(L. Diestel+; A. Ritschl+. Revised by J. Weiss.)

Bibliography: For the Biblical side reference is to be made to the works named in and under Biblical Theology, and to the commentaries on the passages cited. For the modern philosophic conceptions consult: L. Frobenius, Die Weltanschauung der Naturvölker, Weimar, 1898; W. Lutoslawski, Ueber die Grundvoraussetzungen und Consequenzen der individualistischen Weltanschauung, Helsingfors, 1898; W. Bender, Die Entstehung der Weltanschauungen im griechischen Altertum, Stuttgart, 1899; G. Mohr, Christliche Weltanschauung auf biblischen Grunde,Ulm, 1899; P. Paulsen, Die Gewissheit der christlichen Weltanschauung im modernen Geistleben, Stuttgart, 1900; R. Steiner, Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im 19. Jahrhundert, 2 vols., Berlin, 1900-01; K. A. von Hass, Die psychologische Begründung der religibsen Weltanschauung im XIX. Jahrhundert,ib. 1901; 0. Hellberg, Die Welt unserer Begriffe, Halle, 1901; G. Meisel-Hess, In der modernen Weltanschauung, Leipsic, 1901; R. Eueken, Die Lebensanschauungen der grosser Denker, 4th ed., ib. 1902; A. Rüscher, Göttliche Notwendigkeits-Weltanschauung; Teleologie, mechanische Naturansicht und Gottesidee, Zurich, 1902; A. Kalthoff, Religiöse Weltanschauung, Leipsic, 1903; J. Baumann, Dichterische und wissenschaftliche Weltansicht, Gotha, 1904; idem, Welt- und Lebensansicht in ihren realwissenschaftlichen und philosophischen Grundzügen, ib. 1906; R. Otto, Naturalistische and religiöse Weltansicht, Tübingen, 1904; L. Ragaz, Du sollst. Grundzüge einer sittlichen Weltanschauung, 2d ed., Freiburg, 1904; H. Winckler, Die Weltanschauung des alten Orients, Leipsic, 1904; H. Gomperz, Weltanschauungslehre, vol.i., Methodologie,ib. 1905; J. Reiner, Aus der modernen Weltanschauung, Hanover, 1905; H. Bavinck, Christliche Weltanschauung, Heidelberg, 1907; J. Behrens, Die natürliche Welteinheit. Bausteine zu einer idealistischen Weltanschauung, Wismar, 1907; L. Busse, Die Weltanschauungen der grossen Philosophen der Neuzeit, 3d ed., Leipsic, 1907; E. Dennert, Die Weltanschauung des modernen Naturforschers, Stuttgart, 1907; C. Wenzig, Die Weltanschauungen der Gegenwart im Gegensatz und Ausgleich. Einführung in der Grundprobleme und Grundbegriffe der Philosophie, Leipsic, 1907; S. Arrhenius, The Life of the Universe, London, 1909; A. Heussner, Die philosophischen Weltanschauungen und ihre Hauptvertreter, Göttingen, 1910; P. W. Van Peyma, The Why of the Will: the Unity of the Universe, Boston, 1910; B. Kern, Weltanschauungen und Welterkenntnis, Berlin, 1911.

431

WORMS.

I. The City and Bishopric.

II. The Concordat.

III. The Diet.

IV. Religious Conferences.

1. Conference of 1540-41.

The Occasion and Preliminaries (§ 1).

Progress and Close (§ 2).

2. Conference of 1557.

Preliminaries (§ 1).

The Flacian Breach (§ 2).

The Conference Futile (§ 3).

I. The City and Bishopric:

[Worms, one of the oldest and most interesting cities in Germany, also long one of the most important, lies in the plain of the Wonne on the left bank of the Rhine, twentyfive miles south of Mainz. It has about 42,000 inhabitants, of whom two-thirds are Protestants, about one-third Roman Catholic, and 2,500 are Jews. Its name in the Roman period was Borbetomagus, in a Celtic district, and it was the seat of the Vangiones, a small tribe settled there by Julius Cæsar, where arose the civitas Vangionum. In the fifth century it came under the Burgundians, and there the legends of Gunther and Brunhilde, Siegfried and Kriemhild, and later of Eginhard and Emma are laid. It was the see city of an ancient bishopric, was often the residence of the Frankish kings and of Charlemagne and his successors, gave its name to a famous concordat, and was the scene of the diet where Luther made his famous defense and declaration before Charles V. (see Luther, Martin, § 9), and of two important conferences. It is noted also for its Romanesque cathedral, of red sandstone, dating from the twelfth to the fourteenth century, and for the great monument to Luther, designed by Rietschel (see Sculpture,Christian Use of, III., § 3).] The circumstances of the founding of the bishopric are unknown; even when Christianity entered the region is uncertain, since it is not known whether the referelice of Irenæus (Hær., I., x. 2) to churches in the German provinces refers to this place. The first secure trace is the statement of Orosius (Hist., VII., xxxii. 13) that in the beginning of the fifth century the Burgundians received Christianity, and that the left bank of the Rhine was in general organized ecclesiastically (cf. Socrates, Hist. eccl., VII., xxx.). But there is no report of a bishopric, and no list of bishops for this period. For 200 years nothing more is heard, meanwhile the Franks took possession of the land, the Burgundians having withdrawn; the city thus became German instead of Roman. The Christian community survived the change, and at the synod held at Paris in 614 a Bishop Berhtulfus of Uarnacium appeared; in 696 Rupert of Salzburg was bishop, after which follows a gap of a century in knowledge of the see. From the end of the eighth century the bishops' names are known. The diocese itself was located on both sides of the Rhine. The bishopric was suppressed in 1801.

(A. Hauck.)

II. The Concordat:

[For the terms of this agreement see Concordats and Delimiting Bulls, I. Its significance rests in the fact that it ended the dispute between pope and emperor regarding Investiture (q.v.) in an agreement between Calixtus II. and Henry V. The terms of the concordat were read before a multitude in a meadow near the city.

III. The Diet:

This important gathering, before which Luther was summoned to appear, closed the first period of the Reformation, showing to the world that the movement started by Luther was something greater than that started by Huss, and likely to take quite another turn. Luther arrived on Tuesday, Apr. 16, 1521, in the forenoon, and was lodged in the house of the Knights of St. John. The next day at six o'clock in the afternoon, he appeared before the diet, assembled in the episcopal palace. For the proceedings and result see Luther, Martin, § 9.]

IV. Religious Conferences:

1. Conference of 1540-41:

The Occasion and Preliminaries.

The Hagenau Conference (q.v.) having proved ineffective, a new one was called for Oct. 28 of the same year (1540). Paul III. decided to have as his representative a man not a cardinal, and appointed Tommaso Campeggi, bishop of Feltre. His instrucions emphasized the grace of the pope in accepting a conference of this kind, which he so abhorred, and directed that the authority of the Curia be guarded and all proposals be reserved for papal decision. Morone, the nuncio, also appeared, his purpose being to obstruct the conference as much as possible. Pietro Paolo Vergerio (q.v.) came ostensibly as the French representative, really in the secret service of the pope to encourage the return of Protestants to the Church. Melanchthon set on foot on Oct. 22 in Gotha a protest against the claim of the pope to precedence and to the ultimate decision in such a conference. His own instructions were definite to refuse recognition of the papal supremacy, and warned of the danger of cleavage in Protestant ranks in case certain positions should not be maintained. The Protestants were to stand by the Schmalkald conclusions. The members of the conference arrived promptly, but the emperor's representative delayed his arrival till Nov. 22. Roman Catholics of note deputed were Nausea, Cochlæus, Pflug, Pelargus, Gropper, Eck, and Mensing, while for the Evangelicals appeared Jakob Sturm, Butzer, Capito, Calvin, W. Link, Osiander, Schnepf, Brenz, and Amsdorf. Representatives of Mainz, Bavaria, Pfalz; and Strasburg were to officiate as presidents. The Evangelicals used the delay in cementing a united front. On Nov. 25 Granvella opened the conference. To the Evangelicals it was suggested that they submit in writing what they proposed to hold, to which they replied by submitting the Augsburg Confession and Apology.

Progress and Close.

The real beginning of the conference was continually postponed, and on Dec. 8 Campeggi appeared and spoke of the zeal of the pope for a healing of the religious divisions, and to this assent was given without mention of the pope. The Evangelicals opposed the delivery of the summaries of action to the emperor alone, and demanded that each side receive an original set of documents, though they finally agreed to accept certified copies. The Roman Catholic party was not in agreement as to the measures to be adopted. It seemed as though the conference was going to pieces upon the question of the form of interchange of proposals. Granvella had from the beginning no confidence in a public conference,

432

and endeavored to get some individuals from the Protestant side to consent to more private proceedings and so to enable a compromise to be reached. On Jan. 2, 1541, the proposition was put forward that each of the eleven participants should speak together with the chief speaker for each side, the notaries to take down the chief points; on this the Evangelicals were not at one, Melanchthon and Butzer seeking to mediate, the effect of Granvella'a astute policy being seen in this attitude, the result being the anger of Osiander, who saw that some secret understanding was obtained. The Protestants desired that each of the participants should have free speech. Granvella sought from the emperor authority to close the conference, but on Jan. 14 the conference began with Eck as the Roman Catholic speaker. He excused the delay on the ground that the Confession (of 1540) laid before them differed from that of 1530 and that comparison had required time, to which Melanchthon replied that they were essentially the same. Eck practically passed article 1, and began debate on article 2 dealing with original sin, upon which he and Melanchthon disputed till the 17th, when Granvella called both, together with Mensing and Butzer, to a meeting, where the four agreed upon a formula which the Evangelicals could accept. Meanwhile, on the day before Granvella had received orders from the emperor to close the conference, and on Jan. 18, when further proceedings were to be carried on, the president declared that the emperor had ordered, since no progress had been made, that the matters be deferred to the coming diet, and the conference was abruptly broken off.

2. Conference of 1557:

Preliminaries.

By the Augsburg Religous Peace (q.v.) of 1555 the states of the Augsburg Confession had won as a permanent right freedom to exercise their religion. But the hope of a religious union and ecclesiastical agreement in matters of teaching and ceremonies had not been given up. The discussion of the equalization of the religious parties was referred at the time to the then future diet appointed for Mar. 1, 1556. The difficulty of the Evangelical princes was that since Luther's death their churches had become disunited through various controversies, and there was no recognized leader; Melanchthon's authority was challenged by a part even of his own scholars, while Brenz was suspected by one whole group. At the Augsburg Diet; Christoph of Württemberg had desired a meeting of Evangelical princes; Philip of Hesse had wanted a meeting of their counselors and theologians; the Ernestine dukes sought to bring both about. But the theologians (Amsdorf, Stolz, Aurifaber, Schnepff, and Strigel) disapproved and wanted a decision against false doctrines. The Regensburg Diet proposed a committee of eight. The Roman Catholics preferred a council, the Protestants a religious conference; Ferdinand saw that a council was impossible at the time and declared for a conference, which he appointed to meet at Worms Aug. 24, 1557. Each side was to have six debaters, six associates, six "auditors," and two notaries. The presidency fell ultimately to Julius von Pflug (q.v.), bishop of Naumburg; the Protestant principals were Melanchthon, Brenz, Schnepf, Professor Macchabaus of Copenhagen (later, Runge of Greifswald), Karg, and Pistorius; the Roman Catholic representatives were Pflug, Helding, Gropper, P. Canisius, Delfius of Strasburg, and Professor Rithoven of Louvain.

The Flacian Breaeh.

Attempts had been made in vain to heal the breach between Melanchthon and Flacius (qq.v.), and in view of the coming conference it was resolved to have the Evangelical states come together at Worms Aug. 1 in order to make a new attempt to heal the breach. A preliminary meeting of the princes under Duke Christoph was held at Frankfort in June, but Elector August was absent by the advice of Melanchthon; agreement was reached that they unanimously maintained the Augsburg Confession. Flacius insisted upon a condemnation of all errant teaching, brought definite charges against some of the Protestant principals, and declared a pronouncement against all corruptions of doctrine to be absolutely necessary. Melanchthon and his associates arrived at Worms Aug. 28, and the Ernestine theologians soon saw that they were practically isolated, nearly all "adoring Philip as a divinity." The Evangelicals met together Sept. 5, and Monner and Schnepff brought up their proposal for the condemnation of all corruptions of the last ten years, with especial reference to Melanchthon; in reply, it was pointed out that common action against the common foe was necessary, even if to accomplish this other representatives had to be secured. A new attempt was made on Sept. 9, but with the result that the Flacians threatened to make open statement of their position.

The Conference Futile.

On Sept. 11 the conference began, and at once arose the inevitable discussion concerning the order of procedure; Melanchthon's proposal for oral methods was rejected in favor of Helding's that written documents be handed in. Instead of the Augsburg Confession a statement by Canisius, in twenty-three articles, of the chief points in dispute was to be the basis of discussion. At the fifth session, Sept. 16, Canisius referred to the split among the Evangelicals, which the Flacians seized upon to emphasize their position. On Sept. 20, Canisius again read a document referring to Osiander and Major (see Major, Georg; Osiander, Andreas), and the Flacians again pointed out the logic of their position and affirmed that they were compelled to justify themselves, and to the threat to replace them replied that they would appeal to the president. Peace could not be obtained, though strenuous efforts were made to heal the breach and to get the Evangelicals to present a united front. All was useless, for on Sept. 27 the representatives of Johann Friedrich gave to the Roman Catholic assessors their protestation, and on Oct. 1 the notification that they were about to depart, and then left Worms on the same day. The conference had in fact been interrupted since Sept. 20; the Roman Catholic part would gladly have closed the matter at once, but the Evangelicals hoped to find a way, by continuing, to relieve the sad impression of this conflict in their own camp. The conference was resumed Oct. 6, but at once there arose a dispute as to

433

whether the Flacian declaration was official or private. A new question then arose as to whether the remaining Protestant disputants were competent as adherents of the Augsburg Confession and had rightly excluded the Flacians; further, would the Flacians recognize the conference? So objection after objection arose, and the Evangelicals did not succeed in bringing under discussion the doctrines at issue. Postponements ensued to obtain word from Ferdinand, which came at last instructing the reinstatement of the Weimar theologians in their rights as participants; over the interpretation of this message new strife arose. Finally, on Nov. 28, the Roman Catholics having declared that they could not treat with a divided party, the whole matter was referred to the next diet, each party asserting its innocence of the causes leading to this result.

If the Regensburg Conference (q.v.) revealed the strength of the Protestant party, that at Worms had shown its weakness. The split had become a spectacle for the opponents and made these latter see the turn in the tide for their cause. Canisius thought that the princes of the Roman party would no longer oppose a general council, while the Counter-Reformation was already on its way. For further developments on the Protestant side see Frankfort Recess.

(G. Kawerau.)