
   humanistic movement which was skeptical and rationalistic in its
   tendency, but his strong religious nature always retained the mastery.
   He felt as keenly as any modern Rationalist, the conflict between
   natural reason and the transcending mysteries of revelation. He was
   often tormented by doubts and even temptations to blasphemy, especially
   when suffering from physical infirmity. A comforter of others, he
   needed comfort himself and asked the prayers of friends to fortify him
   against the assaults of the evil spirit, with whom he had, as he
   thought, many a personal encounter. He confessed, in 1524, how glad he
   would have been five years before in his war with papal superstition,
   if Carlstadt could have convinced him that the Eucharist was nothing
   but bread and wine, and how strongly he was then inclined to that
   rationalistic view which would have given a death blow to
   transubstantiation and the mass. He felt that every article of his
   creed--the trinity, in unity, the incarnation, the transmission of
   Adam's sin, the atonement by the blood of Christ, baptismal
   regeneration, the real presence, the renewal of the Holy Spirit, the
   resurrection of the body--transcended human comprehension. In Aug. 2,
   1527, during the raging of the pestilence at Wittenberg, he wrote to
   Melanchthon, who was absent at Jena: "For more than a week I have been
   tossed about in death and hell; so that, hurt in all my body, I still
   tremble in every limb. For having almost wholly lost Christ, I was
   driven about by storms and tempests of despair and blasphemy against
   God. But God, moved by the prayers of the saints, begins to have pity
   upon me, and has drawn my soul out of the lowest hell. Do not cease to
   pray for me, as I do for you. I believe that this agony of mine
   pertains to others also." [18]

   In such trials and temptations he clung all the more mightily to the
   Scriptures and to faith which believes against reason and hopes against
   hope. "It is a quality of faith," he says in the explanation of his
   favorite Epistle to the Galatians, "that it wrings the neck of reason
   and strangles the beast, which else the whole world, with all
   creatures, could not strangle. But how? It holds to God's Word, and
   lets it be right and true, no matter how foolish and impossible it
   sounds. So did Abraham take his reason captive and slay it, inasmuch as
   he believed God's Word, wherein was promised him that from his
   unfruitful and as it were dead wife, Sarah, God would give him seed."

   This and many similar passages clearly show the bent of Luther's mind.
   He knew the enemy, but overcame it; his faith triumphed over doubt. In
   his later years he became more and more a conservative churchman. He
   repudiated the mystic doctrine of the inner word and spirit, insisted
   on submission to the written letter of the Scriptures, even when it
   flatly contradicted reason. He traced the errors of the Zwickau
   prophets, the rebellious peasants, the Anabaptists, and the radical
   views of Carlstadt and Zwingli, without proper discrimination, to
   presumptuous inroads of the human reason into the domain of faith, and
   feared from them the overthrow of religion. He so far forgot his
   obligations to Erasmus as to call him an Epicurus, a Lucian, a doubter,
   and an atheist. Much as he valued reason as a precious gift of God in
   matters of this world, he abused it with unreasonable violence, when it
   dared to sit in judgment over matters of faith. [19]

   Certainly, Luther must first be utterly divested of his faith, and the
   authorship of his sermons, catechisms and hymns must be called in
   question, before he can be appealed to as the father of Rationalism. He
   would have sacrificed his reason ten times rather than his faith.

   Zwingli was the most clear-headed and rationalizing among the
   Reformers. [20] He did not pass through the discipline of monasticism
   and mysticism, like Luther, but through the liberal culture of Erasmus.
   He had no mystic vein, but sound, sober, practical common sense. He
   always preferred the plainest sense of the Bible. He rejected the
   Catholic views on original sin, infant damnation and the corporeal
   presence in the eucharist, and held advanced opinions which shocked
   Luther and even Calvin. But he nevertheless reverently bowed before the
   divine authority of the inspired Word of God, and had no idea of
   setting reason over it. His dispute with Luther was simply a question
   of interpretation, and he had strong arguments for his exegesis, as
   even the best Lutheran commentators must confess.

   Calvin was the best theologian and exegete among the Reformers. He
   never abused reason, like Luther, but assigned it the office of an
   indispensable handmaid of revelation. He constructed with his logical
   genius the severest system of Protestant orthodoxy which shaped French,
   Dutch, English and American theology, and fortified it against
   Rationalism as well as against Romanism. His orthodoxy and discipline
   could not keep his own church in Geneva from becoming Socinian in the
   eighteenth century, but he is no more responsible for that than Luther
   for the Rationalism of Germany, or Rome for the infidelity of Voltaire.
   Upon the whole, the Reformed churches in England, Scotland and North
   America, have been far less invaded by Rationalism than Germany.

   2. Let us now consider the application of the principle of free inquiry
   to the Bible. [21]

   The Bible, its origin, genuineness, integrity, aim, and all its
   circumstances and surroundings are proper subjects of investigation;
   for it is a human as well as a divine book, and has a history, like
   other literary productions. The extent of the Bible, moreover, or the
   Canon, is not determined by the Bible itself or by inspiration, but by
   church authority or tradition, and was not fully agreed upon till the
   close of the fourth century, and even then only by provincial synods,
   not by any of the seven oecumenical Councils. It was therefore justly
   open to reinvestigation.

   The Church of Rome, at the Council of Trent, settled the Canon,
   including the Apocrypha, but without any critical inquiry or definite
   theological principle; it simply confirmed the traditional usage, and
   pronounced an anathema on every one who does not receive all the books
   contained in the Latin Vulgate. [22] She also checked the freedom of
   investigation by requiring conformity to a defective version and a
   unanimous consensus of the fathers, although such an exegetical
   consensus does not exist except in certain fundamental doctrines.

   The Reformers re-opened the question of the extent of the Canon, as
   they had a right to do, but without any idea of sweeping away the
   traditional belief or undermining the authority of the Word of God. On
   the contrary, from the fulness of their faith in the inspired Word, as
   contained in the Scriptures, they questioned the canonicity of a few
   books which seem to be lacking in sufficient evidence to entitle them
   to a place in the Bible. They simply revived, in a new shape and on
   doctrinal rather than historical grounds, the distinction made by the
   Hebrews and the ancient fathers between the canonical and apocryphal
   books of the Old Testament, and the Eusebian distinction between the
   Homologumena and Antilegomena of the New Testament, and claimed in both
   respects the freedom of the ante-Nicene church.

   They added, moreover, to the external evidence, the more important
   internal evidence on the intrinsic excellency of the Scripture, as the
   true ground on which its authority and claim to obedience rests; and
   they established a firm criterion of canonicity, namely, the purity and
   force of teaching Christ and his gospel of salvation. They did not
   reject the testimonies of the fathers, but they placed over them what
   Paul calls the "demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1 Cor. 2:4).

   Luther was the bold pioneer of a higher criticism, which was indeed
   subjective and arbitrary, but, after all, a criticism of faith. He made
   his central doctrine of justification by faith the criterion of
   canonicity. [23] He thus placed the material or subjective principle of
   Protestantism above the formal or objective principle, the truth above
   the witness of the truth, the doctrine of the gospel above the written
   Gospel, Christ above the Bible. Romanism, on the contrary, places the
   church above the Bible. But we must remember that Luther first learnt
   Christ from the Bible, and especially, from the Epistles of Paul, which
   furnished him the key for the understanding of the scheme of salvation.

   He made a distinction, moreover, between the more important and the
   less important books of the New Testament, according to the extent of
   their evangelic purity and force, and put Hebrews, James, Jude, and
   Revelation at the end of the German Bible. [24]

   He states his reason in the Preface to the Hebrews as follows:
   "Hitherto we have had the right and genuine books of the New Testament.
   The four that follow have been differently esteemed in olden times." He
   therefore appeals to the ante-Nicene tradition, but his chief objection
   was to the contents.

   He disliked, most of all, the Epistle of James because he could not
   harmonize it with Paul's teaching on justification by faith without
   works, [25] and he called it an epistle of straw as compared with the
   genuine apostolic writings. [26]

   He objected to the Epistle to the Hebrews because it seems to deny (in
   Heb. 6, 10 and 12) the possibility of repentance after baptism,
   contrary to the Gospels and to Paul, and betrays in 2:3, a
   post-apostolic origin. He ascribed the authorship to Apollos by an
   ingenious guess, which, though not supported by ancient tradition, has
   found great favor with modern commentators and critics, [27] chiefly
   because the authorship of any other possible writer (Paul, Barnabas,
   Luke, Clement) seems to offer insuperable difficulties, while the
   description of Apollos in Acts 18:24-28, compared with the allusions in
   1 Cor. 1:12; 3:6; 4:6; 16:12, seems to fit exactly the author of this
   anonymous Epistle.

   He called the Epistle of Jude an "unnecessary epistle," a mere extract
   from Second Peter and post-apostolic, filled with apocryphal matter,
   and hence rejected by the ancient fathers.

   He could at first find no sense in the mysteries of the Apocalypse and
   declared it to be "neither apostolic nor prophetic," because it deals
   only with images and visions, and yet, notwithstanding its obscurity,
   it adds threats and promises, "though nobody knows what it means"; but
   afterwards he modified his judgment when the Lutheran divines found in
   it welcome weapons against the church of Rome.

   The clearest utterance on this subject is found at the close of his
   preface to the first edition of his German version of the New Testament
   (1522), but it was suppressed in later editions. [28]

   Luther's view of inspiration was both strong and free. With the
   profoundest conviction of the divine contents of the Bible, he
   distinguished between the revealed truth itself and the human wording
   and reasoning of the writers. He says of one of the rabbinical
   arguments of his favorite apostle: "My dear brother Paul, this argument
   won't stick." [29]

   Luther was, however, fully aware of the subjective and conjectural
   character of these opinions, and had no intention of obtruding them on
   the church: hence he modified his prefaces in later editions. He judged
   the Scriptures from an exclusively dogmatic, and one-sidedly Pauline
   standpoint, and did not consider their gradual historical growth.

   A few Lutheran divines followed him in assigning a subordinate position
   to the seven Antilegomena of the New Testament; [30] but the Lutheran
   church, with a sound instinct, accepted for popular use the traditional
   catholic Canon (not even expressly excluding the Jewish Apocrypha), yet
   retained his arrangement of the books of the New Testament. [31] The
   Rationalists, of course, revived, intensified, and carried to excess
   the bold opinions of Luther, but in a spirit against which he would
   himself raise the strongest protest.

   The Reformed divines were more conservative than Luther in accepting
   the canonical books, but more decided in rejecting the Apocrypha of the
   Old Testament. The Reformed Confessions usually enumerate the canonical
   books.

   Zwingli objected only to the Apocalypse and made no doctrinal use of
   it, because he did not deem it an inspired book, written by the same
   John who wrote the fourth Gospel. [32] In this view he has many
   followers, but the severest critical school of our days (that of
   Tübingen) assigns it to the Apostle John. Wolfgang Musculus mentions
   the seven Antilegomena, but includes them in the general catalogue of
   the New Testament; and Oecolampadius speaks of six Antilegomena
   (omitting the Hebrews), as holding an inferior rank, but nevertheless
   appeals to their testimony. [33]

   Calvin had no fault to find with James and Jude, and often quotes
   Hebrews and Revelation as canonical books, though he wrote no
   commentary on Revelation, probably because he felt himself incompetent
   for the task. He is silent about Second and Third John. He denies,
   decidedly, the Pauline authorship, but not the canonicity, of Hebrews.
   [34] He is disposed to assign Second Peter to a pupil of Peter, who
   wrote under the auspices and by direction of the Apostle; but he guards
   in this case, also, against unfavorable inferences from the uncertainty
   of origin. [35]

   Calvin clearly saw the inconsistency of giving the Church the right of
   determining the canon after denying her right of making an article of
   faith. He therefore placed the Canon on the authority of God who bears
   testimony to it through the voice of the Spirit in the hearts of the
   believer. The eternal and inviolable truth of God, he says, is not
   founded on the pleasure and judgment of men, and can be as easily
   distinguished as light from darkness, and white from black. In the same
   line, Peter Vermilius denies that "the Scriptures take their authority
   from the Church. Their certitude is derived from God. The Word is older
   than the Church. The Spirit of God wrought in the hearts of the bearers
   and readers of the Word so that they recognized it to be truly divine."
   This view is clearly set forth in several Calvinistic Confessions. [36]
   In its exclusive form it is diametrically opposed to the maxim of
   Augustin, otherwise so highly esteemed by the Reformers: "I should not
   believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Church."
   [37] But the two kinds of evidence supplement each other. The human
   authority of tradition though not the final ground of belief, is
   indispensable as an historical witness of the genuineness and
   canonicity, and is of great weight in conflict with Rationalism. There
   is no essential antagonism between the Bible and the Church in the
   proper sense of the term. They are inseparable. The Church was founded
   by Christ and the apostles through the preaching of the living Word of
   God, and the founders of the Church are also the authors of the written
   Word, which continues to be the shining and guiding light of the
   Church; while the Church in turn is the guardian, preserver,
   translator, propagator, and expounder of the Bible.

   3. The liberal views of the Reformers on inspiration and the canon were
   abandoned after the middle of the sixteenth century, and were succeeded
   by compact and consolidated systems of theology. The evangelical
   scholasticism of the seventeenth century strongly resembles, both in
   its virtues and defects, the catholic scholasticism of the Middle Ages
   which systematized and contracted the patristic theology, except that
   the former was based on the Bible, the latter on church tradition. In
   the conflict with Romanism the Lutheran and Calvinistic scholastics
   elaborated a stiff, mechanical theory of inspiration in order to set an
   infallible book against an infallible pope. The Bible was identified
   with the Word of God, dictated to the sacred writers as the penmen of
   the Holy Ghost. Even the classical purity of style and the integrity of
   the traditional text, including the Massoretic punctuation, were
   asserted in the face of stubborn facts, which came to light as the
   study of the origin and history of the text advanced. The divine side
   of the Scriptures was exclusively dwelled upon, and the human and
   literary side was ignored or virtually denied. Hence the exegetical
   poverty of the period of Protestant scholasticism. The Bible was used
   as a repository of proof texts for previously conceived dogmas, without
   regard to the context, the difference between the Old and New
   Testaments, and the gradual development of the divine revelation in
   accordance with the needs and capacities of men.

   4. It was against this Protestant bibliolatry and symbololatry that
   Rationalism arose as a legitimate protest. It pulled down one dogma
   after another, and subjected the Bible and the canon to a searching
   criticism. It denies the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, except
   in a wider sense which applies to all works of genius, and treats them
   simply as a gradual evolution of the religious spirit of Israel and the
   primitive Christian Church. It charges them with errors of fact and
   errors of doctrine, and resolves the miracles into legends and myths.
   It questions the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, the genuineness of
   the Davidic Psalms, the Solomonic writings, the prophecies of
   Deutero-Isaiah and Daniel, and other books of the Old Testament. It
   assigns not only the Eusebian Antilegomena, but even the Gospels, Acts,
   the Catholic Epistles, and several Pauline Epistles to the
   post-apostolic age, from a.d. 70 to 150.

   In its later developments, however, Rationalism has been obliged to
   retreat and make several concessions to orthodoxy. The canonical
   Gospels and Acts have gained by further investigation and discovery;
   [38] and the apostolic authorship of the four great Epistles of Paul to
   the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians and the Apocalypse of John is
   fully admitted by the severest school of criticism (that of Tübingen).
   A most important admission: for these five books teach or imply all the
   leading facts and truths of the gospel, and overthrow the very
   foundations of Rationalism. With the Christ of the Gospels, and the
   Apostle Paul of his acknowledged Epistles, Christianity is safe.

   Rationalism was a radical revolution which swept like a flood over the
   Continent of Europe. But it is not negative and destructive only. It
   has made and is still making valuable contributions to biblical
   philology, textual criticism, and grammatico-historical exegesis. It
   enlarges the knowledge of the conditions and environments of the Bible,
   and of all that belongs to the human and temporal side of Christ and
   Christianity. It cultivates with special zeal and learning the sciences
   of Critical Introduction, Biblical Theology, the Life of Christ, the
   Apostolic and post-Apostolic Ages.

   5. These acquisitions to exegetical and historical theology are a
   permanent gain, and are incorporated in the new evangelical theology,
   which arose in conflict with Rationalism and in defense of the positive
   Christian faith in the divine facts of revelation and the doctrines of
   salvation. The conflict is still going on with increasing strength, but
   with the sure prospect of the triumph of truth. Christianity is
   independent of all critical questions on the Canon, and of human
   theories of inspiration; else Christ would himself have written the
   Gospels, or commanded the Apostles to do so, and provided for the
   miraculous preservation and inspired translation of the text, . His
   "words are spirit, and are life." "The flesh profiteth nothing."
   Criticism and speculation may for a while wander away from Christ, but
   will ultimately return to Him who furnishes the only key for the
   solution of the problems of history and human life. "No matter," says
   the world-poet Goethe in one of his last utterances, "how much the
   human mind may progress in intellectual culture, in the science of
   nature, in ever-expanding breadth and depth: it will never be able to
   rise above the elevation and moral culture which shines in the
   Gospels."

   Notes.

   The famous close of the Preface of Luther's edition of the German New
   Testament was omitted in later editions, but is reprinted in Walch's
   ed. XIV. 104 sqq., and in the Erlangen Frankf. ed. LXIII. (or eleventh
   vol. of the Vermischte Deutsche Schriften), p. 114 sq. It is verbatim
   as follows:

   "Aus diesem allen kannst du nu recht urtheilen unter allen Büchern, und
   Unterschied nehmen, welchs die besten sind. Denn, naemlich, ist
   Johannis Evangelion, und St. Pauli Episteln, sonderlich die zu den
   Römern, und Sanct Peters erste Epistel der rechte Kern und Mark unter
   allen Büchern; welche auch billig die, ersten sein sollten, und einem
   jeglichen Christen zu rathen wäre, das er dieselben am ersten und
   allermeisten läse, und ihm durch täglich Lesen so gemein mächte, als
   das täglich Brod.

   "Denn in diesen findist [findest] du nicht viel Werk und Wunderthaten
   Christi beschrieben; du findist aber gar meisterlich ausgestrichen, wie
   der Glaube an Christum Sünd, Tod und Hölle überwindet, und das Leben,
   Gerechtigkeit und Seligkeit gibt. Welchs die rechte Art ist des
   Evangelii, wie du gehöret hast.

   "Denn wo ich je der eins mangeln sollt, der Werke oder der Predigt
   Christi, so wollt ich lieber der Werke denn seiner Predigt mangeln.
   Denn die Werke helfen mir nichts; aber seine Worte, die geben das
   Leben, wie er selbst sagt (Joh 5.V.51). Weil nu Johannes gar wenig
   Werke von Christo, aber gar viel seiner Predigt schreibt; wiederumb die
   andern drei Evangelisten viel seiner Werke, wenig seiner Worte
   beschreiben: ist Johannis Evangelion das einige zarte, recht(e)
   Hauptevangelion, und den andren dreien weit fürzuzichen und höher zu
   heben. Also auch Sanct Paulus und Petrus Episteln weit über die drei
   Evangelia Matthai, Marci und Lucä vorgehen.

   "Summa, Sanct Johannis Evangel. und seine erste Epistel, Sanct Paulus
   Epistel(n), sonderlich die zu den Römern, Galatern, Ephesern, und Sanct
   Peters erste Epistel. das sind die Bücher, die dir Christum zeigen, und
   alles lehren, das dir zu wissen noth und selig ist ob du sohon kein
   ander Buch noch Lehre nummer [nimmermehr] sehest and horist [hörest].
   Darumb ist Sanct Jakobs Epistel ein recht strohern(e) Epistel, gegen
   sie, denn sie doch kein(e) evangelisch(e) Art an ihr hat. Doch davon
   weiter in andern Vorreden."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [15] "I am the tradition" (la tradizione son io), said Pope Pius IX.,
   during the Vatican Council which substituted an infallible papacy for
   an infallible council, in conflict both with oecumenical councils and
   popes who officially denounced Pope Honorius III. as a Monotheletic
   heretic. See vol. IV. 500 sqq.

   [16] This charge is sanctioned by several papal Encyclicals; it is
   implied, negatively, in the Syllabus of Pius IX. (1864), and,
   positively, though cautiously, in the Encyclical of Leo XIII Immortale
   Dei (Nov. 1, 1885), which characterizes the Reformation movements
   (without naming them) as "those pernicious and deplorable revolutionary
   tendencies which were aroused in the sixteenth century, and which,
   after introducing confusion into Christendom, soon, by a natural
   course, entered the domain of philosophy, and from philosophy into all
   the lines of civil society. Hasak, in his book--Dr. M. Luther
   (Regensburg, 1881), takes as his motto: " Be reconciled to the Church
   of God, the old mother church, which, for these eighteen hundred years,
   has been the preserver of the eternal truth, before the bloody flood of
   atheism and the socialistic republic breaks upon us as a true judgment
   of the world."

   [17] "Scripturae sacrae testimoniis vel evidenti ratione," or
   "evidentissimis rationibus; in the German form, as repeated by him on
   the occasion, "durch Zeugnisse der heil. Schrift und durch helle
   Gründe."See Köstlin II. 452 sq. and 800. The words seem to assign to
   reason an independent position by, the side of the Scriptures, but in
   case of conflict Luther always allowed the decision to the Scriptures.

   [18] Briefe, ed. de Wette, III. 189: "Ego sane ... plus tota hebdomada
   in morte et inferno jactatus, ita ut toto corpore laesus adhuc tremam
   membris," etc. Comp. Luther's letters to Spalatin, July 10th and Aug.
   19th, 1527, l.c. III. 187, 191.

   [19] He called reason "the mistress of the devil,"" the ugly devil's
   bride,"" a poisonous beast with many dragons' heads," "God's bitterest
   enemy." The coarsest invective against this gift of God is found in the
   last sermon he preached at Wittenberg, in the year of his death (1546),
   on Rom. 12:3. He here represents reason as the fountain of gross and
   subtle idolatry, and says: Wucherei, Säuferei, Ehebruch, Mord,
   Todtschlag, etc., die kann man merken, und verstehet auch die Welt,
   dass sie Sünde sein; aber des Tuefels Braut, Ratio, die shöne Metze,
   fähret herein, und will klug sein, und was sie saget, meinet sie, es
   sei der heilige Geist; wer will da helfen? Weder Jurist, Medicus, noch
   König oder Kaiser. Denn es ist die höchste Hure die der Teufel hat!'
   And again:" Derohalben wie ein junger Gesell muss der bösen Lust
   wehren, ein Alter dem Geiz: also ist die Vernunft von Art und Natur
   eine, schädliche Hure."... " Die Vernunft ist und soll in der Taufe
   ersäuft sein."" Höre auf, du verfluchte Hure; willst du Meisterin sein
   über den Glauben, welcher sagt, dass im Abendmahl des Herrn sei der
   wahre Leib und das wahre Blut; item dass die Taufe nicht schlecht
   Wasser ist ... Diesem Glauben muss die Vernunft unterthan und gehorsam
   sein."And much of the same sort, with vehement denunciations of the
   Schwärmergeister and Sacramentirer (the sectaries and Zwinglians). See
   Werke, ed. Walch XII. col. 1530 sqq. It is noteworthy that Luther first
   abused reason in his book on the Slavery of the Human Will against the
   semi-Pelagianism of Erasmus. But his assaults on Aristotle and the
   scholastic theology began several years earlier, before 1517.

   [20] Luther felt this when he told him at Marburg: "You have a
   different spirit."

   [21] Comp. here the Critical Introductions to the Bible, and especially
   Reuss, Histoire du Canon des Saintes Écritures, Strasbourg, 1863. Ch.
   XVI. p. 308 sqq.; Hunter's Engl. transl. (1884) p. 290 sqq.

   [22] Sess. IV. (April 8th, 1546): "Si quis autem libros ipsos integros
   cum omnibus suis partibus, prout in ecclesia catholica legi
   consueverunt, et in veteri Vulgata Latina editione habentur, pro sacris
   et canonicis non susceperit et traditiones praedictas sciens et prudens
   contempserit, anathema sit." Schaff, Creeds II. 82. There were,
   however, protesting voices in the council: some desired to recognize
   the old distinction between Homologumena and Antilegomena; others
   simply an enumeration of the sacred books used in the Catholic church,
   without a dogmatic definition. Sarpi censures the council for its
   decision, and there are Catholic divines (as Sixtus Senensis, Du Pin,
   Jahn), who, in spite of the decision, make a distinction between
   protocanonical and deuterocanonical books.

   [23] "This," he says in the Preface to the Epistle of James, " is the
   true touchstone (der rechte Prüfstein) of all books, whether they make
   Christ their sole topic and aim" [literally " drive Christ,"Christum
   treiben], " or not; since all Scripture shows Christ (Rom. 3), and St.
   Paul wishes to know nothing but Christ (1 Cor. 2). That which does not
   teach Christ is not apostolic, though St. Peter and Paul should teach
   it; again, that which preaches Christ is apostolic, though Judas,
   Annas, Pilate and Herod should say it."The devil himself can quote
   Scripture.

   [24] In this distinction Carlstadt had preceded him in his book, De
   Canon. Scripturis (Wittenb. 1520, reprinted in Credner's Zur Gesch. des
   Kanons, 1847, p. 291-412). Carlstadt divided the books of the canon
   into three ordines: (1) libri summae dignitatis (the Pentateuch, though
   not written by Moses, and the Gospels); (2) secundae dignitatis (the
   Prophets and 15 Epistles); (3) tertiae dignitatis (the Jewish
   Hagiographa and the seven Antilegomena of the New Testament).

   [25] He rejects the epistle first of all, "because it gives
   righteousness to works in flat contradiction to Paul and all other
   Scriptures;" secondly, "because, while undertaking to teach Christian
   people, it does not once mention the passion, the resurrection, the
   Spirit of Christ; it names Christ twice, but teaches nothing about him;
   it calls the law a law of liberty, while Paul calls it a law of
   bondage, of wrath, of death and of sin." He offered his doctor's cap to
   any who could harmonize James and Paul on the subject of justification,
   and jests about the trouble Melanchthon took to do it. He made the
   contradiction unnecessarily stronger by inserting his allein (sola)
   before durch den Glauben in Rom. 3:28. He first attacked the Epistle of
   James in his book De Captivitate Babylonica, in 1520, where he calls it
   an epistle unworthy of the apostolical spirit. Carlstadt seems to have
   fallen out with Luther in the same year on this question; for he
   defended the Epistle against the frivola argumenta of a bonus sacerdos
   amicitiae nostrae (who can be no other than Luther), in his book De
   canonicis Scripturis, Wittenbergae, 1520.

   [26] The comparison must not be overlooked. He says: gegen sie, i.e.,
   as compared with the Epistles of Paul, Peter and John, previously
   mentioned. See the passage in full below. He could not be blind to the
   merits of James as a fresh, vigorous teacher of practical Christianity.

   [27] Bleek, de Wette, Tholuck, Lünemann, Kendrick (in Lange),
   Hilgenfeld, de Pressensé, Davidson, Alford, Farrar, and others.

   [28] See note at the end of this section. His Table Talk contains bold
   and original utterances on Esther, Ecclesiastes and other books of the
   Old Testament; see Reuss on the Canon, 330 sqq. While Luther on the one
   hand limited the canon, he seemed disposed on the other hand to extend
   it, when he declared Melanchthon's Loci Theologici to be worthy of a
   place in the canon. But this was merely an extravagant compliment.

   [29] Comp. his comments on the allegory of Sarah and Hagar in his Latin
   Com. on Gal. 3:25 (Erl. ed. II. 252).

   [30] Brentius, Flacius, Urbanus Regius, the authors of the Magdeburg
   Centuries, and Chemnitz.

   [31] None of the symbolical books of the Lutheran church gives a list
   of the canon, but the Formula of Concord (p. 570) declares that the
   "prophetica et apostolica scripta V. et N. T. " are the "unica regula
   et norma secundum quam omnia dogmata omnesque doctores aestimari et
   judicari opporteat."

   [32] "Us Apocalypsi nehmend wir kein Kundschafft an, denn es nit ein
   biblisch Buch ist." Werke, ed. Schuler and Schulthess, II. 1. p. 169.
   In another place he says: "Apocal. liber non sapit os et ingenium
   Joannis." De clar. Verbi Dei, p. 310.

   [33] See Reuss, p. 315 sq. Eng. ed.

   [34] In the introduction to his Com. on Hebrews: "Ego ut Paulum
   auctorem agnoscam adduci nequeo." His reasons are, the difference of
   style and of the docendi ratio, and because the writer counts himself
   with the disciples of the Apostles (Heb. 2:3); but nevertheless he
   accepts the book as inspired and canonical, because it more clearly
   than any other book treats of the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ.

   [35] In Argum. Ep. Sec. Petri, he notes "manifestum discrimen" between
   the first and second Epistle, and adds: "Sunt et aliae probabiles
   conjecturae ex quibus colligere licet alterius esse potius quam Petri,"
   but he sees in it, "nihil Petro indignum"

   [36] The Second Helvetic confession, c. 1 and 2, and the Belgic
   Confession, art. 5, combine the testimony of tradition and that of the
   Holy Spirit, but lay chief stress upon the latter. So the Gallican
   Conf., art. 4: "We know these books to be canonical and the sure rule
   of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the
   church (non tant par le, commun a ord et consentement de l'eglise), as
   by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which
   enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books, upon
   which, however useful, we cannot found any articles of faith." The
   Westminster Confession, ch. I. 4, sets aside the testimony of
   tradition, saying: "The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it
   ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of
   any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the
   Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the
   Word of God." The Scripture proofs given are, 2 Pet. 1:19, 21; 2 Tim.
   3:16; 1 John 5:9; 1 Thess. 2:13; but they have no bearing upon the
   question of canonicity.

   [37] "Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me moveret ecclesiae
   auctoritas," Contra Ep. Fundam., c. 5. A thoroughly Roman catholic
   principle in opposition to the Manichaen heresy. But the testimony of
   the church is indispensable only in the history of the origin of the
   several books, and the formation of the canon.

   [38] Thus Mark is regarded by many Rationalists as the primitive Gospel
   based on Peter's sermons. Matthew has received valuable testimonies
   from the discovery of the Greek Barnabas who quotes him twice, and from
   the discovery of the Didache of the Apostles, which contains about
   twenty reminiscences from the first Gospel. On the Johannean question
   the Tübingen critics have been forced to retreat from 170 to 140, 120,
   110, almost to the life time of John. The Acts have received new
   confirmation of their historical credibility from the excavations in
   Cyprus and Ephesus, and the minute test of the nautical vocabulary of
   chapter 27 by an experienced seaman. On all these points see the
   respective sections in the first volume of this History, ch. XII. p.
   569 sqq.; 715 sqq.; 731 sqq; and 853 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 10. Protestantism and Denominationalism. [39]

   The Greek Church exists as a patriarchal hierarchy based on the first
   seven oecumenical Councils with four ancient local centres: Jerusalem,
   Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople; to which must be added, since
   1725, St. Petersburg where the Holy Synod of orthodox Russia resides.
   The patriarch of Constantinople claims a primacy of honor, but no
   supremacy of jurisdiction over his fellow-patriarchs.

   The Roman Church is an absolute monarchy, headed by an infallible pope
   who claims to be vicar of Christ over all Christendom and unchurches
   the Greek and the Protestant churches as schismatical and heretical.

   The Reformation came out of the bosom of the Latin Church and broke up
   the visible unity of Western Christendom, but prepared the way for a
   higher spiritual unity on the basis of freedom and the full development
   of every phase of truth.

   Instead of one organization, we have in Protestantism a number of
   distinct national churches and confessions or denominations. Rome, the
   local centre of unity, was replaced by Wittenberg, Zurich, Geneva,
   Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh. The one great pope had to surrender to
   many little popes of smaller pretensions, yet each claiming and
   exercising sovereign power in his domain. The hierarchical rule gave
   way to the caesaropapal or Erastian principle, that the owner of the
   territory is also the owner of its religion (cujus regio, ejus
   religio), a principle first maintained by the Byzantine Emperors, and
   held also by the Czar of Russia, but in subjection to the supreme
   authority of the oecumenical Councils. Every king, prince, and
   magistrate, who adopted the Reformation, assumed the ecclesiastical
   supremacy or summepiscopate, and established a national church to the
   exclusion of Dissenters or Nonconformists who were either expelled, or
   simply tolerated under various restrictions and disabilities.

   Hence there are as many national or state churches as there are
   independent Protestant governments; but all acknowledge the supremacy
   of the Scriptures as a rule of faith and practice, and most of them
   also the evangelical confessions as a correct summary of Scripture
   doctrines. Every little principality in monarchical Germany and every
   canton in republican Switzerland has its own church establishment, and
   claims sovereign power to regulate its creed worship, and discipline.
   And this power culminates not in the clergy, but in the secular ruler
   who appoints the ministers of religion and the professors of theology.
   The property of the church which had accumulated by the pious
   foundations of the Middle Ages, was secularized during the Reformation
   period and placed under the control of the state, which in turn assumed
   the temporal support of the church.

   This is the state of things in Europe to this day, except in the
   independent or free churches of more recent growth, which manage their
   own affairs on the voluntary principle.

   The transfer of the episcopal and papal power to the head of the state
   was not contemplated by the Reformers, but was the inevitable
   consequence of the determined opposition of the whole Roman hierarchy
   to the Reformation. The many and crying abuses which followed this
   change in the hands of selfish and rapacious princes, were deeply
   deplored by Melanchthon, who would have consented to the restoration of
   the episcopal hierarchy on condition of the freedom of gospel preaching
   and gospel teaching.

   The Reformed church in Switzerland secured at first a greater degree of
   independence than the Lutheran; for Zwingli controlled the magistrate
   of Zurich, and Calvin ruled supreme in Geneva under institutions of his
   own founding; but both closely united the civil and ecclesiastical
   power, and the former gradually assumed the supremacy.

   Scandinavia and England adopted, together with the Reformation, a
   Protestant episcopate which divides the ecclesiastical supremacy with
   the head of the state; yet even there the civil ruler is legally the
   supreme governor of the church.

   The greatest Protestant church-establisbments or national churches are
   the Church of England, much weakened by dissent, but still the richest
   and most powerful of all; the United Evangelical Church of Prussia
   which, since 1817, includes the formerly separated Lutheran and
   Reformed confessions; the Lutheran Church of Saxony (with a Roman
   Catholic king); the Lutheran Churches of Denmark, Sweden, and Norway;
   the Reformed Churches of Switzerland, and Holland; and the Reformed or
   Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

   Originally, all evangelical Protestant churches were embraced under two
   confessions or denominations, the Lutheran which prevailed and still
   prevails in Germany and Scandinavia, and the Reformed which took root
   in Switzerland, France, Holland, England and Scotland, and to a limited
   extent also in Germany, Bohemia and Hungary. The Lutheran church
   follows the larger portion of German and Scandinavian emigrants to
   America and other countries, the Reformed church in its various
   branches is found in all the Dutch and British colonies, and in the
   United States.

   From these two confessions should be distinguished the Anglican Church,
   which the continental historians from defective information usually
   count with the Reformed Church, but which stands midway between
   evangelical Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, and may therefore be
   called Anglo-Catholic. She is indeed moderately Reformed in her
   doctrinal articles, [40] but in polity and ritual she is much more
   conservative than the Calvinistic and even the Lutheran confession,
   pays greater deference to the testimony of the ancient fathers, and
   lays stress upon her unbroken episcopal succession.

   The confessional division in the Protestant camp arose very early. It
   was at first confined to a difference of opinion on the eucharistic
   presence, which the Marburg Conference of 1529 could not remove,
   although Luther and Zwingli agreed in fourteen and a half out of
   fifteen articles of faith. Luther refused any compromise. Other
   differences gradually developed themselves, on the ubiquity of Christ's
   body, predestination, and baptismal regeneration, which tended to widen
   and perpetuate the split. The union of the two Confessions in Prussia
   and other German states, since 1817, has not really healed it, but
   added a third Church, the United Evangelical, to the two older
   Confessions which, still continue separate in other countries.

   The controversies among the Protestants in the sixteenth century roused
   all the religious and political passions and cast a gloom over the
   bright picture of the Reformation. Melanchthon declared that with tears
   as abundant as the waters of the river Elbe he could not express his
   grief over the distractions of Christendom and the "fury of
   theologians." Calvin also, when invited, with Melanchthon, Bullinger
   and Buzer, in 1552, by Archbishop Cranmer to Lambeth Palace for the
   purpose of framing a concensus-creed of the Reformed churches, was
   willing to cross ten seas for the cause of Christian union. [41] But
   the noble scheme was frustrated by the stormy times, and still remains
   a pium desiderium.

   Much as we must deplore and condemn sectarian strife and bitterness, it
   would be as unjust to charge them on Protestantism, as to charge upon
   Catholicism the violent passions of the trinitarian, christological and
   other controversies of the Nicene age, or the fierce animosity between
   the Greek and Latin Churches, or the envy and jealousy of the monastic
   orders of the Middle Ages, or the unholy rivalries between Jansenists
   and Jesuits, Gallicans and Ultramontanists in modern Romanism. The
   religious passions grow out of the selfishness of depraved human nature
   in spite of Christianity, whether Greek, Roman, or Protestant., and may
   arise in any denomination or in any congregation. Paul had to rebuke
   the party spirit in the church at Corinth. The rancor of theological
   schools and parties under one and the same government is as great and
   often greater than among separate rival denominations. Providence
   overrules these human weaknesses for the clearer development of
   doctrine and discipline, and thus brings good out of evil.

   The tendency of Protestantism towards individualism did not stop with
   the three Reformation Churches, but produced other divisions wherever
   it was left free to formulate and organize the differences of
   theological parties and schools. This was the case in England, in
   consequence of what may be called a second Reformation, which agitated
   that country during the seventeenth century, while Germany was passing
   through the horrors of the Thirty Years' War.

   The Toleration Act of 1689, after the final overthrow of the
   semi-popish and treacherous dynasty of the Stuarts, gave the Dissenters
   who were formerly included in the Church of England, the liberty to
   organize themselves into independent denominations under the names of
   Presbyterians, Independents or Congregationalists, Baptists, Quakers;
   all professing the principles of the Reformation, but differing in
   minor points of doctrine, and especially in discipline, and the mode of
   worship.

   The Methodist revival of religion which shook England and the American
   colonies during the eighteenth century, gave rise to a new denomination
   which spread with the enthusiasm of an army of conquest and grew into
   one of the largest and most influential communions in English-speaking
   Christendom.

   In Scotland, the original unity of the Reformed Kirk was likewise
   broken up, mostly on the question of patronage and the sole headship of
   Christ, so that the Scotch population is now divided chiefly into three
   branches, the Established Church, the United Presbyterian Church, and
   the Free Church of Scotland; all holding, however, to the Westminster
   standards.

   In Germany, the Moravian brotherhood acquired a legal existence, and
   fully earned it by its missionary zeal among the heathen, its
   educational institutions, its pure discipline and stimulating influence
   upon the older churches.

   All these Churches of Great Britain and the Continent were transplanted
   by emigration to the virgin soil of North America, where they mingle on
   a basis of equality before the law and in the enjoyment of perfect
   religious freedom. But few communions are of native growth. In America,
   the distinction between church and sect, churchmen and dissenters, has
   lost its legal meaning. And even in Europe it is weakened in the same
   proportion in which under the influence of modern ideas of toleration
   and freedom the bond of union of church and state is relaxed, and the
   sects or theological parties are allowed to organize themselves into
   distinct communities.

   Thus Protestantism in the nineteenth century is divided into half a
   dozen or more large denominations, without counting the minor divisions
   which are even far more numerous. The Episcopalians, the Lutherans, the
   Presbyterians, the Congregationalists, the Methodists, and the
   Baptists, are distinct and separate families. Nor is the centrifugal
   tendency of Protestantism exhausted, and may produce new denominations,
   especially in America, where no political power can check its progress.

   To an outside spectator, especially to a Romanist and to an infidel,
   Protestantism presents the aspect of a religious chaos or anarchy which
   must end in dissolution.

   But a calm review of the history of the last three centuries and the
   present condition of Christendom leads to a very different conclusion.
   It is an undeniable fact that Christianity has the strongest hold upon
   the people and displays the greatest vitality and energy at home and
   abroad, in English-speaking countries, where it is most divided into
   denominations and sects. A comparison of England with Spain, or
   Scotland with Portugal, or the United States with Mexico and Peru or
   Brazil, proves the advantages of living variety over dead uniformity.
   Division is an element of weakness in attacking a consolidated foe, but
   it also multiplies the missionary, educational, and converting
   agencies. Every Protestant denomination has its own field of
   usefulness, and the cause of Christianity itself would be seriously
   weakened and contracted by the extinction of any one of them.

   Nor should we overlook the important fact, that the differences which
   divide the various Protestant denominations are not fundamental, and
   that the articles of faith in which they agree are more numerous than
   those in which they disagree. All accept the inspired Scriptures as the
   supreme rule of faith and practice, salvation by grace, and we may say
   every article of the Apostles' Creed; while in their views of practical
   Christianity they unanimously teach that our duties are comprehended in
   the royal law of love to God and to our fellow-men, and that true piety
   and virtue consist in the imitation of the example of Christ, the Lord
   and Saviour of all.

   There is then unity in diversity as well as diversity in unity.

   And the tendency to separation and division is counteracted by the
   opposite tendency to Christian union and denominational intercommunion
   which manifests itself in a rising degree and in various forms among
   Protestants of the present day, especially in England and America, and
   on missionary fields, and which is sure to triumph in the end. The
   spirit of narrowness, bigotry and exclusiveness must give way at last
   to a spirit of evangelical catholicity, which leaves each denomination
   free to work out its own mission according to its special charisma, and
   equally free to co-operate in a noble rivalry with all other
   denominations for the glory of the common Master and the building up of
   His Kingdom.

   The great problem of Christian union cannot be solved by returning to a
   uniformity of belief and outward organization. Diversity in unity and
   unity in diversity is the law of God in history as well as in nature.
   Every aspect of truth must be allowed room for free development. Every
   possibility of Christian life must be realized. The past cannot be
   undone; history moves zig-zag, like a sailing vessel, but never
   backwards. The work of church history, whether Greek, Roman, or
   Protestant, cannot be in vain. Every denomination and sect has to
   furnish some stones for the building of the temple of God.

   And out of the greatest human discord God will bring the richest
   concord.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [39] Denominationalism is, I believe, an American term of recent
   origin, but useful and necessary to express the fact, without praise or
   blame, that Protestant Christianity exists in various ecclesiastical
   organizations, some of which are large, others small, some differing in
   doctrine, others only in polity and worship, some liberal and catholic,
   others contracted and exclusive. I use it in this neutral sense, in
   preference to Confessionalism which implies confessional or doctrinal
   difference, and Sectarianism which implies bigotry and is a term of
   reproach.

   [40] The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, as revised under Elizabeth
   (1563 and 1571), are borrowed in part, verbatim, from the Augsburg
   Confession of 1530 and the Würtemberg Confession of 1552, but are
   moderately Calvinistic in the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, and on
   predestination; the five Lambeth Articles of 1595, and the Irish
   Articles of Archbishop Ussher (1615) are strongly Calvinistic, and the
   latter furnished the basis of the Westminster Confession. But the
   Lambeth Articles and the Irish Articles were gradually forgotten, and
   the Book of Common Prayer which is based on the office of Sarum, has
   practically much greater influence than even the Thirty-nine Articles.
   See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom vol. I. 624 sqq., 630 sqq., 658 sqq.,
   662 sqq.

   [41] See the correspondence in Cranmer's Works publ. by the Parker
   Society, Vol.II. 430-433.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 11. Protestantism and Religious Liberty.

   Comp. Ph. Schaff: The Progress of Religious Freedom as shown in the
   History of Toleration Acts, N. York, 1889. (126 pages.)

   The Reformation was a grand act of emancipation from spiritual tyranny,
   and a vindication of the sacred rights of conscience in matters of
   religious belief. Luther's bold stand at the Diet of Worms, in the face
   of the pope and the emperor, is one of the sublimest events in the
   history of liberty, and the eloquence of his testimony rings through
   the centuries. [42] To break the force of the pope, who called himself
   and was believed to be, the visible vicar of God on earth, and who held
   in his hands the keys of the kingdom of heaven, required more moral
   courage than to fight a hundred battles, and it was done by an humble
   monk in the might of faith.

   If liberty, both civil and religious, has since made progress, it is
   due in large measure to the inspiration of that heroic act. But the
   progress was slow and passed through many obstructions and reactions.
   "The mills of God grind slowly, but wonderfully fine."

   It seems one of the strangest inconsistencies that the very men who
   claimed and exercised the right of protest in essentials, should have
   denied the same right to others, who differed from them in
   nonessentials. After having secured liberty from the yoke of popery,
   they acted on the persecuting principles in which they had been brought
   up. They had no idea of toleration or liberty in our modern sense. They
   fought for liberty in Christ, not from Christ, for liberty to preach
   and teach the gospel, not to oppose or pervert it. They were as
   intensely convinced of their views as their Roman opponents of theirs.
   They abhorred popery and heresy as dangerous errors which should not be
   tolerated in a Christian society. John Knox feared one Romish mass in
   Scotland more than an army of ten thousand French invaders. The
   Protestant divines and princes of the sixteenth century felt it to be
   their duty to God and to themselves to suppress and punish heresy as
   well as civil crimes. They confounded the law with the gospel. In many
   cases they acted in retaliation, and in self-defense. They were
   surrounded by a swarm of sects and errorists who claimed to be the
   legitimate children of the Reformation, exposed it to the reproach of
   the enemies and threatened to turn it into confusion and anarchy. The
   world and the church were not ripe for a universal reign of liberty,
   nor are they even now.

   Religious persecution arises not only from bigotry and fanaticism, and
   the base passions of malice, hatred and uncharitableness, but also from
   mistaken zeal for truth and orthodoxy, from the intensity of religious
   conviction, and from the alliance of religion with politics or the
   union of church and state, whereby an offence against the one becomes
   an offence against the other. Persecution is found in all religions,
   churches and sects which had the power; while on the other hand all
   persecuted religions, sects, and parties are advocates of toleration
   and freedom, at least for themselves. Some of the best as well as the
   worst men have been persecutors, believing that they served the cause
   of God by fighting his enemies. Saul of Tarsus, and Marcus Aurelius,
   the Stoic saint and philosopher on the throne of the Caesars, have in
   ignorance persecuted Christianity, the one from zeal for the law of
   Moses, the other from devotion to the laws and gods of Rome.
   Charlemagne thought he could best promote Christianity among the
   heathen Saxons by chasing them through the river for wholesale baptism.
   St. Augustin, Thomas Aquinas, and Calvin were equally convinced of the
   right and duty of the civil magistrate to punish heresy. A religion or
   church established by law must be protected by law against its enemies.
   The only sure guarantee against persecution is to put all churches on
   an equal footing before the law, and either to support all or none.

   Church history is lurid with the infernal fires of persecutions, not
   only of Christians by heathens and Mohammedans, but of Christians by
   Christians.

   But there is a silver lining to every cloud, and an overruling
   Providence in all human wickedness. The persecutions test character,
   develop moral heroism, bring out the glories of martyrdom, and sow the
   bloody seed of religious liberty. They fail of their object when the
   persecuted party has the truth on its side, and ultimately result in
   its victory. This was the case with Christianity in the Roman empire,
   and to a large extent with Protestantism. They suffered the cross, and
   reaped the crown.

   Let us now briefly survey the chief stages in the history of
   persecution, which is at the same time a history of religious liberty.

   1. The New Testament furnishes not a single passage in favor of
   persecution. The teaching and example of Christ and the Apostles are
   against it. He came to save the world, not to destroy it. He declared
   that His kingdom is not of this world. He rebuked the hasty Peter for
   drawing the sword, though it was in defense of his Master; and he
   preferred to suffer and to die rather than to call the angels of God to
   aid against his enemies. The Apostles spread the gospel by spiritual
   means and condemned the use of carnal weapons.

   For three hundred years the church followed their example and advocated
   freedom of conscience. She suffered persecution from Jews and Gentiles,
   but never retaliated, and made her way to triumph through the power of
   truth and a holy life sealed by a heroic death. [43]

   2. The change began with the union of church and state under
   Constantine the Great, in the East, and Charles the Great, in the West.
   Both these emperors represent the continuation of the old Roman empire
   under the dominion of the sword and the cross.

   The mediaeval theory of the Catholic Church assumes a close alliance of
   Caesar and Pope, or the civil and ecclesiastical power, in Christian
   countries, and the exclusiveness of the Catholic communion out of which
   there can be no salvation. The Athanasian Creed has no less than three
   damning clauses against all who dissent from the orthodox doctrine of
   the Trinity and the Incarnation. From this point of view every heresy,
   i.e., every departure from catholic orthodoxy, is a sin and a crime
   against society, and punishable both by the church and the state,
   though in different ways. "The church does not thirst for blood " [44]
   but excommunicates the obstinate heretic and hands him over to the
   civil magistrate to be dealt with according to law. And the laws of
   pagan Rome and Christian Rome were alike severe against every open
   dissent from the state religion. The Mosaic legislation against
   idolatry and blasphemy, which were punished by death, as a crime
   against the theocracy and as treason against Jehovah, [45] seemed to
   afford divine authority for similar enactments under the Christian
   dispensation, in spite of the teaching and example of Christ and his
   Apostles. The Christian emperors after Constantine persecuted the
   heathen religion and heretical sects, as their heathen predecessors had
   persecuted the Christians as enemies of the national gods. The
   Justinian code, which extended its influence over the whole Continent
   of Europe, declares Christian heretics and schismatics, as well as
   Pagans and Jews, incapable of holding civil or military offices,
   forbids their public assemblies and ecclesiastical acts, and orders
   their books to be burned.

   The leading divines of the church gave sanction to this theory. St.
   Augustin, who had himself been a heretic for nine years, was at first
   in favor of toleration. [46] But during the Donatist controversy, he
   came to the conclusion that the correction and coërcion of heretics and
   schismatics was in some cases necessary and wholesome. His tract on the
   Correction of the Donatists was written about 417, to show that the
   schismatical and fanatical Donatists should be subjected to the
   punishment of the imperial laws. He admits that it is better that men
   should be led to worship God by teaching than be driven to it by fear
   of punishment or pain; but he reasons that more men are corrected by
   fear. He derives the proof from the Old Testament. The only passages
   from the New Testament which he is able to quote, would teach a
   compulsory salvation rather than punishment, but are really not to the
   point. He refers to Paul's conversion as a case of compulsion by Christ
   himself, and misapplies the word of our Lord in the parable of the
   Supper: "Constrain them to come in." [47] Yet he professed, on the
   other hand, the correct principle that "no man can believe against his
   will." [48] And he expressly discouraged the infliction of the
   death-penalty on heretics. [49]

   Thomas Aquinas, next to Augustin, the highest authority among the
   canonized doctors of the Latin church, went a step further. He proved,
   to the satisfaction of the Middle Ages, that the rites of idolaters,
   Jews, and infidels ought not to be tolerated, [50] and that heretics or
   corruptors of the Christian faith, being worse criminals than debasers
   of money, ought (after due admonition) not only to be excommunicated by
   the church, but also be put to death by the state. [51] He does not
   quote a Bible passage in favor of the death-penalty of heretics; on the
   contrary he mentions three passages which favor toleration of heretics,
   2 Tim. 2:24; 1 Cor. 11:19; Matt. 13:29, 30, and then tries to deprive
   them of their force by his argument drawn from the guilt of heresy.

   The persecution of heretics reached its height in the papal crusades
   against the Albigenses under Innocent III., one of the best of popes;
   in the dark deeds of the Spanish Inquisition; and in the unspeakable
   atrocities of the Duke of Alva against the Protestants in the
   Netherlands during his short reign (1567-1573). [52]

   The horrible massacre of St. Bartholomew (Aug. 24, 1572) was sanctioned
   by Pope Gregory XIII., who celebrated it by public thanksgivings, and
   with a medal bearing his image, an avenging angel and the inscription,
   Ugonottorum strages. [53]

   The infamous dragonnades of Louis XIV. were a continuation of the same
   politico-ecclesiastical policy on a larger scale, aiming at the
   complete destruction of Protestantism in France, in violation of the
   solemn edict of his grandfather (1598, revoked 1685), and met the full
   approval of the Roman clergy, including Bishop Bossuet, the advocate of
   Gallican liberties. [54]

   The most cruel of the many persecutions of the innocent Waldenses in
   the valleys of Piedmont took place in 1655, and shocked by its
   boundless violence the whole Protestant world, calling forth the
   vigorous protest of Cromwell and inspiring the famous sonnet of Milton,
   his foreign secretary:


   "Avenge, O Lord, thy slaughtered saints, whose bones

   Lie scattered on the Alpine mountains cold,

   Even them who kept thy truth so pure of old,

   When all our fathers worshiped stocks and stones."

   These persecutions form the darkest, we may say, the satanic chapters
   in church history, and are a greater crime against humanity and
   Christianity than all the heresies which they in vain tried to
   eradicate.

   The Roman church has never repented of her complicity with these
   unchristian acts. On the contrary, she still holds the principle of
   persecution in connection with her doctrine that there is no salvation
   outside of her bosom. The papal Syllabus of 1864 expressly condemns,
   among the errors of modern times, the doctrine of religious toleration.
   [55] Leo XIII., a great admirer of the theology of St. Thomas Aquinas,
   in his Encyclical of Nov. 1, 1885, "concerning the Christian
   constitution of states," wisely moderates, but reaffirms, in substance,
   the political principles of his predecessor. [56] A revocation would be
   fatal to the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility. The practice of
   persecution is a question of power and expediency; and although
   isolated cases still occur from time to time, [57] the revival of
   mediaeval intolerance is an impossibility, and would be condemned by
   intelligent and liberal Roman Catholics as a folly and a crime.

   3. The Protestant theory and practice of persecution and toleration.

   (a) The Lutheran Reformers and Churches.

   Luther was the most advanced among the Reformers in the ideas of
   toleration and liberty. He clearly saw the far-reaching effect of his
   own protest against Rome, and during his storm- and pressure-period,
   from 1517 to 1521, he was a fearless champion of liberty. He has left
   some of the noblest utterances against coërcion in matters of
   conscience, which contain almost every essential feature of the modern
   theory on the subject. He draws a sharp line between the temporal power
   which is confined to the body and worldly goods, and the spiritual
   government which belongs to God. He says that "no one can command or
   ought to command the soul, except God, who alone can show it the way to
   heaven;" that "the thoughts and mind of man are known only to God;"
   that "it is futile and impossible to command, or by force to compel any
   man's belief;" that "heresy is a spiritual thing which no iron can hew
   down, no fire burn, no water drown;" that "belief is a free thing which
   cannot be enforced." [58] He opposed the doctrine of the Anabaptists
   with every argument at his command, but disapproved the cruel
   persecution to which they were subjected in Protestant as well as
   Catholic countries. "It is not right," he said in a book against them
   (1528), "and I deeply regret that such wretched people should be so
   miserably murdered, burned, and cruelly put to death; every one should
   be allowed to believe what he pleases. If he believes wrongly, he will
   have punishment enough in the eternal fire of hell. Why should they be
   tortured in this life also?" [59] If heretics were to be punished by
   death, the hangman would be the best (the most orthodox) theologian. "I
   can in no way admit," he wrote to his friend Link in 1528, "that false
   teachers should be put to death: it is enough that they should be
   banished ." [60]

   To this extent, then, he favored punishment of heretics, but no
   further. He wanted them to be silenced or banished by the government.
   He spent his violence in words, in which he far outstripped friends and
   foes, and spared neither papists, nor Zwinglians, nor Anabaptists, nor
   even temporal princes like Henry VIII., Duke George of Saxony, and Duke
   Henry of Brunswick. [61] But his acts of intolerance are few. He
   refused the hand of fellowship to Zwingli, and would not have tolerated
   him at Wittenberg. He begged the elector, John, to prevent a certain
   Hans Mohr from spreading Zwinglian opinions in Coburg. He regretted the
   toleration of the Zwinglians in Switzerland after their defeat, which
   he uncharitably interpreted as a righteous judgment of God. [62]

   A few words on his views concerning the toleration of the Jews who had
   to suffer every indignity from Christians, as if they were personally
   responsible for the crime of the crucifixion. Luther was at first in
   advance of public opinion. In 1523 he protested against the cruel
   treatment of the Jews, as if they were dogs, and not human beings, and
   counseled kindness and charity as the best means of converting them. If
   the apostles, he says, who were Jews, had dealt with the heathen, as we
   heathen Christians deal with the Jews, no heathen would ever have been
   converted, and I myself, if I were a Jew, would rather become anything
   else than a Christian. [63] But in 1543 he wrote two violent books
   against the Jews. [64] His intercourse with several Rabbis filled him
   with disgust and indignation against their pride, obstinacy and
   blasphemies. He came to the conclusion that it was useless to dispute
   with them and impossible to convert them. Moses could do nothing with
   Pharaoh by warnings, plagues and miracles, but had to let him drown in
   the Red Sea. The Jews would crucify their expected Messiah, if he ever
   should come, even worse than they crucified the Christian Messiah. They
   are a blind, hard, incorrigible race. [65] He went so far as to advise
   their expulsion from Christian lands, the prohibition of their books,
   and the burning of their synagogues and even their houses in which they
   blaspheme our Saviour and the Holy Virgin. In the last of his sermons,
   preached shortly before his death at Eisleben, where many Jews were
   allowed to trade, he concluded with a severe warning against the Jews
   as dangerous public enemies who ought not to be tolerated, but left the
   alternative of conversion or expulsion. [66]

   Melanchthon, the mildest of the Reformers, went--strange to say--a step
   further than Luther, not during his lifetime, but eight years after his
   death, and expressly sanctioned the execution of Servetus for blasphemy
   in the following astounding letter to Calvin, dated Oct. 14, 1554:
   "Reverend sir and dearest brother: I have read your work in which you
   have lucidly refuted the horrible blasphemies of Servetus, and I thank
   the Son of God, who has been the arbiter (brabeuthv") of this your
   contest. The church, both now and in all generations, owes and will owe
   you a debt of gratitude. I entirely assent to your judgment. (Tuo
   judicio prorsus adsentior.) And I say, too, that your magistrates did
   right in that, after solemn trial, they put the blasphemer (hominem
   blasphemum) to death." [67] He expressed here his deliberate conviction
   to which he adhered. Three years later, in a warning against the errors
   of Theobald Thammer, he called the execution of Servetus "a pious and
   memorable example to all posterity." [68] We cannot tell what Luther
   might have said in this case had he lived at that time. It is good for
   his reputation that he was spared the trial. [69]

   The other Lutheran Reformers agreed essentially with the leaders. They
   conceded to the civil ruler the control over the religious as well as
   political opinions of their subjects. Martin Bucer went furthest in
   this direction and taught in his "Dialogues" (1535) the right and the
   duty of Christian magistrates to reform the church, to forbid and
   punish popish idolatry, and all false religions, according to the full
   rigor of the Mosaic law. [70]

   In accordance with these views of the Lutheran Reformers the Roman
   Catholics in Lutheran countries were persecuted, not, indeed, by
   shedding their blood as the blood of Protestants was shed in Roman
   Catholic countries, but by the confiscation of their church property,
   the prohibition of their worship, and, if it seemed necessary, by
   exile. In the reorganization of the church in Electoral Saxony in 1528,
   under the direction of the Wittenberg Reformers, the popish priests
   were deprived of their benefices, and even obstinate laymen were forced
   to sell their property and to leave their country. "For," said the
   Elector, "although it is not our intention to bind any one to what he
   is to believe and hold, yet will we, for the prevention of mischievous
   tumult and other inconveniences, suffer neither sect nor separation in
   our territory." [71]

   The Protestant dissenters fared no better in Lutheran Saxony. The
   Philippists (Melanchthonians) or Crypto-Calvinists were outlawed, and
   all clergymen, professors and school teachers who would not subscribe
   the Formula of Concord, were deposed (1580). Dr. Caspar Peucer,
   Melanchthon's son-in-law, professor of medicine at Wittenberg and
   physician to the Elector Augustus of Saxony, was imprisoned for ten
   years (1576-1586) for no other crime than "Philippism" (i.e.
   Melanchthonianism), and Nicolas Crell, the chancellor of Saxony, was,
   after ten years' confinement, beheaded at Dresden for favoring
   Crypto-Calvinism at home and supporting the Huguenots abroad, which was
   construed as high treason (1601). [72] Since that time the name of
   Calvin was as much hated in Saxony as the name of the Pope and the
   Turk. [73]

   In other Lutheran countries, Zwinglians and Calvinists fared no better.
   John a Lasco, the Reformer of Poland and minister of a Protestant
   congregation in London, when fleeing with his followers, including many
   women and children, from the persecution of the bloody Mary, was not
   allowed a resting place at Copenhagen, or Rostock, or Lübeck, or
   Hamburg, because he could not accept the Lutheran doctrine of the real
   presence, and the poor fugitives were driven from port to port in cold
   winter, till at last they found a temporary home at Emden (1553). [74]

   In Scandinavia every religion except the Lutheran was forbidden on pain
   of confiscation and exile, and these laws were in force till the middle
   of the nineteenth century. Queen Christina lost her Swedish crown by
   her apostasy from Lutheranism, which her father had so heroically
   defended in the Thirty Years' War.

   (b) The Swiss Reformers, though republicans, were not behind the
   Germans in intolerance against Romanists and heretics.

   Zwingli extended the hand of brotherhood to Luther, and hoped to meet
   even the nobler heathen in heaven, but had no mercy on the Anabaptists,
   who threatened to overthrow his work in Zürich. After trying in vain to
   convince them by successive disputations, the magistrate under his
   control resorted to the Cruel irony of drowning their leaders (six in
   all) in the Limmat near the lake of Zürich (between 1527 and 1532).
   [75]

   Zwingli counselled, at the risk of his own life, the forcible
   introduction of the Reformed religion into the territory of the
   Catholic Forest Cantons (1531); forgetting the warning of Christ to
   Peter, that they who take the sword shall perish by the sword. [76]

   Calvin has the misfortune rather than the guilt of pre-eminence for
   intolerance among the Reformers. He and Servetus are the best abused
   men of the sixteenth century; and the depreciation of the good name of
   the one and the exculpation of the bad name of the other have been
   carried far beyond the limits of historic truth and justice. Both must
   be judged from the standpoint of the sixteenth, not of the nineteenth,
   century.

   The fatal encounter of the champion of orthodoxy and the champion of
   heresy, men of equal age, rare genius, and fervent zeal for the
   restoration of Christianity, but direct antipodes in doctrine, spirit
   and aim, forms the most thrilling tragedy in the history of the
   Reformation. The contrast between the two is almost as great as that
   between Simon Peter and Simon Magus. [77] Their contest will never lose
   its interest. The fires of the funeral pile which were kindled at
   Champel on the 27th of October, 1553, are still burning and cast their
   lurid sparks into the nineteenth century.

   Leaving the historical details and the doctrinal aspect for another
   chapter, [78] we confine ourselves here to the bearing of the case on
   the question of toleration.

   Impartial history must condemn alike the intolerance of the victor and
   the error of the victim, but honor in both the strength of conviction.
   Calvin should have contented himself with banishing his fugitive rival
   from the territory of Geneva, or allowing him quietly to proceed on his
   contemplated journey to Italy, where he might have resumed his practice
   of medicine in which he excelled. But he sacrificed his future
   reputation to a mistaken sense of duty to the truth and the cause of
   the Reformation in Switzerland and his beloved France, where his
   followers were denounced and persecuted as heretics. He is responsible,
   on his own frank confession, for the arrest and trial of Servetus, and
   he fully assented to his condemnation and death "for heresy and
   blasphemy," except that he counselled the magistrate, though in vain,
   to mitigate the legal penalty by substituting the sword for the fire.
   [79]

   But the punishment was in accordance with the mediaeval laws and
   wellnigh universal sentiment of Catholic and Protestant Christendom; it
   was unconditionally counselled by four Swiss magistrates which had been
   consulted before the execution (Zurich, Berne, Basel, and
   Schaffhausen), and was expressly approved by all the surviving
   reformers: Bullinger, Farel, Beza, Peter Martyr, and (as we have
   already seen) even by the mild and gentle Melanchthon. And strange to
   say, Servetus himself held, in part at least, the theory under which he
   suffered: for he admitted that incorrigible obstinacy and malice
   deserved death, [80] referring to the case of Ananias and Sapphira;
   while schism and heresy should be punished only by excommunication and
   exile.

   Nor should we overlook the peculiar aggravation of the case. We may now
   put a more favorable construction on Servetus' mystic and pantheistic
   or panchristic Unitarianism than his contemporaries, who seemed to have
   misunderstood him, friends as well as foes; but he was certainly a
   furious fanatic and radical heretic, and in the opinion of all the
   churches of his age a reckless blasphemer, aiming at the destruction of
   historic Christianity. He was thus judged from his first book (1531),
   [81] as well as his last (1553), [82] and escaped earlier death only by
   concealment, practicing medicine under a fictitious name and the
   protection of a Catholic archbishop. He had abused all trinitarian
   Christians, as tritheists and atheists; he had denounced the orthodox
   doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as a dream of St. Augustin, a fiction of
   popery, an invention of the devil, and a three-headed Cerberus. [83] He
   had attacked with equal fury infant-baptism, as a detestable
   abomination, a killing of the Holy Spirit, an abolition of
   regeneration, and overthrow of the entire kingdom of Christ, and
   pronounced a woe on all baptizers of infancy who close the kingdom of
   heaven against mankind. He had been previously condemned to the stake
   by the Roman Catholic tribunal of the inquisition, after a regular
   trial, in the archiepiscopal city of Vienne in France, partly on the
   ground of his letters to Calvin procured from Geneva, and burned in
   effigy with his last book after his escape. He then rushed blindly into
   the hands of Calvin, whom he denounced, during the trial, as a liar, a
   hypocrite, and a Simon Magus, with a view, apparently, to overthrow his
   power, in league with his enemies, the party of the Libertines, which
   had then the majority in the council of Geneva. [84]

   Considering all these circumstances Calvin's conduct is not only
   explained, but even justified in part. He acted in harmony with the
   public law and orthodox sentiment of his age, and should therefore not
   be condemned more than his contemporaries, who would have done the same
   in his position. [85]

   But all the humane sentiments are shocked again by the atrocity, of the
   execution; while sympathy is roused for the unfortunate sufferer who
   died true to his conviction, reconciled to his enemies, and with the
   repeated prayer in the midst of the flames: "Jesus, thou Son of the
   eternal God, have mercy upon me!"

   The enemies of Calvin raised, in anonymous and pseudonymous pamphlets,
   a loud protest against the new tribunal of popery and inquisition in
   Geneva, which had boasted to be an asylum of all the persecuted. The
   execution of Servetus was condemned by his anti-trinitarian
   sympathizers, especially the Italian refugees in Switzerland, and also
   by some orthodox Christians in Basel and elsewhere, who feared that it
   would afford a powerful argument to the Romanists for their persecution
   of Protestants.

   Calvin felt it necessary, therefore, to come out with a public defense
   of the death-penalty for heresy, in the spring of 1554. [86] He
   appealed to the Mosaic law against idolatry and blasphemy, to the
   expulsion of the profane traffickers from the temple-court (Matt.
   21:12), and he tries to refute the arguments for toleration which were
   derived from the wise counsel of Gamaliel (Acts 5:34), the parable of
   the tares among the wheat (Matt. 13:29), and Christ's rebuke of Peter
   for drawing the sword (Matt. 26:52). The last argument he disposes of
   by making a distinction between private vengeance and public
   punishment.

   Beza also defended, with his usual ability, in a special treatise, the
   punishment of heretics, chiefly as a measure of self-defense of the
   state which had a right to give laws and a duty to protect religion. He
   derived the doctrine of toleration from scepticism and infidelity and
   called it a diabolical dogma. [87]

   The burning of the body of Servetus did not destroy his soul. His blood
   was the fruitful seed of the doctrine of toleration and the Unitarian
   heresy, which assumed an organized form in the Socinian sect, and
   afterward spread in many orthodox churches, including Geneva.

   Fortunately the tragedy of 1553 was the last spectacle of burning a
   heretic in Switzerland, though several years later the
   Anti-trinitarian, Valentine Gentile, was beheaded in Berne (1566).

   (c) In France the Reformed church, being in the minority, was violently
   and systematically persecuted by the civil rulers in league with the
   Roman church, and it is well for her that she never had a chance to
   retaliate. She is emphatically a church of martyrs.

   (d) The Reformed church in Holland, after passing through terrible
   trials and persecutions under Spanish rule, showed its intolerance
   toward the Protestant Arminians who were defeated by the Synod of Dort
   (1619). Their pastors and teachers were deposed and banished. The
   Arminian controversy was, however, mixed up with politics; the
   Calvinists were the national and popular party under the military lead
   of Prince Maurice; while the political leaders of Arminianism, John Van
   Olden Barneveldt and Hugo Grotius, were suspected of disloyalty for
   concluding a truce with Spain (1609), and condemned, the one to death,
   the other to perpetual banishment. With a change of administration the
   Arminians were allowed to return (1625), and disseminated, with a
   liberal theology, principles of religious toleration.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [42] Froude says (Luther, p. 38): "The appearance of Luther before the
   Diet on this occasion, is one of the finest, perhaps it is the very
   finest, scene in human history."

   [43] Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Lactantius made some of the
   strongest pleas in favor of religious liberty. See vol. II. 35 and 825.

   [44] Ecclesia non sitit sanguinem,"a maxim held by the Catholic church
   even in the darkest days of persecution. When the first blood of
   heretics was shed by order of the Emperor Maximus who punished some
   Priscillianists in Spain by the sword in 388, St. Ambrose of Milan and
   St. Martin of Tours loudly protested against the cruelty and broke off
   communion with the bishops who had approved it.

   [45] Ex. 22:20; Num. 25:2-8; Deut. 13:1-14; 17:2-5; Lev. 24:14-16;
   comp. 1 Kings 21:10, 13. The law was executed against Stephen, the
   protomartyr, Acts 6:11, 13; 7:58.

   [46] He begins his anti-Manichaean work, Adv. Epistolam Manichaei quam
   vocant fundamenti, written in 397, with these noble Christian
   sentiments: "My prayer to the one true, almighty God, of whom and by
   whom and in whom are all things, has been and is now, that in opposing
   and refuting the heresy of you Manichaeans, as you may after all be
   heretics more from thoughtlessness than from malice, He would give me a
   calm and composed mind, aiming at your recovery rather than your
   discomfiture. For, while the Lord by his servants overthrows the
   kingdoms of error, his will concerning erring men, as far as they are
   men, is that they should be restored rather than destroyed. And in
   every case where, previous to the final judgment, God inflicts
   punishment ... we must believe that the designed effect is the recovery
   of men, and not their ruin; while there is a preparation for the final
   doom in the case of those who reject the means of recovery," And in ch.
   3 he says to the Manichaeeans, remembering his own former connection
   with them: I can on no account treat you angrily; for I must bear with
   you now as formerly I had to bear with myself, and I must be as patient
   with you as my associates were with me, when I went madly and blindly
   astray in your beliefs."

   [47] De Correct. Donatist, c. 6, § 24: "The Lord himself (Luke 14:23)
   bids the guests in the first instance to be invited to His great
   supper, and afterwards to be compelled." He understands the highways
   and hedges of the parable to mean heresies and schisms, and the Supper
   of the Lord to mean the unity of the body of Christ in the sacrament of
   the altar and the bond of peace. He says (ch. 7, § 25) that when the
   imperial laws against heresy first were sent to Africa he with certain
   brethren opposed their execution, but afterwards justified them as a
   measure of catholic self-defense against the fanatical violence of the
   Donatists. The result was, that both Catholics and Donatists were
   overwhelmed in ruin by the Vandal conquerors, who were Arian heretics.

   [48] "Credere non potest homo nisi volens." See his Tract. XXVI. in
   Joan. c. 2, where he says: "A man can come to church unwillingly, can
   approach the altar unwillingly, partake of the sacrament unwillingly;
   but he can not believe unless he is willing. If we believed with the
   body, men might be made to believe against their will. But believing is
   not a thing done with the body." I am pleased to find an approving
   reference to this sentence in the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII. of Nov.
   1, 1885.

   [49] In a letter to Proconsul Donatus (Ep. C.) he adjured him by Jesus
   Christ, not to repay the Donatists in kind, and says: "Corrigi eos
   cupimus, non necari."

   [50] Summa Theol. Secunda Secundae, Quaest. x., Art. 11.

   [51] Ibid. Quaest. xi., Art. 3, where he says of heretics: "Meruerunt
   non solum ab ecclesia per excommunicationem seperari, sed etiam per
   mortem a mundo excludi ... Si falsarii pecuniae vel alii malefactores
   statim per saeculares principes juste morti traduntur, multo magis
   haeretici statim ex quo de haerisi convincuntur, possunt non solum
   excommunicari, sed et juste occidi."

   [52] Gibbon asserts that "the number of Protestants who were executed
   [by the Spaniards] in a single province and a single reign, far
   exceeded that of the primitive martyrs in the space of three centuries,
   and in the Roman empire?" Decline and Fall, Ch. xvi., towards the
   close. Grotius, to whom he refers, states that the number of Dutch
   martyrs exceeded 100,000; Sarpi reduces the number to 50,000. Alva
   himself boasted that during his six years' rule as the agent of Philip
   II., he had caused 18,000 persons to be executed, but this does not
   include the much larger number of those who perished by siege, battle,
   and in prisons. At the sack of Haarlem, 300 citizens, tied two and two
   and back to back, were thrown into the lake, and at Zutphen 500 more,
   in the same manner, were drowned in the Yssel. See Motley', Rise of the
   Dutch Republic, vol. II. 504: "The barbarities committed amid the sack
   and ruin of those blazing and starving cities are almost beyond belief;
   unborn infants were torn from the living bodies of their mothers; women
   and children were violated by the thousands; and whole populations
   burned and hacked to pieces by soldiers in every mode which cruelty, in
   its wanton ingenuity, could devise."

   [53] See De Thou, Hist. lib. LXIII.; Gieseler, IV. 304 (Am. ed,);
   Wachler, Die Pariser Bluthochzeit., 2d ed., Leipzig, 1828; Henry White,
   Massacre of St. Bartholomew, N. Y., 1868; Henry M. Baird, History of
   the Rise of the Huguenots, New York, 1879; Henri Bordier, La
   Saint-Barthélemy et la Critique moderne, Paris, 1879; H. Baumgarten,
   Vor der Bartholomaeusnacht, Strassburg, 1882. The number of victims of
   that massacre in Paris and throughout France, is variously stated from
   10,000 to 100,000; De Thou and Ranke give 20,000 as the most moderate
   estimate (2,000 in Paris). Roman Catholic writers defend the pope on
   the ground of ignorance; but he had abundant time to secure full
   information from his nuncio and others before the medals were struck.
   It is said that Philip II. of Spain, for the first time in his life,
   laughed aloud when he heard of the massacre.

   [54] See the French histories of Martin, Benoit, Michelet, De Félice,
   Ranke, Soldan, Von Polenz, and other works quoted by H. M. Baird in
   Schaff-Herzog II., 1037. The number of French refugees is estimated as
   high as 800,000; Baird reduces it to 400,000. Martin thinks, that
   taking all in all, "France lost the activity of more than a million of
   men, and of the men that produced most." Many of the descendants of the
   refugees whom the Elector Frederic William of Prussia so hospitably
   invited to Berlin, fought against France in the Napoleonic wars, and
   aided in the terrible retribution of 1870.

   [55] Among the errors condemned are these, § X., 78 and 79: "In the
   present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion shall
   be held as the only religion of the state, to the exclusion of all
   other modes of worship.""Whence it has been wisely provided by law,
   that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise
   of their own worship." The condemnation of toleration implies the
   approval of intolerance. See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, II., 232.
   Janssen, while he condemns the Protestant persecutions of Catholics,
   approves the Catholic persecutions of Protestants in the time of the
   Reformation. He says: "Für die katholische Geistlichkeit, die
   katholischen Fürsten und Magistrate und das katholsche Volk war es ein
   Kampf der Sebsterhaltung, wenn sie Alles aufboten, um dem
   Protestantismus den Eingang in ihre Gebiete zu wehren und ihn, wenn er
   eingedrungen war, daraus wieder zu entfernen." -Geschichte des
   deutschen Volkes, III., 193.

   [56] After glorifying the Middle Ages and the hierarchical rule of the
   church over the state, Leo XIII. in that Encyclical proceeds to say:
   "No doubt the same excellent state of things would have continued, if
   the agreement of the two powers had continued, and greater things might
   rightfully have been expected, if men had obeyed the authority, the
   teaching office, and the counsels of the church with more fidelity and
   perseverance. For that is to be regarded as a perpetual law which Ivo,
   of Chartres, wrote to Pope Paschal II.: 'When kingship and priesthood
   are agreed, the world is well ruled, the church flourishes and bears
   fruit. But when they are at variance, not only do little things not
   grow, but even great things fall into miserable ruin and decay.' " Then
   the pope rejects among the evil consequences of the "revolution" of the
   sixteenth century (meaning, of course, the Reformation) the erroneous
   opinion that "no religion should be publicly professed [by the state];
   nor ought one to be preferred to the rest; nor ought there to be any
   inquiry which of many is alone true; nor ought one to be specially
   favored, but to each alike equal rights ought to be assigned, provided
   only, that the social order incurs no injury from them." This is
   probably aimed at Italy and France, but implies also a condemnation of
   the separation of church and state as it exists in the United States.
   Further on, the pope approvingly refers to the Encyclical Mirari Vos of
   Gregory XVI. (Aug. 15, 1832), which condemns the separation of church
   and state, and to the Syllabus of Pius IX., who "noted many false
   opinions and ordered them to be collected together in order that in so
   great a conflux of errors Catholics might have something which they
   might follow without stumbling."

   [57] Thus, in 1852, the Madiai family were imprisoned in Florence for
   holding prayer meetings and reading the Bible, and in 1853, Matamoras,
   Carrasco and their friends were imprisoned and condemned to the galleys
   at Madrid for the same offense, and were only released after a powerful
   protest of an international deputation of the Evangelical Alliance. No
   public worship except the Roman Catholic was tolerated in the city of
   Rome before 1870.

   [58] See his tract, written in 1523, Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit
   man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei? In Walch X. 426-479, especially the
   second part, col. 451 sqq. "Der Seelen kann und soll niemand gebieten,
   er wisse denn ihr den Weg zu weisen gen Himmel. Das kann aber kein
   Mensch thun, sondern Gott allein. Darum in den Sachen, die der Seelen
   Seligkeit betreffen, soll nichts denn Gottes Wort gelehret und
   angenommenwerden" (453). Es ist ein frei Werk um den Glauben, dazu man
   niemand kann zwingen ... Zum Glauben kann und soll man niemand zwingen"
   (455 sq.). He justly confines the duty of obedience taught in Rom.
   13:1, and 1 Pet. 2:13, to secular matters, and qualifies them by Matt.
   22:21.

   [59] Von der Wiedertaufe, an zwei Pfarrherrn, written in Dec., 1527 or
   Jan., 1528, and addressed to two pastors in a Roman Catholic country
   (probably under the rule of Duke George of Saxony). See Walch XVII.,
   2644, and the Erl. Frankf. ed. xxvi., or of the
   Reformations-historische Schriften III. (2d ed. 1885), p. 283, from
   which I quote the whole passage: "Doch ist's nicht recht, und ist mir
   wahrlich leid, dass man solche elende Lente so jämmerlich ermordet,
   verbrennet und greulich umbringt; man sollte, ja einen jeglichen lassen
   gläuben, was er wollt. Gläubet er unrecht, so hat er gnug Strafen an
   dem ewigen Feur in der Höllen. Warumb will man sie denn auch noch
   zeitlich martern, so ferne sie allein im Glauben irren, und nicht auch
   daneben aufruhrisch oder sonst der Oeberkeit widerstreben? Lieber Gott,
   wie bald ists geschehen, dass einer irre wird und dem Teufel in Strick
   fället! Mit der Schrift und Gottes Wort sollt man ihn wehren und
   widerstehen; mit Feuer wird man wenig ausrichten."

   [60] Briefe, de Wette III., 347 sq.: "Quod quaeris, an liceat
   magistratui accidere pseudoprophetas? Ego ad judiciam sanguinis tardus
   sum, etiam ubi meritum abundat ... Nullo modo possum admittere, falsos
   doctores occidi; satis est eos relegari." He gives as a reason that the
   law of the death penalty among the Jews and Papists was made a pretext
   for killing true prophets and saints.

   [61] His coarse attack on Henry VIII., "by God's disfavor (or disgrace,
   Ungnade) king of England," is well known. In his book, Von weltlicher
   Obrigkeit, which is dedicated to his own prince, Duke John, he ventures
   the opinion that wise and pious rulers have from the beginning of the
   world been rare birds, and that princes are usually the greatest fools
   or worst boobies on earth (sie sind gemeiniglich die grössten Narren
   oder die ärgsten Buben auf Erden). Walch X., 460 and 464."Es sind gar
   wenig Fürsten, die man nicht für Narren und Buben hält. Das macht, sie
   bewiesen sich auch also, und der gemeine Mann wird verständig."Ibid.,
   464.

   [62] In a letter to Albrecht of Brandenburg, a. 1532, after he heard of
   Zwingli's death. De Wette IV., 349-355. In the same letter he speaks of
   Zwingli's salvation only problematically, as having possibly occurred
   in the last moment! He lays there the greatest stress on the real
   presence as a fundamental article of faith.

   [63] See his tract entitled Dass Jesus Christus ein geborner Jude sei,
   in the Erl. Frkf. ed. Bd. XIX., p. 45-75. He says that if I were a Jew
   and suffered what the Jews had to suffer from popes, bishops and monks,
   "so wäre ich eher eine Sau worden denn ein Christ. Denn sie haben mit
   den Juden gehandelt, als wären es Hunde, und nicht Menschen" (p. 47).

   [64] Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen, Wittenb., 1543, and Vom Schem
   Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi, Wittenb., 1543. In the Erl. Frkf.
   ed. Bd. XXXII., 99-274, and 275-358.

   [65] "Ein Jüde oder jüdisch Herz ist so stock-stein-eisen-teufel-hart,
   dass es mit keiner Weise zu bewegen ist ... Summa, es sind junge
   Teufel, zur Höllen verdammt" (l.c. p. 276). He had no hope of the
   future conversion of the Jews, which some justly derived from Rom. 11,
   but "St. Paulus meinet gar viel ein Anderes" (277).

   [66] "Vermahnung wider die Jüden," 1546, Erl. ed. LXV., 186-188. He
   concludes: Wollen sich die Jüden zu uns bekehren und von ihrer
   Lästerung und was sie uns sonst gethan haben, aufhören, so wollen wir
   es ihnen gerne vergeben: wo aber nicht, so sollen wir sie auch bei uns
   nicht dulden noch leiden."This reminds one of the way in which Prince
   Bismarck in the year 1886 proposed to deal with the Poles in Posen as
   enemies of Prussia and Germany: to buy them out, and expel them from
   the land of their birth. In several other respects, both favorable and
   unfavorable, that great statesman may be called the political Luther of
   the nineteenth century.

   [67] Corpus Reform. Opera Mel. VIII., 362. Comp. H. Tollin, Ph.
   Melanchthon und M. Servet. Eine Quellen-Studie. Berlin, 1876 (198
   pages). Tollin wrote several monographs on Servetus in his various
   relations.

   [68] Ibid., IX., 133: "Dedit vero et Genevensis Reipubl. Magistratus
   ante annos quatuor punitae insanabilis blasphemiae adversus Filium Dei,
   sublato Serveto Arragone, pium et memorabile ad omnem posteritatem
   exemplum."

   [69] Luther knew only the Servetus of 1531, and once refers to him in
   his Table-Talk, as a fanatic who mastered theology by false philosophy.
   See Tollin, Luther und Servet, Berlin, 1875 (61 pages).

   [70] See Tollin, Butzer's Confutatio der Libri VII. De Trinitatis
   Erroribus, in the "Studien und Kritiken" for 1875; and Michael Servet
   und Martin Butzer, Berlin, 1880; Baum, Capito und Butzer (1860), pp.
   489 sq., 478, and 495 sq.; also Janssen, Gesch. des deutschen Volkes,
   vol. III., 194.

   [71] "Denn wiewohl unsere Meinung nicht ist, jemand zu verbinden, was
   er glauben und halten soll, so wollen wir doch zur Verhütung
   schädlicher Aufruhre und anderer Unrichtigkeiten keine Sekten noch
   Trennung in unseren Landen dulden." Köstlin II., 29. What a difference
   between this restriction and the declaration of Frederick the Great,
   that in his dominions every body may be saved after his own fashion
   (nach seiner eigenen Façon).

   [72] Fr. Koch, De Vita Caspar. Peuceri Marburg, 1856. Richard, Der
   churfürstl. sächs. Kanzler Dr. Nic. Krell. Dresden, 1859, 2 vols.
   Henke, Kaspar Peucer und Nik. Krell, Marburg, 1865. Calinich, Kampf und
   Untergang des Melathonismus in Kursachsen, Leipzig, 1866; Zwei
   sächsische Kanzler, Chemnitz, 1868.

   [73] The following lines were familiar during the seventeenth century:
   "Gottes Wort und Lutheri Schrift Sind des Papst's und Calvini Gift."

   [74] Hermann Dalton (of St. Petersburg), in his Johannes a Laasco
   (Gotha, 1881), pp. 427-438, gives a graphic description of what he
   calls Laski's "martyrdom in Denmark and North Germany." Calvin raised
   his indignant protest against this cruel treatment of his brethren, but
   in the same year Servetus was made to suffer death for heresy and
   blasphemy under Calvin's eye!

   [75] Bullinger, Reformationsgeschichte, I., 382. Comp. his Von der
   Wiedertäufer Ursprung, etc., 1560. Hagenbach, Kirchengesch., III. 350
   sqq. Emil Egli, Die Züricher Wiedertäufer zur Reformatiosszeit, Zürich,
   1884. Nitsche, Gesch. der Wiedertäufer in der Schweiz, Einsiedeln,
   1885.

   [76] The statue erected to his memory at Zürich, August 25th, 1885,
   represents him as holding the Bible in his right hand and the sword
   with his left. Dr. Alex. Schweizer protested (as he informed me)
   against the sword, and took no part in the festivities of the
   dedication of the monument.

   [77] Servetus probably imagined himself to represent the Apostle when
   he called Calvin "Simon Magus." He did identify himself with the
   archangel Michael fighting against the dragon, i.e. the Pope of Rome,
   Apoc. 12:7.

   [78] Together with the extensive literature.

   [79] Servetus appeared on a Sunday morning, August 13th, 1553, in one
   of the churches at Geneva and was recognized by one of the worshippers,
   who at once informed Calvin of the fact, whereupon he was thrown into
   prison. "Nec sane dissimulo," says Calvin (Opera, vol. VIII., col. 461,
   ed. Baum, Reuss, etc.), "mea opera consilioque jure in carcerem fuisse
   conjectum." Beza, in his Vita Calv., reports the fact as providential
   that Servetus, "a quodam agnitus, Calvino Magistratum admonente," was
   arrested. Servetus had previously applied for a safe-conduct from
   Vienne to Geneva, but Calvin refused it, and wrote to Farel, February
   13th, 1546: "Si venerit, modo valeat mea auctoritas, vivum exire
   numquam patiar." During the process, he expressed the hope, in a letter
   to Farel (August 2nd, 1553), that Servetus might be condemned to death,
   but that the sentence be executed in a milder form (Opera xiv., col.
   590): "Spero capitale saltem fore judicium, poenae vero atrocitatem
   [ignem] remitti cupio." In the same letter he gives a sketch of the
   system of Servetus as teaching a pantheistic diffusion of the deity in
   wood, stone, and even in devils.

   [80] "Hoc crimen," he says in the 27th of his letters to Calvin (Opera
   VIII., 708), "est morte simpliciter dignum." Calvin refers to this
   admission of Servetus (VIII., 462) and charges him with inconsistency.

   [81] De Trinitatis Erroribus Libri Sept. Per michaelem Serveto, aliàs
   Reves ab Aragonia Hispanum. Anno M. D. XXXI. No place of publication is
   given in the copy before me, but it was printed at Hagenau in the
   Alsace, as appears from the trial at Geneva. The book excited the
   greatest indignation in Oecolampadius and Bucer. Luther called it an
   awfully wicked book (ein gräulich bös Buch). Bucer thought the author
   ought to be torn to pieces.

   [82] Christianismi Restitutio ... MDLIII., secretly printed at Vienne
   in France, with his initials on the last page, M. S. V. (i e.:
   Villanovanus).

   [83] Such blasphemy of the Trinity appeared to be blasphemy of the
   Deity itself. Hence Beza calls Servetus "ille sacrae Triadis, id est
   omnis verae Deitatis hostis, adeoque monstrum ex omnibus quantumvis
   rancidis et portentosis haeresibus conflatum."Calv. Vita, ad a. 1553.
   He charges his book with being "full of blasphemies." Servetus called
   Jesus "the Son of the eternal God," but obstinately refused to call him
   "the eternal Son of God," in other words, to admit his eternal
   divinity.

   [84] "The year 1553," says Beza in Calvini Vita, ad a. 1553, "by the
   impatience and malice of the factious [the Libertines] was a year so
   full of trouble that not only the church, but the republic of Geneva,
   came within a hair's breadth of ruin ... All power had fallen into
   their hands, that nothing seemed to hinder them from attaining the ends
   for which they had so long been striving." Then he mentions the trial
   of Servetus as the other danger, which was aggravated by the first.

   [85] H. Tollin, a Reformed clergyman of Magdeburg, the most
   enthusiastic and voluminous advocate of Servetus and his system, admits
   this, saying (Charakterbild M. Servet's, Berlin, 1876, p. 6): "Nicht
   Calvin ist schuldig der That, sondern der Protestantismus seiner Zeit."
   Another apologist, Dardier (in Lichtenberger's "Encyclopédie " XI.
   581), says the same: C'est la Réforme tout entière qui est
   coupable."The famous Christian philosopher, Samuel Taylor Coleridge,
   went further. In one of his last utterances, in his Table-Talk, sub
   Jan. 3, 1834 (to which a friend directed my attention), he expressed
   his views as follows: " I have known books written on tolerance, the
   proper title of which would be--intolerant or intolerable books on
   tolerance. Should not a man who writes a book expressly to inculcate
   tolerance learn to treat with respect, or at least with indulgence,
   articles of faith which tens of thousands ten times told of his
   fellow-subjects or his fellow-creatures believe with all their souls,
   and upon the truth of which they rest their tranquillity in this world,
   and their hopes of salvation in the next,--those articles being at
   least maintainable against his arguments, and most certainly innocent
   in themselves?--Is it fitting to run Jesus Christ in a silly parallel
   with Socrates--the Being whom thousand millions of intellectual
   creatures, of whom I am an humble unit, take to be their Redeemer, with
   an Athenian philosopher, of whom we should know nothing except through
   his glorification in Plato and Xenophon?--And then to hitch Latimer and
   Servetus together! To be sure, there was a stake and a fire in each
   case, but where the rest of the resemblance is I cannot see. What
   ground is there for throwing the odium of Servetus's death upon Calvin
   alone?--Why, the mild Melanchthon wrote to Calvin, expressly to testify
   his concurrence in the act, and no doubt he spoke the sense of the
   German Reformers; the Swiss churches advised the punishment in formal
   letters, and I rather think there are letters from the English divines,
   approving Calvin's conduct!--Before a man deals out the slang of the
   day about the great leaders of the Reformation, he should learn to
   throw himself back to the age of the Reformation, when the two great
   parties in the church were eagerly on the watch to fasten a charge of
   heresy on the other. Besides, if ever a poor fanatic thrust himself
   into the fire, it was Michael Servetus. He was a rabid enthusiast, and
   did everything he could in the way of insult and ribaldry to provoke
   the feeling of the Christian church. He called the Trinitytriceps
   monstrum et Cerberum quemdam tri-partitum, and so on!'

   [86] Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra trinitate contra prodigiosos
   errores Michaelis Serveti Hispani ubi ostenditur haereticos jure gladii
   örcendos esse. In Calvin's Opera, ed. Reuss, etc., vol. VIII. 483-644.
   Bullinger urged him to the task in a letter of December 12th, 1553
   (Opera, XIV. 698): "Vide, me Calvine, ut diligenter et, pie omnibus
   piis describas Servetum cum suo exitu, ut omnes abhorreant a bestia."

   [87] De haeriticis a civili magistratu puniendis, adversus Martini
   Bellii (an unknown person) farraginem et novorum academicorum sectam.
   Geneva (Oliva Rob. Stephani), 1554; second ed. 1592; French translation
   by Nic. Colladon, 1560. See Heppe's Beza, p. 38 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 12. Religious Intolerance and Liberty in England and America.

   The history of the Reformation in England and Scotland is even more
   disfigured by acts of intolerance and persecution than that of the
   Continent, but resulted at last in greater gain for religious freedom.
   The modern ideas of well regulated, constitutional liberty, both civil
   and religious, have grown chiefly on English soil.

   At first it was a battle between persecution and mere toleration, but
   toleration once legally secured prepared the way for full religious
   liberty.

   All parties when persecuted, advocated liberty of conscience, and all
   parties when in power, exercised intolerance, but in different degrees.
   The Episcopalians before 1689 were less intolerant than the Romanists
   under Queen Mary; the Presbyterians before 1660 were less intolerant
   than the Episcopalians; the Independents less intolerant (in England)
   than the Presbyterians (but more intolerant in New England); the
   Baptists, Quakers, Socinians and Unitarians consistently taught freedom
   of conscience, and were never tempted to exercise intolerance. Finally
   all became tolerant in consequence of a legal settlement in 1689, but
   even that was restricted by disabling clauses. The Romanists used fire
   and sword; the Episcopalians fines, prisons, pillories, nose-slittings,
   ear-croppings, and cheek-burnings; the Presbyterians tried depositions
   and disabilities; the Independents in New England exiled Roger
   Williams, the Baptist (1636), and hanged four Quakers (two men and two
   women, 1659, 1660 and 1661) in Boston, and nineteen witches in Salem
   (1692). But all these measures of repression proved as many failures
   and made persecution more hateful and at last impossible.

   1. The first act of the English Reformation, under Henry VIII., was
   simply the substitution of a domestic for a foreign popery and tyranny;
   and it was a change for the worse. No one was safe who dared to dissent
   from the creed of the despotic monarch who proclaimed himself "the
   supreme head of the Church of England." At his death (1547), the six
   bloody articles were still in force; but they contained some of the
   chief dogmas of Romanism which he held in spite of his revolt against
   the pope.

   2. Under the brief reign of Edward VI. (1547-1553), the Reformation
   made decided progress, but Anabaptists were not tolerated; two of them,
   who held some curious views on the incarnation, were burnt as obstinate
   heretics, Joan Bocher, commonly called Joan of Kent, May 2, 1550, and
   George Van Pare, a Dutchman April 6, 1551. The. young king refused at
   first to sign the death-warrant of the woman, correctly thinking that
   the sentence was "a piece of cruelty too like that which they had
   condemned in papists;" at last he yielded to Cranmer's authority, who
   argued with him from the law of Moses against blasphemy, but he put his
   hand to the warrant with tears in his eyes and charged the archbishop
   with the responsibility for the act if it should be wrong.

   3. The reign of the bloody Queen Mary (1553-1558) was a fearful
   retaliation, but sealed the doom of popery by the blood of Protestant
   martyrs, including the Reformers, Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, who
   were burnt in the market place at Oxford.

   4. Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603), by virtue of her office, as "Defender
   of the Faith, and supreme governor of the Church" in her dominions,
   permanently established the Reformed religion, but to the exclusion of
   all dissent. Her penal code may have been a political necessity, as a
   protection against domestic treason and foreign invasion, but it aimed
   systematically at the annihilation of both Popery and Puritanism. It
   acted most severely upon Roman Catholic priests, who could only save
   their lives by concealment or exile. Conformity to the Thirty-nine
   Articles and the Book of Common Prayer was rigidly enforced; attendance
   upon the Episcopal service was commanded, while the mass and every
   other kind of public worship were forbidden under severe penalties. The
   rack in the tower was freely employed against noblemen suspected of
   disloyalty to the queen-pope. The statute de haereticis comburendis
   from the reign of Henry IV. (1401) remained in force, and two
   Anabaptists were burnt alive under Elizabeth, and two Arians under her
   successor. The statute was not formally abolished till 1677. Ireland
   was treated ecclesiastically as well as politically as a conquered
   province, and England is still suffering from that cruel polity, which
   nursed a hereditary hatred of the Catholic people against their
   Protestant rulers, and made the removal of the Irish grievances the
   most difficult problem of English statesmanship.

   Popery disappeared for a while from British soil, and the Spanish
   Armada was utterly defeated. But Puritanism, which fought in the front
   rank against the big pope at Rome, could not be defeated by the little
   popes at home. It broke out at last in open revolt against the tyranny
   of the Stuarts, and the cruelties of the Star Chamber and
   High-Commission Court, which were not far behind the Spanish
   Inquisition, and punished freedom of speech and of the press as a crime
   against society.

   5. Puritanism ruled England for about twenty years (1640 to 1660),
   which form the most intensely earnest and excited period in her
   history. It saved the rights of the people against the oppression of
   their rulers, but it punished intolerance with intolerance, and fell
   into the opposite error of enforcing Puritan, in the place of
   Episcopal, uniformity, though with far less severity. The Long
   Parliament abolished the Episcopal hierarchy and liturgy (Sept. 10,
   1642), expelled about two thousand royalist clergymen from their
   benefices, and executed on the block Archbishop Laud (1644) and King
   Charles I. (1649), as traitors; thus crowning them with the glory of
   martyrdom and preparing the way for the Restoration. Episcopalians now
   became champions of toleration, and Jeremy Taylor, the Shakespeare of
   the English pulpit, raised his eloquent voice for the Liberty of
   Prophesying (1647), which, however, he afterward recalled in part when
   he was made a bishop by Charles II. (1661). [88]

   The Westminster Assembly of Divines (1643-1652), which numbered one
   hundred and twenty-one divines and several lay-deputies and is one of
   the most important ecclesiastical meetings ever held, was intrusted by
   Parliament with the impossible task of framing a uniform creed,
   discipline and ritual for three kingdoms. The extraordinary religious
   commotion of the times gave rise to all sorts of religious opinions
   from the most rigid orthodoxy to deism and atheism, and called forth a
   lively pamphlet war on the subject of toleration, which became an apple
   of discord in the Assembly. Thomas Edwards, in his Gangraena (1645),
   enumerated, with uncritical exaggeration, no less than sixteen sects
   and one hundred and seventy-six miscellaneous "errors, heresies and
   blasphemies," exclusive of popery and deism. [89]

   There were three theories on toleration, which may be best stated in
   the words of George Gillespie, one of the Scottish commissioners of the
   Assembly. [90]

   (a) The theory of the "Papists who hold it to be not only no sin, but
   good service to God to extirpate by fire and sword all that are
   adversaries to, or opposers of, the Church and Catholic religion."
   Under this theory John Hus and Jerome of Prague were burnt at the
   Council of Constance. Gillespie calls it., in the Preface, "the black
   devil of idolatry and tyranny."

   (b) "The second opinion doth fall short as far as the former doth
   exceed: that is, that the magistrate ought not to inflict any
   punishment, nor put forth any coërcive power upon heretics and
   sectaries, but on the contrary grant them liberty and toleration." This
   theory is called "the white devil of heresy and schism," and ascribed
   to the Donatists (?), Socinians, Arminians and Independents. But the
   chief advocate was Roger Williams, the Baptist, who became the founder
   of Rhode Island. [91] He went to the root of the question, and demanded
   complete separation of politics from religion. Long before him, the
   Puritan Bishop Hooper, and Robert Browne, the renegade founder of
   Congregationalism had taught the primitive Christian principle that the
   magistrates had no authority over the church and the conscience, but
   only over civil matters. Luther expressed the same view in 1523. [92]

   (c) "The third opinion is that the magistrate may and ought to exercise
   his coërcive power in suppressing and punishing heretics and sectaries
   less or more, according as the nature and degree of the error, schism,
   obstinacy, and danger of seducing others may require." For this theory
   Gillespie quotes Moses, St. Augustin, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Voëtius,
   John Gerhard, and other Calvinistic and Lutheran divines. It was held
   by the Presbyterians in England and Scotland, including the Scottish
   commissioners in the Assembly, and vigorously advocated by Dr. Samuel
   Rutherford, Professor of Divinity in St. Andrews, [93] and most
   zealously by Thomas Edwards, a Presbyterian minister in London. [94] It
   had a strong basis in the national endorsement of the Solemn League and
   Covenant, and triumphed in the Westminster Assembly. It may therefore
   be called the Presbyterian theory of the seventeenth century. But it
   was never put into practice by Presbyterians, at least not to the
   extent of physical violence, against heretics and schismatics either in
   England or Scotland. [95]

   The Westminster Confession of Faith, in its original shape, declares,
   on the one hand, the great principle of religious liberty, that "God
   alone is Lord of the conscience," but also, on the other hand, that
   dangerous heretics "may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded
   against by the censures of the church, and by the power of the civil
   magistrate." [96] And it assigns to the civil magistrate the power and
   duty to preserve "unity and peace in the church," to suppress "all
   blasphemies and heresies," to prevent or reform "all corruptions and
   abuses in worship and discipline," and for this purpose "to call synods
   and be present at them." [97]

   6. The five Independent members of the Assembly under the lead of Dr.
   Goodwin protested against the power given to the civil magistrate and
   to synods. [98] The obnoxious clauses of the Confession were therefore
   omitted or changed in the Congregational recension called "the Savoy
   Declaration" (1658). [99]

   But the toleration of the Independents, especially after they obtained
   the ascendancy under Cromwell's protectorate differed very little from
   that of the Presbyterians. They were spoiled by success. [100] They
   excluded from their program Popery, Prelacy, and Socinianism. Dr. Owen,
   their most distinguished divine, who preached by command a sermon
   before Parliament on the day after the execution of Charles I.,
   entitled "Righteous Zeal encouraged by Divine Protection" (Jer. 15:19,
   20), and accepted the appointment as Dean of Christ Church and
   Vice-Chancellor of the University at Oxford, laid down no less than
   sixteen fundamentals as conditions of toleration. [101] He and Dr.
   Goodwin served on the Commission of the forty-three Triers which, under
   Cromwell's protectorate, took the place of the Westminster Assembly.
   Cromwell himself, though the most liberal among the English rulers and
   the boldest protector of Protestantism abroad, limited toleration to
   Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists and Quakers, all of whom
   recognized the sacred Scriptures and the fundamental articles of
   Christianity; but he had no toleration for Romanists and Episcopal
   Royalists, who endangered his reign and who were suspected of
   tolerating none but themselves. His great foreign secretary, John
   Milton, the most eloquent advocate of liberty in the English language,
   defended the execution of the king, and was intolerant to popery and
   prelacy.

   Had Cromwell reigned longer, the Triers and the Savoy Conference which
   he reluctantly appointed, would probably have repeated the vain attempt
   of the Westminster Assembly to impose a uniform creed upon the nation,
   only with a little more liberal "accommodation" for orthodox dissenters
   except "papists" and "prelatists"). Their brethren in New England where
   they had full sway, established a Congregational theocracy which had no
   room even for Baptists and Quakers.

   7. Cromwell's reign was a brief experiment. His son was incompetent to
   continue it. Puritanism had not won the heart of England, but prepared
   its own tomb by its excesses and blunders. Royalty and Episcopacy,
   which struck their roots deep in the past, were restored with the
   powerful aid of the Presbyterians. And now followed a reaction in favor
   of political and ecclesiastical despotism, and public and private
   immorality, which for a time ruined all the good which Puritanism had
   done.

   Charles II., who "never said a foolish thing and never did a wise one,"
   broke his solemn pledges and took the lead in intolerance and
   licentiousness. The Act of Uniformity was re-enacted May 19, 1662, and
   went into operation on St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, 1662, made
   hideous by the St. Bartholomew Massacre, nearly a hundred years before.
   "And now came in," says Baxter, one of the most moderate as well as
   most learned and pious of the Nonconformists, "the great inundation of
   calamities, which in many streams overwhelmed thousands of godly
   Christians, together with their pastors." All Puritan ministers were
   expelled from their livings and exposed to starvation, their assemblies
   forbidden, and absolute obedience to the king and conformity to
   episcopacy were enforced, even in Scotland. The faithful Presbyterians
   in that country (the Covenanters) were subjected by the royal
   dragonnades to all manner of indignities and atrocities. "They were
   hunted"--says an English historian [102] -- like criminals over the
   mountains; their ears were torn from their roots; they were branded
   with hot irons; their fingers were wrenched asunder by the thumbkins;
   the bones of their legs were shattered in the boots; women were
   scourged publicly through the streets; multitudes were transported to
   the Barbadoes; an infuriated soldiery was let loose upon them, and
   encouraged to exercise all their ingenuity in torturing them."

   The period of the Restoration is, perhaps, the most immoral and
   disgraceful in English history. But it led at last to the final
   overthrow of the treacherous and semi-popish dynasty of the Stuarts,
   and inaugurated a new era in the history of religious liberty.
   Puritanism was not dead, but produced some of its best and most lasting
   works--Milton's Paradise Lost, and Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress--in this
   period of its deepest humiliation and suffering.

   8. The act of Toleration under the reign of William and Mary, 1689,
   made an end to violent persecutions in England. And yet it is far from
   what we now understand by religious liberty. Toleration is negative,
   liberty positive; toleration is a favor, liberty a right; toleration
   may be withdrawn by the power which grants it, liberty is as
   inalienable as conscience itself; toleration is extended to what cannot
   be helped and what may be in itself objectionable, liberty is a
   priceless gift of the Creator.

   The Toleration of 1689 was an accommodation to a limited number of
   Dissenters--Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists and Quakers, who were
   allowed liberty of separate organization and public worship on
   condition of subscribing thirty-six out of the Thirty-Nine Articles of
   the Church of England. Roman Catholics and Unitarians were excluded,
   and did not acquire toleration in England till the nineteenth century,
   the former by the Act of Emancipation passed April 13, 1829. Even now
   the Dissenters in England labor under minor disabilities and social
   disadvantages, which will continue as long as the government patronizes
   an established church. They have to support the establishment, in
   addition to their own denomination. Practically, however, there is more
   religious liberty in England than anywhere on the Continent, and as
   much as in the United States.

   9. The last and most important step in the progress of religious
   liberty was taken by the United States of America in the provision of
   the Federal Constitution of 1787, which excludes all religious tests
   from the qualifications to any office or public trust. The first
   amendment to the Constitution (1789) enacts that "Congress shall make
   no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
   exercise thereof." [103]

   Thus the United States government is by its own free act prevented from
   ever establishing a state-church, and on the other hand it is bound to
   protect freedom of religion, not only as a matter of opinion, but also
   in its public exercise, as one of the inalienable rights of an American
   citizen, like the freedom of speech and of the press. History had
   taught the framers of the Constitution that persecution is useless as
   well as hateful, and that it has its root in the unholy alliance of
   religion with politics. Providence had made America a hospitable home
   for all fugitives from persecution,--Puritans, Presbyterians,
   Huguenots, Baptists, Quakers, Reformed, Lutherans, Roman Catholics,
   etc.--and foreordained it for the largest development of civil and
   religious freedom consistent with order and the well-being of society.
   When the colonies, after a successful struggle for independence,
   coalesced into one nation they could not grant liberty to one church or
   sect without granting it to all. They were thus naturally driven to
   this result. It was the inevitable destiny of America. And it involved
   no injustice or injury to any church or sect.

   The modern German empire forms in some measure a parallel. When it was
   formed in 1870 by the free action of the twenty or more German
   sovereignties, it had to take them in with their religion, and abstain
   from all religious and ecclesiastical legislation which might interfere
   with the religion of any separate state.

   The constitutional provision of the United States in regard to religion
   is the last outcome of the Reformation in its effect upon toleration
   and freedom, not foreseen or dreamed of by the Reformers, but
   inevitably resulting from their revolt against papal tyranny. It has
   grown on Protestant soil with the hearty support of all sects and
   parties. It cuts the chief root of papal and any other persecution, and
   makes it legally impossible. It separates church and state, and thus
   prevents the civil punishment of heresy as a crime against the state.
   It renders to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and renders to God
   the things that are God's. It marks a new epoch in the history of
   legislation and civilization. It is the American contribution to church
   history. No part of the federal constitution is so generally accepted
   and so heartily approved as that which guarantees religious liberty,
   the most sacred and most important of all liberties. It is regarded
   almost as an axiom which needs no argument.

   Religious liberty has thus far been fully justified by its effects. It
   has stimulated the fullest development of the voluntary principle. The
   various Christian churches can live in peace and harmony together, and
   are fully able to support and to govern themselves without the aid of
   the secular power. This has been proven by the experience of a century,
   and this experience is the strongest argument in favor of the
   separation of church and state. Christianity flourishes best without a
   state-church.

   The separation, however, is peaceful, not hostile, as it was in the
   Ante-Nicene age, when the pagan state persecuted the church. Nor is it
   a separation of the nation from Christianity. The government is bound
   to protect all forms of Christianity with its day of rest, its
   churches, its educational and charitable institutions. [104] Even
   irreligion and infidelity are tolerated within the limits of the law of
   self-preservation. Religious liberty may, of course, be abused like any
   other liberty. It has its necessary boundary in the liberty of others
   and the essential interests of society. The United States government
   would not tolerate, much less protect, a religion which requires human
   sacrifices, or sanctions licentious rites, or polygamy, or any other
   institution inconsistent with the laws and customs of the land, and
   subversive of the foundation of the state and the order of Christian
   civilization. Hence the recent prohibition of polygamy in the
   Territories, and the unwillingness of Congress to admit Utah into the
   family of States unless polygamy is abolished by the Mormons. The
   majority of the population decides the religion of a country, and,
   judged by this test, the American people are as Christian as any other
   on earth, only in a broader sense which recognizes all forms of
   Christianity. While Jews and infidels are not excluded from the
   enjoyment of any civil or political right on account of their religion
   or irreligion, they cannot alter the essentially Christian character of
   the sentiments, habits and institutions of the nation.

   There are three important institutions in which church and state touch
   each other even in the United States, and where a collision of
   interests may take place: education in the public schools, marriage,
   and Sunday as a day of civil and sacred rest. The Roman Catholics are
   opposed to public schools unless they can teach in them their religion
   which allows no compromise with any other; the Mormons are opposed to
   monogamy, which is the law of the land and the basis of the Christian
   family; the Jews may demand the protection of their Sabbath on
   Saturday, while infidels want no Sabbath at all except perhaps for
   amusement and dissipation. But all these questions admit of a peaceful
   settlement and equitable adjustment, without a relapse into the
   barbarous measures of persecution.

   The law of the United States is supreme in the Territories and the
   District of Columbia, but does not forbid any of the States to
   establish a particular church, or to continue a previous establishment.
   The Colonies began with the European system of state-churchism, only in
   a milder form, and varying according to the preferences of the first
   settlers. In the New England Colonies--except Rhode Island founded by
   the Baptist Roger Williams--orthodox Congregationalism was the
   established church which all citizens were required to support; in
   Virginia and the Southern States, as also in New York, the Episcopal
   Church was legally established and supported by the government. [105]
   Even those Colonies which were professedly founded on the basis of
   religious toleration, as Maryland and Pennsylvania, enacted afterwards
   disabling clauses against Roman Catholics, Unitarians, Jews and
   infidels. In Pennsylvania, the Quaker Colony of William Penn, no one
   could hold office, from 1693 to 1775, without subscribing a solemn
   declaration of belief in the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity and
   condemning the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation and the
   mass as idolatrous. [106]

   The great revolution of legislation began in the Colony of Virginia in
   1776, when Episcopacy was disestablished, and all other churches freed
   from their disabilities. [107] The change was brought about by the
   combined efforts of Thomas Jefferson (the leading statesman of
   Virginia, and a firm believer in absolute religious freedom on the
   ground of philosophic neutrality), and of all dissenting denominations,
   especially the Presbyterians, Baptists and Quakers. The other Colonies
   or States gradually followed the example, and now there is no State in
   which religious freedom is not fully recognized and protected.

   The example of the United States exerts a silent, but steady and mighty
   influence upon Europe in raising the idea of mere toleration to the
   higher plane of freedom, in emancipating religion from the control of
   civil government, and in proving the advantages of the primitive
   practice of ecclesiastical self-support and self-government.

   The best legal remedy against persecution and the best guarantee of
   religious freedom is a peaceful separation of church and state; the
   best moral remedy and guarantee is a liberal culture, a comprehensive
   view of the many-sidedness of truth, a profound regard for the
   sacredness of conscientious conviction, and a broad and deep Christian
   love as described by the Apostle Paul.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [88] Coleridge regards this revocation as the only blot on Taylor's
   character. His second wife was a natural daughter of Charles I.

   [89] For the extensive literature on the subject see the list of Dr.
   Dexter, The Congregationalism of the last three hundred years as seen
   in its Literature (N. York, 1880), Appendix, pp. 49-82. The Hansard
   Knollys (Baptist) Society has published, in 1846 at London, a series of
   Tracts on Liberty of Conscience and Persecution, written from
   1614-1661. I mention only those which I have myself examined in the
   rich McAlpin Collection of the Union Theol. Seminary, N. York.

   [90] Wholesome Severity reconciled with Christian Liberty, or the true
   Resolution of a present Controversie concerning Liberty of Conscience.
   Here you have the question stated, the middle way between Popish
   tyrannie and Schismatizing Liberty approved, and also confirmed from
   Scripture, and the testimonies of Divines, yea, of whole churches ...
   And in conclusion a Paraenetick to the five Apologists for choosing
   Accommodation rather than Toleration. London, 1645 (40 pages). Dexter
   (p. 56) assigns the pamphlet, which is anonymous, to Gillespie, and its
   sentiments agree with those he expressed in a sermon he preached before
   the House of Lords, August 27, 1645.

   [91] He wrote "The Bloody Tenent of Persecution," etc., 1644 (248 pp.),
   and "The Bloody Tenent yet more Bloody," etc., 1652 (373 pp.). Among
   the anonymous pamphlets on the same side, we mention The Compassionate
   Samaritane, Unbinding the Conscience, and pouring oyle into the wounds
   which have been made upon the Separation, etc., 1644 (84 pp.).

   [92] Dr. Dexter asserts (p. 101) that "Robert Browne is entitled to the
   proud pre-eminence of having been the first writer clearly to state and
   defend in the English tongue the true and now accepted doctrine of the
   relation of the magistrate to the church," in his Treatise of
   Reformation, published in 1582. Comp. Dexter, p. 703 sq., and Append.
   p. 8. But this is an error. Bishop John Hooper of Gloucester, who
   suffered martyrdom under Queen Mary (1555), says in one of his earliest
   treatises: "As touching the superior powers of the earth, it is well
   known to all that have readen and marked the Scripture that it
   appertaineth nothing unto their office to make any law to govern the
   conscience of their subjects in religion."Early Writings of Bishop
   Hooper, p. 280, quoted by Dr. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly, p.
   16, where may be found a still stronger passage in, Latin to the same
   effect: "Profecto Christus non ignem non carceres, non vincula, non
   violentiam, non bonorum confiscationem, non regineae majestatis
   terrorem media organa constituit quibus veritas verbi sui mundo
   promulgaretur; sed miti ac diligenti praedicatione evangelii sui mundum
   ab errore et idolatria converti praecepit."Later Writings of Bp.
   Hooper, p. 386. The same principle found expression among Mennonites
   and Anabaptists of the Reformation period, and may be traced back to
   the Apostolic and the Ante-Nicene period, when Christianity had no
   connection whatever with politics and secular government.

   [93] He wrote A Free Disputation against pretended Liberty of
   Conscience tending to resolve Doubts moved by Mr. John Goodwin, John
   Baptist, Dr. Jer. Taylor, the Belgick Arminians, Socinians, and other
   authors contending for lawless Liberty, or licentious Toleration of
   sects and Heresies. London, 1649. 410 pages. He calls the advocates of
   toleration "Libertines."

   [94] The author of Reasons against Independent Government of Particular
   Congregations: as also against the Toleration of such churches to be
   erected in this kingdom. Presented to the House of Commons. London,
   1641 (56 pp.). Antapologia; or, a Full Answer to the Apologetical
   Narration of Mr. Goodwin, Mr. Nye, Mr. Sympson, Mr. Burroughs, Mr.
   Bridge, Members of the Assembly of Divines. Wherein many of the
   controversies of these times are handled. London, 1646 (259 pp.). The
   First and Second Part of Gangraena; or, A Catalogue and Discovery of
   many of the Errors, Heresies, Blasphemies and pernicious Practices of
   the Sectaries of this time, vented and acted in England in these four
   last years, etc. London, 1646. The first part has 116, the second part
   178 pages. They were followed by The Third Part of Gangraena; or, A New
   and Higher Discovery of Errors, etc. London, 1646 (295 pp.), and by The
   Casting down of the last and strongest hold of Satan; or, A Treatise
   against Toleration and pretended Liberty of Conscience. London, 1647
   (218 pp.).--"The ministers of Christ within the province of London,"
   December 14, 1647, sent out a Testimony of the Truth of Jesus Christ,
   and to our Solemn League, and Covenant; as also Against the Errors,
   Heresies and Blasphemies of these times, and the Toleration of them.
   London, 1648 (38 pp.).

   [95] Dr. M'Crie, in his Annals of English Presbytery (pp. 190, 191),
   says: "It admits of being shown that even the hypothetical intolerance
   of our Presbyterian fathers differed essentially from Romish and
   Prelatic tyranny .... In point of fact it never led them to persecute,
   it never applied the rack to the flesh, or slaked its vengeance in
   blood or the maiming of the body."

   [96] Chapter XX., 2, 4. The clause "and by the power of the civil
   magistrate," is omitted in the American recension of the Westminster
   Confession.

   [97] Ch. XXIII., 3; Comp. Ch. XXXI., 1, 2. These sections were changed
   and adapted to the separation of Church and State by the united Synod
   of Philadelphia and New York which met at Philadelphia, May 28, 1787.
   See the comparative statement in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom vol. I.,
   807 sq. and III., 607, 653 sq., 668 sq. The Presbyterian churches in
   Scotland, England and Ireland adhere to the original Confession, but
   with an express disavowal of persecuting sentiments. Schaff, I., 799
   sq.

   [98] Goodwin wrote several pamphlets in favor of toleration: An
   Apologeticall Narration, Humbly submitted to the Hon. Houses of
   Partiament (by, Goodwin, Nye, Bridge, Simpson, and Burroughes). London,
   1643 (32pp.). Theomachia; or the grand imprudence of men running the
   hazard of fighting against God in suppressing any way, doctrine or
   practice concerning which they know not certainly whether it be from
   God or no, 1644 (52 pp.). Innocencie's Triumph, 1644 (64 pp.).
   Cretensis; or, a brief Answer to Mr. T. Edwards, his Gangraena, 1646.
   Anapologesiates Antapologias; or, the Inexcusableness of that grand
   Accusation of the Brethren, called Antapologia ... proving the utter
   insufficiency of the Antapoloogist for his great undertaking in behalf
   of the Presbyterian cause: with answers to his arguments or reasons (so
   call'd) for the support thereof ... especially in the point of
   Non-toleration ... Publ. by Authoritie. London, 1646 (253 pp.); with a
   long Preface, dated "From my studie in Coleman street, July 17, 1646; "
   chiefly directed against Edwards. Hagiomastix; or, the Scourge of the
   Saints displayed in his colours of Ignorance and Blood, etc. London,
   1646 (134 pp.). A Postscript or Appendix to a treatise intituled,
   Hagiomastix. London, 1646 (28 pp.). The Apologist condemned; or, a
   Vindication of the Thirty Queries (with their author)concerning the
   power of the Civil Magistrate in Matters of Religion. London, 1653 (32
   pp.). Peace Protected and Discontent Disarmed, etc. London, 1654 (78
   pp.). Sunkretismos; or Dis-Satisfaction Satisfied. London, 1654 (24
   pp.).

   [99] See Schaff, vol. I., 829 sq. and III., 718-723.

   [100] Dexter (p. 660) says: "During the short protectorate of that
   wonderful man, these lowly Independents came into relations so close
   with the ruling religious power, that--in order to fill important
   places--some of them were led to do violence to their noblest
   fundamentals." Several leading Baptists were guilty of the same
   inconsistency.

   [101] See Alex. F. Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly, its History and
   Standards. London, 1883, pp. 203 and 493. "Owen, Goodwin, Simpson, and
   Nye were chiefly concerned in drawing up a list of fundamentals which
   the parliament of 1654 wished to impose on all who claimed toleration.
   Neal gives sixteen of them. The Journal of the House of Commons speaks
   of twenty."

   [102] Lecky, History of Rationalism in Europe, II., 48 (N. Y. ed.).

   [103] Ph. Schaff, Church and State in the United States, New York,
   1888.

   [104] The government even indirectly supports it in part by exempting
   church buildings, hospitals, colleges and theological seminaries from
   public taxation, and by appointing chaplains for the army and navy and
   for Congress, in deference to the Christian sentiment of the people.

   [105] A Presbyterian minister, Francis Makemie, was arrested on a
   warrant of the Episcopal Governor Cornby of New York, Jan. 20, 1707,
   for preaching in a private house, without permission, and although he
   was ably defended in a public trial and acquitted on the ground that he
   had been licensed to preach under the Act of Toleration, he had to pay
   the costs of the prosecution as well as the defence to the large amount
   of £83 7s. 6d. See Briggs, American Presbyterianism, New York, 1885,
   pp. 152-154.

   [106] Comp. Dr. Charles J. Stillé, Religious Tests in Provincial
   Pennsylvania. A paper read before the, Hist. Soc. of Penna., Nov. 9,
   1885. Philada., 1886. 58 pp. "It is hard to believe," he says, p. 57,
   "that a man like Franklin, for instance, would at any time have
   approved of religious tests for office; yet Franklin's name is attached
   over and over again in the Qualification Books to the Declaration of
   Faith, which he was forced to make when he entered upon the duties of
   the various offices which be held. He must have been literally forced
   to take such a test; for we find him on the first opportunity, when the
   people of this commonwealth determined to declare their independence
   alike of the Penn family and of the Crown of Great Britain, raising his
   voice against the imposition of such tests as had been taken during the
   Provincial period. Franklin was the president and the ruling spirit of
   the convention which framed the State Constitution of 1776, and to his
   influence has generally been ascribed the very mild form of test which
   by that instrument was substituted for the old one."

   [107] The act of 1776 was completed by an act of October, 1785. See
   Hening, Collection of the Laws of Virginia, vol. XII. 84.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 13. Chronological Limits.

   The Reformation period begins with Luther's Theses, a.d. 1517, and ends
   with the Peace of Westphalia, a.d. 1648. The last event brought to a
   close the terrible Thirty Years' War and secured a legal existence to
   the Protestant faith (the Lutheran and Reformed Confession) throughout
   Germany.

   The year 1648 marks also an important epoch in the history of English
   and Scotch Protestantism, namely, the ratification by the Long
   Parliament of the doctrinal standards of the Westminster Assembly of
   Divines (1643 to 1652), which are still in use among the Presbyterian
   Churches in England, Scotland, Ireland and the United States.

   Within this period of one hundred and thirty-one years there are
   several minor epochs, and the dates vary in different countries.

   The German Reformation, which is essentially Lutheran, divides itself
   naturally into four sub-periods:1. From 1517 to the Augsburg Diet and
   Augsburg Confession, 1530. 2. From 1530 to the so-called "Peace of
   Augsburg," 1555. 3. From 1555 to the "Formula of Concord," 1577, which
   completed the Lutheran system of doctrine, or 1580 (when the "Book of
   Concord" was published and enforced). 4. From 1580 to the conclusion of
   the Thirty Years' War, 1648.

   The Scandinavian Reformation followed closely in the path of the
   Lutheran Reformation of Germany, and extends, likewise, to the Thirty
   Years' War, in which Gustavus Adolphus, of Sweden, took a leading part
   as defender of Protestantism. The Reformation triumphed in Sweden in
   1527, in Denmark and Norway in 1537.

   The Swiss Reformation was begun by Zwingli and completed by Calvin, and
   is accordingly divided into two acts: 1. The Reformation of German
   Switzerland to the death of Zwingli, 1517 to 1531. 2. The Reformation
   of French Switzerland to the death of Calvin, 1564, or we may say, to
   the death of Beza, 1605.

   The introduction of the Reformed church into Germany, especially the
   Palatinate, falls within the second period.

   In the stormy history of French Protestantism, the years 1559, 1598 and
   1685, mark as many epochs. In 1559, the first national synod was held
   in Paris and gave the Reformed congregations a compact organization by
   the adoption of the Gallican Confession and the Presbyterian form of
   government. In 1598, the Reformed church secured a legal existence and
   a limited measure of freedom by the edict of Nantes, which King Henry
   IV. gave to his former fellow-religionists. But his bigoted grandson,
   Louis XIV., revoked the edict in 1685. Since that time the French
   Reformed church continued like a burning bush in the desert; while
   thousands of her sons reluctantly left their native land, and
   contributed, by their skill, industry and piety, to the prosperity of
   Switzerland, Holland, Germany, England, and North America.

   The Reformation in Holland includes the heroic war of emancipation from
   the Spanish yoke and passed through the bloody bath of martyrdom, until
   after unspeakable sufferings under Charles V. and Philip II., the
   Utrecht Union of the seven Northern Provinces (formed in 1579), was
   reluctantly acknowledged by Spain in 1609. Then followed the internal
   theological war between Arminianism and Calvinism, which ended in the
   victory of the latter at the National Synod of Dort, 1619.

   The progressive stages of the English Reformation, which followed a
   course of its own, were influenced by the changing policy of the
   rulers, and are marked by the reigns of Henry VIII., 1527-1547; of
   Edward VI., 1547-1553; the papal reaction and period of Protestant
   martyrdom under Queen Mary, 1553-1558; the re-establishment of
   Protestantism under Queen Elizabeth, 1558-1603. Then began the second
   Reformation, which was carried on by the people against their rulers.
   It was the struggle between Puritanism and the semi-popery of the
   Stuart dynasty. Puritanism achieved a temporary triumph, deposed and
   executed Charles I. and Archbishop Laud; but Puritanism as a national
   political power died with Cromwell, and in 1660 Episcopacy and the
   Prayer Book were restored under Charles II., till another revolution
   under William and Mary in 1688 made an end to the treacherous rule of
   the Stuarts and gave toleration to the Dissenters, who hereafter
   organized themselves in separate denominations, and represent the left
   wing of English Protestantism.

   The Reformation in Scotland, under the lead of John Knox (1505-1572),
   the Luther of the North, completed its first act in 1567 with the legal
   recognition and establishment by the Scotch Parliament. The second act
   was a struggle with the papal reaction under Queen Mary of Scots, till
   1590. The third act may be called the period of anti-Prelacy and union
   with English Puritanism, and ended in the final triumph of
   Presbyterianism in 1690. Since that time, the question of patronage and
   the relation of church and state have been the chief topics of
   agitation and irritation in the Church of Scotland and gave rise to a
   number of secessions; while the Westminster standards of faith and
   discipline have not undergone any essential alteration.

   The Reformed faith secured a partial success and toleration in Poland,
   Hungary, Transylvania, Bohemia and Moravia, but suffered severely by
   the Jesuitical reaction, especially in Bohemia. In Italy and Spain the
   Reformation was completely suppressed; and it is only since the
   overthrow of the temporal rule of the Pope in 1871, that Protestants
   are allowed to hold public worship in Rome and to build churches or
   chapels.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 14. General Literature on the Reformation.

   SOURCES.

   I. On The Protestant Side: (1) The works of the Reformers, especially
   Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer, Knox. They will be
   quoted in the chapters relating to their history.

   (2) Contemporary Historians: Joh. Sleidan (Prof. of law in Strassburg,
   d. 1556): De Statu Religionis et Reipublicae Carolo V. Caesare
   commentarii. Libri XXVI. Argentor. 1555 fol., best ed. by Am Ende,
   Francof. ad M. 1785-86, 3 vols. Engl. transl. by Bohun, London, 1689, 3
   vols. fol. French transl. with the notes of Le Courayer, 1767. Embraces
   the German and Swiss Reformation.

   The Annales Reformationis of Spalatin, and the Historia Reformationis
   of Fr. Myconius, refer only to the Lutheran Reformation. So, also,
   Löscher's valuable collection of documents, 3 vols. See below § 15.

   II. Roman Catholic: (1) Official documents. Leonis X. P. M. Regesta,
   ed. by Cardinal Hergenröther under the auspices of Pope Leo XIII., from
   the Vatican archives. Freiburg i. B. 1884 sqq., 12 fascic. The first
   three parts contain 384 pages to a.d. 1514.--Monumenta Reformationis
   Lutheranae ex tabulariis secretioribus S. Sedis, 1521-'25, ed. by
   Petrus Balan, Ratisbonae, 1884 (589 pages). Contains the acts relating
   to the Diet of Worms, with the reports of Aleander, the papal legate,
   and the letters of Clement VII. from 1523-'25. It includes a document
   of 1513, heretofore unknown, which disproves the illegitimate birth of
   Clement VII. and represents him as the son of Giuliano de Medici and
   his wife, Florets. Monumenta Saeculi XVI. Historiam illustrantia, ed.
   by Balan, vol. I. Oeniponte, 1885 (489 pages).

   (2) Controversial writings: Joh. Eck (d. 1563): Contra Ludderum, 1530.
   2 Parts fol. Polemical treatises on the Primacy, Penance, the Mass,
   Purgatory etc. Jo. Cochlaeus (canon of Breslau, d. 1552): Commentaria
   de Actis et Scriptis Lutheri ab Anno Dom. 1517 ad A. 1547 fideliter
   conscripta. Mogunt. 1549 fol.; Par. 1565; Colon. 1568.--Laur. Surius (a
   learned Carthusian, d. at Cologne, 1578): Commentarius rerum in orbe
   gestarum ab a. 1500-1564. Colon. 1567. Against Sleidan.

   Historical Representations.

   I. Protestant Works.

   (1) The respective sections in the General Church Histories of Schröckh
   (Kirchengesch. seit der Reformation, Leipzig, 1804-'12, 10 vols.),
   Mosheim, Gieseler (Bd. III. Abth. I. and II., 1840 and 1852; Engl.
   transl. N. Y. vols. IV. and V., 1862 and 1880), Baur (Bd. IV. 1863),
   Hagenbach (vol. III., also separately publ. 4th ed. 1870; Engl. transl.
   by Miss Eveline Moore, Edinburgh, 1878, 2 vols.; especially good on the
   Zwinglian Reformation). More briefly treated in the compends of
   Guericke, Neidner, Hase (11th ed. 1886), Ebrard, Herzog (vol. IIIrd),
   Kurtz (10th ed. 887, vol. IInd).

   All these works pay special attention to the Continental Reformation,
   but very little to that of England and Scotland.

   Neander comes down only to 1430; his lectures on modern church history
   (which I heard in 1840) were never published. Gieseler's work is most
   valuable for its literature down to 1852, and extracts from the
   sources, but needs an entire reconstruction, which is contemplated by
   Prof. Brieger at Leipzig.

   (2) Jean Henri Merle d'aubigne (usually miscalled D'Aubigné, which is
   simply an addition indicating the place of his ancestors, d. 1872):
   Histoire de la reformation du 16. siècle, Paris, 1835-'53, 5 vols., 4th
   ed. 1861 sqq.; and Histoire de la réformation en Europe au temps du
   Calvin, Par., 1863-'78, 8 vols. (including a posthumous vol.). Also in
   German by Runkel (Stuttgart, 1848 sqq.), and especially in English (in
   several editions, some of them mutilated). Best Engl. ed. by Longman,
   Green & Co., London, 1865 sqq.; best Am. ed. by Carter, New York,
   1870-'79, the first work in 5, the second in 8 vols. Merle's History,
   owing to its evangelical fervor, intense Protestantism and dramatic
   eloquence, has had an enormous circulation in England and America
   through means of the Tract Societies and private publishers.

   H. Stebbing: History of the Reformation, London, 1836, 2 vols.

   G. Waddington (Anglican, d. 1869): A History of the Reformation on the
   Continent. London, 1841, 3 vols. (Only to the death of Luther, 1546.)

   F. A. Holzhauzen: Der Protestantismus nach seiner geschichtl.
   Entstehung, Begründung und Fortbildung. Leipzig, 1846-'59, 3 vols.
   Comes down to the Westphalian Treaty. The author expresses his
   standpoint thus (III. XV.): "Die christliche Kirche ist ihrer Natur
   nach wesentlich Eine, und der kirchliche Auflösungs-process, welcher
   durch die Reformation herbeigeführt worden ist, kann keinen anderen
   Zweck haben, als ein neues höhes positives Kirchenthum herzustellen."

   B. Ter Haar (of Utrecht) Die Reformationsgeschichte in Schilderungen.
   Transl. from the Dutch by C. Gross. Gotha, 5th ed. 1856, 2 vols.

   Dan. Schenkel (d. 1885): Die Refomatoren und die Reformation.
   Wiesbaden. 1856. Das Wesen des Protestantismus aus den Quellen des Ref.
   zeitalters. Schaffhausen, 1862, 3 vols.

   Charles Hardwick: (Anglican, d. 1859): A History of the Christian
   Church during the Reformation. Cambridge and London, 1856. Third ed.
   revised by W. Stubbs (bishop of Chester), 1873.

   J. Tulloch: (Scotch Presbyt., d. 1886): Leaders of the Reformation:
   Luther, Calvin, Latimer, Knox. Edinb., 1859; 3d ed. 1883.

   L. Häusser (d. 1867): Geschichte des Zeitalters der Reformation,
   1517-1648. ed. by Oncken, Berlin, 1868 (867 pages). Abridged EngI.
   transl. by Mrs. Sturge, N. Y., 1874.

   E. L. Th. Henke (d. 1872): Neuere Kirgesch. ed. by Dr. Gass, Halle,
   1874, 2 vols. The first vol. treats of the Reformation.

   Fr. Seebohm: The Era of the Protestant Revolution. London and N. York,
   1874.

   J. A. Wylie: History of Protestantism. London, 1875-77, 3 vols.

   George P. Fisher (Prof. of Church History in Yale College): The
   Reformation. New York, 1873. A comprehensive work, clear, calm,
   judicial, with a useful bibliographical Appendix (p. 567-591).

   J. M. Lindsay (Presbyt.): The Reformation. Edinb., 1882. (A mere
   sketch.)

   Charles Beard (Unitarian): The Reformation in its relation to Modern
   Thought and Knowledge. Hibbert Lectures. London, 1883; 2d ed., 1885.
   Very able. German translation by F. Halverscheid. Berlin, 1884.

   John F. Hurst (Method. Bishop): Short History of the Reformation. New
   York, 1884 (125 pages).

   Ludwig Keller: Die Reformation und die älteren Reformparteien. Leipz.,
   1885 (516 pages). In sympathy with the Waldenses and Anabaptists.

   Two series of biographies of the Reformers, by a number of German
   scholars the Lutheran series in 8 vols., Elberfeld, 1861-'75, and the
   Reformed (Calvinistic) series in 10 vols., Elberfeld, 1857-'63. The
   Lutheran series was introduced by Nitzsch, the Reformed by Hagenbach.
   The several biographies will be mentioned in the proper places.

   (3) For the general history of the world and the church during and
   after the period of the Reformation, the works of Leopold von Ranke (d.
   1886) are of great importance, namely: Fürsten und Völker von Südeuropa
   im 16. und 17. Jahrh. (Berlin 1827, 4th ed. enlarged 1877); Geschichten
   der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494-1514 (3d ed. 1885);
   Die römischen Päpste, ihre Kirche und ihr Staat im 16. und 17. Jahrh.
   (Berlin, 8th ed. 1885, 3 vols. Engl. trans. by Sarah Austin, Lond. 4th
   ed. 1867, 3 vols.); Französische Geschichte im 16. und 17. Jahrh.
   (Stuttgart, 1852, 4th ed. 1877, 6 vols.); Englische Geschichte
   vornehmlich im 16. u. 17. Jahrh. (4th ed. 1877, 6 vols.; Engl. transl.
   publ. by the Clarendon Press); and especially his classical Deutsche
   Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation (Berlin, 1839-'43, 6th ed.
   1880-'82, in 6 vols.; transl. in part by S. Austin, 1845-'47, 3 vols.).
   Ranke is a master of objective historiography from the sources in
   artistic grouping of the salient points, and is in religious and
   patriotic sympathy with the German Reformation; while yet he does full
   justice to the Catholic church and the papacy as a great power in the
   history of religion and civilization. In his 85th year he began to
   dictate in manly vigor a Universal History down to the time of Emperor
   Henry IV. and Pope Gregory VII., 1881-86; to which were added 2
   posthumous vols. by Dove and Winter, 1888, 9 vols. in all. His library
   was bought for the University in Syracuse, N. Y.

   For the general literature see Henry Hallam: Introduction to the
   Literature of Europe in the 15th, 16th, and 17th Centuries. London,
   1842, etc. N. York ed., 1880, in 4 vols.

   II. Roman Catholic Works.

   (1) The respective sections in the General Church Histories of Möhler
   (d. 1838, ed. from lectures by Gams, Regensburg, 1867-1868, 3 vols.;
   the third vol. treats of the Reformation), Alzog (10th ed. 1882, 2
   vols.; Engl. transl. by Pabish and Byrne, Cincinnati, 1874 sqq., 3
   vols.), Kraus (2d ed. 1882), and Cardinal Hergenröther (third ed.
   1885). Comp. also, in part, the Histories of the Council of Trent by
   Sarpi (d. 1623), and Pallavicini (d. 1667).

   (2) Thuanus (De Thou, a moderate Catholic, d. 1617); Historiarum sui
   Temporis libri 138. Orleans (Geneva), 1620 sqq., 5 vols. fol. and
   London, 1733, 7 vols. fol.; French transl. London, 1734, 16 vols. 4to.
   Goes from 1546 to 1607.

   Louis Maimbourg (Jesuit, d. at Paris, 1686): Histoire du Lutheranisme
   Paris, 1680; Histoire du Calvinisme, 1682. Controversial, and inspired
   by partisan zeal; severely handled by R. Bayle in his Critique générale
   de l'histoire du Calvinisme de M., Amsterd., 1684.

   Bp. Bossuet (d. 1704): Histoire des variations des églises
   protestantes. Paris, 1688, 2 vols. and later edd., also in his
   collected works, 1819 sqq. and 1836 sqq. English transl., Dublin, 1829,
   2 vols. German ed. by Mayer, Munich. 1825, 4 vols. A work of great
   ability, but likewise polemical rather than historical. It converted
   Gibbon to Romanism, but left him at last a skeptic, like Bayle, who
   was, also, first a Protestant, then a Romanist for a short season.

   Kaspar Riffel: Kirchengesch. Der Neusten Zeit. Mainz, 1844-47, 3 vols.

   Martin John Spalding (since 1864 Archbishop of Baltimore, d. 1872):
   History of the Protest. Reformation in Germany and Switzerland, and in
   England, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, France., and Northern
   Europe. Louisville, 1860; 8th ed., revised and enlarged. Baltimore,
   1875, 2 vols. No Index. Against Merle D'Aubigné. The Archbishop charges
   D'Aubigné (as he calls him) with being a "bitter partisan, wholly
   unreliable as an historian," and says of his work that it is "little
   better than a romance," as he "omits more than half the facts, and
   either perverts or draws on his imagination for the remainder." His own
   impartiality and reliableness as an historian may be estimated from the
   following judgments of the Reformers: "Luther, while under the
   influence of the Catholic Church, was probably a moderately good man;
   he was certainly a very bad one after he left its communion "(I.
   72)."Heu! quantum mutatus ab illo!" (77). "His violence often drove him
   to the very verge of insanity .... He occasionally inflicted on
   Melanchthon personal chastisement" (87). Spalding quotes from Audin,
   his chief authority (being apparently quite ignorant of German):
   "Luther was possessed not by one, but by a whole troop of devils" (89).
   Zwingli (or Zuingle, as he calls him) he charges with "downright
   paganism" (I. 175), and makes fun of his marriage and the marriages of
   the other Reformers, especially Bucer, who "became the husband of no
   less than three ladies in succession: and one of them had been already
   married three times--all too, by a singular run of good luck, in the
   reformation line" (176). And this is all that we learn of the Reformer
   of Strassburg. For Calvin the author seems to draw chiefly on the
   calumnies of Audin, as Audin drew on those of Bolsec. He describes him
   as "all head and no heart;" "he crushed the liberties of the people in
   the name of liberty;" "he combined the cruelty of Danton and
   Robespierre with the eloquence of Murat and Mirabeau, though he was
   much cooler, and therefore more successful than any one of them all; he
   was a very Nero." Spalding gives credit to Bolsec's absurd stories of
   the monstrous crimes and horrible death of Calvin, so fully
   contradicted by his whole life and writings and the testimonies of his
   nearest friends, as Beza, Knox, etc. (I. 375, 384, 386, 388, 391). And
   such a work by a prelate of high character and position seems to be the
   principal source from which American Roman Catholics draw their
   information of the Reformation and of Protestantism!

   The historico-polemical works of Döllinger and Janssen belong to the
   history of

   the German Reformation and will be noticed in the next section.

   BOOK 1.

   THE GERMAN REFORMATION TILL THE DIET OF

   AUGSBURG, a.d. 1530.

   ----------
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER II.

   LUTHER'S TRAINING FOR THE REFORMATION, A.D. L483-1517.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 15. Literature of the German Reformation.

   Sources.

   I. Protestant Sources:

   (1) The Works of the Reformers, especially Luther and Melanchthon. See
   § § 17, 32. The reformatory writings of Luther, from 1517-1524, are in
   vol. XV. of Walch's ed., those from 1525-1537 in vol. XVI., those from
   1538-1546 in vol. XVII. See also the Erlangen ed., vols. 24-32 (issued
   separately in a second ed. 1883 sqq.), and the Weimar ed., vol. I. sqq.

   (2) Contemporary writers:

   G. Spalatin (Chaplain of Frederick the Wise and Superintendent in
   Altenburg, d. 1545): Annales Reformationis oder Jahrbücher von der
   Reform. Lutheri (to 1543). Ed. by Cyprian, Leipz., 1718.

   Frid. Myconius (or Mekum, Superintendent at Gotha, d. 1546): Historia
   Reformationis vom Jahr Christi 1518-1542. Ed. by Cyprian, Leipzig,
   1718.

   M. Ratzeberger (a physician, and friend of Luther, d. 1559): Luther und
   seine Zeit. Ed. from MS. in Gotha by Neudecker, Jena, 1850 (284 pp.).

   (3) Documentary collections:

   V. E. Löscher (d. 1749): Vollständige Reformations=Acta und Documenta
   (for the years 1517-'19). Leipzig, 1720-'29, 3 vols.

   Ch. G. Neudecker: Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit, Cassel, 1836;
   Actenstücke aus der Zeit der Reform., Nürnberg, 1838; Neue Beiträge,
   Leipzig, 1841.

   C. E. Förstemann: Archiv. f. d. Gesch. der Reform., Halle, 1831 sqq.;
   Neues Urkundenbuch, Hamburg, 1842.

   Th. Brieger: Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte der Reformation.
   Gotha, 1884 sqq. (Part I. Aleander und Luther, 1521.)

   II. Roman Catholic Sources . See § 14, p. 89.

   Histories.

   I. Protestant Historians :

   Lud. A Seckendorf (a statesman of thorough education and exemplary
   integrity, d. 1692): Commentarius historicus et apologeticus de
   Lutheranismo. Francof. et Lips., 1688; Lipsiae, 1694, fol. Against the
   Jesuit Maimbourg.

   Chr. A. Salig (d. 1738): Vollständige Historie der Augsburger
   Confession (from 1517-1562). Halle, 1730-'35. 3 vols.

   G. J. Planck (d. 1833): Geschichte der Entstehung, der Veränderungen
   und der Bildung unseres protest. Lehrbegriffs bis zur Einführung der
   Concordienformel. Leipzig, 2d ed., 1791-1800, 6 vols. Important for the
   doctrinal controversies in the Luth. Church. Followed by the Geschichte
   der protest. Theologie von der Konkordienformel an his in die Mitte des
   achtzehnten Jahrh. Göttingen, 1831, 1 vol.

   H. G. Kreussler: D. Mart. Luthers Andenken in Münzen nebst
   Lebensbeschreibungen merkwürdiger Zeitgenossen desselben. Mit 47
   Kupfern und der Ansicht Wittenbergs und Eisenachs zu Luthers Zeit.
   Leipzig, 1818. Chiefly interesting for the numerous illustrations.

   Phil. Marheinecke (d. 1846): Geschichte der teutschen Reformation.
   Berlin, 2d ed., 1831, 4 vols. One of the best books, written in
   Luther-like popularity of style.

   K. Hagen: Deutschlands literar. und relig. Verhältnisse im
   Reformationszeitalter. Erlangen, 1841-'44, sqq., 3 vols.

   CH. G. Neudecker: Gesch. des evang. Protestantismus in Deutschland.
   Leipzig, 1844, sq., 2 vols.

   C. Hundeshagen (d. 1873): Der deutsche Protestantismus. Frankfurt,
   1846, 3d ed. 1850. Discusses the genius of the Reformation as well as
   modern church questions.

   H. Heppe (German Reformed, d. 1879): Gesch. des deutschen
   Protestantismus in den Jahren 1555-'85. Marburg, 1852 sqq., 4 vols., 2d
   ed., 1865 sq. He wrote, also, a number of other books on the
   Reformation, especially in Hesse.

   Merle d'Aubigné's History of the Reformation, see § 14. The first
   division treats of the German Reformation and is translated into German
   by Runkel, Stuttgart, 1848-1854, 5 vols., republ. by the American Tract
   society. Several English editions; London and New York.

   Wilh. Gass: Geschichte der protestantischen Dogmatik. Berlin, 1854-'67,
   4 vols.

   G. Plitt: Geschichte der evang. Kirche bis 1530. Erlangen, 1867.

   Is. A. Dorner (d. 1884): Geschichte. der protestantischen Theologie,
   besonders in Deutschland. München, 1867. The first Book, pp. 1-420,
   treats of the Reformation period of Germany and Switzerland. English
   translation, Edinburgh, 1871, 2 vols.

   Ch. P. Krauth (d. 1882): The Conservative Reformation. Philadelphia,
   1872. A dogmatico-historical vindication of Lutheranism.

   K. F. A. Kahnis (d. 1888): Die deutsche Reformation. Leipzig, vol. I.
   1872 (till 1520, unfinished).

   G. Weber: Zur Geschichte des Reformationszeitalters. Leipzig, 1874.

   Fr. v. Bezold: Gesch. der deutschen Reformation. Berlin, 1886.

   The Elberfeld series of biographies of the Lutheran Reformers, with
   extracts from their writings, 1861-1875. It begins with C. Schmidt's
   Melanchthon, and ends with Köstlin's Luther (the large work in 2 vols.,
   revised 1883).

   Schriften des Vereins für Reformationsgeschichte. Halle, 1883 sqq. A
   series of monographs on special topics in the Reformation history,
   especially that of Germany, published by a Society formed in the year
   of the Luther celebration for the literary defence of Protestantism
   against Romanism. Kolde, Benrath, Holdewey, Bossert, Walther, are among
   the contributors. The series includes also an essay on Wiclif by
   Buddensieg (1885), one on the Revocation of the edict of Nantes by
   Theod. Schott (1885), and one on Ignatius of Loyola by E. Gothein
   (1885).

   Of Secular histories of Germany during the Reformation period, comp.
   especially, Leopold von Ranke: Deutsche Gesch. im Zeitalter der
   Reformation (6th ed., 1881, 6 vols.), a most important work, see § 14.
   Also, Karl Ad. Menzel (d. 1855): Neuere Geschichte der Deutschen seit
   der Reformation. Berlin, 2d ed., 1854 sq., 6 vols. Wolfgang Menzel (d.
   1873): Geschichte der Deutschen, 6th ed., 1872 sq., 3 vols. L. Stacke:
   Deutsche Geschichte. Bielefeld u. Leipzig, 1881, 2 vols. (Vol. II. by
   W. Boehm, pp. 37-182.) Gottlob Egelhaaf (Dr. Phil., Prof. in the
   Karls-Gymnasium at Heilbronn): Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der
   Reformation. Gekrönte Preisschrift des Allgemeinen Vereins für Deutsche
   Literatur. Berlin, 1885. In the spirit of Ranke's great work on the
   same topic, with polemic reference to Janssen. It extends from 1517 to
   the Peace of Augsburg, 1555. (450 pages.)

   II. Roman Catholic Historians. See the Lit. in § 14.

   Ignatius Döllinger (Prof. of Ch. Hist. in Munich, since 1870 Old
   Catholic): Die Reformation, ihre innere Entwicklung und ihre Wirkung im
   Umfange des Luther. Bekenntnisses. Regensburg, 1846-'48, 3 vols.; 2d
   ed., 1853. A learned collection of testimonies against the Reformation
   and its effects from contemporary apostates, humanists, and the
   Reformers themselves (Luther and Melanchthon), and those of their
   followers who complain bitterly of the decay of morals and the
   dissensions in the Lutheran church. The author has, nevertheless, after
   he seceded from the Roman communion, passed a striking judgment in
   favor of Luther's greatness.

   Karl Werner: Geschichte der kathol. Theologie in Deutschland. München,
   1866.

   Joh. Janssen: Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des
   Mittelalters. Freiburg, i. B. 1876-'88, 6 vols. (down to 1618). This
   masterpiece of Ultramontane historiography is written with great
   learning and ability from a variety of sources (especially the archives
   of Frankfurt, Mainz, Trier, Zürich, and the Vatican), and soon passed
   through twelve editions. It called out able defences of the Reformation
   by Kawerau (five articles in Luthardt's "Zeitschrift für kirchliche
   Wissenschaft und Kirchl. Leben," 1882 and 1883), Köstlin, Lenz,
   Schweizer, Ebrard, Baumgarten, and others, to whom Janssen calmly
   replied in An meine Kritiker, Freiburg, i. B., tenth thousand, 1883
   (227 pp.), and Ein Wort an meine Kritiker, Freib. i. B., twelfth
   thousand, 1883 (144 pp.). He disclaims all "tendency," and professes to
   aim only at the historical truth. Admitted, but his standpoint is
   false, because he views the main current of modern history as an
   apostasy and failure; while it is an onward and progressive movement of
   Christianity under the guidance of Divine providence and the ever
   present spirit of its Founder. He reads history through the mirror of
   Vatican Romanism, and we need not wonder that Pope Leo XIII. has
   praised Janssen as "a light of historic science and a man of profound
   learning."

   Janssen gives in each volume, in alphabetical order, very full lists of
   books and pamphlets, Catholic and Protestant, on the different
   departments of the history of Germany from the close of the fifteenth
   to the close of the sixteenth century. See vol. I. xxvii.-xliv.; vol.
   II. xvii.-xxviii.; vol. III. xxv.-xxxix.; vol. IV. xviii.-xxxi.; vol.
   V. xxv.-xliii.

   For political history: Fr. v. Buchholz: Ferdinand I. Wien, 1832 sqq., 9
   vols. Hurter: Ferdinand II. Schaffhausen, 1850 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 16. Germany and the Reformation.

   Germany invented the art of printing and produced the Reformation.
   These are the two greatest levers of modern civilization. While other
   nations sent expeditions in quest of empires beyond the sea, the
   Germans, true to their genius of inwardness, descended into the depths
   of the human soul and brought to light new ideas and principles.
   Providence, it has been said, gave to France the dominion of the land,
   to England the dominion of the sea, to Germany the dominion of the air.
   The air is the region of speculation, but also the necessary condition
   of life on the land and the sea.

   The characteristic traits which Tacitus ascribes to the heathen
   Germans, contain already the germ of Protestantism. The love of
   personal freedom was as strong in them as the love of authority was in
   the Roman race. They considered it unworthy of the gods to confine them
   within walls, or to represent them by images; they preferred an inward
   spiritual worship which communes directly with the Deity, to an outward
   worship which appeals to the senses through forms and ceremonies, and
   throws visible media between the finite and the infinite mind. They
   resisted the aggression of heathen Rome, and they refused to submit to
   Christian Rome when it was forced upon them by Charlemagne.

   But Christianity as a religion was congenial to their instincts. They
   were finally Christianized, and even thoroughly Romanized by Boniface
   and his disciples. Yet they never felt quite at home under the rule of
   the papacy. The mediaeval conflict of the emperor with the pope kept up
   a political antagonism against foreign rule; the mysticism of the
   thirteenth and fourteenth centuries nursed the love for a piety of less
   form and more heart, and undermined the prevailing mechanical legalism;
   dissatisfaction with the pope increased with his exactions and abuses,
   until at last, under the lead of a Saxon monk and priest, all the
   national forces combined against the anti-christian tyranny and shook
   it of forever. He carried with him the heart of Germany. No less than
   one hundred grievances against Roman misrule were brought before the
   Diet of Nürnberg in 1522. [108] Erasmus says that when Luther published
   his Theses all the world applauded him. [109] It is not impossible that
   all Germany would have embraced the Reformation if its force had not
   been weakened and its progress arrested by excesses and internal
   dissensions, which gave mighty aid to the Romanist reaction.

   Next to Germany, little Switzerland, Holland, Scandinavia, England and
   Scotland, inhabited by kindred races, were most active in completing
   that great act of emancipation from popery and inaugurating an era of
   freedom and independence.

   Nationality has much to do with the type of Christianity. The Oriental
   church is identified with the Greek and Slavonic races, and was not
   affected by the Reformation of the sixteenth century; hence she is not
   directly committed for or against it, and is less hostile to
   evangelical Protestantism than to Romanism, although she agrees, in
   doctrine, discipline and worship, far more with the latter. The Roman
   Catholic Church retained her hold upon the Latin races, which were, it
   first superficially touched by the Reformation, but reacted, and have
   ever since been vacillating between popery and infidelity, or between
   despotism and revolution. Even the French, who under Henry IV. were on
   the very verge of becoming Protestant, are as a nation more inclined to
   swing from Bossuet to Voltaire than to Calvin; although they will
   always have a respectable minority of intelligent Protestants. The
   Celtic races are divided; the Welsh and Scotch became intensely
   Protestant, the Irish as intensely Romanist. The Teutonic or Germanic
   nations produced the Reformation chiefly, but not exclusively; for the
   French Calvin was the greatest theologian among the Reformers, and has
   exerted a stronger influence in shaping the doctrine and discipline of
   Protestantism outside of Germany than any of them.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [108] The famous "centum gravamina adversus sedem Romanam totumque
   ecclesiastcum ordinem."

   [109] "Totus illi magno consensu applausit." In a letter of Dec. 12,
   1524, to Duke George of Saxony who was opposed to the Reformation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 17. The Luther Literature.

   The Luther literature is immense and has received large additions since
   1883. The richest collections are in the Royal Library at Berlin
   (including Dr. Knaake's); in the public libraries of Dresden, Weimar,
   Wittenberg, Wolfenbüttel, München; in America, in the Theol. Seminary
   at Hartford (Congregationalist), which purchased the Beck collection of
   over 1,200 works, and in the Union Theol. Sem., New York, which has the
   oldest editions.

   For the Luther literature comp. J. A. Fabricius: Centifolium
   Lutheranum, Hamburg, 1728 and 1730, 2 Parts; Vogel: Bibliotheca
   biographica Lutherana, Halle, 1851, 145 pages; John Edmands: Reading
   Notes on Luther, Philada., 1883; Beck (publisher): Bibliotheca
   Lutherana, Nördlingen, 1883; (185 pages, with titles of 1236 books, now
   at Hartford), 1884: Bibliographie der Luther-Literatur des J. 1883,
   Frankf. a. M. 1884, enlarged ed. 1887 (52 and 24 pages, incomplete).

   luther's works.

   Oldest editions: Wittenberg, 12 German vols., 1539-'59, and 7 Latin,
   1545-'58; Jena, 8 German and 4 Latin vols., 1555-'58, with 2
   supplements by Aurifaber, 1564-'65; Altenburg, 10 vols., 1661-'64;
   Leipzig, 22 vols., 1729-'40, fol.--The three best editions are:

   (1) The Halle edition by Johann Georg Walch, Halle, 1740-1750, in 24
   vols., 4to. Republished with corrections and additions by Dr. Walther,
   Stöckhardt, Kähler, etc., Concordia College, St. Louis, 1880 sqq., 25
   vols.

   (2) The Erlangen-Frankfurt ed. by Plochmann, Irmischer, and Enders,
   etc., Erlangen, and Frankfurt a. M., 1827 sqq., 2d ed., 1862-1883, 101
   vols. 8vo. (not yet finished). German writings, 67 vols.; Opera Latina,
   25 vols.; Com. in Ep. and Gal., 3 vols.; Opera Latina varii argumenti
   ad reformationis Hist. pertinentia, 7 vols. The most important for our
   purpose are the Reformations-historische Schriften (9 vols., second
   ed., 1883-'85), and the Briefwechsel (of which the first vol. appeared
   in 1884; 6 vols. are promised).

   (3) The Weimar edition (the fourth centennial memorial ed., patronized
   by the Emperor of Germany), by Drs. Knaake, Kawerau, Bertheau, and
   other Luther scholars, Weimar, 1883 sqq. This, when completed, will be
   the critical standard edition. It gives the works in chronological
   order and strict reproduction of the first prints, with the variations
   of later edd., even the antiquated and inconsistent spelling, which
   greatly embarrasses the reader not thoroughly familiar with German. The
   first volume contains Luther's writings from 1512-1518; the second
   (1884), the writings from 1518-1519; vols. III. and IV. (1885-'6), the
   Commentaries on the Psalms; vol. VI. (1888), the continuation of the
   reformatory writings till 1520; several other vols. are in press.

   I have usually indicated, from which of these three editions the
   quotations are made. The last was used most as far as it goes, and is
   quoted as the "Weimar ed."

   The first collected ed. of Luther's German works appeared in 1539 with
   a preface, in which he expresses a wish that all his books might be
   forgotten and perish, and the Bible read more instead. (See Erl. Frkf.
   ed. I., pp. 1-6.)

   Selections of Luther's Works by Pfizer (Frankf., 1837, sqq.);
   Zimmermann (Frankf., 1846 sq.); Otto von Gerlach (Berlin, 1848, 10
   vols., containing the Reformatorische Schriften).

   The Letters of Luther were separately edited by De Wette, Berlin, 1825,
   sqq., 5 vols.; vol. VI. by J. C. Seidemann, 1856 (716 pp., with an
   addition of Lutherbriefe, 1859); supplemented by C. A. H. Burkhardt,
   Leipz., 1866 (524 pp.); a revised ed. with comments by Dr. E. L. Enders
   (pastor at Oberrad near Frankfurt a. M.), 1884 sqq. (in the Erl. Frankf
   ed.). The first volume contains the letters from 1507 to March, 1519.
   For selection see C. Alfred Hase: Lutherbriefe in Auswahl und
   Uebersetzung, Leipzig, 1867 (420 pages). Th. Kolde: Analecta Lutherana,
   Briefe und Actenstücke zur Geschichte Luther's. Gotha, 1883. Contains
   letters of Luther and to Luther, gathered with great industry from
   German and Swiss archives and libraries.

   Additional Works of Luther:

   The Table Talk of Luther is best edited by Aurifaber, 1566, etc.
   (reprinted in Walch's ed. vol. xxii.); by Förstemann and Bindseil,
   Leipzig, 1844-'48, 4 vols. (the German Table Talk); by Bindseil:
   Martini Lutheri Colloquia, Latina, etc., Lemgoviae et Detmoldae,
   1863-'66, 3 vols.; and in the Frankf. Erl. ed., vols. 57-62. Dr. Conr.
   Cordatus: Tagebuch über Dr. Luther geführt, 1537, first edited by Dr.
   Wrampelmeyer, Halle, 1885, 521 pages. Last and best edition by Hoppe,
   St. Louis, 1887 (vol. xxii. of Am. ed. of Walch).

   Georg Buchwald: Andreas Poach's handschriftl. Sammlung ungedruckter
   Predigten D. Martin Luthers aus den Jahren 1528 bis 1546. Aus dem
   Originale zum ersten Mal herausgegeben. Leipzig, 1884, to embrace 3
   vols. (Only the first half of the first vol., published 1884, and the
   first half of the third vol., 1885; very few copies sold.) The MS.
   collection of Andreas Poach in the public library at Zwickau embraces
   nine volumes of Luther's sermons from 1528-1546. They are based on
   stenographic reports of Diaconus Georg Rörer of Wittenberg (ordained by
   Luther 1525, d. at Halle, 1557), who took full Latin notes of Luther's
   German sermons, retaining, however, in strange medley a number of
   German words and phrases.

   P. Tschackert: Unbekannte Predigten u. Scholien Luthers, Berlin, 1888.
   MSS. of sermons from Oct. 23, 1519, to April 2, 1521, discovered in the
   University Library at Königsberg. They will be publ. in the Weimar
   edition.

   II. Biographies of Luther :

   (1) By contemporaries, who may be included in the sources.

   Melanchthon wrote Vita Lutheri, a brief but weighty sketch, 1546, often
   reprinted, translated into German by Matthias Ritter, 1555, with
   Melanchthon's account of Luther's death to the students in the lecture
   room, the funeral orations of Bugenhagen and Cruciger (157 pages); a
   new transl. by Zimmermann, with preface by G. J. Planck, Göttingen,
   1813; ed. of the original in Vitae quatuor Reformatorum., Lutheri a
   Melanchthone, Melanchthonis a Camerario, Zwinglii a Myconio, Calvini a
   Beza, prefaced by Neander, Berlin, 1841. Justus Jonas gives an account
   of Luther's last sickness and death as an eye-witness, 1546. Mathesius
   (Luther's pupil and friend, d. 1561) preached seventeen sermons on
   Luther's life, first published 1565, and very often since, though
   mostly abridged, e.g., an illustrated popular ed. with preface by G. H.
   v. Schubert, Stuttgart, 1846; jubilee edition, St. Louis and Dresden,
   1883. Joh. Cochlaeus, a Roman Cath. antagonist of Luther, wrote
   Commentaria de actis et scriptis Martini Lutheri Saxonis,
   chronographica, ex ordine ab anno Dom. 1517 usque ad annum 1546
   (inclusive), fideliter conscripta. Mayence, 1549 fol.

   (2) Later Biographies till 1875 (the best marked *) by

   *Walch (in his ed. of L.'s Works, vol. XXIV. pp. 3-875); Keil (4 parts
   in 1 vol., Leipz., 1764); Schröckh (Leipz., 1778); Ukert (Gotha, 2
   vols., 1817); Pfizer (Stuttgart, 1836); Stang (with illustrations,
   Stuttg., 1836); Jaekel (Leipz., 1841, new ed. Elberfeld, 1871); *Meurer
   (Dresden, 1843-'46, 3 vols. with illustrations, abridged in 1 vol.,
   1850, 3d ed., 1870, mostly in Luther's own words); *Juergens (Leipz.,
   1846-'47, 3 vols., reaching to 1517, very thorough, but unfinished); J.
   M. Audin (Rom. Cath., Hist. de la vie, des ouvrages et des doctrines de
   M. Luth., Paris, 1839, 7th ed., revue et corrigée, 1856, 3 vols.--a
   storehouse of calumnies, also in German and English); [110] * M.
   Michelet (Mémoirs de L., écrits par lui-mème, traduits et mis en ordre,
   Paris, 1835, also Brussels, 1845, 2 vols.; the best biography in
   French; Eng. transl. by Hazlitt, London, 1846, and by G. H. Smith,
   London and N. Y., 1846); [111] Ledderhose (Karlsruh, 3d ed., 1883;
   French transl. of the first ed., Strassburg, 1837); Genthe (Leipz.,
   1842, with seventeen steel engravings); Westermann (Halle, 1845);
   Weydmann (Luther, ein Charakter--und Spiegelbild für unsere Zeit,
   Hamburg, 1850); B. Sears (English, publ. by the Am. Sunday School
   Union, Philada., 1850, with special reference to the youth of L.); Jgn.
   Döllinger (R. C., Luther, eine Skizze, Freiburg i. B., 1851); König and
   Gelzer (with 48 fine illustrations, Hamb. u. Gotha, 1851; Engl. ed.
   with transl. of the text by Archdeacon Hare and Cath. Winkworth, Lond.
   and N. Y., 1856); * Jul. Hare (Vindication of Luther against his
   English Assailants, first publ. as a note in his The Mission of the
   Comforter, London, 1846, vol. II., 656-878, then separately, 2d ed.,
   1855, the best English appreciation of L.); II. Woersley (Life of
   Luther, London, 1856, 2 vols.); Wildenhahn (Leipz., 1861); Müller
   (Nürnberg, 1867); Henke (Luther u. Melanchthon, Marburg, 1867); H. W.
   J. Thiersch (Luther, Gustav Adolf und Maximilian I. von Bayern,
   Nördlingen, 1869, pp. 3-66); Vilmar (Luther, Melanchthon und Zwingli,
   Frankf. a. M., 1869); H. Lang (Berlin, 1870, rationalistic); Ackermann
   (Jena, 1871); Gasparin (Luther et la réforme ait XVe . siècle, Paris,
   1873); Schaff (a sketch in Appleton's "Cyclopaedia," 1858, revised
   1874); Rietschel (Martin Luther und Ignatius Loyola, Wittenberg, 1879).

   (3) Recent Biographies, published since 1875, by

   Jul. Koestlin (Elberfeld, 1875, 2 vols., 2d ed. revised 1883; 3d ed.
   unchanged; upon the whole the best German biography; also an abridged
   ed. for popular use with 64 illustrations, 3d ed., 1883. English
   transl. of the small ed. by an anonymous writer with the author's
   sanction, Lond. and N. Y., 1883; another by Morris, Philad., 1883;
   comp. also Koestlin's art. Luther in Herzog, 2d ed., vol. IX.; his
   Festschrift, 1883, in several edd., transl. by Eliz. P. Weir: Martin
   Luther the Reformer, London, 1883; and his polemic tract: Luther und
   Janssen, der Deutsche Reformator und ein ultramontaner Historiker,
   Halle, 3d ed., 1883); V. Hasak (R. Cath., Regensb., 1881); Rein
   (Leipz., 1883, English transl. by Behringer, N. Y., 1883); Rogge,
   (Leipz., 1883); *Plitt and Petersen (Leipzig, 1883); *MAx Lenz (2nd ed.
   Berlin, 1883); P. Kuhn (Luther, sa vie et son oeuvre, Paris, 3 vols.);
   C. Burk (4th ed., Stuttg., 1884); *Th. Kolde (M. Luther, Gotha, 1884, 2
   vols.); J. A. Froude (Luther, a Short Biography, Lond. and N. Y.,
   1883); John Rae (M. Luth.: Lond., 1884); Paul Martin, i.e., M. Rade of
   Schönbach (Dr. M. Luther's Leben, etc., Neusalza, 1885-87, 3 vols.);
   Peter Bayne (M. Luth.: his Life and Times, Lond. and N. Y., 1887, 2
   vols.).

   On Luther's wife and his domestic life: W. Beste: Die Gesch.
   Catherina's von Bora. Halle, 1843 (131 pp.). G. Hofmann: Katharina von
   Bora, oder M. L. als Gatte, und Vater. Leipzig, 1846. John G. Morris:
   Life of Cath. von Bora, Baltimore, 1856. Mor. Meurer: Katherina Luther
   geborne von Bora. Dresden, 1854; 2d ed., Leipzig, 1873.

   III. Luther's Theology .

   W. Beste: Dr. M. Luther's Glaubenslehre. Halle, 1845 (286 pp.).
   Theodos. Harnack (senior): L.'s Theologie, Bd I. Erlang., 1862, Bd.
   II., 1886. *Jul. Koestlin: L.'s Theologie. Stuttg., 1863, 2d ed., 1883,
   2 vols. By the same: Luther's Lehre von der Kirche, 1853, new ed.,
   Gotha, 1868. Ch. H. Weisse; Die Christologie Luthers, Leipz., 1852 (253
   pp.). Luthardt: Die Ethik Luthers, Leipz., 1867, 2d ed., 1875.
   Lommatzsch: Luther's Lehre von ethisch-relig. Standpunkt aus, Berlin,
   1879). H. C. Moenckeberg: Luther's Lehre von der Kirche. Hamburg, 1870.
   Hering: Die Mystik Luther's. Leipz., 1879. Kattenbusch: Luther's
   Stellung z. den ökumenischen Symbolen. Giessen, 1883.

   IV. Luther as Bible Translator.

   G. W. Panzer: Entwurf einer vollständigen Gesch. der deutschen
   Bibelübers. Dr. M. Luther's von 1517-1581. Nürnberg, 1783. H. Schott:
   Gesch. der teutschen Bibelübers. Dr. M. Luther's. Leipz., 1835.
   Bindseil: Verzeichniss der Original-Ausgaben der Luther. Uebersetzung
   der Bibel. Halle, 1841. Moenckeberg and Frommann: Vorschläge zur
   Revision von M. L.'s Bibelübers. Halle, 1861-62. Theod. Schott: Martin
   Luther und die deutsche Bibel. Stuttgart, 1883. E. Riehm (Prof. in
   Halle and one of the Revisers of the Luther-Bible): Luther als
   Bibelübersetzer. Gotta. 1884. Comp. the Probebibel of 1883 (an official
   revision of Luther's version), and the numerous pamphlets for and
   against it.

   V. Luther as a Preacher.

   E. Jonas: Die Kanzelberedtsamkeit Luther's. Berlin, 1852 (515 pp.).
   Best ed. of his sermons by G. Schlosser: Dr. Martin Luther's
   Evangelien-Predigten auf alle Sonn-und Festtage des Kirchenjahres aus
   seiner Haus-und Kirchenpostille, Frankfurt a. M., 1883; 4th ed., 1885.

   VI. Luther as Poet and Musician .

   A. J. Rambach: Luther's Verdienst um den Kirchengesang. Hamburg, 1813
   Aug. Gebauer: Martin Luther und seine Zeitgenossen als
   Kirchenliederdichter. Leipzig, 1828 (212 pp.). C. von Winterfeld: Dr.
   M. Luth. deutsche geistliche Lieder nebst den wahrend seines Lebens
   dazu gebräuchlichen Stimmweisen. Leipzig, 1840 (132 pp., 4to). B. Pick:
   Luther as a Hymnist, Philad., 1875; Ein feste Burg (in 21 languages),
   Chicago, 1883. Bacon and Allen: The Hymns of Martin Luther with his
   original Tunes. Germ. and Eng., N. Y., 1883. Dr. Danneil: Luther's
   Geistliche Lieder nach seinen drei Gesangbüchern von 1524, 1529, 1545.
   Frankfurt a. M., 1883. E. Achelis: Die Entstehungszeit v. Luther's
   geistl. Liedern. Marburg, 1884.

   VII. Special Points in Luther's Life and Work.

   John G. Morris: Quaint Sayings and Doings concerning Luther.
   Philadelphia, 1857. Tuzschmann: Luther in Worms. Darmstadt, 1860.
   Koehler: Luther's Reisen. Eisenach, 1872. W. J. Mann and C. P. Krauth:
   The Great Reformation and the Ninety-five Theses. Philad., 1873.
   Zitzlaff. L. auf der Koburg. Wittenberg, 1882. Kolde. L. auf dem
   Reichstag zu Worms. Halle, 1883. Glock: Grundriss der Pädagogik
   Luther's. Karlsruh, 1883.

   VIII. Commemorative Addresses of 1883 and 1884.

   Festschriften zur 400 jährigen Jubelfeier der Geburt Dr. Martin
   Luther's, herausgegeben vom königl. Prediger-Seminar in Wittenberg.
   Wittenberg, 1883. (Addresses by Drs. Schmieder, Rietschel, and others.)
   P. Kleinert: L. im Verhältniss zur Wissenschaft (Academic oration).
   Berlin, 1883 (35 pp.). Ed. Reuss: Akad. Festrede zur Lutherfeier.
   Strassburg, 1883. Th. Brieger: Neue Mittheilungen über Luther in Worms.
   Marburg, 1883, and Luther und sein Werk. Marb., 1883. Ad. Harnack: M.
   Luther in seiner Bedeutung für die Gesch. der Wissenschaft und der
   Bildung. Giessen, 1883 (30 pp.). Vid Upsala Universitets Luthersfest,
   den 10 Nov., 1883, with an oration of K. H. Gez. von Scheele (Prof. of
   Theol. at Upsala, appointed Bishop of Visby in Gothland, 1885). Upsala,
   1883. G. N. Bonwetsch: Unser Reformator Martin Luther. Dorpat, 1883.
   Appenzeller, Ruetschi, Oettli, and others: Die Lutherfeier in Bern.
   Bern, 1883. Prof. Salmond (of Aberdeen): Martin Luther. Edinburgh,
   1883. J. M. Lindsay: M. Luther, in the 9th ed. of "Encyclop. Brit.,"
   vol. XV. (1883), 71-84. Jean Monod: Luther j'usqu'en 1520. Montauban,
   1883. J. B. Bittinger: M. Luth. Cleveland, 1883. E. J. Wolf, and
   others: Addresses on the Reformation. Gettysburg, 1884. The Luther
   Document (No. XVII.) of the American Evang. Alliance, with addresses of
   Rev. Drs. Wm. M. Taylor and Phillips Brooks. N. Y., 1883. Symposiac on
   Luther, seven addresses of the seven Professors of the Union Theol.
   Seminary in New York, held Nov. 19, 1883. Jos. A. Seiss: Luther and the
   Reformation (an eloquent commemorative oration delivered in Philad.,
   and New York). Philad. 1884. S. M. Deutsch: Luther's These vom Jahr
   1519 über die päpstliche Gewalt. Berlin, 1884. H. Cremer: Reformation
   und Wissenschaft. Gotha, 1883

   IX. Roman Catholic Attacks .

   The Luther-celebration gave rise not only to innumerable Protestant
   glorifications, but also to many Roman Catholic defamations of Luther
   and the Reformation. The ablest works of this kind are by Janssen
   (tracts in defence of his famous History of Germany, noticed in § 15),
   G. G. Evers, formerly a Lutheran pastor (Katholisch oder
   protestantisch? Hildesheim, 4th ed., 1883; Martin Luther's Anfänge,
   Osnabrück, 3d ed., 1884; Martin Luther, Mainz, 1883 sqq., in several
   vols.), Westermayer. (Luther's Werk im Jahr 1883), Germanus, Herrmann,
   Roettscher, Dasbach, Roem, Leogast, etc. See the "Historisch-politische
   Blätter" of Munich, and the "Germania" of Berlin, for 1883 and 1884
   (the chief organs of Romanism in Germany), and the Protestant review of
   these writings by Wilh. Walther: Luther in neusten römischen Gericht.
   Halle, 1884 (166 pages).
     __________________________________________________________________

   [110] Audin wrote also the Lives of Calvin, of Henry VIII., and of Leo
   X. (published between 1839 and 1847), with the same French vivacity and
   Roman Catholic hostility; yet, while he does not understand Luther as a
   Protestant Christian and a reformer, he tries to do justice to him as a
   man and a genius. He says (III., 380): "Luther est le grand predicateur
   de la réforme. Il eut presque tous les dons de l'orateur; une
   inèpuisable fécondité de pensées, une imagination aussi prompte à
   recevoir qu'à produire ses impressions, une abondance et une suplesse
   de style inexprimables. Sa voix était claire et retentissante, son oeil
   brillant de flamme, sa téte antique, sa poitrine large, ses mains
   d'unerare beauté, son geste ample et rich .... C'était à la fois
   Rabelais et Montaigne: Rabelais avec sa verve drolatique de style,
   Montaigne avec ses tournures qui burinent et cisètent." The editor of
   the 7th ed., in his introductory notice (p. xviii.), says that those
   biographies of Audin have given to the Reformation "le coup de grace,"
   and thus finished the work of Bossuet's Variations; but Protestantism
   still lives, even in Catholic and infidel France.

   [111] Michelet lets Luther tell his own story as far as possible, and
   compares this story with the Confessions of Augustin and of Rousseau,
   which it unites."Dans saint Augustin" (he says, I., 6), "la passion, la
   nature, l'individuaté humaine, n'apparaissent que pour étre immolees à
   la grâce divine. C'est l'histoire d'une crise de l'ame, d'une
   renaissance, d'une Vita nuova; le saint eût rouqi de nous faire mieux
   connaître l'autre vie qu'il avait quitté. Dans Rousseau, c'est tous le
   contraire; il ne s'agit plus de la grace; la nature règne sans partage,
   elle triomphe, elle s'étale; cela va quelquefois jusqu 'au dégout.
   Luther a présenté, non pas l'equilibré de la grâce et de la nature,
   mais leur plus douloureux combat. Les luttes de la sensibilité, les
   tentations plus hautes du donte, bien d'autres hommes en eut suffert;
   Pascal les eut évidemment, il les étouffa et il en mourat. Luther n'a
   rien caché, il ne s'est pu contenir. Il a donné à voir en lui à sonder,
   la plaie profonde de notre nature. C'est le seul homme peut-âtre où
   l'on puisse étudier à plaisircette terrible anatomie."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 18. Luther's Youth and Training.

   In order to understand the genius and history of the German Reformation
   we must trace its origin in the personal experience of the monk who
   shook the world from his lonely study in Wittenberg, and made pope and
   emperor tremble at the power of his word.

   All the Reformers, like the Apostles and Evangelists, were men of
   humble origin, and gave proof that God's Spirit working through his
   chosen instruments is mightier than armies and navies. But they were
   endowed with extraordinary talents and energy, and providentially
   prepared for their work. They were also aided by a combination of
   favorable circumstances without which they could not have accomplished
   their work. They made the Reformation, and the Reformation made them.

   Of all the Reformers Luther is the first. He is so closely identified
   with the German Reformation that the one would have no meaning without
   the other. His own history is the formative history of the church which
   is justly called by his name, and which is the incarnation and
   perpetuation of his genius. No other Reformer has given his name to the
   church he reformed, and exercised the same controlling influence over
   its history. We need not discuss here the advantages and disadvantages
   of this characteristic difference; we are only concerned with the fact.

   Martin Luther was born Nov. 10, 1483, an hour before midnight, at
   Eisleben in Prussian Saxony, where he died, Feb. 18, 1546. [112]

   On the day following he was baptized and received the name of the saint
   of the day.

   His parents had recently removed to that town [113] from their original
   home at Mahra near Eisenach in Thuringia, where Boniface had first
   preached the gospel to the Germans. Six months after Luther's birth
   they settled at Mansfeld, the capital of a rich mining district in the
   Harz mountains, which thus shares with the Thuringian forest the honor
   of being the home of the Luther family. They were very poor, but
   honest, industrious and pious people from the lower and uncultivated
   ranks.

   Luther was never ashamed of his humble, rustic origin. "I am," he said
   with pride to Melanchthon, "a peasant's son; my father, grandfather,
   all my ancestors were genuine peasants." [114] His mother had to carry
   the wood from the forest, on her back, and father and mother, as he
   said, "worked their flesh off their bones," to bring up seven children
   (he had three younger brothers and three sisters). Afterward his
   father, as a miner, acquired some property, and left at his death 1250
   guilders, a guilder being worth at that time about sixteen marks, or
   four dollars. [115]

   Luther had a hard youth, without sunny memories, and was brought up
   under stern discipline. His mother chastised him, for stealing a paltry
   nut, till the blood came; and his father once flogged him so severely
   that he fled away and bore him a temporary grudge; [116] but Luther
   recognized their good intentions, and cherished filial affection,
   although they knew not, as he said, to distinguish the ingenia to which
   education should be adapted. He was taught at home to pray to God and
   the saints, to revere the church and the priests, and was told
   frightful stories about the devil and witches which haunted his
   imagination all his life.

   In the school the discipline was equally severe, and the rod took the
   place of kindly admonition. He remembered to have been chastised no
   less than fifteen times in one single morning. But he had also better
   things to say. He learned the Catechism, i.e.: the Creed, the Lord's
   Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and several Latin and German hymns.
   He treasured in his memory the proverbial wisdom of the people and the
   legendary lore of Dietrich von Bern, of Eulenspiegel and Markolf.

   He received his elementary education in the schools of Mansfeld,
   Magdeburg, and Eisenach. Already in his fourteenth year he had to
   support himself by singing in the street.

   Frau Ursula Cotta, the wife of the wealthiest merchant at Eisenach,
   immortalized herself by the benevolent interest she took in the poor
   student. She invited him to her table "on account of his hearty singing
   and praying," and gave him the first impression of a lady of some
   education and refinement. She died, 1511, but he kept up an
   acquaintance with her sons and entertained one of them who studied at
   Wittenberg. From her he learned the word: "There is nothing dearer in
   this world than the love of woman." [117]

   The hardships of Luther's youth and the want of refined breeding show
   their effects in his writings and actions. They limited his influence
   among the higher and cultivated classes, but increased his power over
   the middle and lower classes. He was a man of the people and for the
   people. He was of the earth earthy, but with his bold face lifted to
   heaven. He was not a polished diamond, but a rough block cut out from a
   granite mountain and well fitted for a solid base of a mighty
   structure. He laid the foundation, and others finished the upper
   stories.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [112] His name is differently spelled: Luder, Ludher, Lutter, Luttherr,
   Luther. The Reformer himself varied. In his first book, on the
   Penitential Psalms, 1517, he signed his name after the preface Martinus
   Luder, but soon afterward he adopted the spelling Luther. In the
   University records of Erfurt he was inscribed as Ludher in the
   Wittenberg records, first as Luder and Lüder. He derived his name from
   lauter, clear, afterward from Lothar, which means laut (hlut),
   renowned, according to others Leutherr, i.e.: Herr der Leute, lord of
   the people. See Erfurter Matrikel; Album Acad. Viteberg., and Lib.
   Decanorum facultatis theol. Acad. Viteb. ed. Förstemann; Walch, L.'s
   Werke I., 46 sqq.; Jürgens I., 11-13: Knaake, in "Zeitschr, f. hist.
   Theol.," 1872, p. 465; Köstlin, Mart. Luther, I. 21 (2d ed. 1883). The
   year of Luther's birth rests on the testimony of his brother James; his
   mother distinctly remembered the day and the hour, but not the year.
   Melanchthon's Vita Luth. 2; Köstlin, 1. 25 and 776.

   [113] The story that they went to the fair at Eisenach cannot be
   proven.

   [114] "Ich bin eines Bauern Sohn; mein Vater, Grossvater, Ahnherr sind
   rechte Bauern gewest. Darauf ist mein Vater gen Mansfeld gezogen und
   ein Berghauer worden: daher bin ich." Mathesius wisely remarks with
   reference to the small beginnings of Luther: "Wass gross soll werden,
   muss klein angehen; und wenn die Kinder zärtlich und herrlich erzogen
   werden, schadet es ihnen ihr Leben lang."

   [115] Köstlin, I., 26; II., 498. In his small biography, pp. 6 and 7
   (Engl. ed.), Köstlin gives the pictures of Hans and Margaret Luther.
   There is a striking resemblance between Luther and his mother, whom
   Melanchthon describes as a modest, God-fearing, and devout woman. Her
   maiden name was Ziegler (not Lindemann, as usually given). Luther's
   father is said to have escaped by flight trial for murdering a peasant
   at Möhra in a fit of anger; but this tradition rests only on the
   testimony of J. Wicel (Epist. libri quatuor, Lips., 1537), who fell
   away from Protestantism. It is discredited by Köstlin (I., 24). Janssen
   (II. 66) leaves it in doubt.

   [116] Table Talk (Erl. Frkf. ed. LXI. 213): "Man soll die Kinder nicht
   zu hart staüpen; denn mein Vater stäupet mich einmal so sehr, dass ich
   ihn flohe und ward ihm gram, bis er mich wieder zu ihm gewöhnete."

   [117] He says in his Table-Talk: "Darumb sagte meine Wirthin zu
   Eisenach recht, als ich daselbst in die Schule ging: 'Es ist kein
   lieber Ding auf Erden Als Frauenlieb', wem sie mag werden.' " See
   Works, Erl. Frkf. ed. LXI., 212; Jürgens, I., 281 sqq.; Kolde, I., 36;
   Janssen, II., 67. The relation of Luther to this excellent lady has
   been made the subject of a useful religious novel by Mrs. Eliz.
   Charles, under the title: Chronicles of the Schönberg-Cotta Family. By
   two of themselves. London and New York (M. W. Dodd), 1864. The diary is
   fictitious.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 19. Luther in the University of Erfurt.

   At the age of eighteen, in the year 1501, he entered, as "Martinus
   Ludher ex Mansfeld," the University of Erfurt, which had been founded a
   hundred years before (1392) and was then one of the best in Germany.
   [118] By that time his father was able to assist him so that he was
   free of care and could acquire a little library.

   He studied chiefly scholastic philosophy, namely: logic, rhetoric,
   physics and metaphysics. His favorite teacher was Truttvetter, called
   "Doctor Erfordiensis." [119] The palmy days of scholasticism which
   reared those venerable cathedrals of thought in support of the
   traditional faith of the church in the thirteenth century, had passed
   away, and were succeeded by the times of barren disputes about Realism
   and Nominalism or the question whether the general ideas (the
   universalia) had an objective reality, or a merely nominal, subjective
   existence in the mind. Nominalism was then the prevailing system.

   On the other hand the humanistic studies were reviving all over Europe
   and opened a new avenue of intellectual culture and free thought. The
   first Greek book in Greek letters (a grammar) which was published in
   Germany, appeared in Erfurt. John Crotus Rubeanus (Jäger) who studied
   there since 1498 and became rector of the University in 1520 and 1521,
   was one of the leaders of humanism and the principal author of the
   first part of the famous anti-monkish Epistolae obscurorum virorum
   (1515); he was at first an intimate friend of Hutten and Luther, and
   greeted the latter on his way to Worms (1521) as the man who "first
   after so many centuries dared to strangle the Roman license with the
   sword of the Scripture," but afterward he fell away from the
   Reformation (1531) and assailed it bitterly. [120]

   Luther did not neglect the study of the ancient classics, especially
   Cicero, Vergil, Plautus, and Livy. [121] He acquired sufficient mastery
   of Latin to write it with clearness and vigor, though not with elegance
   and refinement. The knowledge of Greek he acquired afterward as
   professor at Wittenberg. In classical culture he never attained the
   height of Erasmus and Melanchthon, of Calvin and Beza; but in original
   thought and in the mastery of his own mother tongue he was unrivalled.
   He always regarded the languages as the sheath for the sword of the
   Spirit.

   Beside his literary studies he cultivated his early love for music. He
   sang, and played the lute right merrily. He was a poet and musician as
   well as a theologian. He prized music as a noble gift of God, as a
   remedy against sadness and evil thoughts, and an effective weapon
   against the assaults of the devil. His poetic gift shines in his
   classical hymns. He had a rich font of mother wit and quaint humor.

   His moral conduct was unblemished; and the mouth of slander did not
   dare to blacken his reputation till after the theological passions were
   roused by the Reformation. He went regularly to mass and observed the
   daily devotions of a sincere Catholic. He chose for his motto: to pray
   well is half the study. He was a devout worshipper of the Virgin Mary.

   In his twentieth year he first saw a complete (Latin) Bible in the
   University Library, and was surprised and rejoiced to find that it
   contained so much more than was ever read or explained in the churches.
   [122] His eye fell upon the story of Samuel and his mother, and he read
   it with delight. But he did not begin a systematic study of the Bible
   till he entered the convent; nor did he find in it the God of love and
   mercy, but rather the God of righteousness and wrath. He was much
   concerned about his personal salvation and given to gloomy reflections
   over his sinful condition. Once he fell dangerously ill, and was seized
   with a fit of despair, but an old priest comforted him, saying: "My
   dear Baccalaureus, be of good cheer; you will not die in this sickness:
   God will yet make a great man out of you for the comfort of many."

   In 1502 he was graduated as Bachelor of Arts, in 1505 as Master of
   Arts. This degree, which corresponds to the modern Doctor of Philosophy
   in Germany, was bestowed with great solemnity. "What a moment of
   majesty and splendor," says Luther, "was that when one took the degree
   of Master, and torches were carried before him. I consider that no
   temporal or worldly joy can equal it." His talents and attainments were
   the wonder of the University.

   According to his father's ambitious wish, Luther began to prepare
   himself for the profession of law, and was presented by him with a copy
   of the Corpus juris. But he inclined to theology, when a remarkable
   providential occurrence opened a new path for his life.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [118] See the description by Jürgens, I., 351 sqq.; and Kampschulte,
   Die Universität Erfurt in ihrem Verh. z. Humanismus u. Reformation,
   Trier, 1358. Two parts. The university was abolished in 1816.

   [119] See Kampschulte, l.c. I., 43 sqq., and G. Plitt, Jodocus
   Truttvetter, der Lehrer Luthers, 1876.

   [120] Jürgens, I., 449; Kampschulte, De Johanne Croto Rubiano, 1862.

   [121] O. G. Schmidt, Luther's Bekanntschaft mit den alten Classikern,
   1883.

   [122] Da ich zwanzig Jahre alt war, hatte ich noch keine Bibel gesehen;
   ich meinte, es wären keim Evangelien und Episteln mehr, denn die in den
   Postillen sind." Werke, Erl. ed., LX., 255. This was partly his own
   fault, for several editions of the Latin Vulgate and the German Bible
   were printed before 1500.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 20. Luther's Conversion.

   In the summer of 1505 Luther entered the Augustinian convent at Erfurt
   and became a monk, as he thought, for his life time. The circumstances
   which led to this sudden step we gather from his fragmentary utterances
   which have been embellished by legendary tradition.

   He was shocked by the sudden death of a friend (afterward called
   Alexius), who was either killed in a duel, [123] or struck dead by
   lightning at Luther's side. Shortly afterward, on the second of July,
   1505, two weeks before his momentous decision, he was overtaken by a
   violent thunderstorm near Erfurt, on his return from a visit to his
   parents, and was so frightened that he fell to the earth and
   tremblingly exclaimed: "Help, beloved Saint Anna! I will become a
   monk." His friend Crotus (who afterward became an enemy of the
   Reformation) inaptly compared this event to the conversion of St. Paul
   at the gates of Damascus. [124] But Luther was a Christian before he
   became a monk.

   On the sixteenth of July he assembled his friends who in vain tried to
   change his resolution, indulged once more in social song, and bade them
   farewell. On the next day they accompanied him, with tears, to the
   gates of the convent. The only books he took with him were the Latin
   poets Vergil and Plautus.

   His father almost went mad, when he heard the news. Luther himself
   declared in later years, that his monastic vow was forced from him by
   terror and the fear of death and the judgment to come; yet he never
   doubted that God's hand was in it. "I never thought of leaving the
   convent: I was entirely dead to the world, until God thought that the
   time had come."

   This great change has nothing to do with Luther's Protestantism. It was
   simply a transition from secular to religious life--such as St. Bernard
   and thousands of Catholic monks before and since passed through. He was
   never an infidel, nor a wicked man, but a pious Catholic from early
   youth; but he now became overwhelmed with a sense of the vanity of this
   world and the absorbing importance of saving his soul, which, according
   to the prevailing notion of his age, he could best secure in the quiet
   retreat of a cloister.

   He afterward underwent as it were a second conversion, from the
   monastic and legalistic piety of mediaeval Catholicism to the free
   evangelical piety of Protestantism, when he awoke to an experimental
   knowledge of justification by free grace through faith alone.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [123] Mathesius: "da ihm ein guter Gesell erstochen ward."

   [124] In a letter which Crotus wrote to Luther from Bologna, Nov.,
   1519: "Perge, ut coepisti, relinque exemplum posteris. Nam ista facis
   non sine numine divum. Ad haec respexit divina providentia, cum te
   redeuntem a parentibus coeleste fulmen veluti alterum Paulum ante
   oppidum Erfurdianum in terram prostravit, atque inter Augustiana septa
   compulit e nostro consortio." Döllinger I. 139.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 21. Luther as a Monk.

   The Augustinian convent at Erfurt became the cradle of the Lutheran
   Reformation. All honor to monasticism: it was, like the law of Israel,
   a wholesome school of discipline and a preparation for gospel freedom.
   Erasmus spent five years reluctantly in a convent, and after his
   release ridiculed monkery with the weapons of irony and sarcasm; Luther
   was a monk from choice and conviction, and therefore all the better
   qualified to refute it afterward from deep experience. He followed in
   the steps of St. Paul, who from a Pharisee of the Pharisees became the
   strongest opponent of Jewish legalism.

   If there ever was a sincere, earnest, conscientious monk, it was Martin
   Luther. His sole motive was concern for his salvation. To this supreme
   object he sacrificed the fairest prospects of life. He was dead to the
   world and was willing to be buried out of the sight of men that he
   might win eternal life. His latter opponents who knew him in convent,
   have no charge to bring against his moral character except a certain
   pride and combativeness, and he himself complained of his temptations
   to anger and envy. [125]

   It was not without significance that the order which he joined, bore
   the honored name of the greatest Latin father who, next to St. Paul,
   was to be Luther's chief teacher of theology and religion; but it is an
   error to suppose that this order represented the anti-Pelagian or
   evangelical views of the North African father; on the contrary it was
   intensely catholic in doctrine, and given to excessive worship of the
   Virgin Mary, and obedience to the papal see which conferred upon it
   many special privileges.

   St. Augustin, after his conversion, spent several weeks with some
   friends in quiet seclusion on a country-seat near Tagaste, and after
   his election to the priesthood, at Hippo in 391, he established in a
   garden a sort of convent where with like-minded brethren and students
   he led an ascetic life of prayer, meditation and earnest, study of the
   Scriptures, yet engaged at the same time in all the public duties of a
   preacher, pastor and leader in the theological controversies and
   ecclesiastical affairs of his age.

   His example served as an inspiration and furnished a sort of authority
   to several monastic associations which arose in the thirteenth century.
   Pope Alexander IV. (1256) gave them the so-called rule of St. Augustin.
   They belonged to the mendicant monks, like the Dominicans, Franciscans
   and Carmelites. They laid great stress on preaching. In other respects
   they differed little from other monastic orders. In the beginning of
   the sixteenth century they numbered more than a hundred settlements in
   Germany.

   The Augustinian congregation in Saxony was founded in 1493, and
   presided over since 1503 by John von Staupitz, the Vicar-General for
   Germany, and Luther's friend. The convent at Erfurt was the largest and
   most important next to that at Nürnberg. The monks were respected for
   their zeal in preaching, pastoral care, and theological study. They
   lived on alms, which they collected themselves in the town and
   surrounding country. Applicants were received as novices for a year of
   probation, during which they could reconsider their resolution;
   afterward they were bound by perpetual vows of celibacy, poverty and
   obedience to their superiors.

   Luther was welcomed by his brethren with hymns of joy and prayer. He
   was clothed with a white woollen shirt, in honor of the pure Virgin, a
   black cowl and frock, tied by a leathern girdle. He assumed the most
   menial offices to subdue his pride: he swept the floor, begged bread
   through the streets, and submitted without a murmur to the ascetic
   severities. He said twenty-five Paternosters with the Ave Maria in each
   of the seven appointed hours of prayer. He was devoted to the Holy
   Virgin and even believed, with the Augustinians and Franciscans, in her
   immaculate conception, or freedom from hereditary sin--a doctrine
   denied by the Dominicans and not made an article of faith till the year
   1854. He regularly confessed his sins to the priest at least once a
   week. At the same time a complete copy of the Latin Bible was put into
   his hands for study, as was enjoined by the new code of statutes drawn
   up by Staupitz.

   At the end of the year of probation Luther solemnly promised to live
   until death in poverty and chastity according to the rules of the holy
   father Augustin, to render obedience to Almighty God, to the Virgin
   Mary, and to the prior of the monastery. He was sprinkled with holy
   water, as he lay prostrate on the ground in the form of a cross. He was
   greeted as an innocent child fresh from baptism, and assigned to a
   separate cell with table, bedstead, and chair. [126]

   The two years which followed, he divided between pious exercises and
   theological studies. He read diligently the Scriptures, and the later
   schoolmen,--especially Gabriel Biel, whom he knew by heart, and William
   Occam, whom he esteemed on account of his subtle acuteness even above
   St. Thomas and Duns Scotus, without being affected by his sceptical
   tendency. He acknowledged the authority of Aristotle, whom he afterward
   denounced and disowned as "a damned heathen." [127] He excited the
   admiration of his brethren by his ability in disputation on scholastic
   questions.

   His heart was not satisfied with brain work. His chief concern was to
   become a saint and to earn a place in heaven. "If ever," he said
   afterward, "a monk got to heaven by monkery, I would have gotten
   there." He observed the minutest details of discipline. No one
   surpassed him in prayer, fasting, night watches, self-mortification. He
   was already held up as a model of sanctity.

   But he was sadly disappointed in his hope to escape sin and temptation
   behind the walls of the cloister. He found no peace and rest in all his
   pious exercises. The more he seemed to advance externally, the more he
   felt the burden of sin within. He had to contend with temptations of
   anger, envy, hatred and pride. He saw sin everywhere, even in the
   smallest trifles. The Scriptures impressed upon him the terrors of
   divine justice. He could not trust in God as a reconciled Father, as a
   God of love and mercy but trembled before him, as a God of wrath, as a
   consuming fire. He could not get over the words: "I, the Lord thy God,
   am a jealous God." His confessor once told him: "Thou art a fool, God
   is not angry with thee, but thou art angry with God." He remembered
   this afterward as "a great and glorious word," but at that time it made
   no impression on him. He could not point to any particular
   transgression; it was sin as an all-pervading power and vitiating
   principle, sin as a corruption of nature, sin as a state of alienation
   from God and hostility to God, that weighed on his mind like an incubus
   and brought him at times to the brink of despair.

   He passed through that conflict between the law of God and the law of
   sin which is described by Paul (Rom. vii.), and which; ends with the
   cry: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me out of the body of
   this death?" He had not yet learned to add: "I thank God through Jesus
   Christ our Lord. There is now no condemnation to them that are in
   Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus made me
   free from the law of sin and of death."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [125] Köstlin, I., 88 sq., 780.

   [126] The cell and furniture were destroyed by fire, March 7, 1872. The
   cell was reconstructed, and the convent is now an orphan-asylum
   (Martinsstift).

   [127] "Der vermaladeite Heide Aristoteles." Luther's attitude to
   scholasticism and the great Greek philosopher changed again when, in
   support of the eucharistic presence, he had to resort to the scholastic
   distinctions between various kinds of presence. Comp. Fr. Aug. Berthold
   Nitzsch, Luther und Aristoteles . Kiel, 1883.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 22. Luther and Staupitz.

   The mystic writings of Staupitz have been republished in part by Knaake
   in Johannis Staupitii Opera. Potsdam, 1867, vol. I. His "Nachfolge
   Christi" was first published in 1515; his book "Von der Liebe Gottes"
   (especially esteemed by Luther) in 1518, and passed through several
   editions; republ. by Liesching, Stuttgart, 1862. His last work "Von,
   dem heiligen rechten christlichen Glauben," appeared after his death,
   1525, and is directed against Luther's doctrine of justification by
   faith without works. His twenty-four letters have been published by
   Kolde: Die Deutsche Augustiner Congregation und Johann von Staupitz.
   Gotha, 1879, p. 435 sqq.

   II. On Luther and Staupitz: Grimm: De Joh. Staupitio ejusque in sacr.
   instaur. meritis, in Illgen's "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol.," 1837
   (VII, 74-79). Ullmann: Die Reformatoren vor der Reformation, vol. II.,
   256-284 (very good, see there the older literature). Döllinger: Die
   Reformation, I., 153-155. Kahnis: Deutsche Reformat., I., 150 sqq.
   Albr. Ritschl: Die Lehre v. der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung, 2d ed.,
   I., 124-129 (on Staupitz's theology). Mallet: in Herzog,2 XIV.,
   648-653. Paul Zeller: Staupitz. Seine relig. dogmat. Anschauungen und
   dogmengesch. Stellung, in the "Theol. Studien und Kritiken," 1879.
   Ludwig Keller: Johann von Staupitz, und das Waldenserthum, in the
   "Historische Taschenbuch," ed. by W. Maurenbrecher, Leipzig, 1885, p.
   117-167; also his Johann von Staupitz und die Anfänge der Reformation,
   Leipzig, 1888. Dr. Keller connects Staupitz with the Waldenses and
   Anabaptists, but without proof. Kolde: Joh. von Staup. ein Waldenser
   und Wiedertäufer, in Brieger's "Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch." Gotha,
   1885, p. 426-447. Dieckhoff: Die Theol. des Joh. v. Staup., Leipz.,
   1887.

   In this state of mental and moral agony, Luther was comforted by an old
   monk of the convent (the teacher of the novices) who reminded him of
   the article on the forgiveness of sins in the Apostles' Creed, of
   Paul's word that the sinner is justified by grace through faith, and of
   an incidental remark of St. Bernard (in a Sermon on the Canticles) to
   the same effect.

   His best friend and wisest counsellor was Johann von Staupitz, Doctor
   of Divinity and Vicar-General of the Augustinian convents in Germany.
   Staupitz was a Saxon nobleman, of fine mind, generous heart,
   considerable biblical and scholastic learning, and deep piety, highly
   esteemed wherever known, and used in important missions by the Elector
   Frederick of Saxony. He belonged to the school of practical mysticism
   or Catholic pietism, which is best represented by Tauler and Thomas a
   Kempis. He cared more for the inner spiritual life than outward forms
   and observances, and trusted in the merits of Christ rather than in
   good works of his own, as the solid ground of comfort and peace. The
   love of God and the imitation of Christ were the ruling ideas of his
   theology and piety. In his most popular book, On the Love of God, [128]
   he describes that love as the inmost being of God, which makes
   everything lovely, and should make us love Him above all things; but
   this love man cannot learn from man, nor from the law which only brings
   us to a knowledge of sin, nor from the letter of the Scripture which
   kills, but from the Holy Spirit who reveals God's love in Christ to our
   hearts and fills it with the holy flame of gratitude and consecration.
   "The law," he says in substance, "makes known the disease, but cannot
   heal. But the spirit is hid beneath the letter; the old law is pregnant
   with Christ who gives us grace to love God above all things. To those
   who find the spirit and are led to Christ by the law, the Scriptures
   become a source of edification and comfort. The Jews saw and heard and
   handled Christ, but they had him not in their heart, and therefore they
   were doubly guilty. And so are those who carry Christ only on their
   lips. The chief thing is to have him in our heart. The knowledge of the
   Christian faith and the love to God are gifts of pure grace beyond our
   art and ability, and beyond our works and merits."

   Staupitz was Luther's spiritual father, and "first caused the light of
   the gospel to shine in the darkness of his heart." [129] He directed
   him from his sins to the merits of Christ, from the law to the cross,
   from works to faith, from scholasticism to the study of the Scriptures,
   of St. Augustin, and Tauler. He taught him that true repentance
   consists not in self-imposed penances and punishments, but in a change
   of heart and must proceed from the contemplation of Christ's sacrifice,
   in which the secret of God's eternal will was revealed. He also
   prophetically assured him that God would overrule these trials and
   temptations for his future usefulness in the church. [130]

   He encouraged Luther to enter the priesthood (1507), and brought him to
   Wittenberg; he induced him to take the degree of Doctor of Divinity,
   and to preach. He stirred him up against popery, [131] and protected
   him in the transactions with Cardinal Cajetan. He was greeted by
   Scheurl in 1518 as the one who would lead the people of Israel out of
   captivity.

   But when Luther broke with Rome, and Rome with Luther, the friendship
   cooled down. Staupitz held fast to the unity of the Catholic Church and
   was intimidated and repelled by the excesses of the Reformation. In a
   letter of April 1, 1524, [132] he begs Luther's pardon for his long
   silence and significantly says in conclusion: "May Christ help us to
   live according to his gospel which now resounds in our ears and which
   many carry on their lips; for I see that countless persons abuse the
   gospel for the freedom of the flesh. [133] Having been the precursor of
   the holy evangelical doctrine, I trust that my entreaties may have some
   effect upon thee." The sermons which he preached at Salzburg since 1522
   breathe the same spirit and urge Catholic orthodoxy and obedience.
   [134] His last book, published after his death (1525) under the title,
   "Of the holy true Christian Faith," is a virtual protest against
   Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone and a plea for a
   practical Christianity which shows itself in good works. He contrasts
   the two doctrines in these words: "The fools say, he who believes in
   Christ., needs no works; the Truth says, whosoever will be my disciple,
   let him follow Me; and whosoever will follow Me, let him deny himself
   and carry my cross day by day; and whosoever loves Me, keeps my
   commandments .... The evil spirit suggests to carnal Christians the
   doctrine that man is justified without works, and appeals to Paul. But
   Paul only excluded works of the law which proceed from fear and
   selfishness, while in all his epistles he commends as necessary to
   salvation such works as are done in obedience to God's commandments, in
   faith and love. Christ fulfilled the taw, the fools would abolish the
   law; Paul praises the law as holy and good, the fools scold and abuse
   it as evil because they walk according to the flesh and have not the
   mind of the Spirit." [135]

   Staupitz withdrew from the conflict, resigned his position, 1520, left
   his order by papal dispensation, became abbot of the Benedictine
   Convent of St. Peter in Salzburg and died Dec. 28, 1524) in the bosom
   of the Catholic church which he never intended to leave. [136] He was
   evangelical, without being a Protestant. [137] He cared little for
   Romanism, less for Lutheranism, all for practical Christianity. His
   relation to the Reformation resembles that of Erasmus with this
   difference, that he helped to prepare the way for it in the sphere of
   discipline and piety, Erasmus in the sphere of scholarship and
   illumination. Both were men of mediation and transition; they beheld
   from afar the land of promise, but did not enter it.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [128] It passed through three editions between 1518 and 1520. See
   Knaake, I., 86 sq. Keller says that it was often republished by the
   Anabaptists, whom he regards as the successors of the mediaeval
   Waldenses, or "Brethren."

   [129] "Per quem primum coepit Evangelii lux de tenebris splendescere in
   cordibus nostris." So Luther says in his letter to Staupitz, Sept. 17,
   1518 (DeWette II., 408 sq.), where he addresses him as "reverendus in
   Christo pater," and signs himself "filius tuus Martinus Lutherus."

   [130] In a letter of comfort to Hieronymus Weller, Nov. 6, 1530
   (DeWette, IV., 187), Luther says, that in his sadness and distress in
   the convent he consulted Staupitz and opened to him his "horrendas et
   terrificas cogitationes," and that he was told by him: "Nescis Martine,
   quam tibi illa tenatio sit utilis et necessaria. Non enim temere te sic
   exercet Deus, videbis, quod ad res magnas gerendas te ministro utetur."

   [131] Luther: "D. Staupitius me incitabat contra papam (al. papatum)."
   In Colloquia, ed. Bindseil, III., 188.

   [132] First published by K. Krafft, in "Briefe und Documente aus der
   Zeit der Reformation," Elberfeld (1876), p. 54 sq.

   [133] "Ad liberatum carnis video innumeros abuti evangelio."

   [134] Extracts from these sermons were first published by Kolde.

   [135] Knaake, l.c., I., 130 sqq.; Keller, Reform., 346 sq. It must have
   been this book which Link sent to Luther in the year 1525, and which
   Luther returned with a very unfavorable judgment. Döllinger (l.c. I.,
   155) thinks that Luther looked upon the death of Staupitz as a sort of
   divine judgment, as he looked afterward upon the death of Zwingli.

   [136] Neverthless his books were put in the Index by the Council of
   Trent, 1563, and were burnt as heretical with all his correspondence by
   order of his successor, Abbot Martin of St. Peter, in the court of the
   convent at Salzburg in 1584. See Fr. Hein. Reusch (Old Cath.),Der Index
   der verbotenen Bücher, Bd. I. (Bonn, 1883), p. 279: "Staupitius ist in
   den Index gekommen, weil Cochlaeus bei dem Jahre 1517ihn neben Luther
   als Gegner Tetzels erwähnt. Er ist in der 1. Classe geblieben bis auf
   diesen Tag, obschon man in Rom oder wenigstens in Trient, jedenfalls
   Benedict XIV. wohl hätte wissen können, dass er als guter Katholik, als
   Abt von St. Peter zu Salzburg gestorben." This is only one of several
   hundred errors in this papal catalogue of heretical books.

   [137] Or, as Luther expressed it in his letter to Staupitz of Feb. 9,
   1521, he wavered between Christ and the Pope: "Ich fürcte, ihr möchtet
   zwischen Christo und dem Papste in der Mitte schwaben, die ihr doch in
   heftigem Streit sehet." He told him in the same letter that he was no
   more that preacher of grace and of the cross (ein solcher Gnaden-und
   Kreuzdiger) as formerly.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 23. The Victory of Justifying Faith.

   (Comp. § 7.)

   The secret of Luther's power and influence lies in his heroic faith. It
   delivered him from the chaos and torment of ascetic self-mortification
   and self-condemnation, gave him rest and peace, and made him a lordly
   freeman in Christ, and yet an obedient servant of Christ. This faith
   breathes through all his writings, dominated his acts, sustained him in
   his conflicts and remained his shield and anchor till the hour of
   death. This faith was born in the convent at Erfurt, called into public
   action at Wittenberg, and made him a Reformer of the Church.

   By the aid of Staupitz and the old monk, but especially by the
   continued study of Paul's Epistles, be was gradually brought to the
   conviction that the sinner is justified by faith alone, without works
   of law. He experienced this truth in his heart long before he
   understood it in all its bearings. He found in it that peace of
   conscience which he had sought in vain by his monkish exercises. He
   pondered day and night over the meaning of "the righteousness of God
   "(Rom. 1:17), and thought that it is the righteous punishment of
   sinners; but toward the close of his convent life he came to the
   conclusion that it is the righteousness which God freely gives in
   Christ to those who believe in him. Righteousness is not to be acquired
   by man through his own exertions and merits; it is complete and perfect
   in Christ, and all the sinner has to do is to accept it from Him as a
   free gift. Justification is that judicial act of God whereby he acquits
   the sinner of guilt and clothes him with the righteousness of Christ on
   the sole condition of personal faith which apprehends and appropriates
   Christ and shows its life and power by good works, as a good tree
   bringing forth good fruits. For faith in Luther's system is far more
   than a mere assent of the mind to the authority of the church: it is a
   hearty trust and full surrender of the whole man to Christ; it lives
   and moves in Christ as its element, and is constantly obeying his will
   and following his example. It is only in connection with this deeper
   conception of faith that his doctrine of justification can be
   appreciated. Disconnected from it, it is a pernicious error.

   The Pauline doctrine of justification as set forth in the Epistles to
   the Romans and Galatians, had never before been clearly and fully
   understood, not even by Augustin and Bernard, who confound
   justification with sanctification. [138] Herein lies the difference
   between the Catholic and the Protestant conception. In the Catholic
   system justification (dikaivwsi") is a gradual process conditioned by
   faith and good works; in the Protestant system it is a single act of
   God, followed by sanctification. It is based upon the merits of Christ,
   conditioned by faith, and manifested by good works. [139]

   This experience acted like a new revelation on Luther. It shed light
   upon the whole Bible and made it to him a book of life and comfort. He
   felt relieved of the terrible load of guilt by an act of free grace. He
   was led out of the dark prison house of self-inflicted penance into the
   daylight and fresh air of God's redeeming love. Justification broke the
   fetters of legalistic slavery, and filled him with the joy and peace of
   the state of adoption; it opened to him the very gates of heaven.

   Henceforth the doctrine of justification by faith alone was for him to
   the end of life the sum and substance of the gospel, the heart of
   theology, the central truth of Christianity, the article of the
   standing or falling church. By this standard he measured every other
   doctrine and the value of every book of the Bible. Hence his enthusiasm
   for Paul, and his dislike of James, whom he could not reconcile with
   his favorite apostle. He gave disproportion to solifidianism and
   presented it sometimes in most unguarded language, which seemed to
   justify antinomian conclusions; but he corrected himself, he expressly
   condemned antinomianism, and insisted on good works and a holy life as
   a necessary manifestation of faith. [140] And it must not be forgotten
   that the same charge of favoring antinomianism was made against Paul,
   who rejects it with pious horror: "Let it never be!"

   Thus the monastic and ascetic life of Luther was a preparatory school
   for his evangelical faith. It served the office of the Mosaic law
   which, by bringing the knowledge of sin and guilt, leads as a tutor to
   Christ (Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:24). The law convicted, condemned, and killed
   him; the gospel comforted, justified, and made him alive. The law
   enslaved him, the gospel set him free. He had trembled like a slave;
   now he rejoiced as a son in his father's house. Through the discipline
   of the law he died to the law, that he might live unto God (Gal. 2:19).

   In one word, Luther passed through the experience of Paul. He
   understood him better than any mediaeval schoolman or ancient father.
   His commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians is still one of the
   best, for its sympathetic grasp of the contrast between law and gospel,
   between spiritual slavery and spiritual freedom.

   Luther held this conviction without dreaming that it conflicted with
   the traditional creed and piety of the church. He was brought to it
   step by step. The old views and practices ran along side with it, and
   for several years he continued to be a sincere and devout Catholic. It
   was only the war with Tetzel and its consequences that forced him into
   the position of a Reformer and emancipated him from his old
   connections.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [138] Luther himself felt how widely he differed in this doctrine from
   his favorite Augustin. He said afterward in his Table Talk: "Principio
   Augustinum vorabam, non legebam; aber da mir in Paulo die Thür aufging,
   dass ich wusste was justificatio fidei wär, ward es aus mit ihm."
   Köstlin, I., 780. Yet if we reduce the doctrine of justification by
   faith to the more general term of salvation by free grace, it was held
   as clearly and strongly by Augustin and, we may say, is held by all
   true Christians. Janssen (II., 71) says: "Of all the books recognized
   and used by the (Catholic) Church, whether learned or popular, there is
   not one which does not contain the doctrine of justification by Christ
   alone (die Lehre von der Rechtfertigung durch Christus allein)." But
   the question between the Roman church and Luther turned on the
   subjective appropriation of the righteousness of Christ which is the
   objective ground of justification and salvation; while faith is the
   subjective condition.

   [139] Modern exegesis has justified this view of dikaioo and dikaiosis,
   according to Hellenistic usage, although etymologically the verb may
   mean to make just, i.e., to sanctify, in accordance with verbs in oo
   (e.g. deloo phanephoo, tuphloo, (i.to make manifest, etc.). See the
   Commentaries on Romans and Galatians.

   [140] The boldest and wildest utterance of Luther on justification
   occurs in a letter to Melanchthon (De Wette's ed. II. 37), dated Aug.
   1, 1521, where he gives his opinion on the vow of celibacy and says:
   "Esto peccator et pecca fortiter, sed fortius fide (crede) et gaude in
   Christo, qui victor est peccati, mortis et mundi." But it loses all its
   force as an argument against him and his doctrine, first by being
   addressed to Melanchthon, who was not likely to abuse it, and secondly
   by implying an impossibility; for the fortius crede and the concluding
   ora fortiter neutralize the fortiter pecca. Paul, of course, could
   never have written such a passage. He puts the antinomian inference:
   "Let us continue in sin that grace may abound" into the form of a
   question, and answers it by an indignant me genoito. Rom. 6:1. This is
   the difference between the wisdom of an apostle and the zeal of a
   reformer.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 24. Luther Ordained to the Priesthood.

   In the second year of his monastic life and when he was still in a
   state of perplexity, Luther was ordained to the priesthood, and on May
   2, 1507, he said his first mass. This was a great event in the life of
   a priest. He was so overwhelmed by the solemnity of offering the
   tremendous sacrifice for the living and the dead that he nearly fainted
   at the altar.

   His father had come with several friends to witness the solemnity and
   brought him a present of twenty guilders. He was not yet satisfied with
   the monastic vows. "Have you not read in Holy Writ," he said to the
   brethren at the entertainment given to the young priest, "that a man
   must honor father and mother?" And when he was reminded, that his son
   was called to the convent by a voice from heaven, he answered: "Would
   to God, it were no spirit of the devil." He was not fully reconciled to
   his son till after he had acquired fame and entered the married state.

   Luther performed the duties of the new dignity with conscientious
   fidelity. He read mass every morning, and invoked during the week
   twenty-one particular saints whom he had chosen as his helpers, three
   on each day.

   But he was soon to be called to a larger field of influence.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 25. Luther in Rome. [141]


   "Roma qua nihil possis visere majus."--(Horace.)


   "Vivere qui sancte vultis, discedite Roma.

   Omnia hic ecce licent, non licet esse probum."

   "Wer christlich leben will und Rein,

   Der zieh am Rom und bleib daheim.

   Hie mag man thun was man nur will,

   Allein fromm sein gilt hier nicht viel."

   (Old poetry quoted by Luther, in Walch, XXII., 2372.)


   "Prächtiger, als wir in unserum Norden,

   Wohnt der Bettler an der Engelspforten,
   Denn er sieht das ewig einz'ge Rom:

   Ihn umgibt der Schönheit Glanzgewimmel,

   Und ein zweiter Himmel in den Himmel
   Steigt Sancte Peter's wundersamer Dom.

   Aber Rom in allem seinem Glanze
   Ist ein Grab nur der Vergangenheit,

   Leben duftet nur die frische Pflanze,
   Die die grüne Stunde streut."--(Schiller.)

   An interesting episode in the history of Luther's training for the
   Reformation was his visit to Rome. It made a deep impression on his
   mind, and became effective, not immediately, but several years
   afterward through the recollection of what he had seen and heard, as a
   good Catholic, in the metropolis of Christendom.

   In the autumn of the year 1510, [142] after his removal to Wittenberg,
   but before his graduation as doctor of divinity, Luther was sent to
   Rome in the interest of his order and at the suggestion of Staupitz,
   who wished to bring about a disciplinary reform and closer union of the
   Augustinian convents in Germany, but met with factious opposition.

   In company with another monk and a lay brother, as the custom was, he
   traveled on foot, from convent to convent, spent four weeks in Rome in
   the Augustinian convent of Maria del popolo, and returned to Wittenberg
   in the following spring. The whole journey must have occupied several
   months. It was the longest journey he ever made, and at the same time,
   his pilgrimage to the shrines of the holy apostles where he wished to
   make a general confession of all his sins and to secure the most
   efficient absolution.

   We do not know whether he accomplished the object of his mission. [143]
   He left no information about his route, whether be passed through
   Switzerland or through the Tyrol, nor about the sublime scenery of the
   Alps and the lovely scenery of Italy. [144] The beauties of nature made
   little or no impression upon the Reformers, and were not properly
   appreciated before the close of the eighteenth century. [145] Zwingli
   and Calvin lived on the banks of Swiss lakes and in view of the Swiss
   Alps, but never allude to them; they were absorbed in theology and
   religion.

   In his later writings and Table-Talk, Luther left some interesting
   reminiscences of his journey. He spoke of the fine climate and
   fertility of Italy, the temperance of the Italians contrasted with the
   intemperate Germans, also of their shrewdness, craftiness, and of the
   pride with which they looked down upon the "stupid Germans" and "German
   beasts," as semi-barbarians; he praised the hospitals and charitable
   institutions in Florence; but he was greatly disappointed with the
   state of religion in Rome, which he found just the reverse of what he
   had expected.

   Rome was at that time filled with enthusiasm for the renaissance of
   classical literature and art, but indifferent to religion. Julius II.,
   who sat in Peter's chair from 1503 to 1513, bent his energies on the
   aggrandizement of the secular dominion of the papacy by means of an
   unscrupulous diplomacy and bloody wars, founded the Vatican Museum, and
   liberally encouraged the great architects and painters of his age in
   their immortal works of art. The building of the new church of St.
   Peter with its colossal cupola had begun under the direction of
   Bramante; the pencil of Michael Angelo was adorning the Sixtine chapel
   in the adjoining Vatican Palace with the pictures of the Prophets,
   Sibyls, and the last judgment; and the youthful genius of Raphael
   conceived his inimitable Madonna, with the Christ-child in her arms,
   and was transforming the chambers of the Vatican into galleries of
   undying beauty. These were the wonders of the new Italian art; but they
   had as little interest for the German monk as the temples and statues
   of classical Athens had for the Apostle Paul.

   When Luther came in sight of the eternal city he fell upon the earth,
   raised his hands and exclaimed, "Hail to thee, holy, Rome! [146] Thrice
   holy for the blood of martyrs shed here." He passed the colossal ruins
   of heathen Rome and the gorgeous palaces of Christian Rome. But he ran,
   "like a crazy saint," through all the churches and crypts and catacombs
   with an unquestioning faith in the legendary traditions about the
   relics and miracles of martyrs. [147] He wished that his parents were
   dead that he might help them out of purgatory by reading mass in the
   most holy place, according to the saying: "Blessed is the mother whose
   son celebrates mass on Saturday in St. John of the Lateran." He
   ascended on bended knees the twenty-eight steps of the famous Scala
   Santa (said to have been transported from the Judgment Hall of Pontius
   Pilate in Jerusalem), that he might secure the indulgence attached to
   this ascetic performance since the days of Pope Leo IV. in 850, but at
   every step the word of the Scripture sounded as a significant protest
   in his ear: "The just shall live by faith" (Rom. 1:17). [148]

   Thus at the very height of his mediaeval devotion he doubted its
   efficacy in giving peace to the troubled conscience. This doubt was
   strengthened by what he saw around him. He was favorably struck,
   indeed, with the business administration and police regulations of the
   papal court, but shocked by the unbelief, levity and immorality of the
   clergy. Money and luxurious living seemed to have replaced apostolic
   poverty and self-denial. He saw nothing but worldly splendor at the
   court of Pope Julius II., who had just returned from the sanguinary
   siege of a town conducted by him in person. He afterward thundered
   against him as a man of blood. He heard of the fearful crimes of Pope
   Alexander VI. and his family, which were hardly known and believed in
   Germany, but freely spoken of as undoubted facts in the fresh
   remembrance of all Romans. While he was reading one mass, a Roman
   priest would finish seven. He was urged to hurry up (passa, passa!),
   and to "send her Son home to our Lady." He heard priests, when
   consecrating the elements, repeat in Latin the words: "Bread thou art,
   and bread thou shalt remain; wine thou art, and wine thou shalt
   remain." The term "a good Christian" (buon Christiano) meant "a fool."
   He was told that "if there was a hell, Rome was built on it," and that
   this state of things must soon end in a collapse.

   He received the impression that "Rome, once the holiest city, was now
   the worst." He compared it to Jerusalem as described by the prophets.
   [149] All these sad experiences did not shake his faith in the Roman
   church and hierarchy, so unworthily represented, as the Jewish
   hierarchy was at the time of Christ; but they returned to his mind
   afterward with double force and gave ease and comfort to his conscience
   when he attacked and abused popery as "an institution of the devil."
   [150]

   Hence he often declared that he would not have missed "seeing Rome for
   a hundred thousand florins; for I might have felt some apprehension
   that I had done injustice to the Pope; but as we see, so we speak."

   Six years after his visit the building of St. Peter's Dome by means of
   the proceeds from papal indulgences furnished the occasion for the
   outbreak of that war which ended with an irrevocable separation from
   Rome.

   In the Pitti Gallery of Florence there is a famous picture of Giorgione
   which represents an unknown monk with strongly Teutonic features and
   brilliant eyes, seated between two Italians, playing on a small organ
   and looking dreamily to one side. This central figure has recently been
   identified by some connoisseurs as a portrait of Luther taken at
   Florence a few months before the death of Giorgione in 1511. The
   identity is open to doubt, but the resemblance is striking. [151]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [141] Luther's dicta about Rome and his Roman journey are collected in
   Walch's ed., vol. XXII., 2372-2379; Köhler: Luther's Reisen (1872), p.
   2-20; Jürgens, II., 266-358; Koestlin, I., 100-107; Lenz, 45-47; Kolde,
   I., 73-79; and in Brieger's "Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch," II., 460
   sqq. Comp. also, on the R. Cath. side, the brief account of Janssen,
   II., 72. Audin devotes his third chapter to the Roman journey (I.,
   52-65).

   [142] The chronology is not quite certain. The date 1511 is adopted by
   Köstlin and Kolde. Others date the Rome journey back to 1510
   (Mathesius, Seckendorf, Jürgens, and Luther himself, in his tract
   Against Popery invented by the Devil, Erl. ed. XXVI., 125, though once
   he names the year 1511).

   [143] Kolde (I., 81) conjectures that the decision of Rome in the
   controversy among the Augustinians went against Staupitz, who soon
   after 1512 left Wittenberg.

   [144] He passed through Suabia and Bavaria, as we may judge from his
   description of the people (Walch, XXII., 2359): "Wenn ich viel reisen
   sollte, wollte ich nirgends lieber, denn durch Schwaben und Baierland
   ziehen; denn sie sind freundlich und gutwillig, herbergen gerne, gehen
   Freunden und Wandersleuten entgegen, und thun den Leuten gütlich, und
   gute Ausrichtung um ihr Geld." He seems to have seen Switzerland also
   of which he says (ib., p. 2360): "Schweiz ist ein dürr und bergig Land,
   darum sind sie endlich und hurtig, müssen ihre Nahrung underswo
   suchen."

   [145] We seek in vain for descriptions of natural scenery among the
   ancient classics, but several Hebrew Psalms celebrate the glory of the
   Creator in his works. The Parables of our Lord imply that nature is
   full of spiritual lessons. The first descriptions of the beauties of
   nature in Christian literature are found in the Epistles of St. Basil,
   Gregory of Nazianzum and Gregory of Nyssa. See this Ch. Hist., vol.
   III., 896 sqq. The incomparable beauties of Switzerland were first duly
   appreciated and made known to the world by Albrecht von Haller of Bern
   (in his poem, "Die Alpen"), Goethe Schweizereise), and Schiller (in
   Wilhelm Tell, where he gives the most charming picture of the Lake of
   the Four Cantons, though he never was there).

   [146] "Salve! Sancta Roma."

   [147] "Auch ich war ein so toller Heiliger," he said, "lief durch alle
   Kirchen und Kluften, glaubte alles was daselbst erlogen und erstunken
   ist."

   [148] This interesting incident rests on the authority of his son Paul,
   who heard it from the lips of his father in 1544. Modern Popes, Pius
   VII. and Pius IX., have granted additional indulgences to those who
   climb up the Scala Santa.

   [149] "Es gehet uns wie den Propheten, die klagen auch über Jerusalem,
   und sagen: Die feine gläubige Stadt is zur Hure geworden. Denn aus dem
   Besten kommt allezeit das Aergste, wie die Exempel zeigen zu allen
   Zeiten." Walch, XXII., 2378.

   [150] This was the topic of one of his last and most abusive works:
   "Wider das Papstthum zu Rom vom Teufel gestiftet." March, 1545.

   [151] Comp."Revista Christiana," Firenze, 1883, p. 422. The picture on
   the opposite page (in the text) is from a photograph made in Florence.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 26. The University of Wittenberg.

   Grohmann: Annalen der Universität zu Wittenberg, 1802, 2 vols. Muther:
   Die Wittenberger Universitäts und Facultätsstudien v. Jahr 1508. Halle,
   1867. K. Schmidt: Wittenberg unter Kurfürst Friedrich dem Weisen.
   Erlangen, 1877. Juergens: II, 151 sqq. and 182 sqq. (very thorough).
   Koestlin, I., 90 sqq. Kolde: Friedrich der Weise und die Anfänge der
   Reformation, Erlangen, 1881; and his Leben Luther's, 1884, I., 67 sqq.

   In the year 1502 Frederick III., surnamed the Wise, Elector of Saxony (
   b. 1463, d. 1525), distinguished among the princes of the sixteenth
   century for his intelligence, wisdom, piety, and in cautious protection
   of the Reformation, founded from his limited means a new University at
   Wittenberg, under the patronage of the Virgin Mary and St. Augustin.
   The theological faculty was dedicated to the Apostle Paul, and on the
   anniversary of his conversion at Damascus a mass was to be celebrated
   and a sermon preached in the presence of the rector and the senate.

   Frederick was a devout Catholic, a zealous collector of relics, a
   believer in papal indulgences, a pilgrim to the holy land; but at the
   same time a friend of liberal learning, a protector of the person of
   Luther and of the new theology of the University of Wittenberg, which
   he called his daughter, and which be favored to the extent of his
   power. Shortly before his death he signified the acceptance of the
   evangelical faith by taking the communion in both kinds from Spalatin,
   his chaplain, counsellor and biographer, and mediator between him and
   Luther. He was unmarried and left no legitimate heir. His brother, John
   the Constant (1525-1532), and his nephew, John Frederick the
   Magnanimous (1532-1547), both firm Protestants, succeeded him; but the
   latter was deprived of the electoral dignity and part of his
   possessions by his victorious cousin Moritz, Duke of Saxony, after the
   battle of Mühlberg (1547). The successors of Moritz were the chief
   defenders of Lutheranism in Germany till Augustus I. (1694-1733) sold
   the faith of his ancestors for the royal crown of Poland and became a
   Roman Catholic.

   Wittenberg [152] was a poor and badly built town of about three
   thousand inhabitants in a dull, sandy, sterile plain on the banks of
   the Elbe, and owes its fame entirely to the fact that it became the
   nursery of the Reformation theology. Luther says that it lay at the
   extreme boundary of civilization, [153] a few steps from barbarism, and
   speaks of its citizens as wanting in culture, courtesy and kindness. He
   felt at times strongly tempted to leave it. Melanchthon who came from
   the fertile Palatinate, complained that he could get nothing fit to eat
   at Wittenberg. Myconius, Luther's friend, describes the houses as
   "small, old, ugly, low, wooden." Even the electoral castle is a very
   unsightly structure. The Elector laughed when Dr. Pollich first
   proposed the town as the seat of the new university. But Wittenberg was
   one of his two residences (the other being Torgau), had a new
   castle-church with considerable endowments and provision for ten
   thousand masses per annum and an Augustinian convent which could
   furnish a part of the teaching force, and thus cheapen the expenses of
   the institution.

   The university was opened October 18, 1502. The organization was
   intrusted to Dr. Pollich, the first rector, who on account of his
   extensive learning was called "lux mundi," and who had accompanied the
   Elector on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (1493), and to Staupitz, the first
   Dean of the theological faculty, who fixed his eye at once upon his
   friend Luther as a suitable professor of theology.

   Wittenberg had powerful rivals in the neighboring, older and better
   endowed Universities of Erfurt and Leipzig, but soon overshadowed them
   by the new theology. The principal professors were members of the
   Augustinian order, most of them from Tübingen and Erfurt. The number of
   students was four hundred and sixteen in the first semester, then
   declined to fifty-five in 1505, partly in consequence of the
   pestilence, began to rise again in 1507, and when Luther and
   Melanchthon stood on the summit of their fame, they attracted thousands
   of pupils from all countries of Europe. Melanchthon heard at times
   eleven languages spoken at his hospitable table.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [152] Probably, Weissenberg, from the white sand hills on the Elbe. So
   Jürgens II., 190. The original inhabitants of the region were Slavs
   (Wends), but expelled or absorbed by the Saxons. The town dates from
   the twelfth century.

   [153] "In termino civilitatis."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 27. Luther as Professor till 1517.

   Luther was suddenly called by Staupitz from the Augustinian Convent of
   Erfurt to that of Wittenberg with the expectation of becoming at the
   same time a lecturer in the university. He arrived there in October,
   1508, was called back to Erfurt in autumn, 1509, was sent to Rome in
   behalf of his order, 1510, returned to Wittenberg, 1511, and continued
   there till a few days before his death, 1546.

   He lived in the convent, even after his marriage. His plain study,
   bed-room and lecture-hall are still shown in the "Lutherhaus." The
   lowliness of his work-shop forms a sublime contrast to the grandeur of
   his work. From their humble dwellings Luther and Melanchthon exerted a
   mightier influence than the contemporary popes and kings from their
   gorgeous palaces.

   Luther combined the threefold office of sub-prior, preacher and
   professor. He preached both in his convent and in the town-church,
   sometimes daily for a week, sometimes thrice in one day, during Lent in
   1517 twice everyday. He was supported by the convent. As professor he
   took no fees from the students and received only a salary of one
   hundred guilders, which after his marriage was raised by the Elector
   John to two hundred guilders. [154]

   He first lectured on scholastic philosophy and explained the
   Aristotelian dialectics and physics. But he soon passed through the
   three grades of bachelor, licentiate, and doctor of divinity (October
   18th and 19th, 1512), and henceforth devoted himself exclusively to the
   sacred science which was much more congenial to his taste. Staupitz
   urged him into these academic dignities, [155] and the Elector who had
   been favorably impressed with one of his sermons, offered to pay the
   expenses (fifty guilders) for the acquisition of the doctorate. [156]
   Afterward in seasons of trouble Luther often took comfort from the
   title and office of his doctorate of divinity and his solemn oath to
   defend with all his might the Holy Scriptures against all errors. [157]
   He justified the burning of the Pope's Bull in the same way. But the
   oath of ordination and of the doctor of theology implied also obedience
   to the Roman church (ecclesiae Romanae obedientiam) and her defence
   against all heresies condemned by her. [158]

   With the year 1512 his academic teaching began in earnest and continued
   till 1546, at first in outward harmony with the Roman church, but
   afterward in open opposition to it.

   He was well equipped for his position, according to the advantages of
   his age, but, very poorly, according to modern requirements, as far as
   technical knowledge is concerned.Although a doctor of divinity, he
   relied for several years almost exclusively on the Latin version of the
   Scriptures. Very few professors knew Greek, and still less, Hebrew.
   Luther had acquired a superficial idea of Hebrew at Erfurt from
   Reuchlin's Rudimenta Hebraica. [159] The Greek he learned at
   Wittenberg, we do not know exactly when, mostly from books and from his
   colleagues, Johann Lange and Melanchthon. As late as Feb. 18th, 1518,
   he asked Lange, "the Greek," a question about the difference between
   ajnavqhma and ajnavqema, and confessed that he could not draw the Greek
   letters. [160] His herculean labor in translating the Bible forced him
   into a closer familiarity with the original languages, though he never
   attained to mastery. As a scholar he remained inferior to Reuchlin or
   Erasmus or Melanchthon, but as a genius he was their superior, and as a
   master of his native German he had no equal in all Germany. Moreover,
   he turned his knowledge to the best advantage, and always seized the
   strong point in controversy. He studied with all his might and often
   neglected eating and sleeping.

   Luther opened his theological teaching with David and Paul, who became
   the pillars of his theology. The Psalms and the Epistles to the Romans
   and Galatians remained his favorite books. His academic labors as a
   commentator extended over thirty-three years, from 1513 to 1546, his
   labors as a reformer embraced only twenty-nine years, from 1517 to
   1546. Beginning with the Psalms, 1513, he ended with Genesis, November
   17th, 1545) three months before his death.

   His first lectures on the Psalms are still extant and have recently
   been published from the manuscript in Wolfenbüttel. [161] They are
   exegetically worthless, but theologically important as his first
   attempt to extract a deeper spiritual meaning from the Psalms. He took
   Jerome's Psalter as the textual basis; [162] the few Hebrew etymologies
   are all derived from Jerome, Augustin (who knew no Hebrew), and
   Reuchlin's Lexicon. He followed closely the mediaeval method of
   interpretation which distinguished four different senses, and neglected
   the grammatical and historical interpretation. Thus Jerusalem means
   literally or historically the city in Palestine, allegorically the
   good, tropologically virtue, anagogically reward; Babylon means
   literally the city or empire of Babylon, allegorically the evil,
   tropologically vice, anagogically punishment. Then again one word may
   have four bad and four good senses, according as it is understood
   literally or figuratively. [163] Sometimes he distinguished six senses.
   He emphasized the prophetic character of the Psalms, and found Christ
   and his work everywhere. [164] He had no sympathy with the method of
   Nicolaus Lyra to understand the Psalter from the times of the writer.
   Afterward he learned to appreciate him. [165] He followed Augustin, the
   Glossa ordinaria, and especially the Quincuplex Psalterium of Faber
   Stapulensis (Paris, 1508 and 1513). He far surpassed himself in his
   later comments on the Psalms. [166] It was only by degrees that he
   emancipated himself from the traditional exegesis, and approached the
   only sound and safe method of grammatico-historical interpretation of
   Scripture from the natural meaning of the words, the situation of the
   writer and the analogy of his teaching, viewed in the light of the
   Scriptures as a whole. He never gave up altogether the scholalistic and
   allegorizing method of utilizing exegesis for dogmatic and devotional
   purposes, but he assigned it a subordinate place. "Allegories," he
   said, "may be used to teach the ignorant common people, who need to
   have the same thing impressed in various forms." He measured the
   Scriptures by his favorite doctrine of justification by faith, and
   hence depreciated important books, especially the Epistle of James and
   the Apocalypse. But when his dogmatic conviction required it, he laid
   too much stress on the letter, as in the eucharistic controversy.

   From the Psalms he proceeded to the Epistles of Paul. Here be had an
   opportunity to expound his ideas of sin and grace, the difference
   between the letter and the spirit, between the law and the gospel, and
   to answer the great practical question, how a sinner may be justified
   before a holy God and obtain pardon and peace. He first lectured on
   Romans and explained the difference between the righteousness of faith
   and the righteousness of works. He never published a work on Romans
   except a preface which contains a masterly description of faith. His
   lectures on Galatians he began October 27th, 1516, and resumed them
   repeatedly. They appeared first in Latin, September, 1519, and in a
   revised edition, 1523, with a preface of Melanchthon. [167] They are
   the most popular and effective of his commentaries, and were often
   published in different languages. John Bunyan was greatly benefited by
   them. Their chief value is that they bring us into living contact with
   the central idea of the epistle, namely, evangelical freedom in Christ,
   which he reproduced and adapted in the very spirit of Paul. Luther
   always had a special preference for this anti-Judaic Epistle and called
   it his sweetheart or his wife. [168]

   These exegetical lectures made a deep impression. They were thoroughly
   evangelical, without being anti-catholic. They reached the heart and
   conscience as well as the head. They substituted a living theology
   clothed with flesh and blood for the skeleton theology of
   scholasticism. They were delivered with the energy of intense
   conviction and the freshness of personal experience. The genius of the
   lecturer flashed from his deep dark eyes which seem to have struck
   every observer. "This monk," said Dr. Pollich, "will revolutionize the
   whole scholastic teaching." Christopher Scheurl commended Luther to the
   friendship of Dr. Eck (his later opponent) in January, 1517, as "a
   divine who explained the epistles of the man of Tarsus with wonderful
   genius." Melanchthon afterward expressed a general judgment when he
   said that Christ and the Apostles were brought out again as from the
   darkness and filth of prison.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [154] "Wäre es nicht geschehen," says Luther, "so hatte ich nach meiner
   Verheirathung mir vorgenommen, für Honorar zu lesen. Aber da mir Gott
   zuvorkam, so habe ich mein Leben lang kein Exemplar [he means, of his
   writings] verkauft noch gelesen um Lohn, will auch den Ruhm, will's
   Gott, mit mir ins Grab nehmen." Jürgens, II., 248 sq.

   [155] Luther remembered the pear tree under which Staupitz overcame his
   objections to the labors and responsibilities of the doctorate. He
   thought himself unable to endure them with his frail body, but Staupitz
   replied playfully and in prophetic anticipation of the great work in
   store for him: "In Gottes Namen! Unser Herr Gott hat grosse Geschäfte;
   Er bedarf droben auch kluger Leute; wenn Ihr nun sterbet, so müsset Ihr
   dort sein Rathgeber sein."

   [156] See K. F. Th. Schneider, Luther's Promotion zum Doctor und
   Melanchthon's zum Baccalaureus der Theologie, Neuwied, 1860 (38 pp.).
   He gives Luther's Latin oration which he delivered in honor of theology
   on the text: "I will give you a mouth and wisdom" (Luke 21:15). The
   expenses of the promotion to the degree of the baccalaureate, Luther
   never paid. The records of the dean note this fact: "Adhuc non
   satisfecit facultati," and Luther afterward wrote on the margin: "Nec
   faciet, quia tunc pauper et sub obedientia nihil habuit." Schneider, p.
   6.

   [157] See his utterances on the importance of his doctorate in
   Mathesius (I. and XV.) and Jürgens (II., 405-408). Jürgens points out
   and explains (p. 424 sqq.) the inconsistency of Luther in his appeal to
   human authority and overestimate of the official title. Every step in
   his public career was accompanied by scruples of conscience which he
   had to solve the best way he could.

   [158] Köstlin says (Engl. transl. of the short biography, p. 65):
   "Obedience to the Pope was not required at Wittenberg, as it was at
   other universities." But it is implied in obedience to the Roman
   church. The university was chartered by the Emperor Maximilian, but the
   Elector had not neglected to secure the papal sanction. See Jürgens II.
   207.

   [159] This book, published at Pforzheim, 1506, at the author's expense,
   is the first Hebrew grammar written by a Christian, and broke the path
   for Hebrew learning in Germany. So far Reuchlin was right in calling it
   a monumentum aere perennius.

   [160] DeWette, I. 34: "Petimus a te, Graece, ut controversiam nostram
   dissolvas, quae sit distantia inter anathema per epsilon, et anathema
   per e ... Nescio figuras literarum pingere." In his Table Talk he says:
   "Ich kann weder griechisch noch hebräisch; ich will aber dennoch einem
   Griechen und Hebräer ziemlich begegnen." Comp. on his linguistic
   studies and accomplishments, Jürgens, I. 470 sqq.; II. 428 sqq.

   [161] He had the Latin text of the Psalms printed, and wrote between
   the lines and on the margin his notes in very small and almost
   illegible letters. Köstlin gives a facsimile page in Luther's Leben, p.
   72 (Engl. ed. p. 64). The whole was published with painstaking accuracy
   by Kawerau in the third volume of the Weimar ed. (1885).

   [162] The innumerable references to the Hebraeus are never intended for
   the original, but for Jerome's Psalterium juxta Hebraeos. Paul de
   Lagarde has published an edition, Lips., 1874.

   [163] Luther illustrates this double four-fold scheme of exegesis by
   the following table (Weimar ed. III. 11):
   Litera Occidens hystorice terra Canaan Mons Zion Allegorice Synagoga
   vel persona eminens in eadem tropologice Justitia phari- saica et
   legalis anagogice Gloria futura secundum carnem
   SpiritusVivificans de corpore hystorice populus in Zion exis- tens
   Babylonico Ecclesiastico Mons Zion Allegorice Ecclesia vel quilibit
   doctor Episcopus eminens Tropologice Justitia fidei vel alia excellen
   ... Anagogice gloria eterna in celis.
   Econtra Vallis Cedron per oppositum.

   [164] This fanciful allegorizing and spiritualizing method of
   interpreting the Psalms by which they are made to teach almost anything
   that is pious and edifying, is still popular even in some Protestant
   churches, especially the Church of England. Comp. e.g. Dr. Neale and
   Dr. Littledale's Commentary on the Psalms from primitive and mediaeval
   writers. London, fourth ed., 1884, 4 vols. The celebrated Baptist
   preacher, Spurgeon, has written a commentary on the Psalms, in seven
   volumes, which is likewise full of allegorizing interpretation, but
   mostly derived from older Protestant and Puritan sources.

   [165] Hence the saying: "Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset."

   [166] Ed. by Dr. Bertheau in the fourth vol. of the Weimar ed. (1886).

   [167] See the first ed. in the Weimar ed. of his works, vol. II.
   436-618. This commentary of 1519 must be distinguished from the larger
   work of 1535 which has the same title, but rests on different lectures.

   [168] In December, 1531: "Epistola ad Galatas ist meine Epistola, der
   ich mich vertraut habe, meine Kethe von Bora." Weimar ed. II. 437.
   Melanchthon called Luther's commentary the thread of Theseus in the
   labyrinth of N. T. exegesis.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 28. Luther and Mysticism. The Theologia Germanica.

   In 1516 Luther read the sermons of Tauler, the mystic revival preacher
   of Strassburg (who died in 1361), and discovered the remarkable book
   called "German Theology," which he ascribed to Tauler, but which is of
   a little later date from a priest and custos of the Deutsch-Herrn Haus
   of Frankfort, and a member of the association called "Friends of God."
   It resembles the famous work of Thomas a Kempis in exhibiting Christian
   piety as an humble imitation of the life of Christ on earth, but goes
   beyond it, almost to the very verge of pantheism, by teaching in the
   strongest terms the annihilation of self-will and the absorption of the
   soul in God. Without being polemical, it represents by its intense
   inwardness a striking contrast to the then prevailing practice of
   religion as a mechanical and monotonous round of outward acts and
   observances.

   Luther published a part of this book from an imperfect manuscript,
   December, 1516, and from a complete copy, in 1518, with a brief preface
   of his own. [169] He praises it as rich and overprecious in divine
   wisdom, though poor and unadorned in words and human wisdom. He places
   it next to the Bible and St. Augustin in its teaching about God,
   Christ, man, and all things, and says in conclusion that "the German
   divines are doubtless the best divines."

   There are various types of mysticism, orthodox and heretical,
   speculative and practical. [170] Luther came in contact with the
   practical and catholic type through Staupitz and the writings of St.
   Augustin, St. Bernard, and Tauler. It deepened and spiritualized his
   piety and left permanent traces on his theology. The Lutheran church,
   like the Catholic, always had room for mystic tendencies. But mysticism
   alone could not satisfy him, especially after the Reformation began in
   earnest. It was too passive and sentimental and shrunk from conflict.
   It was a theology of feeling rather than of action. Luther was a born
   fighter, and waxed stronger and stronger in battle. His theology is
   biblical, with such mystic elements as the Bible itself contains. [171]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [169] Both prefaces are printed in the Weimar ed. of his works I. 153
   and 378 sq. The book itself has gone through many editions; the best is
   by Franz Pfeiffer, Theologia deutsch, Stuttgart. 1851, third ed. 1855.
   There is a English translation by Susanna Winkworth, Theologia
   Germanica, with additions by Canon Kingsley and Chevalier Bunsen,
   (London, 1854, new ed. 1874; reprinted at Andover, 1846). Several
   characteristic mystic terms, as Entwerdung, Gelassenheit, Vergottung,
   are hardly translatable.

   [170] Ed. von Hartmann, the pessimist says (Die Philos. des
   Unbewussten, Berlin, 1869, p. 276): "Die Mystik ist eine
   Schlingpflanze, die an jedem Stabe emporwuchert und sich mit den
   extremsten Gegensätzen gleichgut abzufinden weiss."

   [171] See Hermann Hering, Die Mystik Luthers im Zusammenhange seiner
   Theologieund in ihrem Verh. zur älteren Mystik. Leipzig, 1879. He
   distinguishes three periods in Luther's relation to mysticism: (1)
   Romanisch-mystische Periode; (2) Germanisch-mystische Periode; (3)
   Conflict with the false mysticism of Münzer, Carlstadt, the Zwickau
   Prophets, and Schwenkfeldt.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 29. The Penitential Psalms. The Eve of the Reformation.

   The first original work which Luther published was a German exposition
   of the seven Penitential Psalms, 1517. [172] It was a fit introduction
   to the reformatory Theses which enjoin the true evangelical repentance.
   In this exposition he sets forth the doctrines of sin and grace and the
   comfort of the gospel for the understanding of the common people. It
   shows him first in the light of a popular author, and had a wide
   circulation.

   Luther was now approaching the prime of manhood. He was the shining
   light of the young university, and his fame began to spread through
   Germany. But he stood not alone. He had valuable friends and co-workers
   such as Dr. Wenzeslaus Link, the prior of the convent, and John Lange,
   who had a rare knowledge of Greek. Carlstadt also, his senior
   colleague, was at that time in full sympathy with him. Nicolaus von
   Amsdorf, of the same age with Luther, was one of his most faithful
   adherents, but more influential in the pulpit than in the chair.
   Christoph Scheurl, Professor of jurisprudence, was likewise intimate
   with Luther. Nor must we forget Georg Spalatin, who did not belong to
   the university, but had great influence upon it as chaplain and
   secretary of the Elector Frederick, and acted as friendly mediator
   between him and Luther. The most effective aid the Reformer received,
   in 1518, in the person of Melanchthon. [173]

   The working forces of the Reformation were thus fully prepared and
   ready for action. The scholastic philosophy and theology were
   undermined, and a biblical, evangelical theology ruled in Wittenberg.
   It was a significant coincidence, that the first edition of the Greek
   Testament was published by Erasmus in 1516, just a year before the
   Reformation. [174]

   Luther had as yet no idea of reforming the Catholic church, and still
   less of separating from it. All the roots of his life and piety were in
   the historic church, and he considered himself a good Catholic even in
   1517, and was so in fact. He still devoutly prayed to the Virgin Mary
   from the pulpit; he did not doubt the intercession of saints in heaven
   for the sinners on earth; he celebrated mass with full belief in the
   repetition of the sacrifice on the cross and the miracle of
   transubstantiation; he regarded the Hussites as "sinful heretics" for
   breaking away from the unity of the church and the papacy which offered
   a bulwark against sectarian division.

   But by the leading of Providence he became innocently and reluctantly a
   Reformer. A series of events carried him irresistibly from step to
   step, and forced him far beyond his original intentions. Had he
   foreseen the separation, he would have shrunk from it in horror. He was
   as much the child of his age as its father, and the times molded him
   before he molded the times. This is the case with all men of
   Providence: they are led by a divine hand while they are leading their
   fellow-men.

   NOTES.

   The works of Luther written before the 95 Theses (reprinted in the
   Weimar ed., I. 1-238, III., IV.) are as follows: Commentary on the
   Psalms; a number of sermons; Tractatus de his, qui ad ecclesias
   confugiunt (an investigation of the right of asylum; first printed
   1517, anonymously, then under Luther's name, 1520, at Landshut; but of
   doubtful genuineness); Sermo praescriptus praeposito in Litzka, 1512 (a
   Latin sermon prepared for his friend, the Provost Georg Mascov of
   Leitzkau in Brandenburg); several Latin Sermons from 1514-1517;
   Quaestio de viribus et voluntate hominis sine gratia disputata, 1516;
   Preface to his first edition of "German Theology," 1516; The seven
   Penitential Psalms, 1517; Disputatio contra scholasticam theologiam,
   1517. The last are 97 theses against the philosophy of Aristotle, of
   whom he said, that he would hold him to be a devil if he had not had
   flesh. These theses were published in September, 1517, and were
   followed in October by the 95 Theses against the traffic in
   Indulgences.

   The earliest letters of Luther, from April 22, 1507, to Oct. 31, 1517,
   are addressed to Braun (vicar at Eisenach), Spalatin (chaplain of the
   Elector Frederick), Lohr (prior of the Augustinian Convent at Erfurt),
   John Lange, Scheurl, and others. They are printed in Latin in Löscher's
   Reformations-Acta, vol. . 795-846; in De Wette's edition of Luther's
   Briefe, I. 1-64; German translation in Walch, vol. XXI. The last of
   these ante-Reformation letters is directed to Archbishop Albrecht of
   Mainz, and dated from the day of the publication of the Theses, Oct.
   31, 1517 (DeWette I. 67-70). The letters begin with the name of
   "Jesus."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [172] Weimar ed., vol. I. 154-220. A Latin copy had appeared already in
   1513 and is preserved in the library at Wolfenbüttel, from which Prof.
   E. Riehm of Halle published it: Initium theologiae Lutheri. S. exempla
   scholiorum quibus D. Lutherus Psalterium interpretari coepit. Part. I.
   Septem Psalms paenitentiales. Textum originalem nunc primum de Lutheri
   autographo exprimendum curavit. Halle, 1874. Luther's closing lectures
   of 1516 exist likewise in MS. at Dresden, from which they were
   published by J. C. Seidemann in: Doctoris M. Lutheri scholae ineditae
   de Psalmis annis 1513-1516. Dresden, 1876, in 2 vols.

   [173] On the early colleagues of Luther, see Jürgens, II. 217-235.

   [174] Luther made good use of it for his translation, but was not
   pleased with the writings of Erasmus. As early as March 1, 1517, he
   wrote to John Lange: "I now read our Erasmus, but he pleases me less
   every day. It is well enough that he should constantly and learnedly
   refute the monks and priests, and charge them with a deep-rooted and
   sleepy ignorance. But I fear he does not sufficiently promote Christ
   and the grace of God, of which he knows very little. He thinks more of
   the human than the divine .... Not every one who is a good Greek and
   Hebrew, is also for this reason a good Christian. The blessed Jerome
   with his five tongues did not equal the one-tongued Augustin, although
   Erasmus thinks differently."--Briefe, ed. De Wette, I. 52.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER III.

   THE GERMAN REFORMATION FROM THE PUBLICATION OF LUTHER'S THESES TO THE
   DIET OF WORMS, a.d. 1517-1521.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 30. The Sale of Indulgences.

   St. Peter's Dome is at once the glory and the shame of papal Rome. It
   was built over the bones of the Galilaean fisherman, with the proceeds
   from the sale of indulgences which broke up the unity of Western
   Christendom. The magnificent structure was begun in 1506 under Pope
   Julius II., and completed in 1626 at a cost of forty-six millions
   scudi, and is kept up at an annual expense of thirty thousand scudi
   (dollars). [175]

   Jesus began his public ministry with the expulsion of the profane
   traffickers from the court of the temple. The Reformation began with a
   protest against the traffic in indulgences which profaned and degraded
   the Christian religion.

   The difficult and complicated doctrine of indulgences is peculiar to
   the Roman Church. It was unknown to the Greek and Latin fathers. It was
   developed by the mediaeval schoolmen, and sanctioned by the Council of
   Trent (Dec. 4, 1563), yet without a definition and with an express
   warning against abuses and evil gains. [176]

   In the legal language of Rome, indulgentia is a term for amnesty or
   remission of punishment. In ecclesiastical Latin, an indulgence means
   the remission of the temporal (not the eternal) punishment of sin (not
   of sin itself), on condition of penitence and the payment of money to
   the church or to some charitable object. It maybe granted by a bishop
   or archbishop within his diocese, while the Pope has the power to grant
   it to all Catholics. The practice of indulgences grew out of a custom
   of the Northern and Western barbarians to substitute pecuniary
   compensation for punishment of an offense. The church favored this
   custom in order to avoid bloodshed, but did wrong in applying it to
   religious offenses. Who touches money touches dirt; and the less
   religion has to do with it, the better. The first instances of such
   pecuniary compensations occurred in England under Archbishop Theodore
   of Canterbury (d. 690). The practice rapidly spread on the Continent,
   and was used by the Popes during and after the crusades as a means of
   increasing their power. It was justified and reduced to a theory by the
   schoolmen, especially by Thomas Aquinas, in close connection with the
   doctrine of the sacrament of penance and priestly absolution. [177]

   The sacrament of penance includes three elements,--contrition of the
   heart, confession by the mouth (to the priest), and satisfaction by
   good works, such as prayer, fasting, almsgiving, pilgrimages, all of
   which are supposed to have an atoning efficacy. God forgives only the
   eternal punishment of sin, and he alone can do that; but the sinner has
   to bear the temporal punishments, either in this life or in purgatory;
   and these punishments are under the control of the church or the
   priesthood, especially the Pope as its legitimate head. There are also
   works of supererogation, performed by Christ and by the saints, with
   corresponding extra-merits and extra-rewards; and these constitute a
   rich treasury from which the Pope, as the treasurer, can dispense
   indulgences for money. This papal power of dispensation extends even to
   the departed souls in purgatory, whose sufferings may thereby be
   abridged. This is the scholastic doctrine.

   The granting of indulgences degenerated, after the time of the
   crusades, into a regular traffic, and became a source of ecclesiastical
   and monastic wealth. A good portion of the profits went into the papal
   treasury. Boniface VIII. issued the first Bull of the jubilee
   indulgence to all visitors of St. Peter's in Rome (1300). It was to be
   confined to Rome, and to be repeated only once in a hundred years, but
   it was afterwards extended and multiplied as to place and time.

   The idea of selling and buying by money the remission of punishment and
   release from purgatory was acceptable to ignorant and superstitious
   people, but revolting to sound moral feeling. It roused, long before
   Luther, the indignant protest of earnest minds, such as Wiclif in
   England, Hus in Bohemia, John von Wesel in Germany, John Wessel in
   Holland, Thomas Wyttenbach in Switzerland, but without much effect.

   The Lateran Council of 1517 allowed the Pope to collect one-tenth of
   all the ecclesiastical property of Christendom, ostensibly for a war
   against the Turks; but the measure was carried only by a small majority
   of two or three votes, and the minority objected that there was no
   immediate prospect of such a war. The extortions of the Roman curia
   became an intolerable burden to Christendom, and produced at last a
   successful protest which cost the papacy the loss of its fairest
   possessions.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [175] On St. Peter's church, see the archaeological and historical
   works on Rome, and especially Heinr. von Geymüller, Die Entwürfe für
   Sanct Peterin Rom, Wien (German and French); and Charles de Lorbac,
   Saint-Pierre de Rome, illustré de plus de 130 gravures sur bois, Rome,
   1879 (pp. 310).

   [176] The Council incidentally admits that these evil gains have been
   the most prolific source of abuses,--"unde plurima in Christiano populo
   abusuum causa fluxit,"--and hence it ordained that they are to be
   wholly abolished: "omnino abolendos esse."(Schaff, Creeds of
   Christendom, II. 205 sq.) A strong proof of the effect of the
   Reformation upon the Church of Rome.

   [177] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol., Pars III. Quaest. LXXXIV., De
   Sacramento Poenitentiae; and in the supplement to the Third Part,
   Quaest. XXV.-XXVIL, De Indulgentia. Comp. literature in vol. IV. 381.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 31. Luther and Tetzel.

   I. On the Indulgence controversy: Luther's Works, Walch's ed., XV.
   3-462; Weim. ed. I. 229-324. Löscher: Reformations-Acta. Leipzig, 1720.
   Vol. I. 355-539. J. Kapp: Schauplatz des Tetzelschen Ablass-krams.
   Leipzig, 1720. Jürgens: Luther, Bd. III. Kahnis: Die d. Ref., I. 18 1
   sqq. Köstlin I. 153 sqq. Kolde, I. 126 sqq. On the Roman-Catholic side,
   Janssen: Geschichte, etc., II. 64 sqq.; 77 sqq.; and An meine Kritiker,
   Freiburg-i.-B., 1883, pp. 66-81.--On the editions of the Theses,
   compare Knaake, in the Weimar ed. I. 229 sqq.

   Edw. Bratke: Luther's 95 Thesen und ihre dogmengesch. Voraussetzungen.
   Göttingen, 1884 (pp. 333). Gives an account of the scholastic doctrine
   of indulgences from Bonaventura and Thomas Aquinas down to Prierias and
   Cajetan, an exposition of Luther's Theses, and a list of books on the
   subject. A. W. Dieckhoff (of Rostock): Der Ablassstreit.
   Dogmengeschichtlich dargestellt. Gotha, 1886 (pp. 260).

   II. On Tetzel in particular: (1) Protestant biographies and tracts, all
   very unfavorable. (a) Older works by G. Hecht: Vita Joh. Tetzeli.
   Wittenberg, 1717. Jac. Vogel: Leben des päpstlichen Gnadenpredigers und
   Ablasskrämers Tetzel. Leipzig, 1717, 2d ed., 1727. (b) Modern works: F.
   G. Hofmann: Lebensbeschreibung des Ablasspredigers Tetzel. Leipzig,
   1844. Dr. Kayser: Geschichtsquellen über Den Ablasspred. Tetzel
   Kritisch Beleuchtet. Annaberg, 1877 (pp. 20). Dr. Ferd. Körner: Tetzel,
   der Ablassprediger, etc. Frankenberg-i.-S. 1880 (pp. 153; chiefly
   against Gröne). Compare also Bratke and Dieckhoff, quoted above.

   (2) Roman-Catholic vindications of Tetzel by Val. Gröne (Dr. Th.):
   Tetzel und Luther, oder Lebensgesch. und Rechtfertigung des
   Ablasspredigers und Inquisitors Dr. Joh. Tetzel aus dem Predigerorden.
   Soest und Olpe, 1853, 2d ed. 1860 (pp. 237). E. Kolbe: P. Joh. Tetzel.
   Ein Lebensbild dem kathol. Volke gewidmet. Steyl, 1882 (pp. 98, based
   on Gröne). K. W. Hermann: Joh. Tetzel, der päpstl. Ablassprediger.
   Frankf. -a.-M., 2te Aufl. 1883 (pp. 152). Janssen: An meine Kritiker,
   p. 73 sq. G. A. Meijer, Ord. Praed. (Dominican): Johann Tetzel,
   Aflaatprediker en inquisiteur. Eene geschiedkundige studie. Utrecht,
   1885 (pp. 150). A calm and moderate vindication of Tetzel, with the
   admission (p. 137) that the last word on the question has not yet been
   spoken, and that we must wait for the completion of the Regesta of Leo
   X. and other authentic publications now issuing from the Vatican
   archives by direction of Leo XIII. But the main facts are well
   established.

   The rebuilding of St. Peter's Church in Rome furnished an occasion for
   the periodical exercise of the papal power of granting indulgences.
   Julius II. and Leo X., two of the most worldly, avaricious, and
   extravagant Popes, had no scruple to raise funds for that object, and
   incidentally for their own aggrandizement, from the traffic in
   indulgences. Both issued several bulls to that effect. [178]

   Spain, England, and France ignored or resisted these bulls for
   financial reasons, refusing to be taxed for the benefit of Rome. But
   Germany, under the weak rule of Maximilian, yielded to the papal
   domination.

   Leo divided Germany into three districts, and committed in 1515 the
   sale for one district to Albrecht, Archbishop of Mainz and Magdeburg,
   and brother of the Elector of Brandenburg. [179]

   This prelate (born June 28, 1490, died Sept. 24, 1545), though at that
   time only twenty-five years of age, stood at the head of the German
   clergy, and was chancellor of the German Empire. He received also the
   cardinal's hat in 1518. He was, like his Roman master, a friend of
   liberal learning and courtly splendor, worldly-minded, and ill fitted
   for the care of souls. He had the ambition to be the Maecenas of
   Germany. He was himself destitute of theological education, but called
   scholars, artists, poets, free-thinkers, to his court, and honored
   Erasmus and Ulrich von Hutten with presents and pensions. "He had a
   passionate love for music," says an Ultramontane historian, "and
   imported musicians from Italy to give luster to his feasts, in which
   ladies often participated. Finely wrought carpets, splendid mirrors
   adorned his halls and chambers; costly dishes and wines covered his
   table. He appeared in public with great pomp; he kept a body-guard of
   one hundred and fifty armed knights; numerous courtiers in splendid
   attire followed him when he rode out; he was surrounded by pages who
   were to learn in his presence the refinement of cavaliers." The same
   Roman-Catholic historian censures the extravagant court of Pope Leo X.,
   which set the example for the secularization and luxury of the prelates
   in Germany. [180]

   Albrecht was largely indebted to the rich banking-house of Fugger in
   Augsburg, from whom he had borrowed thirty thousand florins in gold to
   pay for the papal pallium. By an agreement with the Pope, he had
   permission to keep half of the proceeds arising from the sale of
   indulgences. The agents of that commercial house stood behind the
   preachers of indulgence, and collected their share for the repayment of
   the loan.

   The Archbishop appointed Johann Tetzel (Diez) of the Dominican order,
   his commissioner, who again employed his sub-agents.

   Tetzel was born between 1450 and 1460, at Leipzig, and began his career
   as a preacher of indulgences in 1501. He became famous as a popular
   orator and successful hawker of indulgences. He was prior of a
   Dominican convent, doctor of philosophy, and papal inquisitor
   (haereticae pravitatis inquisitor). At the end of 1517 he acquired in
   the University of Frankfurt-on-the-Oder the degree of Licentiate of
   Theology, and in January, 1518, the degree of Doctor of Theology, by
   defending, in two disputations, the doctrine of indulgences against
   Luther. [181] He died at Leipzig during the public debate between Eck
   and Luther, July, 1519. He is represented by Protestant writers as an
   ignorant, noisy, impudent, and immoral charlatan, who was not ashamed
   to boast that he saved more souls from purgatory by his letters of
   indulgence than St. Peter by his preaching. [182] On the other hand,
   Roman Catholic historians defend him as a learned and zealous servant
   of the church. He has only an incidental notoriety, and our estimate of
   his character need not affect our views on the merits of the
   Reformation. We must judge him from his published sermons and
   anti-theses against Luther. They teach neither more nor less than the
   usual scholastic doctrine of indulgences based on an extravagant theory
   of papal authority. He does not ignore, as is often asserted, the
   necessity of repentance as a condition of absolution. [183] But he
   probably did not emphasize it in practice, and gave rise by unguarded
   expressions to damaging stories. His private character was certainly
   tainted, if we are to credit such a witness as the papal nuncio, Carl
   von Miltitz, who had the best means of information, and charged him
   with avarice, dishonesty, and sexual immorality. [184]

   Tetzel traveled with great pomp and circumstance through Germany, and
   recommended with unscrupulous effrontery and declamatory eloquence the
   indulgences of the Pope to the large crowds who gathered from every
   quarter around him. He was received like a messenger from heaven.
   Priests, monks, and magistrates, men and women, old and young, marched
   in solemn procession with songs, flags, and candles, under the ringing
   of bells, to meet him and his fellow-monks, and followed them to the
   church; the papal Bull on a velvet cushion was placed on the high
   altar, a red cross with a silken banner bearing the papal arms was
   erected before it, and a large iron chest was put beneath the cross for
   the indulgence money. Such chests are still preserved in many places.
   The preachers, by daily sermons, hymns, and processions, urged the
   people, with extravagant laudations of the Pope's Bull, to purchase
   letters of indulgence for their own benefit, and at the same time
   played upon their sympathies for departed relatives and friends whom
   they might release from their sufferings in purgatory "as soon as the
   penny tinkles in the box." [185]

   The common people eagerly embraced this rare offer of salvation from
   punishment, and made no clear distinction between the guilt and
   punishment of sin; after the sermon they approached with burning
   candles the chest, confessed their sins, paid the money, and received
   the letter of indulgence which they cherished as a passport to heaven.
   But intelligent and pious men were shocked at such scandal. The
   question was asked, whether God loved money more than justice, and why
   the Pope, with his command over the boundless treasury of extra-merits,
   did not at once empty the whole purgatory for the rebuilding of St.
   Peter's, or build it with his own money.

   Tetzel approached the dominions of the Elector of Saxony, who was
   himself a devout worshiper of relics, and had great confidence in
   indulgences, but would not let him enter his territory from fear that
   he might take too much money from his subjects. So Tetzel set up his
   trade on the border of Saxony, at Jüterbog, a few hours from
   Wittenberg. [186]

   There he provoked the protest of the Reformer, who had already in the
   summer of 1516 preached a sermon of warning against trust in
   indulgences, and had incurred the Elector's displeasure by his aversion
   to the whole system, although he himself had doubts about some
   important questions connected with it.

   Luther had experienced the remission of sin as a free gift of grace to
   be apprehended by a living faith. This experience was diametrically
   opposed to a system of relief by means of payments in money. It was an
   irrepressible conflict of principle. He could not be silent when that
   barter was carried to the very threshold of his sphere of labor. As a
   preacher, a pastor, and a professor, he felt it to be his duty to
   protest against such measures: to be silent was to betray his theology
   and his conscience.

   The jealousy between the Augustinian order to which he belonged, and
   the Dominican order to which Tetzel belonged, may have exerted some
   influence, but it was certainly very subordinate. A laboring mountain
   may produce a ridiculous mouse, but no mouse can give birth to a
   mountain. The controversy with Tetzel (who is not even mentioned in
   Luther's Theses) was merely the occasion, but not the cause, of the
   Reformation: it was the spark which exploded the mine. The Reformation
   would have come to pass sooner or later, if no Tetzel had ever lived;
   and it actually did break out in different countries without any
   connection with the trade in indulgences, except in German Switzerland,
   where Bernhardin Samson acted the part of Tetzel, but after Zwingli had
   already begun his reforms.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [178] See the papal documents in Pallavicini, in Löscher (I. 369-383),
   and Walch, L.'s Werke, XV. 313 sqq. Compare Gieseler, IV. 21 sq. (New
   York ed.); Hergenröther's Regesta Leonis X. (1884 sqq.).

   [179] J. May: Der Kurfürst Albrecht. II. von Mainz, München, 1875, 2
   vols.

   [180] Janssen, II. 60, 64: "Das Hofwesen so mancher geistlichen Fürsten
   Deutschlands, insbesondere das des Erzbischofs Albrecht von Mainz,
   stand in schreiendem Widerspruch mit dem eines kirchlichen
   Würdeträgers, aber der Hof Leo's X., mit seinem Aufwand für Spiel und
   Theater und allerlei weltliche Feste entsprach noch weniger der
   Bestimmung eines Oberhauptes der Kirche. Der Verweltlichung und
   Ueppigkeit geistlicher Fürstenhöfe in Deutschland ging die des
   römischen Hofes voraus, und erstere wäre ohne diese kaum möglich
   gewesen." He quotes (II. 76) Emser and Cardinal Sadolet against the
   abuses of indulgences in the reign of Leo X. Cardinal Hergenröther, in
   the dedicatory preface to the Regesta Leonis X. (Fasc. I. p. ix), while
   defending this Pope against the charge of religious indifference,
   censures the accumulation of ecclesiastical benefices by the same
   persons, as Albrecht, and the many abuses resulting therefrom.

   [181] Löscher (I. 505-523) gives both dissertations, the first
   consisting of 106, the second of 50 theses, and calls them "Proben von
   den stinkenden Schäden des Papstthutms." He ascribes, however, the
   authorship to Conrad Wimpina, professor of theology at
   Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, who afterwards published them as his own,
   without mentioning Tetzel, in his Anacephalaiosis Sectarum errorum,
   etc., 1528 (Löscher, I. 506, II. 7). Gieseler, Köstlin, and Knaake are
   of the same opinion. Gröne and Hergenröther assign them to Tetzel.

   [182] Mathesius, Myconius, and Luther (Wider Hans Wurst, 1541, in the
   Erl. ed. XXVI. 51) ascribe to him also the blasphemous boast that he
   had the power by letters of indulgence to forgive even a carnal sin
   against the Mother of God ("wenn einer gleich die heil. Jungfrau Maria,
   Gottes Mutter, hätte geschächt und geschwängert"). Luther alludes to
   such a monstrous saying in Thes. 75, and calls it insane. But Tetzel
   denied, and disproved the charge as a slander, in his Disp. I. 99-101
   ("Subcommissariis ac praedicatoribus veniarum Imponere, ut si quis per
   impossibile Dei genetricem semper virginein violasset ... Odio Agitari
   Ac Fratrum Suorum Sanguinem Sitire"), and in his letter to Miltitz,
   Jan. 31, 1518. See Köstlin, I. 160 and 785, versus Körner and Kahnis.
   Kayser also (l.c. p. 15) gives it up, although he comes to the
   conclusion that Tetzel was "ein unverschämter und sittenloser
   Ablassprediger" (p. 20).

   [183] In Theses 55 and 56 of his first Disputation (1517), he says that
   the soul, after it is purified (anima purgata, ist eine Seele
   gereinigt), flies from purgatory to the vision of God without
   hinderance, and that it is an error to suppose that this cannot be done
   before the payment of money into the indulgence box. See the Latin text
   in Löscher, I. 509.

   [184] "Auch hatte er zwei Kinder." The letter of Miltitz is printed in
   Löscher, III. 20; in Walch, XV. 862; and in Kayser, l.c. 4 and 5.
   Tetzel's champions try to invalidate the testimony of the papal
   delegate by charging him with intemperance. But drunkards, like
   children and fools, usually tell the truth; and when he wrote that
   letter, he was sober. Besides, we have the independent testimony of
   Luther, who says in his book against Duke Henry of Brunswick (Wider
   Hans Wurst, p. 50), that in 1517 Tetzel was condemned by the Emperor
   Maximilian to be drowned in the Inn at Innsbruck ("for his great
   virtue's sake, you may well believe"), but saved by the Duke Frederick,
   and reminded of it afterwards in the Theses-controversy, and that he
   confessed the fact.

   [185] Sobald der Pfennig im Kasten klingt, Die Seel' aus dem Fegfeuer
   springt." Mathesius and Johann Hess, two contemporary witnesses,
   ascribe this sentence (with slight verbal modifications) to Tetzel
   himself. Luther mentions it in Theses 27 and 28, and in his book Wider
   Hans Wurst (Erl. ed. xxvi. 51).

   [186] Jüterbog is now a Prussian town of about seven thousand
   inhabitants, on the railroad between Berlin and Wittenberg. In the
   Nicolai church, Tetzel's chest of indulgences is preserved.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 32. The Ninety-five Theses. Oct. 31, 1517.

   Lit. in § 31.

   After serious deliberation, without consulting any of his colleagues or
   friends, but following an irresistible impulse, Luther resolved upon a
   public act of unforeseen consequences. It may be compared to the stroke
   of the axe with which St. Boniface, seven hundred years before, had cut
   down the sacred oak, and decided the downfall of German heathenism. He
   wished to elicit the truth about the burning question of indulgences,
   which he himself professed not fully to understand at the time, and
   which yet was closely connected with the peace of conscience and
   eternal salvation. He chose the orderly and usual way of a learned
   academic disputation.

   Accordingly, on the memorable thirty-first day of October, 1517, which
   has ever since been celebrated in Protestant Germany as the birthday of
   the Reformation, at twelve o'clock he affixed (either himself or
   through another) to the doors of the castle-church at Wittenberg,
   ninety-five Latin Theses on the subject of indulgences, and invited a
   public discussion. At the same time he sent notice of the fact to
   Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, and to Bishop Hieronymus Scultetus, to
   whose diocese Wittenberg belonged. He chose the eve of All Saints' Day
   (Nov. 1), because this was one of the most frequented feasts, and
   attracted professors, students, and people from all directions to the
   church, which was filled with precious relics. [187]

   No one accepted the challenge, and no discussion took place. The
   professors and students of Wittenberg were of one mind on the subject.
   But history itself undertook the disputation and defence. The Theses
   were copied, translated, printed, and spread as on angels' wings
   throughout Germany and Europe in a few weeks. [188]

   The rapid circulation of the Reformation literature was promoted by the
   perfect freedom of the press. There was, as yet, no censorship, no
   copyright, no ordinary book-trade in the modern sense, and no
   newspapers; but colportors, students, and friends carried the books and
   tracts from house to house. The mass of the people could not read, but
   they listened attentively to readers. The questions of the Reformation
   were eminently practical, and interested all classes; and Luther
   handled the highest themes in the most popular style.

   The Theses bear the title, "Disputation to explain the Virtue of
   Indulgences." They sound very strange to a modern ear, and are more
   Catholic than Protestant. They are no protest against the Pope and the
   Roman Church, or any of her doctrines, not even against indulgences,
   but only against their abuse. They expressly condemn those who speak
   against indulgences (Th. 71), and assume that the Pope himself would
   rather see St. Peter's Church in ashes than have it built with the
   flesh and blood of his sheep (Th. 50). They imply belief in purgatory.
   They nowhere mention Tetzel. They are silent about faith and
   justification, which already formed the marrow of Luther's theology and
   piety. He wished to be moderate, and had not the most distant idea of a
   separation from the mother church. When the Theses were republished in
   his collected works (1545), he wrote in the preface: "I allow them to
   stand, that by them it may appear how weak I was, and in what a
   fluctuating state of mind, when I began this business. I was then a
   monk and a mad papist (papista insanissimus), and so submersed in the
   dogmas of the Pope that I would have readily murdered any person who
   denied obedience to the Pope."

   But after all, they contain the living germs of a new theology. The
   form only is Romish, the spirit and aim are Protestant. We must read
   between the lines, and supply the negations of the Theses by the
   affirmations from his preceding and succeeding books, especially his
   Resolutiones, in which he answers objections, and has much to say about
   faith and justification. The Theses represent a state of transition
   from twilight to daylight. They reveal the mighty working of an earnest
   mind and conscience intensely occupied with the problem of sin,
   repentance, and forgiveness, and struggling for emancipation from the
   fetters of tradition. They might more properly be called "a disputation
   to diminish the virtue of papal indulgences, and to magnify the full
   and free grace of the gospel of Christ." They bring the personal
   experience of justification by faith, and direct intercourse with
   Christ and the gospel, in opposition to an external system of churchly
   and priestly mediation and human merit. The papal opponents felt the
   logical drift of the Theses much better than Luther, and saw in them an
   attempt to undermine the whole fabric of popery. . The irresistible
   progress of the Reformation soon swept the indulgences away as an
   unscriptural, mediaeval tradition of men. [189]

   The first Thesis strikes the keynote: "Our Lord and Master when he
   says, 'Repent,' [190] desires that the whole life of believers should
   be a repentance." [191] The corresponding Greek noun means change of
   mind (metavnoia), and implies both a turning away from sin in sincere
   sorrow and grief, and a turning to God in hearty faith. Luther
   distinguishes, in the second Thesis, true repentance from the
   sacramental penance (i.e., the confession and satisfaction required by
   the priest), and understands it to be an internal state and exercise of
   the mind rather than isolated external acts; although he expressly
   affirms, in the third Thesis, that it must manifest itself in various
   mortifications of the flesh. Repentance is a continual conflict of the
   believing spirit with the sinful flesh, a daily renewal of the heart.
   As long as sin lasts, there is need of repentance. The Pope can not
   remit any sin except by declaring the remission of God; and he can not
   remit punishments except those which he or the canons impose (Thes.5
   and 6). Forgiveness presupposes true repentance, and can only be found
   in the merits of Christ. Here comes in the other fundamental Thesis
   (62): The true treasury of the church is the holy gospel of the glory
   and the grace of God." This sets aside the mediaeval notion about the
   overflowing treasury of extra-merits and rewards at the disposal of the
   Pope for the benefit of the living and the dead.

   We have thus set before us in this manifesto, on the one hand, human
   depravity which requires lifelong repentance, and on the other the full
   and free grace of God in Christ, which can only be appropriated by a
   living faith. This is, in substance, the evangelical doctrine of
   justification by faith (although not expressed in terms), and virtually
   destroys the whole scholastic theory and practice of indulgences. By
   attacking the abuses of indulgences, Luther unwittingly cut a vein of
   mediaeval Catholicism; and by a deeper conception of repentance which
   implies faith, and by referring the sinner to the grace of Christ as
   the true and only source of remission, he proclaimed the undeveloped
   principles of evangelical Protestantism, and kindled a flame which soon
   extended far beyond his original intentions.

   NOTES.

   THE NINETY-FIVE THESES.

   DISPUTATION OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER CONCERNING PENITENCE AND INDULGENCES.

   In the desire and with the purpose of elucidating the truth, a
   disputation will be held on the underwritten propositions at
   Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther,
   Monk of the Order of St. Augustin, Master of Arts and of Sacred
   Theology, and ordinary Reader of the same in that place. [192] He
   therefore asks those who cannot be present, and discuss the subject
   with us orally, to do so by letter in their absence. In the name of our
   Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

   1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ in saying: "Repent ye" [lit.: Do
   penance, poenitentiam agite], etc., intended that the whole life of
   believers should be penitence [poenitentiam]. [193]

   2. This word poenitentia cannot be understood of sacramental penance,
   that is, of the confession and satisfaction which are performed under
   the ministry of priests.

   3. It does not, however, refer solely to inward penitence; nay, such
   inward penitence is naught, unless it outwardly produces various
   mortifications of the flesh [varias carnis mortificationes].

   4. The penalty [poena] thus continues as long as the hatred of
   self--that is, true inward penitence [poenitentia vera
   intus]--continues; namely, till our entrance into the kingdom of
   heaven.

   5. The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties,
   except those which he has imposed by his own authority, or by that of
   the canons. [194]

   6. The Pope has no power to remit any guilt, except by declaring and
   warranting it to have been remitted by God; or at most by remitting
   cases reserved for himself: in which cases, if his power were despised,
   guilt would certainly remain.

   7. God never remits any man's guilt, without at the same time
   subjecting him, humbled in all things, to the authority of his
   representative the priest [sacernoti suo vicario].

   8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and no burden
   ought to be imposed on the dying, according to them.

   9. Hence the Holy Spirit acting in the Pope does well for us in that,
   in his decrees, he always makes exception of the article of death and
   of necessity.

   10. Those priests act unlearnedly and wrongly, who, in the case of the
   dying, reserve the canonical penances for purgatory.

   11. Those tares about changing of the canonical penalty into the
   penalty of purgatory seem surely to have been sown while the bishops
   were asleep.

   12. Formerly the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before
   absolution, as tests of true contrition.

   13. The dying pay all penalties by death, and are already dead to the
   Canon laws, and are by right relieved from them.

   14. The imperfect soundness or charity of a dying person necessarily
   brings with it great fear, and the less it is, the greater the fear it
   brings.

   15. This fear and horror is sufficient by itself, to say nothing of
   other things, to constitute the pains of purgatory, since it is very
   near to the horror of despair.

   16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven appear to differ as despair, almost
   despair, and peace of mind [securitas] differ.

   17. With souls in purgatory it seems that it must needs be that, as
   horror diminishes, so charity increases.

   18. Nor does it seem to be proved by any reasoning or any scriptures,
   that they are outside of the state of merit or the increase of charity.

   19. Nor does this appear to be proved, that they are sure and confident
   of their own blessedness, at least all of them, though we may be very
   sure of it.

   20. Therefore the Pope, when he speaks of the plenary remission of all
   penalties, does not mean simply of all, but only of those imposed by
   himself.

   21. Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say that, by
   the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and saved from all
   punishment.

   22. For, in fact, he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which they
   would have had to pay in this life according to the canons.

   23. If any entire remission of all the penalties can be granted to any
   one, it is certain that it is granted to none but the most perfect,
   that is, to very few.

   24. Hence the greater part of the people must needs be deceived by this
   indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalties.

   25. Such power as the Pope has over purgatory in general, such has
   every bishop in his own diocese, and every curate in his own parish, in
   particular.

   26. [In the Latin text, I.] The Pope acts most rightly in granting
   remission to souls, not by the power of the keys (which is of no avail
   in this case), but by the way of suffrage [per modum suffragii].

   27. They preach man, who say that the soul flies out of purgatory as
   soon as the money thrown into the chest rattles [ut jactus nummus in
   cistam tinnierit].

   28. It is certain, that, when the money rattles in the chest, avarice
   and gain may be increased, but the suffrage of the Church depends on
   the will of God alone.

   29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory desire to be redeemed
   from it, according to the story told of Saints Severinus and Paschal?
   [195]

   30. No man is sure of the reality of his own contrition, much less of
   the attainment of plenary remission.

   31. Rare as is a true penitent, so rare is one who truly buys
   indulgences--that is to say, most rare.

   32. Those who believe that, through letters of pardon, they are made
   sure of their own salvation, will be eternally damned along with their
   teachers.

   33. We must especially beware of those who say that these pardons from
   the Pope are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to
   God.

   34. For the grace conveyed by these pardons has respect only to the
   penalties of sacramental satisfaction, which are of human appointment.

   35. They preach no Christian doctrine, who teach that contrition is not
   necessary for those who buy souls out of purgatory, or buy confessional
   licenses.

   36. Every Christian who feels true compunction has of right plenary
   remission of pain and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

   37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has a share in all
   the benefits of Christ and of the Church, given him by God, even
   without letters of pardon.

   38. The remission, however, imparted by the Pope, is by no means to be
   despised, since it is, as I have said, a declaration of the Divine
   remission.

   39. It is a most difficult thing, even for the most learned
   theologians, to exalt at the same time in the eyes of the people the
   ample effect of pardons, and the necessity of true contrition.

   40. True contrition seeks and loves punishment; while the ampleness of
   pardons relaxes it, and causes men to hate it, or at least gives
   occasion for them to do so.

   41. Apostolical pardons ought to be proclaimed with caution, lest the
   people should falsely suppose that they are placed before other good
   works of charity.

   42. Christians should be taught that it is not the mind of the Pope,
   that the buying of pardons is to be in any way compared to works of
   mercy.

   43. Christians should be taught, that he who gives to a poor man, or
   lends to a needy man, does better than if he bought pardons.

   44. Because, by a work of charity, charity increases, and the man
   becomes better; while, by means of pardons, he does not become better,
   but only freer from punishment.

   45. Christians should be taught that he who sees any one in need, and,
   passing him by, gives money for pardons, is not purchasing for himself
   the indulgence of the Pope, but the anger of God.

   46. Christians should be taught, that, unless they have superfluous
   wealth, they are bound to keep what is necessary for the use of their
   own households, and by no means to lavish it on pardons.

   47. Christians should be taught, that, while they are free to buy
   pardons, they are not commanded to do so.

   48. Christians should be taught that the Pope, in granting pardons, has
   both more need and more desire that devout prayer should be made for
   him, than that money should be readily paid.

   49. Christians should be taught that the Pope's pardons are useful if
   they do not put their trust in them, but most hurtful if through them
   they lose the fear of God.

   50. [Lat. text XXV.] Christians should be taught, that, if the Pope
   were acquainted with the exactions of the preachers of pardons, he
   would prefer that the Basilica of St. Peter should be burnt to ashes,
   than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh, and bones of his
   sheep.

   51. [I.] Christians should be taught, that as it would be the wish of
   the Pope, even to sell, if necessary, the Basilica of St. Peter, and to
   give of his own to very many of those from whom the preachers of
   pardons extract money.

   52. Vain is the hope of salvation through letters of pardon, even if a
   commissary--nay, the Pope himself--were to pledge his own soul for
   them.

   53. They are enemies of Christ and of the Pope, who, in order that
   pardons may be preached, condemn the word of God to utter silence in
   other churches.

   54. Wrong is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal
   or longer time is spent on pardons than on the words of the gospel
   [verbis evangelicis].

   55. The mind of the Pope necessarily is that if pardons, which are a
   very small matter [quod minimum est], are celebrated with single bells,
   single processions, and single ceremonies, the gospel, which is a very
   great matter [quod maximum est], should be preached with a hundred
   ceremonies.

   56. The treasures of the Church, whence the Pope grants indulgences,
   are neither sufficiently named nor known among the people of Christ.
   [196]

   57. It is clear that they are at least not temporal treasures; for
   these are not so readily lavished, but only accumulated, by many of the
   preachers.

   58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and of the saints; for these,
   independently of the Pope, are always working grace to the inner man,
   and the cross, death, and hell to the outer man.

   59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church are the poor of
   the Church, but he spoke according to the use of the word in his time.

   60. We are not speaking rashly when we say that the keys of the Church,
   bestowed through the merits of Christ, are that treasure.

   61. For it is clear that the power of the Pope is alone sufficient for
   the remission of penalties and of reserved cases.

   62. The true treasure of the Church is the holy gospel of the glory and
   the grace of God [Verus thesaurus ecclesiae est sacrosanctum Evangelium
   gloriae et gratiae Dei].

   63. This treasure, however, is deservedly most hateful [merito
   odiosissimus; der allerfeindseligste und verhassteste], because it
   makes the first to be last.

   64. While the treasure of indulgences is deservedly most acceptable,
   because it makes the last to be first.

   65. Hence the treasures of the gospel are nets, wherewith of old they
   fished for the men of riches.

   66. The treasures of indulgences are nets, wherewith they now fish for
   the riches of men.

   67. Those indulgences, which the preachers loudly proclaim to be the
   greatest graces, are seen to be truly such as regards the promotion of
   gain [denn es grossen Gewinnst und Geniess trägt].

   68. Yet they are in reality the smallest graces when compared with the
   grace of God and the piety of the cross.

   69. Bishops and curates are bound to receive the commissaries of
   apostolical pardons with all reverence.

   70. But they are still more bound to see to it with all their eyes, and
   take heed with all their ears, that these men do not preach their own
   dreams in place of the Pope's commission.

   71. He who speaks against the truth of apostolical pardons, let him be
   the anathema and accursed (sit anathema et maledictus; der sei ein
   Fluch und vermaladeiet].

   72. But he, on the other hand, who exerts himself against the
   wantonness and license of speech of the preachers of pardons, let him
   be blessed.

   73. As the Pope justly thunders [Lat., fulminat; G. trs., mit Ungnade
   und dem Bann schlägt] against those who use any kind of contrivance to
   the injury of the traffic in pardons;

   74. Much more is it his intention to thunder against those who, under
   the pretext of pardons, use contrivances to the injury of holy charity
   and of truth.

   75. [XXV.] To think that papal pardons have such power that they could
   absolve a man even if--by an impossibility--he had violated the Mother
   of God, is madness.

   76. [I.] We affirm, on the contrary, that papal pardons [veniae
   papales] can not take away even the least venial sins, as regards the
   guilt [quoad culpam].

   77. The saying that, even if St. Peter were now Pope, he could grant no
   greater graces, is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope.

   78. We affirm, on the contrary, that both he and any other Pope has
   greater graces to grant; namely, the gospel, powers, gifts of healing,
   etc. (1 Cor. xii. 9).

   69. To say that the cross set up among the insignia of the papal arms
   is of equal power with the cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

   80. Those bishops, curates, and theologians who allow such discourses
   to have currency among the people, will have to render an account.

   81. This license in the preaching of pardons makes it no easy thing,
   even for learned men, to protect the reverence due to the Pope against
   the calumnies, or, at all events, the keen questionings, of the laity;

   82. As, for instance: Why does not the Pope empty purgatory for the
   sake of most holy charity and of the supreme necessity of souls,--this
   being the most just of all reasons,--if he redeems an infinite number
   of souls for the sake of that most fatal thing, money, to be spent on
   building a basilica--this being a slight reason?

   83. Again: Why do funeral masses and anniversary masses for deceased
   continue, and why does not the Pope return, or permit the withdrawal
   of, the funds bequeathed for this purpose, since it is a wrong to pray
   for those who are already redeemed?

   84. Again: What is this new kindness of God and the Pope, in that, for
   money's sake, they permit an impious man and an enemy of God to redeem
   a pious soul which loves God, and yet do not redeem that same pious and
   beloved soul, out of free charity, on account of its own need?

   85. Again: Why is it that the penitential canons, long since abrogated
   and dead in themselves in very fact, and not only by usage, are yet
   still redeemed with money, through the granting of indulgences, as if
   they were full of life?

   86. Again: Why does not the Pope, whose riches are at this day more
   ample than those of the wealthiest of the wealthy, build the one
   Basilica of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with that of poor
   believers?

   87. Again: Why does the Pope remit or impart to those who, through
   perfect contrition, have a right to plenary remission and
   participation?

   88. Again: What greater good would the Church receive if the Pope,
   instead of once as he does now, were to bestow these remissions and
   participations a hundred times a day on any one of the faithful?

   89. Since it is the salvation of souls, rather than money, that the
   Pope seeks by his pardons, why does he annul the letters and pardons
   granted long ago, since they are equally efficacious?

   90. To repress these scruples and arguments of the laity by force
   alone, and not to solve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church
   and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian
   men unhappy.

   91. If, then, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of
   the Pope, all these questions would be resolved with ease; nay, would
   not exist.

   92. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ,
   "Peace, peace," and there is no peace.

   93. Blessed be all those prophets, who say to the people of Christ,
   "The cross, the cross," and there is no cross.

   94. Christians should be exhorted to strive to follow Christ their head
   through pains, deaths, and hells;

   95. [Lat. Text, XX.] And thus trust to enter heaven through many
   tribulations, rather than in the security of peace [per securitatem
   pacis].

   PROTESTATION.

   I, Martin Luther, Doctor, of the Order of Monks at Wittenberg, desire
   to testify publicly that certain propositions against pontifical
   indulgences, as they call them, have been put forth by me. Now
   although, up to the present time, neither this most celebrated and
   renowned school of ours nor any civil or ecclesiastical power has
   condemned me, yet there are, as I hear, some men of headlong and
   audacious spirit, who dare to pronounce me a heretic, as though the
   matter had been thoroughly looked into and studied. But on my part, as
   I have often done before, so now too I implore all men, by the faith of
   Christ, either to point out to me a better way, if such a way has been
   divinely revealed to any, or at least to submit their opinion to the
   judgment of God and of the Church. For I am neither so rash as to wish
   that my sole opinion should be preferred to that of all other men, nor
   so senseless as to be willing that the word of God should be made to
   give place to fables devised by human reason.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [187] The wooden doors of the Schlosskirche were burnt in 1760, and
   replaced in 1858 by metal doors, bearing, the original Latin text of
   the Theses. The new doors are the gift of King Frederick William IV.,
   who fully sympathized with the evangelical Reformation. Above the
   doors, on a golden ground, is the Crucified, with Luther and
   Melanchthon at his feet, the work of Professor von Klöber. In the
   interior of the church are the graves of Luther and Melanchthon, and of
   the Electors Frederick the Wise and John the Constant. The
   Schlosskirche was in a very dilapidated condition, and undergoing
   thorough repair, when I last visited it in July, 1886. It must not be
   confounded with the Stadtkirche of Wittenberg, where Luther preached so
   often, and where, in 1522, the communion was, for the first time,
   administered in both kinds.

   [188] Knaake (Weim. ed. I. 230) conjectures that the Theses, as
   affixed, were written either by Luther himself or some other hand, and
   that he had soon afterwards a few copies printed for his own use (for
   Agricola, who was in Wittenberg at that time, speaks of a copy printed
   on a half-sheet of paper): but that irresponsible publishers soon
   seized and multiplied them against his will. Jürgens says (III. 480)
   that two editions were printed in Wittenberg in 1517, on four quarto
   leaves, and that the Berlin Library possesses two copies of the second
   edition. The Theses were written on two columns, in four divisions; the
   first three divisions consisted of twenty-five theses each, the fourth
   of twenty. The German translation is from Justus Jonas. The Latin text
   is printed in all the editions of Luther's works, in Löscher's Acts,
   and in Ranke's Deutsche Geschichte (6th ed., vol. VI. 83-89, literally
   copied from an original preserved in the Royal Library in Berlin). The
   semi-authoritative German translation by Justus Jonas is given in
   Löscher, Walch (vol. XVIII.), and O. v. Gerlach (vol. I.), and with a
   commentary by Jürgens (Luther, III. 484 sqq.). An English translation
   in Wace and Buchheim, Principles of the Reformation, London, 1883, p. 6
   sqq. I have compared this translation with the Latin original as given
   by Ranke, and in the Weimar edition, and added it at the end of this
   section with some alterations, insertions, and notes.

   [189] Jürgens (III. 481) compares the Theses to flashes of lightning,
   which suddenly issued from the thunder-clouds. Hundeshagen (in Piper's
   "Evangel. Kalender" for 1859, p. 157), says: "Notwithstanding the
   limits within which Luther kept himself at that time, the Theses
   express in many respects the whole Luther of later times: the frankness
   and honesty of his soul, his earnest zeal for practical Christianity,
   the sincere devotion to the truths of the Scriptures, the open sense
   for the religious wants of the people, the sound insight into the
   abuses and corruptions of the church, the profound yet liberal piety."
   Ranke's judgment of the Theses is brief, but pointed and weighty: "Wenn
   man diese Sätze liest, sieht man, welch ein kühner, grossartiger und
   fester Geist in Luther arbeitet. Die Gedanken sprühen ihm hervor, wie
   unter dem Hammerschlag die Funken."--Deutsche Gesch., vol. I. p. 210.

   [190] Luther gives the Vulgate rendering of metanoeite, poenitentiam
   agite, do penance, which favors the Roman Catholic conception that
   repentance consists in certain outward acts. He first learned the true
   meaning of the Greek metanoia a year later from Melanchthon, and it was
   to him like a revelation.

   [191] "Dominus et magister noster Jesus Christus dicendo 'Poenitentiam
   agite,' etc. [Matt. 4:17), omnem vitam fidelium poenitentiam esse
   voluit." In characteristic contrast, Tetzel begins his fifty counter
   Theses with a glorification of the Pope as the supreme power in the
   church: "Docendi sunt Christiani, ex quo in Ecclesia potestas Papae est
   suprema et a solo Deo instituta, quod a nullo puro homine, nec a toto
   simul mundo potest restringi aut ampliari, sed a solo Deo."

   [192] The German translation inserts here the name of Tetzel (wider
   Bruder Johann Tetzel, Prediger Ordens), which does not occur in the
   Latin text.

   [193] The first four theses are directed against the scholastic view of
   sacramental penitence, which emphasized isolated, outward acts; while
   Luther put the stress on the inward change which should extend through
   life. As long as there is sin, so long is there need of repentance. St.
   Augustin and St. Bernard spent their last days in deep repentance and
   meditatation over the penitential Psalms. Luther retained the Vulgate
   rendering, and did not know yet the true meaning of the Greek original
   (matanoia, change of mind, conversion). The Theses vacillate between
   the Romish and the Evangelical view of repentance.

   [194] This thesis reduces the indulgence to a mere remission of the
   ecclesiastical punishments which refer only to this life. It destroys
   the effect on purgatory. Compare Thesis 8.

   [195] These saints were reported to have preferred to suffer longer in
   purgatory than was necessary for their salvation, in order that they
   might attain to the highest glory of the vision of God.

   [196] This and the following theses destroy the theoretical foundation
   of indulgences, namely, the scholastic fiction of a treasury of
   supererogatory merits of saints at the disposal of the Pope.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 33. The Theses-Controversy. 1518.

   Luther's Sermon vom Ablass und Gnade, printed in February, 1518 (Weimar
   ed. I. 239-246; and in Latin, 317-324); Kurze Erklärung der Zehn
   Gebote, 1518 (I. 248-256, in Latin under the title Instructio pro
   Confessione peccatorum, p. 257-265); Asterisci adversus Obeliscos
   Eckii, March, 1518 (I. 278-316); Freiheit des Sermons päpstlichen
   Ablass und Gnade belangend, June, 1518, against Tetzel (I. 380-393);
   Resolutiones disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute, August, 1518,
   dedicated to the Pope (I. 522-628). Letters of Luther to Archbishop
   Albrecht, Spalatin, and others, in De Wette, I. 67 sqq.

   Tetzel's Anti-Theses, 2 series, one of 106, the other of 50 sentences,
   are printed in Löscher's Ref. Acta, I. 505-514, and 518-523. Eck's
   Obelisci, ibid. III. 333.

   On the details of the controversy, see Jürgens (III. 479 sqq.), Köstlin
   (I. 175 sqq.), Kolde (I. 126 sqq.), Bratke, and Dieckhoff, as quoted in
   § 31.

   The Theses of Luther were a tract for the times. They sounded the
   trumpet of the Reformation. They found a hearty response with liberal
   scholars and enemies of monastic obscurantism, with German patriots
   longing for emancipation from Italian control, and with thousands of
   plain Christians waiting for the man of Providence who should give
   utterance to their feelings of indignation against existing abuses, and
   to their desire for a pure, scriptural, and spiritual religion. "Ho,
   ho! "exclaimed Dr. Fleck, "the man has come who will do the thing."
   Reuchlin thanked God that "the monks have now found a man who will give
   them such full employment that they will be glad to let me spend my old
   age in peace." [197]

   But, on the other hand, the Theses were strongly assailed and condemned
   by the episcopal and clerical hierarchy, the monastic orders,
   especially the Dominicans, and the universities, in fact, by all the
   champions of scholastic theology and traditional orthodoxy. Luther
   himself, then a poor, emaciated monk, was at first frightened by the
   unexpected effect, and many of his friends trembled. One of them told
   him, "You tell the truth, good brother, but you will accomplish
   nothing; go to your cell, and say, God have mercy upon me." [198]

   The chief writers against Luther were Tetzel of Leipzig, Conrad Wimpina
   of Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, and the more learned and formidable John Eck
   of Ingolstadt, who was at first a friend of Luther, but now became his
   irreconcilable enemy. These opponents represented three universities
   and the ruling scholastic theology of the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas
   Aquinas. But they injured their cause in public estimation by the
   weakness of their defence. They could produce no arguments for the
   doctrine and practice of indulgences from the Word of God, or even from
   the Greek and Latin fathers, and had to resort to extravagant views on
   the authority of the Pope. They even advocated papal infallibility,
   although this was as yet an open question in the Roman Church, and
   remained so till the Vatican decree of 1870.

   Luther mustered courage. In all his weakness he was strong. He felt
   that he had begun this business in the name and for the glory of God,
   and was ready to sacrifice life itself for his honest conviction. He
   took comfort from the counsel of Gamaliel. In several letters of this
   period he subscribed himself Martinus Eleutherios (Freeman), but added,
   vielmehr Knecht (rather, Servant): he felt free of men, but bound in
   Christ. When his friend Schurf told him, "They will not bear it;" he
   replied, "But what, if they have to bear it?" He answered all his
   opponents, directly and indirectly, in Latin and German, from the
   pulpit and the chair, and through the press. He began now to develop
   his formidable polemical power, especially in his German writings. He
   had full command over the vocabulary of common sense, wit, irony,
   vituperation, and abuse. Unfortunately, he often resorted to coarse and
   vulgar expressions which, even in that semi-barbarous age, offended men
   of culture and taste, and which set a bad example for his admirers in
   the fierce theological wars within the Lutheran Church. [199]

   The discussion forced him into a conflict with the papal authority, on
   which the theory and traffic of indulgences were ultimately made to
   rest. The controversy resolved itself into the question whether that
   authority was infallible and final, or subject to correction by the
   Scriptures and a general Council. Luther defended the latter view; yet
   he protested that he was no heretic, and that he taught nothing
   contrary to the Scriptures, the ancient fathers, the oecumenical
   Councils, and the decrees of the Popes. He still hoped for a favorable
   hearing from Leo X., whom he personally respected. He even ventured to
   dedicate to him his Resolutiones, a defence of the Theses (May 30,
   1518), with a letter of abject humility, promising to obey his voice as
   the very voice of Christ. [200]

   Such an anomalous and contradictory position could not last long.

   In the midst of this controversy, in April, 1518, Luther was sent as a
   delegate to a meeting of the Augustinian monks at Heidelberg, and had
   an opportunity to defend, in public debate, forty conclusions, or,
   "theological paradoxes," drawn from St. Paul and St. Augustin,
   concerning natural depravity, the slavery of the will, regenerating
   grace, faith, and good works. He advocates the theologia crucis against
   the theologia gloriae, and contrasts the law and the gospel. "The law
   says, 'Do this,'  and never does it: the gospel says, 'Believe in
   Christ,' and all is done." The last twelve theses are directed against
   the Aristotelian philosophy. [201]

   He found considerable response, and sowed the seed of the Reformation
   in the Palatinate. Among his youthful hearers were Bucer (Butzer) and
   Brentz, who afterwards became distinguished reformers, the one in
   Strassburg and England, the other in the duchy (now kingdom) of
   Würtemberg.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [197] The prophetic dream of the Elector, so often told, is a poetic
   fiction. Köstlin discredits it, I. 786 sq. The Elector Frederick
   dreamed, in the night before Luther affixed the Theses, that God sent
   him a monk, a true son of the Apostle Paul, and that this monk wrote
   something on the door of the castle church at Wittenberg with a pen
   which reached even to Rome, pierced the head and ears of a lion (Leo),
   and shook the triple crown of the Pope. Merle d'Aubigné relates the
   dream at great length as being, "beyond reasonable doubt, true in the
   essential parts." He appeals to an original MS., written from the
   dictation of Spalatin, in the archives of Weimar, which was published
   in 1817. But that MS., according to the testimony of Dr. Burkhardt, the
   librarian, is only a copy of the eighteenth century. No trace of such a
   dream can be found before 1591. Spalatin, in his own writings and his
   letters to Luther and Melanchthon, nowhere refers to it.

   [198] Albert Krantz of Hamburg, who died Dec. 7, 1517. Köstlin, I. 177.

   [199] He said of Tetzel, that he dealt with the Bible "wie die Sau mit
   dem Habersack" (as the hog with the meal-bag); of the learned Cardinal
   Cajetan, that he knew as little of spiritual theology as "the donkey of
   the harp;" he called Alveld, professor of theology at Leipzig, "a most
   asinine ass," and Dr. Eck "Dreck:" for which he was in turn styled
   luteus, lutra, etc. Such vulgarities were common in that age, but
   Luther was the roughest of the rough, as he was the strongest of the
   strong. His bark, however, was much worse than his bite, and beneath
   his abusive tongue and temper dwelt a kind and generous heart. His most
   violent writings are those against Emser (An den Emserschen Steinbock),
   King Henry VIII., Duke Henry of Brunswick (Wider Hans Wurst), and his
   last attack upon popery as "instituted by the Devil" (1545), of which
   Döllinger says (Luther, p. 48), that it must have been written "im
   Zustande der Erhitzung durch berauschende Getränke."

   [200] "Beatissime Pater," he says in the dedication, "prostratum me
   pedibus tuae Beatitudinis offero cum omnibus, quae sum et habeo.
   Vivifica, occide, roca, revoca, approba, reproba, ut placuerit: vocem
   tuam vocem Christi in te praesidentis et loquentis agnoscam. Si mortem
   merui, mori non recusabo. Dominienim est terra et plenitudo ejus, qui
   est benedictus in saecula, Amen, qui et te servet in aceternum, Amen.
   Anno MDXVIII."Works (Weimar ed.), I. 529; also in De Wette, Briefe, I.
   119-122.

   [201] Weim. ed., I. 350-376. Comp. Köstlin, I. 185 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 34. Rome's Interposition. Luther and Prierias. 1518.

   R. P. Silvestri Prieratis ordinis praedicatorum et s. theol.
   professoris celeberrimi, s. palatii apostolici magistri, in
   praesumptuosas Martini Lutheri conclusiones de potestate papae
   dialogus. In Löscher, II. 13-39. Knaake (Werke, I. 644) assigns the
   first edition to the second half of June, 1518, which is more likely
   than the earlier date of December, 1517, given by Löscher (II. 12) and
   the Erlangen ed. He mentions five separate editions, two of which were
   published by Luther without notes; afterwards he published an edition
   with his refutation.

   Ad Dialogum Silvestri Prierati de potestate papae responsio. In
   Löscher, II. 3; Weim. ed. I., 647-686, II. 48-56. German translation in
   Walch, XVIII. l20-200.

   Pope Leo X. was disposed to ignore the Wittenberg movement as a
   contemptible monkish quarrel; but when it threatened to become
   dangerous, he tried to make the German monk harmless by the exercise of
   his power. He is reported to have said first, "Brother Martin is a man
   of fine genius, and this outbreak is a mere squabble of envious monks;"
   but afterwards, "It is a drunken German who wrote the Theses; when
   sober he will change his mind."

   Three months after the appearance of the Theses, he directed the
   vicar-general of the Augustinian Order to quiet down the restless monk.
   In March, 1518, he found it necessary to appoint a commission of
   inquiry under the direction of the learned Dominican Silvester
   Mazzolini, called from his birthplace Prierio or Prierias (also
   Prieras), who was master of the sacred palace and professor of
   theology.

   Prierias came to the conclusion that Luther was an ignorant and
   blasphemous arch-heretic, and hastily wrote a Latin dialogue against
   his Theses, hoping to crush him by subtile scholastic distinctions, and
   the weight of papal authority (June, 1518). He identified the Pope with
   the Church of Rome, and the Church of Rome with the Church universal,
   and denounced every departure from it as a heresy. He said of Luther's
   Theses, that they bite like a cur.

   Luther republished the Dialogue with a reply, in which he called it
   "sufficiently supercilious, and thoroughly Italian and Thomistic
   "(August, 1518).

   Prierias answered with a Replica (November, 1518). Luther republished
   it likewise, with a brief preface, and sent it to Prierias with the
   advice not to make himself any more ridiculous by writing books.

   The effect of this controversy was to widen the breach.

   In the mean time Luther's fate had already been decided. The Roman
   hierarchy could no more tolerate such a dangerous man than the Jewish
   hierarchy could tolerate Christ and the apostles. On the 7th of August,
   1518, he was cited to appear in Rome within sixty days to recant his
   heresies. On the 23d of the same month, the Pope demanded of the
   Elector Frederick the Wise, that he should deliver up this "child of
   the Devil" to the papal legate.

   But the Elector, who was one of the most powerful and esteemed princes
   of Germany, felt unwilling to sacrifice the shining light of his
   beloved university, and arranged a peaceful interview with the papal
   legate at the Diet of Augsburg on promise of kind treatment and safe
   return.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 35. Luther and Cajetan. October, 1518.

   The transactions at Augsburg were published by Luther in December,
   1518, and are printed in Löscher, II. 435-492; 527-551; in Walch, XV.
   636 sqq.; in the Weim. ed., II. 1-40. Luther's Letters in De Wette, I.
   147-167. Comp. Kahnis, I. 215-235; Köstlin, I. 204-238 (and his shorter
   biogr., Eng. trans., p. 108).

   Luther accordingly proceeded to Augsburg in humble garb, and on foot,
   till illness forced him within a short distance from the city to take a
   carriage. He was accompanied by a young monk and pupil, Leonard Baier,
   and his friend Link. He arrived Oct. 7, 1518, and was kindly received
   by Dr. Conrad Peutinger and two counselors of the Elector, who advised
   him to behave with prudence, and to observe the customary rules of
   etiquette. Everybody was anxious to see the man who, like a second
   Herostratus, had kindled such a flame.

   On Oct. 11, he received the letter of safe-conduct; and on the next day
   he appeared before the papal legate, Cardinal Cajetan (Thomas de Vio of
   Gaëta), who represented the Pope at the German Diet, and was to obtain
   its consent to the imposition of a heavy tax for the war against the
   Turks.

   Cajetan was, like Prierias, a Dominican and zealous Thomist, a man of
   great learning and moral integrity, but fond of pomp and ostentation.
   He wrote a standard commentary on the Summa of Thomas Aquinas (which is
   frequently appended to the Summa); but in his later years, till his
   death (1534),--perhaps in consequence of his interview with Luther,--he
   devoted himself chiefly to the study of the Scriptures, and urged it
   upon his friends. He labored with the aid of Hebrew and Greek scholars
   to correct the Vulgate by a more faithful version, and advocated
   Jerome's liberal views on questions of criticism and the Canon, and a
   sober grammatical exegesis against allegorical fancies, without,
   however, surrendering the Catholic principle of tradition.

   There was a great contrast between the Italian cardinal and the German
   monk, the shrewd diplomat and the frank scholar; the expounder and
   defender of mediaeval scholasticism, and the champion of modern
   biblical theology; the man of church authority, and the advocate of
   personal freedom.

   They had three interviews (Oct. 12, 13, 14). Cajetan treated Luther
   with condescending courtesy, and assured him of his friendship. [202]
   But he demanded retraction of his errors, and absolute submission to
   the Pope. Luther resolutely refused, and declared that he could do
   nothing against his conscience ; that one must obey God rather than man
   ; that he had the Scripture on his side; that even Peter was once
   reproved by Paul for misconduct (Gal. 2:11), and that surely his
   successor was not infallible. Still be asked the cardinal to intercede
   with Leo X., that he might not harshly condemn him. Cajetan threatened
   him with excommunication, having already the papal mandate in his hand,
   and dismissed him with the words: "Revoke, or do not come again into my
   presence." He urged Staupitz to do his best to convert Luther, and said
   he was unwilling to dispute any further with that deep-eyed German
   beast filled with strange speculations." [203]

   Under these circumstances, Luther, with the aid of friends who provided
   him with an escort, made his escape from Augsburg, through a small gate
   in the city-Wall, in the night of the 20th of October, on a
   hard-trotting hack, without pantaloons, boots, or spurs. He rode on the
   first day as far as the town of Monheim [204] without stopping, and
   fell utterly exhausted upon the straw in a stable. [205]

   He reached Wittenberg, in good spirits, on the first anniversary of his
   Ninety-five Theses. He forthwith published a report of his conference
   with a justification of his conduct. He also wrote (Nov. 19) a long and
   very eloquent letter to the Elector, exposing the unfairness of
   Cajetan, who had misrepresented the proceedings, and demanded from the
   Elector the delivery of Luther to Rome or his expulsion from Saxony.

   Before leaving Augsburg, be left an appeal from Cajetan to the Pope,
   and "from the Pope ill informed to the Pope to be better informed "(a
   papa male informato ad papam melius informandum). Soon afterwards, Nov.
   28, he formally and solemnly appealed from the Pope to a general
   council, and thus anticipated the papal sentence of excommunication. He
   expected every day maledictions from Rome, and was prepared for exile
   or any other fate. [206] He was already tormented with the thought that
   the Pope might be the Anti-Christ spoken of by St. Paul in the Second
   Epistle to the Thessalonians, and asked his friend Link (Dec. 11) to
   give him his opinion on the subject. [207] Ultimately he lost faith
   also in a general council, and appealed solely to the Scriptures and
   his conscience. The Elector urged him to moderation through Spalatin,
   but Luther declared: "The more those Romish grandees rage, and meditate
   the use of force, the less do I fear them, and shall feel all the more
   free to fight against the serpents of Rome. I am prepared for all, and
   await the judgment of God."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [202] Luther received at first a favorable impression, and wrote in a
   letter to Carlstadt, Oct. 14 (De Wette, I. 161): "The cardinal calls me
   constantly his dear son, and assures Staupitz that I had no better
   friend than himself. ... I would be the most welcome person here if I
   but spoke this one word, revoco. But I will not turn a heretic by
   revoking the opinion which made me a Christian: I will rather die, be
   burnt, be exiled, be cursed." Afterwards he wrote in a different tone
   about Cajetan, e.g., in the letter to the Elector Frederick, Nov. 19
   (I. 175 sqq.), and to Staupitz, Dec. 13 (De Wette, I. 194).

   [203] "Ego nolo amplius cum hac bestia loqui. Habet enim profundos
   oculos et mirabiles speculationes in capite suo." This characteristic
   dictum is not reported by Luther, but by Myconius, Hist. Ref. p. 73.
   Comp. Löscher, II. 477. The national antipathy between the Germans and
   the Italians often appears in the transactions with Rome, and continues
   to this day. Monsignor Eugenio Cecconi, Archbishop of Florence, in his
   tract Martino Lutero, Firenze, 1883, says: "Lutero non amava gi'
   italiani, e gl' italiani non hanno mai avuto ne stima ne amore per
   quest' uomo. Il nostro popolo, col suo naturale criterio, lo ha
   giudicato da un pezzo." He declared the proposal to celebrate Luther's
   fourth centennial at Florence to be an act of insanity.

   [204] In Bavaria; not Mannheim, as Kahnis (I. 228) has it.

   [205] "Dr. Staupitz" (says Luther, In his Table-Talk) "hatte mir ein
   Pferd verschafft und gab mir den Rath, einen alten Ausreuter zu nehmen,
   der die Wege wüsste, und half mir Langemantel (Rathsherr) des Nachts
   durch ein klein Pförtlein der Stadt. Da eilte ich ohne Hosen, Stiefel,
   Sporn, und Schwert, und kam his gen Wittenberg. Den ersten Tag ritt ich
   acht (German) Meilen und wie ich des Abends in die Herberge kam, war
   ich so müde, stieg, im Stalle ab, konnte nicht stehen, fiel stracks in
   die Streu."

   [206] Letter to Spalatin, Nov. 25 and Dec. 2. De Wette, 1. 188 sqq.

   [207] "Mittam ad te nugas meas, ut videas, an recte divinem
   Antichristum illum verum juxta Paulum in Romana curia regnare: pejorem
   Turcis esse hodie, puto me demonstrare posse." DeWette, I. 193.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 36. Luther and Miltitz. January, 1519.

   Löscher, II. 552-569; III. 6-21, 820-847. Luther's Werke, Walch, XV.
   308 sqq.; Weimar ed., II. 66 sqq. Letters in De Wette: I. 207 sqq., 233
   sqq.

   Joh. K. Seidemann: Karl Von Miltitz .... Eine chronol. Untersuchung.
   Dresden, 1844 (pp. 37). The respective sections in Marheineke, Kahnis
   (I. 235 sqq.), and Köstlin (I. 238 sqq. and 281 sqq.).

   Before the final decision, another attempt was made to silence Luther
   by inducing him to revoke his heresies. Diplomacy sometimes interrupts
   the natural development of principles and the irresistible logic of
   events, but only for a short season. It usually resorts to compromises
   which satisfy neither party, and are cast aside. Principles must work
   themselves out.

   Pope Leo sent his nuncio and chamberlain, Karl von Miltitz, a noble
   Saxon by birth, and a plausible, convivial gentleman, [208] to the
   Elector Frederick with the rare present of a golden rose, and
   authorized him to negotiate with Luther. He provided him with a number
   of the highest recommendations to civil and ecclesiastical dignitaries.

   Miltitz discovered on his journey a wide-spread and growing sympathy
   with Luther. He found three Germans on his side, especially in the
   North, to one against him. He heard bad reports about Tetzel, and
   summoned him; but Tetzel was afraid to travel, and died a few months
   afterwards (Aug. 7, 1519), partly, perhaps, in consequence of the
   severe censure from the papal delegate. Luther wrote to his opponent a
   letter of comfort, which is no more extant. Unmeasured as he could be
   in personal abuse, he harbored no malice or revenge in his heart. [209]

   Miltitz held a conference with Luther in the house of Spalatin at
   Altenburg, Jan. 6, 1519. He was exceedingly polite and friendly; he
   deplored the offence and scandal of the Theses-controversy, and threw a
   great part of the blame on poor Tetzel; he used all his powers of
   persuasion, and entreated him with tears not to divide the unity of the
   holy Catholic Church.

   They agreed that the matter should be settled by a German bishop
   instead of going to Rome, and that in the mean time both parties were
   to keep silence. Luther promised to ask the pardon of the Pope, and to
   warn the people against the sin of separating from the holy
   mother-church. After this agreement they partook of a social supper,
   and parted with a kiss. Miltitz must have felt very proud of his
   masterpiece of ecclesiastical diplomacy.

   Luther complied with his promises in a way which seems irreconcilable
   with his honest convictions and subse-quent conduct. But we must
   remember the deep conflicts of his mind, the awful responsibility of
   his undertaking, the critical character of the situation. Well might he
   pause for a while, and shrink back from the idea of a separation from
   the church of his fathers, so intimately connected with his religious
   life as well as with the whole history of Christianity for fifteen
   hundred years. He had to break a new path which became so easy for
   others. We must all the more admire his conscientiousness.

   In his letter to the Pope, dated March 3, 1519, he expressed the
   deepest personal humility, and denied that he ever intended to injure
   the Roman Church, which was over every other power in heaven and on
   earth, save only Jesus Christ the Lord over all. Yet he repudiated the
   idea of retracting his conscientious convictions.

   In his address to the people, he allowed the value of indulgences, but
   only as a recompense for the "satisfaction" given by, the sinner, and
   urged the duty of adhering, notwithstanding her faults and sins, to the
   holy Roman Church, where St. Peter and St. Paul, and many Popes and
   thousands of martyrs, had shed their blood.

   At the same time, Luther continued the careful study of history, and
   could find no trace of popery and its extraordinary claims in the first
   centuries before the Council of Nicaea. He discovered that the Papal
   Decretals, and the Donation of Constantine, were a forgery. He wrote to
   Spalatin, March 13, 1519, "I know not whether tho Pope is anti-christ
   himself, or his apostle; so wretchedly is Christ, that is the truth,
   corrupted and crucified by him in the Decretals." [210]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [208] He was charged with intemperance, and is reported to have fallen
   from the boat in crossing the Rhine or the Main near Mainz in a state
   of intoxication, a. 1529. See the reports in Seidemann, l.c. p. 33 sqq.

   [209] He speaks generously of Tetzel in a letter to Spalatin, Feb. 12,
   1519 (De Wette, I. 223): "Doleo Tetzelium et salutem suam in eam
   necessitatem venisse ... multo mallem, si posset, servari cum honore,"
   etc.

   [210] De Wette, I. 239.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 37. The Leipzig Disputation. June 27-July 15, 1519.

   I. Löscher, III. 203-819. Luther's Works, Walch, XV. 954 sqq.; Weim.
   ed. II. 153-435 (see the literary notices of Knaake, p. 156). Luther's
   letters to Spalatin and the Elector, in De Wette:, I. 284-324.

   II. Joh. K. Seidemann: Die Leipziger Disputation im Jahre 1519. Dresden
   and Leipzig, 1843 (pp. 161). With important documents (pp. 93 sqq.) The
   best book on the subject. Monographs on Carlstadt by Jäger (Stuttgart,
   1856), on Eck by Wiedemann (Regensburg, 1865), and the relevant
   sections in Marheineke, Kahnis (I. 251-285), Köstlin, Kolde, and the
   general histories of the Reformation. The account by Ranke (I. 277-285)
   is very good. On the Roman side, see Janssen, II. 83-88 (incomplete).

   The agreement between Miltitz and Luther was only a short truce. The
   Reformation was too deeply rooted in the wants of the age to be
   suppressed by the diplomacy of ecclesiastical politicians. Even if the
   movement had been arrested in one place, it would have broken out in
   another; indeed, it had already begun independently in Switzerland.
   Luther was no more his own master, but the organ of a higher power.
   "Man proposes, God disposes."

   Before the controversy could be settled by a German bishop, it was
   revived, not without a violation of promise on both sides, [211] in the
   disputation held in the large hall of the Castle of Pleissenburg at
   Leipzig, under the sanction of Duke George of Saxony, between Eck,
   Carlstadt, and Luther, on the doctrines of the papal primacy,
   free-will, good works, purgatory, and indulgences. It was one of the
   great intellectual battles; it lasted nearly three weeks, and excited
   universal attention in that deeply religious and theological age. The
   vital doctrines of salvation were at stake. The debate was in Latin,
   but Luther broke out occasionally in his more vigorous German.

   The disputation began with the solemnities of a mass, a procession, an
   oration of Peter Mosellanus, De ratione disputandi, and the singing of
   Veni, Creator Spiritus. It ended with a eulogistic oration by the
   Leipzig professor John Lange, and the Te Deum.

   The first act was the disputation between Eck and Carlstadt, on the
   freedom of the human will, which the former maintained, and the latter
   denied. The second and more important act began July 4, between Eck and
   Luther, chiefly on the subject of the papacy.

   Dr. Eck (Johann Mair), professor of theology at Ingolstadt in Bavaria,
   was the champion of Romanism, a man of great learning, well-stored
   memory, dialectical skill, ready speech, and stentorian voice, but
   overconfident, conceited, and boisterous. He looked more like a butcher
   or soldier than a theologian. Many regarded him as a mere charlatan,
   and expressed their contempt for his audacity and vanity by the
   nicknames Keck (pert) and Geck (fop), which date from this dispute.
   [212]

   Carlstadt (Andreas von Bodenstein), Luther's impetuous and ill-balanced
   friend and colleague, was an unfortunate debater. [213] He had a poor
   memory, depended on his notes, got embarrassed and confused, and
   furnished an easy victory to Eck. It was ominous, that, on entering
   Leipzig, his wagon broke down, and he fell into the mud.

   Luther was inferior to Eck in historical learning and flowing Latinity,
   but surpassed him in knowledge of the Bible, independent judgment,
   originality, and depth of thought, and had the law of progress on his
   side. While Eck looked to the fathers, Luther went back to the
   grandfathers; he ascended from the stream of church history to the
   fountain of God's Word; yet from the normative beginning of the
   apostolic age he looked hopefully into the future. Though pale and
   emaciated, he was cheerful, wore a little silver ring, and carried a
   bunch of flowers in his hand. Peter Mosellanus, a famous Latinist, who
   presided over the disputation, thus describes his personal appearance
   at that time: [214] --

   "Luther is of middle stature; his body thin, and so wasted by care and
   study that nearly all his bones may be counted. [215] He is in the
   prime of life. His voice is clear and melodious. His learning, and his
   knowledge of Scripture are so extraordinary that he has nearly every
   thing at his fingers' ends. Greek and Hebrew he understands
   sufficiently well to give his judgment on interpretations. For
   conversation, he has a rich store of subjects at his command; a vast
   forest (silva ingens) of thoughts and words is at his disposal. He is
   polite and clever. There is nothing stoical, nothing supercilious,
   about him; and he understands how to adapt himself to different persons
   and times. In society he is lively and agreeable. He is always fresh,
   cheerful, and at his ease, and has a pleasant countenance, however hard
   his enemies may threaten him, so that one cannot but believe that
   Heaven is with him in his great undertaking. [216] Most people,
   however, reproach him with want of moderation in polemics, and with
   being rather imprudent and more cutting than befits a theologian and a
   reformer."

   The chief interest in the disputation turned on the subject of the
   authority of the Pope and the infallibility of the Church. Eck
   maintained that the Pope is the successor of Peter, and the vicar of
   Christ by divine right; Luther, that this claim is contrary to the
   Scriptures, to the ancient church, to the Council of Nicaea,--the most
   sacred of all Councils,--and rests only on the frigid decrees of the
   Roman pontiffs.

   But during the debate he changed his opinion on the authority of
   Councils, and thereby injured his cause in the estimation of the
   audience. Being charged by Eck with holding the heresy of Hus, he at
   first repudiated him and all schismatic tendencies; but on mature
   reflection he declared that Hus held some scriptural truths, and was
   unjustly condemned and burnt by the Council of Constance; that a
   general council as well as a Pope may err, and had no right to impose
   any article of faith not founded in the Scriptures. When Duke George, a
   sturdy upholder of the Catholic creed, heard Luther express sympathy
   with the Bohemian heresy, he shook his head, and, putting both arms in
   his sides, exclaimed, so that it could be heard throughout the hall, "A
   plague upon it!" [217]

   From this time dates Luther's connection with the Bohemian Brethren.

   Luther concluded his argument with these words: "I am sorry that the
   learned doctor only dips into the Scripture as the water-spider into
   the water-nay, that he seems to flee from it as the Devil from the
   Cross. I prefer, with all deference to the Fathers, the authority of
   the Scripture, which I herewith recommend to the arbiters of our
   cause."

   Both parties, as usual, claimed the victory. Eck was rewarded with
   honors and favors by Duke George, and followed up his fancied triumph
   by efforts to ruin Luther, and to gain a cardinal's hat; but he was
   also severely attacked and ridiculed, especially by Willibald
   Pirkheimer, the famous humanist and patrician of Nürnberg, in his
   stinging satire, "The Polished Corner." [218] The theological faculties
   of Cologne, Louvain, and afterwards (1521) also that of Paris,
   condemned the Reformer.

   Luther himself was greatly dissatisfied, and regarded the disputation
   as a mere waste of time. He made, however, a deep impression upon
   younger men, and many students left Leipzig for Wittenberg. After all,
   he was more benefited by the disputation and the controversies growing
   out of it, than his opponents.

   The importance of this theological tournament lies in this: that it
   marks a progress in Luther's emancipation from the papal system. Here
   for the first time he denied the divine right and origin of the papacy,
   and the infallibility of a general council. Henceforward he had nothing
   left but the divine Scriptures, his private judgment, and his faith in
   God who guides the course of history by his own Spirit, through all
   obstructions by human errors, to a glorious end. The ship of the
   Reformation was cut from its moorings, and had to fight with the winds
   and waves of the open sea.

   From this time Luther entered upon a revolutionary crusade against the
   Roman Church until the anarchical dissensions in his own party drove
   him back into a conservative and even reactionary position.

   Before we proceed with the development of the Reformation, we must make
   the acquaintance of Melanchthon, who had accompanied Luther to the
   Leipzig disputation as a spectator, suggesting to him and Carlstadt
   occasional arguments, [219] and hereafter stood by him as his faithful
   colleague and friend.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [211] Eck was the chief originator of the disputation, and not Luther
   (as Janssen endeavors to show). Seidemann, who gives a full and
   authentic account of the preliminary correspondence, says (p. 21): "Es
   ist entschieden, dass Eck die Disputation antrug, und zwar zunächst nur
   mit Karlstadt. Aber auch Luther's Absehen war auf eine Disputation
   gerichtet."

   [212] As he complained twenty years later: see Seidemann, p. 80.

   [213] Luther calls him an infelicissimus disputator.

   [214] In a letter to Julius Pflug, a young Saxon nobleman. Mosellanus
   describes also Carlstadt and Eck, and the whole disputation. See
   Löscher, III. 242-251 (especially p. 247); Walch, XV. 1422; Seidemann,
   51 and 56. I find the description also in an appendix to Melanchthon's
   Vita Lutheri, Göttingen, 1741, pp. 32-44.

   [215] "Ut omnia pene ossa liceat dinumerare." But in later years Luther
   grew stout and fleshy.

   [216] "Ut haud facile credas, hominem tam ardua sine numine Divûm
   moliri."

   [217] "Das walt' die Sucht!"

   [218] "Der algehobelte Eck." The book appeared first anonymously in
   Latin, Eccius dedolatus, at Erfurt, March, 1520. Hagen, in his Der
   Geist der Reformation (Erlangen, 1843), I. p. 60 sqq., gives a good
   summary of this witty book. Luther sent it to Spalatin, March 2, 1520
   (De Wette, I. 426), but expressed his dissatisfaction with this "mode
   of raging against Eck," and preferred an open attack to a "bite from
   behind the fence."

   [219] This excited the anger of Eck, who broke out, "Tace tu, Philippe,
   ac tua studia cura, ne me perturba."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 38. Philip Melanchthon. Literature (Portrait).

   The best Melanchthon collection is in the Royal Library of Berlin,
   which I have consulted for this list (July, 1886). The third centenary
   of Mel.'s death in 1860, and the erection of his monument in
   Wittenberg, called forth a large number of pamphlets and articles in
   periodicals.

   I. Works of Melanchthon. The first ed. appeared at Basel, 1541, 5 vols.
   fol.; another by Peucer (his son-in-law), Wittenberg, 1562-64, 4 vols.
   fol.; again 1601. Selection of his German works by Köthe. Leipzig,
   1829-30, 6 vols. *Best ed. of Opera omnia (in the "Corpus
   Reformatorum") by Bretschneider and Bindseil. Halle, 1834-60, 28 vols.
   4°. The most important vols. for church history are vols. i.-xi. and
   xxi.-xxviii. The last vol. (second part) contains Annates Vitae (pp.
   1-143), and very ample Indices (145-378).

   Add to these: Epistolae, Judicia, Consilia, Testimonia, etc., ed. H. E.
   Bindseil. Halle, 1874. 8°. A supplement to the "Corpus Reform." Compare
   also Bindseil's Bibliotheca Melanthoniana. Halis 1868 pp. 28). Carl
   Krause: Melanthoniana, Regesten und Briefe über die Beziehungen Philipp
   Mel. zu Anhalt und dessen Fürsten. Zerbst, 1885. pp. 185.

   II. Biographies of Mel. An account of his last days by the Wittenberg
   professors: Brevis narratio exponens quo fine vitam in terris suam
   clauserit D. Phil. Mel. conscripta a professoribus academiae
   Vitebergensis, qui omnibus quae exponuntur interfuerunt. Viteb. 1560.
   4°. The same in German. A funeral oration by Heerbrand: Oratio in
   obitum Mel. habita in Academia Tubingensi die decima quinta Maji.
   Vitebergae, 1560. *Joachim Camerarius: Vita Mel. Lips. 1566; and other
   edd., one with notes by Strobel. Halle, 1777; one with preface by
   Neander in the Vitae quatuor Reformatorum. Berlin, 1841.

   Strobel: Melanchthoniana. Altdorf, 1771: Die Ehre Mel. gerettet, 1773;
   and other works. A. H. Niemeyer: Phil. Mel. als Praeceptor Germaniae.
   Halle, 1817. Fr. Aug. Cox: Life of Mel., comprising an account of the
   Reform. Lond. 1815, 2d ed. 1817. G. L. Fr. Delbrück: Ph. Mel. der
   Glaubenslehrer. Bonn, 1826. Heyd: Mel. und Tübingen, 1512-18. Tüb.
   1839. *Fr. Galle: Characteristik Melanchth. als Theol. und Entw. seines
   Lehrbegr. Halle, 1840. *Fr. Matthes: Ph. Mel. Sein Leben u. Wirken aus
   den Quellen. Altenb. 1841. 2d ed. 1846. Ledderhose: Phil. Mel. nach
   seinem aüsseren u. inneren Leben dargestellt. Heidelberg, 1847 (English
   translation by Dr. Krotel. Phila. 1855). By the same: Das Leben des
   Phil. Mel. für das Volk. Barmen, 1858. *Mor. Meurer: Phil. Mel.'s
   Leben. Leipzig u. Dresden, 1860. 2d ed. 1869. Heppe: Phil. Mel. der
   Lehrer Deutschlands. Marburg, 1860. *Carl Schmidt: Philipp Melanchthons
   Leben und ausgewählte Schriften. Elberfeld, 1861 (in the "Reformatoren
   der Luth. Kirche"). * Herrlinger: Die Theologie Mel.'s in ihrer
   geschichtl. Entwicklung. Gotha, 1879.

   III. Brief sketches, by Neander, in Piper's "Evang.-Kalender" for 1851.
   By Nitzsch, in the "Deutsche Zeitschrift für christl. Wissenschaft,"
   1855. Is. Aug. Dorner: Zum dreihundertjährigen Gedächtniss des Todes
   Melanchthons, 1860. Volbeding: Mel. wie er liebte und lebte (Leipz.
   1860.). Kahnis: Rede zum Gedächtniss Mel.'s (Leipz. 1860). Wohlfahrt:
   Phil. Mel. (Leipzig, 1860). W. Thilo: Mel. im Dienste der heil. Schrift
   (Berlin, 1860). Paul Pressel: Phil. Mel. Ein evang. Lebensbild (Stuttg.
   1860). Festreden zur Erinnerung an den 300 jährigen Todestag Phil.
   Mel.'s und bei der Grundsteinlegung zu dessen Denkmal zu Wittenberg,
   herausgeg. von Lommatzch (Wittenb. 1860). Henke: Das Verhältniss
   Luthers und Mel. zu einander (Marburg, 1860), and Memoria B. Phil. Mel.
   (Marburg, 1860). Ad. Planck: Mel. Praeceptor Germ. (Nördlingen, 1860).
   Tollin: Ph. Mel. und Mich. Servet. Eine Quellenstudie (Berlin, 1876).
   Landerer: Mel., in Herzog1 and Herzog2 ix. 471-525, revised by
   Herrlinger. Thiersch: Mel. (Augsburg, 1877, and New York, Am. Tract
   Soc. 1880). Luthardt: Melanchthon's Arbeiten im Gebiete der Moral
   (Leipz. 1884). Wagenmann: Ph. Mel. (in the "Allgem. Deutsche
   Biographie"). Paulsen in "Gesch. des gelehrten Unterrichts "(Leipz.
   1885. pp. 34 sqq.). Schaff in St. Augustin, Melanchthon, Neander (New
   York and London, 1886. pp. 107-127).

   IV. On Mel.'s Loci, see Strobel: Literärgesch. von Ph. Mel.'s locis
   theologicis. Altdorf and Nürnberg, 1776. Plitt: Melanchthons Loci in
   ihrer Urgestalt. Erlangen, 1864.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 40. Melanchthon's Early Labors.

   Although yet a youth of twenty-one years of age, Melanchthon at once
   gained the esteem and admiration of his colleagues and hearers in
   Wittenberg. He was small of stature, unprepossessing in his outward
   appearance, diffident and timid. But his high and noble forehead, his
   fine blue eyes, full of fire, the intellectual expression of his
   countenance, the courtesy and modesty of his behavior, revealed the
   beauty and strength of his inner man. His learning was undoubted, his
   moral and religious character above suspicion. His introductory
   address, which he delivered four days after his arrival (Aug. 29), on
   "The Improvement of the Studies of Youth," [220] dispelled all fears:
   it contained the programme of his academic teaching, and marks an epoch
   in the history of liberal education in Germany. He desired to lead the
   youth to the sources of knowledge, and by a careful study of the
   languages to furnish the key for the proper understanding of the
   Scriptures, that they might become living members of Christ, and enjoy
   the fruits of His heavenly wisdom. He studied and taught theology, not
   merely for the enrichment of the mind, but also and chiefly for the
   promotion of virtue and piety. [221]

   He at first devoted himself to philological pursuits, and did more than
   any of his contemporaries to revive the study of Greek for the
   promotion of biblical learning and the cause of the Reformation. He
   called the ancient languages the swaddling-clothes of the Christ-child:
   Luther compared them to the sheath of the sword of the Spirit.
   Melanchthon was master of the ancient languages; Luther, master of the
   German. The former, by his co-operation, secured accuracy to the German
   Bible; the latter, idiomatic force and poetic beauty.

   In the year 1519 Melanchthon graduated as Bachelor of Divinity; the
   degree of Doctor he modestly declined. From that time on, he was a
   member of the theological faculty, and delivered also theological
   lectures, especially on exegesis. He taught two or three hours every
   day a variety of topics, including ethics, logic, Greek and Hebrew
   grammar; he explained Homer, Plato, Plutarch, Titus, Matthew, Romans,
   the Psalms. In the latter period of his life he devoted himself
   exclusively to sacred learning. He was never ordained, and never
   ascended the pulpit; but for the benefit of foreign students who were
   ignorant of German, he delivered every Sunday in his lecture-room a
   Latin sermon on the Gospels. He became at once, and continued to be,
   the most popular teacher at Wittenberg. He drew up the statutes of the
   University, which are regarded as a model. By his advice and example
   the higher education in Germany was regulated.

   His fame attracted students from all parts of Christendom, including
   princes, counts, and barons. His lecture-room was crowded to
   overflowing, and he heard occasionally as many as eleven languages at
   his frugal but hospitable table. He received calls to Tübingen,
   Nürnberg, and Heidelberg, and was also invited to Denmark, France, and
   England; but he preferred remaining in Wittenberg till his death.

   At the urgent request of Luther, who wished to hold him fast, and to
   promote his health and comfort, he married (having no vow of celibacy
   to prevent him) as early as August, 1520, Catharina Krapp, the worthy
   daughter of the burgomaster of Wittenberg, who faithfully shared with
   him the joys and trials of domestic life. He had from her four
   children, and was often seen rocking the cradle with one hand, while
   holding a book in the other. He used to repeat the Apostles' Creed in
   his family three times a day. He esteemed his wife higher than himself.
   She died in 1557 while he was on a journey to the colloquy at Worms:
   when he heard the sad news at Heidelberg, he looked up to heaven, and
   exclaimed, "Farewell! I shall soon follow thee."

   Next to the "Lutherhaus" with the "Luthermuseum," the most interesting
   dwelling in the quaint old town of Wittenberg on the banks of the Elbe
   is the house of Melanchthon in the Collegienstrasse. It is a
   three-story building, and belongs to the Prussian government, King
   Friedrich Wilhelm IV. having bought it from its former owner.
   Melanchthon's study is on the first story; there he died. Behind the
   house is a little garden which was connected with Luther's garden.
   Here, under the shade of the tree, the two Reformers may often have
   exchanged views on the stirring events of the times, and encouraged
   each other in the great conflict. The house bears in German the
   inscription on the outer wall: --


   "Here lived, taught, and died

   Philipp Melanchthon."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [220] De Corrigendis Adolescentium Studiis, in the "Corpus
   Reformatorum," XI. 15 sqq. See Schmidt, l.c. 29 sq.

   [221] He wrote to his friend Camerarius, Jan. 22, 1525 (" Corp. Ref."
   I. 722): "Ego mihi ita conscius sum, non aliam ob causam unquam
   tetheologekenai, nisi ut vitam emendarem."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 41. Luther and Melanchthon.

   P. Schaff: Luther und Melanchthon, In his "Der Deutsche Kirchenfreund,"
   Mercersburg, Pa., vol. III. (1850), pp. 58-64. E. L. Henke: Das
   Verhältniss Luthers und Melanchthons zu einander. Festrede am 19 April,
   1860. Marburg (28 pages). Compare also Döllinger: Die Reformation, vol.
   i. 349 sqq.


   "Wo sich das strenge mit dem Zarten,

   Wo Starkes sich und Mildes paarten,

   Da giebt es einen guten Klang." (Schiller.)

   In great creative epochs of the Church, God associates congenial
   leaders for mutual help and comfort. In the Reformation of the
   sixteenth century, we find Luther and Melanchthon in Germany, Zwingli
   and Oecolampadius, Farel and Viret, Calvin and Beza in Switzerland,
   Craniner, Latimer, and Ridley in England, Knox and Melville in
   Scotland, working together with different gifts, but in the same spirit
   and for the same end. The Methodist revival of the eighteenth century
   was carried on by the co-operation of the two Wesleys and Whitefield;
   and the Anglo-Catholic movement of the nineteenth, by the association
   of Pusey, Newman, and Keble.

   Immediately after his arrival at the Saxon University, on the Elbe,
   Melanchthon entered into an intimate relation with Luther, and became
   his most useful and influential co-laborer. He looked up to his elder
   colleague with the veneration of a son, and was carried away and
   controlled (sometimes against his better judgment) by the fiery genius
   of the Protestant Elijah; while Luther regarded him as his superior in
   learning, and was not ashamed to sit humbly at his feet. He attended
   his exegetical lectures, and published them, without the author's wish
   and knowledge, for the benefit of the Church. Melanchthon declared in
   April, 1520, that "he would rather die than be separated from Luther;"
   and in November of the same year, "Martin's welfare is dearer to me
   than my own life." Luther was captivated by Melanchthon's first
   lecture; he admired his scholarship, loved his character, and wrote
   most enthusiastically about him in confidential letters to Spalatin,
   Reuchlin, Lange, Scheurl, and others, lauding him as a prodigy of
   learning and piety. [222]

   The friendship of these two great and good men is one of the most
   delightful chapters in the religious drama of the sixteenth century. It
   rested on mutual personal esteem and hearty German affection, but
   especially on the consciousness of a providential mission intrusted to
   their united labors. Although somewhat disturbed, at a later period, by
   slight doctrinal differences and occasional ill-humor, [223] it lasted
   to the end; and as they worked together for the same cause, so they now
   rest under the same roof in the castle church at Wittenberg, at whose
   doors Luther had nailed the war-cry of the Reformation.

   Melanchthon descended from South Germany, Luther from North Germany;
   the one from the well-to-do middle classes of citizens and artisans,
   the other from the rough but sturdy peasantry. Melanchthon had a quiet,
   literary preparation for his work: Luther experienced much hardship and
   severe moral conflicts. The former passed to his Protestant conviction
   through the door of classical studies, the latter through the door of
   monastic asceticism; the one was fore-ordained to a professor's chair,
   the other to the leadership of an army of conquest.

   Luther best understood and expressed the difference of temper and
   character; and it is one of his noble traits, that he did not allow it
   to interfere with the esteem and admiration for his younger friend and
   colleague. "I prefer the books of Master Philippus to my own," he wrote
   in 1529. [224] "I am rough, boisterous, stormy, and altogether warlike.
   I am born to fight against innumerable monsters and devils. I must
   remove stumps and stones, cut away thistles and thorns, and clear the
   wild forests; but Master Philippus comes along softly and gently,
   sowing and watering with joy, according to the gifts which God has
   abundantly bestowed upon him."

   Luther was incomparably the stronger man of the two, and differed from
   Melanchthon as the wild mountain torrent differs from the quiet stream
   of the meadow, or as the rushing tempest from the gentle breeze, or, to
   use a scriptural illustration, as the fiery Paul from the contemplative
   John. Luther was a man of war, Melanchthon a man of peace. Luther's
   writings smell of powder; his words are battles; he overwhelms his
   opponents with a roaring cannonade of argument, eloquence, passion, and
   abuse. Melanchthon excels in moderation and amiability, and often
   exercised a happy restraint upon the unmeasured violence of his
   colleague. Once when Luther in his wrath burst out like a thunderstorm,
   Melanchthon quieted him by the line, --


   "Vince animos iramque tuam qui caetera vincis."

   Luther was a creative genius, and pioneer of new paths; Melanchthon, a
   profound scholar of untiring industry. The one was emphatically the man
   for the people, abounding in strong and clear sense, popular eloquence,
   natural wit, genial humor, intrepid courage, and straightforward
   honesty. The other was a quiet, considerate, systematic thinker; a man
   of order, method, and taste, and gained the literary circles for the
   cause of the Reformation. He is the principal founder of a Protestant
   theology, and the author of the Augsburg Confession, the chief symbol
   of the Lutheran Church. He very properly represented the evangelical
   cause in all the theological conferences with the Roman-Catholic party
   at Augsburg, Speier, Worms, Frankfort, Ratisbon, where Luther's
   presence would only have increased the heat of controversy, and widened
   the breach. Luther was unyielding and uncompromising against Romanism
   and Zwinglianism: Melanchthon was always ready for compromise and
   peace, as far as his honest convictions would allow, and sincerely
   labored to restore the broken unity of the Church. He was even willing,
   as his qualified subscription to the Articles of Smalcald shows, to
   admit a certain supremacy of the Pope (jure humano), provided he would
   tolerate the free preaching of the gospel. But Popery and evangelical
   freedom will never agree.

   Luther was the boldest, the most heroic and commanding; Melanchthon,
   the most gentle, pious, and conscientious, of the Reformers.
   Melanchthon had a sensitive and irritable temperament, though under
   good control, and lacked courage; he felt, more keenly and painfully
   than any other, the tremendous responsibility of the great religious
   movement in which he was engaged. He would have made any personal
   sacrifice if he could have removed the confusion and divisions
   attendant upon it. [225] On several occasions he showed, no doubt, too
   much timidity and weakness; but his concessions to the enemy, and his
   disposition to compromise for the sake of peace and unity, proceeded
   always from pure and conscientious motives.

   The two Wittenberg Reformers were brought together by the hand of
   Providence, to supply and complete each other, and by their united
   talents and energies to carry forward the German Reformation, which
   would have assumed a very different character if it had been
   exclusively left in the hands of either of them.

   Without Luther the Reformation would never have taken hold of the
   common people: without Melanchthon it would never have succeeded among
   the scholars of Germany. Without Luther, Melanchthon would have become
   a second Erasmus, though with a profounder interest in religion; and
   the Reformation would have resulted in a liberal theological school,
   instead of giving birth to a Church. However much the humble and
   unostentatious labors and merits of Melanchthon are overshadowed by the
   more striking and brilliant deeds of the heroic Luther, they were, in
   their own way, quite as useful and indispensable. The "still small
   voice" often made friends to Protestantism where the earthquake and
   thunder-storm produced only terror and convulsion.

   Luther is greatest as a Reformer, Melanchthon as a Christian scholar.
   He represents in a rare degree the harmony of humanistic culture with
   biblical theology and piety. In this respect he surpassed all his
   contemporaries, even Erasmus and Reuchlin. He is, moreover, the
   connecting link between contending churches, and a forerunner of
   Christian union and catholicity which will ultimately heal the
   divisions and strifes of Christendom. To him applies the beatitude:
   "Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of
   God."

   The friendship of Luther and Melanchthon drew into its charming circle
   also some other worthy and remarkable residents of Wittenberg,--Lucas
   Cranach the painter, who lent his art to the service of the
   Reformation; Justus Jonas, who came to Wittenberg in 1521 as professor
   and provost of the castle church, translated several writings of Luther
   and Melanchthon into German, and accompanied the former to Worms
   (1521), and on his last journey to Eisleben (1546); and Johann
   Bugenhagen, called Doctor Pomeranus, who moved from Pomerania to
   Wittenberg in 1521 as professor and preacher, and lent the Reformers
   most effective aid in translating the Bible, and organized the
   Reformation in several cities of North Germany and in Denmark.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [222] Lutherus ad Reuchlinum, Dec. 14, 1518: "Philippus noster
   Melanchthon, homo admirabilis, imo pene nihil habens, quod non supra
   hominem sit, familiarissimus tamen et amicissimus mihi." To Billikan he
   wrote in 1523 (De Wette, II. 407): "Den Philippus achte ich nicht
   anders als mich selbst, ausgenomnen in Hinsicht auf seine Gelehrsamkeit
   und die Unbescholtenheit seines Lebens, wodurch er mich, dass ich nicht
   blos sage, übertrifft." In his humorous way he once invited him (Oct.
   18, 1518) to supper under the address: "Philippo Melanchthoni,
   Schwarzerd, Graeco, Latino, Hebraeo, Germano, nunquam Barbaro." The
   testimonies of Luther on Mel. are collected in the first and last vols.
   of the "Corp. Reform." (especially XXViiib. 9 and 10).

   [223] Melanchthon hints also, in one of his confidential letters, at
   female influence, the gunaikoturannis, as an incidental element in the
   disturbance. Corp. Ref.," III. 398.

   [224] In his preface to Melanchthon's Commentary on Colossians.

   [225] Der Schmerz der Kirchenspaltung ist tief durch seine schuldlose
   Seele gegangen."Hase, Kirchengesch., 11th ed. (1886), p. 372.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 42. Ulrich von Hutten and Luther.

   Böcking's edition of Ulrichi Hutteni equitis Germani Opera. Lips,
   185-1861. 5 vols. with three supplements, 1864-1870. Davie, Friedrich
   Strauss (the author of the Leben Jesu): Gespräche von Ulrich von
   Hutten, übersetzt und erläutert, Leipz. 1860, and his biography of
   Ulrich von Hutten, 4th ed., Bonn, 1878 (pp. 567). A masterly work by a
   congenial spirit. Compare K. Hagen, Deutschlands liter. und Rel. Verh.
   in Reformationszeitalter, II. 47-60; Ranke, D. Gesch. I. 289-294;
   Janssen, II. 53 sqq. Werckshagen: Luther u. Hutten, 1888.

   While Luther acquired in Melanchthon, the head of the Christian and
   theological wing of the humanists, a permanent and invaluable ally, he
   received also temporary aid and comfort from the pagan and political
   wing of the humanists, and its ablest leader, Ulrich von Hutten.

   This literary Knight and German patriot was descended from an ancient
   but impoverished noble family of Franconia. He was born April 21, 1488,
   and began life, like Erasmus, as an involuntary monk; but he escaped
   from Fulda in his sixteenth year, studied humanities in the
   universities of Erfurt, Cologne, and Frankfurt-on-the-Oder, law at
   Pavia and Bologna, traveled extensively, corresponded with the most
   prominent men of letters, was crowned as poet by the Emperor Maximilian
   at Augsburg (1517), and occupied an influential position at the court
   of Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz (1517-1520), who had charge of the sale
   of indulgences in Germany.

   He took a lively part in Reuchlin's conflict with the obscurantism of
   the Dominicans of Cologne. [226] He is, next to his friend Crotus of
   Erfurt, the chief author of the Epistolae obscurorum Virorum, that
   barbarous ridicule of barbarism, in which the ignorance, stupidity,
   bigotry, and vulgarity of the monks are exposed by factitious letters
   in their own wretched Latin with such success that they accepted them
   at first as genuine, and bought a number of copies for distribution.
   [227] He vigorously attacked the abuses and corruptions of the Church,
   in Latin and German pamphlets, in poetry and prose, with all the
   weapons of learning, common-sense, wit, and satire. He was, next to
   Luther, the boldest and most effective polemical writer of that period,
   and was called the German Demosthenes on account of his philippics
   against Rome. His Latin is better than Luther's, but his German far
   inferior. In wit and power of ridicule he resembles Lucian; at times he
   reminds one of Voltaire and Heine. He had a burning love of German
   liberty and independence. This was his chief motive for attacking Rome.
   He laid the axe at the root of the tree of tyranny. His motto was,
   "Iacta est alea. Ich hab's gewagt." [228]

   He republished in 1518 the tract of Laurentius Valla on the Donation of
   Constantine, with an embarrassing dedication to Pope Leo X., and
   exposed on German soil that gigantic fraud on which the temporal power
   of the papacy over all Christian Europe was made to rest. But his chief
   and most violent manifesto against Rome is a dialogue which he
   published under the name "Vadiscus, or the Roman Trinity," in April,
   1520, a few months before Luther's "Address to the German Nobility"
   (July) and his "Babylonian Captivity" (October). He here groups his
   experiences in Rome under several triads of what abounds in Rome, of
   what is lacking in Rome, of what is forbidden in Rome, of what one
   brings home from Rome, etc. He puts them into the mouth of a Roman
   consul, Vadiscus, and makes variations on them. Here are some
   specimens: [229] --

   "Three things keep Rome in power: the authority of the Pope, the bones
   of the saints, and the traffic in indulgences.

   "Three things are in Rome without number: strumpets, priests, and
   scribes.

   "Three things abound in Rome: antiquities, poison, and ruins.

   "Three things are banished from Rome: simplicity, temperance, and piety
   (or, in another place: poverty, the ancient discipline, and the
   preaching of the truth).

   "Three things the Romans trade in: Christ, ecclesiastical benefices,
   and women.

   "Three things everybody desires in Rome: short masses, good gold, and a
   luxurious life.

   "Three things are disliked in Rome: a general council, a reformation of
   the clergy, and the fact that the Germans begin to open their eyes.

   "Three things displease the Romans most: the unity of the Christian
   princes, the education of the people, and the discovery of their
   frauds.

   "Three things are most valued in Rome: handsome women, fine horses, and
   papal bulls.

   "Three things are in general use in Rome: luxury of the flesh, splendor
   in dress, and pride of the heart.

   "Three things Rome can never get enough of: money for the episcopal
   pallium, monthly, and annual incomes from vacant benefices. [230]

   "Three things are most praised and yet most rare in Rome. devotion,
   faith and innocence.

   "Three things Rome brings to naught: a good conscience, devotion, and
   the oath.

   "Three things are necessary in Rome to gain a lawsuit: money, letters
   of recommendation, and lies.

   "Three things pilgrims usually bring back from Rome: a soiled
   conscience, a sick stomach, and an empty purse.

   "Three things have kept Germany from getting wisdom: the stupidity of
   the princes, the decay of learning, and the superstition of the people.

   "Three things are feared most in Rome: that the princes get united,
   that the people begin to open their eyes, and that Rome's frauds are
   coming to light.

   "Three things only could set Rome right: the determination of the
   princes, the impatience of the people, and an army of Turks at her
   doors."

   This epigrammatic and pithy form made the dialogue popular and
   effective. Even Luther imitated it when, in his "Babylonian Captivity,"
   he speaks of three walls, and three rods of the Papists. Hutten calls
   the Roman court a sink of iniquity, and says that for centuries no
   genuine successor of Peter had sat on his chair in Rome, but successors
   and imitators of Simon Magus, Nero, Domitian, and Heliogabalus.

   As a remedy for these evils, he advises, not indeed the abolition of
   the papacy, but the withdrawal of all financial support from Germany, a
   reduction of the clerical force, and the permission of clerical
   marriage; by these means, luxury and immorality would at least be
   checked.

   It is characteristic of the church of that age, that Hutten was on
   terms of intimacy with the first prelate of Germany, even while he
   wrote his violent attacks on Rome, and received a salary, and
   afterwards a pension, from him. But he lauded Albrecht to the skies for
   his support of liberal learning. He knew little of, and cared less for,
   doctrinal differences. His policy was to fight the big Pope of Rome
   with the little Pope of Germany, and to make the German emperor,
   princes, and nobles, his allies in shaking off the degrading yoke of
   foreign tyranny. Possibly Albrecht may have indulged in the dream of
   becoming the primate of an independent Catholic Church of Germany.

   Unfortunately, Hutten lacked moral purity, depth, and weight. He was
   Frank, brave, and bold, but full of conceit, a restless adventurer, and
   wild stormer; able to destroy, but unable to build up. In his twentieth
   year he had contracted a disgusting disease which ruined him
   physically, and was used by his Roman opponents to ruin him morally. He
   suffered incredibly from it and from all sorts of quack remedies, for
   ten years, was attacked by it again after his cure, and yet maintained
   the vigor and freshness of his spirit. [231]

   Hutten hailed the Wittenberg movement, though at first only as "a
   quarrel between two hot-headed monks who are shouting and screaming
   against each other" and hoped "that they would eat each other up."
   After the Leipzig disputation, he offered to Luther (first through
   Melanchthon) the aid of his pen and sword, and, in the name of his
   noble friend the Knight Franz von Sickingen, a safe retreat at
   Ebernburg near Kreuznach, where Martin Bucer, Johann Oecolampadius, and
   other fugitives from convents, and sympathizers with reform, found a
   hospitable home. He sent him his books with notes, that he might
   republish them.

   But Luther was cautious. He availed himself of the literary and
   political sympathy, but only as far as his theological and religious
   position allowed. He respected Reuchlin, Erasmus, Crotus, Mutian,
   Pirkheimer, Hutten, and the other humanists, for their learning and
   opposition to monkery and priestcraft; be fully shared the patriotic
   indignation against Romish tyranny: but he missed in them moral
   earnestness, religious depth, and that enthusiasm for the pure gospel
   which was his controlling passion. He aimed at reformation, they at
   illumination. He did not relish the frivolous satire of the Epistolae
   obscurorum virorum; he called them silly, and the author a Hans Wurst
   (Jack Sausage); he would grow indignant, and weep rather than laugh,
   over the obscurantism and secret vices of the monks, though he had as
   keen a sense of the ridiculous as Crotus and Hutten. He deprecated,
   moreover, the resort to physical force in a spiritual warfare, and
   relied on the power of the Word of God, which had founded the Church,
   and which must reform the Church. His letters to Hutten are lost, but
   he wrote to Spalatin (Jan. 16, 1521): "You see what Hutten wants. I
   would not have the gospel defended by violence and murder. In this
   sense I wrote to him. By the Word the world was conquered; by the Word
   the Church was preserved; by the Word she will be restored. Antichrist,
   as he began without violence, will be crushed without violence, by the
   Word."

   Hutten was impatient. He urged matters to a crisis. Sickingen attacked
   the Archbishop and Elector of Trier (Treves) to force the Reformation
   into his territory; but he was defeated, and died of his wounds in the
   hands of his enemies, May 7, 1522. Within one month all his castles
   were captured and mostly burnt by the allied princes; two of his sons
   were banished, a third was made prisoner. Luther saw in this disaster a
   judgment of God, and was confirmed in his aversion to the use of force.
   [232]

   Hutten fled, a poor and sick exile, from Germany to Basel, and hoped to
   find a hospitable reception by Erasmus, his former friend and admirer;
   but he was coldly refused by the cautious scholar, and took bitter
   revenge in an unsparing attack on his character. He then went to
   Zürich, and was kindly and generously treated by Zwingli, who provided
   him with books and money, and sent him first to the hot bath of
   Pfeffers, and then to a quiet retreat on the island of Ufnau in the
   Lake of Zürich, under medical care. But he soon died there, of the
   incurable disease of his youth, in August, 1523, in the Prime of life
   (thirty-five years and four months of age), leaving nothing but his pen
   and sword, and the lesson: "Not by might, nor by power, but by my
   Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 4:6).

   With Hutten and Sickingen the hope of a political reconstruction of
   Germany through means of the Reformation and physical force was
   destroyed. What the knights failed to accomplish, the peasants could
   still less secure by the general revolt two years later. But
   notwithstanding these checks, the Reformation was bound to succeed with
   spiritual weapons.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [226] Triumphus Capnionis (kapnios = Reuchlin), a poem written in 1514,
   but not published till 1518 under the pseudo-name of Eleutherius
   Byzenus. Works, III. 413-447; Strauss, U. v. H., 155 sq.

   [227] First published 1515 [at Hagenau], and 1517 at Basel; best ed. by
   Böcking, in Hutten's Opera, Suppl. i. Lips. (1864), and commentary in
   Suppl. ii. (1869); an excellent critical analysis by Strauss, l.c. 165
   sqq. He compares them with Don Quixote. The first book of the Epist. is
   chiefly from Crotus, the second chiefly from Hutten. The comic
   impression arises in great part from the barbarous Latinity, and is
   lost in a translation. There is, however, a good German translation by
   Dr. Wilhelm Binder: Briefe von Dunkelmännern. Stuttgart, 1876. The
   translator says he knew twenty-seven Latin editions, but no
   translation.

   [228] "The die is cast. I have ventured it." An allusion to the
   exclamation of Caesar when he crossed the Rubicon, and marched to Rome.

   [229] Strauss, U. v. H., p. 285 sqq., 289; and his translation, in
   Hutten's Gespr. p. 94 sqq., 114 sqq. I have omitted the interlocutories
   in the dialogue. Vadiscus is Hutten's friend Crotus of Erfurt (also
   Luther's friend); and Ernhold is his friend Arnold Glauberger, with
   whom he had been in Rome.

   [230] Allusion to the papal claims to fill the ecclesiastical vacancies
   which occurred during the long months (January, March, etc.), and to
   receive the annates,i.e, the first year's income from every spiritual
   living worth more than twenty-four ducats per annum. Luther, in his
   Address to the German Nobility, characterizes this papal avarice as
   downright robbery.

   [231] He himself speaks very frankly of his Morbus Gallicus, or Malum
   Franciaeand its horrible effects, without asserting his innocence.
   Strauss discusses it fully with a belief in his guilt, yet pity for his
   sufferings and admiration for his endurance. "Er hatte," he says(U. v.
   H., p. 241),"den Jugendfehler, dessen wir ihn schuldig achten, in einem
   Grade zu büssen, welcher selbst des unerbittlichsten Sittenrichters
   Strenge in Mitleid verwandeln muss .... Man weiss nicht was
   schrecklicher ist, die Beschreibung die uns Hutten von seinem Zustande,
   oder die er uns von den Quälereien macht, welche von unverständigen
   Aerzten als Curen über ihn verhängt wurden."

   [232] E. Münch, Fr. v. Sickingen. Stuttgart, 1827 sqq. 3 vols. Strauss,
   l.c. p. 488. Ullmann, Franz v. Sickingen, Leipzig, 1872.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 43. Luther's Crusade against Popery. 1520.

   After the disputation at Leipzig, Luther lost all hope of a reformation
   from Rome, which was preparing a bull of excommunication.

   Here begins his storm and pressure period, [233] which culminated in
   the burning of the Pope's bull, and the protest at the Diet of Worms.

   Under severe mental anguish he was driven to the conviction that the
   papacy, as it existed in his day, was an anti-christian power, and the
   chief source and support of abuses in the Church. Prierias, Eck, Emser,
   and Alveld defended the most extravagant claims of the papacy with much
   learning, but without any discrimination between fact and fiction.
   Luther learned from the book of Laurentius Valla, as republished by
   Ulrich von Hutten, that the Donation of Constantine, by which this
   emperor conferred on Pope Sylvester and his successors the temporal
   sovereignty not only over the Lateran Palace, but also over Rome,
   Italy, and all the West, was a baseless forgery of the dark ages. He
   saw through the "devilish lies," as he called them, of the Canon law
   and the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. "It must have been a plague sent by
   God," he says (in his "Address to the German Nobility"), "that induced
   so many people to accept such lies, though they are so gross and clumsy
   that one would think a drunken boor could lie more skillfully." Genuine
   Catholic scholars of a later period have exposed with irrefragable
   arguments this falsification of history. His view of the Church
   expanded beyond the limits of the papacy, and took in the Oriental
   Christians, and even such men as Hus, who was burned by an oecumenical
   council for doctrines derived from St. Paul and St. Augustin. Instead
   of confining the Church, like the Romanists, to an external visible
   communion under the Pope, he regarded it now as a spiritual communion
   of all believers under Christ the only Head. All the powers of
   indignation and hatred of Roman oppression and corruption gathered in
   his breast. "I can hardly doubt," he wrote to Spalatin, Feb. 23, 1520,
   "that the Pope is the Antichrist." In the same year, Oct. 11, he went
   so far as to write to Leo X. that the papal dignity was fit only for
   traitors like Judas Iscariot whom God had cast out. [234]

   Luther was much confirmed in his new convictions by Melanchthon, who
   had independently by calm study arrived at the same conclusion. In the
   controversy with Eck, August, 1519, Melanchthon laid down the
   far-reaching principle that the Scriptures are the supreme rule of
   faith, and that we must not explain the Scriptures by the Fathers, but
   explain and judge the Fathers by the Scriptures. He discovered that
   even Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustin had often erred in their exegesis. A
   little later (September, 1519), he raised the same charge against the
   Councils, and maintained that a Catholic Christian could not be
   required to believe any thing that was not warranted by the Scriptures.
   He expressed doubts about transubstantiation and the whole fabric of
   the mass. His estimate of the supreme value of the Scriptures,
   especially of Paul, rose higher and higher, and made him stronger and
   bolder in the conflict with mediaeval tradition.

   Thus fortified by the learning of Melanchthon, encouraged by the
   patriotic zeal of Hutten and Sickingen, goaded by the fury of his
   enemies, and impelled, as it were, by a preternatural impulse, Luther
   attacked the papal power as the very stronghold of Satan. Without
   personal ill-will against anybody, he had a burning indignation against
   the system, and transcended all bounds of moderation. [235] He felt the
   inspiration of a prophet, and had the courage of a martyr ready to die
   at any moment for his conviction.

   He issued in rapid succession from July till October, 1520, his three
   most effective reformatory works: the, "Address to the German
   Nobility," the "Babylonian Captivity of the Church," and the, "Freedom
   of a Christian Man." [236] The first two are trumpets of war, and the
   hardest blows ever dealt by human pen to the system of popery; while
   the third is peaceful, and shines like a rainbow above the
   thunderclouds. A strange contrast! Luther was the most conservative of
   radicals, and the most radical of conservatives. He had all the
   violence of a revolutionary orator, and at the same time the pious
   spirit of a contemplative mystic.

   The sixteenth century was the age of practical soteriology. It had to
   settle the relation of man to God, to bring the believer into direct
   communion with Christ, and to secure to him the personal benefits of
   the gospel salvation. What was heretofore regarded as the exclusive
   privilege of the priest was to become the common privilege of every
   Christian. To this end, it was necessary to break down the walls which
   separated the clergy from the laity, and obstructed the approach to
   God. This was most effectually done by Luther's anti-papal writings. On
   the relation of man to God rests the relation of man to his fellow-men;
   this is the sociological problem which forms one of the great tasks of
   the nineteenth century.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [233] Sturm- und Drangperiode is an expressive German phrase.

   [234] In the midst of a Latin letter to Spalatin, from the beginning of
   June, 1520 (De Wette, I. 453), he gives vent to his wrath against
   popery in these German words:"Ich meine, sie sind zu Rom alle toll,
   thöricht, wüthend, unsinnig, Narren, Stock, Stein, Hölle, und Teufel
   geworden." In the same letter he mentions his intention to publish a
   book"ad Carolum et totius Germaniae nobilitatem adversus Romanae
   curiaetyrannidem et nequitiam."

   [235] See the remarkable passage in his letter to Conrad Pellicanus,
   January or February, 1521 (De Wette, I. 555): "Recte mones modestiae
   me: sentio et ipse, sed compos mei non sum; rapior nescio quo spiritu,
   cum nemini me male velle conscius sim: verum urgent etiam illi
   furiosissime, ut Satanam non satis observem."

   [236] L. Lemme: Die drei grossen Reformationsschriften Luthers vom
   Jahre 1520. Gotha, 1875, 2d ed., 1884. Wace and Bucheim: First
   Principles of the Reformation, London, 1883.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 44. Address to the German Nobility.

   An den christlichen Adel deutscher Nation: von des christlichen Standes
   Besserung. In Walch's ed., X. 296 sqq.; Erl. ed., XXI. 274-360; Weimar
   ed., VI. 404. Köstlin (in his shorter biography of Luther, p. 197 New
   York ed.) gives a facsimile of the title-page of the second edition.
   Dr. Karl Benrath of Bonn published a separate ed., with introduction
   and notes, as No. 4 of the "Schriften des Vereins für
   Reformationsgeschichte." Halle, 1886 (114 pages).

   "The time for silence is gone, and the time for speaking has come."
   With these words (based on Eccles. 3:7) of the dedicatory preface to
   Amsdorf, Luther introduces his address, to his most Serene and Mighty
   Imperial Majesty, and to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation,
   respecting a Reformation of the Christian Estate." The preface is dated
   on the Eve of St. John the Baptist (June 23), 1520; the book was
   hastily completed July 20, [237] and before Aug. 18 no less than four
   thousand copies--an enormous number for those days--were published, and
   a new edition called for, besides reprints which soon appeared in
   Leipzig and Strassburg.

   The book is a most stirring appeal to the German nobles, who, through
   Hutten and Sickingen, had recently offered their armed assistance to
   Luther. He calls upon them to take the much-needed Reformation of the
   Church into their own hands; not, indeed, by force of arms, but by
   legal means, in the fear of God, and in reliance upon his strength. The
   bishops and clergy refused to do their duty; hence the laity must come
   to the front of the battle for the purity and liberty of the Church.

   Luther exposes without mercy the tyranny of the Pope, whose government,
   he says, "agrees with the government of the apostles as well as Lucifer
   with Christ, hell with heaven, night with day; and yet he calls himself
   Christ's Vicar, and the Successor of Peter."

   The book is divided into three parts: --

   1. In the first part, Luther pulls down what he calls the three walls
   of Jericho, which the papacy had erected in self-defense against any
   reformation; namely, the exclusion of the laity from all control, the
   exclusive claim to interpret the Scriptures, and the exclusive claim to
   call a Council.

   Under the first head, he brings out clearly and strongly, in opposition
   to priestcraft, the fundamental Protestant principle of the general
   priesthood of all baptized Christians. He attacks the distinction of
   two estates, one spiritual, consisting of Pope, bishops, priests, and
   monks; and one temporal, consisting of princes, lords, artificers, and
   peasants. There is only one body, under Christ the Head. All Christians
   belong to the spiritual estate. Baptism, gospel and faith,--these alone
   make spiritual and Christian people. [238] We are consecrated priests
   by baptism; we are a royal priesthood, kings and priests before God (1
   Pet. 2:9; Rev. 5:10). The only difference, then, between clergy and
   laity, is one of office and function, not of estate.

   Luther represents here the ministerial office as the creature of the
   congregation; while at a later period, warned by democratic excesses,
   and the unfitness of most of the congregations of that age for a
   popular form of government, he laid greater stress upon the importance
   of the ministry as an institution of Christ. This idea of the general
   priesthood necessarily led to the emancipation of the laity from
   priestly control, and their participation in the affairs of the Church,
   although this has been but very imperfectly carried out in Protestant
   state churches. It destroyed the distinction between higher (clerical
   and monastic), and lower morality; it gave sanctity to the natural
   relations, duties, and virtues; it elevated the family as equal in
   dignity to virginity; it promoted general intelligence, and sharpened
   the sense of individual responsibility to the Church. But to the same
   source may be traced also the undue interference of kings, princes, and
   magistrates in ecclesiastical matters, and that degrading dependence of
   many Protestant establishments upon the secular power. Kingcraft and
   priestcraft are two opposite extremes, equally opposed to the spirit of
   Christianity. Luther, and especially Melanchthon, bitterly complained,
   in their later years, of the abuse of the episcopal power assumed by
   the magistrate, and the avarice of princes in the misappropriation of
   ecclesiastical property.

   The principle of the general priesthood of the laity found its
   political and civil counterpart in the American principle of the
   general kingship of men, as expressed in the Declaration of
   Independence, that "all men are born free and equal."

   2. In the second part, Luther chastises the worldly pomp of the Pope
   and the cardinals, their insatiable greed, and exactions under false
   pretenses.

   3. In the third part, he deals with practical suggestions. He urges
   sweeping reforms in twenty-seven articles, to be effected either by the
   civil magistrate, or by a general council of ministers and laymen.

   He recommends the abolition of the annates, of the worldly pomp and
   idolatrous homage paid to the Pope (as kissing his feet), and of his
   whole temporal power, so that he should be hereafter merely a spiritual
   ruler, with no power over the emperor except to anoint and crown him,
   as a bishop crowns a king, as Samuel crowned Saul and David.

   He strongly demands the abrogation of enforced clerical celibacy, which
   destroys instead of promoting chastity, and is the cause of untold
   misery. Clergymen should be allowed to marry, or not to marry,
   according to their gift and sense of duty.

   Masses for the dead should be abolished, since they have become a
   solemn mockery, and devices for getting money, thus exciting the anger
   of God.

   Processions, saints' days, and most of the public festivals, except
   Sunday, should be abrogated, since holy days have become most unholy by
   drinking, gambling, and idling.

   Monasteries should be reduced in number, and converted into schools,
   with freedom to enter and to leave without binding vows.

   Certain punishments of the Canon law should cease, especially the
   interdict which silences God's word and service,--a greater sin than to
   kill twenty Popes at once.

   Fasts should be voluntary and optional; for whilst at Rome they laugh
   at fasts, they let us abroad eat oil which they would not think fit for
   greasing their boots, and then sell us the liberty of eating butter and
   other things; whereas the apostle says that the gospel has given us
   liberty in all such matters (1 Cor. 10:25 sq.).

   He also would forbid all begging in Christendom; each town should
   support its own poor, and not allow strange beggars to come in, whether
   pilgrims or mendicant monks; it is not right that one should work that
   another may be idle, and live ill that another may live well, but "if
   any would not work, neither should he eat" (2 Thess. 3:10).

   He counsels a reduction of the clerical force, and the prohibition of
   pluralities. "As for the fraternities, together with indulgences,
   letters of indulgence, dispensations, masses, and all such things, let
   them all be drowned and abolished."

   He recommends (Art. 24) to do justice to, and make peace with, the
   Bohemians; for Hus and Jerome of Prague were unjustly burnt, in
   violation of the safe-conduct promised by the Pope and the Emperor.
   Heretics should be overcome with books, not with fire; else, the
   hangmen would be the most learned doctors in the world, and there would
   be no need of study."

   In Art. 25, Luther urges a sound reformation of the universities, which
   had become "schools of Greek fashion" and "heathenish manners" (2 Macc.
   4:12, 13), and are, full of dissolute living." He is unjustly severe
   upon Aristotle, whom he calls a "dead, blind, accursed, proud, knavish
   heathen teacher." His logic, rhetoric, and poetic might be, retained;
   but his physics, metaphysics, ethics, and the book "Of the Soul" (which
   teaches that the soul dies with the body) ought to be banished, and the
   study of the languages, mathematics, history, and especially of the
   Holy Scriptures, cultivated instead. "Nothing is more devilishly
   mischievous," he says, "than an unreformed university." He would also
   have the Canon law banished, of which there is "nothing good but the
   name," and which is no better than "waste paper."

   He does not spare national vices. He justly rebukes the extravagance in
   dress, the usury, and especially the intemperance in eating and
   drinking, for which, he says, "we Germans have an ill reputation in
   foreign countries, as our special vice, and which has become so common,
   and gained so much the upper hand, that sermons avail nothing." (His
   frequent protest against the "Saufteufel" of the Germans, as he calls
   their love of drink, is still unheeded. In temperance the Southern
   nations of Europe are far ahead of those of the North.)

   In conclusion, he expresses the expectation that he will be condemned
   upon earth. "My greatest care and fear is, lest my cause be not
   condemned by men; by which I should know for certain that it does not
   please God. Therefore let them freely go to work, Pope, bishop, priest,
   monk, or doctor: they are the true people to persecute the truth, as
   they have always done. May God grant us all a Christian understanding,
   and especially to the Christian nobility of the German nation true
   spiritual courage, to do what is best for our unhappy Church. Amen."

   The book was a firebrand thrown into the headquarters of the papal
   church. It anticipated a reply to the papal bull, and prepared the
   public mind for it. It went right to the heart of the Germans, in their
   own language wielded with a force as never before, and gave increased
   weight to the hundred grievances of long standing against Rome. But it
   alarmed some of his best friends. They condemned or regretted his
   biting severity. [239] Staupitz tried at the eleventh hour to prevent
   the publication, and soon afterwards (Aug. 23, 1520) resigned his
   position as general vicar of the Angustinians, and retired to Salzburg,
   feeling himself unequal to the conflict. John Lange called the book a
   "blast for assault, atrocious and ferocious." Some feared that it might
   lead to a religious war. Melanchthon could not approve the violence,
   but dared not to check the spirit of the new Elijah. Luther defended
   himself by referring to the example of Paul and the prophets: it was
   necessary to be severe in order to get a hearing; he felt sure that he
   was not moved by desire for glory or money or pleasure, and disclaimed
   the intention of stirring up sedition and war; he only wished to clear
   the way for a free general council; he was perhaps the forerunner of
   Master Philippus in fighting Ahab and the prophets of Baal after the
   example of Elijah (1 Kings 18). [240]

   NOTES.

   The following extracts give a fair idea of Luther's polemic against the
   Pope in this remarkable book: --

   "The custom of kissing the Pope's feet must cease. It is an
   un-Christian, or rather an anti-Christian example, that a poor sinful
   man should suffer his feet to be kissed by one who is a hundred times
   better than he. If it is done in honor of his power, why does he not do
   it to others in honor of their holiness? Compare them together: Christ
   and the Pope. Christ washed his disciples' feet, and dried them, and
   the disciples never washed his. The Pope, pretending to be higher than
   Christ, inverts this, and considers it a great favor to let us kiss his
   feet: whereas if any one wished to do so, he ought to do his utmost to
   prevent them, as St. Paul and Barnabas would not suffer themselves to
   be worshiped as gods by the men at Lystra, saying, 'We also are men of
   like passions with you' (Acts 14:14 seq.). But our flatterers have
   brought things to such a pitch, that they have set up an idol for us,
   until no one regards God with such fear, or honors him with such
   reverence, as they do the Pope. This they can suffer, but not that the
   Pope's glory should be diminished a single hairsbreadth. Now, if they
   were Christians, and preferred God's honor to their own, the Pope would
   never be willing to have God's honor despised, and his own exalted; nor
   would he allow any to honor him, until he found that God's honor was
   again exalted above his own.

   "It is of a piece with this revolting pride, that the Pope is not
   satisfied with riding on horseback or in a carriage, but, though he be
   hale and strong, is carried by men like an idol in unheard-of pomp. I
   ask you, how does this Lucifer-like pride agree with the example of
   Christ, who went on foot, as did also all his apostles? Where has there
   been a king who lived in such worldly pomp as he does, who professes to
   be the head of all whose duty it is to despise and flee from all
   worldly pomp--I mean, of all Christians? Not that this need concern us
   for his own sake, but that we have good reason to fear God's wrath, if
   we flatter such pride, and do not show our discontent. It is enough
   that the Pope should be so mad and foolish, but it is too much that we
   should sanction and approve it."

   After enumerating all the abuses to which the Pope and his Canon law
   give sanction, and which he upholds with his usurped authority, Luther
   addresses him in this impassioned style: --

   "Dost thou hear this, O Pope! not the most holy, but the most sinful?
   Would that God would hurl thy chair headlong from heaven, and cast it
   down into the abyss of hell! Who gave you the power to exalt yourself
   above God? to break and to loose what he has commanded? to teach
   Christians, more especially Germans, who are of noble nature, and are
   famed in all histories for uprightness and truth, to be false,
   unfaithful, perjured, treacherous, and wicked? God has commanded to
   keep faith and observe oaths even with enemies: you dare to cancel his
   command, laying it down in your heretical, antichristian decretals,
   that you have power to do so; and through your mouth and your pen Satan
   lies as he never lied before, teaching you to twist and pervert the
   Scriptures according to your own arbitrary will. O Lord Christ! look
   down upon this, let thy day of judgment come and destroy the Devil's
   lair at Rome. Behold him of whom St. Paul spoke (2 Thess. 2:3, 4), that
   he should exalt himself above thee, and sit in thy Church, showing
   himself as God--the man of sin and the child of damnation .... The Pope
   treads God's commandments under foot, and exalts his own: if this is
   not Antichrist, I do not know what it is."

   Janssen (II. 100) calls Luther's "Address to the German Nobility" "das
   eigentliche Kriegsmanifest der Lutherisch-Huttenschen
   Revolutionspartei," and "ein Signal zum gewaltsamen Angriff." But the
   book nowhere counsels war; and in the letter to Link he says expressly:
   "nec hoc a me agitur, ut seditionem moveam, sed ut concilio generali
   libertatem asseram"(De Wette, I. 479). Janssen quotes (p. 103) a very
   vehement passage from Luther's contemporaneous postscript to a book of
   Prierias which he republished (De juridica et irrefragabili veritate
   Romanae Ecclesiae Romanique Pontificis), expressing a wish that the
   Emperor, kings, and princes would make a bloody end to Pope and
   cardinals and the whole rabble of the Romish Sodom. But this extreme
   and isolated passage is set aside by his repeated declarations against
   carnal warfare, and was provoked by the astounding assertions of
   Prierias, the master of the papal palace, that the Pope was the
   infallible judge of all controversies, the head of all spiritual, the
   father of all secular princes, the head of the Church and of the whole
   universe (caput totius orbis universi). Against such blasphemy Luther
   breaks out in these words: "Mihi vero videtur, si sic pergat furor
   Romanistarum, nullum reliquum esse remedium, quam ut imperator, reges
   et principes vi et armis accincti aggrediantur has pestes orbis
   terrarum, remque non jam verbis, sed ferro decernant .... Si fures
   furca, si latrones gladio, si haereticos igne plectimus, cur non magis
   hos magistros perditionis, hos cardinales, hos papas et totam istam
   romanae Sodomae colluviem, quae ecclesiam Dei sine fine corrumpit,
   omnibus armis impetimus, et manus nostras in sanguine eorum lavamus?
   tanquam a communi et omnium periculosissimo incendio nos nostrosque
   liberaturi." Erl. ed., Opera Latina, II. 107. He means a national
   resistance under the guidance of the Emperor and rightful rulers.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [237] On that date he informed Wencislaus Link: "Editur noster libellus
   in Papam de reformanda ecclesia vernaculus, ad universam nobilitatem
   Germaniae, qui summe offensurus est Romam .... Vale, et ora pro me." De
   Wette, I. 470.

   [238] "Was aus der Taufe gekrochen ist, das mag sich rühmen, dass es
   schon Priester, Bischof, und Papst geweihet sei."

   [239] "Omnes ferme [fere] in me damnant mordacitatem," he says in
   letter to Link, Aug. 19, 1520.

   [240] See his letters to John Lange (Aug. 18, 1520) and to Wenceslaus
   Link (Aug. 19) in De Wette, I. 477-479.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 45. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church. October, 1520.

   De Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae Praeludium D. Martini Lutheri.
   Wittenb. 1520. Erl. ed. Opera Lat., vol. V. 13-118; German translation
   (Von der Babylonischen Gefängniss, etc.) by an unknown author, 1520,
   reprinted in Walch, XIX. 5-153, and in 0. v. Gerlach, IV. 65-199; the
   Lat. original again in the Weimar ed., vol. V. An English translation
   by Buchheim in First Principles of the Reformation (London, 1883), pp.
   141-245.

   In closing the "Address to the Nobility," Luther announces: "I have
   another song still to sing concerning Rome. If they wish to hear it, I
   will sing it to them, and sing with all my might. Do you understand, my
   friend Rome, what I mean?"

   This new song, or second war-trumpet, was the book on the, "Babylonian
   Captivity of the Church," published in the beginning of October, 1520.
   [241] He calls it a "prelude," as if the real battle were yet to come.
   He intended it for scholars and the clergy, and therefore wrote in
   Latin. It is a polemical, theological work of far-reaching
   consequences, cutting one of the roots of Romanism, and looking towards
   a new type of Christian life and worship. He attacks the sacramental
   system of the Roman Church, by which she accompanies and controls the
   life of the Christian from the cradle to the grave, and brings every
   important act and event under the power of the priest. This system he
   represents as a captivity, and Rome as the modern Babylon. Yet he was
   very far from undervaluing the importance and benefit of the sacrament;
   and as far as the doctrine of baptism and the eucharist is concerned,
   he agreed better with the Catholic than with the Zwinglian view.

   Luther begins by thanking his Romish opponents for promoting his
   theological education. "Two years ago," he says, "I wrote about
   indulgences when I was still involved in superstitious respect for the
   tyranny of Rome; but now I have learned, by the kind aid of Prierias
   and the friars, that indulgences are nothing but wicked devices of the
   flatterers of Rome. Afterwards Eck and Emser instructed me concerning
   the primacy of the Pope. While I denied the divine right, I still
   admitted the human right; but after reading the super-subtle subtilties
   of those coxcombs in defense of their idol, I became convinced that the
   papacy is the kingdom of Babylon and the power of Nimrod the mighty
   hunter. Now a learned professor of Leipzig writes against me on the
   sacrament in both kinds, and is about to do still greater wonders.
   [242] He says that it was neither commanded nor decreed, whether by
   Christ or the apostles, that both kinds should be administered to the
   laity."

   1. Luther first discusses the sacrament of the Holy Communion, and
   opposes three errors as a threefold bondage; namely, the withdrawal of
   the cup from the laity, the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the
   sacrifice of the mass.

   (a) As regards the withdrawal of the cup, he refutes the flimsy
   arguments of Alveld, and proves from the accounts of Matthew, Mark,
   Luke, and Paul, that the whole sacrament was intended for the laity as
   well as the clergy, according to the command, "Drink ye all of this."
   Each writer attaches the mark of universality to the cup, not to the
   bread, as if the Spirit foresaw the (Bohemian) schism. The blood of
   Christ was shed for all for the remission of sins. If the laymen have
   the thing, why should they be refused the sign which is much less than
   the thing itself? The Church has no more right to take away the cup
   from the laity than the bread. The Romanists are the heretics and
   schismatics in this case, and not the Bohemians and the Greeks who take
   their stand on the manifest teaching of the Word of God. "I conclude,
   then, that to deny reception in both kinds to the laity is an act of
   impiety and tyranny, and one not in the power of any angel, much less
   of any Pope or council whatsoever." ... "The sacrament does not belong
   to the priests, but to all; nor are the priests lords, but servants,
   whose duty it is to give both kinds to those who seek them, as often as
   they seek them." ... "Since the Bishop of Rome has ceased to be a
   bishop, and has become a tyrant, I fear absolutely none of his decrees;
   for I know that neither he, nor even a general council, has authority
   to establish new articles of faith."

   (b) The doctrine of transubstantiation is a milder bondage, and might
   be held alongside with the other and more natural view of the real
   presence, which leaves the elements unchanged. It is well known that
   Luther was to the end of life a firm believer in the real presence, and
   oral manducation of the very body and blood of Christ by unworthy as
   well as worthy communicants (of course, with opposite effects). He
   denied a miraculous change of the substance of the elements, but
   maintained the co-existence of the body and blood in, with, and under
   bread and wine, both being real, the one invisible and the other
   visible. [243] In this book he claims toleration for both theories,
   with a personal preference for the latter. "Christians are at liberty,
   without peril to their salvation, to imagine, think, or believe in
   either of the two ways, since here there is no necessity of faith." ...
   "I will not listen to those, or make the slightest account of them, who
   will cry out that this doctrine is Wiclifite, Hussite, heretical, and
   opposed to the decisions of the Church." The Scripture does not say
   that the elements are transubstantiated: Paul calls them real bread and
   real wine, just as the cup was real. Moreover, Christ speaks
   (figuratively), "This cup is the new covenant in my blood," meaning his
   blood contained in the cup. Transubstantiation is a scholastic or
   Aristotelian figment of the twelfth century. [244] "Why should Christ
   not be able to include his body within the substance of bread, as well
   as within the accidents? Fire and iron, two different substances, are
   so mingled in red-hot iron, that in every part of it are both fire and
   iron. Why may not the glorious body of Christ much more be in every
   part of the substance of the bread?" Common people do not understand
   the difference between substance and accidents, nor argue about it, but
   "believe with simple faith that the body and blood of Christ are truly
   contained in the elements." So also the incarnation does not require a
   transubstantiation of the human nature, that so the Godhead may be
   contained beneath the accidents of the human nature; "but each nature
   is entire, and we can say with truth, This man is God; this God is
   man."

   (c) The sacrifice of the mass: that is, the offering to God of the very
   body and blood of Christ by the hands of the priest when he pronounces
   the words of institution; in other words, an actual repetition of the
   atoning sacrifice of the cross, only in an unbloody manner. This
   institution is the very heart of Roman-Catholic (and Greek-Catholic)
   worship. Luther attacks it as the third bondage, and the most impious
   of all. He feels the difficulty, and perhaps impossibility, of a task
   which involves an entire revolution of public worship. "At this day,"
   he says, "there is no belief in the Church more generally received, or
   more firmly held, than that the mass is a good work and a sacrifice.
   This abuse has brought in an infinite flood of other abuses, until
   faith in the sacrament has been utterly lost, and they have made this
   divine sacrament a mere subject of traffic, huckstering, and
   money-getting contracts; and the entire maintenance of priests and
   monks depends upon these things." He goes back to the simplicity of the
   primitive institution of the Lord's Supper, which is a thankful
   commemoration of the atoning death of Christ, with a blessing attached
   to it, namely, the forgiveness of sins, to be appropriated by faith.
   The substance of this sacrament is promise and faith. It is a gift of
   God to man, not a gift of man to God. It is, like baptism, to be
   received, and not to be given. The Romanists have changed it into a
   good work of man and an opus operatum, by which they imagine to please
   God; and have surrounded it with so many prayers, signs, vestments,
   gestures, and ceremonies, that the original meaning is obscured. "They
   make God no longer the bestower of good gifts on us, but the receiver
   of ours. Alas for such impiety!" He proves from the ancient Church that
   the offering of the eucharist, as the name indicates, was originally a
   thank-offering of the gifts of the communicants for the benefit of the
   poor. The true sacrifice which we are to offer to God is our thanks,
   our possessions, and our whole person. He also objects to the use of
   the Latin language in the mass, and demands the vernacular.

   2. The sacrament of Baptism. Luther thanks God that this sacrament has
   been preserved uninjured, and kept from "the foul and impious
   monstrosities of avarice and superstition." He agrees essentially with
   the Roman doctrine, and considers baptism as a means of regeneration;
   while Zwingli and Calvin regarded it merely as a sign and seal of
   preceding regeneration and church-membership. He even makes more of it
   than the Romanists, and opposes the prevailing view of St. Jerome, that
   penitence is a second plank of refuge after shipwreck. Instead of
   relying on priestly absolution, it is better to go back to the
   remission of sins secured in baptism. "When we rise out of our sins,
   and exercise penitence, we are simply reverting to the efficacy of
   baptism and to faith in it, whence we had fallen; and we return to the
   promise then made to us, but which we had abandoned through our sin.
   For the truth of the promise once made always abides, and is ready to
   stretch out the hand and receive us when we return."

   As to the mode of baptism, he gives here, as elsewhere, his preference
   to immersion, which then still prevailed in England and in some parts
   of the Continent, and which was not a point of dispute either between
   Romanists and Protestants, or between Protestants and Anabaptists;
   while on the question of infant-baptism the Anabaptists differed from
   both. "Baptism," he says, "is that dipping into water whence it takes
   its name. For, in Greek to baptize signifies to dip, and baptism is a
   dipping." "Baptism signifies two things,--death and resurrection; that
   is, full and complete justification. When the minister dips the child
   into the water, this signifies death; when he draws him out again, this
   signifies life. Thus Paul explains the matter (Rom. 6:4) .... I could
   wish that the baptized should be totally immersed, according to the
   meaning of the word and the signification of the mystery; not that I
   think it necessary to do so, but that it would be well that so complete
   and perfect a thing as baptism should also be completely and perfectly
   expressed in the sign."

   Luther's view of baptismal regeneration seems to be inconsistent with
   his chief doctrine of justification by faith alone. He says, "It is not
   baptism which justifies any man, or is of any advantage; but faith in
   that word of promise to which baptism is added: for this justifies and
   fulfills the meaning of baptism. For faith is the submerging of the old
   man, and the emerging of the new man." But how does this apply to
   baptized infants, who can not be said to have faith in any proper sense
   of the term, though they have undoubtedly the capacity of faith? Luther
   here brings in the vicarious faith of the parents or the Church. But he
   suggests also the idea that faith is produced in the children, through
   baptism, on the ground of their religious receptivity.

   3. Lastly, Luther attacks the traditional number of the sacraments. He
   allows "only two sacraments in the Church of God, Baptism and Bread;
   since it is in these alone that we see both a sign divinely instituted,
   and a promise of remission of sins." In some sense he retains also the
   sacrament of Penance, as a way and means of return to baptism.

   The rest of the seven Roman sacraments--confirmation, marriage,
   ordination, and extreme unction--he rejects because they can not be
   proved from Scripture, and are not commanded by Christ.

   Matrimony has existed from the beginning of the world, and belongs to
   all mankind. Why, then, should it be called a sacrament? Paul calls it
   a "mystery," but not a sacrament, as translated in the Vulgate (Ep.
   5:32); or rather he speaks there of the union of Christ and the Church,
   which is reflected in matrimony as in a sort of allegory. But the Pope
   has restricted this universal human institution by rigorous impediments
   derived from spiritual affinity and legal relationship. He forbids it
   to the clergy, and claims the power to annull rightful marriages, even
   against the will of one of the parties. "Learn, then, in this one
   matter of matrimony, into what an unhappy and hopeless state of
   confusion, hindrance, entanglement, and peril all things that are done
   in the Church have been brought by the pestilent and impious traditions
   of men! There is no hope of a remedy, unless we do away with all the
   laws of men, call back the gospel of liberty, and judge and rule all
   things according to it alone."

   Luther closes with these words: "I hear a report that fresh bulls and
   papal curses are being, prepared against me, by which I am urged to
   recant, or else to be declared a heretic. If this is true, I wish this
   little book to be a part of my future recantation, that they may not
   complain that their tyranny has puffed itself up in vain. I shall also
   shortly publish, Christ being my helper, such a recantation as the See
   of Rome has never yet seen or heard, thus abundantly testifying my
   obedience in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. [245] Amen.


   " 'Hostis Herodes impie,

   Christum venire quid times?

   Non arripit mortalia

   Qui regna dat coelestia.' "
     __________________________________________________________________

   [241] On Oct. 3, 1520, Luther wrote to Spalatin: "Liber de captivitate
   Ecclesiae sabbato exibit, et ad te mittetur." (De Wette, I 491.)

   [242] He means Alveld's Tractatus de communione sub utraque specie
   quantum ad laicos, 1520. He contemptuously omits his name.

   [243] This view is usually called consubstantiation; but Lutherans
   object to the term in the sense ofimpanation, or local inclusion,
   mixture, and circumscription. They mean an illocal presence of a
   ubiquitous body.

   [244] This is not strictly historical. Transubstantiation was clearly
   taught by Paschasius Radbertus in the ninth century, though not without
   contradiction from Ratramnus. See Schaff,Ch. Hist., vol. IV. 544 sqq.

   [245] Perhaps he means the burning of the Pope's bull, rather than, as
   O. v. Gerlach conjectures, the appendix to his later book against
   Ambrosius Catharinus, in which he tries to prove that the Pope is the
   Antichrist predicted by Dan. viii. 23-25.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 46. Christian Freedom.--Luther's Last Letter to the Pope. October,
   1520.

   Von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen, Wittenberg, 1520; often
   reprinted separately, and in the collected works of Luther. See Walch,
   XIX. 1206 sqq.; Erl. ed., XXVII. 173-200 (from the first ed.);
   Gerlach's ed. V. 5-46. The Latin edition, De Libertate Christiana, was
   finished a little later, and has some additions; see Erl. ed. Opera
   Lat., IV. 206-255. Luther's letter to the Pope in Latin and German is
   printed also in De Wette, I. 497-515. English version of the tract and
   the letter by Buchheim, l.c. 95-137.

   Although Rome had already condemned Luther, the papal delegate Miltitz
   still entertained the hope of a peaceful settlement. He had extracted
   from Luther the promise to write to the Pope. He had a final interview
   with him and Melanchthon at Lichtenberg (now Lichtenburg, in the
   district of Torgau), in the convent of St. Antony, Oct. 11, 1520, a few
   days after Luther had seen the bull of excommunication. It was agreed
   that Luther should write a book, and a letter in Latin and German to
   Leo X., and assure him that he had never attacked his person, and that
   Dr. Eck was responsible for the whole trouble. The book was to be
   finished in twelve days, but. dated back to Sept. 6 in order to avoid
   the appearance of being occasioned by the Pope's bull.

   This is the origin of two of the most remarkable productions of
   Luther,--his little book on "Christian Freedom," and a dedicatory
   letter to Leo X.

   The beautiful tract on "Christian Freedom" is a pearl among Luther's
   writings. It presents a striking contrast to his polemic treatises
   against Rome, which were intended to break down the tyranny of popery.
   And yet it is a positive complement to them, and quite as necessary for
   a full understanding of his position. While opposing the Pope's
   tyranny, Luther was far from advocating the opposite extreme of
   license. He was thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the Epistle to the
   Galatians, which protests against both extremes, and inspired the
   keynote to Luther's Tract. He shows wherein true liberty consists. He
   means liberty according to the gospel; liberty in Christ, not from
   Christ; and offers this as a basis for reconciliation. He presents here
   a popular summary of Christian life. He keeps free from all polemics,
   and writes in the best spirit of that practical mysticism which
   connected him with Staupitz and Tauler.

   The leading idea is: The Christian is the lord of all, and subject to
   none, by virtue of faith; he is the servant of all, and subject to
   every one, by virtue of love. Faith and love constitute the Christian:
   the one binds him to God, the other to his fellow-man. The idea is
   derived from St. Paul, who says, "Though I was free from all men, I
   brought myself under bondage to all, that I might gain the more" (1
   Cor. 9:19); and "Owe no man any thing, save to love one another" (Rom.
   13:8). It was carried out by Christ, who was Lord of all things, yet
   born of a woman, born under the law that he might redeem them who were
   under the law (Gal. 4:4); who was at once in the form of God, and in
   the form of a servant (Phil. 2:6, 7). The Christian life is an
   imitation of the' life of Christ,--a favorite idea of the mediaeval
   mystics.

   Man is made free by faith, which alone justifies; but it manifests
   itself in love, and all good works. The person must first be good
   before good works can be done, and good works proceed from a good
   person; as Christ says, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit,
   neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" (Matt. 7:18). The
   fruit does not bear the tree, nor does the tree grow on the fruit; but
   the tree bears the fruit, and the fruit grows on the tree. So it is in
   all handicrafts. A good or bad house does not make a good or bad
   builder, but the good or bad builder makes a good or bad house. Such is
   the case with the works of men. Such as the man himself is, whether in
   faith or in unbelief, such is his work; good if it is done in faith,
   bad if in unbelief. Faith, as it makes man a believer, so also it makes
   his works good; but works do not make a believing man, nor a justified
   man. We do not reject works; nay, we commend them, and teach them in
   the highest degree. It is not on their own account that we condemn
   them, but on account of the perverse notion of seeking justification by
   them. "From faith flow forth love and joy in the Lord; and from love, a
   cheerful, willing, free spirit, disposed to serve our neighbor
   voluntarily, without taking any account of gratitude or ingratitude,
   praise or blame, gain or loss. Its object is not to lay men under
   obligations; nor does it distinguish between friends and enemies, or
   look to gratitude or ingratitude; but most freely and willingly it
   spends itself and its goods, whether it loses them through ingratitude,
   or gains good-will. For thus did its Father, distributing all things to
   all men abundantly and freely, making his sun to rise upon the just and
   the unjust. Thus, too, the child does and endures nothing except from
   the free joy with which it delights through Christ in God, the giver of
   such great gifts." ...

   "Who, then, can comprehend the riches and glory of the Christian life?
   It can do all things, has all things, and is in want of nothing; is
   lord over sin, death, and hell, and, at the same time, is the obedient
   and useful servant of all. But alas! it is at this day unknown
   throughout the world; it is neither preached nor sought after, so that
   we are quite ignorant about our own name, why we are and are called
   Christians. We are certainly called so from Christ, who is not absent,
   but dwells among us, provided we believe in him; and are reciprocally
   and mutually one the Christ of the other, doing to our neighbor as
   Christ does to us. But now, in the doctrine of men, we are taught only
   to seek after merits, rewards, and things which are already ours; and
   we have made of Christ a task-master far more severe than Moses." ...

   "We conclude, then, that a Christian man does not live in and for
   himself, but in Christ and in his neighbor, or else is no Christian; in
   Christ by faith, in his neighbor by love. By faith he is carried
   upwards above himself to God, and by love he descends below himself to
   his neighbor, still always abiding in God and his love; as Christ says,
   'Verily I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the heaven opened, and
   the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man' " (John
   1:51

   In the Latin text Luther adds some excellent remarks against those who
   misunderstand and distort spiritual liberty, turn it into an occasion
   of carnal license, and show their freedom by their contempt of
   ceremonies, traditions, and human laws. St. Paul teaches us to walk in
   the middle path, condemning either extreme, and saying, "Let not him
   that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth
   not judge him that eateth" (Rom. 14:3). We must resist the hardened and
   obstinate ceremonialists, as Paul resisted the Judaizers who would
   compel Titus to be circumcised; and we must spare the weak who are not
   yet able to apprehend the liberty of faith. We must fight against the
   wolves, but on behalf of the sheep, not against the sheep.

   This Irenicon must meet with the approval of every true Christian,
   whether Catholic or Protestant. It breathes the spirit of a genuine
   disciple of St. Paul. It is full of heroic faith and childlike
   simplicity. It takes rank with the best books of Luther, and rises far
   above the angry controversies of his age, during which he composed it,
   in the full possession of the positive truth and peace of the religion
   of Christ. [246]

   Luther sent the book to Pope Leo X., who was too worldly-minded a man
   to appreciate it; and accompanied the same with a most singular and
   undiplomatic, yet powerful polemic letter, which, if the Pope ever read
   it, must have filled him with mingled feelings of indignation and
   disgust. In his first letter to the Pope (1518), Luther had thrown
   himself at his feet as an obedient son of the vicar of Christ; in his
   second letter (1519), he still had addressed him as a humble subject,
   yet refusing to recant his conscientious convictions: in his third and
   last letter he addressed him as an equal, speaking to him with great
   respect for his personal character (even beyond his deserts), but
   denouncing in the severest terms the Roman See, and comparing him to a
   lamb among wolves, and to Daniel in the den of lions. The Popes, he
   says, are vicars of Christ because Christ is absent from Rome. [247]
   Miltitz and the Augustinian brethren, who urged him to write an
   apologetic letter to Leo, must have been sorely disappointed; for it
   destroyed all prospects of reconciliation, if they had not been
   destroyed already.

   After some complimentary words about Leo, and protesting that he had
   never spoken disrespectfully of his person, Luther goes on to say, --

   "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.

   "Oh, would that, having laid aside that glory which your most abandoned
   enemies declare to be yours, you were living rather in the office of a
   private priest, or on your paternal inheritance! In that glory none are
   worthy to glory, except the race of Iscariot, the children of
   perdition. 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: verily 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, can not 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
   favor 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 work;
   those who in every way abhor her are glorifying Christ; in short, those
   are Christians who are not Romans ....

   "In fine, that I may not approach your Holiness empty-handed, I bring
   with me this little book, [248] 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 book, if you look to the paper;
   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 any thing
   else than to be enriched by a spiritual gift. I commend myself to your
   Holiness, whom may the Lord Jesus preserve for ever. Amen.

   "Wittenberg, 6th September, 1520."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [246] Köstlin(Mart. Luth., vol. I. 395 sq.):"Die Schrift von der
   Freiheit eines Christenmenschen ist ein tief-religiöser Traktat ....
   Sie ist ein ruhiges, positives Zeugnis der Wahrheit, vor welcher die
   Waffen und Bande der Finsternis von selbst zu nichte werden müssen. Sie
   zeigt uns den tiefsten Grund des christlichen Bewusstseins und Lebens
   in einer edlen, seligen Ruhe und Sicherheit, welche die über ihm
   hingehenden Wogen und Stürme des Kampfes nicht zu erschüttern vermögen.
   Sie zeigt zugleich, wie fest Luther selbst auf diesem Grunde stand,
   indem er eben im Höhepunkt des Kampfgedränges sie zu verfassen fähig
   war." It is perhaps characteristic that Janssen, who gives one-sided
   extracts from the two other reformatory works of Luther, passes the
   tract on "Christian Liberty" in complete silence. Cardinal Hergenröther
   likewise ignores it.

   [247] "Ein Statthalter ist in Abwesenheit seines Herrn ein
   Statthalter."

   [248] De Libertate Christiana.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 47. The bull of Excommunication. June 15, 1520.

   The bull "Exurge, Domine," in the Bullarium Romanum, ed. CAR.
   Cocquelines, Tom. III., Pars III. (ab anno 1431 ad 1521), pp. 487-493,
   and in Raynaldus (continuator of Baronius): Annal. Eccl., ad ann. 1520,
   no. 51 (Tom. XX. fol. 303-306). Raynaldus calls Luther "apostatam
   nefandissimum," and takes the bull from Cochlaeus, who, besides Eck and
   Ulemberg (a Protestant apostate), is the chief authority for his meager
   and distorted account of the German Reformation. A copy of the original
   edition of the bull is in the Astor Library, New York. See Notes.

   U. v. Hutten published the bull with biting glosses: Bulla Decimi
   Leonis contra errores Lutheri et sequacium, or Die glossirte Bulle (in
   Hutten's Opera, ed. Böcking, V. 301-333; in the Erl. ed. of Luther's
   Op. Lat., IV. 261-304; also in German in Walch, XV. 1691 sqq.; comp.
   Strauss: U. v. Hutten, p. 338 sqq.). The glosses in smaller type
   interrupt the text, or are put on the margin. Luther: Von den neuen
   Eckischen Bullen und Lügen (Sept. 1520); Adv. execrabilem Antichristi
   bullam (Nov. 1520); Wider die Bullen des Endchrists (Nov. 1520; the
   same book as the preceding Latin work, but sharper and stronger); Warum
   des Papsts und seiner Jünger Bücher verbrannt sind (Lat. and Germ.,
   Dec. 1520); all in Walch, XV. fol. 1674-1917; Erl. ed., XXIV. 14-164,
   and Op. Lat. V. 132-238; 251-271. Luther's letters to Spalatin and
   others on the bull of excommunication, in De Wette, I. 518-532.

   Ranke: I. 294-301. Merle D'Aubigné, bk. VI. ch. III. sqq. Hagenbach,
   III. 100-102. Kahnis: I. 306-341. Köstlin: I. 379-382. Kolde: I. 280
   sqq. Janssen: II. 108 sqq.

   After the Leipzig disputation, Dr. Eck went to Rome, and strained every
   nerve to secure the condemnation of Luther and his followers. [249]
   Cardinals Campeggi and Cajetan, Prierias and Aleander, aided him.
   Cajetan was sick, but had himself carried on his couch into the
   sessions of the consistory. With considerable difficulty the bull of
   excommunication was drawn up in May, and after several amendments
   completed June 15, 1520. [250]

   Nearly three years had elapsed since the publication of Luther's
   Ninety-five Theses. In the mean time he had attacked with increasing
   violence the very foundations of the Roman Church, had denounced popery
   as an antichristian tyranny, and had dared to appeal from the Pope to a
   general council, contrary to the decisions of Pius II. and Julius II.,
   who declared such an appeal to be heresy. Between the completion and
   the promulgation of the bull, he went still further in his, "Address to
   the German Nobility," and the book on the "Babylonian Captivity," and
   made a reconciliation impossible except by an absolute surrender, which
   was a moral impossibility for him. Rome could not tolerate Lutheranism
   any longer without ceasing to be Rome. She delayed final action only
   for political and prudential considerations, especially in view of the
   election of a new German Emperor, and the influential voice of the
   Elector Frederick, who was offered, but declined, the imperial crown.

   The bull of excommunication is the papal counter-manifesto to Luther's
   Theses, and condemns in him the whole cause of the Protestant
   Reformation. Therein lies its historical significance. It was the last
   bull addressed to Latin Christendom as an undivided whole, and the
   first which was disobeyed by a large part of it. Instead of causing
   Luther and his friends to be burnt, it was burnt by Luther. It is an
   elaborate document, prepared with great care in the usual heavy,
   turgid, and tedious style of the curia. It breathes the genuine spirit
   of the papal hierarchy, and mingles the tones of priestly arrogance,
   concern for truth, abomination of heresy and schism, fatherly sorrow,
   and penal severity. The Pope speaks as if he were the personal
   embodiment of the truth, the infallible judge of all matters of faith,
   and the dispenser of eternal rewards and punishments.

   He begins with the words of Ps. 74:22: "Arise, O God, plead thine own
   cause: remember how the foolish man reproacheth thee daily. Forget not
   the voice of thine enemies: the tumult of those that rise up against
   thee increaseth continually." He calls St. Peter, St. Paul, and the
   whole body of the saints, to aid against "the boar out of the wood" and
   "the wild beast of the field" that had broken into the vineyard of the
   Lord, to waste and destroy it (Ps. 80:13). He expresses deep sorrow at
   the revival of the Bohemian and other heresies in the noble German
   nation which had received the empire from the Pope, and shed so much
   precious blood against heresy. Then he condemns forty-one propositions
   selected from Luther's books, as heretical, or at least scandalous and
   offensive to pious ears, and sentences all his books to the flames.
   Among the errors named are those relating to the sacramental and
   hierarchical system, especially the authority of the Pope and the
   (Roman) Church. The denial of free will (liberum arbitrium) after the
   fall is also condemned, though clearly taught by St. Augustin. But
   Luther's fundamental doctrine of justification by faith is not
   expressly mentioned. The sentences are torn from the connection, and
   presented in the most objectionable form as mere negations of Catholic
   doctrines. The positive views of the Reformer are not stated, or
   distorted.

   For the person of Luther, the Pope professes fatherly love and
   forbearance, and entreats him once more, by the mercies of God and the
   blood of Christ, to repent and recant within sixty days after the
   publication of the bull in the Brandenburg, Meissen, and Merseburg
   dioceses, and promises to receive him graciously like the prodigal son.
   But failing to repent, he and his adherents will be cut off, as
   withered branches, from the vine of Christ, and be punished as
   obstinate heretics. This means that they shall be burned; for the bull
   expressly condemns the proposition of Luther which denounces the
   burning of heretics as "contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit." All
   princes, magistrates, and citizens are exhorted, on threat of
   excommunication and promise of reward, to seize Luther and his
   followers, and to hand him over to the apostolic chair. Places which
   harbor him or his followers are threatened with the interdict.
   Christians are forbidden to read, print, or publish any of his books,
   and are commanded to burn them.

   We may infer from this document in what a state of intellectual slavery
   Christendom would be at the present time if the papal power had
   succeeded in crushing the Reformation. It is difficult to estimate the
   debt we owe to Martin Luther for freedom and progress.

   The promulgation and execution of the bull were intrusted to two
   Italian prelates, Aleander and Caraccioli, and to Dr. Eck. The personal
   enemy of Luther, who had been especially active in procuring the bull,
   was now sent back in triumph with the dignity of a papal nuncio, and
   even with the extraordinary power of including by name several
   followers of Luther, among whom he singled out Carlstadt and Dolzig of
   Wittenberg, Adelmann of Augsburg, Egranus of Zwickau, and the humanists
   Pirkheimer and Spengler of Nürnberg. The selection of Eck, the most
   unpopular man in Germany, was a great mistake of the Pope, as Roman
   historians admit, and it helped the cause of the Reformation. [251]

   The bull was published and carried out without much difficulty in
   Mayence, Cologne, and Louvain; and Luther's books were committed to the
   flames, with the sanction of the new Emperor. But in Northern Germany,
   which was the proper seat of the conflict, it met with determined
   resistance, and was defeated. Eck printed and placarded the bull at
   Ingolstadt, at Meissen (Sept. 21), at Merseburg (Sept. 25), and at
   Brandenburg (Sept. 29). But in Leipzig where a year before he had
   achieved his boasted victory over Luther in public debate, he was
   insulted by the students (one hundred and fifty had come over from
   Wittenberg), and took flight in a convent; the bull was bespattered,
   and torn to pieces. [252] He fared still worse in Erfurt, where he had
   been ridiculed and held up to scorn as a second Hochstraten in the
   satire Eccius dedolatus (printed at Erfurt in March, 1520): the
   theological faculty refused to publish the bull; and the students threw
   the printed copies into the water, saying, "It is only a water-bubble
   (bulla), let it float on the water." [253]

   Eck sent the bull to the rector of the University of Wittenberg, Oct.
   3, 1520, with the request to prohibit the teaching of any of the
   condemned propositions of Luther, and threatening that, in case of
   disobedience, the Pope would recall all the liberties and privileges of
   the university. The professors and counselors of the Elector declined
   the promulgation for various reasons.

   The Elector Frederick was on the way to Aachen to assist at the
   coronation of Charles V., but was detained at Cologne by the gout.
   There he received the bull from Aleander after the mass, Nov. 4, and
   was urged with eloquent words to execute it, and to punish Luther or to
   send him to Rome; but he cautiously deferred an answer, and sought the
   advice of Erasmus in the presence of Spalatin. The famous scholar gave
   it as his judgment, that Luther's crime consisted in having touched the
   triple crown of the Pope and the stomachs of the monks; [254] he also
   wrote to Spalatin, after the interview, that the Pope's bull offended
   all upright men by its ferocity and was unworthy of a meek vicar of
   Christ. [255] The Elector was thus confirmed in his favorable view of
   Luther. He sent Spalatin to Wittenberg, where some students had left in
   consequence of the bull; but Spalatin was encouraged, and found that
   Melanchthon had about six hundred, Luther four hundred hearers, and
   that the church was crowded whenever Luther preached. A few weeks
   afterward the Pope's bull was burnt.

   NOTES.--THE BULL OF EXCOMMUNICATION.

   As I do not find the bull in any of the Protestant or Roman-Catholic
   church histories which I have consulted (except the Annals of
   Raynaldus), I give it here in full as transcribed from an original copy
   in possession of the Astor Library, New York (probably the only one on
   the American Continent), together with facsimiles of titlepage and
   first page (see preceeding pages in text). The pamphlet contains twenty
   pages, small quarto, and is printed continuously, like ancient MSS. I
   have divided it into sections, with headings, and noted the departures
   of Cocquelines and Raynaldus from the original.

   BULLA CONTRA ERRORES MARTINI LUTHERI ET SEQUACIUM.

   Leo Episcopus Servus Servorum Dei. [256]

   Ad perpetuam rel memoriam.

   [Proömium. The Pope invokes God, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the
   saints, against the new enemies of the Church.]

   Exurge, Domine, et judica causam tuam, memor esto improperiorum tuorum,
   eorum, quae ab insipientibus fiunt totâ die; inclina aurem tuam ad
   preces nostras, quoniam surrexerunt vulpes quaerentes demoliri vineam,
   cujus tu torcular calcasti solus, et ascensurus ad Patrem ejus curam,
   regimen et administrationem Petro tanquam capiti et tuo vicario,
   ejusque successoribus instar triumphantis Ecclesiae commisisti:
   exterminate nititur eam aper de silva, et singularis ferus depasci
   [tur] eam. Exurge, Petre, et pro pastorali cura praefata tibi (ut
   praefertur) divinitus demandata, intende in causam sanctae Romanae
   Ecclesiae, Matris omnium ecclesiarum, se fidei magistrae, quam tu,
   jubente Deo, tuo sanguine consecrasti, contra quam, sicut tu praemonere
   dignatus es, insurgunt magistri mendaces introducentes sectas
   perditionis, sibi celerem interitum superducentes, [257] quorum lingua
   ignis est, inquietum malum, plena veneno mortifero, qui zelum amarum
   habentes et contentiones in cordibus suis, gloriantur, et mendaces sunt
   adversus veritatem. Exurge tu quoque, quaesumus, Paule, qui eam tuâ
   doctrinâ et pari martyrio illuminasti atque illustrasti. Jam enim
   surgit novus Porphyrius; quia sicut ille olim sanctos Apostolos injuste
   momordit, ita hic sanctos Pontifices praedecessores nostros contra tuam
   doctrinam eos non obsecrando, sed increpando, mordere, lacerare, ac ubi
   causae suae [258] diffidit, ad convicia accedere non veretur, more
   haereticorum, quorum (ut inquit Hieronymus) ultimum presidium est, ut
   cum conspiciant causas suas damnatum iri, incipiant virus serpentis
   linguâ diffundere; et cum se victos conspiciant, ad contuinelias
   prosilire. Nam licet haereses esse ad exercitationem fidelium in
   dixeris oportere, eas tamen, ne incrementum accipiant, neve vulpeculae
   coalescant, in ipso ortu, te intercedente et adjuvante, extingui
   necesse est.

   Exurgat denique, [259] omnis Sanctorum, ac reliqua universalis
   Ecclesia, cujus vera sacrarum literarum interpretatione posthabitâ,
   quidam, quorum mentem pater mendacii excaecavit, ex veteri haereticorum
   instituto, apud semetipsos sapientes, scripturas easdem aliter quam
   Spiritus sanctus flagitet, proprio dumtaxat sensu ambitionis, auraeque
   popularis causâ, teste Apostolo, interpretantur, immo vero torquent et
   adulterant, ita ut juxta Hieronymum jam non sit evangelium Christi, sed
   hominis, aut quod pejus est, diaboli. Exurgat, inquam, praefata
   Ecclesia sancta Dei, et una cum beatissimis Apostolis praefatis [260]
   apud Deum omnipotentem intercedat, ut purgatis ovium suarum erroribus,
   eliminatisque a fidelium finibus haeresibus universis Ecclesiae suae
   sanctae pacem et unitatem conservare dignetur.

   [The errors of the Greeks and Bohemians revived by Luther and his
   followers.]

   Dudum siquidem [261] quod prae animi angustia et moerore exprimere vix
   possumus, fide dignorum relatu ac famâ publicâ referente ad nostrum
   pervenit auditum, immo vero, proh dolor! oculis nostris vidimus ac
   legimus, multos et varios errores quosdam videlicet jam per Concilia ac
   Praedec-essorum nostrorum constitutiones damnatos, haeresim etiam
   Graecorum et Bohemicam expresse continentes: alios vero respective, vel
   haereticos, vel falsos, vel scandalosos, vel piarum aurium offensivos,
   vel simplicium mentium seductivos, a falsis fidei cultoribus, qui per
   superbam curiositatem mundi gloriam cupientes, contra Apostoli
   doctrinam plus sapere volunt, quam oporteat; quorum garrulitas (ut
   inquit Hieronymus) sine scripturarum auctoritate non haberet fidem,
   nisi viderentur perversam doctrinam etiam divinis testimoniis, male
   tamen interpretatis, roborare: a quorum oculis Dei timor recessit,
   humani generis hoste suggerente, noviter suscitatos, et nuper apud
   quosdam leviores in inclyta natione Germanica seminatos.

   [The Germans, who received the empire from the Pope, were formerly most
   zealous against heresy, but now give birth to the most dangerous
   errors.]

   Quod eo magis dolemus ibi [262] evenisse, quod eandem nationem et nos
   et Praedecessores nostri in visceribus semper gesserimus caritatis. Nam
   post translatum ex Grecis a Romana Ecclesia in eosdem Germanos
   imperium, iidem Praedecessores nostri et nos ejusdem Ecclesiae
   advocates defensoresque ex eis semper accepimus; quos quidem Germanos,
   Catholicae veritatis vere germanos, constat haeresum [haeresium]
   acerrimos oppugnatores [263] semper fuisse: cujus rei testes sunt
   laudabiles illae constitutiones Germanorum Imperatorum pro libertate
   Ecclesiae, proque expellendis exterminandisque ex omni Germania
   haereticis, sub gravissimis poenis, etiam amissionis terrarum et
   dominiorum, contra receptatores vel non expellentes olim editae, et à
   nostris Praedecessoribus confirmatae, quae si hodie servarentur, et nos
   et ipsi utique hae molestiâ careremus. Testis est in Concilio
   Constantiensi Hussitarum ac Wiccleffistarum, necnon Hieronymi Pragensis
   damnata ac punita perfidia. Testis est totiens contra Bohemos
   Germanorum sanguis effusus. Testis denique est praedictorum errorum,
   seu multorum ex eis per Coloniensem et Lovaniensem Universitates,
   utpote agri dominici piissimas religiosissimasque cultrices, non minus
   docta quam vera ac sancta confutatio, reprobatio, et damnatio. Multa
   quoque alia allegare possemus, quae, ne historiam texere videamur,
   praetermittenda censuimus.

   Pro pastorals igitur officii, divinâ gratiâ, nobis injuncti cura, quam
   gerimus, praedictorum errorum virus pestiferum ulterius tolerare seu
   dissimulare sine Christianae, religionis nota, atque orthodoxae fidei
   injuria nullo modo possumus. Eorum autem errorum aliquos praesentibus
   duximus inferendos, quorum tenor sequitur, et est talis: --

   [Forty-one heretical sentences selected from Luther's writings.]

   I. Haeretica sententia est, sed usitata, Sacramenta novae legis
   justificantem gratiam illis dare, qui non ponunt obicem.

   II. In puero post baptismum negare remanens peccatum, est Paulum et
   Christum simul conculcare.

   III. Fomes peccati, etiam si nullum adsit actuale peccatum, moratur
   exeuntem a corpore animam ab ingressu coeli.

   IV. Imperfecta caritas morituri fert secum necessario magnum timorem,
   qui se solo satis est facere poenam purgatorii, et impedit introitum
   regni.

   V. Tres esse partes poenitentiae, contritionem, confessionem, et
   satisfactionem, non est fundatum in sacra scriptura, nec in antiquis
   sanctis Christianis doctoribus.

   VI. Contritio, quae paratus per discussionem, collectionem, [264] et
   deteststionem peccatorum, qua quis recogitat annos suos in amaritudine
   animae suae, ponderando peccatorum gravitatem, multitudinem,
   foeditatem, amissionem aeternae beatitudinis, ac aeternae damnationis
   acquisitionem, haec contritio facit hypocritam, immo magis peccatorem.

   VII. Verissimum est proverbium, et omnium doctrina de contritionibus
   hucusque data praestantius, de cetero non facere, summa poenitentia,
   optima poenitentia, nova vita.

   VIII. Nullo modo praesumas confiteri peccata venialia, sed nec omnia
   mortalia, quia impossibile est, ut omnia mortalia cognoscas: unde in
   primitiva Ecclesia solum manifesta mortalia confitebantur.

   IX. Dum volumus omnia pure confiteri, nihil aliud facimus, quam quod
   misericordiae Dei nihil volumus relinquere ignoscendum.

   X. Peccata non sunt illi remissa, nisi remittente sacerdote credat sibi
   remitti; immo peccatum maneret nisi remissum crederet; non enim
   sufficit remissio peccati et gratiae donatio, sed oportet etiam credere
   esse remissum.

   XI. Nullo modo confidas absolvi propter tuam contritionem, sed propter
   verbum Christi: "Quodcumque solveris." etc. Sic, inquam, confide, si
   sacerdotis obtinueris absolutionem, et crede fortiter te absolutum; et
   absolutus vere eris, [265] quidquid sit de contritione.

   XII. Si per impossibile confessus non esset contritus, aut sacerdos non
   serio, sed joco absolveret, si tamen credat se absolutum, verissime est
   absolutus.

   XIII. In sacramento poenitentiae se remissione culpae non plus facit
   Papa aut episcopus, quam infimus sacerdos; immo ubi non est sacerdos,
   aeque tantum quilibet Christianus, etiam si mulier, aut puer esset.

   XIV. Nullus debet sacerdote respondere, se esse contritum, nec [266]
   sacerdos requirere.

   XV. Magnus est error eorum, qui ad sacramenta Eucharistiae accedunt
   huic innixi, quod sint confessi, quod non sint sibi conscii alicujus
   peccati mortalis; quod praemiserint orationes suas et praeparatoria;
   omnes illi ad [267] judicium sibi manducant et bibunt; sed si credant
   et confidant se gratiam ibi consecuturos, haec sola fides facit eos
   puros et dignos.

   XVI. Consultum videtur, quod Ecclesia in communi concilio [268]
   statueret, laicos sub utraque specie communicandos; nec Bohemi
   communicantes sub utraque specie [269] sunt haeretici, sed schismatici.

   XVII. Thesauri Ecclesiae, unde Papa dat indulgentias, non sunt merita
   Christi et sanctorum.

   XVIII. Indulgentiae sunt piae fraudes fidelium, et remissiones bonorum
   onerum, et sunt de numero eorum, quae licent, et non de numero eorum,
   quae expediunt.

   XIX. Indulgentiae his, qui veraciter eas consequuntur, non valent ad
   remissionem poenae pro peccatis actualibus debitae ad divinam
   justitiam.

   XX. Seducuntur credentes indulgentias esse salutares, et ad fructum
   spiritûs utiles.

   XXI. Indulgentiae necessariae sunt solum publicis criminibus, et
   proprie conceduntur duris solummodo et impatientibus.

   XXII. Sex generibus hominum indulgentiae nec sunt necessariae, nec
   utiles; videlicet mortuis seu morituris, infirmis, legitime impeditis,
   his qui non commiserunt crimina, his qui crimina commiserunt, sed non
   publica, his qui meliora operantur.

   XXIII. Excommunicationes sunt tantum externae poenae, nec privant
   hominem communibus spiritualibus Ecclesiae orationibus.

   XXIV. Docendi sunt Christiani plus diligere excommunicationem quam
   timere.

   XXV. Romanus Pontifex, Petri successor, non est Christi vicarius super
   omnes mundi ecclesias ab ipso Christo in beato Petro institutus.

   XXVI. Verbum Christi ad Petrum: "Quodcumque solveris super terram,"
   etc., extenditur duntaxat ad ligata ab ipso Petro.

   XXVII. Certum est in manu Ecclesiae aut Papae prorsus non esse statuere
   articulos fidei, immo nec leges morum, seu bonorum operum.

   XXVIII. Si Papa cum magna parte Ecclesiae sic vel sic sentiret, nec
   etiam erraret, adhuc non est peccatum aut haeresis contrarium sentire,
   praesertim in re non necessaria ad salutem, donec fuerit per Concilium
   universale alterum reprobatum, alterum approbatum.

   XXIX. Via nobis facta est enarrandi auctoritatem Conciliorum, et libere
   contradicendi eorum gestis, et judicandi eorum decreta, et confidenter
   confitendi quidquid verum videtur, sive probatum fuerit, sive
   reprobatum a quocunque concilio.

   XXX. Aliqui articuli Joannis Husz condemnati in concilio Constantiensi
   sunt Christianissimi, verissimi et evangelici, quos non universalis
   Ecclesia posset damnare.

   XXXI. In omni opere bono Justus peccat.

   XXXII. Opus bonum optime factum veniale est peccatum.

   XXXIII. Haereticos comburi est contra voluntatem Spiritûs. [270]

   XXXIV. Praeliari adversus Turcas est repugnare Deo visitanti
   iniquitates nostras per illos.

   XXXV. Nemo est certus se non semper peccare mortaliter propter
   occultissimum superbaa vitium.

   XXXVI. Liberum arbitrium post peccatum est res de solo titulo, et dum
   facit quod in se est, peccat mortaliter.

   XXXVII. Purgatorium non potest probari ex sacra scriptura, quae sit in
   canone.

   XXXVIII. Animae in purgatorio non sunt securae de earum salute, saltem
   omnes; nec probatum est ullis aut rationibus aut scripturis, ipsas esse
   extra statum merendi, aut [271] agendae caritatis.

   XXXIX. Animae in purgatorio peccant sine intermissione, quamdiu
   quaerunt requiem, et horrent poenas.

   XL. Animae ex purgatorio liberatae suffragiis viventium minus beantur,
   quam si per se satisfecissent.

   XLI. Praelati ecclesiastica et principes seculares non malefacerent si
   omnes saccos mendicitatis [272] delerent.

   [These propositions are condemned as heretical, scandalous, offensive,
   and contrary to Catholic truth.]

   Qui quidem errores respective quam sint pestiferi, quam perniciosi,
   quam scandalosi, quam piarum et simplicium mentium seductivi, quam
   denique sint contra omnem charitatem, ac sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae
   matris omnium fidelium et magistrae fidei reverentiam atque nervum
   ecclesiasticae disciplines, obedientiam scilicet, quae fons est et
   origo omnium virtutum, sine qua facile unusquisque infidelis esse
   convincitur, nemo sanae mentis ignorat. Nos Igitur in praemissis,
   utpote gravissimis, propensius (ut decet) procedere, necnon hujusmodi
   pesti morboque canceroso, ne in agro Dominico tanquam vepris nociva
   ulterius serpat, viam praecludere cupientes, habita super praedictis
   erroribus, et eorum singulis diligenti trutinatione, discussione, ac
   districto examine, maturaque deliberatione, omnibusque rite pensatis ac
   saeepius ventilatis cum venerabilibus fratribus nostris sanctae Romanae
   Ecclesiae Cardinalibus, ac regularium ordinum Prioribus, seu ministris
   generalibus, plurisbusque aliis sacrae theologiae, necnon utriusque
   juris professoribus sive magistris, et quidem peritissimis, reperimus
   eosdem errores respective (ut praefertur) aut articulos non esse
   catholicos, nec tanquam tales esse dogmatizandos, sed contra Ecclesivae
   Catholicae doctrinam sive traditionem, atque ab ea veram divinarum
   scripturarum receptam interpretationem, cujus auctoritati ita
   acquiescendum censuit Augustinus, ut dixerit, se Evangelio non fuisse
   crediturum, nisi Ecclesiae Catholicae intervenisset auctoritas. Nam ex
   eisdem erroribus, vel eorum aliquo, vel aliquibus, palam sequitur,
   eandem Ecclesiam, quae Spiritu sancto regitur, errare, et semper
   errasse. Quod est utique contra illud, quod Christus discipulis suis in
   ascensione sua (ut in sancto Evangelio Matthaei legitur) promisit
   dicens: "Ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem seculi;" necnon
   contra Sanctorum Patrum determinationes, Conciliorum quoque et summorum
   Pontificum expressas ordinationes seu canones, quibus non obtemperasse
   omnium haeresum et schismatum, teste Cypriano, fomes et causa semper
   fuit.

   De eorundem itaque venerabilium fratrum nostrorum consilio et assensu,
   se omnium et singulorum praedictorum maturâ deliberatione praedicta,
   auctoritate omnipotentis Dei, et beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli,
   et nostra, praefatos omnes et singulos articulos seu errores, tanquam
   (ut praemittitur) respective haereticos, aut scandalosos, aut falsos,
   aut piarum aurium offensivos, vel simplicium mentium seductivos, et
   veritate Catholicae obviantes, damnamus, reprobamus, ac omnino
   rejicimus, ac pro damnatis, reprobatis, et rejectis ab omnibus
   utriusque sexûs Christi fidelibus haberi debere, harum serie decernimus
   et declaramus. [273]

   [Prohibition of the defence and publication of these errors.]

   Inhibentes in virtute sanctae obedientiae ac sub majoris
   excommunicationis latae sententiae, necnon quoad Ecclesiasticas et
   Regulares personas, Episcopalium omnium, etiam Patriarchalium,
   Metropolitanarum et aliarum Cathedralium Ecclesiarum, Monasteriorum
   quoque et Prioratuum etiam Conventualium et quarumcunque [274]
   dignitatum aut Beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum, Saecularium aut quorum
   vis Ordinum Regularium, privationis et inhabilitatis ad illa, et alia
   in posterum obtinenda. Quo vero ad Conventus, Capitula seu domos, aut
   pia loca saecularium, vel regularium, etiam Mendicantium, necnon
   Universitatis etiam studiorum generalium quorumcunque privilegiorum
   indultorum a Sede Apostolica, vel ejus Legatis, aut alias quomodolibet
   habitorum, vel obtentorum, cujuscumque tenoris existant: necnon nominis
   et potestatis studium generale tenendi, legendi, ac interpretandi
   quasvis scientias et facultates et inhabilitatis ad illa et alia in
   posterum obtinenda: Praedicationis quoque officii ac amissionis studii
   generalis et omnium privilegiorum ejusdem. Quo vero ad saeculares
   ejusdem excommunicationis, necnon amissionis cujuscumque emphyteosis,
   seu quorumcunque feudorum, tam a Romana Ecclesia, quam alias
   quomodolibet obtentorum, ac etiam inhabilitatis ad illa et alia in
   posterum obtinenda. Necnon quo ad omnes et singulos superius nominatos,
   inhibitionis Ecclesiasticae sepulturae inhabilitatisque ad omnes et
   singulos actus legitimos, infamiae ac diffidationis et criminis laesae
   majestatis, et haereticorum et fautorum eorundem in jure expressis
   poenis, eo ipso et absque ulteriori declaratione per omnes et singulos
   supradictos, si (quod absit) contrafecerint, incurrendis. A quibus
   vigore cujuscumque facultatis et clausularum etiam in confessionalibus
   quibusvis personis, sub quibusvis verborum formis contentarum, nisi a
   Romano Pontifice vel alio ab eo ad id in specie facultatem habente,
   praeterquam in mortis artlculo constitute, absolvi nequeant. Omnibus et
   singulis utriusque sexus Christifidelibus, tam Laicis quam Clericis,
   Saecularibus et quorumvis Ordinum Regularibus, et aliis quibuscumque
   personis cujuscumque status, gradus, vel conditionis existant, et
   quarumque ecclesiastica vel mundana praefulgeant dignitate, etiam S. R.
   E. Cardinalibas, Patriarchis, Primatibus, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis,
   Patriarchalium, Metropolitanarum et aliaram Cathedralium, Collegiatarum
   ac inferiorum ecclesiarum Praelatis, Clericis aliisque personis
   Eccleslasticis, Saecularibus et quorumvis Ordinum etiam Mendicantium
   regularibus, Abbatibus, Prioribus vel Ministris generalibus vel
   particularibus, Fratribus, seu Religiosis, exemptis et non exemptis:
   Studiorum quoque Universitatibus Saecularibus et quorumvis Ordinum
   etiam Mendicantium regularibus, necnon Regibus, Imperatori,
   Electoribus, Principibus, Ducibus, Marchionibus, Comitibus, Baronibus,
   Capitaneis, Conductoribus, Domicellis, omnibusque Officialibus,
   Judicibus, Notariis Ecelesiasticis et Saecularibus, Communitatibus,
   Universitatibus, Potentatibus, Civitatibus, Castris, Terris et locis,
   seu eorum vel earum civibus, habitatoribus et incolis, ac quibusvis
   aliis personis Ecclesiasticis, vel Regularibus (ut praefertur) per
   universum orbem, ubicumque, praesertim in Alemania existentibus, vel
   pro tempore futures, ne praefatos errores, aut eorum aliquos,
   perversamque doctrinam hujusmodi asserere, affirmare, defendere,
   praedicare, aut illi quomodolibet, publice vel occulte, quovis quaesito
   ingenio vel colore, tacite vel expresse favere praesumant.

   [The writings of Luther are forbidden, and ordered to be burnt.]

   Insuper quia errores praefati, et plures alii continentur in libellis
   seu scriptis Martini Luther, dictos libellos, et omnia dicti Martini
   scripta, seu praedicationes in Latino, vel quocumque alio idiomate
   reperiantur, in quibus dicti errores, seu eorum aliquis continentur,
   similiter damnamus, reprobamus, atque omnino rejicimus, et pro
   damnatis, reprobatis, ac rejectis (ut praefertur) haberi volumus,
   mandantes in virtute sanctae obedientiae et sub poenis praedictis eo
   ipso incurrendis, omnibus et singulis utriusque sexûs Christifidelibus
   superius nominatis, ne hujusmodi scripta, libellos, praedicationes, seu
   schedulas, vel in eis contenta capitula, errores, aut articulos
   supradictos continentia legere, asserere, praedicare, laudare,
   imprimere, publicare, sive defendere per se vel alium, seu alios
   directe vel indirecte, tacite vel expresse, publice vel occulte, aut in
   domibus suis sive aliis publicis vel privatis locis tenere quoquo modo
   praesumant; quinimmo illa statim post harum publicationem ubicumque
   fuerint, per ordinaries et alios supradictos diligenter quaesita,
   publice et solemniter in praesentia cleri et populi sub omnibus et
   singulis supradictis poenis comburant.

   [Martin Luther was often warned with paternal charity to desist from
   these errors, and cited to Rome with the promise of safe-conduct.]

   Quod vero ad ipsum Martinum attinet, (bone Deus) quid praetermisimus,
   quid non fecimus, quid paternae charitatis omisimus, ut eum ab
   hujusmodi erroribus revocaremus? Postquam enim ipsum citavimus, mitius
   cum eo procedere volentes, illum invitavimus, atque tam per diversos
   tractatus cum legato nostro habitos, quam per literas nostras hortati
   fuimus, ut a paedictis erroribus discederet, aut oblato etiam salvo
   conductu et pecuniâ ad iter necessariâ, sine metu seu timore aliquo
   quem perfecta charitas foras mittere debuit, veniret, ac Salvatoris
   nostri Apostolique Pauli exemplo, non occulto, sed palam et in facie
   loqueretur. Quod si fecisset, pro certe (ut arbitramur) ad cor reversus
   errores suos cognovisset, nec in Romana curia, quam tantopere vanis
   malevolorum rumoribus plusquam oportuit tribuendo vituperat, tot
   reperisset errata; docuissemusque cum luce clarius, sanctos Romanos
   Pontifices, quos praeter omnem modestiam injuriose lacerat, in suis
   canonibus, seu constitutionibus, quas mordere nititur, nunquam errasse;
   quia juxta prophetam, nec in Galahad resina, nec medicus deest. Sed
   obaudivit semper, et praedicta citatione omnibus et singulis
   supradictis spretis venire contempsit, ac usque in praesentem diem
   contumax, atque animo indurate censuras ultra annum sustinuit: et quod
   deterius est, addens mala malis, de citatione hujusmodi notitiam
   habens, in vocem temerariae appellationis prorupit ad futurum concilium
   contra constitutionem Pii Secundi ac Julii Secundi, praedecessorum
   nostrorum, qua cavetur, taliter appellantes haereticorum poenâ
   plectendos (frustra etiam Consilii auxilium imploravit, qui illi se non
   credere palam profitetur); ita ut contra ipsum tanquam de fide notorie
   suspectum, immo vere haereticum absque ulterori citatione vel mora ad
   condemnationem et damnationem ejus tanquam haeretici, ac ad omnium et
   singularum suprascriptarum poenarum et censurarum severitatem procedere
   possemus.

   [Luther is again exhorted to repent, and promised the reception of the
   prodigal son.]

   Nihilominus de eorundem fratrum nostroruin consilio, omnipotentis Dei
   imitantes clementiam, qui non vult mortem peccatoris, sed magis ut
   convertatur et vivat, omnium injuriarum hactenus nobis et Apostolicqae
   sedi illatarum obliti, omni qua possumus pietate uti decrevimus, et
   quantum in nobis est, agere, ut propositâ mansuetudinis viâ ad cor
   revertatur, et a praedictis recedat erroribus, ut ipsum tanquam filium
   illum prodigum ad gremium Ecclesiae revertentem benigne recipiamus.
   Ipsum igitur Martinum et quoscumque ei adhaerentes, ejusque
   receptatores et fautores per viscera misericordiae Dei nostri, et per
   aspersionem sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quo et per quem
   humani generis redemptio, et sanctae matris Ecclesiae aedificatio facta
   est, ex tote corde hortamur et obsecramus, ut ipsius Ecclesiae pacem,
   unitatem et veritatem, pro qua ipse Salvator tam instanter oravit ad
   Patrem, turbare desistant, et a praedictis, tam perniciosis erroribus
   prorsus abstineant, inventuri apud nos si effectualiter paruerint, et
   paruisse per legitima documenta nos certificaverint, paternae
   charitatis affectum, et apertum mansuetudinis et clementiae fontem.

   [Luther is suspended from the functions of the ministry, and given
   sixty days, after the publication of the bull, to recant.]

   Inhibentes nihilominus eidem Martino ex nunc, ut interim ab omni
   praedicatione seu praedicationis officio omnino desistat. Alioquin in
   ipsum Martinum si forte justitiae et virtutis amor a peccato non
   retrahat, indulgentiaeque spes ad poenitentiam non reducat, poenarum
   terror coërceat disciplinae: eundem Martinum ejusque adhaerentes
   complices, fautores, et receptatores tenore praesentium requirimus, et
   monemus in virtute sanctae obedientiae, sub praedictis omnibus et
   singulis poenis eo ipso incurrendis districte praecipiendo mandamus,
   quatenus infra sexaginta dies, quorum viginti pro primo, viginti pro
   secundo, et reliquos viginti dies pro tertio et peremptorio termino
   assignamus ab affixione praesentium in locis infrascriptis immediate
   sequentes numerandos, ipse Martinus, complices, fautores, adhaerentes,
   et receptatores praedicti a praefatis erroribus, eorumque
   praedicatione, ac publications, et assertione, defensione quoque et
   librorum seu scripturarum editione super eisdem, sive eorum aliquo
   omnino desistant, librosque ac scripturas omnes et singulas praefatos
   errores seu eorum aliquos quomodolibet continentes comburant, vel
   comburi faciant. Ipse etiam Martinus errores et assertiones hujusmodi
   omnino revocet, ac de revocatione hujusmodi per publica documenta in
   forma juris valida in manibus duorum Praelatorum consignata ad nos
   infra alios similes sexaginta dies transmittenda, vel per ipsummet (si
   ad nos venire voluerit, quod magis placeret) cum praefato plenissimo
   salvo conductu, quem ex nunc concedimus deferenda, nos certiores
   efficiat, ut de ejus vera obedientia nullus dubitationis scrupulus
   valeat remanere.

   [In case Luther and his followers refuse to recant within sixty days,
   they will be excommunicated, and dealt with according to law.]

   Alias si (quod absit) Martinus praefatus, complices, fautores,
   adhaerentes et receptatores praedicti secus egerint, seu proemissa
   omnia et singula infra terminum praedictum cum effectu non
   adimpleverint, Apostoli imitantes doctrinam, qui haereticum hominem
   post primam et secundam correctionem vitandum docuit, ex nunc prout ex
   tunc, et e converso eundem Martinum, complices, adhaerentes, fautores
   et receptatores praefatos et eorum quemlibet tanquam aridos palmites in
   Christo non manentes, sed doctrinam contrariam, Catholicae fidei
   inimicam, sive scandalosam seu damnatam, in non modicam offensam
   divinae majestatis, ac universalis Ecclesiae, et fidei Catholicae
   detrimentum et scandalum dogmatizantes, claves quoque Ecclesiae
   vilipendentes, notorios et pertinaces haereticos eâdem auctoritate
   fuisse et esse declarantes, eosdem ut tales harum serie condemnamus, et
   eos pro talibus haberi ab omnibus utriusque sexus Christi fidelibus
   supradictis volumus et mandamus. Eosque omnes et singulos omnibus
   supradictis et aliis contra tales a jure inflictis poenis praesentium
   tenore subjicimus, et eisdem irretitos fuisse et esse decernimus et
   declaramus.

   [All Catholics are admonished not to read, print, or publish any book
   of Luther and his followers, but to burn them.]

   Inhibemus praeterea sub omnibus et singulis praemissis poenis eo ipso
   incurrendis, omnibus et singulis Christi fidelibus superius nominatis,
   ne scripta, etiam praefatos errores non continentia, ab eodem Martino
   quomodolibet condita vel edita, aut condenda vel edenda, seu eorum
   aliqua tanquam ab homine orthodoxae fidei inimico, atque ideo
   vehementer suspecta, et ut ejus memoria omnino deleatur de
   Christifidelium consortio, legere, asserere, praedicare, laudare,
   imprimere, publicare, sive defendere, per se vel alium seu alios,
   directe vel indirecte, tacite vel expresse, publice vel occulte, seu in
   domibus suis, sive aliis locis publicis vel privatis tenere quoquomodo
   praesumant, quinimmo illa comburant, ut praefertur. [275]

   [Christians are forbidden, after the excommunication, to hold any
   intercourse with Luther and his followers, or to give them shelter, on
   pain of the interdict; and magistrates are commanded to arrest and send
   them to Rome.]

   Monemus insuper omnes et singulos Christifideles supradictos, sub eadem
   excommunicationis latae sententiae poena, ut haereticos praedictos
   declaratos et condemnatos, mandatis nostris non obtemperantes, post
   lapsum termini supradicti evitent et quantum in eis est, evitari
   faciant, nec cum eisdem, vel eorum aliquo commercium aut aliquam
   conversationem seu communionem habeant, nec eis necessaria ministrent.

   Ad majorem praeterea dicti Martini suorumque complicum, fautorum et
   adhaerentium ac receptatorum praedictorum, sic post lapsum termini
   praedicti declaratorum haereticorum et condemnatorum confusionem
   universis et singulis utriusque sexus Christifidelibus Patriarchis,
   Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Patriarchalium, Metropolitanarum, et aliarum
   cathedralium, collegiatarum ac inferiorum ecclesiarum Praelatis,
   Capitulis, aliisque personis ecclesiastica, saecularibus et quoramvis
   Ordinum etiam Mendicantium (praesertim ejus congregationis cujus dictus
   Martinus est professus, et in qua degere vel morari dicitur)
   regularibus exemptis et non exemptis, necnon universis et singulis
   principibus, quacumque ecclesiastica vel mundana fulgentibus dignitate
   Regibus, Imperatoris [276] Electoribus, Ducibus, Marchionibus,
   Comitibus, Baronibus, Capitaneis, Conductoribus, Domicellis,
   Communitatibus, Universitatibus, Potentatibus, Civitatibus, Terris,
   Castris et locis, seu eorum habitatoribus, civibus et incolis
   omnibusque aliis et singulis supradictis per universum Orbem,
   praesertim in eadem Alemania constitutis mandamus, quatenus sub
   praedictis omnibus et singulis poenis, ipsi vel eorum quilibet,
   praefatum Martinum, complices, adhaerentes, receptantes et fautores
   personaliter capiant et captos ad nostram instantiam retineant et ad
   nos mittant: reportaturi pro tam bono opere a nobis et Sede Apostolica
   remunerationem, praemiumque condignum vel saltem eos et eorum
   quemlibet, de Metropolitanis, Cathedralibus, Collegiatis, et aliis
   ecclesiis, domibus, Monasteriis, Conventibus, Civitatibus, Dominiis,
   Universitatibus, Communitatibus, Castris, Terris, ac locis respective,
   tam clerici et regulares quam laici omnes et singuli supradicti omnino
   expellant.

   [The places which harbor Luther and his followers are threatened with
   the Interdict.]

   Civitates vero, Dominia, Terras, Castra, Villas, comitatus, fortilicia,
   Oppida et loca quaecumque ubilibet consistentia earum et eorum
   respective Metropolitanas, Cathedrales, Collegiatas et alias ecclesias,
   Monasteria, Prioratus, Domus, Conventus et loca religiosa vel pia
   cujuscunque ordinis (tit praefertur) ad quae praefatum Martinum vel
   aliquem ex praedictis declinare contigerit, quamdiu ibi permanserint et
   triduo post recessum, ecclesiastico subjicimus interdicto.

   [Provision for the promulgation and execution of the bull.]

   Et ut praemissa omnibus innotescant, mandamus insuper universis
   Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Patriarchalium,
   Metropolitanarum et aliarum cathedralium ac collegiatarum ecclesiarum
   Praelatis, Capitulis aliisque personis ecclesiasticis, saecularibus et
   quorumvis Ordinum supradictorum regularibus, fratribus religiosis,
   monachis exemptis et non exemptis supradictis, ubilibet, praesertim in
   Alemania constitutis quatenus ipsi vel eorum quilibet sub similibus
   censuris et poenis co ipso incurrendis, Martinum omnesque et singulos
   supradictos qui elapso teremo hujusmodi mandatis seu monitis nostris
   non paruerint, in eorum ecclesiis, dominicis et aliis festivis diebus,
   dum inibi major populi multitudo ad divina convenerit, declaratos
   haereticos et condemnatos publice nuncient faciantque et mandent ab
   aliis nunciari et ab omnibus evitari. Necnon omnibus Christifidelibus
   ut eos evitent, pari modo sub praedictis censuris et poenis. Et
   praesentes literas vel earum transumptum sub forma infrascripta factum
   in eorum ecclesiis, monasteriis, domibus, conventibus et aliis locis
   legi, publicare atque affigi faciant. Excommunicamus quoque et
   anathematizamus omnes et singulos cujuscumque status, gradiis,
   conditionis, prae-eminentiae, dignitatis aut excellentiae fuerint qui
   quo minus praesentes literae vel earum transumpta, copiae seu
   exemplaria in suis terris et dominiis legi, affigi et publicare
   possint, fecerint vel quoquomodo procuraverint per se vel alium seu
   alios, publice vel occulte, directe vel indirecte, tacite vel expresse.

   Postremo quia difficile foret praesentes literas ad singula quaeque
   loca deferri in quibus necessarium foret, volumus et apostolica
   authoritate decernimus, quod earum transumptis manu publici notarii
   confectis et subscriptis, vel in alma Urbe impressis et sigillo
   alicujus ecclesiastici Praelati munitis ubique stetur et plena fides
   adhibeatur, prout originalibus literis staretur, si forent exhibitae
   vel ostensae.

   Et ne praefatus Martinus omnesque alii supradicti, quos praesentes
   literae quomodolibet concernunt, ignorantiam earundem literarum et in
   eis contentorum omnium et singulorum praetendere valeant, literas ipsas
   in Basilicas Principis Apostolorum et Cancellariae Apostolicae, necnon
   Cathedralium ecclesiarum Brandeburgen., Misnen. et Morspergen.
   [Merseburg] valvis affigi et publicari debere [277] volumus,
   decernentes, quod earundem literarum publicatio sic facta, supradictum
   Martinum omnesque alios et singulos praenominatos, quos literae
   hujusmodi quomodolibet concernunt, perinde arctent, ac si literae ipsae
   die affixionis et publicationis hujusmodi eis personaliter lectae et
   intimatae forent, cum non sit verisimile, quod ea quae tam patenter
   fiunt debeant apud eos incognita remanere.

   Non obstantibus constitutionibus et ordinationibus apostolicis, seu si
   supradictis omnibus et singulis vel eorum alicui aut quibusvis aliis a
   Sede Apostolica praedicta, vel ab ea potestatem habentibus sub quavis
   forma, etiam confessionali et cum quibusvis etiam fortissimis
   clausulis, aut ex quavis causa, seu grandi consideratione, indultum vel
   concessum existat, quod interdici, suspendi, vel excommunicari non
   possint per literas Apostolicas, non facientes plenam et expressam ac
   de verbo ad verbum, non autem per clausulas generates id importantes,
   de indulto hujusmodi mentionem, ejusdem indulti tenores, causas [278]
   et formas perinde ac si de verbo ad verbum insererentur, ita ut omnino
   tollatur, praesentibus pro expressis habentes.

   Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam nostrae damnationis,
   reprobationis, rejectionis, decreti, declarationis, inhibitionis,
   voluntatis, mandati, hortationis, obsecrationis, requisitionis,
   monitionis, assignationis, concessionis, condemnationis, subjectionis,
   excommunicationis, et anathematizationis infringere, vel ei ausu
   temerario contraire. Si quis autem hoc attentare praesumpserit,
   indignationem Omnipotentis Dei ac Beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum
   ejus se noverit incursurum.

   Dat. Romae apud S. Petrum anno incarnationis Dominicae Milesimo
   Quingentesimo Vigesimo. XVII. Kls. Julii. Pontificatus Nostri Anno
   Octavo.

   Visa. R. Milanesius.

   Albergatus.

   Impressum Romae per Iacobum Mazochium

   De Mandato S. D. N. Papae. [279]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [249] As Luther said, to rouse "the abyss of hell" (Abgrund der Hölle)
   against him. Eck seems to have been acting also in the interest of the
   banking firm of Fugger in Augsburg, which carried on the financial
   transactions between Germany and Italy, including the transmission of
   indulgence money. See Ranke, I. 297.

   [250] Ranke (I. 298) dates the bull from June 16; Walch (XV. 1691) from
   June 24; but most historians (Gieseler, Kahnis, Köstlin, Lenz, Janssen,
   Hergenröther, etc.) from June 15. The last is correct, for the bull is
   dated "MDXX. xvii. Kal. Julii." According to the Roman mode of
   reckoning backwards, counting the day of departure, and adding two to
   the number of days of the preceding month, the Kalendae Julii fall on
   June 15. Ranke probably overlooked the fact that June had only
   twenty-nine days in the Julian Calendar. Janssen refers to an essay of
   Druffel on the date of the bull in the "Sitzungsberichte der Bayer
   Academie." 1880, p. 572; but he does not give the result.

   [251] Pallavicini and Muratori censure Leo for commissioning Eck.
   Janssen says (II. 109):"Es war ein trauriger Missgriff, dass mit der
   Verkündigung und Vollstreckung der Bulle in mehreren deutschen
   Dioecesen Luther's Gegner Johann Eck beauftragt wurde." The same view
   was previously expressed by Kampschulte (Die Universität Erfurt in
   ihrem Verh. zu dem Humanismus und der Reformation, Trier, 1858-60, Th.
   II., p. 36), although he fully justified the papal bull as a necessity
   for the Roman Church, and characterized its tone as comparatively mild
   in view of Luther's radicale Umsturzgedanken and his violence of
   language. Audin and Archbishop Spalding defend the Pope.

   [252] Letter of Miltitz to Fabian von Feilitzsch, Oct. 2, 1520. In
   Walch, XV. 1872. Luther wrote to Spalatin, Oct. 3, 1520 (De Wette, I.
   492), that he had just heard of the bad reception and danger of Eck at
   Leipzig, and hoped that he might escape with his life, but that his
   devices might come to naught.

   [253] "Bulla est, in aqua natet." So Luther reports in a letter to
   Greffendorf, Oct. 20 (De Wette, I. 520), and in a letter to Spalatin,
   Nov. 4 (I. 522 sq.). Kampschulte (l.c. II. 37 sqq.) gives a full
   account of Eck's troubles at Erfurt, from a rare printed
   placard,Intimatio Erphurdiana pro Martino Luthero (preserved by
   Riederer, and quoted also by Gieseler, III. I. 81, Germ. ed., or IV.
   53, Anglo-Am. ed.), to the effect that the whole theological faculty
   stirred up all the students, calling upon them to resist "with hand and
   foot" the furious Pharisees and slanderers of Luther, who wished to
   cast him out of the Church and into hell. Luther makes no mention of
   such a strange action of the faculty, which is scarcely credible as it
   included strict Catholics.

   [254] "Lutherus peccavit in duobus, nempe quod tetigit coronam
   Pontificis et ventres monachorum." Spalatin, Annal. 28 sq.

   [255] "Bullae saevitia probos omnes offendit, ut indigna mitissimo
   Christi vicario." Erasmus soon afterwards called back his Axiomata pro
   causa Lutheri, which he had sent to Spalatin. They were, however,
   published (Erl. ed. of Luther's Op. Lat., vol. V. 238-242). About the
   same time he advised the Emperor to submit the case of Luther to
   impartial judges of different nations, or to a general council. See
   Gieseler, IV. 53 sq., Am. ed.

   [256] The heading is omitted by Raynaldus.

   [257] Raynaldus: superinducentes.

   [258] Cocquelines omits suae.

   [259] Raynaldus omits denique

   [260] Raynaldus omits praefatis.

   [261] Omitted by Raynaldus.

   [262] Omitted by Raynaldus.

   [263] Raynaldus: propugnatores.

   [264] Coequelines readscollationem, contrary to the original which
   plainly reads collectionem.

   [265] Cocquelines: et absolutum vere esse.Raynaldus is right here,
   according to the original.

   [266] ·Cocquelines: sed.

   [267] Raynaldus omits ad.

   [268] Rayn. omits concilio.

   [269] · Rayn. omits specie.

   [270] This is an indirect approval of the burning of heretics. Rome
   never has disowned this theory.

   [271] Cocquelines reads nec --nec for aut. Raynaldus is right here.

   [272] Raynaldus: medicitatis (a typographical error).

   [273] Raynaldus (fol. 305) omits all the specifications of punishments
   from here down to the next section beginning Insuper.

   [274] The original reads quorumcnq. (an o for an a).

   [275] The remainder of the bull is briefly summarized by Raynaldus.

   [276] Coequelines: Imperatori. Then there should be a comma after
   Imperatori. The seven Electors of the Emperor are meant.

   [277] Cocquelines omits debere.

   [278] Cocquelines: clausulas. A plausible correction.

   [279] Subscriptions are omitted by Cocquelines and Raynaldus.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 48. Luther burns the Pope's bull, and forever breaks with Rome. Dec.
   10, 1520.

   Literature in § 47.

   Luther was prepared for the bull of excommunication. He could see in it
   nothing but blasphemous presumption and pious hypocrisy. At first he
   pretended to treat it as a forgery of Eck. [280] Then he wrote a Latin
   and German tract, "Against the bull of Antichrist," [281] called it a
   "cursed, impudent, devilish bull," took up the several charges of
   heresy, and turned the tables against the Pope, who was the heretic
   according to the standard of the sacred Scriptures. Hutten ridiculed
   the bull from the literary and patriotic standpoint with sarcastic
   notes and queries. Luther attacked its contents with red-hot anger and
   indignation bordering on frenzy. He thought the last day, the day of
   Antichrist, had come. He went so far as to say that nobody could be
   saved who adhered to the bull. [282]

   In deference to his friends, he renewed the useless appeal from the
   Pope to a free general council (Nov. 17, 1520), which he had made two
   years before (Nov. 28, 1518); and in his appeal he denounced the Pope
   as a hardened heretic, an antichristian suppresser of the Scriptures, a
   blasphemer and despiser of the holy Church and of a rightful council.
   [283]

   At the same time he resolved upon a symbolic act which cut off the
   possibility of a retreat. The Pope had ordered his books, good and bad,
   without any distinction, to be burned; and they were actually burned in
   several places, at Cologne even in the presence of the Emperor. They
   were to be burned also at Leipzig. Luther wanted to show that he too
   could burn books, which was an old custom (Acts 19:19) and easy
   business. He returned fire for fire, curse for curse. He made no
   distinction between truth and error in the papal books, since the Pope
   had ordered his innocent books to be destroyed as well. He gave public
   notice of his intention.

   On the tenth day of December, 1520, at nine o'clock in the morning, in
   the presence of a large number of professors and students, he solemnly
   committed the bull of excommunication, together with the papal
   decretals, the Canon law, and several writings of Eck and Emser, to the
   flames, with these words (borrowed from Joshua's judgment of Achan the
   thief, Josh. 7:25): "As thou [the Pope] hast vexed the Holy One of the
   Lord, may the eternal fire vex thee!" [284]

   The spot where this happened is still shown outside the Elster Gate at
   Wittenberg, under a sturdy oak surrounded by an iron railing. [285]

   Several hundred students tarried at the fire, which had been kindled by
   a master of the university, some chanting the Te Deum, others singing
   funeral dirges on the papal laws; then they made a mock procession
   through the town, collected piles of scholastic and Romish books, and
   returning to the place of execution, threw them into the flames.

   Luther, with Melanchthon, Carlstadt, and the other doctors and masters,
   returned home immediately after the act. He at first had trembled at
   the step, and prayed for light; but after the deed was done, he felt
   more cheerful than ever. He regarded his excommunication as an
   emancipation from all restraints of popery and monasticism. On the same
   day he calmly informed Spalatin of the event as a piece of news. [286]
   On the next day he warned the students in the lecture-room against the
   Romish Antichrist, and told them that it was high time to burn the
   papal chair with all its teachers and abominations. [287] He publicly
   announced his act in a Latin and German treatise, "Why the Books of the
   Pope and his Disciples were burned by Dr. Martin Luther." He justified
   it by his duties as a baptized Christian, as a sworn doctor of
   divinity, as a daily preacher, to root out all unchristian doctrines.
   He cites from the papal law-books thirty articles and errors in
   glorification of the papacy, which deserve to be burned; and calls the
   whole Canon-law "the abomination of desolation" (Matt. 24:15) and
   antichristian (2 Thess. 2:4), since the sum of its teaching was, that
   "the Pope is God on earth, above all things, heavenly and earthly,
   spiritual and temporal; all things belong to the Pope, and no one dare
   ask, What doest thou?" Simultaneously with this tract, he published an
   exhaustive defense of all his own articles which had been condemned by
   the Pope, and planted himself upon the rock of God's revelation in the
   Scriptures.

   Leo X., after the expiration of the one hundred and twenty days of
   grace allowed to Luther by the terms of the bull, proceeded to the last
   step, and on the third day of January, 1521, pronounced the ban against
   the Reformer, and his followers, and an interdict on the places where
   they should be harbored. But Luther had deprived the new bull of its
   effect.

   The burning of the Pope's bull was the boldest and most eventful act of
   Luther. Viewed in itself, it might indeed have been only an act of
   fanaticism and folly, and proved a brutum fulmen. But it was preceded
   and followed by heroic acts of faith in pulling down an old church, and
   building up a new one. It defied the greatest power on earth, before
   which emperors, kings, and princes, and all the nations of Europe bowed
   in reverence and awe. It was the fiery signal of absolute and final
   separation from Rome, and destroyed the effect of future papal bulls
   upon one-half of Western Christendom. It emancipated Luther and the
   entire Protestant world from that authority, which, from a wholesome
   school of discipline for young nations, had become a fearful and
   intolerable tyranny over the intellect and conscience of men.

   Luther developed his theology before the eyes of the public; while
   Calvin, at a later period, appeared fully matured, like Minerva from
   the head of Jupiter. "I am one of those," he says, "among whom St.
   Augustin classed himself, who have gradually advanced by writing and
   teaching; not of those who at a single bound spring to perfection out
   of nothing.

   He called the Pope the most holy and the most hellish father of
   Christendom. He began in 1517 as a devout papist and monk, with full
   faith in the Roman Church and its divinely appointed head, protesting
   merely against certain abuses; in 1519, at the Leipzig disputation, he
   denied the divine right, and shortly afterwards also the human right,
   of the papacy; a year later he became fully convinced that the papacy
   was that antichristian power predicted in the Scriptures, and must be
   renounced at the risk of a man's salvation.

   There is no doubt that in all these stages he was equally sincere,
   earnest, and conscientious.

   Luther adhered to the position taken in the act of Dec. 10, 1520, with
   unchanging firmness. He never regretted it for a moment. He had burned
   the ship behind him; he could not, and he would not, return. To the end
   of his life he regarded and treated the Pope of Rome in his official
   capacity as the very Antichrist, and expected that he soon would be
   destroyed by spiritual force at the second coming of Christ. At
   Schmalkalden in 1537 he prayed that God might fill all Protestants with
   hatred of the Pope. One of his last and most violent books is directed
   "Against the Papacy at Rome, founded by the Devil." Wittenberg, 1545.
   [288] He calls Paul III. the "Most hellish Father," and addresses him
   as "Your Hellishness." instead of "Your Holiness." He promises at the
   close to do still better in another book, and prays that in case of his
   death, God may raise another one "a thousandfold more severe; for the
   devilish papacy is the last evil on earth, and the worst which all the
   devils with all their power could contrive. God help us. Amen." Thus he
   wrote, not under the inspiration of liquor or madness, as Roman
   historians have suggested, but in sober earnest. His dying words, as
   reported by Ratzeburger, his physician, were a prediction of the
   approaching death of the papacy: --


   "Pestis eram vivus, moriens tua mors ero Papa."

   From the standpoint of his age, Luther regarded the Pope and the Turk
   as "the two arch-enemies of Christ and his Church," and embodied this
   view in a hymn which begins, --


   "Erhalt uns, Herr, bei deinem Wort

   Und steur' des Papst's und Türken Mord." [289]

   This line, like the famous eightieth question of the Heidelberg
   Catechism which denounces the popish mass as an "accursed idolatry,"
   gave much trouble in mixed communities, and in some it was forbidden by
   Roman-Catholic magistrates. Modern German hymn-books wisely substitute
   "all enemies," or "enemies of Christ," for the Pope and the Turk.

   In order to form a just estimate of Luther's views on the papacy, it
   must not be forgotten that they were uttered in the furnace-heat of
   controversy, and with all the violence of his violent temper. They have
   no more weight than his equally sweeping condemnation of Aristotle and
   Thomas Aquinas.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [280] "Ich höre auch sagen, Dr. Eck habe eine Bulle mit sich von Rom
   wider mich gebracht, die ihm so ähnlich sei, dass sie wohl möchte auch
   Dr. Eck heissen, so voll Lügen und Irrthum sie sein soll; und er gebe
   vor, den Leuten das Maul zu schmieren, sie sollen glauben, es sei des
   Papsts Werk, so es sein Lügenspiel ist. Ich lasse es geschehen, muss
   des Spiels in Gottes Namen warten; wer weiss, was göttlicher Rath
   beschlossen hat." Von den neuen Eckischen Bullen und Lügen.

   [281] Widder die Bullen des Endchrists, Weimar ed. vol. VI. 613-629.

   [282] He wrote to Spalatin, Nov. 4 (in De Wette, I. 522): "Impossibile
   est salvos fieri, qui huic Bullae aut faverunt, aut non repugnaverunt."
   He told his students, Dec. 11: "Nisi toto corde dissentistis a regno
   papali, non potestis assequi vestrarum animarum salutem."

   [283] Walch, XV. 1909 sqq. Erl. ed., XXIV. 28-35; and Op. Lat., V.
   119-131. The appeal was published in Latin and German.

   [284] The "Holy One" refers to Christ, as in Mark 1:24; Acts 2:27; not
   to Luther, as ignorance and malignity have misinterpreted the word.
   Luther spoke in Latin: "Quia tu conturbasti Sanctum Domini, ideoque te
   conturbet ignis aeternus." The Vulgate translates Josh. 7:25: "Quia
   turbasti nos, exturbet te Dominus in die hac." In the Revised E. V.,
   the whole passage reads: "Why hast thou troubled us? The Lord shall
   trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burnt
   them [in Hebrew vt'] with fire after they had stoned them with stones."

   [285] A tablet contains the inscription: "Dr. Martin Luther verbrannte
   an dieser Stätte am 10 Dec. 1520 the päpstliche Bannbulle."

   [286] "Anno MDXX, decima Decembris, hora nona, exusti sunt Wittembergae
   ad orientalem portam, juxta S. Crucem, omnes libri Papae: Decretum,
   Decretales, Sext. Clement. Extravagant., et Bulla novissima Leonis X.:
   item summa Angelica [a work on casuistry by Angelus Carletus de
   Clavasio, or Chiavasso, d. 1495], Chrysoprasus [De praedestinatione
   centuriae sex, 1514] Eccii, et alia ijusdem autoris, Emseri, et quaedam
   alia, quo adjecta per alios sunt: ut videant incendiarii Papistae, non
   esse magnarum virium libros exurere, quos confutare non possunt. Haec
   erunt nova." De Wette, I. 532. Further details about the burning and
   the conduct of the students we learn from the report of an unnamed
   pupil of Luther: Excustionis antichristianarum decretalium Acta, In the
   Erl. ed. of Op. Lat., V. 250-256.

   [287] Ranke, i. 307; Köstlin, i. 407; Kolde, i. 290.

   [288] Wider das Papstthum zu Rom, tom Teufel gestiftet (in the Erl.
   ed., XXVI. 108-228). A rude wood-cut on the title-page represents the
   Pope with long donkey-ears going into the jaws of hell, while demons
   are punching and jeering at him. Luther calls the Pope (p. 228)
   "Papstesel mit langen Eselsohren und verdammtem Lügenmaul." The book
   was provoked by two most presumptuous letters of Pope Paul III. to the
   Emperor Charles V., rebuking him for giving rest to the Protestants at
   the Diet of Speier, 1544, till the meeting of a general council, and
   reminding him of the terrible end of those who dare to violate the
   priestly prerogatives. King Ferdinand, the Emperor's brother, read the
   book through, and remarked, "Wenn die bösen Worte heraus wären, so
   hätte der Luther nicht übel geschrieben." But not a few sincere friends
   of Luther thought at the time that he did more harm than good to his
   own cause by this book.

   [289] It appeared in Klug's Gesangbuch, Wittenberg, 1543, under the
   title: "Ein Kinderlied zu singen, wider die zween Ertzfeinde Christi
   und seiner heiligen Kirchen, den Papst und Türken."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 49. The Reformation and the Papacy.

   Here is the place to interrupt the progress of events, and to reflect
   on the right or wrong of the attitude of Luther and the Reformation to
   the papacy.

   The Reformers held the opinion that the papacy was an antichristian
   institution, and some of the Protestant confessions of faith have given
   symbolical sanction to this theory. They did not mean, of course, that
   every individual Pope was an Antichrist (Luther spoke respectfully of
   Leo X.), nor that the papacy as such was antichristian: Melanchthon, at
   least, conceived of the possibility of a Christian papacy, or a general
   superintendence of the Church for the preservation of order and unity.
   [290]

   They had in view simply the institution as it was at their time, when
   it stood in open and deadly opposition to what they regarded as the
   truth of the gospel of Christ, and the free preaching of the same.
   Their theory does not necessarily exclude a liberal and just
   appreciation of the papacy before and after the Reformation.

   And in this respect a great change has taken place among Protestant
   scholars, with the progress of exegesis and the knowledge of church
   history.

   1. The prophetic Scripture texts to which the Reformers and early
   Protestant divines used to appeal for their theory of the papacy, must
   be understood in accordance with the surroundings and conditions of the
   writers and their readers who were to be benefited. This does not
   exclude, of course, an application to events and tendencies of the
   distant future, since history is a growing and expanding fulfillment of
   prophecy; but the application must be germane to the original design
   and natural meaning of the text. Few commentators would now find the
   Pope of Rome in "the little horn" of Daniel (7:8, 20, 21), who had in
   view rather Antiochus Epiphanes; or in the Apocalyptic beast from the
   abyss (Rev. 13:1), and "the mother of harlots" (17:5), which evidently
   apply to the persecuting heathen Rome of Nero and his successors.

   St. John is the only biblical writer who uses the term Antichrist;"
   [291] but he means by it, in the first instance, the Gnostic heresy of
   his own day, which denied the incarnation; for he represents this
   denial as the characteristic sign of Antichrist, and represents him as
   being already in the world; yea, he speaks of "many" antichrists who
   had gone out of the Christian churches in Asia Minor. The Pope has
   never denied the incarnation, and can never do it without ceasing to be
   Pope.

   It is quite legitimate to use the terms "antichrist" and antichristian"
   in a wider sense, of all such men and tendencies as are opposed to
   Christ and his teaching; but we have no right to confine them to the
   Pope and the Roman Church., , Many shall come in my name, saying, I am
   Christ, and shall deceive many" (Matt. 24:4, 11, 23, 24).

   St. Paul's prediction of the great apostasy, and the "man of sin, the
   son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against all that is
   called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits in the temple of God,
   setting himself forth as God." [292] sounds much more than any other
   passage like a description of the papacy with its amazing claim to
   universal and infallible authority over the Church of God. But the
   application becomes more than doubtful when we remember that the
   apostle characterizes this antichristian apostasy as "the mystery of
   lawlessness," already at work in his day, though restrained from open
   manifestation by some conservative power. [293] The papacy did not yet
   exist at the time; and its besetting sin is not lawless freedom, but
   the very opposite.

   If we would seek for Scripture authority against the sins and errors of
   popery, we must take our stand on our Lord's opposition to the
   traditions of the elders, which virtually set aside the word of God; on
   Paul's Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, where he defends Christian
   freedom against legalistic bondage, and teaches the great doctrines of
   sin and grace, forgotten by Rome, and revived by the Reformation; and
   on St. Peter's protest against hierarchical presumption and pride.

   There was in the early Church a general expectation that an Antichrist
   in the emphatic sense, an incarnation of the antichristian principle, a
   pseudo-Christ of hell, a "world-deceiver" (as he is called in the newly
   discovered "Teaching of the Apostles" [294] ), should appear, and lead
   astray many Christians immediately before the second coming of Christ.
   The Reformers saw this Antichrist in the Pope, and looked for his
   speedy destruction; but an experience of more than three hundred and
   fifty years proves that in this expectation they were mistaken, and
   that the final Antichrist is still in the future.

   2. As regards church history, it was as yet an unexplored field at the
   time of the Reformation; but the Reformation itself roused the spirit
   of inquiry and independent, impartial research. The documentary sources
   of the middle ages have only recently been made accessible on a large
   scale by such collections as the Monumenta Germania. "The keys of
   Peter," says Dr. Pertz, the Protestant editor of the Monumenta, "are
   still the keys of the middle ages." The greatest Protestant historians,
   ecclesiastical and secular,--I need only mention Neander and
   Ranke,--agree in a more liberal view of the papacy. [295]

   After the downfall of the old Roman Empire, the papacy was, with all
   its abuses and vices, a necessary and wholesome training-school of the
   barbarian nations of Western and Northern Europe, and educated them
   from a state of savage heathenism to that degree of Christian
   civilization which they reached at the time of the Reformation. It was
   a check upon the despotism of rude force; it maintained the outward
   unity of the Church; it brought the nations into communication; it
   protected the sanctity of marriage against the lust of princes; it
   moderated slavery; it softened the manners; it inspired great
   enterprises; it promoted the extension of Christianity; it encouraged
   the cause of learning and the cultivation of the arts of peace.

   And even now the mission of the papacy is not yet finished. It seems to
   be as needful for certain nations, and a lower stage of civilization,
   as ever. It still stands, not a forsaken ruin, but an imposing pyramid
   completed to the very top. The Roman Church rose like a wounded giant
   from the struggle with the Reformation, abolished in the Council of
   Trent some of the worst abuses, reconquered a considerable portion of
   her lost territory in Europe, added to her dominion one-half of the
   American Continent, and completed her doctrinal and governmental system
   in the decrees of the Vatican Council. The Pope has lost his temporal
   power by the momentous events of 1870; but he seems to be all the
   stronger in spiritual influence since 1878, when Leo XIII. was called
   to occupy the chair of Leo X. An aged Italian priest shut up in the
   Vatican controls the consciences of two hundred millions of human
   beings,--that is, nearly one-half of nominal Christendom,--and rules
   them with the claim of infallibility in all matters of faith and duty.
   It is a significant fact, that the greatest statesman of the nineteenth
   century, and founder of a Protestant empire, who at the beginning of
   the Kulturkampf declared that he would never go to Canossa (1872),
   found it expedient, after a conflict of ten years, to yield to an
   essential modification of the anti-papal May-laws of 1873, without,
   however, changing his religious conviction, or sacrificing the
   sovereignty of the State; he even conferred an extraordinary
   distinction upon the Pope by selecting him as arbiter in an
   international dispute between Germany and Spain (1885). [296] But it is
   perhaps still more remarkable, that Leo XIII. in return sent to Prince
   Bismarck, the political Luther of Germany, the Christ Order, which was
   never given to a Protestant before, and that he supported him in the
   political campaign of 1887.

   3. How can we justify the Reformation, in view of the past history and
   present vitality of the Papacy?

   Here the history of the Jewish Church, which is a type of the
   Christian, furnishes us with a most instructive illustration and
   conclusive answer. The Levitical hierarchy, which culminated in the
   high priest, was of divine appointment, and a necessary institution for
   the preservation of the theocracy. And yet what God intended to be a
   blessing became a curse by the guilt of man: Caiaphas, the lineal
   descendant of Aaron, condemned the Messiah as a false prophet and
   blasphemer, and the synagogue cast out His apostles with curses.

   What happened in the old dispensation was repeated on a larger scale in
   the history of Christianity. An antichristian element accompanied the
   papacy from the very beginning, and culminated in the corruptions at
   the time of the Reformation. The greater its assumed and conceded
   power, the greater were the danger and temptation of abuse. One of the
   best of Popes, Gregory the Great, protested against the title of,
   "universal bishop," as an antichristian presumption. The Greek Church,
   long before the Reformation, charged the Bishop of Rome with
   antichristian usurpation; and she adheres to her protest to this day.
   Not a few Popes, such as Sergius III., John XII., Benedict IX., John
   XXIII., and Alexander VI., were guilty of the darkest crimes of
   depraved human nature; and yet they called themselves successors of
   Peter, and vicars of Christ. Who will defend the papal crusades against
   the Albigenses and Waldenses, the horrors of the Inquisition, the papal
   jubilee over the massacre of St. Bartholomew, and all those bloody
   persecutions of innocent people for no other crime but that of opposing
   the tyranny of Rome, and dissenting from her traditions? Liberal and
   humane Catholics would revolt at an attempt to revive the dungeon and
   the fagot against heresy and schism; but the Church of Rome in her
   official capacity has never repudiated the principle of persecution by
   which its practice was justified: on the contrary, Pope Gregory XVI.
   declared liberty of conscience and worship an insanity (deliramentum),
   and Pius IX. in his "Syllabus" of 1864 denounced it among the
   pernicious and pestilential errors of modern times. And what shall we
   say of the papal schism in the fifteenth century, when two or three
   rival Popes laid all Christendom under the curse of excommunication?
   What of the utter secularization of the papacy just before the
   Reformation, its absorption in political intrigues and wars and schemes
   of aggrandizement, its avarice, its shameless traffic in indulgences,
   and all those abuses of power which called forth the one hundred and
   one gravamina of the German -nation? Who will stand up for the bull of
   excommunication against Luther, with its threats of burning him and his
   books, and refusing the consolations of religion to every house or
   community which should dare to harbor him or any of his followers? If
   that bull be Christian, then we must close our eyes against the plain
   teaching of Christ in the Gospels.

   Even if the Bishop of Rome should be the legitimate successor of Peter,
   as he claims, it would not shield him against the verdict of history.
   For the carnal Simon revived and reasserted himself from time to time
   in the spiritual Peter. The same disciple whom Christ honored as the
   "Rock," on whose confession he promised to build his Church, was soon
   afterwards called "Satan" when he presumed to divert his Master from
   the path of suffering; the same Peter was rebuked when he drew the
   sword against Malchus; the same Peter, notwithstanding his boast of
   fidelity, denied his Lord and Saviour; and the same Peter incurred the
   severe remonstrance of Paul at Antioch when he practically denied the
   rights of the Gentile converts, and virtually excluded them from the
   Church. According to the Roman legend, the prince of the apostles
   relapsed into his consistent inconsistency, even a day before his
   martyrdom, by bribing the jailer, and fleeing for his life till the
   Lord appeared to him with the cross at the spot of the memorial chapel
   Domine quo vadis. Will the Pope ever imitate Peter in his bitter
   repentance for denying Christ?

   If the Apostolic Church typically foreshadows the whole history of
   Christianity, we may well see in the temporary collision between Peter
   and Paul the type of the antagonism between Romanism and Protestantism.
   The Reformation was a revolt against legal bondage, and an assertion of
   evangelical freedom. It renewed the protest of Paul against Peter, and
   it succeeded. It secured freedom in religion, and as a legitimate
   consequence, also intellectual, political, and civil freedom. It made
   the Word of God with its instruction and comfort accessible to all.
   This is its triumphant vindication. Compare for proof Protestant
   Germany under William I., with Roman-Catholic Germany under Maximilian
   I.; England under Queen Victoria, with England under Henry VII.;
   Calvinistic Scotland and Lutheran Scandinavia in the nineteenth
   century, with Roman Scotland and Scandinavia in the fifteenth. Look at
   the origin and growth of free Holland and free North America. Contrast
   England with Spain of the present day; Prussia with Austria; Holland
   with Portugal; the United States and Canada with the older Mexico and
   Peru or Brazil. Consider the teeming Protestant literature in every
   department of learning, science and art; and the countless Protestant
   churches, schools, colleges, universities, charitable institutions and
   missionary stations scattered all over the globe. Surely, the
   Reformation can stand the test: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

   NOTES.

   Opinions of representative Protestant historians who cannot be charged
   with partisan bias or Romanizing tendency: --

   "Whatever judgment," says Leopold von Ranke, who was a good Lutheran
   (Die römischen Päpste, I. 29), "we may form of the Popes of former
   times, they had always great interests in view: the care of an
   oppressed religion, the conflict with heathenism, the propagation of
   Christianity among the Northern nations, the founding of an independent
   hierarchical power. It belongs to the dignity of human existence to
   will and to execute something great. These tendencies the Popes kept in
   higher motion."

   In the last volume of his great work, published after his death
   (Weltgeschichte, Siebenter Theil, Leipzig, 1886, pp. 311-313), Ranke
   gives his estimate of the typical Pope Gregory VII., of which this is a
   condensed translation: --

   "The hierarchical system of Gregory rests on the attempt to make the
   clerical power the basis of the entire human existence. This explains
   the two principles which characterize the system,--the command of
   (clerical] celibacy, and the prohibition of investiture by the hands of
   a layman. By the first, the lower clergy were to be made a corporation
   free from all personal relations to human society; by the second, the
   higher clergy were to be secured against all influence of the secular
   power. The great hierarch had well considered his standpoint: he
   thereby met a want of the times, which regarded the clergy, so to say,
   as higher beings. All his words had dignity, consistency and power. He
   had a native talent for worldly affairs. Peter Damiani probably had
   this in view when he called him, once, the holy Satan .... Gregory's
   deliverances contain no profound doctrines; nearly all were known
   before. But they are summed up by him in a system, the sincerity of
   which no one could call in question. His dying words: 'I die in exile,
   because I loved justice,' express his inmost conviction. But we must
   not forget that it was only the hierarchical justice which he defended
   to his last breath."--In the thirteenth chapter, entitled "Canossa,"
   Ranke presents his views on the conflict between Gregory VII. and Henry
   IV., or between the hierarchical and the secular power.

   Adolf Harnack, a prominent historian of the present generation, in his
   commemorative address on Martin Luther (Giessen, 1883, p. 7), calls
   "the idea of the papacy the greatest and most humane idea (die grösste
   und humanste Idee) which the middle age produced."

   It was In a review of Ranke's History of the Popes, that Lord Macaulay,
   a Protestant of Scotch ancestry, penned his brilliant eulogy on the
   Roman Church as the oldest and most venerable power in Christendom,
   which is likely to outlast all other governments and churches. "She was
   great and respected," he concludes, "before the Saxon set his foot on
   Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence
   still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshiped in the
   Temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigor, when
   some traveler from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude,
   take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of
   St. Paul's." [297]

   But we must not overlook a later testimony, in which the eloquent
   historian supplemented and qualified this eulogy: --

   "From the time," says Macaulay in the first chapter of his History of
   England, "when the barbarians overran the Western Empire, to the time
   of the revival of letters, the influence of the Church of Rome had been
   generally favorable to science, to civilization, and to good
   government. But, during the last three centuries, to stunt the growth
   of the human mind has been her chief object. Throughout Christendom,
   whatever advance has been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and
   in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere
   been in inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and most fertile
   provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk in poverty, in
   political servitude, and in intellectual torpor; while Protestant
   countries once proverbial for sterility and barbarism, have been
   turned, by skill and industry, into gardens, and can boast of a long
   list of heroes and statesmen, philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing
   what Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what, four hundred years
   ago, they actually were, shall now compare the country round Rome with
   the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form some judgment as to
   the tendency of papal domination. The descent of Spain, once the first
   among monarchies, to the lowest depths of degradation; the elevation of
   Holland, in spite of many natural disadvantages, to a position such as
   no commonwealth so small has ever reached,--teach the same lesson.
   Whoever passes, in Germany, from a Roman-Catholic to a Protestant
   principality, in Switzerland from a Roman-Catholic to a Protestant
   canton, in Ireland from a Roman-Catholic to a Protestant county, finds
   that he has passed from a lower to a higher grade of civilization. On
   the other side of the Atlantic, the same law prevails. The Protestants
   of the United States have left far behind them the Roman Catholics of
   Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain
   inert, while the whole continent round them is in a ferment with
   Protestant activity and enterprise. The French have doubtless shown an
   energy and an intelligence which, even when misdirected, have justly
   entitled them to be called a great people. But this apparent exception,
   when examined, will be found to confirm the rule; for in no country
   that is called Roman-Catholic has the Roman-Catholic Church, during
   several generations, possessed so little authority as in France.

   "It is difficult to say whether England owes more to the Roman-Catholic
   religion or to the Reformation. For the amalgamation of races and for
   the abolition of villenage, she is chiefly indebted to the influence
   which the priesthood in the middle ages exercised over the laity. For
   political and intellectual freedom, and for all the blessings which
   political and intellectual freedom have brought in their train, she is
   chiefly indebted to the great rebellion of the laity against the
   priesthood."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [290] See his appendix to the Smalcald Articles, 1537: De autoritate et
   primatu Papae.

   [291] 1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7.

   [292] 2 Thess. 2:3-7. This is the passage quoted by the Westminster
   Confession against the Pope, chap. xxv. 6.

   [293] to gar musterion ede energeitai tes anomias ; monon ho katechon
   arti heos ek mesou genetai. The Roman government was at first (before
   the Neronian persecution of 64) a protector of Christianity, and more
   particularly of Paul, who could effectually appeal to his Roman
   citizenship at Philippi, before the centurion at Jerusalem, and before
   Festus at Caesarea.

   [294] Ch. 16:4; kosmoplanos, a very significant term, which unites the
   several marks of the Antichrist of John (2 John 7: ho planos kai
   antichristos)of the Apocalypse (12:9: ho planon ten oikoumenen), and of
   Paul, since the Didaché connects the appearance of the world-deceiver
   with the increase of lawlessness (anomia, as in 2 Thess. 2:7). Comp. my
   monograph on the Didaché, pp. 77 and 214 sq.

   [295] Comp. especially Ranke's classical work, Die römischen Päpste in
   den letzten vier Jahrhunderten, 8th edition, Leipzig, 1885, 3 vols. The
   first edition appeared 1834-36. Ranke has found a worthy successor in
   an English scholar, Dr. M. Creighton (professor of Church history in
   Cambridge), the author of an equally impartial History of the Papacy
   during the Period of the Reformation, beginning with the Great Schism,
   1378. London and Boston, 1882 sqq. (so far 4 vols.). But the same
   period of the papacy is now being written with ample learning and
   ability from the modem Roman point of view, by Dr. Ludwig Pastor
   (professor of Church history at Innsbruck) in his Geschichte der Päpste
   seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, of which the first volume appeared
   at Freiburg-i.-B. 1886, and extends from 1305 to the election of Pius
   II. The author promises six volumes. He had the advantage of using the
   papal archives by the effectual favor of Pope Leo XIII.

   [296] Alexander VI., by a stroke of his pen, divided America between
   Spain and Portugal: Leo XIII., in 1886, gave the insignificant Caroline
   Islands in the Pacific to Spain, but the free commerce to Germany.

   [297] First published In the Edinburgh Review, October, 1840. The
   passage is often quoted by Roman Catholics, e.g., by Archbishop
   Spalding, in his History of the Prot. Ref., p. 217 sqq.; but they find
   it convenient to ignore the other passage from his History of England.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 50. Charles V.

   Literature.

   Most of the works on Charles V. are histories of his times, in which he
   forms the central figure. Much new material has been brought to light
   from the archives of Brussels and Simancas. He is extravagantly lauded
   by Spanish, and indiscriminately censured by French historians. The
   Scotch Robertson, the American Prescott, and the German Ranke are
   impartial.

   I. Joh. Sleidan (d. 1556): De Statu Religionis et Reipublicae Carlo V.
   Caesare Commentarii, Argentor. 1555 fol. (best ed. by Am Ende,
   Frf.-a.-M., 1785). Ludw. v. Seckendorf: Com. Hist. et Apol. de
   Lutheranism sive de Reformatione Religionis, Leipzig, 1694. Goes to the
   year 1546.--The English Calendars of State-Papers,--Spanish, published
   by the Master of the Rolls.--De Thou: Historia sui Temporis (from the
   death of Francis I.).--The Histories of Spain by Mariana (Madrid,
   1817-22, 20 vols. 8vo); Zurita (Çaragoça, 1669-1710, 6 vols. fol.);
   Ferreras (French trans., Amsterdam, 1751, 10 vols. 4to); Salazar de
   Mendoza (Madrid, 1770-71, 3 vols. fol.); Modesto Lafuente (Vols. XI.
   and XII., 1853), etc.

   II. Biographies. Charles dictated to his secretary, William Van Male,
   while leisurely sailing on the Rhine, from Cologne to Mayence, in June,
   1550, and afterwards at Augsburg, under the refreshing shade of the
   Fugger gardens, a fragmentary autobiography, in spanish or French,
   which was known to exist, but disappeared, until Baron Kervyn de
   Lettenhove, member of the Royal Academy of Belgium, discovered in the
   National Library at Paris, in 1861, a Portuguese translation of it, and
   published a French translation from the same, with an introduction,
   under the title: Commentaires de Charles-Quint, Brussels, 1862. An
   English translation by Leonard Francis Simpson: The Autobiography of
   the Emperor Charles V., London, 1862 (161 and xlviii. pp.]. It is a
   summary of the Emperor's journeys and expeditions ("Summario das Viages
   e Jornadas"), from 1516 to 1548. It dwells upon the secular events; but
   incidentally reveals, also, his feelings against the Protestants, whom
   he charges with heresy, obstinacy, and insolence, and against Pope Paul
   III., whom he hated for his arrogance, dissimulation, and breach of
   promise. Comp. on this work, the introduction of Lettenhove (translated
   by Simpson), and the acute criticism of Ranke, vol. vi. 75 sqq.

   Alfonso Ulloa: Vita di Carlo V., Venet., 1560. Sandoval: Histoiria de
   la Vida y Hechos del Emperadòr Carlos Quinto, Valladolid, 1606
   (Pampelona, 1618; Antwerp, 1681, 2 vols.). Sepulveda (Whom the Emperor
   selected as his biographer): De Rebus Gestis Caroli V. lmperatoris,
   Madrid, 1780 (and older editions). G. Leti: Vita del Imperatore Carlo
   V., 1700, 4vols. A. de Musica (in Menckenius, Scriptores Rerum
   Germanicarum, vol. I., Leipzig, 1728). William Robertson (d. 1793): The
   History of the Reign of the Emperor Charles V., London, 1769, 3 vols.;
   6th ed., 1787, 4 vols.; new ed. of his Works, London, 1840, 8 vols.
   (vols. III., IV., V.); best ed., Phila. (Lippincott) 1857, 3 vols.,
   with a valuable supplement by W. H. Prescott on the Emperor's life
   after his abdication, from the archives of Simancas (III., 327-510).
   Hermann Baumgarten: Geschichte Karls V., Stuttgart, 1885 sqq. (to
   embrace 4 vols.; chiefly based on the English Calendars and the
   manuscript diaries of the Venetian historian Marino Sanuto).

   III. Documents and Treatises on special parts of his history. G.
   Camposi: Carlo V. in Modena (in Archivio Storico Italiano, Florence,
   1842-53, 25 vols., App.). D. G. van Male: Lettres sur la vie intérieure
   de l'Empéreur Charles-Quint, Brussels, 1843. K. Lanz: Correspondenz des
   Kaisers Karl V. aus dem kaiserlichen Archiv und der Bibliothèque de
   Burgogne in Brussel, Leipzig, 1844-46, 3 vols.; Staatspapiere zur
   Geschichte des Kaisers Karl V., Stuttgart, 1845; and Actenstücke und
   Briefe zur Geschichte Karls V., Wien, 1853-57. G. Heine: Briefe an
   Kaiser Karl V., geschrieben von seinem Beichtvater (Garcia de Loaysa)
   in den Jahren 1530-32, Berlin, 1848 (from the Simancas archives). Sir
   W. Maxwell Stirling: The Cloister-Life of Charles V., London, 1852. F.
   A. A. Mignet: Charles-Quint; son abdication, son séjour et sa mort au
   monastère de Yuste, Paris, 1854; and Rivalité de François I. et de
   Charles-Quint, 1875, 2 vols. Amédée Pichot: Charles-Quint, Chronique de
   sa vie intérieure et de sa vie politique, de son abdication et de sa
   retraite dans le cloître de Yuste, Paris, 1854. Gachart (keeper of the
   Belgic archives): Retraite et mort de Charles-Quint au monastère de
   Yuste (the original documents of Simancas), Brussels. 1854-55, 2 vols.;
   Correspondance de Charles-Quint et de Adrien VI., Brussels, 1859.
   Henne: Histoire du règne de Charles V. en Belgique, Brussels, 1858
   sqq., 10 vols. Th. Juste: Les Pays-bas sous Charles V., 1861. Giuseppe
   de Leva: Storia documentata di Carlo V. in correlazione all' Italia,
   Venice, 1863. Rösler: Die Kaiserwahl Karls V., Wien, 1868. W.
   Maurenbrecher: Karl V. und die deutschen Protestanten, 1545-1555,
   Düsseldorf, 1865; Studien und Skizzen zur Geschichte der
   Reformationszeit, Leipzig, 1874, pp. 99-133. A. v. Druffel: Kaiser Karl
   V. und die röm. Curie 1544-1546. 3 Abth. München, 1877 sqq.

   IV. Comp. also Ranke: Deutsche Geschichte, I. 240 sqq., 311 sqq.; and
   on Charles's later history in vols. II., III., IV., V., VI. Janssen:
   Geschichte des deutschen Volkes, II. 131 sqq., and vol. III. Weber:
   Allgemeine Weltgeschichte, vol. X. (1880), 1 sqq. Prescott's Philip
   II., bk. I, chaps. 1 and 9 (vol. I. 1-26; 296-359). Motley's Rise of
   the Dutch Republic, vol. I., Introduction.

   Before passing to the Diet of Worms, we must make the acquaintance of
   Charles V. He is, next to Martin Luther, the most conspicuous and
   powerful personality of his age. The history of his reign is the
   history of Europe for more than a third of a century (from 1520-1556).

   In the midst of the early conflicts of the Reformation, the Emperor
   Maximilian I. died at Wels, Jan. 12, 1519. He had worn the German crown
   twenty-six years, and is called "the last Knight." With him the middle
   ages were buried, and the modern era dawned on Europe.

   It was a critical period for the Empire: the religion of Mohammed
   threatened Christianity, Protestantism endangered Catholicism. From the
   East the Turks pushed their conquests to the walls of Vienna, as seven
   hundred years before, the Arabs, crossing the Pyrenees, had assailed
   Christian Europe from the West; in the interior the Reformation spread
   with irresistible force, and shook the foundations of the Roman Church.
   Where was the genius who could save both Christianity and the
   Reformation, the unity of the Empire and the unity of the Church? A
   most difficult, yea, an impossible task.

   The imperial crown descended naturally on Maximilian's grandson, the
   young king of Spain, who became the most powerful monarch since the
   days of Charles the Great. He was the heir of four royal lines which
   had become united by a series of matrimonial alliances.

   Never was a prince born to a richer inheritance, or entered upon public
   life with graver responsibilities, than Charles V. Spanish, Burgundian,
   and German blood mingled in his veins, and the good and bad qualities
   of his ramified ancestry entered into his constitution. He was born
   with his eventful century (Feb. 24, 1500), at Ghent in Flanders, and
   educated under the tuition of the Lord of Chièvres, and Hadrian of
   Utrecht, a theological professor of strict Dominican orthodoxy and
   severe piety, who by his influence became the successor of Leo X. in
   the papal chair. His father, Philip I., was the only son of Maximilian
   and Mary of Burgundy (daughter of Charles the Bold), and cuts a small
   figure among the sovereigns of Spain as "Philip the Handsome" (Filipe
   el Hermoso),--a frivolous, indolent, and useless prince. His mother was
   Joanna, called, "Crazy Jane" (Juana la Loca), second daughter of
   Ferdinand and Isabella, and famous for her tragic fate, her insanity,
   long imprisonment, and morbid devotion to the corpse of her faithless
   husband, for whom, during his life, she had alternately shown
   passionate love and furious jealousy. She became, after the death of
   her mother (Nov. 26, 1504), the nominal queen of Spain, and dragged out
   a dreary existence of seventy-six years (she died April 11, 1555).
   [298]

   Charles inherited the shrewdness of Ferdinand, the piety of Isabella,
   and the melancholy temper of his mother which plunged her into
   insanity, and induced him to exchange the imperial throne for a
   monastic cell. The same temper reappeared in the gloomy bigotry of his
   son Philip II., who lived the life of a despot and a monk in his
   cloister-palace of the Escorial. The persecuting Queen Mary of England,
   a granddaughter of Isabella, and wife of Philip of Spain, had likewise
   a melancholy and desponding disposition.

   From his ancestry Charles fell heir to an empire within whose
   boundaries the sun never set. At the death of his father (Sept. 25,
   1506), he became, by right of succession, the sovereign of Burgundy and
   the Netherlands; at the death of Ferdinand (Jan. 23, 1516), he
   inherited the crown of Spain with her Italian dependencies (Naples,
   Sicily, Sardinia), and her newly acquired American possessions (to
   which were afterwards added the conquests of Mexico and Peru); at the
   death of Maximilian, he succeeded to the hereditary provinces of the
   house of Habsburg, and soon afterwards to the empire of Germany. In
   1530 he was also crowned king of Lombardy, and emperor of the Romans,
   by the Pope.

   The imperial crown of Germany was hotly contested between him and
   Francis I. All the arts of diplomacy and enormous sums of money were
   spent on electioneering by both parties. The details reveal a rotten
   state of the political morals of the times. Pope Leo at first favored
   the claims of King Francis, who was the natural rival of the Austrian
   and Burgundian power, but a stranger to the language and manners of
   Germany. The seven electors assembled at Frankfurt offered the dignity
   to the wisest of their number, Frederick of Saxony; but he modestly and
   wisely declined the golden burden lined with thorns. He would have
   protected the cause of the Reformation, but was too weak and too old
   for the government of an empire threatened by danger from without and
   within. [299] He nominated Charles; and this self-denying act of a
   Protestant prince decided the election, June 28, 1520. When the
   ambassadors of Spain offered him a large reward for his generosity, he
   promptly refused for himself, and declared that he would dismiss any of
   his servants for taking a bribe.

   Charles was crowned with unusual splendor, Oct. 23, at Aachen
   (Aix-la-Chapelle), where the founder of the German Empire lies buried.
   In his oath he pledged himself to protect the Catholic faith, the Roman
   Church, and its head the Pope.

   The new emperor was then only twenty years of age, and showed no signs
   of greatness. "Nondum" ("Not yet") was the motto which he had adopted
   for his maiden shield in a tournament at Valladolid two years before.
   He afterwards exchanged it for "Plus Ultra." He was a good rider, and
   skilled in military exercises; he could break a lance with any Knight,
   and vanquish a bull in the ring, like an expert espada; but he was in
   feeble health, with a pale, beardless, and melancholy face, and without
   interest in public affairs. He had no sympathy with the German nation,
   and was ignorant of their language. But as soon as he took the reins of
   power into his own hands, he began to develop a rare genius for
   political and military government. His beard grew, and he acquired some
   knowledge of most of the dialects of his subjects. He usually spoke and
   wrote French and Spanish.

   Charles V. as Emperor.

   Without being truly great, he was an extraordinary man, and ranks,
   perhaps, next to Charlemagne and Otho I. among the German emperors.

   He combined the selfish conservatism of the house of Habsburg, the
   religious ardor of the Spaniard, and the warlike spirit of the Dukes of
   Burgundy. He was the shrewdest prince in Europe, and an indefatigable
   worker. He usually slept only four hours a day. He was slow in forming
   his resolutions, but inflexible in carrying them into practice, and
   unscrupulous in choosing the means. He thought much, and spoke little;
   he listened to advice, and followed his own judgment. He had the
   sagacity to select and to keep the ablest men for his cabinet, the army
   and navy, and the diplomatic service. He was a good soldier, and could
   endure every hardship and privation except fasting. He was the first of
   the three great captains of his age, the Duke of Alva being the second,
   and Constable Montmorency the third.

   His insatiable ambition involved him in several wars with France, in
   which he was generally successful against his bold but less prudent
   rival, Francis I. It was a struggle for supremacy in Italy, and in the
   Councils of Europe. He twice marched upon Paris. [300]

   He engaged in about forty expeditions, by land and sea, in times when
   there were neither railroads nor steamboats. He seemed to be ubiquitous
   in his vast dominions. His greatest service to Christendom was his
   defeat of the army of Solyman the Magnificent, whom he forced to
   retreat to Constantinople (1532), and his rescue of twenty thousand
   Christian slaves and prisoners from the grasp of the African corsairs
   (1535), who, under the lead of the renowned Barbarossa, spread terror
   on the shores of the Mediterranean. These deeds raised him to the
   height of power in Europe.

   But he neglected the internal affairs of Germany, and left them mostly
   to his brother Ferdinand. He characterized the Germans as "dreamy,
   drunken, and incapable of intrigue." He felt more at home in the rich
   Netherlands, which furnished him the greatest part of his revenues. But
   Spain was the base of his monarchy, and the chief object of his care.
   Under his reign, America began to play a part in the history of Europe
   as a mine of gold and silver.

   He aimed at an absolute monarchy, with a uniformity in religion, but
   that was an impossibility; France checked his political, Germany his
   ecclesiastical ambition.

   His Personal Character.

   In his private character he was superior to Francis I., Henry VIII.,
   and most contemporary princes, but by no means free from vice. He was
   lacking in those personal attractions which endear a sovereign to his
   subjects. [301] Under a cold and phlegmatic exterior he harbored fiery
   passions. He was calculating, revengeful, implacable, and never forgave
   an injury. He treated Francis I., and the German Protestant princes in
   the Schmalkaldian war, with heartless severity. He was avaricious,
   parsimonious, and gluttonous. He indulged in all sorts of indigestible
   delicacies,--anchovies, frogs' legs, eel-pasties,--and drank large
   quantities of iced beer and Rhine wine; he would not listen to the
   frequent remonstrances of his physicians and confessors, and would
   rather endure the discomforts of dyspepsia and gout than restrain his
   appetite, which feasted on twenty dishes at a single meal. In his
   autobiography he speaks of a fourteenth attack of gout, which "lasted
   till the spring of 1548." [302]

   He had taste for music and painting. He had also some literary talent,
   and wrote or dictated an autobiography in the simple, objective style
   of Caesar, ending with the defeat of the Protestant league (1548); but
   it is dry and cold, destitute of great ideas and noble sentiments.

   He married his cousin, Donna Isabella of Portugal, at Seville, 1526,
   and lived in happy union with her till her sudden death in 1539; but
   during his frequent absences from Spain, where she always remained, as
   well as before his marriage, and after her death, he indulged in
   ephemeral unlawful attachments. [303] He had at least two illegitimate
   children, the famous Margaret, Duchess of Parma, and Don Juan of
   Austria, the hero of Lepanto (1547-1578), who lies buried by his side
   in the Escorial.

   Charles has often been painted by the master hand of Titian, whom he
   greatly admired. He was of middle size, broad-shouldered, deep-chested,
   with a commanding forehead, an aquiline nose, a pale, grave, and
   melancholy countenance. His blue and piercing eye, his blonde, almost
   reddish hair, and fair skin, betokened his German origin, and his
   projecting lower jaw, with its thick, heavy lip, was characteristic of
   the princes of Habsburg; but otherwise he looked like a Spaniard, as he
   was at heart.

   Incessant labors and cares, gluttony, and consequent gout, undermined
   his constitution, and at the age of fifty he was prematurely old, and
   had to be carried on a litter like a helpless cripple. Notwithstanding
   his many victories and successes, he was in his later years an unhappy
   and disappointed man, but sought and found his last comfort in the
   religion of his fathers.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [298] Her sad story is told by the contemporary historians Gomez, Peter
   Martyr, Zurita, and Sandoval (from whom the scattered account of
   Prescott is derived in his Ferdinand and Isabella, III. 94, 170 sqq.,
   212 sqq., 260 sqq.), and more fully revealed in the Simancas and
   Brussels documents. It has been ably discussed by several modem writers
   with reference to the unproved hypothesis of Bergenroth that she was
   never insane, but suspected and tortured (?) for heresy, and cruelly
   treated by Charles. But her troubles began long before the Reformation,
   and her melancholy disposition was derived from her grandmother. She
   received the extreme unction from priestly hands, and her last word
   was: "Jesus, thou Crucified One, deliver me." See Gustav Bergenroth (a
   German scholar then residing in London), Letters, Despatches, and State
   Papers relating to the negotiations between England and Spain preserved
   in the archives of Simancas and elsewhere. Suppl. to vol. I. and II.,
   London, 1868; Gachard, Jeanne la Folle, Bruxelles, 1869; and Jeanne la
   Folle et Charles V., in the Bulletin of the Brussels Academy, 1870 and
   1872; Rösler, Johanna die Wahnsinnige, Königin von Castilien, Wien,
   1870, Maurenbrecher, Johanna die Wahnsinnige, in his "Studien und
   Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reformationszeit." Leipzig, 1874, pp. 75-98.

   [299] Martin (Histoire de France, VII. 496) says: "L'électeur Frédéric
   n'a vait ni la hardiesse ni le génie d'un tel rôle."

   [300] Martin, from his French standpoint, calls the controversy between
   Francis I. and Charles V. "la lutte de la nationalité française contre
   la monstrueuse puissance, issue des combinaisons artificielles de
   l'hérédité féodale, qui tend à l'asservissement des nationalités
   européennes." (Hist. de France, VIII., 2.)

   [301] Motley (I. 118) calls him "a man without a sentiment and without
   a tear." But he did shed tears at the death of his favorite sister
   Eleanore (Prescott, I. 324).

   [302] English translation, p. 157.

   [303] Motley (I. 123) says, on the authority of the Venetian
   ambassador, Badovaro: "He was addicted to vulgar and miscellaneous
   incontinence." On the same authority he reports of Philip II.: "He was
   grossly licentious. It was his chief amusement to issue forth at night,
   disguised, that he might indulge in vulgar and miscellaneous
   incontinence in the common haunts of vice." (I. 145.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 51. The Ecclesiastical Policy of Charles V.

   The ecclesiastical policy of Charles was Roman Catholic without being
   ultramontane. He kept his coronation oath. All his antecedents were in
   favor of the traditional faith. He was surrounded by ecclesiastics and
   monks. He was thoroughly imbued with the Spanish type of piety, of
   which his grandmother is the noblest and purest representative.
   Isabella the Catholic, the greatest of Spanish sovereigns, "the queen
   of earthly queens." [304] conquered the Moors, patronized the
   discoverer of America, expelled the Jews, and established the
   Inquisition,--all for the glory of the Virgin Mary and the Catholic
   religion. [305] A genuine Spaniard believes, with Gonzalo of Oviedo,
   that "powder against the infidels is incense to the Lord." With him, as
   with his Moorish antipode, the measure of conviction is the measure of
   intolerance, and persecution the evidence of zeal. The burning of
   heretics became in the land of the Inquisition a sacred festival, an
   "act of faith;" [306] and such horrid spectacles were in the reign of
   Philip II. as popular as the bull-fights which still flourish in Spain,
   and administer to the savage taste for blood.

   Charles heard the mass daily, listened to a sermon on Sunday and holy
   days, confessed and communed four times a year, and was sometimes seen
   in his tent at midnight on his knees before the crucifix. He never had
   any other conception of Christianity than the Roman-Catholic, and took
   no time to investigate theological questions.

   He fully approved of the Pope's bull against Luther, and ordered it to
   be executed in the Netherlands. In his retreat at Yuste, he expressed
   regret that he had kept his promise of safe-conduct; in other words,
   that he had not burned the heretic at Worms, as Sigismund had burned
   Hus at Constance. He never showed the least sympathy with the liberal
   tendencies of the age, and regarded Protestantism as a rebellion
   against Church and State. He would have crushed it out if he had had
   the power; but it was too strong for him, and he needed the Protestant
   support for his wars against France, and against the Turks. He began in
   the Netherlands that fearful persecution which was carried on by his
   more bigoted son, Philip II., but it provoked the uprising of the
   people, and ended in the establishment of the Dutch Republic. [307] He
   subdued the Lutheran league in the Schmalkaldian war; pale as death,
   but trusting in God, he rushed into the hottest of the fight at
   Mühlberg, and greeted the decisive victory of 1547 with the words: "I
   came, I saw, and God conquered." [308] But the height of his power was
   the beginning of his decline. The same Saxon Elector, Moritz, who had
   aided him against the Protestant princes, turned against him in 1552,
   and secured in the treaty of Passau, for the first time, some degree of
   legal toleration to the Lutherans in Germany.

   But while Charles was a strict Roman Catholic from the beginning to the
   end of his life, he was, nevertheless, by no means a blind and slavish
   papist. Like his predecessors on the German throne, be maintained the
   dignity and the sovereignty of the state against the claims of
   hierarchical supremacy. He hated the French, or neutral, politics of
   the papal court. His troops even captured Rome, and imprisoned Clement
   VII., who had formed a league with Francis I. against him (1527). He
   quarreled with Pope Paul III., who in turn severely protested against
   his tolerant or hesitating policy towards the Protestants in Germany.
   He says, in his Autobiography, [309] that "the Pope's emissaries, and
   some ecclesiastics, were incessantly endeavoring to induce him to take
   up arms against the Protestants (tomar as armas contra os
   protestantes)," but that he "hesitated on account of the greatness and
   difficulty of such an enterprise."

   Moreover, Charles had a certain zeal for a limited reformation of
   church discipline on the basis of the Catholic doctrine and the papal
   hierarchy. He repeatedly urged a general council, against the dilatory
   policy of the Popes, and exhorted Protestants and Catholics alike to
   submit to its decisions as final. Speaking of the Diet of Augsburg,
   held in 1530, he says that he, asked his Holiness to convoke and
   assemble a general council, as most important and necessary to remedy
   what was taking place in Germany, and the errors which were being
   propagated throughout Christendom." [310] This was likewise consistent
   with Spanish tradition. Isabella the Catholic, and Cardinal Ximenes,
   had endeavored to reform the clergy and monks in Spain. [311]

   This Roman-Catholic reformation was effected by the Council of Trent,
   but turned out to be a papal counter-reformation, and a weapon against
   Protestantism in the hands of the Spanish order of the Jesuits.

   The Emperor and the Reformer.

   Charles and Luther saw each other once, and only once, at the Diet of
   Worms. The Emperor was disgusted with the monk who dared to set his
   private judgment and conscience against the time-honored creed of
   Christendom, and declared that he would never make him a heretic. But
   Luther wrote him a respectful letter of thanks for his safe-conduct.
   [312]

   Twenty years later, after his victory over John Frederick of Saxony at
   Mühlberg on the Elbe (April 24, 1547), Charles stood on the grave of
   Luther in the castle church of Wittenberg, and was advised by the
   bloodthirsty Duke of Alva to dig up and burn the bones of the
   arch-heretic, and to scatter the ashes to the winds of heaven; but he
   declined with the noble words:, I make war on the living, not on the
   dead." This was his nearest approach to religious toleration. But the
   interesting incident is not sufficiently authenticated. [313]

   For twenty-six years the Emperor and the Reformer stood at the head of
   Germany, the one as a political, the other as a religious, leader;
   working in opposite directions,--the one for the preservation of the
   old, the other for the creation of the new, order of things. The one
   had the army and treasure of a vast empire at his command; the other
   had nothing but his faith and pen, and yet made a far deeper and more
   lasting impression on his and on future ages. Luther died peacefully in
   his birthplace, trusting in the merits of Christ, and commending his
   soul to the God who redeemed him. Ten years later Charles ended his
   life as a monk in Spain, holding a burning candle in the right hand,
   and pressing with the left the crucifix to his lips, while the
   Archbishop of Toledo intoned the Psalm De Profundis. The last word of
   the dying Emperor was "Jesus."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [304] So Shakespeare calls her, and praises her "sweet gentleness,"
   "saintlike meekness,""wife-like government, obeying in commanding."

   [305] The inscription on the tomb of Ferdinand and Isabella in the
   Capilla Real of the cathedral at Granada is characteristic: "Mahometice
   secte prostratores et heretice pervicacie extinctores Ferdinandus
   Aragonum et Helisabetha Castelle vir et uxor unanimes Catholici
   appellati Marmores clauduntur hoc tumulo." The sepulcher is wrought in
   delicate alabaster; on it are extended the life-size marble figures of
   the Catholic sovereigns; their faces are portraits; Ferdinand wears the
   garter, Isabella the cross of Santiago; the four doctors of the Church
   ornament the corners, the twelve apostles the sides. Under the same
   monument rest the ashes of their unfortunate daughter Joanna and her
   worthless husband. I have seen no monument which surpasses this in
   chaste and noble simplicity (unless it be that of King Frederick
   William III. and Queen Louisa at Charlottenburg), and none which is
   more suggestive of historical meditation and reflection.

   [306] Actus fidei; auto-de-fé in Spanish; auto-da-fé

   [307] Motley (Dutch Republic, I. 80) says: "Thousands and tens of
   thousands of virtuous, well-disposed men and women, who had as little
   sympathy with anabaptistical as with Roman depravity, were butchered in
   cold blood, under the sanguinary rule of Charles, in the Netherlands.
   In 1533, Queen Dowager Mary of Hungary, sister of the Emperor, Regent
   of the provinces, the 'Christian widow' admired by Erasmus, wrote to
   her brother, that 'in her opinion, all heretics, whether repentant or
   not, should be prosecuted with such severity as that error might be at
   once extinguished, care being only taken that the provinces were not
   entirely depopulated.' With this humane limitation, the 'Christian
   widow' cheerfully set herself to superintend as foul and wholesale a
   system of murder as was ever organized. In 1535, an imperial edict was
   issued at Brussels, condemning all heretics to death; repentant males
   to be executed with the sword, repentant females to be buried alive,
   the obstinate, of both sexes, to be burned. This and similar edicts
   were the law of the land for twenty years, and rigidly enforced."

   [308] "Vine, y vi, y Dios vencio." But it was hardly a battle. Ranke
   (vol. IV. 377): "Es war keine Schlacht, sondern ein Ansprengen auf der
   einen, ein Auseinanderstieben auf der anderen Seite; in einem
   Augenblicke war alles vollendet." He says of the Emperor (p. 376): "Wie
   ein einbalsamirter Leichnam, wie ein Gespenst rückte er gegen sie [die
   Protestanten) an."

   [309] Ch. VI., in Simpson's translation, p. 91 sq.

   [310] Autobiography, p. 19. On p. 73 sqq. he complains of Clement VII.
   and Paul III., on account of their violation of promise to convoke such
   a council. He does not conceal his hatred of Paul III.

   [311] Comp. Maurenbrecher, Die Kirchenreformation in Spanien, in his
   "Studien und Skizzen." pp. 1-40, and his Geschichte der katholischen
   Reformation (Nördlingen, 1880), vol. I., pp. 37-55. Maurenbrecher shows
   that there were two reformation-currents in the sixteenth century, one
   proceeding from Spain, and led by Charles V., which aimed at a
   restoration of the mediaeval Church in its purity and glory; the other
   proceeding from Germany, and embodied in Luther, which aimed at an
   emancipation of the human mind from the authority of Rome, and at a
   reconstruction of the Church on the inner religiosity of the
   individual.

   [312] April 28, 1521; in De Wette, I. 589-594.

   [313] In his Autobiography (ch. X., 151 sqq.) Charles speaks of the
   siege and capitulation of Wittenberg, but says nothing of a visit to
   Luther's grave, nor does he even mention his name. I looked in vain for
   an allusion to the fact in Sleidan, and Lindner (in his extensive
   Appendix to Seckendorf, from 1546 to 1555). Ranke ignores it, though he
   is very full on this chapter in Charles's history (vol. IV. 378 sqq.).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 52. The Abdication of Charles, and his Cloister Life.

   The abdication of Charles, and his subsequent cloister life, have a
   considerable interest for ecclesiastical as well as general history,
   and may by anticipation be briefly noted in this place.

   In the year 305, the last of the imperial persecutors of Christianity,
   who was born a slave and reached his power by military achievements,
   voluntarily resigned the throne of the Caesars, and retired for the
   remaining eight years of his life to his native Salona in Dalmatia to
   raise cabbages. In the year 1555 (Oct. 25), Charles V., who was born an
   heir of three kingdoms, wearied of the race of politics, diplomacy, and
   war, defeated by the treason of Moritz, and tormented by gout,
   abdicated his crown to live and die like an humble monk.

   The abdication of Charles took place in the royal palace at Brussels,
   in the same hall in which, forty years before, he had been declared of
   age, and had assumed the reign of Brabant. He was dressed in mourning
   for his unfortunate mother, and wore only one ornament,--the superb
   collar of the Golden Fleece. He looked grave, solemn, pale, broken: he
   entered leaning on a staff with one hand, and on the arm of William of
   Orange with the other; behind him came Philip II., his son and heir,
   small, meager, timid, but magnificently dressed,--a momentous
   association with the two youthful princes who were to be afterwards
   arrayed in deadly conflict for the emancipation of the Netherlands from
   the yoke of Spanish tyranny and bigotry. [314]

   The Emperor rose from the throne, and with his right hand resting on
   the shoulder of the Prince of Orange,--who was one day to become the
   most formidable enemy of his house,--and holding a paper in the other
   hand, he addressed his farewell in French before the members of the
   royal family, the nobility of the Netherlands, the Knights of the
   Golden Fleece, the royal counselors, and the great officers of the
   household. He assured them that he had done his duty to the best of his
   ability, mindful of his dear native land, and especially of the
   interests of Christianity against infidels and heretics. He had shrunk
   from no toil; but a cruel malady now deprived him of strength to endure
   the cares of government, and this was his only motive for carrying out
   a long-cherished wish of resigning the scepter. He exhorted them above
   all things to maintain the purity of the faith. He had committed many
   errors, but only from ignorance, and begged pardon if he had wronged
   any one.

   He then resigned the crown of the Netherlands to his son Philip with
   the exhortation, "Fear God: live justly; respect the laws; above all,
   cherish the interests of religion."

   Exhausted, and pale as a corpse, he fell back upon his seat amid the
   tears and sobs of the assembly. [315]

   On the 16th of January, 1556, he executed the deeds by which he ceded
   the sovereignty of Castile and Aragon, with their dependencies, to
   Philip. His last act was to resign the crown of Germany into the hands
   of his brother Ferdinand; but, as affairs move slowly in that country,
   the resignation was not finally acted on till Feb. 28, 1558, at the
   Diet at Frankfurt. [316]

   His Retirement to Yuste.

   On the 17th of September Charles sailed from the harbor of Flushing for
   Spain with a fleet of fifty-six sails, his two sisters (Mary, formerly
   queen of Hungary, and regent of the Low Countries, and Eleanor, the
   widow of King Francis of France), and a hundred and fifty select
   persons of the imperial household.

   After a boisterous voyage, and a tedious land-journey, he arrived, Feb.
   3, 1557, at the Convent of St. Gerome in Yuste, which he had previously
   selected for his retreat.

   The resolution to exchange the splendors of the world for monastic
   seclusion was not uncommon among the rulers and nobles of Spain; and
   the rich convents of Montserrat and Poblet (now in ruins) had special
   accommodations for royal and princely guests. Charles had formed it
   during the lifetime of the Empress Isabella, and agreed with her that
   they would spend the rest of their days in neighboring convents, and be
   buried under the same altar. In 1542 he announced his intention to
   Francisco de Borgia; but the current of events involved him in a new
   and vain attempt to restore once more the Holy Roman Empire in the
   fullness of its power. Now his work was done, and he longed for rest.
   His resolution was strengthened by the desire to atone for sins of
   unchastity committed after the death of his wife. [317]

   Yuste is situated in the mountainous province of Estremadura, about
   eight leagues from Plasencia and fifty leagues from Valladolid (then
   the capital of Spain), in a well-watered valley and a salubrious
   climate, and was in every way well fitted for the wishes of the
   Emperor. [318]

   Here he spent about eighteen months till his death,--a remarkable
   instance of the old adage, Sie transit gloria mundi.

   His Cloister Life.

   There is something grand and romantic, as well as sad and solemn, in
   the voluntary retirement of a monarch who had swayed a scepter of
   unlimited power over two hemispheres, and taken a leading part in the
   greatest events of an eventful century. There is also an idyllic charm
   in the combination of the innocent amusements of country life with the
   exercises of piety.

   The cloister life of Charles even more than his public life reveals his
   personal and religious character. It was represented by former
   historians as the life of a devout and philosophic recluse, dead to the
   world and absorbed in preparation for the awful day of judgment; [319]
   but the authentic documents of Simancas, made known since 1844, correct
   and supplement this view.

   He lived not in the convent with the monks, but in a special house with
   eight rooms built for him three years before. It opened into gardens
   alive with aromatic plants, flowers, orange, citron, and fig trees, and
   protected by high walls against intruders. From the window of his
   bedroom he could look into the chapel, and listen to the music and
   prayers of the friars, when unable to attend. He retained over fifty
   servants, mostly Flemings, including a major-domo (who was a Spaniard),
   an almoner, a keeper of the wardrobe, a keeper of the jewels,
   chamberlains, secretaries, physician, confessor, two watchmakers,
   besides cooks, confectioners, bakers, brewers, game-keepers, and
   numerous valets. [320] Some of them lived in a neighboring village, and
   would have preferred the gay society of Brussels to the dull monotony
   of solitude. He was provided with canopies, Turkish carpets,
   velvet-lined arm-chairs, six cushions and a footstool for his gouty
   limbs, twenty-five suits of tapestry, sixteen robes of silk and velvet
   lined with ermine or eider-down, twelve hangings of the finest black
   cloth, four large clocks of elaborate workmanship, and a number of
   pocket-watches. The silver furniture for his table and kitchen amounted
   to fourteen thousand ounces in weight. The walls of his room were
   adorned with choice pictures, nine from the pencil of Titian (including
   four portraits of himself and one of the Empress). He had also a small
   library, mostly of devotional books. [321]

   He took exercise in his gardens, carried on a litter. He constructed,
   with the aid of a skilled artisan, a little handmill for grinding
   wheat, puppet soldiers, clocks and watches, and endeavored in vain to
   make an two of them run exactly alike. The fresh mountain air and
   exercise invigorated his health, and he never felt better than in 1557.

   He continued to take a lively interest in public affairs, and the
   events of the times. He greeted with joy the victory of St. Quentin;
   with partial dissatisfaction, the conclusion of peace with the Pope
   (whom he would have treated more severely); with regret, the loss of
   Calais; with alarm, the advance of the Turkish fleet to Spain, and the
   progress of the Lutheran heresy. He received regular dispatches and
   messengers, was constantly consulted by his son, and freely gave advice
   in the new complications with France, and especially also in financial
   matters. He received visits from his two sisters,--the dowager queens
   of Hungary and France, who had accompanied him to Spain,--and from the
   nobles of the surrounding country; he kept up a constant correspondence
   with his daughter Joanna, regent of Castile, and with his sister, the
   regent of Portugal.

   He maintained the stately Castilian etiquette of dining alone, though
   usually in the presence of his physician, secretary, and confessor, who
   entertained him on natural history or other topics of interest. Only
   once he condescended to partake of a scanty meal with the friars. He
   could not control, even in these last years, his appetite for spiced
   capons, pickled sausages, and eel-pies, although his stomach refused to
   do duty, and caused him much suffering.

   But he tried to atone for this besetting sin by self-flagellation,
   which he applied to his body so severely during Lent that the scourge
   was found stained with his blood. Philip cherished this precious
   memorial of his father's piety, and bequeathed it as an heirloom to his
   son. [322]

   From the beginning of his retreat, and especially in the second year,
   Charles fulfilled his religious duties with scrupulous
   conscientiousness, as far as his health would permit. He attended mass
   in the chapel, said his prayers, and listened to sermons and the
   reading of selections from the Fathers (Jerome, Augustin, Bernard), the
   Psalms, and the Epistles of Paul. He favored strict discipline among
   the friars, and gave orders that any woman who dared to approach within
   two bow-shots of the gate should receive a hundred stripes. He enjoyed
   the visits of Francisco Borgia, Duke of Gandia, who had exchanged a
   brilliant position for membership in the Society of the Jesuits, and
   confirmed him in his conviction that he had acted wisely in
   relinquishing the world. He wished to be prayed for only by his
   baptismal name, being no longer emperor or king. Every Thursday was for
   him a feast of Corpus Christi.

   He repeatedly celebrated the exequies of his parents, his wife, and a
   departed sister.

   Yea, according to credible contemporary testimony, he celebrated, in
   the presentiment of approaching death, his own funeral, around a huge
   catafalque erected in the dark chapel. Bearing a lighted taper, he
   mingled with his household and the monks in chanting the prayers for
   the departed, on the lonely passage to the invisible world, and
   concluded the doleful ceremony by handing the taper to the priest, in
   token of surrendering his spirit to Him who gave it. According to later
   accounts, the Emperor was laid alive in his coffin, and carried in
   solemn procession to the altar. [323]

   This relish for funeral celebrations reveals a morbid trait in his
   piety. It reminds one of the insane devotion of his mother to the dead
   body of her husband, which she carried with her wherever she went.

   His Intolerance.

   We need not wonder that his bigotry increased toward the end of life.
   He was not philosopher enough to learn a lesson of toleration (as Dr.
   Robertson imagines) from his inability to harmonize two timepieces. On
   the contrary, he regretted his limited forbearance towards Luther and
   the German Protestants, who had defeated his plans five years before.
   They were now more hateful to him than ever.

   To his amazement, the same heretical opinions broke out in Valladolid
   and Sevilla, at the very court and around the throne of Spain. Augustin
   Cazalla, [324] who had accompanied him as chaplain in the Smalkaldian
   war, and had preached before him at Yuste, professed Lutheran
   sentiments. Charles felt that Spain was in danger, and repeatedly urged
   the most vigorous measures for the extermination of heresy with fire
   and sword. "Tell the Grand Inquisitor, from me," he wrote to his
   daughter Joanna, the regent, on the 3d of May, 1558, "to be at his
   post, and to lay the ax at the root of the evil before it spreads
   farther. I rely on your zeal for bringing the guilty to punishment with
   all the severity which their crimes demand." In the last codicil to his
   will, he conjures his son Philip to cherish the Holy Inquisition as the
   best instrument for the suppression of heresy in his dominions. "So,"
   he concludes, "shall you have my blessing, and the Lord shall prosper
   all your undertakings." [325]

   Philip II., who inherited the vices but none of the virtues of his
   father, faithfully carried out this dying request, and by a terrible
   system of persecution crushed out every trace of evangelical
   Protestantism in Spain, and turned that beautiful country into a
   graveyard adorned by somber cathedrals, and disfigured by bull-rings.

   His Death.

   The Emperor's health failed rapidly in consequence of a new attack of
   gout, and the excessive heat of the summer, which cost the life of
   several of his Flemish companions. He died Sept. 21, 1558, a consistent
   Catholic as be had lived. A few of his spiritual and secular friends
   surrounded his death-bed. He confessed with deep contrition his sins;
   prayed repeatedly for the unity of the Church; received, kneeling in
   his bed, the holy communion and the extreme unction; and placed his
   hope on the crucified Redeemer. The Archbishop of Toledo, Bartolomé de
   Carranza, read the one hundred and thirtieth Psalm, and, holding up a
   crucifix, said: "Behold Him who answers for all. There is no more sin;
   all is forgiven;" while another of his preachers commended him to the
   intercession of saints, namely, St. Matthew, on whose day he was born,
   and St. Matthias, on whose day he was in a few moments to leave this
   world.

   "Thus," says Mignet, "the two doctrines which divided the world in the
   age of Charles V. were once more brought before him on the bed of
   death."

   It is an interesting fact, that the same archbishop who had taken a
   prominent part in the persecution of English Protestants under Queen
   Mary, and who administered the last and truly evangelical comfort to
   the dying Emperor, became a victim of persecution, and that those very
   words of comfort were used by the Emperor's confessor as one of the
   grounds of the charge of heresy before the tribunal of the Spanish
   Inquisition. Bartolomé de Carranza was seven years imprisoned in Spain,
   then sent to Rome, lodged in the Castle of St. Angelo, after long delay
   found guilty of sixteen Lutheranizing propositions in his writings,
   suspended from the exercise of his episcopal functions, and sentenced
   to be shut up for five years in a convent of his order. He died sixteen
   days after the judgment, in the Convent Sopra Minerva, May 2, 1576,
   "declaring his innocence with tears in his eyes, and yet with strange
   inconsistency admitting the justice of his sentence." [326]

   In less than two months after the decease of the Emperor, Queen Mary,
   his cousin, and wife of his son, died, Nov. 17, 1558, and was borne to
   her rest in Westminster Abbey. With her the Roman hierarchy collapsed,
   and the reformed religion, after five years of bloody persecution, was
   permanently restored on the throne and in the Church of England. In
   view of this coincidence, we may well exclaim with Ranke, "How far do
   the thoughts of Divine Providence exceed the thoughts and purposes of
   men!" [327]

   His Tomb.

   From Yuste the remains of the once mighty Emperor were removed in 1574
   to their last resting-place under the altar of the cathedral of the
   Escorial. That gloomy structure, in a dreary mountain region some
   thirty miles north of Madrid, was built by his order as a royal
   burial-place (between 1563 and 1584), and combines a palace, a
   monastery, a cathedral, and a tomb (called Pantheon). Philip II., "el
   Escorialense," spent there fourteen years, half king, half monk,
   boasting that he ruled the Old and New World from the foot of a
   mountain with two inches of paper. He died, after long and intense
   suffering, Sept. 13, 1598, in a dark little room facing the altar of
   the church.

   Father and son are represented in gilt-bronze statues, opposite each
   other, in kneeling posture, looking to the high altar; Charles V., with
   his wife Isabella, his daughter Maria, and his sisters Eleonora and
   Maria; Philip II., with three of his wives, and his weak-minded and
   unfortunate son, Don Carlos.

   The Escorial, like Spain itself, is only a shadow of the past,
   inhabited by the ghost of its founder, who entombed in it his own
   gloomy character. [328]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [314] "Ein Moment volt Schicksal und Zukunft!" says Ranke (V. 295)."Da
   war der mächtige Kaiser, der bisher die grossen Angelegenheiten der
   Welt verwaltet hatte; von denen, die ihm zunächst standen, beinahe der
   Generation, die ihn umgab, nahm er Abschied. Neben ihm erschienen die
   Männer, denen die Zukunft gehörte, Philipp II. und der Prinz von
   Oranien, in denen sich die beiden entgegengesetzten Directionen
   repräsentirten, die fortan um Weltherrschaft kämpfen sollten."

   [315] Sandoval, II. 597 sqq.; Gachart, Analectes belgiques, 87;
   Prescott, Philip the Second, I. 10 sqq.; Ranke, V. 293 sqq. Prescott
   calls this abdication one of the most remarkable scenes in history.

   [316] The negotiations with Ferdinand and the German Diet are detailed
   by Ranke, V. 297 sqq.

   [317] He regretted that, from regard to his son, he had not married
   again. Ranke, V. 297.

   [318] It is often miscalled Saint Yuste, or St. Justus, even by
   Robertson in Book XII., Eng. ed. III. 294; Amer. ed. III. 226, etc.;
   and more recently by Dr. Stoughton, Spanish Reformers, Lond., 1883, p.
   168. Yuste is not named after a saint, but after a little stream. The
   convent was founded in 1404, and its proper name is El monasterio de
   San Geronimo de Yuste. It lies on the route from Madrid to Lisbon, but
   is somewhat difficult of access. It was sacked and almost destroyed by
   the French soldiers under Soult, 1809. The bedroom of Charles, and an
   overgrown walnut-tree under whose shade he used to sit and muse, are
   still shown. Yuste is now in possession of the Duke of Montpensier. See
   descriptions in the works of Stirling, Mignet, and Prescott, above
   quoted, and by Ford in Murray's Handbook of Spain, I. 294 (sixth
   edition).

   [319] By Sandoval, Strada, and by his most elaborate historian, Dr.
   Robertson, who says: "There he buried, in solitude and silence, his
   grandeur, his ambition, together with those projects which, during
   almost half a century, had alarmed and agitated Europe, filling every
   kingdom in it, by turns, with the terror of his arms, and the dread of
   being subdued by his power." Sepulveda, who visited Charles in his
   retreat, seems to be the only early historian who was aware of his deep
   interest in public affairs, so fully confirmed by the documents.

   [320] "Aus den Legaten seines Testamentes lernt man die Mitglieder
   derselben kennen,--eine ganze Anzahl Kammerdiener, besondere Diener für
   die Fruchtkammer, Obstkammer, Lichtbeschliesserei, Aufbewahrung der
   Kleider, der Juwelen, meist Niederländer, jedoch unter einem spanischen
   Haushofmeister, Louis Quixada. Der Leibarzt und eine Apotheke fehlten
   nicht." Ranke, V. 305. The codicil of Charles, executed a few days
   before his death, specifies the names and vocations of these servants.
   Sandoval and Gachart give the list, the latter more correctly,
   especially in the orthography of Flemish names.

   [321] These and other articles of furniture and outfit are mentioned in
   the inventory. See Sterling, Pichot, and Prescott, I. 302 sqq.

   [322] Prescott, l.c., I. 311.

   [323] The story is told with its later embellishments by Robertson and
   many others. The papers of Simancas, and the private letters of the
   Emperor's major-domo (Quixada) and physician, are silent on the
   subject; and hence Tomas Gonzalez, Mignet (1854 and 1857), and
   Maurenbrecher ("Studien und Skizzen." 1874, p. 132, note) reject the
   whole as a monkish fiction. But the main fact rests on the testimony of
   a Hieronymite monk of Yuste, who was present at the ceremony, and
   recorded the deep impression it made; and it is confirmed by Sandoval,
   who derived his report directly from Yuste. A fuller account is given
   by Siguença, prior of the Escorial, in his general history of the Order
   of St. Jerome (1605); and by Strada, who wrote a generation later, and
   leaves the Emperor in a swoon upon the floor. Stirling, Pichot, Juste,
   Gachard (1855), Prescott (Phil. II., Vol. I., 327 sqq.), and Ranke
   (Vol. V., 309 sq.), accept the fact as told in its more simple form by
   the oldest witness. It is quite consistent with the character of
   Charles; for, as Prescott remarks (p. 332), "there was a taint of
   insanity in the royal blood of Castile."

   [324] Commonly called Dr. Cazalla. See on him Dr. Stoughton, The
   Spanish Reformers, p. 204 sq.

   [325] Gachard, II. 461. Ranke, V. 308. Prescott, I. 325 sq.

   [326] His long trial is told by Prescott, Philip the Second, I. 337,
   437 sqq.; and by Stoughton, The Spanish Reformers, pp. 185 sqq.

   [327] Deutsche Gesch., vol. V. 311.

   [328] The convent was robbed of its richest treasures by the French
   invaders in 1808, and by the Carlists in 1837. Some of the finest
   pictures were removed to the museum of Madrid. There still remains a
   considerable library; the books are richly bound, but their gilt backs
   are turned inside. The Rev. Fritz Fliedner, an active and hopeful
   Protestant evangelist in Madrid, with whom I visited the Escorial in
   May, 1886, bought there the ruins of a house and garden, which was
   built and temporarily occupied by Philip II. (while the
   palace-monastery was in process of construction), and fitted it up for
   an orphan-home, in which day by day the Scriptures are read, and
   evangelical hymns are sung, in the Spanish tongue.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 53. The Diet of Worms. 1521.

   I. Sources. Acta et res gestae D. M. Luth. in Comitiis Principum
   Wormatiae. Anno 1521. 4°. Acta Lutheri in Comitiis Wormatiae ed.
   Pollicarius, Vitb. 1546. These and other contemporary documents are
   reprinted in the Jena ed. of Luther's Opera (1557), vol. II.; in
   Walch's German ed., vols. XV., 2018-2325, and XXII., 2026 sqq.; and the
   Erlangen-Frankf. ed. of the Opera Lat., vol. VI. (1872); Vermischte
   deutsche Schriften, vol. XII. (or Sämmtl. Werke, vol. LXIV., pub.
   1855), pp. 366-383. Förstemann: Neues Urkundenbuch, 1842, vol. I.
   Luther's Letters to Spalatin, Cuspinianus, Lucas Cranach, Charles V.,
   etc., see in De Wette, I. 586 sqq. Spalatin: Ann. Spalatin is also,
   according to Köstlin, the author of the contemporary pamphlet: Etliche
   wunderliche fleissige Handlung in D. M. Luther's Sachen durch
   geistliche und weltliche Fürsten des Reich's; but Brieger (in his
   "Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.," Gotha, 1886, p. 482 sqq.) ascribes it
   to Rudolph von Watzdorf.

   On the Roman-Cath. side, Cochläus (who was present at Worms):
   Pallavicini (who used the letters of Aleander); and especially the
   letters and dispatches of Aleander, now published as follows: Johann
   Friedrich: Der Reichstag zu Worms im Jahr 1521. Nach den Briefen des
   päpstlichen Nuntius Hieronymus Aleander. In the "Abhandlungen der
   Bayer. Akad.," vol. XI. München, 1870. Pietro Balan (R. Cath.):
   Monumenta Reform. Lutheranae ex tabulariis S. Sedis secretis.
   1521-1525. Ratisb. Fasc. I., 1883. Contains Aleander's reports from the
   papal archives, and is one of the first fruits of the liberal policy of
   Leo XIII. in opening the literary treasures of the Vatican. Theod.
   Brieger (Prof. of Ch. Hist. in Leipzig): Aleander und Luther, 1521. Die
   vervollständigten Aleander-Depeschen nebst Untersuchungen über den
   Wormser Reichstag. 1 Abth. Gotha, 1884 (315 pages). Gives the Aleander
   dispatches in Italian and Latin from a MS. in the library of Trent, and
   supplements and partly corrects, in the chronology, the edition of
   Balan.

   II. Special Treatises. Boye: Luther zu Worms. Halle, 1817, 1824.
   Zimmer: Luther zu Worms. Heidelb. 1521. Tuzschmann: Luther in Worms.
   Darmstadt, 1860. Soldan: Der Reichstag zu Worms. Worms, 1863. Steitz:
   Die Melanchthon- und Luther-Herbergen zu Frankfurt-a.-M. Frankf., 1861.
   Contains the reports of the Frankfurt delegate Fürstenberg, and other
   documents. Hennes (R. Cath.): M. Luther's Aufenthalt in Worms. Mainz,
   1868. Waltz: Der Wormser Reichstag und seine Beziehungen zur
   reformator. Bewegung, in the "Forschungen zur deutschen Gesch."
   Göttingen, 1868, VIII. pp. 21-44. Dan. Schenkel: Luther in Worms.
   Elberfeld, 1870. Jul. Köstlin: Luther's Rede in Worms am 18. April,
   1521. Halle, 1874 (the best on Luther's famous declaration).
   Maurenbrecher: Der Wormser Reichstag von 1521, in his "Studien und
   Skizzen zur Gesch. der Reform. Zeit," Leipzig, 1874 (pp. 241-275); also
   in his Gesch. der kathol. Reformation, Nördlingen, 1880, vol. I., pp.
   181-201. Karl Jansen (not to be confounded with the Rom.-Cath.
   Janssen): Aleander am Reichstage zu Worms, 1521. Kiel, 1883 (72 pages).
   Corrects Friedrich's text of Aleander's letters. Th. Kolde: Luther und
   der Reichstag zu Worms. 2d ed. Halle, 1883. Brieger: Neue Mittheilungen
   über L. in Worms. Program to the Luther jubilee, Marburg, 1883 (a
   critique of Balan's Monumenta). Kalkoff: Germ. transl. of the Aleander
   Dispatches, Halle, 1886. Elter: Luther u. der Wormser Reichstag. Bonn,
   1886.

   III. Ranke, I. 311-343. Gieseler, IV. 56-58 (Am. ed.). Merle D'aub.,
   bk. VII. chs. I. -XI. Hagenbach, III. 103-109. G. P. Fisher, pp.
   108-111. Köstlin, chs. XVII. and XVIII. (I. 411-466). Kolde, I. 325
   sqq. Janssen (R. Cath.), II. 131-166. G. Weber: Das Zeitalter der
   Reformation (vol. X. of his Weltgeschichte), Leipzig, 1886, pp.
   162-178. Baumgarten: Gesch. Karls V. Leipzig, l885, vol. I. 379-460.

   On the 28th of January, 1521, Charles V. opened his first Diet at
   Worms. This was a free imperial city on the left bank of the Rhine, in
   the present grand-duchy of Hesse. [329] It is famous in German song as
   the scene of the Niebelungenlied, which opens with King Günther of
   Worms and his sister Chriemhild, the world's wonder for grace and
   beauty. It is equally famous in ecclesiastical history for "the
   Concordat of Worms," which brought to an end the long contest between
   the Emperor and the Pope about investiture (Sept. 23, 1122). But its
   greatest fame the city acquired by Luther's heroic stand on the word of
   God and the rights of conscience, which made the Diet of 1521 one of
   the most important in the history of German Diets. After that event two
   conferences of Protestant and Roman-Catholic leaders were held in
   Worms, to heal the breach of the Reformation,--one in 1541, and one in
   1557; but both failed of their object. In 1868 (June 25) a splendid
   monument to Luther and his fellow-laborers by Rietschel was erected at
   Worms, and dedicated with great national enthusiasm. [330]

   The religious question threw all the political and financial questions
   into the background, and absorbed the attention of the public mind.

   At the very beginning of the Diet a new papal brief called upon the
   Emperor to give, by an imperial edict, legal force to the bull of
   January 3, by which Luther was finally excommunicated, and his books
   condemned to the flames. The Pope urged him to prove his zeal for the
   unity of the Church. God had girded him with supreme earthly power,
   that he might use it against heretics who were much worse than
   infidels. [331] On Maundy Thursday, March 28, the Pope, in proclaiming
   the terrible bull In Coena Domini, which is annually read at Rome,
   expressly condemned, among other heretics, Martin Luther by name with
   all his adherents. This was the third or fourth excommunication, but
   produced little effect. [332]

   The Pope was ably represented by two Italian legates, who were
   afterwards created cardinals, -Marino Caracciolo (1459-1538) for the
   political affairs, and Jerome Aleander (1480-1542) for the
   ecclesiastical interests. Aleander was at that time librarian of the
   Vatican, and enjoyed great reputation as a Greek scholar. He had
   lectured at Paris before two thousand bearers of all classes. He stood
   in friendly relations to Erasmus; but when the latter showed sympathy
   with the Reformation, be denounced him as the chief founder of the
   Lutheran heresy. He was an intense papist, and skilled in all the arts
   of diplomacy. His religious wants were not very pressing. During the
   Diet of Worms he scarcely found time, in the holy week, "to occupy
   himself a little with Christ and his conscience." His sole object was
   to maintain the power of the Pope, and to annihilate the new heresy. In
   his letters he calls Luther a fool, a dog, a basilisk, a ribald. He
   urged everywhere the wholesale burning of his books. [333] He employed
   argument, persuasion, promises, threats, spies, and bribes. He
   complained that he could not get money enough from Rome for greedy
   officials. He labored day and night with the Emperor, his confessor,
   and the members of the privy council. He played on their fears of a
   popular revolution, and reminded them of the example of the Bohemians,
   the worst and most troublesome of heretics. He did not shrink from the
   terrible threat, "If ye Germans who pay least into the Pope's treasury
   shake off his yoke, we shall take care that ye mutually kill
   yourselves, and wade in your own blood." He addressed the Diet, Feb.
   13, in a speech of three hours, and contended that Luther's final
   condemnation left no room for a further hearing of the heretic, but
   imposed upon the Emperor and the Estates the simple duty to execute the
   requirements of the papal bull.

   The Emperor hesitated between his religious impulses--which were
   decidedly Roman Catholic, though with a leaning towards disciplinary
   reform through a council--and political considerations which demanded
   caution and forbearance. He had already taken lessons in the art of
   dissimulation, which was deemed essential to a ruler in those days. He
   had to respect the wishes of the Estates, and could not act without
   their consent. Public sentiment was divided, and there was a
   possibility of utilizing the dissatisfaction with Rome for his
   interest. He was displeased with Leo for favoring the election of
   Francis, and trying to abridge the powers of the Spanish Inquisition;
   and yet he felt anxious to secure his support in the impending struggle
   with France, and the Pope met him half-way by recalling his steps
   against the Inquisition. He owed a debt of gratitude to the Elector
   Frederick, and had written to him, Nov. 28, 1520, to bring Luther to
   Worms, that he might have a hearing before learned men; but the Elector
   declined the offer, fearing the result. On the 17th of December, the
   Emperor advised him to keep Luther at Wittenberg, as he had been
   condemned at Rome.

   At first be inclined to severe measures, and laid the draft of an edict
   before the Diet whereby the bull of excommunication should be legally
   enforced throughout all Germany. But this was resisted by the Estates,
   and other influences were brought to bear upon him. Then he tried
   indirectly, and in a private way, a compromise through his confessor,
   John Glapio, a Franciscan friar, who professed some sympathy with
   reform, and respect for Luther's talent and zeal. He held several
   interviews with Dr. Brück (Pontanus), the Chancellor of the Elector
   Frederick. He assured him of great friendship, and proposed that he
   should induce Luther to disown or to retract the book on the
   "Babylonian Captivity," which was detestable; in this case, his other
   writings, which contained so much that is good, would bear fruit to the
   Church, and Luther might co-operate with the Emperor in the work of a
   true (that is, Spanish) reformation of ecclesiastical abuses. We have
   no right to doubt his sincerity any more than that of the like-minded
   Hadrian VI., the teacher of Charles. But the Elector would not listen
   to such a proposal, and refused a private audience to Glapio. His
   conference with Hutten and Sickingen on the Ebernburg was equally
   unsuccessful. [334]

   The Estates were in partial sympathy with the Reformation, not from
   doctrinal and religious, but from political and patriotic motives; they
   repeated the old one hundred and one gravamina against the tyranny and
   extortions of the Roman See [335] (similar to the charges in Luther's
   Address to the German Nobility), and resisted a condemnation of Luther
   without giving him a hearing. Even his greatest enemy, Duke George of
   Saxony, declared that the Church suffered most from the immorality of
   the clergy, and that a general reformation was most necessary, which
   could be best secured by a general council.

   During the Diet, Ulrich von Hutten exerted all his power of invective
   against the Pope and for Luther. He was harbored at Ebernburg, a few
   leagues from Worms, with his friend, the valorous Francis of Sickingen.
   He poured contempt and ridicule on the speech of Aleander, and even
   attempted to catch him and Caracciolo by force. [336] But he and
   Sickingen favored, at the same time, the cause of the young Emperor,
   from whom they expected great things, and wished to bring about an
   anti-papal revolution with his aid. Hutten called upon him to dismiss
   his clerical counsellors, to stand on his own dignity, to give Luther a
   hearing, and to build up a free Germany. Freedom was now in the air,
   and all men of intelligence longed for a new and better order of
   things. [337]

   Aleander was scarcely safe on the street after his speech of February
   13. He reported to his master, that for nine-tenths of the Germans the
   name of Luther was a war-cry, and that the last tenth screamed "Death
   to the court of Rome!" Cochlaeus, who was in Worms as the theological
   adviser of the Archbishop of Treves, feared a popular uprising against
   the clergy.

   Luther was the hero of the day, and called a new Moses, a second Paul.
   His tracts and picture, surrounded by a halo of glory, were freely
   circulated in Worms. [338]

   At last Charles thought it most prudent to disregard the demand of the
   Pope. In an official letter of March 6, he cited Luther to appear
   before the Diet within twenty-one days under the sure protection of the
   Empire. The Elector Frederick, Duke George of Saxony, and the Landgrave
   of Hesse, added letters of safe-conduct through their respective
   territories. [339]

   Aleander now endeavored to make the appearance of Luther as harmless as
   possible, and succeeded in preventing any discussion with him. The
   heretic was simply to recant, or, in case of refusal, to suffer the
   penalties of excommunication.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [329] Worms is 26 miles S. S. E. of Mainz (Mayence or Mentz, the
   ancient Moguntiacum, the capital of Rhenish Hesse since 1815), and has
   now over 20,000 inhabitants, about one-half of them Protestants, but in
   the beginning of the seventeenth century it had 70,000. It was almost
   destroyed under Louis XIV. (1683). The favorite German wine,
   Liebfrauenmilch, is cultivated in its neighborhood. H. Boos,
   Urkundenbuch der Stadt Worms, Berlin, 1886.

   [330] See description of the celebration by Dr. Friedrich Eich,
   Gedenkblätter, Worms, 1868; and his book on the controversy about the
   locality of the Diet, In welchem Locale stand Luther zu Worms vor
   Kaiser und Reich? Leipzig, 1863. He decides for the Bishofshof (against
   the Rathhaus).

   [331] "Multo deteriores haereticos." The new papal bull of
   condemnation, together with a brief to the Emperor, arrived in Worms
   the 10th of February. Aleander addressed the Diet three days after, on
   Ash Wednesday. Ranke, I. 329. Köstlin, I., 422 sq.

   [332] Luther published this bull afterwards with biting, abusive, and
   contemptuous comments, under the title, Die Bulla vom Abendfressen des
   allerheiligsten, Herrn, des Papsts. In Walch XV. 2127 sqq. Merle
   d'Aubigné gives characteristic extracts, Bk. VII. ch. 5.

   [333] Janssen, who praises him very highly, remarks (II. 144): "Um der
   Häresie Einhalt zu thun, hielt Aleander die Verbrennung der
   lutherischen Bücher für ein überaus geeignetes Mittel." But I can not
   see why he says (p. 142) that Aleander prided himself on being "a
   German." Aleander was born in Italy, hated the Germans, and died in
   Rome.

   [334] See Brück's conversations with Glapio in Förstemann, I., pp. 53,
   54. Erasmus and Hutten regarded him as a crafty hypocrite, who wished
   to ruin Luther. Strauss agrees, Ulrich von Hutten, p. 405. But
   Maurenbrecher, (Studien, etc., pp. 258 sqq., and Gesch. der kath. Ref.,
   I. 187 sqq.) thinks that Glapio presented the program of the imperial
   policy of reform. Janssen, II., 153 sq., seems to be of the same
   opinion.

   [335] See the list in Walch, XV., 2058 sqq.

   [336] Luther, in a letter to Spalatin (Nov. 23, 1520, In De Wette I.
   523), in a moment of indignation expressed a wish that Hutten might
   have intercepted (utinam --Intercepisset) the legates, but not
   murdered, as Romanists (Janssen, twice, II. 104, 143) misinterpret it.
   See Köstlin, I. 411, and note on p. 797.

   [337] See Aleander's dispatches in Brieger, l.c. I. pp. 119 sqq.;
   Strauss, Ulrich von Hutten, 4th ed., pp. 395 sqq.; and Ullmann, Franz
   von Sickingen (Leipzig, 1872).

   [338] Aleander reports (April 13) that Luther was painted with the Holy
   Spirit over his head (el spirito santo sopra it capo, come to
   depingono). Brieger, I. 139.

   [339] The letters of safe-conduct are printed in Walch, XV., 2122-2127,
   and Förstemann, Neues Urkundenbuch, I., 61 sq. In the imperial letter
   signed by Albert, Elector and Archbishop of Mayence and Chancellor of
   the Empire, Luther is addressed as "honorable, well-beloved, pious"
   (Ehrsamer, Geliebter, Andächtiger; in the Latin copy, Honorabilis,
   Dilecte, Devote), much to the chagrin of the Romanists.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 54. Luther's Journey to Worms.

   "Mönchlein, Mönchlein, Du gehest einen schweren Gang."

   Luther, from the first intimation of a summons by the Emperor, regarded
   it as a call from God, and declared his determination to go to Worms,
   though he should be carried there sick, and at the risk of his life.
   His motive was not to gratify an unholy ambition, but to bear witness
   to the truth. He well knew the tragic fate which overtook Hus at
   Constance notwithstanding the safe-conduct, but his faith inspired him
   with fearless courage. "You may expect every thing from me," he wrote
   to Spalatin, "except fear or recantation. I shall not flee, still less
   recant. May the Lord Jesus strengthen me." [340]

   He shared for a while the hope of Hutten and Sickingen, that the young
   Emperor would give him at least fair play, and renew the old conflict
   of Germany with Rome; but he was doomed to disappointment.

   While the negotiations in Worms were going on, he used incessantly his
   voice and his pen, and alternated between devotional and controversial
   exercises. He often preached twice a day, wrote commentaries on
   Genesis, the Psalms, and the Magnificat (the last he finished in
   March), and published the first part of his Postil (Sermons on the
   Gospels and Epistles), a defense of his propositions condemned by Rome,
   and fierce polemical books against Hieronymus Emser, Ambrose
   Catharinus, and other papal opponents.

   Emser, a learned Romanist, and secretary of Duke George of Saxony, had
   first attacked Luther after the Leipzig disputation, at which he was
   present. A bitter controversy followed, in which both forgot dignity
   and charity. Luther called Emser "the Goat of Leipzig" (in reference to
   the escutcheon of his family), and Emser called Luther in turn, the
   Capricorn of Wittenberg." Luther's Antwort auf das überchristliche,
   übergeistliche, und überkünstliche Buch Bock Emser's, appeared in
   March, 1521, and defends his doctrine of the general priesthood of
   believers. [341] Emser afterwards severely criticised Luther's
   translation of the Bible, and published his own version of the New
   Testament shortly before his death (1527).

   Catharinus, [342] an eminent Dominican at Rome, had attacked Luther
   toward the end of December, 1520. Luther in his Latin reply tried to
   prove from Dan. 8:25 sqq.; 2 Thess. 2:3 sqq.; 2 Tim. 4:3 sqq.; 2 Pet.
   2:1 sqq.; and the Epistle of Jude, that popery was the Antichrist
   predicted in the Scriptures, and would soon be annihilated by the Lord
   himself at his second coming, which he thought to be near at hand.

   It is astonishing that in the midst of the war of theological passions,
   he could prepare such devotional books as his commentaries and sermons,
   which are full of faith and practical comfort. He lived and moved in
   the heart of the Scriptures; and this was the secret of his strength
   and success.

   On the second of April, Luther left Wittenberg, accompanied by Amsdorf,
   his friend and colleague, Peter Swaven, a Danish student, and Johann
   Pezensteiner, an Augustinian brother. Thus the faculty, the students,
   and his monastic order were represented. They rode in an open farmer's
   wagon, provided by the magistrate of the city. The imperial herald in
   his coat-of-arms preceded on horseback. Melanchthon wished to accompany
   his friend, but he was needed at home. "If I do not return," said
   Luther in taking leave of him, "and my enemies murder me, I conjure
   thee, dear brother, to persevere in teaching the truth. Do my work
   during my absence: you can do it better than I. If you remain, I can
   well be spared. In thee the Lord has a more learned champion."

   At Weimar, Justus Jonas joined the company. He was at that time
   professor and Canon at Erfurt. In June of the same year he moved to
   Wittenberg as professor of church law and provost, and became one of
   the most intimate friends and co-workers of Luther. He accompanied him
   on his last journey to Eisleben, and left us a description of his
   closing days. He translated several of his and Melanchthon's works.

   The journey to Worms resembled a March of triumph, but clouded with
   warnings of friends and threats of foes. In Leipzig, Luther was
   honorably received by the magistrate, notwithstanding his enemies in
   the University. In Thuringia, the people rushed to see the man who had
   dared to defy the Pope and all the world.

   At Erfurt, where he had studied law and passed three years in a
   monastic cell, he was enthusiastically saluted, and treated as "the
   hero of the gospel." Before he reached the city, a large procession of
   professors and students of his alma mater, headed by his friends Crotus
   the rector, and Eoban the Latin poet, met him. Everybody rushed to see
   the procession. The streets, the walls, and roofs were covered with
   people, who almost worshiped Luther as a wonder-working saint. The
   magistrate gave him a banquet, and overwhelmed him with demonstrations
   of honor. He lodged in the Augustinian convent with his friend Lange.
   On Sunday, April 7, he preached on his favorite doctrine, salvation by
   faith in Jesus Christ, and against the intolerable yoke of popery.
   Eoban, who heard him, reports that he melted the hearts as the vernal
   sun melts the snow, and that neither Demosthenes nor Cicero nor Paul so
   stirred their audiences as Luther's sermon stirred the people on the
   shores of the Gera. [343]

   During the sermon a crash in the balconies of the crowded church seared
   the hearers, who rushed to the door; but Luther allayed the panic by
   raising his hand, and assuring them that it was only a wicked sport of
   the Devil. [344]

   In Gotha and Eisenach he preached likewise to crowded houses. At
   Eisenach he fell sick, and was bled; but a cordial and good sleep
   restored him sufficiently to proceed on the next day. He ascribed the
   sickness to the Devil, the recovery to God. In the inns, he used to
   take up his lute, and to refresh himself with music.

   He arrived at Frankfurt, completely exhausted, on Sunday, April 14. On
   Monday he visited the high school of William Nesse, blessed the
   children and exhorted them "to be diligent in reading the Scriptures
   and investigating the truth." He also became acquainted with a noble
   patrician family, von Holzhausen, who took an active part in the
   subsequent introduction of the Reformation in that city. [345]

   As he proceeded, the danger increased, and with it his courage. Before
   be left Wittenberg, the Emperor had issued an edict ordering all his
   books to be seized, and forbidding their sale. [346] The herald
   informed him of it already at Weimar, and asked him, "Herr Doctor, will
   ye proceed?" He replied, "Yes." The edict was placarded in all the
   cities. Spalatin, who knew the critical situation, warned him by
   special messenger, in the name of the Elector his patron, not to come
   to Worms, lest he might suffer the fate of Hus. [347]

   Luther comforted his timid friends with the words: Though Hus was
   burned, the truth was not burned, and Christ still lives. He wrote to
   Spalatin from Frankfurt, that he had been unwell ever since he left
   Eisenach, and had heard of the Emperor's edict, but that he would go to
   Worms in spite of all the gates of hell and the evil spirits in the
   air. [348] The day after, he sent him from Oppenheim (between Mainz and
   Worms) the famous words: -

   "I shall go to Worms, though there were as many devils there as tiles
   on the roofs." [349]

   A few days before his death at Eisleben, he thus described his feelings
   at that critical period: "I was fearless, I was afraid of nothing; God
   can make one so desperately bold. I know not whether I could be so
   cheerful now." [350] Mathesius says, with reference to this courage:
   "If the cause is good, the heart expands, giving courage and energy to
   evangelists and soldiers."

   Sickingen invited Luther, through Martin Bucer, in person, to his
   castle Ebernburg, where he would be perfectly safe under the protection
   of friends. Glapio favored the plan, and wished to have a personal
   conference with Luther about a possible compromise and co-operation in
   a moderate scheme of reform. But Luther would not be diverted from his
   aim, and sent word, that, if the Emperor's confessor wished, he could
   see him in Worms.

   Luther arrived in Worms on Tuesday morning, April 16, 1521, at ten
   o'clock, shortly before early dinner, in an open carriage with his
   Wittenberg companions, preceded by the imperial herald, and followed by
   a number of gentlemen on horseback. He was dressed in his monastic
   gown. [351] The watchman on the tower of the cathedral announced the
   arrival of the procession by blowing the horn, and thousands of people
   gathered to see the heretic. [352]

   As he stepped from the carriage, he said, "God will be with me."

   The papal legate reports this fact to Rome, and adds that Luther looked
   around with the eyes of a demon. [353] Cardinal Cajetan was similarly
   struck at Augsburg with the mysterious fire of the "profound eyes," and
   the "wonderful speculations," of the German monk.

   Luther was lodged in the house of the Knights of St. John with two
   counselors of the Elector. He received visitors till late at night.
   [354]

   The city was in a fever-heat of excitement and expectation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [340] Letter of Dec. 21, 1520 (De Wette, I., 534, 536): "Ego vero, si
   vocatus fuero, quantum per me stabit, vel aegrotus advehar, si sanus
   venire non possem. Neque enim dubitari fas est, a Domino me vocari, si
   Caesar vocat. ... Omnia de me praesumas praeter fugam et palinodiam:
   fugere ipse nolo, recantare multo minus. Ita me comfortet Dominus
   Jesus."

   [341] On the Emser controversy see Erl. Frkf. ed., vol. XXVII.

   [342] His proper name was Lancelot Politi. See Lämmer,
   Vortridentinische Theologie, p. 21, and Burkhardt, Luther's
   Briefwechsel, p. 38. Luther calls him "insulsus et stolidus Thomista,"
   in a letter to Spalatin, March 7, 1521 (De Wette, I. 570).

   [343] A full description of the reception at Erfurt, with extracts from
   the speech of Crotus and the poems of Eoban, is given by Professor
   Kampschulte (a liberal Catholic historian), in his valuable monograph,
   Die Universität Erfurt, vol. II. 95-100."It seems," he says, "that the
   nation at this moment wished to make every effort to assure Luther of
   his vocation. The glorifications which he received from the 2d to the
   16th of April no doubt contributed much to fill him with that
   self-confidence which he manifested in the decisive hour. Nowhere was
   he received more splendidly than at Erfurt."

   [344] "Seid still," he said, "liebes Volk, es ist der Teufel, der
   richtet so eine Spiegelfechterei an; seid still, es hat keine Noth."
   Some of his indiscreet admirers called this victory over the imaginary
   Devil the first miracle of Luther. The second miracle, they thought, he
   performed at Gotha, where the Devil played a similar trick in the
   church, and met with the same defeat.

   [345] His brief sojourn at Frankfurt, and his contact with the
   Holzhausen family, is made the subject of an interesting historical
   novel: Haman von Holzhausen. Eine Frankfurter Patriziergeschichte nach
   Fainilienpapieren erzählt von M. K. [Maria Krummacher]. Bielefeld and
   Leipzig, 1885. See especially chap. XX., pp. 253, sqq.

   [346] The edict is dated March 10. See Burkhardt, Luther's Briefwechsel
   (1866), p. 38, who refers to Spalatin's MS. Seidemann dates the letter
   from March 2. Ranke, in the sixth ed. (1881), I. 333, says that it was
   published March 27, on the doors of the churches at Worms. Luther
   speaks of it in his Eisleben report, and says that the edict was a
   device of the Archbishop of Mainz to keep him away from Worms, and
   tempt him to despise the order of the Emperor. Works, Erl. Frankf. ed.,
   LXIV. 367.

   [347] Notwithstanding this danger, Janssen thinks (II. 158) that it
   required no "special courage" for Luther to go to Worms.

   [348] April 14 (De Wette, I. 587): "Christus vivit, et intrabimus
   Wormatiam invitis omnibus portis inferni et potentatibus aeris" (Eph.
   2:2).

   [349] Spalatin reports the saying thus: "Dass er mir Spalatino aus
   Oppenheim gen Worms schrieb: 'Er wollte gen Worms wenn gleich so viel
   Teufel darinnen wären als immer Ziegel da wären' " (Walch, XV. 2174). A
   year afterwards, in a letter to the Elector Frederick, March 5, 1522
   (De Wette, II 139), Luther gives the phrase with this modification: "Er
   [the Devil] sah mein Herz wohl, da ich zu Worms einkam, dass, wenn ich
   hätte gewusst, dass so viel Teufel auf mich gehalten hätten, als Ziegel
   auf den Dächern sind, wäre ich dennoch mitten unter sie gesprungen mit
   Freuden." In the verbal report he gave to his friends at Eisleben in
   1546 (Erl. Frankf. ed., vol. LXIV. p. 368): "Ich entbot ihm
   [Spalatin]wieder: 'Wenn so viel Teufel zu Worms wären als Ziegel auf
   den Dächern, noch [doch]wollt ich hinein.'"

   [350] Ibid: "Denn ich war unerschrocken, fürchtete mich nichts; Gott
   kann einen wohl so toll machen. Ich weiss nicht, ob ich jetzt auch so
   freudig wäre."

   [351] See Luther's picture of that year, by Cranach, in the small
   biography of Köstlin, p. 237 (Scribner's ed.). It is very different
   from those to which we are accustomed.

   [352] "Nun fuhr ich," says Luther (LXIV. 368), "auf einem offenen
   Wäglein in meiner Kappen zu Worms ein. Da kamen alle Leute auf die
   Gassen und wollten den Mönch D. Martinum sehen."

   [353] Aleander to Vice-Chancellor Medici, from Worms, April 16: "Esso
   Luther in descensu currus versis huc et illuc demoniacis oculis disse:
   'Deus erit pro me.' " Brieger, I. 143.

   [354] "Tutto il mondo," writes Aleander in the same letter, "went to
   see Luther after dinner."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 55. Luther's Testimony before the Diet.

   April 17 and 18, 1521.

   See Lit. in § 53.

   On the day after his arrival, in the afternoon at four o'clock, Luther
   was led by the imperial marshal, Ulrich von Pappenheim, and the herald,
   Caspar Sturm, through circuitous side-streets, avoiding the impassable
   crowds, to the hall of the Diet in the bishop's palace where the
   Emperor and his brother Ferdinand resided. He was admitted at about six
   o'clock. There he stood, a poor monk of rustic manners, yet a genuine
   hero and confessor, with the fire of genius and enthusiasm flashing
   from his eyes and the expression of intense earnestness and
   thoughtfulness on his face, before a brilliant assembly such as he had
   never seen: the young Emperor, six Electors (including his own
   sovereign), the Pope's legates, archbishops, bishops, dukes, margraves,
   princes, counts, deputies of the imperial cities, ambassadors of
   foreign courts, and a numerous array of dignitaries of every rank; in
   one word, a fair representation of the highest powers in Church and
   State. [355] Several thousand spectators were collected in and around
   the building and in the streets, anxiously waiting for the issue.

   Dr. Johann von Eck, [356] as the official of the Archbishop of Treves,
   put to him, in the name of the Emperor, simply two questions in Latin
   and German,--first, whether he acknowledged the books laid before him
   on a bench (about twenty-five in number) to be his own; and, next,
   whether he would retract them. Dr. Schurf, Luther's colleague and
   advocate, who stood beside him, demanded that the titles of those books
   be read. [357] This was done. Among them were some such inoffensive and
   purely devotional books as an exposition of the Lord's Prayer and of
   the Psalms.

   Luther was apparently overawed by the August assembly, nervously
   excited, unprepared for a summary condemnation without an examination,
   and spoke in a low, almost inaudible tone. Many thought that he was
   about to collapse. He acknowledged in both languages the authorship of
   the books; but as to the more momentous question of recantation he
   humbly requested further time for consideration, since it involved the
   salvation of the soul, and the truth of the word of God, which was
   higher than any thing else in heaven or on earth.

   We must respect him all the more for this reasonable request, which
   proceeded not from want of courage, but from a profound sense of
   responsibility.

   The Emperor, after a brief consultation, granted him "out of his
   clemency" a respite of one day.

   Aleander reported on the same day to Rome, that the heretical "fool"
   entered laughing, and left despondent; that even among his sympathizers
   some regarded him now as a fool, others as one possessed by the Devil;
   while many looked upon him as a saint full of the Holy Spirit; but in
   any case, he had lost much of his reputation. [358]

   The shrewd Italian judged too hastily. On the same evening Luther
   recollected himself, and wrote to a friend: I shall not retract one
   iota, so Christ help me." [359]

   On Thursday, the 18th of April, Luther appeared a second and last time
   before the Diet.

   It was the greatest day in his life. He never appeared more heroic and
   sublime. He never represented a principle of more vital and general
   importance to Christendom.

   On his way to the Diet, an old warrior, Georg von Frundsberg, is
   reported to have clapped him on the shoulder, with these words of
   cheer: "My poor monk, my poor monk, thou art going to make such a stand
   as neither I nor any of my companions in arms have ever done in our
   hottest battles. If thou art sure of the justice of thy cause, then
   forward in God's name, and be of good courage: God will not forsake
   thee." [360]

   He was again kept waiting two hours outside the hall, among a dense
   crowd, but appeared more cheerful and confident than the day before. He
   had fortified himself by prayer and meditation, and was ready to risk
   life itself to his honest conviction of divine truth. The torches were
   lighted when he was admitted.

   Dr. Eck, speaking again in Latin and German, reproached him for asking
   delay, and put the second question in this modified form:, Wilt thou
   defend all the books which thou dost acknowledge to be thine, or recant
   some part?"

   Luther answered in a well-considered, premeditated speech, with modesty
   and firmness, and a voice that could be heard all over the hall. [361]

   After apologizing for his ignorance of courtly manners, having been
   brought up in monastic simplicity, he divided his books into three
   classes: [362] (1) Books which simply set forth evangelical truths,
   professed-alike by friend and foe: these he could not retract. (2)
   Books against the corruptions and abuses of the papacy which vexed and
   martyred the conscience, and devoured the property of the German
   nation: these he could not retract without cloaking wickedness and
   tyranny. (3) Books against his popish opponents: in these he confessed
   to have been more violent than was proper, but even these he could not
   retract without giving aid and comfort to his enemies, who would
   triumph and make things worse. In defense of his books he could only
   say in the words of Christ:, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the
   evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" If his opponents could convict
   him of error by prophetic and evangelical Scriptures, he would revoke
   his books, and be the first to commit them to the flames. He concluded
   with a warning to the young Emperor not to begin his reign by
   condemning the word of God, and pointed to the judgments over Pharaoh,
   the king of Babylon, and the ungodly kings of Israel.

   He was requested to repeat his speech in Latin. [363] This he did with
   equal firmness and with eyes upraised to heaven.

   The princes held a short consultation. Eck, in the name of the Emperor,
   sharply reproved him for evading the question; it was useless, he said,
   to dispute with him about views which were not new, but had been
   already taught by Hus, Wiclif, and other heretics, and had been
   condemned for sufficient reasons by the Council of Constance before the
   Pope, the Emperor, and the assembled fathers. He demanded a round and
   direct answer, without horns."

   This brought on the crisis.

   Luther replied, he would give an answer "with neither horns nor teeth."
   [364] From the inmost depths of his conscience educated by the study of
   the word of God, he made in both languages that memorable declaration
   which marks an epoch in the history of religious liberty: --

   "Unless I am refuted and convicted by testimonies of the Scriptures or
   by clear arguments (since I believe neither the Pope nor the Councils
   alone; it being evident that they have often erred and contradicted
   themselves), I am conquered by the Holy Scriptures quoted by me, and my
   conscience is bound in the word of God: I can not and will not recant
   any thing, since it is unsafe and dangerous to do any thing against the
   conscience." [365]

   So far the reports are clear and harmonious. What followed immediately
   after this testimony is somewhat uncertain and of less importance.

   Dr. Eck exchanged a few more words with Luther, protesting against his
   assertion that Councils may err and have erred. "You can not prove it,"
   he said. Luther repeated his assertion, and pledged himself to prove
   it. Thus pressed and threatened, amidst the excitement and confusion of
   the audience, he uttered in German, at least in substance, that
   concluding sentence which has impressed itself most on the memory of
   men: --

   "Here I stand. [I can not do otherwise.] God help me! Amen." [366]

   The sentence, if not strictly historical, is true to the situation, and
   expresses Luther's mental condition at the time,--the strength of his
   conviction, and prayer for God's help, which was abundantly answered.
   It furnishes a parallel to Galileo's equally famous, but less
   authenticated, "It does move, for all that" (E pur si muove).

   The Emperor would hear no more, and abruptly broke up the session of
   the Diet at eight o'clock, amid general commotion.

   On reaching his lodgings, Luther threw up his arms, and joyfully
   exclaimed, "I am through, I am through? "To Spalatin, in the presence
   of others, he said, "If I had a thousand beads, I would rather have
   them all cut off one by one than make one recantation."

   The impression he made on the audience was different according to
   conviction and nationality. What some admired as the enthusiasm of
   faith and the strength of conviction, appeared to others as fanaticism
   and heretical obstinacy.

   The Emperor, a stranger to German thought and speech, [367] declared
   after the first hearing: "This man will never make a heretic of me." He
   doubted the authorship of the famous books ascribed to him. [368] At
   the second hearing he was horrified at the disparagement of general
   Councils, as if a German monk could be wiser than the whole Catholic
   Church. The Spaniards and Italians were no doubt of the same opinion;
   they may have been repelled also by his lowly appearance and want of
   refined manners. Some of the Spaniards pursued him with hisses as he
   left the room. The papal legates reported that he raised his hands
   after the manner of the German soldiers rejoicing over a clever stroke,
   and represented him as a vulgar fellow fond of good wine. [369] They
   praised the Emperor as a truly Christian and Catholic prince who
   assured them the next day of his determination to treat Luther as a
   heretic. The Venetian ambassador, otherwise impartial, judged that
   Luther disappointed expectations, and showed neither much learning, nor
   much prudence, nor was he blameless in life. [370]

   But the German delegates received a different impression. When Luther
   left the Bishop's palace greatly exhausted, the old Duke Erik of
   Brunswick sent him a silver tankard of Eimbeck beer, after having first
   drunk of it himself to remove suspicion. Luther said, "As Duke Erik has
   remembered me to-day, may the Lord Jesus remember him in his last
   agony." The Duke thought of it on his deathbed, and found comfort in
   the words of the gospel: "Whosoever shall give unto one of these little
   ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, he shall in
   no wise lose his reward." The Elector Frederick expressed to Spalatin
   the same evening his delight with Luther's conduct: "How excellently
   did Father Martin speak both in Latin and German before the Emperor and
   the Estates! He was bold enough, if not too much so." [371] The
   cautious Elector would have been still better pleased if Luther had
   been more moderate, and not attacked the Councils. Persons of
   distinction called on him in his lodgings till late at night, and
   cheered him. Among these was the young Landgrave Philip of Hesse, who
   afterwards embraced the cause of the Reformation with zeal and energy,
   but did it much harm by his bigamy. After a frivolous jest, which
   Luther smilingly rebuked, he wished him God's blessing. [372]

   The strongest sympathizers with Luther were outside of the Diet, among
   the common people, the patriotic nobles, the scholars of the school of
   Erasmus, and the rising generation of liberal men. As he returned from
   the Diet to his lodgings, a voice in the crowd was heard to exclaim:
   "Blessed be the womb that bare this son." Tonstal, the English
   ambassador, wrote from Worms, that "the Germans everywhere are so
   addicted to Luther, that, rather than he should be oppressed by the
   Pope's authority, a hundred thousand of the people will sacrifice their
   lives." [373] In the imperial chambers a paper was found with the
   words: "Woe to the nation whose king is a child" (Eccl. x. 16). [374]
   An uprising of four hundred German knights with eight thousand soldiers
   was threatened in a placard on the city hall; but the storm passed
   away. Hutten and Sickingen were in the Emperor's service. "Hutten only
   barks, but does not bite," was a saying in Worms.

   The papal party triumphed in the Diet. Nothing else could be expected
   if the historic continuity of the Latin Church and of the Holy German
   Roman Empire was to be preserved. Had Luther submitted his case to a
   general council, to which in the earlier stages of the conflict he had
   himself repeatedly appealed, the result might have been different, and
   a moderate reform of the mediaeval Church under the headship of the
   Pope of Rome might have been accomplished; but no more. By denying the
   infallibility of a council, he openly declared himself a heretic, and
   placed himself in opposition to the universal opinion, which regarded
   oecumenical Councils, beginning with the first of Nicaea in 325, as the
   ultimate tribunal for the decision of theological controversies. The
   infallibility of the Pope was as yet an open question, and remained so
   till 1870, but the infallibility of a general council was at that time
   regarded as settled. A protest against it could only be justified by a
   providential mission and actual success.

   It was the will of Providence to prepare the way, through the
   instrumentality of Luther, for independent church-organizations, and
   the development of new types of Christianity on the basis of the word
   of God and the freedom of thought.

   NOTE ON LUTHER'S SENTENCE: "HERE I STAND," ETC.

   These words of Luther have been reported again and again, not only in
   popular books, but in learned histories, without a doubt of their
   genuineness. They are engraven on his monument at Worms.

   But this very fact called forth a critical investigation of the Saxon
   Archivarius, Dr. C. A. H. Burkhardt (author of the learned work:
   Luther's Briefwechsel), Ueber die Glaubwürdigkeit der Antwort Luthers:
   "Hie steh' ich, ich kann nicht anders, Gott helff mir. Amen," in the
   "Theol. Studien und Kritiken" for 1869, III. pp. 517-531. He rejects
   all but the last three words (not the whole, as Janssen incorrectly
   reports, in his History, II. 165, note). His view was accepted by
   Daniel Schenkel (1870), and W. Maurenbrecher (Gesch. d. kath. Reform.,
   1880, I. 398). The latter calls the words even "Improper and unworthy,"
   because theatrical, which we cannot admit.

   On the other hand, Professor Köstlin, the biographer of Luther, has
   come to the rescue of the whole sentence in his Easter-program:
   Luther's Rede in Worms, Halle, 1874; comp. his notes in the "Studien
   und Kritiken" for 1882, p. 551 sq., and his Martin Luther, I. 453, and
   the note, p. 800 sq. (second Ed. 1883). His conclusion was accepted by
   Ranke in the sixth Ed. of his Hist. of Germany (I. 336), and by
   Mönckeberg (pastor of St. Nicolai in Hamburg), who supports it by new
   proofs, in an essay, Die Glaubwürdigkeit des Lutherwortes in Worms, in
   the "Studien und Kritiken" for 1876, No. II. pp. 295-306.

   The facts are these. In Luther's own Latin notes which he prepared,
   probably at Worms, for Spalatin, there is no such sentence except the
   words, "God help me." The prayer which he offered loudly in his chamber
   on the evening before his second appearance before the Diet, and which
   some one has reported, concludes with the words, "Gott helfe mir,
   Amen!" (Walch, X. 1721; Erl. -Frkf. Ed., LXIV. 289 sq.). Spalatin in
   his (defective) notes on the acts of the Diet, preserved at Weimar
   (Gesammtarchiv, Reichtagsacten, 1521), and in his Annals (Ed. by
   Cyprian, p. 41), vouches likewise only for the words, "Gott helfe mir,
   Amen!" With this agrees the original edition of the Acta Lutheri
   Wormatiae habita which were published immediately after the Diet
   (reprinted in the Frankf. ed. of the Opera Lat., vol. VI. p. 14, see
   second foot-note).

   But other contemporary reports give the whole sentence, though in
   different order of the words. See the comparative table of Burkhardt,
   I.c. pp. 525-529. A German report (reprinted in the Erl. -Frkf. ed.,
   vol. LXIV. p. 383) gives as the last words of Luther (in reply to Eck):
   "Gott kumm mir zu Hilf! Amen. Da bin ich." The words "Da bin ich" (Here
   I am) are found also in another source. Mathesius reports the full
   sentence as coming from the lips of Luther in 1540. In a German
   contemporary print and on a fly-leaf in the University library of
   Heidelberg (according to Köstlin), the sentence appears in this order:
   "Ich kann nicht anders; hier steh' ich; Gott helfe mir." In the first
   edition of Luther's Latin works, published 1546, the words appear in
   the present order: "Hier steh' ich," etc. In this form they have passed
   into general currency.

   Köstlin concludes that the only question is about the order of words,
   and whether they were spoken at the close of his main declaration, or a
   little afterwards at the close of the Diet. I have adopted the latter
   view, which agrees with the contemporary German report above quoted.
   Kolde, in his monograph on Luther at Worms (p. 60), agrees
   substantially with Köstlin, and says: "Wir wissen nicht mehr, in
   welchem Zusammenhang diese Worte gesprochen worden sind, auch können
   sie vielleicht etwas anders gelautet haben; bei der herrschenden Unruhe
   hat der eine Berichterstatter den Ausspruch so, der andere ihn so
   verstanden; sicherlich drückten sie zu gleicher Zeit seine felsenfeste
   Überzeugung von der Wahrheit seines in sich gewissen Glaubens aus, wie
   das Bewusstsein, dass hier nur Gott helfen könne."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [355] Walch, XV. 2225-2231, gives a list of over two hundred members of
   the Diet that were present.

   [356] Not to be confounded with the more famous Dr. Eck of Ingolstadt.
   Aleander, who lodged with him on the same floor, calls him "homo
   literatissimo" and "orthodoxo," who had already done good service in
   the execution of the papal demands at Treves. Brieger, I. 146. In a
   dispatch of April 29, he solicits a present for him from the Roman See.
   ("Al official de Treveri un qualche presente sarebbe util," etc., p.
   174). Froude, in his Luther (pp. 32, 33, 35), confounds the Eck of
   Treves with the Eck of Ingolstadt, Aleander with Cajetan, and makes
   several other blunders, which spoil his lively description of the scene
   at Worms.

   [357] "Legantur tituli librorum," he cried aloud.

   [358] Letter to Vice-Chancellor Medici, Worms, April 17, 1521 (in
   Brieger, l.c. p. 147): "El pazzo era entrato ridendo et coram Cesare
   girava il capo continuamente quà et là, alto e basso; poi net partir
   non parea così allegro. Quì molti di quelli et [=etiam]che lo
   favoreggiavano, poi che l'hanno visto, l'hanno existimado chi pazzo,
   chi demoniaco, molti altri santo et pieno di spiritu santo; tutta volta
   ha perso in ogni modo molta reputatione della opinione prima."

   [359] April 17, to John Cuspinianus, an imperial counsellor. See De
   Wette, I. 587 sq.

   [360] "Mönchlein, Mönchlein, du gehst jetzt einen Gang, dergleichen ich
   und mancher Oberster auch in unserer allerernstesten Schlachtordnung
   nicht gethan haben," etc. The saying is reported by Mathesius (who puts
   it on the second day of trial, not on the first, as Köstlin and
   others), by Spangenberg and Seckendorf (Leipzig ed. of 1694, vol. I.
   156, in Latin and German).

   [361] "Respondit Doctor Martinus et ipse latine et germanice, quanquam
   suppliciter, non clamose, ac modeste, non tamen sine Christiana
   animositate et constantia."Acta, etc. (Op. Lat., VI. 9). He began with
   the customary titles: "Allerdurchlauchtigster, grossmächtigster Kaiser,
   Durchlauchtige Churfürsten, gnädigste und gnädige Herren!" These
   fulsome titles are used to this day in Germany, as if a king or emperor
   were mightier than the Almighty I

   [362] In his report at Eisleben, he calls the three classes briefly
   Lehrbücher, Zankbücher, and Disputationes.

   [363] So Luther says himself (in his Eisleben report of the Worms
   events, in the Erl. Frkf. ed., vol. LXIV. 370): "Dieweil ich redete,
   begehrten sie von mir, ich sollt es noch einmal wiederholen mit
   lateinischen Worten ... Ich wiederholte alle meine Worte lateinisch.
   Das gefiel Herzog Friedrich, dem Churfürsten überaus wohl." Spalatin
   confirms this in Epitome Actorum Lutheri, etc.: "Dixit primo germanice,
   deinde latine." Other reports put the Latin speech first; so the Acta
   Luth. (in the Erl. Frkf. ed. of Op. Lat., VI. 9: respondit D. Martinus
   et ipse latine et germanice). Köstlin follows the latter report (I.
   445, 451), and overlooked the testimony of Luther, who must have known
   best.

   [364] In the German text, "ein unstüssige und unbeissige Antwort" (vol.
   LXIV. 382); i.e., an answer neither offensive nor biting--with
   reference, no doubt, to his concluding warning.

   [365] We give also the German and Latin texts."Weil denn Eure
   Kaiserliche Majestät und Eure Gnaden eine schlichte Antwort begehren,
   so will ich eine Antwort ohne Hörner und Zähne geben diesermassen: 'Es
   sei denn, dass ich durch Zeugnisse der Schrift oder durch helle Gründe
   überwunden werde--denn ich glaube weder dem Papst, noch den Konzilien
   allein, dieweil am Tag liegt, dass sie öfters geirrt und sich selbst
   widersprochen haben,--so bin ich überwunden durch die von mir
   angeführten heiligen Schriften, und mein Gewissen ist gefangen in
   Gottes Wort; widerrufen kann ich nichts und will ich nichts, dieweil
   wider das Gewissen zu handeln unsicher und gefährlich ist.' " See
   Köstlin, I. 452. The oldest reports vary a little in the language. Some
   have scheinbarliche und merkliche Ursachen for helle Gründe, and at the
   close:"dieweil wider das Gewissen zu handeln beschwerlich und
   unheilsam, auch gefährlich ist." Werke (Erl. Frkf. ed.), vol. LXIV.
   382.
   The Latin text as given in the Acta Lutheri Wormatiae habita is as
   follows: "Hic Lutherus: Quando ergo serenissima Majestas vestra
   Dominationesque vestrae simplex responsum petunt, dabo illud, neque
   cornutum, neque dentatum, in hunc modum: 'Nisi convictus fuero
   testimoniis Scripturarum, aut ratione evidente (nam neque Papae, neque
   Conciliis solis credo, cum constet eos errasse saepius, et sibi ipsis
   contradixisse), victus sum Scripturis a me adductis captaque est
   conscientia in verbis Dei; revocare neque possum neque volo quidquam,
   cum contra conscientiam agere neque tutum sit, neque integrum.' " Opera
   Lat. (Frankf. ed.), vol. VI. 13 sq.

   [366] "Hier steh' ich. [Ich kann nicht anders.] Gott helfe mir! Amen."
   The bracketed words cannot be traced to a primitive source. See the
   critical note at the close of this section.

   [367] The little German he knew was only the Platt-Deutsch of the Low
   Countries. He always communicated with his German subjects in Latin or
   French, or by the mouth of his brother Ferdinand.

   [368] Aleander (l.c. p. 170): "Cesar palam dixit et sepissime postea
   repetiit, che mai credera che l' habbii composto detti libri." The
   mixing of Latin and Italian is characteristic of the Aleander
   dispatches. He was inclined to ascribe the authorship of the greater
   part of Luther's books to Melanchthon, of whom he says that he has "un
   belissimo, ma malignissimo ingegno (p. 172).

   [369] Aleander and Caracciolo to the Vice-Chancellor Medici, April 19,
   1521 (Brieger, I. 153): "Martino uscito fuora della sala Cesarea alzò
   la mano in alto more militum Germanorum, quando exultano di un bel
   colpo di giostra." In a letter of April 27 (l.c. p. 166), they call
   Luther "il venerabile ribaldo," who before his departure drank in the
   presence of many persons "molte tazze di malvasia, della qual ne è
   forte amoroso." The charge of intemperance is repeated in a dispatch of
   April 29 (p. 170): "la ebrietà, alla quale detto Luther è deditissimo."
   That Luther used to drink beer and wine according to the universal
   custom of his age, is an undoubted fact; but that he was intemperate in
   eating or drinking, is a slander of his enemies. Melanchthon, who knew
   him best, bears testimony to his temperance. See below, the section on
   his private life.

   [370] Contarenus ad Matthaeum Dandalum, quoted by Ranke, I. 336.

   [371] Walch, XV. 2246.

   [372] The interview as related by Luther (Walch, XV. 2247;
   Erlangen-Frankfurt edition, LXIV. 373) is characteristic of this
   prince, and foreshadows his future conduct. "Der Landgraf von Hessen
   kam zu Worms erstlich zu mir. Er war aber noch nicht auf meiner Seiten,
   und kam in Hof geritten, ging zu mir in mein Gemach, wollte mich sehen.
   Er war aber noch sehr jung, sprach: Lieber Herr Doctor, wie geht's? Da
   antwortete ich: Gnädiger Herr, ich hoff, essoll gut werden. Da sagte
   er: Ich höre, Herr Doctor, ihr lehret, wenn ein Mann alt wird und
   seiner Frauen nicht mehr Ehepflicht leisten kann, dass dann die Frau
   mag einen anderen Mann nehmen, und lachte, denn die Hofräthe hatten's
   ihm eingeblasen. Ich aber lachte auch und sagte: Ach nein, gnädiger
   Herr, Euer Fürstlich Gnad sollt nicht also reden. Aber er ging balde
   wieder von mir hinweg, gab mir die Hand und sagte: Habt ihr Recht, Herr
   Doctor, so helfe euch Gott."

   [373] In Fiddes Life of Wolsey, quoted by Ranke, I. 337, note.

   [374] Ranke (I. 337) says "in den kaiserlichen Gemächern." Other
   reports say that these words were placarded in public places at Worms.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 56. Reflections on Luther's Testimony at Worms.

   Luther's testimony before the Diet is an event of world-historical
   importance and far-reaching effect. It opened an intellectual conflict
   which is still going on in the civilized world. He stood there as the
   fearless champion of the supremacy of the word of God over the
   traditions of men, and of the liberty of conscience over the tyranny of
   authority.

   For this liberty, all Protestant Christians, who enjoy the fruit of his
   courage, owe him a debt of gratitude. His recantation could not, any
   more than his martyrdom, have stopped the Reformation; but it would
   have retarded its progress, and indefinitely prolonged the oppressive
   rule of popery.

   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]

   Luther did not appeal to his conscience alone, but first and last to
   the Scripture as he understood it after the most earnest study. His
   conscience, as he said, was bound in the word of God, who cannot err.
   There, and there alone, he recognized infallibility. By recanting, he
   would have committed a grievous sin.

   One man with the truth on his side is stronger than a majority in
   error, and will conquer in the end. Christ was right against the whole
   Jewish hierarchy, against Herod and Pilate, who conspired in condemning
   him to the cross. St. Paul was right against Judaism and heathenism
   combined, "unus versus mundum;" St. Athanasius, "the father of
   orthodoxy," was right against dominant Arianism; Galileo Galilei was
   right against the Inquisition and the common opinion of his age on the
   motion of the earth; Döllinger was right against the Vatican Council
   when, "as a Christian, as a theologian, as an historian, and as a
   citizen," he protested against the new dogma of the infallibility of
   the Pope. [378]

   That Luther was right in refusing to recant, and that he uttered the
   will of Providence in hearing testimony to the supremacy of the word of
   God and the freedom of conscience, has been made manifest by the
   verdict of history.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [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.

   [378] Döllinger's declaration of March 28, 1871, for which he was
   excommunicated, April 17, 1871, notwithstanding his eminent services to
   the Roman Catholic Church as her most learned historian, bears some
   resemblance to Luther's declaration at Worms. See Schaff, Creeds of
   Christendom, I. 195 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 57. Private Conferences with Luther. The Emperors Conduct.

   On the morning after Luther's testimony, the Emperor sent a message--a
   sort of personal confession of faith--written by his own hand in
   French, to the Estates, informing them, that in consistency with his
   duty as the successor of the most Christian emperors of Germany and the
   Catholic kings of Spain, who had always been true to the Roman Church,
   he would now treat Luther, after sending him home with his
   safe-conduct, as an obstinate and convicted heretic, and defend with
   all his might the faith of his forefathers and of the Councils,
   especially that of Constance. [379]

   Some of the deputies grew pale at this decision; the Romanists
   rejoiced. But in view of the state of public sentiment the Diet deemed
   it expedient to attempt private negotiations for a peaceful settlement,
   in the hope that Luther might be induced to withdraw or at least to
   moderate his dissent from the general Councils. The Emperor yielded in
   spite of Aleander's protest.

   The negotiations were conducted chiefly by Richard von Greiffenklau,
   Elector and Archbishop of Treves, and at his residence. He was a
   benevolent and moderate churchman, to whom the Elector Frederick and
   Baron Miltitz had once desired to submit the controversy. The Elector
   of Brandenburg, Duke George of Saxony, Dr. Vehus (chancellor of the
   Margrave of Baden), Dr. Eck of Treves, Dean Cochlaeus of Frankfort,
   [380] and the deputies of Strasburg and Augsburg, likewise took part in
   the conferences.

   These men were just as honest as Luther, but they occupied the
   standpoint of the mediaeval Church, and could not appreciate his
   departure from the beaten track. The archbishop was very kind and
   gracious to Luther, as the latter himself admitted. He simply required
   that in Christian humility he should withdraw his objections to the
   Council of Constance, leave the matter for the present with the Emperor
   and the Diet, and promise to accept the final verdict of a future
   council unfettered by a previous decision of the Pope. Such a council
   might re-assert its superiority over the Pope, as the reformatory
   Councils of the fifteenth century had done.

   But Luther had reason to fear the result of such submission, and
   remained as hard as a rock. He insisted on the supremacy of the word of
   God over all Councils, and the right of judging for himself according
   to his conscience. [381] He declared at last, that unless convinced by
   the Scriptures or "clear and evident reasons," he could not yield, no
   matter what might happen to him; and that he was willing to abide by
   the test of Gamaliel, "If this work be of men, it will be overthrown;
   but if it is of God, ye will not be able to overthrow it" (Acts 5:38,
   39). [382]

   He asked the Archbishop, on April 25, to obtain for him the Emperor's
   permission to go home. In returning to his lodgings, he made a pastoral
   visit to a German Knight, and told him in leaving: "To-morrow I go
   away."

   Three hours after the last conference, the Emperor sent him a
   safe-conduct for twenty-one days, but prohibited him from writing or
   preaching on the way. Luther returned thanks, and declared that his
   only aim was to bring about a reformation of the Church through the
   Scriptures, and that he was ready to suffer all for the Emperor and the
   empire, provided only he was permitted to confess and teach the word of
   God. This was his last word to the imperial commissioners. With a shake
   of hands they took leave of each other, never to meet again in this
   world.

   It is to the credit of Charles, that in spite of contrary counsel, even
   that of his former teacher and confessor, Cardinal Hadrian, who wished
   him to deliver Luther to the Pope for just punishment, he respected the
   eternal principle of truth and honor more than the infamous maxim that
   no faith should be kept with heretics. He refused to follow the example
   of his predecessor, Sigismund, who violated the promise of safe-conduct
   given to Hus, and ordered his execution at the stake after his
   condemnation by the Council of Constance. [383] The protection of
   Luther is the only service which Charles rendered to the Reformation,
   and the best thing, in a moral point of view, he ever did. [384]
   Unfortunately, he diminished his merit by his subsequent regret at
   Yuste. [385] He had no other chance to crush the heretic. When he came
   to Wittenberg in 1547, Luther was in his grave, and the Reformation too
   deeply rooted to be overthrown by a short-lived victory over a few
   Protestant princes.

   It is interesting to learn Aleander's speculations about Luther's
   intentions immediately after his departure. He reported to Rome, April
   29, 1521, that the heretic would seek refuge with the Hussites in
   Bohemia, and do four "beastly things" (cose bestiali): 1, write lying
   Acta Wormaciensia, to incite the people to insurrection; 2, abolish the
   confessional; 3, deny the real presence in the sacrament; 4, deny the
   divinity of Christ. [386]

   Luther did none of these things except the second, and this only in
   part. To prevent his entering Bohemia, Rome made provision to have him
   seized on the way.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [379] Walch, XV. 2235-2237.

   [380] John Cochlaeus (his original name was Dobeneck; b. 1479, at
   Wendelstein in Franconia, d. at Bresau, 1552) was at first as a
   humanist an admirer of Luther, but turned against him shortly before
   the Diet of Worms, and became one of his bitterest literary opponents.
   He went to Worms unasked, and wished to provoke him to a public
   disputation. He was employed by the Archbishop of Treves as theological
   counsel, and by Aleander as a spy. Aleander paid him ten guilders "per
   sue spese" (see his dispatch of April 29 in Brieger, I. 175). Cochlaeus
   wrote about 190 books, mostly polemical against the Reformers, and
   mostly forgotten. Luther treated him with great contempt, and usually
   calls him "Doctor Rotzlöffel," also "Kochlöffel." See Works, Erl. ed.,
   XXXI. 270 sq., 276 sq., 302 sq.; LXII. 74, 78. Otto, Johann Cochlaeus,
   der Humanist, Breslau, 1874; Felician Gess, Johannes Cochlaeus, der
   Gegner Luthers, Oppeln, 1886, IV. 62 pages.

   [381] "Gnädiger Herr," he said to the Archbishop of Trier, "ich kann
   alles leiden, aber die heilige Schrift kann ich nicht übergeben." And
   again: "Lieber will ich Kopf und Leben verlieren, als das klare Wort
   Gottes verlassen."

   [382] See the reports on these useless conferences, in Walch, XV.
   2237-2347, 2292-2319; Cochlaeus, Com. de Actis Lutheri, and his
   Colloquium cum Luthero Wormatiae habitum; the report of Hieronymus
   Vehus, published by Seidemann, in the "Zeitschrift für histor. Theol.,"
   1851, p. 80 sqq.; and the report of Aleander in Brieger, I. 157-160.
   Ranke says (I. 332), one might almost be tempted to wish that Luther
   had withdrawn his opposition to the councils, and contented himself for
   the present with the attack upon the abuses of the papacy, in which he
   had the nation with him; but he significantly adds, that the power of
   his spirit would have been broken if it had bound itself to any but
   purely religious considerations. "Der ewig freie Geist bewegt sich in
   seinen eigenen Bahnen."

   [383] It is asserted by Gieseler and Ranke (I. 341) that the Council
   gave official sanction to this maxim by declaring with regard to Hus:
   "Nec aliqua sibi [ei] fides aut promissio de jure naturali, divino vel
   humano fuerit in praejudicium catholicae fidei observanda." Von der
   Hardt, Conc. Const. IV. 521; Mansi, Concil. XXVII. 791. Hefele
   (Conciliengeschichte, VII. 227 sq.) charges Gieseler with sinning
   against the Council and against truth itself, and maintains that this
   decree, which is only found in the Codex Dorrianus at Vienna, was
   merely proposed by a member, and not passed by the Council. But the
   undoubted decree of the 19th Sess., Sept. 23, 1415, declares that a
   safe-conduct, though it should be observed by him who gave it as far as
   he was able, affords no protection against the punishment of a heretic
   if he refuses to recant; and the fact remains that Hus was not
   permitted to return, and was burned in consequence of his condemnation
   by the Council and during its session, July 6, 1415. Aeneas Sylvius
   (afterwards Pope Pius II.) bears to him and Jerome of Prague the
   testimony: "Nemo philosophorum tam forti animo mortem pertulisse
   traditur quam isti incendium." The traditional prophecy of Hus: "Now ye
   burn a goose (anser; Hus in Bohemian means goose); but out of my ashes
   shall rise a swan (cygnus, Luther), which you shall not be able to
   burn," is not authentic, and originated in Luther's time as a
   vaticinium post eventum.

   [384] Ranke says (vol. V. 308): "Es ist die universalhistorisch grösste
   Handlung Karls V., dass er damals das gegebene Wort höher stellte als
   die kirchliche Satzung."

   [385] See above, p. 283.

   [386] Brieger, I. 169 sqq. Aleander says in support of the fourth item,
   that the Lutheran "wretch," Martin Butzer (he calls him Putzer), had
   already fallen into the diabolical Arian heresy, as he had been told by
   the Emperor's confessor, Glapio, who had a conference with Butzer and
   Sickingen.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 58. The Ban of the Empire. May 8 (26), 1521.

   After Luther's departure (April 26), his enemies had full possession of
   the ground. Frederick of Saxony wrote, May 4: "Martin's cause is in a
   bad state: he will be persecuted; not only Annas and Caiaphas, but also
   Pilate and Herod, are against him." Aleander reported to Rome, May 5,
   that Luther had by his bad habits, his obstinacy, and his "beastly"
   speeches against Councils, alienated the people, but that still many
   adhered to him from love of disobedience to the Pope, and desire to
   seize the church property.

   The Emperor commissioned Aleander to draw up a Latin edict against
   Luther. [387] It was completed and dated May 8 (but not signed till May
   26). On the same day the Emperor concluded an alliance with the Pope
   against France. They pledged themselves "to have the same friends and
   the same enemies," and to aid each other in attack and defense.

   The edict was kept back till the Elector Frederick and the Elector of
   the Palatinate with a large number of other members of the Diet had
   gone home. It was not regularly submitted to, nor discussed and voted
   on, by the Diet, nor signed by the Chancellor, but secured by a sort of
   surprise. [388] On Trinity Sunday, May 26, Aleander went with the Latin
   and German copy to church, and induced the Emperor to sign both after
   high mass, "with his pious hand." The Emperor said in French, "Now you
   will be satisfied."--"Yes," replied the legate in the same language,
   "but much more satisfied will be the Holy See and all Christendom, and
   will thank God for such a good, holy, and religious Emperor." [389]

   The edict is not so long, but as turgid, bombastic, intolerant, fierce,
   and Cruel, as the Pope's bull of excommunication. [390] It gave legal
   force to the bull within the German Empire. It denounces Luther as a
   devil in the dress of a monk, who had gathered a mass of old and new
   heresies into one pool, and pronounces upon him the ban and re-ban.
   [391] It commands the burning, and forbids the printing, publication,
   and sale, of his books, the sheltering and feeding of his person, and
   that of his followers, and directs the magistrates to seize him
   wherever he may be found, and to hand him over to the Emperor, to be
   dealt with according to the penal laws against heretics. At the same
   time the whole press of the empire was put under strict surveillance.
   [392]

   This was the last occasion on which the mediaeval union of the secular
   empire with the papacy was expressed in official form so as to make the
   German emperor the executor of the decrees of the bishop of Rome. The
   gravamina of the nation were unheeded. Hutten wrote: "I am ashamed of
   my fatherland." [393]

   Thus Luther was outlawed by Church and State, condemned by the Pope,
   the Emperor, the universities, cast out of human society, and left
   exposed to a violent death.

   But he had Providence and the future on his side. The verdict of the
   Diet was not the verdict of the nation.

   The departure of the Emperor through the Netherlands to Spain, where he
   subdued a dangerous insurrection, his subsequent wars with Francis in
   Italy, the victorious advance of the Turks in Hungary, the protection
   of Luther by the Elector Frederick, and the rapid spread of Protestant
   doctrines, these circumstances, combined to reduce the imperial edict,
   as well as the papal bull, to a dead letter in the greater part of
   Germany. The empire was not a centralized monarchy, but a loose
   confederation of seven great electorates, a larger number of smaller
   principalities, and free cities, each with an ecclesiastical
   establishment of its own. The love of individual independence among the
   rival states and cities was stronger than the love of national union;
   and hence it was difficult to enforce the decisions of the Diet against
   a dissenting minority or even a single recalcitrant member. An attempt
   to execute the edict in electoral Saxony or the free cities by military
   force would have kindled the flame of civil war which no wise and
   moderate ruler would be willing to risk without imperative necessity.
   Charles was an earnest Roman Catholic, but also a shrewd statesman who
   had to consult political interests. Even the Elector Albrecht of Mainz
   prevented, as far as he could, the execution of the bull and ban in the
   dioceses of Mainz, Magdeburg, and Halberstadt. He did not sign the
   edict as chancellor of the empire. [394] Capito, his chaplain and
   private counselor, described him in a letter to Zwingli, Aug. 4, 1521,
   as a promoter of "the gospel," who would not permit that Luther be
   attacked on the pulpit. And this was the prelate who had been intrusted
   by the Pope with the sale of indulgences. Such a change had been
   wrought in public sentiment in the short course of four years.

   The settlement of the religious question was ultimately left to the
   several states, and depended very much upon the religious preferences
   and personal character of the civil magistrate. Saxony, Hesse,
   Brandenburg, the greater part of Northern Germany, also the Palatinate,
   Würtemberg, Nürnberg, Frankfurt, Strassburg, and Ulm, embraced
   Protestantism in whole or in part; while Southern and Western Germany,
   especially Bavaria and Austria, remained predominantly Roman Catholic.
   But it required a long and bloody struggle before Protestantism
   acquired equal legal rights with Romanism, and the Pope protests to
   this day against the Treaty of Westphalia which finally secured those
   rights.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [387] Aleander reports, May 5: "Poi me fù commesso per Cesar et el
   Consilio (the imperial council),che io stesso facesse el decreto, con
   quelle più justificationi si potesse, acciochè il popolo se
   contentasse."

   [388] "Das Edict," says Ranke (i. 342), "ward den Ständen nicht in
   ihrer Versammlung vorgelegt; keiner neuen Deliberation ward es
   unterworfen; unerwartet, in der kaiserlichen Behausung bekamen sie
   Kunde davon, nachdem man nichts versäumt, um sie guenstig zu stimmen;
   die Billigung desselben, die nicht einmal formell genannt werden kann,
   ward ihnen durch eine Art von Ueberraschung abgewonnen."

   [389] Dispatch of May 26. Brieger, I. 224. The edict appeared in print
   on the following Thursday, May 30, and on Friday the Emperor left
   Worms.

   [390] Aleander himself calls it more terrible than any previous edict
   (cosi horribile quanto mai altro editto), June 27, 1521. Brieger, I.
   241. Ranke says (I. 343): "Es war so scharf, so entschieden wie
   möglich."

   [391] Die Acht und Aberacht. The Acht is the civil counterpart of the
   ecclesiastical excommunication and excludes the victim from all
   protection of the law. The Aberacht or Oberacht follows if the Acht
   remains without effect. It is in the German definition die völlige
   Fried- und Rechtslos- oder Vogelfrei-Erklärung. The imperial Acht is
   called the Reichsacht.

   [392] See the edict in full in Walch, XV. 2264-2280. It was published
   officially in Latin and German, and translated into the languages of
   the Dutch and French dominions of Charles. Aleander himself, as he
   says, prepared the French translation.

   [393] Letter to Pirkheimer, May 1, 1521: "Me pudere incipit
   patriae."Opera II. 59.

   [394] Janssen, II. 208 sq.: "Albrecht musste sich beugen vor Luther,
   der Primus vor dem excommunicirten Mönch, welcher ihm mit Enthuellungen
   drohte."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 59. State of Public Opinion. Popular Literature.

   K. Hagen: Der Geist der Reformation und seine Gegensätze. Erlangen,
   1843. Bd. I. 158 sqq. Janssen, II. 181-197, gives extracts from
   revolutionary pamphlets to disparage the cause of the Reformation.

   Among the most potent causes which defeated the ban of the empire, and
   helped the triumph of Protestantism, was the teeming ephemeral
   literature which appeared between 1521 and 1524, and did the work of
   the periodical newspaper press of our days, in seasons of public
   excitement. In spite of the prohibition of unauthorized printing by the
   edict of Worms, Germany was inundated by a flood of books, pamphlets,
   and leaflets in favor of true and false freedom. They created a public
   opinion which prevented the execution of the law.

   Luther had started this popular literary warfare by his ninety-five
   Theses. He was by far the most original, fertile, and effective
   controversialist and pamphleteer of his age. He commanded the resources
   of genius, learning, courage, eloquence, wit, humor, irony, and
   ridicule, and had, notwithstanding his many physical infirmities, an
   astounding power of work. He could express the deepest thought in the
   clearest and strongest language, and had an abundant supply of juicy
   and forcible epithets. [395] His very opponents had to imitate his
   German speech if they wished to reach the masses, and to hit the nail
   on the head. He had a genial heart, but also a most violent temper, and
   used it as a weapon for popular effect. He felt himself called to the
   rough work of "removing stumps and stones, cutting away thistles and
   thorns, and clearing the wild forests." He found aid and comfort in the
   severe language of the prophets. He had, as he says, the threefold
   spirit of Elijah,--the storm, the earthquake, and the fire, which
   subverts mountains and tears the rocks in pieces. He thoroughly
   understood the wants and tastes of his countrymen who preferred force
   to elegance, and the club to the dagger. Foreigners, who knew him only
   from his Latin writings, could not account for his influence.

   Roman historians, in denouncing his polemics, are apt to forget the
   fearful severity of the papal bull, the edict of Worms, and the
   condemnatory decisions of the universities. [396]

   His pen was powerfully aided by the pencil of his friend Lucas Cranach,
   the court-painter of Frederick the Wise.

   Melanchthon had no popular talent, but he employed his scholarly pen in
   a Latin apology for Luther, against the furious decree of the Parisian
   theologasters." [397] The Sorbonne, hitherto the most famous
   theological faculty, which in the days of the reformatory Councils had
   stood up for the cause of reform, followed the example of the
   universities of Louvain and Cologne, and denounced Luther during the
   sessions of the Diet of Worms, April 15, 1521, as an arch-heretic who
   had renewed and intensified the blasphemous errors of the Manichaeans,
   Hussites, Beghards, Cathari, Waldenses, Ebionites, Arians, etc., and
   who should be destroyed by fire rather than refuted by arguments. [398]
   Eck translated the decision at once into German. Melanchthon dared to
   charge the faculty of Paris with apostasy from Christ to Aristotle, and
   from biblical theology to scholastic sophistry. Luther translated the
   Apology into German at the Wartburg, and, finding it too mild, he added
   to it some strokes of his "peasant's axe." [399]

   Ulrich von Hutten was almost equal to Luther in literary power,
   eloquence, wit, and sarcasm, as well as in courage, and aided him with
   all his might from the Ebernburg during his trial at Worms; but he
   weakened his cause by want of principle. He had previously republished
   and ridiculed the Pope's bull of excommunication. He now attacked the
   edict of Worms, and wrote invectives against its authors, the papal
   legates, and its supporters, the bishops. [400] He told the former how
   foolish it was to proceed with such impudence and violence against
   Luther, in opposition to the spirit of the age, that the time of
   revenge would soon come; that the Germans were by no means so blind and
   indifferent as they imagined; that the young Emperor would soon come to
   a better knowledge. He indignantly reminded Aleander of his shameful
   private utterance (which was also reported to Luther by Spalatin),
   that, if the Germans should shake off the papal yoke, Rome would take
   care to sow so much seed of discord among them that they would eat each
   other up. He reproached the archbishops and higher clergy for using
   force instead of persuasion, the secular magistrate instead of the word
   of Christ against Luther. He told them that they were no real priests;
   that they had bought their dignities; that they violated common
   morality; that they were carnal, worldly, avaricious; that they were
   unable or ashamed to preach the gospel which condemned their conduct,
   and that if God raised a preacher like Luther, they sought to oppress
   him. But the measure is full. "Away with you," he exclaims, "ye unclean
   hogs, away from the pure fountains! Away with you, wicked traffickers,
   from the sanctuary! Touch no longer the altars with your profane hands!
   What right have ye to waste the pious benefactions of our fathers in
   luxury, fornication, and vain pomp, while many honest and pious people
   are starving? The measure is full. See ye not that the air of freedom
   is stirring, that men, disgusted with the present state of things,
   demand improvement? Luther and I may perish at your hands, but what of
   that? There are many more Luthers and Huttens who will take revenge,
   and raise a new and more violent reformation."

   He added, however, to the second edition, a sort of apologetic letter
   to Albrecht, the head of the German archbishops, his former friend and
   patron, assuring him of his continued friendship, and expressing regret
   that he should have been alienated from the protection of the cause of
   progress and liberty.

   In a different spirit Hans Sachs, the pious poet-shoemaker of Nürnberg,
   [401] wrote many ephemeral compositions in prose and poetry for the
   cause of Luther and the gospel. He met Luther at Augsburg in 1518,
   collected till 1522 forty books in his favor, and published in 1523 a
   poem of seven hundred verses under the title: "Die Wittenbergisch
   Nachtigall, Die man jetzt hört überall," and with the concluding words:
   "Christus amator, Papa peccator." It was soon followed by four
   polemical dialogues in prose.

   Among the most popular pamphleteers on the Protestant side were a
   farmer named "Karsthans," who labored in the Rhine country between
   Strassburg and Basel, and his imitator, "Neukarsthans." Many pamphlets
   were anonymous or pseudonymous.

   It is a significant fact, that the Reformation was defended by so many
   laymen. All the great German classics who arose in more recent times
   (Klopstock, Lessing, Herder, Goethe, Schiller, Uhland, Rückert), as
   well as philosophers (Leibnitz, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel,
   Herbart, Lotze), are Protestants, at least nominally, and could not
   have grown on papal soil.

   The newness and freshness of this fugitive popular literature called
   out by the Reformation, and especially by the edict of Worms, made it
   all the more effective. The people were hungry for intellectual and
   spiritual food, and the appetite grew with the supply.

   The polemical productions of that period are usually brief, pointed,
   and aimed at the common-sense of the masses. They abound in strong
   arguments, rude wit, and coarse abuse. They plead the cause of freedom
   against oppression, of the laity against priestcraft and monkery. A
   favorite form of composition was the dialogue in which a peasant or a
   laboring-man defeats an ecclesiastic.

   The Devil figures prominently in league with the Pope, sometimes as his
   servant, sometimes as his master. Very often the Pope is contrasted
   with Christ as his antipode. The Pope, says one of the
   controversialists, proclaimed the terrible bull of condemnation of
   Luther and all heretics on the day commemorative of the institution of
   the holy communion; and turned the divine mercy into human wrath,
   brotherly love into persecuting hatred, the very blessing into a curse.

   St. Peter also appears often in these productions: he stands at the
   gate of heaven, examining priests, monks, and popes, whether they are
   fit to enter, and decides in most cases against them. Here is a
   specimen: A fat and drunken monk knocks at the gate, and is angry that
   he is not at once admitted; Peter tells him first to get sober, and
   laughs at his foolish dress. Then he catechises him; the monk
   enumerates all his fasts, self-mortifications, and pious exercises;
   Peter orders that his belly be cut open, and, behold! chickens, wild
   game, fish, omelets, wine, and other contents come forth and bear
   witness against the hypocrite, who is forthwith sent to the place of
   punishment.

   The writer of a pamphlet entitled "Doctor Martin Luther's Passion,"
   draws an irreverent parallel between Luther's treatment by the Diet,
   with Christ's crucifixion: Luther's entry into Worms is compared to
   Christ's entry into Jerusalem, the Diet to the Sanhedrin, Archbishop
   Albrecht to Caiaphas, the papal legates to the Pharisees, the Elector
   of Saxony to Peter, Eck and Cochlaeus to the false witnesses, the
   Archbishop of Treves to Pilate, the German nation to Pilate's wife; at
   last Luther's books and likeness are thrown into the fire, but his
   likeness will not burn, and the spectators exclaim, "Verily, he is a
   Christian."

   The same warfare was going on in German Switzerland. Nicolas Manuel, a
   poet and painter (died 1530), in a carnival play which was enacted at
   Berne, 1522, introduces first the whole hierarchy, confessing one after
   another their sins, and expressing regret that they now are to be
   stopped by the rising opposition of the people; then the various
   classes of laymen attack the priests, expose their vices, and refute
   their sophistries; and at last Peter and Paul decide in favor of the
   laity, and charge the clergy with flatly contradicting the teaching of
   Christ and the Apostles. [402]

   These pamphlets and fugitive papers were illustrated by rude woodcuts
   and caricatures of obnoxious persons, which added much to their popular
   effect. Popes, cardinals, and bishops are represented in their clerical
   costume, but with faces of wolves or foxes, and surrounded by geese
   praying a Paternoster or Ave Maria. The "Passion of Christ and
   Antichrist" has twenty-six woodcuts, from the elder Lucas Cranach or
   his school, which exhibit the contrast between Christ and his pretended
   vicar in parallel pictures: in one Christ declines the crown of this
   world, in the other the Pope refuses to open the gate to the Emperor
   (at Canossa); in one Christ wears the crown of thorns, in the other the
   Pope the triple crown of gold and jewels; in one Christ washes the feet
   of his disciples, in the other the Pope suffers emperors and kings to
   kiss his toe; in one Christ preaches the glad tidings to the poor, in
   the other the Pope feasts with his cardinals at a rich banquet; in one
   Christ expels the profane traffickers, in the other the Pope sits in
   the temple of God; in one Christ rides meekly on an ass into Jerusalem,
   in the other the Pope and his cardinals ride on fiery steeds into hell.
   [403]

   The controversial literature of the Roman-Catholic Church was far
   behind the Protestant in ability and fertility. The most popular and
   effective writer on the Roman side was the Franciscan monk and crowned
   poet, Thomas Murner. He was an Alsatian, and lived in Strassburg,
   afterwards at Luzern, and died at Heidelberg (1537). He had formerly,
   in his Narrenbeschwörung (1512) and other writings, unmercifully
   chastised the vices of all classes, including clergy and monks, and had
   sided with Reuchlin in his controversy with the Dominicans, but in 1520
   he turned against Luther, and assailed his cause in a poetical satire:
   "Vom grossen lutherischen Narren wie ihn Doctor Murner beschworen hat,
   1522." [404]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [395] Kraftwörter, as the Germans call them.

   [396] Janssen says (II. 181 and 193): "Den Ton für die ganze damalige
   polemische Literatur gabLuther an, wie durch seine früheren Schriften,
   so auch durch die neuen, welche er von der Wartburg aus in die Welt
   schickte." Then he quotes a number of the coarsest outbursts of
   Luther's wrath, and his disparaging remarks on some books of the New
   Testament (the Eusebian Antilegomena), all of which, however, are
   disowned by the Lutheran Church, and more than counterbalanced by his
   profound reverence for, and submission to, the undoubted writings (the
   Homologumena). See § 6, pp. 16 sqq.

   [397] "Adversus furiosum Parisiensium theologastrorum Decretum pro
   Luthero Apologia," 1521. In the "Corpus Reformat.," vol. I. 398-416. A
   copy of the original edition is in the Royal Library at Berlin. An
   extract, in Carl Schmidt's Philipp Melanchthon, pp. 55 sqq.

   [398] Determinatio Theologorum Parisiensium super Doctrina Lutheriana.
   "Corp. Reform." I. 366-388.

   [399] "Mein lieber Philipp," he says, "hat ihnen [den groben Pariser
   Eseln] wohl meisterlich geantwortet, hat sie aber doch zu sanft
   angerührt und mit dem leichten Hobel überlaufen; ich sehe wohl, ich
   muss mit der Bauernaxt über die groben Blöcke kommen." At the same time
   there appeared an anonymous satire against the Paris theologians, in
   the style of the Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum. See Schmidt, l.c. p. 58.

   [400] In Hieron. Aleandrum, et Marinum Caracciolum Oratores Leonis X.
   apud Vormaciam Invectivae singulae.--In Cardinales, episcopos et
   Sacerdotes, Lutherum Vormaciae oppugnantes, Invectiva.--Ad Carolum Imp.
   pro Luthero exhortatoria. See Strauss, Ulrich v. Hutten, pp. 397 sqq.

   [401] Characteristic for his poetry is the well-known rhyme (which is,
   however, not found in his works):-- "Hans Sachs war ein Schuh- Macher
   und Poet dazu." A new edition of his poems appeared at Stuttgart, 1870
   sqq. He figures prominently in Kaulbach's picture of the Reformation.

   [402] See Grüneisen's Nicolaus Manuels Leben und Werke (1837), pp.
   339-392.

   [403] Passional Christi und Antichristi, mit Luther's Nachrede, 1521,
   in the Frkf. ed., LXIII., 240-248. Luther accompanied the pictures with
   texts.

   [404] Newly edited by H. Kurz, Zürich, 1848. Janssen makes much use of
   this poem (II. 123-128, 190, 415, 416). Murner thus describes the
   Protestant attack on the sacraments:-- "Die Mess, die sol nim gelten Im
   Leben noch im Tod. Die Sacrament sie schelten, Die seien uns nit Not.
   Fünf hont sie gar vernichtet, Die andern lon sie ston, Dermassen
   zugerichtet, Dass sie auch bald zergon." Of Luther's doctrine of the
   general priesthood of the laity he says:-- "Wir sein all Pfaffen
   worden, Beid Weiber und die Man, Wiewol wir hant kein Orden Kein Weihe
   gnomen an"
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER IV.

   THE GERMAN REFORMATION FROM THE DIET OF WORMS

   TO THE PEASANTS' WAR, a.d. 1521-1525.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 60. A New Phase in the History of the Reformation.

   At Worms, Luther stood on the height of his protest against Rome. The
   negative part of his work was completed: the tyranny of popery over
   Western Christendom was broken, the conscience was set free, and the
   way opened for a reconstruction of the Church on the basis of the New
   Testament. What he wrote afterwards against Rome was merely a
   repetition and re-affirmation.

   On his return to Wittenberg, he had a more difficult task before him:
   to effect a positive reformation of faith and discipline, worship and
   ceremonies. A revolution is merely destructive and emancipative: a
   reformation is constructive and affirmative; it removes abuses and
   corruptions, but saves the foundation, and builds on it a new
   structure.

   In this home-work Luther was as conservative and churchly as he had
   been radical and unchurchly in his war against the foreign foe. The
   connecting link between the two periods was his faith in Christ and the
   ever-living word of God, with which he began and ended his public
   labors.

   He now raised his protest against the abuse of liberty in his own camp.
   A sifting process was necessary. Division and confusion broke out among
   his friends and followers. Many of them exceeded all bounds of wisdom
   and moderation; while others, frightened by the excesses, returned to
   the fold of the mother Church. The German nation itself was split on
   the question of the old or new religion, and remains, ecclesiastically,
   divided to this day; but the political unification and reconstruction
   of the German Empire with a Protestant head, instead of the former
   Roman-Catholic emperor, may be regarded as a remote result of the
   Reformation, without which it could never have taken place. And it is a
   remarkable providence, that this great event of 1870 was preceded by
   the Vatican Council and the decree of papal infallibility, and followed
   by the overthrow of the temporal power of the Pope and the political
   unification of Italy with Rome as the capital.

   Before Luther entered upon the new phase in his career, he had a short
   rest on what he called his "Patmos" (Rev. 1:9), and his "wilderness."
   It is the most romantic, as his stand at Worms is the most heroic,
   chapter in his eventful life.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 61. Luther at the Wartburg. 1521-1522.

   I. Luther's Letters, from April 28, 1521, to March 7, 1522, in De
   Wette, vol. I. 5; II. 1-141. Very full and very characteristic. Walch,
   XV. 2324-2402.

   II. C. Köhler: Luther auf der Wartburg. Eisenach, 1798. A. Witzschell:
   Luthers Aufenthalt auf der Wartburg. Wien, 1876. J. G. Morris: Luther
   at Wartburg and Coburg. Philadelphia, 1882.

   III. Marheineke, Chap. X. (I. 276 sqq.). Merle D'Aubigné, bk. IX., chs.
   I. and II. Hagenbach, III. 105 sqq. Fisher, p. 112. Köstlin, I.
   468-535.

   Luther left Worms after a stay of ten days, April 26, 1521, at ten
   o'clock in the morning, quietly, in the same company with which he had
   made his entrance under the greatest popular commotion and expectation.
   His friend Schurf went along. The imperial herald joined him at
   Oppenheim so as not to attract notice.

   In a letter to his friend Cranach, dated Frankfurt, April 28, he thus
   summarizes the proceedings of the Diet: "Have you written these books?
   Yes. Will you recant? No. Then get thee hence! O we blind Germans, how
   childish we are to allow ourselves to be so miserably fooled by the
   Romanists!" [405] In the same letter he takes leave of his Wittenberg
   friends, and intimates that he would be hidden for a while, though he
   did not know where. He says that he would rather have suffered death
   from the tyrants, especially "the furious Duke George," but he could
   not despise the counsel of good people. "A little while, and ye behold
   me no more; and again a little while, and ye shall see me (John 16:16).
   I hope it will be so with me. But God's will, the best of all, be done
   in heaven and on earth."

   At Friedberg he dismissed the herald, and gave him a Latin letter to
   the Emperor, and a German letter of the same import to the Estates. He
   thanked the former for the safe-conduct, and defended his course at
   Worms. He could not trust in the decision of one man or many men when
   God's word and eternal interests were at stake, but was still willing
   to recant if refuted from the Scriptures. [406]

   At Hersfeld he was hospitably entertained in the Benedictine convent by
   the Abbot Crato, and urged to preach. He did so in spite of the
   Emperor's prohibition, obeying God rather than men. "I never
   consented," he says, "to tie up God's word. This is a condition beyond
   my power." [407] He preached also at Eisenach, but under protest of the
   priest in charge of the parish. Several of his companions parted from
   him there, and proceeded in the direction of Gotha and Wittenberg.

   From Eisenach he started with Amsdorf and Petzensteiner for Möhra to
   see his relations. He spent a night with his uncle Heinz, and preached
   on the next Sunday morning. He resumed his journey towards Altenstein
   and Waltershausen, accompanied by some of his relatives. On the 4th of
   May, a company of armed horsemen suddenly appeared from the woods,
   stopped his carriage, amidst cursing and swearing, pulled him out, put
   him on horseback, hurried away with him in full speed, and brought him
   about midnight to the Wartburg, where he was to be detained as a noble
   prisoner of state in charge of Captain von Berlepsch, the governor of
   the castle.

   The scheme had been wisely arranged in Worms by the Elector Frederick,
   whom Aleander calls "the fox of Saxony." He wavered between attachment
   to the old faith and inclination to the new. He could not be sure of
   Luther's safety beyond the term of three weeks when the Emperor's
   safe-conduct expired; he did not wish to disobey the Emperor, nor, on
   the other hand, to sacrifice the reformer, his own subject, and the
   pride of his university. He therefore deemed it best to withdraw him
   for a season from the public eye. Melanchthon characterizes him truly
   when he says of Frederick: "He was not one of those who would stifle
   changes in their very birth. He was subject to the will of God. He read
   the writings which were put forth, and would not permit any power to
   crush what he believed to be true."

   The secret was strictly kept. For several months even John, the
   Elector's brother, did not know Luther's abode, and thought that he was
   in one of Sickingen's castles. Conflicting rumors went abroad, and
   found credence among the crowds who gathered in public places to hear
   the latest news. Some said, He is dead; others, He is imprisoned, and
   cruelly treated. Albrecht Dürer, the famous painter, who was at that
   time at Antwerp, and esteemed Luther as "a man enlightened by the Holy
   Spirit and a confessor of the true Christian faith," entered in his
   diary on Pentecost, 1521, the prayer that God may raise up another man
   in his place, and fill him with the Holy Spirit to heal the wounds of
   the Church.

   The Wartburg is a stately castle on a hill above Eisenach, in the
   finest part of the Thuringian forest. It combines reminiscences of
   mediaeval poetry and piety with those of the Reformation. It was the
   residence of the Landgraves of Thuringia from 1073 to 1440. There the
   most famous Minnesängers, Walther von der Vogelweide, and Wolfram von
   Eschenbach, graced the court of Hermann I. (1190-1217); there St.
   Elizabeth (1207-1231), wife of Landgrave Ludwig, developed her
   extraordinary virtues of humility and charity, and began those ascetic
   self-mortifications which her heartless and barbarous confessor, Conrad
   of Marburg, imposed upon her. But the most interesting relics of the
   past are the Lutherstube and the adjoining Reformationszimmer. The
   plain furniture of the small room which the Reformer occupied, is still
   preserved: a table, a chair, a bedstead, a small bookcase, a
   drinking-tankard, and the knightly armor of Junker Georg, his assumed
   name. The famous ink-spot is seen no more, and the story is not
   authentic. [408] In the Wartburg the German students celebrated, in
   October, 1817, the third jubilee of the Reformation; in the Wartburg
   Dr. Merle D'Aubigné of Geneva received the inspiration for his eloquent
   history of the Reformation, which had a wider circulation, at least in
   the English translation, than any other book on church history; in the
   Wartburg the Eisenach Conference of the various Lutheran
   church-governments of Germany inaugurates its periodical sessions for
   the consultative discussion of matters of common interest, as the
   revision of the Luther-Bible. The castle was handsomely restored and
   decorated in mediaeval style, in 1847.

   Luther's sojourn in this romantic solitude extended through nearly
   eleven months, and alternated between recreation and work, health and
   sickness, high courage and deep despondency. Considering that he there
   translated the New Testament, it was the most useful year of his life.
   He gives a full description of it in letters to his Wittenberg friends,
   especially to Spalatin and Melanchthon, which were transmitted by
   secret messengers, and dated from "Patmos," or "the wilderness," from
   "the region of the air," or "the region of the birds."

   He was known and treated during this episode as Knight George. He
   exchanged the monastic gown for the dress of a gentleman, let his hair
   and beard grow, wore a coat of mail, a sword, and a golden chain, and
   had to imitate courtly manners. He was served by two pages, who brought
   the meals to his room twice a day. His food was much better than be had
   been accustomed to as a monk, and brought on dyspepsia and insomnia. He
   enjoyed the singing of the birds, "sweetly lauding God day and night
   with all their strength." He made excursions with an attendant.
   Sometimes he took a book along, but was reminded that a Knight and a
   scholar were different beings. He engaged in conversation on the way,
   with priests and monks, about ecclesiastical affairs, and the uncertain
   whereabouts of Luther, till he was requested to go on. He took part in
   the chase, but indulged in theological thoughts among the huntsmen and
   animals. "We caught a few hares and partridges," he said, "a worthy
   occupation for idle people." The nets and dogs reminded him of the arts
   of the Devil entangling and pursuing poor human souls. He sheltered a
   hunted hare, but the dogs tore it to pieces; this suggested to him the
   rage of the Devil and the Pope to destroy those whom he wished to
   preserve. It would be better, he thought, to hunt bears and wolves.

   He had many a personal encounter with the Devil, whose existence was as
   certain to him as his own. More than once he threw the inkstand at
   him--not literally, but spiritually. His severest blow at the archfiend
   was the translation of the New Testament. His own doubts, carnal
   temptations, evil thoughts, as well as the dangers threatening him and
   his work from his enemies, projected themselves into apparitions of the
   prince of darkness. He heard his noises at night, in a chest, in a bag
   of nuts, and on the staircase "as if a hundred barrels were rolled from
   top to bottom." Once he saw him in the shape of a big black dog lying
   in his bed; he threw the creature out of the window; but it did not
   bark, and disappeared. [409] Sometimes he resorted to jokes. The Devil,
   he said, will bear any thing better than to be despised and laughed at.
   [410]

   Luther was brought up in all the mediaeval superstitious concerning
   demons, ghosts, witches, and sorcerers. His imagination clothed ideas
   in concrete, massive forms. The Devil was to him the personal
   embodiment of all evil and mischief in the world. Hence he figures very
   largely in his theology and religious experience. [411] He is the
   direct antipode of God, and the archfiend of Christ and of men. As God
   is pure love, so the Devil is pure selfishness, hatred, and envy. He is
   endowed with high intellectual gifts, as bad men often surpass good men
   in prudence and understanding. He was originally an archangel, but
   moved by pride and envy against the Son of God, whose incarnation and
   saving work he foresaw, he rose in rebellion against it. He commands an
   organized army of fallen angels and bad men in constant conflict with
   God and the good angels. He is the god of this world, and knows how to
   rule it. He has power over nature, and can make thunder and lightning,
   hail and earthquake, fleas and bed-bugs. He is the ape of God. He can
   imitate Christ, and is most dangerous in the garb of an angel of light.
   He is most busy where the Word of God is preached. He is proud and
   haughty, although he can appear most humble. He is a liar and a
   murderer from the beginning. He understands a thousand arts. He hates
   men because they are creatures of God. He is everywhere around them,
   and tries to hurt and seduce them. He kindles strife and enmity. He is
   the author of all heresies and persecutions. He invented popery, as a
   counterpart of the true kingdom of God. He inflicts trials, sickness,
   and death upon individuals. He tempts them to break the Ten
   Commandments, to doubt God's word, and to blaspheme. He leads into
   infidelity and despair. He hates matrimony, mirth, and music. He can
   not bear singing, least of all "spiritual songs." [412] He holds the
   human will captive, and rides it as his donkey. He can quote Scripture,
   but only as much of it as suits his purpose. A Christian should know
   that the Devil is nearer him than his coat or shirt, yea, than his own
   skin. Luther reports that he often disputed with the Devil in the
   night, about the state of his soul, so earnestly that he himself
   perspired profusely, and trembled. Once the Devil told him that he was
   a great sinner. "I knew that long ago," replied Luther, "tell me
   something new. Christ has taken my sins upon himself, and forgiven them
   long ago. Now grind your teeth." At other times he returned the charge
   and tauntingly asked him, "Holy Satan, pray for me," or "Physician,
   cure thyself." The Devil assumes visible forms, and appears as a dog or
   a hog or a goat, or as a flame or star, or as a man with horns. He is
   noisy and boisterous. [413] He is at the bottom of all witchcraft and
   ghost-trickery. He steals little children and substitutes others in
   their place, who are mere lumps of flesh and torment the parents, but
   die young. [414] Luther was disposed to trace many mediaeval miracles
   of the Roman Catholic Church to the agency of Satan. He believed in
   daemones incubos et succubos.

   But, after all, the Devil has no real power over believers. He hates
   prayer, and flees from the cross and from the Word of God as from a
   flaming fire. If you cannot expel him by texts of Holy Scripture, the
   best way is to jeer and flout him. A pious nun once scared him away by
   simply saying: "Christiana sum." Christ has slain him, and will cast
   him out at last into the fire of hell. Hence Luther sings in his battle
   hymn, --


   "And let the Prince of ill

   Look grim as e'er he will,

   He harms us not a whit:

   For why? His doom is writ,

   One little word shall slay him."

   Luther was at times deeply dejected in spirit. He wrote to Melanchthon,
   July 13, under the influence of dyspepsia which paints every thing in
   the darkest colors: "You elevate me too high, and fall into the serious
   error of giving me too much credit, as if I were absorbed in God's
   cause. This high opinion of yours confounds and racks me, when I see
   myself insensible, hardened, sunk in idleness, alas! seldom in prayer,
   and not venting one groan over God's Church. My unsubdued flesh burns
   me with devouring fire. In short, I who ought to be eaten up with the
   spirit, am devoured by the flesh, by luxury, indolence, idleness,
   somnolence. Is it that God has turned away from me, because you no
   longer pray for me? You must take my place; you, richer in God's gifts,
   and more acceptable in his sight. Here, a week has passed away since I
   put pen to paper, since I have prayed or studied, either vexed by
   fleshly cares, or by other temptations. If things do not improve, I
   will go to Erfurt without concealment; there you will see me, or I you,
   for I must consult physicians or surgeons. Perhaps the Lord troubles me
   so much in order to draw me from this wilderness before the public."
   [415]

   Notwithstanding his complaints of illness and depression, and assaults
   from the evil spirit, he took the liveliest interest in the events of
   the day, and was anxious to descend to the arena of conflict. He kept
   writing letters, books, and pamphlets, and sent them into the world.
   His literary activity during those few months is truly astounding, and
   contrasts strangely with his repeated lament that he had to sit idle at
   Patmos, and would rather be burned in the service of God than stagnate
   there.

   He had few books in the Wartburg. He studied the Greek and Hebrew
   Scriptures very diligently; [416] he depended for news on the letters
   of his friends at Wittenberg; and for his writings, on the resources of
   his genius.

   He continued his great Latin commentary on the Psalms, dwelling most
   carefully on Psalm 22 with reference to the crucifixion, and wrote
   special expositions of Psalms 68 and 37. He completed his book on the
   Magnificat of the Holy Virgin, in which he still expresses his full
   belief in her sinlessness, even her immaculate conception. He attacked
   auricular confession, which was now used as a potent power against the
   reading of Protestant books, and dedicated the tract to Sickingen (June
   1). He resumed his sermons on the Gospels and Epistles of the church
   year (Kirchenpostille), which were afterwards finished by friends, and
   became one of the most popular books of devotion in Germany. He
   declared it once the best book he ever wrote, one which even the
   Papists liked. [417] He replied in Latin to Latomus, a Louvain
   theologian. He attacked in Latin and German the doctrine of the mass,
   which is the very heart of Roman Catholic worship, and monastic vows,
   the foundation of the monastic system. He dedicated the book against
   vows to his father who had objected to his becoming a monk.

   He also dealt an effectual blow at Cardinal Albrecht of Mainz, who had
   exposed in Halle a collection of nearly nine thousand wondrous relies
   (including the manna in the wilderness, the burning bush of Moses, and
   jars from the wedding at Cana) to the view of pilgrims, with the
   promise of a "surpassing" indulgence for attendance and a charitable
   contribution to the Collegiate Church. Luther disregarded the fact that
   his own pious Elector had arranged a similar exhibition in Wittenberg
   only a few years before, and prepared a fierce protest against the
   "Idol of Indulgences" (October, 1521). Spalatin and the Elector
   protested against the publication, but he wrote to Spalatin: "I will
   not put up with it. I will rather lose you and the prince himself, and
   every living being. If I have stood up against the Pope, why should I
   yield to his creature?" At the same time he addressed a sharp letter to
   the archbishop (Dec. 1), and reminded him that by this time he ought to
   know that indulgences were mere knavery and trickery; that Luther was
   still alive; that bishops, before punishing priests for marrying,
   better first expel their own mistresses. He threatened him with the
   issue of the book against the Idol of Halle. The archbishop submitted,
   and made a humble apology in a letter of Dec. 21, which shows what a
   power Luther had acquired over him. [418]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [405] De Wette, I. 588.

   [406] De Wette, I. 589, 600.

   [407] See his letter to Spalatin, May 14, in De Wette, II. 6.

   [408] On my last visit, July 31, 1886, I saw only scratches and
   disfigurements on the wall where the ink-spot was formerly pointed out.
   "No old reporter," says Köstlin, I. 472 sq., "knows any thing about the
   spot of the inkstand on the wall; the story arose probably from a spot
   of a different sort." Semler saw such an ink-spot at Coburg. The
   legend, however, embodies a true idea.

   [409] In Goethe's Faust, Mephistopheles appears in the disguise of a
   poodle, the canis infernus, and is conjured by the sign of a cross:
   "Bist du, Geselle, Ein Flüchtling der Hölle? So sieh diess Zeichen, Dem
   sie sich beugen Die schwarzen Schaaren."

   [410] "Verachtung kann der stolze hoffährtige Geist nicht
   leiden."Tischreden. (LX. 75. Erl.-Frkf. ed.)

   [411] In the alphabetical index of the Erlangen-Frankfurt edition of
   Luther's German Works, the title Teufel fills no less than ten closely
   printed pages (vol. LXVII. 243-253). His Table-Talk on the Devil
   occupies about 150 pages in vols. LIX. and LX. It is instructive and
   interesting to read it through. Michelet devotes a whole chapter to
   this subject (pp. 219-234). For a systematic view, see Köstlin,
   Luther's Theologie, vol. II. 313 sq.; 351 sqq.

   [412] "Der Teufel ist ein trauriger Geist," he says in his Table-Talk
   (LX. 60), "und macht traurige Leute; darum kann er Fröhlichkeit nicht
   leiden. Daher kommt's auch, dass er von der Musica aufs Weiteste
   fleuget; er bleibt nicht, wenn man singt, sonderlich geistliche Lieder.
   Also linderte David mit seiner Harfen dem Saul seine Anfechtung, da ihn
   der Teufel plagte."

   [413] Ein Polter-und Rumpel-Geist.

   [414] "Solche Wechselbälge [or Wechselkinder, changelings] und
   Kielkröpfe supponit Satan in locum verorum filiorum, und plaget die
   Leute damit. Denn diese Gewalt hat der Satan, dass er die Kinder
   auswechselt und einem für sein Kind einen Teufel in die Wiegen legt."
   Erl. ed., LX. 41.

   [415] De Wette, II. 21 sq.

   [416] "Bibliam Graecam et Hebraicam lego." To Spalatin, May 14 (De
   Wette, II. 6).

   [417] See Preface to the St. Louis ed. of Walch, XI. (1882), p. 1 sqq.,
   and Köstlin, I. 486-489.

   [418] Both letters in Walch, XIX. 656 sqq.; Luther's letter in De
   Wette, II. 112-115. Comp. Köstlin, I. 485 sq. The usual opinion that
   Albrecht revived the traffic in indulgences at Halle seems at least
   doubtful, and is denied by Albrecht Wolters in his Easter Program, Hat
   Cardinal Albrecht von Mainz im J. 1521 den Tetzel'schen Ablasshandel
   erneuert? Bonn, 1877 (pp. 24). He concludes: "Somit war der 'Abgott,'
   welchen Luther bekämpfte, nicht die Erneuerung des Tetzel'schen
   Ablasshandels, sondern die Wiederaufrichtung der in Sachsen theils
   erloschenen, theils erlöschenden alten Ablasslehre, welche der Cardinal
   durch Ausstellung seiner mit Ablass begnadigten Reliquien zur Hebung
   des neuen Stifts und in der Stiftskirche zu Halle im Jahr 1521 versucht
   hat."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 62. Luther's Translation of the Bible.

   I. Dr. Martin Luther's Bibelübersetzung nach der letzten
   Original-Ausgabe, kritisch bearbeitet von H. E. Bindseil und H. A.
   Niemeyer. Halle, 1845-55, in 7 vols. 8°. The N. T. in vols. 6 and 7. A
   critical reprint of the last edition of Luther (1545). Niemeyer died
   after the publication of the first volume. Comp. the Probebibel (the
   revised Luther-Version), Halle, 1883. Luther's Sendbrief vom
   Dolmetschen und Fürbitte der Heiligen (with a letter to Wenceslaus
   Link, Sept. 12, 1530), in Walch, XXI. 310 sqq., and the Erl. Frkf. ed.,
   vol. LXV. 102-123. (Not in De Wette's collection, because of its
   polemical character.) A defense of his version against the attacks of
   the Romanists. Mathesius, in his thirteenth sermon on the Life of
   Luther.

   II. On the merits and history of Luther's version. The best works are
   by Palm (1772). Panzer (Vollständ. Gesch. der deutschen Bibelübers.
   Luthers, Nürnb. 1783, 2d ed. 1791), Weidemann (1834), H. Schott (1835),
   Bindseil (1847), Hopf (1847), Mönckeberg (1855 and 1861), Karl Frommann
   (1862), Dorner (1868), W. Grimm (1874 and l884), Düsterdieck (1882),
   Kleinert (1883), TH. Schott (1883), and the introduction to the
   Probebibel (1883). See Lit. in § 17, p. 103.

   III. On the pre-Lutheran German Bible, and Luther's relation to it. Ed.
   Reuss: Die deutsche Historienbibel vor der Erfindung des Bücherdrucks.
   Jena, 1855. Jos. Kehrein (Rom. Cath.): Zur Geschichte der deutschen
   Bibelübersetzung vor Luther. Stuttgart, 1851. O. F. Fritzsche in
   Herzog, 2d ed., Bd. III. (1876), pp. 543 sqq. Dr. W. Krafft: Die
   deutsche Bibel vor Luther, sein Verhältniss zu derselben und seine
   Verdienste um die deutsche Bibelübersetzung. Bonn, 1883 (25 pages. 4°.)
   Also the recent discussions (1885-1887) of Keller, Haupt, Jostes,
   Rachel, Kawerau, Kolde, K. Müller, on the alleged Waldensian origin of
   the pre-Lutheran German version.

   The richest fruit of Luther's leisure in the Wartburg, and the most
   important and useful work of his whole life, is the translation of the
   New Testament, by which he brought the teaching and example of Christ
   and the Apostles to the mind and heart of the Germans in life-like
   reproduction. It was a republication of the gospel. He made the Bible
   the people's book in church, school, and house. If he had done nothing
   else, he would be one of the greatest benefactors of the
   German-speaking race. [419]

   His version was followed by Protestant versions in other languages,
   especially the French, Dutch, and English. The Bible ceased to be a
   foreign book in a foreign tongue, and became naturalized, and hence far
   more clear and dear to the common people. Hereafter the Reformation
   depended no longer on the works of the Reformers, but on the book of
   God, which everybody could read for himself as his daily guide in
   spiritual life. This inestimable blessing of an open Bible for all,
   without the permission or intervention of pope and priest, marks an
   immense advance in church history, and can never be lost.

   Earlier Versions.

   Luther was not the first, but by far the greatest translator of the
   German Bible, and is as inseparably connected with it as Jerome is with
   the Latin Vulgate. He threw the older translation into the shade and
   out of use, and has not been surpassed or even equaled by a successor.
   There are more accurate versions for scholars (as those of De Wette and
   Weizsäcker), but none that can rival Luther's for popular authority and
   use.

   The civilization of the barbarians in the dark ages began with the
   introduction of Christianity, and the translation of such portions of
   the Scriptures as were needed in public worship.

   The Gothic Bishop Wulfila or Wölflein (i.e., Little Wolf) in the fourth
   century translated nearly the whole Bible from the Greek into the
   Gothic dialect. It is the earliest monument of Teutonic literature, and
   the basis of comparative Teutonic philology. [420]

   During the fourteenth century some unknown scholars prepared a new
   translation of the whole Bible into the Middle High German dialect. It
   slavishly follows the Latin Vulgate. It may be compared to Wiclif's
   English Version (1380), which was likewise made from the Vulgate, the
   original languages being then almost unknown in Europe. A copy of the
   New Testament of this version has been recently published, from a
   manuscript in the Premonstratensian convent of Tepl in Bohemia. [421]
   Another copy is preserved in the college library at Freiberg in Saxony.
   [422] Both are from the fourteenth century, and agree almost word for
   word with the first printed German Bible, but contain, besides the New
   Testament, the apocryphal letter of St. Paul to the Laodiceans, which
   is a worthless compilation of a few sentences from the genuine writings
   of the apostle. [423]

   After the invention of the printing-press, and before the Reformation,
   this mediaeval German Bible was more frequently printed than any other
   except the Latin Vulgate. [424] No less than seventeen or eighteen
   editions appeared between 1462 and 1522, at Strassburg, Augsburg,
   Nürnberg, Cöln, Lübeck, and Halberstadt (fourteen in the High, three or
   four in the Low German dialect). Most of them are in large folio, in
   two volumes, and illustrated by wood-cuts. The editions present one and
   the same version (or rather two versions,--one High German, the other
   Low German) with dialectical alterations and accommodations to the
   textual variations of the MSS. of the Vulgate, which was in a very
   unsettled condition before the Clementine recension (1592). The
   revisers are as unknown as the translators.

   The spread of this version, imperfect as it was, proves the hunger and
   thirst of the German people for the pure word of God, and prepared the
   way for the Reformation. It alarmed the hierarchy. Archbishop Berthold
   of Mainz, otherwise a learned and enlightened prelate, issued, Jan. 4,
   1486, a prohibition of all unauthorized printing of sacred and learned
   books, especially the German Bible, within his diocese, giving as a
   reason that the German language was incapable of correctly rendering
   the profound sense of Greek and Latin works, and that laymen and women
   could not understand the Bible. Even Geiler of Kaisersberg, who sharply
   criticised the follies of the world and abuses of the Church, thought
   it "an evil thing to print the Bible in German."

   Besides the whole Bible, there were numerous German editions of the
   Gospels and Epistles (Plenaria), and the Psalter, all made from the
   Vulgate. [425]

   Luther could not be ignorant of this mediaeval version. He made
   judicious use of it, as he did also of old German and Latin hymns.
   Without such aid he could hardly have finished his New Testament in the
   short space of three months. [426] But this fact does not diminish his
   merit in the least; for his version was made from the original Hebrew
   and Greek, and was so far superior in every respect that the older
   version entirely disappeared. It is to all intents a new work.

   Luther's Qualifications.

   Luther had a rare combination of gifts for a Bible translator:
   familiarity with the original languages, perfect mastery over the
   vernacular, faith in the revealed word of God, enthusiasm for the
   gospel, unction of the Holy Spirit. A good translation must be both
   true and free, faithful and idiomatic, so as to read like an original
   work. This is the case with Luther's version. Besides, he had already
   acquired such fame and authority that his version at once commanded
   universal attention.

   His knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was only moderate, but sufficient to
   enable him to form an independent judgment. [427] What he lacked in
   scholarship was supplied by his intuitive genius and the help of
   Melanchthon. In the German tongue he had no rival. He created, as it
   were, or gave shape and form to the modern High German. He combined the
   official language of the government with that of the common people. He
   listened, as he says, to the speech of the mother at home, the children
   in the street, the men and women in the market, the butcher and various
   tradesmen in their shops, and, "looked them on the mouth," in pursuit
   of the most intelligible terms. His genius for poetry and music enabled
   him to reproduce the rhythm and melody, the parallelism and symmetry,
   of Hebrew poetry and prose. His crowning qualification was his
   intuitive insight and spiritual sympathy with the contents of the
   Bible.

   A good translation, he says, requires "a truly devout, faithful,
   diligent, Christian, learned, experienced, and practiced heart."

   Progress of his Version.

   Luther was gradually prepared for this work. He found for the first
   time a complete copy of the Latin Bible in the University Library at
   Erfurt, to his great delight, and made it his chief study. He derived
   from it his theology and spiritual nourishment; he lectured and
   preached on it as professor at Wittenberg day after day. He acquired
   the knowledge of the original languages for the purpose of its better
   understanding. He liked to call himself a "Doctor of the Sacred
   Scriptures."

   He made his first attempt as translator with the seven Penitential
   Psalms, which he published in March, 1517, six months before the
   outbreak of the Reformation. Then followed several other sections of
   the Old and New Testaments,--the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer,
   the Prayer of King Manasseh, the Magnificat of the Virgin Mary, etc.,
   with popular comments. He was urged by his friends, especially by
   Melanchthon, as well as by his own sense of duty, to translate the
   whole Bible.

   He began with the New Testament in November or December, 1521, and
   completed it in the following March, before he left the Wartburg. He
   thoroughly revised it on his return to Wittenberg, with the effectual
   help of Melanchthon, who was a much better Greek scholar. Sturz at
   Erfurt was consulted about coins and measures; Spalatin furnished from
   the Electoral treasury names for the precious stones of the New
   Jerusalem (Rev. 21). The translation was then hurried through three
   presses, and appeared already Sept. 21, 1522, but without his name.
   [428]

   In December a second edition was required, which contained many
   corrections and improvements. [429]

   He at once proceeded to the more difficult task of translating the Old
   Testament, and published it in parts as they were ready. The Pentateuch
   appeared in 1523; the Psalter, 1524.

   In the progress of the work he founded a Collegium Biblieum, or Bible
   club, consisting of his colleagues Melanchthon, Bugenhagen (Pommer),
   Cruciger, Justus Jonas, and Aurogallus. They met once a week in his
   house, several hours before supper. Deacon Georg Rörer (Rorarius), the
   first clergyman ordained by Luther, and his proof-reader, was also
   present; occasionally foreign scholars were admitted; and Jewish rabbis
   were freely consulted. Each member of the company contributed to the
   work from his special knowledge and preparation. Melanchthon brought
   with him the Greek Bible, Cruciger the Hebrew and Chaldee, Bugenhagen
   the Vulgate, others the old commentators; Luther had always with him
   the Latin and the German versions besides the Hebrew. Sometimes they
   scarcely mastered three lines of the Book of Job in four days, and
   hunted two, three, and four weeks for a single word. No record exists
   of the discussions of this remarkable company, but Mathesius says that
   "wonderfully beautiful and instructive speeches were made."

   At last the whole Bible, including the Apocrypha as "books not equal to
   the Holy Scriptures, yet useful and good to read," was completed in
   1534, and printed with numerous woodcuts.

   In the mean time the New Testament had appeared in sixteen or seventeen
   editions, and in over fifty reprints. [430]

   Luther complained of the many errors in these irresponsible editions.

   He never ceased to amend his translation. Besides correcting errors, he
   improved the uncouth and confused orthography, fixed the inflections,
   purged the vocabulary of obscure and ignoble words, and made the whole
   more symmetrical and melodious.

   He prepared five original editions, or recensions, of his whole Bible,
   the last in 1545, a year before his death. [431] This is the proper
   basis of all critical editions. [432]

   The edition of 1546 was prepared by his friend Rörer, and contains a
   large number of alterations, which he traced to Luther himself. Some of
   them are real improvements, e.g., "Die Liebe höret nimmer auf," for,
   "Die Liebe wird nicht müde" (1 Cor. 13:8). The charge that he made the
   changes in the interest of Philippism (Melanchthonianism), seems to be
   unfounded.

   Editions and Revisions.

   The printed Bible text of Luther had the same fate as the written text
   of the old Itala and Jerome's Vulgate. It passed through innumerable
   improvements and mis-improvements. The orthography and inflections were
   modernized, obsolete words removed, the versicular division introduced
   (first in a Heidelberg reprint, 1568), the spurious clause of the three
   witnesses inserted in 1 John 5:7 (first by a Frankfurt publisher,
   1574), the third and fourth books of Ezra and the third book of the
   Maccabees added to the Apocrypha, and various other changes effected,
   necessary and unnecessary, good and bad. Elector August of Saxony tried
   to control the text in the interest of strict Lutheran orthodoxy, and
   ordered the preparation of a standard edition (1581). But it was
   disregarded outside of Saxony.

   Gradually no less than eleven or twelve recensions came into use, some
   based on the edition of 1545, others on that of 1546. The most careful
   recension was that of the Canstein Bible Institute, founded by a pious
   nobleman, Carl Hildebrand von Canstein (1667-1719) in connection with
   Francke's Orphan House at Halle. It acquired the largest circulation
   and became the textus receptus of the German Bible.

   With the immense progress of biblical learning in the present century,
   the desire for a timely revision of Luther's version was more and more
   felt. Revised versions with many improvements were prepared by Joh.-
   Friedrich von Meyer, a Frankfurt patrician (1772-1849), and Dr. Rudolf
   Stier (18001862), but did not obtain public authority.

   At last a conservative official revision of the Luther Bible was
   inaugurated by the combined German church governments in 1863, with a
   view and fair prospect of superseding all former editions in public
   use. [433]

   The Success.

   The German Bible of Luther was saluted with the greatest enthusiasm,
   and became the most powerful help to the Reformation. Duke George of
   Saxony, Duke William of Bavaria, and Archduke Ferdinand of Austria
   strictly prohibited the sale in their dominions, but could not stay the
   current. Hans Lufft at Wittenberg printed and sold in forty years
   (between 1534 and 1574) about a hundred thousand copies,--an enormous
   number for that age,--and these were read by millions. The number of
   copies from reprints is beyond estimate.

   Cochlaeus, the champion of Romanism, paid the translation the greatest
   compliment when he complained that "Luther's New Testament was so much
   multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers,
   yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran
   gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest
   avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and
   carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed
   themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith
   and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and
   monks and doctors of divinity." [434]

   The Romanists were forced in self-defense to issue rival translations.
   Such were made by Emser (1527), Dietenberger (1534), and Eck (1537),
   and accompanied with annotations. They are more correct in a number of
   passages, but slavishly conformed to the Vulgate, stiff and heavy, and
   they frequently copy the very language of Luther, so that he could say
   with truth, "The Papists steal my German of which they knew little
   before, and they do not thank me for it, but rather use it against me."
   These versions have long since gone out of use even in the Roman
   Church, while Luther's still lives. [435]

   NOTE.

   the pre-lutheran german bible.

   According to the latest investigations, fourteen printed editions of
   the whole Bible in the Middle High German dialect, and three in the Low
   German, have been identified. Panzer already knew fourteen; see his
   Gesch. der nürnbergischen Ausgaben der Bibel, Nürnberg, 1778, p. 74.

   The first four, in large folio, appeared without date and place of
   publication, but were probably printed: 1, at Strassburg, by Heinrich
   Eggestein, about or before 1466 (the falsely so-called Mainzer Bibel of
   1462); 2, at Strassburg, by Johann Mentelin, 1466 (?); 3, at Augsburg,
   by Jodocus Pflanzmann, or Tyner, 1470 (?); 4, at Nürnberg, by
   Sensenschmidt and Frissner, in 2 vols., 408 and 104 leaves, 1470-73
   (?). The others are located, and from the seventh on also dated, viz.:
   5, Augsburg, by Günther Zainer, 2 vols., probably between 1473-1475. 6,
   Augsburg, by the same, dated 1477 (Stevens says, 1475?). 7, The third
   Augsburg edition, by Günther Zainer, or Anton Sorg, 1477, 2 vols., 321
   and 332 leaves, fol., printed in double columns; the first German Bible
   with a date. 8, The fourth Augsburg edition, by A. Sorg, 1480, folio.
   9, Nürnberg, by Anton Koburger (also spelled Koberger), 1483. 10,
   Strassburg, by Johann Gruninger, 1485. 11 and 12, The fifth and sixth
   Augsburg editions, in small fol., by Hans Schönsperger, 1487 and 1490.
   13, The seventh Augsburg edition, by Hans Otmar, 1507, small folio. 14,
   The eighth Augsburg edition, by Silvan Otmar, 1518, small folio.

   The Low Dutch Bibles were printed: 1, at Cologne, in large folio,
   double columns, probably 1480. The unknown editor speaks of previous
   editions and his own improvements. Stevens (Nos. 653 and 654) mentions
   two copies of the O. T. in Dutch, printed at Delf, 1477, 2 vols. fol.
   2, At Lübeck, 1491 (not 1494), 2 vols. fol. with large woodcuts. 3, At
   Halberstadt, 1522.

   Comp. Kehrein (I.c.), Krafft (l.c., pp. 4, 5), and Henry Stevens, The
   Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, London, 1878. Stevens gives the full
   titles with descriptions, pp. 45 sqq., nos. 620 sqq.

   Several of these Bibles, including the Koburger and those of Cologne
   and Halberstadt, are in the possession of the Union Theol. Seminary,
   New York. I examined them. They are ornamented by woodcuts, beginning
   with a picture of God creating the world, and forming Eve from the rib
   of Adam in Paradise. Several of them have Jerome's preface (De omnibus
   divinae historiae libris, Ep. ad Paulinum), the oldest with the remark:
   "Da hebet an die epistel des heiligen priesters sant Jeronimi zu
   Paulinum von allen gottlichen büchern der hystory. Das erst capitel."

   Dr. Krafft illustrates the dependence of Luther on the earlier version
   by several examples (pp. 13-18). The following is from the Sermon on
   the Mount, Matt. 5:21-27:--

   the ninth bible, 1483.

   Habt ir gehört, das gesaget ist den alten. Du solt nit tödten,
   wellicher aber tödtet. der wird schuldig des gerichts. Aber ich sag
   euch, daz ein yeglicher der do zürnet seinem bruder. der wirt schuldig
   des gerichts. Der aber spricht zu seinem bruder. racha. der wirt
   schuldig des rats. Und der do spricht. tor. der wirt schuldig des
   hellischen fewrs. Darum ob du opfferst dein gab zu dem attar. und do
   wirst gedenckend. daz dein bruder ettwas hat wider dich, lasz do dein
   gab vor dem altar und gee zum ersten und versüne dich mit deim bruder
   und denn kum und opffer dein gab. Bis gehellig deim widerwertigen
   schyer. die weyl du mit im bist him weg. das dich villeycht der
   widersacher nit antwurt den Richter. und der Richter dich antwurt dem
   diener und werdest gelegt in den kercker. Fürwar ich sag dir. du geest
   nit aus von dannen. und das du vergeltest den letzten quadranten.

   luther's new testament, 1522.

   Ihr habt gehortt, das zu den alten gesagt ist, du sollt nit todten, wer
   aber todtet, der soll des gerichts schuldig seyn. Ich aber sage euch,
   wer mit seynem bruder zurnit, der ist des gerichts schuldig, wer aber
   zu seynem bruder sagt, Racha, der ist des rads schuldig, wer aber sagt,
   du narr, der ist des hellischen fewers schuldig.

   Darumbwen? du deyn gabe auff den altar opfferst, un wirst alda
   eyngedenken, das deyn bruder ettwas widder dich hab, so las alda fur
   dem altar deyn gabe, unnd gehe zuvor hyn, unnd versune dich mitt deynem
   bruder, unnd als denn kom unnd opffer deyn gabe.

   Sey willfertig deynem widersacher, bald, dieweyl du noch mit yhm auff
   dem wege bist, auff das dich der widdersacher nit der mal eyns
   ubirantwortte dem richter, un? d. richter ubirantworte dich dem diener,
   un? werdist yn? den kerccker geworffen, warlich ich sage dyr, du wirst
   nit von dannen erauze komen, bis du auch den letzten heller bezealest.

   To this I add two specimens in which the superiority of Luther's
   version is more apparent.

   Gen. 1:1-3.

   the koburger bible of nürnberg, 1483

   In dem anfang hat got beschaffen hymel und erden. aber dye erde was
   eytel und leere. und die vinsternus warn auff dem antlitz des abgrunds.
   vnd der geist gots swebet oder ward getragen auff den wassern. Un? got
   der sprach. Es werde dz liecht. Un das liecht ist worden.

   luther's bible, ed. 1535.

   Im anfang schuff Gott himel und erden. Und die erde war wüst und leer,
   und es war finster auff der tieffe, und der Geist Gottes schwebet auff
   dem wasser.

   Un Gott sprach. Es werde liecht. Und es ward liecht.

   1 Cor. 13:1, 2.

   The Strassburg Bible Of 1485.

   Ob ich rede inn der zungen der engel vnd der menschen; aber habe ich
   der lieb nit, ich bin gemacht alls ein glockenspeyss lautend oder alls
   ein schell klingend. Vnd ob ich hab die weissagung und erkenn all
   heimlichkeit vnd alle kunst, und ob ich hab alten glauben, also das ich
   übertrag die berg, habe ich aber der lieb nit, ich bin nichts.

   Luther's New Testament, 1522.

   Wenn ich mit menschen und mit engelzungen redet und hette die [436]
   liebe nit, [437] so wäre ich ein tönend ertz oder ein klingende schell.
   [438] Und wenn ich weissagen kündt, vnnd wüste alle geheymnuss vnd alle
   erkantnüss, vnd hette alten glauben, also das ich berg versetzete, und
   hett der liebe nicht, so were ich nichts.

   The precise origin of the mediaeval German Bible is still unknown. Dr.
   Ludwig Keller of Münster first suggested in his Die Reformation und die
   älteren Reformparteien, Leipzig, 1885, pp. 257-260, the hypothesis that
   it was made by Waldenses (who had also a Romanic version); and he tried
   to prove it in his Die Waldenser und die deutschen Bibelübersetzungen,
   Leipzig, 1886 (189 pages). Dr. Hermann Haupt, of Würzburg, took the
   same ground in his Die deutsche Bibelübersetzung der mittelalterlichen
   Waldenser in dem Codex Teplensis und der ersten gedruckten Bibel
   nachgewiesen, Würzburg, 1885 (64 pages); and again, in self-defense
   against Jostes, in Der waldensische Ursprung des Codex Teplensis und
   der vor-lutherischen deutschen Bibeldrucke, Würzburg, 1886. On the
   other hand, Dr. Franz Jostes, a Roman Catholic scholar, denied the
   Waldensian and defended the Catholic origin of that translation, in two
   pamphlets: Die Waldenser und die vorlutherische Bibelübersetzung,
   Münster, 1885 (44 pages), and Die Tepler Bibelübersetzung. Eine zweite
   Kritik, Münster, 1886 (43 pages). The same author promises a complete
   history of German Catholic Bible versions. The question has been
   discussed in periodicals and reviews, e.g., by Kawerau in Luthardt's
   "Theol. Literaturblatt," Leipzig, 1885 and 1886 (Nos. 32-34), by Schaff
   in the New York "Independent" for Oct. 8, 1885, and in the
   "Presbyterian Review" for April, 1887, pp. 355 sqq.; by Kolde, in the
   "Göttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen," 1887, No. I.; by Müller in the "Studien
   und Kritiken," 1887, No. III.; and Bornemann, in the "Jahrb. f. Prot.
   Theol.," 1888, 67-101.

   The arguments for the Waldensian origin are derived from certain
   additions to the Codex Teplensis, and alleged departures from the text
   of the Vulgate. But the additions are not anti-Catholic, and are not
   found in the cognate Freiberger MS.; and the textual variations can not
   be traced to sectarian bias. The text of the Vulgate was in greater
   confusion in the middle ages than the text of the Itala at the time of
   Jerome, nor was there any authorized text of it before the Clementine
   recension of 1592. The only plausible argument which Dr. Keller brings
   out in his second publication (pp. 80 sqq.) is the fact that Emser, in
   his Annotations to the New Test. (1523), charges Luther with having
   translated the N. T. from a "Wickleffisch oder hussisch exemplar." But
   this refers to copies of the Latin Vulgate; and in the examples quoted
   by Keller, Luther does not agree with the Codex Teplensis.

   The hostility of several Popes and Councils to the circulation of
   vernacular translations of the Bible implies the existence of such
   translations, and could not prevent their publication, as the numerous
   German editions prove. Dutch, French, and Italian versions also
   appeared among the earliest prints. See Stevens, Nos. 687 and 688 (p.
   59 sq.). The Italian edition exhibited in 1877 at London is entitled:
   La Biblia en lingua Volgare (per Nicolo di Mallermi). Venetia: per
   Joan. Rosso Vercellese, 1487, fol. A Spanish Bible by Bonif. Ferrer was
   printed at Valencia, 1478 (see Reuss, Gesch. der heil. Schr. N. T., II.
   207, 5th Ed.).

   The Bible is the common property and most sacred treasure of all
   Christian churches. The art of printing was invented in Catholic times,
   and its history goes hand in hand with the history of the Bible. Henry
   Stevens says (The Bibles in the Caxton Exhibition, p. 25): "The secular
   history of the Holy Scriptures is the sacred history of Printing. The
   Bible was the first book printed, and the Bible is the last book
   printed. Between 1450 and 1877, an interval of four centuries and a
   quarter, the Bible shows the progress and comparative development of
   the art of printing in a manner that no other single book can; and
   Biblical bibliography proves that during the first forty years, at
   least, the Bible exceeded in amount of printing all other books put
   together; nor were its quality, style, and variety a whit behind its
   quantity."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [419] The testimony of the great philosopher Hegel is worth quoting. He
   says in his Philosophie der Geschichte, p. 503: "Luther hat die
   Autorität der Kirche verworfen und an ihre Stelle die Bibel und das
   Zeugniss des menschlichen Geistes gesetzt. Dass nun die Bibel selbst
   die Grundlage der christlichen Kirche geworden ist, ist von der
   grössten Wichtigkeit; jeder soll sich nun selbst daraus belehren, jeder
   sein Gewissen daraus bestimmen können. Diess ist die ungeheure
   Veränderung im Principe: die ganze Tradition und das Gebäude der Kirche
   wird problematisch und das Princip der Autorität der Kirche
   umgestossen. Die Uebersetzung, welche Luther von der Bibel gemacht hat,
   ist von unschätzbarem Werthe für das deutsche Volk gewesen. Dieses hat
   dadurch ein Volksbuch erhalten, wie keine Nation der katholischen Welt
   ein solches hat; sie haben wohl eine Unzahl von Gebetbüchlein, aber
   kein Grundbuch zur Belehrung des Volks. Trotz dem hat man in neueren
   Zeiten Streit deshalb erhoben, ob es zweckmässig sei, dem Volke die
   Bibel indie Hand zu geben; die wenigen Nachtheile, die dieses hat,
   werden doch bei weitem von den ungeheuren Vortheilen überwogen; die
   äusserlichen Geschichten, die dem Herzen und Verstande anstössig sein
   können, weiss der religiöse Sinn sehr wohl zu unterscheiden, und sich
   an das Substantielle haltend überwindet er sie." Froude (Luther, p. 42)
   calls Luther's translation of the Bible "the greatest of all the gifts
   he was able to offer to Germany."

   [420] Hence repeatedly published from the remaining fragmentary MSS. in
   Upsala (Codex Argenteus, so called from its silver binding),
   Wolfenbüttel and Milan, by H. C. von Gabelenz and J. Loebe (1836),
   Massmann (1857), Bernhardt (1875), Stamm (1878), Uppström (1854-1868,
   the most accurate edition), R. Müller and H. Hoeppe (1881), W. W. Skeat
   (1882). Comp. also Jos. Bosworth, The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in
   Parallel Columns with the Versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale, London, 2d
   ed., 1874 (with a fac-simile of the Codex Argenteus).

   [421] By P. Philipp Klimesch (librarian of the convent), Der Codex
   Teplensis, enthaltend "Die Schrift des newen Gezeuges." Aelteste
   deutsche Handschrift, welche den im 15 Jahrh. gedruckten deutschen
   Bibeln zu Grunde gelegen. Augsburg and München, 1881-1884, in 3 parts.
   The Codex contains also homilies of St. Augustin and St. Chrysostom,
   and seven articles of faith. The last especially have induced Keller
   and Haupt to assign the translation to Waldensian origin. But these
   Addenda are not uncatholic, and at most would only prove Waldensian or
   Bohemian proprietorship of this particular copy, but not authorship of
   the translation. See Notes below, p. 353.

   [422] See Dr. M. Rachel's Gymnasial program: Ueber die Freiberger
   Bibelhandschrift, nebst Beiträgen zur Gesch. der vorlutherischen
   Bibelübersetzung, Freiberg, 1886 (31 pages).

   [423] This apocryphal Epistle was also included in the Albigensian
   (Romance) version of the 13th century, in a Bohemian version, and in
   the early English Bibles, in two independent translations of the 14th
   or 15th century, but not in Wiclif's Bible. See Forshall and Maddan,
   Wycliffite Versions of the Bible (1850), IV. 438 sq.; Anger, Ueber den
   Laodicenerbrief (Leipzig, 1843); and Lightfoot, Com. on Ep. to the
   Colossians (London, 1875), p. 363 sq. On the other hand, the same
   pseudo-Pauline Epistle appears in many MSS. and early editions of the
   Vulgate, and in the German versions of Eck and Dietenberger. It can
   therefore not be used as an argument for or against the Waldensian
   hypothesis of Keller.

   [424] Ninety-seven editions of the Vulgate were printed between 1450
   and 1500,--28 in Italy (nearly all in Venice), 16 in Germany, 10 in
   Basel, 9 in France. See Fritzsche in Herzogii, vol. VIII. 450.

   [425] In the royal library of Munich there are 21 MSS. of German
   versions of the Gospels and Epistles. The Gospels for the year were
   printed about 25 times before 1518; the Psalter about 13 times before
   1513. See besides the works of Panzer, Kehrein, Keller, Haupt, above
   quoted, Alzog, Die deutschen Plenarien im 15. und zu Anfang des 16.
   Jahrh., Freiburg-i-B., 1874.

   [426] Luther's use of the older German version was formerly ignored or
   denied, but has been proved by Professor Krafft of Bonn (1883). He
   adds, however, very justly (l.c. p. 19): "Es gereicht Luther zum
   grössten Verdienst, dass er auf den griechischen Grundtext
   zurückgegangen, den deutschen Wortschatz zunächst im N. T. wesentlich
   berichtigt, dann aber auch mit seiner Genialität bedeutend vermehrt
   hat." See Notes below, p. 352.

   [427] "Ich kann," he says in his Tischreden, "weder griechisch noch
   ebraeisch, ich will aber dennoch einem Ebraeer und Griechen ziemlich
   begegnen. Aber die Sprachen machen für sich selbst keinen Theologen,
   sondern sind nur eine Hülfe. Denn soll einer von einem Dinge reden, so
   muss er die Sache [Sprache?] zuvor wissen und verstehen." Erl.-Frkf.
   ed., vol. LXII. 313.

   [428] Under the title: Das Newe Testament Deutzsch. Wittemberg. With
   wood-cuts by Lucas Cranach, one at the beginning of each book and
   twenty-one in the Apocalypse. The chapter division of the Latin Bible,
   dating from Hugo a St. Caro, was retained with some paragraph
   divisions; the versicular division was as yet unknown (Robert Stephanus
   first introduced it in his Latin edition, 1548, and in his Greek
   Testament of 1551). The order of the Epistles is changed, and the
   change remained in all subsequent editions. Some parallel passages and
   glosses are added on the margin. It contained many typographical
   errors, a very curious one in Gal. 5:6: "Die Liebe, die durch den
   Glauben thaetig ist," instead of "Der Glaube, der durch die Liebe
   thätig ist." A copy of this rare edition, without the full-page
   Apocalyptic pictures, but with the error just noticed, is in the Union
   Seminary Library, New York. It has the famous preface with the fling at
   the "rechte stroern Epistel" of St. James, which was afterwards omitted
   or modified.

   [429] The woodcuts were also changed. The triple papal crown of the
   Babylonian woman in Rev. 17 gave place to a simple crown.

   [430] Fritzsche (l.c., p. 549): "Vom N. T. sind von 1522-1533 ziemlich
   sicher 16 original Ausgaben nachgewiesen ... Die Nachdrucke belaufen
   sich auf ungefähr 54, wobei Augsburg mit 14, Strassburg mit 13, und
   Basel mit 12 vertreten ist."

   [431] Under the title: Biblia, das ist die gantze Heilige Schrift,
   Deutsch. Auffs neu zugericht. D. Mart. Luther. Wittemberg. Durch Hans
   Lufft, M.D.XLV. fol. with numerous woodcuts. A copy in the Canstein
   Bibelanstalt at Halle. The Union Theol. Seminary in New York has a copy
   of the edition of 1535 which bears this title: Biblia das ist die
   /gantze Heilige /Schrifft Deutsch./ Mart. Luth./ Wittemberg./ Begnadet
   mit Kür-/ furstlicher zu Sachsen /freiheit. /Gedruckt durch Hans
   Lufft./ M. D. XXXV. The margin is ornamented. Then follows the
   imprimatur of the Elector John Frederick of Saxony, a preface of Luther
   to the O. T., and a rude picture of God, the globe and paradise with
   Adam and Eve among trees and animals.

   [432] Republished with the greatest care by Bindseil & Niemeyer. See
   Lit., p. 340.

   [433] See Note at the end of the next section.

   [434] De Actis et Scriptis M. Lutheri ad Ann. 1522. Gieseler (IV. 65
   sq.) quotes the whole passage in Latin.

   [435] The last edition of Dr. Eck's Bible appeared in 1558, at
   Ingolstadt, Bavaria.

   [436] Ed. of 1535: der.

   [437] Ed. of 1535: nicht.

   [438] Later eds.: eine ... schelle.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 63. A Critical Estimate of Luther's Version.

   Luther's version of the Bible is a wonderful monument of genius,
   learning, and piety, and may be regarded in a secondary sense as
   inspired. It was, from beginning to end, a labor of love and
   enthusiasm. While publishers and printers made fortunes, Luther never
   received or asked a copper for this greatest work of his life. [439]

   We must judge it from the times. A German translation from the original
   languages was a work of colossal magnitude if we consider the absence
   of good grammars, dictionaries, and concordances, the crude state of
   Greek and Hebrew scholarship, and of the German language, in the
   sixteenth century. Luther wrote to Amsdorf, Jan. 13, 1522, that he had
   undertaken a task beyond his power, that he now understood why no one
   had attempted it before in his own name, and that he would not venture
   on the Old Testament without the aid of his friends. [440] He felt
   especially how difficult it was to make Job and the Hebrew prophets
   speak in barbarous German. [441] He jocosely remarked that Job would
   have become more impatient at the blunders of his translators than at
   the long speeches of his "miserable comforters."

   As regards the text, it was in an unsettled condition. The science of
   textual criticism was not yet born, and the materials for it were not
   yet collected from the manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic
   quotations. Luther had to use the first printed editions. He had no
   access to manuscripts, the most important of which were not even
   discovered or made available before the middle of the nineteenth
   century. Biblical geography and archaeology were in their infancy, and
   many names and phrases could not be understood at the time.

   In view of these difficulties we need not be surprised at the large
   number of mistakes, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies in Luther's
   version. They are most numerous in Job and the Prophets, who present,
   even to the advanced Hebrew scholars of our day, many unsolved problems
   of text and rendering. The English Version of 1611 had the great
   advantage of the labors of three generations of translators and
   revisers, and is therefore more accurate, and yet equally idiomatic.

   The Original Text.

   The basis for Luther's version of the Old Testament was the Massoretic
   text as published by Gerson Ben Mosheh at Brescia in 1494. [442] He
   used also the Septuagint, the Vulgate of Jerome [443] (although he
   disliked him exceedingly on account of his monkery), the Latin
   translations of the Dominican Sanctes Pagnini of Lucca (1527), and of
   the Franciscan Sebastian Münster (1534), the "Glossa ordinaria" (a
   favorite exegetical vade-mecum of Walafried Strabo from the ninth
   century), and Nicolaus Lyra (d. 1340), the chief of mediaeval
   commentators, who, besides the Fathers, consulted also the Jewish
   rabbis. [444]

   The basis for the New Testament was the second edition of Erasmus,
   published at Basel in Switzerland in 1519. [445] His first edition of
   the Greek Testament had appeared in 1516, just one year before the
   Reformation. He derived the text from a few mediaeval MSS. [446] The
   second edition, though much more correct than the first ("multo
   diligentius recognitum, emendatum," etc.), is disfigured by a large
   -number of typographical errors. [447] He laid the foundation of the
   Textus Receptus, which was brought into its mature shape by R. Stephen,
   in his "royal edition" of 1550 (the basis of the English Textus
   Receptus), and by the Elzevirs in their editions of 1624 and 1633 (the
   basis of the Continental Textus Receptus), and which maintained the
   supremacy till Lachmann inaugurated the adoption of an older textual
   basis (1831).

   Luther did not slavishly follow the Greek of Erasmus, and in many
   places conformed to the Latin Vulgate, which is based on an older text.
   He also omitted, even in his last edition, the famous interpolation of
   the heavenly witnesses in 1 John 5:7, which Erasmus inserted in his
   third edition (1522) against his better judgment. [448]

   The German Rendering.

   The German language was divided into as many dialects as tribes and
   states, and none served as a bond of literary union. Saxons and
   Bavarians, Hanoverians and Swabians, could scarcely understand each
   other. Each author wrote in the dialect of his district, Zwingli in his
   Schwyzerdütsch. "I have so far read no book or letter," says Luther in
   the preface to his version of the Pentateuch (1523), in which the
   German language is properly handled. Nobody seems to care sufficiently
   for it; and every preacher thinks he has a right to change it at
   pleasure, and to invent new terms." Scholars preferred to write in
   Latin, and when they attempted to use the mother tongue, as Reuchlin
   and Melanchthon did occasionally, they fell far below in ease and
   beauty of expression.

   Luther brought harmony out of this confusion, and made the modern High
   German the common book language. He chose as the basis the Saxon
   dialect, which was used at the Saxon court and in diplomatic
   intercourse between the emperor and the estates, but was bureaucratic,
   stiff, heavy, involved, dragging, and unwieldy. [449] He popularized
   and adapted it to theology and religion. He enriched it with the
   vocabulary of the German mystics, chroniclers, and poets. He gave it
   wings, and made it intelligible to the common people of all parts of
   Germany.

   He adapted the words to the capacity of the Germans, often at the
   expense of accuracy. He cared more for the substance than the form. He
   turned the Hebrew shekel into a Silberling, [450] the Greek drachma and
   Roman denarius into a German Groschen, the quadrans into a Heller, the
   Hebrew measures into Scheffel, Malter, Tonne, Centner, and the Roman
   centurion into a Hauptmann. He substituted even undeutsch (!) for
   barbarian in 1 Cor. 14:11. Still greater liberties he allowed himself
   in the Apocrypha, to make them more easy and pleasant reading. [451] He
   used popular alliterative phrases as Geld und Gut, Land und Leute, Rath
   und That, Stecken und Stab, Dornen und Disteln, matt und müde, gäng und
   gäbe. He avoided foreign terms which rushed in like a flood with the
   revival of learning, especially in proper names (as Melanchthon for
   Schwarzerd, Aurifaber for Goldschmid, Oecolampadius for Hausschein,
   Camerarius for Kammermeister). He enriched the vocabulary with such
   beautiful words as holdselig, Gottseligkeit.

   Erasmus Alber, a contemporary of Luther, called him the German Cicero,
   who not only reformed religion, but also the German language.

   Luther's version is an idiomatic reproduction of the Bible in the very
   spirit of the Bible. It brings out the whole wealth, force, and beauty
   of the German language. It is the first German classic, as King James's
   version is the first English classic. It anticipated the golden age of
   German literature as represented by Klopstock, Lessing, Herder, Goethe,
   Schiller,--all of them Protestants, and more or less indebted to the
   Luther-Bible for their style. The best authority in Teutonic philology
   pronounces his language to be the foundation of the new High German
   dialect on account of its purity and influence, and the Protestant
   dialect on account of its freedom which conquered even Roman Catholic
   authors. [452]

   The Protestant Spirit of Luther's Version.

   Dr. Emser, one of the most learned opponents of the Reformation,
   singled out in Luther's New Testament several hundred linguistic
   blunders and heretical falsifications. [453] Many of them were silently
   corrected in later editions. He published, by order of Duke George of
   Saxony, a new translation (1527) for the purpose of correcting the
   errors of "Luther and other heretics." [454]

   The charge that Luther adapted the translation to his theological
   opinions has become traditional in the Roman Church, and is repeated
   again and again by her controversialists and historians. [455]

   The same objection has been raised against the Authorized English
   Version. [456]

   In both cases, the charge has some foundation, but no more than the
   counter-charge which may be brought against Roman Catholic Versions.

   The most important example of dogmatic influence in Luther's version is
   the famous interpolation of the word alone in Rom. 3:28 (allein durch
   den Glauben), by which he intended to emphasize his solifidian doctrine
   of justification, on the plea that the German idiom required the
   insertion for the sake of clearness. [457] But he thereby brought Paul
   into direct verbal conflict with James, who says (James 2:24), "by
   works a man is justified, and not only by faith" ("nicht durch den
   Glauben allein"). It is well known that Luther deemed it impossible to
   harmonize the two apostles in this article, and characterized the
   Epistle of James as an "epistle of straw," because it had no
   evangelical character ("keine evangelische Art").

   He therefore insisted on this insertion in spite of all outcry against
   it. His defense is very characteristic. "If your papist," he says,
   [458] "makes much useless fuss about the word sola, allein, tell him at
   once: Doctor Martin Luther will have it so, and says: Papist and donkey
   are one thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do
   not want to be pupils and followers of the Papists, but their masters
   and judges." Then he goes on in the style of foolish boasting against
   the Papists, imitating the language of St. Paul in dealing with his
   Judaizing opponents (2 Cor. 11:22 sqq.): "Are they doctors? so am I.
   Are they learned? so am I. Are they preachers? so am I. Are they
   theologians? so am I. Are they disputators? so am I. Are they
   philosophers? so am I. Are they the writers of books? so am I. And I
   shall further boast: I can expound Psalms and Prophets; which they can
   not. I can translate; which they can not .... Therefore the word allein
   shall remain in my New Testament, and though all pope-donkeys
   (Papstesel) should get furious and foolish, they shall not turn it
   out." [459]

   The Protestant and anti-Romish character of Luther's New Testament is
   undeniable in his prefaces, his discrimination between chief books and
   less important books, his change of the traditional order, and his
   unfavorable judgments on James, Hebrews, and Revelation. [460] It is
   still more apparent in his marginal notes, especially on the Pauline
   Epistles, where he emphasizes throughout the difference between the law
   and the gospel, and the doctrine of justification by faith alone; and
   on the Apocalypse, where he finds the papacy in the beast from the
   abyss (Rev. 13), and in the Babylonian harlot (Rev. 17). [461] The
   anti-papal explanation of the Apocalypse became for a long time almost
   traditional in Protestant commentaries.

   On the other hand, the Roman Catholic translators used the same liberty
   of marginal annotations and pictorial illustrations in favor of the
   doctrines and usages of their own church. Emser's New Testament is full
   of anti-Lutheran glosses. In Rom. 3:28, he protests on the margin
   against Luther's allein, and says, "Paul by the words 'without works of
   the law' does not mean that man is saved by faith alone, without good
   works, but only without works of the law, that is, external
   circumcision and other Jewish ceremonies." He therefore confines the
   "law" here to the ritual law, and "works" to Jewish works; while,
   according to the best modern commentators, Paul means the whole law,
   moral as well as ceremonial, and all works commanded by the law. And
   yet even in the same chapter and throughout the whole Epistle to the
   Romans, Emser copies verbatim Luther's version for whole verses and
   sections; and where he departs from his language, it is generally for
   the worse.

   The same may be said of the other two German Catholic Bibles of the age
   of the Reformation. They follow Luther's language very closely within
   the limits of the Vulgate, and yet abuse him in the notes. Dr.
   Dietenberger adds his comments in smaller type after the chapters, and
   agrees with Emser's interpretation of Rom. 3:28. [462] Dr. Eck's German
   Bible has few notes, but a strongly anti-Protestant preface. [463]

   To be just, we must recognize the sectarian imperfections of Bible
   versions, arising partly from defective knowledge, partly from
   ingrained prejudices. A translation is an interpretation. Absolute
   reproduction is impossible in any work. [464] A Jew will give a version
   of the Old Testament differing from that of a Christian, because they
   look upon it in a different light,--the one with his face turned
   backward, the other with his face turned forward. A Jew cannot
   understand the Old Testament till he becomes a Christian, and sees in
   it a prophecy and type of Christianity. No synagogue would use a
   Christian version, nor any church a Jewish version. So also the New
   Testament is rendered differently by scholars of the Greek, Latin, and
   Protestant churches. And even where they agree in words, there is a
   difference in the pervading spirit. They move, as it were, in a
   different atmosphere. A Roman Catholic version must be closely
   conformed to the Latin Vulgate, which the Council of Trent puts on an
   equal footing with the original text. [465] A Protestant version is
   bound only by the original text, and breathes an air of freedom from
   traditional restraint. The Roman Church will never use Luther's Version
   or King James's Version, and could not do so without endangering her
   creed; nor will German Protestants use Emser's and Eck's Versions, or
   English Protestants the Douay Version. The Romanist must become
   evangelical before he can fully apprehend the free spirit of the gospel
   as revealed in the New Testament.

   There is, however, a gradual progress in translation, which goes hand
   in hand with the progress of the understanding of the Bible. Jerome's
   Vulgate is an advance upon the Itala, both in accuracy and Latinity;
   the Protestant Versions of the sixteenth century are an advance upon
   the Vulgate, in spirit and in idiomatic reproduction; the revisions of
   the nineteenth century are an advance upon the versions of the
   sixteenth, in philological and historical accuracy and consistency. A
   future generation will make a still nearer approach to the original
   text in its purity and integrity. If the Holy Spirit of God shall raise
   the Church to a higher plane of faith and love, and melt the
   antagonisms of human creeds into the one creed of Christ, then, and not
   before then, may we expect perfect versions of the oracles of God.

   NOTES.

   the official revision of the luther-bible, and the anglo-

   american revision of the authorized english bible.

   An official revision of Luther's version was inaugurated, after long
   previous agitation and discussion, by the "Eisenach German Evangelical
   Church Conference," in 1863, and published under the title: Die Bibel
   oder die ganze Heilige Schrift des Alten und Neuen Testaments nach der
   deutschen Uebersetzung D. Martin Luthers. Halle (Buchhandlung des
   Waisenhauses), 1883. It is called the Probebibel. The revised New
   Testament had been published several years before, and is printed by
   Dr. O. von Gebhardt together with the Greek text, in his Novum
   Testamentum Graece et Germanice, Leipzig, 1881.

   The revision was prepared with extraordinary care, but in an
   ultra-conservative spirit, by a number of distinguished biblical
   scholars appointed by the ecclesiastical authorities of the German
   governments, eleven for the New Testament (Nitzsch, Twesten, Beyschlag,
   Riehm, Ahlfeld, Brückner, Meyer, Niemann, Fronmüller, Schröder,
   Köstlin), and over twenty for the Old Testament, including some who had
   also served in the New Testament company (Tholuck, Schlottmann, Riehm,
   Dillmann, Kleinert, Delitzsch, Bertheau, Düsterdieck, Kamphausen, Baur
   of Leipzig, Ahlfeld, Thenius, Kübel, Kapff, Schröder, Diestel, Grimm,
   Kühn, Hoffmann, Clausen, Grill). Dorner, Mönckeberg, and Karl Frommann
   took a very active part as counsellors and promoters, the last (an
   eminent Germanist and Luther-scholar, but with strong archaic tastes)
   in the linguistic portion.

   The work was very severely criticised by opposite schools for changing
   too much or too little, and was recommitted by the Eisenach Conference
   of 1886 for final action. The history of this revision is told in the
   preface and Introduction to the Probebibel, and in Grimm's Geschichte
   der luth. Bibelübersetzung, Jena, 1884, pp. 48-76.

   The Anglo-American revision of the Authorized English Version of 1611
   was set in motion by the Convocation of Canterbury, and carried out in
   fifteen years, between 1870 and 1885, by two committees,--one in
   England and one in the United States (each divided into two companies,
   -one for the Old Testament, one for the New, and each consisting of
   scholars of various Protestant denominations). Dr. Dorner, on his visit
   to America in 1873, desired to bring about a regular co-operation of
   the two revision movements, but it was found impracticable, and
   confined to private correspondence.

   The two revisions are similar in spirit and aim; and as far as they run
   parallel, they agree in most of the improvements. Both aim to replace
   the old version in public and private use; but both depend for ultimate
   success on the verdict of the churches for which they were prepared.
   They passed through the same purgatory of hostile criticism both from
   conservative and progressive quarters. They mark a great progress of
   biblical scholarship, and the immense labor bestowed upon them can
   never be lost. The difference of the two arises from the difference of
   the two originals on which they are based, and its relation to the
   community.

   The authorized German and English versions are equally idiomatic,
   classical, and popular; but the German is personal, and inseparable
   from the overawing influence of Luther, which forbids radical changes.
   The English is impersonal, and embodies the labors of three generations
   of biblical scholars from Tyndale to the forty-seven revisers of King
   James,--a circumstance which is favorable to new improvements in the
   same line. In Germany, where theology is cultivated as a science for a
   class, the interest in revision is confined to scholars; and German
   scholars, however independent and bold in theory, are very conservative
   and timid in practical questions. In England and America, where
   theology moves in close contact with the life of the churches, revision
   challenges the attention of the laity which claims the fruits of
   theological progress.

   Hence the Anglo-American revision is much more thorough and complete.
   It embodies the results of the latest critical and exegetical learning.
   It involves a reconstruction of the original text, which the German
   Revision leaves almost untouched, as if all the pains-taking labors of
   critics since the days of Bengel and Griesbach down to Lachmann and
   Tischendorf (not to speak of the equally important labors of English
   scholars from Mill and Bentley to Westcott and Hort) had been in vain.

   As to translation, the English Revision removes not only misleading
   errors, but corrects the far more numerous inaccuracies and
   inconsistencies in the minor details of grammar and vocabulary; while
   the German Revision is confined to the correction of acknowledged
   mistranslations. The German Revision of the New Testament numbers only
   about two hundred changes, the Anglo-American thirty-six thousand. The
   revised German New Testament is widely circulated; but of the
   provisional Probebibel, which embraces both Testaments, only five
   thousand copies were printed and sold by the Canstein Bibelanstalt at
   Halle (as I learned there from Dr. Kramer, July, 1886). Of the revised
   English New Testament, a million copies were ordered from the Oxford
   University Press before publication, and three million copies were sold
   in less than a year (1881). The text was telegraphed from New York to
   Chicago in advance of the arrival of the book. Over thirty reprints
   appeared in the United States. The Revised Old Testament excited less
   interest, but tens of thousands of copies were sold on the day of
   publication (1885), and several American editions were issued. The
   Bible, after all, is the most popular book In the world, and constantly
   increasing in power and influence, especially with the English-speaking
   race. (For particulars on the English Revision, see Schaff's Companion
   to the Greek Testament and the English Version, New York, 3d ed., 1888,
   pp. 404 sqq., and the extensive Revision literature, pp. 371 sqq.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   [439] He could say with perfect truth: "Ich habe meine Ehre nicht
   gemeint, auch keinen Heller dafür genomen, sondern habe es zu Ehren
   gethan den lieben Christen und zu Ehren einem, der droben sitzt."

   [440] "Interim Biblia transferam, quanquam onus susceperim supra vires.
   Video nunc, quid sit interpretari, et cur hactenus a nullo sit
   attentatum, qui proficeretur nomen suum. [This implies his knowledge of
   older German translations which are anonymous.] Vetus Testamentum non
   potero attingere, nisi vobis praesentibus et cooperantibus."

   [441] "Ach Gott! wie ein gross und verdriesslich Werk ist es, die
   hebräischen Schreiber zu zwingen deutsch zu reden; wie sträuben sie
   sich und wollen ihre hebräische Art gar nicht verlassen und dem groben
   Deutschen nachfolgen, gleich als wenn eine Nachtigall ... sollte ihre
   liebliche Melodei verlassen und dem Kukuk nachsingen." Walch, XVI. 508.
   Comp. his letter to Spalatin about the difficulties in Job, Feb. 23,
   1524, in De Wette, II. 486.

   [442] Luther's copy of the Hebrew Bible is preserved in the Royal
   Library at Berlin. The editio princeps of the whole Hebrew Bible
   appeared 1488 (Soncino: Abraham ben Chayin de' Tintori). A copy in
   possession of Dr. Ginsburg in England. See Stevens, l.c. p. 60.
   Portions had been printed before.

   [443] A copy of the Lyons ed. of 1519, and one of the Basel ed. of
   1509, now in possession of the Brandenburg Provincial Museum at Berlin.
   Grimm, Gesch. d. luther. Bibelübers., p. 8, note.

   [444] Lyra acquired by his Postillae perpetuae in V. et N. Test. (first
   published in Rome, 1472, in 5 vols. fol., again at Venice, 1540) the
   title Doctor planus et utilis. His influence on Luther is expressed in
   the well-known lines:-- "Si Lyra non lyrasset, Lutherus non saltasset."

   [445] Greek and Latin, 2 vols. folio. The first part contains Preface,
   Dedication to Pope Leo X., and the Ratio seu Compendium verae
   Theologiae per Erasmum Roterodamum (120 pages); the second part, the
   Greek Text, with a Latin version in parallel columns, with brief
   introductions to the several books (565 pages). At the end is a Latin
   letter of Frobenius, the publisher, dated "Nonis Fehr. Anno M.D.XIX." A
   copy in the Union Theol. Seminary, New York. - Some say that Luther
   made use of Gerbel's reprint of Erasmus, 1521. But Dr. Reuss of
   Strassburg, who has the largest collection and best knowledge of Greek
   Testaments, denies this. Gesch. der h. Schriften des N. T., 5th ed.,
   II. 211, note.

   [446] See Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, etc., New York, 3d
   ed., 1888, pp. 229 sqq., and the facsimile of the Erasmian ed. on p.
   532 sq. Tyndale's English version was likewise made from Erasmus.

   [447] O. von Gebhardt, in his Novum Test. Graece et Germanice, Preface,
   p. xvi., says of the second ed. of Erasmus: "Die Zahl der Druckfehler
   ist so gross, dass ein vollständiges Verzeichniss derselben Seiten
   füllen würde." Comp. Scrivener, Introd. to the Criticism of the N. T.,
   3d ed. (1883), p. 432 sq.

   [448] It first appeared in the Frankfort edition of Luther's Bible,
   1574. The revised Luther-Bible of 1883 strangely retains the passage,
   but in small type and in brackets, with the note that it was wanting in
   Luther's editions. The Probebibel departs only in a few places from the
   Erasmian text as followed by Luther: viz., Acts 12:25; Heb. 10:34; 1
   John 2:23; Rev. 11:2. In this respect the German revision is far behind
   the Anglo-American revision of 1881, which corrects the Textus Receptus
   In about five thousand places.

   [449] He says in his Tischreden (Erl. ed., vol. lxii. 313): "Ich habe
   keine gewisse, sonderliche eigene Sprache im Deutschen [i.e., no
   special dialect], sondern brauche der gemeinen deutschen Sprache, dass
   mich Oberländer und Niederländer verstehen mögen. Ich rede nach der
   sächsischen Canzelei, welcher nachfolgen alle Fürsten und Könige in
   Deutschland. Alle Beichstädte, Fürstenhöfe schreiben nach der
   sächsischen und unseres Fürsten Canzelei, darumb ists auch die
   gemeinste deutsche Sprache. Kaiser Maximilian und Kurfürst Friedrich,
   Herzog zu Sachsen, etc., haben im römischen Reich die deutschen
   Sprachen [dialects] also in eine gewisse Sprache gezogen." Formerly the
   Latin was the diplomatic language in Germany. Louis the Bavarian
   introduced the German in 1330. The founder of the diplomatic German of
   Saxony was Elector Ernst, the father of Elector Friedrich. See Wilibald
   Grimm, Gesch. der luth. Bibelübersetzung (Jena, 1884), p. 24 sqq.

   [450] The same word silverling occurs once in the English version, Isa.
   7:23, and is retained in the R. V. of 1885. The German Probebibel
   retains it in this and other passages, as Gen. 20:16; Judg. 9:4, etc.

   [451] See Grimm, Luther's Uebersetzung der Apocryphen, in the "Studien
   und Kritiken" for 1883, pp. 376-400. He judges that Luther's version of
   Ecclesiasticus (Jesus Sirach) is by no means a faithful translation,
   but a model of a free and happy reproduction from a combination of the
   Greek and Latin texts.

   [452] "Luther's Sprache," says Jakob Grimm, In the Preface to his
   German Grammar, "muss ihrer edeln, fast wunderbaren Reinheit, auch
   ihres gewaltigen Einflusses halber für Kern und Grundlage der
   neuhochdeutschen Sprachniedersetzung gehalten werden, wovon bis auf den
   heutigen Tag nur sehr unbedeutend, meistens zum Schaden der Kraft und
   des Ausdrucks, abgewichen wordenist. Man darf das Neuhochdeutsche in
   der That als den protestantischen Dialekt bezeichnen, dessen
   freiheitathmende Natur längst schon, ihnen unbewusst, Dichter und
   Schriftsteller des katholischen Glaubens überwältigte. Unsere Sprache
   ist nach dem unaufhaltsamen Laufe der Dinge in Lautverhältnissen und
   Formen gesunken; was aber ihren Geist und Leib genährt, verjüngt, was
   endlich Blüten neuer Poesie getrieben hat, verdanken wir keinem mehr
   als Luthern." Comp. Wetzel, Die Sprache Luthers in seiner Bibel,
   Stuttgart, 1850. Heinrich Rückert, Geschichte der neu-hochdeutschen
   Schriftsprache, II. 15-175. Opitz, Ueber die Sprache Luthers, Halle,
   1869. Dietz, Wörterbuch zu Luther's deutschen Schriften, Leipzig, 1870
   sqq. Lehmann, Luthers Sprache in seiner Uebersetzung des N. T., Halle,
   1873.

   [453] Annotationes des hochgel. und christl. doctors Hieronymi Emsers
   über Luthers neuw Testament, 1523. I have before me an edition of
   Freiburg-i.-B., 1535 (140 pages). Emser charges Luther with a thousand
   grammatical and fourteen hundred heretical errors. He suspects (p. 14)
   that he had before him "ein sonderlich Wickleffisch oder Hussisch
   Exemplar." He does not say whether he means a copy of the Latin Vulgate
   or the older German version. He finds (p. 17) four errors in Luther's
   version of the Lord's Prayer: 1, that he turned Vater unser into Unser
   Vater, against the German custom for a thousand years (but in his
   Shorter Catechism he retained the old form, and the Lutherans adhere to
   it to this day); 2, that he omitted der du bist; 3, that he changed the
   panis supersubstantialis (überselbständig Brot!) into panis quotidianus
   (täglich Brot); 4, that he added the doxology, which is not in the
   Vulgate. In our days, one of the chief objections against the English
   Revision is the omission of the doxology.

   [454] Das gantz New Testament: So durch den Hochgelerten L. Hieronymum
   Emser seligen verteutscht, unter des Durchlauchten Hochgebornen Fürsten
   und Herren Georgen Hertzogen zu Sachsen, etc., ausgegangen ist.
   Leipzig, 1528. The first edition appeared before Emser's death, which
   occurred Nov. 8, 1527. I find in the Union Seminary four octavo copies
   of his N. T., dated Coln, 1528 (355 pp.), Leipzig, 1529 (416 pp.),
   Freiburg-i.-B. 1535 (406 pp.), Cöln, 1568 (879 pp.), and a copy of a
   fol. ed., Cologne, 1529 (227 pp.), all with illustrations and marginal
   notes against Luther. On the concluding page, it is stated that 607
   errors of Luther's are noted and corrected. The Cologne ed. of 1529
   indicates, on the titlepage, that Luther arbitrarily changed the text
   according to the Hussite copy ("wie Martinus Luther dem rechten Text,
   dem huschischen Exemplar nach, seins gefallens ab und zugethan und
   verendert hab"). Most editions contain a Preface of Duke George of
   Saxony, in which he charges Luther with rebellion against all
   ecclesiastical and secular authority, and identifies him with the beast
   of the Apocalypse, Rev. 13 ("dass sein Mund wol genannt werden mag der
   Mund der Bestie von welcher Johannes schreibet in seiner Offenbarung am
   dreizehnten").

   [455] Dr. Döllinger, in his Reformation, vol. III. 139 sqq., 156 sqq.,
   goes into an elaborate proof. In his Luther, eine Skizze (Freiburg-i.
   -B., 1851), p. 26, he calls Luther's version "ein Meisterstück in
   sprachlicher Hinsicht, aber seinem Lehrbegriffe gemäss eingerichtet,
   und daher in vielen Stellen absichtlich unrichtig und sinnentstellend."
   So also Cardinal Hergenröther (Lehrbuch der allg. Kirchengesch., vol.
   III. 40, third ed. of 1886): "Die ganze Uebersetzung war ganz nach
   Luthers System zugerichtet, auf Verbreitung seiner Rechtfertigungslehre
   berechnet, oft durch willkührliche Entstellungen und Einschaltungen
   seinen Lehren angepasst."

   [456] By older and more recent Romanists, as Ward, Errata of the
   Protestant Bible, Dublin, 1810. Trench considers the main objections in
   his book on the Authorized Version and Revision, pp. 165 sqq. (in the
   Harper ed. of 1873). The chief passages objected to by Romanists are
   Heb. 13:4 (where the E. V. translates "Marriage is honorable in all"
   for "Let marriage be honorable among all"); 1 Cor. 11:27 ("and" for
   "or"); Gal. 5:6 ("faith which worketh by love;" which is correct
   according to the prevailing sense of energeisthai, and corresponds to
   the Vulgate operatur, against the Roman view of the passive sense,
   "wrought by love," in conformity with the doctrine of fides formata),
   and the rendering of eidolon by image, instead of idol. The E. V. has
   also been charged with a Calvinistic bias from its connection with
   Beza's Greek text and Latin notes.

   [457] But he omitted allein in Gal. 2:16, where it might be just as
   well justified, and where the pre-Lutheran Bible reads "nur durch den
   Glauben." However correct in substance and as an inference, the
   insertion has no business in the text as a translation. See Meyer on
   Rom. 3:28, 5th ed., and Weiss, 6th ed. (1881), also my annotations to
   Lange on Romans (p. 136).

   [458] In his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, in the Erl.-Frkf. ed., vol.
   LXV., p. 107 sqq. It was published in September, 1530, with special
   reference to Emser, whom he does not name, but calls "the scribbler
   from Dresden" ("der dresdener Sudler").

   [459] The Revisers of the Probebibel retained the interpolated allein
   in Rom. 8:28, the nur in 4:15, and the incorrect rendering in
   3:25,26,--a striking proof of Luther's overpowering influence even over
   conscientious critical scholars in Germany. Dr. Grimm, the
   lexicographer (l.c., p. 48), unjustly censures Meyer and Stier for
   omitting the word allein. I have an old copy of Luther's Testament,
   without titlepage, before me, where the word allein is printed in
   larger type with a marginal finger pointing to it.

   [460] The Prefaces are collected in the 7th volume of Bindseil's
   edition of the Luther Bible, and in the 63d volume of the Erlangen ed.
   of Luther's works. The most important is his preface to the Epistle to
   the Romans, and his most objectionable that to the Epistle of James.

   [461] He adds in the marginal note on Rev. 17: "Hie zeiget er die
   römische Kirche in ihrer Gestalt und Wesen, die verdammt soll werden."
   His friend Cranach, in the accompanying picture in the first ed., and
   also in the ed. of 1535, represents the harlot as riding on a dragon
   with a triple crown on her head.

   [462] Biblia beider Allt unnd Newen Testamenten, fleissig, treulich vn
   Christlich nach alter inn Christlicher Kirchen gehabter Translation,
   mit Ausslegung etlicher dunckeler ort und besserung vieler verrückter
   wort und sprüch ... Durch D. Johan Dietenberger, new verdeutscht. Gott
   zu ewiger ehre unnd wolfarth seiner heil. Christlichen Kirchen ...
   Meynz, 1534, fol. From a copy in the Union Seminary (Van Ess library).
   Well printed and illustrated.

   [463] I have before me three copies of as many folio editions of Eck's
   Bible, 1537, 1550, and 1558, bearing the title: Bibel Alt und New
   Testament, nach dem Text in der heiligen Kirchen gebraucht, durch
   Doctor Johan Ecken, mit fleiss, auf hochteutsch verdolmetscht, etc.
   They were printed at Ingolstadt, and agree in the number of pages
   (1035), and vary only in the date of publication. They contain in an
   appendix the Prayer of Manasseh, the Third Book of Maccabees, and the
   spurious Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans.

   [464] There is an Italian proverb that translators are traitors
   (Traduttori traditori). Jerome speaks of versiones which are
   eversiones. As Trench says, there are in every translation "unavoidable
   losses inherent in the nature of the task, in the relations of one
   language to the other, in the lack of accurate correlations between
   them, in the different schemes of their construction."

   [465] Hence the stiffness of literalism and the abundance of Latinisms
   in the Rhemish Version of the N. T. (first published in 1582, second
   ed. 1600, third ed. at Douay, 1621), such as "supersubstantial bread"
   for daily or needful bread (Jerome introduced supersubstantialis for
   the difficult epiousios in the Lord's Prayer, Matt. 6:11, but retained
   quotidianus in Luke), transmigration of Babylon, impudicity,
   coinquinations, postulations, agnition, cogitation, prepuce, pasche,
   exinanite, contristate, domesticals, exemplars of the coelestials, etc.
   Some of them have been silently removed in modern editions. The notes
   of the older editions abound in fulminations against heretics.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 64. Melanchthon's Theology.

   See Literature in § 38, pp. 182 sq. The 21st vol. of the "Corpus
   Reformatorum" (1106 fol. pages) is devoted to the various editions of
   Melanchthon's Loci Theologici, and gives bibliographical lists (fol. 59
   sqq.; 561 sqq.), and also an earlier outline from an unpublished MS.
   Comp. Carl Schmidt, Phil. Mel., pp. 64-75; and on Melanchthon's
   doctrinal changes, Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, vol. 1. 261 sqq.

   While Luther translated the New Testament on the Wartburg, Melanchthon
   prepared the first system of Protestant theology at Wittenberg. Both
   drew from the same fountain, and labored for the same end, but in
   different ways. Luther built up the Reformation among the people in the
   German tongue; Melanchthon gave it methodical shape for scholars by his
   Latin writings. The former worked in the quarries, and cut the rough
   blocks of granite; the latter constructed the blocks into a habitable
   building. Luther expressed a modest self-estimate, and a high estimate
   of his friend, when he said that his superiority was more "in the
   rhetorical way," while Melanchthon was "a better logician and
   reasoner."

   Melanchthon finished his "Theological Common-Places or Ground-Thoughts
   (Loci Communes or Loci Theologici), in April, 1521, and sent the
   proof-sheets to Luther on the Wartburg. They appeared for the first
   time before the Close of that year. [466]

   This book marks an epoch in the history of theology. It grew out of
   exegetical lectures on the Epistle to the Romans, the Magna Charta of
   the evangelical system. It is an exposition of the leading doctrines of
   sin and grace, repentance and salvation. It is clear, fresh, thoroughly
   biblical, and practical. Its main object is to show that man cannot be
   saved by works of the law or by his own merits, but only by the free
   grace of God in Christ as revealed in the gospel. It presents the
   living soul of divinity, in striking contrast to the dry bones of
   degenerate scholasticism with its endless theses, antitheses,
   definitions, divisions, and subdivisions.

   The first edition was written in the interest of practical Christianity
   rather than scientific theology. It is meagre in the range of topics,
   and defective in execution. It is confined to anthropology and
   soteriology, and barely mentions the metaphysical doctrines of the
   Trinity and the incarnation, as transcendent mysteries to be adored
   rather than curiously discussed. It has a polemical hearing against the
   Romanists, in view of the recent condemnation of Luther by the
   Sorbonne. It also contains some crude and extreme opinions which the
   author afterwards abandoned. Altogether in its first shape it was an
   unripe production, though most remarkable if we consider the youth of
   the author, who was then only twenty-four years of age.

   Melanchthon shared at first Luther's antipathy to scholastic theology;
   but he learned to distinguish between pure and legitimate scholasticism
   and a barren formalism, as also between the Aristotelian philosophy
   itself and the skeleton of it which was worshiped as an idol in the
   universities at that time. He knew especially the value of Aristotle's
   ethics, wrote a commentary on the same (1529), and made important
   original contributions to the science of Christian ethics in his
   Philosophiae Moralis Epitome (1535). [467]

   Under his improving hand, the Loci assumed in subsequent editions the
   proportions of a full, mature, and well-proportioned system, stated in
   calm, clear, dignified language, freed from polemics against the
   Sorbonne and contemptuous flings at the schoolmen and Fathers. He
   embraced in twenty-four chapters all the usual topics from God and the
   creation to the resurrection of the body, with a concluding chapter on
   Christian liberty. He approached the scholastic method, and even
   ventured, in opposition to the Anti-Trinitarians, on a new speculative
   proof of the Holy Trinity from psychological analogies. He never
   forsakes the scriptural basis, but occasionally quotes also the Fathers
   to show their supposed or real agreement with evangelical doctrines.

   Melanchthon's theology, like that of Luther, grew from step to step in
   the heat of controversy. Calvin's Institutes came finished from his
   brain, like Minerva out of the head of Jupiter.

   The Loci prepared the way for the Augsburg Confession (1530), in which
   Melanchthon gave to the leading doctrines official shape and symbolical
   authority for the Lutheran Church. But he did not stop there, and
   passed through several changes, which we must anticipate in order to
   form a proper estimate of that work.

   The editions of his theological manual are divided into three classes:
   1, those from 1521 to 1535; 2, those from 1535 to 1544; 3, those from
   1544 to 1559. The edition of 1535 (dedicated to King Henry VIII. of
   England, and translated into German by Justus Jonas) was a thorough
   revision. This and the editions which followed embody, besides
   additions in matter and improvements in style, important modifications
   of his views on predestination and free will, on the real presence, and
   on justification by faith. He gave up necessitarianism for synergism,
   the corporeal presence in the eucharist for a spiritual real presence,
   and solifidianism for the necessity of good works. In the first and
   third article he made an approach to the Roman-Catholic system, in the
   second to Calvinism.

   The changes were the result of his continued study of the Bible and the
   Fathers, and his personal conferences with Roman and Reformed divines
   at Augsburg and in the colloquies of Frankfort, Hagenau, Worms, and
   Ratisbon. He calls them elucidations of obscurities, moderations of
   extreme views, and sober second thoughts. [468]

   1. He denied at first, with Luther and Augustin, all freedom of the
   human will in spiritual things. [469] He even held the Stoic doctrine
   of the necessary occurrence of all actions, bad as well as good,
   including the adultery of David and the treason of Judas as well as the
   conversion of Paul. [470]

   But on closer examination, and partly under the influence of Erasmus,
   he abandoned this stoic fatalism as a dangerous error, inconsistent
   with Christianity and morality. He taught instead a co-operation of the
   divine and human will in the work of conversion; thus anticipating
   Arminianism, and approaching the older semi-Pelagianism, but giving the
   initiative to divine grace. "God," he said in 1535, "is not the cause
   of sin, and does not will sin; but the will of the Devil and the will
   of man are the causes of sin." Human nature is radically, but not
   absolutely and hopelessly, corrupt; it can not without the aid of the
   Holy Spirit produce spiritual affections such as the fear and love of
   God, and true obedience; but it can accept or reject divine grace. God
   precedes, calls, moves, supports us; but we must follow, and not
   resist. Three causes concur in the conversion,--the word of God, the
   Holy Spirit, and the will of man. Melanchthon quotes from the Greek
   Fathers who lay great stress on human freedom, and he accepts
   Chrysostom's sentence: "God draws the willing."

   He intimated this synergistic view in the eighteenth article of the
   altered Augsburg Confession, and in the German edition of the Apology
   of the Confession. But he continued to deny the meritoriousness of good
   works; and in the colloquy of Worms, 1557, he declined to condemn the
   doctrine of the slavery of the human will, because Luther had adhered
   to it to the end. He was willing to tolerate it as a theological
   opinion, although he himself had rejected it.

   2. As to the Lord's Supper, he first accepted Luther's view under the
   impression that it was supported by the ancient Church. But in this he
   was shaken by Oecolampadius, who proved (1530) that the Fathers held
   different opinions, and that Augustin did not teach an oral
   manducation. After 1534 he virtually gave up for himself, though he
   would not condemn and exclude, the conception of a corporeal presence
   and oral manducation of the body and blood of Christ; and laid the main
   stress on the spiritual, yet real presence and communion with Christ.

   He changed the tenth article of the Augsburg Confession in 1540, and
   made it acceptable to Reformed divines by omitting the anti-Zwinglian
   clause. But he never accepted the Zwinglian theory of a mere
   commemoration. His later eucharistic theory closely approached that of
   Calvin; while on the subject of predestination and free will he
   differed from him. Calvin, who had written a preface to the French
   translation of the Loci Theologici, expressed, in private letters, his
   surprise that so great a theologian could reject the Scripture doctrine
   of eternal predestination; yet they maintained an intimate friendship
   to the end, and proved that theological differences need not prevent
   religious harmony and fraternal fellowship.

   3. Melanchthon never surrendered the doctrine of justification by
   faith; but he laid in his later years, in opposition to antinomian
   excesses, greater stress on the necessity of good works of faith, not
   indeed as a condition of salvation and in a sense of acquiring merit,
   but as an indispensable proof of the duty of obedience to the divine
   will.

   These doctrinal changes gave rise to bitter controversies after
   Luther's death, and were ultimately rejected in the Formula of Concord
   (1577), but revived again at a later period. Luther himself never
   adopted and never openly opposed them.

   The Loci of Melanchthon met from the start with extraordinary favor.
   Edition after edition appeared in Wittenberg during the author's
   lifetime, the last from his own hand in the year 1559, besides a number
   of contemporaneous reprints at Basel, Hagenau, Strassburg, Frankfurt,
   Leipzig, Halle, and many editions after his death.

   Luther had an extravagant opinion of them, and even declared them
   worthy of a place in the Canon. [471] He thought that his translation
   of the Bible, and Melanchthon's Loci, were the best outfit of a
   theologian, and almost superseded all other books. [472]

   The Loci became the text-book of Lutheran theology in the universities,
   and took the place of Peter Lombard's Sentences. Strigel and Chemnitz
   wrote commentaries on them. Leonhard Hutter likewise followed them,
   till he published a more orthodox compend (1610) which threw them into
   the shade and even out of use during the seventeenth century.

   The theological manual of Melanchthon proved a great help to the
   Reformation. The Romanists felt its power. Emser called it a new Koran
   and a pest. In opposition to them, he and Eck wrote Loci Catholici.
   [473]

   Melanchthon's Loci are the ablest theological work of the Lutheran
   Church in the sixteenth century. Calvin's Institutes (1536) equal them
   in freshness and fervor, and surpass them in completeness, logical
   order, philosophical grasp, and classical finish.

   It is remarkable that the first and greatest dogmatic systems of the
   Reformation proceeded from these two lay-theologians who were never
   ordained by human hands, but received the unction from on high. [474]
   So the twelve apostles were not baptized by Christ with water, but with
   the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [466] Under the title: Loci communes rerum theologicarum seu
   hypotyposes theologicae, Wittenberg, 1521. Bindseil puts the
   publication in December. I have a copy of the Leipzig ed. of M.D.LIX.,
   which numbers 858 pages without indices, and bears the title: Loci
   Praecipui Theologici. Nunc denuo cura et diligentia summa recogniti,
   multisque in locis copiose illustrati, cum appendice disputationis de
   conjugio, etc.

   [467] See his ethical writings in vol. XVI. of his Opera, in the "Corp.
   Reform.," and a discussion of their merits in Wuttke's Handbuch der
   christl. Sittenlehre, 3d ed. (1874), I. 148 sqq.

   [468] See his letters to his friend Camerarius, 2 Sept. 1535 ("Corp.
   Ref." II. 936), and Dec. 24, 1535 (ib. II. 1027): "Ego nunc in meis
   Locis multa mitigavi." ... "In Locis meis videor habere deuteras
   phrontidas." His letters are interspersed with Greek words and
   classical reminiscences.

   [469] Loc. Theol., 1521 A.7: "Quandoquidem omnia quae eveniunt,
   necessario juxta divinam praedestinationem eveniunt, nulla est
   voluntatis nostrae libertas." He refers to Rom. 9 and 11 and Matt.
   10:29.

   [470] In his Com. in Ep. ad Roman., 1524, cap. 8: "Itaque sit haec
   certa sententia, a Deo fieri omnia tam bona quam mala ... Constat Deum
   omnia facere non permissive sed potenter,--ita ut sit ejus proprium
   opus Judae proditio, sicut Pauli vocatio." Luther published this
   commentary without Melanchthon's knowledge, and humorously dedicated it
   to him.

   [471] Invictus libellus non solum immortalitate, sed quoque canone
   ecclesiastico dignus."In the beginning of De Servo Arbitrio (1525),
   against Erasmus.

   [472] He says in his Tischreden (Erl. ed., LIX. 278 sq.): "Wer itzt ein
   Theologus will werden, der hat grosse Vortheil. Denn erstlich hat er
   die Bibel, die ist nu so klar, dam er sie kann lesen ohne alle
   Hinderung. Darnach lese er darzu die locos communes Philippi; die lese
   er fleissig und wohl, also dass er sie gar im Kopfe habe. Wenn er die
   zwei Stücke hat, so ist er ein Theologus, dem weder der Teufel noch
   kein Ketzer etwas abbrechen kann, und ihm stehet die ganze Theologia
   offen, dass er Alles, was er will, darnach lesen kann ad
   aedificationem. Und wenn er will, so mag er auch dazu lesen Philippi
   Melanchthonis Commentarium in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Lieset er
   alsdenn darzu meinen commentarium in Epistolam ad Galatas und in
   Deuteronomium, so gebe ich ihm denn eloquentiam et copiam verborum. Ihr
   findet kein Buch unter allen seinen Büchern, da die summa religionis
   oder die ganze Theologia so fein bei einander ist, als in den locis
   communibus. Leset alle Patres und Sententiarios, so ist es doch Alles
   nichts dagegen. Non est melior liber post scripturam sanctam, quam
   ipsius loci communes. Philippus ist enger gespannet denn ich; ille
   pugnat et docet; ich bin mehr ein Rhetoricus oder ein Wäscher
   [Deutscher?]"

   [473] Eck's Loci Communes adversus Lutheranos, Landshut, 1525, passed
   through many editions.

   [474] Melanchthon was simply professor, first of Greek, then of
   theology. Calvin was destined by his father for the clerical
   profession, and he received the tonsure; but there is no record of his
   ordination for the priesthood.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 65. Protestant Radicalism. Disturbances at Erfurt.

   I. Letters of Luther from May, 1521, to March, 1522, to Melanchthon,
   Link, Lange, Spalatin, etc., in De Wette, vol. II.

   II. F. W. Kampschulte: Die Universität Erfurt in ihrem Verh. zu dem
   Humanismus und der Reformation. Trier, 1858. Second part, chs. III. and
   IV. pp. 106 sqq.

   III. Biographies of Andreas Bodenstein von Carlstadt, by Füsslin
   (1776), Jäger (Stuttgart, 1856), Erbkam (in Herzogii, VII. 523 sqq.).

   IV. Gieseler, IV. 61-65 (Am. ed.). Marheineke, chs. X. and XI. (I. 303
   sqq.). Merle D'AuB., bk. IX. chs. 6-8. Köstlin, bk. IV. chs. 3 and 4
   (I. 494 sqq.). Ranke, II. 7-26. Janssen, II. 204-227.

   While Luther and Melanchthon laid a solid foundation for an evangelical
   church and evangelical theology, their work was endangered by the
   destructive zeal of friends who turned the reformation into a
   revolution. The best thing may be undone by being overdone. Freedom is
   a two-edged sword, and liable to the worst abuse as well as to the best
   use. Tares will grow up in every wheat-field, and they sometimes choke
   the wheat. But the work of destruction was overruled for the
   consolidation of the Reformation. Old rotten buildings had to be broken
   down before a new one could be constructed.

   The Reformation during its first five years was a battle of words, not
   of deeds. It scattered the seeds of new institutions all over Germany,
   but the old forms and usages still remained. The new wine had not yet
   burst the old skin bottles. The Protestant soul dwelt in the Catholic
   body. The apostles after the day of Pentecost continued to visit the
   temple and the synagogue, and to observe circumcision, the sabbath, and
   other customs of the fathers, hoping for the conversion of all Israel,
   until they were cast out by the Jewish hierarchy. So the Protestants
   remained in external communion with the mother Church, attending Latin
   mass, bowing before the transubstantiated elements on the altar,
   praying the Ave Maria, worshiping saints, pictures, and crucifixes,
   making pilgrimages to holy shrines, observing the festivals of the
   Roman calendar, and conforming to the seven sacraments which
   accompanied them at every step of life from the cradle to the grave.
   The bishops were still in charge of their dioceses, and unmarried
   priests and deacons performed all the ecclesiastical functions. The
   convents were still occupied by monks and nuns, who went through their
   daily devotions and ascetic exercises. The outside looked just as
   before, while the inside had undergone a radical change.

   This was the case even in Saxony and at Wittenberg, the nursery of the
   new state of things. Luther himself did not at first contemplate any
   outward change. He labored and hoped for a reformation of faith and
   doctrine within the Catholic Church, under the lead of the bishops,
   without a division, but he was now cast out by the highest authorities,
   and came gradually to see that he must build a new structure on the new
   foundation which he h ad laid by his writings and by the translation of
   the New Testament.

   The negative part of these changes, especially the abolition of the
   mass and of monasticism, was made by advanced radicals among his
   disciples, who had more zeal than discretion, and mistook liberty for
   license.

   While Luther was confined on the Wartburg, his followers were like
   children out of school, like soldiers without a captain. Some of them
   thought that he had stopped half way, and that they must complete what
   he had begun. They took the work of destruction and reconstruction into
   their own inexperienced and unskillful hands. Order gave way to
   confusion, and the Reformation was threatened with disastrous failure.

   The first disturbances broke out at Erfurt in June, 1521, shortly after
   Luther's triumphant passage through the town on his way to Worms. Two
   young priests were excommunicated for taking part in the enthusiastic
   demonstrations. This created the greatest indignation. Twelve hundred
   students, workmen, and ruffians attacked and demolished in a few days
   sixty houses of the priests, who escaped violence only by flight. [475]

   The magistrate looked quietly on, as if in league with the
   insurrection. Similar scenes of violence were repeated during the
   summer. The monks under the lead of the Augustinians, forgetting their
   vows, left the convents, laid aside the monastic dress, and took up
   their abode among the people to work for a living, or to become a
   burden to others, or to preach the new faith.

   Luther saw in these proceedings the work of Satan, who was bringing
   shame and reproach on the gospel. [476] He feared that many left the
   cloister for the same reason for which they had entered, namely, from
   love of the belly and carnal freedom. [477]

   During these troubles Crotus, the enthusiastic admirer of Luther,
   resigned the rectorship of the university, left Erfurt, and afterwards
   returned to the mother Church. The Peasants' War of 1525 was another
   blow. Eobanus, the Latin poet who had greeted Luther on his entry,
   accepted a call to Nürnberg. The greatest celebrities left the city, or
   were disheartened, and died in poverty.

   From this time dates the decay of the university, once the flourishing
   seat of humanism and patriotic aspirations. It never recovered its
   former prosperity.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [475] Kampschulte, l.c., II. 117 sqq., gives a full account of this
   Pfaffenstum and its consequences.

   [476] See his letters to Melanchthon and Spalatin, in De Wette, II.
   7sq., 31. To the latter he wrote: "Erfordiae Satanas suis studiis nobis
   insidiatus est, ut nostros mala fama inureret, sed nihil proficiet: non
   sunt nostri, qui haec faciunt."

   [477] Letter to Lange, March 28, 1522, in De Wette, II. 175.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 66. The Revolution at Wittenberg. Carlstadt and the New Prophets.

   See Lit. in § 65.

   In Wittenberg the same spirit of violence broke out under the lead of
   Luther's older colleague, Andreas Carlstadt, known to us from his ill
   success at the Leipzig disputation. He was a man of considerable
   originality, learning, eloquence, zeal, and courage, but eccentric,
   radical, injudicious, ill-balanced, restless, and ambitious for
   leadership.

   He taught at first the theology of mediaeval scholasticism, but became
   under Luther's influence a strict Augustinian, and utterly denied the
   liberty of the human will.

   He wrote the first critical work on the Canon of the Scriptures, and
   anticipated the biblical criticism of modern times. He weighed the
   historic evidence, discriminated between three orders of books as of
   first, second, and third dignity, putting the Hagiographa of the Old
   Testament and the seven Antilegomena of the New in the third order, and
   expressed doubts on the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He based
   his objections to the Antilegomena, not on dogmatic grounds, as Luther,
   but on the want of historical testimony; his opposition to the
   traditional Canon was itself traditional; he put ante-Nicene against
   post-Nicene tradition. This book on the Canon, however, was crude and
   premature, and passed out of sight. [478]

   He invented some curious and untenable interpretations of Scripture,
   e.g., of the words of institution of the Lord's Supper. He referred the
   word "this," not to the bread, but to the body of Christ, so as to
   mean: "I am now ready to offer this (body) as a sacrifice in death." He
   did not, however, publish this view till 1524, and afterwards made
   common cause with Zwingli.

   Carlstadt preached and wrote, during Luther's absence, against
   celibacy, monastic vows, and the mass. At Christmas, 1521, he omitted
   in the service the most objectionable parts of the Canon of the mass,
   and the elevation of the host, and distributed both wine and bread to a
   large congregation. He announced at the same time that he would lay
   aside the priestly dress and other ceremonies. Two days afterwards he
   was engaged to the daughter of a poor nobleman in the presence of
   distinguished professors of the university, and on Jan. 20, 1522, he
   was married. He gave improper notoriety to this act by inviting the
   whole university and the magistrate, and by publishing a book in
   justification of it.

   He was not, however, the first priest who openly burst the chains of
   celibacy. Bartholomäus Bernhardi of Feldkirchen, a Wittenberg
   licentiate and newly elected Probst at Kemberg, and two other priests
   of less reputable character, had preceded him in 1521. Justus Jonas
   followed the example, and took a wife Feb. 10, 1522, to get rid of
   temptations to impurity (1 Cor. 7:12). Luther approved of these
   marriages, but did not intend at that time to follow the example.

   Carlstadt went further, and maintained that no priest without wife and
   children should receive an appointment (so he explained "must" in 1
   Tim. 3:2); that it was sin to commune without the cup; and that the
   monastic vow of celibacy was not binding, at least not before the
   sixtieth year of age, chastity being a free gift of God, and not at
   man's disposal. He introduced a new legalism instead of the old, in
   violation of the principle of evangelical liberty and charity.

   He also denounced pictures and images as dumb idols, which were plainly
   forbidden in the second commandment, and should be burnt rather than
   tolerated in the house of God. He induced the town council to remove
   them from the parish church; but the populace anticipated the orderly
   removal, tore them down, hewed them to pieces, and burnt them. He
   assailed the fasts, and enjoined the people to eat meat and eggs on
   fast-days. He repudiated all titles and dignities, since Christ alone
   was our Master (Matt. 23:8). He expressed contempt for theology and all
   human learning, because God had revealed the truth unto babes (Matt.
   11:25), and advised the students to take to agriculture, and earn their
   bread in the sweat of their face (Gen. 3:19). He cast away his priestly
   and academic robes, put on a plain citizen's dress, afterwards a
   peasant's coat, and had himself called brother Andrew. He ran close to
   the border of communism. He also opposed the baptism of infants. He
   lost himself in the clouds of a confused mysticism and spiritualism,
   and appealed, like the Zwickau Prophets, to immediate inspirations.

   In the beginning of November, 1521, thirty of the forty monks left the
   Augustinian convent of Wittenberg in a rather disorderly manner. One
   wished to engage in cabinet making, and to marry. The Augustinian monks
   held a congress at Wittenberg in January, 1522, and unanimously
   resolved, in accordance with Luther's advice, to give liberty of
   leaving or remaining in the convent, but required in either case a life
   of active usefulness by mental or physical labor.

   The most noted of these ex-monks was Gabriel Zwilling or Didymus, who
   preached in the parish church during Luther's absence, and was esteemed
   by some as a second Luther. He fiercely attacked the mass, the
   adoration of the sacrament, and the whole system of monasticism as
   dangerous to salvation.

   About Christmas, 1521, the revolutionary movement was reinforced by two
   fanatics from Zwickau, Nicolaus Storch, a weaver, and Marcus Thomä
   Stübner. [479] The latter had previously studied with Melanchthon, and
   was hospitably entertained by him. A few weeks afterwards Thomas
   Münzer, a millennarian enthusiast and eloquent demagogue, who figures
   prominently in the Peasants' War, appeared in Wittenberg for a short
   time. He had stirred up a religious excitement among the weavers of
   Zwickau in Saxony on the Bohemian frontier, perhaps in some connection
   with the Hussites or Bohemian Brethren, and organized the forces of a
   new dispensation by electing twelve apostles and seventy-two disciples.
   But the magistrate interfered, and the leaders had to leave.

   These Zwickau Prophets, as they were called, agreed with Carlstadt in
   combining an inward mysticism with practical radicalism. They boasted
   of visions, dreams, and direct communications with God and the Angel
   Gabriel, disparaged the written word and regular ministry, rejected
   infant baptism, and predicted the overthrow of the existing order of
   things, and the near approach of a democratic millennium.

   We may compare Carlstadt and the Zwickau Prophets with the Fifth
   Monarchy Men in the period of the English Commonwealth, who were
   likewise millennarian enthusiasts, and attempted, in opposition to
   Cromwell, to set up the "Kingdom of Jesus" or the fifth monarchy of
   Daniel.

   Wittenberg was in a very critical condition. The magistrate was
   discordant and helpless. Amsdorf kept aloof. Melanchthon was
   embarrassed, and too modest and timid for leadership. He had no
   confidence in visions and dreams, but could not satisfactorily answer
   the objections to infant baptism, which the prophets declared useless
   because a foreign faith of parents or sponsors could not save the
   child. Luther got over this difficulty by assuming that the Holy Spirit
   wrought faith in the child.

   The Elector was requested to interfere; but he dared not, as a layman,
   decide theological and ecclesiastical questions. He preferred to let
   things take their natural course, and trusted in the overruling
   providence of God. He believed in Gamaliel's counsel, which is good
   enough in the preparatory and experimental stages of a new movement.
   His strength lay in a wise, cautious, peaceful diplomacy. But at this
   time valor was the better part of discretion.

   The only man who could check the wild spirit of revolution, and save
   the ship of the Reformation, was Luther.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [478] Libellus de Canonicis Scripturis, Wittenb. 1520; also in German:
   Welche Bücher heilig und biblisch seind. Comp. Weiss, Einleitung in's
   N. T. (1886), p. 109, and Reuss, Histoire du Canon (1863), 357 sqq.
   (Hunter's translation, p. 336 sq.)

   [479] Marcus (Marx) Thomä and Stübner are not two distinct persons, but
   identical. See Köstlin's note, vol. I. 804 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 67. Luther returns to Wittenberg.

   Walch, XV. 2374-2403. De Wette, II. 137 sqq.

   Luther was informed of all these disturbances. He saw the necessity of
   some changes, but regretted the violence with which they had been made
   before public opinion was prepared, and he feared a re-action which
   radicalism is always likely to produce. The Latin mass as a sacrifice,
   with the adoration of the host, the monastic institution, the worship
   of saints, images and relics, processions and pilgrimages, and a large
   number of superstitious ceremonies, were incompatible with Protestant
   doctrines. Worship had sooner or later to be conducted in the
   vernacular tongue; the sacrifice of the mass must give way to a
   commemorative communion; the cup must be restored to the laity, and the
   right of marriage to the clergy. He acquiesced in these changes. But
   about clerical vestments, crucifixes, and external ceremonies, he was
   indifferent; nor did he object to the use of pictures, provided they
   were not made objects of worship. In such matters he asserted the right
   of Christian freedom, against coercion for or against them. As to the
   pretended revelations of the new prophets, he despised them, and
   maintained that an inspired prophet must either be ordinarily called by
   church authority, or prove his divine commission by miracles.

   He first went to Wittenberg in disguise, and spent three days there in
   December, 1621. He stayed under the roof of Amsdorf, and dared not show
   himself in the convent or on the street.

   When the disturbances increased, he felt it his duty to reappear openly
   on the arena of conflict. He saw from the Wartburg his own house
   burning, and hastened to extinguish the flames. The Elector feared for
   his safety, as the Edict of Worms was still in force, and the Diet of
   Nürnberg was approaching. He ordered him to remain in his concealment.
   Luther was all his life an advocate of strict submission to the civil
   magistrates in their own proper sphere; but on this occasion be set
   aside the considerations of prudence, and obeyed the higher law of God
   and his conscience. His reply to the Elector (whom be never met
   personally) bears noble testimony to his sublime faith in God's
   all-ruling providence. It is dated Ash Wednesday (March 5, 1522), from
   Borne, south of Leipzig. He wrote in substance as follows: [480] --

   "Grace and peace from God our Father and our Lord Jesus Christ, and my
   most humble service.

   "Most illustrious, high-born Elector, most gracious Lord! I received
   the letter and warning of your Electoral Grace on Friday evening [Feb.
   26], before my departure [March 1]. That your Electoral Grace is moved
   by the best intention, needs no assurance from me. I also mean well,
   but this is of no account .... If I were not certain that we have the
   pure gospel on our side, I would despair .... Your Grace knows, if not,
   I make known to you, that I have the gospel, not from men, but from
   heaven through our Lord Jesus Christ .... I write this to apprise you
   that I am on my way to Wittenberg under a far higher protection than
   that of the Elector; and I have no intention of asking your Grace's
   support. Nay, I believe that I can offer your Highness better
   protection than your Highness can offer me. Did I think that I had to
   trust in the Elector, I should not come at all. The sword is powerless
   here. God alone must act without man's interference. He who has most
   faith will be the most powerful protector. As I feel your Grace's faith
   to be still weak, I can by no means recognize in you the man who is to
   protect and save me. Your Electoral Grace asks me, what you are to do
   under these circumstances? I answer, with all submission, Do nothing at
   all, but trust in God alone .... If your Grace had faith, you would
   behold the glory of God; but as you do not yet believe, you have not
   seen it. Let us love and glorify God forever. Amen."

   Being asked by the Elector to give his reasons for a return, he
   assigned, in a letter of March 7, from Wittenberg, [481] three reasons:
   the urgent written request of the church at Wittenberg; the confusion
   in his flock; and his desire to prevent an imminent outbreak. "My
   second reason," he wrote, "is that during my absence Satan has entered
   my sheepfold, and committed ravages which I can not repair by writing,
   but only by my personal presence and living word. My conscience would
   not allow me to delay longer; I was bound to disregard, not only your
   Highness's disfavor, but the whole world's wrath. It is my flock, the
   flock intrusted to me by God; they are my children in Christ. I could
   not hesitate a moment. I am bound to suffer death for them, and will
   cheerfully with God's grace lay down my life for them, as Christ
   commands (John 10:12)."

   Luther rode without fear through the territory of his violent enemy,
   Duke George of Saxony, who was then urging the Elector to severe
   measures against him and the Wittenbergers. He informed the Elector
   that he would pass through Leipzig, as he once went to Worms, though it
   should rain Duke Georges for nine days in succession, each fiercer than
   the original in Dresden.

   He safely arrived in Wittenberg on Thursday evening, the 6th of March,
   full of faith and hope, and ready for a fight against his false
   friends.

   On this journey he had on the 3d or 4th of March an interesting
   interview with two Swiss students, Kessler and Spengler, in the tavern
   of the Black Bear at Jena. We have an account of it from one of them,
   John Kessler of St. Gallen, who afterwards became a reformer of that
   city. [482] It contrasts very favorably with his subsequent dealings
   with the Swiss, especially with Zwingli, which were clouded by
   prejudice, and embittered by intolerance. The episode was purely
   private, and had no influence upon the course of events; but it reveals
   a characteristic trait in this mighty man, who even in critical moments
   of intense earnestness did not lose his playful humor. We find the same
   combination of apparently opposite qualities when at Coburg he was
   watching the affairs of the Diet at Augsburg, and wrote a childlike
   letter to his little Hans. Such harmless humor is like the light of the
   sun breaking through dark clouds.

   The two Swiss, who had studied at Basel, were attracted by the fame of
   Luther and Melanchthon, and traveled on foot to Wittenberg to hear
   them. They arrived at Jena after a terrible thunderstorm, fatigued and
   soaked through, and humbly sat down on a bench near the door of the
   guest-chamber, when they saw a Knight seated at a table, sword in hand,
   and the Hebrew Psalter before him. Luther recognized the Swiss by their
   dialect, kindly invited them to sit down at his side, and offered them
   a drink. He inquired whether Erasmus was still living in Basel, what he
   was doing, and what the people in Switzerland thought of Martin Luther.
   The students replied that some lauded him to the skies as a great
   reformer; others, especially the priests, denounced him as an
   intolerable heretic. During the conversation two traders came in; one
   took from his pocket Luther's sermons on the Gospels and Epistles, and
   remarked that the writer must be either an angel from heaven or a devil
   from hell. At dinner Luther gave them a rare feast of reason and flow
   of soul. The astonished students suspected that the mysterious Knight
   was Ulrich von Hutten, when Luther, turning to the host, smilingly
   remarked, "Behold, I have become a nobleman over the night: these Swiss
   think that I am Hutten; you take me for Luther. The next thing will be
   that I am Marcolfus." He gave his young friends good advice to study
   the biblical languages with Melanchthon, paid their bill, offered them
   first a glass of beer, but substituted for it a glass of wine, since
   the Swiss were not used to beer, and with a shake of the hand he begged
   them to remember him to Doctor Jerome Schurf, their countryman, at
   Wittenberg. When they wished to know the name of the sender of the
   salutation, he replied, "Simply tell him that he who is coming sends
   greeting, and he will understand it."

   When the students a few days afterwards arrived at Wittenberg, and
   called on Dr. Schurf to deliver the message from "him who is coming,"
   they were agreeably surprised to find Luther there with Melanchthon,
   Jonas, and Amsdorf. Luther greeted them heartily, and introduced them
   to Melanchthon, of whom he had spoken at Jena.

   The same student has left us a description of Luther's appearance at
   that time. He was no more the meager, emaciated monk as at the Leipzig
   disputation three years previously, [483] but, as Kessler says,
   "somewhat stout, yet upright, bending backwards rather than stooping,
   with a face upturned to heaven, with deep dark eyes and eyebrows,
   twinkling and sparkling like stars, so that one could hardly look
   steadily at them." [484] These deep, dark eyes, full of strange fire,
   had struck Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg, and Cardinal Aleander at
   Worms, as the eyes of a demon. They made the same impression on John
   Dantiscus, afterwards bishop of Culm and Ermeland, who on his return
   from Spain to Poland in 1523 saw Luther in Wittenberg; he reported that
   his "eyes were sharp, and had a certain terrible coruscation of
   lightning such as was seen now and then in demoniacs," and adds that,
   "his features were like his books," and "his speech violent and full of
   scorn." But friends judged differently. Another student, Albert Burrer,
   who saw him after his return from the Wartburg, praises his mild,
   kindly countenance, his pleasant sonorous voice, his charming address,
   the piety of his words and acts, the power of his eloquence which moved
   every hearer not made of stone, and created a desire to hear him again
   and again. [485]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [480] In De Wette, II. 137-141. De Wette calls the letter "ein
   bewunderungswürdiges Denkmal des hohen Glaubensmuthes, von welchem
   Luther erfüllt war."

   [481] De Wette, II. 141-144.

   [482] Published by Bernet, Joh. Kessler genannt Athenarius, St. Gallen,
   1826, and more fully by E. Götzinger in Kessler's Sabbata, St. Gallen,
   1866 and 1868, 2 parts. See a good account in Hagenbach's Ref. Gesch.,
   pp. 141 sqq. In the Schwarze Bär hotel at Jena, where I stopped a few
   days in July, 1886, the "Lutherstube" is still shown with the likeness
   of Luther an old Bible, and Kessler's report.

   [483] See the description of Mosellanus, p. 180.

   [484] "Mit tiefen, schwarzen Augen und Braunen blinzend und zwitzerlnd
   wie ein Stern, dass die nit wohl mögen angesehen werden."

   [485] Köstlin, I. 536, with references, p. 805.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 68. Luther restores Order in Wittenberg.--The End of Carlstadt.

   I. Eight Sermons of Luther preached from Sunday, March 7 (Invocavit) to
   the next Sunday (Reminiscere), after his return to Wittenberg. The
   oldest editions, slightly varying in length, appeared 1523. Altenb.
   ed., II. 99 sqq.; Walch, XV. 2423 sqq.: XX. 1-101; Erl. ed., XXVIII.
   202-285 (both recensions). Luther's Letters to Spalatin, the Elector,
   and others from March, 1522, in De Wette, II. 144 sqq.

   II. Of modern historians, Marheineke, Merle D'Aubigné, Ranke,
   Hagenbach, and Köstlin (I. 537-549) may be compared.

   On the Sunday after his arrival, Luther ascended his old pulpit, and
   re-appeared before his congregation of citizens and students.
   Wittenberg was a small place; but what he said and did there, and what
   Calvin did afterwards in Geneva, had the significance of a
   world-historical fact, more influential at that time than an encyclical
   from Rome.

   Protestantism had reached a very critical juncture. Luther or
   Carlstadt, reformation or revolution, the written Word or illusive
   inspirations, order or confusion: that was the question. Luther was in
   the highest and best mood, full of faith in his cause, and also full of
   charity for his opponents, strong in matter, sweet in manner, and
   completely successful. He never showed such moderation and forbearance
   before or after.

   He preached eight sermons for eight days in succession, and carried the
   audience with him. They are models of effective popular eloquence, and
   among the best he ever preached. He handled the subject from the
   stand-point of a pastor, with fine tact and practical wisdom. He kept
   aloof from coarse personalities which disfigure so many of his
   polemical writings. Not one unkind word, not one unpleasant allusion,
   escaped his lips. In plain, clear, strong, scriptural language, he
   refuted the errors without naming the errorists. The positive statement
   of the truth in love is the best refutation of error. [486]

   The ruling ideas of these eight discourses are: Christian freedom and
   Christian charity; freedom from the tyranny of radicalism which would
   force the conscience against forms, as the tyranny of popery forces the
   conscience in the opposite direction; charity towards the weak, who
   must be trained like children, and tenderly dealt with, lest they
   stumble and fall. Faith is worthless without charity. No man has a
   right to compel his brother in matters that are left free; and among
   these are marriage, living in convents, private confession, fasting and
   eating, images in churches. Abuses which contradict the word of God, as
   private masses, should be abolished, but in an orderly manner and by
   proper authority. The Word of God and moral suasion must be allowed to
   do the work. Paul preached against the idols in Athens, without
   touching one of them; and yet they fell in consequence of his
   preaching.

   "Summa summarum," said Luther, "I will preach, speak, write, but I will
   force no one; for faith must be voluntary. Take me as an example. I
   stood up against the Pope, indulgences, and all papists, but without
   violence or uproar. I only urged, preached, and declared God's Word,
   nothing else. And yet while I was asleep, or drinking Wittenberg beer
   with my Philip Melanchthon and Amsdorf, the Word inflicted greater
   injury on popery than prince or emperor ever did. I did nothing, the
   Word did every thing. Had I appealed to force, all Germany might have
   been deluged with blood; yea, I might have kindled a conflict at Worms,
   so that the Emperor would not have been safe. But what would have been
   the result? Ruin and desolation of body and soul. I therefore kept
   quiet, and gave the Word free course through the world. Do you know
   what the Devil thinks when he sees men use violence to propagate the
   gospel? He sits with folded arms behind the fire of hell, and says with
   malignant looks and frightful grin: 'Ah, how wise these madmen are to
   play my game! Let them go on; I shall reap the benefit. I delight in
   it.' But when he sees the Word running and contending alone on the
   battle-field, then he shudders and shakes for fear. The Word is
   almighty, and takes captive the hearts." [487]

   Eloquence rarely achieved a more complete and honorable triumph. It was
   not the eloquence of passion and violence, but the eloquence of wisdom
   and love. It is easier to rouse the wild beast in man, than to tame it
   into submission. Melanchthon and the professors, the magistrate and
   peaceful citizens, were delighted. Dr. Schurf wrote to the Elector,
   after the sixth discourse: "Oh, what joy has Dr. Martin's return spread
   among us! His words, through divine mercy, are bringing back every day
   misguided people into the way of the truth. It is as clear as the sun,
   that the Spirit of God is in him, and that he returned to Wittenberg by
   His special providence."

   Most of the old forms were restored again, at least for a season, till
   the people were ripe for the changes. Luther himself returned to the
   convent, observed the fasts, and resumed the cowl, but laid it aside
   two years afterwards when the Elector sent him a new suit. The passage
   in the mass, however, which referred to the unbloody repetition of the
   sacrifice and the miraculous transformation of the elements, was not
   restored, and the communion in both kinds prevailed, and soon became
   the universal custom. The Elector himself, shortly before his death
   (May 5, 1525), communed with the cup.

   Didymus openly acknowledged his error, and declared that Luther
   preached like an angel. [488] But the Zwickau Prophets left Wittenberg
   for ever, and abused the Reformer as a new pope and enemy of spiritual
   religion. Münzer stirred up the Peasants' War, and met a tragic fate.
   [489]

   Carlstadt submitted silently, but sullenly. He was a disappointed and
   unhappy man, and harbored feelings of revenge against Luther. Ranke
   characterizes him as "one of those men, not rare among Germans, who
   with an inborn tendency to profundity unite the courage of rejecting
   all that is established, and defending all that others reject, without
   ever rising to a clear view and solid conviction." He resumed his
   lectures in the university for a time; but in 1523 he retired to a farm
   in the neighborhood, to live as "neighbor Andrew" with lowly peasants,
   without, however, resigning the emoluments of his professorship. He
   devoted himself more fully than ever to his mystical speculations and
   imaginary inspirations. He entered into secret correspondence with
   Münzer, though he never fully approved his political movements. He
   published at Jena, where he established a printing-press, a number of
   devotional books under the name of "a new layman," instead of Doctor of
   Theology. He induced the congregation of Orlamünde to elect him their
   pastor without authority from the academic Senate of Wittenberg which
   had the right of appointment, and introduced there his innovations in
   worship, storming the altars and images. In 1524 be openly came out
   with his novel theory of the Lord's Supper in opposition to Luther, and
   thus kindled the unfortunate eucharistic controversy which so seriously
   interfered with the peace and harmony of the Reformers. He also
   sympathized with the Anabaptists. [490] Luther after long forbearance
   gave him up as incorrigible. [491] With his consent, Carlstadt was
   exiled from Saxony (1524), but allowed to return on a sort of
   revocation, and on condition of keeping silence (1525). He evaded
   another expulsion by flight (1528). He wandered about in Germany in
   great poverty, made common cause with the Zwinglians, gave up some of
   his extravagant notions, sobered down, and found a resting-place first
   as pastor in Zürich, and then as professor of theology in Basel
   (1534-1541), where during the raging of a pestilence he finished his
   erratic career.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [486] The aletheuein en agape, Eph. 4:15.

   [487] Erl. ed., XXVIII. 219 and 260 (second sermon). The allusion to
   the drinking of "Wittenbergisch Bier mit meinem Philippo und Amsdorf"
   (p. 260) is omitted in the shorter edition, which has instead: "wenn
   ich bin guter Dinge gewesen" (p. 219).

   [488] Luther speaks favorably of him, and recommended him to a pastoral
   charge at Altenburg. See his letters in De Wette, II. 170, 183, 184.

   [489] He published at Nürnberg, 1524, a self-defense "Wider das
   geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg," and called Luther an
   "Arch-heathen," "Arch-scamp," "Wittenberg Pope," "Babylonian Woman,"
   "Dragon," "Basilisk," etc.

   [490] Nevertheless, in 1526 he invited Luther and his wife, Melanchthon
   and Jonas, as sponsors at the baptism of a new-born son in the village
   of Segren near Wittenberg. He lived after his return from exile in very
   humble circumstances, barely making a living from the sale of cakes and
   beer.

   [491] His writings against Carlstadt, in Walch, X., XV., and XX., and
   in Erl. ed., LXIV. 384-408. His book Wider die himmlischen Propheten
   (1525) is chiefly directed against Carlstadt. In the Table Talk (Erl.
   ed., LXI. 911 he calls Carlstadt and Münzer incarnate devils.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 69. The Diets of Nürnberg, a.d. 1522-1524. Adrian VI.

   I. Walch, XV. 2504 sqq. Ranke, vol. II. pp. 27-46, 70-100, 244-262. J.
   Janssen, Vol. II. 256 sqq., 315 sqq. Köstlin, I. 622 sqq.

   II. On Adrian VI. Gachard: Correspondance de Charles Quint et d'Adrian
   VI. Brux., 1859. Moring: Vita Adriani VI., 1536. Burmann: Hadrianus
   VI., sive Analecta Historica de Hadr. VI. Trajecti 1727 (includes
   Moring). Ranke: Die röm. Päpste in den letzten vier Jarhh., I., 59-64
   (8th ed. 1885). C. Höfler (Rom. Cath.): Wahl und Thronbesteigung des
   letzten deutschen Papstes, Adrian VI. Wien, 1872; and Der deutsche
   Kaiser und der letzte deutsche Papst, Carl V. und Adrian VI. Wien,
   1876. Fr. Nippold: Die Reformbestrebungen Papst Hadrian VI., und die
   Ursachen ihres Scheiterns. Leipzig, 1875. H. Bauer: Hadrian VI.
   Heidelb., 1876. Maurenbrecher: Gesch. der kathol. Reformation, I.
   202-225. Nördlingen, 1880. See also the Lit. on Charles V., § 50 (p.
   262 sqq.).

   We must now turn our attention to the political situation, and the
   attitude of the German Diet to the church question.

   The growing sympathies of the German nation with the Reformation and
   the political troubles made the execution of the papal bull and the
   Edict of Worms against Luther more and more impossible. The Emperor was
   absent in Spain, and fully occupied with the suppression of an
   insurrection, the conquest of Mexico by Cortez, and the war with
   France. Germany was threatened by the approach of the Turks, who had
   conquered Belgrad and the greater part of Hungary. The dangers of the
   nation were overruled for the progress of Protestantism.

   An important change took place in the papacy. Leo X. died Dec. 1, 1521;
   and Adrian VI. (1459-1523) was unexpectedly elected in his absence,
   perhaps by the indirect influence of the Emperor, his former pupil. The
   cardinals hardly knew what they did, and hoped he might decline.

   Adrian formed, by his moral earnestness and monastic piety, a striking
   contrast to the frivolity and worldliness of his predecessors. He was a
   Dutchman, born at Utrecht, a learned professor of theology in Louvain,
   then administrator and inquisitor of Spain, and a man of unblemished
   character. [492] He had openly denied the papal infallibility; but
   otherwise he was an orthodox Dominican, and opposed to a doctrinal
   reformation. He had combined with the Louvain professors in the
   condemnation of Luther, and advised Charles to take rigorous measures
   against him at Worms. Barefooted and without any ostentation, he
   entered Rome. He read daily mass at early dawn, took a simple meal,
   slept on a couch, and lived like a monk. He introduced strict economy
   in the papal household, and vigorously attacked the grossest abuses. He
   tried to gain the influence of Erasmus and Zwingli. . But he
   encountered opposition everywhere.

   Under these circumstances the Diet met at Nürnberg, March 23, 1522, and
   again Nov. 17, under the presidency of Ferdinand, the brother of the
   Emperor. To avert the danger of the Turks, processions and public
   prayers were ordered, and a tax imposed; but no army was raised.

   Adrian demanded the execution of the Edict of Worms, and compared
   Luther to Mohammed; but he broke the force of his request by confessing
   with surprising frankness the corruptions of the Roman court, which
   loudly called for a radical moral reform of the head and members. Never
   before had the Curia made such a confession.

   "We know," wrote the Pope in the instruction to his legate, Francesco
   Chieregati, "that for some time many abominations, abuses in
   ecclesiastical affairs, and violations of rights have taken place in
   the holy see; and that all things have been perverted into bad. From
   the head the corruption has passed to the limbs, from the Pope to the
   prelates: we have all departed; there is none that doeth good, no, not
   one." He regarded Protestantism as a just punishment for the sins of
   the prelates. He promised to do all in his power to remedy the evil,
   and to begin with the Curia whence it arose. [493]

   The Emperor was likewise in favor of a reform of discipline, though
   displeased with Adrian for not supporting him in his war with France
   and his church-spoliation schemes.

   The attempt to reform the church morally without touching the dogma had
   been made by the great Councils of the fifteenth century, and failed.
   Adrian found no sympathy in Rome, and reigned too short a time (Jan. 9,
   1522 to Sept. 14, 1523) to accomplish his desire. It was rumored that
   he died of poison; but the proof is wanting. Rome rejoiced. His
   successor, Clement VII. (1523-1534), adopted at once the policy of his
   cousin, Leo X.

   Complaint was made in the Diet against the Elector Frederick, that he
   tolerated Luther at Wittenberg, and allowed the double communion, the
   marriage of priests, and the forsaking of convents, but his controlling
   influence prevented any unfavorable action. The report of the
   suppression of the radical movements in Wittenberg made a good
   impression. Lutheran books were freely printed and sold in Nürnberg.
   Osiander preached openly against the Roman Antichrist.

   The Diet, in the answer to the Pope (framed Feb. 8 and published as an
   edict March 6, 1523), refused to execute the Edict of Worms, and
   demanded the calling of a free general council in Germany within a
   year. In the mean time, Luther should keep silence; and the preachers
   should content themselves with preaching the holy gospel according to
   the approved writings of the Christian church. At the same time the
   hundred gravamina of the German nation were repeated.

   This edict was a compromise, and did not decide the church question;
   but it averted the immediate danger to the Reformation, and so far
   marks a favorable change, as compared with the Edict of Worms. It was
   the beginning of the political emancipation of Germany from the control
   of the papacy. Luther was rather pleased with it, except the
   prohibition of preaching and writing, which he did not obey.

   The influence of the edict, however, was weakened by several events
   which occurred soon afterwards.

   At a new Diet at Nürnberg in January, 1524, where the shrewd Pope
   Clement VII. was represented by Cardinal Campeggio, the resolution was
   passed to execute the Edict of Worms, though with the elastic clause,
   "as far as possible."

   At the earnest solicitation of the papal nuncio, the Archduke Ferdinand
   of Austria, and the Dukes William and Louis of Bavaria, together with
   twelve bishops of South Germany, concluded at Ratisbon, July 6, 1524, a
   league for the protection of the Roman faith against the Reformation,
   with the exception of the abolition of some glaring abuses which did
   not touch doctrines. [494] The Emperor lent it his influence by issuing
   a stringent edict (July 27, 1524). This was an ominous event. The
   Romish league called forth a Protestant counter-league of Philip of
   Hesse and John of Saxony, at Torgau in June, 1526, although against the
   advice of the Wittenberg Reformers, who feared more evil than good from
   a union of politics with religion and trusted to the power of the Word
   of God without any carnal weapons.

   Thus the German nation was divided into two hostile camps. From this
   unhappy division arose the political weakness of the empire, and the
   terrible calamities of the Smalkaldian and the Thirty Years' Wars. In
   1525 the Peasants' War broke out, and gave new strength to the
   reaction, but only for a short time.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [492] Ranke (Päpste, I. 60): "Adrian war von durchaus unbescholtenem
   Ruf: rechtschaffen, fromm, thätig; sehr ernsthaft, man sah ihn nie
   anders als leise mit den Lippen lächeln; aber voll wohlwollender,
   reiner Absichten: ein wahrer Geistlicher. Welch ein Gegensatz, als er
   nun dort einzog, wo Leo so prächtig und verschwenderisch Hof gehalten!
   Es existirt ein Brief von ihm, in welchem er sagt: er möchte lieber in
   seiner Propstei zu Löwen Gott dienen als Papst sein." Pallavicino calls
   him "ecclesiastico ottimo, pontifide mediocre."

   [493] "Ut primum curia haec, unde forte omne hoc malum processit,
   reformetur." See the instruction in Raynaldus, ad ann. 1522, Tom. XI.
   363. Luther published it with sarcastic comments. Pallavicino charges
   Adrian with exaggeration and want of prudence, which he thought was
   "often more important for the public good than personal holiness." See
   Hergenröther, III. 43.

   [494] See details in Ranke, II., 108 sqq. and in Janssen, II., 336 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 70. Luther and Henry VIII

   Henricus VIII.: Adsertio VII. Sacram. adv. Luth. Lond. 1521. A German
   translation by Frick, 1522, in Walch, XIX., 158 sqq. Lutherus: Contra
   Henricum Regem. 1522. Also freely reproduced in German by Luther. His
   letter to Henry, Sept. 1, 1525. Auf des Königs in England Lästerschrift
   M. Luther's Antwort. 1527. Afterwards also in Latin. See the documents
   in Walch, XIX. 153-521; Erl. ed., XXVIII. 343 sqq.; XXX. 1-14. Comp.
   also Luther's letters of Feb. 4 and March 11, 1527, in De Wette III.
   161 and 163.

   With all his opposition to Ultra-Protestantism in church and state,
   Luther did not mean to yield an inch to the Romanists. This appears
   from two very personal controversies which took place during these
   disturbances,--the one with Henry VIII. concerning the sacraments; the
   other with Erasmus about predestination and free-will. In both he
   forgot the admirable lessons of moderation which he had enjoined from
   the pulpit in Wittenberg. He used again the club of Hercules.

   Henry VIII. of England urged Charles V. to exterminate the Lutheran
   heresy by force, and wrote in 1521 (probably with the assistance of his
   chaplain, Edward Lee), a scholastic defence of the seven sacraments,
   against Luther's "Babylonish Captivity." He dedicated the book to Pope
   Leo X. He treated the Reformer with the utmost contempt, as a
   blasphemer and servant of Satan. He used the old weapons of church
   authority against freedom. He adhered to the dogma of
   transubstantiation, even after his breach with Rome. Pope Clement VII.
   judged that this book was written with the aid of the Holy Spirit, and
   promised indulgence to all who read it. At the same time he gratified
   the ambition of the vain king by confirming the title "Defender of the
   Faith," which Leo had already conferred upon him. [495]

   The Protestant successors of Henry have retained the title to this day,
   though with a very different view of its meaning. The British
   sovereigns are defenders of the Episcopal Church in England, and of the
   Presbyterian Church in Scotland, and in both characters enemies of the
   Church of Rome.

   Luther read the King a lecture (in Latin and German) such as was rarely
   read to any crowned head. He called him "King Henry, of God's disgrace
   (or wrath), King of England," and heaped upon him the most abusive
   epithets. [496] He incidentally hit other princes, saying that "King
   Henry helps to prove the proverb that there are no greater fools than
   kings and princes." Such a style of polemics can not be justified by
   the coarseness of the age, or the nature of the provocation, and did
   more harm to Luther than to Henry. His best friends regretted it; yet
   long afterwards he even surpassed the violence, if possible, in his
   savage and scurrilous attack upon Duke Henry of Brunswick. [497]

   When there was a prospect of gaining Henry VIII. for the cause of the
   Reformation, Luther made the matter worse by a strange inconsistency.
   In a most humble letter of Sept. 1, 1525, be retracted (not his
   doctrine, but) all the personal abuse, asked his pardon, and offered to
   honor his name publicly. Henry in his reply refused the offer with
   royal pride and scorn, and said that he now despised him as heartily
   for his cowardice as he had formerly hated him for his heresy. He also
   charged him with violating a nun consecrated to God, and leading other
   monks into a breach of their vows and into eternal perdition. Emser
   published a German translation of Luther's letter and the King's answer
   (which was transmitted through Duke George of Saxony), and accompanied
   it with new vituperations and slanders (1527). All the Romanists
   regarded this controversy, and the similar correspondence with Duke
   George, as a great blow to the Reformation.

   Luther now resumed his former sarcastic tone; but it was a painful
   effort, and did not improve the case. He suspected that the answer was
   written by Erasmus, who had "more skill and sense in his finger than
   the King with all his wiseacres." He emphatically denied that he had
   offered to retract any of his doctrines. "I say, No, no, no, as long as
   I breathe, no matter how it offend king, emperor, prince, or devil ....
   In short, my doctrine is the main thing of which I boast, not only
   against princes and kings, but also against all devils. The other
   thing, my life and person, I know well enough to be sinful, and nothing
   to boast of; I am a poor sinner, and let all my enemies be saints or
   angels. I am both proud and humble as St. Paul (Phil. 2:3)."

   In December of the same year in which he wrote his first book against
   King Henry, Luther began his important treatise "On the Secular Power,
   and how far obedience is due to it." He defends here the divine right
   and authority of the secular magistrate, and the duty of passive
   obedience, on the ground of Matt. 5:39 and Rom. 13:1, but only in
   temporal affairs. While he forbade the use of carnal force, he never
   shrank from telling even his own prince the truth in the plainest
   manner. He exercised the freedom of speech and of the press to the
   fullest extent, both in favor of the Reformation and against political
   revolution. The Reformation elevated the state at the expense of the
   freedom of the church; while Romanism lowered the dignity of the state
   to the position of an obedient servant of the hierarchy.

   One wrong does not justify another. Yet those Roman-Catholic historians
   who make capital of this humiliating conduct of the Reformer, against
   his cause, should remember that Cardinal Pole, whom they magnify as one
   of the greatest and purest men of that age, in his book on the Unity of
   the Church, abused King Henry as violently and more keenly, although he
   was his king and benefactor, and had not given him any personal
   provocation; while Luther wrote in self-defense only, and was with all
   his passionate temper a man of kind and generous feelings.

   Melanchthon regretted the fierce attack on King Henry; and when the
   king began to favor the Reformation, he dedicated to him the revised
   edition of his theological Loci (1535). He was twice called to England,
   but declined. [498]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [495] Pallavicino and Hergenröther (III. 41) show that Leo conferred
   the title in a bull of Oct. 11, 1521, and that Clement confirmed it in
   a bull of March 5, 1523.

   [496] Especially in the German edition of his reply, where Henry is
   styled not only a gekrönter Esel (crowned donkey) and elender Narr
   (miserable fool), but even a verruchter Schurke, unverschämter Lügner,
   Gotteslästerer, etc ."I say it before all the world, that the King of
   England is a liar and no gentleman (ein Unbiedermann)." He makes fun of
   his title "Defender of Faith." The papists who deny Christ may need
   such a defender; but "the true church disdains a human patron, and
   sings, 'Dominus mihi adjutor' (Ps. 9:10), and 'Nolite confidere in
   principibus' (Ps. 118:8, 9)." In conclusion he apologizes for his
   violence, because he had to deal with "unvernünftigen wilden
   Ungeheuern." Card. Hergenröther (Kirchengesch. III. 41, 3d, 1886) says:
   "Luther antwortete in der gemeinsten und boshaftesten Weise, die
   Grobheit zur Classicität ausbildend."

   [497] Wider Hanswurst, 1541.

   [498] He wrote in March: "Ego jam alteris literis in Angliam vocor"
   (Op. II 708).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 71. Erasmus.

   I. Erasmus: Opera omnia, ed. by Beatus Rhenanus, Basil. 1540-41; 8
   vols. fol.; best ed. by Clericus (Le Clerk), Lugd. Bat. 1703-06; 10
   tom. in 11 vols. fol. There are several English translations of his
   Enchiridion, Encomium, Adagia, Colloquia, and smaller tracts. His most
   important theological works are his editions of the Greek Test. (1516,
   '19,' 22,' 27, '35, exclusive of more than thirty reprints), his
   Annotations and Paraphrases, his Enchiridion Militis Christiani, his
   editions of Laur. Valla, Jerome, Augustin, Ambrose, Origen, and other
   Fathers. His Moriae Encomium, or Panegyric of Folly (composed 1509),
   was often edited. His letters are very important for the literary
   history of his age. His most popular book is his Colloquies, which
   contain the wittiest exposures of the follies and abuses of monkery,
   fasting, pilgrimages, etc. English transl. by N. Bailey, Lond. 1724;
   new ed. with notes by Rev. E. Johnson, 1878, 2 vols. After 1514 all his
   works were published by his friend John Froben in Basel.

   Comp. Adalb. Horawitz: Erasmus v. Rotterdam und Martinus Lipsius, Wien,
   1882; Erasmiana, several numbers, Wien, 1882-85 (reprinted from the
   Sitzungsberichte of the Imperial Academy of Vienna; contains extracts
   from the correspondence of Er., discovered in a Codex at Louvain, and
   in the Codex Rehdigeranus, 254 of the city library at Breslau, founded
   by Rehdiger). Horawitz and Hartfelder: Briefwechsel des Beatus
   Rhenanus, Leipzig, 1886.

   II. Biographies of Erasmus by himself and by Beatus Rhenanus, in vol.
   I. of the ed. of Clericus; by Pierre Bayle, in his "Dictionnaire"
   (1696); Knight, Cambr. 1726; Jortin, Lond. 1748, 2 vols.; 1808, 3 vols.
   (chiefly a summary of the letters of Erasmus with critical comments);
   Burigny, Paris, 1757, 2 vols.; Henke, Halle, 1782, 2 vols.; Hess,
   Zürich, 1789, 2 vols.; Butler, London, 1825; Ad. Müller, Hamburg, 1828
   (Leben des E. v. Rotterdam ... Eine gekrönte Preisschrift; comp. the
   excellent review of Ullmann in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1829, No.
   I.); Glasius (prize essay in Dutch), The Hague, 1850; Stichart (Er. v.
   Rotterd., seine Stellung zur Kirche und zu den Kirchl. Bewegungen
   seiner Zeit), Leipz. 1870; Durand de Laur (Erasme, précurseur et
   initiateur de l'esprit moderne), Par. 1873, 2 vols.; R. B. Drummond
   (Erasmus, his Life and Character), Lond. 1873, 2 vols.; G. Feugère
   (Er., étude sur sa vie et ses ouvrages), Par. 1874; Pennington, Lond.
   1875; Milman (in Savonarola, Erasmus, and other Essays), Lond. 1870;
   Nisard, Rénaissance et réforme, Paris, 1877.--Also Woker: De Erasmi
   Rotterodami studiis irenicis. Paderborn, 1872. W. Vischer: Erasmiana.
   Programm zur Rectoratsfeier der Univers. Basel. Basel, 1876. "Erasmus"
   in Ersch and Gruber, vol. XXXVI. (by Erhard); in the "Allg. Deutsche
   Biogr." VI. 160-180 (by Kämmel); in Herzog,1 IV. 114-121 (by
   Hagenbach), and in Herzog,2 IV. 278-290 (by R. Stähelin); in the
   "Encycl. Brit.," 9th ed., VIII. 512-518. Schlottmann: Erasmus
   redivivus, Hal. 1883. Comp. Lit. in § 72.

   The quarrel between King Henry and Luther was the occasion of a far
   more serious controversy and open breach between Erasmus and the
   Reformation. This involved a separation of humanism from Protestantism.

   The Position of Erasmus.

   Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam [499] (1466-1536) was the king among
   scholars in the early part of the sixteenth century. He combined native
   genius, classical and biblical learning, lively imagination, keen wit,
   and refined taste. He was the most cultivated man of his age, and the
   admired leader of scholastic Europe from Germany to Italy and Spain,
   from England to Hungary. The visible unity of the Catholic Church, and
   the easy interchange of ideas through the medium of one learned
   language, explain in part his unique position. No man before or since
   acquired such undisputed sovereignty in the republic of letters. No
   such sovereignty is possible nowadays when distinguished scholars are
   far more numerous, and when the Church is divided into hostile camps.
   [500]

   Erasmus shines in the front rank of the humanists and forerunners of
   the Reformation, on the dividing line between the middle ages and
   modern times. His great mission was to revive the spirit of classical
   and Christian antiquity, and to make it a reforming power within the
   church. He cleared the way for a work of construction which required
   stronger hands than his. He had no creative and no organizing power.
   The first period of his life till 1524 was progressive and reformatory;
   the second, till his death, 1536, was conservative and reactionary.

   He did more than any of his contemporaries to prepare the church for
   the Reformation by the impulse he gave to classical, biblical, and
   patristic studies, and by his satirical exposures of ecclesiastical
   abuses and monastic ignorance and bigotry. But he stopped half way, and
   after a period of, hesitation he openly declared war against Luther,
   thereby injuring both his own reputation and the progress of the
   movement among scholars. He was a reformer against reform, and in
   league with Rome. Thus he lost the respect and confidence of both
   parties. It would have been better for his fame if he had died in 1516,
   just after issuing the Greek Testament, a year before the Reformation.
   To do justice to him, we must look backward. Men of transition, like
   Staupitz, Reuchlin, and Erasmus, are no less necessary than bold
   leaders of a new departure. They belong to the class of which John the
   Baptist is the highest type. Protestants should never forget the
   immense debt of gratitude which they owe to the first editor of the
   Greek Testament who enabled Luther and Tyndale to make their
   translations of the word of life from the original, and to lead men to
   the very fountain of all that is most valuable and permanent in the
   Reformation. His edition was hastily prepared, before the art of
   textual criticism was born; but it anticipated the publication of the
   ponderous Complutensian Polyglot, and became the basis of the popularly
   received text. His exegetical opinions still receive and deserve the
   attention of commentators. To him we owe also the first scholarly
   editions of the Fathers, especially of Jerome, with whom he was most in
   sympathy. From these editions the Reformers drew their weapons of
   patristic controversy with the Romanists, who always appealed to the
   fathers of the Nicene age rather than to the grandfathers of the
   apostolic age.

   Erasmus was allied to Reuchlin and Ulrich von Hutten, but greater and
   far more influential than both. All hated monasticism and obscurantism.
   Reuchlin revived Hebrew, Erasmus Greek learning, so necessary for the
   cultivation of biblical studies. Reuchlin gave his nephew Melanchthon
   to Wittenberg, but died a good Catholic. Hutten became a radical
   ultra-reformer, fell out with Erasmus, who disowned him when he was
   most in need of a friend, and perished in disgrace. Erasmus survived
   both, to protest against Protestantism.

   And yet he cannot be charged with apostasy or even with inconsistency.
   He never was a Protestant, and never meant to be one. Division and
   separation did not enter into his program. From beginning to end he
   labored for a reformation within the church and within the papacy, not
   without it. But the new wine burst the old bottles. The reform which he
   set in motion went beyond him, and left him behind. In some of his
   opinions, however, he was ahead of his age, and anticipated a more
   modern stage of Protestantism. He was as much a forerunner of
   Rationalism as of the Reformation.

   Sketch of His Life.

   Erasmus was the illegitimate son of a Dutch priest, Gerard, and
   Margaret, the daughter of a physician,--their last but not their only
   child. [501] He was born in Rotterdam, Oct. 27, in the year 1466 or
   1467. [502] He received his early education in the cathedral school of
   Utrecht and in a flourishing classical academy at Deventer, where he
   began to show his brilliant talents, especially a most tenacious
   memory. Books were his chief delight. Already in his twelfth year he
   knew Horace and Terence by heart.

   After the death of his mother, he was robbed of his inheritance by his
   guardians, and put against his will into a convent at Herzogenbusch,
   which he exchanged afterwards for one at Steyn (Emaus), near Gouda, a
   few miles from Rotterdam.

   He spent five unhappy years in monastic seclusion (1486-1491), and
   conceived an utter disgust for monkery. Ulrich von Hutten passed
   through the same experience, with the same negative result; while for
   Luther monastic life was his free choice, and became the cradle of a
   new religious life. Erasmus found relief in the study of the classics,
   which he pursued without a guide, by a secret impulse of nature. We
   have from this period a number of his compositions in poetry and prose,
   odes to Christ and the holy Virgin, invectives against despisers of
   eloquence, and an essay on the contempt of the world, in which he
   describes the corruptions of the world and the vices of the monks.

   He was delivered from his prison life in 1491 by the bishop of Cambray,
   his parsimonious patron, and ordained to the priesthood in 1492. He
   continued in the clerical profession, and remained unmarried, but never
   had a parish.

   He now gave himself up entirely to study in the University of Paris and
   at Orleans. His favorite authors were Cicero, Terence, Plutarch, and
   Lucian among the classics, Jerome among the fathers, and Laurentius
   Valla the commentator. He led hereafter an independent literary life
   without a regular charge, supporting himself by teaching, and then
   supported by rich friends. [503] In his days of poverty he solicited
   aid in letters of mingled humility and vanity; when he became famous,
   he received liberal gifts and pensions from prelates and princes, and
   left at his death seven thousand ducats. The title of royal counsellor
   of the King of Spain (Charles V.) brought him an annual income of four
   hundred guilders after 1516. The smaller pensions were paid
   irregularly, and sometimes failed in that impecunious age. Authors
   seldom received copy money or royalty from publishers and printers, but
   voluntary donations from patrons of learning and persons to whom they
   dedicated their works. Froben, however, his chief publisher, treated
   Erasmus very generously. He traveled extensively, like St. Jerome, and
   made the personal acquaintance of the chief celebrities in church and
   state.

   He paid two important visits to England, first on the invitation of his
   grateful and generous pupil, Lord Montjoy, between 1498 and 1500, and
   again in 1510. There he became intimate with the like-minded Sir Thomas
   More, Dean Colet, Archbishop Warham, Cardinal Wolsey, Bishop Fisher,
   and was introduced to King Henry VII. and to Prince Henry, afterwards
   Henry VIII. Colet taught him that theology must return from
   scholasticism to the Scriptures, and from dry dogmas to practical
   wisdom. [504] For this purpose he devoted more attention to Greek at
   Oxford, but never attained to the same proficiency in it as in Latin.
   On his second visit he was appointed Lady Margaret's professor of
   divinity, and reader of Greek, in Cambridge. His room in Queen's
   College is still shown. The number of his hearers was small, and so was
   his income. "Still," he wrote to a friend in London, "I am doing my
   best to promote sound scholarship." He had much to say in praise of
   England, where he received so much kindness, but also in complaint of
   bad beer and bad wine, and of his robbery at Dover, where he was
   relieved of all his money in the custom-house, under a law that no one
   should take more than a small sum out of the realm.

   Between his visits to England he spent three years in Italy
   (1506-1509), and bathed in the fountain of the renaissance. He took the
   degree of doctor of divinity at Turin, and remained some time in
   Venice, Padua, Bologna, and Rome. He edited the classics of Greece and
   Rome, with specimens of translations, and superintended the press of
   Manutius Aldus at Venice. He entered into the genius of antiquity, and
   felt at home there. He calls Venice the most magnificent city of the
   world. But the lovely scenery of Italy, and the majestic grandeur of
   the Alps, seem to have made no more impression upon his mind than upon
   that of Luther; at least, he does not speak of it.

   After he returned from his last visit to England, he spent his time
   alternately at Brussels, Antwerp, and Louvain (1515-1521). He often
   visited Basel, and made this ancient city of republican Switzerland, on
   the boundaries between France and Germany, his permanent home in 1521.
   There he lived several years as editor and adviser of his friend and
   publisher, John Froben, who raised his press to the first rank in
   Europe. Basel was neutral till 1529, when the Reformation was
   introduced. It suited his position and taste. He liked the climate and
   the society. The bishop of Basel and the magistrate treated him with
   the greatest consideration. The university was then in its glory. He
   was not one of the public teachers, but enjoyed the intercourse of
   Wyttenbach, Capito, Glarean, Pellican, Amerbach. "I am here," he wrote
   to a friend, "as in the most agreeable museum of many and very eminent
   scholars. Everybody knows Latin and Greek, most of them also Hebrew.
   The one excels in history, the other in theology; one is well versed in
   mathematics, another in antiquities, a third in jurisprudence. You know
   how rarely we meet with such a combination. I at least never found it
   before. Besides these literary advantages, what candor, hospitality,
   and harmony prevail here everywhere! You would swear that all had but
   one heart and one soul."

   The fame of Erasmus brought on an extensive correspondence. His letters
   and books had the widest circulation. The "Praise of Folly" passed
   through seven editions in a few months, and through at least
   twenty-seven editions during his lifetime. Of his "Colloquies," a
   bookseller in Paris printed twenty-four thousand copies. His journeys
   were triumphal processions. Deputations received him in the larger
   cities with addresses of welcome. He was treated like a prince.
   Scholars, bishops, cardinals, kings, and popes paid him homage, sent
   him presents, or gave him pensions. He was offered by the Cardinal of
   Sion, besides a handsome board, the liberal sum of five hundred ducats
   annually, if he would live with him in Rome. He was in high favor with
   Pope Julius II. and Leo X., who patronized liberal learning. The former
   released him from his monastic vows; the latter invited him to Rome,
   and would have given him any thing if he had consented to remain.
   Adrian VI. asked his counsel how to deal with the Lutheran heresy
   (1523). Clement VII., in reply to a letter, sent him a present of two
   hundred florins. Paul III. offered him a cardinal's hat to reward him
   for his attack on Luther (1536), but he declined it on account of old
   age.

   The humanists were loudest in his praise, and almost worshiped him.
   Eoban Hesse, the prince of Latin poets of the time, called him a
   "divine being," and made a pilgrimage on foot from Erfurt to Holland to
   see him face to face. Justus Jonas did the same. Zwingli visited him in
   Basel, and before going to sleep used to read some pages of his
   writings. To receive a letter from him was a good fortune, and to have
   a personal interview with him was an event. A man even less vain than
   Erasmus could not have escaped the bad effect of such hero-worship. But
   it was partly neutralized by the detractions of his enemies, who were
   numerous and unsparing. Among these were Stunica and Caranza of Spain,
   Edward Lee of England, the Prince of Carpi, Cardinal Aleander, the
   leaders of scholastic divinity of Louvain and Paris, and the whole
   crowd of ignorant monks.

   His later years were disturbed by the death of his dearest and kindest
   friend, John Froben (1527), to whose memory he paid a most noble
   tribute in one of his letters; and still more by the progress of the
   Reformation in his own neighborhood. The optimism of his youth and
   manhood gave way to a gloomy, discontented pessimism. The Lutheran
   tragedy, he said, gave him more pain than the stone which tortured him.
   "It is part of my unhappy fate, that my old age has fallen on these
   evil times when quarrels and riots prevail everywhere." "This new
   gospel," he writes in another letter, "is producing a new set of men so
   impudent, hypocritical, and abusive, such liars and sycophants, who
   agree neither with one another nor with anybody else, so universally
   offensive and seditious, such madmen and ranters, and in short so
   utterly distasteful to me that if I knew of any city in which I should
   be free from them, I would remove there at once." His last letters are
   full of such useless lamentations. He had the mortification to see
   Protestantism triumph in a tumultuous way in Basel, through the labors
   of Oecolampadius, his former friend and associate. It is pleasant,
   however, and creditable to him, that his last interview with the
   reformer was friendly and cordial. The authorities of the city left him
   undisturbed. But he reluctantly moved to the Roman Catholic city of
   Freiburg in Baden (1529), wishing that Basel might enjoy every
   blessing, and never receive a sadder guest than he. [505] He bought a
   house in Freiburg, lived there six years, and was treated with every
   demonstration of respect, but did not feel happy, and yielded to the
   solicitations of the Queen Regent of the Netherlands to return to his
   native land.

   On his way he stopped in Basel in the house of Jerome Froben, August,
   1535, and attended to the publication of Origen. It was his last work.
   He fell sick, and died in his seventieth year, July 12, 1536, of his
   old enemies, the stone and the gout, to which was added dysentery. He
   retained his consciousness and genial humor to the last. When his three
   friends, Amerbach, Froben, and Episcopius, visited him on his
   death-bed, he reminded them of Job's three comforters, and playfully
   asked them about the torn garments, and the ashes that should be
   sprinkled on their heads. He died without a priest or any ceremonial of
   the Church (in wretched monastic Latin: "sine crux, sine lux, sine
   Deus"), but invoking the mercy of Christ. His last words, repeated
   again and again, were, "O Jesus, have mercy; Lord, deliver me; Lord,
   make an end; Lord, have mercy upon me!" [506]

   In his will, dated Feb. 12, 1536, he left his valuables to Froben,
   Rhenanus, and other friends, and the rest to the aged and poor and for
   the education of young men of promise. [507] The funeral was attended
   by distinguished men of both parties. He lies buried in the Protestant
   cathedral of Basel, where his memory is cherished.

   Erasmus was of small stature, but well formed. He had a delicate
   constitution, an irritable temperament, fair skin, blonde hair,
   wrinkled forehead, blue eyes, and pleasant voice. His face had an
   expression of thoughtfulness and quiet studiousness. [508] In his
   behavior he combined dignity and grace. "His manners and conversation,"
   says Beatus Rhenanus, "were polished, affable, and even charming."

   He talked and wrote in Latin, the universal language of scholars in
   mediaeval Europe. He handled it as a living language, with ease,
   elegance, and effect, though not with classical correctness. His style
   was Ciceronian, but modified by the ecclesiastical vocabulary of
   Jerome. In his dialogue "Ciceronianus," or on the best mode of speaking
   (1528), he ridicules those pedantic semi-pagans, chiefly Italians, who
   worshiped and aped Cicero, and avoided Christian themes, or borrowed
   names and titles from heathen mythology. He had, however, the greatest
   respect for Cicero, and hoped that "he is now living peacefully in
   heaven." He learned neither German nor English nor Italian, and had
   only an imperfect knowledge of French, and even of his native Dutch.

   He had a nervous sensibility. The least draught made him feverish. He
   could not bear the iron stoves of Germany, and required an open
   fireplace. He could drink no wine but Burgundy. He abhorred
   intemperance. He could not eat fish on fast days; the mere smell of it
   made him sick: his heart, he said, was Catholic, but his stomach
   Lutheran. He never used spectacles either by day or by candle-light,
   and many wondered that study had not blinded his eyes. He walked firm
   and erect without a cane. His favorite exercise was horseback-riding.
   [509] He usually traveled on horseback with an attendant, and carried
   his necessaries, including a shirt, a linen nightcap, and a
   prayer-book, in a knapsack tied to the saddle. He shrank from the mere
   mention of death, and frankly confessed that he was not born to be a
   martyr, but would in the hour of trial be tempted to follow St. Peter.
   He was fond of children, and charitable to the poor.

   His Theological Opinions.

   Erasmus was, like most of the German and English humanists, a sincere
   and enlightened believer in Christianity, and differed in this respect
   from the frivolous and infidel humanists of France and Italy. When
   charged by Prince Albertus Pius of Carpi, who was in high favor at the
   papal court, with turning sacred things into ridicule, he answered,
   "You will much more readily find scoffers at sacred things in Italy
   among men of your own rank, ay, and in your much-lauded Rome, than with
   us. I could not endure to sit down at table with such men." He devoted
   his brilliant genius and classical lore to the service of religion. He
   revered the Bible as a divine revelation, and zealously promoted its
   study. He anticipated Luther in the supreme estimate of the word of God
   as the true source of theology and piety. Oecolampadius confessed that
   he learned from Erasmus "nihil in sacris scripturis praeter Christum
   quaerendum."

   He had a sharp eye to the abuses of the Church, and endeavored to
   reform them in a peaceful way. He wished to lead theology back from the
   unfruitful speculations and frivolous subtleties of scholasticism to
   Scriptural simplicity, and to promote an inward, spiritual piety. He
   keenly ridiculed the foolish and frivolous discussions of the schoolmen
   about formalities and quiddities, and such questions as whether God
   could have assumed the form of a woman, or an ass, or a cucumber, or a
   flint-stone; whether the Virgin Mary was learned in the languages; and
   whether we would eat and drink after the resurrection. He exposed the
   vices and follies, the ignorance and superstition, of the monks and
   clergy. He did not spare even the papacy. "I have no desire," he wrote
   in 1523, that the primacy of the Roman See should be abolished, but I
   could wish that its discipline were such as to favor every effort to
   promote the religion of the gospel; for several ages past it has by its
   example openly taught things that are plainly averse to the doctrines
   of Christ."

   At the same time he lacked a deeper insight into the doctrines of sin
   and grace, and failed to find a positive remedy for the evils he
   complained of. In using the dangerous power of ridicule and satire
   which he shared with Lucian, he sometimes came near the line of
   profanity. Moreover, he had a decidedly skeptical vein, and in the
   present century he would probably be a moderate Rationalist.

   With his critical faculty he saw the difficulties and differences in
   the human surroundings and circumstances of the Divine Scriptures. He
   omitted in his Greek Testament the forgery of the three witnesses, 1
   John 5:7, and only inserted it under protest in the third edition
   (1522), because he had rashly promised to do so if a single Greek MS.
   could be found to contain it. [510] He doubted the genuineness of the
   pericope of the adulteress (John 8:1-11), though he retained it in the
   text. He disputed the orthodox punctuation of Rom. 9:5. He rejected the
   Pauline origin of Hebrews, and questioned the Johannean authorship of
   the Apocalypse. He judged Mark to be an abridgment of Matthew. He
   admitted lapses of memory and errors of judgment in the Apostles. He
   denied any other punishment in hell except "the perpetual anguish of
   mind which accompanies habitual sin." As to the Lord's Supper, he said,
   when asked his opinion by the magistrate of Basel about the book of
   Oecolampadius and his figurative interpretation, [511] that it was
   learned, eloquent, well written, and pious, but contrary to the general
   belief of the church from which it was dangerous to depart. There is
   good reason to believe that he doubted transubstantiation. He was also
   suspected of leaning to Arianism, because he summed up the reaching of
   Scripture on the Trinity in this sentence: "The Father is very
   frequently called God, the Son sometimes, the Holy Spirit never;" and
   he adds: "Many of the fathers who worshiped the Son with the greatest
   piety, yet scrupled to use the word homoousion, which is nowhere to be
   found in Holy Scripture." [512] He moderated the doctrine of hereditary
   sin, and defended human freedom in his notes on Romans. He emphasized
   the moral, and depreciated the doctrinal, element in Christianity. He
   deemed the Apostles' Creed sufficient, and was willing to allow within
   this limit freedom for theological opinions. "Reduce the number of
   dogmas," he advised Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz, "to a minimum; you
   can do it without injury to Christianity; on other points, leave every
   one free to believe what he pleases; then religion will take hold on
   life, and you can correct the abuses of which the world justly
   complains."

   He had a high opinion of the morality and piety of the nobler heathen,
   such as Socrates, Cicero, and Plutarch. "The Scriptures," he says in
   his Colloquies, "deserve, indeed, the highest authority; but I find
   also in the writings of the ancient heathen and in the poets so much
   that is pure, holy and divine, that I must believe that their hearts
   were divinely moved. The spirit of Christ is perhaps more widely
   diffused than we imagine, and many will appear among the saints who are
   not in our catalogue." [513] Then, after quoting from Cicero and
   Socrates, he says, "I can often hardly restrain myself from exclaiming,
   'Holy Socrates, pray for us.' "

   The same liberal sentiments we find among the early Greek fathers
   (Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen), and in Zwingli.

   Bigoted Catholics hated and feared him, as much as the liberal admired
   and lauded him. "He laid the egg," they said, "which Luther hatched."
   [514] They perverted his name into Errasmus because of his errors,
   Arasmus because he ploughed up old truths and traditions, Erasinus
   because he had made himself an ass by his writings. They even called
   him Behemoth and Antichrist. The Sorbonne condemned thirty-seven
   articles extracted from his writings in 1527. His books were burned in
   Spain, and long after his death placed on the Index in Rome.

   In his last word to his popish enemies who identified him with Luther
   to ruin both together, he writes: "For the future I despise them, and I
   wish I had always done so; for it is no pleasure to drown the croaking
   of frogs. Let them say, with their stout defiance of divine and human
   laws, 'We ought to obey God rather than men.' That was well said by the
   Apostles, and even on their lips it is not without a certain propriety;
   only it is not the same God in the two cases. The God of the Apostles
   was the Maker of heaven and earth: their God is their belly. Fare ye
   well." [515]

   His Works.

   The literary labors of Erasmus may be divided into three classes: --

   I. Works edited. Their number proves his marvellous industry and
   enterprise.

   He published the ancient Latin classics, Cicero, Terence, Seneca, Livy,
   Pliny; and the Greek classics with Latin translations, Euripides,
   Xenophon, Demosthenes, Plutarch, Lucian.

   He edited the principal church fathers (some for the first time from
   MSS.); namely, Jerome (1516-1518; ed. ii., 1526; ed. iii., a year after
   his death), Cyprian (1520), Athanasius (in a Latin version, 1522),
   Hilarius (1523), Irenaeus (Latin, 1526, ed. princeps, very defective),
   Ambrose (1527), Augustin (1529), Epiphanius (1529), Chrysostom on
   Matthew (1530), Basil (in Greek, 1532; he called him the "Christian
   Demosthenes"), Origen (in Latin, 1536). He wrote the prefaces and
   dedications.

   He published the Annotations of Laurentius Valla on the New Testament
   (1505 and 1526), a copy of which he had found by chance on the shelves
   of an old library.

   The most important of his edited works is the Greek New Testament, with
   a Latin translation. [516]

   II. Original works on general literature.

   His "Adages" (Adagia), begun at Oxford, dedicated to Lord Mountjoy,
   first published in Paris in 1500, and much enlarged in subsequent
   editions, [517] is an anthology of forty-one hundred and fifty-one
   Greek and Latin proverbs, similitudes, and sentences,--a sort of
   dictionary and commonplace-book, brimful of learning, illustrations,
   anecdotes, historical and biographical sketches, attacks on monks,
   priests, and kings, and about ten thousand quotations from Greek poets,
   literally translated into the Latin in the metre of the original.

   "The Praise of Folly" (Encomium Moriae) [518] was written on a journey
   from Italy to England, and finished in the house of his congenial
   friend, Sir Thomas More (whose name in Greek means "Fool"), as a jeu
   d'esprit, in the manner of his favorite Lucian. It introduces Folly
   personified as a goddess, in ironical praise of the merits, and
   indirect ridicule of the perversities, of different classes of society.
   It abounds in irony, wit, and humor, in keen observations of men and
   things, and contains his philosophy of life. The wise man is the most
   miserable of men, as is proved by the case of Socrates, who only
   succeeded in making himself ridiculous; while the fool is the happiest
   man, has no fear of death or hell, no tortures of conscience, tells
   always the truth, and is indispensable to the greatest of monarchs, who
   cannot even dine without him. In conclusion Erasmus, rather
   irreverently, quotes Scripture proofs in praise of folly. Pope Leo X.
   read and enjoyed the, book from beginning to end. Holbein illustrated
   it with humorous pictures, which are still preserved in Basel.

   In his equally popular "Colloquies" (Colloquia Familiaria), begun in
   1519, and enlarged in numerous editions, Erasmus aims to make better
   scholars and better men, as he says in his dedication to John Erasmius
   Froben (the son of his friend and publisher). [519] He gives
   instruction for Latin conversation, describes the good and bad manners
   of the times, and ventilates his views on a variety of interesting
   topics, such as courtesy in saluting, rash vows a soldier's life,
   scholastic studies, the profane feast, a lover and maiden, the virgin
   opposed to matrimony, the penitent virgin, the uneasy wife, the
   shipwreck, rich beggars, the alchemist, etc. The "Colloquies" are, next
   to the "Praise of Folly," his most characteristic work, and, like it,
   abound in delicate humor, keen irony, biting satire. He pays a glowing
   tribute to Cicero, and calls him "sanctum illud pectus afflatum
   coelesti numine;" and in the same conversation occurs the famous
   passage already referred to, "Sancte Socrates, ora pro nobis." He shows
   his sympathy with the cause of Reuchlin in the dialogue Apotheosis
   Reuchlini Capnionis, by describing a vision in which the persecuted
   Hebrew scholar (who died June 22, 1522) was welcomed in heaven by St.
   Jerome, and, without leave of the Pope, enrolled in the number of
   saints. But during Reuchlin's life he had kept neutral in the Dominican
   quarrel about Reuchlin's orthodoxy. He is very severe on "the coarse,
   over-fed monks," and indulges too freely in insinuations which offend
   modern taste. [520]   He attacks war, which he hated even more than
   monkery; and in his description of a reckless, extravagant, debauched,
   sick, poor and wretched soldier, he took unchristian revenge of Ulrich
   von Hutten after his miserable death. In the dialogue, "Unequal
   Marriage," he paints him in the darkest colors as an abandoned roué. He
   gives an amusing description of a German inn, which makes one thankful
   for the progress of modern civilization. The bedrooms, he says, are
   rightly so called; for they contain nothing but a bed; and the
   cleanliness is on a par with the rest of the establishment and the
   adjoining stable. The "Ichthyophagia" is a dialogue between a butcher
   and a fishmonger, and exposes the Pharisaical tendency to strain out a
   gnat and to swallow a camel, and to lay heavy burdens on others. "Would
   they might eat nothing but garlic who imposed these fish-days upon us!"
   "Would they might starve to death who force the necessity of fasting
   upon free men!" The form of the dialogue furnished the author a door of
   escape from the charge of heresy, for he could not be held responsible
   for the sentiments of fictitious characters; moreover, he said, his
   object was to teach Latin, not theology. Nevertheless, the Sorbonne
   condemned the "Colloquies," and the Inquisition placed them in the
   first class of prohibited books.

   The numerous letters of Erasmus and to Erasmus throw much light upon
   contemporaneous literary and ecclesiastical history, and make us best
   acquainted with his personality. He corresponded with kings and
   princes, popes and cardinals, as well as with scholars in all parts of
   Europe. He tells us that he wrote sometimes forty letters in a day.
   [521]

   III. Theological works. The edition of the Greek Testament, with a new
   Latin version and brief annotations, and the independent paraphrases,
   are the most important contributions of Erasmus to exegesis, and have
   appeared in very many editions. The paraphrastic form of commenting,
   which briefly explains the difficulties, and links text and notes in
   continuous composition, so as to make the writer his own interpreter,
   [522] was a great benefit to the incipient scholarship of his day, and
   facilitated a more general spread of the New Testament, which he
   eloquently defended. He did not penetrate into the deeper meaning of
   the Scriptures, but he made the surface more intelligible by the
   moonlight of philology and refined culture. His Paraphrases cover the
   whole New Testament, except the Apocalypse, and fill the seventh volume
   of Le Clerk's edition of his works. A translation was published in two
   volumes folio, in black-letter, at London, 1551, and appointed, by
   public authority, to be placed in all the parish churches of England.

   His "Method of True Theology" (Ratio verae Theologiae) [523] was
   prefixed to his first edition of the Greek Testament, and afterwards
   expanded and separately published, and dedicated to Cardinal-Archbishop
   Albrecht of Mainz (1519), in a preface full of complaints over the evil
   times of violent controversy, which, in his judgment, destroyed charity
   and the peaceful cultivation of learning and practical piety. He
   maintains that the first requisite for the study of the Scriptures is a
   knowledge of Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. Nor are poetry and good letters
   to be neglected. Christ clothes his teaching in poetic parables; and
   Paul quotes from the poets, but not from Aristotle.

   The Enchiridion Militis Christiani, [524] first published at Louvain,
   1501 (or 1503), [525] and translated into several languages, is a
   treatise on practical piety in its conflict with the Devil and unruly
   passions. The author borrows his weapons from the Scriptures, the
   fathers, and the Greek and Roman philosophers, and shows that the end
   of all human effort is Christ, and that the way to Christ is faith
   abounding in good works. In a later edition he added a defense, with a
   sharp attack on the scholastic theology contrasted with the plain,
   practical teaching of Christ and the apostles. The book was condemned
   by the Sorbonne as heretical.

   In the tract on the Confessional (1524), he enumerates the advantages
   and the perils of that institution which may be perverted into a means
   of propagating vice by suggesting it to young and inexperienced
   penitents. He leaves, on the whole, the impression that the
   confessional does more harm than good.

   In the book on the Tongue (1525), he eloquently describes, and
   illustrates with many anecdotes, its use and abuse. After its
   publication he wrote to his friends, "Erasmus will henceforth be mute,
   having parted with his tongue."

   But a year after appeared his book on the Institution of Christian
   Matrimony (1526), dedicated to Queen Catherine of England. It contains
   the views of an unmarried man on the choice of a mate, the duties of
   parents, and the education of children. He justly blames Tertullian and
   Jerome (he might have included all the fathers) for their extravagant
   laudation of celibacy, and suggests doubts on the sacramental character
   of marriage.

   One of his last works was a Catechism on the Apostles' Creed, the
   Decalogue, and the Lord's Prayer, which he dedicated to the father of
   the unfortunate Anne Boleyn. For the same nobleman he wrote a short
   devotional work on preparation for death.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [499] His double name is a Latin and Greek translation of his father's
   Christian name Gerard (Roger), or Gerhard = Gernhaber or
   Liebhaber,i.e., Beloved, in mediaeval Latin Desiderius, in Greek
   Erasmus, or rather Erasmius from Erasmios Lovely. He found out the
   mistake when he became familiar with Greek, and accordlingly gave his
   godson, the son of his publisher Froben, the name John Erasmius
   (Erasmiolus). In dedicating to him an improved edition of his
   Colloquies (1524), he calls this book "erasmion, the delight of the
   Muses who foster sacred things." " He was equally unfortunate in the
   additional epithet Roterodamus, instead of Roterodamensis. But he was
   innocent of both mistakes.

   [500] Drummond (II. 337) calls Erasmus "the greatest luminary of his
   age, the greatest scholar of any age." But his learning embraced only
   the literature in the Greek and Latin languages.

   [501] His father was ordained a priest after the birth of Erasmus; for
   he says that he lived with Margaret "spe conjugii," and became a priest
   in Rome on learning from his parents, who were opposed to the marriage,
   the false report that his beloved Margaret was dead.

   [502]  He says in his autobiographical sketch: "Natus Roterodami
   vigilia Simonis et Judæ circa annum 67, supra millesimum
   quadringentesimum." His friend and biographer, Beatus Rhenanus, did not
   know the year of his birth. His epitaph in Basel gives 1466; the
   inscription on his statue at Rotterdam gives 1467; the historians vary
   from 1464 to 1469. Bayle, Burigny, Müller, and Drummoud (I. 3 sq.)
   discuss the chronology.

   [503] He calls himself, in his autobiographical sketch, "dignitatum ac
   divitiarum perpetuus contemptor."

   [504] J. H. Lupton: A Life of John Colet, D. D., Dean of St. Paul's and
   Founder of St. Paul's School. London, 1887.

   [505] He dictated these lines to his friend Amerbach on departing: "Jam
   Basilea vale! qua non urbs altera multis Annis exhibuit gratius
   hospitium. Hinc precor omnia laeta tibi, simul illud, ErasmoHospes uti
   ne unquam tristior adveniat."

   [506] "O Jesu, misericordia; Domine, libera me; Domine, fac finem;
   Domine, miserere mei;" and in German or Dutch, Lieber God
   (Gott)!--Beatus Rhenanus, in Vita Er.

   [507] Drummond, II. 338-340, gives the document in full.

   [508] See the interesting description of his face by Lavater in his
   Physiognomik, quoted by Ad. Müller, p. 108, and Hagenbach, K. Gesch.,
   III. 50. There are several portraits of him,--by Matsys (1517), Dürer
   (1523), and, the best, by Holbein who painted him repeatedly at Basel.

   [509] In thanking Archbishop Warham of Canterbury for the present of a
   horse, he thus humorously describes the animal: "I have received the
   horse, which is no beauty, but a good creature notwithstanding; for he
   is free from all the mortal sins, except gluttony and laziness; and he
   is adorned with all the virtues of a good confessor, being pious,
   prudent, humble, modest, sober, chaste, and quiet, and neither bites
   nor kicks." To Polydore Virgil, who sent him money to procure a horse,
   he replied, "I wish you could give me any thing to cure the rider."
   ("Dedisti quo paretur equus, utinam dare possis quo reparetur eques."
   --Op. III. 934.)

   [510] ... "ne cui sit ansa calumniandi. Tametsi suspicor codicem illum
   ad nostros esse correctum."--Opera, VI. 1080. The Codex Montfortianus,
   now in Dublin, was probably written between 1519-1522, and the disputed
   passage interpolated with the purpose of injuring the reputation of
   Erasmus. See J. R. Harris, The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the N.
   Test., London and Cambridge, 1887, p. 46 sqq.

   [511] De genuina verborum Domini: Hoc est corpus meum, etc., juxta
   vetustissimos auctores expositione liber. Basil., 1525.

   [512] .. See the Preface to his edition of St. Hilary on the Trinity,
   published at Basel, 1523.

   [513] "Fortasse latius se fundit spiritus Christi quam nos
   interpretamur, et multi sunt in consortio sanctorum qui non sunt apud
   nos in catalogo."--Coll., in the conversation entitled Convivium
   Religiosum.

   [514] He himself alludes to this saying: "Ego peperi ovum, Lutherus
   exclusit" (Op. III. 840), but adds, "Egoposui ovum gallinaceum,
   Lutherus exclusit pullum longe dissimillimum."

   [515] Des. Erasmi Epistola ad quosdam impudentissimos Graculos
   (jackdaws). Op. IX. Pars II. (or vol. X.), p. 1745; Drummond, II. 265
   sq.

   [516] On this see the critical introductions to the New Testament;
   Scrivener's Introd. to the Criticism of the N. T., 3d ed., pp. 429-434;
   Schaff's Companion to the Greek Test., 3d ed., pp. 229-232; and
   Drummond, I. 308 sqq.

   [517] The last edition before me, Adagiorum Chiliades ... ex officina
   Frobenia, 1536, contains 1087 pages folio, with an alphabetical index
   of the Proverbs. See vol. II. of the Leiden ed. For extracts see
   Drummond, I. ch. X.

   [518] Morias Enkomion, id est Stultitiae Laus, first printed 1510 or
   1511. Op. IV. 405-507. There is a neat edition of the Encomium and the
   Colloquia by Tauchnitz, Leipzig, 1829. Drummond (I. 184 sqq.) gives a
   good summary of the contents.

   [519] The work which appeared in 1518 under this title, with a preface
   of Rhenanus, was disclaimed by Erasmus, except some portions which he
   had dictated more than twenty years previously to a pupil in Paris by
   way of amusement. He compared it to an ass in a lion's skin. The
   Colloquia are printed in Opera, I. 624-908. I have an edition cum notis
   selectis variorum accurante Corn. Schrevelio. Lugd., Bat. Bailey's
   translation, London, 1724, republished 1878, reproduces in racy
   colloquial English the idiomatic and proverbial Latinisms of the
   original.

   [520] In the dialogue Virgo misogamos, the maiden Catharine, who had
   resolved to become a nun, is advised by her lover Eubulus that she may
   keep her chastity more safely at home; for the monks were by no means
   all " eunuchs,"but often do all they can to deserve their name "
   fathers."("Patres vocantur, ac frequenter efficiunt, ut hoc nomen vere
   competat in ipsos.") She is also told that " all are not virgins who
   wear the veil, unless there be many in our days who share the pecular
   privilege of the Virgin Mary, of being a virgin after childbirth."The
   maiden admits the force of her lover's arguments, but refuses to be
   convinced. In the colloquy that follows, entitled Virgo poenitens, she
   acknowledges the wisdom of the advice when it was too late. She had
   scarcely been twelve days in the nunnery before she entreated her
   mother, and then her father, to take her home if they wished to save
   her life.

   [521] The Epistolae in Froben's ed. of 1540, Tom. III. fol. (1213 pp.),
   with his preface, dated Freiburg, 1529; in Le Clerk's ed., Tom. III.
   Pars I. and II. There is also a fine edition of the collected epistles
   of Erasmus, Melanchthon, Thomas More, and Lud. Vives, London, 1642, 2
   vols. fol. 2146 and 116 pages, with a good portrait of Erasmus (a copy
   in the Union Seminary). Recent additions have been made by Horawitz
   (Erasmiana, 1883 sqq.). Jortin and Drummond give many extracts from the
   epistles.

   [522] Erasmus well defines it in the dedicatory preface ad Card.
   Grimanum, before the Pauline Epistles: "hiantia committere, abrupta
   mollire, confusa digerere, evoluta evolvere, nodosa explicare, obscuris
   lucem addere, hebraismum romana civitate donare ... et ita temperare
   paraphrasinne fiat paraphronesis, h. e. sic aliter dicere ut non dicas
   alia."

   [523] Opera, vol. V. 57 sqq.

   [524] Usually translated "The Manual of a Christian Soldier;" but
   encheiridionmeans also a dagger, and he himself explains it,
   "Enchiridion, hoc est, pugiunculum."Op. V. 1-65. The first English
   translation (1533) is believed to be by William Tyndale, the translator
   of the New Testament. Another, with notes, which I have before me, is
   by Philip Wyatt Crowther, Esq., London, 1816, under the title "The
   Christian's Manual," etc.

   [525] On the disputed date see Drummond, I. 122.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 72. Erasmus and the Reformation.

   I. Erasmus: De Libero Arbitrio diatribe (1524), in Opera ed. Lugd. IX.
   Pars I. 1215 sqq., in Walch, XVIII. Hyperaspistae diatribes libri duo
   contra Servum Arbitr. M. Lutheri, in 2 parts (1526 and 1527), in Opera
   IX. Pars II. 1249 sqq., and in Walch, XVIII.

   Luther: De Servo Arbitrio ad Erasmum Roterodamun, Wittembergae, 1525.
   On the last p. of the first ed. before me is the date "Mense Decembri,
   Anno MDXXV." German in Walch, XVIII. Erl. ed. Opera Lat. VII. 113 sqq.
   Letters of Luther to Erasmus and about Erasmus in Walch, XVIII., and in
   De Wette, I. pp. 39, 52, 87, 247; II. 49; III. 427; IV, 497.

   II. Chlebus: Erasmus und Luther, in "Zeitschr. f. Hist. Theol.," 1845.
   Döllinger in his Die Reformation, 1846, vol. i. pp. 1-20. Kerker: Er.
   u. sein Theol. Standpunkt, in the "Theol. Quartalschrift," 1859. D. F.
   Strauss: Ulrich von Hutten, 4th ed. Bonn, 1878, pp. 448-484, 511-514,
   and passim. Plitt: Erasmus in s. Stellung zur Reformation, Leipz., in
   the "Zeitschrift f. Hist. Theol.," 1866, No. III. Rud. Stähelin: Eras.
   Stellung z. Reformation, Basel, 1873 (35 pp.; comp. his art. In
   Herzog2, quoted in § 71). Froude: Times of Erasmus and Luther. Three
   Lect., delivered at Newcastle, 1867 (in the first series of his "Short
   Studies on Great Subjects," New York ed., 1873, pp. 37-127), brilliant
   but inaccurate, and silent on the free-will controversy. Drummond:
   Erasmus, etc., 1873, vol. II. chs. xiii.-xv. E. Walter: Erasmus und
   Melanchthon, Bernburg, 1879. A. Gilly: Erasme de Rotterd., sa situation
   en face de l'église et de la libre pensée, Arras, 1879. Comp. also
   Kattenbusch: Luther's Lehre vom unfreien Willen, Göttingen, 1875, and
   Köstlin: Luther's Theologie, vol. II. 32-55.

   Erasmus was eighteen years older than Luther, and stood at the height
   of his fame when the reformer began his work. He differed from him as
   Jerome differed from Augustin, or Eusebius from Athanasius. Erasmus was
   essentially a scholar, Luther a reformer; the one was absorbed in
   literature, the other in religion. Erasmus aimed at illumination,
   Luther at reconstruction; the former reached the intellect of the
   educated, the latter touched the heart of the people. Erasmus labored
   for freedom of thought, Luther for freedom of conscience. Both had been
   monks, Erasmus against his will, Luther by free choice and from pious
   motives; and both hated and opposed monkery, but the former for its
   ignorance and bigotry, the latter for its self-righteousness and
   obstruction of the true way to justification and peace. Erasmus
   followed maxims of worldly wisdom; Luther, sacred principles and
   convictions. The one was willing, as he confessed, to sacrifice "a part
   of the truth for the peace of the church," and his personal comfort;
   the other was ready to die for the gospel at any moment. Erasmus was a
   trimmer and timeserver, Luther every inch a moral hero.

   Luther wrote upon his tablet (1536), "Res et verba Philippus; verba
   sine re Erasmus; res sine verbis Lutherus; nec res nec verba
   Carolostadius." But Luther himself was the master of words and matter,
   and his words were deeds. Melanchthon was an improved Erasmus on the
   side of evangelical truth.

   It is easy to see how far two men so differently constituted could go
   together, and where and when they had to part. So long as the
   Reformation moved within the church, Erasmus sympathized with it. But
   when Luther, who had at first as little notion of leaving the Catholic
   Church, burnt the Pope's bull and the decretals, and with them the
   bridge behind him, Erasmus shrank back, and feared that the remedy was
   worse than the evil. His very breadth of culture and irresolution
   became his weakness; while Luther's narrowness and determination were
   his strength. In times of war, neutrality is impossible, and we must
   join one of the two contending armies. Erasmus was for unity and peace,
   and dreaded a split of the church as the greatest calamity; and yet he
   never ceased to rebuke the abuses. It was his misfortune, rather than
   his fault, that he could not side with the Reformation. We must believe
   his assertion that his conscience kept him from the cause of the
   Lutherans. At the same time he was concerned for his personal comfort
   and literary supremacy, and anxious to retain the friendship of his
   hierarchical and royal patrons. He wished to be a spectator, but not an
   actor in "the Lutheran tragedy."

   Erasmus hailed the young Melanchthon with enthusiastic praise of his
   precocious genius and learning, and continued to respect him even after
   his breach with Luther. He stood in friendly correspondence with
   Zwingli, who revered him as the prince of humanists. He employed
   Oecolampadius as his assistant, and spoke highly, though evasively, of
   his book on the eucharist. He was not displeased with Luther's attacks
   on indulgences and monasticism, and wrote to Zwingli that he had taught
   nearly every thing that Luther teaches, but without his coarseness and
   paradoxes. [526] In a letter of reply, dated Louvain, May 30, 1519, he
   courteously but cautiously and condescendingly accepted Luther's
   compliments and friendship, but advised him to moderate his tone, and
   to imitate Paul, who abolished the law by allegorical interpretation;
   at the same time he frankly admitted that he had not read his books,
   except portions of the commentary on the Psalms, [527] and that he
   considered it his duty to keep neutral, in order to do the more for the
   revival of letters. In conclusion he expressed the wish: "May the Lord
   Jesus grant you daily more of his Spirit for his glory and the general
   good." [528]

   So far, then, he objected not so much to the matter as to the manner of
   Luther, whose plebeian violence and roughness offended his cultured
   taste. But there was a deeper difference. He could not appreciate his
   cardinal doctrine of justification by faith alone, and took offence at
   the denial of free-will and human merit. He held the Catholic views on
   these subjects. He wished a reform of the discipline, but not of the
   faith, of the church, and cared little for dogmatic controversies.

   His gradual alienation may be seen in the following extracts from his
   letters.

   To Albrecht, Cardinal-Archbishop of Mainz, he wrote from Louvain, Nov.
   1, 1519: -

   "Permit me to say that I have never had any thing to do either with the
   affair of Reuchlin or with the cause of Luther. I have never taken any
   interest in the Cabbala or the Talmud. Those virulent contentions
   between Reuchlin and the party of Hochstraten have been extremely
   distasteful to me. Luther is a perfect stranger to me, and I have never
   had time to read his books beyond merely glancing over a few pages. If
   he has written well, no praise is due to me; if not, it would be unjust
   to hold me responsible .... Luther had written to me in a very
   Christian tone, as I thought; and I replied, advising him incidentally
   not to write any thing against the Roman Pontiff, nor to encourage a
   proud or intolerant spirit, but to preach the gospel out of a pure
   heart .... I am neither Luther's accuser, nor advocate, nor judge; his
   heart I would not presume to judge--for that is always a matter of
   extreme difficulty--still less would I condemn. And yet if I were to
   defend him, as a good man, which even his enemies admit him to be; as
   one put upon his trial, a duty which the laws permit even to sworn
   judges; as one persecuted--which would be only in accordance with the
   dictates of humanity--and trampled on by the bounden enemies of
   learning, who merely use him as a handle for the accomplishment of
   their designs, where would be the blame, so long as I abstained from
   mixing myself up with his cause ? In short, I think it is my duty as a
   Christian to support Luther in this sense, that, if he is innocent, I
   should not wish him to be crushed by a set of malignant villains; if he
   is in error, I would rather see him put right than destroyed: for thus
   I should be acting in accordance with the example of Christ, who, as
   the prophet witnesseth, quencheth not the smoking flax, nor breaketh
   the bruised reed."

   To Pope Leo X., from Louvain, Sept. 13, 1520 (three months after the
   excommunication of Luther, June 15): -

   "I have no acquaintance with Luther, nor have I ever read his books,
   except perhaps ten or twelve pages, and that only by snatches. From
   what I then saw, I judged him to be well qualified for expounding the
   Scriptures in the manner of the Fathers,--a work greatly needed in an
   age like this, which is so excessively given to mere subtleties, to the
   neglect of really important questions. Accordingly, I have favored his
   good, but not his bad, qualities, or rather I have favored Christ's
   glory in him. I was among the first to foresee the danger there was of
   this matter ending in violence, and no one ever hated violence more
   than I do. Indeed, I even went so far as to threaten John Froben the
   printer, to prevent him publishing his books. I wrote frequently and
   industriously to my friends, begging that they would admonish this man
   to observe Christian meekness in his writings, and do nothing to
   disturb the peace of the church. And when he himself wrote to me two
   years ago, I lovingly admonished him what I wished him to avoid; and I
   would he had followed my advice. This letter, I am informed, has been
   shown to your Holiness, I suppose in order to prejudice me, whereas it
   ought rather to conciliate your Holiness's favor towards me."

   On Dec. 5, 1520, five days before the burning of the Pope's bull,
   Erasmus, being asked for his opinion about Luther by the Elector
   Frederick of Saxony, whom he happened to meet at Cologne, hesitated a
   while, and looked blank; but being pressed by the Elector, who stood
   square before him and stared him in the face, he gave the well-known
   answer, -

   "Luther has committed two sins,--he has touched the Pope on the crown,
   and the monks on the belly." [529]

   The Elector smiled, and remembered the expression shortly before his
   death. Returned to his lodgings, Erasmus wrote down some axioms rather
   favorable to Luther and disapproving of the "Pope's unmerciful bull,"
   and sent them to Spalatin, but concealed the manuscript from fear that
   Aleander might see it; but it had been already published.

   From a letter to a friend in Basel (Louis Berus), dated Louvain, May
   14, 1521:-

   "By the bitterness of the Lutherans, and the stupidity of some who show
   more zeal than wisdom in their endeavors to heal the present disorders,
   things have been brought to such a pass, that I, for one, can see no
   issue but in the turning upside down of the whole world. What evil
   spirit can have sown this poisonous seed in human affairs? When I was
   at Cologne, I made every effort that Luther might have the glory of
   obedience and the Pope of clemency, and some of the sovereigns approved
   of this advice. But, lo and behold! the burning of the Decretals, the
   'Babylonish Captivity,' those propositions of Luther, so much stronger
   than they need be, have made the evil, it seems, incurable .... The
   only thing that remains to us, my dear Berus, is to pray that Christ,
   supreme in goodness and in power, may turn all to good; for he alone
   can do so."

   In the same month, during the sessions of the Diet of Worms, he wrote
   to Nicholas Everard, from Mechlin, 1521: -

   "If Luther had written more moderately, even though he had written
   freely, he would both have been more honored himself, and done more
   good to the world; but fate has decreed otherwise. I only wonder that
   the man is still alive .... They say that an edict is in readiness far
   more severe than the Pope's bull; [530] but from fear, or some other
   reason, it has not yet been published. I am surprised that the Pope
   should employ such agents, some of them illiterate men, and all of them
   headstrong and haughty, for the transaction of such affairs. Nothing
   can exceed the pride or violent temper of Cardinal Cajetan, of Charles
   Miltitz, of Marinus, of Aleander. They all act upon the principle of
   the young king who said, 'My little finger is thicker than my father's
   loins.' As to Aleander, he is a complete maniac,--a bad, foolish man."

   After the Diet of Worms, several events occurred which seemed to
   confirm his worst fears about the effects of the Reformation, and
   imbittered him against its leaders; namely, the disturbances of
   Carlstadt at Wittenberg (1521), Luther's invective against Henry VIII.
   (1522), and the fierce attack of his former friend and admirer Ulrich
   von Hutten (1523). [531]

   Nevertheless, he advised Pope Adrian VI. to avoid all harsh measures,
   to deal gently with errors, to pardon past misdoings, to reform abuses,
   and to call a general council of moderate men. The counsel was
   disregarded.

   Glareanus (Loriti) of Basel described Erasmus very well, when he wrote
   to Zwingli, Jan. 20, 1523, "Erasmus is an old man, and desires rest.
   Each party would like to claim him, but he does not want to belong to
   any party. Neither party is able to draw him. He knows whom to avoid,
   but not whom to attach himself to." Glareanus added, however, that
   Erasmus confessed Christ in his writings, and that he never heard any
   unchristian word from his lips. [532]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [526] "Videor mihi fere omnia docuisse quae docet Lutherus, nisi quod
   non tam atrociter, quodque abstinui a quibusdam aenigmatibus et
   paradoxis." In Zwingli's Opera, ed. Schuler and Schulthess, vol. VII.
   310.

   [527] After the bull of excommunication, it required special permission
   to read the books of the heretic. In a letter to Bombasius, Sept. 23,
   1521, Erasmus says that he begged Jerome Aleander for permission, but
   was denied unless he were to obtain it in express words from the Pope.
   Drummond, II. 85 sq.

   [528] Ems., Epist. 427. See the first letter of Luther (March 28,
   1519), the reply of Erasmus (May 30), and a second letter of Luther
   (April, 1524), and the reply of Erasmus (May 5), in Latin in Er.
   Epist., in German in Walch, vol. XVIII., 1944 sqq., and in the Appendix
   to Müller's Erasmus, pp. 385-395. The two letters of Luther to Erasmus
   are also given in Latin by De Wette, I. 247-249, and II. 498-501.

   [529] See p. 232.

   [530] The edict was passed May 26, 1521, but dated back May 8. (See p.
   318.)

   [531] Erasmus had disowned the poor fugitive Hutten, who turned on him
   like a wild beast in his Expostulatio cum Erasmo, published at
   Strasburg, July, 1523. Erasmus wrote to Pirkheimer, "Emoriar si
   crediturus eram, in universis Germanis esse tantum inhumanitatis,
   impudentiae, vanitatis, virulentiae quantum habet unus libellus
   Hutteni." He answered by Spongia Erasmi adversus Adspergines Ulrici
   Hutteni, Basel, 1523. (Opera, vol. IX. Pars II. 1631-73). Luther
   judged: "I am not pleased with Hutten's attack, but still less with
   Erasmus's reply." The Expostulatio and the Spongia were also translated
   into German. See on this bitter personal controversy, Strauss, Ulrich
   von Hutten, pp. 448-484; and Drummond, II. 120 sqq.

   [532] Opera Zw., VII. 263.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 73. The Free-will Controversy. 1524-1527.

   See Literature in § 73.

   After halting some time between approval and disapproval, Erasmus found
   it impossible to keep aloof from the irrepressible conflict. Provoked
   by Hutten, and urged by King Henry and English friends, he declared
   open war against Luther, and broke with the Reformation. He did so with
   great reluctance; for he felt that he could not satisfy either party,
   and that he was out of his element in a strictly theological dispute.
   He chose for his attack Luther's doctrine of total depravity.

   Here lay the chief dogmatic difference between the two. Erasmus was an
   admirer of Socrates, Cicero, and Jerome; while Luther was a humble
   pupil of St. Paul and Augustin. Erasmus lacked that profound religious
   experience through which Luther had passed in the convent, and
   sympathized with the anthropology of the Greek fathers and the
   semi-Pelagian school.

   In September, 1524, Erasmus appeared on the field with his work on the
   "Freedom of the Will." It is a defence of freedom as an indispensable
   condition of moral responsibility, without which there can be no
   meaning in precept, repentance, and reward. He maintains essentially
   the old semi-Pelagian theory, but in the mildest form, and more
   negatively than positively; for he wished to avoid the charge of
   heresy. He gives the maximum of glory to God, and a minimum to man. "I
   approve," he says, "of those who ascribe something to free-will, but
   rely most upon grace." We must exert our will to the utmost, but the
   will is ineffective without the grace of God. He urged against Luther
   Christ's call upon Jerusalem to repent (Matt. 23:37), and the will of
   God that no one should perish, but that all should be saved (Ezek.
   33:11; 1 Tim. 2:4; 2 Pet. 3:9). He treated him with respect, but
   charged him with attempting to drive out one extreme by another.

   Luther appreciated the merits of Erasmus, and frankly acknowledged his
   literary superiority. [533] But he knew his weakness, and expressed, as
   early as 1516, the fear that he understood too little of the grace of
   God. [534] He found in his writings more refutation of error than
   demonstration of truth, more love of peace than love of the cross. He
   hated his way of insinuating doubts. On June 20, 1523, he wrote to
   Oecolampadius: [535] "May the Lord strengthen you in your proposed
   explanation of Isaiah [in the University of Basel], although Erasmus,
   as I understand, does not like it .... He has done what he was ordained
   to do: he has introduced the ancient languages, in the place of
   injurious scholastic studies. He will probably die like Moses in the
   land of Moab. He does not lead to better studies which teach piety. I
   would rather he would entirely abstain from explaining and paraphrasing
   the Scriptures, for he is not up to this work .... He has done enough
   to uncover the evil; but to reveal the good and to lead into the land
   of promise, is not his business, in my opinion." In a letter to
   Erasmus, dated April, 1524, a few months before the open breach, he
   proposed to him that they should let each other alone, and apologized
   for his subserviency to the papists, and his want of courage, in a
   manner which could not but wound the sensitive scholar. [536]

   Luther on the Slavery of the Human Will.

   He waited a whole year before he published his reply on the "Slavery of
   the Will" (December, 1525). It is one of his most vigorous and profound
   books, full of grand ideas and shocking exaggerations, that border on
   Manichaeism and fatalism. [537] He thanked Erasmus for going to the
   root of the controversy instead of troubling him "about the papacy,
   purgatory, indulgences, and other fooleries." He inseparably connects
   divine foreknowledge and foreordination, and infers from God's almighty
   power that all things happen by necessity, and that there can be no
   freedom in the creature. [538] He represents the human will as a horse
   or a donkey which goes just as the rider directs it; and that rider is
   the Devil in the state of fallen nature, and God in the state of grace.
   The will has no choice of master; it is God and the Devil who are
   fighting for its possession. The Scripture exhortations to repentance
   and holy living must not be understood seriously, but ironically, as if
   God would say to man: Only try to repent and to do good, and you will
   soon find out that you cannot do it. He deals with man as a mother with
   the child: she invites the child to walk, in order that he may stretch
   out the arm for help. God speaks in this fashion solely to convict us
   of our helplessness, if we do not implore his assistance. Satan said,
   "Thou art free to act." Moses said, "Act," in order to convict us,
   before Satan, of our inability to act.

   In the same book Luther makes a distinction between the Word of God and
   God himself, or between the revealed will of God, which offers
   salvation to all, and the concealed or hidden will, which means to save
   only some, and to leave the rest to deserved perdition. In this way he
   escapes the force of such passages as Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; 1 Tim. 2:4,
   urged by Erasmus, that God does not wish the death but the salvation of
   the sinner (namely, according to his revealed will only). [539] But
   this distinction puts a contradiction in God, which is impossible and
   intolerable.

   If we except the peculiar way of statement and illustration, Luther's
   view is substantially that of St. Augustin, whom Erasmus, with all due
   reverence for the great man, represents as teaching, "God works in us
   good and evil, and crowns his good works in us, and punishes his bad
   works in us." The positive part is unobjectionable: God is the author
   and rewarder of all that is good; but the negative part is the great
   stumbling-block. How can God in justice command us to walk when we are
   lame, and punish us for not walking? The theory presupposes, of course,
   the apostasy and condemnation of the whole human race, on the ground of
   its unconscious or impersonal pre-existence and participation in the
   sin and guilt of Adam.

   All the Reformers were originally Augustinians, that is, believers in
   the total depravity of man's nature, and the absolute sovereignty of
   God's grace. They had, like St. Paul and St. Augustin, passed through a
   terrible conflict with sin, and learned to feel in their hearts, what
   ordinary Christians profess with their lips, that they were justly
   condemned, and saved only by the merits of Christ. They were men of
   intense experience and conviction of their own sinfulness and of God's
   mercifulness; and if they saw others perish in unbelief, it was not
   because they were worse, but because of the inscrutable will of God,
   who gives to some, and withholds from others, the gift of saving faith.
   Those champions of freedom taught the slavery of the will in all things
   pertaining to spiritual righteousness. They drew their moral strength
   from grace alone. They feared God, and nothing else. Their very fear of
   God made them fearless of men. The same may be said of the French
   Huguenots and the English Puritans. Luther stated this theory in
   stronger terms than Augustin or even Calvin; and he never retracted
   it,--as is often asserted,--but even twelve years later he pronounced
   his book against Erasmus one of his very best. [540] Melanchthon, no
   doubt in part under the influence of this controversy, abandoned his
   early predestinarianism as a Stoic error (1535), and adopted the
   synergistic theory. Luther allowed this change without adopting it
   himself, and abstained from further discussion of these mysteries. The
   Formula of Concord re-asserted in the strongest terms Luther's doctrine
   of the slavery of the human will, but weakened his doctrine of
   predestination, and assumed a middle ground between Augustinianism and
   semi-Pelagianism or synergism. [541] In like manner the Roman Catholic
   Church, while retaining the greatest reverence for St. Augustin and
   indorsing his anthropology, never sanctioned his views on total
   depravity and unconditional predestination, but condemned them,
   indirectly, in the Jansenists. [542]

   Final Alienation.

   The Erasmus-Luther controversy led to some further personalities in
   which both parties forgot what they owed to their cause and their own
   dignity. Erasmus wrote a bitter retort, entitled "Hyperaspistes," and
   drove Luther's predestinarian views to fatalistic and immoral
   consequences. He also addressed a letter of complaint to Elector John.
   The outrages of the Peasants' War confirmed him in his apprehensions.
   He was alienated from Melanchthon and Justus Jonas. He gave up
   correspondence with Zwingli, and rather rejoiced in his death. [543] He
   spoke of the Reformation as a tragedy, or rather a comedy which always
   ended in a marriage. He regarded it as a public calamity which brought
   ruin to arts and letters, and anarchy to the Church. [544]

   He was summoned to the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, as a counsellor of the
   Emperor, but declined because he was sick and conscious of his
   inability to please either party. He wrote, however, to Cardinal
   Campeggio, to the bishop of Augsburg, and other friends, to protest
   against settling questions of doctrine by the sword. His remedy for the
   evils of the Church was mutual forbearance and the correction of
   abuses. But his voice was not heeded; the time for compromises and half
   measures had passed, and the controversy took its course. He devoted
   his later years chiefly to the editing of new editions of his Greek
   Testament, and the writings of the church fathers.

   Luther abandoned Erasmus, and abused him as the vainest creature in the
   world, as an enraged viper, a refined Epicurean, a modern Lucian, a
   scoffer, a disguised atheist, and enemy of all religion. [545] We
   gladly return from this gross injustice to his earlier estimate,
   expressed in his letter to Erasmus as late as April, 1524: "The whole
   world must bear witness to your successful cultivation of that
   literature by which we arrive at a true understanding of the
   Scriptures; and this gift of God has been magnificently and wonderfully
   displayed in you, calling for our thanks."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [533] He wrote him a very respectful letter, March 28, 1519, thanking
   him for his great services to the cause of letters, and congratulating
   him for being heartily abused by the enemies of truth and light. Even
   in his book against Erasmus (De Servo Arbitrio), he says at the
   beginning: "Viribus eloquentiae et ingenio me longissime superas." And
   towards the close: "Fateor, tu magnus es et multis iisque nobilissimis
   dotibus a Deo ornatus ... ingenio, eruditione, facundia usque ad
   miraculum. Ego vero nihil habeo et sum, nisi quod Christianum esse me
   glorier."Op. Lat. VII. 367 (Erl. Frcf. ed.).

   [534] See his letters to Lange and Spalatin in De Wette, I. 39 sq., 52;
   87 sq. To Lange he wrote; "Ich fürchte, Erasmus breitet Christum und
   die Gnade Gottes nicht genug aus, von der er gar wenig weiss. Das
   Menschliche gilt mehr bei ihm als das Göttliche."

   [535] De Wette, II. p. 352 sqq.

   [536] In De Wette, II. 498 sq. Erasmus answered, May 5, 1524.

   [537] Köstlin (I. 773) says that it is not surpassed by any work of
   Luther, "for energy and acuteness." But Döllinger and Janssen (II. 379)
   judge that Luther borrowed it from the Koran rather than from the New
   Testament.

   [538] "Ipsa ratione teste nullum potest esse liberum arbitrium in
   homine vel angelo aut ulla creatura."Op. Lat. VII. 366.

   [539] "Multa facit Deus quae verbo suo non ostendit nobis, multa quoque
   vult, quae verbo suo non ostendit sese velle. Sic non vult mortem
   peccatoris, verbo scilicet, vult autem illam voluntate illa
   imperscrutabili." Vol. VII. p. 222. Erl. ed. Op. Lat. The scholastic
   divines made a similar distinction between the voluntas signi and the
   voluntas beneplaciti.

   [540] In 1537 he wrote to Capito, "Nullum agnosco meum justum librum
   nisi forte De Servo Arbitrio et Catechismum." De Wette, V. 70. In the
   Articles of Smalkald he again denied the freedom of the will as a
   scholastic error; and in his last work, the Commentary on Genesis vi:6,
   and xxvi, he reaffirmed the distinction of the secret and revealed will
   of God, which we are unable to harmonize, but for this reason he deems
   it safest to adhere to the revealed will and to avoid speculations on
   the impenetrable mysteries of the hidden will. "Melius et tutius est
   consistere ad praesepe Christi hominis; plurimum enim periculi in eo
   est, si in illos labyrinthos divinitatis te involvas." On Gen. 6:6, in
   the Erl. ed. of Exeg. Opera, II. 170.

   [541] Form. Conc., Art. II. and XI. See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom,
   I. 313 sq.

   [542] Ibid., I. 102 sqq. Among the condemned propositions of Quesnel
   are these: "The grace of Christ is necessary for every good work;
   without it nothing can be done.""The will of man, before conversion by
   prevenient grace, is capable of all evil and incapable of good."

   [543] When he heard of it in 1531, he wrote to a friend, "It is a good
   thing that two of their leaders have perished,--Zwingli on the
   battle-field, and Oecolampadius shortly after of fever and
   abscess."--Op. III. 1422.

   [544] He gives a deplorable picture of the demoralizing effects of the
   Reformation in a letter to Geldenhauer in 1526, Opera X. 1578-1580,
   quoted in full in Latin and German by Döllinger, Die Reformation, I.
   13-15. The Strasburg preachers, Capito, Bucer, and Hedio, tried to
   refute the charges in 1530. Erasmus again came out with the charge,
   among others, that luxury was never greater, nor adulteries more
   frequent, than among the self-styled evangelicals, and appeals in
   confirmation to admissions of Luther, Melanchthon, and Oecolampadius.
   Some of his last letters, discovered and published by Horawitz
   (Erasmiana, 1885, No. IV. p. 44 sqq.), contain similar complaints.

   [545] In his letter to Link, March 7, 1529 (in De Wette, III. 426 sq.),
   he calls Erasmus "atheon, Lucianumque, Epicurum," and in a letter to
   his son John, 1533 (De Wette, IV. 497), he says: "Erasmus, hostis
   omnium religiorum et inimicus singularis Christi, Epicuri Lucianique
   perfectum exemplar et idea." Comp. his judgments in the Tischreden,
   LXI. 93-113 (Erl. ed.).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 74. Wilibald Pirkheimer.

   Bilibaldi Pirkheimeri Opera politica, historica, philologica, et
   epistolica, ed. by M. Goldast, Francf., 1610, fol. With a portrait by
   A. Dürer. His Encomium Podagrae was translated into English by W. Est,
   The Praise of the Gout, or the Gout's Apology, a paradox both pleasant
   and profitable. Lond., 1617.

   Lampe: Zum Andenken W. P.'s. Nürnberg, 1828. Karl Hagen: Deutschlands
   literarische und relig. Verhältnisse im Ref. Zeitalter. Mit besonderer
   Rücksicht auf Wilibald Pirkheimer. Erlangen, vol. I., 1841, pp. 188
   sqq., 261 sqq., 2d ed. 1868. Döllinger: Reformation, vol. I., 161-174.
   D. F. Strauss: Ulrich von Hutten, 4th ed., Bonn, 1878, pp. 118 sq.;
   227-235; 514-518. Lochner: Lebensläufe berühmter und verdienter
   Nürnberger, Nürnb., 1861. Rud. Hagen: W. P. in seinem Verhältniss zum
   Humanismus und zur Reformation, Nürnberg, 1882. Lic. P. Drews: Wilibald
   Pirkheimer's Stellung zur Reformation, Leipz., 1887 (138 pp.).

   About this time, and after the Peasants' War, the most eminent
   humanists withdrew from the Reformation, and followed Erasmus into the
   sheepfold of the mother church, disgusted with the new religion, but
   without being fully reconciled to the old, and dying at last of a
   broken heart. In this respect, the apprehension of Erasmus was well
   founded; the progress of the Reformation arrested and injured the
   progress of liberal learning, although not permanently. Theology
   triumphed over classical culture, and fierce dogmatic feuds took the
   place of satirical exposures of ignorant monks. But the literary loss
   was compensated by a religious gain. In the judgment of Luther, truth
   proved mightier than eloquence, faith stronger than learning, and the
   foolishness of God wiser than the wisdom of men. [546]

   Among the pupils, friends and admirers of Erasmus, who were first
   attracted and then repelled by the Reformation, are Wilibald
   Pirkheimer, Crotus Rubeanus, Mutianus Rufus, Ulrich Zasius, Vitus
   Amerpach, Georg Wizel, Jacob Strauss, Johann Wildenauer (Egranus),
   Johann Haner, Heinrich Loriti Glareanus, and Theobald Billicanus. [547]

   Wilibald Pirkheimer (1470-1530), the most distinguished and influential
   of them, was descended from an ancient, rich, and noble family of
   Nürnberg, and received a liberal military and diplomatic education. He
   spent seven years in Italy (1490-1497), and became a leader in the
   Renaissance. He occupied also a high social position as senator of
   Nürnberg and imperial counsellor. He was honored by important
   diplomatic missions, and fulfilled them with great ability. He was not
   an original genius, but the most learned and most eloquent layman in
   Germany. He mastered philology, jurisprudence, geography, astronomy,
   music, painting, botany, and all the discoveries and sciences of the
   time. He collected a rare library of books and manuscripts and a
   cabinet of coins, and gave free access to visitors. He translated
   writings of Xenophon, Plato, Plutarch, Euclid, Ptolemy, Lucian, Gregory
   Nazianzen, and Nilus, into Latin. [548] He was called "the Nürnberg
   Xenophon," for his account of the rather inglorious Swiss campaign
   (1499) in which he took part as an officer. [549] He carried on an
   extensive correspondence with the leading humanists, especially
   Reuchlin, Ulrich von Hutten, and Erasmus, and also with the Reformers,
   Melanchthon, Zwingli, Oecolampadius, and Luther. He was the Maecenas of
   Germany, and a gentleman of striking and commanding presence, social
   culture, charming manners, and princely liberality. [550] He constantly
   entertained distinguished strangers at his hospitable board. Nürnberg
   was then the first German city in politics, industry, and commerce. He
   made it also a centre of literature and illumination. At Venice there
   was a proverb:, All German cities are blind, except Nürnberg, which has
   one eye."

   Pirkheimer hailed the beginnings of the Reformation with patriotic and
   literary enthusiasm, invited Luther to his house when he returned
   utterly exhausted from Augsburg in 1518, distributed his books, and,
   with his friends Albrecht Dürer and Lazarus Spengler, prepared the way
   for the victory of the new ideas in his native city. He wrote an
   apology of Reuchlin in his controversy with the Dominicans, contributed
   probably to the "Letters of Obscure Men," and ridiculed Dr. Eck in a
   satirical, pseudonymous dialogue, after the Leipzig disputation. [551]
   Eck took cruel revenge when he published the Pope's bull of
   excommunication, by naming Pirkheimer among the followers of Luther,
   and warning him through the magistrate of Nürnberg. Luther burnt the
   Pope's bull; but Pirkheimer helped himself out of the difficulty by an
   evasive diplomatic disclaimer, and at last begged absolution.

   This conduct is characteristic of the humanists. They would not break
   with the authorities of the church, and had not the courage of martyrs.
   They employed against existing abuses the light weapons of ridicule and
   satire rather than serious argument and moral indignation. They had
   little sympathy with the theology and piety of the Reformers, and
   therefore drew back when the Reformers, for conscience' sake, broke
   with the old church, and were cast out of her bosom as the Apostles
   were cast out of the synagogue.

   In a letter to Erasmus, dated Sept. 1, 1524, Pirkheimer speaks still
   favorably of Luther, though regretting his excesses, and deprecates a
   breach between the two as the greatest calamity that could befall the
   cause of sound learning. But soon after the free-will controversy, and
   under the influence of Erasmus, he wrote a very violent book against
   his former friend Oecolampadius, in defence of consubstantiation (he
   did not go as far as transubstantiation). [552]

   The distractions among Protestants, the Anabaptist disturbances, the
   Peasants' War, the conduct of the contentious Osiander, sickness, and
   family afflictions increased his alienation from the Reformation, and
   clouded his last years. The stone and the gout, of which he suffered
   much, confined him at home. Dürer, his daily companion (who, however,
   differed from him on the eucharistic question, and strongly leaned to
   the Swiss view), died in 1528. Two of his sisters, and two of his
   daughters, took the veil in the nunnery of St. Clara at Nürnberg. His
   sister Charitas, who is famous for her Greek and Latin correspondence
   with Erasmus and other luminaries, was abbess. The nunnery suffered
   much from the disturbances of the Reformation and the Peasants' War.
   When it was to be secularized and abolished, he addressed to the
   Protestant magistrate an eloquent and touching plea in behalf of the
   nuns, and conclusively refuted the charges made against them. The
   convent was treated with some toleration, and survived till 1590.

   His last letters, like those of Erasmus, breathe discontent with the
   times, lament over the decline of letters and good morals, and make the
   evangelical clergy responsible for the same evils which he formerly
   charged upon the Roman clergy and monks. "I hoped," he wrote to Zasius
   (1527), a distinguished professor of jurisprudence at Freiburg, who
   likewise stood halting between Rome and Wittenberg,--"I hoped for
   spiritual liberty; but, instead of it, we have carnal license, and
   things have gotten much worse than before." Zasius was of the same
   opinion, [553] and Protestants of Nürnberg admitted the fact of the
   extensive abuse of the gospel liberty. [554] In a letter to his friend
   Leib, prior of Rebdorf, written a year before his death, Pirkheimer
   disclaims all fellowship with Luther, and expresses the opinion that
   the Reformer had become either insane, or possessed by an evil spirit.
   [555] But, on the other hand, he remained on good terms with
   Melanchthon, and entertained him on his way to the Diet of Augsburg in
   1530.

   His apparent inconsistency is due to a change of the times rather than
   to a change of his conviction. Like Erasmus, he remained a humanist,
   who hoped for a reformation from a revival of letters rather than
   theology and religion, and therefore hailed the beginning, but lamented
   the progress, of the Lutheran movement. [556]

   Broken by disease, affliction, and disappointment, he died in the year
   of the Augsburg Confession, Dec. 22, 1530, praying for the prosperity
   of the fatherland and the peace of the church. He left unfinished an
   edition of Ptolemy's Geography, which Erasmus published with a preface.
   Shortly before his death, Erasmus had given him an unfavorable account
   of the introduction of the Reformation in Basel and of his intention to
   leave the city.

   Pirkheimer made no permanent impression, and his writings are
   antiquated; but, as one of the most prominent humanists and connecting
   links between the mediaeval and the modern ages, he deserves a place in
   the history of the Reformation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [546] See his letter to Caspar Börner, professor of literature in
   Leipzig, May 28, 1522, in De Wette, II. 199-201. The letter was
   intended also for Erasmus, and printed under the title, "Judicium D. M.
   Lutheri de Erasmo Roterodamo. Epistola ad amicum 1522." He says that he
   would not provoke Erasmus, but was not afraid of his attack.

   [547] Döllinger gives, from the R. Catholic standpoint, a full account
   of these scholars in the first volume of his work on the Reformation
   (Regensburg, 1846). On Wizel we have an interesting university program
   of Neander: Commentatio de Georgio Vicelio. Berlin, 1840. Strauss
   notices several of them from the rationalistic standpoint, in his
   Ulrich von Hutten.

   [548] On his literary labors, see Karl Hagen, l.c., I. 280 sqq.

   [549] He tells in his narrative the following anecdote of a brave and
   quick-witted Swiss maiden. When asked by the imperial soldiers, "What
   are the Swiss guards doing on their post?" she replied, "Waiting for
   you to attack them." -- "How strong is their number?" -- "Strong enough
   to throw you all back." -- " But how strong?" -- "You might have
   counted them in the recent fight, but fright and flight made you
   blind." --" What do they live of?" -- "Of eating and drinking." The
   soldiers laughed, but one drew his sword to kill her. "Verily," she
   said, "you are a brave man to threaten an unarmed girl. Go and attack
   yonder guard, who can answer you with deeds instead of words." Comp.
   Münch, W. P.'s Schweizerkrieg und Ehrenhandel. Basel, 1826. Drews,
   l.c., p. 10.

   [550] Unfortunately his moral character was not free from blemish. He
   became a widower in 1504, and lived in illicit intercourse with his
   servant, who bore him a son when he was already past fifty. Christoph
   Scheurl wrote: "I wish Melanchthon knew Pirkheimer better: he would
   then be more sparing in his praise. With the most he is in bad repute."
   See K. Hagen, l.c., I. 347, and Drews, l.c., 14 sq.

   [551] Eccius dedolatus (Der abgehobelte Eck). Auctore Ioanne Francisco
   Cottalambergio, Poëta Laureato. 1520. See p. 182.

   [552] Bilibaldi Birckheimheri de vera Christi carne et vero ejus
   sanguine, ad Ioan. Oecolampadium responsio. Norembergae, 1526.
   Bilibaldi Pirckheymeri de vera Christi carne, etc., reponsio secunda.
   1527. I give the titles, with the inconsistencies of spelling from
   original copies in the Union Theol. Seminary. Pirkheimer calls
   Oecolampadius (his Greek name for Hausschein, House-lamp)
   "Coecolampadius" (Blindschein, Blind-lamp), and deals with him very
   roughly. Drews (pp. 89-110) gives a full account of this unprofitable
   controversy.

   [553] Comp. Döllinger, Die Reform. i. 174-182.

   [554] Hans Sachs (in his Gespräch eines evang. Christen mit einem
   katholischen, Nürnberg, 1524) warns the Nürnbergers against their
   excesses of intemperance, unchastity, uncharitableness, by which they
   brought the Lutheran doctrine into contempt. Döllinger, l.c., I. 174
   sqq., quotes testimonies to the same effect from Konrad Wickner and
   Lazarus Spengler, both prominent Protestants in Nürnberg, and from
   contemporaries in other parts of Germany.

   [555] Döllinger, I. p. 533 sq., gives this letter in Latin and German,
   and infers from it that Pirkheimer died a member of the Catholic
   Church.

   [556] This is substantially also the judgment of Drews, his most recent
   biographer, who says (l.c., p. 123): "Pirkheimer ist jeder Zeit
   Humanist geblieben ... In der Theorie war er ein Anhänger der neuen,
   gewaltigen Bewegung; aber als dieselbe anfing praktisch zu werden,
   erschrak er vor den Gährungen, die unvermeidlich waren. Der Humanist
   sah die schönen Wissenschaften bedroht; der Patrizier erschrak vor der
   Übermacht des Volkes; der Staatsmann erzitterte, als er den Bruch mit
   den alten Verhältnissen als eine Notwendigkeit fühlte. Nur ein religiös
   fest gegründeter Glaube war im Stande, über diesen Kämpfen den Sieg und
   den Frieden zu sehen. Daran aber fehlte es gerade Pirkheimer; alles
   theologische Interesse vermag dieses persönliche religiöse Leben nicht
   zu ersetzen. Wohl besass er ein lebendiges Rechtsgefühl, einen
   ethischen Idealismus, aber es fehlte ihm die Kraft, im eignen Leben
   denselben zu verwirk-lichen. Ihm war das Leben ein heiteres Spiel,
   solange die Tage sonnenhell waren; als sie sich umdüsterten, wollten
   sich die Wolken weder hinwegscherzen, noch hinwegschmähen lassen. Ein
   religiös, sittlicher Charakter war Pirkheimer nicht, 'Vivitur ingenio,
   caetera mortis erunt,' diese Worte hat er unter sein von Dürer
   gezeichnetes Bild (1524) gesetzt. Sie enthalten das Glaubensbekenntnis
   Pirkheimers, das Geheimnis seines Lebens."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 75. The Peasants' War. 1523-1525.

   I. Luther: Ermahnung zum Frieden auf die zwölf Artikel der Bauernschaft
   in Schwaben (1525); Wider die mörderischen und raüberischen Rotten der
   Bauern (1525); Ein Sendbrief von dem harten Büchlein wider die Bauern
   (1525). Walch, Vols. XVI. and XXI. Erl. ed., XXIV. 257-318.
   Melanchthon: Historic Thomae Münzers (1525), in Walch, XVI. 204 sqq.
   Cochlæus (Rom. Cath.), in his writings against Luther.

   II. Histories of the Peasants' War, by Sartorius (Geschichte des
   deutschen Bauernkriegs, Berlin, 1795); Wachsmuth (Leipzig. 1834);
   Oechsle (Heilbronn, 1830 anti 1844); Bensen (Erlangen, 1840);
   Zimmermann (Stuttgart, 1841, second edition 1856, 3 Vols.); Jörg
   (Freiburg, 1851); Schreiber (Freiburg, 1863-66, 3 vols.); Stern
   (Leipzig, 1868); Baumann (Tübingen, 1876-78); L. Fries, ed. by
   Schäffler and Henner (Würzburg, 1876, 1877); Hartfelder (Stuttgart,
   1884).

   III. Monographs on Thomas Münzer by Strobel (Leben, Schriften und
   Lehren Thomae Müntzers, Nürnberg and Altdorf, 1795); Gebser (1831);
   Streif (1835); Seidemann (Dresden, 1842); Leo (1856); Erbkam (in
   Herzog2, Vol. X. 365 sqq.).

   IV. Ranke: II. 124-150. Janssen: II. 393-582. Häusser: ch. VII. Weber:
   Weltgesch., vol. X. 229-273 (second edition, 1886).

   The ecclesiastical radicalism at Wittenberg was the prelude of a more
   dangerous political and social radicalism, which involved a large
   portion of Germany in confusion and blood. Both movements had their
   roots in crying abuses; both received a strong impetus from the
   Reformation, and pretended to carry out its principles to their
   legitimate consequences; but both were ultra- and pseudo-Protestant,
   fanatical, and revolutionary.

   Carlstadt and Münzer are the connecting links between the two
   movements, chiefly the latter. Carlstadt never went so far as Münzer,
   and afterwards retraced his steps. Their expulsion from Saxony extended
   their influence over Middle and Southern Germany. [557]

   Condition of the Peasants.

   The German peasants were the beasts of burden for society, and in no
   better condition than slaves. Work, work, work, without reward, was
   their daily lot, even Sunday hardly excepted. They were ground down by
   taxation, legal and illegal. The rapid increase of wealth, luxury, and
   pleasure, after the discovery of America, made their condition only
   worse. The knights and nobles screwed them more cruelly than before,
   that they might increase their revenues and means of indulgence.

   The peasants formed, in self-protection, secret leagues among
   themselves: as the "Käsebröder" (Cheese-Brothers), in the Netherlands;
   and the "Bundschuh," [558] in South Germany. These leagues served the
   same purpose as the labor unions of mechanics in our days.

   Long before the Reformation revolutionary outbreaks took place in
   various parts of Germany,--a.d. 1476, 1492, 1493, 1502, 1513, and
   especially in 1514, against the lawless tyranny of Duke Ulrich of
   Würtemberg. But these rebellions were put down by brute force, and
   ended in disastrous failure. [559]

   In England a communistic insurrection of the peasants and villeins
   occurred in 1381, under the lead of Wat Tyler and John Balle, in
   connection with a misunderstanding of Wiclif's doctrines.

   The Reformation, with its attacks upon the papal tyranny, its
   proclamation of the supremacy of the Bible, of Christian freedom, and
   the general priesthood of the laity, gave fresh impulse and new
   direction to the rebellious disposition. Traveling preachers and
   fugitive tracts stirred up discontent. The peasants mistook spiritual
   liberty for carnal license. They appealed to the Bible and to Dr.
   Luther in support of their grievances. They looked exclusively at the
   democratic element in the New Testament, and turned it against the
   oppressive rule of the Romish hierarchy and the feudal aristocracy.
   They identified their cause with the restoration of pure Christianity.

   Thomas Münzer.

   Thomas Münzer, one of the Zwickau Prophets, and an eloquent demagogue,
   was the apostle and travelling evangelist of the social revolution, and
   a forerunner of modern socialism, communism, and anarchism. He presents
   a remarkable compound of the discordant elements of radicalism and
   mysticism. He was born at Stolberg in the Harz Mountain (1590); studied
   theology at Leipzig; embraced some of the doctrines of the Reformation,
   and preached them in the chief church at Zwickau; but carried them to
   excess, and was deposed.

   After the failure of the revolution in Wittenberg, in which he took
   part, he labored as pastor at Altstädt (1523), for the realization of
   his wild ideas, in direct opposition to Luther, whom he hated worse
   than the Pope. Luther wrote against the "Satan of Altstädt." Münzer was
   removed, but continued his agitation in Mühlhausen, a free city in
   Thuringia, in Nürnberg, Basel, and again in Mühlhausen (1525).

   He was at enmity with the whole existing order of society, and imagined
   himself the divinely inspired prophet of a new dispensation, a sort of
   communistic millennium, in which there should be no priests, no
   princes, no nobles, and no private property, but complete democratic
   equality. He inflamed the people in fiery harangues from the pulpit,
   and in printed tracts to open rebellion against their spiritual and
   secular rulers. He signed himself "Münzer with the hammer," and "with
   the sword of Gideon." He advised the killing of all the ungodly. They
   had no right to live. Christ brought the sword, not peace upon earth.
   "Look not," he said, "on the sorrow of the ungodly; let not your sword
   grow cold from blood; strike hard upon the anvil of Nimrod [the
   princes]; cast his tower to the ground, because the day is yours."

   The Program of the Peasants.

   At the beginning of the uprising, the Swabian peasants issued a program
   of their demands, a sort of political and religious creed, consisting
   of twelve articles. [560]

   Professing to claim nothing inconsistent with Christianity as a
   religion of justice, peace, and charity, the peasants claim: 1. The
   right to elect their own pastors (conceded by Zwingli, but not by
   Luther). 2. Freedom from the small tithe (the great tithe of grain they
   were willing to pay). 3. The abolition of bond-service, since all men
   were redeemed by the blood of Christ (but they promised to obey the
   elected rulers ordained by God, in every thing reasonable and
   Christian). 4. Freedom to hunt and fish. 5. A share in the forests for
   domestic fuel. 6. Restriction of compulsory service. 7. Payment for
   extra labor above what the contract requires. 8. Reduction of rents. 9.
   Cessation of arbitrary punishments. 10. Restoration of the pastures and
   fields which have been taken from the communes. 11. Abolition of the
   right of heriot, by which widows and orphans are deprived of their
   inheritance. 12. All these demands shall be tested by Scripture; and if
   not found to agree with it, they are to be withdrawn.

   These demands are moderate and reasonable, especially freedom from
   feudal oppression, and the primitive right to elect a pastor. Most of
   them have since been satisfied. Had they been granted in 1524, Germany
   might have been spared the calamity of bloodshed, and entered upon a
   career of prosperity. But the rulers and the peasants were alike blind
   to their best interests, and consulted their passion instead of reason.
   The peasants did not stick to their own program, split up in parties,
   and resorted to brutal violence against their masters. Another program
   appeared, which aimed at a democratic reconstruction of church and
   state in Germany. Had Charles V. not been taken up with foreign
   schemes, he might have utilized the commotion for the unification and
   consolidation of Germany in the interest of an imperial despotism and
   Romanism. But this would have been a still greater calamity than the
   division of Germany.

   Progress of the Insurrection.

   The insurrection broke out in summer, 1524, in Swabia, on the Upper
   Danube, and the Upper Rhine along the Swiss frontier, but not on the
   Swiss side, where the peasantry were free. In 1525 it extended
   gradually all over South-Western and Central Germany. The rebels
   destroyed the palaces of the bishops, the castles of the nobility,
   burned convents and libraries, and committed other outrages. Erasmus
   wrote to Polydore Virgil, from Basel, in the autumn of 1525: "Every day
   there are bloody conflicts between the nobles and the peasants, so near
   us that we can hear the firing, and almost the groans of the wounded."
   In another letter he says: "Every day priests are imprisoned, tortured,
   hanged, decapitated, or burnt."

   At first the revolution was successful. Princes, nobles, and cities
   were forced to submit to the peasants. If the middle classes, which
   were the chief supporters of Protestant doctrines, had taken sides with
   the peasants, they would have become irresistible.

   But the leader of the Reformation threw the whole weight of his name
   against the revolution.

   Luther advises a wholesale Suppression of the Rebellion.

   The fate of the peasantry depended upon Luther. Himself the son of a
   peasant, he had, at first, considerable sympathy with their cause, and
   advocated the removal of their grievances; but he was always opposed to
   the use of force, except by the civil magistrate, to whom the sword was
   given by God for the punishment of evil-doers. He thought that
   revolution was wrong in itself, and contrary to Divine order; that it
   was the worst enemy of reformation, and increased the evil complained
   of. He trusted in the almighty power of preaching, teaching, and moral
   suasion. In the battle of words he allowed himself every license; but
   there he stopped. With the heroic courage of a warrior in the spiritual
   army of God, he combined the humble obedience of a monk to the civil
   authority.

   He replied to the Twelve Articles of the Swabian peasants with an
   exhortation to peace (May, 1525). He admitted that most of them were
   just. He rebuked the princes and nobles, especially the bishops, for
   their oppression of the poor people and their hostility to the gospel,
   and urged them to grant some of the petitions, lest a fire should be
   kindled all over Germany which no one could extinguish. But he also
   warned the peasants against revolution, and reminded them of the duty
   of obedience to the ruling powers (Rom. 13:1), and of the passage, that
   "They that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matt. 26:52).
   He advised both parties to submit the quarrel to a committee of
   arbitration. But it was too late; he preached to deaf ears.

   When the dark cloud of war rose up all over Germany, and obscured the
   pure light of the Reformation, Luther dipped his pen in blood, and
   burst out in a most violent manifesto "against the rapacious and
   murderous peasants." He charged them with doing the Devil's work under
   pretence of the gospel. [561] He called upon the magistrates to "stab,
   kill, and strangle" them like mad dogs. He who dies in defence of the
   government dies a blessed death, and is a true martyr before God. A
   pious Christian should rather suffer a hundred deaths than yield a hair
   of the demands of the peasants. [562]

   So fierce were Luther's words, that he had to defend himself in a
   public letter to the chancellor of Mansfeld (June or July, 1525). He
   did not, however, retract his position. "My little book," he said,
   "shall stand, though the whole world should stumble at it." He repeated
   the most offensive passages, even in stronger language, and declared
   that it was useless to reason with rebels, except by the fist and the
   sword. [563]

   Cruel as this conduct appears to every friend of the poor peasants, it
   would he unjust to regard it as an accommodation, and to derive it from
   selfish considerations. It was his sincere conviction of duty to the
   magistrate in temporal matters, and to the cause of the Reformation
   which was threatened with destruction.

   Defeat of the Rebellion.

   The advice of the Reformer was only too well executed by the
   exasperated princes, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, who now made
   common cause against the common foe. The peasants, badly armed, poorly
   led, and divided among themselves, were utterly defeated by the troops
   of the Landgrave Philip of Hesse, Duke Henry of Brunswick, the Elector
   Jolin, and the Dukes George and John of Saxony. In the decisive battle
   at Frankenhausen, May 25, 1525, five thousand slain lay on the field
   and in the streets; three hundred were beheaded before the court-house.
   Münzer fled, but was taken prisoner, tortured, and executed. The
   peasants in South Germany, in the Alsace and Lorraine, met with the
   same defeat by the imperial troops and the forces of the electors of
   the Palatinate and Treves, and by treachery. In the castle of Zabern,
   in the Alsace (May 17), eighteen thousand peasants fell. In the Tyrol
   and Salzburg, the rebellion lasted longest, and was put down in part by
   arbitration.

   The number of victims of war far exceeded a hundred thousand. [564] The
   surviving rebels were beheaded or mutilated. Their widows and orphans
   were left destitute. Over a thousand castles and convents lay in ashes,
   hundreds of villages were burnt to the ground, the cattle killed,
   agricultural implements destroyed, and whole districts turned into a
   wilderness. "Never," said Luther, after the end of the war, "has the
   aspect of Germany been more deplorable than now." [565]

   The Peasants' War was a complete failure, and the victory of the
   princes an inglorious revenge. The reaction made their condition worse
   than ever. Very few masters had sufficient humanity and self-denial to
   loosen the reins. Most of them followed the maxim of Rehoboam: "My
   father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with
   scorpions" (1 Kings 12:14). The real grievances remained, and the
   prospect of a remedy was put off to an indefinite future.

   The cause of the Reformation suffered irreparable injury, and was made
   responsible by the Romanists, and even by Erasmus, for all the horrors
   of the rebellion. The split of the nation was widened; the defeated
   peasantry in Roman Catholic districts were forced back into the old
   church; quiet citizens lost their interest in politics and social
   reform; every attempt in that direction was frowned down with
   suspicion. Luther had once for all committed himself against every kind
   of revolution, and in favor of passive obedience to the civil rulers
   who gladly accepted it, and appealed again and again to Rom. 13:1, as
   the popes to Matt. 16:18, as if they contained the whole
   Scripture-teaching on obedience to authority. Melanchthon and Bucer
   fully agreed with Luther on this point; and the Lutheran Church has
   ever since been strictly conservative in politics, and indifferent to
   the progress of civil liberty. It is only in the nineteenth century
   that serfdom has been entirely abolished in Germany and Russia, and
   negro slavery in America.

   The defeat of the Peasants' War marks the end of the destructive
   tendencies of the Reformation, and the beginning of the construction of
   a new church on the ruins of the old.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [557] Ranke (II. 126): "Dass Münzer und Karlstadt, und zwar nicht ohne
   Zuthun Luthers, endlich aus Sachsen entfernt wurden, trug zur
   Ausbreitung und Verstärkung dieser Bewegung ungemein bei. Sie wandten
   sich beide nach Oberdeutschland." Ranke attributes too much influence
   to Carlstadt's false doctrine of the Lord's Supper, which he published
   after his expulsion.

   [558] So called from the tied shoe which the peasants wore as a symbol
   of subjection, in contrast to the buckled shoe of the upper classes.

   [559] On the connection of the earlier peasants' insurrections with the
   movements preparatory to the Reformation, compare Ullmann's essay on
   Hans Böheim of Niklashausen, in his Reformatoren vor der Reformation,
   vol. I. 419-446.

   [560] They are given In German by Walch, Strobel, Oechsle, Gieseler,
   Weber. The authorship is uncertain. It is ascribed to Christoph
   Schappeler, a native Swiss, and preacher at Memmingen; but also to
   Heuglin of Lindau, Habmeier, and Münzer. See the note of Ranke, II.
   135.

   [561] Kurzum, eitel Teufelswerk treiben sie, und insonderheit ists der
   Erzteufel, der zu Mühlhausen regiert [Münzer],und nichts denn Raub,
   Mord, Blutvergiessen anricht, wie denn Christus von ihm sagt, Joh.
   8:44, dass er sei ein Mörder von Anbeginn."Erl. ed., XXIV. 288.

   [562]  "Darum, lieben Herren, löset hie, rettet hie, erbarmet euch der
   armen Leute [i.e., not the peasants, but the poor people deluded by
   them]; steche, schlage, würge hie wer da kann. Bleibst du darüber todt:
   wohl dir, seliglicheren Tod kannst du nimmermehr überkommen. Denn du
   stirbst im Gehorsam göttlichs Worts und Befehls, Rom. 13:1." ... "So
   bitte ich nun, fliche von den Bauern wer da kann, als vom Teufel
   selbst."Ibid., xxiv. 294. In his explanatory tract, p. 307, this
   passage is repeated more strongly."Der halsstarrigen, verstockten,
   verblendeten Bauern erbarme sich nur niemand, sondern haue, steche,
   würge, schlage drein, als unter die tollen Hunde, wer da kann und wie
   er kann. Und das alles, auf dass man sich derjenigen erbarme, die durch
   solche Bauern verderbt, verjagt und verführt werden, dass man Fried und
   Sicherheit erhalte."

   [563] Ibid., 298, 303, 307. See preceding note.

   [564] Bishop Georg of Speier estimated the number of the killed at a
   hundred and fifty thousand. This does not include those who were made
   prisoners, beheaded, and hanged, or dreadfully mutilated. A hangman in
   the district of Würzburg boasted that he had executed by the sword
   three hundred and fifty in one month. Margrave George of Brandenburg
   had to remind his brother Casimir, that, unless he spared some
   peasants, they would have nothing to live on. Janssen, II. 563.

   [565] Letter of Aug. 16, 1525, to Brismann (in De Wette, III. 22):
   "Rusticorum res quievit ubique, caesis ad centum millia, tot orphanis
   factis, reliquis vero in vita sic spoliatis, ut Germaniae facies
   miserior nunquam fuerit. Ita saeviunt victores, ut impleant suas
   iniquitates."
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER V.

   THE INNER DEVELOPMENT OF THE REFORMATION FROM THE PEASANTS' WAR TO THE
   DIET OF AUGSBURG, a.d. 1525-1530.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 76. The Three Electors.

   G. Spalatin: Friedrich d. Weise, Lebensgeschichte, ed. by Neudecker and
   Preller, Jena, 1851. Tutzschmann: Fr. d. W., Grimma, 1848. Ranke, vol.
   II. Kolde: Friedrich der Weise und die Anfänge der Reformation,
   Erlangen, 1881. Köstlin in the Studien u. Kritiken, 1882, p. 700,
   (vers. Kolde). Comp. §§ 26 and 61.

   Shortly before the close of the Peasants' War, Frederick III., surnamed
   the Wise, Elector of Saxony (1486-1525), died peacefully as he had
   lived, in his sixty-third year, May 5, 1525. His last hours at the
   castle of Lochau form a striking contrast with the stormy and bloody
   scenes around him. He hoped that the common people would not prevail,
   but admitted that they had reason to complain of harsh treatment. "Dear
   children," he said to his servants, "if I have wronged any one of you,
   I beg you to forgive me for God's sake; we princes do many naughty
   things to the poor people." Shortly before his death, he partook of the
   holy communion in both kinds. This is the only distinct Protestant act
   in his life. His body was removed to Wittenberg, and buried in the
   castle church at which Luther had posted his Ninety-Five Theses.
   Melanchthon delivered a Latin oration; Luther wrote letters of
   condolence to his brother and nephew, who succeeded him, and praised
   his wisdom, his kindness to his subjects, his love of justice and
   hatred of falsehood. Aleander, the Pope's legate at Worms, called him
   the old fox of Saxony, but in history he bears the name of the Wise. He
   had charge of the German Empire after the death of Maximilian; he
   modestly declined the imperial crown; he decided the election of King
   Charles of Spain, and was the only Elector who did not sell his vote.

   Frederick was a devout Catholic, a believer in relics and indulgences,
   but at the same time a lover of fair dealing, an admirer of Luther, and
   much concerned for his university. He saved the German Reformation by
   saving the Reformer, without openly breaking with the Catholic Church.
   He never saw Luther, except at a distance in the Diet of Worms, and
   communicated with him chiefly through his chaplain and secretary,
   Spalatin. His cautious reserve was the best policy for the time.

   Frederick was succeeded by his brother, John the Steadfast or Constant
   (1525-1532). He was less prudent and influential in politics, but a
   more determined adherent of the Reformation. He was too fat to mount
   his horse without the aid of a machine. He went to sleep at times under
   Luther's sermons, but stood by him at every cost. His motto was: "The
   word of God abideth for ever," which was placed on his ensigns and
   liveries. [566] He was the first to sign the immortal protest of Speier
   in 1529, and the Confession of Augsburg in 1530.

   His son and successor, John Frederick the Magnanimous (1532-1554),
   survived Luther. He founded the University of Jena. He suffered the
   disastrous defeat at Mühlberg (April 24, 1547), and would rather lose
   his Electorate and half of his estates than deny the evangelical faith
   in which he was brought up. How different was the conduct of Elector
   Augustus the Strong of Saxony, who sold the Lutheran faith of his
   ancestors for the crown of Poland (1697), and disgraced both by his
   scandulous life.

   Luther has left some characteristic remarks about his three sovereigns.
   Of Frederick, whom he only knew from a distance, he said, "He was a
   wise, intelligent, able, and good man, who hated all display and
   hypocrisy. He was never married. [567] His life was pure and modest.
   His motto 'Tantum quantum possim' was a sign of his good sense .... He
   was a fine manager and economist. He listened patiently in his council,
   shut his eyes, and took notes of each opinion. Then he formed his own
   conclusion. Such a prince is a blessing from God." Of John he said, "He
   had six pages to wait on him. They read the Bible to him for six hours
   every day. He often went to sleep, but when he awoke he had always some
   good text in his mouth. At sermon he used to take notes in a
   pocket-book. Church government and secular affairs were well
   administered. The Emperor had only good to say of him. He had a strong
   frame, and a hard death. He roared like a lion." John Frederick he
   judged to be "too indulgent, though he hates untruth and loose living.
   He fears God, and has his five wits about him. You never hear an impure
   or dishonorable word from his lips. He is a chaste husband, and loves
   his wife,--a rare virtue among kings and princes. One fault he has: he
   eats and drinks too much. Perhaps so big a body requires more than a
   small one. Otherwise he works like a donkey; and, drink what he will,
   he always reads the Bible or some good book before he goes to sleep."
   [568]

   These three Electors of Saxony are the model princes of the Lutheran
   Reformation, which owes much to their protection. Philip of Hesse was
   more intelligent, brilliant, liberal, and daring than any of them, but
   his bigamy paralyzed his influence. He leaned more to the Reformed
   side, and stood on good terms with Zwingli. The most pious of the
   princes of Germany in the sixteenth century was Frederick III.,
   surnamed the Pious, Elector of the Palatinate (1559-1576), who
   introduced the Heidelberg Catechism.

   The Protestant sovereigns became supreme bishops in their respective
   dominions. They did not preach, nor administer the sacraments, but
   assumed the episcopal jurisdiction in the government of the Church, and
   exercised also the right of reforming the Church (jus reformationis) in
   their dominions, whereby they established a particular confession as
   the state religion, and excluded others, or reduced them to the
   condition of mere toleration. This right they claimed by virtue of a
   resolution of the Diet of Speier, in 1526, which was confirmed by the
   Peace of Augsburg, 1555, and ultimately by the Peace of Westphalia,
   1648. The Reformers regarded this secular summepiscopate as a temporary
   arrangement which was forced upon them by the hostility of the bishops
   who adhered to the Pope. They justified it by the example of Josiah and
   other pious kings of Israel, who destroyed idolatry and restored the
   pure worship of Jehovah. They accepted the protection and support of
   the princes at the sacrifice of the freedom and independence of the
   church, which became an humble servant of the state. Melanchthon
   regretted this condition; and in view of the rapacity of the princes,
   and the confusion of things, he wished the old bishops back again, and
   was willing even to submit to the authority of a pope if the pope would
   allow the freedom of the gospel. In Scandinavia and England the
   episcopal hierarchy was retained, or a new one substituted for the old,
   and gave the church more power and influence in the government.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [566] "V. D. M. I. AE." = Verbum Dei manet in aetemum.

   [567] But he left two illegitimate sons.

   [568] Extracts from the Tischreden, Erl. ed., vol. LXI., 379, 380, 385,
   387, 389, 393, 394.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 77. Luther's Marriage. 1525.

   I. Luther's Letters of May and June, 1525, touching on his marriage, in
   De Wette's collection, at the end of second and beginning of third
   vols. His views on matrimonial duties, in several sermons, e.g.,
   Predigt vom Ehestand, 1525 (Erl. ed., xvi. 165 sqq.), and in his Com.
   on 1 Cor. vii., publ. Wittenberg, 1523, and in Latin, 1525 (Erl. ed.,
   xix. l-69). He wished to prevent this chapter from being used as a
   Schanddeckel der falsch-berümten Keuschheit. His views about Katie, in
   Walch, XXIV. 150. His table-talk about marriage and woman, in
   Bindseil's Colloquia, II. 332-336. A letter of Justus Jonas to Spalatin
   (June 14, 1525), and one of Melanchthon to Camerarius (June 16).

   II. The biographies of Katharina von Bora by Walch (1752), Beste
   (1843), Hofmann(1845), Meurer(1854). Uhlhorn: K. v. B., in Herzog2,
   vol. II. 564-567. Köstlin: Leben Luthers, I. 766-772; II. 488 sqq., 605
   sqq.; his small biography, Am. ed. (Scribner's), pp. 325-335, and 535
   sqq. Beyschlag: Luther's Hausstand in seiner reform. Bedeutung. Barmen,
   1888.

   III. Burk: Spiegel edler Pfarrfrauen. Stuttgart, 3d ed. 1885. W. Baur
   (Gen. Superintendent of the Prussian Rhine Province): Das deutsche
   evangelische Pfarrhaus, seine Gründung, seine Entfaltung und sein
   Bestand. Bremen, 1877, 3d ed. 1884.

   Amidst the disturbances and terrors of the Peasants' War, in full view
   of his personal danger, and in expectation of the approaching end of
   the world, Luther surprised his friends and encouraged his foes by his
   sudden marriage with a poor fugitive nun. He wrote to his friend Link:
   "Suddenly, and while I was occupied with far other thoughts, the Lord
   has, plunged me into marriage."

   The manner was highly characteristic, neither saint-like nor
   sinner-like, but eminently Luther-like. By taking to himself a wife, he
   wished to please his father, to tease the Pope, and to vex the Devil.
   Beneath was a deeper and nobler motive, to rescue the oldest ordinance
   of God on earth from the tyranny of Rome, and to vindicate by his own
   example the right of ministers to the benefit of this ordinance. Under
   this view, his marriage is a public event of far-reaching consequence.
   It created the home life of the evangelical clergy.

   He had long before been convinced that vows of perpetual celibacy are
   unscriptural and unnatural. He held that God has created man for
   marriage, and that those who oppose it must either be ashamed of their
   manhood, or pretend to be wiser than God. He did not object to the
   marriage of Carlstadt, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and other priests and monks.
   But he himself seemed resolved to remain single, and continued to live
   in the convent. He was now over forty years of age; eight years had
   elapsed since he opened the controversy with Rome in the Ninety-Five
   Theses; and, although a man of powerful passions, he had strictly kept
   his monastic and clerical vow. His enemies charged him with drinking
   beer, playing the lute, leading a worldly life, but never dared to
   dispute his chastity till after his marriage. As late as Nov. 30, 1524,
   he wrote to Spalatin I shall never take a wife, as I feel at present.
   Not that I am insensible to my flesh or sex (for I am neither wood nor
   stone); but my mind is averse to wedlock, because I daily expect the
   death of a heretic." [569] But on April 10, 1525, he wrote to the same
   friend: "Why do you not get married? I find so many reasons for urging
   others to marry, that I shall soon be brought to it myself,
   notwithstanding that enemies never cease to condemn the married state,
   and our little wiseacres (sapientuli) ridicule it every day." [570] He
   got tired of his monastic seclusion; the convent was nearly emptied,
   and its resources cut off; his bed, as Melanchthon tells us, was not
   properly made for months, and was mildewed with perspiration; he lived
   of the plainest food; he worked himself nearly to death; he felt the
   need of a helpmate.

   In April, 1523, nine nuns escaped from the convent of Nimptsch near
   Grimma, fled to Wittenberg, and appealed to Luther for protection and
   aid. Among them was Catharina von Bora, [571] a virgin of noble birth,
   but poor, fifteen years younger than Luther, [572] not remarkable for
   beauty or culture, but healthy, strong, frank, intelligent, and
   high-minded. In looking at the portraits of Dr. and Mrs. Luther in
   their honeymoon, we must remember that they were painted by Cranach,
   and not by Raphael or Titian. [573]

   Catharina had been attached and almost engaged to a former student of
   Wittenberg from Nürnberg; but he changed his mind, to her great grief,
   and married a rich wife (1523). After this Luther arranged a match
   between her and Dr. Glatz of Orlamünde (who was afterwards deposed);
   but she refused him, and intimated to Amsdorf, that she would not
   object to marry him or the Reformer. Amsdorf remained single. Luther at
   first was afraid of her pride, but changed his mind. On May 4, 1525, he
   wrote to Dr. Rühel (councilor of Count Albrecht of Mansfeld, and of
   Cardinal Albrecht of Mainz), that he would, take his Katie to wife
   before he died, in spite of the Devil." [574] He left his friends
   ignorant of the secret, deeming it unwise to talk much about such
   delicate matters. "A man," he said, "must ask God for counsel, and
   pray, and then act accordingly."

   On the evening of June 13, on Tuesday after Trinity Sunday, he invited
   Bugenhagen, Jonas, Lucas Cranach and wife, and a professor of
   jurisprudence, Apel (an ex-Dean of the Cathedral of Bamberg, who had
   himself married a nun), to, his house, and in their presence was joined
   in matrimony to Catharina von Bora in the name of the Holy Trinity.
   Bugenhagen performed the ceremony in the customary manner. On the
   following morning he entertained his friends at breakfast. Justus Jonas
   reported the marriage to Spalatin through a special messenger. He was
   affected by it to tears, and saw in it the wonderful hand of God. [575]

   On June 27 Luther celebrated his wedding in a more public, yet modest
   style, by a nuptial feast, and invited his father and mother and his
   distant friends to "seal and ratify" the union, and to "pronounce the
   benediction." [576] He mentioned with special satisfaction that he had
   now fulfilled an old duty to his father, who wished him to marry. The
   University presented him with a rich silver goblet (now in possession
   of the University of Greifswald), bearing the inscription: "The
   honorable University of the electoral town of Wittenberg presents this
   wedding gift to Doctor Martin Luther and his wife Kethe von Bora." The
   magistrate provided the pair with a barrel of Eimbeck beer, a small
   quantity of good wine, and twenty guilders in silver. What is very
   remarkable, Archbishop Albrecht sent to Katie through Rühel a wedding
   gift of twenty guilders in gold; Luther declined it for himself, but
   let Katie have it. [577] Several wedding-rings of doubtful genuineness
   have been preserved, especially one which bears the image of the
   crucified Saviour, and the inscription, "D. Martino Luthero Catharina
   v. Boren, 13 Jun. 1525." It has been multiplied in 1817 by several
   copies. They lived together in the old Augustinian convent, which was
   now empty. He was not much interrupted in his studies, and at the end
   of the same year he published his violent book against Erasmus, who
   wondered that marriage had not softened his temper.

   The event was a rich theme for slander and gossip. His enemies
   circulated a slander about a previous breach of the vow of chastity,
   and predicted that, according to a popular tradition, the ex-monk and
   ex-nun would give birth to Antichrist. Erasmus contradicts the slander,
   and remarked that if that tradition was true, there must have been many
   thousands of antichrists before this. [578] Melanchthon (who had been
   invited to the feast of the 27th of June, but not to the ceremony of
   the 13th), in a Greek letter to his friend Camerarius (June 16),
   expressed the fear that Luther, though he might be ultimately benefited
   by his marriage, had committed a lamentable act of levity and weakness,
   and injured his influence at a time when Germany most needed it. [579]

   Luther himself felt at first strange and restless in his new relation,
   but soon recovered. He wrote to Spalatin, June 16, "l have made myself
   so vile and contemptible forsooth that all the angels, I hope, will
   laugh, and all the devils weep." [580] A year after he wrote to Stiefel
   (Aug. 11, 1526): "Catharina, my dear rib, salutes you, and thanks you
   for your letter. She is, thanks to God, gentle, obedient, compliant in
   all things, beyond my hopes. I would not exchange my poverty for the
   wealth of Croesus." [581] He often preached on the trials and duties of
   married life truthfully and effectively, from practical experience, and
   with pious gratitude for that holy state which God ordained in
   paradise, and which Christ honored by his first miracle. He calls
   matrimony a gift of God, wedlock the sweetest, chastest life, above all
   celibacy, or else a veritable hell.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [569] De Wette, II. 570.

   [570] Ibid., II. 643.

   [571] Also spelled Bore or Boren.

   [572] She was born Jan. 29, 1499, and was in the convent from 1509.

   [573] Erasmus, in a letter of 1525, ascribed to Catharina from hearsay
   extraordinary beauty: "Lutherus duxit uxorem, puellam mire venustam, ex
   clara familia Bornae, sed ut narrant indotatam, quae ante annos
   complures vestalis esse desierat." Michelet (Life of Luther, ch. V.),
   probably misled by this letter, calls her "a young girl of remarkable
   beauty."

   [574] De Wette, II. 655. On June 2, 1525, he advised Cardinal
   Archbishop and Elector Albrecht of Mainz, in an open letter, to marry,
   and to secularize the archbishopric. Ibid., p. 673.

   [575] "Lutherus noster duxit Catharinam de Bora. Heri adfui rei et vidi
   sponsum in thalamo jacentem. [An indecent German custom of the time;
   see Köstlin, II. 767.] Non potui me continere, adstans huic spectaculo,
   quin illachrymarem, nescio quo affectu animum percellente ... mirabilis
   Deus a in consiliis et operibus suis."

   [576] See his letters of invitation in De Wette, III. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11,
   12, 13.

   [577] Ibid., III. 103, 104. Tischreden, IV. 308. Köstlin, I. 772.

   [578] In his letter to Franciscus Sylvius (1526): "De conjugio Lutheri
   certum est, de partu maturo sponsae vanus erat rumor, nunc tamen
   gravida esse dicitur. Si vera est vulgi fabula Antichristum nasciturum
   ex monacho et monacha quemadmodum isti jactitant, quot Antichristorum
   millia jam olim habet mundus ? At ego sperabam fore, ut Lutherum uxor
   redderet magis cicurem. Verum ille praeter omnem expectationem emisit
   librum in me summa quidem cura elaboratum, sed adeo virulentum, ut
   hactenus in neminem scripserit hostilius."

   [579] The letter was published in the original Greek by W. Meyer, in
   the reports of the München Academy of Sciences, Nov. 4, 1876, pp.
   601-604. The text is changed in the Corp. Reform., I. 753. Mel. calls
   Luther a very reckless man (aner hos malista eucheres), but hopes that
   he will become more solemn (semnoteros).

   [580] De Wette, III. 3.

   [581] Ibid., III. 125.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 78. Luther's Home Life.

   Luther and Katie were well suited to each other. They lived happily
   together for twenty-one years, and shared the usual burdens and joys.
   Their domestic life is very characteristic, full of good nature,
   innocent humor, cordial affection, rugged simplicity, and thoroughly
   German. It falls below the refinement of a modern Christian home, and
   some of his utterances on the relation between the two sexes are
   coarse; but we must remember the rudeness of the age, and his peasant
   origin. No stain rests upon his home life, in which he was as gentle as
   a lamb and as a child among children.

   "Next to God's Word," he said from his personal experience, "there is
   no more precious treasure than holy matrimony. God's highest gift on
   earth is a pious, cheerful, God-fearing, home-keeping wife, with whom
   you may live peacefully, to whom you may intrust your goods and body
   and life."

   He loved his wife dearly, and playfully called her in his letters "my
   heartily beloved, gracious housewife, bound hand and foot in loving
   service, Catharine, Lady Luther, Lady Doctor, Lady of Zulsdorf. [582]
   Lady of the Pigmarket, [583] and whatever else she may be." She was a
   good German Hausfrau, caring for the wants of her husband and children;
   she contributed to his personal comfort in sickness and health, and
   enabled him to exercise his hospitality. She had a strong will, and
   knew how to take her own part. He sometimes speaks of her as his "Lord
   Katie," and of himself as her "willing servant." "Katie," he said to
   her, "you have a pious husband who loves you; you are an empress." Once
   in 1535 he promised her fifty guilders if she would read the Bible
   through; whereupon, as he told a friend, it became a very serious
   matter with her." She could not understand why God commanded Abraham to
   do such a cruel thing as to kill his own child; but Luther pointed her
   to God's sacrifice of his only Son, and to the resurrection from the
   dead. To Katie and to Melanchthon he wrote his last letters (five to
   her, three to Melanchthon) from Eisleben shortly before his death,
   informing her of his journey, his diet and condition, complaining of
   fifty Jews under the protection of the widowed Countess of Mansfeld,
   sending greetings to Master Philip (Melanchthon), and quieting her
   apprehensions about his health.

   "Pray read, dear Katie, the Gospel of John and the little Catechism
   .... You worry yourself about your God, just as if He were not
   Almighty, and able to create ten Doctor Martin Luthers for the old one
   drowned perhaps in the Saale, or fallen dead by the fireplace, or on
   Wolf's fowling floor. Leave me in peace with your cares; I have a
   better protector than you and all the angels. He--my Protector--lies in
   the manger and hangs upon a Virgin's breast, but He sits also at the
   right hand of God, the Father Almighty. Rest, therefore, in peace.
   Amen." [584]

   In his will (1542), seventeen years after his marriage, he calls her a
   "pious, faithful, and devoted wife, full of loving, tender care towards
   him." At times, however, he felt oppressed by domestic troubles, and
   said once he would not marry again, not even a queen. Those were
   passing moods. "Oh, how smoothly things move on, when man and wife sit
   lovingly at table! Though they have their little bickerings now and
   then, they must not mind that. Put up with it." "We must have patience
   with woman, though she be it times sharp and bitter. She presides over
   the household machinery, and the servants deserve occasionally a good
   scolding." He put the highest honor of woman on her motherhood. "All
   men," he said, "are conceived, born, and nursed by women. Thence come
   the little darlings, the highly prized heirs. This honor ought in
   fairness to cover up all feminine weakness."

   Luther had six children,--three daughters, two of whom died young, and
   three sons, Hans (John), Martin, and Paul. None inherited his genius.
   Hans gave him much trouble. Paul rose to some eminence as physician of
   the Elector, and died at Dresden, 1593. The sons accompanied their
   father on his last journey to Eisleben. [585] His wife's aunt, Magdalen
   von Bora, who had been a nun and head-nurse in the same cloister, lived
   with his family, and was esteemed like a grandmother by him and his
   children. Two orphan nieces, and a tutor for the boys, an amanuensis,
   and a number of students as boarders, belonged to the household in a
   portion of the former convent on the banks of the Elbe. The chief
   sitting-room of the family, his bedroom, and the lecture hall are still
   shown in "the Lutherhaus."

   He began the day, after his private devotions, which were frequent and
   ardent, with reciting in his family the Ten Commandments, the Apostles'
   Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and a Psalm. He went to bed at nine, but rose
   early, and kept wide awake during the day. Of his private devotions we
   have an authentic account from his companion, Veit Dietrich, who wrote
   to Melanchthon during the Diet of Augsburg, 1530, when Luther was at
   Coburg, feeling the whole weight of that great crisis: --

   "No day passes that he does not give three hours to prayer, and those
   the fittest for study. Once I happened to hear him praying. Good God!
   how great a spirit, how great a faith, was in his very words! With such
   reverence did he ask, as if he felt that he was speaking with God; with
   such hope and faith, as with a Father and a Friend. 'I know,' he said,
   'that Thou art our Father and our God. I am certain, therefore, that
   Thou art about to destroy the persecutors of Thy children. If Thou
   doest not, then our danger is Thine too. This business is wholly Thine,
   we come to it under compulsion: Thou, therefore, defend.' ... In almost
   these words I, standing afar off, heard him praying with a clear voice.
   And my mind burned within me with a singular emotion when he spoke in
   so friendly a manner, so weightily, so reverently, to God."

   Luther celebrated the festivals, especially Christmas, with childlike
   joy. One of the most familiar scenes of Christian family life in
   Germany is Luther with his children around the Christmas-tree, singing
   his own Christmas hymn:


   "Good news from heaven the angels bring,

   Glad tidings to the earth they ring." [586]

   Nothing can be more charming or creditable to his heart than the truly
   childlike letter he wrote to his oldest boy Hans, then four years of
   age, from Coburg, during the sessions of the Augsburg Diet in the
   momentous year 1530. [587]

   "Grace and peace in Christ, my dear little boy. I am pleased to see
   that thou learnest thy lessons well, and prayest diligently. Go on
   thus, my dear boy, and when I come home, I will bring you a fine
   fairing. I know of a pretty, delightful garden, where are merry
   children that have gold frocks, and gather nice apples and pears,
   cherries and plums under the trees, and sing and jump and are happy;
   they also ride on fine little horses with gold bridles and silver
   saddles. I asked the man who owns the garden, who the children were. He
   said, 'These are the children who love to pray and to learn, and are
   good.' Then I said, 'Dear man, I also have a son who is called Hans
   Luther. May he not come to this garden and eat such pretty apples and
   pears, and ride on such fine little horses, and play with these
   children?' The man said, 'If he likes to pray and to learn, and is
   pious, he may come to the garden, and Lippus [588] and Jost [589] may
   come also; and if they all come together, they shall have pipes and
   drums and lutes and fiddles, and they shall dance and shoot with little
   crossbows.'

   "Then he showed me a smooth lawn in the garden laid out for dancing,
   and there hung the golden pipes and drums and crossbows. But it was
   still early, and the children had not dined; therefore I could not wait
   for the dance. So I said, 'Dear sir, I will go straight home and write
   all this to my little boy; but he has an aunt, Lene, [590] that he must
   bring with him.'  And the man answered, 'So it shall be; go and write
   as you say.'

   "Therefore, dear little boy Johnny, learn and pray with a good heart,
   and tell Lippus and Jost to do the same, and then you will all come to
   the garden together. And now I commend you to Almighty God. Give my
   love to aunt Lene, and give her a kiss for me. Anno 1530.

   Thy loving father,

   "Martinus Luther"

   He was deeply grieved by the early death of his favorite daughter Lena
   (Magdalen), a pious, gentle, and affectionate girl of fourteen, with
   large, imaginative eyes, and full of promise. [591] "I love her very
   much," he prayed; "but, dear God, if it is thy holy will to take her
   hence, I would gladly leave her with Thee." And to her he said, "Lena
   dear, my little daughter, thou wouldst love to remain here with thy
   father: art thou willing to go to that other Father?"--"Yes, dear
   father," she replied, "just as God wills." And when she was dying, he
   fell on his knees beside her bed, wept bitterly, and prayed for her
   redemption. As she lay in her coffin, he exclaimed, "Ah! my darling
   Lena, thou wilt rise again, and shine like a star,--yea, as a sun. I am
   happy in the spirit, but very sorrowful in the flesh." He wrote to his
   friend Jonas: "You will have heard that my dearest child is born again
   into the eternal kingdom of God. We ought to be glad at her departure,
   for she is taken away from the world, the flesh, and the devil; but so
   strong is natural love, that we cannot bear it without anguish of
   heart, without the sense of death in ourselves." On her tomb he
   inscribed these lines: --


   "Here do I Lena, Luther's daughter, rest,

   Sleep in my little bed with all the blessed.

   In sin and trespass was I born;

   Forever would I be forlorn,

   But yet I live, and all is good --

   Thou, Christ, didst save me with thy blood."

   Luther was simple, regular, and temperate in his habits. The reports to
   the contrary are slanders of enemies. The famous and much-abused adage,
   --


   "Who does not love wife, wine, and song,

   Remains a fool his whole life long," [592] -

   is not found in his works, nor in any contemporary writing, but seems
   to have originated in the last century, on the basis of some mediaeval
   saying. [593] He used beer [594] and common wine according to the
   general custom of his age and country; but he abhorred intemperance,
   and justly complained of the drink-devil (Saufteufel) of the Germans.
   [595] Melanchthon, his daily companion, often wondered (as he reports
   after Luther's death) how a man with such a portly frame could live on
   so meager a diet; for he observed that Luther sometimes fasted for four
   days when in good health, and was often contented for a whole day with
   a herring and a piece of bread. He preferred "pure, good, common,
   homely fare." Occasionally he received a present of game from the
   Elector, and enjoyed it with his friends.

   He had a powerful constitution, but suffered much of the stone, of
   headache, and attacks of giddiness, and fainting; especially in the
   fatal year 1527, which brought him to the brink of the grave. He did
   not despise physicians, indifferent as they were in those days, and
   called them "God's menders (Flicker) of our bodies; "but he preferred
   simple remedies, and said, "My best medical prescription is written in
   John 3: 'God so loved the world.' " He was too poor to keep horse and
   carriage, but he kept a bowling-alley for exercise. He liked to throw
   the first ball himself, and elicited a hearty laugh when he missed the
   mark; he then reminded the young friends that by aiming to knock down
   all the pins at once, they might miss them all, as they would find out
   in their future calling. He warned Melanchthon against excess of study,
   and reminded him that we must serve God by rest and recreation as well
   as by labor, for which reason He has given us the fourth commandment,
   and instituted the Sabbath.

   Luther exercised a generous hospitality, and had always guests at his
   table. He was indiscriminately benevolent to beggars, until rogues
   sharpened his wits, and made him more careful. [596] There was an
   unbroken succession of visitors--theologians, students, princes,
   noblemen, and ladies, anxious to see the great man, to get his advice
   and comfort; and all were favorably impressed with his frank, manly,
   and pleasant bearing. At times he was wrapt in deep thought, and kept a
   monkish silence at table; but at other times he talked freely,
   seriously and merrily, always interestingly, about every thing under
   the sun. His guests called his speeches their "table-spice," and
   recorded them faithfully without discrimination, even his most trivial
   remarks. Once he offered a premium for the shortest blessing.
   Bugenhagen began in Low German: --


   "Dit und dat,

   Trocken und nat

   Gesegne Gott."

   Luther improved upon it in Latin: --


   "Dominus Jesus

   Sit potus et esus."

   But Melanchthon carried the palm with


   "Benedictus benedicat."

   To the records of Veit Dietrich, Lauterbach, and Mathesius, which were
   often edited, though in bad taste, we owe the most remarkable
   "Table-Talk "ever published. [597] Many of his sayings are exceedingly
   quaint, and sound strange, coarse, and vulgar to refined ears. But they
   were never intended for publication; and making due allowance for human
   weakness, the rudeness of the age, and his own rugged nature, we may
   agree with the judgment of one of his most accurate biographers, that
   "in all his words and deeds Luther was guided constantly by the
   loftiest principles, by the highest considerations of morality and
   religious truth, and that in the simple and straightforward manner
   which was his nature, utterly free from affectation or artificial
   effort." [598] After dinner he indulged with his friends and children
   in music, sacred and secular songs, German and Latin hymns. He loved
   poetry, music, painting, and all the fine arts. In this respect he was
   ahead of those puritanical Reformers who had no taste for the
   beautiful, and banished art from the church. He placed music next to
   theology. He valued it as a most effectual weapon against melancholy
   and the temptations of the Devil. "The heart," he said, "is satisfied,
   refreshed, and strengthened by music." He played the lute, sang
   melodiously, and composed tunes to his hymns, especially the immortal,
   Ein feste Burg," which gives classic expression to his heroic faith in
   God and the triumph of the gospel. He never lost his love for Virgil
   and Cicero, which he acquired as a student at Erfurt. He was fond of
   legends, fables, and proverbs. He would have delighted in the stories
   of old "Mother Goose," and in Grimm's "Hausmährchen." He translated
   some of Esop's Fables, and wrote a preface to an edition which was
   published after his death.

   He enjoyed the beauties of nature, loved trees and flowers, was fond of
   gardening, watched with wonder the household of the bees, listened with
   delight to the singing birds, renewed his youth with the return of
   spring, and adored everywhere the wisdom and goodness of nature's God.
   Looking at a rose, he said, "Could a man make a single rose, we should
   give him an empire; but these beautiful gifts of God come freely to us,
   and we think nothing of them. We admire what is worthless, if it be
   only rare. The most precious of things is nothing if it be common."
   "The smallest flowers show God's wisdom and might. Painters cannot
   rival their color, nor perfumers their sweetness; green and yellow,
   crimson, blue, and purple, all growing out of the earth. And yet we
   trample on lilies as if we were so many cows." He delighted in a
   refreshing rain. "God rains," he said, "many hundred thousand guilders,
   wheat, rye, barley, oats, wine, cabbage, grass, milk." Talking of
   children, he said, "They speak and act from the heart. They believe in
   God without disputing, and in another life beyond the present. They
   have small intellect, but they have faith, and are wiser than old fools
   like us. Abraham must have had a hard time when he was told to kill
   Isaac. No doubt he kept it from Sarah. If God had given me such all
   order, I should have disputed the point with Him. But God has given his
   only begotten Son unto death for us."

   He shared in the traditional superstitions of his age. He believed in
   witchcraft, and had many a personal encounter with the Devil in
   sleepless nights. [599] He was reluctant to accept the new Copernican
   system of astronomy, because Joshua bade the sun stand still, not the
   earth." He regarded the comets, which he calls "harlot stars," as
   tokens of God's wrath, or as works of the Devil. Melanchthon and
   Zwingli held similar opinions on these irregular visitors. It was an
   almost universal belief of mankind, till recent times, that comets,
   meteors, and eclipses were fire-balls of an angry God to scare and
   rouse a wicked world to repentance. [600] On the other hand, he doubted
   the calculations of astrology. "I have no patience with such stuff," he
   said to Melanchthon, who showed him the nativity of Cicero from the
   stars. "Esau and Jacob were born of the same father and mother, at the
   same time, and under the same planets, but their nature was wholly
   different. You would persuade me that astrology is a true science! I
   was a monk, and grieved my father; I caught the Pope by his hair, and
   he caught me by mine; I married a runaway nun, and begat children with
   her. Who saw that in the stars? Who foretold that? Astronomy is very
   good, astrology is humbug. The example of Esau and Jacob disproves it."

   Luther gave himself little concern about his household, and left it in
   the hands of his wife, who was prudent and economical. He calls himself
   a negligent, forgetful, and ignorant housekeeper, but gives great
   credit to his "Herr Kathie." He was contented with little, and called
   economy the best capital. All the Reformers were poor, and singularly
   free from avarice; they moved in a lofty sphere, and despised the
   vanities of the world.

   Luther's income was very small, even for the standard of his times, and
   presents a striking contrast to the royal splendor and luxury of
   bishops and cardinals. His highest annual salary as professor was three
   hundred guilders; it was first a hundred guilders; on his marriage the
   Elector John doubled it; the Elector John Frederick added a hundred; a
   guilder being equal in value to about sixteen marks or shillings (four
   dollars) of the present day. He received no honorarium from the
   students, nor any salary as preacher in the town church; but regular
   payments in wood and grain, and occasional presents of a fine suit, a
   cask of wine, or venison, or a silver cup from the Elector, with his
   greetings. Admiring friends gave him rings, chains, and other
   valuables, which he estimated in 1542 at a thousand guilders. In his
   last years (from 1541) he, as well as Bugenhagen, Melanchthon, and
   Jonas, received an annual honorary pension of fifty guilders from the
   king of Denmark, who thereby wished to show his gratitude for the
   Lutheran Reformation, and had previously (1539) sent him a special
   present of a hundred guilders through Bugenhagen. From his father, who
   left twelve hundred and fifty guilders, he inherited two hundred and
   fifty guilders. The publishers offered him (as he reported in 1539) a
   yearly grant of four hundred guilders for the free use of his
   manuscripts, but he refused "to make money out of the gifts of God." If
   he had been rewarded according to modern ideas, the royalty of his
   German Bible Version alone would have amounted to a handsome fortune
   before his death. He bought in 1540 from his brother-in-law a little
   farm, Zulsdorf, between Leipzig and Borna, for six hundred and ten
   guilders, as a home for his family. His wife cultivated a little garden
   with fruit-trees, even mulberry and fig trees, raised hops and brewed
   beer for domestic use, as was then the custom. She also had a small
   fish-pond. She enjoyed hard work. Luther assisted her in gardening and
   fishing. In 1541 he purchased a small house near the convent, for his
   wife. [601] He willed all his property, which amounted to about nine
   thousand guilders, to his wife during her lifetime, wishing that, she
   should not receive from her children, but the children from her; that
   they must honor and obey her, as God has commanded."

   His widow survived him seven years, and suffered from poverty and
   affliction. The Elector, the Counts of Mansfeld, and the King of
   Denmark added small sums to her income; but the unfortunate issue of
   the Smalkaldian war (1547) disturbed her peace, and drove her from
   Wittenberg. She returned after the war. Melanchthon and Bugenhagen did
   for her what they could. When the pestilence broke out at Wittenberg in
   1552, and the university was moved to Torgau, she followed with her
   children; but on the journey she was thrown from the wagon into a
   ditch, and contracted a cold which soon passed into consumption. She
   died Dec. 20, 1552, at Torgau; her last prayer was for her children and
   the Lutheran Church.

   A few words about Luther's personal appearance. In early life, as we
   have seen, he looked like an ascetic monk, pale, haggard, emaciated.
   [602] But in latter years he grew stout and portly. The change is
   characteristic of his transition from legalistic gloom to evangelical
   cheerfulness. He was of middle stature, had a large head and broad
   chest, a bold and open face without any dissimulation lurking behind,
   prominent lips, short curly hair, and uncommonly brilliant and
   penetrating eyes. His enemies saw in them the fire of a demon. His
   countenance makes the impression of frankness, firmness, courage, and
   trust in God. He looks like a hero of faith, who, with the Bible in his
   hand, defies the world, the flesh, and the Devil. His feet are firmly
   planted on the ground, as if they could not be moved. "Here I stand, I
   cannot otherwise." His voice was not strong, but clear and sonorous. He
   was neat in his dress, modest and dignified in his deportment. He
   exchanged the monastic gown in 1524 for a clerical robe, a gift of the
   Elector. He disliked the custom of the students to rise when he entered
   into the lecture-room. "I wish," he said, "Philip would give up this
   old fashion. These marks of honor always compel me to offer a few more
   prayers to keep me humble; and if I dared, I would go away without
   reading my lecture."

   The same humility made him protest against the use of his name by his
   followers, who nevertheless persisted in it. "I pray you," he said,
   "leave my name alone, and do not call yourselves Lutherans, but
   Christians. Who is Luther? My doctrine is not mine. I have not been
   crucified for any one. St. Paul would not that any one should call
   themselves of Paul, nor of Peter, but of Christ. How, then, does it
   befit me, a miserable bag of dust and ashes, to give my name to the
   children of Christ? Cease, my dear friends, to cling to those party
   names and distinctions,--away with them all! and let us call ourselves
   only Christians, after Him from whom our doctrine comes. It is quite
   proper, that the Papists should bear the name of their party; because
   they are not content with the name and doctrine of Jesus Christ, they
   will be Papists besides. Well, let them own the Pope, as he is their
   master. For me, I neither am, nor wish to be, the master of any one. I
   and mine will contend for the sole and whole doctrine of Christ, who is
   our sole master."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [582] From his little farm.

   [583] Saumärkterin. They lived near the pigmarket.

   [584] Feb. 7, 1546, In De Wette, V. 787.

   [585] Nobbe, Stammbaum der Familie des Dr. M. Luther, Grimma, 1846.

   [586] The Nativity hymn,-- "Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich her ," was
   written for his children in 1535. He abridged it in 1543:-- "Vom Himmel
   kam der Engel Schaar ."

   [587] De Wette, IV. 41 sq. Comp. Luther's Brief an sein Söhnlein
   Hänsigen. With woodcuts and original drawings by Ludwig Richter, Leipz.
   1883. Fronde calls it "the prettiest letter ever addressed by a father
   to a child."Luther, p. 53.

   [588] Philip, son of Melanchthon.

   [589] Jodocus, son of Jonas.

   [590] Great-aunt, Magdalen.

   [591] Erl. ed., vol. LXV. 237, in Latin and German. Lena died Sept. 20,
   1542. See her picture by Cranach in Köstlin's small biography, p. 545.

   [592] "Wer nicht liebt Weib, Wein und Gesang, Der bleibt ein Narr sein
   Leben lang."

   [593] The lines appeared first in the present form in the Wandsbecker
   Bote for 1775, No. 75, p. 300, and then in 1777 in the Musenalmanach of
   J. H. Voss (the poet, and translator of Homer), who was supposed to be
   the author, and to have foisted them upon Luther. Herder gave them a
   place among his Volkslieder, 1778, I. 12. Seidemann, in Schnorr's
   "Archiv," vol. VIII. (1879), p. 440, has shown that the sentiment is
   substantially pre-Lutheran, and quotes from Luther's Table Talk, Ser.
   IV., a sentence somewhat analogous, but involving a reproach to the
   Germans for drunkenness: "Wie wollt ihr jetzt anders einen Deutschen
   vorthun denn Ebrietate, praesertim talem qui non diligit Musicamet
   Mulieres?" See Köstlin, II. 678 sq. Another similar sentence has since
   been found by L. Schulze in the "Reformatorium viae clericorum " of
   1494: "Absque Venere et mero rite laetabitur nemo."

   [594] He liked the beer of Eimbeck and Naumburg. In one of his last
   letters (Feb. 7. 1546) to his wife from Eisleben, where he was treated
   like a prince by the counts of Mansfeld, he gives her this piece of
   information: "We live here very well, and the town-council gives me for
   each meal half a pint of 'Rheinfall' (Rhine wine), which is very good.
   Sometimes I drink it with my friends. The wine of the country here is
   also good, and Naumburger beer is very good, though I fancy its pitch
   fills my chest with phlegm. The Devil has spoilt all the beer in the
   world with pitch, and the wine with brimstone. But here the wine is
   pure, such as the country gives." De Wette, V. 788.

   [595] He preached some strong sermons against intemperance, and
   commends the Italians and Turks for sobriety. See Colloquia, ed.
   Bindseil, I. 195 sqq.

   [596] He wrote to Justice Menius, Aug. 24, 1535 (De Wette, IV. 624),
   that he was often deceived, "per fictas Nonnas et generosas
   meretrices."

   [597] See St. Louis ed. of Walch, vol. XXII., much improved by Hoppe,
   1887.

   [598] Köstlin, small biography, N. Y. ed. p. 554, Ger. ed. p. 592. But
   In his large work, vol. II. 519, he makes this just qualification:
   "Derbe, plumpe, unserm Ohre anstössige Worte kommen in Luther's Reden
   wie in seinen Schriften, ja einigemale sogar in seinen Predigten vor.
   Seine Art war in der That keine feine; sie steht aber auch so noch
   bedeutend über dem Ton, der damals durchschnittlich in weltlichen und
   geistlichen Kreisen, bei Bürgern, hohen Herren und Kirchenfürsten
   herrschte, und jene ungünstigen Eindrücke müssen der edeln Kraft, dem
   Salz und Mark gegenüber, die seine Gespräche und Schriften
   durchdringen, auch für uns weit zurücktreten."

   [599] See above, p. 334 sq.

   [600] See a curious tract of Andrew D. White, A History of the Doctrine
   of Comets, in the "Papers of the American Historical Association," N.
   Y., 1887, vol. II. 16.

   [601] On Luther's Vermögensumstände, see Seidemann, Luther's
   Grundbesitz, 1860. Köstlin, II. 498 sqq., and his references, p. 678.

   [602] See the description of Mosellanus, p. 180, and Cranach's
   engraving from the year 1520, in Köstlin, p. 120 (Scribner's ed.).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 79. Reflections on Clerical Family Life.

   The Reformers present to us the first noted examples of clerical family
   life in the Christian Church. This is a new and important chapter in
   the history of civilization.

   They restored a natural right founded in the ordinance of God. The
   priests and high priests of the Jewish theocracy down to the father of
   John the Baptist, as well as the patriarchs, Moses, and some of the
   prophets, lived in wedlock. The prince of the apostles, whom Roman
   Catholics regard as the first pope, was a married man, and carried his
   wife with him on his missionary journeys. [603] Paul claimed the same
   right as "other apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas,"
   though he renounced it for personal reasons. From the pastoral Epistles
   we may infer that marriage was the rule among the bishops and deacons
   of the apostolic age. It is therefore plainly a usurpation to deprive
   the ministers of the gospel of this right of nature and nature's God.

   But from the second century the opinion came to prevail, and still
   prevails in the papal communion, which is ruled by an unmarried priest,
   that marriage is inconsistent with the sacerdotal office, and should be
   forbidden after ordination. This view was based on the distinction
   between a lower and higher morality with corresponding merit and
   reward, the one for the laity or the common people; the other for
   priests and monks, who form a spiritual nobility. All the church
   fathers, Greek and Latin, even those who were themselves married (as
   Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, Synesius), are unanimous in praising
   celibacy above marriage; and the greatest of them are loudest in this
   praise, especially St. Jerome. And yet the mothers of Gregory
   Nazianzen, Chrysostom, and Augustin, are the brightest examples of
   Christian women in the ancient Church. Nonna, Anthusa, and Monica were
   more useful in giving birth to these luminaries of the Church than any
   nuns.

   This ascetic feature marks a decided difference between the Fathers and
   the Reformers, as it does between the Catholic and Evangelical
   churches. Anglicanism, with all its respect for the Fathers, differs as
   widely from them in this respect as any other Protestant communion.

   The Oriental churches, including that of Russia, stopped half way in
   this ascetic restriction of a divine right. They approve and even
   enjoin marriage upon the lower clergy (before ordination), but forbid
   it to bishops, and regard the directions of Paul, 1 Tim. 3:2, 12
   (compare 5:9), as a concession to the weakness of the flesh, and as a
   prohibition of second marriage. The Latin Church, understanding the
   advice of Paul, 1 Cor. 7:7, 32, 33, as, a counsel of perfection,
   "indicating a better way, imposed, as early as the fourth century,
   total abstinence from marriage upon all orders of the clergy, and
   brands the marriage of a priest as sinful concubinage. Pope Siricius,
   a.d. 385, issued the first prohibition of sacerdotal marriage. His
   successors followed, but it was not till Gregory VII. that the
   prohibition was rigidly enforced. It was done in the interest of
   hierarchical power, and at an enormous sacrifice of clerical purity.
   The Roman Catholic system makes marriage one of the seven sacraments;
   but by elevating celibacy above it, and by declaring it to be beneath
   the dignity of a priest of God, it degrades marriage as if it involved
   an element of impurity. According to the Gnostic and Manichaean theory,
   condemned by Paul as a doctrine of demons, 1 Tim. 4:1-3, marriage is a
   contact with sinful matter, and forbidden altogether.

   In view of this state of public opinion and the long tradition of Latin
   Christendom, we need not wonder that the marriage of the Reformers
   created the greatest sensation, and gave rise to the slander that
   sensual passion was one of the strongest motives of their rebellion
   against popery. Erasmus struck the keynote to this perversion of
   history, although he knew well enough that Luther and Oecolampadius
   were Protestants several years before they thought of marrying.
   Clerical marriage was a result, not a cause, of the Reformation, as
   clerical celibacy was neither the first nor the chief objection to the
   papal system. [604]

   On a superficial view one might wish that the Reformers had remained
   true to their solemn promise, like the Jansenist bishops in the
   seventeenth century, and the clerical leaders of the Old Catholic
   secession in the nineteenth. [605] But it was their mission to
   introduce by example as well as by precept, a new type of Christian
   morality, to restore and re-create clerical family life, and to secure
   the purity, peace, and happiness of innumerable homes.

   Far be it from us to depreciate the value of voluntary celibacy which
   is inspired by the love of God. The mysterious word of our Lord, Matt.
   19:12, and the advice and example of Paul, 1 Cor. 7:7, 40, forbid it.
   We cheerfully admire the self-denial and devotion of martyrs, priests,
   missionaries, monks, nuns, and sisters of charity, who sacrificed all
   for Christ and their fellow-men. Protestantism, too, has produced not a
   few noble men and women who, without vows and without seeking or
   claiming extra merit, renounced the right of marriage from the purest
   motives. [606] But according to God's ordinance dating from the state
   of innocency, and sanctioned by Christ at the wedding feast at Cana,
   marriage is the rule for all classes of men, ministers as well as
   laymen. For ministers are men, and do not cease to be men by becoming
   ministers.

   The Reformation has changed the moral ideal, and elevated domestic and
   social life. The mediaeval ideal of piety is the flight from the evil
   world: the modern ideal is the transformation of the world. The model
   saint of the Roman Church is the monk separated from the enjoyments and
   duties of society, and anticipating the angelic life in heaven where
   men neither marry nor are given in marriage: the model saint of the
   Evangelical Church is the free Christian and useful citizen, who shows
   his piety in the performance of social and domestic duties, and aims at
   the sanctification of the ordinances of nature. The former tries to
   conquer the world by running away from its temptations--though after
   all he cannot escape the flesh, the world, and the Devil in his own
   heart: the latter tries to conquer the world by converting it. The one
   abstains from the wedding feast: the other attends it, and changes the
   water into wine. The one flees from woman as a tempter: the other takes
   her to his heart, and reflects in the marriage relation the holy union
   of Christ with his Church. The one aims to secure, chastity by
   abstinence: the other proves it within the family. The one renounces
   all earthly possessions: the other uses them for the good of his
   fellow-men. The one looks for happiness in heaven: the other is happy
   already on earth by making others happy. The daily duties and trials of
   domestic and social life are a better school of moral discipline than
   monkish celibacy and poverty. Female virtues and graces are necessary
   to supplement and round out the character of man. Exceptions there are,
   but they prove the rule.

   It may be expected that in the fervor and hurry of the first attempts
   in the transition from slavery to freedom, some indiscretions were
   committed; but they are as nothing compared with the secret chronique
   scandaleuse of enforced celibacy. It was reserved for later times to
   cultivate a more refined style of family life; but the Reformers burst
   the chains of papal tyranny, and furnished the practical proof that it
   is possible to harmonize the highest and holiest calling with the
   duties of husband and father. Though falling short of modern Protestant
   ideas of the dignity and rights of woman, they made her the rightful
   companion of the Christian pastor; and among those companions may be
   found many of the purest, most refined, and most useful women on earth.
   The social standing of woman is a true test of Christian civilization.

   Melanchthon was the first among the Reformers who entered the state of
   matrimony; but being a layman, he violated no priestly or monastic vow.
   He married, at the urgent request of his friends, Katharina Krapp, the
   daughter of the burgomaster of Wittenberg, in November, 1520, and lived
   with his plain, pious, faithful, and benevolent wife, till her death in
   1557. He was seen at times rocking the cradle while reading a book.
   [607]

   Calvin was likewise free from the obligation of vows, but the severest
   and most abstemious among the Reformers. He married Idelette de Buren,
   the widow of an Anabaptist minister of Holland, whom he had converted
   to the Paedobaptist faith; he lived with her for nearly nine years, had
   three children who died in infancy, and remained a widower after her
   death. The only kind of female beauty which impressed him was, as he
   said, gentleness, purity, modesty, patience, and devotion to the wants
   of her husband; and these qualities he esteemed in his wife. [608]

   Zwingli unfortunately broke his vow at Einsiedeln, while still a
   priest, and in receipt of a pension from the Pope. He afterwards
   married a worthy patrician widow with three children, Anna Reinhard von
   Knonau, who bore him two sons and two daughters, and lived to lament
   his tragic death on the field of battle, finding, like him, her only
   comfort in the Lord Jesus and the word of God. [609]

   Ludwig Cellarius (Keller), Oecolampadius (the Reformer of Basel),
   Wolfgang Capito (the Reformer of Strassburg), and his more
   distinguished friend Martin Bucer (a widower who was always ready for
   union) were successively married to Wilibrandis Rosenblatt, the
   daughter of a Knight and colonel aid-de-camp of the Emperor Maximilian
   I. She accompanied Bucer to Cambridge in England, and after his death
   returned to Basel, the survivor of four husbands! She died Nov. 1,
   1564. [610] She must have had a remarkable attraction for Reformers.
   Oecolampadius thought her almost too young for his age of forty-five,
   but found her a "good Christian "and "free from youthful frivolity."
   She bore him three children,--Eusebius, Alitheia, and Irene. [611] It
   was on the occasion of his marriage that Erasmus wrote to a friend
   (March 21, 1528): "Oecolampadius has lately married. His bride is not a
   bad-looking girl" [she was a widow]. "I suppose he wants to mortify his
   flesh. Some speak of the Lutheran cause as a tragedy, but to me it
   appears rather as a comedy, for it always ends in a wedding." [612]

   Archbishop Cranmer appears in an unfavorable light. His first wife,
   "Black Joan," died in childbed before his ordination. Early in 1532,
   before he was raised to the primacy of Canterbury by Henry VIII.
   (August, 1532), he married a niece of the Lutheran preacher Osiander of
   Nürnberg, and concealed the fact, the disclosure of which would have
   prevented his elevation. The papal bulls of confirmation were dated
   February and March, 1533, and his consecration took place March 30,
   1533. The next year he privately summoned his wife to England; but sent
   her away in 1539, when he found it necessary to execute the bloody
   articles of Henry VIII., which included the prohibition of clerical
   marriage. He lent a willing hand to the divorces and re-marriages of
   his royal master. And yet with all his weakness of character, and
   time-serving policy, Cranmer must have been an eminently devout man if
   he translated and reproduced (as he certainly edited) the Anglican
   liturgy, which has stood the test of many generations to this day.
   [613]

   John Knox, the Luther of Scotland, had the courage, as a widower of
   fifty-eight (March, 1563-64), to marry a Scotch lass of sixteen,
   Margaret Stuart, of royal name and blood, to the great indignation of
   Queen Mary, who "stormed wonderfully" at his audacity. The papists got
   up the story that he gained her affection by sorcery, and aimed to
   secure for his heirs, with the aid of the Devil, the throne of
   Scotland. His wife bore him three daughters, and two years after his
   death (1572) contracted a second marriage with Andrew Ker, a widower.
   [614]

   The most unfortunate matrimonial incident in the Reformation is the
   consent of Luther, Melanchthon, and Bucer to the disgraceful bigamy of
   Landgrave Philip of Hesse. It is a blot on their character, and admits
   of no justification. When the secret came out (1540), Melanchthon was
   so over-whelmed with the reproaches of conscience and a sense of shame
   that he fell dangerously ill at Weimar, till Luther, who was made of
   sterner stuff, and found comfort in his doctrine of justification by
   faith alone, prayed him out of the jaws of death.

   In forming a just estimate of this subject, we must not only look
   backward to the long ages of clerical celibacy with all its dangers and
   evils, but also forward to the innumerable clerical homes which were
   made possible by the Reformation. They can bear the test of the closest
   examination.

   Clerical celibacy and monastic vows deprived the church of the services
   of many men who might have become shining stars. On the other hand, it
   has been calculated by Justus Möser in 1750, that within two centuries
   after the Reformation from ten to fifteen millions of human beings in
   all lands owe their existence to the abolition of clerical celibacy.
   [615] More important than this numerical increase is the fact that an
   unusual proportion of eminent scholars and useful men in church and
   state were descended from clerical families. [616]

   There is a poetic as well as religious charm in the home of a
   Protestant country pastor who moves among his flock as a father,
   friend, and comforter, and enforces his teaching of domestic virtues
   and affections by his example, speaking louder than words. The beauty
   of this relation has often been the theme of secular poets. Everybody
   knows Oliver Goldsmith's "Vicar of Wakefield," which describes with
   charming simplicity and harmless humor the trials and patience, the
   domestic, social, and professional virtues of a country pastor, and
   begins with the characteristic sentence: "I was ever of opinion, that
   the honest man who married, and brought up a large family, did more
   service than he who continued single, and only talked of population;
   from this motive I had scarcely taken orders a year, before I chose my
   wife, as she did her wedding-gown, not for a fine glossy face, but for
   such qualities as would wear well." Herder read this English classic
   four times, and commended it to his bride as one of the best books in
   any language. Goethe, who himself tasted the charm of a pastoral home
   in the days of his purest and strongest love to Friederike of
   Sesenheim, praises the "Vicar of Wakefield," as "one of the best
   novels, with the additional advantage of being thoroughly moral, yea in
   a genuine sense Christian," and makes the general assertion: "A
   Protestant country pastor is perhaps the most beautiful topic for a
   modern idyl; he appears like Melchizedek, as priest and king in one
   person. He is usually associated by occupation and outward condition
   with the most innocent conceivable estate on earth, that of the farmer;
   he is father, master of his house, and thoroughly identified with his
   congregation. On this pure, beautiful earthly foundation, rests his
   higher vocation: to introduce men into life, to care for their
   spiritual education, to bless, to instruct, to strengthen, to comfort
   them in all the epochs of life, and, if the comfort for the present is
   not sufficient, to cheer them with the assured hope of a more happy
   future." [617] In his idyl "Hermann und Dorothea," he introduces a
   clergyman as an ornament and benefactor of the community. It is to the
   credit of this greatest and most cultured of modern poets, that he,
   like Shakespeare and Schiller, never disparaged the clerical
   profession.

   In his "Deserted Village," Goldsmith gives another picture of the
   village preacher as


   "A man who was to all the country dear,

   And passing rich on forty pounds a year. ...

   At church, with meek and unaffected grace,

   His looks adorned the venerable place;

   Truth from his lips prevailed with double sway,

   And fools who came to scoff remained to pray."

   From a higher spiritual plane William Wordsworth, the brother of an
   Anglican clergyman and uncle of two bishops, describes the character of
   a Protestant pastor in his "Ecclesiastical Sonnets."


   "A genial hearth, a hospitable board,

   And a refined rusticity, belong

   To the neat mansion, where, his flock among,

   The learned Pastor dwells, their watchful lord.

   Though meek and patient as a sheathèd sword

   Though pride's least lurking thought appear a wrong

   To human kind; though peace be on his tongue,

   Gentleness in his heart--can earth afford

   Such genuine state, pre-eminence so free,

   As when, arrayed in Christ's authority,

   He from the pulpit lifts his awful hand;

   Conjures, implores, and labors all he can

   For re-subjecting to divine command

   The stubborn spirit of rebellious man!"

   A Romish priest or a Russian pope depends for his influence chiefly
   upon his official character, though he may be despised for his vices. A
   Protestant minister stands or falls with his personal merits; and the
   fact of his high and honorable position and influence in every
   Protestant country, as a Christian, a gentleman, a husband and father,
   is the best vindication of the wisdom of the Reformers in abolishing
   clerical celibacy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [603] In spite of this fact attested by St. Paul, 1 Cor. 9:5, in the
   year 57, Dr. Spalding (in his Hist. of the Prot. Reformation, I. 177,
   8th ed. 1875) asserts that Peter's wife was "probably dead before he
   became an apostle."

   [604] Archbishop Spalding, in his History of the Reformation (I. 176),
   following the example of unscrupulous Romish controversialists, thus
   echoes the joke of Erasmus: "Matrimony was, in almost all cases, the
   dénouement of the drama which signalized the zeal for reformation." He
   refers for proof to Moore's Travels of an Irish Gentleman in Search of
   a Religion, ch. XLVI., "where the great Irish poet enters into the
   subject at length, giving his authorities as he proceeds, and playing
   off his caustic wit on the hymeneal propensities of the Reformers." In
   looking at that chapter (for the first time), I find that it abounds in
   misstatements and abuse of the Reformers, whom the Irish poet calls not
   only "fanatics" and "bigots," but "the coarsest hypocrites" and "slaves
   of the most vulgar superstition " (p. 246, Philad. ed. 1833). The same
   poet gives us the startling piece of information (p. 248) that the
   Protestants were subdivided on the eucharistic question alone into
   countless factions such as "Panarii, Accidentarii, Corporarii,
   Arrabonarii, Tropistae, Metamorphistae, Iscariotistae,
   Schwenkenfeldians, etc., etc., etc.," and that "an author of
   Bellarmine's time counted no less than two hundred different opinions
   on the words, 'This Is my body' " ! Moore was evidently better at home
   in the history of Lord Byron than in the history of the church.

   [605] The Old Catholic Bishop Reinkens and Bishop Herzog, Drs.
   Döllinger, Friederich, Reusch, and Langen, remained single after their
   excommunication in 1870. But Père Loyson-Hyacinthe, who occupies a
   similar position of Tridentine or rather Gallican Romanism versus
   Vatican Romanism, followed the example of the Reformers, and married an
   American widow, whom he had converted to the Roman Church by his
   eloquent sermons in Notre Dame, before she converted him to herself.
   They were joined together by Dean Stanley in Westminster Abbey. It is
   reported that Pope Pius IX., on being informed of the fact, and asked
   to excommunicate the ex-monk, wittily replied, "It is not necessary,
   since he has taken the punishment into his own arms." A Pope's view of
   the blessed estate of matrimony!

   [606] We may mention the saintly Archbishop Leighton, Dr. Samuel
   Hopkins, the missionary Zeisberger, Dr. William Augustus Mühlenberg
   (the founder of St. Luke's Hospital In New York and of St. Johnland,
   and the singer of "I would not live alway"), the model pastor Ludwig
   Harms of Hermannsburg, the historian Neander and his sister, and the
   nurses or deaconesses of Kaiserswerth and similar institutions.

   [607] C. Schmidt, Philipp Melanchthon, pp. 47 sqq., 617, 710 sqq.

   [608] Stähelin, Johannes Calvin, vol. I. 272 sqq.

   [609] R. Christoffel, Huldreich Zwingli, pp. 336-339, 413. The
   slanderous exaggerations of Janssen have been refuted by Ebrard,
   Usteri, and Schweizer.

   [610] Hagenbach (Oekolampad, p. 108, note) gives this date, and refers
   to the Reformations-Almanach, 1821.

   [611] Herzog, Leben Joh. Oekolampadius, vol. II. 70 sqq.; Hagenbach,
   Joh. Oekolampad und Oswald Myconius, p. 107. Hagenbach says that the
   names of his children were the pillars of his home: godliness, truth,
   and peace.

   [612] In a letter to Adrianus Arivulus: "Nuper Oecolampadius duxit
   uxorem, puellam non inelegantem. Vult opinor affligere carnem. Quidam
   appellant Lutheranam tragaediam, mihi videtur esse comaedia. Semper
   enim in nuptias exeunt tumultus." He afterwards apologized to
   Oecolampadius, and disclaimed any intention to satirize him. See his
   letter to Oecolampadius in Drummond's Erasmus, II. 319. Archbishop
   Spalding (l.c. I. 176) thus repeats the joke: "The gospel light seems
   to have first beamed upon Oecolampadius from the eye of a beautiful
   young lady, whom, in violation of his solemn vows plighted to Heaven,
   he espoused, probably, as Erasmus wittily remarked, to mortify
   himself." He says nothing of the apology of Erasmus to his friend and
   associate.

   [613] Strype's Memorials of Cranmer (Bk. I., chs. 1, 4, 19; Bk. III.,
   chs. 8 and 38); Hook's Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury (vols.
   VI. and VII.); Hardwick's History of the Reformation, ed. W. Stubbs
   (1873), p. 179; and art. Cranmer in Leslie Stephen's "Dictionary of
   National Biogr.," vol. XIII.

   [614] Dr. M'Crie's Life of John Knox, Philad. ed., pp. 269 and 477
   (Append. Note HHH); and Dav. Laing's Preface to the 6th vol. of his ed.
   of Works of John Knox, pp. LXV. sqq.

   [615] Ranke states this fact.

   [616] Among distinguished sons of clergymen may be named Linné, the
   botanist; Berzelius, the chemist; Pufendorf, the lawyer; Schelling, the
   philosopher; Buxtorff, the Orientalist; Euler, the mathematician;
   Agassiz, the scientist; Edward and Ottfried Müller, the classical
   philologists; John von Müller, Spittler, Heeren, Mommsen, Bancroft,
   among historians; Henry Clay, Senator Evarts, and two Presidents of the
   United States, Arthur and Cleveland, among statesmen; Charles Wesley,
   Gellert, Wieland, Lessing, the brothers Schlegel, Jean Paul, Emanuel
   Geibel, Emerson (also the female writers Meta Heusser, Elizabeth
   Prentiss, Mrs. Stowe), among poets; John Wesley, Monod, Krummacher,
   Spurgeon, H. W. Beecher, R. S. Storrs, among preachers; Jonathan
   Edwards, Schleiermacher, Hengstenberg, Nitzsch, Julius Müller, Dorner,
   Dean Stanley, among divines; Swedenborg, the seer; with a large number
   of prominent and useful clergymen, lawyers, and physicians, in all
   Protestant countries.

   [617] From the tenth book of his Wahrheit und Dichtung. Herder directed
   his attention to the "Vicar," while they studied at Strassburg, and
   read it to him aloud in German translation. In the same book Goethe
   describes in fascinating style his visits to the parsonage of
   Sesenheim.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 80. Reformation of Public Worship.

   I. Luther: Deutsches Taufbüchlein, 1523; Ordnung des Gottes-dienstes in
   der Gemeinde, 1523; Vom Gräuel der Stillmesse, 1524; Deutsche Messe und
   Ordnung des Gottesdienstes, 1526; Das Taufbüchlein verdeutscht, aufs
   neue zugerichtet, 1526. In Walch, X.; in Erl. ed., XXII. 151 sqq. Comp.
   the Augsburg confession, Pars II. art. 3 (De missa); Apol. of the
   Augsb. Conf. art. XXIV. (De missa); the Lutheran liturgies or
   Kirchenagenden (also Kirchenordnungen) of the 16th century, collected
   in Daniel: Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Lutheranae, Lips. 1848 (Tom. II.
   of his Cod. Lit.), and Höfling: Liturgisches Urkundenbuch (ed. by G.
   Thomasius and Theodos. Harnack), Leipz. 1854.

   II. Th. Kliefoth: Die ursprüngliche Gottesdienstordnung in den
   deutschen Kirchen luth. Reformation, ihre Destruction und Reformation,
   Rostock, 1847. Grüneisen: Die evang. Gottesdienstordnung in den
   oberdeutschen Landen, Stuttgart, 1856. Gottschick: Luthers Anschauungen
   vom christl. Gottesdienst und seine thatsächliche Reform desselben,
   Freiburg i. B., 1887.

   The reformation of doctrine led to a reconstruction of worship on the
   basis of Scripture and the guidance of such passages as, God is
   spirit," [618] and must be worshiped, in spirit and in truth" (John
   4:24), and, Let all things be done decently and in order" (1 Cor.
   14:40). Protestantism aims at a rational or spiritual service, [619] as
   distinct from a mechanical service of mere forms. It acts upon the
   heart through the intellect, rather than the senses, and through
   instruction, rather than ceremonies. It brings the worshiper into
   direct communion with God in Christ, through the word of God and
   prayer, without the obstruction of human mediators.

   The Reformers first cleansed the sanctuary of gross abuses and
   superstitions, and cast out the money-changers with a scourge of cords.
   They abhorred idolatry, which in a refined form had found its way into
   the church. They abolished the sale of indulgences, the worship of
   saints, images, and relics, processions and pilgrimages, the private
   masses, and masses for the dead in purgatory. [620] They rejected five
   of the seven sacraments (retaining only baptism and the eucharist), the
   doctrine of transubstantiation, the priestly sacrifice, the adoration
   of the host, the withdrawal of the cup from the laity, and the use of a
   dead language in public worship. They also reduced the excessive
   ceremonialism and ritualistic display which obscured the spiritual
   service.

   But the impoverishment was compensated by a gain; the work of
   destruction was followed by a more important and difficult work of
   reconstruction. This was the revival of primitive worship as far as it
   can be ascertained from the New Testament, the more abundant reading of
   the Scriptures and preaching of the cardinal truths of the gospel, the
   restoration of the Lord's Supper in its original simplicity, the
   communion in both kinds, and the translation of the Latin service into
   the vernacular language whereby it was made intelligible and profitable
   to the people. There was, however, much crude experimenting and
   changing until a new order of worship could be fairly established.

   Uniformity in worship is neither necessary nor desirable, according to
   Protestant principles. The New Testament does not prescribe any
   particular form, except the Lord's Prayer, the words of institution of
   the Lord's Supper, and the baptismal formula.

   The Protestant orders of worship differ widely in the extent of
   departure from the Roman service, which is one and the same everywhere.
   The Lutheran Church is conservative and liturgical. She retained from
   the traditional usage what was not inconsistent with evangelical
   doctrine; while the Reformed churches of the Zwinglian and Calvinistic
   type aimed at the greatest simplicity and spirituality of worship after
   what they supposed to be the apostolic pattern. Some went so far as to
   reject all hymns and forms of prayer which are not contained in the
   Bible, but gave all the more attention to the Psalter, to the sermon,
   and to extemporaneous prayer. The Anglican Church, however, makes an
   exception among the Reformed communions: she is even more conservative
   than the Lutheran, and produced a liturgy which embodies in the
   choicest English the most valuable prayers and forms of the Latin
   service, and has maintained its hold upon the reverence and affection
   of the Episcopal churches to this day. They subordinate preaching to
   worship, and free prayer to forms of prayer.

   Luther began to reform public worship in 1523, but with caution, and in
   opposition to the radicalism of Carlstadt, who during the former's
   absence on the Wartburg had tumultuously abolished the mass, and
   destroyed the altars and pictures. He retained the term "mass," which
   came to signify the whole public service, especially the eucharistic
   sacrifice. He tried to save the truly Christian elements in the old
   order, and to reproduce them in the vernacular language for the benefit
   of the people. His churchly instincts were strengthened by his love of
   poetry and music. He did not object even to the use of the Latin tongue
   in the Sunday service, and expressed an impracticable wish for a sort
   of pentecostal Sunday mass in German, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. [621]
   At the same time he desired also a more private devotional service of
   converted Christians, with the celebration of the holy communion
   (corresponding to the missa fidelium of the ante-Nicene Church, as
   distinct from the missa catechumenorum), but deemed it impossible for
   that time from the want of the proper persons; for "we Germans," he
   said, "are a wild, rough, rabid people, with whom nothing can be done
   except under the pressure of necessity."

   So he confined himself to provide for the public Sunday service. He
   retained the usual order, the Gospels and Epistles, the collects, the
   Te Deum, the Gloria in excelsis, the Benedictus, the Creed, the
   responses, the kneeling posture in communion, even the elevation of the
   host and chalice (which he afterwards abandoned, but which is still
   customary in the Lutheran churches of Scandinavia), though without the
   adoration. He omitted the canon of the mass which refers to the
   priestly sacrifice, and which, since the sixth century, contains the
   kernel of the Roman mass, as an unbloody repetition of the crucifixion
   and miraculous trans-formation of the elements. [622] He had previously
   rejected this "horrible canon," as he calls it, in his "Babylonian
   Captivity," and in a special tract from the Wartburg. He assailed it
   again and again as a cardinal error in the papal system. He held indeed
   the doctrine of the real presence, but without the scholastic notion of
   transubstantiation and priestly sacrifice.

   He gave the most prominent place to the sermon, which was another
   departure from previous custom. He arranged three services on Sunday,
   each with a sermon: early in the morning, chiefly for servants; the
   mass at nine or ten; and in the afternoon a discourse from a text in
   the Old Testament. On Monday and Tuesday in the morning the Ten
   Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer were to be taught; on
   Wednesday, the Gospel of Matthew; on Saturday, the Gospel of John; on
   Thursday, the Epistle lessons should be explained. The boys of the
   school were to recite daily some Psalms in Latin, and then read
   alternately one or more chapters of the New Testament in Latin and
   German.

   Luther introduced the new order with the approval of the Elector in
   October, 1525, and published it early in 1526. [623] The chief service
   on Sunday embraces a German hymn or psalm; the Kyrie Eleison, and
   Gloria in Excelsis (Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr); a short collect,
   and the Epistle for the day; a hymn; the Gospel for the day sung by the
   Minister; the Nicene Creed recited by the whole congrega-tion; a sermon
   on the Gospel; the Lord's Prayer; exhortation; the holy communion, the
   words of institution sung by the minister (this being the consecration
   of the elements), with singing of the Sanctus (Isa. 6:1-4, rendered
   into German by Luther), the Benedictus, the Agnus Dei (John 1:29) or in
   German "O Lamm Gottes unschuldig" (by Decius), followed by the
   distribution, the collection, and benediction. Omitting the canon
   missae, or the offering of the sacrifice of Christ's body, the new
   order was substantially the same as the old, only translated into
   German.

   Melanchthon says in the Augsburg Confession of 1530: [624] Our churches
   are wrongfully accused of having abolished the mass. For the mass is
   retained still among us, and celebrated with great reverence; yea, and
   almost all the ceremonies that are in use, saving that with the things
   sung in Latin we mingle certain things sung in German at various parts
   of the service, which are added for the people's instruction. For
   therefore alone we have need of ceremonies, that they may teach the
   unlearned."

   Luther regarded ceremonies, the use of clerical robes, candles on the
   altar, the attitude of the minister in prayer, as matters of
   indifference which may be retained or abolished. In the revision of the
   baptismal service, 1526, he abolished the use of salt, spittle, and
   oil, but retained the exorcism in an abridged form. He also retained
   the public confession and absolution, and recommended private
   confession of sin to the minister. [625]

   The Lutheran churches in Northern Germany and in Scandinavia adopted
   the order of Wittenberg with sundry modifications; but the Lutheran
   churches in Southern Germany (Würtemberg, Baden, Palatinate, Alsace)
   followed the simpler type of the Swiss service.

   The Lutheran order of worship underwent some radical changes in the
   eighteenth century under the influence of rationalism; the spirit of
   worship cooled down; the weekly communion was abolished; the sermon
   degenerated into a barren moral discourse; new liturgies and hymnbooks
   with all sorts of misimprovements were introduced. But in recent times,
   we may say since the third centennial celebration of the Reformation
   (1817), there has been a gradual revival of the liturgical spirit in
   different parts of Germany, with a restoration of many devotional
   treasures of past ages. There is, however, no uniform Lutheran liturgy,
   like the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England. Each Lutheran
   state church has its own liturgy and hymnbook.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [618] i e., all spirit, nothing but spirit, (without the article, as in
   the margin of the Revised Version), according to the Greek:
   pneuma(emphatically put first) hoTheos, in opposition to all
   materialistic conceptions and local limitations. Compare the parallel
   expressions: " God is love" (1 John 4:8), " God is light" (1 John 1:5),
   where neither the definite nor the indefinite article is admissible.

   [619] logike latreia, Rom. 12:1; comp. the "spiritual sacrifices"
   (pneumatikai thusiai), 1 Pet. 2:5

   [620] Missae de sanctis, missae votivae missae pro defunctis.
   Melanchthon, in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, art. XXIV.,
   says: "The fact that we hold only public or common mass is no offense
   against the Catholic Church. For in the Greek churches even to-day
   private masses are not held; but there is only a public mass, and that
   on the Lord's Day and festivals." Masses for the dead, which date from
   Pope Gregory I., imply, of course, the doctrine of purgatory, and were
   among the crying abuses of the church.

   [621] "Wenn ichs vermöchte," he says in his tract on the German Mass,
   January, 1526, "und die griechische und ebräische Sprache wäre uns so
   gemein als die lateinischen und hätte so vielfeiner Musica und Gesangs
   als die lateinische hat, so sollte man einen Sonntag um den andern in
   alten vier Sprachen, deutsch, lateinisch, griechisch und ebräisch,
   Messe halten, singen, und lesen." Such a polyglot service was never
   even attempted except at the Propaganda in Rome. Melanchthon (Apol.
   Conf. Aug., art. XXIV.) defends the use of a Latin along with German
   hymns in public worship.

   [622] The canon missae ("Te igitur," etc.), embraces five or six
   prayers bearing upon the consecration and the offering of Christ's
   body. It begins with an intercession for the Pope and all orthodox
   Catholics. Janssen says (III. 64): "In der Messe liess Luther den
   Canon, den Kern und das Wesen der katholischen Messe, fort," and
   unfairly adds: "Das Volk jedoch sollte dieses nicht wissen." As if
   Luther were the man to deceive the people!

   [623] Deutsche Messe und Ordnung des Gottesdiensts, with musical notes
   for the parts to be sung.

   [624] Part II. art. III. Comp. his "Apology of the Conf.," art. XXIV.,
   De missa.

   [625] The Augsburg Confession, Part II. art. IV., says: "Confession is
   not abolished in our churches. For it is not usual to communicate the
   body of our Lord, except to those who have been previously examined and
   absolved. ... Men are taught that they should highly regard absolution,
   inasmuch as it is God's voice, and pronounced by God's commsand."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 81. Prominent Features of Evangelical Worship.

   Taking a wider view of the subject, we may emphasize the following
   characteristic features of evangelical worship, as compared with that
   of the Latin and Greek churches:

   1. The prominence given to the sermon, or the exposition and
   application of the word of God. It became the chief part of divine
   service, and as regards importance took the place of the mass.
   Preaching was the special function of the bishops, but sadly neglected
   by them, and is even now in Roman-Catholic countries usually confined
   to the season of Lent. The Roman worship is complete without a sermon.
   The mass, moreover, is performed in a dead language, and the people are
   passive spectators rather than hearers. The altar is the throne of the
   Catholic priest; the pulpit is the throne of the Protestant preacher
   and pastor. The Reformers in theory and practice laid the greatest
   stress on preaching and hearing the gospel as an act of worship.

   Luther set the example, and was a most indefatigable and popular
   preacher. [626] He filled the pulpit of the town church alternately
   with Bugenhagen, the pastor, on Sundays and week-days, sometimes twice
   a day. Even in the last days of his life he delivered four sermons from
   the pulpit at Eisleben in spite of physical infirmity and pain. [627]
   His most popular sermons are those on the Gospels and Epistles of the
   year, collected in the Kirchenpostille, which he completed in 1525 and
   1527. Another popular collection is his Hauspostille, which contains
   his sermons at home, as taken down by Veit Dietrich and Rörer, and
   published in 1544 and 1559. He preached without notes, after
   meditation, under the inspiration of the moment.

   He was a Boanerges, the like of whom Germany never heard before or
   since. He had all the elements of a popular orator. Melanchthon said,
   "One is an interpreter, one a logician, another an orator, but Luther
   is all in all." Bossuet gives him credit for "a lively and impetuous
   eloquence by which he delighted and captivated his hearers." Luther
   observed no strict method. He usually followed the text, and combined
   exposition with application. He made Christ and the gospel his theme.
   He lived and moved in the Bible, and understood how to make it a book
   of life for his time. He always spoke from intense conviction and with
   an air of authority. He had an extraordinary faculty of expressing the
   profoundest thoughts in the clearest and strongest language for the
   common people. He hit the nail on the head. He was bold and brave, and
   spared neither the Devil nor the Pope nor the Sacramentarians. His
   polemical excursions, how-ever, are not always in good taste, nor in
   the right spirit.

   He disregarded the scholars among his hearers, and aimed at the common
   people, the women and children and servants. "Cursed be the preachers,"
   he said, "who in church aim at high or hard things." He was never dull
   or tedious. He usually stopped when the hearers were at the height of
   attention, and left them anxious to come again. He censured Bugenhagen
   for his long sermons, of which people so often and justly complain. He
   summed up his homiletical wisdom in three rules: --


   "Start fresh; Speak out; Stop short." [628]

   The mass and the sermon are the chief means of edification,--the one in
   the Greek and Roman, the other in the Protestant churches. The mass
   memorializes symbolically, day by day, the sacrifice of Christ for the
   sins of the world; the sermon holds up the living Christ of the gospel
   as an inspiration to holy living and dying. Both may degenerate into
   perfunctory, mechanical services; but Christianity has outlived all
   dead masses and dry sermons, and makes its power felt even through the
   weakest instrumentalities.

   As preaching is an intellectual and spiritual effort, it calls for a
   much higher education than the reading of the mass from a book. A
   comparison of the Protestant with the Roman or Greek clergy at once
   shows the difference.

   2. In close connection with preaching is the stress laid on
   catechetical instruction. Of this we shall speak in a special section.

   3. The Lord's Supper was restored to its primitive character as a
   commemoration of the atoning death of Christ, and a communion of
   believers with Him. In the Protestant system the holy communion is a
   sacrament, and requires the presence of the congregation; in the Roman
   system it is chiefly a sacrifice, and may be performed by the priest
   alone. The withdrawal of the cup is characteristic of the over-estimate
   of the clergy and under-estimate of the laity; and its restoration was
   not only in accordance with primitive usage, but required by the
   doctrine of the general priesthood of believers.

   Luther retained the weekly communion as the conclusion of the regular
   service on the Lord's Day. In the Reformed churches it was made less
   frequent, but more solemn.

   4. The divine service was popularized by substituting the vernacular
   for the Latin language in prayer and song,--a change of incalculable
   consequence.

   5. The number of church festivals was greatly reduced, and confined to
   those which commemorate the great facts of our salvation; namely, the
   incarnation (Christmas), the redemption (Palm Sunday, Good Friday, and
   Easter), and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Ascension and
   Pentecost), with the concluding festival of the Holy Trinity. They
   constitute the nucleus of the Christian year, and a sort of
   chronological creed for the people. The Lutheran Church retained also
   (at least in some sections) the feasts of the Virgin Mary, of the
   Apostles and Evangelists, and of All Saints; but they have gradually
   gone out of use.

   Luther held that church festivals, and even the weekly sabbath, were
   abolished in principle, and observed only on account of the
   requirements of public worship and the weakness of the laity. [629] The
   righteous need no laws and ceremonies. To them all time is holy, every
   day a day of rest, and every day a day of good work. But "although," he
   says, "all days are free and alike, it is yet useful and good, yea,
   necessary, to keep holy one day, whether it be sabbath or Sunday or any
   other day; for God will govern the world orderly and peacefully; hence
   he gave six days for work, and the seventh for rest, that men should
   refresh themselves by rest, and hear the word of God." [630]

   In this view all the Reformers substantially agree, including Calvin
   and Knox, except that the latter made practically less account of the
   annual festivals, and more of the weekly festival. The Anglo-American
   theory of the Lord's Day, which is based on the perpetual essential
   obligation of the Fourth Commandment, as a part of the moral law to be
   observed with Christian freedom in the light of Christ's resurrection,
   is of Puritan origin at the close of the sixteenth century, and was
   first symbolically sanctioned by the Westminster standards in 1647, but
   has worked itself into the flesh and blood of all English-speaking
   Christendom to the great benefit of public worship and private
   devotion. [631]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [626] His sermons fill 16 vols. in the Erl. ed. of his Works.

   [627] They were taken down in short-hand, and first published by his
   companion Aurifaber. In the Erl. ed., XVI. 209 sqq.

   [628] "Tritt frisch auf; Mach's Maul auf; Hör' bald auf." Literally:
   Get up freshly; Open your mouth widely; Be done quickly. Comp. E.
   Jonas, Die Kanzelberedtsamkeit Luthers, Berlin, 1852; Beste, Die
   bedeutendsten Kanzelredner der älteren luth. Kirche, 1856 (pp. 30-36);
   G. Garnier, Sur la predication de Luther, Montauban, 1876; Thomas S.
   Hastings, Luther as a Preacher, In the "Luther Symposiac" by the
   Professors of the Union Theological Seminary, New York, 1883.

   [629] "Propter necessitatem Verbi Dei" and "propter infirmos."

   [630] On Luther's views of Sunday, see his explanation of the third
   (fourth) commandment in his catechisms, and Köstlin, Luthers Theologie,
   II. 82 sqq.

   [631] On the history of Sunday observance, see Hessey, Sunday; its
   Origin, History, etc. (Oxford, 1860); Gilfillan, The Sabbath (Edinb.
   1861); and the author's essay on the Christian Sabbath in "Christ and
   Christianity" (New York and London, 1885, pp. 213-291).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 82. Beginnings of Evangelical Hymnody.

   I. The "Wittenberg Enchiridion," 1524. The "Erfurt Enchiridion," 1524.
   Walter's "Gesangbuch," with preface by Luther, 1524. Klug's
   "Gesangbuch," by Luther, 1529, etc. Babst's "Gesangbuch," 1545, 5th ed.
   1553. Spangenberg's "Cantiones ecclesiasticae," 1545. See exact titles
   in Wackernagel's Bibliographie, etc.

   II. C. v. Winterfeld: Luther's geistl. Lieder nebst Stimmweisen. Leipz.
   1840. Ph. Wackernagel: Luther's geistl. Lieder u. Singweisen.
   Stuttgart, 1848. Other editions of Luther's Hymns by Stip, 1854;
   Schneider, 1856; Dreher, 1857. B. Pick: Luther as a Hymnist. Philad.
   1875. Emil. Frommel: Luther's Lieder und Sprüche. Der singende Luther
   im Kranze seiner dichtenden und bildenden Zeitgenossen. Berlin, 1883.
   (Jubilee ed. with illustrations from Dürer and Cranach.) L. W. Bacon
   and N. H. Allen: The Hymns of Luther set to their original melodies,
   with an English Version. New York, 1883. E. Achelis: Die
   Entste-hungszeit v. Luther's geistl. Liedern. Marburg, 1884. Danneil:
   Luther's geistl. Lieder nach seinen drei Gesangbüchern von 1524, 1529,
   1545. Frankf. -a-M., 1885.

   III. Aug. H. Hoffmann von Fallersleben: Geschichte des deutschen
   Kirchenlieds his auf Luther's Zeit. Breslau, 1832; third ed., Hannover,
   1861. F. A. Cunz: Gesch. des deutschen Kirchenlieds. Leipz. 1855, 2
   parts. Julius Mützell: Geistliche Lieder der evangelischen Kirche aus
   dem 16ten Jahrh. nach den ältesten Drucken. Berlin, 1855, in 3 vols.
   (The same publ. afterwards Geistl. Lieder der ev. K. aus dem 17ten und
   Anfang des 18ten Jahrh. Braunschweig, 1858.) K. Müllenhoff and W.
   Scherer: Denkmäler deutscher Poesie und Prosa aus dem 8ten his 12ten
   Jahrh. Berlin, 1864.

   *Eduard Emil Koch (d. 1871): Geschichte des Kirchenlieds der
   christlichen, insbesondere der deutschen evangelischen Kirche. Third
   ed. completed and enlarged by Richard Lauxmann. Stuttgart, 1866-1876,
   in 8 vols. (The first ed. appeared in 1847; the second in 1852 and
   1853, in 4 vols.) A very useful book for German hymnody.

   *Philipp Wackernagel (d. 1877): Das deutsche Kirchenlied von Luther his
   N. Hermann und A. Blaurer. Stuttgart, 1842, in 2 vols. By the same:
   Bibliographie zur Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenliedes im 16ten
   Jahrhundert. Frankf. -a-M., 1855. *By the same: Das deutsche
   Kirchenlied von der ältesten Zeit his zu Anfang des XVII Jahrhunderts.
   Leipzig, 1864-77, in 5 vols. (his chief work, completed by his two
   sons). A monumental work of immense industry and pains-taking accuracy,
   in a department where "pedantry is a virtue." Vol. I. contains Latin
   hymns, and from pp. 365-884 additions to the bibliography. The second
   and following vols. are devoted to German hymnody, including the
   mediaeval (vol. II.).

   *A. F. W. Fischer: Kirchenlieder-Lexicon. Hymnologisch-literarische
   Nachweisungen über 4,500 der wichtigsten und verbreitetsten
   Kirchenlieder aller Zeiten. Gotha, 1878, '79, in 2 vols. K. Severin
   Meister and Wilhelm Bäumker (R. C.): Das katholische deutsche
   Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen von den frühesten Zeiten his gegen
   Ende des 17ten Jahrh. Freiburg-i. -B. 1862, 2d vol. by Bäumker, 1883.
   Devoted chiefly to the musical part.

   On the hymnody of the Reformed churches of Switzerland and France in
   the sixteenth century, Les Psaumes mis en rime franaçaise par Clément
   Marot et Theodore de Bèze. Mis en musique à quatre parties par Claude
   Goudimel. Genève, 1565. It contains 150 Psalms, Symeon's Song, a poem
   on the Decalogue and 150 melodies, many of which were based on secular
   tunes, and found entrance into the Lutheran Church. A beautiful modern
   edition by O. Douen: Clément Marot et le Psautier Huguenot. Paris, 1878
   and 1879, 2 vols. Weber: Geschichte des Kirchengesangs in der deutschen
   reformirten Schweiz seit der Reformation. Zürich, 1876.

   On the hymnody of the Bohemian and Moravian Brethren, see Wackernagel's
   large work, III. 229-350 (Nos. 255-417), and Koch, l.c. II. 114-132.

   Comp. the hymnological collections and discussions of Rambach, Bunsen,
   Knapp, Daniel, J. P. Lange, Stier, Stip, Geffken, Vilmar, etc. Also
   Schaff's sketch of "German Hymnology," and other relevant articles in
   the forthcoming "Dictionary of Hymnology," edited by J. Julian, to be
   published by J. Murray in London and Scribner in New York, 1889. This
   will be the best work in the English language on the origin and history
   of Christian hymns of all ages and nations.

   The most valuable contribution which German Protestantism made to
   Christian worship is its rich treasury of hymns. Luther struck the
   key-note; the Lutheran Church followed with a luminous train of
   hymnists; the Reformed churches, first with metrical versions of the
   Psalms and appropriate tunes, afterwards with new Christian hymns.

   The hymn in the strict sense of the term, as a popular religious lyric,
   or a lyric poem in praise of God or Christ to be sung by the
   congregation in public worship, was born in Germany and brought to
   maturity with the Reformation and with the idea of the general
   priesthood of believers. The Latin Church had prepared the way, and
   produced some of the grandest hymns which can never die, as the "Dies
   Irae," the "Stabat mater," and the "Jesu dulcis memoria." But these and
   other Latin hymns and sequences of St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, Fortunatus,
   Notker, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas a Celano, Jacobus de
   Benedictis, Adam of St. Victor, etc., were sung by priests and
   choristers, and were no more intelligible to the common people than the
   Latin Psalter and the Latin mass. [632] The reign of the Latin language
   in public worship, while it tended to preserve the unity of the church,
   and to facilitate literary intercourse, kept back the free development
   of a vernacular hymnody. Nevertheless, the native love of the Germans
   for poetry and song produced for private devotion a large number of
   sacred lyrics and versified translations of the Psalms and Latin hymns.
   As there were German Bibles before Luther's version, so there were also
   German hymns before his time; but they were limited in use, and
   superseded by the superior products of the evangelical church. Philip
   Wackernagel (the most learned German hymnologist, and an enthusiastic
   admirer of Luther) gives in the second volume of his large collection
   no less than fourteen hundred and forty-eight German hymns and
   sequences, from Otfrid to Hans Sachs (inclusive) or from a.d. 868 to
   1518. Nor was vernacular hymnody confined to Germany. St. Francis of
   Assisi composed the "Cantico del Sol," and Jacopone da Todi (the author
   of the "Stabat Mater ") those passionate dithyrambic odes which
   "vibrate like tongues of fire," for private confraternities and
   domestic gatherings. [633]

   German Hymnody before the Reformation.

   In order to form a just estimate of German Protestant hymnody, we must
   briefly survey the mediaeval German hymnody.

   The first attempts of Teutonic church poetry are biblical epics, and
   the leader of the Teutonic Christ-singers is the Anglo-Saxon monk
   Caedmon of Whitby (formerly a swineherd), about 680, who reproduced in
   alliterative verse, as by inspiration, the biblical history of creation
   and redemption, and brought it home to the imagination and heart of Old
   England. [634] This poem, which was probably brought to Germany by
   Bonifacius and other English missionaries, inspired in the ninth
   century a similar production of an unknown Saxon (Westphalian) monk,
   namely, a poetic gospel harmony or life of Christ under the title
   "Heliand "(i.e., Heiland, Healer, Saviour). [635] About the same time
   (c. 870), Otfrid of Weissenburg in the Alsace, a Benedictine monk,
   educated at Fulda and St. Gall, versified the gospel history in the
   Alemannian dialect, in fifteen hundred verses, divided into stanzas,
   each stanza consisting of four rhymed lines. [636]

   These three didactic epics were the first vernacular Bibles for the
   laity among the Western barbarians. [637]

   The lyric church poetry and music began with the "Kyrie Eleison" and
   "Christe Eleison," which passed from the Greek church into the Latin as
   a response of the people, especially on the high festivals, and was
   enlarged into brief poems called (from the refrain) Kirleisen, or
   Leisen, also Leichen. These enlarged cries for mercy are the first
   specimens of German hymns sung by the people. The oldest dates from the
   ninth century, called the "Leich vom heiligen Petrus," in three
   stanzas, the first of which reads thus in English: --


   "Our Lord delivered power to St. Peter,

   That he may preserve the man who hopes in Him.

   Lord, have mercy upon us!

   Christ, have mercy upon us!" [638]

   One of the best and most popular of these Leisen, but of much later
   date, is the Easter hymn,


   "Christ is erstanden

   von der marter alle,

   des sul [sollen] wir alle fro sein,

   Christ sol unser trost sein.

   Kyrie leyson." [639]

   Penitential hymns in the vernacular were sung by the Flagellants (the
   Geisslergesellschaften), who in the middle of the fourteenth century,
   during a long famine and fearful pestilence (the "Black Death," 1348),
   passed in solemn processions with torches, crosses, and banners,
   through Germany and other countries, calling upon the people to repent
   and to prepare for the judgment to come. [640]

   Some of the best Latin hymns, as the "Te Deum," the "Gloria in
   excelsis," the "Pange lingua," the "Veni Creator Spiritus," the "Ave
   Maria," the "Stabat Mater," the "Lauda, Sion, Salvatorem," St.
   Bernard's "Jesu dulcis memoria," and "Salve caput cruentatum," were
   repeatedly translated long before the Reformation. Sometimes the words
   of the original were curiously mixed with the vernacular, as in the
   Christmas hymn, --


   "In dulci jubilo

   Nun singet und seit fro!

   Unsres Herzens Wonne

   Leit in praesepio

   Und leuchtet wie die Sonne

   In matris gremio

   Alpha es et O." [641]

   A Benedictine monk, John of Salzburg, prepared a number of translations
   from the Latin at the request of his archbishop, Pilgrim, in 1366, and
   was rewarded by him with a parish. [642]

   The "Minnesänger" of the thirteenth century--among whom Gottfried of
   Strassburg and Walther von der Vogelweide are the most
   eminent--glorified love, mingling the earthly and heavenly, the sexual
   and spiritual, after the model of Solomon's Song. The Virgin Mary was
   to them the type of pure, ideal womanhood. Walther cannot find epithets
   enough for her praise.

   The mystic school of Tauler in the fourteenth century produced a few
   hymns full of glowing love to God. Tauler is the author of the
   Christmas poem, --


   "Uns kommt ein Schiff geladen,"

   and of hymns of love to God, one of which begins, --


   "Ich muss die Creaturen fliehen

   Und suchen Herzensinnigkeit,

   Soll ich den Geist zu Gotte ziehen,

   Auf dass er bleib in Reinigkeit." [643]

   The "Meistersänger" of the fifteenth century were, like the
   "Minnesänger," fruitful in hymns to the Virgin Mary. One of them
   begins, --


   "Maria zart von edler Art

   Ein Ros ohn alle Dornen."

   From the middle ages have come down also some of the best tunes,
   secular and religious. [644]

   The German hymnody of the middle ages, like the Latin, overflows with
   hagiolatry and Mariolatry. Mary is even clothed with divine attributes,
   and virtually put in the place of Christ, or of the Holy Spirit, as the
   fountain of all grace. The most pathetic of Latin hymns, the "Stabat
   mater dolorosa," which describes with overpowering effect the piercing
   agony of Mary at the cross, and the burning desire of being identified
   with her in sympathy, is disfigured by Mariolatry, and therefore unfit
   for evangelical worship without some omissions or changes. The great
   and good Bonaventura, who wrote the Passion hymn, "Recordare sanctae
   crucis," applied the whole Psalter to the Virgin in his "Psalterium B.
   Mariae," or Marian Psalter, where the name of Mary is substituted for
   that of the Lord. It was also translated into German, and repeatedly
   printed. [645]

   "Through all the centuries from Otfrid to Luther" (says Wackernagel),
   [646] we meet with the idolatrous veneration of the Virgin Mary. There
   are hymns which teach that she pre-existed with God at the creation,
   that all things were created in her and for her, and that God rested in
   her on the seventh day." One of the favorite Mary-hymns begins, --


   "Dich, Frau vom Himmel, ruf ich an,

   In diesen grossen Nöthen mein." [647]

   Hans Sachs afterwards characteristically changed it into


   "Christum vom Himmel ruf ich an."

   The mediaeval hymnody celebrates Mary as the queen of heaven, as the
   "eternal womanly," which draws man insensibly heavenward. [648] It
   resembles the Sixtine Madonna who carries the Christ-child in her arms.

   German Hymnody of the Reformation.

   The evangelical church substituted the worship of Christ, as our only
   Mediator and Advocate, for the worship of his virgin-mother. It
   reproduced and improved the old Latin and vernacular hymns and tunes,
   and produced a larger number of original ones. It introduced
   congregational singing in the place of the chanting of priests and
   choirs. The hymn became, next to the German Bible and the German
   sermon, the most powerful missionary of the evangelical doctrines of
   sin and redemption, and accompanied the Reformation in its triumphal
   march. Printed as tracts, the hymns were scattered wide and far, and
   sung in the house, the school, the church, and on the street. Many of
   them survive to this day, and kindle the flame of devotion.

   To Luther belongs the extraordinary merit of having given to the German
   people in their own tongue, and in a form eclipsing and displacing all
   former versions, the Bible, the catechism, and the hymn-book, so that
   God might speak directly to them in His word, and that they might
   directly speak to Him in their songs. He was a musician also, and
   composed tunes to some of his hymns. [649] He is the Ambrose of German
   church poetry and church music. He wrote thirty-seven hymns. [650] Most
   of them (twenty-one) date from the year 1524; the first from 1523, soon
   after the completion of his translation of the New Testament; the last
   two from 1543, three years before his death. The most original and best
   known,--we may say the most Luther-like and most Reformer-like--is that
   heroic battle- and victory-hymn of the Reformation, which has so often
   been reproduced in other languages, and resounds in all German lands
   with mighty effect on great occasions: --


   "Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott."

   (A tower of strength is this our God.) [651]

   This mighty poem is based upon the forty-sixth Psalm (Deus noster
   refugium et virtus) which furnished the key-note. It was born of deep
   tribulation and conquering faith, in the disastrous year 1527 (not
   1521, or 1529, or 1530), and appeared first in print in 1528. [652]

   Luther availed himself with his conservative tact of all existing helps
   for the benefit of public worship and private devotion. Most of his
   hymns and tunes rest on older foundations partly Latin, partly German.
   Some of them were inspired by Hebrew Psalms. To these belong, besides,
   Ein feste Burg" (Ps. 46), the following: --


   "Aus tiefer Noth schrei ich zu dir" (1523).

   (Out of the depths I cry to Thee. Ps. 130.)


   "Ach Gott, vom Himmel sieh darein" (1523).

   (Help, Lord, look down from heaven above. Ps. 12.)

   On the second chapter of Luke, which is emphatically the gospel of
   children, are based his truly childlike Christmas songs, --


   "Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich her" (1535),

   (From heaven high to earth I come,)

   and


   "Vom Himmel kam der Engel Schaar" (1543).

   (From heaven came the angel hosts.)

   Others are free reproductions of Latin hymns, either directly from the
   original, or on the basis of an older German version: as, --

   "Herr Gott, dich loben wir" (1543).

   (Te Deum laudamus.)

   "Komm, Gott, Schöpfer, heiliger Geist" (1524).

   (Veni, Creator Spiritus.)

   "Nun komm, der Heiden Heiland" (1524).

   (Veni, Redemptor gentium.)

   "Gelobet seist du, Jesus Christ" (1524).

   (Grates nunc omnes reddamus.)

   "Mitten wir im Leben sind" (1524).

   (Media vita in morte sumus.)

   "Nun bitten wir den heiligen Geist" (1524).

   (Now we pray to the Holy Ghost.)

   "Christ lag in Todesbanden" (1524).

   (In the bonds of death He lay.)
   "Surrexit Christus hodie.") [653]

   Among his strictly original hymns are, --

   "Nun freut euch, lieben Christen g'mein" (1523).

   (Rejoice, rejoice, dear flock of Christ.)

   Bunsen calls this, the first (?) voice of German church-song, which
   flashed with the power of lightning through all German lands, in praise
   of the eternal decree of redemption of the human race and of the gospel
   of freedom."


   "Erhalt uns Herr bei deinem Wort,

   Und steur des Papsts und Türken Mord" (1541).

   This is directed against the Pope and the Turk, as the chief enemies of
   Christ and his church in Luther's days. [654]

   The stirring song of the two evangelical proto-martyrs at Brussels in
   1523, --


   "Ein neues Lied wir heben an." --

   is chronologically his first, and not a hymn in the proper sense of the
   term, but had an irresistible effect, especially the tenth stanza, --


   "Die Asche will nicht lassen ab,

   Sie stäubt in alten Landen,

   Hie hilft kein Bach, Loch, Grub noch Grab,

   Sie macht den Feind zu Schanden.

   Die er im Leben durch den Mord,

   Zu schweigen hat gedrungen

   Die muss er todt an altem Ort

   Mit aller Stimm und Zungen

   Gar frölich lassen singen." [655]


   (Their ashes will not rest and lie,

   But scattered far and near,

   Stream, dungeon, bolt, and grave defy,

   Their foeman's shame and fear.

   Those whom alive the tyrant's wrongs

   To silence could subdue,

   He must, when dead, let sing the songs

   And in all languages and tongues

   Resound the wide world through.)

   Luther's hymns are characterized, like those of St. Ambrose, by
   simplicity and strength, and a popular churchly tone. But, unlike those
   of St. Ambrose and the Middle Ages, they breathe the bold, confident,
   joyful spirit of justifying faith, which was the beating heart of his
   theology and piety.

   Luther's hymns passed at once into common use in church and school, and
   sung the Reformation into the hearts of the people. Hans Sachs of
   Nürnberg saluted him as the nightingale of Wittenberg. [656] How highly
   his contemporaries thought of them, may be inferred from Cyriacus
   Spangenberg, likewise a hymnist, who said in his preface to the
   "Cithara Lutheri" (1569): "Of all master-singers since the days of the
   apostles, Luther is the best. In his hymns you find not an idle or
   useless word. The rhymes are easy and good, the words choice and
   proper, the meaning clear and intelligible, the melodies lovely and
   hearty, and, in summa, all is so rare and majestic, so full of pith and
   power, so cheering and comforting, that you will not find his equal,
   much less his master."

   Before Luther's death (1546), there appeared no less than forty-seven
   Lutheran hymn- and tune-books. The first German evangelical hymn-book,
   the so-called "Wittenberg Enchiridion." was printed in the year 1524,
   and contained eight hymns, four of them by Luther, three by Speratus,
   one by an unknown author. The "Erfurt Enchiridion" of the same year
   numbered twenty-five hymns, of which eighteen were from Luther. The
   hymn-book of Walther, also of 1524, contained thirty-two German and
   five Latin hymns, with a preface of Luther. Klug's Gesangbuch by
   Luther, Wittenberg, 1529, had fifty (twenty-eight of Luther); Babst's
   of 1545 (printed at Leipzig), eighty-nine; and the fifth edition of
   1553, a hundred and thirty-one hymns. [657]

   This rapid increase of hymns and hymn-books continued after Luther's
   death. We can only mention the names of the principal hymnists who were
   inspired by his example.

   Justus Jonas (1493-1555), Luther's friend and colleague, wrote, --


   "Wo Gott, der Herr, nicht bei uns hält" (Ps. 124).

   (If God were not upon our side.)

   Paul Ebert (1511-1569), the faithful assistant of Melanchthon, and
   professor of Hebrew in Wittenberg, is the author of


   "Wenn wir in höchsten Nöthen sein,"

   (When in the hour of utmost need,)

   and


   "Herr Jesu Christ, wahr'r Mensch und Gott."

   (Lord Jesus Christ, true man and God.)

   Burkhard Waldis of Hesse (1486-1551) versified the Psalter.

   Erasmus Alber (d. in Mecklenburg, 1553) wrote twenty hymns which Herder
   and Gervinus thought almost equal to Luther's.

   Lazarus Spengler of Nürnberg (1449-1534) wrote about 1522 a hymn on sin
   and redemption, which soon became very popular, although it is didactic
   rather than poetic: -


   "Durch Adam's Fall ist ganz verderbt."

   Hans Sachs (1494-1576), the shoemaker-poet of Nürnberg, was the most
   fruitful "Meistersänger" of that period, and wrote some spiritual hymns
   as well; but only one of them is still in use: --


   "Warum betrübst du dich, mein Herz?"

   (Why doest thou vex thyself, my heart?)

   Veit Dietrich, pastor of St. Sebaldus in Nürnberg (d. 1549), wrote: --


   "Bedenk, o Mensch, die grosse Gnad."

   (Remember, man, the wondrous grace.)

   Markgraf Albrecht of Brandenburg (d. 1557), is the author of: --


   "Was mein Gott will, gescheh allzeit."

   (Thy will, my God, be always done.)

   Paul Speratus, his court-chaplain at Königsberg (d. 1551), contributed
   three hymns to the first German hymn-book (1524), of which --


   "Es ist das Heil uns kommen her"

   (To us salvation now has come)

   is the best, though more didactic than lyric, and gives rhymed
   expression to the doctrine of justification by faith.

   Schneesing's


   "Allein zu dir, Herr Jesu Christ"

   (To Thee alone, Lord Jesus Christ)

   appeared first in 1545, and is used to this day.

   Mathesius, the pupil and biographer of Luther, and pastor at
   Joachimsthal in Bohemia (1504-65), wrote a few hymns. Nicolaus Hermann,
   his cantor and friend (d. 1561), is the author of a hundred and
   seventy-six hymns, especially for children, and composed popular tunes.
   Nicolaus Decius, first a monk, then an evangelical pastor at Stettin
   (d. 1541), reproduced the Gloria in Excelsis in his well-known


   "Allein Gott in der Höh sei Ehr" (1526),

   and the eucharistic Agnus Dei in his


   "O Lamm Gottes unschuldig" (1531).

   He also composed the tunes.

   The German hymnody of the Reformation period was enriched by hymns of
   the Bohemian Brethren. Two of them, Michael Weisse (d. 1542) and Johann
   Horn, prepared free translations. Weisse was a native German, but
   joined the Brethren, and was sent by them as a delegate to Luther in
   1522, who at first favored them before they showed their preference for
   the Reformed doctrine of the sacraments. One of the best known of these
   Bohemian hymns is the Easter song (1531): --


   "Christus ist erstanden."

   (Christ the Lord is risen.)

   We cannot follow in detail the progress of German hymnody. It flows
   from the sixteenth century down to our days in an unbroken stream, and
   reflects German piety in the sabbath dress of poetry. It is by far the
   richest of all hymnodies. [658]

   The number of German' hymns cannot fall short of one hundred thousand.
   Dean Georg Ludwig von Hardenberg of Halberstadt, in the year 1786,
   prepared a hymnological catalogue of the first lines of 72,733 hymns
   (in five volumes preserved in the library of Halberstadt). This number
   was not complete at that time, and has considerably increased since.
   About ten thousand have become more or less popular, and passed into
   different hymn-books. Fischer [659] gives the first lines of about five
   thousand of the best, many of which were overlooked by Von Hardenberg.

   We may safely say that nearly one thousand of these hymns are classical
   and immortal. This is a larger number than can be found in any other
   language.

   To this treasury of German song, several hundred men and women, of all
   ranks and conditions,--theologians and pastors, princes and princesses,
   generals and statesmen, physicians and jurists, merchants and
   travelers, laborers and private persons,--have made contributions,
   laying them on the common altar of devotion. The majority of German
   hymnists are Lutherans, the rest German Reformed (as Neander and
   Tersteegen), or Moravians (Zinzendorf and Gregor), or belong to the
   United Evangelical Church. Many of these hymns, and just those
   possessed of the greatest vigor and unction, full of the most exulting
   faith and the richest comfort, had their origin amid the conflicts and
   storms of the Reformation, or the fearful devastations and nameless
   miseries of the Thirty Years' War; others belong to the revival period
   of the pietism of Spener, and the Moravian Brotherhood of Zinzendorf,
   and reflect the earnest struggle after holiness, the fire of the first
   love, and the sweet enjoyment of the soul's intercourse with her
   heavenly Bridegroom; not a few of them sprang up even in the cold and
   prosy age of "illumination" and rationalism, like flowers from dry
   ground, or Alpine roses on fields of snow; others, again, proclaim, in
   fresh and joyous tones, the dawn of reviving faith in the land where
   the Reformation had its birth. Thus these hymns constitute a book of
   devotion and poetic confession of faith for German Protestantism, a
   sacred band which encircles its various periods, an abiding memorial of
   its struggles and victories, its sorrows and joys, a mirror of its
   deepest experiences, and an eloquent witness for the all-conquering and
   invincible life-power of the evangelical Christian faith.

   The treasures of German hymnody have enriched the churches of other
   tongues, and passed into Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, French, Dutch, and
   modern English and American hymn-books.

   John Wesley was the first of English divines who appreciated its value;
   and while his brother Charles produced an immense number of original
   hymns, John freely reproduced several hymns of Paul Gerhardt,
   Tersteegen, and Zinzendorf. The English Moravian hymn-book as revised
   by Montgomery contains about a thousand abridged (but mostly
   indifferent) translations from the German. In more recent times several
   accomplished writers, male and female, have vied with each other in
   translations and transfusions of German hymns.

   Among the chief English translators are Miss Frances Elizabeth Cox;
   [660] Arthur Tozer Russell; [661] Richard Massie; [662] Miss Catherine
   Winkworth; [663] Mrs. Eric Findlater and her sister, Miss Jane
   Borthwick, of the Free Church of Scotland, who modestly conceal their
   names under the letters "H. L. L." (Hymns from the Land of Luther);
   [664] James W. Alexander, [665] Henry Mills, [666] John Kelly, [667]
   not to mention many others who have furnished admirable translations of
   one or more hymns for public or private hymnological collections. [668]

   English and American hymnody began much later than the German, but
   comes next to it in fertility, is enriching itself constantly by
   transfusions of Greek, Latin, and German, as well as by original hymns,
   and may ultimately surpass all hymnodies.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [632] On Greek and Latin hymnology and the literature, see Schaff,
   Church History, III. 575 sqq., and IV. 402 sqq. and 416 sqq.

   [633] Comp. Ozanam, Les poetes Franciscains en Italie au 13mesiècle.
   Paris, 1852.

   [634] Bouterweck, Caedmon's des Angelsachsen biblische Dichtungen,
   Elberfeld, 1849-54. Bosanquet, The Fall of Man, or Paradise Lost of
   Caedmon, translated in verse from the Anglo-Saxon, London, 1860.

   [635] E. Sievers, Der Heliand und die angelsächsische Genesis. Halle,
   1875.

   [636] Flacius first edited Otfrid's Evangelienbuch (Evangeliorum
   liber), Bas. 1571. Recent editions by Graff, under the title Krist,
   Königsberg, 1831; and Kelle, Otfrid's Evang.-buch, Regensb. 1856 and
   1859, 2 vols. Specimens in Wackernagel's D. Kirchenlied (the large
   work), vol. ii. 3-21. A translation into modern German by G. Rapp,
   Gotha, 1858.

   [637] Comp. Hammerich, Aelteste christliche Epik der Angelsachsen,
   Deutschen und Nordländer. Translated from the Danish by Michelsen,
   1874.

   [638] Wackernagel, II. 22, published the whole hymn from a manuscript
   in Munich.

   [639] Wackernagel, II. 43 sq., gives several forms. They were
   afterwards much enlarged. In a Munich manuscript of the fifteenth
   century, a Latin verse is coupled with the German:-- "Christus
   surrexit, mala nostra texit, et quos hic dilexit hos ad coelum vexit
   Kyrie leyson."

   [640] See specimens in Koch, I. 194 sq., and in Wackernagel, II. 333
   sqq.

   [641] Several forms in Wackernagel, II.

   [642] Wackernagel (II. 409 sqq.) gives forty-three of his hymns from
   several manuscripts in the libraries at Munich and Vienna.

   [643] Wackernagel, II. 302 sqq.; Koch, I. 191.

   [644] Meister and Bäumker, in the Katholische deutsche Kirchenlied in
   seinen Singweisen, give a collection of these catholic tunes, partly
   from unpublished manuscript sources. They acknowledge, however, the
   great merit of the Protestant hymnologists who have done the pioneer
   work in mediaeval church poetry and music, especially Winterfeld and
   Wackernagel.

   [645] Wackernagel, in his Biblogr., p. 454 sqq., gives extracts from an
   edition printed at Nürnberg, 1521.

   [646] II p. xiii.; compare Nos. 222, 226, 728, 870, 876.

   [647] Wackernagel, II. 799 sqq., gives this hymn in several forms. It
   was sung on the feast of the Nativity of Mary, and at other times.

   [648] I allude, of course, to the mystic conclusion of the second part
   of Goethe's Faust:-- "Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan."

   [649] According to Koch (I. 470), Luther is certainly the author of the
   tunes to "Ein feste Burg," and to "Jesaja dem Propheten das geschah,"
   and probably of six more; the tunes to the other Luther-hymns are of
   older or of uncertain origin.

   [650] Wackernagel, III. 1-31, gives fifty-four Luther-poems, including
   the variations, and some which cannot be called hymns, as the praise of
   "Frau Musica," and "Wider Herzog Heinrich von Braunschweig."

   [651] Carlyle's translation,-- "A safe stronghold our God is still," is
   upon the whole the best because of its rugged vigor and martial ring.
   Heine called this hymn the Marseillaise of the Reformation; but it
   differs as widely from the Marseillaise as the German Reformation
   differs from the godless French Revolution.

   [652] The hymn appears in Joseph Klug's Gesangbuch of 1529 (and in a
   hymn-book of Augsburg, 1529), and to that year it is assigned by
   Wackernagel (III. 20), Koch, and also by Köstlin in the first ed. of
   his large biography of M. Luther (1875, vol. II. 127), as a protest
   against the Diet of Speier held in that year. But since the discovery
   of an older print apparently from February, 1528, Köstlin has changed
   his view in favor of 1527, the year of the pestilence and Luther's
   severest spiritual and physical trials. He says (I.c. II. 182, second
   and third ed.): "Aus jener schwersten Zeit, welche Luther bis Ende des
   Jahres 1527 durchzu-machen hatte, ist wohl das gewaltigste seiner
   Lieder, das 'Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott,' hervorgegangen." Schneider
   (1856) first fixed upon Nov. 1, 1527, as the birthday of this hymn from
   internal reasons, and Knaake (1881) added new ones. The deepest griefs
   and highest faith often meet. Justinus Kemer sings:-- "Poesie ist
   tiefes Schmerzen, Und es kommt das schönste Lied Nur aus einem
   Menschenherzen, Das ein tiefes Leid durchglüht."

   [653] The third stanza of this resurrection hymn is very striking:--
   "Es war ein wunderlicher Krieg, Da Tod und Leben rungen: Das Leben das
   behielt den Sieg, Es hat den Tod verschlungen. Die Schrift hat
   verkündet das, Wie da ein Tod den andern frass, Ein Spott aus dem Tod
   ist worden. Hallelujah!
   (That was a wondrous war, I trow, When Life and Death together fought;
   But Life hath triumphed o'er his foe. Death is mocked and set at
   naught. .'Tis even as the Scripture saith, Christ through death hath
   conquered Death.)

   [654] The second line, which was very offensive to the Papists, is
   changed in most modern hymnbooks into,-- "Und steure alter Feinde
   Mord."

   [655] See the whole in Wackernagel, III. 3, 4. Thomas Fuller says of
   the ashes of Wiclif, that the brook Swift, into which they were cast
   (1428), "conveyed them into the Avon, the Avon into Severn, Severn into
   the narrow seas, they into the main ocean; and thus the ashes of Wiclif
   are the emblems of his doctrine, which now is dispersed all the world
   over."

   [656] "Die wittenbergisch Nachtigall, Die man jetzt höret überall."

   [657] See Koch, I. 246 sqq., and Wackernagel's Bibliographie, p. 66
   sqq.

   [658] It is characteristic of the voluminous Ultramontane work of
   Janssen, that it has not a word to say about the hymnological
   enrichment of public worship and Christian piety by Luther and his
   followers.

   [659] In his Kirchenlieder-Lexicon, 1878.

   [660] Sacred Hymns from the German, London, 1841, new ed. with German
   text, 1865.

   [661] Psalms and Hymns, partly original, partly selected, for the use
   of the Church of England, Cambridge, 1851. Many of the pieces are from
   the German. He contributed most of the translations to Ernest Bunsen's
   Hymns for Public Worship and Private Devotion, London, 1848.

   [662] Luther's Spiritual Songs, London, 1854; and Lyra Domestica,
   translations from Spitta's Psaltery and Harp, London, 1860; second
   series, 1864.

   [663] Lyra Germanica, first and second series, Lond. and N. Y., 1855
   and 1858, in several editions. Also the beautiful Chorale Book for
   England, London, 1863, which contains many hymns from the Lyra
   Germanica, partly remodelled, with seventy-two others translated by the
   same lady, together with the old tunes edited by Bennet and
   Goldschmidt. Several translations of Miss C. W., especially from Paul
   Gerhardt, have passed into hymn-books. Comp. Theo. Kübler, Historical
   Notices to the Lyra Germanica (dedicated to Miss C. W.), London, 1865.

   [664] Hymns from the Land of Luther, translated from the German by H.
   L. L., Edinburgh and New York, in 4, parts, 1854; fifth ed., Edinb.
   1884 (15th thousand), enlarged by the Alpine Lyrics of Mrs. Meta
   Heusser. The translations of Miss Borthwick reproduce the spirit rather
   than the letter of the original. Several of them have become more
   widely known through hymnbooks and private collections: as Franck's
   eucharistic hymn, "Schmücke dich, Oliebe Seele.""Soul, arise, dispel
   thy sadness;" Gerhardt's "Ich bin ein Gast auf Erden.""A pilgrim and a
   stranger, I journey here below;" Tersteegen's "Gott rufet noch.""God
   calling yet;" Schmolck's "Mein Jesu, wie Du willst, So lass mich
   allzeit wollen" "My Jesus, as Thou wilt;" Zinzendorf's "Jesu, geh
   voran.""Jesus, still lead on;" Spitta's "Was macht ihr, dass ihr
   weinet.""What mean ye by this wailing" and his "Angel of Patience" (Es
   zieht ein stiller Engel."" A gentle angel walketh throughout this world
   of woe"); Lange's "Was kein Auge hat gesehen."" What no human eye hath
   seen; "Mrs. Heusser's "Noch ein wenig Schweiss und Thränen," " A few
   more conflicts, toils and tears;" "O Jesu Christ, mein Leben."" O
   Christ, my Life, my Saviour;" besides other religious lyrics which are
   not intended for hymns. Miss Borthwick has since published Lyra
   Christiana, a Treasury of Sacred Poetry, edited by H. L. L., Edinb.
   1888, which contains a few German poems, but is mostly selected from
   English sources.

   [665] Presbyterian minister in New York City, died 1859. He Is the best
   translator of Gerhardt's "O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden" ("O sacred
   Head, now wounded"), and several other famous hymns, German and Latin.
   His translations were first published in Schaff's "Kirchenfreund"or
   1849-'51 (with the originals), then in the "Mercersburg Review" for
   1869, pp. 304 sqq., 414 sqq., and have since passed into many American
   hymn-books.

   [666] Horae Germanicae, Auburn and New York, 1845, 2d ed. 1856. Mills
   was professor of biblical criticism in the Presbyterian Theol. Seminary
   at Auburn, N. Y., and died 1867.

   [667] Paul Gerhardt's Spiritual Songs, London, 1867.

   [668] e.g., for Schaff's Christ in Song, New York, 1868, and London,
   1870. In my German Hymn-book (Philad. 1859, revised and enlarged ed.,
   1874), I have noted the English translations as far as I knew them.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 83. Common Schools.

   Luther: An die Rathsherren aller Städte deutschen Landes, dass sie
   christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen. Wittenberg, 1524. The
   book appeared in the same year in Latin (De constituendis scholis),
   with a preface of Melanchthon, the probable translator, at Hagenau. In
   Walch, x. 533; in the Erlangen. ed., xxii. 168-199.

   Church and school go together. The Jewish synagogue was a school. Every
   Christian church is a school of piety and virtue for old and young. The
   mediaeval church was the civilizer and instructor of the barbarians,
   founded the convent and cathedral schools, and the great universities
   of Paris (1209), Bologna, Padua, Oxford, Cambridge, St. Andrews,
   Glasgow, Salamanca, Alcala, Toledo, Prague (1348), Vienna (1365),
   Heidelberg (1386), Cologne (1388), Erfurt (1393), Leipzig (1409), Basel
   (1460), Ingolstadt (1472), Tübingen (1477), Wittenberg (1502), etc. But
   education in the middle ages was aristocratic, and confined to the
   clergy and a very few laymen of the higher classes. The common people
   were ignorant and superstitious, and could neither read nor write. Even
   noblemen signed their name with a cross. Books were rare and dear. The
   invention of the printing-press prepared the way for popular education.
   The Reformation first utilized the press on a large scale, and gave a
   powerful impulse to common schools. The genius of Protestantism favors
   the general diffusion of knowledge. It elevates the laity, emancipates
   private judgment, and stimulates the sense of personal responsibility.
   Every man should be trained to a position of Christian freedom and
   self-government.

   Luther discussed this subject first in his Address to the German
   Nobility (1520). In 1524 he wrote a special book in which he urged the
   civil magistrates of all the cities of Germany to improve their
   schools, or to establish new ones for boys and girls; this all the more
   since the zeal for monastic institutions had declined, and the convents
   were fast getting empty. He wisely recommended that a portion of the
   property of churches and convents be devoted to this purpose, instead
   of being wasted on secular objects, or on avaricious princes and
   noblemen. He makes great account of the study of languages, and
   skillfully refutes the objections. A few extracts will give the best
   idea of this very useful little book on a most important subject.

   "Grace and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ ...
   Although I am now excommunicated for three years, and should keep
   silent if I feared men more than God, ... I will speak as long as I
   live, until the righteousness of Christ shall break forth in its glory
   ... I beg you all, my dear lords and friends, for God's sake to take
   care of the poor youth, and thereby to help us all. So much money is
   spent year after year for arms, roads, dams, and innumerable similar
   objects, why should not as much be spent for the education of the poor
   youth? ... The word of God is now heard in Germany more than ever
   before. But if we do not show our gratitude for it, we run the risk of
   sinking back into a worse darkness.

   "Dear Germans, buy while the market is at the door. Gather while the
   sun shines and the weather is good. Use God's grace and word while it
   is at hand. For you must know that God's grace and word is a travelling
   shower, which does not return where once it has been. It was once with
   the Jews, but gone is gone (hin ist hin); now they have nothing. Paul
   brought it into Greece, but gone is gone; now they have the Turk. Rome
   and Italy have also had it, but gone is gone; they have now the Pope.
   And ye Germans must not think that you will have it forever; for
   ingratitude and contempt will not let it abide. Therefore, seize and
   hold fast, whoever can.

   "It is a sin and shame that we should need to be admonished to educate
   our children, when nature itself, and even the example of the heathen,
   urge us to do so. ... You say, the parents should look to that, it is
   none of the business of counselors and magistrates. But how, if the
   parents neglect it? Most of the parents are incapable; having
   themselves learnt nothing, they cannot teach their children. Others
   have not the time. And what shall become of the orphans? The glory of a
   town consists not in treasure, strong walls, and fine houses, but in
   fine, educated, well-trained citizens. The city of old Rome trained her
   sons in Latin and Greek and all the fine arts ....

   "We admit, you say, there should and must be schools, but what is the
   use of teaching Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and other liberal arts? Could
   we not teach, in German, the Bible and God's word, which are sufficient
   for salvation? Answer: Yes, I well know, alas! that we Germans must
   ever be and abide brutes and wild beasts, as the surrounding nations
   call us, and as we well deserve to be called. But I wonder why you
   never say, Of what use are silks, wines, spices, and other foreign
   articles, seeing we have wine, corn, wool, flax, wood, and stones, in
   German lands, not only an abundance for sustenance, but also a choice
   and selection for elegance and ornament? The arts and languages, which
   do us no harm, nay, which are a greater ornament, benefit, honor, and
   advantage, both for understanding Holy Writ, and for managing civil
   affairs, we are disposed to despise; and foreign wares, which are
   neither necessary nor useful to us, and which, moreover, peel us to the
   very bone, these we are not willing to forego. Are we not deserving to
   be called German fools and beasts? ...

   "Much as we love the gospel, let us hold fast to the languages. God
   gave us the Scriptures in two languages, the Old Testament in Hebrew,
   the New Testament in Greek. Therefore we should honor them above all
   other languages. ... And let us remember that we shall not be able to
   keep the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in
   which this sword of the Spirit is hid. They are the casket in which
   this treasure is kept. They are the vessels in which this drink is
   contained; they are the storehouse in which this food is laid by; and,
   as the gospel itself shows, they are the baskets in which these loaves
   and fishes and fragments are preserved. Yea, if we should so err as to
   let the languages go (which God forbid!), we shall not only lose the
   gospel, but it will come to pass at length that we shall not be able to
   speak or write correctly either Latin or German. ...

   "Herewith I commend you all to the grace of God. May He soften and
   kindle your hearts so that they shall earnestly take the part of these
   poor, pitiable, forsaken youth, and, through Divine aid, counsel and
   help them to a happy and Christian ordering of the German land as to
   body and soul with all fullness and overflow, to the praise and honor
   of God the Father, through Jesus Christ, our Saviour. Amen."

   The advice of Luther was not unheeded. Protestant nations are far ahead
   of the Roman Catholic in popular education. In Germany and Switzerland
   there is scarcely a Protestant boy or girl that cannot read and write;
   while in some papal countries, even to this day, the majority of the
   people are illiterate. [669]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [669] In Spain, once the richest and proudest monarchy of Europe, sixty
   per cent of the adult population could not read in 1877, according to
   the official census. Compare this with the educational statistics of
   Prussia, which in the sixteenth century was a poor, semi-barbarous
   principality. The contrast between North America and South America in
   point of popular education is still more striking.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 84. Reconstruction of Church Government and Discipline.

   Aemil Ludw. Richter: Die evangel; Kirchenordnungen des 16 Jahrh.,
   Weimar, 1846, 2 vols. By the same: Gesch. der evang. Kirchenver-fassung
   in Deutschland. Leipz., 1851. By the same: Lehrbuch des kath. und
   evang. Kirchenrechts, Leipzig, 5th ed., 1858. J. W. F. Höfling:
   Grundsätze der evang.-lutherischen Kirchenverfassung. Erlangen, third
   ed., 1853. Stahl: Die Kirchenverfassung nach Recht und Lehre der
   Protestanten. Erlangen, 1862. Mejer: Grundl. des luth.
   Kirchenregiments, Rostock, 1864. E. Friedberg: Lehrbuch des kath. u.
   evang. Kirchenrechts, Leipz., 1884.

   The papal monarchy and visible unity of Western Christendom were
   destroyed with the burning of the Pope's bull and the canon law. The
   bishops refused to lead the new movement; disorder and confusion
   followed. A reconstruction of government and discipline became
   necessary. The idea of an invisible church of all believers was not
   available for this purpose. The invisible is not governable. The
   question was, how to deal with the visible church as it existed in
   Saxony and other Protestant countries, and to bring order out of chaos.
   The lawyers had to be consulted, and they could not dispense with the
   legal wisdom and experience of centuries. Luther himself returned to
   the study of the canon law, though to little purpose. [670] He hated it
   for its connection with popery, and got into conflict with the lawyers,
   even his colleague, Professor Schurf, who had accompanied him to the
   Diet of Worms as a faithful friend and counselor, but differed from him
   on matrimonial legislation. He abused the lawyers, even from the
   pulpit, as abettors of the Pope and the Devil. [671] He was not a
   disciplinarian and organizer like John Calvin, or John Knox, or John
   Wesley, and left his church in a less satisfactory condition than the
   Reformed churches of Switzerland and Scotland. He complained that he
   had not the proper persons for what he wished to accomplish; but he did
   what he could under the circumstances, and regretted that he could do
   no more.

   Four ways were open for the construction of an evangelical church
   polity: --

   1. To retain the episcopal hierarchy, without the papacy, or to create
   a new one in its place. This was done in the Lutheran churches of
   Scandinavia, and in the Church of England, but in the closest
   connection with the state, and in subordination to it. In Scandinavia
   the succession was broken; in England the succession continued under
   the lead of Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury, was interrupted under
   Queen Mary, and restored under Queen Elizabeth.

   Had the German bishops favored the Reformation, they would, no doubt,
   have retained their power in Germany, and naturally taken the lead in
   the organization of the new church. Melanchthon was in favor of
   episcopacy, and even a sort of papacy by human (not Divine) right, on
   condition of evangelical freedom; but the hostility of the hierarchy
   made its authority impossible in Germany. [672] He had, especially in
   his later years, a stronger conception of the institutional character
   and historical order of the church than Luther, who cared nothing for
   bishops. He taught, however, the original equality of bishops and
   presbyters (appealing to the Pastoral Epistles and to Jerome); and held
   that when the regular bishops reject the gospel, and refuse to ordain
   evangelical preachers, the power of ordination returns to the church
   and the pastors.

   2. To substitute a lay episcopate for the clerical episcopate; in other
   words, to lodge the supreme ecclesiastical power in the hands of the
   civil magistrate, who appoints ministers, superintendents, and church
   counselors as executive officers.

   This was done in the Lutheran churches of Germany. The superintendents
   performed episcopal duties, but without constituting a distinct and
   separate grade of the ministry, and without the theory of the episcopal
   or apostolical succession. The Lutheran Church holds the Presbyterian
   doctrine of the parity of ministers. [673] The organization of the
   Lutheran churches was, however, for a number of years regarded as
   provisional, and kept open for a possible reconciliation with the
   episcopate. Hence the princes were called Nothbischöfe.

   3. To organize a presbyterian polity on the basis of the parity of
   ministers, congregational lay-elders, and deacons, and a representative
   synodical government, with strict discipline, and a distinction between
   nominal and communicant membership. This was attempted in Hesse at the
   Synod of Homberg (1526) by Lambert (a pupil of Zwingli and Luther),
   developed by Calvin in Geneva, and carried out in the Reformed churches
   of France, Holland, Scotland, and the Presbyterian churches of North
   America. Luther rather discouraged this plan in a letter to Philip of
   Hesse; but in 1540 he expressed a wish, with Jonas, Bugenhagen, and
   Melanchthon, to introduce Christian discipline with the aid of elders
   (seniores) in each congregation. Several Lutheran Church constitutions
   exclude adulterers, drunkards, and blasphemers from the communion.

   4. Congregational independency; i.e., the organization of
   self-governing congregations of true believers in free association with
   each other. This was once suggested by Luther, but soon abandoned
   without a trial. It appeared in isolated attempts under Queen
   Elizabeth, and was successfully developed in the seventeenth century by
   the Independents in England, and the Congregationalists in New England.

   The last two ways are more thoroughly Protestant and consistent with
   the principle of the general priesthood of believers; but they
   presuppose a higher grade of self-governing capacity in the laity than
   the episcopal polity.

   All these forms of government admit of a union with the state (as in
   Europe), or a separation from the state (as in America). Union of
   church and state was the traditional system since the days of
   Constantine and Charlemagne, and was adhered to by all the Reformers.
   They had no idea of a separation; they even brought the two powers into
   closer relationship by increasing the authority of the state over the
   church. Separation of the two was barely mentioned by Luther, as a
   private opinion, we may say almost as a prophetic dream, but was soon
   abandoned as an impossibility.

   Luther, in harmony with his unique personal experience, made the
   doctrine of justification the cardinal truth of Christianity, and
   believed that the preaching of that doctrine would of itself produce
   all the necessary changes in worship and discipline. But the abuse of
   evangelical freedom taught him the necessity of discipline, and he
   raised his protest against antinomianism. His complaints of the
   degeneracy of the times increased with his age and his bodily
   infirmities. The world seemed to him to be getting worse and worse, and
   fast rushing to judgment. He was so disgusted with the immorality
   prevailing among the citizens and students at Wittenberg, that he
   threatened to leave the town altogether in 1544, but yielded to the
   earnest entreaties of the university and magistrate to remain. [674]

   The German Reformation did not stimulate the duty of self-support, nor
   develop the faculty of self-government. It threw the church into the
   arms of the state, from whose bondage she has never been able as yet to
   emancipate herself. The princes, nobles, and city magistrates were
   willing and anxious to take the benefit, but reluctant to perform the
   duties, of their new priestly dignity; while the common people remained
   as passive as before, without a voice in the election of their pastor,
   or any share in the administration of their congregational affairs. The
   Lutheran prince took the place of the bishop or pope; the Lutheran
   pastor (Pfarrherr), the place of the Romish priest, but instead of
   obeying the bishop he had to obey his secular patron. [675]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [670] Letter to Spalatin, March 30, 1529 (De Wette, III. 433): "Jura
   papistica legere incipimus et inspicere."

   [671] Comp. A. Kohler, Luther und die Juristen, Gotha, 1873; Köstlin,
   M. Luth., II. 476 sqq., 580 sq. In his Table Talk (Erl. ed., LXII., 214
   sqq.), Luther has much to say against the lawyers, and thinks that few
   of them will be saved. "Ein frommer Jurist," he says, "ist ein
   seltsames Thier."

   [672] Apol. Conf. Aug., Art. XIV. (Müller's ed. of the Lutheran
   symbols, p. 205): "Nos summa voluntate cupere conservare politiam
   ecclesiasticam et gradus in ecclesia, factos etiam humana auctoritate."
   He subscribed the Smalcald Articles (1537), with a clause in favor of a
   limited papal supervision.

   [673] See the Appendix to the Smalcald Articles, which have symbolical
   authority, on the Power and Primacy of the Pope (Müller's ed., p. 341):
   "Quum jure divino non sint diversi gradus episcopi et pastoris
   manifestum est ordinationem a pastore in sua ecclesia factam jure
   divino ratam esse. Itaque cum episcopi ordinarii fiunt hostes ecclesia
   aut nolunt impartire ordinationem, ecclesiae retinent ius suum."

   [674] See his letters to Jonas, Lauterbach, Link, Probst, and others,
   in De Wette, vol. V. To Lauterbach he wrote, Nov. 10, 1541 (V. 407),
   "Ego paene de Germania desperavi, postquam recepit inter parietes veros
   illos Turkas seu veros illos diabolos, avaritiam, usuram, tyrannidem,
   discordiam et totam illam Lernam perfidiae, malitiae, et nequitiae, in
   nobilitate, in aulis, in curiis, in oppidis, in villis, super haec
   autem contemtum verbi et ingratitudinem inauditam." To Jonas he wrote,
   March 7, 1543 (V. 548), that the German nobility and princes were worse
   than the Turks, and bent upon enslaving Germany, and exhausting the
   people. To the same he gives, June 18, 1543 (V. 570), an account of the
   immorality of Wittenberg, and the indifference of the magistrate, and
   concludes, "Es ist ein verdriesslich Ding um die Welt." He thought that
   the end of the wicked world was near (Letter to Probst, Dec. 5, 1544,
   vol. V. 703).

   [675] Friedberg, Kirchenrecht, p. 57, correctly says, "Die Reformation
   hat schliesslich wohl Pfarrsprengel geschaffen, aber keine Gemeinden."
   This is true even now of the Lutheran churches in Northern Germany; but
   in Westphalia, on the Rhine, and in America, the congregational life is
   more or less developed, partly through contact with Reformed churches.
     __________________________________________________________________

   §85. Enlarged Conception of the Church. Augustin, Wiclif, Hus, Luther.

   Köstlin: Luthers Lehre von der Kirche. Stuttgart, 1853. Comp. his
   Luthers Theologie in ihrer geschichtl. Entwicklung, II. 534 sqq.; and
   his Martin Luther, bk. VI. ch. iii. (II. 23 sqq.). Joh. Gottschick:
   Hus', Luther's und Zwingli's Lehre von der Kirche, in Brieger's
   "Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte." Bd. VIII., Gotha, 1886, pp. 345
   sqq. and 543 sqq. (Very elaborate, but he ought to have gone back to
   Wiclif and Augustin. Hus merely repeated Wiclif.)

   Comp. also on the general subject Münchmeyer: Das Dogma von der
   sichtbaren und unsichtbaren Kirche, 1854. Ritschl: Ueber die Begriffe
   sichtbare und unsichtbare Kirche, in the "Studien und Kritiken" for
   1859. Jul. Müller: Die unsichtbare Kirche, in his "Dogmatische
   Abhandlungen." Bremen, 1870, pp. 278-403 (an able defense of the idea
   of the invisible church against Rothe, Münchmeyer, and others who
   oppose the term invisible as inapplicable to the church. See especially
   Rothe's Anfänge der christl. Kirche, 1837, vol. I. 99 sqq.). Alfred
   Krauss: Das protestantische Dogma von der unsichtbaren Kirche, Gotha,
   1876. Seeberg: Der Begriff der christlichen Kirche, Part I., 1885.
   James S. Candlish: The Kingdom of God. Edinburgh, 1884.

   Separation from Rome led to a more spiritual and more liberal
   conception of the church, and to a distinction between the one
   universal church of the elect children of God of all ages and
   countries, under the sole headship of Christ, and the several visible
   church organizations of all nominal Christians. We must trace the
   gradual growth of this distinction.

   In the New Testament the term ejkklhsiva (a popular assembly,
   congregation) is used in two senses (when applied to religion): 1, in
   the general sense of the whole body of Christian believers (by our
   Lord, Matt. 16:18); and 2, in the particular sense of a local
   congregation of Christians (also by our Lord, Matt. 18:17). We use the
   equivalent term "church" (from kuriakovn, belonging to the Lord) in two
   additional senses: of a denomination (e.g., the Greek, the Roman, the
   Anglican, the Lutheran Church), and of a church edifice. The word
   ejkklhsiva occurs only twice in the Gospels (in Matthew), but very
   often in the Acts and Epistles; while the terms "kingdom of God" and
   "kingdom of heaven" are used very often in the Gospels, but rarely in
   the other books. This indicates a difference. The kingdom of God
   precedes the institution of the church, and will outlast it. The
   kingdom has come, is constantly coming, and will come in glory. It
   includes the government of God, and all the religious and moral
   activities of man. The visible church is a training-school for the
   kingdom. In many instances the terms may be interchanged, while in
   others we could not substitute the church for the kingdom without
   impropriety: e.g., in the phrase "of such is the kingdom of heaven"
   (Matt. 5:3; Mark 10:14); or, "thy kingdom come" (Matt. 6:10) or, "the
   kingdom of God cometh not with observation, ... the kingdom of God is
   within you" (Luke 17:20, 21) or, "to inherit the kingdom" (Matt. 25:34;
   1 Cor. 6:10; 15:30; Gal. 5:21); or, "the kingdom of God is not meat and
   drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." A
   distinction between nominal and real, or outward and inward, membership
   of the church, is indicated in the words of our Lord, "Many are called,
   but few are chosen" (Matt. 22:14), and by Paul when be speaks of a
   circumcision of the flesh and a circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:28,
   29). Here is the germ of the doctrine of the visible and invisible
   church.

   The Apostles' and Nicene Creeds include the holy catholic church and
   the communion of saints among the articles of faith, [676] and do not
   limit them by the Greek, Roman, or any other nationality or age.
   "Catholic" means universal, and is as wide as humanity. It indicates
   the capacity and aim of the church; but the actualization of this
   universalness is a process of time, and it will not be completed till
   the whole world is converted to Christ. [677]

   The mediaeval schoolmen distinguished three stages in the catholic
   church as to its locality,--the militant church on earth (ecclesia
   militans), the church of the departed or the sleeping church in
   purgatory (ecclesia dormiens), and the triumphant church in heaven
   (ecclesia triumphans). This classification was retained by Wiclif, Hus,
   and other forerunners of Protestantism; but the Reformers rejected the
   intervening purgatorial church, together with prayers for the departed,
   and included all the pious dead in the church triumphant.

   In the militant church on earth, Augustin made an important distinction
   between "the true body of Christ" (corpus Christi verum), and "the
   mixed body of Christ" (corpus Christi mixtum or simulatum). He
   substitutes this for the less suitable designation of a "twofold body
   of Christ" (corpus Domini bipartitum), as taught by Tichonius, the
   Donatist grammarian (who referred to Cant. 1:5). These two bodies are
   in this world externally in one communion, as the good and bad fish are
   in one net, but they will ultimately be separated. [678] To the true or
   pure church belong all the elect, and these only, whether already in
   the Catholic Church, or outside of it, yet predestinated for it.
   "Many," he says, "who are openly outside, and are called heretics, are
   better than many good Catholics; for we see what they are to-day; what
   they shall be to-morrow, we know not; and with God, to whom the future
   is already present, they already are what they shall be hereafter."
   [679] On the other hand, hypocrites are in the church, but not of the
   church.

   It should be added, however, that Augustin confined the true church on
   earth to the limits of the visible, orthodox, catholic body of his day,
   and excluded all heretics,--Manichaeans, Pelagians, Arians, etc.,--and
   schismatics,--Donatists, etc.,--as long as they remain outside of
   fellowship with that body. In explaining the article "the holy church,"
   in his version of the Creed (which omits the epithet "catholic," and
   the additional clause "the communion of saints"), he says that this
   surely means, the Catholic Church;" and adds, "Both heretics and
   schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics in holding
   false opinions regarding God do injury to the faith itself; while
   schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from
   brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe.
   Wherefore, neither do the heretics belong to the Church Catholic, which
   loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as
   it loves the neighbor, and consequently readily forgives the neigbbor's
   sin." [680] It is well known that this great and good man even defended
   the principle of forcible coercion of schismatics, on a false
   interpretation of Luke 14:23, "Constrain them to come in."

   In the ninth century the visible Catholic Church was divided into two
   rival Catholic churches,--the patriarchal church in the East, and the
   papal church in the West. The former denied the papal claim of
   universal jurisdiction and headship, as an anti-Christian usurpation;
   the latter identified the Church Catholic with the dominion of the
   papacy, and condemned the Greek Church as schismatical. Hereafter, in
   Western Christendom, the Holy Catholic Church came to mean the Holy
   Roman Church.

   The tyranny and corruptions of the papacy called forth the vigorous
   protest of Wiclif, who revived the Augustinian distinction between the
   true church and the mixed church, but gave it an anti-Roman and
   anti-papal turn (which Augustin did not). He defined the true church to
   be the congregation of the predestinated, or elect, who will ultimately
   be saved. [681] Nobody can become a member of this church except by
   God's predestination, which is the eternal foundation of the church,
   and determines its membership. No one who is rejected from eternity
   (praescitus, foreknown, as distinct from praedestinatus, foreordained)
   can be a member of this church. He may be in it, but he is not of it.
   As there is much in the human body which is no part of it, so there may
   be hypocrites in the church who will finally be removed. There is but
   one universal church, out of which there is no salvation. The only Head
   of this church is Christ; for a church with two heads would be a
   monster. The apostles declared themselves to be servants of this Head.
   The Pope is only the head of a part of the church militant, and this
   only if he lives in harmony with the commandments of Christ. This
   conception of the church excludes all hypocrites and bad members,
   though they be bishops or popes; and it includes all true Christians,
   whether Catholics, or schismatics, or heretics. It coincides with the
   Protestant idea of the invisible church. But Wiclif and Hus denied the
   certainty of salvation, as taught afterwards by Calvinists, and herein
   they agreed with the Catholics; they held that one may be sure of his
   present state of grace, but that his final salvation depends upon his
   perseverance, which cannot be known before the end.

   Wiclif's view of the true church was literally adopted by the Bohemian
   Reformer Hus, who depended for his theology on the English Reformer
   much more than was formerly known. [682] From Hus it passed to Luther,
   Zwingli, and Calvin, who agreed in denying the claims of the papacy to
   exclusive catholicity, and in widening the limits of the church so as
   to include all true believers in Christ. But they distinguished more
   clearly between the invisible and visible church, or rather between one
   true invisible church and several mixed visible churches. [683] The
   invisible church is within the visible church as the soul is in the
   body, and the kernel in the shell. It is not a Utopian dream or
   Platonic commonwealth, but most real and historical. The term,
   "invisible" was chosen because the operations of the Holy Spirit are
   internal and invisible, and because nobody in this life can be surely
   known to belong to the number of the elect, while membership of the
   visible church is recognizable by baptism and profession.

   Important questions were raised with this distinction for future
   settlement. Some eminent modern Protestant divines object to the term
   "invisible church," as involving a contradiction, inasmuch as the
   church is essentially a visible institution; but they admit the
   underlying truth of an invisible, spiritual communion of believers
   scattered throughout the world. [684] As Protestantism has since
   divided and subdivided into a number of denominations and separate
   organizations, the idea of the church needs to be further expanded. We
   must recognize a number of visible churches, Greek, Latin, Lutheran,
   Reformed, Anglican, and all the more recent Christian denominations
   which acknowledge Christ as their Head, and his teaching and example as
   their rule of faith and duty. The idea of denominations or confessions,
   as applied to churches, is of modern date; but is, after all, only an
   expansion of the idea of a particular church, or a contraction of the
   idea of the universal church, and therefore authorized by the double
   Scripture usage of ecclesia. The denominational conception lies between
   the catholic and the local conception. The one invisible church is
   found in all visible denominations and congregations as far as true
   Christianity extends. Another distinction should also be made between
   the church, and the kingdom of God, which is a more spiritual and more
   comprehensive idea than even this invisible catholic church, although
   very closely allied to it, and usually identified with it. But we
   cannot anticipate modern discussions. The Reformers were concerned
   first of all to settle their relation to the Roman Church as they found
   it, and to reconcile the idea of a truly catholic church which they
   could not and would not sacrifice, with the corruptions of the papacy
   on the one hand, and with their separation from it on the other.

   Luther received a copy of Hus's treatise De Ecclesia from Prague in
   1519. [685] He was driven to a defense of the Bohemian martyr in the
   disputation at Leipzig, and ventured to assert that Hus was unjustly
   condemned by the Council of Constance for holding doctrines derived
   from Augustin and Paul. Among these was his definition of the universal
   church as the totality of the elect (universitas praedestinatorum).

   Luther developed this idea in his own way, and modified it in
   application to the visible church. He started from the article of the
   Creed, "I believe in the holy catholic church," but identified this
   article with the "communion of saints," as a definition of the catholic
   church. [686] He explained the communion (Gemeinschaft) to mean the
   community or congregation (Gemeinde) of saints. He also substituted, in
   his Catechism, the word "Christian" for "catholic," in order to include
   in it all believers in Christ. Hence the term "catholic" became, or
   remained, identical in Germany with "Roman Catholic" or "papal;" [687]
   while the English Protestant churches very properly retained the word
   "catholic" in, its true original sense of "universal," which admits of
   no sectarian limitation. The Romanists have no claim to the exclusive
   use of that title; they are too sectarian and exclusive to be truly
   catholic.

   Luther held that the holy church in its relation to God is an article
   of faith, not of sight, and therefore invisible. [688] But as existing
   among men the true church is visible, and can be recognized by the
   right preaching of the gospel or the purity of doctrine, and by the
   right administration of the sacraments (i.e., baptism and the Lord's
   Supper). These are the two essential marks of a pure church. The first
   he emphasized against the Romanists, the second against what he called
   Enthusiasts (Schwarmgeister) and Sacramentarians (in the sense of
   anti-sacramentarians).

   His theory acquired symbolical authority through the Augsburg
   Confession, which defines the church to be "the congregation of saints
   in which the gospel is rightly taught, and the sacraments are rightly
   administered." [689] Worship and discipline, rites and ceremonies, are
   made secondary or indifferent, and reckoned with human traditions which
   may change from time to time. The church has no right to impose what is
   not commanded in the Word of God. In such things everybody is his own
   pope and church. The Lutheran Confession has always laid great--we may
   say too great--stress on the unity of doctrine, and little, too little,
   stress on discipline. And yet in no other evangelical denomination is
   there such a diversity of theological opinions, from the strict
   orthodoxy of the Formula Concordiae to every form and degree of
   Rationalism.

   How far, we must ask here, did Luther recognize the dominion of the
   papacy as a part of the true catholic church? He did not look upon the
   Pope in the historical and legal light as the legitimate head of the
   Roman Church; but he fought him to the end of his life as the
   antagonist of the gospel, as the veritable Antichrist, and the papacy
   as an apostasy. He could not have otherwise justified his separation,
   and the burning of the papal bull and law-books. He assumed a position
   to the Pope and his church similar to that of the apostles to Caiaphas
   and the synagogue. Nevertheless, whether consistently or not, he never
   doubted the validity of the ordinances of the Roman Church, having
   himself been baptized, confirmed, and ordained in it, and he never
   dreamed of being re-baptized or re-ordained. Those millions of
   Protestants who seceded in the sixteenth century were of the same
   opinion, with the sole exception of the Anabaptists who objected to
   infant-baptism, partly on the ground that it was an invention of the
   popish Antichrist, and therefore invalid.

   Nor did Luther or any of the Reformers and sensible Protestants doubt
   that there always were and are still many true Christians in the Roman
   communion, notwithstanding all her errors and corruptions, as there
   were true lsraelites even in the darkest periods of the Jewish
   theocracy. In his controversy with the Anabaptists (1528), Luther makes
   the striking admission: "We confess that under the papacy there is much
   Christianity, yea, the whole Christianity, and has from thence come to
   us. We confess that the papacy possesses the genuine Scriptures,
   genuine baptism, the genuine sacrament of the altar, the genuine keys
   for the remission of sins, the true ministry, the true catechism, the
   Ten Commandments, the articles of the Creed, the Lord's Prayer. ... I
   say that under the Pope is the true Christendom, yea, the very élite of
   Christendom, and many pious and great saints." [690]

   For proof he refers, strangely enough, to the very passage of Paul, 2
   Thess. 2:3, 4, from which he and other Reformers derived their chief
   argument that the Pope of Rome is Antichrist, "the man of sin," "the
   son of perdition." For Paul represents him as sitting "in the temple of
   God;" that is, in the true church, and not in the synagogue of Satan.
   As the Pope is Antichrist, he must be among Christians, and rule and
   tyrannize over Christians. [691] Melanchthon, who otherwise had greater
   respect for the Pope and the Roman Church, repeatedly expressed the
   same view. [692] Luther came nearer the true position when he said that
   the Roman Church might be called a "holy church," by synecdoche or ex
   parte, with the same restriction with which Paul called the Galatian
   Christians "churches," notwithstanding their apostasy from the true
   gospel. [693]

   He combined with the boldest independence a strong reverence for the
   historical faith. He derives from the unbroken tradition of the church
   an argument against the Zwinglians for the real presence in the
   eucharist; and says, in a letter to Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg
   and Duke of Prussia (April, 1532, after Zwingli's death): "The
   testimony of the entire holy Christian church (even without any other
   proof) should be sufficient for us to abide by this article, and to
   listen to no sectaries against it. For it is dangerous and terrible
   (gefährlich und erschrecklich) to hear or believe any thing against the
   unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian
   church as held from the beginning for now over fifteen hundred years in
   all the world. ... To deny such testimony is virtually to condemn not
   only the holy Christian church as a damned heretic, but even Christ
   himself, with all his apostles and prophets, who have founded this
   article, 'I believe a holy Christian church,' as solemnly affirmed by
   Christ when he promised, 'Behold, I am with you all the days, even to
   the end of the world' (Matt. 28:20), and by St. Paul when he says, 'The
   church of God is the pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Tim. 3:15)."
   [694]

   A Roman controversialist could not lay more stress on tradition than
   Luther does in this passage. But tradition, at least from the sixth to
   the sixteenth century, strongly favors the belief in
   transubstantiation, and the sacrifice of the mass, both of which he
   rejected. And if the same test should be applied to his doctrine of
   solifidian justification, it would be difficult to support it by
   patristic or scholastic tradition, which makes no distinction between
   justification and sanctification, and lays as much stress on good works
   as on faith. He felt it himself, that on this vital point, not even
   Augustin was on his side. His doctrine can be vindicated only as a new
   interpretation of St. Paul in advance of the previous understanding.

   Calvin, if we may here anticipate his views as expounded in the first
   chapters of the fourth book of his "Institutes of the Christian
   Religion," likewise clearly distinguishes between the visible and
   invisible church, [695] and in the visible church again between the
   true evangelical church and the false papal church, which he assails as
   unmercifully as Luther; yet he also admits that the Roman communion,
   notwithstanding the antichristian character of the papacy, yea, for the
   very reason that Antichrist sits "in the temple of God," remains a
   church with the Scriptures and valid Christian ordinances. [696] So the
   Jewish synagogue under Caiaphas retained the law and the prophets, the
   rites and ceremonies, of the theocracy.

   The Westminster Confession implies the same theory, and supports it by
   the same questionable exegesis of 2 Thess. 2:3 sqq. and Rev. 13:1-8.
   [697]

   The claims of the Roman Church rest on a broader and more solid base
   than the papacy, which is merely the form of her government. The papal
   hierarchy was often as corrupt as the Jewish hierarchy, and some popes
   were as wicked as Caiaphas; [698] but this fact cannot destroy the
   claims nor invalidate the ordinances of the Roman Church, which from
   the days of the apostles down to the Reformation has been identified
   with the fortunes of Western Christendom, and which remains to this day
   the largest visible church in the world. To deny her church character
   is to stultify history, and to nullify the promise of Christ. (Matt.
   16:18; 28:20.)

   NOTES.

   luther's views on the church fathers.

   Walch, XXII. 2050-2065. Erlangen ed. LXII. 97 sqq. (Tischreden).
   Bindseil: Mart. Lutheri Colloquia (1863), 3 vols.

   In this connection it may be interesting to collect from his writings
   and Table Talk some of Luther's characteristic judgments of the church
   fathers whose works began to be more generally known and studied
   through the editions of Erasmus.

   Luther had no idea of a golden age of virgin purity of the church. He
   knew that even among the apostles there was a Judas, and that errors
   and corruptions crept into the Galatian, Corinthian, and other
   congregations, as is manifest from the censures, warnings, and
   exhortations of the Epistles of the New Testament. Much less could he
   expect perfection in any post-apostolic age. His view of the absolute
   supremacy of the Word of God over all the words of men, even the best
   and holiest, led him to a critical and discriminating estimate of the
   fathers and schoolmen. Besides, he felt the difference between the
   patristic and the Protestant theology. The Continental Reformers
   generally thought much less of the fathers than the Anglican divines.

   "The fathers," says Luther, "have written many things that are pious
   and useful (multa pia et salutaria), but they must be read with
   discrimination, and judged by the Scriptures." "The dear fathers lived
   better than they wrote; we write better than we live." (Melius vixerunt
   quam scripserunt: nos Deo juvante melius scribimus quam vivimus.
   Bindseil, l.c. III. 140; Erl. ed., LXII. 103.) He placed their writings
   far below the Scriptures; and the more he progressed in the study of
   both, the more he was impressed with the difference (Erl. ed., LXII.
   107). To reform the church by the fathers is impossible; it can only be
   done by the Word of God (XXV. 231). They were poor interpreters, in
   part on account of their ignorance of Hebrew and Greek (XXII. 185). All
   the fathers have erred in the faith. Nevertheless, they are to be held
   in veneration for their testimony to the Christian faith (propter
   testimonium fidei omnes sunt venerandi. Erl. ed. LXII. 98).

   Of all the fathers he learned most from Augustin. For him he had the
   profoundest respect, and him he quotes more frequently than all others
   combined. He regards him as one of the four pillars of the church (the
   claims of Ambrose, Jerome, and Gregory, he disputed), as the best
   commentator, and the patron of theologians. "Latina nostra ecclesia
   nullum habuit praestantiorem doctorem quam Augustinum" (Bindseil, I.
   456). "He pleased and pleases me better than all other doctors; he was
   a great teacher, and worthy of all praise" (III. 147). The Pelagians
   stirred him up to his best books, in which he treats of free-will,
   faith, and original sin. He first distinguished it from actual
   transgression. He is the only one among the fathers who had a worthy
   view of matrimony. The papists pervert his famous word: "I would not
   believe the gospel if the Catholic Church did not move me thereto,"
   which was said against the Manichaeans in this sense: Ye are heretics,
   I do not believe you; I go with the church, the bride of Christ, which
   cannot err (Erl. ed., XXX. 394 sq.). Augustin did more than all the
   bishops and popes who cannot hold a candle to him (XXXI. 358 sq.), and
   more than all the Councils (XXV. 341). If he lived now, he would side
   with us, but Jerome would condemn us (Bindseil, III. 149). Yet with all
   his sympathy, Luther could not find his "sola fide." Augustin, he says,
   has sometimes erred, and is not to be trusted. "Although good and holy,
   he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other fathers."
   "When the door was opened to me for the understanding of Paul, I was
   done, with Augustin" (da war es aus mit ihm. Erl. ed., LXII. 119).

   Next to Augustin he seems to have esteemed Hilary on account of his
   work on the Trinity. "Hilarius," he says, "inter omnes patres luctator
   fuit strenuissimus adversus haereticos, cui neque Augustinus conferri
   potest" (Bindseil, III. 138). Ambrose he calls "a pious, God-fearing,
   and brave man," and refers to his bold stand against the Emperor
   Theodosius. But his six books on Genesis are very thin, and his hymns
   have not much matter, though his (?) "Rex Christe, factor omnium," is
   "optimus hymnus." He praises Prudentius for his poetry. Tertullian,
   whom he once calls the oldest of the fathers (though he lived after
   200), was "durus et superstitiosus." Of Cyprian he speaks favorably. As
   to Jerome, he had to admit that he was the greatest Bible translator,
   and will not be surpassed in this line (Erl. ed. LXII. 462). But he
   positively hated him on account of his monkery, and says: "He ought not
   to be counted among the doctors of the church; for he was a heretic,
   although I believe that he was saved by faith in Christ. I know no one
   of the fathers, to whom I am so hostile as to him. He writes only about
   fasting, virginity, and such things" (LXII. 119sq.). He was tormented
   by carnal temptations, and loved Eustochium so as to create scandal. He
   speaks impiously of marriage. His commentaries on Matthew, Galatians,
   and Titus are very thin. Luther had no more respect for Pope Gregory I.
   He is the author of the fables of purgatory and masses for souls; he
   knew little of Christ and his gospel, and was entirely too
   superstitious. The Devil deceived him, and made him believe in
   appearances of spirits from purgatory. "His sermons are not worth a
   copper" (Erl. ed., LI. 482; LII. 187; LX. 189, 405; XXVIII. 98 sqq.;
   Bindseil, III. 140, 228). But he praises beyond its merits his hymn Rex
   Christe, which he wrongly ascribes to Ambrose (Bindseil, III. 149;
   comp. Daniel, Thesaurus Hymnol., vol. I. 180 sq.).

   With the Greek fathers, Luther was less familiar. He barely mentions
   Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Epiphanius. He praises
   Athanasius as the greatest teacher of the Oriental Church, although he
   was nothing extra (obwohl er nichts sonderliches war). He could not
   agree with Melanchthon's favorable judgment of Basil the Great. He
   thought Gregory of Nazianzen, the eloquent defender of the divinity of
   Christ during the Arian ascendency, to be of no account ("Nazianzenus
   est nihil." Bindseil, III. 152). He speaks well of Theodoret's
   Commentary to Paul's Epistles, but unreasonably depreciates Chrysostom,
   the golden preacher and commentator, and describes him as a great
   rhetorician, full of words and empty of matter; he even absurdly
   compares him to Carlstadt! "He is garrulous, and therefore pleases
   Erasmus, who neglects faith, and treats only of morals. I consulted him
   on the beautiful passage on the highpriest in Hebrews; but he twaddled
   about the dignity of priests, and let me stick in the mud (Bindseil,
   III. 136; Erl. ed. LXII. 102).

   Of mediaeval divines Luther esteemed Nicolaus Lyra as a most useful
   commentator. He praises St. Bernard, who in his sermons "excels all
   other doctors, even Augustin." He speaks highly of Peter the Lombard,
   "the Master of Sentences," and calls him a "homo diligentissimus et
   excellentissimi ingenii," although he brought in many useless questions
   (Bindseil, III. 151; Erl. ed. LXII. 114). He calls Occam, whom he
   studied diligently, "summus dialecticus" (Bindseil, III. 138, 270). But
   upon the whole he hated the schoolmen and their master, "the damned
   heathen Aristotle," although he admits him to have been "optimus
   dialecticus," and learned from him and his commentators the art of
   logical reasoning. Even Thomas Aquinas, "the Angelic Doctor," whom the
   Lutheran scholastics of the seventeenth century highly and justly
   esteemed, he denounced as a chatterer (loquacissimus), who makes the
   Bible bend to Aristotle (Bindseil, III. 270, 286), and whose books are
   a fountain of all heresies, and destructive of the gospel ("der Brunn
   und Grundsuppe aller Ketzerei, Irrthums und Verleugnung des
   Evangeliums." Erl. ed. XXIV. 240). This is, of course, the language of
   prejudice and passion.--His views on Augustin are the most correct,
   because he knew him best, and liked him most.

   Melanchthon and Oecolampadius from fuller knowledge and milder temper
   judged more favorably and consistently of the fathers generally, and
   their invaluable services to Christian literature.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [676] Yet not in the strict and deeper sense in which the Father, Son,
   and Holy Spirit are articles of (saving) faith; hence the preposition
   eis, in, is omitted before ecclesiam, and the following articles, at
   least in the Latin forms (the Greek Nicene Creed has eis).

   [677] The term "catholic" (katholikos, from kataand holos, whole,
   entire, complete) does not occur in the New Testament (for the
   inscrip-tions of the Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude,
   epistolai katholikai, or simply katholikai, are no part of the
   apostolic text, but added by transcribers), and is first used as an
   epithet of the Church by Ignatius of Antioch, the enthusiast for
   episcopacy and martyrdom (Ad Smyrn., c. 8), and in the Martyrium of
   Polycarp (in Eusebius, II. E., IV. 14). It was applied also to faith,
   tradition, people, and became equivalent with Christian, in distinction
   from Jews, idolaters, heretics, and schismatics.

   [678] De Doctr. Christ., III. 32 (in Schaff's "Nicene and Post-Nicene
   Library;" Works of St. Augustin, vol. II. 509).

   [679] De Bapt. contra Donat., IV. 5. For a fuller exposition of his
   doctrine of the church, see his Donatist writings, and Reuter's
   Augustin. Studien (1887).

   [680] De Fide et Symbolo, c. 10 (in Schaff's ed., III. 331).

   [681] Tractatus de Ecclesia, c. I., "congregatio omnium
   praedestinatorum ... Illa est sponsa Christl ... Jerusalem mater
   nostra, templum Domini, regnum coelorum et civitas regni magni." Then
   he quotes the distinction made by Augustin, to whom he refers
   throughout the book more frequent-ly than to all other fathers
   combined. This important tract was recently published for the first
   time from three MSS. in Vienna and Prague by the "Wyclif Society," and
   edited by Dr. Johann Loserth (professor of history in the University of
   Czernowitz), London (Trübner & Co.), 1886, 600 pp. But the same view of
   the church is taught in other books of Wiclif, and correctly stated by
   Dr. Lechler in his Joh. von Wiclif, Leipz., 1873, vol. I. 541 sqq.

   [682] The close affinity has recently been shown by Joh. Loserth, Hus
   und Wiclif; zur Genesis der hussitischen Lehre (Prag and Leipz., l884),
   and is especially apparent from a comparison of Wiclif's and Hus's
   treatises De Ecclesia. Wiclif's book exerted little influence in
   England, but became known in Bohemia in 1407 or before, and the
   reproduction of it by Hus created a great sensation. The arrangement,
   the ideas, and arguments of the two books are the same, and often the
   very language. Comp. Loserth's Introduction to Wiclif's De Ecclesia.

   [683] Luther first used the term "invisible." Zwingli first added the
   term "visible" in his Expositio christianae. fidei (1531): "Credimus et
   unam sanctam esse catholicam, h.e. universalem ecclesiam. Eam autem
   esse aut visibilem aut invisibilem." Zwingli was the only one among the
   Reformers who included the elect heathen in the invisible church. The
   clearest symbolical statement of the Protestant doctrine of the
   invisible and visible church is given in the Westminster Confession,
   ch. xxv. (Schaff's Creeds of Christendom, III. 657).

   [684] Rothe (Anfänge der christl. Kirche, I. p. 101) says that the idea
   of a moral and spiritual union and communion of all believers in
   Christ, or of the communion of saints, is in the highest sense real
   (ist nach unsrer innigsten Ueberzeugung eine im höchsten Sinne reale),
   but cannot be called a church. He resolves and dissolves the church
   ultimately into the kingdom of God, which he identifies with the ideal
   state.

   [685] Under the date of Oct. 3, 1519, he informed Staupitz that he had
   received from Prague letters of two priests, "una cum libello Joannis
   Hus." De Wette, I. 341. An edition of the Tractatus de Ecclesia was
   published at Mainz and Hagenau in 1520.

   [686] This identification may be questioned. The holy catholic church
   corresponds rather to the church visible, the communion of saints to
   the church invisible. The communion of saints means that inward and
   spiritual fellowship of true believers on earth and in heaven which is
   based on their union with Christ. It is their fellowship with God the
   Father, the Son, and the Spirit (Comp. 1 John 1:3; 1 Cor. 1:9; Phil.
   2:1), and with each other, a fellowship not broken by death, but
   extending to the saints above. A most precious idea. "The saints in
   heaven and on earth But one communion make; All join In Christ, their
   living Head, And of his grace partake." The article of the communio
   sanctorum (as well as the epithet catholica) is a later insertion, and
   not found in the creeds before the fifth century. See Schaff, Creeds of
   Christendom, I. 22 and II. 52. The oldest commentators understood it of
   the communion with the saints in heaven. According to the Catechism of
   the Council of Trent, it means "a community of spiritual blessings,"
   especially the sacraments enjoyed in the Catholic Church. A more
   comprehensive and satisfactory exposition is given by Pearson on the
   Creed, Art. IX., and in the Westminster Confession, Ch. XXVI.

   [687] The German proverb, ."Das ist um katholisch zu werden" (This is
   to turn Catholic), describes a condition of things that drives one to
   desperation or madness.

   [688] In his second Commentary on the Galatians (Erl. ed., III. 38):
   "Recte igitur fatemur in symbolo, nos credere ecclesiam sanctam. Est
   enim invisibilis, habitans in Spiritu, in loco inaccessibili, ideo non
   potest videri ejus sanctitas."

   [689] Art. VII., "Est autem ecclesia congregatio sanctorum [Germ. ed.,
   Versammlung aller Gläubigen], in qua evangelium recte [rein] docetur,
   et recte [laut des Evangelii] administrantur sacramenta." Comp. the
   Apol. Conf., Art. VII. and VIII. The same definition is substantially
   given in the Anglican Art. XIX. It would exclude the Quakers, who
   reject the external sacraments, yet are undoubted believers in Christ.
   The Calvinistic Confessions (e.g., Conf. Belgica, Art. XXIX.) and
   characteristically to those two marks a third one, the exercise of
   discipline In punishing sin.

   [690] "Ich sage, dass unter dem Papst die rechte Christenheit ist, ja
   der rechte Ausbund der Christenheit, und viel frommer, grosser
   Heiligen." (Von der Wiedertaufe, Erl. ed. XXVI. 257 sq.) The Roman
   Catholic Möhler does not fail to quote this passage in his Symbolik, p.
   422 sq. He says of Luther's conception of the church (p. 424), that it
   is not false, but only one-sided (nicht falsch, obgleich einseitig). He
   virtually admits the Protestant distinction between the visible and the
   invisible church, but holds that the Catholics put the visible church
   first as the basis of the invisible, while the Protestants reverse the
   order.

   [691] Ibid. p. 258. Critical commentators have long since abandoned
   this interpretation. Whatever be the wider applicability of this
   passage, Paul certainly meant a "mystery of lawlessness" (not tyranny)
   already at work in his time (ede energeitai, 2 Thess. 2:7), long before
   popery existed, or before there was even a bishop of Rome (unless it be
   Peter). Moreover, "lawlessness," which is the proper translation of
   anomia, is not characteristic of popery, but the very opposite. If Paul
   refers to Rome at all, it is rather as a "restraining" force, to
   katechon, vers. 6, 7 (Comp. Rom. 13:1). The term "Antichrist" occurs
   only in the Epistles of John, and he speaks of "many Antichrists" in
   his own day. In a wider sense all is antichristian that is contrary to
   the spirit and aim of Christ in any church or any age.

   [692] In his Judicium de Jure reformandi, 1525 ("Corp. Ref." I. 767):
   "It is written that the Antichrist will have a great and powerful reign
   in the last times, as Paul says, Antichrist will be seated and rule in
   the temple of God, that is, in the church." And again in the "Apology
   of the Augsburg Confession" (1530), arts. VII. and VIII. (Müller's ed.,
   p. 152): "Paulus praedicat futurum, ut Antichristus sedeat in templo
   Dei, hoc est, in ecclesia dominetur et gerat officia."

   [693] Com. in Ep. ad Gal. (Erl. ed., 1. 40 sq.): "Paulus vocat ecclesia
   Galatiae per synecdochen ... Sie et nos hodie vocamus ecclesiam romanam
   sanctam et omnes episcopatus sanctos, etiamsi sint subversi et episcopi
   et ministri eorum impii. Deus enim regnat in medio inimicorum suorum;
   item, Antichristus sedet in templo Dei, et Satan adest in medio
   filiorum Dei ... Manet in romana urbe quamquam Sodoma et Gomorra pejore
   baptismus, sacramentum, vox et textus evangelii, sacra scriptura,
   ministeria, nomen Christi, nomen Dei."

   [694] De Wette, Briefe, IV. 354.

   [695] Lib. IV., c. i., §§ 4 and 7. He speaks most eloquently of the
   ecclesia visibilis, as our mother in whose womb we are conceived to
   enter into spiritual life.

   [696] Lib. IV., c. ii., § 12: "Antichristum in templo Dei sessurum
   praedixerunt Daniel et Paulus (Dan. 9:27; 2 Thess. 2:4): illius
   scelerati et abominandi regni ducem et antesignanum, apud nos facimus
   Romanum Pontificem. Quod sedes ejus in templo Dei collocatur, ita
   innuitur, tale fore ejus regnum quod nec Christi nec ecclesiae nomen
   aboleat. Hinc igitur patet nos minime negare, quin sub ejus quoque
   tyrannide ecclesiae maneant: sed quas sacrilega impietate profanarit,
   quas immani dominatione afflixerit, quas malis et exitialibus
   doctrinis, ceu venenatis potionibus, corruperit, et propemodum
   enecarit, in quibus semisepultus lateat Christus, obrutum Evangelium,
   profligata pietas, cultus Dei fere abolitus: in quibus denique omnia
   sic sint conturbata, ut Babylonis potius quam civitatis Dei sanctae
   facies illic appareat." Comp. IV., 7, § 25; and Calvin's commentary on
   2 Thess. 2:3.

   [697] Ch. XXV. 6: "The Pope of Rome ... is that Antichrist, that man of
   sin and perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ
   and all that is called God." And yet there are American divines who
   derive from this passage the very opposite conclusion; namely, that the
   Roman Church is no church at all, and that all her ordinances are
   invalid. An attempt to sanction this conclusion was made at the General
   Assembly of the Presbyterian Church at Cincinnati in 1885, but failed.
   The Westminster Confession never calls the Roman Church Antichrist, but
   only the Pope, who is no more the Roman Church than the Moderator of
   the General Assembly is the General Assembly, or the President of the
   United States is the American people, or the Czar of Russia is Russia.
   The government is only one factor in the life of a nation or a church.

   [698] Dante locates them in the Inferno; and Möhler says, "Hell has
   swallowed them up."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 86. Changes in the Views on the Ministry. Departure from the
   Episcopal Succession. Luther ordains a Deacon, and consecrates a
   Bishop.

   The Reformers unanimously rejected the sacerdotal character of the
   Christian ministry (except in a spiritual sense), and hence also the
   idea of a literal altar and sacrifice. No priest, no sacrifice.
   "Priest" is an abridgment of "presbyter," [699] and "Presbyter" is
   equivalent to "elder." It does not mean sacerdos in the New Testament,
   nor among the earliest ecclesiastical writers before Tertullian and
   Cyprian. [700] Moreover, in Scripture usage "presbyter" and "bishop"
   are terms for one and the same office (as also in the Epistle of
   Clement of Rome, and the recently discovered "Teaching of the Twelve
   Apostles". [701] This fact (conceded by Jerome and Chrysostom and the
   best modern scholars) was made the basis for presbyterian ordination in
   those Lutheran and Reformed churches which abolished episcopacy. [702]

   In the place of a graded hierarchy, the Reformers taught the parity of
   ministers; and in the place of a special priesthood, offering the very
   body and blood of Christ, a general priesthood of believers, offering
   the sacrifices of prayer and praise for the one sacrifice offered for
   all time to come. Luther derived the lay-priesthood from baptism as an
   anointing by the Holy Spirit and an incorporation into Christ. "A
   layman with the Scriptures," he said, "is more to be believed than pope
   and council without the Scriptures." [703]

   Nevertheless, he maintained, in opposition to the democratic radicalism
   of Carlstadt and the fanatical spiritualism of the Zwickau prophets,
   the necessity of a ministry, as a matter of order and expediency; and
   so far he asserted its divine origin. Every public teacher must be
   called of God through the Church, or prove his extraordinary call by
   miracles. And so the Augsburg Confession declares that "no man shall
   publicly teach in the church, or administer the sacraments, without a
   regular call." [704]

   But what constitutes a regular call? Luther at first took the ground of
   congregational independency in his writings to the Bohemian Brethren
   (1523), and advocated the right of a Christian congregation to call, to
   elect, and to depose its own minister. [705] He meant, of course, a
   congregation of true believers, not a mixed multitude of nominal
   professors. In cases of necessity, which knows no law, he would allow
   any one who has the gift, to pray and sing, to teach and preach; and
   refers to the congregation of Corinth, and to Stephen, Philip, and
   Apollos, who preached without a commission from the apostles. In a
   conflagration everybody runs to lend a helping hand, to save the town.
   But, in ordinary cases, no one should be a teacher unless called and
   elected by the congregation. Even Paul did not elect elders without the
   concurrence of the people. The bishops of our days are no bishops, but
   idols. They neglect preaching, their chief duty, leaving it to
   chaplains and monks: they confirm and consecrate bells, altars, and
   churches, which is a self-invented business, neither Christian nor
   episcopal. They are baby-bishops. [706]

   But congregations of pure Christians, capable of self-government, could
   not be found in Germany at that time, and are impossible in state
   churches where churchmanship and citizenship coincide. Luther abandoned
   this democratic idea after the Peasants' War, and called on the arm of
   the govern-ment for protection against the excesses of the popular
   will.

   In the first years of the Reformation the congregations were supplied
   by Romish ex-priests and monks. But who was to ordain the new preachers
   educated at Wittenberg? The bishops of Saxony (Naumburg-Zeiz, Meissen,
   and Merseburg) remained loyal to their master in Rome; and there was no
   other ordaining power according to law. Luther might have derived the
   succession from two bishops of Prussia,--Georg von Polenz, bishop of
   Samland, and Erhard von Queis, bishop of Pomesania,--who accepted the
   Reformation, and afterwards surrendered their episcopal rights to Duke
   Albrecht as the summus episcopus (1525). [707] But he did not wish to
   go outside of Saxony, and hated the whole hierarchy of pope and bishop
   as a human invention and spiritual tyranny. He congratulated the bishop
   of Samland that he, as by a miracle of grace, had been delivered from
   the mouth of Satan; while all other bishops raged like madmen against
   the reviving gospel, although he hoped that there were some timid
   Nicodemuses among them. [708]

   With these views, and the conviction of his own divine authority to
   reform the church, he felt no reluctance to take the episcopal
   prerogative into his hands. He acted to the end of his life as an
   irregular or extraordinary bishop and pope in partibus Protestantium,
   being consulted by princes, magistrates, theologians, and people of all
   sorts.

   He set the first example of a Presbyterian ordination by laying hands
   on his amanuensis, Georg Rörer (Rorarius), and making him deacon at
   Wittenberg, May 14, 1525. Rörer is favorably known by his assistance in
   the Bible Version and the first edition of Luther's works. He died as
   librarian of the University of Jena, 1557. Melanchthon justified the
   act on the ground that the bishops neglected their duty. [709]

   But Luther ventured even to consecrate a bishop, or a superintendent;
   as John Wesley did two hundred and fifty years afterwards in the
   interest of his followers in the United States. When the bishopric of
   Naumburg became vacant, the chapter, backed by the Roman-Catholic
   minority of the nobility and people, regularly elected Julius von
   Pflug, one of the ablest, purest, and mildest opponents of the
   Reformation. This choice displeased the Protestants. The Elector John
   Frederick, by an illegal use of power, confiscated the property of the
   diocese, and appointed a counter-bishop in the person of Nicolaus von
   Amsdorf, Luther's most devoted friend, who was unmarried and a
   nobleman, and at that time superintendent at Magdeburg. The
   consecration took place on June 20, 1542, in the dome of Naumburg, in
   the presence of the Elector, the Protestant clergy, and a congregation
   of about five thousand people. Luther preached the sermon, and
   performed the consecration with the assistance of three superintendents
   (Medler, Spalatin, and Stein) and an abbot, by the laying-on of hands,
   and prayer. [710] This bold and defiant act created great sensation and
   indignation, and required a public defense, which he prepared at the
   request of the Elector. [711] He used the strongest language against
   popery and episcopacy to overawe the opposition, and to make it
   contemptible. He even boasts of having made a bishop without chrism,
   butter, and incense. "I cannot repent," he says, "of such a great and
   horrible sin, nor expect absolution for it." He assigns, among the
   reasons for setting aside the election of a Catholic bishop, that God
   had in the first three commandments, as by a thunder-stroke of
   judgment, forever condemned to hell the chapter of Naumburg, together
   with the pope, cardinals, and all their régime, for breaking those
   commandments by their idolatry and false worship. Christians are
   forbidden, on pain of eternal damnation, to hear and tolerate them.
   They must flee a false prophet, preacher, or bishop, and regard a
   popish bishop as no bishop at all, but as a wolf, yea, as a devil.
   [712] "And what does the most hellish father in his hellish Church?
   Does he not depose all bishops, abbots, priests, whom he finds heretics
   or apostates from his idolatry? ... Yea, he interferes even with
   secular and domestic government, deposes emperors, kings, princes,
   separates man and wife, dissolves marriage, abolishes obedience, duty,
   and oath, simply for disobedience to his audacious devilish decretals
   and accursed bulls." But, as the holy Virgin sings in her Magnificat,
   "the Lord hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts,
   and hath put down princes from their thrones" (Luke 1:51, 52) and as
   St. Peter writes, "Deus superbis resistit" (1 Pet. 5:5). The proud and
   haughty, whether he be pope, emperor, king, prince, nobleman, citizen,
   or peasant, will be humbled, and come to a bitter end. The chapter of
   Naumburg elected a bishop who would have been bound by obedience to the
   pope to persecute the gospel, "to worship the devil," and to let the
   pope, the archbishop of Mainz, and their courtiers rule and ruin at
   pleasure. The papists have been playing this game for more than twenty
   years. It is high time to stop it. He who rules in heaven and also here
   in our hearts turns the wise into fools, and "taketh the wise in their
   craftiness" (1 Cor. 3:19).

   This is the spirit and language of this apologetic Tract. It was
   followed by a still fiercer attack upon popery as an invention of the
   Devil" (1545).

   Amsdorf was forced upon the chapter and the people by the Elector, but
   lost his bishopric in the Smalcaldian War (1547), took a leading and
   ultra-Lutheran part in the bitter theological controversies which
   followed, and died at Eisenach, 1565, in his eighty-second year. His
   ephemeral episcopate was, of course, a mere superintendency.

   Several of Luther's friends and pupils were appointed superintendents;
   as Lauterbach at Pirna (d. 1569); Heidenreich, or Heiderich, at Torgau
   (d. 1572), who with Mathesius, Dietrich, Weller, and others, preserved
   his "table spice" (condimenta mensae), as they called his familiar
   conversations.

   The appointment of these superintendents was in the hands of the prince
   as summus episcopus over his territory. The congregations had not even
   the power of electing their own pastors. [713]

   In the cities the magistrate assumed the episcopal power, and appointed
   the superintendents.

   The further development of the episcopal, territorial, and collegial
   system in the Lutheran Church lies beyond our limits.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [699] Milton, in his discontent with the Presbyterians and zeal for
   independency, said, "Presbyter is priest writ large."

   [700] The exceptional designation of the Christian prophets as
   "highpriests" (archiereis, in the Didaché, ch. XIII. 3, is probably
   figurative. See Schaff, The Oldest Church Manual, p. 206 sq.

   [701] See Schaff, l.c. p. 74 sq., and 211.

   [702] See the passage in the Appendix to Luther's Articles of Smalcald,
   quoted above on p. 517, note 2.

   [703] Comp. § 44, p. 207, and Melanchthon in his Apology of the Augsb.
   Conf., arts. XIII. and XXIV.

   [704] Art. XIV.

   [705] In the address De instituendis ministris, to the magistrate and
   people of Prag, and in his tract "Dass eine christliche Versammlung
   oder Gemeinde Recht und Macht habe, alle Lehrer zu urtheilen und Lehrer
   zu berufen, ein- und abzusetzen." (Erl. ed., XXII. 140 sqq.; and Walch,
   X. 1795 sqq.)

   [706] "Es sind verkehrt, verblendete Larven, und rechte
   Kinderbischöfe." The last word of his German tract to the Bohemians.
   Erl. ed., XXII. 151.

   [707] The conversion and attempted reformation of Archbishop Herrmann
   of Cologne occurred much later, in 1543.

   [708] In the preface to his commentary on Deuteronomy, which he
   dedicated to the bishop of Samland, 1525 (Erl. ed. of Opera Latina,
   XIII. 6): "Non enim te laudamus, sed insigne illud miraculum gratiae
   Dei extollimus, quam in te valere, regnare et triumphare videmus et
   audimus cum gaudio ut ... te unicum et solum inter omnes episcopi orbis
   elegerit Dominus et liberaverit ex ore Satanae quod dilatavit sicut
   infernum et devorat omnes. Nihil enim videmus in ceteris episcopis
   (quanquam esse inter eos sperem aliquot Nicodemos) nisi quod subversis
   caesare et regibus ac principibus fremunt et insaniunt contra resurgens
   vel potius oriens evangelion, ut denuo impleant illud Psalmi secundi,"
   etc. Comp. his letter to Spalatin, Feb. 1, 1524, and to Briesmann, July
   4, 1524, in De Wette, II. 474 and 525 sqq.

   [709] Corp. Ref., I. 765. Comp. Seckendorf, Hist. Lutheranismi, vol.
   II. 29.

   [710] See an account of the consecration in Seckendorf, III. 391 sqq.;
   Köstlin, II. 561 sqq.; Janssen, III. 483-492. Janssen describes the
   sickening details of the violence, intrigues, and robberies connected
   with the Protestantizing and secularizing of the three Saxon
   bishoprics.

   [711] Exempel, einen rechten christlichen Bischof zu weihen, 1542. Erl.
   ed., XXVI. 77-108; Walch, XVII. 122. He begins with the characteristic
   sentence: "Wir armen Ketzer haben abermal eine grosse Sünde begangen
   wider die höllische unchristliche Kirche des allerhöllischten Vaters,
   des Papstes, dass wir einen Bischof im Stift Naumburg ordinirt und
   eingeweihet haben, ohne allen Chresem [Chrisma, Salböl], auch ohne
   Butter, Schmalz, Speck, Teer, Schmeer, Weihrauch, Kohlen und was
   derselben grossen Heiligkeit mehr ist: dazu wider ihren Willen; doch
   nicht ohne ihr Wissen." Comp. also his letter to Jacob Probst, March
   26, 1546 (De Wette, V. 451), where he calls this consecration "audax
   facinus et plenissimum odio, invidia at indignatione."

   [712] " ... gezwungen durch Gottes Gebot, sich von ihm zu sondern, und
   ihn für keinen Bischof, sondern für einen Wolf, ja für einen Teufel zu
   halten." Erl. ed., p. 80.

   [713] "Die Gemeinde," says Friedberg, l.c., p. 61, "tritt bei dieser
   Organisation ganz zurück. Sie ist der 'Pöbel,' der unter der Zucht des
   Wortes und der Polizei des Kirchenregimentes steht ... Eine Mitwirkung
   an der Handhabung der Kirchenzucht findet sich nur in den
   Kirchenordnungen, wo reformirte Einflüsse bemerkbar sind."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 87. Relation of Church and State.

   In January, 1523, Luther published a remarkable book on the civil
   magistrate, dedicated to Prince John, in which he proved from Rom. 13:1
   and 1 Pet. 2:13 the duty to obey the civil magistrate, and from Acts
   5:29 the duty to obey God more than man. [714] On the ground of
   Christ's word, Matt. 22:21, which contains the wisest answer to an
   embarrassing question, he drew a sharp distinction between the secular
   and spiritual power, and reproved the pope and bishops for meddling
   with secular affairs, and the princes and nobles for meddling with
   spiritual matters. It sounds almost like a prophetic anticipation of
   the American separation of church and state when he says: --

   "God has ordained two governments among the children of Adam, the reign
   of God under Christ, and the reign of the world under the civil
   magistrate, each with its own laws and rights. The laws of the reign of
   the world extend no further than body and goods and the external
   affairs on earth. But over the soul God can and will allow no one to
   rule but himself alone. [715] Therefore where the worldly government
   dares to give laws to the soul, it invades the reign of God, and only
   seduces and corrupts the soul. This we shall make so clear that our
   noblemen, princes, and bishops may see what fools they are if they will
   force people with their laws and commandments to believe this or that.
   [716] ... In matters which relate to the soul's salvation nothing
   should be taught and accepted but God's word. ... As no one can descend
   to hell or ascend to heaven for me, as little can any one believe or
   disbelieve for me; as he cannot open or shut heaven or hell for me,
   neither can he force me to faith or unbelief ... Faith is a voluntary
   thing which cannot be forced. Yea, it is a divine work in the spirit.
   Hence it is a common saying which is also found in Augustin: Faith
   cannot and should not be forced on anybody." [717]

   Here is the principle of religious liberty which was proclaimed in
   principle by Christ, acted upon by the apostles, re-asserted by the
   ante-Nicene fathers against the tyranny of persecuting Rome, but so
   often violated by Christian Rome in her desire for a worldly empire,
   and also by Protestant churches and princes in their dealings with
   Romanists and Anabaptists. Luther does not spare the secular rulers,
   though this book is dedicated to the brother of the Elector.

   "From the beginning of the world wise princes have been rare birds, and
   pious princes still rarer. Most of them are the greatest fools or the
   worst boobies on earth. [718] Therefore we must fear the worst from
   them, and expect little good, especially in divine things which affect
   the soul's welfare. They are God's hangmen, and his wrath uses them to
   punish evil-doers, and to keep external peace."

   He refers to Isa. 3:4, "I will give children to be their princes, and
   babes shall rule over them;" and to Hos. 13:11, "I have given thee a
   king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my wrath." "The world is
   too bad," he adds, "and not worthy to have many wise and pious
   princes."

   To the objection that the secular magistrate should afford an external
   protection, and hinder heretics from seducing the people, he replies:
   --

   This is the business of bishops, and not of princes. For heresy can
   never be kept off by force; another grip is needed for that; this is
   another quarrel than that of the sword. God's word must contend here.
   If this fails, the worldly power is of no avail, though it fill the
   world with blood. Heresy is a spiritual thing that cannot be hewn down
   by iron, nor burned by fire, nor drowned by water. [719] But God's word
   does it, as Paul says, 'Our weapons are not carnal, but mighty in God'
   (2 Cor. 10:4, 5)."

   In his exposition of the First Epistle of St. Peter, from the same year
   (1523), he thus comments on the exhortation "to fear God and honor the
   king:" [720]

   "If the civil magistrate interferes with spiritual matters of
   conscience in which God alone must rule, we ought not to obey at all,
   but rather lose our head. Civil government is confined to external and
   temporal affairs. ... If an emperor or prince asks me about my faith, I
   would give answer, not because of his command, but because of my duty
   to confess my faith before everybody. But if he should go further, and
   command me to believe this or that, I would say, 'Dear sir, mind your
   secular business; you have no right to interfere with God's reign, and
   therefore I shall not obey you at all.' "

   Similar views on the separation of church and state were held by
   Anabaptists, Mennonites, the English martyr-bishop Hooper, and Robert
   Browne the Independent; but they had no practical effect till a much
   later period. [721]

   Luther himself changed his opinion on this subject, and was in some
   measure driven to a change by the disturbances and heresies which
   sprang up around him, and threatened disorder and anarchy. The victory
   over the peasants greatly increased the power of the princes. The
   Lutheran Reformers banded the work of re-organization largely over to
   them, and thus unwittingly introduced a caesaropapacy; that is, such a
   union of church and state as makes the head of the state also the
   supreme ruler in the church. It is just the opposite of the
   hierarchical principle of the Roman Church, which tries to rule the
   state. Melanchthon justified this transfer chiefly by the neglect of
   the pope and bishops to do their duty. He says, if Christ and the
   apostles had waited till Annas and Caiaphas permitted the gospel, they
   would have waited in vain. [722]

   The co-operation of the princes and magistrates in the cities secured
   the establishment of the Protestant Church, but brought it under the
   bondage of lawyers and politicians who, with some honorable exceptions,
   knew less and ruled worse than the bishops. The Reformers often and
   bitterly complained in their later writings of the rapacity of princes
   and nobles who confiscated the property of churches and convents, and
   applied it to their own use instead of schools and benevolent purposes.
   Romish historians make the most of this fact to the disparagement of
   the Reformation. But the spoliations of Protestant princes are very
   trifling, as compared with the wholesale confiscation of church
   property by Roman-Catholic powers, as France, Spain, and Italy in the
   last and present centuries.

   The union of church and state accounts for the persecution of papists,
   heretics, and Jews; and all the Reformers justified persecution to the
   extent of deposition and exile, some even to the extent of death, as in
   the case of Servetus. [723]

   The modern progress of the principle of toleration and religious
   liberty goes hand in hand with the loosening of the bond of union
   between church and state.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [714] Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei.
   Erl. ed. XXII. 59-105.

   [715] The Westminster Confession, ch. XX. 2, says: "God alone is Lord
   of the conscience."

   [716] L.c.p. 82: "Das weltlich Regiment hat Gesetze, die sich nicht
   weiter strecken, denn über Leib und Gut, und was äusserlich ist auf
   Erden. Denn über die Seele kann und will Gott niemand lassen regieren,
   denn sich selbst alleine. Darumb wo weltlich Gewalt sich vermisset, der
   Seelen Gesetze zu geben, da greift sie Gott in sein Regiment, und
   verführet und verderbet nur die Seelen. Das wollen wir so klar machen,
   dass mans greifen solle, auf dass unsere Junkern, die Fürsten und
   Bischöfe sehen, was sie für Narren sind, wenn sie die Leut mit ihren
   Gesetzen und Geboten zwingen wollen, sonst oder so zu glauben."

   [717] "Zum Glauben kann und soll man niemand zwingen." As to St.
   Augustin, he changed his views on this subject, as Luther did
   afterwards. The anti-Manichaean Augustin was tolerant (he himself had
   been a Manichaean for nine years), but the anti-Donatist Augustin was
   intolerant. The former said, "Credere non potest homo nisi volens;" the
   latter misinterpreted the words: "Compelle intrare ut impleatur domus
   mea" (Luke 14:23), as a justification of forcible coercion. Comp.
   above, § 11, p. 54 sq.

   [718] "Die grössten Narren oder die ärgsten Buben auf Erden" (p. 89).

   [719] "Ketzerei ist ein geistlich Ding, das kann man mit keinem Eisen
   hauen, mit keinem Feuer verbrennen, mit keinem Wasser ertränken."

   [720] In the Erl. ed., vol. LI. p. 419 sq.

   [721] See § 12, p. 76, note.

   [722] Judicium de jure reformandi (1525), in the "Corp. Reform." I. 763
   sqq.

   [723] See § 12, p. 59 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 88. Church Visitation in Saxony.

   Melanchthon: Articuli de quibus egerunt per visitatores in regione
   Saxoniae. Wittenb., 1527. Reprinted in the Corpus Reform., vol. XXVI.
   (1858), 9-28. The same in German with preface by Luther: Unterricht der
   Visitatoren an die Pfarrherrn im Kurfürstenthum zu Sachsen. Wittenb.,
   1628. In Walch, X. 1902, and in Corp. Reform., XXVI. 29-40. Also
   Luther's Letters to Elector John, from the years 1525 to 1527, in De
   Wette, vol. III. 38 sqq.

   Burkhardt: Gesch. der sächsischen Kirchen- und Schulvisitationen von
   1524-45. Leipzig, 1879. Köstlin: M. L., II. 23-49.

   In order to abolish ecclesiastical abuses, to introduce reforms in
   doctrine, worship, and discipline, and to establish Christian schools
   throughout the electorate of Saxony, Luther proposed a general
   visitation of all the churches. This was properly the work of bishops.
   But, as there were none in Saxony who favored the Reformation, he
   repeatedly urged the Elector John, soon after he succeeded his brother
   Frederick, to institute an episcopal visitation of the churches in his
   territory, and to divide it into three or four districts, each to be
   visited by two noblemen or magistrates. [724] He presented to him, in
   his strong way, the deplorable condition of the church: the fear of
   God, and discipline are gone; the common people have lost all respect
   for the preachers, pay no more offerings, and let them starve; since
   the Pope's tyranny is abolished, everybody does as he pleases. We shall
   soon have no churches, no schools, no pupils, unless the magistrates
   restore order, and take care at least of the youth, whatever may become
   of the old people. [725]

   It was a dangerous step, and the entering wedge of a new
   caesaropapacy,--the rule of statecraft over priestcraft. But it seemed
   to be the only available help under the circumstances, and certainly
   served a very useful purpose. Luther had full confidence in the
   God-fearing Elector, that he would not abuse the authority thus
   temporarily conferred on him.

   The Elector, after considerable delay, resolved upon the visitation in
   July, 1527, on the quasi-legal basis of the Diet of Speier, which a
   year before had temporarily suspended, but by no means abolished, the
   Edict of Worms. He directed Melanchthon to prepare a "formula of
   doctrine and rites" for the instruction of the visitors. Melanchthon
   elaborated in Latin, and more fully in German, a summary of the
   evangelical doctrines of faith and duty, which may be regarded as the
   first basis of the Augsburg Confession. He treats, in seventeen
   articles, of faith, the cross (affliction), prayer, the fruits of the
   Spirit, the magistrate, the fear of God, righteousness, judgment, the
   sacraments (Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Confession), the sign of
   the eucharist, penitence, marriage, prohibited cases, human traditions,
   Christian liberty, free-will, and the law. The order is not very
   logical, and differs somewhat in the German edition. The work was
   finished in December, 1527.

   Luther wrote a popular preface and notes to the German edition, and
   explained the object. He shows the importance of church visitation,
   from the example of the apostles and the primary aim of the episcopal
   office; for a bishop, as the term indicates, is an overseer of the
   churches, and an archbishop is an overseer of the bishops. But the
   bishops have become worldly lords, and neglect their spiritual duties.
   Now, as the pure gospel has returned, or first begun, we need a true
   episcopacy; and, as nobody has a proper authority or divine command, we
   asked the Elector, as our divinely appointed ruler (Rom. 13), to
   exercise his authority for the protection and promotion of the gospel.
   Although he is not called to teach, he may restore peace and order, as
   the Emperor Constantine did when he called the Council of Nicaea for
   the settlement of the Arian controversy. [726]

   Melanchthon wisely abstained from polemics, and advised the preachers
   to attack sin and vice, but to let the pope and the bishops alone.
   Luther was not pleased with this moderation, and added the margin: "But
   they shall violently condemn popery with its devotees, since it is
   condemned by God; for popery is the reign of Antichrist, and, by
   instigation of the Devil, it terribly persecutes the Christian church
   and God's Word." [727]

   The Elector appointed Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, Spalatin, and
   Myconius, besides some prominent laymen, among the visitors. They
   carried on their work in 1528 and 1529. They found the churches in a
   most deplorable condition, which was inherited from the times of the
   papacy, and aggravated by the abuse of the liberty of the Reformation.
   Pastors and people had broken loose from all restraint, churches and
   schools were in ruins, the ministers without income, ignorant,
   indifferent, and demoralized. Some kept taverns, were themselves
   drunkards, and led a scandalous life. The people, of course, were no
   better. "The peasants," wrote Luther to Spalatin, "learn nothing, know
   nothing, and abuse all their liberty. They have ceased to pray, to
   confess, to commune, as if they were bare of all religion. As they
   despised popery, so they now despise us. It is horrible to behold the
   administration of the popish bishops." [728]

   The strong arm of the law was necessary. Order was measurably restored.
   The property of churches and convents was devoted to the endowment of
   parishes and schools, and stipends for theological students (1531). The
   appointment of ministers passed into the hands of the Elector. The
   visitations were repeated from time to time under the care of regular
   superintendents and consistories which formed the highest
   ecclesiastical Councils, under the sovereign as the supreme bishop.

   In this way, the territorial state-church government was established
   and order restored in Saxony, Hesse, Braunschweig-Lüneburg,
   Mecklenburg, East Friesland, Silesia, and other Protestant
   sovereignties of Germany.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [724] See his letters of Oct. 31, 1525, Nov. 30, 1525, Nov. 22, 1526,
   Feb. 5, 1527, Oct. 12, 1527.

   [725] "Wollen die Alten ja nicht, mögen sie immer zum Teufel hinfahren.
   Aber wo die Jugend versäumet und unerzogen bleibt, da ist die Schuld
   der Obrigkeit" (De Wette, III. 136). In the same letter he says that
   the people live "wie die Säue: da ist keine Furcht Gottes, noch Zucht
   mehr, weit des Papstes Bann ist abgegangen, und thut jedermann was er
   nur will."

   [726] "Denn obwol S. K. F. Gnaden zu lehren und geistlich regieren
   nicht befohlen ist, so sind sie doch schuldig, als weltliche Obrigkeit,
   darob zu halten, dass nicht Zwietracht, Rotten und Aufruhr sich unter
   den Unterthanen erheben, wie auch der Kaiser Constantinus die Bischöfe
   gen Nicaea fordert," etc. Corp. Ref., XXVI. fol. 46.

   [727] See the note in full, l.c., fol. 85.

   [728] Letter of February, 1529, in De Wette, 1II. 424. Comp. also the
   prefaces to his Catechisms. It is characteristic of the Ultramontane
   history of Janssen, that, while he dwells largely on the lamentations
   of Luther over the wretched condition of the churches in Saxony, and
   derives them from his doctrine of justification by faith alone (vol.
   III. 67-69), he completely ignores Luther's Catechisms which were to
   cure these evils.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 89. Luther's Catechisms. 1529.

   I. Critical editions of Luther's Catechisms in his Works, Erl. ed.,
   vol. XXI. (contains the two catechisms and some other catechetical
   writings); by Mönckeberg (Hamburg, 1851, second ed. 1868); Schneider
   (Berlin, 1853, a reprint of the standard ed. of 1531 with a critical
   introduction); Theodos. Harnack (Stuttgart, 1856; a reprint of two
   editions of 1529 and 1539, and a table of the chief textual variations
   till 1842);  Zezschwitz  (Leipz. 1881); Calinich (Leipz. 1882). See
   titles in Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, I. 245. The Catechisms are
   also printed in the editions of the Symbolical Books of the Lutheran
   Church, and the Little (or Small) Catechism, with English translation,
   in Schaff's Creeds, etc., vol. III. 74-92. The text in the Book of
   Concord is unreliable, and should be compared with the works mentioned.

   II. Discussions on the history and merits of Luther's Catech., by
   Köcher, Augusti, Veesenmeyer, Zezschwitz , and others, quoted by
   Schaff, l.c. 245. Add Köstlin: M. L., bk. VI. ch. IV. (II. 50-65).

   The Catechisms of Luther are the richest fruit of the Saxon church
   visitations. Intended as a remedy for the evils of ignorance and
   irreligion, they have become symbolical standards of doctrine and duty,
   and permanent institutions in the Lutheran Church. The Little
   Catechism, which is his best, bears the stamp of his religious genius,
   and is, next to his translation of the Bible, his most useful and
   enduring work by which he continues a living teacher in catechetical
   classes and Sunday schools as far as the Lutheran confession extends.
   He here adapts the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven to the capacity
   of children, and becomes himself a child with children, a learner with
   the teacher, as he said, "I am a doctor and a preacher, yet I am like a
   child who is taught the Catechism, and I read and recite word by word
   in the morning the Ten Commandments, the Articles of the Creed, and the
   Lord's Prayer, and cheerfully remain a child and pupil of the
   Catechism." A great little book, with as many thoughts as words, and
   every word sticking to the heart as well as the memory. It is strong
   food for men, and milk for babes. It appeals directly to the heart, and
   can be turned into prayer. In the language of the great historian
   Leopold von Ranke, "it is as childlike as it is profound, as
   comprehensible as it is unfathomable, simple and sublime. Happy he
   whose soul was fed by it, who clings to it! He possesses an
   imperishable comfort in every moment; under a thin shell, a kernel of
   truth sufficient for the wisest of the wise." [729]

   Catechetical instruction was (after the model of the Jewish synagogue)
   a regular institution of the Christian church from the beginning, as a
   preparation for membership. In the case of adult converts, it preceded
   baptism; in the case of baptized infants, it followed baptism, and
   culminated in the confirmation and the first communion. The oldest
   theological school, where Clement and the great Origen taught, grew out
   of the practical necessity of catechetical teaching. The chief things
   taught were the Creed (the Nicene in the Greek, the Apostles' in the
   Latin Church) or what to believe, the Lord's Prayer (Pater Noster) or
   how to pray, and the Ten Commandments or how to live. To these were
   added sometimes special chapters on the sacraments, the Athanasian
   Creed, the Te Deum, the Gloria in excelsis, the Ave Maria, Scripture
   verses, and lists of sins and virtues. Cyril's Catechetical Lectures
   were a standard work in the Greek Church. Augustin wrote, at the
   request of a deacon, a famous book on catechising (De catechizandis
   rudibus), and a brief exposition of the Creed and the Lord's Prayer
   (Enchiridion), which were intended for teachers, and show what was
   deemed necessary in the fifth century for the instruction of
   Christians. In the middle ages the monks Kero (720) and Notker (912),
   both of St. Gall, Otfrid of Weissenburg (870), and others prepared
   catechetical manuals or primers of the simplest kind. Otfrid's
   Catechism contains (1) the Lord's Prayer with an explanation; (2) the
   deadly sins; (3) the Apostles' Creed; (4) the Athanasian Creed; (5) the
   Gloria. The anti-papal sects of the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Bohemian
   Brethren, paid special attention to catechetical instruction.

   The first Protestant catechisms were prepared by Lonicer (1523),
   Melanchthon (1524), Brentius (1527), Althamer, Lachmann (1528), and
   later by Urbanus Rhegius (Rieger). [730] Luther urged his friends and
   colleagues, Justus Jonas and Agricola, to write one for Saxony (1525);
   [731] but after the doleful experience of popular ignorance during the
   church visitation, he took the task in hand himself, and completed it
   in 1529. He had previously published popular expositions of the Ten
   Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer (1520). [732]

   He wrote two Catechisms, both in the German language. The "Great
   Catechism" is a continuous exposition, and not divided into questions
   and answers; moreover, it grew so much under his hands, that it became
   unsuitable for the instruction of the young, which he had in view from
   the beginning. Hence he prepared soon afterwards (in July, 1529) a
   short or little Catechism under the name Enchiridion. It is the ripe
   fruit of the larger work, and superseded it for practical use. The same
   relation exists between the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the
   Westminster Assembly.

   With his conservative instinct, Luther retained the three essential
   parts of a catechism,--the Decalogue, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer.
   He called the first the doctrine of all doctrines; the second, the
   history of all histories; the third, the highest of all prayers. To
   these three chief divisions he added, after the Catholic tradition and
   the example of the Bohemian Catechism, an instruction on the sacraments
   of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, in two separate parts, making five in
   all. He retained in the address of the Lord's Prayer the old German
   Vater unser (Pater Noster), and the translation "Deliver us from evil"
   (a malo); but in his Bible he changed the former into Unser Vater
   (Matt. 6:9), and in his Large Catechism he refers the Greek to the evil
   one, i.e., the Devil (oJ ponhrov"), as our arch-enemy. Yet in practice
   these two differences have become distinctive marks of the Lutheran and
   German Reformed use of the Lord's Prayer. [733]

   The later editions of the Little Catechism (since 1564) contain a sixth
   part on "Confession and Absolution," or, "The Power of the Keys," which
   is inserted either as Part V., between Baptism and the Lord's Supper,
   or added as Part VI., or as an appendix. The precise authorship of the
   enlarged form or forms (for they vary) of this part, with the
   questions, "What is the power of the keys?" etc., is uncertain; but the
   substance of it--viz. the questions on private or auricular confession
   of sin to the minister, and absolution by the minister, as given in the
   "Book of Concord"--date from Luther himself, and appear first
   substantially in the third edition of 1531, as introductory to the
   fifth part on the Lord's Supper. He made much account of private
   confession and absolution; while the Calvinists abolished the same as a
   mischievous popish invention, and retained only the public act. "True
   absolution," says Luther, "or the power of the keys, instituted in the
   gospel by Christ, affords comfort and support against sin and an evil
   conscience. Confession or absolution shall by no means be abolished in
   the church, but be retained, especially on account of weak and timid
   consciences, and also on account of untutored youth, in order that they
   may be examined and instructed in the Christian doctrine. But the
   enumeration of sins should be free to every one, to enumerate, or not
   to enumerate such as he wishes." [734] The practice of private
   confession is still retained in some sections, but has entirely
   disappeared in other sections, of the Lutheran Church.

   The Church of England holds a similar view on this subject. The Book of
   Common Prayer contains, besides two forms of public confession and
   absolution, a form of private confession and absolution. But the last
   is omitted in the liturgy of the Episcopal Church of the United States.

   Besides these doctrinal sections, the Little Catechism, as edited by
   Luther in 1531 (partly, also, in the first edition of 1529) has three
   appendices of a devotional or liturgical character: viz., (1) A series
   of short family prayers; (2) a table of duties (Haustafel) for the
   members of a Christian house hold, consisting of Scripture passages;
   (3) a marriage manual (Traubüchlin), and (4) a baptismal manual
   (Taufbüchlin).

   The first two appendices were retained in the "Book of Concord;" but
   the third and fourth, which are liturgical and ceremonial, were omitted
   because of the great diversity in different churches as to exorcism in
   baptism and the rite of marriage.

   The Little Catechism was translated from the German original into the
   Latin (by Sauermann) and many other languages, even into the Greek,
   Hebrew, and Syriac. It is asserted by Lutheran writers that no book,
   except the Bible, has had a wider circulation. Thirty-seven years after
   its appearance, Mathesius spoke of a circulation of over a hundred
   thousand copies. It was soon introduced into public schools, churches,
   and families. It became by common consent a symbolical book, and a sort
   of "layman's Bible" for the German people.

   Judged from the standpoint of the Reformed churches, the catechism of
   Luther, with all its excellences, has some serious defects. It gives
   the text of the Ten Commandments in an abridged form, and follows the
   wrong division of the Latin Church, which omits the Second Commandment
   altogether, and cuts the Tenth Commandment into two to make up the
   number. It allows only three questions and answers to the exposition of
   the creed,--on creation, redemption, and sanctification. It gives undue
   importance to the sacraments by making them co-ordinate parts with the
   three great divisions; and elevates private confession and absolution
   almost to the dignity of a third sacrament. It contains no instruction
   on the Bible, as the inspired record of Divine revelation and the rule
   of faith and practice. These defects are usually supplied in
   catechetical instruction by a number of preliminary or additional
   questions and answers.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [729] To this and other testimonies, may be added that of Köstlin, II.
   63: "Der Kleine Katechismus steht in erster Reihe unter den Schriften
   des Reformators."

   [730] Hartmann, Aelteste Katechetische Denkmale, Stuttgart, 1844.

   [731] Jonas is probably the author of the Laienbiblia, 1525
   (republished by Schneider in 1853), and this was probably the basis of
   "Cranmer's Catechism." 1548. See Schaff, Creeds, I. 655, note 2.

   [732] Erl. ed., vol. XXII. 1-32. Comp. also his Taufbüchlein
   verdeutscht, 1523, and reproduced 1526 (?), ibid. XXII. 157 sqq. and
   290 sqq.

   [733] If German farmers in Pennsylvania are asked, "What is the
   difference between the Lutherans and the Reformed?" the reply is, "The
   one pray Vater unser, the other Unser Vater."

   [734] Articuli Smalcald. P. III., cap. 8.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 90. The Typical Catechisms of Protestantism.

   In this connection we may anticipate a brief comparison between the
   most influential manuals of popular religious instruction which owe
   their origin to the Reformation, and have become institutions,
   retaining their authority and usefulness to this day.

   These are Luther's Little Catechism (1529), the Heidelberg Catechism
   (1563), the Anglican Catechism (1549, enlarged 1604, revised 1661), and
   the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647). The first is the standard
   catechism of the Lutheran Church; the second, of the German and Dutch
   Reformed, and a few other Reformed churches (in Bohemia and Hungary);
   the third, of the Episcopal Church of England and her daughters in the
   British Colonies and the United States; the fourth, of the Presbyterian
   churches in Scotland, England, and America. They follow these various
   churches to all their missionary fields in heathen lands, and have been
   translated into many languages.

   They are essentially agreed in the fundamental doctrines of catholic
   and evangelical religion. They teach the articles of the Apostles'
   Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer; that is, all that
   is necessary for a man to believe and to do in order to be saved. They
   thus exhibit the harmony of the chief branches of orthodox Protestant
   Christendom.

   But they also differ, and reflect the peculiar genius and charisma of
   these churches. The Lutheran Catechism is the simplest, the most genial
   and childlike; the Heidelberg Catechism, the fullest and the richest
   for a more mature age; the Anglican Catechism, the shortest and most
   churchly, though rather meagre; the Westminster Catechism, the
   clearest, precisest, and most logical. The first three are addressed to
   the learner as a church-member, who answers the questions from his
   present or prospective experience. The Westminster Catechism is
   impersonal, and gives the answers in the form of a theological
   definition embodying the question. The first two breathe the
   affectionate heartiness and inwardness which are characteristic of
   German piety; the other two reflect the sober and practical type of
   English and Scotch piety. The Lutheran and Anglican Catechisms begin
   with the Ten Commandments, and regard the law in its preparatory
   mission as a schoolmaster leading to Christ. The other catechisms begin
   with an exposition of the articles of faith, and proceed from faith to
   the law as a rule of Christian life, which the Heidelberg Catechism
   represents as an act of gratitude for the salvation obtained (following
   in its order the Epistle to the Romans, from sin to redemption, and
   from redemption to a holy life of gratitude). Luther adheres to the
   Roman division of the Decalogue, and abridges it; the others give the
   better division of the Jews and the Greek Church, with the full text.
   The Lutheran and Anglican Catechisms assign to the sacraments an
   independent place alongside of the Commandments, the Creed, and the
   Lord's Prayer; while the Heidelberg and Westminster Catechisms
   incoporate them in the exposition of the articles of faith. The former
   teach baptismal regeneration, and Luther also the corporeal real
   presence, and private confession and absolution; the latter teach the
   Calvinistic theory of the sacraments, and ignore private confession and
   absolution. The Anglican Thirty-nine Articles, however, likewise teach
   the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. The Westminster Catechism
   departs from the catholic tradition by throwing the Apostles' Creed
   into an appendix, and substituting for the historical order of
   revelation a new logical scheme; While all the other catechisms make
   the Creed the basis of their, doctrinal expositions. [735]

   The difference is manifest in the opening questions and answers, which
   we give here in parallel columns: --

   luther's catechism

   The First Commandment.

   Thou shalt have no other gods.

   What does this mean?

   We should hear and love God, and trust in Him, above all things

   The Second [Third] Commandment.

   Thou shalt not take the name of thy God in vain.

   What does this mean?

   We should so fear and love God as not to curse, swear, conjure, lie, or
   deceive, by his name; but call upon it in every time of need, pray,
   praise, and give thanks.

   The Third [Fourth] Commandment.

   Thou shalt keep the holy Sabbath day.

   What does this mean?

   We should hear and love God as not to despise preaching and His Word,
   and willingly hear and learn it.

   heidelberg catechism.

   What is thy only comfort in life and in death?

   That I, with body and soul, both in life and in death, am not my own,
   but belong to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ, who with his precious
   blood has fully satisfied for all my sins, and redeemed me from all the
   power of the devil; and so preserves me that without the will of my
   Father in heaven not a hair can fall from my head; yea, that all things
   must work together for my salvation. Wherefore, by his Holy Spirit, He
   also assures me of eternal life, and makes me heartily willing and
   ready henceforth to live unto Him.

   How many things are necessary for thee to know, that thou in this
   comfort mayest live abd die happily?

   Three things: First, the greatness of my sin and misery. Secondly, how
   I am redeemed from all my sins and misery. Thirdly, how I am to be
   thankful to God for such redemption.

   anglican catechism

   What is your name?

   N. or M.

   Who gave you this name?

   My Godfathers and Godmothers [736] In my Baptism; wherein I was made a
   member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of
   heaven.

   What did your godfathers and godmothers [sponsors] then for you?

   They did promise and vow three things in my name. First, that I should
   renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vanity of this
   wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh. Secondly, that I
   should believe all the Articles of the Christian Faith. And thirdly,
   that I should keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in them
   all the days of my life.

   westminster catechism.

   What is the chief end of man?

   Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.

   What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him?

   The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and
   New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and
   enjoy Him.

   What do the Scriptures principally teach?

   The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God
   and what duty God requires of man.

   What is God?

   God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being,
   wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [735] For a fuller comparison, see Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I.
   543 sqq.

   [736] The American Episcopal Prayer book reads instead: My Sponsors.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER VI.

   PROPAGATION AND PERSECUTION OF PROTESTANTISM IN

   GERMANY TILL 1530.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 91. Causes and Means of Progress.

   The Reformation spread over Germany with the spontaneous and
   irresistible impulse of a great historical movement that struck its
   roots deep in the wants and necessities of the church. The only
   propaganda of Luther was the word and the pen, but these he used to the
   utmost of his time and strength. "There was no need of an arrangement,"
   says Ranke, "or of a concerted agreement, or of any special mission. As
   at the first favor of the vernal sun the seed sprouts from the ploughed
   field, so the new convictions, which were prepared by all what men had
   experienced and heard, made their appearance on the slightest occasion,
   wherever the German language was spoken." [737]

   The chief causes of progress were the general discontent with papal
   tyranny and corruption; the desire for light, liberty, and peace of
   conscience; the thirst for the pure word of God. The chief agencies
   were the German Bible, which spoke with Divine authority to the reason
   and conscience, and overawed the human authority of the pope; the
   German hymns, which sang the comforting doctrines of grace into the
   hearts of the people; and the writings of Luther, who discussed every
   question of the day with commanding ability and abundant knowledge,
   assuring the faith of friends, and crushing the opposition of foes. The
   force and fertility of his genius as a polemic are amazing, and without
   a parallel among fathers, schoolmen, and modern divines. He ruled like
   an absolute monarch in the realm of German theology and religion; and,
   with the gospel for his shield and weapon, he was always sure of
   victory. [738]

   What Luther did for the people, Melanchthon accomplished, in his gentle
   and moderate way, for scholars. In their united labors they were more
   than a match for all the learning, skill, and material resources of the
   champions of Rome.

   No such progress of new ideas and principles had taken place since the
   first introduction of Christianity. No power of pope or emperor, no
   council or diet, could arrest it. The very obstacles were turned into
   helps. Had the Emperor and his brother favored the cause of progress,
   all Germany might have become nominally Lutheran. But it was better
   that Protestantism should succeed, in spite of their opposition, by its
   intellectual and moral force. A Protestant Constantine or Charlemagne
   would have extended the territory, but endangered the purity, of the
   Reformation.

   Secular and selfish motives and passions were mingled with the pure
   enthusiasm for the gospel. Violence, intrigues, and gross injustice
   were sometimes employed in the suppression of the old, and the
   introduction of the new, faith. [739] But, human sin and imperfection
   enter into all great movements of history. Wherever God builds a
   church, the Devil is sure to build a chapel close by. The Devil is
   mighty; but God is almighty, and overrules the wrath and outwits the
   wit of his great enemy. Nothing but the power of truth and conviction
   could break down the tyranny of the papacy, which for so many centuries
   had controlled church and state, house and home, from the cradle to the
   grave, and held the keys to the kingdom of heaven. It is an insult to
   reason and faith to deny the all-ruling and overruling supremacy of God
   in the history of the world and the church.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [737] Deutsche Geschichte, etc., vol. II. 46 (6th ed.).

   [738] I "Selbstherrschender, gewaltiger ist wohl nie ein Schriftsteller
   aufgetreten, in keiner Nation der Welt. Auch dürfte kein anderer zu
   nennen sein, der die vollkommenste Verständlichkeit und Popularität,
   gesunden, treuherzigen Menschenverstand mit so vielechtem Geist,
   Schwung und Genius vereinigt hätte. Er gab der Literatur den Charakter
   den sie seitdem behalten, der Forschung, des Tiefsinns, der Polemik."
   Ranke, II. 56. "Fesselnder, ergreifender und packender hat kein
   Deutscher geschrieben. Dabei beherrschte er seine Muttersprache mit
   solcher Gewalt, dass er sie zur Schriftsprache zu erheben vermochte."
   Fr. Kapp, Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels, vol. I. p. 407.

   [739] Janssen dwells, we may say, exclusively on the lower motives, and
   by omitting the higher spiritual motives and aims utterly misrepresents
   the Reformers and the Reformation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 92. The Printing-Press and the Reformation.

   The art of printing, which was one of the providential preparations for
   the Reformation, became the mightiest lever of Protestantism and modern
   culture.

   The books before the Reformation were, for the most part, ponderous and
   costly folios and quartos in Latin, for limited circulation. The rarity
   of complete Bibles is shown by the fact that copies in the libraries
   were secured by a chain against theft. Now small and portable books and
   leaflets were printed in the vernacular for the millions.

   The statistics of the book trade in the sixteenth century reveal an
   extraordinary increase since Luther. In the year 1513, there appeared
   only ninety prints in Germany; in 1514, one hundred and six; in 1515,
   one hundred and forty-five; in 1516, one hundred and five; in 1517,
   eighty-one. They are mostly little devotional tracts, flying
   newspapers, official notices, medical prescriptions, stories, and
   satirical exposures of clerical and monastic corruptions. In 1518 the
   number rose to one hundred and forty-six; in 1519, to two hundred and
   fifty-two; in 1520, to five hundred and seventy-one; in 1521, to five
   hundred and twenty-three; in 1522, to six hundred and seventy-seven; in
   1523, to nine hundred and forty-four. Thus the total number of prints
   in the five years preceding the Reformation amounted only to five
   hundred and twenty-seven; in the six years after the Reformation, it
   rose to three thousand one hundred and thirteen. [740]

   These works are distributed over fifty different cities of Germany. Of
   all the works printed between 1518 and 1523 no less than six hundred
   appeared in Wittenberg; the others mostly in Nürnberg, Leipzig,
   Cologne, Strassburg, Hagenau, Augsburg, Basel, Halberstadt, and
   Magdeburg. Luther created the book-trade in Northern Germany, and made
   the little town of Wittenberg one of the principal book-marts, and a
   successful rival of neighboring Leipzig as long as this remained
   Catholic. In the year 1523 more than four-fifths of all the books
   published were on the side of the Reformation, while only about twenty
   books were decidedly Roman Catholic. Erasmus, hitherto the undisputed
   monarch in the realm of letters, complained that the people would read
   and buy no other books than Luther's. He prevailed upon Froben not to
   publish any more of them. "Here in Basel," he wrote to King Henry
   VIII., "nobody dares to print a word against Luther, but you may write
   as much as you please against the pope." Romish authors, as we learn
   from Cochlaeus and Wizel, could scarcely find a publisher, except at
   their own expense; and the Leipzig publishers complained that their
   books were unsalable.

   The strongest impulse was given to the book trade by Luther's German
   New Testament. Of the first edition, Sept. 22, 1522, five thousand
   copies were printed and sold before December of the same year, at the
   high price of one guilder and a half per copy (about twenty-five marks
   of the present value). Hans Luft printed a hundred thousand copies on
   his press in Wittenberg. Adam Petri in Basel published seven editions
   between 1522 and 1525; Thomas Wolf of the same city, five editions
   between 1523 and 1525. Duke George commanded that all copies should be
   delivered up at cost, but few were returned. The precious little
   volume, which contains the wisdom of the whole world, made its way with
   lightning speed into the palaces of princes, the castles of knights,
   the convents of monks, the studies of priests, the houses of citizens,
   the huts of peasants. Mechanics, peasants, and women carried the New
   Testament in their pockets, and dared to dispute with priests and
   doctors of theology about the gospel. [741]

   As there was no copyright at that time, the works of the Reformers were
   multiplied by reprints in Nürnberg, Augsburg, Strassburg, Basel.
   Republication was considered a legitimate and honorable business.
   Luther complained, not of the business itself, but of the reckless and
   scandalous character of many reprints of his books, which were so full
   of blunders that he could hardly recognize them. [742] Sometimes the
   printers stole his manuscript, and published it elsewhere. He was not
   hindered by any censorship, except that he received occasionally a
   gentle warning from the Elector when he did not spare the princes. He
   took no honorarium for his books, and was satisfied with a number of
   free copies for friends. Authors were usually supported by a
   professorship, and considered it beneath their dignity, or as
   ungentlemanlike, to receive a royalty, but were indirectly rewarded by
   free copies or other presents of the publishers or rich patrons, in
   return for dedications, which were originally, as they are now, nothing
   more than public testimonies of regard or gratitude, though often used,
   especially during the seventeenth century, for selfish purposes. [743]
   Cash payments to authors were, down to the eighteenth century, rare and
   very low. Few could make a decent living from writing books; and, we
   may add, few publishers acquired wealth from their trade, which is very
   uncertain, and subject to great losses. "Habent sua fata libelli."

   But, while the progressive Reformation gave wings to the
   printing-press, the conservative re-action matured gradually a system
   of restriction, which, under the name of censorship and under the
   direction of book-censors, assumed the control of the publishing
   business with authority to prevent or suppress the publication and sale
   of books, pamphlets, and newspapers hostile to the prevailing
   religious, moral, or political sentiments. [744] The Peasants' War,
   which was kindled by inflammatory books, and threatened a general
   overthrow of social order, strengthened the reactionary tendencies of
   Protestant, as well as Roman Catholic, governments.

   The burning of obnoxious books by public authority of church or state
   is indeed as old as the book-trade. A work of Protagoras, in which he
   doubted the existence of the Greek gods, was burned at the stake in
   Athens about twenty years after the death of Pericles. The Emperor
   Augustus subjected slanderous publications (libelli famosi) to legal
   prosecution and destruction by fire. Christian emperors employed their
   authority against heathen, heretical, and infidel books. Constantine
   the Great, backed by the Council of Nicaea, issued an edict against the
   writings of Porphyry and Arius; Accadius, against the books of the
   Eunomians (398); Theodosius, against the books of the Nestorians (435).
   Justinian commanded the destruction of sundry obnoxious works, and
   forbade their re-issue on pain of losing the right arm (536). The
   oecumenical synod of 680 at Constantinople burned the books which it
   had condemned, including the letters of the Monothelitic Pope Honorius.

   Papal Rome inherited this practice, and improved upon it. Leo I. caused
   a large number of Manichaean books to be burnt (446). The popes claimed
   the right and duty to superintend the religious and moral literature of
   Christendom. They transferred the right in the thirteenth century to
   the universities, but they found little to do until the art of printing
   facilitated the publication of books. The Council of Constance
   condemned the books of Wiclif and Hus, and ordered the bishops to burn
   all the copies they could seize (1415).

   The invention of the printing-press (c. 1450) called forth sharper
   measures in the very city where the inventor, John Gutenberg, lived and
   died (1400-1467). It gave rise also to the preventive policy of
   book-censorship which still exists in some despotic countries of
   Europe. Berthold, Archbishop of Mainz, took the lead in the restriction
   of the press. He prohibited, Jan. 10, 1486, the sale of all
   unauthorized German translations of Greek and Latin works, on the plea
   of the inefficiency of the German language, but with a hostile aim at
   the German Bible. In the same year Pope Innocent VIII. issued a bull
   against the printers of bad books. The infamous Pope Alexander VI.
   prohibited in 1498, on pain of excommunication, the printing and
   reading of heretical books; and in a bull of June 1, 1501, which was
   aimed chiefly against Germany, he subjected all kinds of literary
   publications to episcopal supervision and censorship, and required the
   four archbishops of Cöln, Mainz, Trier, and Magdeburg, or their
   officials, carefully to examine all manuscripts before giving
   permission to print them. He also ordered that books already printed
   should be examined, and burnt if they contained any thing contrary to
   the Catholic religion. This bull forms the basis of all subsequent
   prohibitions and restrictions of the press by papal, imperial, or other
   authority. [745]

   Leo X., who personally cared more for heathen art than Christian
   literature, went further, and prohibited, in a bull of March 3, 1515,
   the publication of any book in Rome without the imprimatur of the
   magister sacri palatii (the book-censor), and in other states and
   dioceses without the imprimatur of the bishop or the inquisitor of
   heretical depravity. [746] Offenders were to be punished by the
   confiscation and public burning of their books, a fine of one hundred
   ducats, and excommunication. Archbishop and Elector Albrecht of Mainz
   was the first, and it seems the only, German prince who gave force to
   this bull for his own large diocese by a mandate of May 17, 1517, a few
   months before the outbreak of the Reformation. The papal bull of
   excommunication, June 15, 1520, consistently ordered the burning of,
   all the books of Luther." [747] But he laughed it to scorn, and burned
   in revenge the pope's bull, with all his decretals, Dec. 10, 1520.

   Thus, with the freedom of conscience, was born the freedom of the
   press. But it had to pass through a severe ordeal, even in Protestant
   countries, and was constantly checked by Roman authorities as far as
   their power extended. The German Empire, by the Edict of Worms, made
   itself an ally of the pope against free thought and free press, and
   continued so until it died of old age in 1806. [748] Fortunately, the
   weakness of the empire and the want of centralization prevented the
   execution of the prohibition of Protestant books, except in strictly
   papal countries, as Bavaria and Austria. But unfortunately, the
   Protestants themselves, who used the utmost freedom of the press
   against the Papists, denied it to each other; the Lutherans to the
   Reformed, and both to the Anabaptists, Schwenkfeldians and Socinians.
   [749] Protestant princes liked to control the press to protect
   themselves against popery, or the charges of robbery of church property
   and other attacks. The Elector John Frederick was as narrow and
   intolerant as Duke George on the opposite side. But these petty
   restrictions are nothing compared with the radical and systematic
   crusade of the Papists against the freedom of the press. King Ferdinand
   of Austria ordered, July 24, 1528, all printers and sellers of
   sectarian books to be drowned, and their books to be burnt. The
   wholesale burning of Protestant books, including Protestant Bibles, was
   a favorite and very effective measure of the Jesuitical reaction which
   set in before the middle of the sixteenth century, and was promoted by
   the political arm, and the internecine wars of the Protestants. Pope
   Paul IV. published in 1557 and 1559 the first official Index Librorum
   prohibitorum; Pius IV. in 1564, an enlarged edition, generally known as
   Index Tridentinus, as it was made by order of the Council of Trent. It
   contains a list of all the books forbidden by Rome, good, bad, and
   indifferent. This list has been growing ever since in size (1590, 1596,
   1607, 1664, 1758, 1819, etc.), but declining in authority, till it
   became, like the bull against the comet, an anachronism and a brutum
   fulmen. [750]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [740] For these figures and several facts in this paragraph I am
   indebted to the instructive work of Friedrich Kapp, Geschichte des
   deutschen Buchhandels (published by the "Börsenverein der deutschen
   Buchhändler," Leipzig, 1886), vol. I. 407 sq. The statistics of Ranke
   (II. 56) are taken from Panzer's Annalen der älteren deutschen
   Literatur (1788 and 1802) and are superseded by the more recent and
   fuller investigations of Weller, Kuczynski, and Kapp.

   [741] This was the complaint of Cochlaeus, see p. 350. Luther called
   him Kochlöffel and Rotzlöffel (cochlear = spoon).

   [742] He called such printers thieves and highway robbers, and their
   work Bubenstück, den gemeinen Mann zu betrügen"(September, 1525).

   [743] Kapp (I. 318) mentions that the electors of Saxony from 1571-1670
   received no less than a hundred and ninety-two "most humble"
   (alleruntherthänigste) dedications from various authors, and that the
   magistrate of Zürich received thirty-eight from 1670-1685.

   [744] On the history of the book censorship (Büchercensur) and press
   persecutions, compare the ninth and tenth chapters of Kapp, I. 522 sqq.

   [745] The bull is not given in the Bullarium, but by Raynaldus ad a.
   1501, No. 36, Zaccaria, and Reusch (I. 54), in part also by Kapp (l.c.
   p. 530).

   [746] The bull "Inter solicitudines" was promulgated in the fifth
   Lateran Council. Labbe, XIV. 257, and Reusch, I. 55 sq.

   [747] The bull "Exurge, Domine," is printed in full, p. 235 sqq.

   [748] Kapp, l.c., p. 536 sqq., shows that the Edict of Worms, drawn up
   by the papal legate Aleander, is the beginning of the German
   book-censorship, and not, as usually supposed, the recess of the
   Nürnberg Diet of 1524. "Wie Rom," he says (539), "die Wiege der
   Büchercensur für die ganze Welt, so ist Worms ihre Geburtsstätte für
   Deutschland." The restriction of the press, however, was begun in
   Germany, as we have seen, already in 1486, by Elector Berthold of
   Mainz.

   [749] "Derselbe Luther," says Kapp, p. 552, "welcher das Papstthum für
   noch lange nicht genug zerscholten, zerschrieben, zersungen, zerdichtet
   Und zermalet hielt, rief schon 1525 die Censur für seinen nunmehrigen
   Standpunkt zur Hilfe." He refers to his attempt to secure a prohibition
   of Carlstadt's writings in Saxony.

   [750] Fr. Heinrich Reusch (old catholic Prof. at Bonn): Der Index der
   verbotenen Bücher, Bonn, 1883-85, 2 vols. Of older works we mention,
   Fr. Zaccaria, Storia polemica delle proibizioni de' libri, Rom., 1777;
   and Jos. Mendham, The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome exhibited
   in an account of her damnatory Catalogues or indexes, both prohibitory
   and expurgatory, London, 1826, 3d ed. 1844.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 93. Protestantism in Saxony.

   H. G. Hasse: Meissnisch-Albertinisch-Sächsische Kirchengesch. Leipz.
   1847, 2 parts. Fr. Seifert: Die Reformation in Leipzig, Leipz. 1881. G.
   Lechler: Die Vorgeschichte der Reform. Leipzigs, 1885. See also the
   literary references in Köstlin, II. 426 and 672.

   Electoral Saxony was the first conquest of the Reformation. Wittenberg
   was the centre of the whole movement, with Luther as the general in
   chief, Melanchthon, Jonas, Bugenhagen, as his aids. The gradual growth
   of Lutheranism in this land of its birth is identical with the early
   history of the Reformation, and has been traced already.

   In close connection with the Electorate is the Duchy of Saxony, and may
   here be considered, although it followed the movement much later. The
   Duchy included the important cities of Dresden (the residence of the
   present kingdom of Saxony) and Leipzig with its famous university. Duke
   George kept the Reformation back by force during his long reign from
   1500 to 1539. He hated the papal extortions, and advocated a reform of
   discipline by a council, but had no sympathy whatever with Luther. He
   took a dislike to him at the disputation in Leipzig, forbade his Bible,
   issued a rival version of the New Testament by Emser, sent all the
   Lutherans out of the land, and kept a close watch on the booksellers.
   [751] He executed the Edict of Worms to the extent of his power, and
   would have rejoiced in the burning of Luther, who in turn abused him
   most unmercifully by his pen as a slave of the pope and the devil,
   though he prayed for his conversion. [752]

   George made provision for the perpetuation of Romanism in his dominion
   but his sons died one after another. His brother and heir, Heinrich the
   Pious, was a Lutheran (as was his wife). Though old and weak, he
   introduced the Reformation by means of a church visitation after the
   Wittenberg model and with Wittenberg aid. The Elector of Saxony,
   Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, and Cruciger were present at the inaugural
   festivities in Leipzig, May, 1539. Luther had the satisfaction of
   preaching at Pentecost before an immense audience in the city, where
   twenty years before he had disputed with Eck, and provoked the wrath of
   Duke George. Yet he was by no means quite pleased with the new state of
   things, and complained bitterly of the concealed malice of the
   semi-popish clergy, and the overbearing and avaricious conduct of the
   nobles and courtiers.

   Nevertheless, the change was general and permanent. Leipzig became the
   chief Lutheran university, and the center of the Protestant book-trade,
   and remains so to this day. Joachim Camerarius (Kammermeister), an
   intimate friend and correspondent of Melanchthon, labored there as
   professor from 1541-1546 for the prosperity of the university, and for
   the promotion of classical learning and evangelical piety.

   We briefly allude to the subsequent changes. Moritz, the son and heir
   of Heinrich, was a shrewd politician, a master in the art of
   dissimulation, and a double traitor, who from selfish motives in turn
   first ruined and then saved the cause of the Reformation. He professed
   the Lutheran faith, but betrayed his allies by aiding the Emperor in
   the Smalcaldian war for the price of the Electoral dignity of his
   cousin (1547); a few years later be betrayed the Emperor (1552), and
   thereby prepared the way for the treaty of Passau and the peace of
   Augsburg, which secured temporary rest to the Lutherans (1555).

   His next successors, Augustus I. (his brother, 1553-1586). Christian I.
   (1586-1591), and Christian II. (1591-1611), were intolerant Lutherans,
   and suppressed Crypto-Calvinism and every other creed. Frederick
   Augustus I. (1694-1733) sold the faith of his ancestors for the crown
   of Poland. Since that time the rulers of Saxony have been Roman
   Catholics, while the people remained Lutheran, but gradually grew more
   liberal than their ancestors. Freedom of worship was granted to the
   Roman Church in 1807, to the German Reformed in 1818, and more recently
   (since 1866) to other communions.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [751] One of them, Johann Herrgott, was executed in Leipzig, 1527 (not
   1524) for selling Lutheran books, or rather for complicity with the
   Peasants' War, and for agrarian socialistic doctrines. See A.
   Kirchhoff, Johann Herrgott, Buchführer von Nürnberg, und sein
   tragisches Ende, 1527, and Kapp, l.c., I. 438 sq. and 594.

   [752] After George's death Luther said: "I would rather that he lived
   and be converted now he has gone into the eternal fire [!], if the
   gospel is true." Köstlin, II. 424.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 94. The Reformation in Nürnberg.

   Priem: Geschichte von Nürnberg, 1874. F Roth: Die Einführung der
   Reformation in Nürnberg, 1517-28, Würzburg, 1885 (pp. 271).

   The imperial cities (Reichsstädte) of the old German Empire, such as
   Nürnberg, Augsburg, Frankfurt, Strassburg, enjoyed a larger measure of
   liberty than other cities. They had the sovereignty over their
   territory, with a constitutional government, and seat and vote in the
   Diet (Reichstag). They were the centres of intelligence, wealth, and
   influence. For this reason the Reformation made from the beginning
   rapid progress in them, though not without commotion and opposition.

   Nürnberg (Nuremberg), the most picturesque mediaeval city of Germany,
   was at that time the metropolis of German commerce, politics, letters,
   and art, and of an unusual constellation of distinguished men, most of
   whom sympathized with Erasmus and Luther. Pirkheimer, the Maecenas of
   Nürnberg (1475-1530), prepared the way, although he afterwards
   withdrew, like his friend Erasmus and other humanists. [753] Albrecht
   Dürer, the famous painter (1471-1528), admired the heroic stand of
   Luther at Worms, and lamented his supposed death when removed out of
   sight; but during the eucharistic controversy he inclined to the view
   of Zwingli. Hans Sachs (1494-1576), the "Mastersinger" and
   shoemaker-poet, saluted the "Nightingale" of Wittenberg (1523).
   Wenzeslaus Link, an Augustinian monk and intimate friend and
   correspondent of Luther, was sent by Staupitz from Wittenberg to the
   Augustinian convent at Nürnberg in 1518, and promoted the cause by his
   popular evangelical sermons. The preachers of the two splendid churches
   of St. Sebaldus and St. Lorenz followed the movement. The mass was
   abolished in 1524. The most effective promoters of the Reformation
   besides Link were Spengler, a layman, and Osiander, the preacher of St.
   Lorenz.

   Lazarus Spengler (1479-1534), secretary of the magistrate, an admirer
   of Staupitz, wrote an apology of Luther, 1519, and a popular hymn on
   justification by faith ("Durch Adam's Fall ist ganz verderbt"), helped
   to found an evangelical college, and left a confession of faith in his
   testament which Luther published with a preface, 1535. Joachim
   Camerarius, on the recommendation of Melanchthon, was called to the new
   college in 1526, as professor of history and Greek literature, and
   remained there till 1535, when he was called to the University of
   Tübingen, and afterwards (1541) to Leipzig.

   Andreas Osiander (1498-1552), an able and learned, but opinionated and
   quarrelsome theologian, preached in St. Lorenz against the Roman
   Antichrist after 1522, fought as violently against Zwinglianism,
   married in 1525, attended the colloquy at Marburg, 1529, and the
   convent at Smalcald, 1537. He published a mechanical Gospel Harmony
   (1537), at the request of Archbishop Cranmer, who had married his niece
   (1532). He left Nürnberg in 1549, and became professor of theology at
   the newly founded university of Königsberg. There he stirred up a
   bitter theological controversy with the Wittenberg divines by his
   mystical doctrine of an effective and progressive justification by the
   indwelling of Christ (1551).

   At Nürnberg several Diets were held during the Reformation period, and
   a temporary peace was concluded between Protestants and Roman Catholics
   in 1532.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [753] See § 74, p. 434 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 95. The Reformation in Strassburg. Martin Bucer.

   Joh. W. Baum: Capito und Butzer, Elberfeld, 1860 (partly from MSS. See
   a complete chronological list of Bucer's works, pp. 577-611). W.
   Krafft: art. "Butzer" in Herzog's Encykl.2, vol. III. 35-46 (abridged
   in Schaff-Herzog). Tim. W. Röhrich: Gesch. der Reformation in Elsass
   und besonders in Strassburg, Strassb. 1830-32, 3 vols. A. Erichson:
   L'Église française de Strasbourg au seizième siècle d'après des
   monuments inédits. Stasb. 1885. Max Lenz: Briefwechsel Landgraf
   Philipps mit Bucer, Leipzig, 1880 and 1887, 2 vols. Ad. Baum: Magistrat
   und Reformation in Strassburg. Strassb. 1887 (212 pages).

   Strassburg, the capital of the Alsace, celebrated for its Gothic
   cathedral, university, and libraries, had been long before the
   Reformation the scene of the mystic revival preacher Tauler and the
   Friends of God. It was a thoroughly German city before Louis XIV.
   incorporated it with France (1681), and was re-conquered by Germany in
   1870.

   The Reformation began there in 1523. Zell, Bucer, Capito (Köpfel),
   Hedio (Heil), and for a few years Calvin also (1538 to 1541), labored
   there with great success. The magistrate abolished the mass, 1528, and
   favored the Protestant cause under the lead of Jacob Sturm, an
   enlightened patriot, who represented the city in all important
   transactions at home, in the Diet, and in conferences with the
   Romanists, till his death (1553). He urged the establishment of a
   Christian college, where classical learning and evangelical piety
   should be cultivated. His namesake, Johann Sturm, an eminent pedagogue,
   was called from Paris to preside over this college (1537), which grew
   into an academy, and ultimately into a university. Both were moderate
   men, and agreed with Capito and Bucer. [754] The church of Strassburg
   was much disturbed by the Peasants' War, the Anabaptists, and still
   more by the unfortunate sacramental controversies.

   The chief reformer of Strassburg was Martin Bucer (1491-1552). [755] He
   was a native of Alsace, a Dominican monk, and ordained to the
   priesthood. He received a deep impression from Luther at the
   disputation in Heidelberg, 1518; obtained papal dispensation from his
   monastic vows (1521); left the Roman Church; found refuge in the castle
   of Francis of Sickingen; married a nun, and accepted a call to
   Strassburg in 1523.

   Here he labored as minister for twenty-five years, and had a hand in
   many important movements connected with the Reformation. He attended
   the colloquy at Marburg (1529); wrote, with Capito, the Confessio
   Tetrapolitana (1530); brought about an artificial and short-lived
   armistice between Luther and Zwingli by the Wittenberg Concordia
   (1536); connived, unfortunately, at the bigamy of Philip of Hesse; and
   took a leading part, with Melanchthon, in the unsuccessful reformation
   of Archbishop Herrmann of Cologne (1542). Serious political troubles,
   and his resistance to the semi-popish Interim, made his stay in
   Strassburg dangerous, and at last impossible. Melanchthon in
   Wittenberg, Myconius in Basel, and Calvin in Geneva, offered him an
   asylum; but be accepted, with his younger colleague Fagius, a call of
   Cranmer to England (1549). He aided him in his reforms; was highly
   esteemed by the archbisbop and King Edward VI., and ended his labors as
   professor of theology in Cambridge. His bones were exhumed in the reign
   of Bloody Mary (1556), but his memory was honorably restored by Queen
   Elizabeth (1560).

   Bucer figures largely in the history of his age as the third (next to
   Luther and Melanchthon) among the Reformers of Germany, as a learned
   theologian and diplomatist, and especially as a unionist and peacemaker
   between the Lutherans and Zwinglians. He forms also a connecting link
   between Germany and England, and exerted some influence in framing the
   Anglican standards of doctrine and worship. His motto was: "We believe
   in Christ, not in the church." [756]

   He impressed his character upon the church of Strassburg, which
   occupied a middle ground between Wittenberg and Zürich, and gave
   shelter to Calvin and the Reformed refugees of France. Strict
   Lutheranism triumphed for a period, but his irenical catholicity
   revived in the practical pietism of Spener, who was likewise an
   Alsacian. In recent times the Strassburg professors, under the lead of
   Dr. Reuss, mediated between the Protestant theology of Germany and that
   of France, in both languages, and furnished the best edition of the
   works of John Calvin.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [754] On Jacob Sturm see the monograph of H. Baumgarten, Strassburg.
   1876. Of John Sturm (who died 1589, in his eighty-second year), there
   are several biographies, by C. Schmidt (in French, 1855), Rieth (1864),
   Kückelhahn (1872), and Zaar (1872).

   [755] Butzer in German, Bucerus in Latin.

   [756] "Wir sind Christgläubig, nicht kirchgläubig."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 96. The Reformation in North Germany.

   In Magdeburg the doctrines of Luther were preached in 1522 by Melchior
   Mirisch, an Augustinian prior, who had studied at Wittenberg. The
   magistrate shook off the authority of Archbishop Albrecht, invited
   Luther to preach in 1524, and secured the services of his friend
   Nicolaus von Amsdorf, who became superintendent, and introduced the,
   necessary changes. During the Interim troubles the city was a
   stronghold of the Lutheran party headed by Flacius, and laid under the
   imperial ban (1548). In the Thirty Years' War it was burnt by Tilly
   (1631), but rose anew from destruction. [757]

   In Magdeburg appeared the first Protestant church history, 1559-1574,
   in thirteen folio volumes, edited by Flacius, under the title "The
   Magdeburg Centuries,"--a work of colossal industry, but utilizing
   history for sectarian purposes against popery. It called forth the
   Annales of Baronius in the opposite interest.

   Breslau and Silesia were reformed chiefly by John Hess, who studied at
   Wittenberg, 1519, a friend of Luther and Melanchthon. He held a
   successful disputation in Breslau in defense of the Protestant
   doctrines, 1524. [758]

   Kaspar Schwenkfeld von Ossig (1490-1561), a nobleman in the service of
   the Duke Frederick II. of Liegnitz, was one of the earliest promoters
   of the Reformation in Silesia, but fell out with Luther in the
   eucharistic controversy (1524). He had peculiar views on the
   sacraments, similar to those of the Quakers. He also taught that the
   flesh of Christ was deified. He founded a new sect, which was
   persecuted in Germany, but is perpetuated among the Schwenkfeldian
   congregations in Eastern Pennsylvania. [759]

   Among the later leaders of the Protestant cause in Breslau must be
   mentioned Crato von Crafftheim (d. 1585), who studied at Wittenberg six
   years as an inmate of Luther's household, and became an eminent
   physician of the Emperor Maximilian II. His younger friend, Zacharias
   Ursinus (d. 1583), is one of the two authors of the Heidelberg
   Catechism. Crato belonged to the Melanchthonian school, in distinction
   from the rigid Lutheranism which triumphed in the Formula of Concord.
   [760]

   Bremen accepted Protestantism in November, 1522, by calling Heinrich
   Moller, better known as Heinrich von Zütphen (1468-1524), to the parish
   of Ansgari, and afterwards two other Protestant preachers. Moller had
   studied at Wittenberg, 1515, and taken a degree in 1521 under
   Melanchthon. He was prior of an Augustinian convent at Dort, and
   preached there and in Antwerp the doctrines of the Reformation, but had
   to flee for his life. He followed an invitation to preach in Ditmar,
   but met with opposition, and was burnt to death by a fanatical and
   drunken mob excited by the monks. Luther published an account of his
   death, and dedicated it to the Christians in Bremen, with an exposition
   of the tenth Psalm. He rejoiced in the return of the spirit of
   martyrdom, which, he says, "is horrible to behold before the world, but
   precious in the sight of God." [761]

   In 1527 all the churches of Bremen were in charge of Protestant
   pastors, and afterwards divided between the Lutheran and Reformed
   Confessions. The convents were turned into schools and hospitals.

   Hamburg, which shares with Bremen the supremacy in the North German and
   maritime commerce, followed in 1523. Five years later Dr. Bugenhagen,
   called Pomeranus (1485-1558), was called from Wittenberg to superintend
   the changes. This Reformer, Luther's faithful friend and pastor, had a
   special gift of government, and was the principal organizer of the
   Lutheran churches in Northern Germany and Denmark. For this purpose he
   labored in the cities of Braunschweig (1528), Hamburg (1529), Lübeck
   (1530-1532), in his native Pomerania (1534), and in Denmark, where he
   spent nearly five years (1537-1542). His church constitutions were
   models. [762]

   Lübeck, a rich commercial city, and capital of the Hanseatic League,
   expelled the first Lutheran preachers, but recalled them, and removed
   the priests in 1529. Bugenhagen completed the work.

   In Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Duke Ernst the Confessor favored the new
   doctrines in 1527, and committed the prosecution of the work to Urbanus
   Rhegius, whom he met at the Diet of Augsburg, 1530.

   Rhegius [763] (1489-1541) belongs to the second class of Reformers. He
   was the son of a priest on the Lake of Constance, educated at Lindau,
   Freiburg-i.- B. (in the house of Zasius), and Ingolstadt under Dr. Eck,
   and ordained priest at Constance (1519). He joined the humanistic
   school, entered into correspondence with Erasmus, Faber, and Zwingli,
   and became an imperial orator and poet-laureate, though his poetry is
   stiff and conventional. He acquired the doctorate of divinity at Basel.
   He was called to Augsburg by the magistrate, and labored as preacher in
   the Dome from 1523 to 1530. He passed from Romanism to Lutheranism,
   from Lutheranism to Zwinglianism, and back to a moderate Lutheranism.
   He sympathized most with Bucer, and labored afterwards for the
   Wittenberg Concordia. The imperial prohibition of Protestant preaching,
   June 16, 1530, terminated his career in Augsburg, though he remained
   till Aug. 26, and conferred much with Bucer and Melanchthon.

   He now entered upon his more important and permanent labors as general
   superintendent of Lüneberg, and took the leading part in the
   Reformation of Celle, Hannover, Minden, Soest, Lemgo, and other places;
   but he gives a doleful description of the moral condition. He attended
   the colloquy at Hagenau, and died soon after his return, May 27, 1541.

   He wrote two catechisms and several devotional books. In his earlier
   career he was vain, changeable, and factious. He lacked originality,
   but had the talent of utilizing and popularizing the new ideas of
   others. Luther gives him the testimony: "He hated not only the popish
   abominations, but also all sectaries; he sincerely loved the pure word,
   and handled it with all diligence and faithfulness, as his writings
   abundantly show." [764]

   The Dukes of Mecklenburg, Heinrich and Albrecht, applied to Luther in
   1524 for "evangelists," and Luther sent them two Augustinian monks.
   Heinrich favored the Reformation, but very cautiously. The university
   of Rostock, founded 1419, became at a later period a school of strict
   Lutheran orthodoxy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [757] Seckendorf, I. 246. Wolter, Gesch. der Stadt Magdeburg (1845);
   Hoffmann, Chronik der Stadt Magdeb. (1850, 3 vols.); Rathmann, Gesch.
   Magdeb.; Preger, Matth. Flacius Illyricus und seine Zeit (Erlangen,
   1859-1861).

   [758] Of this disputation Luther reported to Spalatin, May 11, 1524 (De
   Wette, II. 511): "Vratislaviæ disputatio Joannis Hess processit
   feliciter, frustra resistentibus tot legatis regum et technis
   episcopi."

   [759] Professor Hartranft, D. D., of Hartford, Conn., a descendant of
   the Pennsylvania Schwenkfelders, has investigated the Schwenkfeld
   literature at Breslau, and issued a prospectus for its publication
   (1887).

   [760] Köstlin, biography of Hess in the "Zeitschrift des schlesischen
   Geschichtsvereins," vol. VI. Gilett, Crato von Crafftheim und seine
   Freunde, Frankfurt-a.-M. 1860, 2 parts. A very learned work. To Ursinus
   we shall return in the history of the Reformation in the Palatinate. In
   the cities of the Hanseatic League the Reformation was introduced at an
   early period.

   [761] Vom Bruder Heinrich in Ditmar verbrannt, Wittenberg, 1525, in the
   Erl. ed. XXVI. 313-337; in Walch, XXI. 94 sqq. Comp. Paul Crocius, Das
   grosse Martyrbuch, Bremen, 1682. Klaus Harms, Heinrich von Zütphen, in
   Piper's "Evang. Kalender," 1852.

   [762] Printed in Richter, Die evang. Kirchenordnungen, vol. I. C.
   Bertheau, Bugenhagen's Kirchenordnung für die Stadt Hamburg vom J.
   1529, 1885. L. Hänselmann, B.'s Kirchenordnung f. d. Stadt
   Braunschweig, 1885. Frantz, Die evangelische Kirchenverfassung in den
   deutschen Städten des 16. Jahrh., Halle, 1876. Vogt, Johannes
   Bugenhagen Pomeranus, Elberfeld, 1867. The year 1885, the fourth
   centennial of Bugenhagen's birth, called out several popular sketches
   of his life by Knauth, Petrich, Zitzlaff, and Hering (1888). See also
   O. Vogt, Bugenhagen's Briefwechsel, Stettin, 1888.

   [763] So he spells his name (Rieger in German), not Regius (König).

   [764] Rhegius, Opera latine edita, Norimb. 1561; Deutsche Bücher und
   Schriften, Nürnb. 1562, and again Frankf. 1577. Döllinger, Die Reform.
   II. 58 sqq. Uhlhorn, Urbanus Rhegius, Elberfeld, 1862, and his sketch
   in Herzog2, XIII. 147-155.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 97. Protestantism in Augsburg and South Germany.

   Augsburg, first known twelve years before Christ as a Roman colony
   (Augusta Vindelicorum), and during the middle ages an imperial city
   (since 1276), the seat of a bishop, the chief emporium for the trade of
   Northern Europe with the Mediterranean and the East, and the home of
   princely merchants and bankers (the Fuggers and Welsers), figures
   prominently in the early history of the Reformation, and gave the name
   to the standard confession of the Lutheran Church in 1530, and to the
   treaty of peace in 1555. [765] Luther was there in 1518 at a conference
   with Cardinal Cajetan, and lodged with the Carmelite friar Frosch, who
   remained faithful to him. Peutinger, the bishop (Christoph von
   Stadium), and two canons (Adelmann) were friendly to reform, at least
   for a time. Urbanus Rhegius preached there from 1523 to 1530, and
   exerted great influence. He distributed, with Frosch, the communion
   with the cup at Christmas, 1524. Both married in 1526.

   But the Zwinglians, under the lead of Michael Keller, gradually gained
   the upper hand among influential men. Zwingli took advantage of the
   situation in his famous letter to Alber, Nov. 16, 1524, in which he
   first fully developed his theory. Even Rhegius, who had written before
   against Carstadt (sic) and Zwingli, became a Zwinglian, though only for
   a short period.

   The Anabaptist leaders, Hubmaier, Denck, Hetzer, Hut, likewise appeared
   in Augsburg, and gathered a congregation of eleven hundred members.
   They held a general synod in 1527. They baptized by immersion. Rhegius
   stirred up the magistrate against them: the leaders were imprisoned,
   and some executed. [766]

   The confusion and strife among the Protestants strengthened the Roman
   party. The people did not know what to believe, and the magistrate
   hesitated. The moral condition of the city, as described by Rhegius,
   Musculus, and other preachers, was deplorable, and worse than under the
   papal rule. During the Diet of Augsburg in 1530, the Emperor prohibited
   all Protestant preaching in public: the magistrate made no objection,
   and dismissed the preachers. But the Augsburg Confession left a
   permanent impression on the place.

   The South-German cities of Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau were, like
   Augsburg, influenced by Zwingli as well as Luther, and united with
   Strassburg in the Tetrapolitan Confession, which Bucer and Capito
   prepared in great haste during the Diet of Augsburg as a document of
   union between the two wings of Protestantism. It failed to meet the
   approval of the Diet, and was, like Zwingli's Confession, not even
   allowed to be read; but Bucer adhered to it to the end.

   The most important and permanent conquest which the Reformation made in
   South Germany was that of the duchy (now kingdom) of Württemberg under
   Duke Ulrich, through the labors of Brenz, Blaurer, and Schnepf, after
   1534. The University of Tübingen (founded 1477) became one of the most
   fruitful nurseries of Protestant theology, in all its phases, from the
   strictest orthodoxy to the most radical criticism. [767]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [765] Friedrich Roth, Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte, 1517-1527.
   München, 1881.

   [766] See the description of the congregation of the "Apostolic
   Brethren," as the Anabaptists called themselves, in Ludwig Keller, Ein
   Apostel der Wiedertäufer (i.e., Hans Denck), Leipzig, 1882, ch. VI.
   94-119.

   [767] Römer, Kirchliche Geschichte Württembergs, Stuttg. 1848. Keim,
   Schwäbische Reformationsgeschichte. Tübingen, 1855. Schneider,
   Württemb. Reformationsgesch. Stuttgart, 1887.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 98. The Reformation in Hesse, and the Synod of Homberg. Philip of
   Hesse, and Lambert of Avignon.

   I. Lambertus Avenionensis: Paradoxa quae Fr. L. A. apud sanctam
   Hessorum Synodum Hombergi congregatam pro Ecclesiarum Reformatione e
   Dei Verbo disputanda et definienda proposuit, Erphordiae, 1527.
   (Reprinted in Sculteti Annales, p. 68; in Hardt, Hist. Lit. Ref. V. 98;
   an extract in Henke's N. Kirchengesch., I. 101 sqq.) N. L. Richter: Die
   Kirchenordnungen des 16ten Jahrh., Weimar, 1846, vol. I. 56-69 (the
   Homberg Constitution). C. A. Credner: Philipp des Grossmüthigen
   hessische Kirchenreformations-Ordnung. Aus schriftlichen Quellen
   herausgegeben, übersetzt, und mit Rücksicht auf die Gegenwart
   bevorwortet, Giessen, 1852 (123 pp.)

   II. F. W. Hassencamp: Hessische Kirchengesch. seit dem Zeitalter der
   Reformation, Marburg, 1852 and 1855. W. Kolbe: Die Einführung der
   Reformation in Marburg, Marburg, 1871. H. L. J. Heppe: Kirchengesch.
   beider Hessen, Marburg, 1876. (He wrote several other works on the
   church history of Hesse and of the Reformation generally, in the
   interest of Melanchthonianism and of the Reformed Church.) E, L. Henke:
   Neuere Kirchengesch. (ed. by Gass, Halle, 1874), I. 98-109. Mejer:
   Homberger Synode, in Herzog2, VI. 268 sqq. Köstlin: M. L., II. 48 sqq.

   III. Works on Philip of Hesse by Rommel (Philipp der Grossmüthige,
   Landgraf von Hessen, Giessen, 1830, 3 vols.), and Wille (Philipp der
   Grossmüthige und die Restitution Herzog Ulrichs von Würtemberg,
   Tübingen, 1882). Max Lenz: Zwingli und Landgraf Philip, in Brieger's
   "Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte," 1879; and Briefwechsel Landgraf
   Philipps mit Bucer, Leipz. 1880, vol. 2d, 1887 (important for the
   political and ecclesiastical history of Germany between 1541 and 1547).
   The history of Philip is interwoven in Ranke's Geschichte (vols. I. to
   VI.), and in Janssen's Geschichte (vol. III.). Against Janssen is
   directed G. Bossert: Württemberg und Ianssen, Halle, 1884, 2 parts.

   IV. Biographies of Lambert of Avignon by Baum (Strassb. 1840),
   Hassencamp (Elberfeld, 1860), Ruffet (Paris, 1873), and a sketch by
   Wagenmann in Herzog2, VIII. 371 sqq. (1881). The writings of Lambert of
   Avignon, mostly Theses and Commentaries, are very scarce, and have
   never been collected. His letters (some of them begging letters to the
   Elector of Saxony and Spalatin) are published by Herminjard in
   Correspondance des Réformateurs, vol. I. 112, 114, 118, 123, 131, 138,
   142, 144, 146, 328, 344, 347, 371; vol. II. 239. Luther refers to him
   in several letters to Spalatin (see below).

   Hesse or Hessia, in Middle Germany, was Christianized by St. Boniface
   in the eighth century, and subject to the jurisdiction of the
   archbishop of Mainz. It numbered in the sixteenth century fifty
   convents, and more than a thousand monks and nuns.

   Hesse became, next to Saxony, the chief theater of the Reformation in
   its early history; and its chief patron among the princes, next to
   Elector John, was Philip, Landgrave of Hesse, surnamed the
   "Magnanimous" (1504-1567). He figures prominently in the political
   history of Germany from 1525, when he aided in the suppression of the
   Peasants' War, till 1547, when he was defeated by the Emperor in the
   Smalcaldian War, and kept a prisoner for five years (1547-1552). The
   last years of his life were quiet and conciliatory, but his moral force
   was broken by his misconduct and the failure of his political
   combinations.

   His connection with the Reformation presents two different aspects,
   which make it difficult to decide whether it was more beneficial or
   more injurious. He made the acquaintance of Luther at the Diet of Worms
   (1521), and asked and received instruction from Melanchthon, whom be
   met at Heidelberg (1524). He declared in 1525, that he would rather
   lose body and life, land and people, than depart from the word of God,
   and urged the ministers to preach it in its purity. [768] He openly
   embraced the Reformation in 1526, and remained faithful to it in his
   conviction and policy, though not in his moral conduct. He boldly and
   bravely defended it with a degree of theological knowledge which is
   rare among princes, and with a conciliatory liberality in regard to
   doctrinal controversies which was in advance of prevailing narrowness.
   He brought about the Marburg Colloquy with the noble aim of uniting the
   Protestant forces of Germany and Switzerland against the common foe
   (1529). By restoring Württemberg to Duke Ulrich in the brilliant
   victory at Laufen, he opened the way for the introduction of the
   Reformation into that country (1534). But, on the other hand, he
   repeatedly endangered the Protestant cause by his rashness, and injured
   it and himself most seriously by his licentiousness, which culminated
   in the open scandal of bigamy (1540). He resembles in many respects
   Henry VIII. of England. [769]

   The Landgrave was the first prince who took advantage of the recess of
   the Diet of Speier, Aug. 27, 1526, and construed it into a legal
   permission for the introduction of the Reformation into his own
   territory. For this purpose he convened a synod in the little Hessian
   town of Homberg. [770] It consisted of the clergy, the nobility, and
   the representatives of cities, and was held Oct. 20-22, 1526. He
   himself was present, and his chancellor Feige presided over the
   deliberations. The synod is remarkable for a premature scheme of
   democratic church government and discipline, which failed for the time,
   but contained fruitful germs for the future and for other countries. It
   was suggested by the disputations which had been held at Zürich for the
   introduction of the Zwinglican Reformation.

   The leading spirit of this synod was Francis Lambert of Avignon
   (1487-1530), the first French monk converted to Protestantism and one
   of the secondary reformers. He had been formerly a distinguished and
   efficient traveling preacher of the Franciscan order in the South of
   France. But he could find no peace in severe ascetic exercises; and,
   when he became acquainted with some tracts of Luther in a French
   translation, he took advantage of a commission of his convent to
   deliver letters to a superior of his order in Germany, and left his
   native land never to return. He traveled on a mule through Geneva,
   Bern, Zürich, Basel, Eisenach, to Wittenberg, as a seeker after light
   on the great question of the day. He was half converted by Zwingli in a
   public disputation (July, 1522), and more fully by Luther in
   Wittenberg, where he arrived in January, 1523. Luther, who was often
   deceived by unworthy ex-priests and ex-monks, distrusted him at first,
   but became convinced of his integrity, and aided him. [771] At his
   request Lambert delivered exegetical lectures in the university,
   translated reformatory tracts into French and Italian, and published a
   book in defense of his leaving the convent (February, 1523), and a
   commentary on the rule of the Minorites to which Luther wrote a preface
   (March, 1523). He advocated the transformation of convents into
   schools. He married a Saxon maiden (July 15, 1523), anticipating herein
   the Reformer, and lived with her happily, but in great poverty, which
   obliged him to beg for assistance. He spent over a year in Wittenberg;
   but, finding no prospect of a permanent situation on account of his
   ignorance of the German language, he suddenly left for Metz, against
   the advice of Luther and Melanchthon, on invitation of a few secret
   friends of the Reformation (March 24, 1524). He addressed a letter to
   the king of France to gain him for the Reformation, and announced a
   public disputation; but the clergy prevented it, and the magistrate
   advised him to leave Metz. He then proceeded to Strassburg (April,
   1524), was kindly received by Bucer, and presented with the right of
   citizenship by the magistrate. He published practical commentaries on
   the Canticles, the Minor Prophets, a book against Erasmus, on
   free-will, and a sort of dogmatic compend. [772] He was highly
   recommended to the Landgrave, who took him into his service soon after
   the Diet of Speier (1526), and made him one of the reformers of Hesse.

   Lambert prepared for the Synod of Homberg, at the request of the
   Landgrave, a hundred and fifty-eight Theses (Paradoxa), as a basis for
   the reformation of doctrine, worship, and discipline. He advocated them
   with fiery and passionate eloquence in a long Latin speech. [773] Adam
   Kraft spoke in German more moderately.

   His leading ideas are these. Every thing which has been deformed must
   be reformed by the Word of God. This is the only rule of faith and
   practice. All true Christians are priests, and form the church. They
   have the power of self-government, and the right and duty to exercise
   discipline, according to Matt. 18:15-18, and to exclude persons who
   give offense by immorality or false doctrine. The bishops (i.e.,
   pastors) are elected and supported by the congregation, and are aided
   by deacons who attend to the temporalities. The general government
   resides in a synod, which should meet annually, and consist of the
   pastors and lay representatives of all the parishes. The executive body
   between the meetings of synod is a commission of thirteen persons.
   Three visitors, to be appointed first by the prince, and afterwards by
   the synod, should visit the churches once a year, examine, ordain, and
   install candidates. Papists and heretics are not to be tolerated, and
   should be sent out of the land. A school for training of ministers is
   to be established in Marburg.

   It is a matter of dispute, whether Lambert originated these views, or
   derived them from the Franciscan, or Waldensian, or Zwinglian, or
   Lutheran suggestions. The last is most probable. It is certain that
   Luther in his earlier writings (1523) expressed similar views on church
   government and the ministry. They are legitimately developed from his
   doctrine of the general priesthood of believers. [774]

   On the basis of these principles a church constitution was prepared in
   three days by a synodical commission, no doubt chiefly by Lambert
   himself. It is a combination of Congregationalism and Presbyterianism.
   Its leading features are congregational self-government, synodical
   supervision, and strict discipline. The directions for worship are
   based on Luther's "Deutsche Messe," 1526. [775]

   The constitution, with the exception of a few minor features, remained
   a dead letter. The Landgrave was rather pleased with it, but Luther,
   whom he consulted, advised postponement; he did not object to its
   principles, but thought that the times and the people were not ripe for
   it, and that laws in advance of public opinion rarely succeed. [776]
   Luther learned a bitter lesson from the Peasants' War and from the
   visitation of the churches in Saxony. Lambert himself, in his letters,
   complained of the prevailing corruptions and the abuse of evangelical
   liberty. [777] A good reason both for the necessity and difficulty of
   discipline, which should have begun with the prince. But
   self-government must be acquired by actual trial and experience. Nobody
   can learn to swim without going into the water.

   The Landgrave put himself at the head of the church, and reformed it
   after the Saxon model. He abolished the mass and the canon law,
   confiscated the property of the convents, endowed hospitals and
   schools, arranged church visitations, and appointed six superintendents
   (1531).

   The combination of Lutheran and Reformed elements in the Hessian
   reformation explains the confessional complication and confusion in the
   subsequent history, and the present status of the Protestant Church in
   Hesse, which is claimed by both denominations. [778]

   The best service which the Landgrave did to the cause of learning and
   religion, was the founding of the University of Marburg, which was
   opened July 1, 1527, with a hundred and four students. It became the
   second nursery of the Protestant ministry, next to Wittenberg, and
   remains to this day an important institution. Francis Lambert, Adam
   Kraft, Erhard Schnepf, and Hermann Busch were its first theological
   professors.

   Lambert now had, after a roaming life of great poverty, a settled
   situation with a decent support. He lectured on his favorite books, the
   Canticles, the Prophets, and the Apocalypse; but he had few hearers,
   was not popular with his German colleagues, and felt unhappy. He
   attended the eucharistic Colloquy at Marburg in October, 1529, as a
   spectator, became a convert to the view of Zwingli, and defended it in
   his last work. [779] This must have made his position more
   uncomfortable. He wished to find "some little town in Switzerland where
   he could teach the people what he had received from the Lord." [780]
   But before this wish could be fulfilled, he died with his wife and
   daughter, of the pestilence, April 18, 1530. He was an original, but
   eccentric and erratic genius, with an over-sanguine temperament, with
   more zeal and eloquence than wisdom and discretion. His chief
   importance lies in the advocacy of the principle of ecclesiastical
   self-government and discipline. His writings are thoughtful; and the
   style is clear, precise, vivacious, and direct, as may be expected from
   a Frenchman. [781]

   Lambert seems to have had a remote influence on Scotland, where
   principles of church government somewhat similar to his own were
   carried into practice after the model of the Reformed Church of Geneva.
   For among his pupils was Patrick Hamilton, the proto-martyr of the
   Scotch Reformation, who was burned at St. Andrews, Feb. 29, 1528. [782]
   According to the usual view, William Tyndale also, the pioneer of the
   English Bible Version, studied at Marburg about the same time; for
   several of his tracts contain on the titlepage or in the colophon the
   imprint, Hans Luft at Marborow (Marburg) in the land of Hesse." [783]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [768] Ranke, II. 121.

   [769] See pp. 308 and 481; Seckendorf's Excursus on the bigamy, III.
   277-281; Ranke, IV. 186 sqq.; Köstlin, Bk. VIII., ch. 1. (II. 533
   sqq.); and Janssen III. 57, 439 sqq. This nasty subject lies beyond our
   period, but may be disposed of here in a few remarks. Philip was a man
   of powerful sensuality, and married very young a daughter of Duke
   George of Saxony. As she was unattractive, and gave him little
   satisfaction, he indulged freely and long before his bigamy in his
   carnal passions to the injury of his health; and for this reason his
   conscience would not allow him to partake of the holy communion more
   than once in fifteen years (from 1525 to 1540), as he confessed himself
   in a letter to Luther, April 5, 1540 (Lenz, Briefwechsel Philipp's mit
   Bucer, I. 361, and Ranke, IV. 186, note). If Fräulein Margaretha von
   der Sale, who captivated his passions, had consented to become his
   mistress, he would not have fallen upon the extraordinary device of
   bigamy. The worst feature in this shameful affair is the weak
   connivance of the Reformers, which furnished the Romanists a keen
   weapon of attack. See Janssen. But Protestantism is no more responsible
   for the sins of Philip of Hesse, than Romanism is for the sins of Louis
   XIV.

   [770] In Kurhessen (which in 1866 was annexed to Prussia). Homberg must
   not be confounded with the better-known watering-place Homburg near
   Frankfort on the Main.

   [771] He mentions him under the assumed name of Johannes Serranus in
   letters to Spalatin, Dec. 20 and 26, 1522, and Jan. 12 and 23, 1523 (in
   De Wette, II. 263, 272, 299, 302). In the last letter, after he had
   made his personal acquaintance, he writes, "AdestJohannes ille
   Serranus, vero nomine Franciscus Lambertus ... De integritate viri
   nulla est dubitatio: testes sunt apud nos, qui illum et in Francia et
   in Basilea audierunt. ... Mihi per omnia placet vir, et satis spectatus
   mihi est ... ut dignus sit quem in exilio paululum feramus et juvemus."
   Then he asks Spalatin to secure for him from the Elector a contribution
   of twenty or thirty guilders for his support. In a letter of Feb. 25,
   1523 (De Wette, II. 308), he repeats this request as a beggar for a
   poor exile of Christ. A last request he made Aug. 14, 1523 (II. 387).

   [772] Farrago omnium fere rerum theologicarum. It was translated into
   English, 1536. This book and his De Fidelium vocatione in Regnum
   Christi contain the views which he defended in Homberg.

   [773] Hase says (p. 387): "Die Mönche und Prälaten verstummten vor der
   glühenden Beredtsamkeit des landflüchtigen Minoriten." But he was
   opposed by Ferber, the guardian of the Marburg Franciscans, who
   denounced him as a "runaway monk," and denied the legal competency of
   the synod. Lambert in turn called him a champion of Antichrist and a
   blasphemer, and exclaimed, "Expellatur ex provincia!" which Ferber
   misunderstood, "Occidatur bestia!" He confessed afterwards that he lost
   his temper. Hassencamp, Fr. Lambert, p. 39 sq., and Hencke, l.c. I. 103
   sq.

   [774] See above, pp. 518 and 538. Ritschl and Meier assert that Lambert
   borrowed his church ideal from his own order of the Minorites.

   [775] The Latin original of the constitution is lost, but two copies
   are extant from which the printed editions of Schminke, Richter, and
   Credner are derived. Janssen (III. 54) calls it, not quite accurately,
   "ein vollständig ausgebildetes, rein demokratisches
   Presbyterialsystem."

   [776] Letter to the Landgrave, Monday after Epiphany, 1527 (in the Erl.
   ed., vol. LVI. 170 sq.). He was reluctant to give an answer, from fear
   that nonapproval might be construed as proceeding from Wittenberg
   jealousy of any rivalry. He does not mention Lambert, but cautions
   against rash proceedings. "Fürschreiben und Nachthun ist weit von
   einander" (theory and practice are wide apart). Köstlin (II. 50) says:
   "Gegen die Principien des Entwurfs an sich wandte Luther nichts ein.
   Der Grund, weshalb er ihn ablehnte, war das Bedürfniss allmählicher
   Entwicklung im Gegensatz zur plötzlichen gesetzlichen Durchführung
   umfassender Ideen, für welche die Gegenwart nicht vorbereitet sei."

   [777] See his letter to Myconius in Hassencamp, Lamb. v. A., p. 50 sq.,
   and Döllinger, Die Reform. II. 18 sq. The latter quotes the Latin (from
   Strieder, Hessische Gelehrtengesch. VII. 386): "Dolens et gemens vivo,
   quod paucissimos videam recte uti evangelii libertate, et quod caritas
   ferme nulla sit, sed plena sint omnia obtrectationibus mendaciis,
   maledicentia, invidia." In a letter to Bucer, Lambert says, "Horreo
   mores populi hujus ita ut putem me frustra in eis laborare." Herminjard
   (II. 242) adds in a note an extract from the letter of a student of
   Zürich, Rudolph Walther, who wrote to Bullinger from Marburg, June 17,
   1540 (the year of the bigamy of the Landgrave): "Mores [huius regionis]
   omnium corruptissimi. Nullum in hac Germaniae parte inter Papistas et
   Evangelicae doctrinae professores discrimen cernas, si morum et vitae
   censuram instituas."

   [778] Dr. Vilmar of Marburg (originally Reformed) tried to prove that
   the Hessians were Lutherans, but did not know it. His colleague, Dr.
   Heppe, with equal learning tried to prove the opposite. A German
   proverb speaks of the "blind Hessians," and this applies at least to
   those unfortunate twenty thousand soldiers who allowed themselves to be
   sold by their contemptible tyrant (Frederick II., a convert to the
   Church of Rome, d. 1785), like so many heads of cattle, for twenty-one
   million thalers, to the king of England to be used as powder against
   the American colonies. Hence the ugly meaning of the term "Hessians" in
   America, which does great injustice to their innocent countrymen and
   descendants.

   [779] De Symbolo Foederis, etc., published at Strassburg after his
   death, 1530. He says in the preface: "Volo ut mundus sciat me
   sententiam circa Coenam Domini demutasse." Herminjard, II. 240.

   [780] Letter to Bucer, March 14, 1530, ib. II. 242.

   [781] Dr. Döllinger, II. 18, uses his complaints of the prevailing
   immorality as a testimony against the Reformation, but judges favorably
   of his writings.

   [782] His name is entered on the University Album of the year 1527,
   together with two other Scotchmen, John Hamilton and Gilbert Winram.
   See Jul. Cæsar, Catalogus Studiorum scholae Marpurgensis, Marb. 1875,
   p. 2. Comp. Lorimer, Patrick Hamilton, Edinb. 1857, and the careful
   sketch of Professor Mitchell of St. Andrews, in the Schaff-Herzog
   "Encycl." II. 935 sqq.

   [783] The fact of Tyndale's sojourn in Marburg has been disputed
   without good reason by Mombert in the preface to his facsimile edition
   of Tyndale's Pentateuch, New York, 1884 (p. XXIX.). He conjectures that
   "Marborow" is a fictitious name for Wittenberg. Tyndale's name does not
   appear in the University Register, but he may not have entered it. Hans
   Luft was the well-known printer of Luther's Bible in Wittenberg in
   Saxony, but he may have had an agent in Marburg "in the land of Hesse."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 99. The Reformation in Prussia. Duke Albrecht and Bishop Georg Von
   Polenz.

   I. Luther's Letters to Albrecht from May 26, 1525, to May 2, 1545 (17,
   see list in Erl. ed. LVI. 248), to Briesmann and Georg von Polenz, in
   the collections of De Wette and Enders. J. Voigt: Briefwechsel der
   berühmtesten Gelehrten des Zeitalters der Reformation mit Herzog
   Albrecht von Preussen, Königsb. 1841.

   II. Hartknoch: Preussische Kirchenhistorie, Königsberg, 1686. Arnoldt:
   Preussische Kirchengeschichte, Königsberg, 1769. Bock: Leben Albrechts
   des Aelteren, Königsb. 1750. Rhesa: De primis sacrorum reformatoribus
   in Prussia, Königsberg, 1823-1830 (seven University Programs containing
   biographies of Briesmann, Speratus, Poliander, Georg v. Polenz,
   Amandus). Gebser: Der Dom zu Königsberg, 1835. Erdmann: Preussen,
   Ordensstaat, in Herzog1, XII. 117-165 (1860; omitted in the second
   ed.). Pastor (R. Cath.): Neue Quellenberichte über den Reformator
   Albrecht von Brandenburg, Mainz, 1876 (in the "Katholik," LVI. February
   and March). C. A. Hase: Herzog Albrecht von Preussen und sein
   Hofprediger. Eine königsberger Tragödie aus dem Zeitalter der
   Reformation, Leipzig, 1879. Rindfleisch: Herzog Albrecht von
   Hohenzollern, der letzte Hochmeister, und die Reformation in Preussen,
   Danzig, 1880. P. Tschackert (professor in Königsberg): Georg von
   Polentz, Bischof von Samland, Leipzig, 1888 (in "Kirchengeschichtl.
   Studien" by Brieger, Tschackert, etc., pp. 145-194).

   III. The general histories of Prussia by Stenzel, Droysen, Voigt (large
   work, 1827-39, in 9 vols.; condensed ed. 1850, in 3 vols.), Cosel,
   Hahn, Pierson (4th ed. 1881, 2 vols.), Ranke (Zwölf Bücher preussischer
   Gesch. 1874), Förster, etc. For the history of the Teutonic order, see
   Watterich: Die Gründung des deutschen Ordensstaates in Preussen,
   Leipzig, 1857; and Joh. Voigt: Geschichte des deutschen Ritterordens,
   Berlin, 1859, 2 vols.

   IV. Ranke: Vol. II. 326 sqq. Janssen: III. 70-77.

   Of greater prospective importance than the conversion of Hesse and even
   of Saxony to Protestantism, was the evangelization of Prussia, which
   from a semi-barbarous Duchy on the shores of the Baltic rose to the
   magnitude of a highly civilized kingdom, stretching from the borders of
   Russia beyond the banks of the Rhine, and which is now, in connection
   with the new German Empire, the leading Protestant power on the
   Continent of Europe. [784]

   Old Prussia [785] was a colony of the Teutonic Knights (Deutschorden),
   one of the three military religious orders which arose during the
   crusades for the defense of the Holy Land and the protection of
   pilgrims. They had the same military and monastic constitution as the
   Knights Templars, and the Knights of St. John (Johannitae); but their
   members were all Germans. They greatly distinguished themselves in the
   later crusades, and their chivalrous blood still flows in the veins of
   the old Prussian nobility. They wore a white mantle with a black
   silver-lined cross, and as a special favor an imperial eagle on their
   arms, which descended from them to the royal house of Prussia. After
   the fall of Jerusalem they removed their headquarters to Venice, and
   afterwards to Marienburg and Königsberg (the capital, where the kings
   of Prussia are crowned). Emperor Frederick II. and Pope Innocent III.
   granted them all the lands they might conquer from the heathen on the
   eastern borders of Germany, and the grand-master's received the dignity
   of princes of the Roman Empire. They were invited by the Duke of Poland
   to defend the frontiers of his country against the heathen Prussians
   (1240). The conquest was completed in 1283. The Knights Christianized,
   or rather Romanized and Germanized, the Prussians, after the military
   fashion of Charlemagne in his dealings with the Saxons, and of Otho I.
   in subduing the Wends. The native heathenism was conquered, but not
   converted, and continued under Christian forms. Prussia is said to have
   contained under the Knights two millions of people and more than fifty
   cities, which carried on an extensive trade by means of the Hanseatic
   League. The chief cities were Marienburg, Königsberg, Thorn, Danzig,
   and Culm. But the common people were treated as slaves.

   After nearly two centuries of rule the Knights degenerated, and their
   power declined by internal dissensions and the hostility of Poland. In
   1466 they were forced by Casimir IV. in the Peace of Thorn to cede West
   Prussia with the richest cities to Poland, and to accept East Prussia
   as a fief of that kingdom. This was virtually the destruction of the
   political power of the order. The incompatibility of the military and
   monastic life became more and more apparent. Pope Adrian VI. urged
   Albrecht to restore the order to its former monastic purity and
   dignity. But this was impossible. The order had outlived itself. [786]

   Luther saw this, and inaugurated a different kind of reform. He seized
   a favorable opportunity, and exhorted the Knights, in a public address,
   March 28, 1523, to forsake the false monastic chastity so often broken,
   and to live in true matrimonial chastity according to the ordinance of
   God in paradise (Gen. 2:18), which was older and wiser than popes and
   Councils. "Your order," he argued, "is truly a singular order: it is
   both secular and spiritual, and neither; it is bound to wield the sword
   against infidels, and yet to live in celibacy, poverty, and obedience,
   like other monks. These things do not agree together, as is shown by
   reason and by daily experience. The order is therefore of no use either
   to God or the world." [787]

   In the summer of the same year be sent, at the wish of Albrecht, the
   pioneer of Protestant preachers, to Prussia, in the person of his
   friend Dr. Johannes Briesmann (14881549), a theologian of learning,
   piety, and executive ability, who arrived in Königsberg, Sept. 27,
   1523, and labored there as preacher in the Dome, and successor of
   Bishop Georg von Polenz, till his death, with the exception of four
   years which he spent as evangelist in Riga (1527-1531). [788] He
   afterwards sent two other gifted evangelists, known for their
   evangelical hymns, namely, Paul Speratus (d. 1551), and John Poliander
   (Graumann, d. 1541), who made themselves very useful. A third one,
   Amandus, created disturbance by his radicalism, which resembled that of
   Carlstadt, and caused his removal from Königsberg.

   With the help of these theologians and evangelists, Duke Albrecht and
   Bishop Georg von Polenz brought about a radical change in Prussia, and
   prepared the way for its great future destiny. The religious
   reformation preceded the political change.

   Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, last grandmaster of the
   Teutonic Knights, and first Duke of Prussia, was born at Ansbach, May
   16, 1490; destined for the clerical profession; received into the order
   of the Knights, and elected its grand-master in 1511. He made his entry
   into Königsberg, Nov. 22, 1512. His effort to make Prussia independent
   and to refuse obedience to the king of Poland, involved him in a
   disastrous war till 1521, when an armistice for four years was
   concluded. He attended, as one of the princes of the empire, the Diet
   of Nürnberg, 1522 and 1523, and sought protection against Poland, but
   in vain. He diligently heard, during that time, the sermons of Andreas
   Osiander, and was converted to the doctrines of the Reformation. He
   called him his "spiritual father in Christ, through whom God first
   rescued him from the darkness of popery, and led him to the true divine
   knowledge." On a journey to Berlin he had a private conference with
   Luther and Melanchthon, and asked their advice (September, 1523).
   "Trust in God," said Luther with the consent of Melanchthon, "rather
   than the empire; shake off the senseless rules of your order, and make
   an end to that hermaphrodite monster which is neither religious nor
   secular; abolish the unchaste chastity of monkery; take to thyself a
   wife, and found a legitimate secular sovereignty." At the same time be
   recommended to him Paul Speratus as his assistant, who afterwards
   became bishop of Pomesania. The prince smiled, but said nothing. [789]
   He wavered between obedience to the pope and to his conscience, and his
   open and secret instructions to the bishop of Samland were
   contradictory. His brother, Margrave Georg of Brandenburg, had
   previously given him the same advice as Luther, and he ultimately
   followed it.

   In the mean time the evangelical doctrines had already spread in
   Prussia, and facilitated the proposed political change by undermining
   the monastic constitution of the order.

   Two bishops of Prussia, differing from their brethren in Germany,
   favored the movement, George von Polenz of Samland, and Erhard von
   Queiss of Pomesania. The former took the lead. Luther was agreeably
   surprised, and expressed his joy that one, at least, of the bishops
   dared to profess the free gospel of Christ. [790] He dedicated to him
   his commentary on Deuteronomy, with a congratulatory letter full of
   gratitude for the rapid flight of the gospel to Prussia in the far
   North (1525). [791] The bishop did not reply, and seems to have
   preserved a dignified or prudent reserve towards the person of Luther,
   while allowing free course to his doctrines. [792]

   Erhard von Queiss renounced popery in a public sermon, 1524, and
   resigned his worldly possessions and authority to the Duke (1527), in
   order to attend better to the spiritual duties of an evangelical
   bishop.

   Georg von Polenz was the chancellor and chief counselor of Albrecht (we
   may say his Bismarck on a small scale) in this work of transformation.
   He was about five years older than Luther, and survived him four years.
   He descended from an old noble family of Meissen in Saxony, studied law
   in Italy, and was for a while private secretary at the court of Pope
   Julius II. Then he served as a soldier under Maximilian I. He became
   acquainted with Margrave Albrecht at Padua, 1509, and joined the
   Teutonic Knights. In 1519 he was raised to the episcopal chair, and
   consecrated by the neighboring bishops of Ermland and Pomesania in the
   Dome of Königsberg. The receipt of the Roman curia for a tax of
   fourteen hundred and eighty-eight ducats is still extant in the
   archives of that city. The first years of his office were disturbed by
   war with Poland, for which he had to furnish men and means. During the
   absence of the Duke in Germany he took his place.

   In September, 1523, be became acquainted with Dr. Briesmann, and
   learned from him the biblical languages, the elements of theology,
   which he had never studied before, and the doctrines of Luther. In
   January, 1524, be already issued an order that baptism be celebrated in
   the vernacular tongue, and recommended the clergy to read diligently
   the Bible, and the writings of Luther, especially his book on Christian
   Liberty. This was the beginning of the Reformation in Prussia. We have
   from him three sermons, and three only, which he preached in favor of
   the change, at Christmas, 1523, and at Easter and Pentecost, 1524. He
   echoes in them the views of Briesmann. He declares, "I shall with the
   Divine will hold fast to the word of God and to the gospel, though I
   should lose body and life, goods and honor, and all I possess." He
   despised the authority of Pope Clement VII., who directed his legate,
   Campeggio, Dec. 1, 1524, to summon the bishop as a rebel and perjurer,
   to induce him to recant, or to depose him.

   In May, 1525, he resigned the secular part of his episcopal authority
   into the hands of the Duke, because it was not seemly and Christian for
   a bishop to have so much worldly glory and power. A few days afterwards
   be married, June 8, 1525, five days before Luther's marriage. In the
   next year the Duke followed his example, and invited Luther to the
   wedding (June, 1526). This double marriage was a virtual dissolution of
   the order as a monastic institution. In 1546 Georg von Polenz resigned
   his episcopal supervision into the hands of Briesmann. He died in
   peace, April 28, 1550, seventy-two years old, and was buried in the
   cathedral of Königsberg, the first Protestant bishop and chancellor of
   the first Prussian Hohenzollern, standing with him on the bridge of two
   ages with his hand on the Bible and his eye firmly fixed upon the
   future.

   Albrecht, acting on the advice of Luther, changed the property of the
   Knights into a hereditary duchy. The king of Poland consented. On April
   10, 1525, Albrecht was solemnly invested at Crakow with the rule of
   Prussia as a fief of Poland. Soon afterwards he received the homage of
   the Diet at Königsberg. The evangelical preachers saluted him under the
   ringing of the bells. The Emperor put him under the ban, but it had no
   effect. Most of the Knights received large fiefs, and married; the rest
   emigrated to Germany. Albrecht formally introduced the Reformation,
   July 6, 1525, and issued a Lutheran constitution and liturgy. The fasts
   were abolished, the number of holy days reduced, the ceremonies
   changed, the convents turned into hospitals, and worship conducted in
   the vernacular. All Romish and sectarian preaching was prohibited. He
   assumed all the ecclesiastical appointments, and became the supreme
   bishop of Prussia, the two Roman-Catholic bishops Georg and Queiss
   having surrendered to him their dignity. Their successors were mere
   superintendents. He felt, however, that the episcopal office was
   foreign to a worldly sovereign, and accepted it as a matter of
   necessity to secure order. [793] He founded the University of
   Königsberg, the third Protestant university (after Wittenberg and
   Marburg). It was opened in 1544. [794] He called Dr. Osiander from
   Nürnberg to the chief theological chair (1549); but this polemical
   divine, by his dissertations on the law and the gospel, and on the
   doctrine of justification, soon turned Prussia into a scene of violent
   and disgraceful theological controversies. [795]

   Albrecht did not enjoy his reign. It was sadly disturbed in this
   transition state by troubles from within and without. He repeatedly
   said that he would rather watch sheep than be a ruler. He was involved
   in heavy debts. The seven children of his first wife, a daughter of the
   king of Denmark, died young, except a daughter, Anna Sophia, who
   married a duke of Mecklenburg (1555). His pious and faithful wife died,
   1547. In 1550 he married a princess of Braunschweig; her first daughter
   was born blind; only one son, Albrecht Friedrich, survived him, and
   spent his life in melancholy. But Albrecht remained true to his
   evangelical faith, and died (March 20, 1568), with the words of Psa.
   31:5, upon his lips, "Into Thine hand I commend my spirit: Thou hast
   redeemed me, O Lord, Thou God of truth." He left proofs of his piety in
   prayers, meditations, and the testament to his son, who succeeded him,
   and died without male issue, 1618.

   SUBSEQUENT HISTORY.

   A few glimpses of the later history are here in place to explain the
   present confessional status of the Protestant church in the kingdom of
   Prussia.

   The Duchy of Prussia in 1618 fell as an inheritance to John Sigismund,
   Elector of Brandenburg (1608-1619), son-in-law of the second Prussian
   Duke (Albert Frederick), and a descendant of Frederick of Hohenzollern,
   who had become margrave of Brandenburg by purchase in 1415. In this way
   the connection of Prussia arid Brandenburg was completed.

   But Prussia remained in feudal subjection to Poland till 1656, when
   Frederick William, "the great Elector," conquered the independence by
   the victory of Warsaw. He is the first, as Frederick II., his
   great-grandson, is the second, founder of the greatness of Prussia.
   After the terrible devastations of the Thirty Years' War he gathered
   the broken fragments of his provinces into a coherent whole during his
   long and successful reign (1640-1688). He was the most enlightened and
   most liberal among the German princes of his age. He protected the
   independence of Germany against French aggression. He was married to
   Louisa Henrietta, princess of Orange, of the Calvinistic faith, and
   authoress of the popular resurrection hymn, "Jesus, meine Zuversicht."
   [796] He secured toleration to the Reformed churches in the Treaty of
   Westphalia. He gave refuge to over twenty thousand French Huguenots,
   who with their descendants became an important element in the Prussian
   nationality and the Reformed church. His son Frederick became the first
   king of Prussia, and was crowned at Königsberg, Jan. 18, 1701. He
   founded the University of Halle, 1693, which ultimately absorbed the
   University of Wittenberg by incorporation (1815), and assumed an
   important position in the history of German theology as the nursery,
   first of pietism, then of rationalism, and (since Tholuck's
   appointment, 1827) of the evangelical revival.

   With John Sigismund began an important confessional change, which laid
   the foundation for the union policy of his successors. He introduced
   the Reformed or Calvinistic element, which had been crushed out in
   Saxony, into the Court and Dome Church of Berlin, and gave the
   Heidelberg Catechism a place besides the Augsburg Confession. His
   grandson, "the great Elector," strengthened the Reformed element by his
   marriage to a princess from Holland, who adorned her faith, and by
   inviting a colony of French Huguenots who left their country for the
   sake of conscience. It was therefore quite natural that the Reformed
   rulers of a Lutheran country should cherish the idea of a union of the
   two confessions, which was realized in the present century. [797]

   We have seen that Old Prussia was Lutheranized under the direct
   influence of the Wittenberg divines with whom Albrecht was in Constant
   correspondence. In Brandenburg also, the Lutheran type of
   Protestantism, after many reverses and controversies, was established
   under John George (1571-1598); the Formula of Concord was forcibly
   introduced, and all Calvinistic teaching was strictly forbidden. The
   Brandenburg "Corpus Doctrinae" of 1572 emphasizes Luther's word that
   Zwingli was no Christian, and the Brandenburg chancellor Dietelmeyer is
   known by his unchristian prayer: "Impleat nos Deus odio Calvinistarum!"

   But the Elector John Sigismund, who by travels and personal intercourse
   with Calvinistic princes and divines conceived a high regard for their
   superior Christian piety and courtesy, embraced the Reformed faith in
   1606, and openly professed it in February, 1614, by declaring his
   assent to the four oecumenical symbols (including the Chalcedonense)
   and the altered Augsburg Confession of 1540, without imposing his creed
   upon his subjects, only prohibiting the preachers to condemn the
   Calvinists from the pulpit. In May, 1514, he issued a personal
   confession of faith, called the "Confession of Sigismund," or the
   "Brandenburg Confession" (Confessio Marchica). It teaches a moderate,
   we may say, Melanchthonian and unionistic Calvinism, and differs from
   the Lutheran Formula of Concord in the following points: It rejects
   Eutychianism and the ubiquity of Christ's body, consubstantiation in
   the Lord's Supper, the use of the wafer instead of the broken bread,
   and exorcism in baptism; on the other hand, it teaches the Calvinistic
   view of the spiritual real presence for believers, and unconditional
   election, but without an unconditional decree of reprobation; it
   distinctly declares that God sincerely wishes the salvation of all men,
   and is not the author of sin and damnation.

   The change of Sigismund was the result of conscientious conviction, and
   not dictated by political motives. The people and his own wife
   re-mained Lutheran. He made no use of his territorial summepiscopate
   and the jus reformandi. He disclaimed all intention to coerce the
   conscience, since faith is a free gift of God, and cannot be forced. No
   man should pre-sume to exercise dominion over man's religion. He thus
   set, in advance of his age, a noble example of toleration, which became
   the traditional policy of the Prussian rulers. The pietistic movement
   of Spener and Francke, which was supported by the theological faculty
   at Halle, weakened the confessional dissensus, and strengthened the
   consensus. The Moravian brotherhood exhibited long before the Prussian
   Union, in a small community, the real union of evangelical believers of
   both confessions.

   Frederick the Great was an unbeliever, and had as little sympathy with
   Pietism and Moravianism as with Lutheranism and Calvinism; but he was a
   decided upholder of religious toleration, which found expression in his
   famous declaration that in his kingdom everybody must be at liberty to
   get saved "after his own fashion." The toleration of indifferentism,
   which prevailed in the last century, broke down the reign of bigotry,
   and prepared the way for the higher and nobler principle of religious
   liberty.

   The revival of religious life at the beginning of the nineteenth
   century was a revival of general Christianity without a confessional or
   denomina-tional type, and united for a time pious Lutherans, Reformed,
   and even Roman Catholics. It was accompanied by a new phase of
   evangelical theology, which since Schleiermacher and Neander laid
   greater stress on the consensus than the dissensus of the Protestant
   confessions in oppo-sition to rationalism and infidelity. The ground
   was thus prepared for a new attempt to establish a mode of peaceful
   living between the two confessions of the Reformation.

   King Frederick William III. (1797-1840), a conscientious and
   God-fearing monarch, who had been disciplined by sad reverses and
   providen-tial deliverances of Prussia, introduced what is called the
   "Evangelical Union" of the Lutheran and Reformed confessions at the
   tercentennial celebration of the Reformation (Sept. 27, 1817). The term
   "evangelical," which was claimed by both, assumed thus a new technical
   sense. The object of the Union (as officially explained in 1834 and
   1852) was to unite the two churches under, one government and worship,
   without abolishing the doctrinal distinctions. [798] It was
   conservative, not absorptive, and dif-fered in this respect from all
   former union schemes between the Greek and Latin, the Protestant and
   Roman Catholic, the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, which aimed at
   doctrinal uniformity or at best at a doctrinal compromise. The Prussian
   Union introduced no new creed; the Augsburg Confession, Luther's
   Catechisms, and the Heidelberg Catechism continued to be used where
   they had been in use before; but it was assumed that the confessional
   differences were not vital and important enough to exclude Christian
   fellowship. The opposition proceeded chiefly from the "Old Lutherans,"
   so called, who insist upon "pure doctrine," as the basis of union, to
   the exclusion of the Calvinistic "heresies," and who took just offense
   at the forcible introduction of the new liturgy of the king (the Agende
   of 1822); but the opposition was silenced by granting them the liberty
   of separate organization and self-government (1845). The Prussian Union
   suffers from the defects of Erastianism, but no more than any other
   state-church, or the introduction of the Reformation in the sixteenth
   century by the civil power. Experience has proved that moderate
   Lutherans and Reformed Christians can live together, commune at the
   same altar, and co-operate in the work of the common Master. This
   experience is a great gain. The union type of Protestantism has become
   an important historic fact and factor in the modern theology and church
   life of Prussia and those other parts of Germany which followed her
   example.

   The two sons and successors of the founder of the Prussian Union, King
   Frederick William IV. (1840-1858), and Emperor William I. (1858-1888),
   have faithfully adhered to it in theory and practice.

   Frederick William IV. was well versed in theology, and a pronounced
   evangelical believer. He wished to make the church more independent,
   and as a means to that end he established the Oberkirchenrath (1850,
   modified 1852), which in connection with the Cultusministerium should
   administer the affairs of the church in the name of the king; while a
   general synod was to exercise the legislative function. Under his reign
   the principle of religious liberty made great progress, and was
   embodied in the Prussian Constitution of 1850, which guarantees in
   Article XII. the freedom of conscience and of private and public
   worship to all religious associations. [799]

   William I., aided by Bismarck and Moltke, raised Prussia, by superior
   statesmanship and diplomacy, and by brilliant victories in the wars
   with Austria (1866) and France (1870), to her present commanding
   position. He became by common consent of the German sovereigns and
   people the first hereditary emperor of United Germany under the lead of
   Prussia. He adorned this position in eighteen years of peace by his
   wisdom, integrity, justice, untiring industry, and simple piety, and
   gained the universal esteem and affection of the German nation, yea, we
   may say, of the civilized world, which mourned for him when on the 9th
   of March, 1888, in the ninety-first year of an eventful life, he
   entered into his rest. History has never seen a more illustrious trio
   than the Emperor William, "the Iron Chancellor," and "the
   Battle-thinker," who "feared God, and nothing else."

   The new German Empire with a Protestant head is the last outcome of the
   Reformation of Prussia, and would not have been possible without it.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [784] "Bei weitem die merkwürdigste und durchgreifendste Veränderung
   fand in Preussen statt." Ranke, II. 326. Janssen can see in the
   Reformation of Prussia only a change for the worse. The best refutation
   of his view is the subsequent history and present condition of Prussia.
   The history of the past must be read in the light of the present. "By
   their fruits ye shall know them."

   [785] Prussia proper is a division of the kingdom of Prussia, and
   comprises East or Ducal Prussia and West or Royal Prussia, with a total
   area of 24,114 square miles, and a population of about three millions
   and a half. East Prussia was united with Brandenburg by the Elector
   John Sigismund, 1618 West Prussia was severed from Poland by Frederick
   the Great in the first division of that kingdom, 1772.

   [786] "Der deutsche Orden," says Ranke (II. 334), "und seine Herrschaft
   in Preussen war ohne Zweifel das eigenthümlichste Product des
   hierarchischritterlichen Geistes der letzen Jahrhunderte in der
   deutschen Nation; er hatte eine grossartige Weltenwirkung ausgeübt und
   ein unermessliches Verdienst um die Ausbreitung des deutschen Namens
   erworben; aber seine Zeit war vorüber."

   [787] An die Herren deutsches Ordens, dass sie falsche Keuschheit
   meiden und zur rechten ehelichen Keuschheit greifen, Ermahnung.
   Wittenberg, den 28 März, 1523. In the Erl. ed. XXIX. l6-33. Walch, XIX.
   2157 sqq.

   [788] He published several sermons. Extracts in Seckendorf, I. 272. See
   the article "Briesmann" by Dr. Erdmann in Herzog2, II. 629-631, with
   literature.

   [789] Letter to John Briesmann, July 4, 1524, in De Wette, II. 526 sq.

   [790] "At last," he wrote to Spalatin, Feb. 1, 1524, "even a bishop has
   given the glory to the name of Christ, and proclaims the gospel in
   Prussia, namely the bishop of Samland, encouraged and instructed by
   John Briesmann, whom I sent, so that Prussia also begins to give
   farewell to the kingdom of Satan." De Wette, II. 474.

   [791] Erl. ed., Op. Lat. XIII. The dedicatory letter dated April, 1525,
   is printed also in De Wette, II. 647-651. In this letter occurs the
   notable passage (p. 649): "Vide mirabilia, ad Prussiam pleno cursu
   plenisque telis currit Evangelion." Comp. the passage quoted p. 539,
   note 2.

   [792] Professor Tschackert, his best biographer, says (l.c., p. 187):
   "The correspondence of Bishop Georg von Polentz, as far as known,
   contains not a syllable nor even an allusion to a letter of his to
   Luther. Even the name of Luther occurs after the reformatory mandate of
   1524 only once, in a postscript to a letter to Paul Speratus, Aug. 22,
   1535." In this letter he requested his colleague, Bishop Speratus of
   Pomesania, to give some noble students from Lithuania letters of
   introduction to Luther and Melanchthon ("literis tuis Martino et
   Philippo commendes.") See the letter, l.c., p. 191.

   [793] "Coacti sumus," he said, "alienum officium, i.e., episcopate in
   nos sumere, ut omnia ordine, et decenter fierent." Preface to the
   Articuli ceremoniarum, published by a general synod at Königsberg, May
   12, 1530.

   [794] Arnoldt, Historie der königsberger Universität, 1746.

   [795] See above, p. 570. Osiander's son-in-law, Funke, Albrecht's
   chaplain and confessor, continued the controversies, but was at last
   beheaded with two others, 1566, as "Ruhestörer, Landesverräther und
   Beförderer der osiandrischen Ketzerei."

   [796] Several English translations; one by Miss Winkworth, "Jesus my
   Redeemer lives." The hymn has a long and interesting history. See A. F.
   W. Fischer, Kirchenlieder-Lexicon, I. 390-396.

   [797] For fuller information, see Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I. 554
   sqq. To the literature there given should be added Ranke, Zwölf Bücher
   Preuss. Geschichte, Leipz. 1874, I. 185-192; Kawerau in Herzog2, XIV.
   227-232; and Wangemann, Joh. Sigismund und Paul Gerhard, Berlin, 1884.
   The literature on the Prussian Union refers to the history after 1817,
   and is very large. We mention Nitzsch, Urkundenbuch der evangelischen
   Union, Berlin, 1853; Jul. Müller, Die evangel. Union, ihr Wesen und
   göttliches Recht, Berlin, 1854; Brandes, Geschichte der kirchlichen
   Politik des Hauses Brandenburg, 1872,' 73, 2 vols.; Mücke, Preussen's
   landeskirchliche Unionsentwicklung, 1879; Wangemann, Die preussische
   Union in ihrem Verhältniss zur Una Sancta, Berlin, 1884.

   [798] The Cabinetsordre of Feb. 18, 1834, declares: "Die Union bezweckt
   und bedeutet kein Aufgeben des bisherigen Glaubensbekenntnisses; auch
   ist die Autorität, welche die Bekenntnisschriften der beiden
   evangelischen Confessionen bisher gehabt, durch sie nicht aufgehoben
   worden."

   [799] See Schaff, Church and State in the United States, New York,
   1888, p. 97 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 100. Protestant Martyrs.

   No great cause in church or state, in religion or science, has ever
   succeeded without sacrifice. Blood is the price of liberty. "The blood
   of martyrs is the seed of Christianity." Persecution develops the
   heroic qualities of human nature, and the passive virtues of patience
   and endurance under suffering. Protestantism has its martyrs as well as
   Catholicism. In Germany it achieved a permanent legal existence only
   after the Thirty Years' War. The Reformed churches in France, Holland,
   England, and Scotland, passed through the fiery ordeal of persecution.
   It has been estimated that the victims of the Spanish Inquisition
   outnumber those of heathen Rome, and that more Protestants were
   executed by the Spaniards in a single reign, and in a single province
   of Holland, than Christians in the Roman empire during the first three
   centuries. [800] Jews and heathens have persecuted Christians,
   Christians have persecuted Jews and heathens, Romanists have persecuted
   Protestants, Protestants have persecuted Romanists, and every
   state-church has more or less persecuted dissenters and sects. It is
   only within a recent period that the sacred rights of conscience have
   been properly appreciated, and that the line is clearly and sharply
   drawn between church and state, religious and civil offenses, heresy
   and crime, spiritual and temporal punishments.

   The persecution of Protestants began at the Diet of Worms in 1521.
   Charles V. issued from that city the first of a series of cruel
   enactments, or "placards," for the extermination of the Lutheran heresy
   in his hereditary dominion of the Netherlands. In 1523 two Augustinian
   monks, Henry Voes and John Esch, were publicly burnt, as adherents of
   Luther, at the, stake in Brussels. After the fires were kindled, they
   repeated the Apostles' Creed, sang the "Te Deum laudamus," and prayed
   in the flames, "Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy upon us." The
   heroic death of these Protestant proto-martyrs inspired Luther's first
   poem, which begins, --


   "Ein neues Lied wir heben an." [801]

   The prior of their convents Lampert Thorn, was suffocated in prison.
   The martyrdom of Henry of Zütphen has already been noticed. [802]
   Adolph Klarenbach and Peter Flysteden suffered at the stake in Cologne
   with constancy and triumphant joy, Sept. 28, 1529. [803]

   George Winkler, a preacher in Halle, was cited by the Archbishop of
   Cologne to Aschaffenburg for distributing the communion in both kinds,
   and released, but murdered by unknown hands on his return, May, 1527.
   [804]

   Duke George of Saxony persecuted the Lutherans, not by death, but by
   imprisonment and exile. John Herrgott, a traveling book-peddler, was
   beheaded (1527) for revolutionary political opinions, rather than for
   selling Lutheran books. [805]

   In Southern Germany the Edict of Worms was more rigidly executed. Many
   executions by fire and sword, accompanied by barbarous mutilations,
   took place in Austria and Bavaria. In Vienna a citizen, Caspar Tauber,
   was beheaded and burnt, because he denied purgatory and
   transubstantiation, Sept. 17, 1524. [806] In Salzburg a priest was
   secretly beheaded without a trial, by order of the archbishop, for
   Lutheran heresy. [807] George Wagner, a minister at Munich, was burnt
   Feb. 8, 1527. Leonard Käser (or Kaiser) shared the same fate, Aug. 18,
   1527, by order of the bishop of Passau. Luther wrote him, while in
   prison, a letter of comfort. [808]

   But the Anabaptists had their martyrs as well, and they died with the
   same heroic faith. Hätzer was burnt in Constance, Hübmaier in Vienna.
   In Passau thirty perished in prison. In Salzburg some were mutilated,
   others beheaded, others drowned, still others burnt alive. [809]
   Unfortunately, the Anabaptists were not much better treated by
   Protestant governments; even in Zürich several were drowned in the
   river under the eyes of Zwingli. The darkest blot on Protestantism is
   the burning of Servetus for heresy and blasphemy, at Geneva, with the
   approval of Calvin and all the surviving Reformers, including
   Melanchthon (1553). He had been previously condemned, and burnt in
   effigy, by a Roman-Catholic tribunal in France. Now such a tragedy
   would be impossible in any church. The same human passions exist, but
   the ideas and circumstances have changed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [800] See Schaff, Church Hist. II. 78.

   [801] See above, p. 505, and Ranke, II. 119.

   [802] § 96, p. 574, sq.

   [803] See their biography in Piper's Evang. Kalender, VII. 408, and
   article "Klarenbach" by C. Krafft, in Herzog2, VIII. 20-33.

   [804] Luther wrote a letter of comfort to the Christians at Halle on
   the death of their minister. Walch, X. 2260. See also his letter, April
   28, 1528, in De Wette, III. 305.

   [805] See § 93, p. 567, note.

   [806] Ranke, II. 117 sq.

   [807] Ibid. p. 117.

   [808] Letter dated May 20, 1527, in De Wette, III. 179 sq. But Käser
   seems to have been an Anabaptist, which Luther did not know. See
   Cornelius, Gesch. des Münsterschen Aufruhrs, II. 56.

   [809] Ranke, III. 369.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER VII.

   THE SACRAMENTARIAN CONTROVERSIES.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 101. Sacerdotalism and Sacramentalism.

   The Catholic system of Christianity, both Greek and Roman, is
   sacramental and sacerdotal. The saving grace of Christ is conveyed to
   men through the channel of seven sacraments, or "mysteries,"
   administered by ordained priests, who receive members into the church
   by baptism, accompany them through the various stages of life, and
   dismiss them by extreme unction into the other world. A literal
   priesthood requires a literal sacrifice, and this is the repetition of
   Christ's one sacrifice on the cross offered by the priest in the mass
   from day to day. The power of the mass extends not only to the living,
   but even to departed spirits in purgatory, abridging their sufferings,
   and hastening their release and transfer to heaven.

   The Reformers rejected the sacerdotal system altogether, and
   substituted for it the general priesthood of believers, who have direct
   access to Christ as our only Mediator and Advocate, and are to offer
   the spiritual sacrifices of prayer, praise, and intercession. They
   rejected the sacrifice of the mass, and the theory of
   transubstantiation, and restored the cup to the laity. They also agreed
   in raising the Word of God, as the chief means of grace, above the
   sacraments, and in reducing the number of the sacraments. They retained
   Baptism and the Lord's Supper, as instituted by Christ for universal
   and perpetual observance.

   But here begins the difference. It consists in the extent of departure
   from the sacramental system of the Roman Church. The Lutheran
   Confession is, we may say, semi-sacramental, or much more sacramental
   than the Reformed (if we except the Anglican communion). [810] It
   retained the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, with the rite of
   exorcism, and the corporal presence in the eucharist. The Augsburg
   Confession makes the sacraments an essential criterion of the church.
   Luther's Catechism assigns to them an independent place alongside of
   the Commandments, the Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. It adds to baptism
   and the Lord's Supper confession and absolution as a third sacrament.
   At a later period, confirmation was restored to the position of a
   quasi-sacrament as a supplement of infant-baptism.

   Zwingli and Calvin reduced the sacraments to signs and seals of grace
   which is inwardly communicated by the Holy Spirit. They asserted the
   sovereign causality of God, and the independence of the Spirit who
   "bloweth where it willeth" (John 3:8). God can communicate his gifts
   freely as he chooses. We are, however, bound to his prescribed means.
   The Swiss Reformers also emphasized the necessity of faith, not only
   for a profitable use of the sacrament (which is conceded by the
   Lutherans), but for the reception of the sacrament itself. Unworthy
   communicants receive only the visible sign, not the thing signified,
   and they receive the sign to their own injury.

   The Anabaptists went still farther, and rejected infant-baptism because
   it lacks the element of faith on the part of the baptized. They were
   the forerunners of the Quakers, who dispensed with the external
   sacraments altogether, retaining, however, the spiritual fact of
   regeneration and communion with Christ, which the sacraments symbolize
   to the senses. The Quakers protested against forms when they were made
   substitutes for the spirit, and furnished the historic proof that the
   spirit in cases of necessity may live without forms, while forms
   without the spirit are dead.

   It was the will of Providence that different theories on the means of
   grace should be developed. These theories are not isolated; they
   proceed from different philosophical and theological standpoints, and
   affect other doctrines. Luther was not quite wrong when he said to
   Zwingli at Marburg "You have a different spirit." Luther took his stand
   on the doctrine of justification by faith; Zwingli and Calvin, on the
   doctrine of divine causality and sovereignty, or eternal election.
   Luther proceeded anthropologically and soteriologically from man to
   God, Zwingli and Calvin proceeded theologically from God to man.

   The difference culminates in the doctrine of the eucharistic presence,
   which called forth the fiercest controversies, and still divides
   Western Christendom into hostile camps. The eucharistic theories reveal
   an underlying difference of views on the relation of God to man, of the
   supernatural to the natural, of invisible grace to the visible means.
   The Roman doctrine of transubstantiation is the outgrowth of a magical
   supernaturalism which absorbs and annihilates the natural and human,
   leaving only the empty form. The Lutheran doctrine implies an
   interpenetration of the divine and human. The commemorative theory of
   Zwingli saves the integrity and peculiar character of the divine and
   human, but keeps them separate and distinct. The eucharistic theory
   affects Christology, the relation of church and state, and in some
   measure the character of piety. Lutheranism inclines to the Eutychian,
   Zwinglianism to the Nestorian, Christology. The former fosters a
   mystical, the latter a practical, type of piety.

   Calvin, who appeared on the stage of public action five years after
   Zwingli's, and ten years before Luther's, death, advocated with great
   ability a eucharistic theory which mediates between the Lutheran
   realism and the Zwinglian spiritualism, and which passed into the
   Reformed confessions Luther had to deal with Zwingli, and never came
   into contact with Calvin. If he had, the controversy might have taken a
   different shape; but he would have maintained his own view of the real
   presence, and refused the figurative interpretation of the words of
   institution.

   With the doctrine of the eucharist are connected some minor ritualistic
   differences, as the use of the wafer, and the kneeling posture of the
   communicants, which the Lutherans retained from the Catholic Church;
   while the Reformed restored the primitive practice of the breaking of
   bread, and the standing or sitting posture. Some Lutheran churches
   retained also the elevation of the host; Luther himself declared it a
   matter of indifference, and abolished it at Wittenberg in 1542. [811]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [810] Claus Harms, a typical Lutheran of the nineteenth century,
   published in 1817 Ninety-five Theses against Rationalism in the
   Lutheran Church, one of which reads thus (I quote from memory): "The
   Catholic Church is a glorious church; for it is built upon the
   Sacrament. The Reformed Church is a glorious church; for it is built
   upon the Word. But more glorious than either is the Lutheran Church;
   for it is built upon both the Word and the Sacrament."

   [811] "Vom Anbeten des Sacraments des heil. Leichnams Christi" (1523),
   addressed to the Bohemians (Erl. ed. XXVIII. 389, 404, 410); Kurzes
   Bekenntniss vom heil. Sacrament (1544), Erl. ed. XXXII. 420 sqq. In a
   letter to Buchholzer in Berlin, Dec. 4, 1539 (De Wette, V. 236), Luther
   reports that the elevation was given up at Wittenberg. But this must
   refer to the castle church, for in the parish church it continued till
   June 25, 1542 when Bugenhagen abolished it. See Köstlin, II. 588 and
   683.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 102. The Anabaptist Controversy. Luther and Huebmaier.

   Luther: Von der Wiedertaufe, an zwei Pfarrherrn. Wittenberg, 1528. In
   Walch, XXVII. 2643 sqq.; Erl. ed. XXVI. 254-294. Justus Menius: Der
   Wiedertäufer Lehre und Geheimniss, with a Preface by Luther, 1530. In
   the Erl. ed. LXIII. 290 sqq. Melanchthon: Contra Anabaptistas Judicium,
   "Corp. Reform." I. 953 sqq.

   On the Baptist side the writings of Huebmaier, or, as he wrote his
   name, Huebmör, which are very rare, and ought to be collected and
   republished. Calvary, in "Mittheilungen aus dem Antiquariate," vol. I.
   Berlin, 1870, gives a complete list of them. The most important are Von
   dem christlichen Tauf der Gläubigen (1525); Eine Stimme eines ganzen
   christlichen Lebens (1525); Von Ketzern und ihren Verbrennern;
   Schlussreden (Axiomata); Ein Form des Nachtmals Christi; Von der
   Freiwilligkeit des Menschen (to show that God gives to all men an
   opportunity to become his children by free choice); Zwölf Artikel des
   christlichen Glaubens, etc.

   On Huebmaier, see Schreiber in the "Taschenbuch fuer Gesch. und
   Alterthum Sueddeutschlands," Freiburg, 1839 and 40. Cunitz in Herzog's
   "Encykl.," 2d ed. VI. 344. Ranke, II. 118, 126; III. 366, 369. Janssen,
   II. 387, 486.

   All the Reformers retained the custom of infant-baptism, and opposed
   rebaptism (Wiedertaufe) as a heresy. So far they agreed with the
   Catholics against the Anabaptists, or Catabaptists as they were called,
   although they rejected the name, because in their view the baptism of
   infants was no baptism at all.

   The Anabaptists or Baptists (as distinct from Pedobaptists) sprang up
   in Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, and organized independent
   congregations. Their leaders were Huebmaier, Denck, Hätzer, and Grebel.
   They thought that the Reformers stopped half-way, and did not go to the
   root of the evil. They broke with the historical tradition, and
   constructed a new church of believers on the voluntary principle. Their
   fundamental doctrine was, that baptism is a voluntary act, and requires
   personal repentance, and faith in Christ. They rejected infant-baptism
   as an anti-scriptural invention. They could find no trace of it in the
   New Testament, the only authority in matters of faith. They were
   cruelly persecuted in Protestant as well as Roman Catholic countries.
   We must carefully distinguish the better class of Baptists and the
   Mennonites from the restless revolutionary radicals and fanatics, like
   Carlstadt, Muenzer, and the leaders of the Muenster tragedy.

   The mode of baptism was not an article of controversy at that time; for
   the Reformers either preferred immersion (Luther), or held the mode to
   be a matter of indifference (Calvin).

   Luther agreed substantially with the Roman Catholic doctrine of
   baptism. His Taufbuechlein of 1523 is a translation of the Latin
   baptismal service, including the formula of exorcism, the sign of the
   cross, and the dipping. The second edition (1526) is abridged, and
   omits the use of chrisma, salt, and spittle. [812] He defeated
   Carlstadt, Muenzer, and the Zwickau Prophets, who rejected
   infant-baptism, and embarrassed even Melanchthon. Saxony was cleared of
   Anabaptists; but their progress in other parts of Germany induced him a
   few years later to write a special book against Huebmaier, who appealed
   to his authority, and ascribed to him similar views.

   Balthasar Huebmaier, or Huebmör, was born near Augsburg, 1480; studied
   under Dr. Eck at Freiburg-i. -B. and Ingolstadt, and acquired the
   degree of doctor of divinity. He became a famous preacher in the
   cathedral at Regensburg, and occasioned the expulsion of the Jews in
   1519, whose synagogue was converted into a chapel of St. Mary. In 1522
   he embraced Protestant opinions, and became pastor at Waldshut on the
   Rhine, on the borders of Switzerland. He visited Erasmus at Basel, and
   Zwingli at Zuerich, and aided the latter in the introduction of the
   Reformation. The Austrian government threatened violent measures, and
   demanded the surrender of his person. He left Waldshut, and took refuge
   in a convent of Schaffhausen, but afterwards returned. He openly
   expressed his dissent from Zwingli and Oecolampadius on the subject of
   infant-baptism. Zwingli was right, he said, in maintaining that baptism
   was a mere sign, but the significance of this sign was the pledge of
   faith and obedience unto death, and such a pledge a child could not
   make; therefore the baptism of a child had no meaning, and was invalid.
   Faith must be present, and cannot be taken for granted as a future
   certainly. Instead of baptism he introduced a solemn presentation or
   consecration of children before the congregation. He made common cause
   with the Anabaptists of Zuerich, and with Thomas Muenzer, who came into
   the neighborhood of Waldshut, and kindled the flame of the Peasants'
   War. He is supposed by some to be the author of the Twelve Articles of
   the Peasants. He was rebaptized about Easter, 1525, and re-baptized
   many others. He abolished the mass, and removed the altar, baptismal
   font, pictures and crosses from the church.

   The triumph of the re-action against the rebellious peasants forced him
   to flee to Zuerich (December, 1525). He had a public disputation with
   Zwingli, who had himself formerly leaned to the view that it would be
   better to put off baptism to riper years of responsibility, though he
   never condemned infant-baptism. He retracted under pressure and
   protest, and was dismissed with some aid. He went to Nikolsburg in
   Moravia, published a number of books in German, having brought a
   printing-press with him from Switzerland, and gathered the Baptist
   "Brethren" into congregations. But when Moravia, after the death of
   Louis of Hungary, fell into the possession of King Ferdinand of
   Austria, Huebmaier was arrested with his wife, sent to Vienna, charged
   with complicity in the Peasants' War, and burned to death, March 10,
   1528. He died with serene courage and pious resignation. His wife, who
   had strengthened him in his faith, was drowned three days later in the
   Danube. Zwingli, after his quarrel with Huebmaier, speaks unfavorably
   of his character; Vadian of St. Gall, and Bullinger, give him credit
   for great eloquence and learning, but charge him with a restless spirit
   of innovation. He was an advocate of the voluntary principle. and a
   martyr of religious freedom. Heretics, he maintained, are those only
   who wickedly oppose the Holy Sciptures, and should be won by
   instruction and persuasion. To use force is to deny Christ, who came to
   save, not to destroy.

   A few months before Huebmaier's death, Luther wrote, rather hastily, a
   tract against the Anabaptists (January or February, 1528), in the shape
   of a letter to two unnamed ministers in Catholic territory. [813] "I
   know well enough," he begins, "that Balthasar Huebmör quotes me among
   others by name, in his blasphemous book on Re-baptism, as if I were of
   his foolish mind. But I take comfort in the fact that neither friend
   nor foe will believe such a lie, since I have sufficiently in my
   sermons shown my faith in infant-baptism." He expressed his dissent
   from the harsh and cruel treatment of the Anabaptists, and maintained
   that they ought to be resisted only by the Word of God and arguments,
   not by fire and sword, unless they preach insurrection and resist the
   civil magistrate. [814] At the same time he ungenerously depreciated
   the constancy of their martyrs, and compared them to the Jewish martyrs
   at the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Donatist martyrs. [815] He
   thought it served the papists right, to be troubled with such sectaries
   of the Devil in punishment for not tolerating the gospel. He then
   proceeds to refute their objections to infant-baptism.

   1. Infant-baptism is wrong because it comes from the pope, who is
   Antichrist. But then we ought to reject the Scriptures, and
   Christianity itself, which we have in common with Rome. Christ found
   many abuses among the Pharisees and Sadducees and the Jewish people,
   but did not reject the Old Testament, and told his disciples to observe
   their doctrines (Matt. 23:3). Here Luther pays a striking tribute to
   the Roman church, and supports it by the very fact that the pope is
   Antichrist, and reveals his tyranny in the temple of God, that is,
   within the Christian Church, and not outside of it. [816] By such an
   argument the Anabaptists weaken the cause of Christianity, and deceive
   themselves.

   2. Infants know nothing of their baptism, and have to learn it
   afterwards from their parents or sponsors. But we know nothing of our
   natural birth and of many other things, except on the testimony of
   others.

   3. Infants cannot believe. Luther denied this, and appealed to the word
   of Christ, who declared them fit for the kingdom of heaven (Matt.
   19:14), and to the example of John the Baptist, who believed in the
   mother's womb (Luke 1:41). Reformed divines, while admitting the
   capacity or germ of faith in infants, base infant-baptism on the
   vicarious faith of parents, and the covenant blessing of Abraham which
   extends to his seed (Gen. 17:7). Luther mentions this also.

   4. The absence of a command to baptize children. But they are included
   in the command to baptize all nations (Matt. 28:19). The burden of
   proof lies on the Anabaptists to show that infant-baptism is forbidden
   in the Bible, before they abolish such an old and venerable institution
   of the whole Christian Church.

   5. Among the positive arguments, Luther mentions the analogy of
   circumcision, Christ's treatment of children, the cases of family
   baptisms, Acts 2:39; 16:15, 33; 1 Cor. 1:16.

   Melanchthon quoted also the testimonies of Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom,
   and Augustin, for the apostolic origin of infant-baptism.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [812] See above § 45, p. 218, and the two editions of the Taufbüchlein
   in the Erl. ed. XXII. 157, 291. In both editions dipping is prescribed
   ("Da nehme er das Kind und tauche es in die Taufe"), and no mention is
   made of any other mode. The Reformed churches objected to the retention
   of exorcism as a species of superstition. The first English liturgy of
   Edward VI. (who was baptized by immersion) prescribes trine-immersion
   (dipping); the second liturgy of 1552 does the same, but gives (for the
   first time in England) permission to substitute pouring when the child
   is weak.

   [813] He calls it in a letter to Spalatin, Feb. 5, 1528 (De Wette, III.
   279), "epistolam tumultuarie scriptam." He alludes to it in several
   other letters of the same year (III. 250, 253, 263).

   [814] The passage is quoted in § 11, p. 60.

   [815] Letter to Link, May 12, 1528 (De Wette, III. 311): "Constantiam
   Anabaptistarum morientium arbitror similem esse illi, qua Augustinus
   celebrat Donatistas et Josephus Judaeos in vastata Jerusalem, et multa
   talia furorem esse Satanae non est dubium, praesertim ubi sic moriuntur
   cum blasphemia sacramenti. Sancti martyres, ut noster Leonardus Kaiser
   [a Lutheran of Bavaria who was beheaded Aug. 18, 1527] cum timore et
   humilitate magnaque animi erga hostes lenitatemoriuntur: illi vero
   quasi hostium taedio et indignatione pertinaciam suam augere, et sic
   mori videntur."

   [816] See above, p. 529 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 103. The Eucharistic Controversy.

   I. Sources (1) Lutheran. Luther: Wider die himmlischen Propheten, Jan.
   1525 (against Carlstadt and the Enthusiasts). Dass die Worte, "Das ist
   mein Leib," noch fest stehen (wider die Schwarmgeister), 1527. Grosses
   Bekenntniss vom Abendmahl, March, 1528 (against Zwingli and
   Oecolampadius). Kurzes Bekenntniss rom heil. Sacrament, 1544. All these
   tracts in the Erl. ed. vols. XXVI. 254; XXIX. 134, 348; XXX. 14, 151;
   XXXII. 396. Walch, Vol. XX. 1-2955, gives the eucharistic writings, for
   and against Luther, together with a history.

   Bugenhagen: Contra novum errorem de sacramento corporis et sanguinis
   Christi. 1525. Also in German. In Walch, XX. 641 sqq. Brentz and
   Schnepf: Syngramma Suevicum super verbis coenae Dominicae "Hoc est
   corpus meum," etc., signed by fourteen Swabian preachers, Oct. 21,
   1525. Against Oecolampadius, see Walch, XX. 34, 667 sqq.

   (2) On the Zwinglian side. Zwingli: Letter to Rev. Mathaeus Alber, Nov.
   16, 1524; Commentarius de vera et falsa religione, 1525; Amica
   exegesis, id est, Expositio eucharistiae negotii ad M. Lutherum, 1526;
   Dass diese Worte Jesu Christi: "Das ist myn Lychnam," ewiglich den
   alten eynigen Sinn haben werden, 1527; and several other eucharistic
   tracts. Oecolampadius: De genuina verborum Domini: "Hoc est corpus
   meum," juxta vetustissimos auctores expositione, Basel, 1525;
   Antisyngramma ad ecclesiastas Suevos (with two sermons on the
   sacrament), 1526. Oecolampadius and Zwingli: Ueber Luther's Buch
   Bekenntniss genannt, zwo Antworten, 1528. See Zwingli: Opera, ed.
   Schuler and Schulthess, vol. II. Part II. 1-223; III. 145; 459 sqq.;
   589 sqq.; 604 sqq. Also Walch, vol. XX. Extracts in Usteri and Vögelin,
   M. H. Zwingli's Sämmtl. Schriften im Auszuge, vol. II. Part I., pp.
   3-187.

   II. The historical works on the eucharistic controversies of the
   Reformation period, by Lavater (Historia Sacramentaria, Tig. 1563):
   Selnecker and Chemnitz (Hist. des sacram. Streits, Leipz., 1583 and
   1593); Hospinian (Hist. Sacramentaria, Tig. 1603, 2 vols.); Löscher
   (Hist. Motuum, in 3 Parts, Leipz., second ed., 1723); Ebrard (Das Dogma
   vom heil. Abendmahl und seine Geschichte, 2 vols., 1846); Kahnis
   (1851); Dieckhoff (1854); H. Schmid (1873).

   III. The respective sections in the General Church Histories, and the
   Histories of the Reformation, especially Seckendorf, Gieseler, Baur,
   Hagenbach, Merle, Fisher. Planck, in his Geschichte des Protest.
   Lehrbegriffs (Leipz. second revised ed., 1792, vol. II., Books V. and
   VI.), gives a very full and accurate account of the eucharistic
   controversy, although he calls it "die unseligste alter Streitigkeiten"
   (II. 205).

   IV. Special discussions. Dorner: Geschichte der protestant. Theologie
   (Muenchen, 1867), pp. 296-329. Jul. Mueller: Vergleichung der Lehren
   Luther's und Calvin's ueber das heil. Abendmahl, in his "Dogmatische
   Abhandlungen" (Bremen, 1870, pp. 404-467). Köstlin: Luther's Theologie,
   II. 100 sqq., 511 sqq.; Mart. Luther, I. 715-725; II. 65-110 (Luther
   und Zwingli); 127 sqq.; 363-369. August Baur: Zwingli's Theologie
   (Halle, 1885; second vol. has not yet appeared).

   American discussions of the eucharistic controversies. J. W. Nevin
   (Reformed, d. 1886): The Mystical Presence, Philadelphia, 1846;
   Doctrine of the Reformed Church on the Lord's Supper, in "The
   Mercersburg Review," 1850, pp. 421-549. Ch. Hodge (Presbyt, d. 1878):
   in "The Princeton Review" for April, 1848; Systematic Theology, New
   York, 1873, vol. III., 626-677. C. P. Krauth (Luth., d. 1883): The
   Conservative Reformation (Philadelphia, 1872), p. 585 sqq. H. J. Van
   Dyke (Calvinist): The Lord's Supper, 2 arts. in "The Presbyterian
   Review," New York, 1887, pp. 193 and 472 sqq. J. W. Richard (Luth.), in
   the "Bibliotheca Sacra" (Oberlin, O.), Oct. 1887, p. 667 sqq., and Jan.
   1888, p. 110 sqq.

   See, also, the Lit. quoted in Schaff, Church Hist., I. 471 sq. and IV.
   543 sq.

   While the Reformers were agreed on the question of infant-baptism
   against the Anabaptists, they disagreed on the mode and extent of the
   real presence in the Lord's Supper.

   The eucharistic controversies of the sixteenth century present a sad
   and disheartening spectacle of human passion and violence, and
   inflicted great injury to the progress of the Reformation by preventing
   united action, and giving aid and comfort to the enemy; but they were
   overruled for the clearer development and statement of truth, like the
   equally violent Trinitarian, Christological, and other controversies in
   the ancient church. It is a humiliating fact, that the feast of union
   and communion of believers with Christ and with each other, wherein
   they engage in the highest act of worship, and make the nearest
   approach to heaven, should have become the innocent occasion of bitter
   contests among brethren professing the same faith and the same devotion
   to Christ and his gospel. The person of Christ and the supper of Christ
   have stirred up the deepest passions of love and hatred. Fortunately,
   the practical benefit of the sacrament depends upon God's promise, and
   simple and childlike faith in Christ, and not upon any scholastic
   theory, any more than the benefit of the Sacred Scriptures depends upon
   a critical knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

   The eucharist was twice the subject of controversy in the Middle
   Ages,--first in the ninth, and then in the eleventh, century. The
   question in both cases turned on a grossly realistic and a spiritual
   conception of the sacramental presence and fruition of Christ's body
   and blood; and the result was the triumph of the Roman dogma of
   transubstantiation, as advocated by Paschasius Radbertus against
   Ratramnus, and by Lanfranc against Berengar, and as finally sanctioned
   by the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, and the Council of Trent in
   1551. [817]

   The Greek and Latin churches are substantially agreed on the doctrine
   of the communion and the mass, but divide on the ritual question of the
   use of leavened or unleavened bread. The withdrawal of the cup from the
   laity caused the bloody Hussite wars.

   The eucharistic controversies of the Protestants assumed a different
   form. Transubstantiation was discarded by both parties. The question
   was not, whether the elements as to their substance are miraculously
   transformed into the body and blood of Christ, but whether Christ was
   corporally or only spiritually (though no less really) present with the
   natural elements; and whether he was partaken of by all communicants
   through the mouth, or only by the worthy communicants through faith.

   The controversy has two acts, each with several scenes: first, between
   Luther and Zwingli; secondly, between the Lutherans and Philippists and
   Calvinists. At last Luther's theory triumphed in the Lutheran, Calvin's
   theory in the Reformed churches. The Protestant denominations which
   have arisen since the Reformation on English and American
   soil,--Independents, Baptists, Methodists, etc.,--have adopted the
   Reformed view. Luther's theory is strictly confined to the church which
   bears his name. But, as the Melanchthonian and moderate Lutherans
   approach very nearly the Calvinistic view, so there are Calvinists, and
   especially Anglicans, who approach the Lutheran view more nearly than
   the Zwinglian. The fierce antagonism of the sixteenth and seventeenth
   centuries has given way on both sides to a more dispassionate and
   charitable temper. This is a real progress.

   We shall first trace the external history of this controversy, and then
   present the different theories with the arguments.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [817] Schaff, Church History, vol. IV. 543-572; Creeds of Christendom,
   II 130-139.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 104. Luther's Theory before the Controversy.

   Luther rejected, in his work on the "Babylonish Captivity of the
   Church" (1520), the doctrine of the mass, transubstantiation, and the
   withdrawal of the cup, as strongholds of the Papal tyranny. From this
   position he never receded. In the same work he clearly intimated his
   own view, which he had learned from Pierre d'Ailly, Cardinal of Cambray
   (Cameracensis), [818] in these words: --

   Formerly, when I was imbibing the scholastic theology, the Cardinal of
   Cambray gave me occasion for reflection, by arguing most acutely, in
   the Fourth Book of the Sentences, that it would be much more probable,
   and that fewer superfluous miracles would have to be introduced, if
   real bread and real wine, and not only their accidents, were understood
   to be upon the altar, unless the Church had determined the contrary.
   Afterwards, when I saw what the church was, which had thus
   determined,--namely, the Thomistic, that is, the Aristotelian
   Church,--I became bolder; and, whereas I had been before in great
   straits of doubt, I now at length established my conscience in the
   former opinion: namely, that there were real bread and real wine, in
   which were the real flesh and real blood of Christ in no other manner
   and in no less degree than the other party assert them to be under the
   accidents. [819] ... Why should not Christ be able to include his body
   within the substance of bread, as well as within the accidents? Fire
   and iron, two different substances, are so mingled in red-hot iron that
   every part of it is both fire and iron. Why may not the glorious body
   of Christ much more be in every part of the substance of the bread? ...
   I rejoice greatly, that, at least among the common people, there
   remains a simple faith in this sacrament. They neither understand nor
   argue whether there are accidents in it or substance, but believe, with
   simple faith, that the body and blood of Christ are truly contained in
   it, leaving to these men of leisure the task of arguing as to what it
   contains."

   At that time of departure from Romanism he would have been very glad,
   as he confessed five years later, to become convinced that there was
   nothing in the Lord's Supper but bread and wine. Yea, his old Adam was
   still inclined to such a view; but he dared not doubt the literal
   meaning of the words of institution. [820] In his book on the
   "Adoration of the Sacrament" (1523), addressed to the Waldensian
   Brethren in Bohemia, he rejects their symbolical theory, as well as the
   Romish transub-stantiation, and insists on the real and substantial
   presence of Christ's body and blood in the eucharistic elements; but
   treats them very kindly, notwithstanding their supposed error, and
   commends them for their piety and discipline, in which they excelled
   the Germans. [821]

   In his conviction of the real presence, he was greatly strengthened by
   the personal attacks and perverse exegesis of Carlstadt. Henceforth he
   advocated the point of agreement with the Catholics more strenuously
   than he had formerly opposed the points in which he differed from them.
   He changed the tone of moderation which he had shown in his address to
   the Bohemians, and treated his Protestant opponents with as great
   severity as the Papists. His peculiar view of the eucharist became the
   most, almost the only, serious doctrinal difference between the two
   wings of the Reformation, and has kept them apart ever since.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [818] Petrus de Alliaco (1350-1420) was one of the leaders of the
   disciplinary reform movement during the papal schism, and in the
   councils of Pisa and Constance, the teacher of Gerson and Nicolaus de
   Clemanges. He gives his views on consubstantiation and
   transubstantiation, which resemble those of Occam in his Quaestiones
   super libros Sententiarum (Argent. 1490), Lib. IV. Qu. VI. See Steitz,
   in his learned art. on transubstantiation, in Herzog2 XV. 831; and
   Tschackert, Peter von Ailli, Gotha, 1877.

   [819] "Esse verum panem verumque vinum, in quibus Christi vera caro
   verusque sanguis non aliter nec minus sit, quam illi sub accidentibus
   suis ponunt."

   [820] "Das bekenne ich," he wrote, Dec. 15, 1524, to the Christians in
   Strassburg (De Wette, II. 577), "wo D. Carlstadt oder jemand anders vor
   fünf Jahren mich hätte mögen berichten, dass im Sacrament nichts denn
   Brot und Wein wäre, der hätte mir einen grossen Dienst gethan. Ich habe
   wohl so harte Anfechtungen da erlitten und mich gerungen und gewunden,
   dass ich gern heraus gewesen wäre, weil ich wohl sah, dass ich damit
   dem Papstthum hätte den grössten Puff können geben. Ich hab auch zween
   gehabt, die geschickter davon zu mir geschrieben haben denn D.
   Carlstadt, und nicht also die Worte gemartert nach eigenem Dünken. Aber
   ich bin gefangen, kann nicht heraus: der Text ist zu gewaltig da, und
   will sich mit Worten nicht lassen ans dem Sinn reissen." The two
   persons alluded to are probably, as Ullmann conjectures, Wessel or
   Rhodius and Honius, who sent a letter to Luther with Wessel's books.

   [821] In Walch, XIX. 1593 sqq.; Erl. ed., XXVIII. 389 sqq. He says in
   the beginning: "We Germans believe that Christ is verily with his flesh
   and blood in the sacrament, as he was born of Mary, and hung on the
   holy cross." He rejects the figurative interpretation because it might
   deprive other passages of their force.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 105. Luther and Carlstadt.

   The first outward impulse to the eucharistic controversy came from
   Holland in the summer of 1522, when Henry Rhodius brought from Utrecht
   a collection of the writings of John Wessel to Wittenberg, which he had
   received from a distinguished Dutch jurist, Cornelius Honius (Hoen).
   Wessel, one of the chief forerunners of the Reformation (d. 1489),
   proposed, in a tract "De Coena," a figurative interpretation of the
   words of institution, which seems to have influenced the opinions of
   Erasmus, Carlstadt, and Zwingli on this subject. [822]

   But Luther was so much pleased with the agreement on other points that
   he overlooked the difference, and lauded Wessel as a theologian truly
   taught of God, and endowed with a high mind and wonderful gifts; yea,
   so fully in harmony with him, that the Papists might charge Luther with
   having derived all his doctrines from Wessel, had he known his writings
   before. [823]

   The controversy was opened in earnest by Carlstadt, Luther's older
   colleague and former friend, who gave him infinite trouble, and forced
   him into self-defense and into the development of the conservative and
   churchly elements in his theology. [824] He smarted under the defeat he
   had suffered in 1522, and first silently, then openly, opposed Luther,
   regarding him henceforth as his enemy, and as the author of all his
   misfortunes. In this way he mixed, from the start, the gall of personal
   bitterness into the eucharistic controversy. Luther would probably have
   been more moderate if it had been free from those complications.

   In 1524 Carlstadt came out with a new and absurd interpretation of the
   words of institution (Matt. 26:26 and parallel passages); holding that
   the Greek word for "this" being neuter (tou'to), could not refer to the
   bread, which is masculine in Greek (a[rto"), but must refer to the body
   of Christ (to; sw'ma), to which the Saviour pointed, so as to say,
   "Take, eat! This here [this body] is my body [which will soon be]
   broken for you; this [blood] is my blood [which will be] shed for you."
   This resolves the words into a tautology and platitude. At the same
   time Carlstadt opposed infant-baptism, and traced his crude novelties
   to higher inspiration. [825] After his expulsion from Saxony he
   propagated them, together with slanderous assaults upon Luther as, a
   double Papist," in several publications which appeared in Basel and
   Strasburg. [826] He excited some interest among the Swiss Reformers,
   who sympathized with his misfortunes, and agreed with his opposition to
   the theory of a corporal presence and oral manducation, but dissented
   entirely from his exegesis, his mysticism, and radicalism. Capito and
   Bucer, the Reformers of Strassburg, leaned to the Swiss view, but
   regretted the controversy, and sent a deacon with Carlstadt's tracts to
   Luther for advice.

   Luther exhorted the Strassburgers, in a vigorous letter (Dec. 14,
   1524), to hold fast to the evangelical doctrines, and warned them
   against the dangerous vagaries of Carlstadt. At the same time he issued
   an elaborate refutation of Carlstadt, in a book "Against the Heavenly
   Prophets" (December, 1524, and January, 1525, in two parts). It is
   written with great ability and great violence. "A new storm is
   arising," he begins. "Dr. Andreas Carlstadt is fallen away from us, and
   has become our worst enemy." He thought the poor man had committed the
   unpardonable sin. [827] He describes, in vivid colors, the wild and
   misty mysticism and false legalism of these self-styled prophets, and
   defends the real presence. He despised the objections of reason, which
   was the mistress of the Devil. It is characteristic, that, from this
   time on, he lowered his estimate of the value of reason in theology,
   although he used it very freely and effectually in this very book.
   [828]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [822] Ullmann, Reformatoren vor der Reformation (1842), vol. II.
   560-583. Melanchthon derived the controversy from Erasmus. "Tota illa
   tragoedia peri deipnou kuriakou ab ipso [Erasmo] nata videri potest."
   Letter to Camerarius, July 26, 1529 ("Corpus Ref.," I. 1083). He was
   informed by Zwingli in Marburg: "se ex Erasmi scriptis primum hausisse
   opinionem suam de coena Domini." Letter to Acquila, Oct. 12, 1529 (IV.
   970). Erasmus spoke very highly of the book of Oecolampadius on the
   Lord's Supper, and would have accepted his view if it were not for the
   consensus of the church: "Mihi non displiceret Oecolampadii sententia,
   nisi obstaret consensus ecclesiae." Letter to Pirkheimer, June 6, 1526.

   [823] Preface to "Farrago rerum, theolog., Wesselo autore," published
   at Wittenberg, 1521 or 1522. Op., VII. 493 sqq. See Ullmann, l.c. p.
   564 sq. This edition, however, excludes the tract De coena,--a proof
   that Luther did not altogether like it.

   [824] See §§ 66 and 68, pp. 378 sqq. and 387. Carlstadt is the real
   author of the eucharistic controversy, not Luther, as Hospinian and
   Hottinger assumed. But Luther and Zwingli were the chief actors in it.
   Carlstadt's view passed out of sight, when the Swiss view was brought
   out.

   [825] This is the reason why Luther called Carlstadt and his
   sympathizers enthusiasts and fanatics. Schwarmgeister or Schwärmer.

   [826] His eucharistic tracts in crude and unreadable German are printed
   in Walch, XX. 138-158, 378-409, 2852-2929. Comp., also, vol. XV.
   2414-2502. Carlstadt's earlier eucharistic writings of 1521 strongly
   defend the corporal presence, and even the adoration of bread and wine,
   because they were the body and blood of Christ. Planck, l.c., II. 210
   sqq., gives a full exposition of his earlier and later views. See,
   also, M. Göbel on Carlstadt's Abendmahlslehre in the "Studien und
   Kritiken," 1842.

   [827] Letter to Briesmann, Jan. 11, 1525, De Wette, II. 612.

   [828] KöstIin (M. L., I. 726): Luther's Widerwille gegen die
   menschliche Vernunft im Gebiete des Religiösen und Göttlichen wurde,
   seit er hier [in Carlstadt's writings] sie auftreten sah, noch stärker
   und heftiger als früher. Früher stellte er hin und wieder noch
   unbefangen die Berufung auf Schriftbeweise und auf helle, evidente,
   vernünftige Gründe nebeneinander, indem er durch die einen oder anderen
   widerlegt zu werden begehrte: so ja auch noch beim Wormser Reichstag;
   solchen Ausdrücken werden wir fortan nicht leicht mehr begegnen."On
   Luther's views of the relation of reason to faith, see above, § 9, p.
   29 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 106. Luther and Zwingli.

   But now two more formidable opponents appeared on the field, who, by
   independent study, had arrived at a far more sensible interpretation of
   the words of institution than that of Carlstadt, and supported it with
   strong exegetical and rational arguments. Zwingli, the Luther of
   Switzerland, and Oecolampadius, its Melanchthon, gave the controversy a
   new and more serious turn.

   Zwingli received the first suggestion of a figurative interpretation
   (est = significat) from Erasmus and Wessel through Honius; as Luther
   derived his first idea of a corporal presence in the unchanged elements
   from Pierre d'Ailly. [829] He communicated his view, in a confidential
   Latin letter, Nov. 16, 1524, to the Lutheran preacher, Matthaeus Alber
   in Reutlingen, an opponent of Carlstadt, and based it on Christ's word,
   John 6:63, as excluding a carnal or material manducation of his body
   and blood. [830]

   A few months later (March, 1525) he openly expressed his view with the
   same arguments in the "Commentary on the True and False Religion."
   [831] This was three months after Luther had published his book against
   Carlstadt. He does not men-tion Luther in either of these two writings,
   but evidently aimed at him, and speaks of his view almost as
   contemptuously as Luther had spoken of Carlstadt's view.

   In the same year Oecolampadius, one of the most learned and pious men
   of his age, appeared with a very able work in defense of the same
   theory, except that he put the figure in the predicate, and explained
   the words of institution (like Tertullian): "hoc est figura corporis
   mei." He lays, how-ever, no stress on this difference, as the sense is
   the same. He wrote with as much modesty and moderation as learning and
   acuteness. He first made use of testimonies of the church fathers,
   especially Augustin, who favors a spiritual fruition of Christ by
   faith. Erasmus judged the arguments of Oecolampadius to be strong
   enough to seduce the very elect. [832]

   The Lutherans were not slow to reply to the Swiss.

   Bugenhagen, a good pastor, but poor theologian, published a letter to
   Hess of Breslau against Zwingli. [833] He argues, that, if the
   substantive verb in the words of institution is figurative, it must
   always be figurative; e.g., "Peter is a man," would mean, "Peter
   signifies a man." [834] He also appeals to 1 Cor. 11:27, where Paul
   says that unworthy communicants are guilty of the body and blood of
   Christ, not of bread and wine. Zwingli had easy work to dispose of such
   an opponent. [835]

   Several Swabian preachers, under the lead of Brentius of Hall, replied
   to Oecolampadius, who (himself a Swabian by birth) had dedicated his
   book to them with the request to examine and review it. Their Syngramma
   Suevicum is much more important than Bugenhagen's epistle. They put
   forth the peculiar view that the word of Christ puts into bread and
   wine the very body and blood of Christ; as the word of Moses imparted a
   hearing power to the brazen serpent; as the word of Christ, "Peace be
   unto you," imparts peace; and the word, "Thy sins be forgiven," imparts
   pardon. But, by denying that the body of Christ is broken by the hands,
   and chewed with the teeth, they unwittingly approached the Swiss idea
   of a purely spiritual manducation. Oecolampadius clearly demonstrated
   this inconsistency in his Anti-syngramma (1526). [836] Pirkheimer of
   Nuernberg, and Billicum of Nördlingen, likewise wrote against
   Oecolampadius, but without adding any thing new.

   The controversy reached its height in 1527 and 1528, when Zwingli and
   Luther came into direct conflict. Zwingli combated Luther's view
   vigorously, but respectfully, fortiter in re, suaviter in modo, in a
   Latin book, under the peaceful title, "Friendly Exegesis," and sent a
   copy to Luther with a letter, April 1, 1527. [837] Luther appeared
   nearly at the same time (early in 1527), but in a very different tone,
   with a German book against Zwingli and Oecolampadius, under the title,
   "That the Words of Christ: 'This is my Body,' stand fast. Against the
   Fanatics (Schwarmgeister)." [838] Here he derives the Swiss view
   directly from the inspiration of the Devil. "How true it is," he
   begins, "that the Devil is a master of a thousand arts! [839] He proves
   this powerfully in the external rule of this world by bodily lusts,
   tricks, sins, murder, ruin, etc., but especially, and above all
   measure, in spiritual and external things which affect God's honor and
   our conscience. How he can turn and twist, and throw all sorts of
   obstacles in the way, to prevent men from being saved and abiding in
   the Christian truth!" Luther goes on to trace the working of the Devil
   from the first corruptions of the gospel by heretics, popes, and
   Councils, down to Carlstadt and the Zwinglians, and mentions the Devil
   on every page. This is characteristic of his style of polemics against
   the Sacramentarians, as well as the Papists. He refers all evil in the
   world to the Prince of evil. He believed in his presence and power as
   much as in the omnipresence of God and the ubiquity of Christ's body.

   He dwells at length on the meaning of the words of institution: "This
   is my body." They must be taken literally, unless the contrary can be
   proved. Every departure from the literal sense is a device of Satan, by
   which, in his pride and malice, he would rob man of respect for God's
   Word, and of the benefit of the sacrament. He makes much account of the
   disagreement of his opponents, and returns to it again and again, as if
   it were conclusive against them. Carlstadt tortures the word "this" in
   the sacred text; Zwingli, the word "is;" "Oecolampadius, the word
   "body;" [840] others torture and murder the whole text. All alike
   destroy the sacraments. He allows no figurative meaning even in such
   passages as 1 Cor. 10:4; John 15:1; Gen. 41:26; Exod. 12:11, 12. When
   Paul says, Christ is a rock, he means that he is truly a spiritual
   rock. When Christ says, "I am the vine," he means a true spiritual
   vine. But what else is this than a figurative interpretation in another
   form?

   A great part of the book is devoted to the proof of the ubiquity of
   Christ's body. He explains "the right hand of God" to mean his
   "almighty power." Here he falls himself into a figurative
   interpretation. He ridicules the childish notion which he ascribes to
   his opponents, although they never dreamed of it, that Christ is
   literally seated, and immovably fastened, on a golden throne in heaven,
   with a golden crown on his head. [841] He does not go so far as to deny
   the realness of Christ's ascension, which implies a removal of his
   corporal presence. There is, in this reasoning, a strange combination
   of literal and figurative interpretation. But he very forcibly argues
   from the personal union of the divine and human natures in Christ, for
   the possibility of a real presence; only he errs in confounding real
   with corporal. He forgets that the spiritual is even more real than the
   corporal, and that the corporal is worth nothing without the spiritual.

   Nitzsch and Köstlin are right when they say that both Zwingli and
   Luther "assume qualities of the glorified body of Christ, of which we
   can know nothing; the one by asserting a spacial inclusion of that body
   in heaven, the other by asserting dogmatically its divine omnipresence
   on earth." [842] We may add, that the Reformers proceeded on an
   assumption of the locality of heaven, which is made impossible by the
   Copernican system. For aught we know, heaven may be very near, and
   round about as well as above us.

   Zwingli answered Luther without delay, in an elaborate treatise,
   likewise in German (but in the Swiss dialect), and under a similar
   title ("That the words, 'This is my body,' have still the old and only
   sense," etc.). [843] It is addressed to the Elector John of Saxony, and
   dated June 20, 1527. Zwingli follows Luther step by step, answers every
   argument, defends the figurative interpretation of the words of
   institution by many parallel passages (Gen. 41:26; Exod. 12:11; Gal.
   4:24; Matt. 11:14; 1 Cor. 10:4, etc.), and discusses also the relation
   of the two natures in Christ.

   He disowns the imputed literal understanding of God's almighty hand,
   and says, "We have known long since that God's power is everywhere,
   that he is the Being of beings, and that his omnipresence upholds all
   things. We know that where Christ is, there is God, and where God is,
   there is Christ. But we distinguish between the two natures, and
   between the person of Christ and the body of Christ." He charges Luther
   with confounding the two. The attributes of the infinite nature of God
   are not communicable to the finite nature of man, except by an exchange
   which is called in rhetoric alloeosis. The ubiquity of Christ's body is
   a contradiction. Christ is everywhere, but his body cannot be
   everywhere without ceasing to be a body, in any proper sense of the
   term.

   This book of Zwingli is much sharper than his former writings on the
   subject. He abstains indeed from abusive language, and says that God's
   Word must decide the controversy, and not opprobrious terms, as
   fanatic, devil, murderer, heretic, hypocrite, which Luther deals out so
   freely. [844] But he and his friends applied also very unjust terms
   against the Lutherans, such as Capernaites, flesh-eaters,
   blood-drinkers, and called their communion bread a baked God. [845]
   Moreover, Zwingli assumes an offensive and provoking tone of
   superiority, which cut to the quick of Luther's sensibilities. Take the
   opening sentence: "To Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli wishes grace and
   peace from God through Jesus Christ the living Son of God, who, for our
   salvation, suffered death, and then left this world in his body and
   ascended to heaven, where he sits until he shall return on the last
   day, according to his own word, so that you may know that he dwells in
   our hearts by faith (Eph. 3:17), and not by bodily eating through the
   mouth, as thou wouldest teach without God's Word." Towards the end he
   says, with reference to Luther's attack upon Bucer: "Christ teaches us
   to return good for evil. Antichrist reverses the maxim, and you have
   followed him by abusing the pious and learned Bucer for translating and
   spreading your books .... Dear Luther, I humbly beseech you not to be
   so furious in this matter as heretofore. If you are Christ's, so are
   we. It behooves us to contend only with the Word of God, and to observe
   Christian self-control. We must not fight against God, nor cloak our
   errors by his Word. God grant unto you the knowledge of truth, and of
   thyself, that you may remain Luther, and not become louvtrion. [846]
   The truth will prevail. Amen."

   Oecolampadius wrote likewise a book in self-defense. [847] Luther now
   came out, in March, 1528, with his Great "Confession on the Lord's
   Supper," which he intended to be his last word in this controversy.
   [848] It is his most elaborate treatise on the eucharist, full of force
   and depth, but also full of wrath. He begins again with the Devil, and
   rejoices that he had provoked his fury by the defense of the holy
   sacrament. He compares the writings of his opponents to venomous
   adders. I shall waste, he says, no more paper on their mad lies and
   nonsense, lest the Devil might be made still more furious. May the
   merciful God convert them, and deliver them from the bonds of Satan! I
   can do no more. A heretic we must reject, after the first and second
   admonition (Tit. 3:10). Nevertheless, he proceeds to an elaborate
   assault on the Devil and his fanatical crew.

   The "Confession" is divided into three parts. The first is a refutation
   of the arguments of Zwingli and Oecolampadius; the second, an
   explanation of the passages which treat of the Lord's Supper; the
   third, a statement of all the articles of his faith, against old and
   new heresies.

   He devotes much space to a defense of the ubiquity of Christ's body,
   which he derives from the unity of the two natures. He calls to aid the
   scholastic distinction between three modes of presence,--local,
   definitive, and repletive. [849] He calls Zwingli's alloeosis "a mask
   of the Devil." He concludes with these words: "This is my faith, the
   faith of all true Christians, as taught in the Holy Scriptures. I beg
   all pious hearts to bear me witness, and to pray for me that I may
   stand firm in this faith to the end. For--which God forbid!--should I
   in the temptation and agony of death speak differently, it must be
   counted for nothing but an inspiration of the Devil. [850] Thus help me
   my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, blessed forever. Amen."

   The "Confession" called out two lengthy answers of Zwingli and
   Oecolampadius, at the request of the Strassburg divines; but they add
   nothing new. [851]

   This bitter controversy fell in the most trying time of Luther, when he
   suffered greatly from physical infirmity and mental depression, and
   when a pestilence raged at Wittenberg (1527), which caused the
   temporary removal of the University to Jena. He remained on the post of
   danger, escaped the jaws of death, and measurably recovered his
   strength, but not his former cheerfulness, good humor, and buoyancy of
   spirit.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [829] The assertion of some biographers of Zwingli, that he already at
   Glarus became acquainted with the writings of Ratramnus and Wiclif, is
   without proof. He first intimates his view in a letter to his teacher
   Wyttenbach, June 15, 1523, but as a secret. (Opera, VII., 1. 297.) He
   published the letter of Honius, which explains the est to be equivalent
   to significat, at Zürich in March, 1525, but had received it in 1521
   from two learned visitors, Rhodius and Sagarus. See Gieseler, III. 1,
   192 sq., note 27 (Germ. ed.); and especially Ullmann, l.c., II. 569 sq.

   [830] Opera, III. 589. Walch gives a German translation, XVII. 1881.
   Planck (II. 261 sqq.) quotes all the important points of this letter.

   [831] Opera, III. 145. The section on the Lord's Supper appeared also
   in a German translation. Planck, II. 265 sqq.

   [832] Ep. ad Budam Episc. Lingonensem, Oct. 2, 1525 (Op., III. 1, 892):
   "Exortum est novum dogma, in Eucharistia nihil esse praeter panem et
   vinum. Id ut sit difficillimum refellere, fecit Io. Oecolampadius qui
   tot testimoniis, tot argumentis eam opinionem communiit, ut seduci
   posse videantur etiam electi." Planck (II. 274): "Dass Oecolampad in
   dieser Schrift die ausgebreitetste Gelehrsamkeit und den blendendsten
   oder treffendsten Scharfsinn zeigte, dies haben selbst seine
   parteyischsten Gegner niemals geläugnet; aber sie hätten wohl auch
   gestehen dürfen, dass er die anständigste Bescheidenheit, die würdigste
   Mässigung und gewiss auch die redlichste Wahrheitsliebe darin gezeigt
   habe." Dr. Baur also, in his Kirchengesch. IV. 90, speaks very highly
   of the book of Oecolampadius, and gives a summary of it. Baur and
   Gieseler, among modern church historians, clearly betray their Swiss
   sympathy in this controversy, as well as Planck, although all of them
   are Germans of Lutheran descent.

   [833] In German translation, Walch, XX. 641.

   [834] Luther had used the same weak argument before, in his Address to
   the Bohemians (1523), where he says (Erl. ed., XXVIII. 393 sq.): "Wo
   man Solchen Frevel an einem Ort zuliesse, dass man ohn Grund der
   Schrift möcht sagen, das Wörtlin 'Ist' heisst so viel als das Wörtlin
   'Bedeut,' so könnt mans auch an keinem andern Ort wehren, und würde die
   ganze Schrift zunichte; sintemal keine Ursach wäre, warum solcher
   Frevel an einem Ort gülte, und nicht an alten Oertern. So möcht man
   denn sagen, dass Maria ist Jungfrau und Mutter Gottes, sei so viel
   gesagt, Maria bedeut eine Jungfrau und Gottes Mutter. Item, Christus
   ist Gott und Mensch, das ist, Christus bedeut Gott und Mensch. Item,
   Rom. 1:16, Das Evangelium ist Gottes Kraft, das ist, das Evangelium
   bedeut Gottes Kraft. Siehe, welch ein greulich Wesen wollt hieraus
   werden."

   [835] In his Responsio ad Bugenhagii Epistolam, 1525. Opera, III.
   604-614. In German, Walch, XX. 648.

   [836] Walch, XX. 667; Planck, II. 281-311. Köstlin and Dorner say that
   the Syngramma is more Calvinistic than Lutheran.

   [837] Even Löscher admits that Zwingli treated Luther with great
   respect in this book. Comp. Planck, II. 470 sq.; Köstlin, II. 94 sqq.

   [838] He informed Stiefel, Jan. 1, 1527 (De Wette, !II. 148), that he
   was writing a book against the "sacramentarii turbatores." On March 2l,
   1527 (III. 165), he informed the preacher Ursinus that he had finished
   it, and warned him to avoid the "Zwingliana et Oecolampadia sententia"
   as the very pest, since it was "blasphema in Christi verbum et fidem."
   The work was translated into German by M. Judex. The closing passages
   blaming Bucer for accompanying a Latin version of Luther's
   Kirchenpostille and Bugenhagen's commentary on the Psalms with
   Zwinglian notes are omitted in the Wittenberg edition of Luther's
   Works, 1548. Amsdorf complained of this omission, which was traced by
   some to Melanchthon, by others to Rörer, the corrector of Luft's
   printing establishment. See Walch, XX. 53, and Erl. ed., XXX. 15.

   [839] Ein Tausendkünstler, a myriad-minded trickster.

   [840] He coins new names for the three parties, Tutisten, Tropisten,
   Deutisten. Erl. ed. XXX. 336.

   [841] "Wie man den Kindern pflegt fürzubilden einen Gaukelhimmel, darin
   ein gülden Stuhl stehe und Christus neben dem Vater sitze in einer
   Chorkappen und gülden Krone, gleichwie es die Mäler malen. Denn wo sie
   nicht solche kindische, fleischliche Gedanken hätten von der rechten
   Hand Gottes, würden sie freilich sich nicht so lassen anfechten den
   Leib Christi im Abendmahl, oder sich bläün mit dem Spruch Augustini
   (welchem sie doch sonst nichts gläuben noch keinem andern), Christus
   muss an einem Ort leiblichsein, aber seine Wahrheit [Gottheit?] is
   allenthalben." Erl. ed. XXX. 56.

   [842] Köstlin, M. Luther, II. 96 and 642; and Luthers Theologie, II.
   172 sqq.

   [843] Werke, vol. II. Part II. 16-93. Afterwards translated into Latin
   by Gualter, Opera Lat.II. 374-416.

   [844] "Es wirt hie Gottes Wort Oberhand gwünnen, nit 'Schwärmer, Tüfel,
   Schalk, Ketzer, Mörder, Ufrührer, Glychsner [Gleissner] oder Hüchler,
   trotz, potz, plotz, blitz, donder [Donner], Po, pu, pa, plump,' und
   derglychen Schelt-, Schmütz-, und Schänzelwort."Werke, II. Part II. 29.

   [845] Fleischfresser, Blutsäufer, Anthropophagos, Capernaiten, brödern
   Gott, gebratener Gott. Luther indignantly protests against these
   opprobrious epithets in his Short Confession, "als wären wir solche
   tolle, unsinnige, rasende Leute, die Christum im Sacrament localiter
   hielten, und stückweise zerfrässen, wie der Wolf ein Schaaf, und Blut
   söffen, wie eine Kuh das Wasser." But in the same breath he pays the
   opponents back with interest, and calls them "Brotfresser, Weinsäufer,
   Seelenfresser, Seelenmörder, eingeteufelt, durchteufelt, überteufelt."
   Erl. ed. XXXII. 402-404.

   [846] Water that has been used in washing.

   [847] Secunda, justa et aequa responsio ad Mart. Lutherum. The book is
   mentioned by Hospinian, but must be very rare, since neither Löscher
   nor Walch nor Planck has seen it.

   [848] It was afterwards called the "Great" Confession, to distinguish
   it from the "Small" Confession which he published sixteen years later
   (1544). Erl. ed. XXX. 151-373; Walch, XX. 11 18 sqq. In a letter dated
   March 28, 1528 (De Wette, III. 296), he informs Link that he sent
   copies of his Confession through John Hofmann to Nürnberg, and speaks
   with his usual contempt of the Sacramentarians. "Zwingel," he says,
   "est tam rudis, ut asino queat comparari."

   [849] "Es sind dreierlei Weise an einem Ort zu sein, localiter oder
   circumscriptive, definitive, repletive." He explains this at length
   (XXX. 207 sqq., Erl. ed.). Local or circumscriptive presence is the
   presence of wine in the barrel, where the body fills the space;
   definite presence is incomprehensible, as the presence of an angel or
   devil in a house or a man, or the passing of Christ through the tomb or
   through the closed door; repletive presence is the supernatural
   omnipresence of God which fills all space, and is confined by no space.
   When Christ walked on earth, he was locally present; after the
   resurrection, he appeared to the disciples definitively and
   incomprehensibly; after his ascension to the right hand of God, he is
   everywhere by virtue of the inseparable union of his humanity with his
   divinity.

   [850] Zwingli made the biting remark that Luther ends this book with
   the Devil, with whom he had begun his former book.

   [851] Zwingli's answer in German is printed in Werke, II. Part II.
   94-223; in Latin, Opera, II. 416-521. The answer of Oecolampadius, in
   Walch, XX. 1725 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 107. The Marburg Conference, a.d. 1529. (With Facsimile of
   Signatures.)

   I. Contemporary Reports. (1) Lutheran. Luther's references to the
   Conference at Marburg, in Erl. ed. XXXII. 398, 403, 408; XXXVI. 320
   sqq. (his report from the pulpit); LIV. 286; 83, 107 sq., 153; LV. 88.
   Letters of Luther to his wife, Philip of Hesse, Gerbel, Agricola,
   Amsdorf, Link, and Probst, from October, 1529, and later, in De Wette,
   III. 508 sqq; IV. 26 sq. Reports of Melanchthon, Jonas, Brenz, and
   Osiander, in "Corpus Reform.," I. 1098, 1102 (Mel. in German); 1095
   (Jonas), XXVI. 115; Seckendorf, II. 136; Walch, XVII. 2352-2379;
   Scultetus, Annal. evang., p. 215 sqq.; Riederer, Nachrichten, etc., II.
   109 sqq.

   (2) Reformed (Swiss and Strassburg) reports of Collin, Zwingli,
   Oecolampadius, are collected in Zwingli's Opera, ed. Schuler and
   Schulthess, vol. IV. 173-204, and Hospinian's Hist. Sacram., II. 74
   sqq., 123 sqq. Bullinger: Reformationsgesch., II. 223 sqq. The reports
   of Bucer and Hedio are used by Baum in his Capito und Butzer (Elberf.
   1860), p. 453 sqq., and Erichson (see below). The MS. of Capito's
   Itinerary was burned in 1870 with the library of the Protestant
   Seminary at Strassburg, but had previously been copied by Professor
   Baum.

   II. The Marburg Articles in Walch, XVII. 2357 sqq.; Erl. ed. LXV. 88
   sqq.; "Corp. Reform.," XXVI. 121-128; H. Heppe: Die 15 Marburger
   Artikel vom 3 Oct., 1529, nach dent wieder aufgefundenen Autographon
   der Reformatoren als Facsimile veröffentlicht, Kassel, 1847, 2d ed.
   1854 (from the archives at Kassel); another ed. from a MS. in Zuerich
   by J. M. Usteri in the "Studien und Kritiken," 1883, No. II., p.
   400-413 (with facsimile). A list of older editions in the "Corpus
   Reform.," XXVI. 113-118.

   III. L. J. K. Schmitt: Das Religionsgespräch zu Marburg im J. 1529,
   Marb. 1840. J. Kradolfer: Das Marb. Religiogsgesprach im J. 1529,
   Berlin, 1871. Schirrmacher: Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte des
   Religions-gesprächs zu Marburg 1529 und des Reichstags zu Augsburg 1530
   nach der Handschrift des Aurifaber, Gotha, 1876. M. Lenz: Zwingli und
   Landgraf Philipp, three articles in Brieger's "Zeitschrift fuer K.
   Gesch.," 1879 (pp. 28, 220, and 429). Oswald Schmidt: in Herzog2, IX.
   (1881), 270-275. A. Erichson: Das Marburger Religionsgespräch i. J.
   1529, nach ungedruckten strassburger Urkunden, Strassb. 1880. (Based
   upon Hedio's unpublished Itinerarium ab Argentina Marpurgum super
   negotio Eucharistiae.) Frank H. Foster: The Historical Significance of
   the Marburg Colloquy, and its Bearing upon the New Departure (of
   Andover], in the "Bibliotheca Sacra," Oberlin, Ohio, April, 1887, p.
   363-369.

   IV. See also the respective sections in Hospinian, Löscher (Historia
   Motuum, I. 143 sqq.), Planck (II. 515 sqq.), Marheineke, Hagenbach,
   Rommel (Phil. der Grossmuethige, I. 247 sqq., II. 219 sqq.), Hassencamp
   (Hessische K. G., II.), Merle D'Aubigné (bk. VIII. ch. VII.), Ebrard
   (Das Dogma vom heil. Abendmahl, II. 268 sqq.), and in the biographies
   of Luther, e.g., Köstlin: M. Luth. II. 127 sqq. (small biography, E. V.
   p. 391 sqq.), and of Zwingli, e.g., by Christoffel and Mörikofer. Comp.
   also Ranke, III. 116 sqq.; Janssen, III. 149-154

   The eucharistic controversy broke the political force of Protestantism,
   and gave new strength to the Roman party, which achieved a decided
   victory in the Diet of Speier, April, 1529.

   In this critical situation, the Elector of Saxony and the Landgrave of
   Hesse formed at Speier "a secret agreement" with the cities of
   Nuernberg, Ulm, Strassburg and St. Gall, for mutual protection (April
   22, 1529). Strassburg and St. Gall sided with Zuerich on the
   eucharistic question.

   The situation became more threatening during the summer. The Emperor
   made peace with the Pope, June 29, and with France, July 19, pledging
   himself with his allies to extirpate the new deadly heresy; and was on
   the way to Augsburg, where the fate of Protestantism was to be decided.
   But while the nations of Europe aimed to emancipate themselves from the
   authority of the church and the clergy, the religious element was more
   powerful,--the hierarchical in the Roman, the evangelical in the
   Protestant party,--and overruled the political. This is the character
   of the sixteenth century: it was still a churchly and theological age.

   Luther and Melanchthon opposed every alliance with the Zwinglians; they
   would not sacrifice a particle of their creed to any political
   advantage, being confident that the truth must prevail in the end,
   without secular aid. Their attitude in this matter was narrow and
   impolitic, but morally grand. In a letter to Elector John, March 6,
   1530, Luther denied the right of resistance to the Emperor, even if he
   were wrong and used force against the gospel. "According to the
   Scriptures," he says, "a Christian dare not resist the magistrate,
   right or wrong, but must suffer violence and injustice, especially from
   the magistrate." [852]

   Luther, as soon as he heard of the agreement at Speier, persuaded the
   Elector to annul it. "How can we unite with people who strive against
   God and the sacrament? This is the road to damnation, for body and
   soul." Melanchthon advised his friends in Nuernberg to withdraw from
   the alliance, "for the godless opinion of Zwingli should never be
   defended." The agreement came to nothing.

   Philip of Hesse stood alone. He was enthusiastic for an alliance,
   because he half sympathized with the Zwinglian theory, and deemed the
   controversy to be a battle of words. He hoped that a personal
   conference of the theological leaders would bring about an
   understanding.

   After consulting Melanchthon personally in Speier, and Zwingli by
   letter, the Landgrave issued formal invitations to the Reformers, to
   meet at Marburg, and offered them a safe-conduct through his territory.
   [853]

   Zwingli received the invitation with joy, and hoped for the best. The
   magistrate of Zuerich was opposed to his leaving; but he resolved to
   brave the danger of a long journey through hostile territory, and left
   his home in the night of Sept. 3, without waiting for the Landgrave's
   safe-conduct, and without even informing his wife of his destination,
   beyond Basel. Accompanied by a single friend, the Greek professor
   Collin, he reached Basel safely on horseback, and on the 6th of
   September he embarked with Oecolampadius and several merchants on the
   Rhine for Strassburg, where they arrived after thirteen hours. The
   Reformers lodged in the house of Matthew Zell, the preacher in the
   cathedral, and were hospitably entertained by his wife Catharine, who
   cooked their meals, waited at the table, and conversed with them on
   theology so intelligently that they ranked her above many doctors. She
   often alluded in later years, with joy and pride, to her humble
   services to these illustrious men. They remained in Strassburg eleven
   days, in important consultation with the ministers and magistrates.
   Zwingli preached in the minister on Sunday, the 12th of September, in
   the morning, on our knowledge of truth, and our duty to obey it;
   Oecolampadius preached in the afternoon, on the new creature in Christ,
   and on faith operative in love (Gal. 5:6). On the 19th of September, at
   six in the morning, they departed with the Strassburg delegates, Bucer,
   Hedio, and Jacob Sturm, the esteemed head of the city magistrate, under
   protection of five soldiers. They travelled on horseback over hills and
   dales, through forests and secret paths. At the Hessian frontier, they
   were received by forty cavaliers, and reached Marburg on the 27th of
   September, at four o'clock in the afternoon, and were cordially
   welcomed by the Landgrave in person. [854] The same journey can now be
   made in a few hours. On the next days they preached.

   Zwingli and Philip of Hesse had political and theological sympathies.
   Zwingli, who was a statesman as well as a reformer, conceived about
   that time far-reaching political combinations in the interest of
   religion. He aimed at no less than a Protestant alliance between
   Zuerich, Hesse, Strassburg, France, Venice, and Denmark, against the
   Roman empire and the house of Habsburg. He believed in muscular,
   aggressive Christianity, and in rapid movements to anticipate an attack
   of the enemy, or to be at least fully prepared for it. The fiery and
   enthusiastic young Landgrave freely entered into these plans, which
   opened a tempting field to his ambition, and discussed them with
   Zwingli, probably already at Marburg, and afterwards in confidential
   letters, till the catastrophe at Cappel made an end to the
   correspondence, and the projected alliance. [855]

   The Wittenbergers, as already remarked, would have nothing to do with
   political alliances unless it were an alliance against foreign foes.
   They were monarchists and imperialists, and loyally attached to Charles
   V., "the noble blood," as Luther called him. They feared that an
   alliance with the Swiss would alienate him still more from the
   Reformation, and destroy the prospect of reconciliation. In the same
   year Luther wrote two vigorous works (one dedicated to Philip of Hesse)
   against the Turks, in which, as a Christian, a citizen, and a patriot,
   he exhorted the German princes to aid the Emperor in protecting the
   German fatherland against those invaders whom he regarded as the Gog
   and Magog of prophecy, and as the instruments of God's wrath for the
   punishment of corrupt Christendom. [856] He had a still stronger
   religious motive to discourage a colloquy. He had denounced the Swiss
   divines as dangerous heretics, and was unwilling to negotiate with
   them, except on terms of absolute surrender such as could not be
   expected from men of honor and conscientious conviction.

   The Wittenbergers, therefore, received the invitation to a colloquy
   with distrust, and resisted it. Luther declared that such a conference
   was useless, since he would not yield an inch to his opponents.
   Melanchthon even suggested to the Elector that he should forbid their
   attendance. They thought that "honorable Papists" should be invited as
   judges on a question touching the real presence! But the Elector was
   unwilling to displease the Landgrave, and commanded the Reformers to
   attend. When they arrived at the Hessian frontier, Luther declared that
   nothing could induce him to cross it without a safe-conduct from the
   Landgrave (which arrived in due time). They reached Marburg on the last
   of September, three days after the Swiss.

   How different the three historic appearances of Luther in public! In
   the Leipzig disputation with Eck, we see him struggling in the twilight
   for emancipation from the bondage of popery. At Worms he stood before
   the Emperor, with invincible courage, as the heroic witness of the
   liberty of conscience. Marburg he entered reluctantly, at the noonday
   heat of his labors, in bad humor, firmly set in his churchly faith,
   imperious and obstinate, to face the Swiss Reformers, who were as
   honest and earnest as he, but more liberal and conciliatory. In Leipzig
   he protested as a Catholic against the infallibility of pope and
   council; in Worms he protested against the papal tyranny over the Bible
   and private judgment; in Marburg he protested as a conservative
   churchman against his fellow-Protestants, and in favor of the catholic
   faith in the mystery of the sacrament. [857] On all occasions he was
   equally honest, firm, and immovable, true to his words at Worms, "Here
   I stand: I cannot do otherwise." The conduct of the two parties at that
   Conference is typical of the two confessions in their subsequent
   dealings with each other.

   The visitors stopped at an inn, but were at once invited to lodge in
   the castle, and treated by the Landgrave with princely hospitality.

   The Reformed called upon the Lutherans, but met with a cool reception.
   Luther spoke a kind word to Oecolampadius; but when he first met his
   friend Bucer, who now sided with Zwingli, he shook his hand, and said,
   smiling, and pointing his finger at him, "You are a good-for-nothing
   knave." [858]

   In that romantic old castle of Marburg which overlooks the quaint city,
   and the beautiful and fertile valley of the Lahn, the famous Conference
   was held on the first three days of October. It was the first council
   among Protestants, and the first attempt to unite them. It attracted
   general attention, and promised to become world-historical. [859]
   Euricius Cordus, a professor of medicine at Marburg, addressed, in a
   Latin poem, "the penetrating Luther, the gentle Oecolampadius, the
   magnanimous Zwingli, the eloquent Melanchthon, the pious Schnepf, the
   brave Bucer, the true-hearted Hedio," and all other divines who were
   assembled in Marburg, with an appeal to heal the schism. "The church,"
   he says, "falls weeping at your feet, and begs you, by the mercies of
   Christ, to consider the question with pure zeal for the welfare of
   believers, and to bring about a conclusion of which the world may say
   that it proceeded from the Holy Spirit." Very touching is the prayer
   with which Zwingli entered upon the conference: "Fill us, O Lord and
   Father of us all, we beseech Thee, with thy gentle Spirit, and dispel
   on both sides all the clouds of misunderstanding and passion. Make an
   end to the strife of blind fury. Arise, O Christ, Thou Sun of
   righteousness, and shine upon us. Alas! while we contend, we only too
   often forget to strive after holiness which Thou requirest from us all.
   Guard us against abusing our powers, and enable us to employ them with
   all earnestness for the promotion of holiness."
     __________________________________________________________________

   [852] De Wette, III. 560.

   [853] The letters of invitation in Monumenta Hassiaca, tom. III., and
   Neudecker, Urkunden, p. 95.

   [854] The 27th is given by Hedio in his Itinerary, as the day of their
   arrival, and is accepted by Baum, Erichson, and Köstlin. The usual date
   is the 29th.

   [855] There are still extant ten letters from the Landgrave to Zwingli,
   and three from Zwingli to the Landgrave, to which should be added four
   letters from Duke Ulrich of Württemberg to Zwingli. They are published
   in Kuchenbecker's Monumenta Hassiaca, in Neudecker's Urkunden aus der
   Reformationszeit, and in Zwingli's Opera, vol. VIII., and are explained
   and discussed by Max Lenz in three articles quoted in the Literature.
   The correspondence began during the second Diet of Speier, April 22,
   1529 (the date of the first epistle of Philip), and ended Sept. 30,
   1531 (the date of Philip's last letter), eleven days before Zwingli's
   death. The letters of the Landgrave, before the Marburg Conference,
   treat of religion; those after that Conference, chiefly of politics,
   and are strictly confidential. The prince addresses the theologian as
   "Dear Master Ulrich," "Dear Zwingli," etc.

   [856] Vom Kriege wider die Türken, April, 1529, and Heerpredigt wider
   den Türken, published it the end of 1529, and in a second edition,
   January, 1530. In the Erl. ed., XXXI. 31 sqq. and 80 sqq.

   [857] R. Rothe calls Luther an old Catholic, not a modern Protestant,
   though the greatest Reformer and a prophet. (Kirchengesch. II. 334.)

   [858] "Du bist ein Schalk und ein Nebler." Melanchthon saluted Hedio in
   Latin, "I am glad to see you. You are Hedio." Baum, p. 459. Erichson,
   p. 16.

   [859] "Die Versammlung," says Ranke, III. 122, "hatte etwas Erhabenes,
   Weltbedeutendes."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 108. The Marburg Conference continued. Discussion and Result.

   The work of the Conference began on Friday, the 1st of October, with
   divine service in the chapel of the castle. Zwingli preached on the
   providence of God, which he afterwards elaborated into an important
   treatise, "De Providentia." It was intended for scholars rather than
   the people; and Luther found fault with the introduction of Hebrew,
   Greek, and Latin words into the pulpit. Luther, Bucer, and Osiander
   preached the morning sermons on the following days; Luther, on his
   favorite doctrine of justification by faith.

   The Landgrave first arranged a private interview between the lions and
   the lambs; that is, between Luther and Oecolampadius, Zwingli and
   Melanchthon. The two pairs met after divine service, in separate
   chambers, and conferred for several hours. The Wittenberg Reformers
   catechised the Swiss about their views on the Trinity, original sin,
   and baptism, and were in a measure relieved of their suspicion that
   they entertained unsound views on these topics. Melanchthon had, a few
   months before the Conference, written a very respectful letter to
   Oecolampadius (April 8, 1529), in which he regrets that the "horribilis
   dissensio de coena Domini" interfered with the enjoyment of their
   literary and Christian friendship, and states his own view of the
   eucharist very moderately and clearly to the effect that it was a
   communion with the present Christ rather than a commemoration of the
   absent Christ. [860]   In the private conference with Zwingli, against
   whom he was strongly prejudiced, he is reported to have yielded the
   main point of dispute, as regards the literal interpretation of "This
   is my body," and the literal handing of Christ's body to his disciples,
   but added that he gave it to them "in a certain mysterious manner."
   [861] When Zwingli urged the ascension as an argument against the local
   presence, Melanchthon said, "Christ has ascended indeed, but in order
   to fill all things" (Eph. 4:10)." Truly," replied Zwingli, "with his
   power and might, but not with his body." During the open debate on the
   following days, Melanchthon observed a significant silence, though
   twice asked by Luther to come to his aid when he felt exhausted. [862]
   He made only a few remarks. He was, however, at that time, of one mind
   with Luther, and entirely under his power. He was as strongly opposed
   to an alliance with the Swiss and Strass-burgers, influenced in part by
   political motives, being anxious to secure, if possible, the favor of
   Charles and Ferdinand. [863]

   Luther must have handled Oecolampadius more severely; for the latter,
   in coming from the conference room, whispered to Zwingli, "I am again
   in the hands of Dr. Eck" (as at the colloquy in Baden in 1526).

   The general discussion took place on Saturday, the 2d of October, in a
   large hall (which cannot now be identified with certainty). [864] The
   Landgrave in plain dress appeared with his court as an eager listener,
   but not as an arbitrator, and was seated at a separate table. The
   official attendants on the Lutheran side were Luther (dressed as an
   Electoral courtier) and Melanchthon, behind them Jonas and Cruciger of
   Witten-berg, Myconius of Gotha, Osiander of Nuernberg, Stephen Agricola
   of Augsburg, Brentius of Hall in Swabia; on the Reformed side Zwingli
   and Oecolampadius, and behind them Bucer and Hedio of Strassburg: all
   men of eminent talent, learning, and piety, and in the prime of manhood
   and usefulness. Luther and Zwingli were forty-six, Oecolampadius
   forty-seven, Bucer thirty-eight, Hedio thirty-five, Melanchthon
   thirty-two, the Landgrave only twenty-five years of age. Luther and
   Melanchthon, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, as the chief disputants, sat at
   a separate table, facing each other.

   Besides these representative theologians there were a number of invited
   guests, princes (including the exiled Duke Ulrich of Wuerttemberg),
   noblemen, and scholars (among them Lambert of Avignon). Zwingli speaks
   of twenty-four, Brentius of fifty to sixty, hearers. Poor Carlstadt,
   who was then wandering about in Friesland, and forced to sell his
   Hebrew Bible for bread, had asked for an invitation, but was refused.
   Many others applied for admission, but were disappointed. [865] Zwingli
   advocated the greatest publicity and the employment of a recording
   secretary, but both requests were declined by Luther. Even the hearers
   were not allowed to make verbatim reports. Zwingli, who could not
   expect the Germans to understand his Swiss dialect, desired the
   colloquy to be conducted in Latin, which would have placed him on an
   equality with Luther; but it was decided to use the German language in
   deference to the audience.

   John Feige, the chancellor of the Landgrave, exhorted the theologians
   in an introductory address to seek only the glory of Christ and the
   restoration of peace and union to the church.

   The debate was chiefly exegetical, but brought out no new argument. It
   was simply a recapitulation of the preceding controversy, with less
   heat and more gentlemanly courtesy. Luther took his stand on the words
   of institution in their literal sense: "This is my body;" the Swiss, on
   the word of Christ: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh
   profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and
   are life."

   Luther first rose, and declared emphatically that he would not change
   his opinion on the real presence in the least, but stand fast on it to
   the end of life. He called upon the Swiss to prove the absence of
   Christ, but protested at the outset against arguments derived from
   reason and geometry. To give pictorial emphasis to his declaration, he
   wrote with a piece of chalk on the table in large characters the words
   of institution, with which he was determined to stand or fall: "Hoc est
   corpus Meum."

   Oecolampadius in reply said he would abstain from philosophical
   arguments, and appeal to the Scriptures. He quoted several passages
   which have an obviously figurative meaning, but especially John 6:63,
   which in his judgment furnishes the key for the interpretation of the
   words of institution, and excludes a literal understanding. He employed
   this syllogism: Christ cannot contradict himself; he said, "The flesh
   profiteth nothing," and thereby rejected the oral manducation of his
   body; therefore he cannot mean such a manducation in the Lord's Supper.

   Luther denied the second proposition, and asserted that Christ did not
   reject oral, but only material manducation, like that of the flesh of
   oxen or of swine. I mean a sublime spiritual fruition, yet with the
   mouth. To the objection that bodily eating was useless if we have the
   spiritual eating, he replied, If God should order me to eat crab-apples
   or dung, I would do it, being assured that it would he salutary. We
   must here close the eyes.

   Here Zwingli interposed: God does not ask us to eat crab-apples, or to
   do any thing unreasonable. We cannot admit two kinds of corporal
   manducation; Christ uses the same word "to eat," which is either
   spiritual or corporal. You admit that the spiritual eating alone gives
   comfort to the soul. If this is the chief thing, let us not quarrel
   about the other. He then read from the Greek Testament which he had
   copied with his own hand, and used for twelve years, the passage John
   6:52, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" and Christ's word,
   6:63.

   Luther asked him to read the text in German or Latin, not in Greek.
   When Christ says, "The flesh profiteth nothing," he speaks not of his
   flesh, but of ours.

   Zwingli: The soul is fed with the spirit, not with flesh.

   Luther: We eat the body with the mouth, not with the soul. If God
   should place rotten apples before me, I would eat them.

   Zwingli: Christ's body then would he a corporal, and not a spiritual,
   nourishment.

   Luther: You are captious.

   Zwingli: Not so; but you contradict yourself.

   Zwingli quoted a number of figurative passages; but Luther always
   pointed his finger to the words of institution, as he had written them
   on the table. He denied that the discourse, John 6, had any thing to do
   with the Lord's Supper.

   At this point a laughable, yet characteristic incident occurred. "Beg
   your pardon," said Zwingli, "that passage [John 6:63] breaks your
   neck." Luther, understanding this literally, said, "Do not boast so
   much. You are in Hesse, not in Switzerland. In this country we do not
   break people's necks. Spare such proud, defiant words, till you get
   back to your Swiss." [866]

   Zwingli: In Switzerland also there is strict justice, and we break no
   man's neck without trial. I use simply a figurative expression for a
   lost cause.

   The Landgrave said to Luther, "You should not take offense at such
   common expressions." But the agitation was so great that the meeting
   adjourned to the banqueting hall.

   The discussion was resumed in the afternoon, and turned on the
   christological question. I believe, said Luther, that Christ is in
   heaven, but also in the sacrament, as substantially as he was in the
   Virgin's womb. I care not whether it be against nature and reason,
   provided it be not against faith.

   Oecolampadius: You deny the metaphor in the words of institution, but
   you must admit a synecdoche. For Christ does not say, This is bread and
   my body (as you hold), but simply, This is my body.

   Luther: A metaphor admits the existence of a sign only; but a
   synecdoche admits the thing itself, as when I say, the sword is in the
   scabbard, or the beer in the bottle.

   Zwingli reasoned: Christ ascended to heaven, therefore he cannot be on
   earth with his body. A body is circumscribed, and cannot be in several
   places at once.

   Luther: I care little about mathematics.

   The contest grew hotter, without advancing, and was broken up by a call
   to the repast.

   The next day, Sunday, Oct. 3, it was renewed.

   Zwingli maintained that a body could not be in different places at
   once. Luther quoted the Sophists (the Schoolmen) to the effect that
   there are different kinds of presence. The universe is a body, and yet
   not in a particular place.

   Zwingli: Ah, you speak of the Sophists, doctor! Are you really obliged
   to return to the onions and fleshpots of Egypt? He then cited from
   Augustin, who says, "Christ is everywhere present as God; but as to his
   body, he is in heaven."

   Luther: You have Augustin and Fulgentius on your side, but we have all
   the other fathers. Augustin was young when he wrote the passage you
   quote, and he is obscure. We must believe the old teachers only so far
   as they agree with the Word of God.

   Oecolampadius: We, too, build on the Word of God, not on the fathers;
   but we appeal to them to show that we teach no novelties. [867]

   Luther, pointing again his finger to the words on the table: This is
   our text: you have not yet driven us from it. We care for no other
   proof.

   Oecolampadius: If this is the case, we had better close the discussion.

   The chancellor exhorted them to come to an understanding.

   Luther: There is only one way to that. Let our adversaries believe as
   we do.

   The Swiss: We cannot.

   Luther: Well, then, I abandon you to God's judgment, and pray that he
   will enlighten you.

   Oecolampadius: We will do the same. You need it as much as we.

   At this point both parties mellowed down. Luther begged pardon for his
   harsh words, as he was a man of flesh and blood. Zwingli begged Luther,
   with tearful eyes, to forgive him his harsh words, and assured him that
   there were no men in the world whose friendship he more desired than
   that of the Wittenbergers. [868]

   Jacob Sturm and Bucer spoke in behalf of Strassburg, and vindicated
   their orthodoxy, which had been impeached. Luther's reply was cold, and
   displeased the audience. He declared to the Strassburgers, as well as
   the Swiss, "Your spirit is different from ours." [869]

   The Conference was ended. A contagious disease, called the English
   sweat (sudor Anglicus), which attacked its victims with fever, sweat,
   thirst, intense pain, and exhaustion, had suddenly broken out in
   Marburg as in other parts of Germany, and caused frightful ravages that
   filled everybody with alarm. The visitors were anxious to return home.
   So were the fathers of the Council of Trent, when the Elector Moritz
   chased the Emperor through the Tyrol; and in like manner the fathers of
   the Vatican Council hurried across the Alps when France declared war
   against Germany, and left the Vatican decrees in the hands of Italian
   infallibilists.

   But the Landgrave once more brought the guests together at his table on
   Sunday night, and urged upon every one the supreme importance of coming
   to some understanding.

   On Monday morning he arranged another private conference between the
   Saxon and the Swiss Reformers. They met for the last time on earth.
   With tears in his eyes, Zwingli approached Luther, and held out the
   hand of brotherhood, but Luther declined it, saying again, "Yours is a
   different spirit from ours." Zwingli thought that differences in
   non-essentials, with unity in essentials, did not forbid Christian
   brotherhood. "Let us," he said, "confess our union in all things in
   which we agree; and, as for the rest, let us remember that we are
   brethren. There will never be peace in the churches if we cannot bear
   differences on secondary points." Luther deemed the corporal presence a
   fundamental article, and construed Zwingli's liberality into
   indifference to truth. "I am astonished," he said, "that you wish to
   consider me as your brother. It shows clearly that you do not attach
   much importance to your doctrine." Melanchthon looked upon the request
   of the Swiss as a strange inconsistency. [870] Turning to the Swiss,
   the Wittenbergers said, "You do not belong to the communion of the
   Christian Church. We cannot acknowledge you as brethren." They were
   willing, however, to include them in that universal charity which we
   owe to our enemies.

   The Swiss were ready to burst over such an insult, but controlled their
   temper.

   On the same day Luther wrote the following characteristic letter to his
   wife: --

   "Grace and peace in Christ. Dear Lord Keth, I do you to know that our
   friendly colloquy in Marburg is at an end, and that we are agreed in
   almost every point, except that the opposite party wants to have only
   bread in the Lord's Supper, and acknowledge the spiritual presence of
   Christ in the same. To-day the Landgrave wants us to come to an
   agreement, and, if not, to acknowledge each other as brethren and
   members of Christ. He labors very zealousy for this end. But we want no
   brothership and membership, only peace and good-will. I suppose
   to-morrow or day after to-morrow we shall break up, and proceed to
   Schleitz in the Voigtland whither his Electoral Grace has ordered us.

   "Tell Herr Pommer [Bugenhagen] that the best argument of Zwingli was
   that corpus non potest esse sine loco: ergo Christi corpus non est in
   pane. Of Oecolampadius: This sacramentum est signum corporis Christi. I
   think God has blinded their eyes.

   "I am very busy, and the messenger is in a hurry. Give to all a good
   night, and pray for us. We are all fresh and hale, and live like
   princes. Kiss for me little Lena and little Hans (Lensgen und Hänsgen).

   "Your obedient servant,

   "M. L."

   "P. S.--John Brenz, Andrew Osiander, Doctor Stephen [Agricola] of
   Augsburg are also here.

   "People are crazy with the fright of the sweating plague. Yesterday
   about fifty took sick, and two died." [871]

   At last Luther yielded to the request of the Landgrave and the Swiss,
   retired to his closet, and drew up a common confession in the German
   language. It consists of fifteen articles expressing the evangelical
   doctrines on the Trinity, the person of Christ, his death and
   resurrection, original sin, justification by faith, the work of the
   Holy Spirit, and the sacraments.

   The two parties agreed on fourteen articles, and even in the more
   important part of the fifteenth article which treats of the Lord's
   Supper as follows: --

   We all believe, with regard to the Supper of our blessed Lord Jesus
   Christ, that it ought to be celebrated in both kinds, according to the
   institution of Christ; that the mass is not a work by which a Christian
   obtains pardon for another man, whether dead or alive; that the
   sacrament of the altar is the sacrament of the very body and very blood
   of Jesus Christ; and that the spiritual manducation of this body and
   blood is specially necessary to every true Christian. In like manner,
   as to the use of the sacrament, we are agreed that, like the word, it
   was ordained of Almighty God, in order that weak consciences might be
   excited by the Holy Ghost to faith and charity.

   "And although at present we are not agreed on the question whether the
   real body and blood of Christ are corporally present in the bread and
   wine, yet both parties shall cherish Christian charity for one another,
   so far as the conscience of each will permit; and both parties will
   earnestly implore Almighty God to strengthen us by his Spirit in the
   true understanding. Amen." [872]

   The Landgrave urged the insertion that each party should show Christian
   charity to the other. The Lutherans assented to this only on condition
   that the clause be added: "as far as the conscience of each will
   permit."

   The articles were read, considered, and signed on the same day by
   Luther, Melanchthon, Osiander, Agricola, Brentius, on the part of the
   Lutherans; and by Zwingli, Oecolampadius, Bucer, and Hedio, on the part
   of the Reformed. They were printed on the next day, and widely
   circulated. [873]

   On the fifth day of October, in the afternoon, the guests took leave of
   each other with a shake of hands. It was not the hand of brotherhood,
   but only of friendship, and not very cordial on the part of the
   Lutherans. The Landgrave left Marburg on the same day, early in the
   morning, with a painful feeling of disappointment.

   Luther returned to Wittenberg by way of Schleitz, where he met the
   Elector John by appointment, and revised the Marburg Articles so as to
   adapt them to his creed, and so far to weaken the consensus.

   Both parties claimed the victory. Zwingli complained in a letter to
   Vadian of the overbearing and contumacious spirit of Luther, and
   thought that the truth (i.e., his view of it) had prevailed, and that
   Luther was vanquished before all the world after proclaiming himself
   invincible. He rejoiced in the agreement which must destroy the hope of
   the papists that Luther would return to them.

   Luther, on the other hand, thought that the Swiss had come over to him
   half way, that they had humbled themselves, and begged his friendship.
   "There is no brotherly unity among us," he said in the pulpit of
   Wittenberg after his return from Mar-burg, "but a good friendly
   concord; they seek from us what they need, and we will help them."

   Nearly all the contemporary reports describe the Conference as having
   been much more friendly and respectful than was expected from the
   preceding controversy. The speakers addressed each other as "Liebster
   Herr," "Euer Liebden," and abstained from terms of opprobrium. The
   Devil was happily ignored in the interviews; no heresy was charged, no
   anathema hurled. Luther found that the Swiss were not such bad people
   as he had imagined, and said even in a letter to Bullinger (1538), that
   Zwingli impressed him at Marburg as "a very good man" (optimus vir).
   Brentius, as an eye-witness, reports that Luther and Zwingli appeared
   as if they were brothers. Jonas described the Reformed leaders during
   the Conference as follows: [874] "Zwingli has a certain rusticity and a
   little arrogance. [875] In Oecolampadius there is an admirable
   good-nature and clemency. [876] Hedio has no less humanity and
   liberality of spirit; but Bucer possesses the cunning of a fox, [877]
   that knows how to give himself the air of acumen and prudence. They are
   all learned men, no doubt, and more formidable opponents than the
   papists; but Zwingli seems well versed in letters, in spite of Minerva
   and the Muses." He adds that the Landgrave was the most attentive
   hearer.

   The laymen who attended the Conference seem to have been convinced by
   the Swiss arguments. The Landgrave declared that he would now believe
   the simple words of Christ, rather than the subtle interpretations of
   men. He desired Zwingli to remove to Marburg, and take charge of the
   ecclesiastical organization of Hesse. Shortly before his death he
   confessed that Zwingli had convinced him at Marburg. But more important
   is the conversion of Lambert of Avignon, who had heretofore been a
   Lutheran, but could not resist the force of the arguments on the other
   side. "I had firmly resolved," he wrote to a friend soon after the
   Conference, "not to listen to the words of men, or to allow myself to
   be influenced by the favor of men, but to be like a blank paper on
   which the finger of God should write his truth. He wrote those
   doctrines on my heart which Zwingli developed out of the word of God."
   Even the later change of Melanchthon, who declined the brotherhood with
   the Swiss as strongly as Luther, may perhaps be traced to impressions
   which he received at Marburg.

   If the leaders of the two evangelical confessions could meet to-day on
   earth, they would gladly shake hands of brotherhood, as they have done
   long since in heaven.

   The Conference did not effect the desired union, and the unfortunate
   strife broke out again. Nevertheless, it was by no means a total
   failure. It prepared the way for the Augsburg Confession, the chief
   symbol of the Lutheran Church. More than this, it served as an
   encouragement to peace movements of future generations. [878] It
   produced the first formulated consensus between the two confessions in
   fourteen important articles, and in the better part of the fifteenth,
   leaving only the corporal presence and oral manducation in dispute. It
   was well that such a margin was left. Without liberty in
   non-essentials, there can never be a union among intelligent
   Christians. Good and holy men will always differ on the mode of the
   real presence, and on many other points of doctrine, as well as
   government and worship. The time was not ripe for evangelical
   catholicity; but the spirit of the document survived the controversies,
   and manifests itself wherever Christian hearts and minds rise above the
   narrow partition walls of sectarian bigotry. Uniformity, even if
   possible, would not be desirable. God's ways point to unity in
   diversity, and diversity in unity.

   It was during the fiercest dogmatic controversies and the horrors of
   the Thirty Years' War, that a prophetic voice whispered to future
   generations the watchword of Christian peacemakers, which was unheeded
   in a century of intolerance, and forgotten in a century of
   indifference, but resounds with increased force in a century of revival
   and re-union:

   "In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things
   charity."

   NOTE

   On the Origin of the Sentence: "In necessariis unitas, in
   non-necessariis (or, dubiis) libertas, in utrisque (or, omnibus)
   caritas."

   This famous motto of Christian Irenics, which I have slightly modified
   in the text, is often falsely attributed to St. Augustin (whose creed
   would not allow it, though his heart might have approved of it), but is
   of much later origin. It appears for the first time in Germany, a.d.
   1627 and 1628, among peaceful divines of the Lutheran and German
   Reformed churches, and found a hearty welcome among moderate divines in
   England.

   The authorship has recently been traced to Rupertus Meldenius, an
   otherwise unknown divine, and author of a remarkable tract in which the
   sentence first occurs. He gave classical expression to the irenic
   sentiments of such divines as Calixtus of Helmstädt, David Pareus of
   Heidelberg, Crocius of Marburg, John Valentin Andrew of Wuerttemberg,
   John Arnd of Zelle, Georg Frank of Francfort-on-the Oder, the brothers
   Bergius in Brandenburg, and of the indefatigable traveling evangelist
   of Christian union, John Dury, and Richard Baxter. The tract of
   Meldenius bears the title, Paraenesis votiva pro Pace Ecclesiae ad
   Theologos Augustanae Confessionis, Auctore Ruperto Meldenio Theologo,
   62 pp. in 4to, without date and place of publication. It probably
   appeared in 1627 at Francfort-on-the Oder, which was at that time the
   seat of theological moderation. Mr. C. R Gillett (librarian of the
   Union Theological Seminary) informs me that the original copy, which he
   saw in Berlin, came from the University of Francfort-on-the Oder after
   its transfer to Breslau.

   Dr. Luecke republished the tract, in 1850, from a reprint in Pfeiffer's
   Variorum Auctorum Miscellanea Theologiae (Leipzig, 1736, pp. l36-258),
   as an appendix to his monograph on the subject (pp. 87-145). He
   afterwards compared it with a copy of the original edition in the
   Electoral library at Cassel. Another original copy was discovered by
   Dr. Klose in the city library of Hamburg (1858), and a third one by Dr.
   Briggs and Mr. Gillett in the royal library of Berlin (1887).

   The author of this tract is an orthodox Lutheran, who was far from the
   idea of ecclesiastical union, but anxious for the peace of the church
   and zealous for practical scriptural piety in place of the dry and
   barren scholasticism of his time. He belongs, as Luecke says ("Stud.
   und Kritiken," 1851, p. 906), to the circle of "those noble, genial,
   and hearty evangelical divines, like John Arnd, Valentin Andrew, and
   others, who deeply felt the awful misery of the fatherland, and
   especially the inner distractions of the church in their age, but who
   knew also and pointed out the way of salvation and peace." He was
   evidently a highly cultivated scholar, at home in Hebrew, Greek, and
   Latin, and in controversial theology. He excels in taste and style the
   forbidding literature of his age. He condemns the pharisaical
   hypocrisy, the folodoxiva, filargiva, and filoneikiva of the
   theologians, and exhorts them first of all to humility and love. By too
   much controversy about the truth, we are in danger of losing the truth
   itself. Nimium altercando amittitur Veritas. "Many," he says, "contend
   for the corporal presence of Christ who have not Christ in their
   hearts." He sees no other way to concord than by rallying around the
   living Christ as the source of spiritual life. He dwells on the nature
   of God as love, and the prime duty of Christians to love one another,
   and comments on the seraphic chapter of Paul on charity (1 Cor. 13). He
   discusses the difference between necessaria and non-necessaria.
   Necessary dogmas are, (1) articles of faith necessary to salvation; (2)
   articles derived from clear testimonies of the Bible; (3) articles
   decided by the whole church in a synod or symbol; (4) articles held by
   all orthodox divines as necessary. Not necessary, are dogmas (1) not
   contained in the Bible; (2) not belonging to the common inheritance of
   faith; (3) not unanimously taught by theologians; (4) left doubtful by
   grave divines; (5) not tending to piety, charity, and edification. He
   concludes with a defense of John Arnd (1555-1621), the famous author of
   "True Christianity," against the attacks of orthodox fanatics, and with
   a fervent and touching prayer to Christ to come to the rescue of his
   troubled church (Rev. 22:17).

   The golden sentence occurs in the later half of the tract (p. 128 in
   Luecke's edition), incidentally and in hypothetical form, as follows:
   --

   "Verbo dicam: Si nos servaremus in necessariis unitatem, in
   non-necessariis libertatem, in utrisque charitatem, optimo certe loco
   essent res nostrae."

   The same sentiment, but in a shorter sententious and hortative form,
   occurs in a book of Gregor Frank, entitled Consideratio theologica de
   gradibus necessitatis dogmatumt Christianorum quibus fidei, spei et
   charitatis officia reguntur, Francf. ad Oderam, 1628. Frank (1585-1651)
   was first a Lutheran, then a Reformed theologian, and professor at
   Francfort. He distinguishes three kinds of dogmas: (1) dogmas necessary
   for salvation: the clearly revealed truths of the Bible; (2) dogmas
   which are derived by clear and necessary inference from the Scriptures
   and held by common consent of orthodox Christendom; (3) the specific
   and controverted dogmas of the several confessions. He concludes the
   discussion with this exhortation: --

   "Summa est: Servemus in necessariis unitatem, in non-necessariis
   libertatem, in utrisque charitatem."

   He adds, "Vincat veritas, vivat charitas, maneat libertas per Jesum
   Christum qui est veritas ipsa, charitas ipsa, libertas ipsa."

   Bertheau deems it uncertain whether Meldenius or Frank was the author.
   But the question is decided by the express testimony of Conrad, Berg,
   who was a colleague of Frank in the same university between 1627 and
   1628, and ascribes the sentence to Meldenius.

   Fifty years later Richard Baxter, the Puritan pacificator in England,
   refers to the sentence, Nov. 15, 1679, in the preface to The True and
   Only Way of Concord of All the Christian Churches, London, 1680, in a
   slightly different form: "I once more repeat to you the pacificator's
   old despised words, 'Si in necessariis sit [esset] unitas, in non
   necessariis libertas, in utrisque charitas, optimo certo loco essent
   res nostrae.' "

   Luecke was the first to quote this passage, but overlooked a direct
   reference of Baxter to Meldenius in the same tract on p. 25. This Dr.
   Briggs discovered, and quotes as follows: --

   "Were there no more said of all this subject, but that of Rupertus
   Meldenius, cited by Conradus Bergius, it might end all schism if well
   understood and used, viz." Then follows the sentence. Baxter also
   refers to Meldenius on the preceding page. This strengthens the
   conclusion that Meldenius was the "pacificator." For we are referred
   here to the testimony of a contemporary of Meldenius. Samuel Werenfels,
   a distinguished irenical divine of Basel, likewise mentions Meldenius
   and Conrad Bergius together as irenical divines, and testes veritatis,
   and quotes several passages from the Paraenesis votiva.

   Conrad Bergius (Berg), from whom Baxter derived his knowledge of the
   sentence, was professor in the university of Frankfurt-an-der-Oder, and
   then a preacher at Bremen. He and his brother John Berg (1587-1658),
   court chaplain of Brandenburg, were irenical divines of the German
   Reformed Church, and moderate Calvinists. John Berg attended the
   Leipzig Colloquy of March, 1631, where Lutheran and Reformed divines
   agreed on the basis of the revised Augsburg Confession of 1540 in every
   article of doctrine, except the corporal presence and oral manducation.
   The colloquy was in advance of the spirit of the age, and had no
   permanent effect. See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I. 558 sqq., and
   Niemeyer, Collectio Confessionum in Ecclesiis Reformatis publicatarum,
   p. LXXV. and 653-668.

   Dr. Briggs has investigated the writings of Conrad Bergius and his
   associates in the royal library of Berlin. In his "Praxis Catholica
   divini canonis contra quasvis haereses et schismata," etc., which
   appeared at Bremen in 1639, Bergius concludes with the classical word
   of "Rupertus Meldenius Theologus," and a brief comment on it. This is
   quoted by Baxter in the form just given. In the autumn of 1627 Bergius
   preached two discourses at Frankfurt on the subject of Christian union,
   which accord with the sentence, and appeared in 1628 with the consent
   of the theological faculty. They were afterwards incorporated in his
   Praxis Catholica. He was thoroughly at home in the polemics and irenics
   of his age, and can be relied on as to the authorship of the sentence.

   But who was Meldenius? This is still an unsolved question. Possibly he
   took his name from Melden, a little village on the borders of Bohemia
   and Silesia. His voice was drowned, and his name forgotten, for two
   centuries, but is now again heard with increased force. I subscribe to
   the concluding words of my esteemed colleague, Dr. Briggs: "Like a
   mountain stream that disappears at times under the rocks of its bed,
   and re-appears deeper down in the valley, so these long-buried
   principles of peace have reappeared after two centuries of oblivion,
   and these irenical theologians will be honored by those who live in a
   better age of the world, when Protestant irenics have well-nigh
   displaced the old Protestant polemics and scholastics."

   The origin of the sentence was first discussed by a Dutch divine, Dr.
   Van der Hoeven of Amsterdam, in 1847; then by Dr. Luecke of Göttingen,
   Ueber das Alter, den Verfasser, die ursprungliche Form und den wahren
   Sinn des kirchlichen Friedenspruchs 'In necessariis unitas,' etc.,
   Göttingen, 1850 (XXII. and 146 pages); with supplementary remarks in
   the "Studien und Kritiken" for 1851, p. 905-938. Luecke first proved
   the authorship of Meldenius. The next steps were taken by Dr. Klose, in
   the first edition of Herzog's "Theol. Encycl," sub Meltlenius, vol. IX.
   (1858), p. 304 sq., and by Dr. Carl Bertheau, in the second edition of
   Herzog, IX. (1881), p. 528-530. Dr. Brigas has furnished additional
   information in two articles in the "Presbyterian Review," vol. VIII.,
   New York, 1857, pp. 496-499, and 743-746.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [860] "Corpus Reform.," I. 1048 sqq. He says: "Vos absentia Christi
   corpus tanquam in tragoedia repraesentari contenditis. Ego de Christo
   video exstare promissiones: 'Ego vobiscum usque ad consummationem
   seculi, et similes, ubi nihil est opus divellere ab humanitate
   divinitatem; proinde de sentio, hoc sacramentum verae praesentiae
   testimonium esse quod cum ita sit, sentio in illa coena praesentis
   corporis koinonianesse." He does not enter into an interpretation of
   the words of institution.

   [861] Erichson, p. 20, from Strassburg reports.

   [862] "Ich habe mich müde gewaschen," said Luther.

   [863] Bucer, in a letter to Blaurer in Constance, Oct. 18, 1529,
   charged Melanchthon especially with the obstinate refusal of
   brotherhood, and made him, even more than Luther, responsible for the
   failure of the Conference, adding, as a reason, that he was unwilling
   to lose the favor of the Emperor Charles and his brother Ferdinand.
   Baum, l.c., p. 463; Erichson, p. 45.

   [864] "In interiore hypocaustoad cubiculum Principis," says Jonas
   (Seckendorf, II. 140). It was not the Rittersaal, but the
   reception-room in the new east wing of the castle, adjoining the
   bedroom of the Landgrave. The castle has undergone many changes.

   [865] Justus Jonas reports ("Corp. Ref.," I. 1097, and Seckendorf, II.
   140): "A Francofordia confluxerunt plerique, alii Rhenanis partibus, e
   Colonia, Argentina, Basilea, Helvetiis, etc., sed non sunt admissi in
   colloquium."

   [866] He added, "Wo nicht, so will ich euch auch über die Schnauze
   fahren, dass es euch gereuen wird, dazu Ursach gegeben zu haben."

   [867] Luther hastily prepared a memorandum for the Landgrave, with
   quotations from Hilary, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Cyprian, and Irenaeus, to
   counteract the quotations from Augustin. See Letters, ed. De Wette,
   III. 508-511.

   [868] As Luther reports the words, "Es sind keine Leut auf Erden, mit
   denen ich lieber wollt' eins seyn als mit den Wittenbergern." In
   Zwingli's dialect, "Es werend kine Lüt uff Erden, mit denen ich lieber
   wöllt' ins sin, denn mit den Wittenbergern."

   [869] "Ihr habt einen anderen Geist als wir."

   [870] He wrote to Agricola, Oct. 12, 1529 ("Corp. Ref.," I. 1108):
   "Magnopere contenderunt, ut a nobis fratres appellarentur. Vide eorum
   stultitia! Cum damnent nos, cupiunt tamen a nobis fratres haberi! Nos
   noluimus eis hac in re assentiri."

   [871] De Wette, III. 512 sq.

   [872] I add the German original in the antiquated spelling, from the
   archives in Zürich (as published by Usteri in 1883):-- "Vom Sacrament
   des leibs und bluts Christi." "Zum fünnffzehennden Gleuben unnd hallten
   wir alle | vonn dem Nachtmale unnsers lieben herrn Jhesu Christi | das
   man bede gestallt nach Innsetzung Christi prauchen soll | das ouch die
   Messe nicht ein werck ist | do mit einer dem andren tod oder lebendig
   gnad erlangt. | Das auch das Sacrament desz Altars | sey ein Sacrament
   desz waren leibs unnd pluts | Jhesu Christi und die geistliche Niessung
   desselbigen leibs unnd pluts | einem Iden Christen fürnemlich vonn
   nöthen | deszgleichen der prauch desz Sacraments | wie das wort | von
   Gott dem allmechtigen gegeben | unnd geordennt sey | damit die
   schwachen Gewissen | zu gleuben | zubewegen | durch den heyligenn
   Geist. Unnd wiewol aber wir unns | ob der war leyb unnd plut Christi |
   leiplich im prot unnd weinsey | diser Zeit nit vergleicht haben | so
   soll doch ein theyl gegen den anndern Christliche lieb | so fern Idesz
   gewissen ymmer leiden kan | erzeigen | unnd bede theyl | Gott den
   Allmechtigen vleyssig bitten | das er unns durch seinen Geist den
   rechten verstanndt bestetigen well. Amen."

   [873] Three copies were signed at Marburg (according to Osiander's
   report, who took one to Nürnberg). They were long supposed to be lost,
   but two have been recovered and published by Heppe and Usteri from the
   archives at Cassel and Zürich (see Lit.). They agree almost verbatim,
   except in the order of signatures, the former giving the first place to
   the Lutheran, the latter to the Reformed names. The small differences
   are discussed by Usteri. l.c.

   [874] In a Latin letter to Reiffenstein, dated Marburg, Oct. 4, 1529;
   in the "Corp. Reform.," I. 109, and Seckendorf, vol. II. 140.

   [875] "In Zwinglio agreste quiddam est et arrogantulum."

   [876] "Mira bonitas naturae et clementia."

   [877] "Calliditas vulpina."

   [878] Comp. the remarks of Ranke, III. 124 sqq. He sees the
   significance of the Conference in the fact that the two parties, in
   spite of the theological difference, professed the same evangelical
   faith.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 109. Luther's Last Attack on the Sacramentarians. His Relation to
   Calvin.

   We anticipate the concluding act of the sad controversy of Luther with
   his Protestant opponents. It is all the more painful, since Zwingli and
   Oecolampadius were then sleeping in the grave; but it belongs to a full
   knowledge of the great Reformer.

   The Marburg Conference did not really reconcile the parties, or advance
   the question in dispute; but the conflict subsided for a season, and
   was thrown into the background by other events. The persistent efforts
   of Bucer and Hedio to bring about a reconciliation between Wittenberg
   and Zuerich soothed Luther, and excited in him the hope that the Swiss
   would give up their heresy, as he regarded it. But in this hope he was
   disappointed. The Swiss could not accept the "Wittenberg Concordia" of
   1536, because it was essentially Lutheran in the assertion of the
   corporal presence and oral manducation.

   A year and a half before his death, Luther broke out afresh, to the
   grief of Melanchthon and other friends, in a most violent attack on the
   Sacramentarians, the "Short Confession on the Holy Sacrament" (1544).
   [879]   It was occasioned by Schwenkfeld, [880] and by the rumor that
   Luther had changed his view, because he had abolished the elevation and
   adoration of the host. [881] Moreover he learned that Dévay, his former
   student, and inmate of his house, smuggled the sacramenta-rian doctrine
   under Luther's name into Hungary. [882] He was also displeased with the
   reformation program of Bucer and Melanchthon for the diocese of Cologne
   (1543), because it stated the doctrine of the eucharist without the
   specific Lutheran features, so that he feared it would give aid and
   comfort to the Sacramentarians. [883] These provocations and vexations,
   in connection with sickness and old age, combined to increase his
   irritability, and to sour his temper. They must be taken into account
   for all understanding of his last document on the eucharist. It is the
   severest of all, and forms a parallel to his last work against the
   papacy, of the same year, which surpasses in violence all he ever wrote
   against the Romish Antichrist. [884]

   The "Short Confession" contains no argument, but the strongest possible
   reaffirmation of his faith in the real pres-ence, and a declaration of
   his total and final separation from the Sacramentarians and their
   doctrine, with some concluding remarks on the elevation of the
   sacrament. Standing on the brink of the grave, and in view of the
   judgment-seat, he solemnly condemns all enemies of the sacraments
   wherever they are. [885] "Much rather," he says, "would I be torn to
   pieces, and burnt a hundred times, than be of one mind and will with
   Stenkefeld [Schwenkfeld], Zwingel, Carlstadt, Oecolampad, and all the
   rest of the Schwärmer, or tolerate their doctrine." He overwhelms them
   with terms of opprobrium, and coins new ones which cannot be translated
   into decent English. He calls them heretics, hypocrites, liars,
   blasphemers, soul-murderers, sinners unto death, bedeviled all over.
   [886] He ceased to pray for them, and left them to their fate. At one
   time he had expressed some regard for Oecolampadius, [887] and even for
   Zwingli, and sincere grief at his tragic death. [888] But in this last
   book he repeatedly refers to his death as a terrible judgment of God,
   and doubts whether he was saved. [889] He was horrified at Zwingli's
   belief in the salvation of the pious heathen, which he learned from his
   last exposition of the Christian faith, addressed to the king of
   France. "If such godless heathen," he says, "as Socrates, Aristides,
   yea, even the horrible Numa who introduced all kinds of idolatry in
   Rome [890] (as St. Augustin writes), were saved, there is no need of
   God, Christ, gospel, Scriptures, baptism, sacrament, or Christian
   faith." He thinks that Zwingli either played the hypocrite when he
   professed so many Christian articles at Marburg, or fell away, and has
   become worse than a heathen, and ten times worse than he was as a
   papist.

   This attitude Luther retained to the end. It is difficult to say whom
   he hated most, the papists or the Sacramentarians. On the subject of
   the real presence he was much farther removed from the latter. He
   remarks once that he would rather drink blood alone with the papists
   than wine alone with the Zwinglians. A few days before his death, he
   wrote to his friend, Pastor Probst in Bremen: "Blessed is the man that
   walketh not in the counsel of the Sacramentarians, nor standeth in the
   way of the Zwinglians, nor sitteth in the seat of the Zurichers." [891]
   Thus he turned the blessing of the first Psalm into a curse, in
   accordance with his growing habit of cursing the pope and the devil
   when praying to God. He repeatedly speaks of this habit, especially in
   reciting the Lord's Prayer, and justifies it as a part of his piety.
   [892]

   It is befitting that with this last word against the Sacramentarians
   should coincide in time and spirit his last and most violent attack
   upon the divine gift of reason, which he had himself so often and so
   effectually used as his best weapon, next to the Word of God. On Jan.
   17, 1546, he ascended the pulpit of Wittenberg for the last time, and
   denounced reason as the damned whore of the Devil." The fanatics and
   Sacramentarians boast of it when they ask: "How can this man give us
   his flesh to eat?" Hear ye the Son of God who says: "This is my body,"
   and crush the serpent beneath your feet. [893]

   Six days later Luther left the city of his public labors for the city
   of his birth, and died in peace at Eisleben, Feb. 18. 1546, holding
   fast to his faith, and commending his soul to his God and Redeemer.

   In view of these last utterances we must, reluctantly, refuse credit to
   the story that Luther before his death remarked to Melanchthon: "Dear
   Philip, I confess that the matter of the Lord's Supper has been
   overdone;" [894] and that, on being asked to correct the evil, and to
   restore peace to the church, he replied: "I often thought of it; but
   then people might lose confidence in my whole doctrine. I leave the
   matter in the hands of the Lord. Do what you can after my death." [895]

   But it is gratifying to know that Luther never said one unkind word of
   Calvin, who was twenty-five years younger. He never saw him, but read
   some of his books, and heard of him through Melanchthon. In a letter to
   Bucer, dated Oct. 14, 1539, he sent his respectful salutations to John
   Sturm and John Calvin, who lived at that time in Strassburg, and added
   that he had read their books with singular delight. This includes his
   masterly answer to the letter of Bishop Sadolet (1539). [896]
   Melanchthon sent salutations from Luther and Bugenhagen to Calvin, and
   informed him that he was in high favor with Luther," [897]
   notwithstanding the difference of views on the real presence, and that
   Luther hoped for better opinions, but was willing to bear something
   from such a good man. [898] Calvin had expressed his views on the
   Lord's Supper in the first edition of his Institutes, which appeared in
   1536, [899] incidentally also in his answer to Sadolet, which Luther
   read "with delight," [900] and more fully in a special treatise, De
   Coena Domini, which was published in French at Strassburg, 1541, and
   then in Latin, 1545. [901] Luther must have known these views. He is
   reported to have seen a copy of Calvin's tract on the eucharist in a
   bookstore at Wittenberg, and, after reading it, made the remark: "The
   author is certainly a learned and pious man: if Zwingli and
   Oecolampadius had from the start declared themselves in this way, there
   would probably not have arisen such a controversy." [902]

   Calvin returned Luther's greetings through Melanchthon, and sent him
   two pamphlets with a letter, dated Jan. 21, 1545, addressing him as "my
   much respected father," and requesting him to solve the scruples of
   some converted French refugees. he expresses the wish that "he might
   enjoy for a few hours the happiness of his society," though this was
   impossible on earth.

   Melanchthon, fearing a renewal of the eucharistic controversy, had not
   the courage to deliver this letter--the only one of Calvin to
   Luther--"because," he says, "Doctor Martin is suspicious, and dislikes
   to answer such questions as were proposed to him." [903]

   Calvin regretted "the vehemence of Luther's natural temperament, which
   was so apt to boil over in every direction," and to "flash his
   lightning sometimes also upon the servants of the Lord;" but he always
   put him above Zwingli, and exhorted the Zurichers to moderation. When
   he heard of the last attack of Luther, he wrote a noble letter to
   Bullinger, Nov. 25, 1544, in which he says: [904] --

   "I hear that Luther has at length broken forth in fierce invective, not
   so much against you as against the whole of us. On the present
   occasion, I dare scarce venture to ask you to keep silence, because it
   is neither just that innocent persons should thus be harassed, nor that
   they should be denied the opportunity of clearing themselves; neither,
   on the other hand, is it easy to determine whether it would be prudent
   for them to do so. But of this I do earnestly desire to put you in
   mind, in the first place, that you would consider how eminent a man
   Luther is, and his excellent endow-ments, with what strength of mind
   and resolute constancy, with how great skill, with what efficiency and
   power of doctrinal statement, he hath hither-to devoted his whole
   energy to overthrow the reign of Antichrist, and at the same time to
   diffuse far and near the doctrine of salvation. Often have I been wont
   to declare, that even although he were to call me a devil, I should
   still not the less esteem and acknowledge him as an illustrious servant
   of God. [905] ... This, therefore, I would beseech you to consider
   first of all, along with your colleagues, that you have to do with a
   most distin-guished servant of Christ, to whom we are all of us largely
   indebted. That, besides, you will do yourselves no good by quarreling,
   except that you may afford some sport to the wicked, so that they may
   triumph not so much over us as over the gospel. If they see us rending
   each other asunder, they then give full credit to what we say, but when
   with one consent and with one voice we preach Christ, they avail
   themselves unwarrantably of our inherent weakness to cast reproach upon
   our faith. I wish, therefore, that you would consider and reflect on
   these things, rather than on what Luther has deserved by his violence;
   lest that may happen to you which Paul threatens, that by biting and
   devouring one another, ye be consumed one of another. Even should he
   have provoked us, we ought rather to decline the contest than to
   increase the wound by the general shipwreck of the church."

   This is the wisest Christian answer from Geneva to the thunderbolts of
   Wittenberg.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [879] Erl. ed. XXXII. 396-425; Walch, XX. 2195 sqq. Comp. Luther's
   letter to Hungarian ministers, April 21, 1544 (in De Wette, V. 644),
   where he announces his intention soon to add one more to his many
   confessions on the real presence. "Cogor post tot confessiones meas
   adhuc unam facere, quam faciam propediem et novissimam." The Erlangen
   editor says that the book was not published till 1545; but the
   titlepage of Hans Luft's edition bears date "Am Ende: M. D. XLIIII."
   Melanchthon informed Bullinger of the appearance of the book in August,
   1544; and Calvin heard of it in November, 1544.

   [880] Schwenkfeld sent Luther some books with appeals to his authority
   (1543). Luther returned an answer by the messenger, in which he called
   Schwenkfeld "a nonsensical fool," and asked him to spare him his books,
   which were "spit out by the Devil." In the Short Confession, he calls
   him always Stenkefeld (Stinkfield), and ein "verdampt Lügenmand."

   [881] See above, p. 606, note.

   [882] Dévay is the founder of the Reformed (Calvinistic) church in
   Hungary. See Revecz in Herzog2, III. 572 sqq.

   [883] "Summa," he wrote to Chancellor Brück, who sent him the program,
   and Amsdorf's censure, "das Buch ist den Schwärmern nicht allein
   leidlich, sondern auch tröstlich, vielmehr für ihre Lehre als für
   unsere; ... und ist alles zu lang und gross Gewäsche, dass ich das
   Klappermaul, den Butzer, hier wohl spüre." De Wette, V. 709; "Corp.
   Reform." V. 113, 461.

   [884] Comp. above, p. 251. Melanchthon called the "Short Confession"
   "the most atrocious book of Luther " (atrocissimum Lutheri scriptum, in
   quo bellum peri deipnou kuriakouinstaurat). Letter to Bullinger, Aug.
   30, 1544, in "Corp. Ref." v. 475. He agreed with the judgment of
   Calvin, who wrote to him, June 28, 1545 "I confess that we all owe the
   greatest thanks to Luther, and I should cheerfully concede to him the
   highest authority, if he only knew how to control himself. Good God!
   what jubilee we prepare for the Papists, and what sad example do we set
   to posterity!"

   [885] "Denn ich," he says after a few contemptuous words about
   Schwenk-feld, "als der ich nu auf der Gruben gehe, will diess Zeugniss
   und diesen Ruhm mit mir für meins lieben Herrn und Heilands Jesu
   Christi Richtstuhl bringen, dass ich die Schwärmer und
   Sacramentsfeinde, Carlstadt, Zwingel, Oecolampad, Stenkefeld und ihre
   Jünger zu Zürch [Zürich], und wo sie sind, mit ganzem Ernst verdampt
   und gemieden habe, nach seinem Befehl Tit. 3:10, Einen Ketzer sollt du
   meiden."

   [886] He ascribes to them indiscriminately "ein eingeteufelt,
   durchteufelt, überteufelt, lästerlich Herz und Lügenmaul" (l.c., p.
   404).

   [887] He wrote in 1527: "Dem Oecolampad hat Gott viel Gaben geschenkt
   für [vor]vielen andern, und mir ja herzlich für den Mann leid ist."
   Erl. ed. XXX. 34.

   [888] In an answer to Bullinger, Zwingli's successor, dated May 14,
   1538 (De Wette, V. 112): "Libere enim dicam: Zwinglium, postquam
   Marpurgi mihi visus et auditus est, virum optimum esse judicavi, sicut
   et Oecolampadium, ita ut eorum casis me paene exanimaverit ... non quod
   invideam honori Zwinglii, de cuius morte tantum dolorem concepi," etc.

   [889] He had expressed the same doubt twelve years before, but in a
   milder tone, in a letter to Duke Albrecht of Prussia, April, 1532 (De
   Wette, IV. 352 sq.): "Sind sie" [Zwingli and his followers who fell on
   the battle-field at Cappel] "selig worden, wie dasselb Gott nicht
   unmöglich ist, einen Menschen in seinem letzten Ende, in einem
   Augenblick, zu bekehren, das gönnen und wünschen wir ihnen von Grund
   unsers Herzens: aber Märtyrer zu machen, da gehört mehr zu, denn
   schlecht selig werden." In the Short Confession (p. 411) he seems to
   count Zwingli and Oecolampadius among "the Devil's martyrs."

   [890] "Solche gottlose Heiden, Socrates, Aristides, ja der gräuliche
   Numa, der zu Rom alle Abgötterei erst gestiftet."

   [891] De Wette, V. 778. The German in Walch, XVII. 2633. It should be
   remembered that in this letter, dated Jan. 17, 1546, he describes
   himself as "senex, decrepitus, piger, fessus, frigidus, monoculus," and
   "infelicissimus omnium hominum"

   [892] In a book of March, 1531, against an anonymous layman of Dresden,
   who charged him with stirring up the Germans to open rebellion against
   the emperor, he defends this pious cursing as the necessary negative
   supplement to the positive petitions of the Lord's Prayer."Ich kann
   nicht beten," he says, "ich muss dabei fluchen. Soll ich sagen:
   'geheiligt werde dein Name,' muss ich. dabei sagen: 'Verflucht,
   verdammt, geschändet müsse werden der Papisten Namen, und aller, die
   deinen Namen lästern.' Soll ich sagen: 'Dein Reich komme,' so muss ich
   dabei sagen:' Verflucht, verdammt, verstört müsse werden das Papstthum
   sammt allen Reichen auf Erden, die deinem Reiche zuwider sind. Soll ich
   sagen: 'Dein Wille geschehe,' so muss ich dabei sagen: 'Verflucht,
   verdammt, geschändet und zu nichte müssen werden alle Gedanken und
   Anschläge der Papisten und aller die wider deinen Willen und Rath
   streben.' Wahrlich, so bete ich alle Tage mündlich, und mit dem Herzen
   ohne Unterlass, und mit mir alle, die an Christum gläuben, und fühle
   auch wohl, dass es erhört wird. Denn man mussGottes Wunder sehen, wie
   er diesen schrecklichen Reichstag [the Diet of Augsburg, 1530],und das
   unmässliche Dräuen und Wüthen der Papisten zu nichte macht, und auch
   ferner sie gründlich zu nichte machen wird. Dennoch behalte ich ein
   gut, freundlich, friedlich und christlich Herz gegen jedermann; das
   wissen auch meine grössten Feinde." (Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden,
   Walsh, XVI. 2085; Erl. ed. XXV. 108.) Seven years later (1538) he made
   a similar statement in a tract on the Pope's program of a Reformation:
   "Man soll nicht fluchen (das ist wahr); aber beten muss man, dass
   Gottes Name geheiliget und geehrt werde, des Papsts Name geschädet und
   verflucht werde, sammt seinem Gott, dem Teufel, dass Gottes Reich
   komme, des Antichrists Reich zu Grunde gehe. Solchen paternosterlichen
   Fluch mag man wohl beten, und soll ihn jeder Christ beten, weil die
   letzten Erzbösewichte am Ende der Welt, Papst, Cardinal, und Bischof so
   schändlich, böslich, muthwillig unsern lieben Herrn und Gott lästern
   und dazu spotten." Erl. ed. XXV. 151. When once asked whether we may
   curse in praying, Luther replied: "Yes; for when I pray, 'Hallowed be
   thy name,' I curse Erasmus and all heretics who blaspheme
   God."Tischreden, vol. LIX. 22. In Marburg, at the dinner-table, he
   added after that petition, audibly, with a sharp voice, and closing his
   hands more tightly, "Und dass unser Name für tausend Teufel verdammt
   werde." Baum, Capito u. Butzer, p. 461.

   [893] See above, § 9, p. 31 sq. Köstlin, Luthers Theologie, II. 226,
   290.

   [894] "Der Sache vom Abendmahl ist viel zu viel gethan."

   [895] Hardenberg, a Reformed minister at Bremen ((I. 1574), reported
   such a conversation as coming from the lips of his friend Melanchthon;
   but Melanchthon nowhere alludes to it. Stähelin (John Calvin, I. 228
   sq.) accepts, Köstlin (M. L., II. 627) rejects the report, as resting
   on some misunderstanding. So also C. Bertheau in the article
   "Hardenberg" in Herzog2, V. 596 sq. Comp. Diestelmann, Die letzte
   Unterredung Luthers mit Melanchthon über den Abendmahlsstreit,
   Göttingen, l874; Köstlin's review of Diestelmann, in the "Studien und
   Kritiken," 1876, p. 385 sqq.; and Walte in the "Jahrb. für prot.
   Theol.," 1883. It is a pity that the story cannot be sufficiently
   authenticated, for it certainly expresses what ought to have been
   Luther's last confession on the subject.

   [896] De Wette, V. 211: "Bene vale et salutabis Dr. Joannem Sturmium et
   Johannem Calvinum reverenter, quorum libellos cum singulari voluptate
   legi. Sadoleto optarem, ut crederet Deum esse creatorem hominum etiam
   extra Italiam." From the last sentence it appears that he read Calvin's
   answer to Bishop Sadolet. He is reported to have remarked to Cruciger:
   "This answer has hand and foot, and I rejoice that God raises such men
   who will give popery the last blow, and finish the war against
   Antichrist which I began." Calvin alludes to these salutations in his
   Secunda Defensio adv. Westphalum (Opera, ed. Reuss, IX. 92).

   [897] "Calvinus magnam gratiam iniit."

   [898] This letter of Melanchthon is lost, but Calvin alludes to it in a
   letter to Farel, 1539. Opera, X. 432. The words of Luther are: "Spero
   ipsum [Calvinum] olim de nobis melius sensurum, sed aequum est a bono
   ingenio nos aliquid ferre."

   [899] Ch. IV. p. 236 sqq. (De Coena Domini), Opera, I. 118 sqq.

   [900] Opera Calc., ed. Reuss vol. V. 385-416. On fol. 400 Calvin
   rejects the "localis corporis Christ praesentia" in the eucharist, but
   asserts "veram carnis et sanguinis communicationem quae fidelibus in
   coena exhibetur."

   [901] Opera, V. 429-460.

   [902] Pezel, Ausführliche Lehre vom Sacramentstreit, Bremen, 1600, p.
   137 sqq. See Gieseler, vol. IV. 414 sq. (New York ed. of the E.
   transl.); Stähelin, Joh. Calvin, I. 227 (with Pezel's report in full);
   Müller, Dogmat. Abhandlungen, p. 406; Köstlin, M. L., II. 615 and 687.
   It is remarkable in this connection that Luther spoke in high terms of
   the Swabian Syngramma, which was directed against the Swiss theory, but
   leaves no room for an oral manducation, and comes nearest to the
   Calvinistic view. Comp. Köstlin, Luthers Theologie, II. 147.

   [903] Opera, ed. Reuss, XII. 6 sq., 61 sq. Letters, ed. Constable, I.
   416 sq.

   [904] Letters, I. 409 sq., Opera, XI. 774.

   [905] "Saepe dicere solitus sum: etiam si me diabolum vocaret, me tamen
   hoc illi honoris habiturum, ut insignem Dei servum agnoscam: qui tamen
   ut pollet eximiis virtutibus, ita magnis vitiis laboret."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 110. Reflections on the Ethics of the Eucharistic Controversy.

   Dogmatics and ethics, faith and conduct, should agree like the teaching
   and example of Christ from which they are to be drawn. But, in
   practice, they often conflict. History shows us many examples of
   ungodly champions of orthodoxy and godly champions of heterodoxy, of
   unholy churchmen and holy dissenters. The angel of Ephesus is commended
   for zeal against false apostles, and censured for leaving the first
   love; while the angel of Thyatira is praised for his good works, and
   reproved for tolerating error. Some are worse than their belief, and
   others are better than their misbelief or unbelief.

   Luther and Zwingli are by no means opposed to each other as orthodox
   and heretic; they were essentially agreed in all fundamental articles
   of the evangelical faith, as the Marburg Conference proved. The
   difference between them is only a little more Catholic orthodoxy and
   intolerance in Luther, and a little more Christian charity and
   liberality in Zwingli. This difference is characteristic of the
   Reformers and of the denominations which they represent.

   Luther had a sense of superiority, and claimed the credit of having
   begun the work of the Reformation. He supposed that the Swiss were
   indebted to him for what little knowledge they had of the gospel;
   while, in fact, they were as independent of him as the Swiss Republic
   was of the German Empire, and knew the gospel as well as he. [906]

   But it would be great injustice to attribute his conduct to obstinacy
   and pride, or any selfish motive. It proceeded from his inmost
   conviction. He regarded the real presence as a fundamental article of
   faith, inseparably connected with the incarnation, the union of the two
   natures of Christ, and the mystical union of believers with his
   divine-human personality. He feared that the denial of this article
   would consistently lead to the rejection of all mysteries, and of
   Christianity itself. He deemed it, moreover, most dangerous and
   horrible to depart from what had been the consensus of the Christian
   Church for so many centuries. His piety was deeply rooted in the
   historic Catholic faith, and it cost him a great struggle to break
   loose from popery. In the progress of the eucharistic controversy, all
   his Catholic instincts and abhorrence of heresy were aroused and
   intensified. In his zeal he could not do justice to his opponents, or
   appreciate their position. His sentiments are shared by millions of
   pious and devout Lutherans to this day, whose conscience forbids them
   to commune with Christians of Reformed churches. [907] We may lament
   their narrowness, but must.respect their conviction, as we do the
   conviction of the far larger number of Roman Catholics, who devoutly
   believe in the miracle of transubstantiation and the sacrifice of the
   mass.

   In addition to Luther's dogmatic standpoint we must take into account
   his ignorance of the true character of the Swiss, and their real
   doctrine. He had hardly heard of the Swiss Reformation when the
   controversy began. He did not even spell Zwingli's name correctly (he
   always calls him "Zwingel"), and could not easily understand his Swiss
   dialect. [908] He made a radical mistake by confounding him with
   Carlstadt and the fanatics. He charged him with reducing the Lord's
   Supper to a common meal, and bread and wine to empty signs; and,
   although he found out his mistake at Marburg, he returned to it again
   in his last book, adding the additional charge of hypocrisy or
   apostasy. He treated him as a heathen, yea, worse than a heathen, as he
   treated Erasmus.

   Zwingli was clear-headed, self-possessed, jejune, and sober (even in
   his radical departures from Rome), and farther removed from fanaticism
   than Luther himself. He was a pupil of the classical and humanistic
   school of Erasmus; he had never been so deeply rooted in the mediaeval
   faith, and it cost him much less trouble than Luther to break off from
   the old church; he was a man of reflection rather than of intuition,
   and had no mystic vein, but we may say a rationalistic bent.
   Nevertheless, he was as loyal to Christ, and believed in the Word of
   God and the supernatural as firmly, as Luther; and the Reformed
   churches to this day are as pure, faithful, devoted, and active in
   Christian works as any, and less affected by rationalism than the
   Lutheran, in part for the very reason that they allow reason its
   legitimate influence in dogmatic questions. If Zwingli believed in the
   salvation of the pious heathen and unbaptized infants, it was not
   because he doubted the absolute necessity of the saving grace of
   Christ, which he very strongly asserted, but simply because he extended
   this grace beyond the boundaries of the visible church, and the
   ordinary means of grace; and on this point, as on others, he
   anticipated modern ideas. He was inferior to Luther in genius, and
   depth of mind and heart, but his superior in tolerance, liberality, and
   courtesy; and in these qualities also he was in advance of his age, and
   has the sympathies of the best modern culture.

   Making every allowance for Luther's profound religious conviction, and
   for the misunderstanding of his opponent, nothing can justify the
   spirit and style of Luther's polemics, especially his last book against
   the sacramentarians. He drew his inspiration for it from the
   imprecatory Psalms, not from the Sermon on the Mount. He spoke the
   truth in hatred and wrath, not in love.

   This betrays an organic defect in his reformation; namely, the
   over-estimate of dogmatics over ethics, and a want of discipline and
   self-government. In the same year in which he wrote his fiercest book
   against the Sacramentarians, he seriously contemplated leaving
   Wittenberg as a veritable Sodom: so bad was the state of morals,
   according to his own testimony, in the very centre of his influence.
   [909] It required a second reformation, and such men as Arnd, Andreae,
   Spener. and Franke, to supplement the one-sided Lutheran orthodoxy by
   practical piety. Calvin, on the other hand, left at his death the
   church of Geneva in such a flourishing condition that John Knox
   pronounced it the best school of Christ since the days of the Apostles,
   and that sixty years later John Valentin Andreae, one of the noblest
   and purest Lutheran divines of the seventeenth century, from personal
   observation held it up to the Lutheran Church as a model for imitation.

   Luther's polemics had a bad effect on the Lutheran Church. He set in
   motion that theological fury which raged for several generations after
   his death, and persecuted some of the best men in it, from Melanchthon
   down to Spener.

   His blind followers, in their controversies among themselves and with
   the Reformed, imitated his faults, without his genius and originality;
   and in their zeal for what they regarded the pure doctrine, they forgot
   the common duties of courtesy and kindness which we owe even to an
   enemy. [910]

   We may quote here a well-considered judgment of Dr. Dorner, one of the
   ablest and profoundest evangelical divines of Germany, who says in a
   confidential letter to his lifelong friend, Bishop Martensen of
   Denmark, --

   "I am more and more convinced that the deepest defect of Lutheran
   churchism heretofore has been a lack of the full appreciation of the
   ethical element of Christianity. This becomes manifest so often in the
   manner of the Lutheran champions. There is lacking the tenderness of
   conscience and thorough moral culture which deals conscientiously with
   the opponent. Justification by faith is made to cover, in advance, all
   sins, even the future ones; and this is only another form of
   indulgence. The Lutheran doctrine leads, if we look at the principle,
   to an establishment of ethics on the deepest foundation. But many treat
   justification, not only as the begin-ning, but also as the goal. Hence
   we see not seldom the justified and the old man side by side, and the
   old man is not a bit changed. Lutherans who show in their literary and
   social conduct the stamp of the old Adam would deal more strictly with
   themselves, and fear to fall from grace by such conduct, if they had a
   keener conscience, and could see the neces-sary requirements of the
   principle of justification; for then they would shrink from such
   conduct as a sin against conscience. But the doctrine of justification
   is often misused for lulling the conscience to sleep, instead of
   quickening it." [911]

   Zwingli's conduct towards Luther, judged from the ethical point of
   view, is much more gentlemanly and Christian, though by no means
   perfect. He, too, misunderstood and misrepresented Luther when he
   charged him with teaching a local presence and a carnal eating of
   Christ's body. He, too, knew how to be severe, and to use the rapier
   and the knife against the club and sledge-hammer of the Wittenberg
   Reformer. But he never forgot, even in the heat of controversy, the
   great services of Luther, and more than once paid him the tribute of
   sincere admiration.

   "For a thousand years," says Zwingli, "no mightier investigator of the
   Holy Scriptures has appeared than Luther. No one has equaled him in
   manly and immovable courage with which he attacked popery. But whose
   work is it? God's, or Luther's? Ask Luther himself, and he will say
   God's. He traces his doctrine to God and his eternal Word. As far as I
   have read his writings (although I have often purposely abstained from
   doing so), I find them well founded in the Scriptures: his only weak
   point is, that he yields too much to the Romanists in the matter of the
   sacraments, and the confession to the priest, and in tolerating the
   images in the churches. If he is sharp and racy in speech, it comes
   from a pious, honest heart, and a flaming love for the truth ....
   Others have come to know the true religion, but no one has ventured to
   attack the Goliath with his formidable armor; but Luther alone, as a
   true David, anointed by God, hurled the stones taken from the heavenly
   brook so skillfully that the giant fell prostrate on the ground.
   Therefore let us never cease to sing with joy: 'Saul has slain his
   thousands, and David his ten thousands' (1 Sam. 18:7). He was the
   Hercules who slew the Roman boar .... I have always been grateful to my
   teachers, how much more to that excellent man whom I can never expect
   to equal in honor and merit! With no men on earth would I rather he
   agreed than with the Wittenbergers .... Many have found the true
   religion before Luther became famous; I have learnt the gospel from the
   same fountain of the Scriptures, and began to preach it in 1516 (at
   Einsiedeln), when I diligently studied and copied with mine own hand
   the Greek epistles of Paul, [912] before I heard the name of Luther. He
   preaches Christ, so do I, thanks to God. And I will be called by no
   other name than that of my Captain Christ, whose soldiers we are."
   [913]

   I may add here the impartial testimony of Dr. Köstlin, the best
   biographer of Luther, and himself a Lutheran: --

   "Zwingli knew how to keep himself under control. Even where he is
   indignant, and intentionally sharp and pointed, he avoids the tone of
   passionate excitement, and uses the calm and urbane language of a
   gentleman of humanistic culture, and thereby proves his superiority
   over his opponent, without justifying the suspicion of Luther that he
   was uncertain in his own mind, and that the attitude he assumed was
   only a feint. His polemics forms thus the complete opposite to Luther's
   book, 'That the words of Christ,' etc. Yet it presents also another
   aspect. Zwingli characterizes, with select words of disregard, the
   writers and contents of the Syngramma, to which Luther had given his
   assent, and clearly hints at Luther's wrath, spite, jealousy, audacity,
   and other faults poorly concealed under the cover of bravery,
   constancy, etc.; yea, here and there he calls his arguments 'childish'
   and 'fantastic,' etc. Hence his new writings were by no means so
   'friendly' as the title indicates. What is more important, we miss in
   them a sense for the deeper, truly religious motives of Luther, as much
   as we miss in Luther an appreciation of like motives in Zwingli .... He
   sees in Luther obstinate blindness, while Luther discovered in him a
   devilish spirit." [914]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [906] In his book, "Dass die Worte Christi," etc. (1527, Erl. ed. XXX.
   11), he calls the Sacramentarians "his tender children, his dear
   brethren, his golden friends" ("meine zarte Kinder, meine Brüderlein,
   meine gülden Freundlein "), who would have known nothing of Christ and
   the gospel if Luther had not previously written ("wo der Luther nicht
   zuvor hätte geschrieben"). He compared Carlstadt to Absalom and to
   Judas the traitor. He treated the Swiss not much better, in a letter to
   his blind admirer Amsdorf, April 14, 1545 (De Wette, V. 728), where he
   says that they kept silence, while he alone was sustaining the fury of
   popery (cum solus sudarem in sustinenda furia Papae), and that after
   the peril was over, they claimed the victory, and reaped the fruit of
   his labors (tum erampebant triumphatores gloriosi. Sic, sic alius
   laborat, alius fruitur). Dr. Döllinger (Luther, 1851, p. 29 sq.)
   derives the bitterness of Luther's polemics against the Swiss largely
   from "jealousy and wounded pride," and calls his refutation of their
   arguments "very weak," and even "dis-honest" ("seine Polemik war, wie
   immer und gegen jedermann, in hohem Grade unehrlich," p. 31). The
   charge of dishonesty we cannot admit.

   [907] The philosopher Steffens, who was far from uncharitable bigotry,
   always went from Berlin to Breslau to commune with the orthodox Old
   Lutherans. Bishop Martensen, one of the profoundest Lutheran divines of
   the nineteenth century, thought that only in cases of necessity could a
   Lutheran commune with a Calvinist, who denies what Luther affirms, or
   evades the mystery of the real presence. Briefwechsel zwischen
   Martensen und Dorner, Berlin, 1888, vol. I. 262 sq. He changed his view
   afterwards. I could name eminent living Lutheran divines who would
   hardly allow even this exception. In America the Lutheran theory had
   largely given way to the Zwinglian until it was revived by the German
   Missouri Synod, and found a learned advocate in Dr. Krauth, who went so
   far as to propose to the General Lutheran Council the so-called
   "Galesburg rule" (1875): "Lutheran pulpits for Lutheran ministers only,
   Lutheran altars for Lutheran communicants only."

   [908] Zwingli's Latin is better than his Züridütsch, in which his
   answers to Luther's German attacks were written.

   [909] In July, 1545 (De Wette, V. 732 sq.), he wrote to his wife from
   Leipzig that he did not wish to return, and that she should sell house
   and home, and move "from this Sodoma" to Zulsdorf. He would rather beg
   his bread than torture his last days by the sight of the disorderly
   condition of Wittenberg.

   [910] These champions of Lutheran orthodoxy were not simply Lutherisch,
   but verluthert, durchluthert, and überluthert. They fulfilled the
   prediction of the Reformer: "Adorabunt stercora mea." Their mottoes
   were,-- "Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr Vergehet nun und nimmermehr;"
   and "Gottes Wort und Luther's Schrift Sind des Papst's und Calvini
   Gift." They believed that Luther's example gave them license to exhaust
   the vocabulary of abuse, and to violate every rule of courtesy and good
   taste. They called the Reformed Christians "dogs," and Calvin's God "a
   roaring bull (Brüllochse), a blood-thirsty Moloch, and a hellish
   Behemoth." They charged them with teaching and worshiping the very
   Devil (den leibhaftigen Teufel), instead of the living God. One of them
   proved that "the damned Calvinistic heretics hold six hundred and
   sixty-six tenets [the apocalyptic number!] in common with the Turks."
   Another wrote a book to show that Zwinglians and Calvinists are no
   Christians at all, but baptized Jews and Mohammedans. O sancta
   simplicitas! On the intolerance of those champions of Lutheran
   orthodoxy, see the historical works of Arnold, Planck, Tholuck (Der
   Geist der lutherischen Theologen Wittenbergs im 17ten Jahrh., 1852, p.
   279 sqq.), and the fifth volume of Janssen.

   [911] Die Rechtfertigungslehre wird vielfach zur Einschläferung statt
   zur Schärfung des Gewissens missbraucht."See Dorner's letter of May 14,
   1871, in the Briefwechsel just quoted, vol. II. 114. Dorner and
   Martensen, both masters in Christian dogmatics and ethics, kept up a
   most instructive and interesting correspondence of friendship for more
   than forty years, on all theological and ecclesiastical questions of
   the day, even during the grave disturbances between Germany and Denmark
   on the Schleswig-Holstein controversy, which broke out at last in open
   war (1864). That correspondence is as remarkable in theology as the
   Schiller and Goethe correspondence is in poetry and art.

   [912] The neat manuscript is still preserved in the library of the
   Wasserkirche at Zürich, where I examined it in August, 1886.

   [913] I have given the substance of several passages scattered through
   his polemical writings, and collected in the useful edition of
   Zwingli's Sämmtliche Schriften by Usteri and Vögelin, vol. II., Part
   II., p. 571 sqq.

   [914] Martin Luther, II. 96 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 111. The Eucharistic Theories compared. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin.

   We now present, for the sake of clearness, though at the risk of some
   repetition, the three Protestant theories on the real presence, with
   the chief arguments.

   Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin agree, negatively, in opposition to the
   dogma of transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, and the
   withdrawal of the cup from the laity; positively, in these essential
   points: the divine institution and perpetuity of the Lord's Supper, the
   spiritual presence of Christ, the commemorative character of the
   ordinance as the celebration of Christ's atoning sacrifice, its
   importance as the highest act of worship and communion with Christ, and
   its special blessing to all who worthily partake of it.

   They differ on three points,--the mode of Christ's presence (whether
   corporal, or spiritual); the organ of receiving his body and blood
   (whether by the mouth, or by faith); and the extent of this reception
   (whether by all, or only by believers). The last point has no practical
   religious value, though it follows from the first, and stands or falls
   with it. The difference is logical rather than religious. The Lord's
   Supper was never intended for unbelievers. Paul in speaking of
   "unworthily" receiving the sacrament (1 Cor. 11:27) does not mean
   theoretical unbelief, but moral unworthiness, irreverence of spirit and
   manner.

   I. The Lutheran Theory teaches a real and substantial presence of the
   very body and blood of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, and
   suffered on the cross, in, with, and under (in, sub, cum) the elements
   of bread and wine, and the oral manducation of both substances by all
   commun-icants, unworthy and unbelieving, as well as worthy and
   believing, though with opposite effects. The simultaneous co-existence
   or conjunction of the two substances is not a local inclusion of one
   substance in the other (impanation), nor a mixture or fusing-together
   of the two substances into one; nor is it permanent, but ceases with
   the sacramental action. It is described as a sacramental, supernatural,
   incomprehensible union. [915] The earthly elements remain unchanged and
   distinct in their substance and power, but they become the divinely
   appointed media for communicating the heavenly substance of the body
   and blood of Christ. They become so, not by priestly consecration, as
   in the doctrine of trans-substantiation, but by the power and Word of
   God. The eating of the body is by the mouth, indeed, yet is not
   Caper-naitic, and differs from the eating of ordinary food. [916] The
   object and use of the Lord's Supper is chiefly the assurance of the
   forgiveness of sins, to the comfort of the believer. [917] This is the
   scholastic statement of the doctrine, as given by the framers of the
   Formula Concordiae, and the Lutheran scholastics of the seventeenth
   century.

   The confessional deliverances of the Lutheran Church on the Lord's
   Supper are as follows: --

   the augsburg confession of 1530.

   "ART. X. Of the Supper of the Lord they teach that the [true] body and
   blood of Christ [918] are truly present [under the form of bread and
   wine], [919] and are [there] [920] communicated to [and received by]
   [921] those that eat [922] in the Lord's Supper. And they disapprove of
   those that teach otherwise." [923]

   the altered augsburg confession of 1540.

   Concerning the Supper of the Lord they teach that with bread and wine
   are truly exhibited [924] the body and blood of Christ to those that
   eat in the Lord's Supper. [925]

   articles of smalkald (by luther), 1537.

   "Of this Sacrament of the Altar, we hold that the bread and wine in the
   Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given to, and
   re-ceived by, not only the pious, but also to and by the impious
   Christians."

   In the same articles Luther denounces transubstantiation as a "subtle
   sophistry (subtilitas sophistica)," and the Romish mass as "the
   greatest and most terrible abomination (maxima et horrenda
   abominatio)." Pars III., Art. VI., in Mueller's ed., pp. 301, 320.

   formula of concord (1577). epitome, art. vii. affirmative.

   "I. We believe, teach, and confess that in the Lord's Supper the body
   and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and that they
   are truly distributed and taken together with the bread and wine.

   "II. We believe, teach, and confess that the words of the Testament of
   Christ are not to be understood otherwise than as the words themselves
   literally sound, so that the bread does not signify the absent body of
   Christ, and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that on account of
   the sacra-mental union the bread and wine are truly the body and blood
   of Christ.

   "III. Moreover, as concerns the consecration, we believe, teach, and
   confess that no human work, nor any utterance of the minister of the
   Church, is the cause of the presence of the body and blood of Christ in
   the Supper, but that this is to be attributed to the omnipotent power
   of our Lord Jesus Christ alone.

   "IV. Nevertheless, we believe, teach, and confess, by unanimous
   con-sent, that in the use of the Lord's Supper the words of the
   institution of Christ are by no means to be omitted, but are to be
   publicly recited, as it is written (1 Cor. 10:16), 'The cup of blessing
   which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?' etc.
   And this benediction takes place by the recitation of the words of
   Christ.

   "V. Now the foundations on which we rest in this controversy with the
   Sacramentarians are the following, which, moreover, Dr. Luther has laid
   down in his Larger Confession concerning the Supper of the Lord: --

   "The first foundation is an article of our Christian faith, to wit:
   Jesus Christ is true, essential, natural, perfect God and man in unity
   of person, inseparable and undivided.

   "Secondly: That the right hand of God is everywhere; and that Christ,
   in respect of his humanity, is truly and in very deed seated thereat,
   and therefore as present governs, and has in his hand and under his
   feet, as the Scripture saith (Eph. 1:22), all things which are in
   heaven and on earth. At this right hand of God no other man, nor even
   any angel, but the Son of Mary alone, is seated, whence also he is able
   to effect those things which we have said.

   "Thirdly: That the Word of God is not false or deceiving.

   "Fourthly: That God knows and has in his power various modes of being
   in any place, and is not confined to that single one which philosophers
   are wont to call local or circumscribed.

   "VI. We believe, teach, and confess that the body and blood of Christ
   are taken with the bread and wine, not only spiritually through faith,
   but also by the mouth, nevertheless not Capernaitically, but after a
   spiritual and heavenly manner, by reason of the sacramental union. For
   to this the words of Christ clearly bear witness, in which he enjoins
   us to take, to eat to drink; and that this was done by the Apostles the
   Scripture makes mention, saying (Mark 14:23), 'And they all drank of
   it.' And Paul says, 'The bread which we break is the communion of the
   body of Christ;' that is, he that eats this bread eats the body of
   Christ.

   "To the same, with great consent, do the chief of the most ancient
   doctors of the church--Chrysostom, Cyprian, Leo the First, Gregory,
   Ambrose, Augustin--bear witness.

   "VII. We believe, teach, and confess that not only true believers in
   Christ, and such as worthily approach the Supper of the Lord, but also
   the unworthy and unbelieving receive the true body and blood of Christ;
   in such wise, nevertheless, that they derive thence neither consolation
   nor life, but rather so as that receiving turns to their judgment and
   condemnation, unless they be converted, and repent (1 Cor. 11:27, 29).

   "For although they repel from them Christ as a Saviour, nevertheless
   they are compelled, though extremely unwilling, to admit him as a stem
   Judge. And he no less present exercises his judgment over these
   impenitent guests than as present he works consolation and life in the
   hearts of true believers and worthy guests.

   "VIII. We believe, teach, and confess that there is one kind only of
   unworthy guests: they are those only who do not believe. Of these it is
   written (John 3:18), 'He that believeth not is condemned already.' And
   this judgment is enhanced and aggravated by an unworthy use of the holy
   Supper (1 Cor. 11:29).

   "IX. We believe, teach, and confess that no true believer, so long as
   he retains a living faith, receives the holy Supper of the Lord unto
   condemnation, however much weakness of faith he may labor under. For
   the Lord's Supper has been chiefly instituted for the sake of the weak
   in faith, who nevertheless are penitent, that from it they may derive
   true consolation and a strengthening of their weak faith (Matt. 9:12;
   11:5, 28).

   We believe, teach, and confess that the whole worthiness of the guests
   at this heavenly Supper consists alone in the most holy obedience and
   most perfect merit of Christ. And this we apply to ourselves by true
   faith, and are rendered certain of the application of this merit, and
   are confirmed in our minds by the sacrament. But in no way does that
   worthiness depend upon our virtues, or upon our inward or outward
   preparations."

   The three great arguments for the Lutheran theory are the words of
   institution taken in their literal sense, the ubiquity of Christ's
   body, and the prevailing faith of the church before the Reformation.

   1. As to the literal interpretation, it cannot be carried out, and is
   surrendered, as inconsistent with the context and the surroundings, by
   nearly all modern exegetes. [926]

   2. The ubiquity of Christ's body involves an important element of
   truth, but is a dogmatic hypothesis without sufficient Scripture
   warrant, and cannot well be reconciled with the fact of the ascension,
   or with the nature of a body, unless it be resolved into a mere
   potential or dynamic presence which makes it possible for Christ to
   make his divine-human power and influence felt wherever he pleases.
   [927]

   The illustrations which Luther uses--as the sun shining everywhere, the
   voice resounding in a thousand ears and hearts, the eye seeing
   different objects at once--all lead to a dynamic presence, which Calvin
   fully admits.

   3. The historic argument might prove too much (for transubstantiation
   and the sacrifice of the mass), unless we are satisfied with the
   substance of truth which underlies the imperfect human theories and
   formulas. The real presence of Christ with his people is indeed a most
   precious truth, which can never be surrendered. It is the very life of
   the church and the comfort and strength of believers from day to day.
   He promised the perpetual presence not only of his spirit or influence,
   but of his theanthropic person:, I am with you alway." It is impossible
   to make an abstract separation of the divine and human in the God-man.
   He is the Head of the church, his body, and "filleth all in all." Nor
   can the church give up the other important truth that Christ is the
   bread of life, and nourishes, in a spiritual and heavenly manner, the
   soul of the believer which is vitally united to him as the branch is to
   the vine. This truth is symbolized in the miraculous feeding of the
   multitude, and set forth in the mysterious discourse of the sixth
   chapter of John.

   As far as Luther contended for these truths, he was right against the
   Sacramentarians, though he erred in the form of conception and
   statement. His view is mystical but profound; Zwingli's view is clear
   but superficial. The former commends itself to devout feeling, the
   latter to the sober understanding and intellect.

   II. The Zwinglian Theory.--The Lord's Supper is a solemn commemoration
   of the atoning death of Christ, according to his own command: "Do this
   in remembrance of me," and the words of Paul: "As often as ye eat this
   bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death till he come."
   [928] Zwingli emphasized this primitive character of the institution as
   a gift of God to man, in opposition to the Roman mass as a work or
   offering which man makes to God. [929] He compares the sacrament to a
   wedding-ring which seals the marriage union between Christ and the
   believer. He denied the corporal presence, because Christ ascended to
   heaven, and because a body cannot be present in more than one place at
   once, also because two substances cannot occupy the same space at the
   same time; but he admitted his spiritual presence, for Christ is
   eternal God, and his death is forever fruitful and efficacious. [930]
   He denied the corporal eating as Capernaitic and useless, but he
   admitted a spiritual participation in the crucified body and blood by
   faith. Christ is both "host and feast" in the holy communion.

   His last word on the subject of the eucharist (in the Confession to
   King Francis I.) is this: --

   "We believe that Christ is truly present in the Lord's Supper; yea,
   that there is no communion without such presence .... We believe that
   the true body of Christ is eaten in the communion, not in a gross and
   carnal manner, but in a sacramental and spiritual manner by the
   religious, believing and pious heart." [931]

   This passage comes so near the Calvinistic view that it can hardly be
   distinguished from it. Calvin did injustice to Zwingli, when once in a
   confidential letter he called his earlier eucharistic doctrine,
   profane." [932] But Zwingli in his polemic writings laid so much stress
   upon the absence of Christ's body, that the positive truth of His
   spiritual presence was not sufficiently emphasized. Undoubtedly the
   Lord's Supper is a commemoration of the historic Christ of the past,
   but it is also a vital communion with the ever-living Christ who is
   both in heaven and in his church on earth.

   Zwingli's theory did not pass into any of the leading Reformed
   confessions; but it was adopted by the Arminians, Socinians,
   Unitarians, and Rationalists, and obtained for a time a wide currency
   in all Protestant churches, even the Lutheran. But the Rationalists
   deny what Zwingli strongly believed, the divinity of Christ, and thus
   deprive the Lord's Supper of its deeper significance and power.

   III. The Calvinistic Theory.--Calvin was the greatest divine and best
   writer among the Reformers, and his "Institutes of the Christian
   Religion" have almost the same importance for Reformed theology as the
   "Summa" of Thomas Aquinas for that of the Roman Church. He organized
   the ideas of the Reformation into a clear, compact system, with the
   freshness and depth of genius, the convincing power of logic, and a
   complete mastery of the Latin and French languages. [933]

   His theory of the Lord's Supper occupies a via media between Luther and
   Zwingli; he combines the realism of the one with the spiritualism of
   the other, and saves the substance for which Luther contended, but
   avoids the objectionable form. He rests on the exegesis of Zwingli. He
   accepts the symbolical meaning of the words of institution; he rejects
   the corporal presence, the oral manducation, the participation of the
   body and blood by unbelievers, and the ubiquity of Christ's body. But
   at the same time he strongly asserts a spiritual real presence, and a
   spiritual real participation of Christ's body and blood by faith. While
   Zwingli dwelt chiefly on the negative, he emphasizes the positive,
   element. While the mouth receives the visible signs of bread and wine,
   the soul receives by faith, and by faith alone, the things signified
   and sealed thereby; that is, the body and blood of Christ with the
   benefit of his atoning death and the virtue of his immortal life. He
   combines the crucified Christ with the glorified Christ, and brings the
   believer into contact with the whole Christ. He lays great stress on
   the agency of the Holy Spirit in the ordinance, which was overlooked by
   Luther and Zwingli, but which appears in the ancient liturgies in the
   invocation of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who unites in a
   supernatural manner what is separated in space, and conveys to the
   believing communicant the life-giving virtue of the flesh of Christ now
   glorified in heaven. [934] When Calvin requires the communicant to
   ascend to heaven to feed on Christ there, he does, of course, not mean
   a locomotion, but that devotional sursum corda of the ancient
   liturgies, which is necessary in every act of worship, and is effected
   by the power of the Holy Spirit.

   Calvin discussed the eucharistic question repeatedly and fully in his
   Institutes and in separate tracts. I select a few extracts from his
   Institutes (Book IV., ch. XVII. 10 sqq.), which contain his first and
   last thoughts on the subject.

   (10) "The sum is, that the flesh and blood of Christ feed our souls
   just as bread and wine maintain and support our corporal life. For
   there would be no aptitude in the sign, did not our souls find their
   nourishment in Christ. This could not be, did not Christ truly form one
   with us, and refresh us by the eating of his flesh, and the drinking of
   his blood. But though it seems an incredible thing that the flesh of
   Christ, while at such a distance from us in respect of place, should be
   food to us, let us remember how far the secret virtue of the Holy
   Spirit surpasses all our conceptions, and how foolish it is to wish to
   measure its immensity by our feeble capacity. Therefore, what our mind
   does not comprehend, let faith conceive; viz., that the Spirit truly
   unites things separated by space. That sacred communion of flesh and
   blood by which Christ transfuses his life into us, just as if it
   penetrated our bones and marrow, he testifies and seals in the Supper,
   and that not by presenting a vain or empty sign, but by there exerting
   an efficacy of the Spirit by which he fulfils what he promises. And
   truly the thing there signified he exhibits and offers to all who sit
   down at that spiritual feast, although it is beneficially received by
   believers only who receive this great benefit with true faith and
   heartfelt gratitude." ...

   "(18) ... Though Christ withdrew his flesh from us, and with his body
   ascended to heaven, he sits at the right hand of the Father; that is,
   he reigns in power and majesty, and the glory of the Father. This
   kingdom is not limited by any intervals of space, nor circumscribed by
   any dimensions. Christ can exert his energy wherever he pleases, in
   earth and heaven, can manifest his presence by the exercise of his
   power, can always be present with his people, breathing into them his
   own life, can live in them, sustain, confirm, and invigorate them, and
   preserve them safe, just as if he were with them in the body, in fine,
   can feed them with his own body, communion with which he transfuses
   into them. After this manner, the body and blood of Christ are
   exhibited to us in the sacrament.

   "(19) The presence of Christ in the Supper we must hold to be such as
   neither affixes him to the element of bread, nor encloses him in bread,
   nor circumscribes him in any way (this would obviously detract from his
   celestial glory); and it must, moreover, be such as neither divests him
   of his just dimensions, nor dissevers him by differences of place, nor
   assigns to him a body of boundless dimensions, diffused through heaven
   and earth. All these things are clearly repugnant to his true human
   nature. Let us never allow ourselves to lose sight of the two
   restrictions. First, let there be nothing derogatory to the heavenly
   glory of Christ. This happens whenever he is brought under the
   corruptible elements of this world, or is affixed to any earthly
   creatures. Secondly, let no property be assigned to his body
   inconsistent with his human nature. This is done when it is either said
   to be infinite, or made to occupy a variety of places at the same time.

   "But when these absurdities are discarded, I willingly admit any thing
   which helps to express the true and substantial communication of the
   body and blood of the Lord, as exhibited to believers under the sacred
   symbols of the Supper, understanding that they are received, not by the
   imagination or intellect merely, but are enjoyed in reality as the food
   of eternal life."

   Calvin's theory was not disapproved by Luther, who knew it, was
   substantially approved by Melanchthon in 1540, and adopted by all the
   leading Reformed Confessions of faith. We select a few specimens from
   one of the earliest and from the latest Calvinistic standards: --

   heidelberg catechism (1563).

   Question 76. What is it to eat the crucified body, and drink the shed
   blood, of Christ?

   Answer. It is not only to embrace with a believing heart all the
   sufferings and death of Christ, and thereby to obtain the forgiveness
   of sins and life eternal; but moreover also, to be so united more and
   more to his sacred body by the Holy Ghost, who dwells both in Christ
   and in us, that although He is in heaven, and we on the earth, we are,
   nevertheless flesh of His flesh and bone of His bones, and live and are
   governed forever by one Spirit, as members of the same body are by one
   soul.

   Q. 78. Do, then, the bread and wine become the real body and blood of
   Christ?

   A. No: but as the water, in baptism, is not changed into the blood of
   Christ, nor becomes the washing away of sins itself, being only the
   divine token and assurance thereof; so also, in the Lord's Supper, the
   sacred bread does not become the body of Christ itself, though
   agreeably to the nature and usage of sacraments it is called the body
   of Christ.

   Q. 79. Why, then, doth Christ call the bread His body, and the cup His
   blood, or the New Testament in His blood; and St. Paul, the communion
   of the body and blood of Christ?

   A. Christ speaks thus not without great cause; namely, not only to
   teach us thereby, that, like as bread and wine sustain this temporal
   life, so also His crucified body and shed blood are the true meat and
   drink of our souls unto life eternal; but much more, by this visible
   sign and pledge to assure us that we are as really partakers of His
   true body and blood, through the working of the Holy Ghost, as we
   receive by the mouth of the body these holy tokens in remembrance of
   Him; and that all His sufferings and obedience are as certainly our
   own, as if we had ourselves suffered and done all in our own persons.

   westminster confession of faith (1647).

   Chapter XXIX., section VII.

   Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this
   sacrament, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not
   carnally and corporally, but spiritually, receive and feed upon Christ
   crucified, and all benefits of his death: the body and blood of Christ
   being then not corporally or carnally in, with, or under the bread and
   wine; yet as really, but spiritually, present to the faith of believers
   in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are, to the outward
   senses.

   westminster larger catechism (1647).

   Question 170. How do they that worthily communicate in the Lord's
   Supper feed upon the body and blood of Christ therein?

   Answer. As the body and blood of Christ are not corporally or carnally
   present in, with, or under the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper; and
   yet are spiritually present to the faith of the receiver, no less truly
   and really than the elements themselves are to their outward senses; so
   they that worthily communicate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper,
   do therein feed upon the body and blood of Christ, not after a corporal
   or carnal, but in a spiritual manner; yet truly and really, while by
   faith they receive and apply unto themselves Christ crucified, and all
   the benefits of his death.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [915] The Lutheran divines of the seventeenth century describe the real
   presence as sacramentalis, vera et realis, substantiatis, mystica,
   supernaturalis, et incomprehensibilis, and distinguish it from the
   praesentia gloriosa, hypostatica, spiritualis, figurativa, and from
   apousia (absence), enousia (inexistence), sunousia (co-existence in the
   sense of coalescence), and metousia (transubstantiation).

   [916] The Formula Concordiae (Epitome, Art. VII., Negativa 21)
   indignantly rejects the notion of dental mastication as a malicious
   slander of the Sacramentarians. But Luther, in his instruction to
   Melanchthon, Dec. 17, 1534, gave it as his opinion, from which he would
   not yield, that "the body of Christ is distributed, eaten, and bitten
   with the teeth.""Und ist Summa das unsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in
   und mit dem Brod der Leib Christi gessen wird, also dass alles, was das
   Brod wirket und leidet, der Leib Christi wirke und leide, dass er
   ausgetheilt, gessen, und mit den Zähnen zubissen [zerbissen]werde." De
   Wette, IV. 572. Comp. his letter to Jonas, Dec. 16, 1534, vol. IV. 569
   sq. Dorner thinks that Luther speaks thus only per synecdochen; but
   this is excluded by the words, "What the bread does and suffers, that
   the body of Christ does and suffers." Melanchthon very properly
   declined to act on this instruction (see his letter to Camerarius, Jan.
   10, 1535, in the "Corp. Reform." II. 822), and began about that time to
   change his view on the real presence. He was confirmed in his change by
   the renewal of the eucharistic controversy, and his contact with
   Calvin.

   [917] The Lutheran theory is generally designated by the convenient
   term consubstantiation, but Lutheran divines expressly reject it as a
   misrepresentation. The Zwinglians, with their conception of
   corporality, could not conceive of a corporal presence without a local
   presence; while Luther, with his distinction of three kinds of presence
   and his view of the ubiquity of Christ's body, could do so. The
   scholastic term consubstantiatio is not so well defined as
   transubstantiatio, and may be used in different senses: (1) a mixture
   of two substances (which nobody ever taught); (2) an inclusion of one
   substance in another (impanatio); (3) a sacramental co-existence of two
   substances in their integrity in the same place. In the first two
   senses the term is not applicable to the Lutheran theory. The "in pane"
   might favor impanation, but, the sub and cum qualify it. Dr. Steitz, in
   a learned article on Transubstantiation, in Herzog,1 XVI. 347, and in
   the second edition, XV. 829, attributes to the Lutheran Church the
   third view of consubstantiation, but to Luther himself the second;
   namely, "die sacramentiche Durchdringung der Brotsubstanz von der
   Substanz des Leibes." To this Luther's illustration of the fire in the
   iron might lead. But fire and iron remain distinct. At all events, he
   denied emphatically a local or physical inclusion. Lutheran divines in
   America are very sensitive when charged with consubstantiation.

   [918] The Latin text reads simply: corpus et sanguis Christi; the
   German text: wahrer Leib und Blut Christi.

   [919] Vere adsint et distribuantur. The German text adds: unter der
   Gestalt des Brots und Weins. The variations between the Latin and
   German texts of the original edition indicate a certain hesitation in
   Melanchthon's mind, if not the beginning of a change, which was
   completed in the altered confession.

   [920] German: da.

   [921] German addition: und genomnen wird.

   [922] Vescentibus. The German text has no equivalent for this verb.

   [923] Et improbant secus docentes. In German: Derhalben wird auch die
   Gegenlehre verworfen, wherefore also the opposite doctrine is rejected.
   The sacramentarian (Zwinglian) doctrine is meant, but not the
   Calvinistic, which appeared six years afterward, 1536. The term
   improbant for the papal damnant, and anathema sit, shows the progress
   in toleration. The Zwinglian view is not condemned as a heresy, but
   simply disapproved as an error. The Formula of Concord made a step
   backwards in this respect, and uses repudiamus and damnamus.

   [924] Cum pane et vino vere exhibeantur, instead ofvere adsint et
   distribuantur. The verb exhibit does not necessarily imply the actual
   reception by unbelievers, which the verb distribute does. So Dorner
   also judges of the difference (l.c., p. 324).

   [925] The disapproval of those who teach otherwise is significantly
   omitted, no doubt in deference to Calvin's view, which had been
   published in the mean time, and to which Melanchthon himself leaned.

   [926] I may mention among commentators (on Matt. 26:26 and parallel
   passages), De Wette, Meyer, Weiss (in the seventh ed. of Meyer on
   Matt., p. 504 sq.), Bleek, Ewald, Van Oosterzee, Alford, Morison, etc.;
   and, among Lutheran and Lutheranizing theologians, Kahnis, Jul. Müller,
   Martensen, Dorner. The Bible, true to its Oriental origin and
   character, is full of parables, metaphors, and tropical expressions,
   from Genesis to Revelation. The substantive verb esti(which was not
   spoken in the Aramaic original) is simply the logical copula, and may
   designate a figurative, as well as a real, identity of the subject and
   the predicate; which of the two, depends on the connection and
   surroundings. I may say of a likeness of Luther, "This is Luther's,"
   i.e., a figure or representation of Luther. It has a symbolical or
   allegorical sense in many passages, as Matt. 13:38 sq.; Luke 12:1; John
   10:6, 14:6; Gal. 4:24; Heb. 10:20; Rev. 1:20. But what is most
   conclusive, even in the words of institution, Luther himself had to
   admit a double metaphor; namely, a synecdoche partis pro toto ("This is
   my body" for "This is my body, and bread;" to avoid transubstantiation,
   which denies the substance of bread), and a synecdoche continentis pro
   contento (" This cup is the new covenant in my blood," instead of "
   This wine,"etc.). The whole action is symbolical. At that time Christ,
   living and speaking to the disciples with his body yet unbroken, and
   his blood not yet shed, could not literally offer his body to them.
   They would have shuddered at such an idea, and at least expressed their
   surprise. Kahnis, an orthodox Lutheran, came to the conclusion (1861)
   that " the literal interpretation of the words of institution is an
   impossibility, and must be given up."(See the first. ed. of his Luth.
   Dogmatik, I. 616 sq.) Dorner says (Christl. Glaubenslehre, II. 853), "
   That estimay be understood figuratively is beyond a doubt, and should
   never have been denied. It is only necessary to refer to the
   parables."Martensen, an eminent Danish Lutheran (Christl. Dogmatik, p.
   491), admits Zwingli's exegesis, and thinks that his " sober
   common-sense view has a greater importance than Lutheran divines are
   generally disposed to accord to it."

   [927] The Lutheran divines were divided between the idea of an absolute
   ubiquity (which would prove too much for the Lutheran doctrine, and run
   into a sort of Panchristism or Christo-Pantheism), and a relative
   ubiquity or multivolipraesentia (which depends upon the will). The
   Formula of Concord inconsistently favors both views. See Dorner's
   History of Christology, II. 710 sqq. (Germ. ed.), and Schaff, Creeds,
   I. 322, 325 sq., and 348.

   [928] Zwingli calls the sacrament ein Wiedergedächtniss und Erneuern
   dessen, was einst geschehen und in Ewigkeit kräftig ist. His views on
   the Lord's Supper are conveniently put together by Usteri and Vögelin,
   in Zwingli's Sämmtliche Schriften im Auszuge, vol. II. 70-167.

   [929] Dorner (Gesch. der protest. Theol., p. 300): "Das
   Charakteristische in allen Schriften Zwingli's vor 1524 ist sein
   Gegensatz gegen das heil. Abendmahl als Opfer und Messe." So also
   Ebrard.

   [930] He expressed at Marburg, and in his two confessions to Charles I.
   and to Francis I., his full belief in the divinity of Christ in the
   sense of the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Dorner says (l.c., p. 302):
   "Dass Zwingli Christum gegenwärtig denkt, ist unleugbar; er sei bei
   diesem Mahle Wirth und Gastmahl (hospes et epulum)."

   [931] Christum credimus vere esse in coena, immo non esse Domini coenam
   nisi Christus adsit ... Adserimus igitur non sic carnaliter et crasse
   manducari corpus Christi in coena, ut isti perhibent, sed verum Christi
   corpus credimus in coena sacramentaliter et spiritualiter edi, a
   religiosa, fideli et sancta mente, quomodo et divus Chrysostomus
   sentit. Et haec est brevis summa nostrae, immo non nostrae, sed ipsius
   veritatis, sententia de hac controversia. Niemeyer, Collectio Confess.,
   pp. 71, 72.

   [932] Letter to Viret, September, 1542: "De scriptis Zwinglii sic
   sentire, ut sentis, tibi permitto. Neque enim omnia legi. Et fortassis
   sub finem vitae, retractavit ac correxit in melius quae temere initio
   exciderant. Sed in scriptis prioribus memini, quam profana sit de
   Sacramentis sententia."Opera, XI. 438.

   [933] Henri Martin (Histoire de France, Tom. VIII. 188 sq.) says of
   Calvin's Institutes that they gave a religious code to the Reform in
   France and in a great part of Europe,"and that it is "une vraie 'Somme'
   théologique, où se trouve impliqué l'ordre civil même, et qui n'est
   pas, comme celle de Thomas d'Aquin, le résumé d'un système établi, mais
   le programne et le code d'un système à établir ... Luther attire:
   Calvin impose et retient ... Volonté et logique, voilà Calvin" (p.
   185). He calls him "le premier écrivain par la durée et l'influence de
   sa langue, de son style."

   [934] Some of the strongest passages on this point occur in his polemic
   tracts against Westphal. In the Second Defense he says: "Christum
   corpore absentem doceo nihilominus non tantum divina sua virtute, quae
   ubique diffusa est, nobis adesse, sed etiam facere ut nobis vivifica
   sit sua caso" (Opera, IX. 76)."Spiritus sui virtute Christus locorum
   distantiam superat ad vitam nobis e sua carne inspirandam" (p. 77). And
   in his last admonition: "Haec nostrae doctrinae summa est, carnem
   Christi panem esse vivificum, quia dum fide in eam coalescimus, vere
   animas nostras alit et pascit. Hoc nonnisi spiritualiter fieri docemus,
   quia hujus sacrae unitatis vinculum arcana est et incomprehensibilis
   Spiritus Sancti virtus" (p. 162). For a good exposition of the
   Calvinistic theory which substantially agrees with ours, we may refer
   to Ebrard (Abendmahl, II. 550-570), Stähelin (Calvin, I. 222 sqq.), and
   Nevin (Mystical Presence).
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER VIII.

   THE POLITICAL SITUATION BETWEEN 1526 AND 1529.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 112. The First Diet of Speier, and the Beginning of the Territorial
   System. 1526.

   I. The documents in Walch, XVI. 243 sqq. Neue Sammlung der
   Reichsabschiede, II. 273-75. Buchholtz: Ferdinand I., Bd. III.

   II. Ranke, II. 249 sqq. Janssen, III. 39 sqq. J. Ney (Prot. minister in
   Speier): Analekten zur Gesch. des Reichstags zu Speier im J. 1526, in
   Brieger's "Zeitschrift für Kirchengesch.," Gotha, 1885, p. 300 sqq.,
   and 1887, p. 300 sqq. (New Documents from the archives of Karlsruh and
   Würzburg). Walter Friedensburg: Der Reichstag zu Speier, 1526, im
   Zusammenhang der polit. und Kirchl. Entwicklung Deutschlands im
   Reformationszeitalter, Berlin, 1887 (xiv. and 602 pages). Previous
   discussions by Veesemeier and Kluckhohn (in "Hist. Zeitschrift," 1886).
   Friedensburg used much new material preserved in the archives of
   Hamburg and other cities. Charles G. Albert: The Diet of Speyer, the
   Rise and Necessity of Protestantism, in the "Luth. Quart. Review"
   (Gettysburg, Penn.), for January, 1888.

   We must now consider the political situation which has in part been
   presupposed in previous sections.

   As Protestantism advanced, the execution of the Edict of Worms became
   less and less practicable. This was made manifest at the imperial Diet
   of Speier, held in the summer of 1526 under Archduke Ferdinand, in the
   name of the Emperor. [935] The Protestant princes dared here for the
   first time to profess their faith, and were greatly strengthened by the
   delegates of the imperial cities in which the Reformation had made
   great progress. The threatening invasion of the Turks, and the quarrel
   of the Emperor with the Pope, favored the Protestant cause, and
   inclined the Roman Catholic majority to forbearance.

   The Diet came with the consent of Ferdinand to the unanimous
   conclusion, Aug. 27, that a general or national council should be
   convened for the settlement of the church question, and that in the
   mean time, in matters concerning the Edict of Worms, "every State shall
   so live, rule, and believe as it may hope and trust to answer before
   God and his imperial Majesty." [936]

   This important action was not meant to annul the Edict of Worms, and to
   be a permanent law of religious liberty, which gave to each member of
   the Diet the right to act as he pleased. [937] It was no legal basis of
   territorial self-government, and no law at all. It was, as indicated by
   the terms, only an armistice, or temporary suspension of the Edict of
   Worms till the meeting of a general council, and within the limits of
   obedience to the Catholic Emperor who had no idea of granting religious
   liberty, or even toleration, to Protestants.

   But in its practical effect the resolution of 1526 went far beyond its
   intention. It was a great help to the cause of Protestantism,
   especially as the council which the Diet contemplated, and which the
   Emperor himself repeatedly urged upon the Pope, was postponed for
   twenty years. In the mean time the Protestant princes, notably Philip
   of Hesse at the Synod of Homberg (Oct. 20, 1526), and the Elector of
   Saxony, interpreted the decree according to their wishes, and made the
   best use of the temporary privilege of independent action, regardless
   of its limitations or the views of the Emperor. Luther himself
   understood the Diet of Speier as having given him a temporary acquittal
   of heresy. [938]

   At all events, from this time dates the exercise of territorial
   sovereignty, and the establishment of separate State churches in
   Germany. And as that country is divided into a number of sovereign
   States, there are there as many Protestant church organizations as
   Protestant States, according to the maxim that the ruler of the
   territory is the ruler of religion within its bounds (cujus regio, ejus
   religio).

   Every Protestant sovereign hereafter claimed and exercised the
   so-called jus reformandi religionem, and decided the church question
   according to his own faith and that of the majority of his subjects.
   Saxony, Hesse, Prussia, Anhalt, Lüneburg, East-Friesland,
   Schleswig-Holstein, Silesia, and the cities of Nürnberg, Augsburg,
   Frankfurt, Ulm, Strassburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Lübeck, adopted the
   Reformation. The princes of the territories and the magistrates of the
   cities consulted the theologians and preachers; but the congregations
   had no voice, not even in the choice of their pastor, and submitted in
   passive obedience. The powerful house of Austria, with the Emperor, and
   the Dukes of Bavaria, adhered to the old faith, and hotly contested the
   principle of independent state action on the church question, as being
   contrary to all the traditions of the Empire and of the Roman Church,
   which is constitutionally exclusive and intolerant.

   The Protestant princes and theologians were likewise intolerant, though
   in a less degree, and prohibited the mass and the Roman religion
   wherever they had the power. Each party was bent upon victory, and
   granted toleration only from necessity or prudence when the dissenting
   minority was strong enough to assert its rights. Toleration was the
   fruit of a bitter contest, and was at last forced upon both parties as
   a modus vivendi. Protestantism had to conquer the right to exist, by
   terrible sacrifices. The right was conceded by the Augsburg treaty of
   peace, 1555, and finally established by the Westphalian treaty, 1648,
   which first uses the term toleration in connection with religion, and
   remains valid to this day, in spite of the protest of the Pope. The
   same policy of toleration was adopted in England after the downfall of
   the Stuart dynasty in 1688, and included all orthodox Protestants, but
   excluded the Roman Catholics, who were not emancipated till 1829. In
   Germany, toleration was first confined to three confessions,--the Roman
   Catholic, the Lutheran, and the German Reformed,--but was gradually
   extended to other religious communions which are independent of state
   support and state control.

   NOTES.

   toleration and freedom.

   Toleration is far from religious liberty, but a step towards it.
   Toleration is a concession of the government on the ground of necessity
   or expediency, and may be withdrawn or extended. Even despotic Russia
   and Turkey are tolerant, the one towards Mohammedans, the other towards
   Christians, because they cannot help it. To kill or to exile all
   dissenters would be suicidal folly. But they allow no departure from
   the religion of the State, and no propagandism against its interests.

   Religious liberty is an inviolable and inalienable right which belongs
   to all men, within the limits of public morals and safety. God alone is
   the Lord of conscience, and no power on earth has a right to interfere
   with it. The full enjoyment and public exercise of religious liberty
   require a peaceful separation of church and state, which makes each
   independent, self-governing, and self-supporting in its own sphere, and
   secures to the church the legal protection of the state, and to the
   state the moral support of the church. This is the American theory of
   religious freedom, as guaranteed by the Federal Constitution of 1787:
   it prevents the state from persecuting the church, and the churches
   from persecuting each other, and confines them to their proper moral
   and spiritual vocation. The American principle of the legal equality of
   religious confessions was proposed by the Frankfort Parliament in 1849,
   triumphed in the new German empire, 1870, and is making steady progress
   all over the civilized world. (See the author's Church and State in the
   United States, N. Y., 1888.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   [935] Speier, or Speyer, is an old German city on the left bank of the
   Rhine, the seat of a bishop, with a cathedral and the graves of eight
   German kings, the capital of the Bavarian Palatinate. It became the
   birthplace of the name "Protestants" in 1529. See below, § 115, p. 692.

   [936] Demnach haben wir uns jetzt einmüthiglich verglichen und
   vereiniget, mittlerzeit des Concilii, oder aber Nationalversammlung,
   nichtsdestoweniger mit unsern Unterthanen, ein jeglicher in Sachen so
   das Edict durch kaiserl. Majestät auf dem Reichstag zu Worms gehalten,
   ausgangen, belangen möchten, für sich also zu leben, zu regieren und zu
   halten, wie ein jeder solches gegen Gott und kaiserliche Majestät
   hoffet und vertraut zu verantworten."See the Reichsabschied (recess) in
   Walch, XVI. 266, and in Gieseler, III. I. 223 (Germ. ed.; IV. 126 Am.
   ed.). The acts are now published in full by Friedensburg.

   [937] This was the view heretofore taken by most Protestant historians,
   e.g., by Kurtz (II. 31, ed. 9th), who calls the recess "die
   reichsgesetzliche Legitimation der Territorialverfassung," and by
   Fisher (Hist. of the Christ. Ch., p. 304): "This act gave the Lutheran
   movement a legal existence." The correct view is stated by Janssen
   (III. 51): "Der Speierer Abschied bildet keineswegs eine positive
   Rechtsgrundlage, wohl aber den Ausgangspunkt für die Ausbildung neuer
   Landeskirchen." Kluckhohn, Friedensburg, and his reviewer, Kawerau (in
   the "Theol. Literaturzeitung," Dec. 3, 1887), arrive at the same
   conclusion.

   [938] He alludes to it in a polemical tract against Duke George of
   Saxony from the year 1529 as follows: "Auch so bin ich auf dem
   Reichstage zu Speir durch ein öffentlichs kaiserlichs Reichsdecret
   wiederumb befreiet, oder zum wenigsten befristet [freed at least for a
   season], dass man mich nicht kann einen Ketzer schelten; weil daselbst
   beschlossen ist von Allen einträchtiglich, dass ein jeglicher solle und
   müge glauben, wie ers wisse gegen Gott und kaiserliche Majestät zu
   verantworten; und ich billig daraus als die Ungehorsamen dem Reich und
   Aufrührischen beklagen möcht alle die, so mich einen Ketzer schelten.
   Hat das Gebotzu Worms gegolten, da ich verdampt ward ohn Bewilligung
   der besten und höhesten Stände des Reichs: warumb sollt mir denn das
   Gebot zu Speir nicht auch gelten, welchs einträchtlich durch alle
   Stände des Reichs beschlossen und angenommen ist." Erl. ed., vol. VIII.
   p. 14.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 113. The Emperor and the Pope. The Sacking of Rome, 1527.

   Contemporary accounts of the sacking of Rome are collected by Carlo
   Milanesi: Il Sacco di Roma del MDXXVII., Florence, 1867. Alfred von
   Reumont: Geschichte der Stadt Rom (Berlin, 1870), vol. III. 194 sqq.;
   Comp. the liter. he gives on p. 846 sq. Ranke: bk. V. (vol. III. I
   sqq.). Janssen: vol. III. 124 sqq.

   Charles V. neither signed nor opposed the edict of Speier. He had
   shortly before fallen out with Clement VII., because this Pope released
   King Francis I. from the hard conditions of peace imposed upon him
   after his defeat at Pavia, June 26, 1526, and placed himself at the
   head of a Franco-Italian league against the preponderance of Austria
   the Holy League" of Cognac, May 22, 1526). The league of the Emperor
   and the Pope had brought about the Edict of Worms; the breach between
   the two virtually annulled it at the Diet of Speier. Had the Emperor
   now embraced the Protestant doctrines, he might have become the head of
   a German imperial state church. But all his instincts were against
   Protestantism.

   His quarrel with the Pope was the occasion of a fearful calamity to the
   Eternal City. The Spanish and German troops of the Emperor, under the
   lead of Constable Charles de Bourbon, and the old warrior Frundsberg
   (both enemies of the Pope), marched to Rome with an army of twenty
   thousand men, and captured the city, May 6, 1527. Bourbon, the ablest
   general of Charles, but a traitor to his native France, was struck by a
   musket-ball in climbing a ladder, and fell dead in the moment of
   victory. The pope fled to the castle St. Angelo. The soldiers,
   especially the Spaniards, deprived of their captain, surpassed the
   barbarians of old in beastly and refined cruelty, rage and lust. For
   eight days they plundered the papal treasury, the churches, libraries,
   and palaces, to the extent of ten millions of gold; they did not spare
   even the tomb of St. Peter and the corpse of Julius II., and committed
   nameless outrages upon defenseless priests, monks, and nuns. German
   soldiers marched through the streets in episcopal and cardinal's robes,
   dressed a donkey like a priest, and by a grim joke proclaimed Luther as
   pope of Rome.

   Never before had Rome suffered such indignities and loss. The sacking
   was a crime against civilization, humanity, and religion; but, at the
   same time, a fearful judgment of God upon the worldliness of the
   papacy, and a loud call to repentance. [939]

   When the news reached Germany, many rejoiced, at the fall of Babylon."
   But Melanchthon, rising above bigotry, said in one of his finest
   addresses to the students of Wittenberg: "Why should we not lament the
   fall of Rome, which is the common mother-city of all nations? I indeed
   feel this calamity no less than if it were my own native place. The
   robber hordes were not restrained by considerations of the dignity of
   the city, nor the remembrance of her services for the laws, sciences,
   and arts of the world. This is what we grieve over. Whatever be the
   sins of the Pope, Rome should not be made to suffer." He acquitted the
   Emperor of all blame, and held the army alone responsible. [940]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [939] Reumont (l.c. III. 201) says: "Wüster und andauernder ist keine
   Stadt geplündert, sind keine Einwohner misshandelt worden als Rom und
   die Römer. Spanier wie Teutsche haben bei diesem grausen Werke
   gewetteifert, jene mit erfinderischer Unmenschlichkeit, diese mit
   wilder Barbarei. Kirchen, Klöster, Palläste, Wohnhäuser, Hütten wurden
   mit gleicher Beutelust ausgeleert und verwüstet, Männer, Frauen, Kinder
   mit gleicher Grausamkeit misshandelt."

   [940] "Corp. Ref.," XI. 130; C. Schmidt, Phil. Melanchthon, p. 135 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 114. A War Panic, 1528.

   On the "Packische Händel," see Walch (XVI. 444), Gieseler (III. 1,
   229), Ranke (III. 26), Janssen (III. 109), Rommel's, and Wille's
   monographs on Philip of Hesse; and St. Ehses: Geschichte der Packschen
   Händel, Freiburg i. B. 1881.

   The action of the Diet of 1526, and the quarrel between the Emperor and
   the Pope, were highly favorable to the progress of the Reformation. But
   the good effect was in great part neutralized by a stupendous fraud
   which brought Germany to the brink of a civil war.

   Philip of Hesse, an ardent, passionate, impulsive, ambitious prince,
   and patron of Protestantism, was deceived by an unprincipled and
   avaricious politician, Otto von Pack, provisional chancellor of the
   Duchy of Saxony, into the belief that Ferdinand of Austria, the
   Electors of Mainz and Brandenburg, the Dukes of Saxony and Bavaria, and
   other Roman Catholic rulers had concluded a league at Breslau, May 15,
   1527, for the extermination of Protestantism. He procured at Dresden a
   sealed copy of the forged document, for which he paid Pack four
   thousand guilders. He persuaded the Elector John of Saxony of its
   genuineness, and concluded with him, in all haste, a counter-league,
   March 9, 1528. They secured aid from other princes, and made expensive
   military preparations, to anticipate by a masterstroke an attack of the
   enemy.

   Fortunately, the Reformers of Wittenberg were consulted, and prevented
   an open outbreak by their advice. Luther deemed the papists had enough
   for any thing, but was from principle opposed to aggressive war; [941]
   Melanchthon saw through the forgery, and felt keenly mortified. When
   the fictitious document was published, the Roman Catholic princes
   indignantly denied it. Duke George denounced Pack as a traitor. [942]
   Archduke Ferdinand declared that he never dreamed of such a league.

   The rash conduct of Philip put the Protestant princes in the position
   of aggressors and disturbers of the public peace, and the whole affair
   brought shame and disgrace upon their cause.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [941] See his letters on this subject in De Wette, III. 314 sqq.

   [942] After a fugitive life, Pack was beheaded as a forger in the
   Netherlands, 1536, at the solicitation of Duke George.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 115. The Second Diet of Speier, and the Protest of 1529.

   Walch, XVI. 315 sqq. J. J. Müller: Historie von der evang. Stände
   Protestation und Appellation wider den Reichsabschied zu Speier, 1529,
   Jena, 1705. Tittmann: Die Protestation der evang. Stände mit Hist.
   Erläuterungen, Leipzig, 1829. A. Jung: Gesch. des Reichstags zu Speier,
   1529, Leipzig, 1830. J. Ney (protest. pastor at Speier): Geschichte des
   Reichstags zu Speier im Jahr 1529. Mit einem Anhange ungedruckter Akten
   und Briefe, Hamburg, 1880. Ranke, III. 102-116. Janssen, III 130-146.

   Under these discouragements the second Diet of Speier was convened in
   March, 1529, for action against the Turks, and against the further
   progress of Protestantism. The Catholic dignitaries appeared in full
   force, and were flushed with hopes of victory. The Protestants felt
   that "Christ was again in the hands of Caiaphas and Pilate." [943]

   The Diet neutralized the recess of the preceding Diet of 1526; it
   virtually condemned (without, however, annulling) the innovations made;
   and it forbade, on pain of the imperial ban, any further reformation
   until the meeting of the council, which was now positively promised for
   the next year by the Emperor and the Pope. The Zwinglians and
   Anabaptists were excluded even from toleration. The latter were to be
   punished by death.

   The Lutheran members of the Diet, under the well-founded impression
   that the prohibition of any future reformation meant death to the whole
   movement, entered in the legal form of an appeal for themselves, their
   subjects and for all who now or shall hereafter believe in the Word of
   God, the famous protest of April 25, 1529, against all those measures
   of the Diet which were contrary to the Word of God, to their
   conscience, and to the decision of the Diet of 1526, and appealed from
   the decision of the majority to the Emperor, to a general or German
   council, and impartial Christian judges. [944] The document was signed
   by the Elector John of Saxony, Margrave George of Brandenburg, Dukes
   Ernest and Francis of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, Landgrave Philip of Hesse,
   Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt, and the representatives of fourteen imperial
   cities, including Strassburg and St. Gall of the Zwinglian persuasion.
   They were determined to defend themselves against every act of violence
   of the majority. Their motto was that of Elector John the Constant:
   "The Word of God abideth forever." They deserve the name of confessors
   of the evangelical faith and the rights of conscience in the face of
   imminent danger. [945]

   The protest of Speier was a renewal and expansion of Luther's protest
   at Worms. The protest of a single monk had become the protest of
   princes and representatives of leading cities of the empire, who now
   for the first time appeared as an organized party. It was a protest of
   conscience bound in the Word of God against tyrannical authority.

   The appeal was not entertained. The Emperor, who soon afterwards
   concluded peace with the Pope (June 29, 1529), and with the King of
   France (Aug. 5), refused even to grant the delegation of the Protestant
   States a respectful hearing at Piacenza (September), and kept them
   prisoners for a while.

   From this protest and appeal the Lutherans were called Protestants;
   with good reason, if we look at their attitude to Rome, which remains
   the same to this day. It is the duty of the church at all times to
   protest against sin, error, corruption, tyranny, and every kind of
   iniquity. But the designation, which has since become a general term
   for evangelical Christians, is negative, and admits of an
   indiscriminate application to all who dissent from popery, no matter on
   what grounds and to what extent. It must be supplemented by the more
   important positive designation Evangelical. The gospel of Christ, as
   laid down in the New Testament, and proclaimed again in its primitive
   purity and power by the Reformation, is the basis of historical
   Protestantism, and gives it vitality and permanency. The protest of
   Speier was based objectively upon the Word of God, subjectively upon
   the right of private judgment and conscience, and historically upon the
   liberal decision of the Diet of 1526. [946]

   Unfortunately, the moral force of the protest of Speier was soon
   weakened by dissensions among the signers. Luther and Melanchthon, who
   at that time were quite agreed on the eucharistic question, seriously
   objected to all political and military alliances, and especially to an
   alliance with the Zwinglians, whom they abhorred as heretics. [947]
   They prevented vigorous measures of defense. Philip of Hesse, who was
   in full political, and in half theological, sympathy with the Swiss and
   Zwinglians, brought about in October of the same year the conference at
   Marburg in the hope of healing the Protestant schism: but the
   conference failed of its main object, and Protestantism had to carry on
   the conflict with Rome as a broken army.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [943] Words of Jacob Sturm, the ambassador of Strassburg, from the
   middle of March.

   [944] The great Instrumentum appellationis is given by Müller, Walch,
   Jung, and in substance by Gieseler, l.c. April 25 (a Sunday) is the
   date of the legal completion of the protest (Ranke, III. 113). The
   dates of the preparatory steps are April 19 and 22.

   [945] Janssen denies the right of such protest, and dates from it the
   schism of the German nation. "Von dem Tage zu Speier an," he says, III.
   144, "beginnt die eigentliche Spaltung der deutschen Nation."
   Fortunately, the schism has been healed in 1870 by Providence, without
   the aid of the Pope and against his wish and will.

   [946] It is remarkable that one of the most conservative branches of
   Protestant Christendom, "the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United
   States of America," adopted the term as a part of its official title
   when, after the Revolutionary War, it assumed an independent
   organization. This could not be done in the state of churchly sentiment
   which has since come to prevail in that church. Vigorous efforts have
   been made within the last few years to get rid of the term Protestant,
   and to substitute for it Catholic, or American, or some other more or
   less presumptuous epithet, but without success so far. The secession
   from this body which was organized in 1873 took the name of "The
   Reformed Episcopal Church."

   [947] In a letter to Elector John, May 22, 1529 (De Wette, III. 455),
   Luther went so far as to call the Zwinglians "audacious enemies of God
   and his Word, who fight against God and the sacrament."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 116. The Reconciliation of the Emperor and the Pope.

   The Crowning of the Emperor. 1529.

   The Emperor expressed to the Pope his deep regret at the sacking of the
   holy city. His breach with him was purely political and temporary. The
   French troops again entered Lombardy. Henry VIII. of England
   sympathized with Francis and the Pope. The Spanish counselors of
   Charles repre-sented to him that the imprisonment of the vicar of
   Christ was inconsistent with the traditional loyalty of Spain to the
   holy see.

   On Nov. 26, 1527, the Emperor concluded an agreement with the Pope by
   which he was released from confinement, and reinstated in his temporal
   power (except over a few fortified places), on promise of paying the
   soldiers, and convening a council for the reformation of the church.
   For a while Clement distrusted the Emperor, and continued his
   Franco-Italian policy; but at last they definitely made peace, June 29,
   1529. The Pope acknowledged the sovereignty of the Emperor in Italy,
   which he had heretofore opposed; the Emperor guaranteed to him the
   temporal possessions, with a reservation of imperial rights.

   They held a personal conference at Bologna in November of that year.
   They were well matched in political and diplomatic shrewdness, and
   settled their secular disputes as well as they could. Charles was
   crowned Roman emperor, Feb. 24, 1530, at Bologna, the only emperor
   crowned outside of St. Peter's at Rome, and the last German emperor
   crowned by the Pope. The dignitaries who graced the occasion were
   chiefly Spanish and Italian noblemen. Only one of the seven German
   electors was present, Philip of the Palatinate. The wooden awning which
   was constructed between the palace and the church of San Petronio broke
   down, but the Emperor escaped an accident. Clothed in a richly jewelled
   robe, he was anointed with oil, and received from the bishop of Rome
   the crown of Charlemagne as the temporal head of Western Christendom,
   and swore to protect the Pope and the Roman-Catholic Church with their
   possessions, dignities, and rights. [948]

   This event was the sunset of the union of the German empire with the
   papal theocracy.

   The German electors complained that they were not invited to the
   coronation, nor consulted about the treaties with the Italian States,
   and entered a formal protest.

   Early in May, 1530, the Emperor crossed the Alps on his way to the Diet
   of Augsburg, which was to decide the fate of Lutheranism in Germany.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [948] How has the situation changed since! In the same once papal city
   where the Emperor was crowned by the Pope with all the splendor of the
   Catholic ceremonial, the eighth centennial of the University--the
   oldest in the world ("Bononia docet")--was celebrated June 11-13, 1888,
   in the presence of the King and Queen, with unbounded enthusiasm for
   free and united Italy, which has shaken off the yoke of petty tyrants,
   and is determined to resist all attempts at a restoration of the
   temporal power of the papacy. The Italians are willing to take their
   religion from the Pope, but not their politics. Practically, church and
   state are almost as separate in Italy, since 1870, as in the United
   States.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER IX.

   THE DIET AND CONFESSION OF AUGSBURG. A.D. 1530.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 117. The Diet of Augsburg.

   I. Sources. Collection in Walch, XVI. 747-2142. Luther's Letters of the
   year 1530, in De Wette, vol. IV. Melanchthon's Letters in the "Corpus
   Reformatorum," ed. Bretschneider and Bindseil, vol. II., and documents
   relating to the Augsb. Conf. in vol. XXVI. Spalatin, Annal., ed. by
   Cyprian, 131-289. The Roman Cath. representation: Pro Religione
   Christiana Res Gestae in Comitiis Augustae Vindelicorum habitis, 1530,
   reprinted in Cyprian's Historie der Augsb. Conf. Brück wrote a
   refutation published by Förstemann, "Archiv für Ref. Gesch.," 1831.
   Collection of documents by Förstemann: Urkundenbuch zu der Gesch. des
   Reichstages zu Augsburg in J. 1530. Halle, 1833, '35, 2 vols. By the
   same: Neues Urkundenbuch, Hamburg, 1842. Schirrmacher: Briefs und Acten
   zur Gesch. des Religionsgesprächs zu Marburg, 1529, und des Reichstages
   zu Augsburg, 1530, nach der Handschrift des Aurifaber, Gotha, 1876.

   II. Histories of the Augsburg Diet and Confession. See list in "Corp.
   Ref." XXVI. 101-112. D. Chytræus (Kochhafe): Historie der Augsb. Conf.,
   Rostock, 1576, Frcf. 1577, 1578, 1600. G. Coelestin: Hist. Comitiorum
   a. 1530 Augustae celebratorum, Frcf. 1577, 4 vols. fol. E. Sal.
   Cyprian: Hist. der Augsb. Conf., Gotha, 1730. Cur. A. Salig: Historie
   der Augsb. Conf. und derselben Apologie, Halle, 1730-35, in 3 parts.
   Weber: Vollständige Gesch. der Augsb. Conf., Frcf. 1783-84, 2 vols.
   Planck: Gesch. des protest. Lehrbegriff's (Leipz. 1792), vol. III. I.
   1-178. Fickenscher: Gesch. des Reichstages zu Augsb. 1530, Nürnb. 1830.
   Pfaff: Gesch. des Reichstags zu Augsburg, 1530, Stuttg. 1830. Add
   special works on the Augsb. Conf. mentioned in § 119.

   III. The relevant sections in the general Church Histories of
   Schroeckh, Mosheim, Gieseler, etc.; in the Histories of the Reformation
   by Marheineke, Hagenbach, Merle D'aub., Fisher; in the general
   Histories of Germany by Ranke (Prot.), vol. III. 162-215, and Janssen
   (Rom. Cath.), vol. III. 165-211. Also the numerous Lives of Luther
   (e.g., Köstlin, Book VI., chs. XI. and XII., vol. II. 198 sqq.), and
   Melanchthon (e.g., C. Schmidt, 190-250).

   IV. Special points. H. Virk: Melanchthon's Politische Stellung auf dem
   Reichstag zu Augsburg, in Brieger's "Zeitschrift für
   Kirchengeschichte," 1887, pp. 67 and 293 sqq.

   The situation of Protestantism in 1530 was critical. The Diet of Speier
   had forbidden the further progress of the Reformation: the Edict of
   Worms was in full legal force; the Emperor had made peace with the
   Pope, and received from him the imperial crown at Bologna; the
   Protestants were divided among themselves, and the Conference at
   Marburg had failed to unite them against the common foe. At the same
   time the whole empire was menaced by a foreign power. The Turks under
   Suleiman "the Magnificent," who called himself, Lord of all rulers,
   Dispenser of crowns to the monarchs of the earth, the Shadow of God
   over the world," had reached the summit of their military power, and
   approached the gates of Vienna in September, 1529. They swore by the
   beard of Mohammed not to rest till the prayers of the prophet of Mecca
   should be heard from the tower of St. Stephen. They were indeed forced
   to retire with a loss of eighty thousand men, but threatened a second
   attempt, and in the mean time laid waste a great part of Hungary.

   Under these circumstances the Diet of Augsburg convened, April 8, 1530.
   Its object was to settle the religious question, and to prepare for war
   against the Turks. The invitation dated Jan. 21, 1530, from Bologna,
   carefully avoids, all irritating allusions, sets forth in strong
   language the danger of foreign invasion, and expresses the hope that
   all would co-operate for the restoration of the unity of the holy
   empire of the German nation in the one true Christian religion and
   church.

   But there was little prospect for such co-operation. The Roman majority
   meant war against the Protestants and the Turks as enemies of church
   and state; the Protestant minority meant defense against the Papists
   and the Turks as the enemies of the gospel. In the eyes of the former,
   Luther was worse than Mohammed; in the eyes of the Lutherans, the Pope
   was at least as bad as Mohammed. Their motto was, --


   Erhalt uns Herr bei Deinem Wort

   Und steur' des Papsts und Türken Mord."

   The Emperor stood by the Pope and the Edict of Worms, but was more
   moderate than his fanatical surroundings, and treated the Lutherans
   during the Diet with courteous consideration, while he refused to give
   the Zwinglians even a hearing. The Lutherans on their part praised him
   beyond his merits, and were deceived into false hopes; while they would
   have nothing to do with the Swiss and Strassburgers, although they
   agreed with them in fourteen out of fifteen articles of faith. [949]

   The Saxon Elector, as soon as he received the summons to the Diet,
   ordered the Wittenberg theologians, at the advice of Chancellor Brück,
   to draw up a confession of faith for possible use at Augsburg, and to
   meet him at Torgau. He started on the 3d of April with his son, several
   noblemen, Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, Spalatin, and Agricola, stopped a
   few days at Coburg on the Saxon frontier, where Luther was left behind,
   and entered Augsburg on the 2d of May.

   The Emperor was delayed on the journey through the Tyrol, and did not
   arrive till the 15th of June. On the following day he took a devout
   part in the celebration of the Corpus Christi festival. He walked in
   solemn procession under the most scorching heat, with uncovered head,
   heavy purple cloak, and a burning wax-candle. The Protestant princes
   absented themselves from what they regarded an idolatrous ceremony.
   They also declined to obey the Emperor's prohibition of evangelical
   preaching during the Diet. Margrave George of Brandenburg declared that
   he would rather lose his head than deny God. The Emperor replied: "Dear
   prince, not head off, not head off." [950] He imposed silence upon the
   preachers of both parties, except those whom he should select. The
   Protestant princes held service in private houses.

   The Diet was opened on Monday, June 20, with high mass by the Cardinal
   Archbishop of Mainz, and a long sermon by Archbishop Pimpinelli of
   Rossano, the papal nuncio at the court of Ferdinand. He described, in
   elegant Latin, the tyranny of the Turks, reproved the Germans for their
   sleepiness and divisions, and commended the heathen Romans and
   Mohammedans for their religious unity, obedience, and devotion to the
   past. A few days afterwards (June 24) the papal nuncio at the Diet,
   Laurentius Campegius (Campeggi) warned the Estates not to separate from
   the holy Catholic church, but to follow the example of other Christian
   kings and powers.

   The Emperor desired first to secure help against the Turks, but the
   Protestants insisted on the priority of the church question. He
   accordingly commanded them to have their confession ready within four
   days, and to hand it to him in writing. He did not wish it to be read
   before the Diet, but the Protestants insisted upon this. He then
   granted the reading in Latin, but the Elector of Saxony pressed the
   rights of the German vernacular. "We are on German soil," said he, "and
   therefore I hope your Majesty will allow the German language." The
   Emperor yielded this point, but refused the request to have the
   Confession read in the city hall where the Diet met.

   On the twenty-fifth day of June--the most memorable day in the history
   of Lutheranism, next to the 31st of October -the Augsburg Confession
   was read, with a loud and firm voice, by Dr. Baier, vice-chancellor of
   Electoral Saxony, in the German language, before the Diet in the
   private chapel of the episcopal palace. The reading occupied nearly two
   hours. The Emperor, who knew little German and less theology, soon fell
   asleep. [951]   But the majority listened attentively. The Papists were
   surprised at the moderation of the Confession, and would have wished it
   more polemical and anti-catholic. The bishop of Augsburg, Christoph von
   Stadion, is reported to have remarked privately that it contained the
   pure truth. Duke William of Bavaria censured Eck for misrepresenting to
   him the Lutheran opinions; and when the doctor said he could refute
   them, not with the Scriptures, but with the fathers, he replied: "I am
   to understand, then, that the Lutherans are within the Scriptures, and
   we Catholics on the outside?"

   Dr. Brück, the Saxon chancellor who composed the preface and epilogue,
   handed to the Emperor a German and a Latin copy of the Confession. The
   Emperor kept the former, and gave the latter to the Elector of Mainz
   for safe-keeping. The Latin copy (in Melanchthon's own handwriting) was
   deposited in the archives of Brussels, and disappeared under the reign
   of Duke Alba. The German original, as read before the Diet, was sent,
   with the acts of the Diet, to the Council of Trent, and never returned.
   But unauthorized editions soon appeared in different places (six
   German, one Latin) during the Diet; and Melanchthon himself issued the
   Confession in both languages at Wittenberg, 1531.

   Both documents were signed by seven princes; namely, the Elector John
   of Saxony, Landgrave Philip of Hesse, Margrave George of Brandenburg,
   Duke Ernest of Lüneburg, Duke John Frederick of Saxony, Duke Francis of
   Lüneburg, Prince Wolfgang of Anhalt; and by two representatives of free
   cities, Nürnberg and Reutlingen.

   The signing required considerable courage, for it involved the risk of
   the crown. When warned by Melanchthon of the possible consequences, the
   Saxon Elector nobly replied: "I will do what is right, unconcerned
   about my Electoral dignity. I will confess my Lord, whose cross I
   esteem more highly than all the power on earth."

   This act and testimony gave great significance to the Diet of Augsburg,
   and immortal glory to the confessors. Luther gave eloquent expression
   to his joy, when he wrote to Melanchthon, Sept. 15, 1530: [952] You
   have confessed Christ, you have offered peace, you have obeyed the
   Emperor, you have endured injuries, you have been drenched in their
   revilings, you have not returned evil for evil. In brief, you have
   worthily done God's holy work as becometh saints. Be glad, then, in the
   Lord, and exult, ye righteous. Long enough have ye been mourning in the
   world; look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth
   nigh. I will canonize you as a faithful member of Christ. And what
   greater glory can you desire? Is it a small thing to have yielded
   Christ faithful service, and shown yourself a member worthy of Him?"

   The only blot on the fame of the Lutheran confessors of Augsburg is
   their intolerant conduct towards the Reformed, which weakened their own
   cause. The four German cities which sympathized with the Zwinglian view
   on the Lord's Supper wished to sign the Confession, with the exception
   of the tenth article, which rejects their view; but they were excluded,
   and forced to hand in a separate confession of faith.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [949] Luther wrote to Hausmann, July 6, 1530: "Mirum est quam omnes
   ardeant amore et favore Caesaris." In De Wette-Seidemann, VI. 116.
   Melanchthon praised the virtues of the Emperor extravagantly, even
   after the Diet. "Corp. Ref." II. 430 sq., 361; Virck, l.c., 338sq.

   [950] "Lieber Fürst, nicht Kopf abhauen, nicht Kopf ab." Andreas
   Osiander understood him to say, "mehr Kopf abhauen," and so reported to
   Luther, June 21, 1530; adding, "neque enim recte Germanice autLatine
   novit." Krafft, Briefe und Documente, 67; Janssen, III. 166. Charles
   usually spoke in French; but he declared that he would sacrifice any
   other language, even Spanish or French, yea, one of his states, for a
   better knowledge of German.

   [951] Brentius: "cum confessio legeretur, obdormivit." The Emperor was
   equally sleepy on the 3d of August during the reading of the papal
   confutation.

   [952] In De Wette, IV. 165.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 118. The Negotiations, the Recess, the Peace of Nürnberg.

   The remaining transactions during this Diet were discouraging and
   unfruitful, and the result was a complete, but short-lived, victory of
   the Roman Catholic party.

   Melanchthon during all this time was in a state of nervous trepidation
   and despondency. [953] Before the delivery of the Confession he thought
   it too mild and pacific; after the delivery, he thought it too severe
   and polemic. So far was he carried away by his desire for reunion, and
   fears of the disastrous results of a split, that he made a most
   humiliating approach to the papal legate, Campeggi, who had advised the
   Emperor to crush the Protestant heresy by fire and sword, to put
   Wittenberg under the ban, and to introduce the Spanish Inquisition into
   Germany. Two weeks after the delivery of the Confession, he assured him
   that the Lutherans did not differ in any doctrine from the Roman
   Church, and were willing to obey her if she only would charitably
   overlook a few minor changes of discipline and ceremonies, which they
   could not undo. [954] And, to conciliate such a power, Melanchthon kept
   aloof as far as possible from the Zwinglians and Strassburgers. On the
   8th of July he had a personal interview with Campeggi, and Aug. 4 he
   submitted to him a few mild conditions of peace. The cardinal expressed
   his great satisfaction at these concessions, but prudently reserved his
   answer till he should hear from Rome.

   All these approaches failed. Rome would listen to nothing but absolute
   submission.

   Melanchthon soon found out that the papal divines, especially Eck, were
   full of pharisaical pride and malice. He was severely censured by the
   Nürnbergers and by Philip of Hesse for his weakness, and even charged
   by some with treason to the evangelical cause. His conduct must be
   judged in the light of the fact that the Roman Church allowed a certain
   freedom on the controverted points of anthropology and soteriology, and
   did not formally condemn the evangelical doctrines till several years
   afterwards, in the Council of Trent. The Augsburg Confession itself
   takes this view of the matter, by declaring at the close of the
   doctrinal articles: "This is the sum of doctrine among us, in which can
   be seen nothing which is discrepant with Scripture, nor with the
   Catholic or even with the Roman Church, so far as that Church is known
   from the writings of the Fathers." Melanchthon may be charged with
   moral weakness and mistake of judgment, but not with unfaithfulness.
   Luther remained true to his invaluable friend, who was indispensable to
   the evangelical cause, and did it the greatest service at Augsburg. He
   comforted him in his letters from Coburg. [955]

   The Lutheran Confession was referred for answer, i.e., for refutation,
   to a commission of twenty Roman theologians, who were present at the
   Diet, including Eck, Faber, Cochlaeus, Wimpina, and Dittenberger. Their
   answer was ready July 13, but declined by the Emperor on account of its
   length and bitter tone. After undergoing five revisions, it was
   approved and publicly read on the 3d of August before the Diet, in the
   same chapel in which the Protestant Confession had been read. The
   Emperor pronounced the answer "Christian and well-considered." He was
   willing to hand a copy to the Protestants, on condition to keep it
   private; but Melanchthon prepared a refutation, at the request of the
   Lutheran princes.

   The Emperor, in his desire for a peaceful result, arranged a conference
   between the theological leaders of the two parties. Eck, Wimpina, and
   Cochlaeus represented the Roman Catholics; Melanchthon, Brenz, and
   Schnepf, the Lutherans. The discussion began Aug. 16, but proved a
   failure. A smaller committee conferred from the 24th to the 29th of
   August, but with no better result. Melanchthon hoped against hope, and
   made concession after concession, to conciliate the bishops and the
   Emperor. But the Roman divines insisted on a recognition of an
   infallible church, a perpetual sacrifice, and a true priesthood. They
   would not even give up clerical celibacy, and the withdrawal of the cup
   from the laity; and demanded a restoration of the episcopal
   jurisdiction, of church property, and of the convents.

   Luther, writing from Coburg, urged the hesitating theologians and
   princes to stand by their colors. He, too, was willing to restore
   innocent ceremonies, and even to consent to the restoration of
   episcopacy, but only on condition of the free preaching of the gospel.
   He deemed a reconciliation in doctrine impossible, unless the Pope gave
   up popery. [956]

   On the 22d of September the Emperor announced the Recess of the Diet;
   that, after having heard and refuted the Confession of the Protestants,
   and vainly conferred with them, another term for consideration till
   April 15, 1531, be granted to them, as a special favor, and that in the
   mean time they should make no new innovations, nor disturb the

   Catholics in their faith and worship, and assist the Emperor in the
   suppression of the Anabaptists and those who despised the holy
   sacrament. The Emperor promised to bring about a general council within
   a year for the removal of ecclesiastical grievances.

   The signers of the Augsburg Confession, the cities of Frankfurt, Ulm,
   Schwäbisch Hall, Strassburg, Memmingen, Constance, Lindau, refused the
   recess. The Lutherans protested that their Confession had never been
   refuted, and offered Melanchthon's Apology of the same, which was
   rejected. They accepted the proposed term for consideration.

   The day after the announcement of the Recess, the Elector of Saxony
   returned home with his theologians. The Emperor took leave of him with
   these words: "Uncle, uncle, I did not look for this from you." The
   Elector with tears in his eyes went away in silence. He stopped on the
   journey at Nürnberg and Coburg, and reached Torgau the 9th of October.
   The Landgrave of Hesse had left Augsburg in disgust several weeks
   earlier (Aug. 6), without permission, and created fears of an open
   revolt.

   Luther was very indignant at the Recess, which was in fact a
   re-affirmation of the Edict of Worms. To stop the progress of the
   gospel, he declared, is to crucify the Lord afresh; the Augsburg
   Confession must remain as the pure word of God to the judgment day; the
   mass cannot be tolerated, as it is the greatest abomination; nor can it
   be left optional to commune in one or both kinds. Let peace be
   condemned to the lowest hell, if it hinder and injure the gospel and
   faith. They say, if popery falls, Germany will go to ruin. It is
   terrible, but I cannot help it. It is the fault of the papists. [957]
   He published early in 1531 a book against the Edict of Augsburg, which
   he ascribes to Pope Clement "the arch-villain," and Campeggi, rather
   than to the Emperor, and closes with the wish that "blasphemous popery
   may perish in hell as John prophesies in Revelation (14:8; 18:2;
   22:20); let every Christian say, Amen." [958] In the same year he
   warned the Germans to be ready for defense, although it did not become
   him as a minister to stir up war. [959]

   The Recess of the Diet was finally published Nov. 19; but its execution
   threatened to bring on civil war, and to give victory to the Turks. The
   Emperor shrank from such consequences and was seriously embarrassed.
   Only two of the secular princes, Elector Joachim of Brandenburg and
   Duke George of Saxony, were ready to assist him in severe measures. The
   Duke of Bavaria was dissatisfied with the Emperor's efforts to have,
   his brother Ferdinand elected Roman king. The archbishops of Mayence
   and Cologne, and the bishop of Augsburg, half sympathized with the
   Protestants. [960] But the Emperor had promised the Pope to use all his
   power for the suppression of heresy, and was bound to execute as best
   he could the edict of the Diet after the expiration of the term of
   grace, April 15, 1531.

   The Lutheran princes therefore formed in December, 1530, at Smalcald, a
   defensive alliance under the name of the Smalcaldian League. The
   immediate object was to protect themselves against the lawsuits of the
   imperial chamber of justice for the recovery of church property and the
   restoration of the episcopal jurisdiction. Opinions were divided on the
   question whether the allies in case of necessity should take up arms
   against the Emperor; the theologians were opposed to it, but the
   lawyers triumphed over the theological scruples, and the Elector of
   Saxony pledged the members for defensive measures against any and every
   aggressor, even the Emperor. At a new convent at Smalcald in March,
   1531, the League was concluded in due form for six years. It embraced
   Electoral Saxony, Hesse, Lüneburg, Anhalt, Mansfeld, and eleven cities.
   Out of this League ultimately arose the Smalcaldian war, which ended so
   disastrously for the Protestant princes, especially the Elector of
   Saxony and the Landgrave of Hesse (1547).

   But for the present, war was prevented by the peace at Nürnberg, 1532.
   A renewed invasion of Sultan Suleiman with an army of three hundred
   thousand, in April, 1532, made conciliation a political and patriotic
   duty. The Emperor convened a Diet at Regensburg, April 17, which was
   transferred to Nürnberg; and there, on July 23, 1532, a temporary truce
   was concluded, and vigorous measures taken against the Turks, who were
   defeated by land and sea, and forced to retreat. The victorious Emperor
   went to Italy, and urged the Pope to convene the council; but the Pope
   was not yet ready, and found excuses for indefinite postponement. [961]

   John the Constant died in the same year, of a stroke of apoplexy (Aug.
   16, 1532), and was followed by his son John Frederick the Magnanimous,
   who in the Smalcaldian war lost his electoral dignity, but saved his
   evangelical faith.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [953] He spent his time "in lacrymis ac luctu," was exhausted and
   emaciated. See his letters, and those of Jonas and Osiander, in "Corp.
   Ref.," II. 125 sq., 157, l63.

   [954] He wrote two letters to Campeggi, July 6, and two to his
   secretary, July 7 and Aug. 5. See "Corp. Reform.," II. 168-174, and
   240. In the first letter, after a quotation from Plato and some words
   of flattery, he makes this astounding concession (fol. 170): "Dogma
   nullum habemus diversum ab ecclesia Romana. ... Parati sumus obedire
   ecclesiae Romana, modo ut illa pro sua clementia, qua semper erga omnes
   gentes usa est, pauca quaedamvel dissimulet, vel relaxet quae jam
   mutare nequidem si velimus queamus. ... Ad haec Romani pontificis
   auctoritatem et universam politiam ecclesiasticam reverenter colimus,
   modo nos non abjiciat Rom. pontifex. ... Nullam ob rem aliam plus odii
   sustinemus in Germania, quam quia ecclesiae Romanae dogmata summa
   constantia defendimus. Hanc fidem Christo et Romanae ecclesiae ad
   extremum spiritum, Deo volente, praestabimus. Levis quaedam
   dissimilitudo rituum est quae videtur obstare concordiae."Of similar
   import are the propositions he sent to Campeggi, Aug. 4 (fol. 246).

   [955] See letter of Sept. 11, 1530, in De Wette, IV. 163.

   [956] Summa, mihi in totum displicet tractatus de doctrinae concordia,
   ut quae plane sit impossibilis, nisi papa velit papatum suum
   aboleri."Letter to Melanchthon, Aug. 26, in De Wette, IV. 147.

   [957] See his Exposition of John 6-8 (1530-32), Erl. ed. XLVIII. 342
   sq.

   [958] "Glossen auf das vermeintliche kaiserliche Edict," in Walch, XVI.
   2017 sqq.; Erl. ed. XXV. 51-88.

   [959] Warnung an seine lieben Deutschen, Erl. ed. XXV. 1-51. The
   Romanists regarded this as an incendiary call to open rebellion. He
   defended himself against this charge, in Wider den Meuchler in Dresden,
   1531 (Erl. ed. 89-109).

   [960] Albrecht accepted from Melanchthon the dedication of his
   commentary on the Romans and sent him a cup with thirty gold guilders
   (1532). He also sent to Luther's wife a present of twenty guilders,
   which Luther declined. Köstlin, II. 427; Janssen, III. 203. Hermann of
   Cologne afterwards professed Protestantism, and made an abortive
   attempt to reform his diocese with the aid of Bucer and Melanchthon.

   [961] Luther chastised the Pope with all his power of irony and sarcasm
   for his conduct in regard to a council, in his book Von den Conciliis
   und Kirchen, 1539 (Erl. ed. XXV. 219-388).
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 119. The Augsburg Confession.

   I. Editions of the Augsb. Conf.: The best critical edition in the 26th
   vol. of the "Corpus Reformatorum," ed. Bretschneider und Bindseil
   (1858), 776 pages. It gives the Invariata and the Variata, in Latin and
   German, with critical apparatus, list of MSS. and early editions, and
   the preceding documents: viz., the Articles of Visitation, the Marburg,
   the Schwabach, and the Torgau Articles.

   The Confession in Latin or German, or both, Is embodied in all the
   collections of Lutheran symbols by Rechenberg, Walch, Weber, Hase,
   Meyer, Francke, Müller.

   Separate modem editions by Twesten, Tittmann, Weber, Wiggers,
   Förstemann, Harter, etc.

   English translation, with Latin text, in Schaff, Creeds, III. 3-73; in
   English alone, in Henkel, Book of Concord, 1854, and Jacobs, Book of
   Concord, Philad., 1882. The first English translation was made by
   Richard Taverner, London, 1536, the last, on the basis of this, by
   Charles P. Krauth. (See B. M. Schmucker: English Translations of the
   Augsb. Conf., Philad., 1887, 34 pp.)

   On the literature compare Köllner: Symbolik der Lutherischen Kirche,
   Hamburg, 1837, pp. 150-152, with a full history of the Conf., pp.
   153-396.

   II. Histories and monographs: the works of Chytraeus, Coelestin,
   Cyprian, Salig, Pfaff, Fickenscher, Forstemann, etc., quoted in § 117.
   Recent works: Köllner, 1837 (see above). Rudelbach: Die Augsb. Conf.
   nach den Quellen, Dresden, 1841. G. Plitt: Einleitung in die Augustana,
   Erlangen, 1867-68 2 Parts; Die Apologie der Augustana, Erl., 1873. W.
   J. Mann: A Plea for the Augsburg Confession, Philadelphia, 1856.
   Stuckenberg: The History of the Augsb. Confession, Philad., 1869.
   Zöckler: Die Augsb. Conf., Frkf. -a.-M., 1870. Vilmar: Die Augsb.
   Confession erklärt, Gütersloh, 1870. A brief account in Schaff: Creeds
   (4th ed. 1884), I. 225-242. On the Roman Catholic side see Janssen,
   III. 165-211, and L. Pastor: Die kirchlichen Reunionsbest-rebungen
   während der Regierung Karls V., Freiburg, 1879, 22 sqq.

   III. On special points: Luther's relation to the Augsb. Conf. is
   discussed by Rückert, Jena, 1854; Calinich, Leipz., 1861; Knaake,
   Berlin, 1863. The relation of the A. C. to the Marburg, Schwabach, and
   Torgau Articles is treated by Ed. Engelhardt in the "Zeitschrift für
   Hist. Theol.," 1865, pp. 515-529; and by Th. Brieger in "Kirchengesch.
   Studien," Leipzig, 1888, pp. 265-320.

   The Augsburg Confession is the first and the most famous of evangelical
   confessions. It gave clear, full, systematic expression to the chief
   articles of faith for which Luther and his friends had been contending
   for thirteen years, since he raised his protest against the traffic in
   indulgences. By its intrinsic merits and historic connections, it has
   become the chief doctrinal standard of the Lutheran Church, which also
   bears the name of the "Church of the Augsburg Confession." It retains
   this position to this day, notwithstanding the theological and
   ecclesiastical dissensions in that communion. It furnished the keynote
   to similar public testimonies of faith, and strengthened the cause of
   the Reformation everywhere. It had a marked influence upon the
   Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. [962] In the final
   revision by the author, and with the necessary change in the tenth
   article, it has also been frequently adopted by Reformed divines and
   congregations. But it was never intended, least of all by Melanchthon,
   who mended it to the last moment and even after its adoption, as an
   infallible and ultimate standard, even of the Lutheran Church. It was
   at first modestly called an, "Apology," after the manner of the
   Christian Apologies in the ante-Nicene age, and meant to be simply a
   dispassionate statement in vindication of the Lutheran faith before the
   Roman Catholic world.

   It is purely apologetic, and much more irenic than polemic. It aims to
   be, if possible, a Formula of Concord, instead of Discord. It is
   animated by a desire for reconciliation with Rome. Hence it is
   remarkably mild in tone, adheres closely to the historic faith, and
   avoids all that could justly offend the Catholics. It passes by, in
   silence, the supremacy of the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and
   practice, and some of the most objectionable features in the Roman
   system,--as indulgences, purgatory, and the papal primacy (which
   Melanchthon was willing to tolerate on an impossible condition). In
   short, it is the most churchly, the most catholic, the most
   conservative creed of Protestantism. It failed to conciliate Rome, but
   became the strongest bond of union among Lutherans.

   The Confession is the ripe fruit of a gradual growth. It is based
   chiefly upon three previous confessional documents--the fifteen
   Articles of Marburg, Oct. 4, 1529, the seventeen Articles of Schwabach
   (a modification and expansion of the former by Luther, with the
   insertion of his view of the real presence), adopted by the Lutheran
   princes in a convent at Schwabach, near Nürnberg, Oct. 16, 1529, and
   several Articles of Torgau against certain abuses of the Roman Church,
   drawn up by Luther, Melanchthon, Jonas, and Bugenhagen, by order of the
   Elector, at his residence in Torgau, March 20, 1530. [963] The first
   two documents furnished the material for the first or positive part of
   the Augsburg Confession; the last, for its second or polemical part.

   Melanchthon used this material in a free way, and made a new and far
   better work, which bears the stamp of his scholarship and moderation,
   his power of condensation, and felicity of expression. He began the
   preparation at Coburg, with the aid of Luther, in April, and finished
   it at Augsburg, June 24. He labored on it day and night, so that Luther
   had to warn him against over-exertion. "I command you," he wrote to him
   May 12, "and all your company that they compel you, under pain of
   excommunication, to take care of your poor body, and not to kill
   yourself from imaginary obedience to God. We serve God also by taking
   holiday and rest."

   If we look at the contents, Luther is the primary, Melanchthon the
   secondary, author; but the form, the method, style, and temper are
   altogether Melanchthon's. Nobody else could produce such a work. Luther
   would have made it more aggressive and polemic, but less effective for
   the occasion. He himself was conscious of the superior qualification of
   his friend for the task, and expressed his entire satisfaction with the
   execution. "It pleases me very well," he wrote of the Confession, "and
   I could not change or improve it; nor would it be becoming to do so,
   since I cannot tread so softly and gently." [964] He would have made
   the tenth article on the real presence still stronger than it is; would
   have inserted his sola in the doctrine of justification by faith, as he
   did in his German Bible; and rejected purgatory, and the tyranny of
   popery, among the abuses in the second part. He would have changed the
   whole tone, and made the document a trumpet of war.

   The Augsburg Confession proper (exclusive of preface and epilogue)
   consists of two parts,--one positive and dogmatic, the other negative
   and mildly polemic or rather apologetic. The first refers chiefly to
   doctrines, the second to ceremonies and institutions. The order of
   subjects is not strictly systematic, though considerably improved upon
   the arrangement of the Schwabach and Torgau Articles. In the manuscript
   copies and oldest editions, the articles are only numbered; the titles
   were subsequently added.

   I. The first part presents in twenty-one articles--beginning with the
   Triune God, and ending with the worship of saints--a clear, calm, and
   condensed statement of the doctrines held by the evangelical Lutherans:
   (1) in common with the Roman Church; (2) in common with the Augustinian
   school in that church; (3) in opposition to Rome; and (4) in
   distinction from Zwinglians and Anabaptists.

   (1) In theology and Christology, i.e., the doctrines of God's unity and
   trinity (Art. I.), and of Christ's divine-human personality (III.), the
   Confession strongly re-affirms the ancient catholic faith as laid down
   in the oecumenical creeds, and condemns (damnamus) the old and new
   forms of Unitarianism and Arianism as heresies.

   (2) In anthropology, i.e., in the articles on the fall and original sin
   (II.), the slavery of the natural will and necessity of divine grace
   (XVIII.), the cause and nature of sin (XIX.), the Confession is
   substantially Augustinian, in opposition to the Pelagian and
   semi-Pelagian heresies. The Donatists are also condemned (damnant,
   VIII.) for denying the objective virtue of the ministry and the
   sacraments, which Augustin defended against them.

   (3) The general evangelical views more or less distinct from those of
   Rome appear in the articles on justification by faith (IV.), the Gospel
   ministry (V.), new obedience (VI.), the Church (VII., VIII.),
   repentance (XII.), ordination (XIV.), ecclesiastical rites (XV.), civil
   government (XVI.), good works (XIX.), the worship of saints, and the
   exclusive mediatorship of Christ (XX.).

   These articles are so guardedly and skillfully worded as to disarm the
   papal opponents. Even the doctrine of justification by faith (Art.
   IV.), which Luther declared to be the article of the standing or
   falling church, is briefly and mildly stated, without the sola so
   strongly insisted on by Luther, and so objectionable to the Catholics,
   who charged him with willful perversion of the Scriptures, for
   inserting it in the Epistle to the Romans (3:28). [965]

   (4) The distinctively Lutheran views--mostly retained from prevailing
   catholic tradition, and differing in part from those of other
   Protestant churches--are contained in the articles on the sacraments
   (IX., X., XIII.), on confession and absolution (XI.), and the
   millennium (XVII.). The tenth article plainly asserts the doctrine of a
   real bodily presence and distribution of Christ in the eucharist to all
   communicants, and disapproves (improbant) of those who teach
   differently (the Zwinglians). [966] The Anabaptists are not only
   disapproved, but condemned (damnamus) as heretics three times: for
   their views on infant baptism and infant salvation (IX.), [967] Civil
   offices (XVI.), the millennium and final restoration (XVII.).

   These anti-Zwinglian and anti-Baptist articles, however, have long
   since lost their force in the Lutheran Church. Melanchthon himself
   changed the wording of the tenth Article in the edition of 1540, and
   omitted the clause of disapproval. The damnation of unbaptized infants
   dying in infancy, which is indirectly indorsed by condemning the
   opposite, is a fossil relic of a barbarous orthodoxy, and was justly
   denied by the Baptists, as also by Zwingli and Bullinger, who on this
   point were ahead of their age. The first official deliverance against
   this dogma was raised by the Reformed Church of Scotland, in the Second
   Scotch Confession (1581), which condemns among the errors of "the Roman
   Antichrist" "his Cruel judgment against infants departing without the
   sacrament, and his absolute necessity of baptism." [968]

   The doctrine of the second advent and millennium (rejected in Art.
   XVII.), if we except the dreams of the radical wing of the Anabaptists,
   has found advocates among sound and orthodox Lutherans, especially of
   the school of Bengel, and must be regarded as an open question.

   The last Article of the doctrinal part expresses the assurance that the
   Lutherans hold no doctrine which is contrary to the Scriptures, or to
   the Catholic or even the Roman Church, as far as known from the
   fathers, and differ from her only on certain traditions and ceremonies.
   Luther knew better, and so did the Romanists. Only Melanchthon, in his
   desire for union and peace, could have thus deceived himself; but he
   was undeceived before he left Augsburg, and in the Apology of the
   Confession be assumed a very different tone.

   II. The second part of the Confession rejects, in seven articles, those
   abuses of Rome which were deemed most objectionable, and had been
   actually corrected in the Lutheran churches; namely, the withdrawal of
   the communion cup from the laity (I.), the celibacy of the clergy
   (II.), the sacrifice of the mass (III.), obligatory auricular
   confession (IV.), ceremonial feasts and fasts (V.), monastic vows
   (VI.), and the secular power of the bishops as far as it interferes
   with the purity and spirituality of the church (VII.). This last
   Article is virtually a protest against the principle of Erastianism or
   Caesaro-papacy, and would favor in its legitimate consequences a
   separation of church and state. "The ecclesiastical and civil powers,"
   says the Confession, "are not to be confounded. The ecclesiastical
   power has its own commandment to preach the gospel and administer the
   sacraments. Let it not by force enter into the office of another, let
   it not transfer worldly kingdoms," etc. And as to the civil power, it
   is occupied only with worldly matters, not with the gospel, and
   "defends not the minds, but the bodies and bodily things, against
   manifest injuries." This protest has been utterly disregarded by the
   Protestant rulers in Germany. The same Article favors the restoration
   of the episcopal jurisdiction with purely spiritual and ecclesiastical
   authority. This also was wholly disregarded by the signers, who were
   unwilling to give up their summepiscopate which they had claimed and
   exercised since 1526 with the consent of the Reformers.

   The Confession concludes with these words: "Peter forbids bishops to be
   lords, and to be imperious over the churches (1 Pet. 5:3). Now, our
   meaning is not to take the rule from the bishops, but this one thing
   only is requested at their hands, that they would suffer the gospel to
   be purely taught, and that they would relax a few observances which
   cannot be held without sin. But if they will remit none, let them look
   how they will give account to God for this, that by their obstinacy
   they afford cause of division and schism." [969] Thus the
   responsibility of schism in the Latin Church was thrown upon Rome. But
   even if Rome and the Diet had accepted the Augsburg Confession, the
   schism would still have occurred by the further progress of the
   Protestant spirit, which no power on earth, not even Luther and
   Melanchthon, could arrest.

   The style of the Latin edition is such as may be expected from the rare
   classic culture and good taste of Melanchthon; while the order and
   arrangement might be considerably improved.

   The diplomatic preface to the Emperor, from the pen of a lawyer,
   Chancellor Brück, is clumsy, tortuous, dragging, extremely obsequious,
   and has no other merit than to introduce the reader into the historical
   situation. The brief conclusion (Epilogus) is from the same source, and
   is followed by the signatures of seven princes and two magistrates.
   Several manuscript copies omit both preface and epilogue, as not
   properly belonging to the Confession.

   Space forbids us to discuss the questions of the text, and the
   important variations of the Unaltered Confession of 1530, and the
   Altered Confession of 1540, which embodies the last improvements of its
   author, but has only a semi-official character and weight within the
   Lutheran Church. [970]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [962] See the proof in Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I. 624 sqq.

   [963] The Articuli Torgavienses were formerly confounded with the
   Articuli Suobacences till Förstemann discovered the former in the
   archives at Weimar (1833).

   [964] "Denn ich so sanft und leise nicht treten kann." Letter to
   Elector John, May 15, 1530. In De Wette, IV. 17. He calls the Augustana
   die Leisetreterin, the softly stepping Confession. Letter to Jonas,
   July 2l, 1530.

   [965] In a letter to Brenz, May, 1531 (Corp. Ref., II. 502),
   Melanchthon remarks that he did not speak more plainly on this point,
   "propter adversariorum calumnias." In the Apology of the Confession
   (Art. IV.), he is more explicit, and declares this doctrine
   incidentally to be "the chief point of Christian doctrine (praecipuus
   locus doctrinae Christianae) in this controversy." Müller, Symb.
   Bücher, p. 87. Döllinger charges Melanchthon, in his varying statements
   of this doctrine, with sophistry, Die Reformation, III. 279 sqq. The
   revisers of the Luther Bible retained the insertion allein in Rom.
   3:28.

   [966] That the Zwinglians are meant by the secus docentes (in the
   German ed., Gegenlehr), must be inferred from the preceding Conference
   at Marburg, and the whole conduct of the Lutherans during the Diet. The
   omission of Zwingli's name was due, probably, to respect for his friend
   the Landgrave of Hesse, one of the signers of the Confession.

   [967] "They condemn the Anabaptists, who disallow the baptism of
   children, and affirm that children are saved without baptism." The
   edition of 1540 adds after "sine baptismo" the words "et extra
   ecclesiam Christi." The Romish Confutation fully approves of the
   condemnation of the Anabaptists, and calls them "hominum genus
   seditiosissimum, procul a finibus Romani imperii eliminandum." Corp.
   Reform., XXVII. 105.

   [968] Schaff, Creeds, i. 687, iii. 482.

   [969] It was Melanchthon's wish (which Köllner chose as motto for his
   Symb. d. luth. Kirche): "Utinam utinam possim non quidem dominationem
   confirmare, sed administrationem restituere episcoporum. Video enim,
   qualem habituri simus ecclesiam, dissoluta politeia ecclesiastica."
   Occasionally lonely voices are heard for the restoration of episcopacy
   in the Lutheran Church, but without effect. See F. Haupt, Der Episcopat
   der deutschen Reformation, oder Artikel 28 der Augsburg Conf., Frankf.,
   1866; Luther und der Episcopat, 1866.

   [970] See on these questions Schaff, Creeds, I. 237 sqq., and
   especially Köllner, Symbolik der luth. Kirche, p. 236 sqq. and 267 sqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 120. The Roman Confutation and the Protestant Apology.

   I. Corpus Reformatorum (Melanchthonis Opera), ed. by Bretschneider and
   Bindseil, vol. XXVII. (1859), 646 columns, and vol. XXVIII. 1-326.
   These volumes contain the Confutatio Confessionis Augustanae, and the
   two editions of Melanchthon's Apologia Conf. Aug., in Latin and German,
   with Prolegomena and critical apparatus. The best and most complete
   edition. There are few separate editions of the Apology, but it Is
   incorporated in all editions of the Lutheran Symbols; see Lit. in §
   119. The Latin text of the Confutatio was first published by A.
   Fabricius Leodius in Harmonia Confess. Augustanae, 1573; the German, by
   C. G. Müller, 1808, from a copy of the original in the archives of
   Mainz, which Weber had previously inspected (Krit. gesch. der Augsb.
   Conf., II. 439 sqq.).

   II. K. Kieser (R. Cath.). Die Augsburger Confession und ihre
   Widerlegung, Regensburg, 1845. Hugo Lämmer: Die
   vor-tridentinisch-katholische Theologie des Reformations-Zeitalters,
   Berlin, 1858, pp. 33-46. By the same: De Confessonis Augustanae
   Confutatione Pontificia, in Neidner's "Zeitschrift für Hist. Theol.,"
   1858. (Lämmer, a Lutheran, soon afterwards joined the Roman Church, and
   was ordained a priest, 1859, and appointed missionarius apostolicus,
   1861.) G. Plitt (Luth.):Die Apologie der Augustana geschichtlich
   erklärt, Erlangen, 1873. Schaff: Creeds, etc., I. 243. The history and
   literature of the Apology are usually combined with that of the
   Confession, as in J. G. Walch, Feuerlin-Riederer, and Köllner.

   The Roman "Catholic Confutation," so called, of the Augsburg
   Confession, was prepared in Augsburg by order of the Emperor Charles,
   by the most eminent Roman divines of Germany, and bitterest opponents
   of Luther, especially Drs. Eck, Faber, Cochlaeus, in Latin and German.
   [971] The final revision, as translated into German, was publicly read
   before the Emperor and the Diet, in the chapel of the episcopal palace,
   Aug. 3, and adopted as the expression of the views of the majority.

   The document follows the order of the Augsburg Confession. It approves
   eighteen doctrinal articles of the first part, either in full or with
   some restrictions and qualifications. Even the fourth article, on
   justification, escapes censure, and Pelagianism is strongly condemned.
   [972] The tenth article, on the Lord's Supper, is likewise approved as
   far as it goes, provided only that the presence of the whole Christ in
   either of the substances be admitted. [973] But Article VII., on the
   Church, is rejected; [974] also Art. XX., on faith and good works, and
   Art. XXI., on the worship of saints. [975]

   The second part of the Confession, on abuses, is wholly rejected; but
   at the close, the existence of various abuses, especially among the
   clergy, is acknowledged, and a reformation of discipline is promised
   and expected from a general council. [976]

   The tone of the Confutation is moderate, owing to the express direction
   of the Emperor; but it makes no concession on the points under dispute.
   It abounds in biblical and patristic quotations crudely selected. As to
   talent and style, it is far inferior to the work of Melanchthon. The
   Roman Church was not yet prepared to cope with the Protestant divines.

   The publication of the Confutation as well as the Confession was
   prohibited, and it did not appear in print till many years afterwards;
   but its chief contents became known from notes taken by hearers and
   from manuscript copies.

   The Lutheran members of the Diet urged Melanchthon to prepare at once a
   Protestant refutation of the Roman refutation, and offered the first
   draught of it to the Diet, Sept. 22, through Chancellor Brück; but it
   was refused.

   On the following day Melanchthon left Augsburg in company with the
   Elector of Saxony, re-wrote the Apology on the journey, [977] and
   completed it leisurely at Wittenberg, with the help of a manuscript
   copy of the Confutation, in April, 1531.

   The Apology of the Augsburg Confession is a scholarly vindication of
   the Confession. It far excels the Confutation in theological and
   literary merit. It differs from the apologetic Confession by its
   polemic and protestant tone. It is written with equal learning and
   ability, but with less moderation and more boldness. It even uses some
   harsh terms against the papal opponents, and calls them liars and
   hypocrites (especially in the German edition). It is the most learned
   of the Lutheran symbols, and seven times larger than the Confession,
   but for this very reason not adapted to be a symbolical book. It
   contains many antiquated arguments, and errors in exegesis and
   patristic quotations. But in its day it greatly strengthened the
   confidence of scholars in the cause of Protestantism. Its chief and
   permanent value is historical, and consists in its being the oldest and
   most authentic interpretation of the Augsburg Confession, by the author
   himself.

   The Apology, though not signed by the Lutheran princes at Augsburg, was
   recognized first in 1532, at a convent in Schweinfurt, as a public
   confession; it was signed by Lutheran divines at Smalcald, 1537; it was
   used at the religious conference at Worms, 1540, and embodied in the
   various editions of the Confession, and at last in the Book of Concord,
   1580.

   The text of the Apology has, like that of the Confession, gone through
   various transformations, which are used by Bossuet and other Romanists
   as proofs of the changeableness of Protestantism. The original draught
   made at Augsburg has no authority, as it was based on fragmentary notes
   of Camerarius and others who heard the Confutation read on the 3d of
   August. [978] The first Latin edition was much enlarged and improved;
   the German translation was prepared by Justus Jonas, assisted by
   Melanchthon, but differs widely from the Latin. [979] Both were
   published together with the Augsburg Confession in October, 1531.
   Changes were made in subsequent editions, both of the Latin original
   and the German translation, especially in the edition of 1540. Hence
   there is an Apologia invariata and an Apologia variata, as well as a
   Confessio invariata and a Confessio variata. The Book of Concord took
   both texts from the first edition. [980]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [971] The full title is Catholica et quasi-extemporanea Responsio
   Pontificia seu Confutatio Augustanae Confessionis. The first draught
   was verbose and bitter ("verbosior et acrior"); the second, third,
   fourth, and fifth were briefer and milder.

   [972] The first draught, however, had a lengthy attack upon Luther's
   sola fide.

   [973] "Decimus articulus in verbis nihil offendit si modo credant
   [principes, the Lutheran signers] sub qualibet specie integrum Christum
   adesse."

   [974] Because it is defined as a congregatio sanctorum, without
   including mali et peccatores.

   [975] Because it rejects the invocation of saints."Hic articulus
   confessionis toties damnatus penitus rejiciendus est et cum tota
   universali ecclesia reprobandus."

   [976] "Quod autem de abusibus adstruxerunt, haud dubie norunt Principes
   omnes et status imperii, neque a Caes. Maiestate, neque ullis a
   Principibus et christiano aliquo homine vel minimum abusum probari, sed
   optare tum Principes, tum status imperii, ut communi consilio ac
   consensu adnitantur, ut, sublatis abusibus et emendatis, utriusque
   status excessus aut penitus aboleantur, aut in melius reformentur, ac
   tandem ecclesiasticus status multis modis labefactatus, ac christiana
   religio, quae in nonnullis refriguit et remissa est, ad pristinum decus
   et ornamentumrestituatur et redintegretur. Qua in re Caes. Maiestas, ut
   omnibus constat, hactenus plurimum et laboris et curae insumsit, et in
   reliquum ad hoc negotii omnem suam operam ac studium serio collocaturam
   benigne pollicetur." Corp. Ref., XXVII. 182 sq.

   [977] He worked so hard at it at Altenburg, even on Sunday, that Luther
   reminded him to observe the Fourth Commandment.

   [978] Corp. Ref., XXVII. 267 sqq. Melanchthon himself did not hear it.

   [979] Ibid., 379 sqq.; XXVIII. 1 sqq.

   [980] See on the different editions the "Corp. Ref.," XXVI. 697 sqq.
   and XXVII. 379 sqq.; the Latin text of 1531, p. 419 sqq.; the German
   translation with the variations of ed. II. (1533), ed. III. and IV.
   (1540), ed. V. 1550), ed. VI. (1556), in vol. XXVIII. 37-326.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 121. The Tetrapolitan Confession.

   I. Editions. The Latin text was first printed at Strassburg
   (Argentoratum), a.d. 1531, Sept. (21 leaves); then in the Corpus et
   Syntagma Confess. (1612 and 1654); in Augusti's Corpus libr. symb.
   (1827), p. 327 sqq.; and in Niemeyer's Collect. Confess. (1840), p.
   740-770; Comp. Proleg., p. LXXXIII.

   The German text appeared first at Strassburg, Aug. 1531 (together with
   the Apology, 72 leaves); then again, 1579, ed. by John Sturm, but was
   suppressed by the magistrate, 1580; at Zweibrücken, 1604; in Beck's
   Symbol. Bücher, vol. I., p. 401 sq.; in Böckel's Bekenntniss-Schriften
   der evang. reform. Kirche (1847), p. 363 sq.

   II. Gottl. Wernsdorff: Historia Confessionis Tetrapolitanae, Wittenb.
   1694, ed. IV. 1721. Schelhorn: Amaenitates Litter., Tom. VI., Francf.
   1727. J. H. FELS: Dissert. de varia Confess. Tetrapolitanae fortuna
   praesertim in civitate Lindaviensi, Götting. 1755. Planck: Geschichte
   des protest. Lehrbegriffs, vol. III., Part I. (second ed. 1796), pp.
   68-94. J. W. Röhrich: Geschichte der evangel. Kirche des Elsasses.
   Strassburg, 1855, 3 vols. J. W. Baum: Capito und Butzer (Elberf. 1860),
   p. 466 sqq. and 595. Schaff: Creeds, I. 524-529.

   The Tetrapolitan Confession, also called the Strassburg and the Swabian
   Confession, is the oldest confession of the Reformed Church in Germany,
   and represented the faith of four imperial cities, Strassburg,
   Constance, Memmingen, and Lindau, which at that time sympathized with
   Zwingli and the Swiss, rather than Luther, on the doctrine of the
   sacraments.

   It was prepared in great haste, during the sessions of the Diet of
   Augsburg, by Bucer, with the aid of Capito and Hedio, in the name of
   those four cities (hence the name) which were excluded by the Lutherans
   from their political and theological conferences, and from the
   Protestant League. They would greatly have preferred to unite with
   them, and to sign the Augsburg Confession, with the exception of the
   tenth article on the eucharist, but were forbidden. The Landgrave
   Philip of Hesse was the only one who, from a broad, statesmanlike view
   of the critical situation, favored a solid union of the Protestants
   against the common foe, but in vain.

   Hence, after the Lutherans had presented their Confession June 25, and
   Zwingli his own July 8, the four cities handed theirs, July 11, to the
   Emperor in German and Latin. It was received very ungraciously, and not
   allowed to be read before the Diet; but a confutation full of
   misrepresentations was prepared by Faber, Eck, and Cochlaeus, and read
   Oct. 24 (or 17). The Strassburg divines were not even favored with a
   copy of this confutation, but procured one secretly, and answered it by
   a "Vindication and Defense" in the autumn of 1531.

   The Tetrapolitan Confession consists of twenty-three chapters, besides
   preface and conclusion. It is in doctrine and arrangement closely
   conformed to the Lutheran Confession, and breathes the same spirit of
   moderation, but is more distinctly Protestant. This appears at once in
   the first chapter (On the Matter of Preaching), in the declaration that
   nothing should be taught in the pulpit but what was either expressly
   contained in the Holy Scriptures, or fairly deduced therefrom. (The
   Lutheran Confession is silent on the supreme authority of the
   Scriptures.) The evangelical doctrine of justification is stated in the
   third and fourth chapters more clearly than by Melanchthon; namely,
   that we are justified not by works of our own, but solely by the grace
   of God and the merits of Christ, through a living faith, which is
   active in love, and productive of good works. Images are rejected in
   Chap. XXII.

   The doctrine of the Lord's Supper (Chap. XVIII.) is couched in dubious
   language, which was intended to comprehend in substance the Lutheran
   and the Zwinglian theories, and accords with the union tendency of
   Bucer. But it contains the germ of the Calvinistic view. In this
   ordinance, it is said, Christ offers to his followers, as truly now as
   at the institution, his very body and blood as spiritual food and
   drink, whereby their souls are nourished to everlasting life. Nothing
   is said of the oral manducation and the participation of unbelievers,
   which are the distinctive features of the Lutheran view. Bucer, who had
   attended the Conference at Marburg in 1529, labored with great zeal
   afterwards to bring about a doctrinal compromise between the contending
   theories, but without effect.

   The Tetrapolitan Confession was soon superseded by the clearer and more
   logical confessions of the Calvinistic type. The four cities afterwards
   signed the Lutheran Confession to join the Smalcald League. But Bucer
   himself remained true to his union creed, and reconfessed it in his
   last will and testament (1548) and on his death-bed.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 122. Zwingli's Confession to the Emperor Charles.

   Ad Carolum Boni. Imperatorem, Germaniae comitia Augustae celebrantem
   Fidei Huldrychi Zwinglii Ratio (Rechenschaft). Anno MDXXX. Mense Julio.
   Vincat veritas. In the same year a German translation appeared in
   Zürich, and in 1543 an English translation. See Niemeyer, Collect.
   Conf., p. XXVI. and 16 sqq. Böckel: Bekenntnissschriften der reform.
   Kirche, p. 40. sqq. Mörikofer: U. Zwingli, vol. II. p. 297 sqq.
   Christoffel: U. Z., vol. II. p. 237 sqq. Schaff: Creeds, I. 366 sqq.

   Zwingli took advantage of the meeting of the Diet of Augsburg, to send
   a confession of his faith, addressed to the German Emperor, Charles V.,
   shortly after the Lutheran princes had presented theirs. It is dated
   Zürich, July 3, 1530, and was delivered by his messenger at Augsburg on
   the 8th of the same month; but it shared the same fate as the
   "Tetrapolitan Confession." It was treated with contempt, and never laid
   before the Diet. Dr. Eck wrote in three days a refutation, charging
   Zwingli that for ten years he had labored to root out from the people
   of Switzerland all faith and all religion, and to stir them up against
   the magistrate; that he had caused greater devastation among them than
   the Turks, Tartars, and Huns; that he had turned the churches and
   convents founded by the Habsburgers (the Emperor's ancestors) into
   temples of Venus and Bacchus; and that he now completed his criminal
   career by daring to appear before the Emperor with such an impudent
   piece of writing.

   The Lutherans (with the exception of Philip of Hesse) were scarcely
   less indignant, and much more anxious to conciliate the Catholics than
   to appear in league with Zwinglians and Anabaptists. They felt
   especially offended that the Swiss Reformer took strong ground against
   the corporal presence, and incidentally alluded to them as persons who
   "were looking back to the flesh-pots of Egypt." Melanchthon judged him
   insane.

   Zwingli, having had no time to consult with his confederates, offered
   the Confession in his own name, and submitted it to the judgment of the
   whole church of Christ, under the guidance of the Word of God and the
   Holy Spirit.

   In the first sections he declares, as clearly as and even more
   explicitly than the Lutheran Confession, his faith in the orthodox
   doctrines of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, as laid down in the
   Nicene and Athanasian Creeds (which are expressly named). He teaches
   the election by free grace, the sole and sufficient satisfaction by
   Christ, and justification by faith, in opposition to all human
   mediators and meritorious works. He distinguishes between the internal
   or invisible, and the external or visible, church. The former is the
   company of the elect believers and their children, and is the bride of
   Christ; the latter embraces all nominal Christians and their children,
   and is beautifully described in the parable of the ten virgins, of whom
   five were foolish. The word "church" may also designate a single
   congregation, as the church in Rome, in Augsburg, in Leyden. The true
   church can never err in the foundation of faith. Purgatory he rejects
   as an injurious fiction, which sets Christ's merits at naught. On
   original sin, the salvation of unbaptized infants, and the sacraments,
   he departs much farther from the traditional theology than the
   Lutherans. He goes into a lengthy argument against the corporal
   presence in the eucharist. On the other hand, however, he protests
   against being confounded with the Anabaptists, and rejects their views
   on infant baptism, civil offices, the sleep of the soul, and universal
   salvation.

   The document is frank and bold, yet dignified and courteous, and
   concludes thus: "Hinder not, ye children of men, the spread and growth
   of the Word of God. Ye can not forbid the grass to grow. Ye must see
   that this plant is richly blessed from heaven. Consider not your own
   wishes, but the demands of the age concerning the free course of the
   gospel. Take these words kindly, and show by your deeds that you are
   children of God."
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 123. Luther at the Coburg.

   Luther's Letters from Coburg, April 18 to Oct. 4, 1530, in De Wette,
   IV. 1-182. Melanchthon's Letters to Luther from Augsburg, in the second
   volume of the "Corpus Reform."

   Zitzlaff (Archidiaconus in Wittenberg): Luther auf der Koburg,
   Wittenberg, 1882 (175 pages). Köstlin, M. L., II. 198 sqq.

   During the Diet of Augsburg, from April till October, 1530, Luther was
   an honorable prisoner in the electoral castle of Coburg. [981] From
   that watch-tower on the frontier of Saxony and Bavaria, he exerted a
   powerful influence, by his letters, upon Melanchthon and the Lutheran
   confessors at the Diet. His sojourn there is a striking parallel to his
   ten months' sojourn at the Wartburg, and forms the last romantic
   chapter in his eventful life. He was still under the anathema of the
   Pope and the ban of the empire, and could not safely appear at
   Augsburg. Moreover, his prince had reason to fear that by his
   uncompromising attitude he might hinder rather than promote the work of
   reconciliation and peace. But he wished to keep him near enough for
   consultation and advice. A message from Augsburg reached Coburg in
   about four days.

   Luther arrived at Coburg, with the Elector and the Wittenberg divines,
   on April 15, 1530. In the night of the 22d he was conveyed to the
   fortified castle on the hill, and ordered to remain there for an
   indefinite time. No reason was given, but he could easily suspect it.
   He spent the first day in enjoying the prospect of the country, and
   examining the prince's building (Fürstenbau) which was assigned him.
   His sitting-room is still shown. "I have the largest apartment, which
   overlooks the whole fortress, and I have the keys to all the rooms." He
   had with him his amanuensis Veit Dietrich, a favorite student, and his
   nephew Cyriac Kaufmann, a young student from Mansfeld. He let his beard
   grow again, as he had done on the Wartburg. He was well taken care of
   at the expense of the Elector, and enjoyed the vacation as well as he
   could with a heavy load of work and care on his mind. He received more
   visitors than he liked. About thirty persons were stationed in the
   castle.

   "Dearest Philip," he wrote to Melanchthon, April 23, "we have at last
   reached our Sinai; but we shall make a Sion of this Sinai, and here I
   shall build three tabernacles, one to the Psalms, one to the Prophets,
   and one to Aesop .... It is a very attractive place, and just made for
   study; only your absence grieves me. My whole heart and soul are
   stirred and incensed against the Turks and Mohammed, when I see this
   intolerable raging of the Devil. Therefore I shall pray and cry to God,
   nor rest until I know that my cry is heard in heaven. The sad condition
   of our German empire distresses you more." Then he describes to him his
   residence in the "empire of birds." In other letters he humorously
   speaks of the cries of the ravens and jackdaws in the forest, and
   compares them to a troop of kings and grandees, schoolmen and sophists,
   holding Diet, sending their mandates through the air, and arranging a
   crusade against the fields of wheat and barley, hoping for heroic deeds
   and grand victories. He could hear all the sophists and papists
   chattering around him from early morning, and was delighted to see how
   valiantly these knights of the Diet strutted about and wiped their
   bills, but he hoped that before long they would be spitted on a
   hedge-stake. He was glad to hear the first nightingale, even as early
   as April. With such innocent sports of his fancy he tried to chase away
   the anxious cares which weighed upon him. It is from this retreat that
   he wrote that charming letter to his boy Hans, describing a beautiful
   garden full of goodly apples, pears, and plums, and merry children on
   little horses with golden bridles and silver saddles, and promising him
   and his playmates a fine fairing if he prayed, and learned his lessons.
   [982]

   Joy and grief, life and death, are closely joined in this changing
   world. On the 5th of June, Luther received the sad news of the pious
   death of his father, which occurred at Mansfeld, May 29. When he first
   heard of his sickness, he wrote to him from Wittenberg, Feb. 15, 1530:
   "It would be a great joy to me if only you and my mother could come to
   us. My Kate, and all, pray for it with tears. We would do our best to
   make you comfortable." At the report of his end he said to Dietrich,
   "So my father, too, is dead," took his Psalter, and retired to his
   room. On the same day he wrote to Melanchthon that all he was, or
   possessed, he had received from God through his beloved father.

   He suffered much from "buzzing and dizziness" in his head, and a
   tendency to fainting, so as to be prevented for several weeks from
   reading and writing. He did not know whether to attribute the illness
   to the Coburg hospitality, or to his old enemy. He had the same
   experience at the Wartburg. Dietrich traced it to Satan, since Luther
   was very careful of his diet.

   Nevertheless, he accomplished a great deal of work. As soon as his box
   of books arrived, he resumed his translation of the Bible, begun on the
   Wartburg, hoping to finish the Prophets, and dictated to Dietrich a
   commentary on the first twenty-five Psalms. He also explained his
   favorite 118th Psalm, and wrote 118:17 on the wall of his room, with
   the tune for chanting, --


   "Non moriar, sed vivam, et narrabo opera Domini."

   By way of mental recreation he translated thirteen of Aesop's fables,
   to adapt them for youth and common people, since "they set forth in
   pleasing colors of fiction excellent lessons of wise and peaceful
   living among bad people in this wicked world." He rendered them in the
   simplest language, and expressed the morals in apt German proverbs.
   [983]

   The Diet at Augsburg occupied his constant attention. He was the power
   behind the throne. He wrote in May a public "Admonition to the Clergy
   assembled at the Diet," reminding them of the chief scandals, warning
   them against severe measures, lest they provoke a new rebellion, and
   promising the quiet possession of all their worldly possessions and
   dignities, if they would only leave the gospel free. He published a
   series of tracts, as so many rounds of musketry, against Romish errors
   and abuses.

   He kept up a lively correspondence with Melanchthon, Jonas, Spalatin,
   Link, Hausmann, Brenz, Agricola, Weller, Chancellor Brück, Cardinal
   Albrecht, the Elector John, the Landgrave Philip, and others, not
   forgetting his "liebe Kethe, Herr Frau Katherin Lutherin zu
   Wittenberg." He dated his letters "from the region of the birds" (ex
   volucrum regno), "from the Diet of the jackdaws" (ex comitiis Monedu,
   larum seu Monedulanensibus), or "from the desert" (ex eremo, aus der
   Einöde). Melanchthon and the Elector kept him informed of the
   proceedings at Augsburg, asked his advice about every important step,
   and submitted to him the draught of the Confession. He approved of it,
   though he would have liked it much stronger. He opposed every
   compromise in doctrine, and exhorted the confessors to stand by the
   gospel, without fear of consequences.

   His heroic faith, the moving power and crowning glory of his life,
   shines with wonderful luster in these letters. The greater the danger,
   the stronger his courage. He devoted his best hours to prayer. His "Ein
   feste Burg ist unser Gott," was written before this time, [984] but
   fitly expresses his fearless trust in God at this important crisis,
   when Melanchthon trembled. "Let the matter be ever so great," he wrote
   to him (June 27), "great also is He who has begun and who conducts it;
   for it is not our work .... 'Cast thy burthen upon the Lord; the Lord
   is nigh unto all them that call upon Him.' Does He say that to the
   wind, or does He throw his words before beasts? ... It is your worldly
   wisdom that torments you, and not theology. As if you, with your
   useless cares, could accomplish any thing! What more can the Devil do
   than strangle us? I conjure you, who in all other matters are so ready
   to fight, to fight against yourself as your greatest enemy." In another
   letter he well describes the difference between himself and his friend
   in regard to cares and temptations. "In private affairs I am the
   weaker, you the stronger combatant; but in public affairs it is just
   the reverse (if, indeed, any contest can be called private which is
   waged between me and Satan): for you take but small account of your
   life, while you tremble for the public cause; whereas I am easy and
   hopeful about the latter, knowing as I do for certain that it is just
   and true, and the cause of Christ and God Himself. Hence I am as a
   careless spectator, and unmindful of these threatening and furious
   papists. If we fall, Christ falls with us, the Ruler of the world. I
   would rather fall with Christ than stand with the Emperor. Therefore I
   exhort you, in the name of Christ, not to despise the promises and the
   comfort of God, who says, 'Cast all your cares upon the Lord. Be of
   good cheer, I have overcome the world.' I know the weakness of our
   faith; but all the more let us pray, 'Lord, increase our faith.' "

   In a remarkable letter to Chancellor Brück (Aug. 5), he expresses his
   confidence that God can not and will not forsake the cause of the
   evangelicals, since it is His own cause. "It is His doctrine, it is His
   Word. Therefore it is certain that He will hear our prayers, yea, He
   has already prepared His help, for he says, 'Can a woman forget her
   sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her
   womb? Yea, these may forget, yet will not I forget thee" (Isa. 49:15).
   In the same letter he says, "I have lately seen two wonders: the first,
   when looking out of the window, I saw the stars of heaven and the whole
   beautiful vault of God, but no pillars, and yet the heavens did not
   collapse, and the vault still stands fast. The second wonder: I saw
   great thick clouds hanging over us, so heavy as to be like unto a great
   lake, but no ground on which they rested; yet they did not fall on us,
   but, after greeting us with a gloomy countenance, they passed away, and
   over them appeared the luminous rainbow .... Comfort Master Philip and
   all the rest. May Christ comfort and sustain our gracious Elector. To
   Christ be all the praise and thanks forever. Amen."

   Urbanus Rhegius, the Reformer of Braunschweig-Lüneburg, on his way from
   Augsburg to Celle, called on Luther, for the first and last time, and
   spent a day with him at Coburg. It was "the happiest day" of his life,
   and made a lasting impression on him, which he thus expressed in a
   letter: "I judge, no one can hate Luther who knows him. His books
   reveal his genius; but if you would see him face to face, and hear him
   speak on divine things with apostolic spirit, you would say, the living
   reality surpasses the fame. Luther is too great to be judged by every
   wiseacre. I, too, have written books, but compared with him I am a mere
   pupil. He is an elect instrument of the Holy Ghost. He is a theologus
   for the whole world."

   Bucer also paid him a visit at Coburg (Sept. 25), and sought to induce
   him, if possible, to a more friendly attitude towards the Zwinglians
   and Strassburgers. He succeeded at least so far as to make him hopeful
   of a future reconciliation. It was the beginning of those union efforts
   which resulted in the Wittenburg Concordia, but failed at last. Bucer
   received the impression from this visit, that Luther was a man "who
   truly feared God, and sought sincerely the glory of God."

   There can be no doubt about this. Luther feared God, and nothing else.
   He sought the glory of Christ, and cared nothing for the riches and
   pleasures of the world. At Coburg, Luther was in the full vigor of
   manhood,--forty-six years of age,--and at the height of his fame and
   power. With the Augsburg Confession his work was substantially
   completed. His followers were now an organized church with a confession
   of faith, a form of worship and government, and no longer dependent
   upon his personal efforts. He lived and labored fifteen years longer,
   completing the translation of the Bible,--the greatest work of his
   life, preaching, teaching, and writing; but his physical strength began
   to decline, his infirmities increased, he often complained of lassitude
   and uselessness, and longed for rest after his herculean labors. Some
   of his later acts, as the unfortunate complicity with the bigamy affair
   of Philip of Hesse, and his furious attacks upon Papists and
   Sacramentarians, obscured his fame, and only remind us of the
   imperfections which adhere to the greatest and best of men.

   Here, therefore, is the proper place to attempt an estimate of his
   public character, and services to the church and the world.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [981] Coburg is the residence, alternately with Gotha, of the Duke, and
   capital of the duchy, of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, 185 m. S. S. W. of Berlin,
   nearly midway between Wittenberg and Augsburg, and has now (1888) about
   sixteen thousand inhabitants. The castle is situated on an eminence
   overhanging the town, and has been in part converted into a prison and
   house of correction; but some chambers remain in their original
   condition, chiefly those occupied by Luther, with his bedstead and
   pulpit.

   [982] See above, p. 464.

   [983] The MS. of his translation and adaptation of these fables has
   recently been re-discovered in the Vatican Library by Dr. Reitzenstein,
   and published, with an interesting facsimile, by E. Thiele: "Luthers
   Fabeln nach seiner wiedergefundenen Handschrift, " etc. Halle (M.
   Niemeyer), 1888 (19 pages).

   [984] See above, 468, 502 sq., 741 sq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 124. Luther's Public Character, and Position in History.

   In 1883 the four hundredth anniversary of Luther's birth was celebrated
   with enthusiasm throughout Protestant Christendom by innumerable
   addresses and sermons setting forth his various merits as a man and a
   German, as a husband and father, as a preacher, catechist, and hymnist,
   as a Bible translator and expositor, as a reformer and founder of a
   church, as a champion of the sacred rights of conscience, and
   originator of a mighty movement of religious and civil liberty which
   spread over Europe and across the Atlantic to the shores of the
   Pacific. The story of his life was repeated in learned and popular
   biographies, in different tongues, and enacted on the stage in the
   principal cities of Germany. [985] Not only Lutherans, but
   Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists,
   Unitarians, united in these tributes to the Reformer. The Academy of
   Music in New York could not hold the thousands who crowded the building
   to attend the Luther-celebration arranged by the Evangelical Alliance
   in behalf of the leading Protestant denominations of America. [986]

   Such testimony has never been borne to a mortal man. The
   Zwingli-celebration of the year 1884 had a similar character, and
   extended over many countries in both hemispheres, but would probably
   not have been thought of without the preceding Luther-celebration.

   And indeed Luther has exerted, and still exerts, a spiritual power
   inferior only to that of the sacred writers. St. Angustin's influence
   extends wider, embracing the Roman Catholic church as well as the
   Protestant; but he never reached the heart of the common people. Luther
   is the only one among the Reformers whose name was adopted, though
   against his protest, as the designation and watchword by the church
   which he founded. He gave to his people, in their own vernacular, what
   no man did before or since, three fundamental books of religion,--the
   Bible, a hymn-book, and a catechism. He forced even his German enemies
   to imitate his language in poetry and prose. So strong is the hold
   which his Bible version has upon the church of his name, that it is
   next to impossible to change and adapt it to modern learning and taste,
   although he himself kept revising and improving it as long as he lived.
   [987]

   Luther was the German of the Germans, and the most vigorous type of the
   faults as well as the virtues of his nation. [988] He is the apostle of
   Protestant Germany, fully as much as Boniface is the apostle of Roman
   Catholic Germany, and surpasses him vastly in genius and learning.
   Boniface, though an Anglo-Saxon by birth, was more a Roman than a
   German; while in Luther the Christian and the German were one, and
   joined in opposition to papal Rome. All schools of Lutheran divines
   appeal to his authority: the extreme orthodox, who out-Luther Luther in
   devotion to the letter; the moderate or middle party, who adhere only
   to the substance of his teaching; and the rationalists, who reject his
   creed, but regard him as the standard-bearer of the freedom of private
   judgment and dissent from all authority. [989]

   His real strength lies in his German writings, which created the modern
   High-German book-language, and went right to the heart of the people.
   His greatest production is a translation,--the German Bible. Italians,
   Spaniards, and Frenchmen, who knew him only from his Latin books,
   received a very feeble idea of his power, and could not understand the
   secret of his influence. [990] The contemptuous judgments of Pope Leo,
   Cardinal Cajetan, Aleander, and Emperor Charles, echo the sentiments of
   their nations, and re-appear again and again among modern writers of
   the Latin races and the Romish faith.

   Nevertheless, Martin Luther's influence extends far beyond the limits
   of his native land. He belongs to the church and the world.

   Luther has written his own biography, as well as the early history of
   the German Reformation, in his numerous letters, without a thought of
   their publication. He lays himself open before the world without
   reservation. He was the frankest and most outspoken of men, and swayed
   by the impulse of the moment, without regard to logical consistency or
   fear of consequences. His faults as well as his virtues lay on the
   surface of his German works. He infused into them his intense
   personality to a degree which hardly finds a parallel except in the
   Epistles of the Apostle Paul.

   He knew himself very well. A high sense of his calling and a deep sense
   of personal unworthiness are inseparably combined in his self-estimate.
   He was conscious of his prophetic and apostolic mission in republishing
   the primitive gospel for the German people; and yet he wrote to his
   wife not to be concerned about him, for God could make a dozen Luthers
   at any time. In his last will and testament (Jan. 6, 1542) he calls
   himself "a man well known in heaven, on earth, and in hell," but also
   "a poor, miserable, unworthy sinner," to whom "God, the Father of all
   mercies, has intrusted the gospel of His dear Son, and made him a
   teacher of His truth in spite of the Pope, the Emperor, and the Devil."
   He signs himself, in that characteristic document, "God's notary and
   witness in His gospel." One of his last words was, "We are beggars."
   And in the preface of the first collected edition of his works, he
   expresses a wish that they might all perish, and God's Word alone be
   read.

   Luther was a genuine man of the people, rooted and grounded in rustic
   soil, but looking boldly and trustingly to heaven with the everlasting
   gospel in his hand. He was a plebeian, without a drop of patrician
   blood, and never ashamed of his lowly origin. But what king or emperor
   or pope of his age could compare with him in intellectual and moral
   force? He was endowed with an overwhelming genius and indomitable
   energy, with fiery temper and strong passions, with irresistible
   eloquence, native wit, and harmless humor, absolutely honest and
   disinterested, strong in faith, fervent in prayer, and wholly devoted
   to Christ and His gospel. Many of his wise, quaint, and witty sayings
   have passed into popular proverbs; and no German writer is more
   frequently named and quoted than Luther.

   Like all great men, he harbored in his mind colossal contrasts, and
   burst through the trammels of logic. He was a giant in public, and a
   child in his family; the boldest reformer, yet a conservative
   churchman; the eulogist of reason as the handmaid of religion, and the
   abuser of reason as the mistress of the Devil; the champion of the
   freedom of the spirit, and yet a slave of the letter; an intense hater
   of popery to the last, and yet an admirer of the Catholic Church, and
   himself a pope within his own church. [991]

   Yet there was a unity in this apparent contradiction. He was a seeker
   of the righteousness of works and peace of conscience as a Catholic
   monk, and he was a finder of the righteousness of faith as an
   evangelical reformer; just as the idea and pursuit of righteousness is
   the connecting link between the Jewish Saul and the Christian Paul. It
   was the same engine, but reversed. In separating from papal
   catholicism, Luther remained attached to Christian catholicism; and his
   churchly instincts were never suppressed, but only suspended to
   re-assert themselves with new and greater force after the revolutionary
   excesses of the Reformation.

   His history naturally divides itself into three periods: the
   Roman-Catholic and monastic period, till 1517; the Protestant and
   progressive period, till 1525; the churchly, conservative, and
   reactionary period, till 1546. But he never gave up his devotion to the
   free gospel, and his hatred of the Pope as the veritable Antichrist.
   [992]

   Luther's greatness is not that of a polished work of art, but of an
   Alpine mountain with towering peaks, rough granite blocks, bracing air,
   fresh fountains, and green meadows. His polemical books rush along like
   thunderstorms or turbid mountain torrents. He knew his violent temper,
   but never took the trouble to restrain it; and his last books against
   the Papists, the Zwinglians, and the Jews, are his worst, and exceed
   any thing that is known in the history of theological polemics. In his
   little tract against the Romish Duke Henry of Brunswick, [993] the word
   Devil occurs no less than a hundred and forty-six times. [994] At last
   he could not pray without cursing, as he confessed himself. [995] He
   calls his mastery of the vocabulary of abuse his rhetoric. "Do not
   think," he wrote to Spalatin, "that the gospel can he advanced without
   tumult, trouble, and uproar. You cannot make a pen of a sword. The Word
   of God is a sword; it is war, overthrow, trouble, destruction, poison;
   it meets the children of Ephraim, as Amos says, like a bear on the
   road, or like a lioness in the wood." [996] We may admit that the club
   and sledge-hammer of this Protestant Hercules were necessary for the
   semi-barbarous Germans of his day. Providence used his violent temper
   as an instrument for the destruction of the greatest spiritual tyranny
   which the world ever saw. Yet his best friends were shocked and grieved
   at his rude personalities, and condemnatory judgments of such men as
   Erasmus, Zwingli, and Oecolampadius, not to speak of his Romish
   adversaries. Nothing shows more clearly the great distance which
   separates him from the apostles and evangelists.

   But, with all his faults, he is the greatest man that Germany produced,
   and one of the very greatest in history. Melanchthon, who knew him
   best, and suffered most from his imperious temper, called him the
   Elijah of Protestantism, and compared him to the Apostle Paul. [997]
   And indeed, in his religious experience and theological standpoint, he
   strongly resembles the Apostle of the Gentiles,--though at a
   considerable distance,--more strongly than any schoolman or father. He
   roused by his trumpet voice the church from her slumber; he broke the
   yoke of papal tyranny; he reconquered Christian freedom; he re-opened
   the fountain of God's holy Word to all the people, and directed the
   Christians to Christ, their only Master.

   This is his crowning merit and his enduring monument.


   Augustin, Luther, Calvin.

   The men who, next to the Apostles, have exerted and still exert through
   their writings the greatest influence in the Christian Church, as
   leaders of theological thought, are St. Augustin, Martin Luther, and
   John Calvin: all pupils of Paul, inspired by his doctrines of sin and
   grace, filled with the idea that God alone is great, equally eminent
   for purity of character, abundance in labors, and whole-souled
   consecration to the service of Christ, their common Lord and Saviour;
   and yet as different from each other as an African, a German, and a
   Frenchman can be. Next to them I would place an Englishman, John
   Wesley, who, as to abundance of useful labor in winning souls to
   Christ, is the most apostolic man that Great Britain has produced.

   Augustin commands the respect and gratitude of the Catholic as well as
   the Protestant world. He is, among the three the profoundest in
   thought, and the sweetest in spirit; free from bitterness and
   coarseness, even in his severest polemics; yet advocating a system of
   exclusiveness which justifies coercion and persecution of heretics and
   schismatics. He identified the visible catholic church of his day with
   the kingdom of God on earth, and furnished the program of mediaeval
   Catholicism, though he has little to say about the papacy, and
   protested, in the Pelagian controversy, against the position of one
   Pope, while he accepted the decision of another. All three were
   fighters, but against different foes and with different weapons.
   Augustin contended for the catholic church against heretical sects, and
   for authority against false freedom; Luther and Calvin fought for
   evangelical dissent from the overwhelming power of Rome, and for
   rational freedom against tyrannical authority. Luther was the fiercest
   and roughest fighter of the three; but he alone had the Teutonic gift
   of humor which is always associated with a kindly nature, and extracts
   the sting out of his irony and sarcasm. His bark was far worse than his
   bite. He advised to drown the Pope and his cardinals in the Tiber; and
   yet he would have helped to save their lives after the destruction of
   their office. He wrote a letter of comfort to Tetzel on his death-bed,
   and protested against the burning of heretics.

   Luther and Calvin learned much from Augustin, and esteemed him higher
   than any human teacher since the Apostles; but they had a different
   mission, and assumed a polemic attitude towards the traditional church.
   Augustin struggled from the Manichaean heresy into catholic orthodoxy,
   from the freedom of error into the authority of truth; the Reformers
   came out of the corruptions and tyranny of the papacy into the freedom
   of the gospel. Augustin put the church above the Word, and established
   the principle of catholic tradition; the Reformers put the Word above
   the church, and secured a progressive understanding of the Scriptures
   by the right of free investigation.

   Luther and Calvin are confined in their influence to Protestantism, and
   can never be appreciated by the Roman Church; yet, by the law of
   re-action, they forced the papacy into a moral reform, which enabled it
   to recover its strength, and to enter upon a new career of conquest.
   Romanism has far more vitality and strength in Protestant than in papal
   countries, and owes a great debt of gratitude to the Reformation.

   Of the two Reformers, Luther is the more original, forcible, genial,
   and popular; Calvin, the more theological, logical, and systematic,
   besides being an organizer and disciplinarian. Luther controls the
   Protestant churches of Germany and Scandinavia; Calvin's genius shaped
   the confessions and constitutions of the Reformed churches in
   Switzerland, France, Holland, and Great Britain; he had a marked
   influence upon the development of civil liberty, and is still the chief
   molder of theological opinion in the Presbyterian and Congregational
   churches of Scotland and North America. Luther inspires by his genius,
   and attracts by his personality; Calvin commands admiration by his
   intellect and the force of moral self-government, which is the secret
   of true freedom in church and state.

   Great and enduring are the merits of the three; but neither Augustin,
   nor Luther, nor Calvin has spoken the last word in Christendom. The
   best is yet to come.

   NOTES.

   Remarkable Judgments on Luther.

   Luther, like other great men, has been the subject of extravagant
   praise and equally extravagant censure.

   We select a few impartial and weighty testimonies from four
   distinguished writers of very different character and position,--an
   Anglican divine, two secular poets, and a Catholic historian.

   I. Archdeacon Charles Julius Hare (1795-1855) has written the best work
   in the English language in vindication of Luther. It appeared first as
   a note of 222 pages in the second volume of his The Mission of the
   Comforter, 1846 (3d ed. 1876), and afterwards as a separate book
   shortly before his death, 2d ed. 1855.

   Luther has been assailed by English writers on literary, theological,
   and moral grounds: 1, for violence and coarseness in polemics (by Henry
   Hallam, the historian); 2, for unsoundness in the doctrine of
   justification, and disregard of church authority (by the Oxford
   Tractarians and Anglo-Catholics); 3, for lax views on monogamy in
   conniving at the bigamy of Philip of Hesse (by the same, and by Sir
   William Hamilton).

   These charges are discussed, refuted, or reduced to a minimum, by Hare
   (who had the largest Luther library and the fullest Luther knowledge in
   England), with ample learning, marked ability, and in the best
   Christian spirit. He concludes his vindication with these words: --

   "To some readers it may seem that I have spoken with exaggerated
   admiration of Luther. No man ever lived whose whole heart and soul and
   life have been laid bare as his have been to the eyes of mankind. Open
   as the sky, bold and fearless as the storm, he gave utterance to all
   his feelings, all his thoughts. He knew nothing of reserve; and the
   impression he produced on his hearers and friends was such, that they
   were anxious to treasure up every word that dropped from his pen or
   from his lips. No man, therefore, has ever been exposed to so severe a
   trial; perhaps no man was ever placed in such difficult circumstances,
   or assailed by such manifold temptations. And how has he come out of
   the trial? Through the power of faith, under the guardian care of his
   Heavenly Master, he was enabled to stand through life; and still he
   stands, and will continue to stand, firmly rooted in the love of all
   who really know him."

   II. Goethe, the greatest poet and literary genius of Germany, when he
   was eighty-two years of age, March 11, 1832 (a few days before his
   death), paid this tribute to Luther and the Reformation, as reported by
   Eckermann, in the third or supplemental volume of the Conversations of
   that extraordinary man: --

   "We scarcely know what we owe to Luther, and the Reformation In
   general. We are freed from the fetters of spiritual narrow-mindedness;
   we have, in consequence of our increasing culture, become capable of
   turning back to the fountain-head, and of comprehending Christianity in
   its purity. We have again the courage to stand with firm feet upon
   God's earth, and to feel ourselves in our divinely endowed human
   nature. Let mental culture go on advancing, let the natural sciences go
   on gaining in depth and breadth, and the human mind expand as it may,
   it will never go beyond the elevation and moral culture of
   Christianity, as it glistens and shines forth in the Gospels.

   "But the better we Protestants advance in our noble development, so
   much the more rapidly will the Catholics follow us. As soon as they
   feel themselves caught up by the ever-extending enlightenment of the
   time, they must go on, do what they will, till at last the point is
   reached where all is but one."

   III. Heinrich Heine, of Jewish descent, poet, critic, and humorist, the
   Franco-German Voltaire, who, like Voltaire, ridiculed with irreverent
   audacity the most sacred things, and yet, unlike him, could pass from
   smiles to tears, and appreciate the grandeur of Moses and the beauty of
   the Bible, pays this striking tribute to the Reformer: --

   "Luther was not only the greatest, but also the most German man of our
   history; and in his character all the virtues and vices of the Germans
   are united in the grandest manner. He had also attributes which are
   rarely found together, and are usually regarded as hostile
   contradictions. He was at once a dreamy mystic, and a practical man of
   action. His thoughts had not only wings, but also hands; he spoke and
   he acted. He was not only the tongue, but also the sword of his age. He
   was both a cold scholastic stickler for words, and an inspired,
   divinely intoxicated prophet. After working his mind weary with his
   dogmatic distinctions during the day, he took his flute in the evening,
   looked up to the stars, and melted into melody and devotion. The same
   man who would scold like a fishwoman could also be as soft as a tender
   virgin. He was at times wild as the storm which uproots the oaks, and
   again as gentle as the zephyr which kisses the violets. He was full of
   the most awful fear of God, full of consecration to the Holy Spirit; he
   would be all absorbed in pure spirituality, and yet he knew very well
   the glories of the earth, and appreciated them, and from his mouth
   blossomed the famous motto: Who does not love wine, wife, and song,
   remains a fool his whole life long." [998] He was a complete man,--I
   might say, an absolute man,--in whom spirit and matter are not
   separated ....

   "Honor to Luther! Eternal honor to the dear man, to whom we owe the
   recovery of our dearest rights, and by whose benefit we live to-day! It
   becomes us little to complain about the narrowness of his views. The
   dwarf who stands on the shoulders of the giant can indeed see farther
   than the giant himself, especially if he puts on spectacles; but for
   that lofty point of intuition we want the lofty feeling, the giant
   heart, which we cannot make our own. It becomes us still less to pass a
   harsh judgment upon his failings: these failings have been of more use
   to us than the virtues of a thousand others. The polish of Erasmus, the
   gentleness of Melanchthon, would never have brought us so far as the
   divine brutality of Brother Martin. From the imperial Diet, where
   Luther denied the authority of the Pope, and openly declared 'that his
   doctrine must be refuted by the authority of the Bible, or by the
   arguments of reason,' new age has begun in Germany. The chain wherewith
   the holy Boniface bound the German church to Rome has been hewn asunder
   .... Through Luther we attained the greatest freedom of thought; but
   this Martin Luther gave us not only liberty to move, but also the means
   of moving, for to the spirit he gave also a body. He created the word
   for the thought,--he created the German language. He did this by his
   translation of the Bible. The Divine author of this book himself chose
   him his translator, and gave him the marvellous power to translate from
   a dead language which was already buried into another language which
   did not yet live. How Luther came to the language into which he
   translated the Bible I cannot conceive to this day .... This old book
   is a perennial fountain for the renewal of the German language."--Zur
   Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland, 2nd ed. 1852,
   in Heine's Sämmtl. Werke, vol. III. 29 sqq.

   IV. J. Döllinger, the most learned Catholic historian of the nineteenth
   century, in his Lectures on the Reunion of Christendom (Ueber die
   Wiedervereinigung der christlichen Kirchen, Nördlingen, 1888, p. 53),
   makes the following incidental remark on Luther and the Reformation: --

   "The force and strength of the Reformation was only in part due to the
   personality of the man who was its author and spokesman in Germany. It
   was indeed Luther's overpowering mental greatness and wonderful
   manysidedness (überwältigende Geistesgrösse und wunderbare
   Vielseitigkeit) that made him the man of his age and his people. Nor
   was there ever a German who had such an intuitive knowledge of his
   countrymen, and was again so completely possessed, not to say absorbed,
   by the national sentiment, as the Augustinian monk of Wittenberg. The
   mind and spirit of the Germans was in his hand as the lyre is in the
   hand of a skillful musician. He had given them more than any man in
   Christian days ever gave his people,--language, Bible, church hymn. All
   his opponents could offer in place of it, and all the reply they could
   make to him, was insipid, colorless, and feeble, by the side of his
   transporting eloquence. They stammered, he spoke. He alone has
   impressed the indelible stamp of his mind on the German language and
   the German intellect; and even those among us who hold him in religious
   detestation, as the great heresiarch and seducer of the nation, are
   constrained, in spite of themselves, to speak with his words and think
   with his thoughts.

   "And yet still more powerful than this Titan of the world of mind was
   the yearning of the German people for deliverance from the bonds of a
   corrupted church system. Had no Luther arisen, a reformation would
   still have come, and Germany would not have remained Catholic."

   Dr. Döllinger delivered the lectures from which this extract is taken,
   after his quarrel with Vatican Romanism, in the museum at Munich,
   February, 1872. They were stenographically reported in the
   "Köllner-Zeitung," translated into English by Oxenham (London, 1872),
   and from English into French by Madame Hyacinthe-Loyson (La réunion des
   églises, Paris, 1880), and at last published by the author (1888).

   This testimony is of special importance, owing to the acknowledged
   learning and ability of Döllinger as a Roman Catholic historian, and
   author of an elaborate work against the Reformation (1848, 3 vols.),
   consisting mostly of contemporaneous testimonies. He is thoroughly at
   home in the writings of the Reformers, and prepared a biographical
   sketch of Luther, [999] in which he severely criticises him for his
   opinions and conduct towards the Catholic Church, but does full justice
   to his intellectual greatness. He says, p. 51, "If we justly call him a
   great man, who, endowed with mighty powers and gifts, accomplishes
   great things, who, as a bold legislator in the realm of mind, makes
   millions subservient to his system, then the peasant's son of Möhra
   must be counted among the great, yea, the greatest men. This also is
   true, that he was a sympathizing friend, free of avarice and love of
   money, and ready to help others."

   Döllinger was excommunicated for his opposition to the Vatican decree
   of infallibility (1870), but still remains a Catholic, and could not
   become a Protestant without retracting his work on the Reformation. He
   would, however, write a very different work now, and present the
   Reformation as a blessing rather than a calamity to Germany, in the
   light of the events which have passed since 1870. In one of his
   Akademische Vorträge, the first volume of which has just reached me
   (Nördlingen, 1888, p. 76), he makes the significant confession, that
   for many years the events In Germany from 1517 to 1552 were to him an
   unsolved riddle, and an object of sorrow and grief, seeing then only
   the result of division of the church and the nation into hostile camps;
   but that a closer study of the mediaeval history of Rome and Germany,
   and the events of the last years, have given him a better understanding
   and more hopeful view of the renewed and reunited German nation as a
   noble instrument in the hands of Providence. This is as far as he can
   go from his standpoint.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [985] See the Lit. on p. 104. The martyr-Emperor, Frederick III., as
   crown prince, representing his venerable father, Emperor William I. of
   Germany, was the leading figure in the celebration at Wittenberg, Sept.
   12-14, 1883, and gave it a national significance. The
   Luther-celebration produced several Luther-dramas, by Henzen (1883),
   Devrient (7th ed. 1888), Herrig (9th ed. 1888), and Trümpelmann (2nd
   ed. 1888). Comp. G. A. Erdmann, Die Lutherfestspiele, Wittenberg, 1889.

   [986] The meeting of the Evangelical Alliance of the U. S., then under
   the management of Drs. Prime and Schaff (Presbyterians), was the most
   representative and impressive Luther celebration in America; it was
   addressed by Hon. John Jay (Episcopalian), Dr. Phillips Brooks
   (Episcopalian), Dr. Wm. M. Taylor (Congregationalist), Bishop Simpson
   (Methodist), Dr. Krotel (Lutheran), Dr. Crosby (Presbyterian). The
   music was furnished by the New York Oratorio Society. The Evangelical
   Alliance issued also an invitation to the Protestant churches in the
   United States to celebrate Luther's birthday by sermons on the
   Reformation.

   [987] The Probebibel, so-called, of 1883, though prepared by a company
   of able scholars appointed by various German States, is a timidly
   conservative revision, does not touch the Erasmian text, and allows
   innumerable inaccuracies to stand from respect to Luther's memory; and
   yet even this revision revises too much for the Lutherans of strict
   orthodoxy. His popularity is a hinderance to progress.

   [988] See H. v. Treitschke's eloquent address, Luther und die deutsche
   Nation, Berlin, 1883 (29 pages).

   [989] Professor Ad. Harnack (Martin Luther, Giessen, 1883, p. 4) well
   says: Fast jede Partei unter uns hat ihren Luther und meint den wahren
   zu haben. Die Verehrung für Luther vereinigt mehr als die Hälfte
   unserer Nation und die Auffassung Luther's trennt sie. Von Luther's
   Namen lässt so leicht kein Deutscher. Ein unvergleichlicher Mann ist er
   Allen, ob man ihm nun aufpasst, um ihn anzugreifen, oder ob man ihn
   rühmt und hoch preist." The Germans, if we may say so, worship Luther,
   Frederick the Great, Goethe, and Bismarck. Of these, Luther is most
   worthy, and was least desirous, of praise.

   [990] Hallam also, ignoring Luther's German writings, calls his
   polemical books "bellowing in bad Latin," " scandalous," and "
   disgusting." (Literature of Europe in the 15th, 16th, and 17th
   centuries, II. 306, N. Y. ed.)

   [991] Comp. the admirable description of Luther by Hase in his
   Kirchengesch. (11th ed., p. 400), and at the close of his Prot.
   Polemik. The Roman Catholic Möhler (Kirchengesch., III. 148) thinks
   that out of Luther's writings might be drawn "the most glorious apology
   of the Catholic Church." Harnack (l.c., p. 5) calls him "a sage without
   prudence; a statesman without politics; an artist without art; a man
   free from the world, in the midst of the world; of vigorous sensuality,
   yet pure; obstinately unjust (rechthaberisch ungerecht), yet concerned
   for the cause; defying authority, yet bound by authority; at once
   blaspheming and emancipating, reason."

   [992] An interesting parallel in this and other respects may be drawn
   by some future historian, between Luther and Bismarck, whose political
   influence upon Germany in the nineteenth century is as powerful as
   Luther's ecclesiastical influence was in the sixteenth. Bismarck was
   originally an intense aristocrat, but became the boldest liberal, and
   ended as a conservative statesman, though without surrendering the
   creations of his genius. He defeated Catholic Austria and France, and
   protested that he would never go to Canossa; yet he met Pope Leo XIII.
   half way, and repealed the unjust May-laws in the interest of
   patriotism, without surrendering any religious principle. With all his
   faults, he is the greatest statesman and diplomatist of the century,
   and the chief founder of the Protestant German Empire.

   [993] He calls him Hanswurst, Jack Sausage.

   [994] So says Döllinger (Die Reform., III. 265, note), who counted the
   number. He adds, that in Luther's book on the Councils, the devils are
   mentioned fifteen times in four lines.

   [995] See the passages above, p. 657 sq., note 3.

   [996] Comp. the comparison between Luther and Melanchthon, p. 193 sq.

   [997] He announced the death of Luther to his students with the words:
   "Ah! obiit auriga et currus Israel, qui rexit ecclesiam in hac ultima
   senecta mundi. ... Amemus igitur hujus viri memoriam."

   [998] This is a mistake; see p. 466 sq.

   [999] Luther, eine Skizze, Freiburg-i.-B., 1851. I have a copy with
   notes, which the old Catholic Bishop Reinkens, a pupil of Döllinger,
   kindly gave me in Bonn, 1886. It appeared in the first edition of
   Wetzer and Welte's Kirchen-Lexikon, vol. VI. 651 spp.
     __________________________________________________________________

   § 125. Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott.

   I conclude this volume with Luther's immortal hymn, which is the best
   expression of his character, and reveals the secret of his strength as
   well as the moving power of the Reformation. [1000]

   A tower of strength [1001] our God is still,

   A good defense [1002] and weapon;

   He helps us free from all the ill

   That us hath overtaken.

   Our old, mortal foe [1003]

   Now aims his fell blow,

   Great might and deep guile

   His horrid coat-of-mail; [1004]

   On earth is no one like him. [1005]


   Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott,

   Ein' gute Wehr und Waffen.

   Er hilft uns frei aus aller Noth,

   Die uns jetzt hat betroffen.

   Der alt' böse Feind,

   Mit Ernst er's jetzt meint;

   Gross' Macht und viel List,

   Sein grausam Rüstung ist,

   Auf Erd' ist nicht sein's Gleichen.

   By might of ours can naught be done: [1006]

   Our fate were soon decided.

   But for us fights the champion, [1007]

   By God himself provided.

   Who Is this, ask ye?

   Jesus Christ! ÕTis he!

   Lord of Sabaoth,

   True God and Saviour both,

   Omnipotent in battle. [1008]


   Mit unsrer Macht ist nichts gethan,

   Wir sind gar bald verloren:

   Es streit't für uns der rechte Mann,

   Den Gott hat selbst erkoren.

   Fragst du, wer Der ist?

   Er heisst Jesus Christ,

   Der Herr Zebaoth,

   Und ist kein andrer Gott;

   Das Feld muss Er behalten.

   Did devils fill the earth and air, [1009]

   All eager to devour us,

   Our steadfast hearts need feel no care,

   Lest they should overpower us.

   The grim Prince of hell,

   With rage though he swell,

   Hurts us not a whit,

   Because his doom is writ:

   A little word can rout [1010] him.


   Und wenn die Welt voll Teufel wär'

   Und wollt uns gar verschlingen,

   So fürchten wir uns nicht zu sehr,

   Es soll uns doch gelingen.

   Der Fürst dieser Welt,

   Wie sau'r er sich stellt,

   Thut er uns doch nichts;

   Das macht, er ist gericht't;

   Ein Wörtlein kann ihn fällen.

   The word of God will never yield

   To any creature living;

   He stands with us upon the field,

   His grace and Spirit giving.

   Take they child and wife,

   Goods, name, fame, and life,

   Though all this be done,

   Yet have they nothing won:

   The kingdom still remaineth.

   Das Wort sie sollen lassen stan [1011]

   Und keinÕn Dank dazu haben.

   Er ist bei uns wohl auf dem Plan [1012]


   Mit seinem Geist und Gaben.

   Nehmen sie den Leib,

   Gut, Ehr, Kind und Weib;

   Lass fahren dahin,

   Sie haben's kein'n Gewinn;

   Das Reich muss uns doch bleiben
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1000] The translation was made by my esteemed friend, Professor Thomas
   Conrad Porter, D. D., of Easton, Penn., several years ago, but finished
   in February, 1888, and is almost equal to that of Thomas Carlyle in its
   reproduction of the rugged force of the original, and surpasses it in
   rhythmic accuracy. Comp. 468, 502, sq.

   [1001] Carlyle: "A safe stronghold."

   [1002] "A trusty shield."--C.

   [1003] "The ancient prince of hell."--C.

   [1004] Strong mail of craft and power He weareth in this hour."--C. "In
   grim armor dight, Much guile and great might."--Longfellow.

   [1005] "On earth is not his fellow."--C.

   [1006] "By force of arms we nothing can."--C.

   [1007] "The proper man."--C.

   [1008] "Shall conquer in the battle."--C.

   [1009] "And were this world all devils over."--C.

   [1010] "slay."--C.

   [1011] stehen.

   [1012] ·Kampfplatz.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Indexes
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Scripture References

   Genesis

   [1]1:1-3   [2]2:18   [3]3:19   [4]6:6   [5]17:7   [6]20:16   [7]41:26
   [8]41:26

   Exodus

   [9]12:11   [10]12:11-12   [11]22:20

   Leviticus

   [12]24:14-16

   Numbers

   [13]25:2-8

   Deuteronomy

   [14]13:1-14

   Joshua

   [15]7:25   [16]7:25

   Judges

   [17]9:4

   1 Samuel

   [18]18:7

   1 Kings

   [19]12:14   [20]18   [21]21:10   [22]21:13

   Psalms

   [23]9:10   [24]12   [25]22   [26]31:5   [27]46   [28]68   [29]74:22
   [30]80:13   [31]118:8-9   [32]124   [33]130

   Ecclesiastes

   [34]3:7   [35]10:16

   Song of Solomon

   [36]1:5

   Isaiah

   [37]3:4   [38]6:1-4   [39]7:23   [40]49:15   [41]53:3

   Jeremiah

   [42]15:19-20

   Ezekiel

   [43]18:23   [44]33:11   [45]33:11

   Daniel

   [46]7:8   [47]7:20   [48]7:21   [49]8:23-25   [50]8:25   [51]9:27

   Hosea

   [52]13:11

   Zechariah

   [53]4:6

   Matthew

   [54]4:17   [55]5:3   [56]5:21-27   [57]5:39   [58]6:9   [59]6:10
   [60]6:11   [61]7:18   [62]9:12   [63]10:29   [64]11:14   [65]11:25
   [66]13:29   [67]13:29-30   [68]13:38   [69]16:18   [70]16:18
   [71]16:18   [72]18:15-18   [73]18:17   [74]19:12   [75]19:14
   [76]21:12   [77]22:14   [78]22:21   [79]22:21   [80]23:3   [81]23:8
   [82]23:37   [83]24:4   [84]24:11   [85]24:15   [86]24:23   [87]24:24
   [88]25:34   [89]26:26   [90]26:26   [91]26:52   [92]26:52   [93]28:19
   [94]28:20   [95]28:20

   Mark

   [96]1:24   [97]10:14   [98]14:23

   Luke

   [99]1:41   [100]1:51-52   [101]12:1   [102]14:23   [103]14:23
   [104]14:23   [105]17:20-21   [106]21:15

   John

   [107]1:29   [108]1:51   [109]3   [110]3:8   [111]3:18   [112]4:24
   [113]5   [114]5   [115]6   [116]6   [117]6:52   [118]6:63   [119]6:63
   [120]6:63   [121]8:1-11   [122]8:44   [123]10:6   [124]10:12
   [125]10:14   [126]10:16   [127]15:1   [128]16:16

   Acts

   [129]2:27   [130]2:39   [131]4:12   [132]4:12   [133]5:29   [134]5:34
   [135]5:38-39   [136]6:11   [137]6:13   [138]12:25   [139]14:14
   [140]15:11   [141]16:15   [142]16:33   [143]18:24-28   [144]19:19

   Romans

   [145]1:16   [146]1:17   [147]1:17   [148]2:28-29   [149]3   [150]3:5
   [151]3:20   [152]3:28   [153]3:28   [154]3:28   [155]3:28   [156]3:28
   [157]3:28   [158]3:28   [159]3:28   [160]6:1   [161]6:1   [162]6:4
   [163]7   [164]8:28   [165]9   [166]9:5   [167]11   [168]11:25-26
   [169]12:1   [170]12:3   [171]13   [172]13:1   [173]13:1   [174]13:1
   [175]13:1   [176]13:1   [177]13:1   [178]13:1   [179]13:8   [180]14:3

   1 Corinthians

   [181]1:9   [182]1:12   [183]1:16   [184]2   [185]2:4   [186]3:19
   [187]6:10   [188]7   [189]7:7   [190]7:7   [191]7:12   [192]7:32
   [193]7:33   [194]7:40   [195]9:5   [196]9:19   [197]10:4   [198]10:4
   [199]10:16   [200]10:25   [201]11:19   [202]11:27   [203]11:27
   [204]11:27   [205]11:27   [206]11:29   [207]11:29   [208]12:9
   [209]13   [210]13:1-2   [211]13:8   [212]14:11   [213]14:40
   [214]15:30

   2 Corinthians

   [215]10:4-5   [216]11:22

   Galatians

   [217]2:11   [218]2:16   [219]2:19   [220]3:24   [221]3:25   [222]4:4
   [223]4:24   [224]4:24   [225]5:6   [226]5:6   [227]5:6   [228]5:6
   [229]5:13   [230]5:21

   Ephesians

   [231]1:22   [232]2:2   [233]2:11-22   [234]3:17   [235]4:10
   [236]4:15   [237]4:15

   Philippians

   [238]2:1   [239]2:3   [240]2:6-7

   1 Thessalonians

   [241]2:13

   2 Thessalonians

   [242]2:3   [243]2:3   [244]2:3   [245]2:3-4   [246]2:3-4   [247]2:3-7
   [248]2:4   [249]2:4   [250]2:7   [251]2:7   [252]3:10

   1 Timothy

   [253]2:4   [254]2:4   [255]3:2   [256]3:2   [257]3:12   [258]3:15
   [259]4:1-3

   2 Timothy

   [260]2:24   [261]3:16   [262]4:3

   Titus

   [263]3:10   [264]3:10

   Hebrews

   [265]2:3   [266]6   [267]10   [268]10:20   [269]10:34   [270]13:4

   James

   [271]2:24

   1 Peter

   [272]2:5   [273]2:9   [274]2:13   [275]2:13   [276]5:3   [277]5:5

   2 Peter

   [278]1:19   [279]1:21   [280]2:1   [281]3:9

   1 John

   [282]1:3   [283]1:5   [284]2:18   [285]2:22   [286]2:23   [287]4:8
   [288]5:7   [289]5:7   [290]5:7   [291]5:9

   2 John

   [292]1:7   [293]1:7

   Revelation

   [294]1:9   [295]1:20   [296]5:10   [297]11:2   [298]12:7   [299]13
   [300]13   [301]13:1   [302]13:1-8   [303]14:8   [304]17   [305]17
   [306]17   [307]17:5   [308]18:2   [309]21   [310]22:17   [311]22:20

   2 Maccabees

   [312]4:12-13
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Greek Words and Phrases

     * aletheuein en agape: [313]1
     * aner hos malista eucheres: [314]1
     * anomia: [315]1 [316]2
     * apousia: [317]1
     * archiereis: [318]1
     * atheon: [319]1
     * encheiridion: [320]1
     * energeisthai: [321]1
     * enousia: [322]1
     * epiousios: [323]1
     * epistolai katholikai: [324]1
     * erasmion: [325]1
     * esti: [326]1
     * esti: [327]1
     * Erasmios: [328]1
     * ede energeitai: [329]1
     * ho planos kai antichristos: [330]1
     * ho planon ten oikoumenen: [331]1
     * hoTheos: [332]1
     * holos: [333]1
     * oo: [334]1
     * Theomachia: [335]1
     * Morias Enkomion: [336]1
     * Sunkretismos: [337]1
     * aule: [338]1
     * gunaikoturannis: [339]1
     * deuteras phrontidas: [340]1
     * deloo phanephoo, tuphloo: [341]1
     * dikaiosis: [342]1
     * dikaioo: [343]1
     * eidolon: [344]1
     * eis: [345]1 [346]2
     * e: [347]1
     * kapnios: [348]1
     * katholikos: [349]1
     * katholikai: [350]1
     * kata: [351]1
     * koinonian: [352]1
     * kosmoplanos: [353]1
     * logike latreia: [354]1
     * me genoito: [355]1
     * mia aule: [356]1
     * mia poimne: [357]1
     * matanoia: [358]1
     * metanoia: [359]1
     * metanoeite: [360]1
     * metousia: [361]1
     * misogamos: [362]1
     * paraphrasin: [363]1
     * paraphronesis: [364]1
     * peri deipnou kuriakou: [365]1 [366]2
     * pneuma: [367]1
     * pneumatikai thusiai: [368]1
     * poimen: [369]1
     * politeia: [370]1
     * semnoteros: [371]1
     * sunousia: [372]1
     * to gar musterion ede energeitai tes anomias ; monon ho katechon
       arti heos ek mesou genetai: [373]1
     * to katechon: [374]1
     * tetheologekenai: [375]1
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of German Words and Phrases

     * " Derohalben wie ein junger Gesell muss der bösen Lust wehren, ein
       Alter dem Geiz: also ist die Vernunft von Art und Natur eine,
       schädliche Hure."... " Die Vernunft ist und soll in der Taufe
       ersäuft sein."" Höre auf, du verfluchte Hure; willst du Meisterin
       sein über den Glauben, welcher sagt, dass im Abendmahl des Herrn
       sei der wahre Leib und das wahre Blut; item dass die Taufe nicht
       schlecht Wasser ist ... Diesem Glauben muss die Vernunft unterthan
       und gehorsam sein: [376]1
     * "Aber seit der Teufel hat: [377]1
     * "Denn obwol S. K. F. Gnaden zu lehren und geistlich regieren nicht
       befohlen ist, so sind sie doch schuldig, als weltliche Obrigkeit,
       darob zu halten, dass nicht Zwietracht, Rotten und Aufruhr sich
       unter den Unterthanen erheben, wie auch der Kaiser Constantinus die
       Bischöfe gen Nicaea fordert: [378]1
     * "Die Reformation hat schliesslich wohl Pfarrsprengel geschaffen,
       aber keine Gemeinden: [379]1
     * "Die Schrift von der Freiheit eines Christenmenschen ist ein
       tief-religiöser Traktat .... Sie ist ein ruhiges, positives Zeugnis
       der Wahrheit, vor welcher die Waffen und Bande der Finsternis von
       selbst zu nichte werden müssen. Sie zeigt uns den tiefsten Grund
       des christlichen Bewusstseins und Lebens in einer edlen, seligen
       Ruhe und Sicherheit, welche die über ihm hingehenden Wogen und
       Stürme des Kampfes nicht zu erschüttern vermögen. Sie zeigt
       zugleich, wie fest Luther selbst auf diesem Grunde stand, indem er
       eben im Höhepunkt des Kampfgedränges sie zu verfassen fähig war:
       [380]1
     * "Ein Statthalter ist in Abwesenheit seines Herrn ein Statthalter.":
       [381]1
     * "Es war ein wunderlicher Krieg,: [382]1
     * "Gottes Wort und Luther's Lehr: [383]1
     * "Gottes Wort und Luther's Schrift: [384]1
     * "In Gottes Namen! Unser Herr Gott hat grosse Geschäfte; Er bedarf
       droben auch kluger Leute; wenn Ihr nun sterbet, so müsset Ihr dort
       sein Rathgeber sein: [385]1
     * "Poesie ist tiefes Schmerzen,: [386]1
     * "Und steure alter Feinde Mord.": [387]1
     * "Vom N. T. sind von 1522-1533 ziemlich sicher 16 original Ausgaben
       nachgewiesen ... Die Nachdrucke belaufen sich auf ungefähr 54,
       wobei Augsburg mit 14, Strassburg mit 13, und Basel mit 12
       vertreten ist: [388]1
     * "Vom Sacrament des leibs und bluts Christi.": [389]1
     * "Wenn ich viel reisen sollte, wollte ich nirgends lieber, denn
       durch Schwaben und Baierland ziehen; denn sie sind freundlich und
       gutwillig, herbergen gerne, gehen Freunden und Wandersleuten
       entgegen, und thun den Leuten gütlich, und gute Ausrichtung um ihr
       Geld: [390]1
     * "Zum fünnffzehennden Gleuben unnd hallten wir alle | vonn dem
       Nachtmale unnsers lieben herrn Jhesu Christi | das man bede
       gestallt nach Innsetzung Christi prauchen soll | das ouch die Messe
       nicht ein werck ist | do mit einer dem andren tod oder lebendig
       gnad erlangt. | Das auch das Sacrament desz Altars | sey ein
       Sacrament desz waren leibs unnd pluts | Jhesu Christi und die
       geistliche Niessung desselbigen leibs unnd pluts | einem Iden
       Christen fürnemlich vonn nöthen | deszgleichen der prauch desz
       Sacraments | wie das wort | von Gott dem allmechtigen gegeben |
       unnd geordennt sey | damit die schwachen Gewissen | zu gleuben |
       zubewegen | durch den heyligenn Geist. Unnd wiewol aber wir unns |
       ob der war leyb unnd plut Christi | leiplich im prot unnd weinsey |
       diser Zeit nit vergleicht haben | so soll doch ein theyl gegen den
       anndern Christliche lieb | so fern Idesz gewissen ymmer leiden kan
       | erzeigen | unnd bede theyl | Gott den Allmechtigen vleyssig
       bitten | das er unns durch seinen Geist den rechten verstanndt
       bestetigen well. Amen.": [391]1
     * "dieweil wider das Gewissen zu handeln beschwerlich und unheilsam,
       auch gefährlich ist." Werke: [392]1
     * überselbständig Brot: [393]1
     * 'Es ist kein lieber Ding auf Erden: [394]1
     * ("wenn einer gleich die heil. Jungfrau Maria, Gottes Mutter, hätte
       geschächt und geschwängert: [395]1
     * (1512):: [396]1
     * , Die römischen Päpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten: [397]1
     * , und wo sie sind, mit ganzem Ernst verdampt und gemieden habe,
       nach seinem Befehl Tit. 3:10: [398]1
     * . "Fesselnder, ergreifender und packender hat kein Deutscher
       geschrieben. Dabei beherrschte er seine Muttersprache mit solcher
       Gewalt, dass er sie zur Schriftsprache zu erheben vermochte: [399]1
     * . Classe geblieben bis auf diesen Tag, obschon man in Rom oder
       wenigstens in Trient, jedenfalls Benedict XIV. wohl hätte wissen
       können, dass er als guter Katholik, als Abt von St. Peter zu
       Salzburg gestorben: [400]1
     * Aberacht: [401]1
     * Abgrund der Hölle: [402]1
     * Ach Gott! wie ein gross und verdriesslich Werk ist es, die
       hebräischen Schreiber zu zwingen deutsch zu reden; wie sträuben sie
       sich und wollen ihre hebräische Art gar nicht verlassen und dem
       groben Deutschen nachfolgen, gleich als wenn eine Nachtigall ...
       sollte ihre liebliche Melodei verlassen und dem Kukuk nachsingen:
       [403]1
     * Acht: [404]1 [405]2 [406]3
     * AdestJohannes ille Serranus, vero nomine Franciscus Lambertus ...
       De integritate viri nulla est dubitatio: testes sunt apud nos, qui
       illum et in Francia et in Basilea audierunt. ... Mihi per omnia
       placet vir, et satis spectatus mihi est ... ut dignus sit quem in
       exilio paululum feramus et juvemus: [407]1
     * Adrian war von durchaus unbescholtenem Ruf: rechtschaffen, fromm,
       thätig; sehr ernsthaft, man sah ihn nie anders als leise mit den
       Lippen lächeln; aber voll wohlwollender, reiner Absichten: ein
       wahrer Geistlicher. Welch ein Gegensatz, als er nun dort einzog, wo
       Leo so prächtig und verschwenderisch Hof gehalten! Es existirt ein
       Brief von ihm, in welchem er sagt: er möchte lieber in seiner
       Propstei zu Löwen Gott dienen als Papst sein: [408]1
     * Aelteste Katechetische Denkmale: [409]1
     * Aelteste christliche Epik der Angelsachsen, Deutschen und
       Nordländer: [410]1
     * Albrecht musste sich beugen vor Luther, der Primus vor dem
       excommunicirten Mönch, welcher ihm mit Enthuellungen drohte: [411]1
     * Allerdurchlauchtigster, grossmächtigster Kaiser, Durchlauchtige
       Churfürsten, gnädigste und gnädige Herren!: [412]1
     * Als Frauenlieb', wem sie mag werden: [413]1
     * An den Emserschen Steinbock: [414]1
     * An die Herren deutsches Ordens, dass sie falsche Keuschheit meiden
       und zur rechten ehelichen Keuschheit greifen, Ermahnung: [415]1
     * An meine Kritiker: [416]1
     * Anfänge der christl. Kirche: [417]1
     * Annalen der älteren deutschen Literatur: [418]1
     * Annotationes des hochgel. und christl. doctors Hieronymi Emsers
       über Luthers neuw Testament: [419]1
     * Auch hatte er zwei Kinder: [420]1
     * Auch ich war ein so toller Heiliger: [421]1
     * Auch so bin ich auf dem Reichstage zu Speir durch ein öffentlichs
       kaiserlichs Reichsdecret wiederumb befreiet, oder zum wenigsten
       befristet: [422]1
     * Auctore Ioanne Francisco Cottalambergio, Poëta Laureato: [423]1
     * Augsburgs Reformationsgeschichte: [424]1
     * Aus den Legaten seines Testamentes lernt man die Mitglieder
       derselben kennen,--eine ganze Anzahl Kammerdiener, besondere Diener
       für die Fruchtkammer, Obstkammer, Lichtbeschliesserei, Aufbewahrung
       der Kleider, der Juwelen, meist Niederländer, jedoch unter einem
       spanischen Haushofmeister, Louis Quixada. Der Leibarzt und eine
       Apotheke fehlten nicht: [425]1
     * Aus jener schwersten Zeit, welche Luther bis Ende des Jahres 1527
       durchzu-machen hatte, ist wohl das gewaltigste seiner Lieder, das
       'Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott,' hervorgegangen: [426]1
     * Ausführliche Lehre vom Sacramentstreit: [427]1
     * Auszüge über das nothwendige und nützliche Bibellesen aus den
       Kirchenvätern und anderen kathol. Schriften: [428]1
     * Bei weitem die merkwürdigste und durchgreifendste Veränderung fand
       in Preussen statt: [429]1
     * Beid Weiber und die Man,: [430]1
     * Bibel Alt und New Testament, nach dem Text in der heiligen Kirchen
       gebraucht, durch Doctor Johan Ecken, mit fleiss, auf hochteutsch
       verdolmetscht, etc: [431]1
     * Biblia beider Allt unnd Newen Testamenten, fleissig, treulich vn
       Christlich nach alter inn Christlicher Kirchen gehabter
       Translation, mit Ausslegung etlicher dunckeler ort und besserung
       vieler verrückter wort und sprüch ... Durch D. Johan Dietenberger,
       new verdeutscht. Gott zu ewiger ehre unnd wolfarth seiner heil.
       Christlichen Kirchen: [432]1
     * Biblia das ist die /gantze Heilige /Schrifft Deutsch./ Mart. Luth./
       Wittemberg./ Begnadet mit Kür-/ furstlicher zu Sachsen /freiheit.
       /Gedruckt durch Hans Lufft./ M. D. XXXV: [433]1
     * Biblia, das ist die gantze Heilige Schrift, Deutsch. Auffs neu
       zugericht. D. Mart. Luther. Wittemberg. Durch Hans Lufft, M.D.XLV:
       [434]1
     * Bishofshof: [435]1
     * Bist du, Geselle,: [436]1
     * Briefe: [437]1
     * Briefe und Documente: [438]1
     * Briefe und Documente aus der Zeit der Reformation: [439]1
     * Briefe von Dunkelmännern: [440]1
     * Briefwechsel: [441]1 [442]2
     * Briefwechsel Philipp's mit Bucer: [443]1
     * Briefwechsel zwischen Martensen und Dorner: [444]1
     * Brotfresser, Weinsäufer, Seelenfresser, Seelenmörder, eingeteufelt,
       durchteufelt, überteufelt: [445]1
     * Bubenstück, den gemeinen Mann zu betrügen: [446]1
     * Bugenhagen's Briefwechsel: [447]1
     * Butzer's Confutatio der Libri VII. De Trinitatis Erroribus: [448]1
     * Cabinetsordre: [449]1
     * Caedmon's des Angelsachsen biblische Dichtungen: [450]1
     * Capito und Butzer: [451]1
     * Chronik der Stadt Magdeb: [452]1
     * Conciliengeschichte: [453]1 [454]2
     * Corpus Reformatorum: [455]1
     * Crato von Crafftheim und seine Freunde: [456]1
     * Da Tod und Leben rungen:: [457]1
     * Da ich zwanzig Jahre alt war, hatte ich noch keine Bibel gesehen;
       ich meinte, es wären keim Evangelien und Episteln mehr, denn die in
       den Postillen sind: [458]1
     * Da nehme er das Kind und tauche es in die Taufe: [459]1
     * Da war der mächtige Kaiser, der bisher die grossen Angelegenheiten
       der Welt verwaltet hatte; von denen, die ihm zunächst standen,
       beinahe der Generation, die ihn umgab, nahm er Abschied. Neben ihm
       erschienen die Männer, denen die Zukunft gehörte, Philipp II. und
       der Prinz von Oranien, in denen sich die beiden entgegengesetzten
       Directionen repräsentirten, die fortan um Weltherrschaft kämpfen
       sollten: [460]1
     * Darum, lieben Herren, löset hie, rettet hie, erbarmet euch der
       armen Leute: [461]1
     * Darumb sagte meine Wirthin zu Eisenach recht, als ich daselbst in
       die Schule ging: [462]1
     * Das Charakteristische in allen Schriften Zwingli's vor 1524 ist
       sein Gegensatz gegen das heil. Abendmahl als Opfer und Messe:
       [463]1
     * Das Edict: [464]1
     * Das Ewig-Weibliche zieht uns hinan: [465]1
     * Das Hofwesen so mancher geistlichen Fürsten Deutschlands,
       insbesondere das des Erzbischofs Albrecht von Mainz, stand in
       schreiendem Widerspruch mit dem eines kirchlichen Würdeträgers,
       aber der Hof Leo's X., mit seinem Aufwand für Spiel und Theater und
       allerlei weltliche Feste entsprach noch weniger der Bestimmung
       eines Oberhauptes der Kirche. Der Verweltlichung und Ueppigkeit
       geistlicher Fürstenhöfe in Deutschland ging die des römischen Hofes
       voraus, und erstere wäre ohne diese kaum möglich gewesen: [466]1
     * Das Leben das behielt den Sieg,: [467]1
     * Das Newe Testament Deutzsch. Wittemberg: [468]1
     * Das Volk jedoch sollte dieses nicht wissen: [469]1
     * Das bekenne ich: [470]1
     * Das ein tiefes Leid durchglüht.": [471]1
     * Das gantz New Testament: So durch den Hochgelerten L. Hieronymum
       Emser seligen verteutscht, unter des Durchlauchten Hochgebornen
       Fürsten und Herren Georgen Hertzogen zu Sachsen, etc., ausgegangen
       ist: [472]1
     * Das grosse Martyrbuch: [473]1
     * Das ist um katholisch zu werden: [474]1
     * Das walt' die Sucht: [475]1
     * Das weltlich Regiment hat Gesetze, die sich nicht weiter strecken,
       denn über Leib und Gut, und was äusserlich ist auf Erden. Denn über
       die Seele kann und will Gott niemand lassen regieren, denn sich
       selbst alleine. Darumb wo weltlich Gewalt sich vermisset, der
       Seelen Gesetze zu geben, da greift sie Gott in sein Regiment, und
       verführet und verderbet nur die Seelen. Das wollen wir so klar
       machen, dass mans greifen solle, auf dass unsere Junkern, die
       Fürsten und Bischöfe sehen, was sie für Narren sind, wenn sie die
       Leut mit ihren Gesetzen und Geboten zwingen wollen, sonst oder so
       zu glauben: [476]1
     * Dass Jesus Christus ein geborner Jude sei: [477]1
     * Dass Münzer und Karlstadt, und zwar nicht ohne Zuthun Luthers,
       endlich aus Sachsen entfernt wurden, trug zur Ausbreitung und
       Verstärkung dieser Bewegung ungemein bei. Sie wandten sich beide
       nach Oberdeutschland: [478]1
     * Dass Oecolampad in dieser Schrift die ausgebreitetste Gelehrsamkeit
       und den blendendsten oder treffendsten Scharfsinn zeigte, dies
       haben selbst seine parteyischsten Gegner niemals geläugnet; aber
       sie hätten wohl auch gestehen dürfen, dass er die anständigste
       Bescheidenheit, die würdigste Mässigung und gewiss auch die
       redlichste Wahrheitsliebe darin gezeigt habe: [479]1
     * Dass Zwingli Christum gegenwärtig denkt, ist unleugbar; er sei bei
       diesem Mahle Wirth und Gastmahl (hospes et epulum).": [480]1
     * Dass die Worte Christi: [481]1
     * Dass eine christliche Versammlung oder Gemeinde Recht und Macht
       habe, alle Lehrer zu urtheilen und Lehrer zu berufen, ein- und
       abzusetzen: [482]1
     * Dass er mir Spalatino aus Oppenheim gen Worms schrieb: 'Er wollte
       gen Worms wenn gleich so viel Teufel darinnen wären als immer
       Ziegel da wären': [483]1
     * Dass für Luther die Reformation zur eigensten Sache seines Herzens
       geworden war, dass er sie in ihrem reinsten religiösen Interesse
       auffasste, getrennt von allen ihr fremdartigen blos äusserlichen
       Motiven, dass es ihm um nichts anderes zu thun war, alsum die Sache
       des Evangeliums und seinerseligmachenden Kraft, wie er sie an sich
       selbst in seinem innern Kampf um die Gewissheit der Sündenvergebung
       erfahren hatte, diess ist es, was ihn zum Reformator machte.:
       [484]1
     * Dass sie auch bald zergon: [485]1
     * De Corrigendis Adolescentium Studiis: [486]1
     * De autoritate et primatu Papae: [487]1
     * Dem Oecolampad hat Gott viel Gaben geschenkt für: [488]1
     * Dem sie sich beugen: [489]1
     * Demnach haben wir uns jetzt einmüthiglich verglichen und
       vereiniget, mittlerzeit des Concilii, oder aber
       Nationalversammlung, nichtsdestoweniger mit unsern Unterthanen, ein
       jeglicher in Sachen so das Edict durch kaiserl. Majestät auf dem
       Reichstag zu Worms gehalten, ausgangen, belangen möchten, für sich
       also zu leben, zu regieren und zu halten, wie ein jeder solches
       gegen Gott und kaiserliche Majestät hoffet und vertraut zu
       verantworten: [490]1
     * Den Adel bracht in Kirchenstat,: [491]1
     * Den Philippus achte ich nicht anders als mich selbst, ausgenomnen
       in Hinsicht auf seine Gelehrsamkeit und die Unbescholtenheit seines
       Lebens, wodurch er mich, dass ich nicht blos sage, übertrifft:
       [492]1
     * Den Ton für die ganze damalige polemische Literatur gabLuther an,
       wie durch seine früheren Schriften, so auch durch die neuen, welche
       er von der Wartburg aus in die Welt schickte: [493]1
     * Denn ich: [494]1
     * Denn ich so sanft und leise nicht treten kann: [495]1
     * Denn ich war unerschrocken, fürchtete mich nichts; Gott kann einen
       wohl so toll machen. Ich weiss nicht, ob ich jetzt auch so freudig
       wäre: [496]1
     * Denn wiewohl unsere Meinung nicht ist, jemand zu verbinden, was er
       glauben und halten soll, so wollen wir doch zur Verhütung
       schädlicher Aufruhre und anderer Unrichtigkeiten keine Sekten noch
       Trennung in unseren Landen dulden: [497]1
     * Der Codex Teplensis, enthaltend "Die Schrift des newen Gezeuges."
       Aelteste deutsche Handschrift, welche den im 15 Jahrh. gedruckten
       deutschen Bibeln zu Grunde gelegen: [498]1
     * Der Episcopat der deutschen Reformation, oder Artikel 28 der
       Augsburg Conf: [499]1
     * Der Geist der Reformation: [500]1
     * Der Geist der lutherischen Theologen Wittenbergs im 17ten Jahrh:
       [501]1
     * Der Glaube, der durch die Liebe thätig ist: [502]1
     * Der Heliand und die angelsächsische Genesis: [503]1
     * Der Index der verbotenen Bücher: [504]1
     * Der Index der verbotenen Bücher,: [505]1
     * Der Kleine Katechismus steht in erster Reihe unter den Schriften
       des Reformators: [506]1
     * Der Kurfürst Albrecht. II. von Mainz: [507]1
     * Der Landgraf von Hessen kam zu Worms erstlich zu mir. Er war aber
       noch nicht auf meiner Seiten, und kam in Hof geritten, ging zu mir
       in mein Gemach, wollte mich sehen. Er war aber noch sehr jung,
       sprach: Lieber Herr Doctor, wie geht's? Da antwortete ich: Gnädiger
       Herr, ich hoff, essoll gut werden. Da sagte er: Ich höre, Herr
       Doctor, ihr lehret, wenn ein Mann alt wird und seiner Frauen nicht
       mehr Ehepflicht leisten kann, dass dann die Frau mag einen anderen
       Mann nehmen, und lachte, denn die Hofräthe hatten's ihm
       eingeblasen. Ich aber lachte auch und sagte: Ach nein, gnädiger
       Herr, Euer Fürstlich Gnad sollt nicht also reden. Aber er ging
       balde wieder von mir hinweg, gab mir die Hand und sagte: Habt ihr
       Recht, Herr Doctor, so helfe euch Gott: [508]1
     * Der Sache vom Abendmahl ist viel zu viel gethan: [509]1
     * Der Schmerz der Kirchenspaltung ist tief durch seine schuldlose
       Seele gegangen: [510]1
     * Der Seelen kann und soll niemand gebieten, er wisse denn ihr den
       Weg zu weisen gen Himmel. Das kann aber kein Mensch thun, sondern
       Gott allein. Darum in den Sachen, die der Seelen Seligkeit
       betreffen, soll nichts denn Gottes Wort gelehret und
       angenommenwerden": [511]1
     * Der Speierer Abschied bildet keineswegs eine positive
       Rechtsgrundlage, wohl aber den Ausgangspunkt für die Ausbildung
       neuer Landeskirchen: [512]1
     * Der Teufel ist ein trauriger Geist: [513]1
     * Der abgehobelte Eck: [514]1
     * Der algehobelte Eck: [515]1
     * Der bleibt ein Narr sein Leben lang: [516]1
     * Der churfürstl. sächs. Kanzler Dr. Nic. Krell.: [517]1
     * Der deutsche Orden,: [518]1
     * Der ewig freie Geist bewegt sich in seinen eigenen Bahnen: [519]1
     * Der halsstarrigen, verstockten, verblendeten Bauern erbarme sich
       nur niemand, sondern haue, steche, würge, schlage drein, als unter
       die tollen Hunde, wer da kann und wie er kann. Und das alles, auf
       dass man sich derjenigen erbarme, die durch solche Bauern verderbt,
       verjagt und verführt werden, dass man Fried und Sicherheit erhalte:
       [520]1
     * Der vermaladeite Heide Aristoteles: [521]1
     * Derbe, plumpe, unserm Ohre anstössige Worte kommen in Luther's
       Reden wie in seinen Schriften, ja einigemale sogar in seinen
       Predigten vor. Seine Art war in der That keine feine; sie steht
       aber auch so noch bedeutend über dem Ton, der damals
       durchschnittlich in weltlichen und geistlichen Kreisen, bei
       Bürgern, hohen Herren und Kirchenfürsten herrschte, und jene
       ungünstigen Eindrücke müssen der edeln Kraft, dem Salz und Mark
       gegenüber, die seine Gespräche und Schriften durchdringen, auch für
       uns weit zurücktreten: [522]1
     * Derhalben wird auch die Gegenlehre verworfen: [523]1
     * Dermassen zugerichtet,: [524]1
     * Derselbe Luther,: [525]1
     * Deutsche Bücher und Schriften: [526]1
     * Deutsche Gesch: [527]1 [528]2
     * Deutsche Geschichte: [529]1 [530]2
     * Deutsche Messe und Ordnung des Gottesdiensts: [531]1
     * Die Acht und Aberacht: [532]1
     * Die Alpen: [533]1
     * Die Bulla vom Abendfressen des allerheiligsten, Herrn, des Papsts:
       [534]1
     * Die Entwürfe für Sanct Peterin Rom: [535]1
     * Die Gemeinde,: [536]1
     * Die Kanzelberedtsamkeit Luthers: [537]1
     * Die Kirchenreformation in Spanien: [538]1
     * Die Liebe, die durch den Glauben thaetig ist: [539]1
     * Die Lutherfestspiele: [540]1
     * Die Mönche und Prälaten verstummten vor der glühenden Beredtsamkeit
       des landflüchtigen Minoriten: [541]1
     * Die Mess, die sol nim gelten: [542]1
     * Die Mystik Luthers im Zusammenhange seiner Theologieund in ihrem
       Verh. zur älteren Mystik: [543]1
     * Die Mystik ist eine Schlingpflanze, die an jedem Stabe emporwuchert
       und sich mit den extremsten Gegensätzen gleichgut abzufinden weiss:
       [544]1
     * Die Pariser Bluthochzeit: [545]1
     * Die Philos. des Unbewussten: [546]1
     * Die Rechtfertigungslehre wird vielfach zur Einschläferung statt zur
       Schärfung des Gewissens missbraucht: [547]1
     * Die Reform: [548]1 [549]2 [550]3 [551]4
     * Die Reformation: [552]1 [553]2
     * Die Sacrament sie schelten,: [554]1
     * Die Schrift hat verkündet das,: [555]1
     * Die Seel' aus dem Fegfeuer springt: [556]1
     * Die Sprache Luthers in seiner Bibel: [557]1
     * Die Union bezweckt und bedeutet kein Aufgeben des bisherigen
       Glaubensbekenntnisses; auch ist die Autorität, welche die
       Bekenntnisschriften der beiden evangelischen Confessionen bisher
       gehabt, durch sie nicht aufgehoben worden: [558]1
     * Die Universität Erfurt: [559]1
     * Die Universität Erfurt in ihrem Verh. z. Humanismus u. Reformation:
       [560]1
     * Die Universität Erfurt in ihrem Verh. zu dem Humanismus und der
       Reformation: [561]1
     * Die Versammlung: [562]1
     * Die Züricher Wiedertäufer zur Reformatiosszeit: [563]1
     * Die Zahl der Druckfehler ist so gross, dass ein vollständiges
       Verzeichniss derselben Seiten füllen würde: [564]1
     * Die andern lon sie ston,: [565]1
     * Die bedeutendsten Kanzelredner der älteren luth. Kirche: [566]1
     * Die deutschen Plenarien im 15. und zu Anfang des 16. Jahrh: [567]1
     * Die drei grossen Reformationsschriften Luthers vom Jahre 1520.:
       [568]1
     * Die evang. Kirchenordnungen: [569]1
     * Die evangel. Union, ihr Wesen und göttliches Recht: [570]1
     * Die evangelische Kirchenverfassung in den deutschen Städten des 16.
       Jahrh: [571]1
     * Die ganze Uebersetzung war ganz nach Luthers System zugerichtet,
       auf Verbreitung seiner Rechtfertigungslehre berechnet, oft durch
       willkührliche Entstellungen und Einschaltungen seinen Lehren
       angepasst: [572]1
     * Die grössten Narren oder die ärgsten Buben auf Erden: [573]1
     * Die letzte Unterredung Luthers mit Melanchthon über den
       Abendmahlsstreit: [574]1
     * Die man jetzt höret überall: [575]1
     * Die preussische Union in ihrem Verhältniss zur Una Sancta: [576]1
     * Die schwarzen Schaaren: [577]1
     * Die seien uns nit Not.: [578]1
     * Die wittenbergisch Nachtigall,: [579]1
     * Dieweil ich redete, begehrten sie von mir, ich sollt es noch einmal
       wiederholen mit lateinischen Worten ... Ich wiederholte alle meine
       Worte lateinisch. Das gefiel Herzog Friedrich, dem Churfürsten
       überaus wohl: [580]1
     * Disputationes: [581]1
     * Doch ist's nicht recht, und ist mir wahrlich leid, dass man solche
       elende Lente so jämmerlich ermordet, verbrennet und greulich
       umbringt; man sollte, ja einen jeglichen lassen gläuben, was er
       wollt. Gläubet er unrecht, so hat er gnug Strafen an dem ewigen
       Feur in der Höllen. Warumb will man sie denn auch noch zeitlich
       martern, so ferne sie allein im Glauben irren, und nicht auch
       daneben aufruhrisch oder sonst der Oeberkeit widerstreben? Lieber
       Gott, wie bald ists geschehen, dass einer irre wird und dem Teufel
       in Strick fället! Mit der Schrift und Gottes Wort sollt man ihn
       wehren und widerstehen; mit Feuer wird man wenig ausrichten: [582]1
     * Donner: [583]1
     * Dr. Martin Luther verbrannte an dieser Stätte am 10 Dec. 1520 the
       päpstliche Bannbulle: [584]1
     * Du bist ein Schalk und ein Nebler: [585]1
     * Eccius dedolatus: [586]1
     * Ehrsamer, Geliebter, Andächtiger: [587]1
     * Ein Apostel der Wiedertäufer: [588]1
     * Ein Flüchtling der Hölle?: [589]1
     * Ein Jüde oder jüdisch Herz ist so stock-stein-eisen-teufel-hart,
       dass es mit keiner Weise zu bewegen ist ... Summa, es sind junge
       Teufel, zur Höllen verdammt: [590]1
     * Ein Kinderlied zu singen, wider die zween Ertzfeinde Christi und
       seiner heiligen Kirchen, den Papst und Türken: [591]1
     * Ein Moment volt Schicksal und Zukunft!": [592]1
     * Ein Polter-und Rumpel-Geist: [593]1
     * Ein Spott aus dem Tod ist worden.: [594]1
     * Ein Tausendkünstler: [595]1
     * Ein feste Burg: [596]1
     * Ein frommer Jurist: [597]1
     * Ein zweites Wort an meine Kritiker: [598]1 [599]2
     * Entwerdung, Gelassenheit, Vergottung: [600]1
     * Epistola ad Galatas ist meine Epistola, der ich mich vertraut habe,
       meine Kethe von Bora: [601]1
     * Er: [602]1
     * Er sei denn ganz ein Edelmann: [603]1
     * Erkenntnissprincip: [604]1
     * Es erben sich Gesetz' und Rechte: [605]1
     * Es gehet uns wie den Propheten, die klagen auch über Jerusalem, und
       sagen: Die feine gläubige Stadt is zur Hure geworden. Denn aus dem
       Besten kommt allezeit das Aergste, wie die Exempel zeigen zu allen
       Zeiten: [606]1
     * Es gereicht Luther zum grössten Verdienst, dass er auf den
       griechischen Grundtext zurückgegangen, den deutschen Wortschatz
       zunächst im N. T. wesentlich berichtigt, dann aber auch mit seiner
       Genialität bedeutend vermehrt hat: [607]1
     * Es hat den Tod verschlungen.: [608]1
     * Es ist die universalhistorisch grösste Handlung Karls V., dass er
       damals das gegebene Wort höher stellte als die kirchliche Satzung:
       [609]1
     * Es ist ein frei Werk um den Glauben, dazu man niemand kann zwingen
       ... Zum Glauben kann und soll man niemand zwingen: [610]1
     * Es ist ein verdriesslich Ding um die Welt: [611]1
     * Es ist entschieden, dass Eck die Disputation antrug, und zwar
       zunächst nur mit Karlstadt. Aber auch Luther's Absehen war auf eine
       Disputation gerichtet: [612]1
     * Es sind dreierlei Weise an einem Ort zu sein, localiter oder
       circumscriptive, definitive, repletive: [613]1
     * Es sind gar wenig Fürsten, die man nicht für Narren und Buben hält.
       Das macht, sie bewiesen sich auch also, und der gemeine Mann wird
       verständig: [614]1
     * Es sind keine Leut auf Erden, mit denen ich lieber wollt' eins seyn
       als mit den Wittenbergern: [615]1
     * Es sind verkehrt, verblendete Larven, und rechte Kinderbischöfe:
       [616]1
     * Es war ein trauriger Missgriff, dass mit der Verkündigung und
       Vollstreckung der Bulle in mehreren deutschen Dioecesen Luther's
       Gegner Johann Eck beauftragt wurde: [617]1
     * Es war keine Schlacht, sondern ein Ansprengen auf der einen, ein
       Auseinanderstieben auf der anderen Seite; in einem Augenblicke war
       alles vollendet: [618]1
     * Es war so scharf, so entschieden wie möglich: [619]1
     * Es werend kine Lüt uff Erden, mit denen ich lieber wöllt' ins sin,
       denn mit den Wittenbergern: [620]1
     * Es wirt hie Gottes Wort Oberhand gwünnen, nit 'Schwärmer, Tüfel,
       Schalk, Ketzer, Mörder, Ufrührer, Glychsner: [621]1
     * Es zieht ein stiller Engel: [622]1
     * Evangelienbuch: [623]1
     * Evangeliorum liber: [624]1
     * Exempel, einen rechten christlichen Bischof zu weihen, 1542: [625]1
     * Fünf hont sie gar vernichtet,: [626]1
     * Für die katholische Geistlichkeit, die katholischen Fürsten und
       Magistrate und das katholsche Volk war es ein Kampf der
       Sebsterhaltung, wenn sie Alles aufboten, um dem Protestantismus den
       Eingang in ihre Gebiete zu wehren und ihn, wenn er eingedrungen
       war, daraus wieder zu entfernen." -Geschichte des deutschen Volkes:
       [627]1
     * Fürschreiben und Nachthun ist weit von einander: [628]1
     * Fast jede Partei unter uns hat ihren Luther und meint den wahren zu
       haben. Die Verehrung für Luther vereinigt mehr als die Hälfte
       unserer Nation und die Auffassung Luther's trennt sie. Von Luther's
       Namen lässt so leicht kein Deutscher. Ein unvergleichlicher Mann
       ist er Allen, ob man ihm nun aufpasst, um ihn anzugreifen, oder ob
       man ihn rühmt und hoch preist: [629]1
     * Fleischfresser, Blutsäufer, Anthropophagos, Capernaiten, brödern
       Gott, gebratener Gott: [630]1
     * Franz von Sickingen: [631]1
     * Gedenkblätter: [632]1
     * Gegen die Principien des Entwurfs an sich wandte Luther nichts ein.
       Der Grund, weshalb er ihn ablehnte, war das Bedürfniss allmählicher
       Entwicklung im Gegensatz zur plötzlichen gesetzlichen Durchführung
       umfassender Ideen, für welche die Gegenwart nicht vorbereitet sei:
       [633]1
     * Gegenlehr: [634]1
     * Gerhard: [635]1
     * Gernhaber: [636]1
     * Gesangbuch: [637]1 [638]2
     * Gesch. Magdeb: [639]1
     * Gesch. d. luther. Bibelübers: [640]1
     * Gesch. der Christl. Kirche: [641]1
     * Gesch. der Stadt Magdeburg: [642]1
     * Gesch. der Wiedertäufer in der Schweiz: [643]1
     * Gesch. der h. Schriften des N. T: [644]1
     * Gesch. der kath: [645]1
     * Gesch. der luth. Bibelübersetzung: [646]1
     * Gesch. des Münsterschen Aufruhrs: [647]1
     * Gesch. des deutschen Volkes: [648]1
     * Geschichte der Päpste seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters: [649]1
     * Geschichte der katholischen Reformation: [650]1
     * Geschichte der kirchlichen Politik des Hauses Brandenburg: [651]1
     * Geschichte der neu-hochdeutschen Schriftsprache: [652]1
     * Geschichte des Deutschen Volkes: [653]1
     * Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels: [654]1 [655]2
     * Geschichte des deutschen Volkes: [656]1
     * Gespräch eines evang. Christen mit einem katholischen: [657]1
     * Gleissner: [658]1
     * Glossen auf das vermeintliche kaiserliche Edict: [659]1
     * Gott: [660]1
     * Gott helfe mir! Amen: [661]1
     * Gott rufet noch: [662]1
     * Gottes Wort und Lutheri Schrift: [663]1
     * Hallelujah!: [664]1
     * Haman von Holzhausen. Eine Frankfurter Patriziergeschichte nach
       Fainilienpapieren erzählt von M. K: [665]1
     * Handbuch der Protestant. Polemik: [666]1
     * Handbuch der christl. Sittenlehre: [667]1
     * Hat Cardinal Albrecht von Mainz im J. 1521 den Tetzel'schen
       Ablasshandel erneuert: [668]1
     * Heerpredigt wider den Türken: [669]1
     * Heinrich von Zütphen: [670]1
     * Hessische Gelehrtengesch: [671]1
     * Hie zeiget er die römische Kirche in ihrer Gestalt und Wesen, die
       verdammt soll werden: [672]1
     * Hier steh' ich: [673]1
     * Historie der königsberger Universität: [674]1
     * Hus und Wiclif; zur Genesis der hussitischen Lehre: [675]1
     * Ich bin ein Gast auf Erden: [676]1
     * Ich bin eines Bauern Sohn; mein Vater, Grossvater, Ahnherr sind
       rechte Bauern gewest. Darauf ist mein Vater gen Mansfeld gezogen
       und ein Berghauer worden: daher bin ich: [677]1
     * Ich entbot ihm: [678]1
     * Ich fürchte, Erasmus breitet Christum und die Gnade Gottes nicht
       genug aus, von der er gar wenig weiss. Das Menschliche gilt mehr
       bei ihm als das Göttliche: [679]1
     * Ich fürcte, ihr möchtet zwischen Christo und dem Papste in der
       Mitte schwaben, die ihr doch in heftigem Streit sehet: [680]1
     * Ich höre auch sagen, Dr. Eck habe eine Bulle mit sich von Rom wider
       mich gebracht, die ihm so ähnlich sei, dass sie wohl möchte auch
       Dr. Eck heissen, so voll Lügen und Irrthum sie sein soll; und er
       gebe vor, den Leuten das Maul zu schmieren, sie sollen glauben, es
       sei des Papsts Werk, so es sein Lügenspiel ist. Ich lasse es
       geschehen, muss des Spiels in Gottes Namen warten; wer weiss, was
       göttlicher Rath beschlossen hat." Von den neuen Eckischen Bullen
       und Lügen: [681]1
     * Ich habe keine gewisse, sonderliche eigene Sprache im Deutschen:
       [682]1
     * Ich habe meine Ehre nicht gemeint, auch keinen Heller dafür
       genomen, sondern habe es zu Ehren gethan den lieben Christen und zu
       Ehren einem, der droben sitzt: [683]1
     * Ich habe mich müde gewaschen: [684]1
     * Ich kann: [685]1
     * Ich kann nicht anders: [686]1
     * Ich kann nicht beten: [687]1
     * Ich kann weder griechisch noch hebräisch; ich will aber dennoch
       einem Griechen und Hebräer ziemlich begegnen: [688]1
     * Ich meine, sie sind zu Rom alle toll, thöricht, wüthend, unsinnig,
       Narren, Stock, Stein, Hölle, und Teufel geworden: [689]1
     * Ich sage, dass unter dem Papst die rechte Christenheit ist, ja der
       rechte Ausbund der Christenheit, und viel frommer, grosser
       Heiligen: [690]1
     * Ihr habt einen anderen Geist als wir: [691]1
     * Im Leben noch im Tod.: [692]1
     * In der Messe liess Luther den Canon, den Kern und das Wesen der
       katholischen Messe, fort: [693]1
     * In his: [694]1
     * In welchem Locale stand Luther zu Worms vor Kaiser und Reich:
       [695]1
     * Jesaja dem Propheten das geschah: [696]1
     * Jesu, geh voran: [697]1
     * Jodocus Truttvetter, der Lehrer Luthers: [698]1
     * Joh. Kessler genannt Athenarius: [699]1
     * Joh. Oekolampad und Oswald Myconius: [700]1
     * Joh. Sigismund und Paul Gerhard: [701]1
     * Johann Herrgott, Buchführer von Nürnberg, und sein tragisches Ende:
       [702]1
     * Johanna die Wahnsinnige: [703]1
     * Johanna die Wahnsinnige, Königin von Castilien: [704]1
     * Johannes Bugenhagen Pomeranus: [705]1
     * Kampf und Untergang des Melathonismus in Kursachsen: [706]1
     * Kampfplatz: [707]1
     * Kaspar Peucer und Nik. Krell: [708]1
     * Katholische deutsche Kirchenlied in seinen Singweisen: [709]1
     * Kein Weihe gnomen an: [710]1
     * Ketzerei ist ein geistlich Ding, das kann man mit keinem Eisen
       hauen, mit keinem Feuer verbrennen, mit keinem Wasser ertränken:
       [711]1
     * Kirchen-Lexikon: [712]1
     * Kirchenfreund: [713]1
     * Kirchengesch: [714]1 [715]2 [716]3 [717]4 [718]5 [719]6 [720]7
     * Kirchengesch.: [721]1
     * Kirchenlieder-Lexicon: [722]1 [723]2
     * Kirchenordnung für die Stadt Hamburg vom J. 1529: [724]1
     * Kirchenordnung f. d. Stadt Braunschweig: [725]1
     * Kirchenpostille: [726]1
     * Kirchenprincip: [727]1
     * Kirchenrecht: [728]1
     * Kirchliche Geschichte Württembergs: [729]1
     * Kochlöffel: [730]1
     * Kraftwörter: [731]1
     * Kurzes Bekenntniss vom heil. Sacrament: [732]1
     * Kurzum, eitel Teufelswerk treiben sie, und insonderheit ists der
       Erzteufel, der zu Mühlhausen regiert: [733]1
     * Leben Joh. Oekolampadius: [734]1
     * Lehrbücher, Zankbücher: [735]1
     * Lehrbuch der allg. Kirchengesch: [736]1
     * Lieber Fürst, nicht Kopf abhauen, nicht Kopf ab: [737]1
     * Lieber God: [738]1
     * Lieber will ich Kopf und Leben verlieren, als das klare Wort Gottes
       verlassen: [739]1
     * Liebfrauenmilch: [740]1
     * Liebhaber: [741]1
     * Luther antwortete in der gemeinsten und boshaftesten Weise, die
       Grobheit zur Classicität ausbildend: [742]1
     * Luther hat die Autorität der Kirche verworfen und an ihre Stelle
       die Bibel und das Zeugniss des menschlichen Geistes gesetzt. Dass
       nun die Bibel selbst die Grundlage der christlichen Kirche geworden
       ist, ist von der grössten Wichtigkeit; jeder soll sich nun selbst
       daraus belehren, jeder sein Gewissen daraus bestimmen können. Diess
       ist die ungeheure Veränderung im Principe: die ganze Tradition und
       das Gebäude der Kirche wird problematisch und das Princip der
       Autorität der Kirche umgestossen. Die Uebersetzung, welche Luther
       von der Bibel gemacht hat, ist von unschätzbarem Werthe für das
       deutsche Volk gewesen. Dieses hat dadurch ein Volksbuch erhalten,
       wie keine Nation der katholischen Welt ein solches hat; sie haben
       wohl eine Unzahl von Gebetbüchlein, aber kein Grundbuch zur
       Belehrung des Volks. Trotz dem hat man in neueren Zeiten Streit
       deshalb erhoben, ob es zweckmässig sei, dem Volke die Bibel indie
       Hand zu geben; die wenigen Nachtheile, die dieses hat, werden doch
       bei weitem von den ungeheuren Vortheilen überwogen; die
       äusserlichen Geschichten, die dem Herzen und Verstande anstössig
       sein können, weiss der religiöse Sinn sehr wohl zu unterscheiden,
       und sich an das Substantielle haltend überwindet er sie: [743]1
     * Luther und Aristoteles .: [744]1
     * Luther und Servet: [745]1
     * Luther und der Episcopat: [746]1
     * Luther und die Juristen: [747]1
     * Luther und die deutsche Nation: [748]1
     * Luther's Bekanntschaft mit den alten Classikern: [749]1
     * Luther's Brief an sein Söhnlein Hänsigen: [750]1
     * Luther's Grundbesitz: [751]1
     * Luther's Promotion zum Doctor und Melanchthon's zum Baccalaureus
       der Theologie,: [752]1
     * Luther's Uebersetzung der Apocryphen: [753]1
     * Luther's Widerwille gegen die menschliche Vernunft im Gebiete des
       Religiösen und Göttlichen wurde, seit er hier: [754]1
     * Luther, eine Skizze: [755]1 [756]2
     * Luthers Fabeln nach seiner wiedergefundenen Handschrift: [757]1
     * Luthers Sprache in seiner Uebersetzung des N. T: [758]1
     * Mönchlein, Mönchlein, du gehst jetzt einen Gang, dergleichen ich
       und mancher Oberster auch in unserer allerernstesten
       Schlachtordnung nicht gethan haben: [759]1
     * Münzer: [760]1
     * Man soll die Kinder nicht zu hart staüpen; denn mein Vater stäupet
       mich einmal so sehr, dass ich ihn flohe und ward ihm gram, bis er
       mich wieder zu ihm gewöhnete.": [761]1
     * Man soll nicht fluchen (das ist wahr); aber beten muss man, dass
       Gottes Name geheiliget und geehrt werde, des Papsts Name geschädet
       und verflucht werde, sammt seinem Gott, dem Teufel, dass Gottes
       Reich komme, des Antichrists Reich zu Grunde gehe. Solchen
       paternosterlichen Fluch mag man wohl beten, und soll ihn jeder
       Christ beten, weil die letzten Erzbösewichte am Ende der Welt,
       Papst, Cardinal, und Bischof so schändlich, böslich, muthwillig
       unsern lieben Herrn und Gott lästern und dazu spotten: [762]1
     * Matth. Flacius Illyricus und seine Zeit: [763]1
     * Meilen und wie ich des Abends in die Herberge kam, war ich so müde,
       stieg, im Stalle ab, konnte nicht stehen, fiel stracks in die
       Streu.": [764]1
     * Mein Jesu, wie Du willst, So lass mich allzeit wollen: [765]1
     * Mein lieber Philipp: [766]1
     * Michael Servet und Martin Butzer: [767]1
     * Mit tiefen, schwarzen Augen und Braunen blinzend und zwitzerlnd wie
       ein Stern, dass die nit wohl mögen angesehen werden: [768]1
     * Narrenbeschwörung: [769]1
     * Neues Urkundenbuch: [770]1
     * Nicht Calvin ist schuldig der That, sondern der Protestantismus
       seiner Zeit: [771]1
     * Nicolaus Manuels Leben und Werke: [772]1
     * Noch ein wenig Schweiss und Thränen,: [773]1
     * Nun fuhr ich: [774]1
     * Nur aus einem Menschenherzen,: [775]1
     * O Haupt voll Blut und Wunden: [776]1
     * O Jesu Christ, mein Leben: [777]1
     * Oberacht: [778]1
     * Papstesel mit langen Eselsohren und verdammtem Lügenmaul: [779]1
     * Passional Christi und Antichristi, mit Luther's Nachrede: [780]1
     * Ph. Melanchthon und M. Servet. Eine Quellen-Studie: [781]1
     * Philosophie der Geschichte: [782]1
     * Pirkheimer ist jeder Zeit Humanist geblieben ... In der Theorie war
       er ein Anhänger der neuen, gewaltigen Bewegung; aber als dieselbe
       anfing praktisch zu werden, erschrak er vor den Gährungen, die
       unvermeidlich waren. Der Humanist sah die schönen Wissenschaften
       bedroht; der Patrizier erschrak vor der Übermacht des Volkes; der
       Staatsmann erzitterte, als er den Bruch mit den alten Verhältnissen
       als eine Notwendigkeit fühlte. Nur ein religiös fest gegründeter
       Glaube war im Stande, über diesen Kämpfen den Sieg und den Frieden
       zu sehen. Daran aber fehlte es gerade Pirkheimer; alles
       theologische Interesse vermag dieses persönliche religiöse Leben
       nicht zu ersetzen. Wohl besass er ein lebendiges Rechtsgefühl,
       einen ethischen Idealismus, aber es fehlte ihm die Kraft, im eignen
       Leben denselben zu verwirk-lichen. Ihm war das Leben ein heiteres
       Spiel, solange die Tage sonnenhell waren; als sie sich umdüsterten,
       wollten sich die Wolken weder hinwegscherzen, noch hinwegschmähen
       lassen. Ein religiös, sittlicher Charakter war Pirkheimer nicht,
       'Vivitur ingenio, caetera mortis erunt,' diese Worte hat er unter
       sein von Dürer gezeichnetes Bild (1524) gesetzt. Sie enthalten das
       Glaubensbekenntnis Pirkheimers, das Geheimnis seines Lebens: [783]1
     * Po, pu, pa, plump,' und derglychen Schelt-, Schmütz-, und
       Schänzelwort: [784]1
     * Preussen's landeskirchliche Unionsentwicklung: [785]1
     * Principio Augustinum vorabam, non legebam; aber da mir in Paulo die
       Thür aufging, dass ich wusste was justificatio fidei wär, ward es
       aus mit ihm: [786]1
     * Probebibel: [787]1 [788]2 [789]3 [790]4 [791]5
     * Proben von den stinkenden Schäden des Papstthutms: [792]1
     * Rathhaus: [793]1
     * Reformations-historische Schriften: [794]1
     * Reformatoren vor der Reformation: [795]1 [796]2
     * Reichsacht: [797]1
     * Rotzlöffel: [798]1
     * Ruhestörer, Landesverräther und Beförderer der osiandrischen
       Ketzerei: [799]1
     * Sämmtliche Schriften: [800]1
     * Sämmtliche Schriften im Auszuge: [801]1
     * Sacramentirer: [802]1
     * Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church: [803]1
     * Schlosskirche: [804]1 [805]2
     * Schmücke dich, Oliebe Seele: [806]1
     * Schwäbische Reformationsgeschichte: [807]1
     * Schwärmer: [808]1
     * Schwärmergeister: [809]1
     * Schwarmgeister: [810]1
     * Schweiz ist ein dürr und bergig Land, darum sind sie endlich und
       hurtig, müssen ihre Nahrung underswo suchen: [811]1
     * Schweizereise: [812]1
     * Seid still: [813]1
     * Seit man kein' Bischof mehr will han: [814]1
     * Selbstherrschender, gewaltiger ist wohl nie ein Schriftsteller
       aufgetreten, in keiner Nation der Welt. Auch dürfte kein anderer zu
       nennen sein, der die vollkommenste Verständlichkeit und
       Popularität, gesunden, treuherzigen Menschenverstand mit so
       vielechtem Geist, Schwung und Genius vereinigt hätte. Er gab der
       Literatur den Charakter den sie seitdem behalten, der Forschung,
       des Tiefsinns, der Polemik: [815]1
     * Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen: [816]1
     * Sie schleppen von Geschlecht sich zum Geschlechte: [817]1
     * Sind des Papst's und Calvini Gift: [818]1
     * Sind des Papst's und Calvini Gift.": [819]1
     * Sind sie: [820]1
     * So sieh diess Zeichen,: [821]1
     * Sobald der Pfennig im Kasten klingt,: [822]1
     * Solche Wechselbälge: [823]1
     * Solche gottlose Heiden, Socrates, Aristides, ja der gräuliche Numa,
       der zu Rom alle Abgötterei erst gestiftet: [824]1
     * Somit war der 'Abgott,' welchen Luther bekämpfte, nicht die
       Erneuerung des Tetzel'schen Ablasshandels, sondern die
       Wiederaufrichtung der in Sachsen theils erloschenen, theils
       erlöschenden alten Ablasslehre, welche der Cardinal durch
       Ausstellung seiner mit Ablass begnadigten Reliquien zur Hebung des
       neuen Stifts und in der Stiftskirche zu Halle im Jahr 1521 versucht
       hat: [825]1
     * Stadtkirche: [826]1
     * Stammbaum der Familie des Dr. M. Luther: [827]1
     * Staupitius ist in den Index gekommen, weil Cochlaeus bei dem Jahre:
       [828]1
     * Studien und Kritiken: [829]1 [830]2
     * Sturm- und Drangperiode: [831]1
     * Symbolik der luth. Kirche: [832]1
     * Taufbüchlein verdeutscht: [833]1
     * Theologia deutsch: [834]1
     * Tischreden: [835]1
     * Traduttori traditori: [836]1
     * Tritt frisch auf; Mach's Maul auf; Hör' bald auf: [837]1
     * Ueber den Laodicenerbrief: [838]1
     * Ueber die Freiberger Bibelhandschrift, nebst Beiträgen zur Gesch.
       der vorlutherischen Bibelübersetzung: [839]1
     * Ueber die Sprache Luthers: [840]1
     * Ulrich von Hutten: [841]1 [842]2
     * Um der Häresie Einhalt zu thun, hielt Aleander die Verbrennung der
       lutherischen Bücher für ein überaus geeignetes Mittel: [843]1
     * Und dass unser Name für tausend Teufel verdammt werde: [844]1
     * Und es kommt das schönste Lied: [845]1
     * Und ist Summa das unsere Meinung, dass wahrhaftig in und mit dem
       Brod der Leib Christi gessen wird, also dass alles, was das Brod
       wirket und leidet, der Leib Christi wirke und leide, dass er
       ausgetheilt, gessen, und mit den Zähnen zubissen [zerbissen: [846]1
     * Und schleichen sacht von Ort zu Ort.: [847]1
     * Urbanus Rhegius: [848]1
     * Urkunden: [849]1
     * Urkunden aus der Reformationszeit: [850]1
     * Urkundenbuch der Stadt Worms: [851]1
     * Urkundenbuch der evangelischen Union: [852]1
     * Us Apocalypsi nehmend wir kein Kundschafft an, denn es nit ein
       biblisch Buch ist." Werke: [853]1
     * Verachtung kann der stolze hoffährtige Geist nicht leiden: [854]1
     * Vergehet nun und nimmermehr;": [855]1
     * Vermögensumstände: [856]1
     * Vermahnung wider die Jüden: [857]1
     * Vernunft wird Unsinn, Wohlthat Plage;: [858]1
     * Versammlung aller Gläubigen: [859]1
     * Vom Bruder Heinrich in Ditmar verbrannt: [860]1
     * Vom Himmel hoch da komm ich her: [861]1
     * Vom Himmel kam der Engel Schaar: [862]1
     * Vom Kriege wider die Türken: [863]1
     * Vom Rechte, das mit uns geboren ist,: [864]1
     * Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi: [865]1
     * Von dem Tage zu Speier an: [866]1
     * Von dem ist, leider! nie die Frage: [867]1
     * Von den Conciliis und Kirchen: [868]1
     * Von den Jüden und ihren Lügen: [869]1
     * Von der Wiedertäufer Ursprung: [870]1
     * Von der Wiedertaufe: [871]1
     * Von der Wiedertaufe, an zwei Pfarrherrn: [872]1
     * Von weltlicher Obrigkeit: [873]1 [874]2
     * Von weltlicher Obrigkeit, wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei:
       [875]1
     * Vortridentinische Theologie: [876]1
     * Wäre es nicht geschehen: [877]1
     * Wörterbuch zu Luther's deutschen Schriften: [878]1
     * Württemb. Reformationsgesch: [879]1
     * Wüster und andauernder ist keine Stadt geplündert, sind keine
       Einwohner misshandelt worden als Rom und die Römer. Spanier wie
       Teutsche haben bei diesem grausen Werke gewetteifert, jene mit
       erfinderischer Unmenschlichkeit, diese mit wilder Barbarei.
       Kirchen, Klöster, Palläste, Wohnhäuser, Hütten wurden mit gleicher
       Beutelust ausgeleert und verwüstet, Männer, Frauen, Kinder mit
       gleicher Grausamkeit misshandelt: [880]1
     * W. P.'s Schweizerkrieg und Ehrenhandel: [881]1
     * Wahrheit und Dichtung: [882]1
     * Warnung an seine lieben Deutschen: [883]1
     * Was kein Auge hat gesehen: [884]1
     * Was macht ihr, dass ihr weinet: [885]1
     * Wass gross soll werden, muss klein angehen; und wenn die Kinder
       zärtlich und herrlich erzogen werden, schadet es ihnen ihr Leben
       lang: [886]1
     * Wechselkinder: [887]1
     * Weh dir, dass du ein Enkel bist: [888]1
     * Weil denn Eure Kaiserliche Majestät und Eure Gnaden eine schlichte
       Antwort begehren, so will ich eine Antwort ohne Hörner und Zähne
       geben diesermassen: 'Es sei denn, dass ich durch Zeugnisse der
       Schrift oder durch helle Gründe überwunden werde--denn ich glaube
       weder dem Papst, noch den Konzilien allein, dieweil am Tag liegt,
       dass sie öfters geirrt und sich selbst widersprochen haben,--so bin
       ich überwunden durch die von mir angeführten heiligen Schriften,
       und mein Gewissen ist gefangen in Gottes Wort; widerrufen kann ich
       nichts und will ich nichts, dieweil wider das Gewissen zu handeln
       unsicher und gefährlich ist.' ": [889]1
     * Welche Bücher heilig und biblisch seind: [890]1
     * Wenn die bösen Worte heraus wären, so hätte der Luther nicht übel
       geschrieben: [891]1
     * Wenn ichs vermöchte: [892]1
     * Wenn man diese Sätze liest, sieht man, welch ein kühner,
       grossartiger und fester Geist in Luther arbeitet. Die Gedanken
       sprühen ihm hervor, wie unter dem Hammerschlag die Funken: [893]1
     * Wer itzt ein Theologus will werden, der hat grosse Vortheil. Denn
       erstlich hat er die Bibel, die ist nu so klar, dam er sie kann
       lesen ohne alle Hinderung. Darnach lese er darzu die locos communes
       Philippi; die lese er fleissig und wohl, also dass er sie gar im
       Kopfe habe. Wenn er die zwei Stücke hat, so ist er ein Theologus,
       dem weder der Teufel noch kein Ketzer etwas abbrechen kann, und ihm
       stehet die ganze Theologia offen, dass er Alles, was er will,
       darnach lesen kann ad aedificationem. Und wenn er will, so mag er
       auch dazu lesen Philippi Melanchthonis Commentarium in Epistolam
       Pauli ad Romanos. Lieset er alsdenn darzu meinen commentarium in
       Epistolam ad Galatas und in Deuteronomium, so gebe ich ihm denn
       eloquentiam et copiam verborum. Ihr findet kein Buch unter allen
       seinen Büchern, da die summa religionis oder die ganze Theologia so
       fein bei einander ist, als in den locis communibus. Leset alle
       Patres und Sententiarios, so ist es doch Alles nichts dagegen. Non
       est melior liber post scripturam sanctam, quam ipsius loci
       communes. Philippus ist enger gespannet denn ich; ille pugnat et
       docet; ich bin mehr ein Rhetoricus oder ein Wäscher: [894]1
     * Wer nicht liebt Weib, Wein und Gesang,: [895]1
     * Widder die Bullen des Endchrists: [896]1
     * Wider Herzog Heinrich von Braunschweig: [897]1
     * Wider das Papstthum zu Rom vom Teufel gestiftet: [898]1
     * Wider das Papstthum zu Rom, tom Teufel gestiftet: [899]1
     * Wider das geistlose sanftlebende Fleisch zu Wittenberg: [900]1
     * Wider den Meuchler in Dresden: [901]1
     * Wider den Meuchler zu Dresden: [902]1
     * Wider die himmlischen Propheten: [903]1
     * Wie da ein Tod den andern frass,: [904]1
     * Wie ein einbalsamirter Leichnam, wie ein Gespenst rückte er gegen
       sie: [905]1
     * Wie eine ew'ge Krankheit fort;: [906]1
     * Wie man den Kindern pflegt fürzubilden einen Gaukelhimmel, darin
       ein gülden Stuhl stehe und Christus neben dem Vater sitze in einer
       Chorkappen und gülden Krone, gleichwie es die Mäler malen. Denn wo
       sie nicht solche kindische, fleischliche Gedanken hätten von der
       rechten Hand Gottes, würden sie freilich sich nicht so lassen
       anfechten den Leib Christi im Abendmahl, oder sich bläün mit dem
       Spruch Augustini (welchem sie doch sonst nichts gläuben noch keinem
       andern), Christus muss an einem Ort leiblichsein, aber seine
       Wahrheit [Gottheit?] is allenthalben: [907]1
     * Wie wollt ihr jetzt anders einen Deutschen vorthun denn: [908]1
     * Wiewol wir hant kein Orden: [909]1
     * Wir armen Ketzer haben abermal eine grosse Sünde begangen wider die
       höllische unchristliche Kirche des allerhöllischten Vaters, des
       Papstes, dass wir einen Bischof im Stift Naumburg ordinirt und
       eingeweihet haben, ohne allen Chresem [Chrisma, Salböl], auch ohne
       Butter, Schmalz, Speck, Teer, Schmeer, Weihrauch, Kohlen und was
       derselben grossen Heiligkeit mehr ist: dazu wider ihren Willen;
       doch nicht ohne ihr Wissen: [910]1
     * Wir sein all Pfaffen worden,: [911]1
     * Wir sind Christgläubig, nicht kirchgläubig.": [912]1
     * Wittenbergisch Bier mit meinem Philippo und Amsdorf: [913]1
     * Wo man Solchen Frevel an einem Ort zuliesse, dass man ohn Grund der
       Schrift möcht sagen, das Wörtlin 'Ist' heisst so viel als das
       Wörtlin 'Bedeut,' so könnt mans auch an keinem andern Ort wehren,
       und würde die ganze Schrift zunichte; sintemal keine Ursach wäre,
       warum solcher Frevel an einem Ort gülte, und nicht an alten
       Oertern. So möcht man denn sagen, dass Maria ist Jungfrau und
       Mutter Gottes, sei so viel gesagt, Maria bedeut eine Jungfrau und
       Gottes Mutter. Item, Christus ist Gott und Mensch, das ist,
       Christus bedeut Gott und Mensch. Item, Rom. 1:16: [914]1
     * Wo nicht, so will ich euch auch über die Schnauze fahren, dass es
       euch gereuen wird, dazu Ursach gegeben zu haben: [915]1
     * Wollen die Alten ja nicht, mögen sie immer zum Teufel hinfahren.
       Aber wo die Jugend versäumet und unerzogen bleibt, da ist die
       Schuld der Obrigkeit: [916]1
     * Wollen sich die Jüden zu uns bekehren und von ihrer Lästerung und
       was sie uns sonst gethan haben, aufhören, so wollen wir es ihnen
       gerne vergeben: wo aber nicht, so sollen wir sie auch bei uns nicht
       dulden noch leiden: [917]1
     * Wucherei, Säuferei, Ehebruch, Mord, Todtschlag, etc., die kann man
       merken, und verstehet auch die Welt, dass sie Sünde sein; aber des
       Tuefels Braut, Ratio, die shöne Metze, fähret herein, und will klug
       sein, und was sie saget, meinet sie, es sei der heilige Geist; wer
       will da helfen? Weder Jurist, Medicus, noch König oder Kaiser. Denn
       es ist die höchste Hure die der Teufel hat!': [918]1
     * Züridütsch: [919]1
     * Zum Glauben kann und soll man niemand zwingen: [920]1
     * Zur Gesch. des Kanons: [921]1
     * Zwölf Bücher Preuss. Geschichte: [922]1
     * Zwei sächsische Kanzler: [923]1
     * allein: [924]1 [925]2 [926]3 [927]4 [928]5 [929]6
     * alleruntherthänigste: [930]1
     * als der ich nu auf der Gruben gehe, will diess Zeugniss und diesen
       Ruhm mit mir für meins lieben Herrn und Heilands Jesu Christi
       Richtstuhl bringen, dass ich die Schwärmer und Sacramentsfeinde,
       Carlstadt, Zwingel, Oecolampad, Stenkefeld und ihre Jünger zu
       Zürch: [931]1
     * als wären wir solche tolle, unsinnige, rasende Leute, die Christum
       im Sacrament localiter hielten, und stückweise zerfrässen, wie der
       Wolf ein Schaaf, und Blut söffen, wie eine Kuh das Wasser: [932]1
     * anima purgata, ist eine Seele gereinigt: [933]1
     * auf einem offenen Wäglein in meiner Kappen zu Worms ein. Da kamen
       alle Leute auf die Gassen und wollten den Mönch D. Martinum sehen:
       [934]1
     * beginnt die eigentliche Spaltung der deutschen Nation: [935]1
     * da: [936]1
     * da ihm ein guter Gesell erstochen ward: [937]1
     * das Buch ist den Schwärmern nicht allein leidlich, sondern auch
       tröstlich, vielmehr für ihre Lehre als für unsere; ... und ist
       alles zu lang und gross Gewäsche, dass ich das Klappermaul, den
       Butzer, hier wohl spüre: [938]1
     * dass ein jeglicher solle und müge glauben, wie ers wisse gegen Gott
       und kaiserliche Majestät zu verantworten; und ich billig daraus als
       die Ungehorsamen dem Reich und Aufrührischen beklagen möcht alle
       die, so mich einen Ketzer schelten. Hat das Gebotzu Worms gegolten,
       da ich verdampt ward ohn Bewilligung der besten und höhesten Stände
       des Reichs: warumb sollt mir denn das Gebot zu Speir nicht auch
       gelten, welchs einträchtlich durch alle Stände des Reichs
       beschlossen und angenommen ist: [939]1
     * dass man mich nicht kann einen Ketzer schelten; weil daselbst
       beschlossen ist von Allen einträchtiglich: [940]1
     * dass sein Mund wol genannt werden mag der Mund der Bestie von
       welcher Johannes schreibet in seiner Offenbarung am dreizehnten:
       [941]1
     * den Jugendfehler, dessen wir ihn schuldig achten, in einem Grade zu
       büssen, welcher selbst des unerbittlichsten Sittenrichters Strenge
       in Mitleid verwandeln muss .... Man weiss nicht was schrecklicher
       ist, die Beschreibung die uns Hutten von seinem Zustande, oder die
       er uns von den Quälereien macht, welche von unverständigen Aerzten
       als Curen über ihn verhängt wurden: [942]1
     * den groben Pariser Eseln: [943]1
     * den leibhaftigen Teufel: [944]1
     * der: [945]1
     * der dresdener Sudler: [946]1
     * der du bist: [947]1
     * der rechte Prüfstein: [948]1
     * die Lehre von der Rechtfertigung durch Christus allein: [949]1
     * die Leisetreterin: [950]1
     * die Protestanten: [951]1
     * die Wiege der Büchercensur für die ganze Welt, so ist Worms ihre
       Geburtsstätte für Deutschland: [952]1
     * die reichsgesetzliche Legitimation der Territorialverfassung:
       [953]1
     * die sacramentiche Durchdringung der Brotsubstanz von der Substanz
       des Leibes: [954]1
     * die völlige Fried- und Rechtslos- oder Vogelfrei-Erklärung: [955]1
     * dilexit: [956]1
     * doch: [957]1
     * durch Zeugnisse der heil. Schrift und durch helle Gründe: [958]1
     * durch den Glauben: [959]1
     * ein "verdampt Lügenmand: [960]1
     * ein Meisterstück in sprachlicher Hinsicht, aber seinem Lehrbegriffe
       gemäss eingerichtet, und daher in vielen Stellen absichtlich
       unrichtig und sinnentstellend: [961]1
     * ein Unbiedermann: [962]1
     * ein Wiedergedächtniss und Erneuern dessen, was einst geschehen und
       in Ewigkeit kräftig ist: [963]1
     * ein bewunderungswürdiges Denkmal des hohen Glaubensmuthes, von
       welchem Luther erfüllt war: [964]1
     * ein eingeteufelt, durchteufelt, überteufelt, lästerlich Herz und
       Lügenmaul: [965]1
     * ein gräulich bös Buch: [966]1
     * ein solcher Gnaden-und Kreuzdiger: [967]1
     * ein sonderlich Wickleffisch oder Hussisch Exemplar: [968]1
     * ein unstüssige und unbeissige Antwort: [969]1
     * ein vollständig ausgebildetes, rein demokratisches
       Presbyterialsystem: [970]1
     * eine ... schelle: [971]1
     * eine gewisse Sprache gezogen: [972]1
     * elender Narr: [973]1
     * evidentissimis rationibus: [974]1
     * gekrönter Esel: [975]1
     * gezwungen durch Gottes Gebot, sich von ihm zu sondern, und ihn für
       keinen Bischof, sondern für einen Wolf, ja für einen Teufel zu
       halten: [976]1
     * hat ihnen: [977]1
     * hatte etwas Erhabenes, Weltbedeutendes: [978]1
     * hatte mir ein Pferd verschafft und gab mir den Rath, einen alten
       Ausreuter zu nehmen, der die Wege wüsste, und half mir Langemantel
       (Rathsherr) des Nachts durch ein klein Pförtlein der Stadt. Da
       eilte ich ohne Hosen, Stiefel, Sporn, und Schwert, und kam his gen
       Wittenberg. Den ersten Tag ritt ich acht: [979]1
     * helle Gründe,: [980]1
     * ich kann alles leiden, aber die heilige Schrift kann ich nicht
       übergeben: [981]1
     * ich muss dabei fluchen. Soll ich sagen: 'geheiligt werde dein
       Name,' muss ich. dabei sagen: 'Verflucht, verdammt, geschändet
       müsse werden der Papisten Namen, und aller, die deinen Namen
       lästern.' Soll ich sagen: 'Dein Reich komme,' so muss ich dabei
       sagen:' Verflucht, verdammt, verstört müsse werden das Papstthum
       sammt allen Reichen auf Erden, die deinem Reiche zuwider sind. Soll
       ich sagen: 'Dein Wille geschehe,' so muss ich dabei sagen:
       'Verflucht, verdammt, geschändet und zu nichte müssen werden alle
       Gedanken und Anschläge der Papisten und aller die wider deinen
       Willen und Rath streben.' Wahrlich, so bete ich alle Tage mündlich,
       und mit dem Herzen ohne Unterlass, und mit mir alle, die an
       Christum gläuben, und fühle auch wohl, dass es erhört wird. Denn
       man mussGottes Wunder sehen, wie er diesen schrecklichen Reichstag:
       [982]1
     * ihn neben Luther als Gegner Tetzels erwähnt. Er ist in der: [983]1
     * im Zustande der Erhitzung durch berauschende Getränke: [984]1
     * in den kaiserlichen Gemächern: [985]1
     * ist ein seltsames Thier: [986]1
     * ist nach unsrer innigsten Ueberzeugung eine im höchsten Sinne
       reale: [987]1
     * liebes Volk, es ist der Teufel, der richtet so eine
       Spiegelfechterei an; seid still, es hat keine Noth: [988]1
     * lief durch alle Kirchen und Kluften, glaubte alles was daselbst
       erlogen und erstunken ist: [989]1
     * mehr Kopf abhauen,: [990]1
     * meine zarte Kinder, meine Brüderlein, meine gülden Freundlein:
       [991]1
     * muss ihrer edeln, fast wunderbaren Reinheit, auch ihres gewaltigen
       Einflusses halber für Kern und Grundlage der neuhochdeutschen
       Sprachniedersetzung gehalten werden, wovon bis auf den heutigen Tag
       nur sehr unbedeutend, meistens zum Schaden der Kraft und des
       Ausdrucks, abgewichen wordenist. Man darf das Neuhochdeutsche in
       der That als den protestantischen Dialekt bezeichnen, dessen
       freiheitathmende Natur längst schon, ihnen unbewusst, Dichter und
       Schriftsteller des katholischen Glaubens überwältigte. Unsere
       Sprache ist nach dem unaufhaltsamen Laufe der Dinge in
       Lautverhältnissen und Formen gesunken; was aber ihren Geist und
       Leib genährt, verjüngt, was endlich Blüten neuer Poesie getrieben
       hat, verdanken wir keinem mehr als Luthern: [992]1
     * nach seiner eigenen Façon: [993]1
     * nicht: [994]1
     * nicht falsch, obgleich einseitig: [995]1
     * nur: [996]1
     * nur durch den Glauben: [997]1
     * oder Hüchler, trotz, potz, plotz, blitz, donder: [998]1
     * radicale Umsturzgedanken: [999]1
     * rechthaberisch ungerecht: [1000]1
     * sah mein Herz wohl, da ich zu Worms einkam, dass, wenn ich hätte
       gewusst, dass so viel Teufel auf mich gehalten hätten, als Ziegel
       auf den Dächern sind, wäre ich dennoch mitten unter sie gesprungen
       mit Freuden: [1001]1
     * scheinbarliche und merkliche Ursachen: [1002]1
     * seine Polemik war, wie immer und gegen jedermann, in hohem Grade
       unehrlich: [1003]1
     * selig worden, wie dasselb Gott nicht unmöglich ist, einen Menschen
       in seinem letzten Ende, in einem Augenblick, zu bekehren, das
       gönnen und wünschen wir ihnen von Grund unsers Herzens: aber
       Märtyrer zu machen, da gehört mehr zu, denn schlecht selig werden:
       [1004]1
     * sie auftreten sah, noch stärker und heftiger als früher. Früher
       stellte er hin und wieder noch unbefangen die Berufung auf
       Schriftbeweise und auf helle, evidente, vernünftige Gründe
       nebeneinander, indem er durch die einen oder anderen widerlegt zu
       werden begehrte: so ja auch noch beim Wormser Reichstag; solchen
       Ausdrücken werden wir fortan nicht leicht mehr begegnen: [1005]1
     * sie sind gemeiniglich die grössten Narren oder die ärgsten Buben
       auf Erden: [1006]1
     * so hatte ich nach meiner Verheirathung mir vorgenommen, für Honorar
       zu lesen. Aber da mir Gott zuvorkam, so habe ich mein Leben lang
       kein Exemplar: [1007]1
     * so wäre ich eher eine Sau worden denn ein Christ. Denn sie haben
       mit den Juden gehandelt, als wären es Hunde, und nicht Menschen:
       [1008]1
     * sondern brauche der gemeinen deutschen Sprache, dass mich
       Oberländer und Niederländer verstehen mögen. Ich rede nach der
       sächsischen Canzelei, welcher nachfolgen alle Fürsten und Könige in
       Deutschland. Alle Beichstädte, Fürstenhöfe schreiben nach der
       sächsischen und unseres Fürsten Canzelei, darumb ists auch die
       gemeinste deutsche Sprache. Kaiser Maximilian und Kurfürst
       Friedrich, Herzog zu Sachsen, etc., haben im römischen Reich die
       deutschen Sprachen: [1009]1
     * steche, schlage, würge hie wer da kann. Bleibst du darüber todt:
       wohl dir, seliglicheren Tod kannst du nimmermehr überkommen. Denn
       du stirbst im Gehorsam göttlichs Worts und Befehls, Rom. 13:1:
       [1010]1
     * surrexit: [1011]1
     * täglich Brot: [1012]1
     * t. Paulus meinet gar viel ein Anderes: [1013]1
     * texit: [1014]1
     * tritt bei dieser Organisation ganz zurück. Sie ist der 'Pöbel,' der
       unter der Zucht des Wortes und der Polizei des Kirchenregimentes
       steht ... Eine Mitwirkung an der Handhabung der Kirchenzucht findet
       sich nur in den Kirchenordnungen, wo reformirte Einflüsse bemerkbar
       sind: [1015]1
     * und Kielkröpfe supponit Satan in locum verorum filiorum, und plaget
       die Leute damit. Denn diese Gewalt hat der Satan, dass er die
       Kinder auswechselt und einem für sein Kind einen Teufel in die
       Wiegen legt: [1016]1
     * und das unmässliche Dräuen und Wüthen der Papisten zu nichte macht,
       und auch ferner sie gründlich zu nichte machen wird. Dennoch
       behalte ich ein gut, freundlich, friedlich und christlich Herz
       gegen jedermann; das wissen auch meine grössten Feinde: [1017]1
     * und die griechische und ebräische Sprache wäre uns so gemein als
       die lateinischen und hätte so vielfeiner Musica und Gesangs als die
       lateinische hat, so sollte man einen Sonntag um den andern in alten
       vier Sprachen, deutsch, lateinisch, griechisch und ebräisch, Messe
       halten, singen, und lesen: [1018]1
     * und genomnen wird: [1019]1
     * und macht traurige Leute; darum kann er Fröhlichkeit nicht leiden.
       Daher kommt's auch, dass er von der Musica aufs Weiteste fleuget;
       er bleibt nicht, wenn man singt, sonderlich geistliche Lieder. Also
       linderte David mit seiner Harfen dem Saul seine Anfechtung, da ihn
       der Teufel plagte: [1020]1
     * und nichts denn Raub, Mord, Blutvergiessen anricht, wie denn
       Christus von ihm sagt, Joh. 8:44: [1021]1
     * und seine Herrschaft in Preussen war ohne Zweifel das
       eigenthümlichste Product des hierarchischritterlichen Geistes der
       letzen Jahrhunderte in der deutschen Nation; er hatte eine
       grossartige Weltenwirkung ausgeübt und ein unermessliches Verdienst
       um die Ausbreitung des deutschen Namens erworben; aber seine Zeit
       war vorüber: [1022]1
     * unter der Gestalt des Brots und Weins: [1023]1
     * unvernünftigen wilden Ungeheuern: [1024]1
     * verkauft noch gelesen um Lohn, will auch den Ruhm, will's Gott, mit
       mir ins Grab nehmen: [1025]1
     * verluthert, durchluthert, and überluthert: [1026]1
     * verruchter Schurke, unverschämter Lügner, Gotteslästerer: [1027]1
     * vexit: [1028]1
     * vielen andern, und mir ja herzlich für den Mann leid ist: [1029]1
     * wahrer Leib und Blut Christi: [1030]1
     * ward den Ständen nicht in ihrer Versammlung vorgelegt; keiner neuen
       Deliberation ward es unterworfen; unerwartet, in der kaiserlichen
       Behausung bekamen sie Kunde davon, nachdem man nichts versäumt, um
       sie guenstig zu stimmen; die Billigung desselben, die nicht einmal
       formell genannt werden kann, ward ihnen durch eine Art von
       Ueberraschung abgewonnen: [1031]1
     * was "ein unverschämter und sittenloser Ablassprediger: [1032]1
     * weder griechisch noch ebraeisch, ich will aber dennoch einem
       Ebraeer und Griechen ziemlich begegnen. Aber die Sprachen machen
       für sich selbst keinen Theologen, sondern sind nur eine Hülfe. Denn
       soll einer von einem Dinge reden, so muss er die Sache: [1033]1
     * welcher das Papstthum für noch lange nicht genug zerscholten,
       zerschrieben, zersungen, zerdichtet Und zermalet hielt, rief schon
       1525 die Censur für seinen nunmehrigen Standpunkt zur Hilfe:
       [1034]1
     * wenn ich bin guter Dinge gewesen: [1035]1
     * werde: [1036]1
     * wie Martinus Luther dem rechten Text, dem huschischen Exemplar
       nach, seins gefallens ab und zugethan und verendert hab: [1037]1
     * wie die Säue: da ist keine Furcht Gottes, noch Zucht mehr, weit des
       Papstes Bann ist abgegangen, und thut jedermann was er nur will:
       [1038]1
     * wie die Sau mit dem Habersack: [1039]1
     * wie weit man ihr Gehorsam schuldig sei?: [1040]1
     * wieder: 'Wenn so viel Teufel zu Worms wären als Ziegel auf den
       Dächern, noch: [1041]1
     * wir hören aus derselben den tausendstimmigen Ruf nach einer
       Verbesserung anHaupt und Gliedern uns entgegentönen)": [1042]1
     * wo D. Carlstadt oder jemand anders vor fünf Jahren mich hätte mögen
       berichten, dass im Sacrament nichts denn Brot und Wein wäre, der
       hätte mir einen grossen Dienst gethan. Ich habe wohl so harte
       Anfechtungen da erlitten und mich gerungen und gewunden, dass ich
       gern heraus gewesen wäre, weil ich wohl sah, dass ich damit dem
       Papstthum hätte den grössten Puff können geben. Ich hab auch zween
       gehabt, die geschickter davon zu mir geschrieben haben denn D.
       Carlstadt, und nicht also die Worte gemartert nach eigenem Dünken.
       Aber ich bin gefangen, kann nicht heraus: der Text ist zu gewaltig
       da, und will sich mit Worten nicht lassen ans dem Sinn reissen:
       [1043]1
     * wo der Luther nicht zuvor hätte geschrieben: [1044]1
     * wohl meisterlich geantwortet, hat sie aber doch zu sanft angerührt
       und mit dem leichten Hobel überlaufen; ich sehe wohl, ich muss mit
       der Bauernaxt über die groben Blöcke kommen: [1045]1
     * wollt ich hinein: [1046]1
     * zuvor wissen und verstehen: [1047]1
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of French Words and Phrases

     * C'est la Réforme tout entière qui est coupable: [1048]1
     * Dans saint Augustin: [1049]1
     * Histoire de France: [1050]1 [1051]2
     * Histoire du Canon: [1052]1
     * Histoire du Canon des Saintes Écritures: [1053]1
     * Jeanne la Folle et Charles V: [1054]1
     * L'électeur Frédéric n'a vait ni la hardiesse ni le génie d'un tel
       rôle: [1055]1
     * La Saint-Barthélemy et la Critique moderne: [1056]1
     * Les poetes Franciscains en Italie au 13: [1057]1
     * Luther est le grand predicateur de la réforme. Il eut presque tous
       les dons de l'orateur; une inèpuisable fécondité de pensées, une
       imagination aussi prompte à recevoir qu'à produire ses impressions,
       une abondance et une suplesse de style inexprimables. Sa voix était
       claire et retentissante, son oeil brillant de flamme, sa téte
       antique, sa poitrine large, ses mains d'unerare beauté, son geste
       ample et rich .... C'était à la fois Rabelais et Montaigne:
       Rabelais avec sa verve drolatique de style, Montaigne avec ses
       tournures qui burinent et cisètent: [1058]1
     * Saint-Pierre de Rome, illustré de plus de 130 gravures sur bois:
       [1059]1
     * la lutte de la nationalité française contre la monstrueuse
       puissance, issue des combinaisons artificielles de l'hérédité
       féodale, qui tend à l'asservissement des nationalités européennes:
       [1060]1
     * la passion, la nature, l'individuaté humaine, n'apparaissent que
       pour étre immolees à la grâce divine. C'est l'histoire d'une crise
       de l'ame, d'une renaissance, d'une Vita nuova; le saint eût rouqi
       de nous faire mieux connaître l'autre vie qu'il avait quitté. Dans
       Rousseau, c'est tous le contraire; il ne s'agit plus de la grace;
       la nature règne sans partage, elle triomphe, elle s'étale; cela va
       quelquefois jusqu 'au dégout. Luther a présenté, non pas
       l'equilibré de la grâce et de la nature, mais leur plus douloureux
       combat. Les luttes de la sensibilité, les tentations plus hautes du
       donte, bien d'autres hommes en eut suffert; Pascal les eut
       évidemment, il les étouffa et il en mourat. Luther n'a rien caché,
       il ne s'est pu contenir. Il a donné à voir en lui à sonder, la
       plaie profonde de notre nature. C'est le seul homme peut-âtre où
       l'on puisse étudier à plaisircette terrible anatomie: [1061]1
     * le coup de grace: [1062]1
     * le premier écrivain par la durée et l'influence de sa langue, de
       son style: [1063]1
     * siècle: [1064]1
     * une vraie 'Somme' théologique, où se trouve impliqué l'ordre civil
       même, et qui n'est pas, comme celle de Thomas d'Aquin, le résumé
       d'un système établi, mais le programne et le code d'un système à
       établir ... Luther attire: Calvin impose et retient ... Volonté et
       logique, voilà Calvin: [1065]1
     __________________________________________________________________

            This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal
               Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org,
                   generated on demand from ThML source.

References

   1. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=1&scrV=1#ii.iv.iii-p97.1
   2. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=2&scrV=18#ii.vi.ix-p15.1
   3. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=3&scrV=19#ii.iv.vii-p14.3
   4. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=6&scrV=6#ii.iv.xiv-p24.1
   5. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=17&scrV=7#ii.vii.ii-p22.3
   6. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=20&scrV=16#ii.iv.iv-p33.3
   7. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=41&scrV=26#ii.vii.vi-p24.3
   8. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gen&scrCh=41&scrV=26#ii.vii.vi-p30.1
   9. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=12&scrV=11#ii.vii.vi-p30.2
  10. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=12&scrV=11#ii.vii.vi-p24.4
  11. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Exod&scrCh=22&scrV=20#ii.i.xi-p20.1
  12. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Lev&scrCh=24&scrV=14#ii.i.xi-p20.4
  13. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Num&scrCh=25&scrV=2#ii.i.xi-p20.2
  14. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.i.xi-p20.3
  15. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Josh&scrCh=7&scrV=25#ii.iii.xviii-p13.1
  16. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Josh&scrCh=7&scrV=25#ii.iii.xviii-p14.3
  17. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Judg&scrCh=9&scrV=4#ii.iv.iv-p33.4
  18. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Sam&scrCh=18&scrV=7#ii.vii.x-p31.1
  19. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Kgs&scrCh=12&scrV=14#ii.iv.xvi-p59.1
  20. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Kgs&scrCh=18&scrV=0#ii.iii.xiv-p34.1
  21. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Kgs&scrCh=21&scrV=10#ii.i.xi-p20.5
  22. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Kgs&scrCh=21&scrV=13#ii.i.xi-p20.5
  23. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=9&scrV=10#ii.iv.xi-p11.5
  24. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=12&scrV=0#ii.v.vii-p95.5
  25. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=22&scrV=0#ii.iv.ii-p43.1
  26. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=31&scrV=5#ii.vi.ix-p35.1
  27. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=46&scrV=0#ii.v.vii-p93.1
  28. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=68&scrV=0#ii.iv.ii-p43.2
  29. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=74&scrV=22#ii.iii.xvii-p13.1
  30. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=80&scrV=13#ii.iii.xvii-p13.2
  31. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=118&scrV=8#ii.iv.xi-p11.6
  32. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=124&scrV=0#ii.v.vii-p169.4
  33. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=130&scrV=0#ii.v.vii-p94.5
  34. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=3&scrV=7#ii.iii.xiv-p6.1
  35. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Eccl&scrCh=10&scrV=16#ii.iii.xxv-p54.1
  36. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Song&scrCh=1&scrV=5#ii.v.x-p12.1
  37. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=3&scrV=4#ii.v.xii-p13.1
  38. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=6&scrV=1#ii.v.v-p21.2
  39. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=7&scrV=23#ii.iv.iv-p33.1
  40. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=49&scrV=15#ii.ix.vii-p23.1
  41. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=53&scrV=3#ii.i.vii-p7.2
  42. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Jer&scrCh=15&scrV=19#ii.i.xii-p33.1
  43. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=18&scrV=23#ii.iv.xiv-p20.1
  44. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=33&scrV=11#ii.iv.xiv-p8.2
  45. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Ezek&scrCh=33&scrV=11#ii.iv.xiv-p20.1
  46. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=7&scrV=8#ii.iii.xix-p9.1
  47. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=7&scrV=20#ii.iii.xix-p9.1
  48. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=7&scrV=21#ii.iii.xix-p9.1
  49. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=8&scrV=23#ii.iii.xv-p25.1
  50. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=8&scrV=25#ii.iii.xxiv-p13.3
  51. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Dan&scrCh=9&scrV=27#ii.v.x-p51.1
  52. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Hos&scrCh=13&scrV=11#ii.v.xii-p13.2
  53. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Zech&scrCh=4&scrV=6#ii.iii.xii-p44.1
  54. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=4&scrV=17#ii.iii.iii-p17.1
  55. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=5&scrV=3#ii.v.x-p7.3
  56. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=5&scrV=21#ii.iv.iii-p83.1
  57. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=5&scrV=39#ii.iv.xi-p15.1
  58. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=6&scrV=9#ii.v.xiv-p15.1
  59. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=6&scrV=10#ii.v.x-p7.5
  60. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=6&scrV=11#ii.iv.iv-p63.2
  61. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=7&scrV=18#ii.iii.xvi-p10.1
  62. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=9&scrV=12#ii.vii.xi-p51.1
  63. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=10&scrV=29#ii.iv.v-p20.2
  64. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=11&scrV=14#ii.vii.vi-p30.4
  65. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=11&scrV=25#ii.iv.vii-p14.2
  66. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=29#ii.i.xi-p97.3
  67. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=29#ii.i.xi-p28.3
  68. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=13&scrV=38#ii.vii.xi-p56.3
  69. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#ii.iv.xvi-p60.2
  70. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#ii.v.x-p7.1
  71. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=16&scrV=18#ii.v.x-p55.1
  72. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=18&scrV=15#ii.vi.viii-p21.1
  73. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=18&scrV=17#ii.v.x-p7.2
  74. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=12#ii.v.iv-p14.1
  75. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=19&scrV=14#ii.vii.ii-p22.1
  76. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=21&scrV=12#ii.i.xi-p97.1
  77. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=22&scrV=14#ii.v.x-p7.10
  78. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=22&scrV=21#ii.i.xi-p46.7
  79. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=22&scrV=21#ii.v.xii-p5.2
  80. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=23&scrV=3#ii.vii.ii-p19.1
  81. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=23&scrV=8#ii.iv.vii-p14.1
  82. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=23&scrV=37#ii.iv.xiv-p8.1
  83. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=4#ii.iii.xix-p12.1
  84. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=11#ii.iii.xix-p12.1
  85. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=15#ii.iii.xviii-p20.1
  86. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=23#ii.iii.xix-p12.1
  87. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=24#ii.iii.xix-p12.1
  88. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=25&scrV=34#ii.v.x-p7.7
  89. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=26&scrV=26#ii.vii.v-p10.1
  90. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=26&scrV=26#ii.vii.xi-p56.1
  91. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=26&scrV=52#ii.i.xi-p97.4
  92. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=26&scrV=52#ii.iv.xvi-p45.2
  93. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=28&scrV=19#ii.vii.ii-p23.1
  94. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=28&scrV=20#ii.v.x-p46.1
  95. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=28&scrV=20#ii.v.x-p55.1
  96. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=1&scrV=24#ii.iii.xviii-p14.1
  97. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=10&scrV=14#ii.v.x-p7.4
  98. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=14&scrV=23#ii.vii.xi-p46.1
  99. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=41#ii.vii.ii-p22.2
 100. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=1&scrV=51#ii.v.xi-p26.2
 101. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=12&scrV=1#ii.vii.xi-p56.4
 102. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=14&scrV=23#ii.i.xi-p23.1
 103. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=14&scrV=23#ii.v.x-p16.1
 104. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=14&scrV=23#ii.v.xii-p9.2
 105. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=17&scrV=20#ii.v.x-p7.6
 106. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=21&scrV=15#ii.ii.xiii-p10.2
 107. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=1&scrV=29#ii.v.v-p21.3
 108. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=1&scrV=51#ii.iii.xvi-p12.1
 109. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=0#ii.v.iii-p47.1
 110. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=8#ii.vii.i-p7.1
 111. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=3&scrV=18#ii.vii.xi-p50.1
 112. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=4&scrV=24#ii.v.v-p8.5
 113. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=0#ii.i.ix-p81.1
 114. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=5&scrV=0#ii.ii.viii-p6.1
 115. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=0#ii.vii.viii-p27.1
 116. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=0#ii.ix.ii-p20.1
 117. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=52#ii.vii.viii-p20.1
 118. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=63#ii.vii.vi-p6.1
 119. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=63#ii.vii.viii-p18.1
 120. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=6&scrV=63#ii.vii.viii-p28.1
 121. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=8&scrV=1#ii.iv.xii-p58.1
 122. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=8&scrV=44#ii.iv.xvi-p47.4
 123. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=10&scrV=6#ii.vii.xi-p56.5
 124. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=10&scrV=12#ii.iv.viii-p15.1
 125. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=10&scrV=14#ii.vii.xi-p56.5
 126. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=10&scrV=16#ii.i.ii-p19.1
 127. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=1#ii.vii.vi-p24.2
 128. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=John&scrCh=16&scrV=16#ii.iv.ii-p10.1
 129. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=2&scrV=27#ii.iii.xviii-p14.2
 130. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=2&scrV=39#ii.vii.ii-p24.1
 131. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=4&scrV=12#ii.i.vii-p4.1
 132. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=4&scrV=12#ii.i.vii-p7.1
 133. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=5&scrV=29#ii.v.xii-p4.3
 134. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=5&scrV=34#ii.i.xi-p97.2
 135. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=5&scrV=38#ii.iii.xxvii-p11.3
 136. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=6&scrV=11#ii.i.xi-p20.6
 137. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=6&scrV=13#ii.i.xi-p20.6
 138. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=12&scrV=25#ii.iv.iv-p25.2
 139. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=14&scrV=14#ii.iii.xiv-p41.1
 140. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=15&scrV=11#ii.i.ii-p14.1
 141. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=16&scrV=15#ii.vii.ii-p24.1
 142. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=16&scrV=33#ii.vii.ii-p24.1
 143. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=18&scrV=24#ii.i.ix-p48.1
 144. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Acts&scrCh=19&scrV=19#ii.iii.xviii-p12.1
 145. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=16#ii.vii.vi-p15.2
 146. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=17#ii.ii.ix-p7.1
 147. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=1&scrV=17#ii.ii.xi-p20.3
 148. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=2&scrV=28#ii.v.x-p7.11
 149. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=0#ii.i.ix-p40.2
 150. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=5#ii.iv.iv-p50.4
 151. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=20#ii.ii.ix-p14.1
 152. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=28#ii.i.vii-p7.3
 153. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=28#ii.i.vii-p7.5
 154. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=28#ii.i.ix-p45.3
 155. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=28#ii.iv.iv-p49.1
 156. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=28#ii.iv.iv-p50.4
 157. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=28#ii.iv.iv-p57.1
 158. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=28#ii.iv.iv-p58.1
 159. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=28#ii.ix.iii-p26.3
 160. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=6&scrV=1#ii.i.vii-p11.1
 161. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=6&scrV=1#ii.ii.ix-p13.2
 162. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=6&scrV=4#ii.iii.xv-p19.1
 163. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=7&scrV=0#ii.ii.vii-p18.1
 164. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=8&scrV=28#ii.iv.iv-p53.3
 165. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=9&scrV=0#ii.iv.v-p20.1
 166. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=9&scrV=5#ii.iv.xii-p58.2
 167. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=11&scrV=0#ii.i.xi-p55.2
 168. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=11&scrV=25#ii.i.ii-p20.6
 169. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=12&scrV=1#ii.v.v-p9.2
 170. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=12&scrV=3#ii.i.ix-p27.1
 171. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=0#ii.v.xiii-p12.1
 172. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.i.xi-p46.5
 173. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.iv.xi-p15.2
 174. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.iv.xvi-p45.1
 175. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.iv.xvi-p48.3
 176. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.iv.xvi-p60.1
 177. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.v.x-p43.5
 178. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.v.xii-p4.1
 179. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=8#ii.iii.xvi-p9.2
 180. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=14&scrV=3#ii.iii.xvi-p13.1
 181. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=9#ii.v.x-p28.2
 182. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=12#ii.i.ix-p48.2
 183. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=1&scrV=16#ii.vii.ii-p24.2
 184. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=2&scrV=0#ii.i.ix-p40.3
 185. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=2&scrV=4#ii.i.ix-p38.1
 186. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=3&scrV=19#ii.v.xi-p26.4
 187. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=6&scrV=10#ii.v.x-p7.8
 188. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=0#ii.v.ii-p4.1
 189. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=7#ii.v.iv-p9.2
 190. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=7#ii.v.iv-p14.2
 191. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=12#ii.iv.vii-p12.1
 192. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=32#ii.v.iv-p9.2
 193. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=33#ii.v.iv-p9.2
 194. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=40#ii.v.iv-p14.2
 195. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=9&scrV=5#ii.v.iv-p6.1
 196. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=9&scrV=19#ii.iii.xvi-p9.1
 197. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=10&scrV=4#ii.vii.vi-p24.1
 198. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=10&scrV=4#ii.vii.vi-p30.5
 199. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=10&scrV=16#ii.vii.xi-p40.1
 200. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=10&scrV=25#ii.iii.xiv-p25.1
 201. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=19#ii.i.xi-p28.2
 202. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=27#ii.iv.iv-p47.2
 203. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=27#ii.vii.vi-p15.3
 204. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=27#ii.vii.xi-p6.1
 205. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=27#ii.vii.xi-p48.1
 206. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=29#ii.vii.xi-p48.1
 207. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=29#ii.vii.xi-p50.2
 208. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=12&scrV=9#ii.iii.iii-p109.1
 209. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=13&scrV=0#ii.vii.viii-p105.1
 210. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.iv.iii-p107.1
 211. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=13&scrV=8#ii.iv.iii-p56.1
 212. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=14&scrV=11#ii.iv.iv-p33.5
 213. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=14&scrV=40#ii.v.v-p8.6
 214. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=15&scrV=30#ii.v.x-p7.8
 215. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=10&scrV=4#ii.v.xii-p16.2
 216. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Cor&scrCh=11&scrV=22#ii.iv.iv-p52.3
 217. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=11#ii.iii.vi-p11.1
 218. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=16#ii.iv.iv-p50.2
 219. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=2&scrV=19#ii.ii.ix-p14.3
 220. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=3&scrV=24#ii.ii.ix-p14.2
 221. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=3&scrV=25#ii.i.ix-p54.1
 222. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=4&scrV=4#ii.iii.xvi-p9.3
 223. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=4&scrV=24#ii.vii.vi-p30.3
 224. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=4&scrV=24#ii.vii.xi-p56.6
 225. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=5&scrV=6#ii.i.vii-p10.1
 226. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=5&scrV=6#ii.iv.iii-p42.2
 227. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=5&scrV=6#ii.iv.iv-p47.3
 228. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=5&scrV=6#ii.vii.vii-p19.1
 229. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=5&scrV=13#ii.i.vii-p11.2
 230. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Gal&scrCh=5&scrV=21#ii.v.x-p7.9
 231. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=1&scrV=22#ii.vii.xi-p43.1
 232. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=2#ii.iii.xxiv-p29.1
 233. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=2&scrV=11#ii.i.ii-p20.5
 234. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=3&scrV=17#ii.vii.vi-p34.4
 235. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=10#ii.vii.viii-p7.1
 236. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=15#ii-p5.1
 237. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Eph&scrCh=4&scrV=15#ii.iv.ix-p10.2
 238. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=1#ii.v.x-p28.3
 239. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=3#ii.iv.xi-p14.1
 240. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Phil&scrCh=2&scrV=6#ii.iii.xvi-p9.4
 241. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=13#ii.i.ix-p67.4
 242. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=3#ii.iii.xxiv-p13.4
 243. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=3#ii.v.x-p51.3
 244. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=3#ii.v.x-p52.1
 245. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=3#ii.iii.xiv-p44.1
 246. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=3#ii.v.x-p42.1
 247. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=3#ii.iii.xix-p14.1
 248. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=4#ii.iii.xviii-p20.2
 249. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=4#ii.v.x-p51.2
 250. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=7#ii.iii.xix-p18.6
 251. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=2&scrV=7#ii.v.x-p43.2
 252. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Thess&scrCh=3&scrV=10#ii.iii.xiv-p26.1
 253. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=4#ii.iv.xiv-p8.3
 254. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=4#ii.iv.xiv-p20.2
 255. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=2#ii.iv.vii-p13.1
 256. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=2#ii.v.iv-p9.1
 257. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=12#ii.v.iv-p9.1
 258. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=15#ii.v.x-p46.2
 259. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Tim&scrCh=4&scrV=1#ii.v.iv-p9.3
 260. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=2&scrV=24#ii.i.xi-p28.1
 261. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=3&scrV=16#ii.i.ix-p67.2
 262. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Tim&scrCh=4&scrV=3#ii.iii.xxiv-p13.5
 263. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=3&scrV=10#ii.vii.vi-p38.1
 264. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Titus&scrCh=3&scrV=10#ii.vii.ix-p14.4
 265. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=2&scrV=3#ii.i.ix-p64.1
 266. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=6&scrV=0#ii.i.ix-p47.1
 267. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=0#ii.i.ix-p47.1
 268. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=20#ii.vii.xi-p56.7
 269. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=34#ii.iv.iv-p25.3
 270. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=13&scrV=4#ii.iv.iv-p47.1
 271. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Jas&scrCh=2&scrV=24#ii.iv.iv-p50.5
 272. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=5#ii.v.v-p9.4
 273. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=9#ii.iii.xiv-p14.1
 274. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=13#ii.i.xi-p46.6
 275. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=13#ii.v.xii-p4.2
 276. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=5&scrV=3#ii.ix.iii-p35.1
 277. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1Pet&scrCh=5&scrV=5#ii.v.xi-p26.3
 278. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Pet&scrCh=1&scrV=19#ii.i.ix-p67.1
 279. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Pet&scrCh=1&scrV=21#ii.i.ix-p67.1
 280. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Pet&scrCh=2&scrV=1#ii.iii.xxiv-p13.6
 281. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Pet&scrCh=3&scrV=9#ii.iv.xiv-p8.4
 282. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=1&scrV=3#ii.v.x-p28.1
 283. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=1&scrV=5#ii.v.v-p8.4
 284. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=2&scrV=18#ii.iii.xix-p11.1
 285. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=2&scrV=22#ii.iii.xix-p11.1
 286. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=2&scrV=23#ii.iv.iv-p25.4
 287. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=4&scrV=8#ii.v.v-p8.3
 288. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=7#ii.iv.iii-p60.1
 289. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=7#ii.iv.iv-p24.1
 290. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=7#ii.iv.xii-p57.1
 291. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=9#ii.i.ix-p67.3
 292. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2John&scrCh=1&scrV=7#ii.iii.xix-p11.2
 293. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2John&scrCh=1&scrV=7#ii.iii.xix-p18.2
 294. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=1&scrV=9#ii.iv.i-p7.1
 295. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=1&scrV=20#ii.vii.xi-p56.8
 296. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=5&scrV=10#ii.iii.xiv-p14.2
 297. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=11&scrV=2#ii.iv.iv-p25.5
 298. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=12&scrV=7#ii.i.xi-p80.1
 299. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=13&scrV=0#ii.iv.iv-p43.3
 300. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=13&scrV=0#ii.iv.iv-p55.1
 301. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.iii.xix-p9.2
 302. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.v.x-p52.2
 303. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=14&scrV=8#ii.ix.ii-p20.2
 304. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=17&scrV=0#ii.iv.iii-p45.1
 305. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=17&scrV=0#ii.iv.iv-p55.2
 306. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=17&scrV=0#ii.iv.iv-p56.1
 307. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=17&scrV=5#ii.iii.xix-p9.3
 308. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=18&scrV=2#ii.ix.ii-p20.2
 309. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=21&scrV=0#ii.iv.iii-p41.1
 310. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=22&scrV=17#ii.vii.viii-p105.2
 311. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=22&scrV=20#ii.ix.ii-p20.2
 312. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3?scrBook=2Macc&scrCh=4&scrV=12#ii.iii.xiv-p29.1
 313. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ix-p10.1
 314. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.ii-p26.1
 315. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xix-p18.5
 316. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p43.3
 317. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p8.1
 318. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xi-p6.1
 319. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xiv-p35.1
 320. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p96.1
 321. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p47.4
 322. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p8.2
 323. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p63.1
 324. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p10.4
 325. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p13.5
 326. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p56.9
 327. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p56.2
 328. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p13.4
 329. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p43.1
 330. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xix-p18.3
 331. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xix-p18.4
 332. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.v-p8.2
 333. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p10.3
 334. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.ix-p10.3
 335. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xii-p30.1
 336. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p84.1
 337. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xii-p30.2
 338. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ii-p20.4
 339. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xi-p11.1
 340. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.v-p18.1
 341. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.ix-p10.4
 342. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.ix-p10.2
 343. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.ix-p10.1
 344. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p47.5
 345. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p9.1
 346. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p9.2
 347. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiii-p16.1
 348. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xii-p9.1
 349. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p10.1
 350. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p10.5
 351. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p10.2
 352. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.viii-p6.1
 353. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xix-p18.1
 354. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.v-p9.1
 355. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.ix-p13.1
 356. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ii-p20.2
 357. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ii-p20.1
 358. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iii-p29.1
 359. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iii-p16.2
 360. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iii-p16.1
 361. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p8.4
 362. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p87.1
 363. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p92.1
 364. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p92.2
 365. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.v-p5.2
 366. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p12.1
 367. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.v-p8.1
 368. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.v-p9.3
 369. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ii-p20.3
 370. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.iii-p36.1
 371. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.ii-p26.2
 372. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p8.3
 373. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xix-p15.1
 374. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p43.4
 375. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.x-p6.1
 376. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p27.3
 377. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p8.1
 378. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xiii-p13.1
 379. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.ix-p23.2
 380. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xvi-p15.1
 381. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xvi-p17.1
 382. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p126.1
 383. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p19.1
 384. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p22.1
 385. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiii-p9.1
 386. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p89.1
 387. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p152.1
 388. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p50.1
 389. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.viii-p76.1
 390. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xi-p14.1
 391. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.viii-p77.1
 392. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p36.4
 393. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p42.4
 394. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iv-p21.1
 395. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.ii-p20.1
 396. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p7.3
 397. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xix-p20.1
 398. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p14.3
 399. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.i-p6.2
 400. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.viii-p22.4
 401. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p12.3
 402. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xvii-p9.1
 403. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p8.1
 404. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p12.2
 405. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p12.5
 406. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p12.7
 407. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.viii-p17.1
 408. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.x-p11.1
 409. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xiv-p11.1
 410. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p27.1
 411. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p19.1
 412. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p26.1
 413. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iv-p22.1
 414. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iv-p14.2
 415. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p16.1
 416. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.vii-p13.1
 417. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p24.1
 418. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p7.2
 419. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p42.1
 420. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.ii-p22.1
 421. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xi-p20.1
 422. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.viii.i-p14.1
 423. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xv-p16.3
 424. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vii-p5.1
 425. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxii-p31.1
 426. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p88.2
 427. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p36.1
 428. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.vi-p11.1
 429. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p10.1
 430. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p47.1
 431. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p60.1
 432. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p59.1
 433. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p54.2
 434. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p54.1
 435. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p12.3
 436. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p24.1
 437. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p24.1
 438. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.i-p17.3
 439. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.viii-p17.1
 440. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xii-p10.1
 441. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p13.2
 442. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p26.1
 443. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.viii-p13.1
 444. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p9.1
 445. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p34.3
 446. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p12.1
 447. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p17.6
 448. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p62.1
 449. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p51.1
 450. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p23.1
 451. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p62.4
 452. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p5.2
 453. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvi-p17.1
 454. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvii-p16.1
 455. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.x-p5.2
 456. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p12.1
 457. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p127.1
 458. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.v-p15.1
 459. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ii-p12.1
 460. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxii-p7.2
 461. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xvi-p48.1
 462. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iv-p20.1
 463. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p65.1
 464. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p8.1
 465. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p74.1
 466. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.ii-p15.1
 467. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p128.1
 468. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p42.1
 469. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.v-p18.2
 470. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.iv-p11.1
 471. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p92.1
 472. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p43.1
 473. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p14.2
 474. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p34.1
 475. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.viii-p23.1
 476. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xii-p8.1
 477. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p53.1
 478. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xvi-p11.1
 479. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p11.1
 480. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p66.1
 481. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p7.1
 482. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xi-p14.1
 483. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p32.1
 484. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.v-p14.1
 485. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p44.1
 486. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.x-p5.1
 487. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xix-p6.1
 488. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p16.1
 489. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p27.1
 490. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.viii.i-p10.1
 491. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p9.1
 492. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xi-p9.1
 493. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p10.1
 494. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p14.1
 495. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.iii-p19.1
 496. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p35.1
 497. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p64.1
 498. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p19.1
 499. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.iii-p36.2
 500. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.viii-p27.2
 501. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p24.2
 502. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p42.4
 503. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p24.1
 504. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.viii-p22.1
 505. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p26.1
 506. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xiv-p8.1
 507. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.ii-p13.1
 508. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p52.1
 509. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p27.1
 510. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xi-p19.1
 511. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p46.3
 512. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.viii.i-p12.2
 513. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p32.1
 514. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xv-p16.2
 515. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.viii-p27.1
 516. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p41.1
 517. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p66.1
 518. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p14.1
 519. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvii-p12.1
 520. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xvi-p48.4
 521. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.vii-p15.1
 522. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p60.1
 523. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p21.1
 524. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p43.1
 525. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p25.1
 526. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p24.1
 527. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iii-p14.2
 528. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxii-p59.1
 529. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iii-p10.1
 530. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.i-p4.1
 531. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.v-p21.1
 532. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p12.1
 533. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xi-p15.1
 534. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p16.1
 535. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.i-p4.1
 536. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xi-p31.1
 537. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vi-p12.2
 538. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxi-p16.1
 539. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p42.3
 540. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p5.1
 541. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.viii-p20.1
 542. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p37.1
 543. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiv-p9.1
 544. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiv-p8.2
 545. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p32.1
 546. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiv-p8.1
 547. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p28.1
 548. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xv-p22.1
 549. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p24.2
 550. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.viii-p28.1
 551. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p26.1
 552. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xiv-p32.1
 553. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.iii-p26.1
 554. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p39.1
 555. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p130.1
 556. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.ii-p25.1
 557. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p37.2
 558. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p51.2
 559. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p19.1
 560. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.v-p5.1
 561. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xvii-p17.2
 562. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vii-p32.1
 563. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p75.3
 564. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p23.1
 565. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p42.1
 566. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vi-p12.3
 567. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p26.1
 568. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xiii-p13.1
 569. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p17.1
 570. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p44.4
 571. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p17.4
 572. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p45.4
 573. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xii-p12.1
 574. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p28.1
 575. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p164.1
 576. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p44.7
 577. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p28.1
 578. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p40.1
 579. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p163.1
 580. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p30.1
 581. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p28.2
 582. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p47.3
 583. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p33.4
 584. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xviii-p16.1
 585. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vii-p30.1
 586. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xv-p16.1
 587. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p31.2
 588. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vii-p8.1
 589. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p25.1
 590. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p55.1
 591. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xviii-p30.2
 592. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxii-p7.1
 593. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p33.1
 594. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p132.1
 595. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p22.1
 596. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p80.1
 597. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.ix-p8.2
 598. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.vii-p13.2
 599. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.vii-p15.2
 600. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiv-p6.2
 601. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiii-p56.1
 602. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p32.2
 603. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p11.1
 604. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.v-p18.1
 605. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvi-p8.1
 606. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xi-p24.1
 607. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p28.1
 608. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p129.1
 609. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvii-p17.1
 610. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p46.4
 611. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.ix-p21.1
 612. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.viii-p9.1
 613. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p41.1
 614. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p50.3
 615. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.viii-p52.1
 616. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xi-p15.1
 617. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xvii-p17.1
 618. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxi-p11.2
 619. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p11.1
 620. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.viii-p52.2
 621. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p33.1
 622. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.7
 623. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p25.1
 624. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p25.2
 625. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xi-p25.1
 626. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p41.1
 627. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p40.1
 628. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.viii-p27.1
 629. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p12.1
 630. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p34.1
 631. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p26.2
 632. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p12.1
 633. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.viii-p27.2
 634. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.iii-p28.1
 635. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p13.1
 636. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p13.2
 637. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xviii-p30.1
 638. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p88.1
 639. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p5.3
 640. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p16.1
 641. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.v-p14.2
 642. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p5.1
 643. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p75.4
 644. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p21.1
 645. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p21.2
 646. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p31.4
 647. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.x-p20.1
 648. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p62.5
 649. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xix-p20.2
 650. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxi-p16.2
 651. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p44.5
 652. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p37.3
 653. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.vii-p15.1
 654. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.i-p6.3
 655. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p7.1
 656. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p18.3
 657. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xv-p23.1
 658. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p33.2
 659. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.ii-p21.1
 660. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p43.2
 661. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p40.3
 662. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.3
 663. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p68.1
 664. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p133.1
 665. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p24.1
 666. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.vi-p9.1
 667. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.v-p12.1
 668. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p46.1
 669. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vii-p24.2
 670. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p14.3
 671. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.viii-p28.2
 672. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p56.2
 673. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p40.1
 674. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p33.1
 675. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p21.1
 676. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.2
 677. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iv-p13.1
 678. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p32.4
 679. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xiv-p11.1
 680. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.viii-p23.1
 681. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xviii-p7.1
 682. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p31.1
 683. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p5.1
 684. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.viii-p8.1
 685. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p34.1
 686. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p40.2
 687. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p22.1
 688. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiii-p16.2
 689. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xiii-p8.1
 690. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p41.1
 691. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.viii-p54.1
 692. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p38.1
 693. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.v-p18.1
 694. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p7.1
 695. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p12.2
 696. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p80.2
 697. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.5
 698. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.v-p7.1
 699. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.viii-p19.1
 700. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iv-p26.2
 701. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p44.2
 702. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.iii-p8.1
 703. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xx-p19.3
 704. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xx-p19.2
 705. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p17.5
 706. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p66.3
 707. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.ix-p65.1
 708. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p66.2
 709. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p61.1
 710. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p49.1
 711. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xii-p16.1
 712. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p72.2
 713. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p223.2
 714. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p75.2
 715. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xi-p19.2
 716. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xi-p11.8
 717. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p11.2
 718. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vii-p27.1
 719. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p20.1
 720. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p20.2
 721. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p18.1
 722. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p212.1
 723. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p42.1
 724. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p17.2
 725. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p17.3
 726. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p21.1
 727. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.v-p18.2
 728. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.ix-p23.1
 729. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vii-p12.1
 730. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p10.1
 731. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p8.1
 732. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.i-p13.1
 733. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xvi-p47.1
 734. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iv-p26.1
 735. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p28.1
 736. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p45.3
 737. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.i-p17.1
 738. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p43.1
 739. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvii-p11.2
 740. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p11.1
 741. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xii-p13.3
 742. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xi-p11.9
 743. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p9.2
 744. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.vii-p15.2
 745. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p60.1
 746. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.iii-p36.3
 747. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.ix-p8.1
 748. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p11.1
 749. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.v-p11.1
 750. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p24.1
 751. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p67.2
 752. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiii-p10.1
 753. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p34.1
 754. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.v-p15.1
 755. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p45.1
 756. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p72.1
 757. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.vii-p18.1
 758. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p37.6
 759. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p22.1
 760. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xvi-p47.2
 761. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iv-p16.1
 762. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p22.5
 763. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p5.4
 764. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.vi-p15.2
 765. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.4
 766. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p15.1
 767. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p62.3
 768. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.viii-p24.1
 769. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p7.2
 770. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p31.1
 771. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p93.1
 772. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p32.1
 773. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.9
 774. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p39.1
 775. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p91.1
 776. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p223.1
 777. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.10
 778. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p12.4
 779. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xviii-p27.2
 780. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p34.1
 781. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p58.1
 782. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p9.1
 783. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xv-p26.1
 784. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p33.5
 785. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p44.6
 786. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.ix-p9.1
 787. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.vii-p7.4
 788. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p25.1
 789. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p33.2
 790. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p53.1
 791. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p9.1
 792. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.ii-p19.1
 793. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p12.4
 794. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p47.2
 795. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xvi-p19.1
 796. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.v-p5.1
 797. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p12.8
 798. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p10.2
 799. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p34.1
 800. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p33.1
 801. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p64.2
 802. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p27.5
 803. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#i-p26.1
 804. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iii-p8.1
 805. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iii-p8.2
 806. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.1
 807. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vii-p12.2
 808. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.v-p11.2
 809. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p27.4
 810. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.v-p11.1
 811. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xi-p14.2
 812. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xi-p15.2
 813. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p21.1
 814. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p10.1
 815. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.i-p6.1
 816. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p52.1
 817. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvi-p10.1
 818. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p69.1
 819. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p23.1
 820. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p18.1
 821. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p26.1
 822. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.ii-p24.1
 823. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p34.1
 824. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p19.1
 825. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p46.2
 826. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iii-p8.3
 827. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p13.1
 828. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.viii-p22.2
 829. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p62.2
 830. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.v-p12.1
 831. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xiii-p6.1
 832. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.iii-p40.1
 833. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xiv-p13.1
 834. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiv-p6.1
 835. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p34.2
 836. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p62.1
 837. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vi-p12.1
 838. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p21.1
 839. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p20.1
 840. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p37.4
 841. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p21.1
 842. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p26.1
 843. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p18.1
 844. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p22.6
 845. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p90.1
 846. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p9.1
 847. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvi-p11.1
 848. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p24.3
 849. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vii-p18.1
 850. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vii-p22.1
 851. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiii-p11.2
 852. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p44.3
 853. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p61.1
 854. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p29.1
 855. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p20.1
 856. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p67.1
 857. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p56.1
 858. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvi-p12.1
 859. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p38.1
 860. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vi-p14.1
 861. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p19.1
 862. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p21.1
 863. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vii-p24.1
 864. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvi-p14.1
 865. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p54.2
 866. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.viii.iv-p11.1
 867. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvi-p15.1
 868. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.ii-p27.1
 869. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p54.1
 870. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p75.1
 871. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p41.2
 872. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p47.1
 873. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p46.1
 874. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p50.1
 875. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xii-p5.1
 876. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p13.1
 877. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiii-p7.1
 878. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p37.5
 879. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.vii-p12.3
 880. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.viii.ii-p9.1
 881. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xv-p13.1
 882. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iv-p38.1
 883. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.ii-p22.1
 884. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.8
 885. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p222.6
 886. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iv-p13.2
 887. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p34.2
 888. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvi-p13.1
 889. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p36.1
 890. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.vii-p9.1
 891. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xviii-p27.3
 892. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.v-p16.1
 893. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iii-p14.1
 894. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.v-p31.1
 895. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p40.1
 896. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xviii-p8.1
 897. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p81.1
 898. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xi-p25.1
 899. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xviii-p27.1
 900. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ix-p18.1
 901. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.ii-p22.2
 902. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p22.4
 903. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ix-p21.1
 904. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p131.1
 905. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxi-p11.3
 906. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvi-p9.1
 907. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p26.1
 908. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.iii-p44.1
 909. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p48.1
 910. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xi-p25.2
 911. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p46.1
 912. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.v-p13.1
 913. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ix-p13.1
 914. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p15.1
 915. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.viii-p29.1
 916. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xiii-p9.1
 917. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p56.2
 918. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p27.2
 919. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p11.1
 920. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xii-p9.1
 921. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p42.1
 922. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p44.1
 923. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p66.4
 924. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p45.1
 925. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p50.1
 926. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p53.2
 927. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p53.5
 928. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p53.6
 929. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.iii-p26.2
 930. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p13.1
 931. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p14.2
 932. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p34.2
 933. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.ii-p21.1
 934. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p39.2
 935. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.viii.iv-p11.2
 936. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p18.1
 937. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.vi-p5.1
 938. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p11.1
 939. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.viii.i-p14.3
 940. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.viii.i-p14.2
 941. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p43.4
 942. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xii-p39.1
 943. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p15.3
 944. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p24.1
 945. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p115.1
 946. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p52.2
 947. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p42.3
 948. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p40.1
 949. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.ix-p9.2
 950. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.iii-p19.2
 951. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxi-p11.4
 952. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p24.1
 953. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.viii.i-p12.1
 954. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p10.1
 955. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p12.6
 956. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p37.1
 957. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p32.6
 958. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p23.2
 959. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p45.2
 960. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p8.1
 961. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p45.2
 962. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xi-p11.4
 963. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p64.1
 964. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.viii-p9.1
 965. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p15.1
 966. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p88.1
 967. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.viii-p23.2
 968. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p42.2
 969. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p34.1
 970. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.viii-p25.1
 971. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p117.1
 972. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p31.3
 973. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xi-p11.2
 974. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p23.1
 975. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xi-p11.1
 976. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xi-p26.1
 977. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p15.2
 978. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vii-p32.2
 979. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.vi-p15.1
 980. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p36.3
 981. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxvii-p11.1
 982. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p22.2
 983. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.viii-p22.3
 984. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iv-p14.3
 985. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p55.1
 986. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.ix-p8.3
 987. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p24.2
 988. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p21.2
 989. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xi-p20.2
 990. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.i-p17.2
 991. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p7.2
 992. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p37.1
 993. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p64.2
 994. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p116.1
 995. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.x-p41.3
 996. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p53.4
 997. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p50.3
 998. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.vi-p33.3
 999. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xvii-p17.3
1000. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ix.viii-p20.3
1001. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p32.3
1002. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxv-p36.2
1003. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p7.4
1004. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p18.2
1005. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.v-p15.2
1006. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p50.2
1007. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiii-p7.2
1008. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p53.2
1009. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p31.2
1010. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xvi-p48.2
1011. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p35.1
1012. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p42.5
1013. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p55.3
1014. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p36.1
1015. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xi-p31.2
1016. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p34.3
1017. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p22.3
1018. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.v-p16.2
1019. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p19.1
1020. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ii-p32.2
1021. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xvi-p47.3
1022. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ix-p14.2
1023. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p17.1
1024. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xi-p11.7
1025. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.xiii-p7.3
1026. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p18.1
1027. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.xi-p11.3
1028. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p38.1
1029. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.ix-p16.2
1030. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p16.1
1031. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxviii-p8.2
1032. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.ii-p20.4
1033. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p34.3
1034. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vi.ii-p25.2
1035. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.ix-p13.2
1036. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p9.2
1037. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iv-p43.2
1038. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.xiii-p9.2
1039. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.iv-p14.1
1040. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p46.2
1041. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p32.5
1042. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.iii-p18.2
1043. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.iv-p11.2
1044. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.x-p7.3
1045. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxix-p15.4
1046. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xxiv-p32.7
1047. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.iii-p34.4
1048. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p93.2
1049. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iii-p33.1
1050. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xx-p23.1
1051. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p77.1
1052. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iv.vii-p9.2
1053. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.ix-p33.1
1054. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xx-p19.1
1055. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xx-p23.2
1056. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.i.xi-p32.2
1057. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p17.1
1058. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iii-p32.1
1059. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.i-p4.2
1060. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.iii.xx-p32.1
1061. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iii-p33.2
1062. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.ii.iii-p32.2
1063. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p77.3
1064. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.v.vii-p17.2
1065. file:///ccel/s/schaff/hcc7/cache/hcc7.html3#ii.vii.xi-p77.2