|
401 |
|
402 |
|
403 |
were issued after his death (4th ed., 1835), and parts not issued by him appeared 1787. The authorship did not remain hidden, though Lessing tried to lay a false scent by suggesting the name of Johann Lorenz Schmidt, the editor of the Wertheim Bible (see BIBLES, ANNOTATED, I., § 4). The author was Herrmann Samuel Reimarus, as is confirmed by his own son, Johann Albert Heinrich Reimarus, who gave to the Hamburg city library the complete work from which the fragments were taken (a letter from the younger Reimarus is published in the Leipziger Litteraturzeitung, 1827, no. 55, in which the authorship is asserted).
Hermann Samuel Reimarus was born at Hamburg Dec. 22, 1694, and died there Mar. 1, 1768. He came of a family of ministers, though his father was a teacher, but one of rare talents, and was himself the oldest son. In his preparatory course he was under such instructors as Johann Christian Wolff; he studied at the universities of Jena and Wittenberg, at the latter of which he taught in the philosophical faculty. In 1723 he became rector of the city school at Wismar, and in 1717 professor of oriental languages in the gymnasium of Hamburg, where he remained in spite of a call to Göttingen to succeed Gesner. Reimarus was held in high honor in his native city, and his house was the gatheringplace of choice spirits. He employed the leisure which his duties left him in the study of one branch of learning after another. His official position entailed upon him the duty of preparing memorials of deceased persons. Outside of these he left but three larger works, which appeared in the earlier portion of his life. These were: Die vornehmsten Wahrheiten der naturlichen Religion (Hamburg, 1754); Die Vernunftlehre, als eine Anweisung zum richtigen Gebrauch der Vernunft in der Erkenntnis der Wahrheit (1756); and Allgemeine Betrachtungen über die Triebe der Tiere (1760). These appeared in several editions after the death of Reimarus and were translated into Dutch. The philosophical standpoint of Reimarus was essentially that of Wolff, though more radical; the being of God, the divine plan in the world, the annihilation of doubt of the divine providence, the immortality of the soul, the advantages of religion were proved by reason, and so far his attitude was apologetic. He was awake to the fact that in his time many little works had appeared which assailed not only Christianity but all religion and ethics, and his aim was to oppose these and to set forth by the claims of reason the truths of natural religion as well as of Christianity. Hence he named the great work which he left behind "Apology or Defense for the Rational Worshiper of God." In this he subjected the entire Biblical history to the tests of analytical criticism; according to the deistic standpoint of Reimarus, miracle is impossible, so that if the prophets and Jesus and the apostles pretended to work miracles, they were impostors. Such "impurities" he found to be conceivable in the Bible, since it contained much that was at variance with virtue as tested by the laws of nature and of peoples. A psychological explanation of this attitude of Reimarus appears when it is recalled that he was a man highly honored by his contemporaries, and that he held fast to the observances of the
Church, even though he regarded both Judaism and Christianity to have been founded by processes which involved imposture. He recognized that his book would cause unrest, and so did not print it, preferring that it remain concealed, being available for the use of such friends of his as were possessed of discretion. Some parts he had frequently worked over, and had revised the whole shortly before his death; this revised autograph is still extant.
While Lessing went to Hamburg in Apr., 1767, and Reimarus did not die until March of the next year, there is no evidence that the two met; but soon after the death of Reimarus, Lessing became acquainted with the son and daughter of Reimarus. According to a letter of Lessing to the son (in Lessing's Briefe, Nachträge and Berichtigungen, p. 17, no. 183a, Berlin, 1886), the latter was aware of Lessing's possession of parts of the elder Reimarus' work. These parts were in the author's handwriting, but not in their final shape, though the main thought was in no way different. Permission to publish excerpts was obtained by Lessing only on condition that the name of the author be not divulged. The complete work was carefully guarded by the family and shown to but few-"the community" of friends of Reimarus. In 1779 Lessing was allowed to copy from the final draft the chapters which related to the passage of the Red Sea, in which the results with reference to the numbers differed from what had been published. In 1779 the publisher Ettinger of Gotha was ready to publish the whole work, but the family decisively negatived the proposition, fearing a loss of the good reputation which it enjoyed and the effect upon the health of the mother of the family. The intention to republish portions (Zeitschrift für historische Theologie, 1850-52) failed through lack of interest in the work on the part of the public. (CARL BERTHEAUt.)
Bibliography: An ed. of the " Fragments " as issued by Lessing appeared Berlin, 1895. There is an Eng. transl. of part, Fragments from Reimarus, ed. C. Voysey, London, 1879 (cf. J. Sawyer, A Criticism of . . . C. Voysey's " Fragments from Reimarus," ib. 1880). Consult: the literature under GOBZE, JOHAN MELCHIOR; and LESSING, GOTTHOLD EPHRAIM; D. F. Strauss, Hermann Samuel ReimaruS and seine Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes, Leipsic, 1862; J. A. H. Reimari . . . de vita sua commentarius. Additae sunt de vita H. S. Reimari narrationes J. G. Büschii et C. A. Klotzii, Hamburg, 1815; C. Mönckeberg, Hermann Samuel' Reimarus und Johann Christian Edelmann, ib. 1867; K. Fischer, Geschichte der neueren Philosophie, ii. 759-772, Heidelberg, 1867; K. C. Scherer, Das Tier in die Philosophie des H. S. Reimarus, Würzburg, 1898; B. Brandl, Die Ueberlieferung der " Schutzschrift " des H. S. Reimarus, Pilsen, 1907.
WOLFF, volf, CHRISTIAN, AND THE WOLFFIAN SCHOOL: German philosopher; b. at
Breslau Jan. 24, 1679; d. at Halle May 9, 1754.
He was educated at the gymnasium in Breslau
and the University of Jena, where he was greatly
attracted to the study of mathematics
Life. by the certainty of its method, which
seemed to him typical for science.
Without entirely giving up the thought of a theo
logical career, he took his master's degree in Leipsic,
then studied philosophy at Jena, and in 1703 estab
lished himself as privat-docent of philosophy at
Leipsic. In 1707 he accepted a call to Halle where
he lectured on mathematics, after 1709 also on
|
404 |
physics, then on other branches of philosophy. His success as a teacher was extraordinary and was soon supplemented by the impression made by his writings. His fame extended over Europe. At home king and government heaped honors upon him, and scholars gathered about him; but in Halle itself the Pietists and Christian Thomasius (q.v.) were hostile. After some friction the address De Sinarum philosophia practica (Frankfort, 1726; Eng. transl., The Real Happiness of a People under a Philosophical King Demonstrated, London, 1750), which Wolff delivered in 1721, led to a complete rupture. His enemies found in it a glorification of the morality of Confucius and inferred that Wolff taught the dispensability of Christian revelation for human happiness. The Pietists won the ear of the king who on Nov. 8, 1723, ordered the deposition of Wolff and ordered him to leave the realm within forty-eight hours. From 1723 to 1740 Wolff was professor in Marburg. It was the most brilliant and the happiest period of his life. He continually gained philosophical adherents and new students and earned rich honors. In the mean time conditions in Prussia became better. Provost Reinbeck in Berlin was active in his behalf; the king changed his opinion, ordered candidates to study his works; and would have liked to recall Wolff to Prussia as early as 1733, but he died during the negotiations. Frederic II., who in 1736 had designated Wolff as the greatest philosopher of his time, carried out his father's plan, and since Wolff declined a position in the academy at Berlin, he was called as privy councilor and vicechancellor to Halle where he arrived in 1740, was received with unusual honors, and was active until his death.
Of his numerous treatises and books those of especial importance for theology, many of which reached numerous editions, are: Methodus demonstrandi veritatem religionis Christianae (1707); Vernünftige Gedanken von den Kraften des
Works. menschlichen Verstandes and ihrem richtigen Gebrauche in Erkenntnis der Wahrheit (1712; Eng. transl., Logic, or Rational Thoughts on the Powers of the Human Understanding, London, 1770); Ratio praelectionum Wolfianarum in Mathesin et philosophiam universam (1718); Vernünftige Gedanken von Gott, der Welt and der Seele des Menschen (1719; his great theological work); Vernünftige Gedanken von der Menschen Thun and Lassen zu Beförderung ihrer Glückseligkeit (1720); Vernünftige Gedanken von dem gesellschaft lichen Leben der Menschen and insonderheit dem gemeinen Wesen zur Beförderung der Gluckseligkeit des menschlichen Geschlechts (1721); Vernünftige Gedanken von den Wirkungen der Natur (3 parts, 1723-25); Vernünftige Gedanken von den Absichten der natürlichen Dinge (1724); Philosophia rationalis sive Logica (1728); Philosophia prima sive ontologia (1729); Cosmologia generalis (1731); Psychologia empirica (1732); Psychologia rationalis (1734); Theologia naturalis (2 parts, 1736-37), Philosophia practica universalis (1738). G. F. Hagen edited his Gesammelte kleine philosophische Schriften (6 parts, Halle, 1736-40).Wolff was not a great creative spirit, but rather the philosopher in whom the scientific efforts of the
time combined and in their connection influenced the future. By the application of the mathematical- syllogistic method he tried to give to all sciences the same formal certainty and thus to make possible a universal system of human science. Philosophy. Philosophy is for him the science of the conceivable or the possible, which ap pears as the essence of reality. Upon the relation of the higher (rational) and the lower (sensual) faculty of the soul is built the distinction between rational and empirical knowledge. The objective order of the sciences is based upon psychology, upon the distinction between knowledge and desire. On the one side stands theoretical, on the other side practi cal philosophy. In the system of Wolff logic leads as a sort of propaedeutic. Then follow the rational theoretical sciences, metaphysics, ontology; then in the order of the three main objects (world, soul, and God), cosmology, rational psychology, natural theol ogy. The rational practical sciences begin with gen eral practical philosophy and natural law, and then consider man in Aristotelian fashion successively as individual being (ethics), citizen (politics), and mem ber of the family (economy). The empirical sciences are empirical-theoretical science (empirical psychol ogy, teleology, empirical theology, dogmatic physics) and empirical-practical science (technology, experi mental physics). Esthetics is not taken into the system. The most characteristic feature of Wolff's theology is the emphasis upon natural religion. While he strictly separated this from the knowledge given by revelation and refrained from encroach ments upon the dogmatic sphere, he based upon natural religion the general religious truths which seemed to be assailed by naturalism, brought it to the front in the spiritual struggle, and focused about it the religious and. theological interest which hith erto had been directed to revelation. In the proof of the existence of the deity he stressed the cosmolog ical argument, and employed also the ontological. However much the philosophy of Wolff tended to depreciate miracles and revelation, he himself fully acknowledged both in so far as they fulfil definite conditions in the system. Since God does nothing superfluous, revelation can comprehend only neces sary, otherwise unknowable things, mysteries; it may not contain any inner contradictions, nor may it contradict the attributes of God, reason, or experi ence. Miracles are changes which by the nature of the bodies concerned are not impossible, though they lack the natural cause. In psychology Wolff taught that souls are simple created substance, originating at creation, and existing without con sciousness until the latter was induced through birth. He held that the bodily and spiritual proc esses are independent of each other; their agree ment does not rest upon perpetual miracle, as the occasionalists teach, but upon preestablished harmony. The intellectual faculty takes prece dence over the will. , In practical philosophy Wolff separated ethics from religion and based it upon reason. His system is, therefore, rationalistic throughout.The success of the philosophy of Wolff is a proof that it victoriously comprehended and satisfied the longing of his time. To this contributed his talent
|
405 |
|
406 |
|
407 |
|
408 |
|
409 |
|
410 |
|
411 |
|
412 |
|
413 |
|
414 |
|
415 |
|
416 |
|
417 |
|
418 |
|
419 |
|
420 |
|
421 |
|
422 |
|
423 |
|
424 |
|
425 |
|
426 |
|
427 |
|
428 |
|
429 |
|
430 |
The use of this Biblical train of thought has always been checked in dogmatic theology by a Neoplatonic rationalism which holds medieval scholasticism higher than all the results of Scriptural exegesis. The scholastics before and after the Reformation have always approached the conception of God by looking away from the determination, limitation, and order of the world, and predicate as God the undetermined and unlimited Being. By attributing to this abstraction power and goodness, qualities which do not pertain to it, this God who is a negation of the world is looked upon as the creator of the world. A variant of this conception is the more recent one of the absolute, which, without relation to anything, therefore without relation to the world, has the quality of being in, by, and for itself. As the world is not made the basis of this absolute (cf. Rom. i. 19,20), it does not express the concept of an almighty God. Indeed, the thinker who suppresses the world in order to look upon God as the absolute, must begin by suppressing himself, since as a thinking being he is a part of the world. The right understanding of the doctrine of God, however, is the recognition that Christ is the ground of our knowledge of God and of his relation to the world. He must therefore be conceived as Paul conceived him, as the aim of the world for which it was created.
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, 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 LUTHERARTIN, § 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.
[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.
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.]
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.
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 |
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 Wurttemberg 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.
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.
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 |
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: On the city and bishopric consult: J. F. Schaanat, Historia episcopatus Wormatiensis, Frankfort,1734; W. Wagner, Die vormaligen geistlichen Stifte im Grossherzogthum Hessen, 2 vols., Darmstadt, 1873-78; H. Boos, Quellen zur Geschichte der Stadt Worms, 3 vols., Berlin, 1886-93; idem, Geschichte der rheinischen Städtekultur, vols. i. iv., ib. 1897-1901; A. Köster, Die Wormser Annalen, Leipsic, 1887; F. Soldan, Die Zerstörung der Stadt Worms im Jahre 1889, Worms, 1889; idem, Beiträgs zur Geschichte der Stadt Worms, ib. 1896; F. X. Kraus, Die christlichen Inschriften der Rheinlande, nos. 22-29, Freiburg, 1890; H. Haupt, Beiträge zur Reformationsgschichte der Reichsstadt Worms, Giessen, 1897; C. Koehne, Die Wormser Stadtrechtsreformation vom Jahre 1499, Berlin, 1897; O. Beckmann Führer durch Worms, Stuttgart, 1902; Rettberg KD, i. 633; Hauck, KD, 4 vols.; KL, xii. 1759-88. On the concordat, besides the literature in iii. 218 of this work consult: G. Wolfram, Friedrich I. und das Wormser Concordat, Marburg, 1883. On the diet the following are available: J. Friedrich, Der Reichstag in Worms, 1521, Munich, 1870; K. Jansen, Aleanden am Reichetage zu Worms 1521, Kiel, 1883; T. Kolde, Luther und der Reichstag zu Worms, Gotha, 1883; F. Soldan. Der Reichstag zu Worms, 1521, Worms, 1883; W. Oncken, Martin Luther in Worms, Gressen, 1884; Cambridge Modern History, ii. 139 sqq., 146 sqq., 158, 166. 170 sqq., New York, 1904. On the conferences consult: Melanchthon, Colloquium Wormaciense, Wittenberg, 1542; CR, iii. 1121 sqq., iv. 1-91; ZHT, 1872, pp. 36 sqq.; J. P. Roeder, De colloquio Wormatiense. Nuremberg, 1744; H. Laemmer, Monumenta Vaticana, pp. 300-342, Freiburg, 1861; R. Moses, Die Religionsverhandlungen zu Hagenau und Worms, 1540 and 1541, Jena, 1889; J. W. Richard, Philip Melanchthon, chap. xxiii., New York, 1898; J. Janssen, Hist. of the German People, vi. 107-113, vii. 34-45, St. Louis, 1903-1905; Cambridge Modern History, ii. 239, New York, 1904; W. Friedensburg, in ZBG, xxi. 112 sqq.; the literature under BUTZER; ECK; and MELANCHTHON.
| Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL. |  |